Damage Durvey - Da Porto Et Al. 2012

This article was downloaded by: [b-on: Biblioteca do conhecimento online UP]
On: 16 September 2012, At: 12:22

Publisher: Taylor & Francis
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered
office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK
Journal of Earthquake Engineering

Publication details, including instructions for authors and
subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/ueqe20
Macro-Scale Analysis of Damage to

Churches after Earthquake in Abruzzo
(Italy) on April 6, 2009
a a b
Francesca da Porto , Bruno Silva , Catarina Costa & Claudio
a
Modena
a
Department of Civil, Environmental, Architectural Engineering,
University of Padova, Padova, Italy
b
Department of Civil Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, University
of Porto, Porto, Portugal
Accepted author version posted online: 15 May 2012.Version of

record first published: 18 Jul 2012.
To cite this article: Francesca da Porto, Bruno Silva, Catarina Costa & Claudio Modena (2012): Macro-
Scale Analysis of Damage to Churches after Earthquake in Abruzzo (Italy) on April 6, 2009, Journal of
Earthquake Engineering, 16:6, 739-758
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13632469.2012.685207
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE
Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions
This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any
substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,
systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden.
The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation
that the contents will be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any
instructions, formulae, and drug doses should be independently verified with primary
sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss, actions, claims, proceedings,
demand, or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or
indirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material.
Journal of Earthquake Engineering, 16:739758, 2012
Copyright A. S. Elnashai & N. N. Ambraseys
ISSN: 1363-2469 print / 1559-808X online
DOI: 10.1080/13632469.2012.685207
Macro-Scale Analysis of Damage to Churches after

Earthquake in Abruzzo (Italy) on April 6, 2009
FRANCESCA DA PORTO1 , BRUNO SILVA1 ,

CATARINA COSTA2 , and CLAUDIO MODENA1
Downloaded by [b-on: Biblioteca do conhecimento online UP] at 12:22 16 September 2012
1
Department of Civil, Environmental, Architectural Engineering, University of
Padova, Padova, Italy
2
Department of Civil Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, University of Porto,
Porto, Portugal
This article focuses on the effects of the earthquake which struck the Abruzzo region (Central Italy)
on April 6, 2009, causing considerable damage to many ancient buildings, particularly churches.
During the emergency after the earthquake, many churches and other historical monuments (tow-
ers, city walls, large town houses, etc.) were surveyed, according to first-level damage survey forms
for Cultural Heritage buildings, by multidisciplinary working groups composed of experts from sev-
eral Italian institutions (Universities, Ministry for Cultural Heritage, Fire Brigade, etc.). This article
presents a statistical study on the information collected by the University of Padova during the
surveys, which was later inserted and organized in a database, and illustrates data on damage assess-
ment of the buildings in question. It also presents an intuitive overview of the seismic effects on several
churches, allowing not only better understanding of the response of these structures to this particular
earthquake, but also correlating data on it with its effects on the churches.
Keywords Earthquake; Damage; Vulnerability; Churches; LAquila; Emergency Planning;

Seismic Risk
1. Introduction
Every earthquake represents a particular moment in the history of the affected region. The
seismic hazard in Italy is often high, which makes it a country particularly affected by this
kind of natural disaster. Cultural Heritage (CH) buildings, particularly if made of masonry,
are highly vulnerable to seismic actions, mainly due to their construction characteristics or
to poor anti-seismic measures carried out in the past.
On April 6, 2009, a severe earthquake struck the Abruzzo region in Central Italy, caus-
ing hundreds of casualties and devastating the historical city of LAquila (Fig. 1a) and
several small towns in the area (Fig. 1b). The severity and extent of the damage to CH assets
were without precedent in recent seismic history, especially due to the size and strategic
importance of LAquila, as capital of the Abruzzo region.
Immediately after the earthquake, emergency safety analysis began of all buildings
in the affected area, from simple houses to monumental buildings. The main aims were
to evaluate the usability of the structures and to implement safety measures. Several
Received 29 April 2011; accepted 7 April 2012.

Address correspondence to Bruno Silva, Department of Civil, Environmental, Architectural Engineering,
University of Padova, Via Marzolo 9 35131, Padova, Italy. E-mail: silva@dic.unipd.it
739
740 F. da Porto et al.
(a)
(b)
FIGURE 1 Effect of earthquake of April 6 2009. (a) City centre of LAquila; (b) Onna.
institutions, including the University of Padova (UNIPD), collaborated on emergency oper-

ations right from the start. Due to its area of expertise, the UNIPD task force focused on
the damage to and usability assessment of historical buildings.
The first phase consisted of surveying the monuments in the region, especially
churches and palazzi (large town houses) and compiling first-level damage survey forms
for CH, to define a priority list, carry out temporary emergency operations, and estimate
costs for temporary and definitive interventions.
According to data from the Italian Civil Defense website [2011], accessed on
April 2, 2010, approximately 1800 historical buildings were surveyed, of which 1075 were
churches, 700 palazzi, and the others various types of historical buildings, such as towers,
city walls, fountains, etc. This article focuses on the particular case of churches. In view of
their cultural importance and need of conservation, they took priority in inspections during
the first emergency period.
The data gathered by UNIPD were later inserted in an organized database (UNIPD
Database) with easy access to results. Statistical analysis of churches was then started
in order to correlate data on the earthquake with its effects on these buildings [Costa,
2009].
Damage to Churches after Abruzzo Earthquake 741
2. Seismic Event
On April 6, 2009, at 3:32 a.m. local time, an earthquake struck the Abruzzo region, Central
Italy, near the city of LAquila. It was of Richter magnitude (Ml) 5.8 and moment magni-
tude (Mw) 6.3, with shallow focal depth (approximately 8.3 km, according to INGV, 2009).
The epicenter was located 10 km west of LAquila and 95 km NE of Rome [EERI, 2009;
Rossetto et al., 2009]. The main shock originated on a direct fault (the Paganica fault),
running 15 km in a NW-SE direction.
The earthquake affected a large area, including the cities of LAquila, Avezzano,
Sulmona, and Teramo. Ground morphology played an important role in structural damage
distribution, and the most catastrophic effects were observed along the valley of the river
Aterno, involving not only LAquila, but also many historical centres like Paganica, Onna,
Fossa, SantEusanio Forconese, Villa SantAngelo, and others [Monaco et al., 2009].
Figure 2 shows the spatial distribution of the earthquake sequence on September 24,
2009 (towards the end of the emergency) [INGV, 2009; Sabetta et al., 2009]: three seismic
events of Ml > 5 occurred, on April 6 (Ml = 5.8), the main event; on April 7 (Ml = 5.3) SE
of the main shock; and on April 9 (Ml = 5.1) in the area of the Laga Mountains, north of the
main shock. There were 20 events of 4.0 Ml 5.0. Figure 2 also shows that thousands
of aftershocks were recorded later over an extension of more than 30 km, extending NW-
SE along the Aterno valley and following the direction of the main known active faults of
the area. These quakes mainly originated in the surface crust at depths of 1012 km, and
resulted in a progressive release of energy throughout the fault rupture plane.
FIGURE 2 Seismic sequence and spatial distribution in Abruzzo region (Italy) [INGV,
2009].
3. Emergency Management
As regards safeguarding of CH buildings, post-earthquake emergency work focused on
Function 15 (Protection of Cultural Heritage) of the Italian Civil Defense (DPC). This
function was centralized and worked within Di.Coma.C (Direzione Comando e Controllo
Command and Control Management), which was the general site coordinating organization
activated by the DPC when a state of emergency was declared. Di.Coma.C coordinated and
managed operational centers for emergency services, and COMs (Centri Operativi Misti
Joint Operational Centers) were active in smaller, clearly defined geographical areas.
As regards organizational aspects, the choice to focus on CH assets by a single orga-
nization, Di.Coma.C, was crucial. Function 15 operated under the command of a single
person, the Delegate Commissioner for CH protection. This meant that homogeneity in
decisional responses was ensured and allowed work to be concentrated in one task force,
operating independently of the other operational teams, which were already in charge of all
other emergency matters.
The main objectives of Function 15 were to coordinate emergency activities for CH
protection, classified by the Italian Ministry of Cultural Heritage (MiBAC). Essentially,
these were: (i) definition, coordination, and implementation of damage surveys of CH
buildings, and assessment of their safety levels in the territory affected; (ii) definition, coor-
dination, and implementation of provisional safety operations, to prevent worsening of the
state of the structures (in both static and dynamic conditions), and also to protect those
working on or near them; (iii) coordination of safeguarding, recovery, and proper storage
of valuable movable objects, such as paintings and statues; (iv) coordination of collabora-
tion between authorities and organizations involved in emergency work, to minimize and
optimize the decisional chain separating the damage survey phase from the implementation
of safety measures.
The actual work on buildings was carried out by representatives of MiBAC, LAquila
Research Center (CNR-ITC) and research groups, mainly from the Universities of Padova
(UNIPD), Milan (POLIMI), and Genova (UNIGE), in collaboration with the Fire Brigade
(VVF) and Civil Defense [Modena et al., 2010, 2011; Modena and Binda, 2009].
4. Damage Surveys
4.1. Organization of Survey Activities

During the initial phase (post-earthquake emergency period), the authorities involved in
emergency work coordinated on-site damage surveys of thousands of classified structures,
particularly churches and palazzi.
The damage survey teams were composed of representatives of the following
authorities.
i. Fire Brigade (VVF), whose main tasks were to guarantee team safety and assist in
safety assessment and certification of structures. These firemen played a decisive
and essential role, due to their professional experience, operational efficiency and
availability.
ii. MiBAC technicians, i.e., architects, engineers, and art historians with expertise
regarding CH buildings.
iii. Experts in structural engineering from university research groups, who played a
vital role in affording assistance to the other units during emergency operations.
Other Civil Defense technicians undertook overall management of the teams and coordi-
nated Function 15 with other functions.
The creation of these teams of qualified people allowed complete survey forms to be
compiled properly, and provided first indications of emergency safety measures which, as
much as possible, aimed at respecting conservation principles, but which were also efficient
from the structural viewpoint and declared to be feasible by the teams (initially exclusively
Fire Brigade technicians).
Damage surveys were organized through compilation of first-level damage survey
forms for CH: Form A-DC for churches, [Form A-DC, 2006] and Form B-DP for palazzi
[Form B-DP, 2006], in accordance with Decree DPCM of 23/02/2006 [2006]. These
forms had been specifically prepared for this type of work by GLABEC (task force for
cultural heritage safeguards against natural risks), a special body created by the Italian
Civil Defense and the Ministries of Cultural Heritage and of the Interior. The form used
to evaluate damage to palazzi was used for the first time during the Abruzzo earthquake
emergency phase, unlike that for churches, which had already been tested on previous
occasions.
The resulting data were systematically stored in a database, implemented by MiBAC
with the assistance of the LAquila Research Centre (CNR-ITC). This database provides
fast access to the results of damage surveys, systematic organization of inspections, and
also makes some considerations on ongoing work and the state of the damaged structures.
4.2. Structural Damage and Survey Form for Churches

The main and most evident feature of religious buildings, which have different seismic
responses from those of other buildings such as palazzi, villas, etc., with load-bearing
walls and horizontal diaphragms, is that they have large spaces without any intermedi-
ate diaphragms. Clearly, they cannot easily develop a global response to seismic action and
redistribute horizontal loads to in-plane walls.
Systematic analysis of damage to churches during the main Italian seismic events in the
last few decades, starting with that in Friuli (1976) until the most recent onesLunigiana
and Garfagnana, 1995; Reggio Emilia, 1996; Umbria and Marche, 1997; Piedmont, 2000;
Molise, 2002; Piedmont, 2003; and Sal, 2004has shown how the seismic behavior of
these buildings can be interpreted by subdividing them into architectural components, or
macro-elements. These architectural portions (faades, apses, bell-towers, domes, vaults,
triumphal arches, etc.) are characterized by substantially autonomous structural responses,
compared with the building as a whole [DPCM 09/02/2011, 2011].
Hence, structural damage surveys are based on identifying the macro-elements
which constitute a masonry buildingin this particular case, religious buildingsand on
evaluating the level of activation of the kinematic mechanisms associated with those macro-
elements [Giuffr, 1991]. The concepts of macro-element and of the typical and specific
vulnerability of this type of structures (called here mechanisms) were defined with the
vast amount of research activity which was carried out on monumental buildings damaged
by the 1976 Friuli earthquake. A photographic archive, showing each considered building
before and after the earthquake, allowed researchers to catalog, systematically and for the
first time, the progress of each damage event as it evolved kinematically [Doglioni et al.,
1994].
Starting from that research, several other studies were carried out, identifying even
more complex mechanisms, and interpretative algorithms were produced. Among the valu-
able contributions to the definition of analytical methods for assessing religious buildings
was that of Lagomarsino and Podest [2004]. All of the above research culminated in the
currently used version of Form A-DC [2006], which identifies 28 possible kinematic mech-
anisms typically detectable in this type of building, and allows analysing large, complex
churches at a proper level of accuracy and without ambiguity (Fig. 3). These presumed
kinematic mechanisms detect the typical first-mode (out-of-plane) and second-mode (in-
plane) mechanisms for each element of the building [Giuffr, 1991; Borri et al., 2002].
Uncertainties in the selection of macro-elements and corresponding collapse mechanisms,
which is a critical point in the kinematic approach to analysis of masonry structures, are
limited in the case of religious buildings, thanks to deep knowledge of their damage mech-
anisms achieved through systematic surveys of damage in post-earthquake phases [DPCM
09/02/2011, 2011].
The field survey form for churches is composed of several sections. First come
some data identifying the building (from administrative, geographical, dimensional, artistic
importance, etc., points of view). Then, from the 28 mechanisms listed in the form (some or
all of which may have occurred in the building), macro-elements and associated kinematic
mechanisms are identified, including those not activated. Figure 3 shows these 28 mech-
anisms as they appear in the Appendix attached to the form. For each, the damage level
is evaluated on a scale from 05, producing an overall damage index (Id ) for the structure
in question (see Sec. 5.1 for further details). The form also contains sections for evaluat-
ing the usability of the building, with suggestions for provisional interventions (propping,
tying, etc.), descriptions of any art-works and possible damage to them, and cost evaluation
of provisional safety interventions, repairs, and anti-seismic improvement [Form A-DC,
2006].
These forms thus give an immediate, homogeneous interpretation of the results of the
survey, with the following main objectives: (i) definition of the usability of the building
and a priority list of interventions based on damage index (Id ); (ii) definition of temporary
emergency measures; and (iii) estimate of costs for temporary and definitive interventions.
5. Statistical Analysis
5.1. Usability and Distribution of Damage Index (Id )

This section presents the processing and results of statistical analysis of UNIPD data during
the first-level technical surveys of the churches in the Abruzzo region after the earthquake
of April 6, 2009.
The UNIPD task force examined 241 churches, i.e., about 25% of all of those surveyed
(Italian Civil Defense website, 2011). Of these, 5% were considered safe, 15% safe with
precautions, 3% partially safe, 20% temporarily unsafe, 26% unsafe, and only 1% unsafe,
for external reasons (Fig. 4).
The survey form allows six possible alternatives for assessing the condition of the
building in question. When a church is declared to be safe or unsafe, any decision regard-
ing it is clearly related either to the possibility of using it, or of being obliged to close
it as unsafe. Intermediate decisions resulting from on-site assessment of the buildings are
explained below.
A church is partially safe when a portion of it can be used, but access to another portion
(e.g., a lateral nave) must be restricted or forbidden. In this case, it is necessary to indicate
which portions of the building are usable or non-usable, and which areas must be blocked
off. A church is safe with precautions when it can be used and re-opened, after provisional
temporary measures have been carried out, such as propping or tying. In this case, clearly,
the type of work which must be carried out is described. Temporarily unsafe means that a
final evaluation of the condition of the building during the first damage survey cannot be
Mech. 1 - Overturning of the Mech. 2 - Overturning of the Mech. 3 - Shear mechanism in

faade. gable. the faade.
Mech. 4-Porch and narthex. Mech. 5 - Transversal vibration Mech. 6 - Shear mechanism on
of the nave. the nave lateral walls.
Mech. 7 - Longitudinal vibration of Mech. 8 - Vaults of the central nave.

the central nave.
Mech. 9 - Vaults of the lateral Mech. 10 - Overturning of the Mech. 11 - Shear failure of the
naves. transept faade. transept walls.
Mech. 12 - Vaults of the transept . Mech. 13-Kinematism in the Mech. 14 - Collapse of the dome
triumphal arches. and the tiburio.
FIGURE 3 Collapse mechanisms in churches [Form A-DC, 2006] (color figure available
online).
Mech. 15 - Collapse mechanism of the lantern. Mech. 16 - Over turning of the apses.
Mech. 17 - Shear failure of the Mech. 18 - Vaults of the apses Mech. 19 - Hammering and
apses and presbytery walls. and of the presbytery. damage in the nave roof.
Mech. 20 - Hammering Mech. 21 - Mech. 22 - Overturning of the Mech. 23 - Shear

and damage in the Hammering and chapels walls. failure on the chapel
transept roof. damage in the walls.
apses roof.
Mech. 24 - Collapse mechanism Mech. 25 - Interaction between Mech. 26 - Overturning of the

on the chapel vaults. elements of different behaviour. standing out elements.
Mech. 27 - Global collapse of the bell tower. Mech. 28 - Mechanism in the bell cell.
FIGURE 3 (Continued)
made, due to the extreme complexity of the building and/or the non-accessibility of some
portions of it (e.g., roofing, bell-tower, etc.). Hence, use of the church is conservatively
prohibited, and a second, more detailed survey must be carried out before a decision can
be taken. A church is unsafe, for external reasons when its damaged state is very low
or nil, but there is a risk deriving from buildings nearby whose collapse is very likely to
occur, or other adverse environmental conditions (e.g., risk of landslides, etc.). External
reasons were rarely encountered during this survey, and are generally seldom reported in
the relevant literature (e.g., Lagomarsino and Podest, 2002).
After selecting the mechanisms which could be activated, of the 28 listed (Fig. 3),
evaluation of their respective damage level (dk ) is given. Scores range from 0 (absence of
damage, i.e., the mechanism is possible, but was not activated during the earthquake), 1
(slight damage), 2 (moderate damage), 3 (severe damage), 4 (very severe damage), and 5
(collapse). Subsequently, damage index (Id ) is calculated. As shown in Eq. (1), according
FIGURE 4 Usability percentage of churches surveyed.
to the EMS98 macro-seismic scale [Grnthal, 1998], the damage index of a structure is
calculated according to the possible mechanisms which may be activated (n) and on their
total level of damage (sum of the damage to each of them). This overall index has a value
between 0 (undamaged state) and 1 (total collapse) and measures average damage to the
building. It is a very useful parameter in the emergency stage, as it gives a priority list of the
extent of damage, used for organizing and intervening during the post-emergency phase,
and also indicates estimates for repairs:
1
28
Id = dk (Eq. 1)
5n k=1
In the following analysis, this interval of damage is divided into 5 sub-intervals, to allow
a more intuitive interpretation of the results. Figure 5 shows that most of the examined
churches (65%) had low damage indices (under 0.2). A high percentage (24%) fell in the
second interval (0.20.4), showing moderate damage. Seven per cent had high indices,
and another 4% had values between 0.6 and 0.8, which are very high, corresponding to
extensive, severe damage. Less than 1% had a damage index higher than 0.8, corresponding
to a situation of almost total or total collapse.
Although a direct, univocal relation between damage index and safety is often
expected, in this case it was not verified (Fig. 6). However, a direct relation between damage
index and overall damage to the building could be established.
When high damage indices were obtained, the church in question was almost certainly
unsafe because it was severely damaged. When the damage index was low, two situations
were possible: either damage was low/moderate but affected a large percentage of the
building, or it was slight or non existent in most of the building, but had a high value for a
particular mechanism(s). In the first case, the church was still considered safe, because the
damage to it was not significant and it would probably not later collapse or become unsafe.
In the second case, although most of the building did not show a potential source of danger,
FIGURE 5 Distribution of damage index (Id ).
FIGURE 6 Correlation between usability and distribution of damage index. (1 safe; 2

partially safe; 3 safe with precautions; 4 temporarily unsafe; 5 unsafe; 6 unsafe, for
external reasons).
a small part of it may have been unsafe, and the index, although generally low, defined
the lack of safety of the whole structure. The churches of Santa Maria Ad Nives (Anversa
degli Abruzzi - Id = 0.186), Santa Maria e San Pietro (Fagnano Alto - Id = 0.225), and
Santa Maria delle Grazie (Caporciano - Id = 0.093) are examples of this. They had low
damage indices but were considered unsafe, due to the high level of activation of a few
mechanisms. For this reason, a direct relation between the two indicatorsdamage index
and usabilitycannot be defined, and each case must be analyzed and studied individually.
5.2. Possible and Activated Collapse Mechanisms

It is also interesting to analyse the most frequent collapse mechanisms which were acti-
vated, depending on church configuration (Fig. 7). As expected, some of them were
activated in most of the churches, whereas others only occurred in a few.
Mechanisms numbers 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, and 19 appeared with the most frequent possibility
of being activated. They were all related to the basic elements composing the building, i.e.,
those which are always present: (i) faade (1, 2, 3); (ii) nave, particularly its transversal
response; (iii) lateral walls; and (iv) roof. These mechanisms are probably activated in
100% of cases, as in theory they always exist in the structures. However, Fig. 7 shows that
this did not occur, perhaps because of very particular situations, e.g., the surveyed buildings
were already in ruins before the earthquake. The differences were sometimes also due to
compilation errors due to lack of operator training, or to peculiar architectural designs
which may give rise to doubts during the process of mechanism identification. Most of the
churches in the database only had one nave, and this was the reason for the lower values
of some mechanisms, which only occur in churches with more than one nave: this was the
case of mechanisms 7 (longitudinal response of columns) and 9 (lateral nave vaults). The
mechanisms associated with the transept (10, 11, 12, 20) also have low values, because
most of the surveyed churches had no transepts.
Figure 8 shows the percentage of activation of each mechanism, i.e., the ratio between
the number of structures in which that mechanism shows a damage level equal to or higher
than 1, and the total number of structures in which that mechanism was possible. According
to the results, although mechanism 14 (dome) is rarely possible, it was very often activated
(about 85% of cases). The most frequent mechanisms (1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 19), although possible,
were only activated in about 50% of cases, or even less.
Clearly, all mechanisms associated with vaults (8, 9, 12, 18, 24) show a percentage of
activation between 53% and 69%, which is high, and indicates the vulnerability of these
structural elements, which were almost always damaged. Triumphal arches (mechanism
13) were also very often damaged70%which gives a very high value.
Conversely, mechanisms related with the roofing of various parts of the churches (19,
20, 21) have low activation percentages (29% in the case of central nave roofs, and equal
FIGURE 7 Possible and activated collapse mechanisms.

FIGURE 8 Percentage of possible mechanisms in fact activated.
to or lower than 20% in transepts and apses). Mechanism 4, covering porch elements, was
rarely activated (as this structural element is almost completely absent in the churches of
the Abruzzo region) and had a low activation percentage.
After these first analyses, the average damage level (dav ) of each mechanism was cal-
culated. Given the number of churches (j) in which a certain mechanism (k) was activated
(damage level dk equal to or higher than 1), the average damage of the mechanism (dav,k )
was obtained by dividing the total damage (sum of the damage level scores of k-mechanism
dk in all structures) by the number of churches in which it was activated:

j
dk,i
i=1
dav,k = (Eq. 2)
j
Figure 9 shows that, although the dav values for the various mechanisms are not uniform,
they vary approximately between 1.6 and 3.0 on a scale between 0 and 5, where 5 corre-
sponds to collapse. Mechanism 15, covering the lantern (Fig. 10c), has the highest average
level of damage (dav = 3.0), i.e., this is a very vulnerable element. Projecting elements,
such as statues and pinnacles, are also highly vulnerable, reflecting their usually inade-
quate supports and conditions of equilibrium, and mechanism 26 (Fig. 10d), related to the
same elements, reveals a dav of 2.82. Also in the case of mechanism 28 (Fig. 10e), covering
the belfry, the average damage (dav = 2.63) was relatively high when compared with the
others and, as such, reveals that this structure is very vulnerable. Regarding mechanisms
26 and 28, their high level of average damage and of activation is easily ascertained by
the fact that almost all belfries underwent interventions which included temporary stabi-
lization as part of provisional post-earthquake work [Fire Brigade website, 2011; Modena
et al., 2010].
Mechanisms 8 (Fig. 10a) and 9 (Fig. 10b) (central and lateral nave vaults) show high
average damage values of 2.70 and 2.55, respectively, and were activated in about 70% of
cases. Instead, mechanism 4 (porches) and 6 (shear in side walls) have low average values,
FIGURE 9 Average damage (dav ) for each mechanism activated.
as do the transept and central nave roofs (19 and 20), indicative of their lower vulnerability
to earthquakes.
It is interesting to note that, although the low average damage to porches is not statisti-
cally important for the seismic response of the structure (porches were found in fewer than
10% of the surveyed churches and only activated in 2%), the low average damage to shear
walls is statistically important, as these elements occur in almost 100% of the churches and
were activated in 43%. In addition, as the churches in which mechanism 6 was activated
showed an approximately uniform distribution, according to the defined distance intervals
with respect to the earthquake epicenter (Fig. 11), side walls are not usually very vulnerable
to seismic actions, and this is partly due to the features of this type of structures, such as
poor connections, that make them more vulnerable to first mode mechanisms.
It is also interesting to note that some of the most vulnerable mechanisms listed above
are related to non structural elements, or to structural elements such as the lantern or belfry,
the collapse of which would involve a limited part of the church. Hence, their impact on
overall structural safety, and on the possible costs for repair and reinforcements after a
seismic event, should be regarded as lower than those of the essential structural components
such as the vaulted system of a nave. However, in this current evaluation of the damage
index, as noted in Sec, 5.1 (Eq. 1), all the possible mechanisms have the same weight.
Conversely, it is clear from this study that there are some mechanisms which should have
a higher weight in total damage evaluation, as they are important or represent an important
structural component of the church, vital for its stability, whereas others should have a
lower weight.
5.3. Geographical Distribution of Damaged Buildings

Examining the data, it is of interest to analyze the relation between the damage index and
the usability of the buildings surveyed, according to their distance from the epicenter of the
earthquake (Fig. 12 and 13).
Figure 12 shows that, in the area within 10 km of the epicenter, the percentage of
churches with a damage index below 0.4 was the lowest of all intervals. Curiously, this is
(a) (b)
(c) (d)
(e)
FIGURE 10 Activated mechanism with highest average damage (dav ) to churches. (a)
Mechanism 8 Beata Antonia, LAquila. (b) Mechanism 9 Santa Gemma, Goriano Sicoli.
(c) Mechanism 15 S. Agostino, LAquila. (d) Mechanism 26 Immacolata Concezione,
Paganica (AQ). (e) Mechanism 28 Parish church, Villa SantAngelo (AQ).
not the area with the highest damage index, but the one with the highest percentage of cases
in the range 0.40.8 (about 46%)already a very high damage level, and the churches in
this area were generally severely damaged.
In the area at 1020 km from the epicenter, the damage index falls greatly, compared
with the first area. Approximately 60% of the churches have a damage index below 0.2 and
90% below 0.4. Only 10% have a relatively high index (0.40.6).
FIGURE 11 Correlation between distance from epicenter and distribution of churches

with possible activated mechanism 6.
100%
90%
80%
Number of Churches (%)
70%
>0,8
60%
0,60,8
50% 0,40,6
0,20,4
40%
0,00,2
30%
20%
10%
0%
Distance to the Epicenter (km) 010 1020 2030 3040 4050 >50
Number of Churches 24 29 26 25 72 65
FIGURE 12 Relation between damage index (Id ) and distance from epicenter.
In the area between 20 and 30 km, the damage index increases, sometimes exceeding
0.8. There are also many churches with damage indices in the range 0.60.8, and these
were examined case by case. They are very often due to site amplification effects [Monaco
et al., 2009], which lead to greater seismic action in particular areas and, consequently,
higher damage indices. This occurred especially in the Aterno valley, where some of the
most severely damaged villages are located, and where site amplification effects were due
to the nature of the soil [Monaco et al., 2009]. Examples of these effects are the villages
of Castelnuovo and San Pio delle Camere, both about 25 km SE of the epicenter. Although
100%
90%
80%
Number of Churches (%)

70%
6
60% 5
4
50%
3
40% 2
1
30%
20%
10%
0%
Distance to the Epicenter (km) 010 1020 2030 3040 4050 >50
Number of Churches 24 29 26 25 72 65
FIGURE 13 Relation between viability and distance from epicenter (1 safe; 2 partially
safe; 3 safe with precautions; 4 temporarily unsafe; 5 unsafe; 6 unsafe, for external
reasons).
they are only 2 km apart and have similar types of houses, the center of Castelnuovo, on
the top of a hill, was nearly completely destroyed, whereas San Pio delle Camere had no
observable significant damage to any of its buildings [Monaco et al., 2009]. According to
the response of the structures, shaking intensity at Castelnuovo was significantly greater
than at San Pio, indicating that factors related to topographic amplification in Castelnuovo
may have contributed to the severe damage to its highest points.
The reverse also sometimes occurred, as in the case of the church of S. Pietro in
Coppito, where the effects of the earthquake were not so severe, despite its location near the
epicenter. This was probably thanks to attenuation effects, due to the geological properties
of the soil. The range of PGA values (436646 cm/s2 ) recorded for the main seismic event
by the three stations located near Coppito (belonging to the Italian accelerometric network
of the DPC), shows the variability of the PGA values (Rep < 10km) [Ameri et al., 2009].
It should be noted that the 3 stations are less than 1 km from each other, between 4.4 and
4.9 km from the epicenter, and that the lowest values were recorded on the hill top and the
highest in the middle of the valley.
Another explanation for the higher damage index in this range, although not con-
firmed, is that the villages around the main city (LAquila) were generally originally
inhabited by less wealthy people, who probably could not afford good-quality of the materi-
als for churches in these locations which, consequently, showed a worse seismic response.
Conversely, the centre of LAquila used to be occupied mainly by wealthy people, who
spent their money on constructing large, impressive churches which still give a better
seismic response. This point is presented here as a hypothesis, and would be an interesting
subject to expand in further studies. Again in this range (2030 km from the epicenter),
approximately 70% of the churches had damage indices lower than 0.4.
In areas at distances of 3040 km, damage indices fall drastically, as they do in the
other intervals of 4050 and > 50 km. In the two latter intervals, almost all the churches
have indices below 0.4, and 7888% are under 0.2.
Figure 13 shows the relation between distance to the epicenter and safety of the struc-
tures. For the first three ranges, the percentage of unsafe churches was higher. In particular,
in the area up to 10 km from the epicenter, the percentage of unsafe buildings was 67%,
with an additional 4% of temporarily unsafe ones. In the area at 2030 km from the epicen-
ter, the percentage of unsafe churches (including temporarily unsafe and unsafe ones, for
external reasons) was approximately 75%, with the difference that, in this case, there were
more temporarily unsafe churches (around 25%).
In the area between 10 and 20 km from the epicenter, the distribution of safe
(including safe with precautions) and unsafe (including temporarily unsafe) structures was
approximately 50% each.
For the churches in the last three intervals, a sharp reduction in the percentage of unsafe
structures (between 15% and 17%) was recorded, whereas that of temporarily unsafe ones
increased. The number of safe structures also increased, varying between 35% and 44%.
6. Discussion of Survey Form

The church survey form, used during the emergency phase, showed few serious flaws. It is
relatively fast and intuitive to compile, and this was important during the emergency period,
when high efficiency and simplified methods and instruments were required. Although sim-
ple, the fully compiled form contains much information and captures the state of damage
well, since it lists each possible damage mechanism in a diagrammatic but effective rep-
resentation, and formulates an overall damage index. In addition, by clarifying activated
damage mechanisms, the form directly indicates the temporary emergency measures to be
carried out for providing safety or minimum survival conditions of what is left of the
structures after the main shock.
Some problems arose regarding the possible mechanisms activated in churches, which
usually have approximately the same spaces and characteristics, such as naves (one or
more), apses, lateral chapels, transepts, presbyteries, etc. Mechanisms which can be acti-
vated are defined within these elements. Some of them were not possible, due to the absence
of some spaces, e.g., in the case of Abruzzo, most of the churches had only one nave and
no transept, so that, clearly, no mechanisms related to these elements were activated. This
does not create problems within the current survey form. Damage indices are calculated
only according to mechanisms which are possible, so that the absence of one element has
no effect on the estimation of damage indices.
Instead, in some particular cases, churches have different configurations or spaces,
which could not be included in the mechanisms described in the form. In such cases, the
data compiler decided whether the element was to be described, either linking it to the most
similar mechanism on the list of 28, or describing it in a note. In this case, the mechanism
described and the damage it caused were not included in the calculation of the damage
index, which eventually led to a lower value, not corresponding to reality. However, it must
be noted that this seldom happened. Hence, the survey form may be deemed to be adequate
to capture the vast majority of church characteristics.
Although assessment of damage level was subjective, the structure of the form, based
on mechanical evaluation of a pre-defined list of collapse mechanisms, gave final evalua-
tions which were as objective and homogeneous as possible, [Lagomarsino and Podest,
2002]. Although, as already mentioned, the damage index is not always directly related to
the safe or unsafe state of the church (Sec. 5.1), the entire compilation of the form, plus
the damage index values, clearly indicate the final safety evaluation, which is thus also
objective and homogeneous.
In any case, further research and refinement of the damage index calculation process
is required to improve the reliability of the index itself and the related cost estimates, and
to reduce subjectivity in assessing the safe or unsafe state of a structure.
Lastly, it is evident that, with new technologies, it will be useful to provide the survey
forms as a web-based, geo-referenced application. As far as we know, the DPC has already
started developing such a basic field survey form [Protezione Civile, 2010]). The applica-
tion will probably have some threshold options which, if data collectors do not provide
answers to given questions, do not allow the next questions/sections to be compiled. This
will: (i) reduce mistakes or rectify the absence of significant data during on-site surveys;
(ii) eliminate time spent on later data entry, and any errors related to it; and (iii) produce a
real-time updated map of damage, useful for managing the emergency and organizing the
reconstruction phase.
7. Conclusions
This work allows us to draw some conclusions on the effects of the April 2009 earthquake
on the structures surveyed, particularly churches.
The earthquake caused considerable damage to many of the monuments in the Abruzzo
region, some of which were completely or partially destroyed, especially those located
close to the epicenter. However, the data show that the damage index and the safety of the
structures were not directly related to distance from the epicenter. In general, although the
relation greater distance less affected structures higher percentage of safe structures
was valid, some cases far from the epicenter had a high percentage of destroyed buildings.
The reverse was also verified, as some churches in villages only a few kilometers from the
epicenter suffered minor damage and were reported to be safe, probably due to local soil
properties.
The field survey form turned out be quite simple to compile, was reliable, and quickly
provided damage index values for the churches surveyed. However the indices could not
always be directly related, particularly when they gave low values, to the state of safety
of the churches nor to cost estimates. Statistical analysis of the data showed that there
were only a few cases of compilation errors, and very few special cases when the pro-
cess of mechanism identification could not easily be related to the outlines on the survey
form. These facts show that, although the survey form is effective, expert opinions are still
required, at least for the most delicate phases of form compilation and/or initial training of
survey staff.
Our statistical analysis also defined the percentages of possible mechanisms related
to local construction practices and architectural features of the region. For each possible
mechanism, the relative percentage of activation and calculated average damage allowed
some conclusions to be drawn on the seismic vulnerability of the various structural and
non structural elements making up a church. These conclusions may be regarded as widely
valid and, if further corroborated by other post-earthquake surveys, may be used to define
hierarchies of interventions, also on non damaged structures.
Lastly, statistical analysis showed that it would be useful to introduce weights to
damage mechanisms when calculating damage indices. Collecting data from other post-
earthquake damage assessments carried out with the same type of form would mean that
the proposed classification of damage mechanisms could be refined into categories, such
as most probable or least probable. Together with definition of an importance level of
structural (or non structural) components, this might provide a framework for assigning
different weights to damage mechanisms and improve the reliability and significance of
damage indices evaluated through survey form compilation, which is still a powerful tool
in the management of emergency and post-emergency phases.
In the future, it is the hope that the data gathered by UNIPD will be correlated with
others from all the churches surveyed in the Abruzzo region and also with data from other
seismic events, in order to reach more far-reaching and reliable conclusions.
Acknowledgments
Bruno Silva would like to thank the Fundao para a Cincia e a Tecnologia (FCT) -
Foundation for Science and Technology, of Portugal, for financial support during this
research. Catarina Costa thanks the Advanced Master in Structural Analysis of Historical
Constructions (SAHC).
References
Ameri, G., Augliera, P., Bindi, D., DAlema, E., Ladina, C., Lovati, S., Luzi, L., Marzorati, S.,
Massa, M., Pacor, F., and Puglia, R. [2009] Strong-motion parameters of the Mw = 6.3 Abruzzo
(Central Italy) earthquake, INGV Internal Report, Rome, Italy (http://www.mi.ingv.it/docs/
report_RAN_20090406.pdf).
Borri, A., Avorio, A., and Corradi, M. [2002] Ricerche per la ricostruzione - Iniziative di carat-
tere tecnico e scientifico a supporto della ricostruzione, DEI Tipografia del Genio Civile, Roma,
Italy.
Costa, C. Q. M. [2009] Seismic vulnerability of historical structures. Damage state of the Abruzzo
churches, in the sequence of the 2009 earthquake, MSc Thesis, Erasmus Mundus Advanced
Master in Structural Analysis of Monuments and Historical Constructions, University of Padua,
Padua, Italy.
DPCM 09/02/2011 [2011] Evaluation and mitigation of seismic risk to cultural heritage with refer-
ence to the Technical Standards for Constructions, Ministerial Decree 14/01/2008 (GU n. 47,
26-2-2011 - Suppl. Ordinario n.54).
DPCM 23/02/2006 [2006] Approval of the damage survey forms for cultural heritage assets due to
disastrous events (G.U. n. 55, 07032006).
Doglioni, F., Moretti, A., and Petrini, V. [1994] Le chiese e il terremoto - Dalla vulnerabilit con-
statata nel terremoto del Friuli al miglioramento antisismico nel restauro, verso una politica di
prevenzione, Edizioni Lint., Trieste, Italy. (in Italian)
EERI [2009] Learning from earthquakes: The Mw 6.3 Abruzzo, Italy, Earthquake of April 6, 2009,
Earthquake Engineering Research Institute (EERI) Special Earthquake Report - June 2009: http://
www.eeri.org/site/images/lfe/pdf/laquila-eq-report.pdf.
Form A-DC PCM-DPC MiBAC [2006] Scheda per il rilievo del danno ai beni culturali Chiese
(www.beniculturali.it/mibac/multimedia/MiBAC/documents/1338454237471_allegato4.pdf).
Form B-DP PCM-DPC MiBAC [2006] Scheda per il rilievo del danno ai beni cul-
turali Palazzi Available at: (www.beniculturali.it/mibac/multimedia/MiBAC/documents/
1338454343145_allegato3.pdf).
Giuffr, A. [1991] Letture sulla meccanica delle murature storiche. Edizioni Kappa, Roma, Italy.
Grnthal, G. [1998] European Macroseismic Scale 1998 - EMS98 (1998) Cahiers du Centre
Europen de Godynamique et de Sismologie 15, Centre Europen de Godynamique et de
Sismologie, Luxembourg, p. 99
INGV [2009] Localizzazione del terremoto del 6 aprile 2009 aggiornata con tutti i dati a dispo-
sizione (http://portale.ingv.it/primo-piano/archivio-primo-piano/notizie-2009/terremoto-6-aprile/
localizzazione-del-terremoto-del-6-aprile-aggiornata).
Italian Civil Defence website [2011] (http://www.protezionecivile.gov.it/jcms/it/emergenza_
abruzzo_unanno.wp#beni).
Lagomarsino, S. and Podest, S. [2002] Allegato C: Manuale di compilazione della scheda
a 28 meccanismi per il rilievo del danno e della vulnerabilit delle chiese, Project
Strumenti Aggiornati per la Vulnerabilit sismica del patrimonio Edilizio e dei sistemi
urbani (SAVE), Task 3 - Inventario e vulnerabilit del patrimonio monumentale dei parchi
dellItalia centromeridionale e meridionale. Available at: ftp://ftp.ingv.it/pro/gndt/Att_scient/
Prodotti_consegnati/Dolce_Zuccaro/Task3/SAVE_Task3_C.pdf
Lagomarsino, S. and Podest, S. [2004] Seismic vulnerability of ancient churches: I. Damage
assessment and emergency planning, Earthquake Spectra 20, 377394
Modena, C. and Binda, L. [2009] Monumental historical buildings. Protection of the cultural her-
itage in the post-earthquake emergency, Progettazione sismica, n. 3 -special issue: LAquila,
April 6, 3, 32 (English version)
Modena, C., Casarin, F., da Porto, F., and Munari, M. [2010] LAquila 6th April 2009 earthquake:
emergency and post-emergency activities on cultural heritage buildings, Book title: Earthquake
Engineering in Europe, Series title: Geotechnical, Geological, and Earthquake Engineering, Vol.
17, pp. 495521, eds. M. Garevski and A. Ansal, Publisher: Springer Netherlands, Copyright
Holder: Springer Science+Business Media B.V., DOI: 10.1007/978-90-481-9544-2_20.
Modena, C., Valluzzi, M. R., da Porto, F., and Casarin, F. [2011] Structural aspects of the con-
servation of historic stone masonry constructions in seismic areas, International Journal of
Architectural Heritage: Conservation, Analysis, and Restoration (45), 539558.
Monaco, P., Totani, G., Barla, G., Cavallaro, A., Costanzo, A., DOnofrio, A., Evangelista, L., Foti,
S., Grasso, G., Lanzo, G., Madiai, C., Maraschini, M., Marchetti, S., Maugeri, M., Pagliaroli, A.,
Pallara, O., Penna, A., Saccenti, A., Santucci de Magistris, F., Scasserra, G., Silvestri, F., Lucio
Simonelli, A., Simoni, G., Tommasi, P., Vannucchi, G., and Verrucci, L. [2009] Geotechnical
aspects of the LAquila earthquake, Earthquake Geotechnical Engineering Satellite Conference
XVIIth International Conference on Soil Mechanics & Geotechnical Engineering 23/10/2009,
Alexandria, Egypt.
Protezione Civile [2010] - AeDES, Scheda di 1 livello di rilevamento danno, pronto intervento e
agibilit per edifici ordinari nell emergenza post-sismica, First Level form for safety assess-
ment, damage investigation, prompt intervention for ordinary buildings in the post-earthquake
emergency (http://www.protezionecivile.gov.it/jcms/it/view_pub.wp?contentId=PUB5).
Rossetto, T., Peiris, N., Alarcon, J., So, E., Sargeant, S., Sword-Daniels, V., Libberton, C., Verrucci,
E., Del Re, D. and Free, M. [2009] The LAquila, Italy earthquake of 6th of April 2009.
A Preliminary field report, The Earthquake Engineering Field Investigation Team (EEFIT):
http://www.istructe.org/webtest/files/b8/b8df351b-a28b-4375-9d5a-20afd9be569b.pdf
Sabetta, F., Rovelli, A., Rinaldis, D., and Celebi, M. [2009] Sequenza sismica dellAbruzzo: Analisi
delle registrazioni accelerometriche, Giornata di Studio - Il Terramoto dellAbruzzo del 6 Aprile
2009 - Analisi e Riflessioni, ENEA, Roma, Italy.
Vigili del Fuoco Website [2011]. Available at: (http://www.vigilfuoco.it/aspx/MessaInSicurezza.
aspx).

Damage Durvey - Da Porto Et Al. 2012

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Damage Durvey - Da Porto Et Al. 2012

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

This article was downloaded by: [b-on: Biblioteca do conhecimento online UP]

On: 16 September 2012, At: 12:22

Journal of Earthquake Engineering

Macro-Scale Analysis of Damage to

Accepted author version posted online: 15 May 2012.Version of

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13632469.2012.685207

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Macro-Scale Analysis of Damage to Churches after

FRANCESCA DA PORTO1 , BRUNO SILVA1 ,

Keywords Earthquake; Damage; Vulnerability; Churches; LAquila; Emergency Planning;

Received 29 April 2011; accepted 7 April 2012.

institutions, including the University of Padova (UNIPD), collaborated on emergency oper-

4.1. Organization of Survey Activities

4.2. Structural Damage and Survey Form for Churches

5.1. Usability and Distribution of Damage Index (Id )

Mech. 1 - Overturning of the Mech. 2 - Overturning of the Mech. 3 - Shear mechanism in

Mech. 7 - Longitudinal vibration of Mech. 8 - Vaults of the central nave.

Mech. 20 - Hammering Mech. 21 - Mech. 22 - Overturning of the Mech. 23 - Shear

Mech. 24 - Collapse mechanism Mech. 25 - Interaction between Mech. 26 - Overturning of the

FIGURE 4 Usability percentage of churches surveyed.

FIGURE 5 Distribution of damage index (Id ).

FIGURE 6 Correlation between usability and distribution of damage index. (1 safe; 2

5.2. Possible and Activated Collapse Mechanisms

FIGURE 7 Possible and activated collapse mechanisms.

FIGURE 8 Percentage of possible mechanisms in fact activated.

FIGURE 9 Average damage (dav ) for each mechanism activated.

5.3. Geographical Distribution of Damaged Buildings

FIGURE 11 Correlation between distance from epicenter and distribution of churches

Number of Churches (%)

6. Discussion of Survey Form

You might also like