Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Main Conclusions: Overview of Seismic Risk For Large Span Buildings Heritage
Main Conclusions: Overview of Seismic Risk For Large Span Buildings Heritage
4. MAIN CONCLUSIONS
This report deals with an investigation about the possibility of using simplified methods of analysis and
simple indexes as indicators for fast screening and decision to prioritize deeper studies in historical
masonry buildings and assess vulnerability to seismic loading. These indexes, both in-plane and out-
of-plane based, are established mostly on the in plan dimensions and height of the buildings.
In general, the longitudinal direction of the buildings (y) exhibits lower vulnerability than the transversal
direction (x).
Indexes γ1 and γ2 do not present a clear trend with respect to seismicity, however a slightly tendency
associates the increase of γ1 and γ2 with PGA growth.
For high seismicity zones, index γ3 is violated by all monuments, in both directions, but also for low
and moderate seismicity zones index γ3 is not entirely fulfilled. This perception constitutes a major
issue regarding seismic safety, thus requiring careful attention and deeper investigation of the
churches and monuments at risk.
A proposal for the usage of simplified methods was made, taking into consideration the simultaneous
violation of two or three of the in-plane indexes. The results show that the need for deeper
investigations ranges between 18% and 37% of the sample (8 and 20 monuments, respectively).
The analysis of the out-of.-plane indexes shows that a logical common trend can be established. For
low and moderate seismicity, indexes do not exhibit a dependency on seismicity. However, for
increasing seismicity, they tend to vary in a quite logical pattern. Furthermore, the observed trend
allowed the proposal of possible threshold criteria for each index.
5. REFERENCES
Barbat, A.H., Yépez, F., Canas, J.A, Damage scenarios simulation for seismic risk assessment in
urban zones, Earthquake Spectra 1996; 12(3): 371-394.
CEN, Eurocode 6: Design of masonry structures, prEN 1996-1. Brussels: CEN, 2003a.
CEN, Eurocode 8: Design of structures for earthquake resistance, prEN 1998-1. Brussels: CEN, 2003b.
G.N.D.T., Seismic damage and vulnerability of the churches in Umbria (in Italian), CD-Rom,
Presidency from the Ministry Council 1998.
Giuffrè, A., Seismic damage in historic town centers and attenuation criteria. Annali di Geofisica 1995;
38(5-6): 837-843.
ICOMOS, Recommendations for the analysis, conservation and structural restoration of architectural
heritage, 2001.
Langa, K., Bachmanna, H., On the seismic vulnerability of existing buildings: A case study of the city
of Basel, Earthquake Spectra 2004; 20(1): 43-66.
Lourenço, P.B., Roque, J.A., Simplified indexes for the seismic vulnerability of ancient masonry
buildings, Construction and Building Materials, 2004 (submitted).
Meli, R., Structural engineering of historical buildings (in Spanish). Mexico-City: Fundación ICA, 1998.
Table 1 – In-plane Indexes for the Portuguese monuments (PGA is also included).
Table 2 – In-plane Indexes for the Spanish monuments (PGA is also included).
Table 3 – In-plane Indexes for the Italian monuments (PGA is also included).
Table 4 – In-plane Indexes for the Indian monuments (PGA is also included).
Table 5 – Summary of the in-plane indexes in terms of minimum, average and maximum values,
including the degree of violation for the adopted thresholds.
Index
18.5 5.6 35.2 29.6 42.6 35.2 -----
violation (%)
0.3 0.3
Index 1 (Y dir) Index 1 (Y dir)
Index 1 (X dir) Index 1 (X dir)
0.2 0.2
SP index 1
PT index 1
0.1 0.1
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4
PGA/g PGA/g
0.3 0.3
Index 1 (Y dir)
Index 1 (X dir)
0.2 0.2
IN index 1
IT index 1
0.1 0.1
Index 1 (Y dir)
Index 1 (X dir)
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4
PGA/g PGA/g
0.3 0.3
Threshold
Index 1 (Y dir)
All indexes 1
0.2 0.2
All indexes 1
0.1 0.1
Threshold
Index 1 (X dir)
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4
PGA/g PGA/g
Figure 2 – Relationship between Index 1 and PGA/g (by country and grouped together).
6.0 6.0
Index 2 (Y dir) Index 2 (Y dir)
Index 2 (X dir) Index 2 (X dir)
4.5 4.5
SP index 2x
PT index 2x
3.0 3.0
1.5 1.5
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4
PGA/g PGA/g
6.0 6.0
Index 2 (Y dir)
Index 2 (Y dir)
Index 2 (X dir)
Index 2 (X dir)
4.5 IN index 2x 4.5
IT index 2x
3.0 3.0
1.5 1.5
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4
PGA/g PGA/g
6.0 6.0
Threshold Threshold
Index 2 (X dir) Index 2 (Y dir)
4.5 4.5
All indexes 2 x
All indexes 2 x
3.0 3.0
c
1.5 1.5
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4
PGA/g PGA/g
Figure 3 - Relationship between Index 2 and PGA/g (by country and grouped together).
8.0 8.0
Index 3 (Y dir) Index 3 (Y dir)
Index 3 (X dir) Index 3 (X dir)
6.0 6.0
PT index 3 x
SP index 3 x
4.0 4.0
2.0 2.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4
PGA/g PGA/g
8.0 8.0
Index 3 (Y dir) Index 3 (Y dir)
Index 3 (X dir) Index 3 (X dir)
6.0 6.0
IN index 3 x
IT index 3 x
4.0 4.0
2.0 2.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4
PGA/g PGA/g
8.0 8.0
Threshold Threshold
Index 3 (X dir) Index 3 (Y dir)
6.0 6.0
x
x
All indexes 3
All indexes 3
4.0 4.0
2.0 2.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4
PGA/g PGA/g
Figure 4 - Relationship between Index 3 and PGA/g (by country and grouped together).
Table 6 – Out-of-plane Indexes for the Portuguese monuments (PGA is also included).
Out-of-plane indexes
Monum. PGA / g
(λ)col (e/h)col (e/h)wall
Table 7 – Out-of-plane Indexes for the Spanish monuments (PGA is also included).
Out-of-plane indexes
Monum. PGA / g
(λ)col (e/h)col (e/h)wall
Table 8 – Out-of-plane Indexes for the Italian monuments (PGA is also included).
Out-of-plane indexes
Monum. PGA / g
(λ)col (e/h)col (e/h)wall
Table 9 – Out-of-plane Indexes for the Indian monuments (PGA is also included).
Out-of-plane indexes
Monum. PGA / g
(l)col (e/h)col (e/h)wall
Table 10 – Summary of the out-of-plane indexes in terms of minimum, average and maximum values.
Out-of-plane indexes
PGA / g
(λ)column (e/h)column (e/h)wall
80 80
60 60
PT col
SP col
40 40
20 20
0 0
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4
PGA/g PGA/g
80 80
60 IN col 60
IT col
40 40
20 20
0 0
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4
PGA/g PGA/g
80
60
col
40
All
20
0
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4
PGA/g
Figure 5 - Relationship between Index 4 and PGA/g (by country and grouped together).
0.3 0.3
0.2 0.2
PT (e/h)col c
SP (e/h)col c
0.1 0.1
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4
PGA/g PGA/g
0.3 0.3
0.2 0.2
IT (e/h)col c
IN (e/h)colx
0.1 0.1
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4
PGA/g PGA/g
0.3
0.2
All (e/h)col c
0.1
0.0
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4
PGA/g
Figure 6 - Relationship between Index 5 and PGA/g (by country and grouped together).
0.20 0.20
0.15 0.15
SP (e/h)wall c
PT (e/h)wall c
0.10 0.10
0.05 0.05
0.00
0.00
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4
PGA/g PGA/g
0.20 0.20
0.10 0.10
0.05 0.05
0.00 0.00
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4
PGA/g PGA/g
0.20
0.15
All (e/h)wall c
0.10
0.05
0.00
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4
PGA/g
Figure 7 - Relationship between Index 6 and PGA/g (by country and grouped together).