Structural Engineering International

ISSN: 1016-8664 (Print) 1683-0350 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/tsei20

Collapse of the Giotto Avenue Building in Foggia

Fabrizio Palmisano (Lecturer), Amedeo Vitone (Assoc. Prof.), Claudia Vitone

(Dr) & Vitantonio Vitone (Assoc. Prof.)

To cite this article: Fabrizio Palmisano (Lecturer), Amedeo Vitone (Assoc. Prof.), Claudia Vitone
(Dr) & Vitantonio Vitone (Assoc. Prof.) (2007) Collapse of the Giotto Avenue Building in Foggia,
Structural Engineering International, 17:2, 166-171, DOI: 10.2749/101686607780680709

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.2749/101686607780680709

Published online: 23 Mar 2018.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 37

View related articles

Citing articles: 1 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=tsei20
 Collapse of the Giotto Avenue Building in Foggia
Fabrizio Palmisano, Lecturer, Dept. of Civil Eng. and Architecture Sciences, Politecnico di Bari, Italy.
Amedeo Vitone, Assoc. Prof.; Claudia Vitone, Dr; Vitantonio Vitone, Assoc. Prof.; Dept. of Civil and
Environmental Eng., Politecnico di Bari, Italy.

Summary numerically quantify its structural

safety before the collapse.
The case that the researchers had to analyse on behalf of the Public Prosecutor’s
Office, was the initial failure that triggered the unexpected collapse of a rein- Moreover, design and construction er-
forced concrete building during the night of November 11th, 1999. They also had rors were detected and examined in
to reconstruct the event starting from the individuation of the causes of such order to evaluate their contribution
crumbling that is still remembered for its serious sacrifice of human lives. Togeth- in transforming the recognised initial
er with the detailed report of the case, the paper intends to make a useful contri- local rupture into a tragic progressive
bution to the crucial topic concerning the choice of the most appropriate method collapse.
to perform this sort of autopsy, without neglecting any technical guideline.
Keywords: structural collapse; assessment; reliability; re-calculation; probabilistic The Methodology Used in the
analysis.
Investigation
Since the night of the building collapse
(Figs. 2 and 3), investigations, surveys
Introduction University) in addition to highly quali- and tests were carried out to obtain
fied external consultants [1]. every useful information to under-
The extreme sensitivity of the analy- stand the causes and dynamics of the
The investigative path had to start from collapse.
sis was due to the fact that the Giotto
the difficult work of data acquisition
avenue building (Fig. 1)—even if very The main steps of the methodology
requiring patience: document exami-
similar to others built in the same city that was used were the following:
nation, questioning, visual inspections
by the same contractor, designed by
and tests on ruins to establish physical – Historical-kinematic reconstruction
the same structural engineer and still
and mechanical properties of materials, of the collapse based on questioning,
standing—collapsed only 30 years
tests on the nearby building (the so- video-photographic documentation
after its construction without any evi-
called “twin building”, which did not and visual inspections of the ruins.
dent premonitory sign and without the
collapse but was later, demolished). – Acquisition of technical data
occurrence of any accidental action
(e.g. earthquake, explosion). The com- Deterministic re-calculations accord- necessary to create a model using:
plex study that had to be carried out ing to current codes and to the one the few available documents of the
needed the maximum synergy and, to in effect at the time of construc- original design, on-site geometrical
this purpose, the researchers involved tion as well as probabilistic analy- surveys, visual sample inspections,
three Italian universities (Politecnico di ses of the structural reliability of the laboratory tests to establish mat-
Bari, Politecnico di Milano, Basilicata building were carried out in order to erial properties, the analysis of

Fig. 1: CAD Model of the Giotto Avenue Building Fig. 2: Back View of the Collapsed Building

166 Structures Worldwide Structural Engineering International 2/2007

X218.indd 166 4/26/07 4:11:27 PM


Fig. 3: Front View of the Collapsed
Building
video-photographic documentation,
geological and geotechnical tests on
foundation soil.
– Numerical analysis of the model.
– Identification of design and
construction errors and analysis
of their influence on the collapse
dynamics.
– Inspections on samples taken
from the demolition of the “twin
building”.
Depositions on the Collapse
and on Previous Facts
A survivor gave evidence that about
20 minutes before the collapse loud
creaks were heard and failure signs
(cracks on the partition walls, cracks
and deformation of the floor slabs)
were seen. According to those who
witnessed the collapse, the building un-
derwent a so-called “pancake effect”
without any rotation of the external
façades. Only the façade next to the
“twin building” rotated towards the
internal part of the collapsed building.
Even though a few months before the
collapse some creaks were heard and
some cracks on the partition walls
were discovered, from the depositions
of the survivors and of the occupiers’
relatives and friends, there is no evi-
dence of important premonitory signs,
which could be connected to an im-
minent structural failure. These signs
were in fact similar to the ones that it
is possible to find in every reinforced
building of the 1970s, mainly due to an
excess of floor slab deformation with
service loads.
Quality of Structural Materials
Visual Inspections and Laboratory
Tests
From the numerous laboratory tests
carried out on samples taken from the
structural elements of the collapsed
building, it appeared clearly that the
Structural Engineering International 2/2007
X218.indd 167
quality of concrete used in the con-
struction was so poor that this could
be considered the main defect of the
building.
The terrible quality of the concrete was
first recognised from visual inspections
of the ruins:
– the concrete looked extremely
heterogeneous;
– extraneous elements were found
in structural elements (e.g. wooden
pieces, a metal can, a rubber
puppet);
– a large amount of sand was found in
the concrete;
– the concrete looked very porous
(due to the high water-to-cement
ratio used);
Laboratory test results to evaluate
concrete mechanical characteristics
are presented later in this paper.
Physical and chemical tests unveiled
very serious errors in mix design and
in construction techniques:
– From the chloride penetration depth
profile determinations, it could be
assessed that the concrete was not
threatened by chloride attacks.
– Carbonation depth determinations
indicated that carbon dioxide
penetration was from 15 mm to 137
mm; the carbonation penetration
level deeper than the expected one
(almost 45 mm) for a medium-low
quality concrete indicated that the
examined concrete quality was
terrible.
– X-ray diffractometric tests excluded
that concrete could be threatened
by chemical attacks.
– Compressive strength tests indicated
that only two cores had resistance
greater than 15 MPa; these values
were confirmed by rebound hammer
and ultrasonic pulse velocity tests.
– The absence of deteriorating reac-
tions indicated that the very low
concrete strength values were due to
the use of extremely poor concrete
during building construction.
– On the basis of indirect consi-
derations it was estimated that the
water-to-cement ratio (w/c) was
≥1,2; more than twice the value
usually employed nowadays for
normal concrete.
On the other side, from visual in-
spections, steel reinforcement quality
seemed to be good even if major errors
in detailing were found. Reinforcement
bars underwent large deformations
without breaks, in fact in the ruins they
were found intact with hooks: this gave
evidence that the problem was not re-
lated to steel quality but to concrete
weakness and detailing errors. These
observations were confirmed by labo-
ratory tests: mechanical testing gave in
fact good results about the strength and
ductility of smooth and ribbed bars.
Time and Creep Effects
According to the codes in paragraphs
2.1.6.1 and 2.1.6.2 of CEB-FIP Model
Code 90 [2], “time effects” were evalu-
ated. The compressive strength of con-
crete varies with time and it depends on
the type of cement, temperature, cur-
ing conditions and application of sus-
tained loads. The estimated reduction
of concrete compressive strength of
the first floor columns after 30 years
was about 7,5%.
According to the codes in paragraph
2.1.6.4 of CEB-FIP Model Code 90 [2],
the creep coefficient was evaluated for
the first floor columns. Its value, equal
to 3,77, was higher than the values of
normal concrete in typical conditions;
this indicated that the transfer of in-
ternal actions from concrete to steel
reinforcements was bigger than in
typical cases. For instance, in the case
of a first floor column the calculated
compressive stress after 30 years was
almost four times the initial compres-
sive stress; this means that there was
a very high risk of buckling of vertical
steel bars with consequent concrete
spalling and reduction of the effective
section. An evidence of this phenome-
non was given by a photograph, shown
in Fig. 4, and found under the ruins,
which showed a first floor column with
a buckled reinforcement bar.
Re-Calculations
After having understood the possible
causes and dynamics of collapse, a re-
calculation of the structure became
necessary to verify the hypothesis
made and to numerically quantify the
structural safety of the building before
the collapse.
Reinforced concrete buildings con-
structed in Italy during the years from
1955 to 1975 seem to be very sensi-
tive to a progressive collapse risk. In
fact, the general absence of effective
horizontal and vertical ties, very poor
“quality” of the reinforcement design
and assembly and very low concrete
resistance increase the risk that the
failure of a single load bearing element
can cause a collapse disproportionate
to the original cause [3].
Structures Worldwide 167
4/26/07 4:11:32 PM
 10
Stress over the allowable value
9
Residual resistance
8 Design stress

Stress [MPa]
5

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14

15 5
s
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

0
bi
1

/3
29
Column
Fig. 5: Design stresses of the first floor columns re-calculated using the national code in
effect at the time of construction

Re-Calculation Using the Allowable of concrete strength α = 1,00, as shown

Fig. 4: A first floor column with a buckled
reinforcement bar
In the following, the results of de-
terministic and probabilistic calcula-
tions performed on the columns, the
most sensitive structural elements, are
shown.
Re-Calculation Using the Italian
Code in Effect at the Time of
Construction
Columns were verified using the allow-
able value of the compressive stress
(6,0 MPa) used in the original design,
which is the same as the maximum al-
lowable value of the code at the time
of construction.
This verification corresponds to the
one that the structural designer should
have performed in 1968 assuming
that the concrete had the maximum
strength indicated by the Italian code
at the time of construction. This means
that, in this re-calculation, the real me-
chanical characteristics of the concrete,
measured by laboratory tests carried
out on structural elements of the col-
lapsed building, were not considered.
From Fig. 5, in which design stresses of
the first floor columns are shown, it is
possible to observe that the axial com-
pression check is not satisfied for the
columns from n. 21 to n. 29/30 which
are the central columns of the build-
ing, where the stresses are higher than
permissible limits.
Stress Method of the 1999 Italian
Code
Columns were verified using a cube
compressive strength (Rck). This was
calculated, according to ENV 1991-1
[4], from the 5% fractile of the normal
distribution of the cube compressive
strength (Rckcar) obtained by labora-
tory tests carried out on concrete cores
of the collapsed building, using a con-
version factor which takes account of
the decrease of in-place strength ver-
sus the characteristic strength.
It is worth highlighting that this value
of Rck, obtained by laboratory tests
carried out on concrete cores taken
from the columns of the building 30
years after its construction, takes into
account the reduction of strength for
the “time effects”, even if the calcu-
lated reduction was not so significant
(about 7,5%).
From Fig. 6, in which design stresses
of the first floor columns are shown, it
is possible to observe that the check is
not satisfied for all the columns, except
for columns n. 1 and n. 11.
Re-Calculation Using the Eurocode
2 Ultimate Limit State Method
Columns were also verified accord-
ing to Eurocode 2 [5], subjected to
axial load N and to bending moment
M = (h/20)N, where h is the depth of
the cross section.
The characteristic value of the cubic
strength (Rck) mentioned earlier was
used as well as a parabola-rectangle
diagram with a reduction coefficient
in the next paragraph.
In Fig. 7, design axial loads of the first
floor columns are shown. It is possible
to observe that the columns from n. 21
to n. 29/30, which are the central col-
umns of the building, are overstressed.
It is worth noting that this situation is
less critical than the one shown in the
previous paragraph because the Italian
allowable stress method gives informa-
tion not only about the ultimate limit
states but also about the serviceability
limit states.
Probabilistic Analysis
In the probabilistic method, the prob-
ability of failure in a structural element
Pf is the probability that the random
variable strength R* is smaller than
the random variable load effect S*.
Using this method columns were veri-
fied, and according to Eurocode 2 [5],
subjected to axial load N and to bend-
ing moment M = (h/20)N where h is
the depth of the cross section.
The “failure curve” depends on sev-
eral random variables: the concrete
strength fc, the steel strength fs, the
cross section geometry A, the longitu-
dinal reinforcement As.
For the random variable fs, the 5% frac-
tile deterministic value was assumed.
For the cross section geometry A and
the longitudinal reinforcement As, the
measured values were assumed.
To evaluate the random variable fc,
the compressive strength fcar of the
cores taken from the columns of the

168 Structures Worldwide Structural Engineering International 2/2007

X218.indd 168 4/26/07 4:11:36 PM

 collapsed building was the starting 9
point. The cores (80 in total) were Stress over the allowable value
8
taken from the columns of the build-
Residual resistance
ing 30 years after its construction, so 7 Design stress
these fcar values already included the
strength reduction due to “time ef- 6
fects”. From fcar, the estimated cubic

Stress [MPa]
strength of the cores (fcar-cub) was cal- 5

culated according to the BS 6089: 1981

4
[6]. The cylindrical effective strength
(Fig. 8) is then: 3

fcar-cil = 0,83 fcar-cub 2

Using probability charts, both the nor- 1

mal and the log-normal density func-
tions (Fig. 9) seemed to be suitable 0
for fcar-cil. The normal density function

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14

15 5
s
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

0
bi
1

was chosen because it was the only
one that passed both the chi-square
and K-S tests with a significance level
of 5%.
The next step was to obtain the ran-
dom variable R*.
In the Ultimate Limit State (ULS)
method, the capacity check is made
using the relation:
γRR ≥ γSS
The evaluated concrete strength distri-
bution took into account the variation
of material properties and uncertain-
ties due to mixing, transportation, cast-
ing, compacting and curing. So, to have
the final random variable of concrete
strength, only the part of the partial
safety factor γc corresponding to model
and geometrical uncertainties (=1,05)
was applied.
Moreover, in the ULS method a fac-
tor α = 0,8 ÷ 1 is used to take into
account long term effects on the com-
300
Axial load over the maximum
resistant value
250 Residual resistance
Design axial load
200
Axial load [10KN]
/3
29
Column
Fig. 6: Design stresses of the first floor columns re-calculated using the allowable stress
method of the 1999 Italian code
pressive strength and unfavourable ef-
fects resulting from the way the load is
applied.
In the case of the Giotto avenue build-
ing, the first part of the coefficient
could be considered equal to one be-
cause the random variable was ob-
tained from laboratory tests carried
out on concrete specimens taken from
the columns 30 years after the con-
struction. The second part of the coef-
ficient was also assumed equal to one
in the assumption of overestimating
the concrete strength at the moment
of the collapse.
From the histogram of fcar-cil, using the
assumed values for fs, A, As, γc, the his-
togram of the resistance Ri for the first
floor columns was obtained.
The normal density function was cho-
sen for R* and the efficiency was veri-
fied using chi-square and K-S tests.
For the random variable R*, the coef-
ficient of variation was:
σ ( R *)
COV ( R *) =
≅ 0, 22
µ ( R *)
This value is significantly bigger than
the ones relative to columns designed
and built according to current codes [7].
The origin of such a significant scatter-
ing of data is due to the large scatter-
ing of the concrete strength measured
by laboratory tests and it is a confirma-
tion of the inhomogeneous quality of
the concrete observed at first sight.
The random variable S* depends on
single random variables si represent-
ing loads applied on the structure. All
permanent loads, with the exception of
concrete weight, were considered as
normal random variables with mean
value and standard deviation accord-
ing to ENV 1991-1 [4].
Concrete self-weight was measured

on the cores taken from the columns

150 of the collapsed building. The normal
density function was chosen for the
concrete self-weight random variable
100
and the efficiency was verified using
chi-square and K-S tests.
50 According to European and Italian
codes, concrete self-weight was in-
0
creased by 100 daN/m3 in order to take
account of the reinforcement presence.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14

15 5
s
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

0
bi
1

/3
29

Column Concerning variable loads, only part of

Fig. 7: Design axial loads of the first floor columns re-calculated using the Eurocode 2 sustained loads [7, 8] was assumed in
ULS method probabilistic analysis, in order to have

Structural Engineering International 2/2007 Structures Worldwide 169

X218.indd 169 4/26/07 4:11:41 PM

 18%
16% normal distribution
14% Log-normal distribution
12% 0,020
10% 0,018
0,016
8% 0,014
6% 0,012
0,010

p
4%
0,008
2%
0,006
0% 0,004
4,0-5,0

5,0-6,0

6,0-7,0

7,0-8,0

8,0-9,0

9,0-10,0

10,0-11,0

11,0-12,0

12,0-13,0

13,0-14,0

14,0-15,5
0,002
0,000
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
fcar-cil [MPa] fcar-cil [MPa]

Fig. 8: Histogram of fcar-cil Fig. 9: Normal and log-normal density functions of fcar-cil

a more realistic scenario with refer- failure of two first floor columns (n° About the causes that produced such a
ence to the collapse diagnosis. 24 and 25), located just next to the ruinous collapse, analysis of finds and
staircase. of reinforcement layout confirmed
After the evaluation of the single ran-
the grave vulnerability of the building
dom variables si distributions, vertical The very high values of the probability
with respect to the risk of progressive
action on each column was calculated of failure calculated for the central col-
collapse [9].
as a combination of these. umns of the building were not only due
to the poor mechanical concrete char- Among the several detected errors and
Finally from the random variable
acteristics but also to arbitrary reduc- serious deficiencies, in particular the
“safety margin” M = R*–S*, the col-
tion of the safety factors carried out by following have to be reported: absence
umns failure probability Pf was calcu-
the designer, as it is possible to notice of connecting beams between foot-
lated.
from the re-calculation performed ings; absence of r. c. bearing walls and
As clearly shown in Fig. 10, the worse using the Italian code at the time of of floor slab ties; staircase weakness;
situation is represented by first floor construction. insufficient column stirrups; serious
columns. From the figure, it is possible weakness and discontinuity in beam-
However, in the case of the Giotto av-
to observe that Pf assumes the highest column joint reinforcement; poor con-
enue building, it has to be highlighted
values (from 18,5 to 46,5%) for the struction and design quality of floor
that other even more critical circum-
columns from n. 21 to n. 29/30 which slabs; irregularities in design and con-
stances added to these serious condi-
are the central columns of the build- struction of covers and anchorages and
tions: incorrect reinforcement design
ing. These values are much higher than of reinforcement layout in slabs, beams
and very bad quality of construction.
the ones (about 0,01%) acceptable by and columns; geometrical irregularities
national and international codes. Concerning the causes of the collapse, of bearing elements (particularly seri-
it has to be concluded that the physi- ous for foundation structures).
cal and mechanical characteristics of
Conclusive Remarks Thus, if the probability of the col-
concrete were so poor and the design
lapse of one or two central columns
and construction errors were so seri-
Investigations, numerical analysis and was high, that of such a ruinous and
ous that conventionally, the failure
laboratory tests seem to suggest that rapid mode of failure would have to
of columns n° 24 and 25 had to be
the causes of the unexpected collapse be estimated to be 100% (i.e. it was
considered technically as “occurred”
of the Giotto avenue building can be not a ‘probability’ but, unfortunately,
since the start of the building’s work-
recognised in the exceptional vulner- a certainty).
ing life!
ability of the supporting reinforced
About the influence on the failure The review of the critical remarks that
concrete structures of the building,
process of other events that occurred have arisen from the study of the find-
due to the extremely poor physical and
during the service life of the build- ings and of the “twin building” struc-
mechanical characteristics of concrete
ing, the following conclusions can be tures in [1] has been carried out in order
and to the serious design and construc-
drawn. to highlight those design and construc-
tion errors.
tion deficiencies that, even if not appar-
The analytical approach used to evalu- Even if some local tampering with ently serious, can increase reinforced
ate the reliability of the Giotto avenue structures (e.g. plant adjustment) were concrete building vulnerability.
building, according to [10], started from detected, important demolitions that
could have been responsible for the It has to be therefore stressed that un-
the level 1 method (the deterministic
collapse have to be excluded. fortunately the detected deficiencies
analysis) to arrive at one (the proba-
are not to be considered peculiar to the
bilistic analysis) that is more approxi-
It is also worth noting that the detailed Giotto avenue building, even if a com-
mate than level 3 but less approximate
geotechnical in situ and laboratory bination of extremely unfavourable
than level 2.
investigations carried out excluded events and situations also contributed
From the results of probabilistic analy- the possibility of significant settle- to the occurrence of that tragic event.
sis, it is possible to conclude that the ments influencing the stability of the Nevertheless, it is important to under-
collapse started from the compression building. line that, many deficiencies detected

170 Structures Worldwide Structural Engineering International 2/2007

X218.indd 170 4/26/07 4:11:43 PM

 50% Structures. Part 1: Basis of Design, CEN, Brux-
45% elles, 1994.
40% [5] EUROPEAN COMMITTEE FOR STAN-
35% DARDIZATION (CEN). ENV 1992-1-1: Euro-
code 2. Design of Concrete Structures. Part 1-1:
30%
General Rules and Rules for Buildings, CEN,
Pf %

25% Bruxelles, 1991.

20%
[6] BRITISH STANDARD INSTITUTION. BS
15% 6089:1981 Assessment of Concrete Strength in
10% Existing Structures, BSI, London, 1981.
5%
[7] ELLINGWOOD, B.; GALAMBOS, T. H.;
0% MACGREGOR, J. G.; CORNELL C. A. Devel-
1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 16 18 20 22 24 26 28
opment of a Probability Based Load Criterion
Column for American National Standard A58. Building
Fig. 10: First floor columns probability of failure (Pf) Code Requirements for Minimum Design Loads
in Buildings and Other Structures. NBS Special
Publication, 577, 1980.

in the Giotto avenue building can be
easily found in many Italian reinforced
concrete buildings constructed be-
tween the 1970s and the 1980s.
References
[1] VITONE, A.; VITONE, V. Relazione tecnica
definitiva della Consulenza Tecnica di Ufficio
per il crollo dell’edificio di Viale Giotto a Foggia
dell’11.11.1999. Studio Vitone & Associati, Bari,
Italy, May 2001.
[2] CEB. CEB-FIP Model Code 1990. CEB Bul-
letin d’Information n. 213/214, 1993.
[3] MARANO, G. C.; PALMISANO, F.;VITONE,
A.; VITONE, C. Dall’analisi dei crolli insegna-
menti per adeguare i criteri di progettazione
delle nuove strutture in c.a. Proceedings of the
Conference “Structural Failures and Reliabil-
ity of Civil Structures’’, Venezia, Italy, Decem-
ber, 2001.
[4] EUROPEAN COMMITTEE FOR STAN-
DARDIZATION (CEN). ENV 1991-1: Eu-
rocode 1. Basis of Design and Actions on
[8] COROTIS, R. B.; DOSHI, V. A. Probability
models for live load survey result. Journal of the
Structural Division-ASCE, 103(ST6), 1977, pp.
1257–1274.
[9] PALMISANO, F.; RAUSA, P.; VITONE, A.
Use of catenary action of reinforcement to pre-
vent progressive collapse in r. c. buildings. Pro-
ceedings of the “2nd International fib Congress’’,
Napoli, Italy, June, 2006.
[10] FIB. Management, Maintenance and
Strengthening of Concrete Structures. Fib bulletin
17, Sprint-druck, Stuttgart, 2002.

Buro Happold is presently recruiting experienced

structural engineers for our US offices to work on
projects both in the United States and overseas
For more information on our current vacancies visit our website
or email your resume to recruitment@burohappold.com

www.burohappold.com

Structural Engineering International 2/2007 Structures Worldwide 171

X218.indd 171 4/26/07 4:11:45 PM