indirli2013-LAquila Italy

This article was downloaded by: [Selcuk Universitesi]
On: 05 February 2015, At: 17:59

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
International Journal of Architectural

Heritage: Conservation, Analysis, and
Restoration
Publication details, including instructions for authors and
subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/uarc20
Seismic Damage Assessment of

Unreinforced Masonry Structures After
The Abruzzo 2009 Earthquake: The
Case Study of the Historical Centers of
L'Aquila and Castelvecchio Subequo
a b
Maurizio Indirli , Leonidas Alexandros S. Kouris , Antonio
c d c
Formisano , Ruben Paul Borg & Federico M. Mazzolani
a
Italian National Agency for New Technologies, Energy and
Sustainable Economic Development, Technical Unit of Seismic
Engineering , Bologna , Italy
b
Department of Civil Engineering, Aristotle University of
Thessaloniki , Division of Structural Engineering , Thessaloniki ,
Greece
c
Department of Structural Engineering, Faculty of Engineering ,
University of Naples “Federico II” , Naples , Italy
d
Department of Civil & Structural Engineering , Faculty for the Built
Environment, University of Malta , Msida , Malta
Accepted author version posted online: 31 Jan 2012.Published
online: 10 Dec 2012.
To cite this article: Maurizio Indirli , Leonidas Alexandros S. Kouris , Antonio Formisano , Ruben
Paul Borg & Federico M. Mazzolani (2013) Seismic Damage Assessment of Unreinforced Masonry
Structures After The Abruzzo 2009 Earthquake: The Case Study of the Historical Centers of L'Aquila
and Castelvecchio Subequo, International Journal of Architectural Heritage: Conservation, Analysis,
and Restoration, 7:5, 536-578, DOI: 10.1080/15583058.2011.654050
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15583058.2011.654050
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE
Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the
“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,
our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to
the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions
and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,
and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content
should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources
of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,
proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or
howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising
out of the use of the Content.
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. Terms &
Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-
and-conditions
Downloaded by [Selcuk Universitesi] at 18:00 05 February 2015
International Journal of Architectural Heritage, 7: 536–578, 2013
Copyright © Taylor & Francis Group, LLC
ISSN: 1558-3058 print / 1558-3066 online
DOI: 10.1080/15583058.2011.654050
SEISMIC DAMAGE ASSESSMENT OF UNREINFORCED

MASONRY STRUCTURES AFTER THE ABRUZZO
2009 EARTHQUAKE: THE CASE STUDY OF THE
HISTORICAL CENTERS OF L’AQUILA AND
CASTELVECCHIO SUBEQUO
Maurizio Indirli,1 Leonidas Alexandros S. Kouris,2 Antonio

Formisano,3 Ruben Paul Borg,4 and Federico M. Mazzolani3
1
Italian National Agency for New Technologies, Energy and Sustainable
Economic Development, Technical Unit of Seismic Engineering, Bologna,
Italy
2
Department of Civil Engineering, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, Division of
Structural Engineering, Thessaloniki, Greece
3
Department of Structural Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, University of
Naples “Federico II”, Naples, Italy
4
Department of Civil & Structural Engineering, Faculty for the Built Environment,
University of Malta, Msida, Malta
The Abruzzo earthquake hit the city of L’Aquila and its surroundings on the April 6, 2009.
The aim of this study is to analyze the technical features of unreinforced masonry (URM)
buildings and assess their seismic behavior during the Abruzzo 2009 seismic event. The dam-
age induced in the URM constructions of L’Aquila and the suburbs was severe and several
such buildings collapsed. This study includes an overview of the dynamic characteristics
of the earthquake and the seismic history of the region. The seismic performance of URM
buildings is discussed on the basis of both the experience in L’Aquila and the village of
Castelvecchio Subequo, during the post-emergency support to the Italian Department of
Civil Protection (Dipartimento della Protezione Civile [DPC]), and the field investigation
carried out with the patronage of the EU COST Action C26 and the cooperation of the
PLINIVS Centre of Naples in three areas of the old city of L’Aquila. The main charac-
teristics of URM buildings, the building behavior and damage are described and reviewed
with due respect to the characteristics of the earthquake, as well as with reference to
the structural and non-structural characteristics of buildings, using the Italian MEDEA
procedure.
KEY WORDS: earthquake engineering, unreinforced masonry (URM) structures, earthquake

damage mechanisms, L’Aquila earthquake, damage assessment in the historic centers
Received October 26, 2011; accepted December 16, 2011.

Address correspondence to Maurizio Indirli, Italian National Agency for New Technologies, Energy and
Sustainable Economic Development, Technical Unit of Seismic Engineering, via Martiri di Monte Sole 4, 40129
Bologna, Italy. E-mail: maurizio.indirli@enea.it
536
SEISMIC DAMAGE ASSESSMENT 537
1. INTRODUCTION
In the early morning (3:32:12 GMT time) on April 6, 2009, a magnitude Mw = 6.3
(Ms = 6.3, ML = 6.2, according to the Italian Institute of Geophysics and Volcanology
[INGV]; see also Çelebi et al. 2010; Decanini et al. 2009) normal-faulting earthquake struck
the Abruzzo Region located in the central part of Italy, with an epicenter of shallow focal
depth (9.5 km, coordinates 42.348 N, 13.380 E) very close to L’Aquila (approximately
7 km SW), a city of about 73,000 inhabitants.
This main event was the strongest of a sequence that had started a few months earlier,
releasing 23 earthquakes of Mw >4 between March 30, 2009 and April 23, including major
aftershocks (Mw 5.6 on April 7 and Mw 5.4 on April 9, according to the INGV data for the
epicenter and aftershocks (Indirli 2010; Pondrielli et al. 2010).
The earthquake struck during the night, when most people were sleeping. The death
toll was dreadfully high, with 305 people killed, another 1500 approximately injured,
and many people homeless (more than 24,000, but with the temporary evacuation of
70,000–80,000 residents in the first months after the disaster). A wide area, including the
historic centre of L’Aquila, the suburbs, and some villages around, was affected by the
seismic event. This resulted in vast damage and collapse of several buildings (Figure 1),
affecting not only old unreinforced masonry (URM) constructions, but surprisingly also
some multi-storey reinforced concrete (RC) structures (Decanini et al. 2010), such as the
hospital of L’Aquila (completed in 2000) and the university’s dormitory (built in the late
(a) (b)
(c)
Figure 1. Photographs of damage/collapse in L’Aquila area; (a) destruction in Onna and (b) Paganica localities in
L’Aquila Municipality surroundings; (c) civil and heritage buildings heavily damaged in L’Aquila historic centre
(color figure available online).
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ARCHITECTURAL HERITAGE 7(5): 536–578

538 M. INDIRLI ET AL.
Figure 2. Photographs of building damage in Castelvecchio Subequo (color figure available online).
1970s). Furthermore, neighboring historic towns and villages far enough from the epicen-
ter, as Castelvecchio Subequo, experienced heavy damage in masonry walls, floors and
roofs (Figure 2).
The earthquake caused extensive losses and approximately 18,000 unusable buildings
were recorded in the epicentral area. A total of 90 municipalities were affected by the
earthquake with a Mercalli-Cancani-Sieberg (MCS) damage intensity higher than V–VI
up to a maximum X level (according to the INGV for Macroseismic Intensities [Indirli
2010]), comparable with values shown by foreign seismic events of stronger magnitude
(Indirli et al. 2010a). Many of the regional cultural sites were badly damaged or destroyed,
including Romanesque churches, historic buildings, and other monuments dating from the
Middle Ages to Renaissance and Baroque.
In addition to an overall review of the 2009 earthquake, the authors completed an
extensive damage survey during the post-earthquake emergency activity (supporting the
Italian Department of Civil Protection, Dipartimento della Protezione Civile [DPC]) in
L’Aquila and the village of Castelvecchio Subequo, and a detailed field investigation
which was carried out in three areas of the old city of L’Aquila, with the patronage of
the European COoperation in the field of Scientific and Technical research, Transport and
Urban Development (European COST-TUD) COST Action C26 (Mazzolani 2010a; 2010b)
and the cooperation of the PLINIVS Centre of Naples.
The 2006 results (which is the official datasheet to assess post-earthquake damage
in Italy) and the Manuale di Esercitazioni sul Danno ed Agibilità [MEDEA] methodol-
ogy (Papa and Zuccaro 2004; MEDEA 2005 Agibilitàe Danno nell’Emergenza Sismica
(AeDES 2010); Zuccaro and Leone 2010), both developed in the framework of the Italian
Civil Protection activities, were adopted during the work. This article aims at illustrating

the performance of URM buildings in the areas investigated and the most common damage
or collapse mechanisms.
2. GENERAL INFORMATION ON THE EARTHQUAKE

2.1. Seismotectonics and Geology of the Region
The city of L’Aquila, surrounded by high Apennine mountain peaks, is situated in the
valley of the Aterno-Pescara, at an altitude of 721 m (above sea level, [asl]). The region’s
morphology and land fertility were the main reasons for the prosperity of the city, first
established in 1245 AD. Castelvecchio Subequo is a small town, 490 m asl, located at
approximately 60 km to the southeast of L’Aquila, at the feet of Mount Sirente. The cen-
tral part of the Apennine chain is characterized by a thrust-belt, representing a margin of
a plate deformed during the continental collision between the African plate (to which it
belongs) and the Eurasian plate. The phenomenon took place in the Cenozoic 65 million
years ago (Cavinato and De Celles 1999; Devoti et al. 2008). The Apennines belong to
a geodynamic system that migrates from the Tyrrhenian to the Adriatic area (from west
to east), in response to the flexural retreat and subsequent sinking of the Apulia platform.
This unit is being subducted westward beneath the Apennines (Doglioni et al. 1990; 1991).
L’Aquila lies on a tectonic basin bounded by predominantly northwest/southeast-striking
and southwest-dipping active normal faults (Bagnaia et al. 1992; Blumetti 1995).
Downtown L’Aquila is set on a fluvial terrace forming the left bank of the Aterno
River (De Luca et al. 2005). The elevation of the terrace reaches 900 m asl in the northeast-
ern part of the city, and slopes down to 675 m asl in the southwest direction. The terrace
ends at the Aterno River, which flows 50 m below. The alluvial deposits constituting the
terrace are lower Quaternary in age, composed of breccias with limestone boulders and
clasts in a marly matrix. Clast dimensions can range from centimeters to meters. This
kind of deposit is common in the Abruzzo region and may be related to catastrophic
alluvial events associated with landslides (Blumetti 1995). The deposits were studied by
Demangeot (1965), who named them megabrecce. They represent a well defined geolog-
ical unit with flat top and bottom surfaces, and a thickness of some tens of meters, lying
on lacustrine sediments composed mainly of silty and sandy layers and minor gravel beds.
The lacustrine sediments reach their maximum thickness (around 250 m) in the centre
of L’Aquila. In contrast, in the Aterno River valley North of L’Aquila, the thickness of
the sediments is never greater than 100 m (EERI Newsletter 2009; Energia, Ambiente e
Innovazione [Energy, Environment, and Innovation] EAI Report 2009).
2.2. Seismic History

Evidences of significant seismic activity in the Abruzzo region (according to the
Parametric Catalogue of Italian Earthquakes [Stucchi et al. 2007]), with particular ref-
erence to the city of L’Aquila, have been reported since the 2nd century AD (Ceccaroni
et al. 2009). Since 1300 AD, L’Aquila and the village of Castelvecchio Subequo were
struck by strong seismic events at least five times (Boschi 2000). In particular, in 1315
(Mw 6.7), 1349 (Mw 6.5), 1461 (Mw 6.5), 1703 (Mw 6.7), and 1915 (Mw
7.0), high-level earthquakes occurred and resulted in vast damage and deaths (Galadini
and Galli 2000; Rovida et al. 2009; Stucchi et al. 2007). Among these earthquakes, the
1703 earthquake, when more than 3,000 people died and most of the buildings collapsed,

was probably the most catastrophic event, since L’Aquila was abandoned and later repop-
ulated by decision of Pope Clement XI. Later, the 1915 earthquake occurred beneath the
Fucino Basin, causing extensive damage in L’Aquila, approximately 35 km from the epi-
center near Avezzano (Amoruso et al. 1998; Valensise 2009; Ward and Valensise 1989).
The recent 2009 Abruzzo earthquake is the third most severe event ever recorded in Italy
after Friuli 1976 (Mw 6.4) and Irpinia 1980 (Mw 6.9); it is also the second event involving
a medium size city after the 1908 Reggio Calabria-Messina earthquake and tsunami (Mw
7.2). Therefore, the 2009 Abruzzo earthquake can be considered exceptional with regards
both MCS intensity and importance of the vertical component.
2.3. Fault’s Characteristics

The 2009 earthquake was a usual Apennine event: its magnitude, depth, and focal
mechanism correspond to the seismotectonic features of past earthquakes, such as the

long-lasting sequence of preshocks and aftershocks (Akinci et al. 2009). Geological and
geotechnical investigation indicated the existence of a series of normal faults in the area,
inclining northwest–southeast (Galadini and Galli 2000). Thus, a strong directivity effect
oriented northwest–southeast is noticed (Akinci et al. 2010). Many of these faults should be
characterized as geologically active, but none of them showed visible signs of reactivation
during the seismic activity of April 2009, such as surface ruptures or cracks.
The focal mechanism produced by active faults normal movements is extensional,
with fault planes oriented along the northwest–southeast direction and the northeast–
southwest one (anti-Apennine). The main shock fault segment extends from 2 to 10 km
in depth and from 15 to 18 km in length. The main shock epicenter was very close to
L’Aquila, producing near-field effects such as strong vertical components (displacement,
velocity and acceleration, Table 1). The aftershocks epicenters are along the Paganica nor-
mal fault, which is not well known and considered responsible for the fault ground shaking
(Chiarabba et al. 2009).
2.4. Strong Ground Motion Characteristics

Of the approximately 300 digital strong-motion stations, operated by the Italian
Strong Motion Network (RAN) managed by DPC, 56 recorded the main shock, in addi-
tion to other 42 broadband stations. In the Abruzzo region are located 14 stations, while
the remaining ones are scattered in the Apennines, mostly along the direction northwest
and southeast towards L’Aquila. This distribution makes the 2009 Abruzzo event one of
the best-recorded earthquakes.
The recordings obtained for the main shock, from the most important four stations
(AQG, AQA, AQV, and AQK), all located on the hanging wall of the rupture, are shown in
Figure 3 and Table 1 (data from the INGV, and reported in a large number of references;
among them, Çelebi et al. 2010; EAI Report 2009; Iervolino et al. 2010; Indirli 2010;
Masi and Chiauzzi 2009; Rupakhety et al. 2010). Elastic response spectra (5% damping)
are presented in Figure 4, while the accelerograms are shown, among other references, in
Indirli (2010).
Three characteristics of motion generally influence the damage potential of the earth-
quake: amplitude, frequency content, and duration. The characterization of the ground
motion can be made in terms of peak ground acceleration (PGA), peak ground velocity

Table 1. Peak ground acceleration (PGA) for each station (AQG, AQA, AQV, AQK) and for horizontal (X, Y) and vertical (Z) components (fraction of g)
PGA (g) (cm/s2 ) PGV (cm/s) PGD (cm)

Station Epicentral
Station L’Aquila Code distance (km) Latitude Longitude EC8 soil type X direction Y direction Z direction
V. Aterno AQA 5.8 42 376 13 339 B 0.39 386.8 0.45 442.0 0.38 373.2
F. Aterno 30.54 24.50 9.45
6.35 3.87 1.94
V. Aterno AQG 4.3 42 373 13 337 B 0.42 408.2 0.43 426.1 0.22 211.4
Colle Grilli 33.59 35.91 9.08
541
7.83 3.80 1.91
V. Aterno AQV 4.8 42 377 13 344 B 0.63 613.8 0.60 586.2 0.42 411.7
Centro Valle 36.68 40.48 13.39
8.43 4.08 2.52
L’Aquila AQK 5.6 42 345 13 401 C 0.34 335.5 0.34 333.6 0.35 343.8
Parking 30.20 38.50 14.98
7.84 11.87 4.91
Source: Italian Institute of Geophysics and Vulcanology [INGV]).

Figure 3. Map of the recording stations AQG, AQA, AQV and AQK, and the main shock epicentre (source:
Italian Institute of Geophysics and Volcanology [INGV]) (color figure available online).
Figure 4. Graph of the elastic response spectra of the AQG, AQA, AQV and AQK stations accelerograms for
5.0% damping (source: Italian Institute of Geophysics and Volcanology [INGV]) (color figure available online).
(PGV), peak ground displacement (PGD), and duration of oscillation above some threshold
amplitude. From recorded data (see Table 1) it is possible to underline that:
1) the maximum PGA value has been detected for the X horizontal direction (0.63g) at the
AQV station, where the vertical component also recorded the highest value (0.42g);
2) lower but significant horizontal PGA values have been recorded in the other stations
(from 0.34g to 0.60g);

3) the smallest value has been recorded at AQK, where a higher value of the vertical
component (0.35g) has been found with respect to the horizontal one (0.34g);
4) high values of PGA in the vertical direction have been observed in all the stations
(from 0.22g to 0.42g), responsible of the decrease of the shear capacity of the walls,
particularly in the upper storeys;
5) permanent displacements of more than 12 cm have been detected;
6) the duration of substantial shaking has been equal to 15s approximately;
7) the predominant period, according to the elastic response spectra of the shaking, is
between 0.20 and 0.40s; therefore, the earthquake severely affected two to four storey
buildings; and
8) a widespread amplification of the seismic waves during the earthquake has been noticed,
aggravating the seismic effects on the buildings; in fact, considering that the L’Aquila
city centre is set on a fluvial terrace of the Aterno River, local soil amplification effects
can be attributed to the morphology of the valley; a similar consideration can be made
for Castelvecchio Subequo (data sources directly from the DPC; see also Bindi et al.
2009; De Luca et al. 2005; EAI Report 2009; Monaco et al. 2009).
2.5. The Italian Seismic Zonation and Code

The Italian seismic zonation and code were updated immediately after the
2002 Molise-Puglia earthquake (OPCM 3274 2003, OPCM 3316 2003, OPCM 3431 2005,
further revised in NTC 2008 and NTC 2009): the images of the primary school collapse
at San Giuliano di Puglia, where 27 children and one teacher died, went around the world
(Cami et al. 2007; Indirli et al. 2004a, 2004b, 2006, 2007).
The Abruzzo seismic classification after 2002 is reported in Figure 5. Figure 6 and
Figure 7 give the 5%-damped spectra of the pseudo-acceleration (horizontal and ver-
tical components), in comparison with the NTC 2008 current Italian Code (Masi and
Chiauzzi 2009), while Figure 8 shows the evolution of the design spectra from 1975 to
2008 (EAI Report 2009). When the return period Tr = 475 years is considered, the NTC
2008 generally underestimates the spectral values of the recorded signals. In contrast, for
Tr = 2475 years, the pseudo-acceleration response spectra provided by NTC 2008 are com-
parable with the recorded time-histories, showing higher values at the stations AQA and
AQV. In addition, in the vertical direction, the NTC 2008 generally underestimates the
spectral values of the recorded signals for Tr = 475 years (EAI Report 2009; Iervolino
et al. 2010; Masi & Chiauzzi 2009).
It is worth noticing that the under-estimation of the earthquake actions is intrinsic in
the probabilistic seismic hazard assessment (PSHA) method (which the post-2002 Italian
seismic zonation and updated code is based on). This method describes hazard in terms of a
single parameter, the peak ground acceleration PGA (see Bommer and Abrahamson, 2006,
and references therein).
2.6. The Neo-Deterministic Seismic Hazard Assessment (NDSHA)

Methodology in Comparison With Probabilistic Seismic Hazard
Assessment (PSHA)
A more accurate methodology is given by the neo-deterministic seismic hazard
assessment (NDSHA [Panza et al. 2001]; a complete description of the methodology is

Figure 5. Map of the seismic classification of Abruzzo at the time of the 2009 earthquake (source: Italian
Department of Civil Protection [DPC]) (color figure available online).
given in Zuccolo et al. 2008). In fact, case studies indicate the limits of the PSHA method-
ologies currently used, deeply rooted in engineering practice, providing indications that
can be useful but not sufficiently reliable (Decanini et al. 2001; Klügel et al. 2006; Klügel
2007). Lessons were learnt from the largest earthquakes that occurred in different parts of
the world during the past decade, indicating that the standard PSHA has a very unsatis-
factory performance. Kossobokov and Nekrasova (2010) showed that the maps resulting
from the Global Seismic Hazard Assessment Program, GSHAP (e.g., Giardini et al. 1999),
are grossly misleading and fail both in describing past seismicity, as well as in predict-
ing expected ground shaking. Moreover, it is nowadays recognized by the engineering
community that peak ground acceleration (PGA) estimates alone are not sufficient for the
adequate design of special buildings and infrastructures, since displacements may play a
critical role and the dynamic analysis of the structural response requires a complete time
series of ground motion. Therefore, the need for an appropriate estimate of the seismic
hazard, is a pressing concern for seismic engineers. Such an estimate of seismic hazard
must be aimed not only at the seismic classification of the national territory, but shall also
be capable of properly accounting for the local amplifications of ground shaking (with
respect to bedrock), as well as for the fault properties (e.g., directivity) and the near-fault
effects.

Figure 6. Graphs about the comparison of the pseudo-acceleration spectra of the L’Aquila seismic event main-
shock with the NTC08 Italian Code; horizontal components (source: Masi and Chiauzzi 2009) (color figure
available online).
Figure 7. Graphs about the comparison of the pseudo-acceleration spectra of the L’Aquila seismic event main-
shock with the NTC08 Italian Code; vertical components (source: Masi and Chiauzzi 2009) (color figure available
online).

Figure 8. Graph about the evolution of the design spectra for Abruzzo from 1975 to 2008 (source: ENEA Report
2009) (color figure available online).
The practical limits to the use of PSHA for adequate structural design and, in general,
for seismic risk mitigation, are clearly outlined by a comparative analysis between PSHA
and NDSHA estimates, performed for the Italian territory (Zuccolo et al., 2008). NDSHA
provides values larger than those given by PSHA in high-seismicity areas and in areas
identified as prone to large earthquakes, while lower values are provided in low-seismicity
areas. The evidenced tendency of PSHA to overestimate hazard in low seismicity areas
seems supported by the results from recent studies on precarious unbalanced rocks (Stirling
and Petersen 2006; Anderson et al. 2010). In addition, the PSHA expected ground shaking,
estimated with 10% probability of being exceeded in 50 years (associated with a return
period of 475 years), appears severely underestimated (by approximately a factor 2) with
respect to NDSHA estimates, particularly for the largest values of PGA. When a 2% prob-
ability of being exceeded in 50 years is considered (i.e., return period of 2475 years) PSHA
estimates in high-seismicity areas become comparable with NDSHA; in this case however,
the overall increase related with probabilistic estimates leads to significant overestimation
of the hazard in low-seismicity areas. These observations point out one of the basic limits
of PSHA estimates, particularly severe as far as building codes are concerned; that is the
overly dependency of ground shaking on earthquakes recurrence (i.e., on the probability
threshold selected for the maps). In view of the mentioned PSHA limits, NDSHA rep-
resents an innovative, but already well consolidated, scenario-based approach to seismic
hazard assessment, providing realistic time histories from which it is possible to retrieve
peak values for ground displacement, velocity and design acceleration in correspondence
to earthquake scenarios (e.g., Parvez et al., 2010; Paskaleva et al. 2010). NDSHA permits
the integration of the available information provided by the most updated seismological,
geological, geophysical and geotechnical databases for the site of interest. It also permits
advanced physical modeling techniques and provides strong ground motion parameters
based on the seismic waves propagation modeling at different scales - regional, national
and metropolitan (Peresan et al. 2010 and references therein). An example of the NDSHA
approach at a local scale for the City of Valparaiso is given in the framework of the “MAR
VASTO” Project (Indirli et al., 2010b).
Thanks to the information obtained directly by Panza (2009), the NDSHA scenar-
ios for the Abruzzo Region foresaw maximum displacement and acceleration values of
approximately 12 cm and 0.6g respectively (Figure 9), in agreement with the recorded data

Ground Horizontal Displacement Ground Horizontal Velocity

Ground Horizontal Acceleration Maximum Intensities (MCS VII)
Figure 9. Maps of NDSHA scenarios for North-East and Central Italy (source: Panza 2009) (color figure available
online).
for the 2009 seismic event. A detailed discussion on this topic can be also find in Panza
et al. (2011).
3. THE EXTENT OF THE DAMAGE

3.1. General Considerations on Structural Damage Assessment
Immediately after an earthquake, structural damage assessment is an essential part of
the recovery process, and the engineers must examine all buildings within the affected area
to assess damage, safety, and usability, to identify buildings requiring emergency strength-
ening (e.g., to avoid collapse during aftershocks), to provide reliable data to the authorities,
and to plan further relief and rehabilitation measures. The first stage is often carried out
through rapid screening. In addition, structural damage assessments often provide data for

future research studies on the revision of existing urban plans by mapping the spatial dis-
tribution of earthquake effects, the re-evaluation of existing codes and practices, and the
development of vulnerability models for pre-earthquake assessments. The methodology to
be adopted for the structural assessment must therefore strike a balance between the need
for a rapid and efficient procedure and the need for detailed data collection for future stud-
ies. Several methods for post-earthquake inspection and assessment of ordinary buildings
have been developed (Rossetto et al. 2010), also with reference to the cultural heritage
(Modena et al. 2010). Among these, in Italy the rapid evaluation of earthquake damage
in ordinary buildings is carried out by public officers with a specific investigation form
(Agibilità e Danno nell’Emergenza Sismica [AeDES] 2010). The evaluation is carried out
using a matrix which assigns a level of risk (from high risk to low risk) according to damage
observed in structural elements, non-structural elements and foundations and to the danger
posed by neighboring structures. The outcome is expressed on a scale from A to F, where:
A means fit for use (i.e. green tagged, safe for occupancy), B fit for use after prompt inter-
ventions (i.e. yellow tagged), C partially fit for use (i.e. orange tagged), D not fit for use,
necessity of a deeper analysis (i.e. light red tagged), E not fit for use (i.e. red tagged) and
F not fit for use, due to risk from neighboring structures (i.e. blue tagged). Both E and F
should be considered unsafe and subjected to mandatory evacuation.
3.2. Building Inspections in L’Aquila and Castelvecchio Subequo

The systematic inspections (more than 80,000) of all the residential buildings started
two days after the earthquake on April 8, in all the municipalities hit by the seismic event.
With regard to L’Aquila, the surveys started from the less damaged neighborhoods, then
moving gradually to the “red zone” (this remained almost off limits for a long period
of time), located in the historic centre. The data of the DPC indicates that more than
70,000 buildings were inspected. The final classification is given in Figure 10 and Table 2.
In Castelvecchio Subequo, the damage outcome provided by the survey teams
(Figure 11) reveals that the amount of E-buildings in the historic centre, consisting almost
completely of URM constructions, is 43% (Table 3).
3.3. General View on the URM Seismic Damage

In the Abruzzo region, as in most of Italy, the historic city centers are the core of the
built environment, consisting mostly of URM (20% of larger cities like L’Aquila and 50%
of smaller towns). In general, URM buildings suffered a lot of damage. While L’Aquila
experienced dramatic damage in the late medieval, Romanesque, Renaissance and Baroque
heritage (although complete collapses of masonry structures in the historic centre were rel-
atively rare), more widespread extensive damage was recorded in smaller localities such as
Onna and Paganica (within the L’Aquila Municipality), where more than 50% of the old
urban cores were damaged (Figure 1). In other towns, such as Barisciano and Castelvecchio
Subequo, approximately 20%–25% of the buildings in the centre suffered extensive dam-
age. In general, the bad performance of URM buildings can be attributed to the combination
of different causes (among the extensive literature, see Çelebi et al. 2010; EERI Newsletter
2009; EAI Report 2009; Formisano et al. 2010; Indirli 2010):
1) free-field effects, due to the vicinity of the rupture fault, with the presence of high
vertical PGAs, which result in a reduction in the shear capacity of the vertical walls,
particularly in the upper storeys;

Figure 10. Graphs of the final classification of the inspected public/private buildings (50,000) (source: Italian
Department of Civil Protection [DPC]) (color figure available online).
Table 2. Final classification of the inspected buildings in L’Aquila (April 2010)
Type Private buildings Public buildings Cultural heritage
Type A 52.0% 53.6% 24.1%

Type B and C 15.9% 25.2% 22.2%
Type E and F 32.1% 21.2% 53.7%
Total 71,302 2,219 1,800
100% 100% 100%
Source: Italian Department of Civil Protection [DPC].
2) site amplification effects due to soil characteristics, justifying the difference between the
damage levels observed at locations very close to one another and with URM buildings
of the same quality and characteristics;
3) the low quality and solidity of the masonry itself, that disaggregated under the seismic
actions;
4) in the presence of masonry of good enough quality (i.e. monolithic panels), the activa-
tion of typical out-of-plane collapse mechanisms (overturning of vertical walls) at the
beginning of the earthquake, due to the lack of connections;

Figure 11. Map of the classification of the inspected buildings in Castelvecchio Subequo (AQ) (source: Italian
Department of Civil Protection [DPC], and Local Municipality) (color figure available online).
Table 3. Classification of the inspected buildings in the historic centre

of Castelvecchio Subequo (AQ), almost completely in URM masonry
Type A 82 35%
Type B 18 8%
Type C 3 1%
Type D — —
Type E 100 43%
Type F 30 13%
Total 233 100%
Source: Italian Department of Civil Protection [DPC] and Local

Municipality.
5) the activation of in-plane damage mechanisms (with the typical cross cracks), in the
case of effective connections (masonry texture, presence of steel ties, etc.) to avoid
overturning;
6) the inadequacy of the old seismic classification and code, but also some drawbacks of
the updated ones, leading to the under-estimation of the earthquake actions;
7) the inefficient application of anti-seismic criteria, with errors in design and construction
details;
8) bad maintenance and counter-productive past interventions and alterations.
4. C26 TEAM SURVEY IN L’AQUILA AND CASTELVECCHIO SUBEQUO

4.1. Structural Characteristics of URM Buildings
The predominant structural system of the buildings located in the historic centre of
L’Aquila (but also in the villages in the vicinity) consists of URM, with old constructions

Figure 12. Photographs of some of the examined buildings show decorative marble posts, sills, lintels, balconies
and architraves, but bonded inadequately with subsequent collapse (color figure available online).
dating back to 14th century (Indirli 2010; Kouris et al. 2010). The buildings are usually one
to three storey structures (rarely more) and are characterized by the relatively smaller height
of the upper levels, often adorned by fine-crafted decorative marble posts, sills, lintels,
balconies, and architraves; these non structural elements, when inadequately bonded, were
subjected to detachment and subsequent collapse (Figure 12), such as the fall of chimneys
and roofing clay tiles.
The urban fabric includes noble palaces, luxurious dwellings, and lower income peo-
ple’s houses. Several buildings are made of good texture masonry, at least from an exterior
view (Figure 13); but, in a consistent number of cases, the walls are formed by two exter-
nal leafs of scarce quality masonry (i.e. pebbles from river banks and poor mortar, often
lime), containing an inner core filled with inhomogeneous and disaggregated materials
(Figure 14).

Figure 13. Photograph about the example of a good masonry texture, at least from the exterior (color figure
available online).
Figure 14. Photographs of some examples of poor URM materials in L’Aquila and surroundings (color figure
available online).
Older structures typically have thick walls (1 m approximately) and small openings,
while noble palaces (or more recent constructions) have wider openings, sometimes in the
proximity of the roof, and thinner walls (0.60 to 1.0 m). Medieval buildings are character-
ized by thick vertical piers with respect to horizontal belts. On the contrary, in more recent

a) horizontal belts b) vertical piers
Figure 15. Photographs of some examples of different dimensions of masonry belts and piers in L’Aquila
buildings with consequent damage (color figure available online).
URM structures, due to the presence of larger openings, piers are more vulnerable than
belts. Thus, this different structural configuration led to a different damage (Figure 15).
Generally, intersections and crossing walls are not adequately connected to the exter-
nal walls, due to the lack of bond stones. Furthermore, horizontal steel ties are present only
in approximately 50% of the constructions, as a result of the periodical improvement after
past strong earthquakes in the region, as demonstrated by the different types of devices
found. Unfortunately, the ties are not inserted at each floor and in both the transverse
Figure 16. Photographs of different types of steel tie edges, found in L’Aquila URM buildings: performing well,
partially working or ineffective (color figure available online).

(a) (b)
(c) (d)
Figure 17. Photographs of the presence of steel ties between orthogonal walls (a–c) that lead to a reduction of
damage, i.e. avoiding wall overturning (d) (color figure available online).
Figure 18. Photograph regarding a steel tie passing through the interior of a house (color figure available online).
directions, except for a few cases. At times the steel ties worked only partially due to the
insufficient strength of the masonry, or did not perform at all as a result of failure or removal
(Figures 16–18). In fact, medium-long periods between seismic events, reduce people’s
awareness and consciousness of the earthquake’s danger. This results in bad practice and

(a) (b)
Figure 19. Photographs regarding the presence of timber elements improves the performance of the structures
both (a) in-plane and (b) out-of-plane (color figure available online).
lack of proper strengthening. When effective, the insertion of steel ties certainly improved
the overall structural behavior, preventing the separation of crossing walls and the subse-
quent activation of overturning mechanisms. Another older anti-seismic precaution is the
insertion of timber beams in the body of masonry, to prevent separation of intersected walls,
join horizontal timber floors with the walls, and add ductility in the structural system. These
elements, normally invisible, have been noticed in some buildings in L’Aquila (Figure 19).
Although these elements are vulnerable to decay, in the L’Aquila event and other recent
earthquakes these have been proven to be very important elements (see also Kouris et al.
2012).
The horizontal structural systems can be classified into the following different
typologies (Figure 20):
1. wooden floors, usually poorly connected to exterior and interior walls, providing no
in-plane diaphragm;
2. masonry floors consisting of masonry vaults in two orthogonal directions (acutely
pointed arches), providing strong in-plane diaphragm but having heavy mass;
3. masonry floors consisting of masonry vaults in one direction (barrel vaults), providing
in-plane diaphragm perpendicularly to the direction of the vault;
4. masonry floors consisting of very weak “in folio” vaults, typical of Baroque architecture
(Figure 21);
5. mixed cast iron I beams—hollow tiles floors, providing light diaphragm action which
depends on the connection to the walls;
6. reinforced concrete floors, providing strong in-plane diaphragm in both orthogonal
directions, but having heavy mass.
The type 1) is quite uncommon in L’Aquila, but more present in the villages of the sur-
roundings, often in the upper floors of old buildings; the types 2) and 3) have been found
with a certain regularity in the lower level of historic noble palace constructions, together
with the type 4) in the last floor under the roof; the type 5) is usual in relatively recent
constructions of the late 18th or early 19th centuries; and the type 6) is found in construc-
tions which have been recently restored, sometimes together with RC ring beams placed at
the roof level.

1) wooden floors 2) masonry vaults in two orthogonal directions
3) masonry vaults in one direction 4) very weak “infolio” vaults

5) iron I beams with clay tile vaults 6) reinforced concrete floors
Figure 20. Photographs regarding typologies of floor systems present in L’Aquila and vicinity (color figure
available online).
The roof systems can be classified mainly into wooden (Figure 22) and
RC (Figure 23) elements. In both cases, important damage mechanisms have been
observed. The portals of noble palaces in L’Aquila (Figure 24) indicate the classic damage
mechanisms such as arch and key stone failure, for example; in addition, the arcades present
in the internal court yards were usually heavily damaged, except when the generalized
insertion of steel ties was foreseen (Figure 25).
The buildings located in Castelvecchio Subequo, from residential houses to monu-
mental palaces, usually consist of 2 to 4 storey buildings (Formisano et al. 2010); they are

Figure 21. Photograph of the collapsed “in folio” vault in L’Aquila (color figure available online).
wooden roofs
pushing effects of wooden roofs non well connected to vertical masonry walls
Figure 22. Photographs of wooden roofs and observed damage mechanisms (color figure available online).
included into either building aggregates or urban blocks, which are often situated on rocky
outcrops. The predominant structural systems used for buildings in Castelvecchio Subequo
are similar to those in L’Aquila. Most of the single layer walls were erected with stones
placed in a random manner with the interposition of horizontal brick layers for the rein-
forcement of the masonry matrix (Figure 26). This structural typology is used for lower
building heights and buildings with low occupancy.

Figure 23. Photographs regarding r.c. roofs and observed damage mechanisms (color figure available online).
Figure 24. Photographs of portals and observed damage mechanisms (color figure available online).
4.2. The MEDEA Tool

The MEDEA tool (Papa and Zuccaro 2004; MEDEA 2005; Zuccaro and Leone 2010)
is designed to support earthquake structural damage evaluation in Italy (with respect to
masonry and RC structures), and it can also be used effectively for pre-earthquake assess-
ment. The MEDEA form for URM structures leads to the definition and classification
of 23 damage types [V] for vertical structural elements (walls, piers, spandrels) and 13
damage types [H] for horizontal structural elements (vaults, floors, stairs), as shown in
Figure 34. The analysis permits the identification of 16 simplified collapse mechanisms Mi

Figure 25. Photographs of arcades and observed damage mechanisms (color figure available online).
(Figures 28–33) associated to a seismic event: 10 are called global mechanisms, because
these involve the whole construction, and many structural elements are damaged, yield-
ing to the static and dynamic disequilibrium of the structural system; the remaining 6 are
called local mechanisms, because these involve secondary parts of the building, and the
failure occurs in single elements, but the whole equilibrium is not affected. However, all
the mechanisms can cause fatal accidents, as is extensively described in that following text.
MEDEA has been adopted during the field investigation in L’Aquila and
Castelvecchio Subequo (Borg et al. 2010; Formisano et al. 2010; Kouris et al. 2010; Indirli
2010), in order to carry out an objective evaluation (as much as possible) of various col-
lapse mechanisms. The survey for masonry structures, based on the MEDEA methodology,
consists of the following three steps:
1. the adjacent but separate buildings (i.e., independent structural systems) of the exam-
ined blocks are identified and numbered; this step is not simple and rather controversial;
in fact, walls sometimes are shared by two adjacent constructions, leading to compli-
cations and important decision about the univocal identification of the structural unit;
even if direct observation can often help (e.g., age, architecture details, distribution of

Figure 26. Photograph taken at Castelvecchio Subequo; one thick layer of rubble masonry wall susceptible to
disaggregation (color figure available online).
Figure 27. Photographs about the collapse due to poor and disaggregated masonry (“zero” mechanism) due to
the 2009 Abruzzo earthquake (color figure available online).
openings, different height of floor levels and storeys number), an internal investigation
is necessary, and recommended when possible;
2. the presence or absence of elements that can affect the vulnerability of the structure are
evaluated in a qualitative way in the first section of the MEDEA form, distinguishing
19 cases (Table 4, Papa and Zuccaro 2004; MEDEA 2005; Zuccaro and Leone 2010);
usually this step necessitates both an external and internal (if not too risky) investigation;
3. the damage pattern of the vertical V and horizontal H elements (Figure 34) is identified
and classified with a graduating scale from 1 to 3, depending on the observed intensity
(see the detailed description in Papa and Zuccaro 2004; MEDEA 2005; Zuccaro and
Leone 2010); this stage of work should need a careful selection of the most evident
collapse mechanisms (among all those potentially linked to the damage pattern), in order
to complete an accurate investigation in the best way possible;
GLOBAL MECHANISMS
M1: first level storey shear mechanism M2: upper levels storey shear mechanism
M3: whole wall overturning M4: partial wall overturning
Figure 28. Sketches and photographs regarding global in-plane collapse mechanisms M1 and M2 and global
out-of-plane collapse mechanisms M3 and M4 classified according to MEDEA (color figure available online).
4. then, the damage types of the structural elements are critically linked to the collapse
mechanisms Mi (selecting the most evident ones among those listed in Figure 34),
obtaining a compatibility matrix (see the detailed description in Papa and Zuccaro 2004;
MEDEA 2005; Zuccaro and Leone 2010);
5. finally, according to the damage scale for masonry structure EMS98 (Grünthal 1998),
the damage levels can be classified in the following way: d1 ) weak; d2 ) medium-weak;
d3 ) medium; d4 ) severe; d5 ) very heavy.

GLOBAL MECHANISMS
M5 :wall vertical instability M6: wall bending rupture
Figure 29. Sketches and photographs regarding global mechanisms M5 and M6 classified according to MEDEA
GLOBAL MECHANISMS
M7: horizontal sliding failure M9: irregularity between adjacent structures M10: floor and roof beam unthreading
Figure 30. Sketches and photographs regarding global mechanisms M7, M9 and M10 classified according to
MEDEA (color figure available online).
4.2.1. Global mechanisms The first cause of widespread overall disruption and
destruction (a paradigmatic example is the village of Onna in the municipality of L’Aquila)
is the very poor quality of the disaggregated masonry, constituted of arbitrary materials,
unable to resist horizontal forces (Figure 27). Of course, it can be considered as the “zero”
mechanism (Tralli 2009). Stiff and heavy RC gable roofs (especially when the truss con-
sists of a large ridge beam scarcely connected to walls made out of poor material) can slide
and collapse in the interior of the building.

LOCAL MECHANISMS
M11: lintel or masonry arch failure M12: material irregularity, local weakness
Figure 31. Sketches and photographs regarding local mechanisms M11 and M12 classified according to MEDEA
LOCAL MECHANISMS
M13: roof gable wall overturning M14: corner overturning in the upper part

LOCAL MECHANISMS
M15: overturning of the wall supporting the roof M16: vault and arch overturning
The second cause of damage/collapse is due to global out-of-plane mechanisms

(M3 and M4), when horizontal connections between orthogonal vertical walls are scarce
(lack of anchors and bonded stones) or steel ties absent (Figure 28). In addition, the perfor-
mance is worsened by the presence of large openings in the proximity of the extremity of
walls, irregularities, etc. The out-of-plane mechanisms, related with vertical flexural cracks
and usually accompanied with wall decomposition and overturning, often result in col-
lapse. Although RC and vaulted floors can provide a stiff in-plane diaphragm (due to the
large mass), they may contribute to increase inertial forces and drive to detachment, espe-
cially when no care has been taken in adequate connections. A very dangerous failure is
the overturning of higher spandrels near to the roof, in the presence of window/opening
lines. This failure occurred in several surveyed buildings in L’Aquila and Castelvecchio
Subequo, since the relevant vertical component of the earthquake developed high prin-
cipal tensile stresses in the upper floors, reducing even more their effective capacity.
In several instances fundamental elements, such as steel or timber ties or metal joints,
had been removed or spoiled intentionally during counterproductive interventions.
Global shear mechanisms (M1 and M2) have been recorded in constructions with
a better “box behavior” (Figure 28), that in general suffered less or scarce damage, i.e.
provided by good connections between vertical walls and horizontal floors, often with
the help of transversal steel ties (Figures 16–18). In particular, Figure 16 shows various
types of steel tie anchors, recorded during the investigation and placed at different times,
starting from the end of the 19th century until recently, as a demonstration of the effec-
tiveness of this traditional antiseismic technique. This technique limited the percentage of
out-of-plane mechanisms in comparison with in-plane ones. In fact, the “box behavior” is a
building’s desirable response, with cracks in the walls due only to in-plane actions; in this
way, the seismic forces are distributed to the walls, according to their stiffness parallel to

DAMAGE TO VERTICAL STRUCTURES

V1 V2 V3 V4 V5 V6 V7 V8
belonging to mechanism:
M1 M6 M12 M2 M6 M1 M7 M2 M14 M8 M4 M7 M11 M1 M1 M2
M12 M14 M15
diagonal cracks
in masonry walls
lower upper wall top bottom lintels, entire tympanum

piers piers edge corner corner sills height /roof
V9 V10 V11 V12 V13 V14 V15 V16
M3 M4 M6 M1 M2 M3 M1 M2 M3 M13 M4 M11 M12 M3 M4 M7 M1 M2 M1 M12 M16
M10 M4 M4 M6 M10 M14 M15
vertical diagonal damage or tympanum vertical horizontal vertical
cracks cracks deformation detachment cracks cracks cracks
wall steel tympanum floor floor masonry masonry

connections ties /roof belts levels panels crushing
V17 V18 V19 V20 V21 V22 V23
M9 M12 M9 M12 M5 M10 M13 M5 M6 M3 M4 M16 M8 M8
M15
diagonal vertical material wall out of plumb diagonal vertical
cracks cracks expulsion bowing or rotation cracks cracks
buildings interface roof/floor masonry foundation

/discontinuity beams walls settling
DAMAGE TO HORIZONTAL STRUCTURES
H1 H2 H3 H4 H5 H6 H7
M16 M16 M16 M16 M8 M16
cracks in cracks in cracks in crushing transversal vaults/walls reinforcement

keystone springing foot in foot cracks detachment damage
vaults, barrel vaults, buttresses,

arches vaults arches steel ties
H8 H9 H10 H11 H12 H13
M1 M2 M3 M3 M4 M5 M1 M2 M3 M3 M4 M5, M7
M4 M5 M6 M10 M13 M4 M5 M6 M6 M7 M9
M14 M15 M8 M11 M12 M10 M15
M14 M15
cracks // cracks beams supports detachment trusses
to warping to warping unthreading failure cracks slope
floors floor/roof roofs

and roofs vs walls
Figure 34. Sketches about the relationship between damage and MEDEA mechanisms; (source: Papa and
Zuccaro 2004; MEDEA 2005; Zuccaro and Leone 2010) (color figure available online).

Table 4. MEDEA classification of vulnerability elements
Vulnerability elements yes no ?
1 Absence of connections between orthogonal walls and/or tie-beams or string-course at

different levels
2 Presence of string-courses “in breccia” on double facing “sack” masonry
3 Floors badly connected with the walls
4 Masonry of low quality, masonry reduced resistant area along one or both directions
5 High percentage of openings
6 Foundation inadequate to resist the of vertical load increment due to the earthquake
7 Different consistencies of the foundation soils, presence of landslide or liquefaction
8 Presence of added buildings with different stiffness and/or with localized connections
9 Variation of the structural system at upper levels
10 Presence of a raising and/or a stiff and badly connected roof structure
11 Presence of staggered levels
12 Excessive distance between bracing walls

13 Pushing structure and/or absence of connection between the wall and the roof
14 Presence of lintels with reduced bending stiffness or with inadequate support length
15 Presence of lowered arches and/or inadequate support of lintel
16 Local reduction of the masonry section (presence of flues, niches, etc.)
17 Local discontinuities (filling of old openings, bad realization of masonry sewing, etc.)
18 Presence of ridge beam of considerable sizes
19 Presence of openings in the proximity of the roof ridge
Source: Papa and Zuccaro (2004); MEDEA (2005); Zuccaro and Leone (2010).
the direction of the seismic action. This type of failure appears in buildings exhibiting good
seismic performance, with stiff diaphragm, thick walls and small openings. Buildings with
timber floors and embedded beams display an adequate behavior when the connections
between wood and masonry are in good condition. If the upper storey is damaged, due to
the reduced shear capacity of the upper levels, the intensity of the damage is generally low,
with only some narrow cracks appearing at the top of the walls and the upper part of the
corners. The damage is normally heavy if the ground floor is damaged. Only rarely diagonal
cracks are noted to run along the entire height of the building, moving towards the bottom
corner. Sometimes, diagonal cracks in the load-bearing piers start from the discontinuity
between two adjacent buildings caused by the different stiffness due to the difference in
height between two planes.
The global overturning does not happen if the wall portion is sufficiently connected
between the upper and lower floors, but a cylindrical hinge can form in the middle, when
the masonry is unable to support the flexural actions, due to the very scarce quality of the
materials or if badly connected vaults and/or arches are present at the intermediate level
(mechanism M5, wall vertical instability, Figure 29 left). Another case noted refers to the
masonry panel that is sufficiently connected throughout, except in the top line: floor or roof
actions push the vertical wall (with the formation of a horizontal arch and three hinges
located in the middle and in the ends) up to collapse (wall bending rupture, mechanism
M6, Figure 29 right).
In addition, other MEDEA global mechanisms have been observed (M7, M9, M10,
except M8, foundation subsidence, not found during the investigation; see examples in
Figure 30). Regarding the mechanism M9, long vertical cracks along the interface between
two adjacent buildings appeared after the seismic event, due to the out-of-phase oscillation
and the subsequent pounding effect.

4.2.2. Local mechanisms All the MEDEA local damage mechanisms from M11 to
M16 have been observed (Figures 31–33). With regards to mechanism M11 (lintel or
masonry arch failure), the majority of the buildings suffered this type of damage to some
degree, particularly at higher levels; in fact, spandrels are generally weaker than piers, due
to lower shear capacity, and thus more vulnerable. Local crushing of masonry (usually
with vertical cracks), with or without throwing out of material, sometimes appeared. This
type of damage is not common and exists at the external stronger curtain of multi-leaf
masonry. With regards to mechanism M12 (material irregularity, local weakness), this
mechanism has been noted very often, due to material local discontinuity or subsequent
interventions (as opening of niches and chimneys, window closure, for example). Roof
gable wall overturning (mechanism M13) has been observed in particular in churches, with
the detachment of the tympanum. In addition, mechanisms M14 (corner overturning in the
upper part), M15 (overturning of the wall supporting the roof) and M16 (vault and arch
overturning) have been noted quite often. The latter case consists of arch cracks (keystone,
springers, base) or transversal cracks in barrel vaults, leading to the separation of the vaults
from the masonry walls.
There is a clear trend for the extent of damage to increase with the number of floors,
especially if one considers the damage of upper floors rather than the average damage for
the whole building. Most of the collapsed masonry buildings were three storey buildings.
In a consistent number of cases, deaths and severe injuries were caused by the fall of non-
structural elements. Decorated vaulted non-structural ceilings, insufficiently connected to
the structural system, were unable to follow the deformation of the structural system, and
collapsed. Plaster and marble decorations, prominent corbels and balconies fell down pro-
ducing a massive heap. Furthermore, additional structures, i.e. later additions on top of the
buildings, caused substantial damage in the original construction; alteration of the roofing
system, such as the addition of an extra RC storey or the creation of a top veranda, directly
affected the building’s performance.
4.2.3. Mixed mechanisms Global shear M1, M2, and out-of-plane M3, M4 mecha-
nisms (Figure 28) sometimes have been found in the same building; in fact, overturning
detachments and cross cracks in masonry panels can be present together when the action
of the steel ties is partially effective, due to their inhomogeneous distribution and confine-
ment (Figure 35a), resulting from the random strengthening interventions over the years.
Furthermore, the earthquake actions can lead to several combinations of global and local
factors (examples in Figure 35b), or lead to mixed mechanisms; a typical one is the upper
corner wedge detachment (Figure 35c), with a rigid rotation hinge at its base.
4.3. Analysis of the Collected Data for Castelvecchio Subequo

On the basis of the MEDEA approach, data on the seismic damage has been col-
lected for Castelvecchio Subequo (which represents a homogeneous and consistent enough
pattern of buildings), in order to analyze the correlation between the identified collapse
mechanisms M i and the distribution of the damage levels (defined by the EMS98 scale) suf-
fered by the inspected buildings. As shown before, the following main collapse mechanisms
(Figures 28–33), numbered as in the MEDEA form, have been identified and correlated to
the possible vertical V and horizontal H damage (Figure 34):

Figure 35a. Photographs of examples of mixed collapse mechanisms: out-of-plane and in-plane (color figure
available online).
Figure 35b. Photograph of example of mixed collapse mechanisms: global M1 and M2, local M11, M14 and
M15 (color figure available online).
r global in-plane mechanisms, consisting of storey shear failures (M1 and M2; Figure 36a),
due to:
◦ diagonal shear cracks in the masonry piers (V1, V2); and
◦ local crushing of the masonry with or without expulsion of material (V16);
r global out-of-plane mechanisms, characterized by either whole or partial wall overturn-
ing or wall bending collapse (M3, M4 and M6; Figure 36b), triggered by:

Figure 35c. Photographs of examples of mixed collapse mechanisms: upper corner wedge detachment (color
figure available online).
◦ vertical cracks at the wall connections (V9);

◦ diagonal cracks in the transversal walls (V10); and
◦ out of plumb/incipient rotation of the wall (V21);
r other global mechanisms, such as irregularity among adjacent structures and floor and
roof beam unthreading (M9 and M10; Figure 36c), due to:
◦ permanent deformation of either tie-beams or their anchorages, with the failure of the
former and the pull-out of the latter (V11);
◦ diagonal cracks starting from the discontinuity between two adjacent buildings (V17);
and
◦ vertical cracks along the interface between two adjacent buildings (V18);
r local mechanisms, especially consisting of lintel or masonry arch failure, local weakness,
corner overturning in the upper parts of buildings and vault or arch overturning (M11,
M14 and M16; Figure 36d), caused by:
◦ diagonal and vertical cracks within the masonry spandrels (V6; V13);
◦ cracks in the keystone arches (H1);
◦ transversal cracks in the barrel vaults (H5);
◦ cracks with detachment of the vaults from the walls (H6).
Later on, the damage levels associated to the above-described collapse mechanisms
have been computed. The analysis results are displayed in Figure 37 under form of
two-dimensional and three-dimensional histograms.
From the observed damage, it is shown that the frequency of the in-plane collapse
modes (types M1, M2) grows together with the damage intensity, presenting a maxi-
mum peak at the level d3 (approximately 45%) and a drastic reduction at the level d4
(approximately 15%), due to the development of other mechanisms with seismic dam-
age from medium to severe. Moreover, the out-of-plane mechanisms (types M3, M4,
M6) are characterized by lower frequency with respect to in-plane modes for damage lev-
els d1 (approximately 90% less) and d3 (approximately 27% less), whereas the frequencies
detected for damage level d2 are almost the same (approximately 20%).
In contrast, the out-of-plane mechanisms appear to be more frequent for damage
level d4 , with a frequency larger than two times than the in-plane ones (approximately 44%

a)
b)
c)
d)
Figure 36. Photographs regarding collapse mechanisms observed in Castelvecchio Subequo buildings, according
to the MEDEA tool: a) in-plane (M1 and M2); b) out-of-plane (M3, M4 and M6); c) other global (M9 and M10);
d) local (M11, M14 and M16) (color figure available online).

100%
80%
d4
Frequency
60%
d3
d2
40% d1
20%
0%
ne
ne
al
l
ca
ob
la
la
Lo
-p
f-p
gl
In
er
-o
th
ut
O
O
0,6
0,5
d1
0,4 d2
Frequency
d3
0,3 d4
0,2
0,1
d4
0
d3
el
lev
ne
ge
d2
la
ma
-p
ne
In
la
Da
f-p
al
d1
-o
ob
ut
gl
l
O
ca
er
Lo
th
O
Figure 37. Graphs sbout the fequency of the collapse mechanism types with respect to the global damage levels
for the buildings of the Castelvecchio Subequo village.
instead of 20%). The global collapse of the structure corresponds to these high damage
levels. In other words, local in-plane failures generally develop with weaker damage grades.
Of course, the structural “box behavior” certainly increased consistently when the presence
of good masonry walls connections, steel tie-beams and/or embedded timber elements was
observed.
Concerning the other global mechanisms (types M9, M10), all damage levels show
similar frequency values (approximately 10%), apart for the level d2 showing a frequency
equal to approximately 65%. The mechanism type M9 (irregularity between adjacent struc-
tures) has been often identified, since the buildings of the historical centre are generally
located within urban blocks. These urban blocks are characterized by slight structural
anomalies which have caused frequent, but moderate, failures.

Finally, the local mechanisms (types M11, M14, M16) occurred with a frequency
comparable to the in-plane mechanisms, but without showing any d1 damage level. This
fact is due to the relevant influence of the mechanism type M11 (lintel or masonry arch
failure), which is often associated with in-plane damage.
5. CONCLUSIONS
The 2009 Abruzzo seismic event hit the city of L’Aquila and its surroundings, but
also villages far enough from the epicenter (such as Castelvecchio Subequo), with the gen-
eration of near-field and local soil amplification effects. The recorded high peak ground
accelerations, velocities and displacements reached high values, both in the horizontal and
vertical directions (maximum PGAs 0.63g and 0.60g, respectively). The simultaneous com-
bination of the earthquake consistent actions (resulting in a reduction of the masonry shear
capacity, especially in the upper floors) and the widespread vulnerability of URM build-
ings resulted in extensive damage, collapse and victims in a medium size city as has never
before happened in Italy since the 1908 Reggio Calabria-Messina earthquake and tsunami.
The underestimation of the earthquake actions (intrinsic in the PSHA method, which the
post-2002 Italian seismic zonation and updated seismic code is based on) is a consider-
able drawback that can be overcome only by integrating the study of earthquake scenarios
with more accurate methodologies, such as the NDSHA. Moreover, with regards to the
structural vulnerability, most of the URM structures were built (and structurally modified
with subsequent interventions) before the adoption of the 2002 updated requirements; thus,
the percentage of URM buildings heavily damaged or collapsed in the epicenter area is
relatively high (approximately 45%).
The first cause of widespread overall disruption originates from the very poor qual-
ity of the disaggregated masonry, made by arbitrary materials, unable to resist horizontal
forces. Several damage/collapse types have been encountered, classified and associated
with the simplified mechanisms foreseen by the Italian MEDEA procedure. In fact,
MEDEA tool, among others developed in Italy and other countries, represents an effective
prompt tool for the evaluation of vulnerability (pre-event) and earthquake damage (post-
event) in URM construction and heritage, that can be successfully adapted to and applied
in all the seismic areas of the Mediterranean region.
In the application of MEDEA for this analysis, it could be concluded that old URM
construction without adequate connections or anchors displayed poor performance, while
buildings with stretcher bond stones and steel ties exhibited a remarkable better response.
The analysis of the building stock has shown that global out-of-plane mechanisms are less
frequent than in-plane ones (in particular thanks to the investigation done in Castelvecchio
Subequo on a homogeneous and consistent pattern of buildings), but once these appeared
they produced higher damage. Other MEDEA global and local mechanisms, characterized
by a damage level from low to high, have been also found with a certain frequency. It is also
evident that damage and victims may also result from the fall of architectural components
from buildings, when such components are poorly connected to the structure (e.g., lintels,
balconies, corbels, architraves, chimneys and roof tiles), even if not affecting the overall
stability.
A first statement can be derived after the survey and the data analysis: all the MEDEA
classified mechanisms for URM buildings were activated, demonstrating the still high
earthquake vulnerability of the Italian historic centers. This poses the questions of con-
struction safety, infrastructure serviceability, and heritage preservation, which are important

topics to be addressed, by taking advantage of the outcome of innovative research and

technology, which are continuously and rapidly improving. On the contrary, medium-
long periods of seismic inactivity reduce people’s awareness and consciousness of the
earthquake’s danger resulting in inadequate strengthening of buildings.
From a more general point of view, taking into account the effort in updating the
structural codes in Italy during the past years (NTC 2008; Italian Ministry of Cultural
Heritage and Activities 2010), the authors recommend the following targets, brought to
the attention of the international scientific community: the definition of more accurate
methodologies to define seismic hazard; the comparison and homogenization of prompt
tools and algorithms to evaluate earthquake vulnerability and damage; the identification of
rehabilitation techniques for the historic centers avoiding any conflict between anti-seismic
requirements and conservation criteria (Carocci et al. 2010).
Finally, it is always necessary to emphasize that the attention should be shifted from
post-emergency (even indispensable) to prevention, therefore setting up investigation pro-

grams before the disaster, focused on the evaluation of the vulnerability of structures which
were not adequately designed, and providing enough resources for the generalized anti-
seismic improvement of old masonry construction, widely present in the Mediterranean
Basin.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The present study was carried out within the scope of COST-C26 Action “Urban
Habitat Constructions under Catastrophic Events” (chairman Federico Mazzolani), whose
financial support for mobility is gratefully acknowledged. In addition, the cooperation
during the field investigation of Prof. Giulio Zuccaro, director of the PLINIVS Centre
of Naples, and his colleagues, has been fundamental to reach the goals of this
research.
REFERENCES
Agibilità e Danno nell’Emergenza Sismica (AeDES). 2000. First level form for safety assess-
ment, damage investigation, prompt intervention for ordinary buildings in the post–earthquake
emergency [in Italian]. Rome, Italy: Civil Defense Department. Available at: http://www.
protezionecivile.it/cms/attach/editor/schedadanni.pdf, accessed October 2012.
Akinci, A., Galadini, F., Pantosti, D., Petersen, M., Malagnini, L., and Perkins, D. 2009. Effect of time
dependence on probabilistic seismic-hazard maps and deaggregation for the central Apennines,
Italy. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America 99(2A):585–610.
Akinci, A., Malagnini, L., and Sabetta, F. 2010. Characteristics of the strong ground motions from the
6 April 2009 L’Aquila earthquake, Italy. Soil Dynamics Earthquake Engineering 30(5):320–335.
Amoruso, A., Crescentini, L., and Scarpa, R. 1998. Inversion of source parameters from near and
far-field observations: An application of the 1915 Fucino earthquake, Central Appennines, Italy.
Journal of Geophysical Research 103(B12): 29989–29999.
Anderson, J. G., Brune, J. N., Purvance, M., Biasi, G., and Anooshehpoor, R. 2010. Benefits of the Use
of Precariously Balanced Rocks and Other Fragile Geological Features for Testing the Predictions
of Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Analysis, Chapter 91: 744–752, in Application of statistics and
probability in civil engineering, ed., Nishijima, London, UK: Taylor & Francis Group.
Bagnaia, R., D’Epifanio, A., and Sylos Labini, S., 1992. Aquila and subaequan basins: an example
of Quaternary evolution in Central Apennines, Italy. Quaternaria Nova II: 187–209.

Bindi, D., Pacor, F., Luzi, L., Massa, M., and Ameri, G. 2009. The Mw 6. 3, 2009 L’Aquila earth-
quake: Source, path and site effects from spectral analysis of strong motion data. Geophysical
Journal International 179(3):1573–1579.
Blumetti, A. M. 1995. Neotectonic investigations and evidence of paleoseismicity in the epicentral
area of the January–February 1703, Central Italy, earthquake. Perspectives in Paleoseismology,
Special Publication No. 6: 83–100, Association of Engineering Geologists, eds., L. Serva and
D. B. Slemmons.
Bommer, J. J., and Abrahamson, N. A. 2006. Why do modern probabilistic seismic hazard analyses
often lead to increased hazard estimates? Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America 96:
1967–1977.
Borg, R. P., Indirli, M., Rossetto, T., and Kouris, L. A., 2010. L’Aquila earthquake April 6th, 2009:
The damage assessment methodologies. In Proceedings of the Final Conference of COST Action
C26, Urban Habitat Constructions Under Catastrophic Events, ed., F. M. Mazzolani, Naples, Italy,
September 16–18, 2010. London, UK: Taylor & Francis Group, 557–564.
Boschi, E., 2000. A ‘new generation’ earthquake catalogue. Annals of Geophysics 43(4): 609–620.
Cami, R., Alessandri, C., Indirli, M., and Tralli A. 2007. Damage assessment and retrofitting
of the Marchesale Castle (San Giuliano di Puglia). In Proceedings of STREMAH 2007-Tenth
International Conference on Studies, Repairs and Maintenance of Heritage Architecture, incor-
porating the Maritime Heritage Seminar, 675–685, ed., C.A. Brebbia, WIT Press, Prague, Czech
Republic, July 4–6, 2007.
Carocci, C. F., Cattari, S., Circo, C., Indelicato, D., and Tocci, D. 2010. A methodology for approach-
ing the reconstruction of historical centres heavily damaged by 2009 L’Aquila earthquake. In
Proceedings of SAHC’10, 7th International Conference on Structural Analysis of Historical
Constructions. eds. X. Gu and X. Song, Shanghai, China, October 6–8, 2010. pp. 1113–1118.
Cavinato, G. P., and De Celles, P. G., 1999. Extensional basins in the tectonically bimodal central
Apennines fold-thrust belt, Italy: Response to corner flow above a subducting slab in retrograde
motion. Geology 27: 955–958.
Ceccaroni, E., Ameri, G., Gómez Capera, A. A., and Galadini, F., 2009. The 2nd century AD
earthquake in central Italy: Archaeoseismological data and seismotectonic implications. Natural
Hazards 50(2): 335–359.
Çelebi, M., Bazzurro, P., Chiaraluce, L., Clemente, P., Decanini, L., DeSortis, A., Ellsworth, W.,
Gorini, A., Kalkan, E., Marcucci, S., Milana, G., Mollaioli, F., Olivieri, M., Paolucci, R., Rinaldis,
D., Rovelli, A., Sabetta, F., and Stephens, C. 2010. Recorded Motions of the 6 April 2009 Mw
6.3 L’Aquila, Italy, Earthquake and Implications for Building Structural Damage: Overview.
Earthquake Spectra 26(3): 651–684.
Chiarabba, C., Amato, A., Anselmi, M., et al. 2009. The 2009 L’Aquila (central Italy) MW6.
3 earthquake: Main shock and aftershocks. Geophysical Research Letters 36(18): L18308.
Decanini, L., Liberatore, L., and Mollaioli, F. 2010. Damage suffered by R. C. buildings during the
2009 L’Aquila earthquake, a general overview and a case study. In Proceedings of the 14ECEE,
European Conference on Earthquake Engineering [cd–rom]. Ohrid, Republic of Macedonia,
August 30–September 3, 2010, paper n. 443.
Decanini, L., Liberatore, L., Mollaioli, F., Monti, G., and Al Shawa, O. 2009. Studio preliminare
della domanda sismica elastica ed anelastica in termini di energia, spostamento e forze-Rel. 1.0
[Preliminary study of the elastic and inelastic seismic demand in terms of energy, displacement
and force-Rel. 1.0)]. Report ReLUIS, Rete dei Laboratori Universitari di Ingegneria Sismica [the
Laboratories University Network of Seismic Engineering]. Available at: http://www.reluis.it/doc/
pdf/Aquila/paper_reluis_decanini_et_al.pdf, accessed October 2012.
Decanini, L., Mollaioli, F., Panza, G. F., Romanelli, F., and Vaccari, F. 2001. Probabilistic vs
deterministic evaluation of seismic hazard and damage earthquake scenarios: a general prob-
lem, particularly relevant for seismic isolation. In Proceedings of the 7th International Post-Smirt
Seminar on Seismic Isolation, Passive Energy Dissipation and Active Control of Vibration of
Structures. Assisi, Italy, eds. A. Martelli and M. Forni. October 2–5, 2001. 1:117–141.

De Luca, G., Marcucci, S., Milana, G., and Sanò, T., 2005. Evidence of low-frequency amplification
in the city of L’Aquila, central Italy, through a multidisciplinary approach including strong-and
weak-motion data, ambient noise, and numerical modelling. Bulletin of the Seismological Society
of America 95(4):1469–1481.
Demangeot J. 1965. Géomorphologie des Abruzzes Adriatiques. Mém. et Doc. du CNRS. Paris,
France: CNRS. pp. 403.
Devoti, R., Riguzzi, F., Cuffaro, M., and Doglioni, C., 2008. New GPS constraints on the kinematics
of the Apennines subduction. Earth and Planetary Science Letters 273(1–2): 163–174.
Doglioni, C. 1990. The global tectonic pattern. Journal of Geodynamics 12(1):21–38.
Doglioni, C. 1991. A proposal of kinematic modelling for W-dipping subductions—Possible
applications to the Tyrrhenian-Apennines system. Terra Nova 3(4):423–434.
EERI Newsletter. 2009. The MW 6.3 Abruzzi, Italy, earthquake of April 6, 2009. EERI Special
Earthquake Report, June 2009.
Energia, Ambiente e Innovazione [Energy, Environment, and Innovation]. 2009. EAI Report of the
Italian National Agency for Energy, Innovation and Sustainable Economic Development [ENEA]
survey team. Available at: http://old.enea.it/produzione_scientifica/EAI/2009/Index_Maggio

Giugno09.html, accessed October 2012.
European COoperation in the field of Scientifical and Technical research, Transport and Urban
Development (COST-TUD). 2006. COST Action C26: “Urban Habitat Constructions Under
Catastrophic Events”, 2006–2010. Available at: http://www.cost.eu/domains_actions/tud/Actions/
C26, accessed October 2012.
Formisano, A., Grippa, M. R., Di Feo, P., and Florio, G., 2010. L’Aquila earthquake: A survey in the
historical centre of Castelvecchio Subequo. In Proceedings of the Final Conference of COST Action
C26, Urban Habitat Constructions under Catastrophic Events, ed., F. M. Mazzolani, Naples, Italy,
September 16–18, London, UK: Taylor & Francis Group, 371–376.
Galadini, F., and Galli, P. 2000. Active tectonics in the central Apennines (Italy)—Input data for
seismic hazard assessment. Natural Hazards 22(3): 225–68.
Giardini, D., Grünthal, G., Shedlock, K. M., and Zhang, P. 1999. The GSHAP global seismic hazard
map, Annali di Geofisica 42: 1225–1230.
Grünthal, G., Ed. 1998. European Macroseismic Scale 1998 (EMS-98). Luxembourg: European
Seismological Commission, Subcommission on Engineering Seismology. Conseil de l’Europe,
Cahiers du Centre Européen de Géodynamique et de Séismologie, 99 pp.
Iervolino, I., De Luca, F., Chioccarelli, E., and Dolce, M. 2010. L’azione sismica registrata durante
il main shock del 6 aprile 2009 a L’Aquila e le prestazioni del DM 14.01.2008 V.1 [The seismic
action recorded in L’Aquila during the main shock on 2009 April 6th and the performance of the
M.D. 14/01/08 V.1]. Report ReLUIS, Rete dei Laboratori Universitari di Ingegneria Sismica [the
Laboratories University Network of Seismic Engineering]. Available at: http://www.reluis.it/doc/
pdf/Aquila/Confronto_L%27Aquila-NTC_V1.pdf, accessed October 2012.
Indirli, M. 2010, April. The 6th April 2009 L’Aquila earthquake: From ruins to reconstruction.
Seismicity and Earthquake Engineering: L’Aquila Earthquake of April 2009, ed. R. P. Borg. La
Valletta, Malta, Kamra Tal-Periti.
Indirli, M., Razafindrakoto, H., Romanelli, F., et al. 2010a. Hazard evaluation in Valparaíso: The
MAR VASTO Project. Pure and Applied Geophysics 168(3–4): 543–582.
Indirli, M., Cami, R., Carpani, B., Algeri, C., Panzeri, P., Rossi, G., and Piova, L. 2006. The anti-
seismic rehabilitation of Marchesale Castle at San Giuliano di Puglia. In Proceedings of SAHC’06,
Structural Analysis of Historical Construction, V International Seminar, eds., P. B. Lourenço, P.
Roca, C. Modena, S. Agrawal, New Delhi, India, November 6–8, 2006. 3: 1609–1616.
Indirli, M., Carpani, B., Martelli, A., and Spadoni, B., 2007. Il contributo dell’ENEA e di altri esperti
a San Giuliano di Puglia: dall’emergenza alla ricostruzione [The contribution of ENEA and other
experts to San Giuliano di Puglia: From emergency to reconstruction]. In Proceedings of the XII
ANIDIS Congress, June 10–14, 2007, Pisa, Italy, paper A3-VULN07.

Indirli M., Clemente P., and Spadoni B., 2004a. The reconstruction of San Giuliano di Puglia after
the October 31st 2002 earthquake. In Proceedings of the 13th World Conference on Earthquake
Engineering. August 1–6, 2004, Vancouver, BC, Canada, paper no. 1805.
Indirli, M., Clemente, P., Spadoni, B., Cami, R., Speranza, E., Mucciarella, M., and Pistola, F., 2004b.
Seismic protection of historical centres using innovative techniques, with focus on San Giuliano
di Puglia after the 2002 Molise earthquake. In Proceedings of SAHC’04, Structural Analysis of
Historical Construction, IV International Seminar, eds., C. Modena, P.B. Lourenço, Padua, Italy,
November 10–13, 2004. 2: 1235–1245.
Indirli, M., Mazzolani, F. M., and Tralli, A. 2010b. First considerations on the February 27,
2010 Chilean earthquake. In Proceedings of the Final Conference of COST Action C26, Urban
Habitat Constructions under Catastrophic Events, ed., F. M. Mazzolani. Naples, Italy, September
16–18, 2010. London, UK: Taylor & Francis Group, 383–389.
Klügel, J. U., Mualchin, L., and Panza, G. F. 2006. A scenario-based procedure for seismic risk
analysis. Engineering Geology 88: 1–22.
Klügel, J. U., 2007. Error inflation in probabilistic seismic hazard analysis. Engineering Geology 90:
186–192.
Kossobokov, V., and Nekrasova, A. 2010. Global seismic hazard assessment program maps are
misleading. Poster presentation at the AGU Fall Meeting 2010, U13A–0020.
Kouris, L. A., Borg, R. P., and Indirli, M. 2010. The L’Aquila earthquake, April 6th, 2009: A review of
seismic damage mechanisms. In Proceedings of the Final Conference of COST Action C26, Urban
Habitat Constructions Under Catastrophic Events, ed., F. M. Mazzolani. Naples, Italy, September
Kouris, L. A., & Kappos, A. J. 2011. Detailed and simplified non-linear models for timber-framed
masonry structures. Journal of Cultural Heritage 13(1): 47–58.
Italian Ministry of Cultural Heritage and Activities. 2010, February 12. Linee Guida per la valu-
tazione e riduzione del rischio sismico del patrimonio culturale con riferimento alle norme tecniche
per le costruzioni NTC 2008 [Guidelines for evaluation and mitigation of seismic risk to cultural
heritage with reference to the Italian Technical Code for constructions NTC 2008]. Rome, Italy:
Italian Ministry of Cultural Heritage and Activities.
Masi A., and Chiauzzi L. 2009. Preliminary analyses on the mainshock of the Aquilano earthquake
occurred on April 06, 2009- V.1. Report ReLUIS, Rete dei Laboratori Universitari di Ingegneria
Sismica [the Laboratories University Network of Seismic Engineering]. Available at: http://www.
reluis.it/doc/pdf/Aquila/Report_Masi-Chiauzzi_15-5-09.pdf, accessed October 2012.
Mazzolani, F. M. (chair). 2010a. Proceedings of the COST Action C26 Final Conference Urban
Habitat Constructions under Catastrophic Events. Naples, September 16–18, 2010. London, UK:
Taylor & Francis Group.
Mazzolani, F. M. 2010b. Final Report: Urban Habitat Constructions Under Catastrophic Events,
Naples, 16–18 September 2010. London, UK: CRC Press, Taylor & Francis Group.
Manuale di Esercitazioni sul Danno ed Agibilità (MEDEA). 2005. Manuale di Esercitazioni sul
Danno ed Agibilità per edifici ordinari [User’s manual on damage and safety for ordinary
buildings]. Eds., G. Zuccaro, F. Papa, CAR Progetti s.r.l., Dipartimento Protezione Civile [Italian
Civil Protection Department].
Modena, C., Casarin, F., da Porto, F., and Munari, M., 2010. L’Aquila 6th April 2009 Earthquake:
Emergency and post-emergency activities on cultural heritage buildings. In Proceedings of
the 14ECEE, European Conference on Earthquake Engineering [cd–rom]. Ohrid, Republic of
Macedonia, August 30–September 3, 2010, paper n. T6–TL3.
Monaco, P., Totani, G., Barla, et al. 2009. Geotechnical aspects of the L’Aquila earthquake
In Proceedings of the Earthquake Geotechnical Engineering Satellite Conference, XVIIth
International Conference on Soil Mechanics & Geotechnical Engineering. October 2–3, 2009,
Alexandria, Egypt.
Monaco, P., Totani, G., Barla, Cavallaro, G., Costanzo, A., D’Onofrio, A., Evangelista, L., Foti, S.,
Grasso, S., 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., Simonelli,
A. L., Simoni, G., Tommasi, P., Vannucchi, G., and Verrucci, L. 2009. Geotechnical aspects of
the L’Aquila earthquake. In Proceedings of the. Earthquake Geotechnical Engineering Satellite
Conference, XVIIth International Conference on Soil Mechanics & Geotechnical Engineering,
October 2–3, 2009, Alexandria, Egypt.
Nuove Norme tecniche per le costruzioni (NTC). 2008, January 14. Nuove Norme tecniche per
le costruzioni [New Italian Technical Code for Constructions. Ministry Decree, 14/01/2008,
Gazzetta Ufficiale 04/02/2008. Nuove Norme tecniche per le costruzioni (NTC). 2009, February
2. Istruzioni per l’applicazione delle Nuove Norme Tecniche per le Costruzioni-NTC [Instructions
for the application of the New Italian Technical Code for Constructions-NTC], Ministry Circular
02/02/2009.
Nuove Norme Tecniche per le Costruzioni [New Technical Codes for Construction] (NTC). 2008,
January 14. Ministry Decree, January 14, 2008. Gazzetta Ufficiale, February 4, 2008.
Ordinanza del Presidente del Consiglio dei Ministri (OPCM) 3274. 2003, May 8. Ordinanza del
Presidente del Consiglio dei Ministri n. 3274 del 20/03/2003, Primi elementi in materia di cri-
teri generali per la classificazione sismica del territorio nazionale e di normative tecniche per le
costruzioni in zona sismica [First elements in terms of general criteria for the seismic classifica-
tion of the national land and technical codes for constructions in seismic zone]. Gazzetta Ufficiale
8 May 2003, Serie Generale n. 105, Supplemento Ordinario n. 72.
Ordinanza del Presidente del Consiglio dei Ministri (OPCM) 3316. 2003, October 10. Modifiche ed
integrazioni all’ordinanza del Presidente del Consiglio dei Ministri n. 3274 del 20 Marzo 2003
[Modification and integration to the OPCM n. 3274 published on 2003, March 20]. Gazzetta
Ufficiale 10 October 2003, Serie Generale n. 236.
Ordinanza del Presidente del Consiglio dei Ministri (OPCM) 3431, March 5. 2005. Ulteriori
modifiche ed integrazioni all’ordinanza del Presidente del Consiglio dei Ministri n. 3274 del
20 marzo 2003, recante Primi elementi in materia di criteri generali per la classificazione sismica
del territorio nazionale e di normative tecniche per le costruzioni in zona sismica [Further modifi-
cations and integrations to the OPCM n. 3274 published on 2003. First elements in terms of general
criteria for the seismic classification of the national land and technical codes for constructions in
seismic zone]. Gazzetta Ufficiale 10 May 2005, Serie Generale n. 107, Supplemento Ordinario
n. 85.
Panza, G. F., Peresan, A., Romanelli, F., Vaccari, F., Indirli, M., and Martelli, A. 2011. Earthquake
scenarios for seismic isolation design and the protection of cultural heritage. In Proceedings of
Cultural Heritage Istanbul 2011, 5th International Congress: Science and Technology for the
Safeguard of Cultural Heritage in the Mediterranean Basin. ed. A. Guarino. Istanbul, Turkey,
November 22–25, 2011. 2: 177–188.
Panza, G. F., Romanelli, F., and Vaccari, F., 2001. Seismic wave propagation in laterally heterogeneus
anelastic media: Theory and applications to seismic zonation. Advances in Geophysics 43: 1–95.
Papa, F., and Zuccaro, G. 2004. MEDEA: A Multimedia and Didactic Handbook for Seismic Damage
Evaluation. Potsdam, Germany: European Seismological Commission.
Parvez., I. A., Romanelli, F., Panza, G. F. 2010. Long period ground motion at bedrock level in Delhi
city from Himalayan earthquake scenarios. Pure and Applied Geophysics 168(3–4): 409–477.
Paskaleva, I., Kouteva, M., Vaccari, F., and Panza, G. F. 2010. Some contributions of the neo-
deterministic seismic hazard assessment approach to the earthquake risk assessment for the City of
Sofia. Pure and Applied Geophysics 168(3-4): 521–541.
Peresan, A., Zuccolo, E., Vaccari, F., Gorshkov, A., and Panza, G. F. 2010. Neodeterministic seismic
hazard and pattern recognition techniques: time dependent scenarios for North-Eastern Italy. Pure
and Applied Geophysics 168(3–4): 583–607.
Pondrelli, S., Salimbeni, S., Morelli, A., et al. 2010. Seismic moment tensors of the April 2009,
L’Aquila (Central Italy), earthquake sequence. Geophysical Journal International 180:238–242.
Rossetto, T., Kappos, A. J., Kouris, L. A., et al. 2010. Comparison of damage assessment method-
ologies for different natural hazards. In Proceedings of the Final Conference of COST Action

C26, Urban Habitat Constructions under Catastrophic Events, ed. F. M. Mazzolani, Naples, Italy,
September 16–18, 2010. London, UK: Taylor & Francis Group, 1023–1029.
Rovida, A., Castelli, V., Camassi, R., and Stucchi, M. 2009. Terremoti storici nell’area colpita dagli
eventi sismici dell’aprile 2009 [Historical earthquakes within the area hit by the seismic events
of April 2009]. INGV Report, Available at http://www.mi.ingv.it/eq/090406/storia.html, accessed
October 2012.
Rupakhety, R., and Sigbjörnsson, R., 2010. A note on the L’Aquila earthquake of 6 April 2009:
Permanent ground displacements obtained from strong–motion accelerograms. Soil Dynamics
Earthquake Engineering 30(4): 215–220.
Stirling, M., and Petersen, M. 2006. Comparison of the historical record of earthquake hazard
with seismic-hazard models for New Zealand and the continental United States. Bulletin of the
Seismological Society of America 96:1978–1994.
Stucchi M., Camassi, R., Rovida, A., Locati, M., Ercolani, E., Meletti, C., Migliavacca, P., Benardini,
F., and Azzaro, R. 2007. DBMI04, Il database delle osservazioni macrosismiche dei terremoti ital-
iani utilizzate per la compilazione del catalogo parametrico CPTI04 [The database of macroseismic
observations of Italian earthquakes used to compile the parametric catalogue CPTI04]. Quaderni
di Geofisica 49: 38.
Tralli, A. 2009. La prevenzione sismica, edifici in muratura ordinaria [The seismic prevention, ordi-
nary masonry buildings]. In Proceedings of the Regional Conference Organized by the Region
Emilia–Romagna and the University of Ferrara, Faculty of Engineering. June 26, 2009, Bologna,
Italy.
Valensise, G. R. 2009. Alcune considerazioni sulla sismotettonica del terremoto del 6 Aprile [Some
considerations about seismo–tectonic features of the earthquake of April 6th]. INGV Internal
Report. Available at: Valensise@ingv.it.
Ward, S. N., and Valensise, G. R. 1989. Fault parameters and slip distribution of the 1915 Avezzano,
Italy earthquake derived from geodetic observations. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of
America 79:690–771.
Zuccolo, E., Vaccari, F., Peresan, A., Dusi, A., Martelli, A., and Panza, G. F. 2008. Neo-deterministic
definition of seismic input for residential seismically isolated buildings. Engineering Geology
101:89–95.
Zuccaro, G., and Leone, M. F. 2010. Structural damage and vulnerability assessment for service life
estimation through MEDEA tool. In Proceedings the Final Conference of COST Action C26, Urban
Habitat Constructions under Catastrophic Events, ed. F. M. Mazzolani, Naples, Italy, September

indirli2013-LAquila Italy

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

indirli2013-LAquila Italy

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

This article was downloaded by: [Selcuk Universitesi]

On: 05 February 2015, At: 17:59

International Journal of Architectural

Seismic Damage Assessment of

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15583058.2011.654050

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

SEISMIC DAMAGE ASSESSMENT OF UNREINFORCED

Maurizio Indirli,1 Leonidas Alexandros S. Kouris,2 Antonio

KEY WORDS: earthquake engineering, unreinforced masonry (URM) structures, earthquake

Received October 26, 2011; accepted December 16, 2011.

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ARCHITECTURAL HERITAGE 7(5): 536–578

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ARCHITECTURAL HERITAGE 7(5): 536–578

2. GENERAL INFORMATION ON THE EARTHQUAKE

2.2. Seismic History

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ARCHITECTURAL HERITAGE 7(5): 536–578

2.3. Fault’s Characteristics

mechanism correspond to the seismotectonic features of past earthquakes, such as the

2.4. Strong Ground Motion Characteristics

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ARCHITECTURAL HERITAGE 7(5): 536–578

PGA (g) (cm/s2 ) PGV (cm/s) PGD (cm)

Source: Italian Institute of Geophysics and Vulcanology [INGV]).

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ARCHITECTURAL HERITAGE 7(5): 536–578

2.5. The Italian Seismic Zonation and Code

2.6. The Neo-Deterministic Seismic Hazard Assessment (NDSHA)

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ARCHITECTURAL HERITAGE 7(5): 536–578

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ARCHITECTURAL HERITAGE 7(5): 536–578

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ARCHITECTURAL HERITAGE 7(5): 536–578

2009) (color figure available online).

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ARCHITECTURAL HERITAGE 7(5): 536–578

Ground Horizontal Displacement Ground Horizontal Velocity

Ground Horizontal Acceleration Maximum Intensities (MCS VII)

3. THE EXTENT OF THE DAMAGE

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ARCHITECTURAL HERITAGE 7(5): 536–578

3.2. Building Inspections in L’Aquila and Castelvecchio Subequo

3.3. General View on the URM Seismic Damage

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ARCHITECTURAL HERITAGE 7(5): 536–578

Table 2. Final classification of the inspected buildings in L’Aquila (April 2010)

Type Private buildings Public buildings Cultural heritage

Type A 52.0% 53.6% 24.1%

Source: Italian Department of Civil Protection [DPC].

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ARCHITECTURAL HERITAGE 7(5): 536–578

Table 3. Classification of the inspected buildings in the historic centre

Source: Italian Department of Civil Protection [DPC] and Local

4. C26 TEAM SURVEY IN L’AQUILA AND CASTELVECCHIO SUBEQUO

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ARCHITECTURAL HERITAGE 7(5): 536–578

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ARCHITECTURAL HERITAGE 7(5): 536–578

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ARCHITECTURAL HERITAGE 7(5): 536–578

a) horizontal belts b) vertical piers

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ARCHITECTURAL HERITAGE 7(5): 536–578

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ARCHITECTURAL HERITAGE 7(5): 536–578

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ARCHITECTURAL HERITAGE 7(5): 536–578

1) wooden floors 2) masonry vaults in two orthogonal directions

3) masonry vaults in one direction 4) very weak “infolio” vaults

5) iron I beams with clay tile vaults 6) reinforced concrete floors

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ARCHITECTURAL HERITAGE 7(5): 536–578

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ARCHITECTURAL HERITAGE 7(5): 536–578

4.2. The MEDEA Tool

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ARCHITECTURAL HERITAGE 7(5): 536–578

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ARCHITECTURAL HERITAGE 7(5): 536–578

M3: whole wall overturning M4: partial wall overturning

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ARCHITECTURAL HERITAGE 7(5): 536–578

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ARCHITECTURAL HERITAGE 7(5): 536–578

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ARCHITECTURAL HERITAGE 7(5): 536–578

The second cause of damage/collapse is due to global out-of-plane mechanisms