1 - Basilica Di San Vitale

BASILICA DI SAN VITALE, ROMA
STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING
PROF. SONIA GIOVINAZZI
DILYANA MIHOVA – ANNALISA DI TOLLA – MARIA GRACIA GUERREROS
OUTLINE
SECTION 1
1.a. Identification and description of the building
1.b. Identification and description of territorial context
1.c. Geometrical features of the building and photographic views
1.d. Engineering features of the building
1e. Survey and description of existing damage
SECTION 2
2.a. Identification and calculation of action on the building (permanent loads)
2.b. Identification and calculation of action on the building (variable loads)
SECTION 3
3.a. Calculation of a collapse mechanism – Arches
SECTION 4
4.a. Identification of retrofitting interventions
4.b. Critical analysis of the suggested retrofitting interventions in consideration of conservation principles
SECTION 5
5.a. Bibliography
SECTION 1
1.a. HISTORICAL FRAMEWORK 1. Drawing of the original porch of the
curch, before the transformations
IV Century – The first building built 2. Drawing of the church by Achille

in this site was an oratory dedicated Pinelli (1809-1841); in this drawing is
clearly visible the different layout of
to S. Gervasio and S. Protasio the facade, with the arches of the
porch closed
401-402 – Pope Innocenzo I restored
3. Plan of the church with enlighted all
the church for the first time, building the main transformation of it during
a three aisled basilica. the centuries
VII Century – The curch is dedicated Legend

to S. Vitale, father of Gervasio e Red – Transformation of the naves, from
Protasio three to one (1475)
Blue – Transformation of the porch;
795 – 816 - It was restored and closings and openings of the arches (1859)
Orange – Elevation of the street’s level,
endowed with rich gifts by Pope Leo attachments of the church to new
III buildings (1870)
1475 – Sisto V rebuilt the church, destroying the lateral naves

and leaving it with only the central nave.
1595 – Clemente VIII, seeing the risk of the church’s ruin,

decided to restore it
1859 – Pio IX restored completely the whole building; this

restoration led to the disappearance of the porch, closed and
reduced to the vestibule of the church
1870 – The same pope, Pio IX, built the stairs for the rise of the
street’s level
1937- 38 – Restorations brought back the original portico

1.b. TERRITORIAL CONTEXT
- Rome is the biggest city of Italy; its territory spread over a surface of 1 287,36 km², and its altitude is 21m over the sea
level.
- The territory on which the city has emerged and has developed has a geologically complex history: the recent
substratum is constituted by the pyroclastic material produced by the extinct volcanoes that surround the area of the
city to the south-east, the Laziale Volcano in the current Colli Albani, and to the northwest, the Sabatini Mountains,
between 600,000 and 300,000 years ago. From these deposits are formed most of the hills of the area. Subsequently
the fluvial activity of the Tiber and the Aniene contributed to the erosion of the reliefs and to the sedimentation,
characterizing the current territory.
1.b. TERRITORIAL AND URBAN LAYOUT
- The church of San Vitale is located along Via Nazionale, the main street - The peculirity of this building is the fact
that connects Piazza della Repubblica to the area of the Roman forum; that it’s not an isolated building neither an
the other main streets crossing nearby are Via del Quirinale (parallel to attached one.
via Nazionale), and via delle Quattro Fontane. - In fact, it’s attached to the other buildings
- Next to San Vitale there’s Palazzo delle Esposizioni, a neoclassical by three parts of its construction only (as
museum built during the XIX Century. marked in the picture above), but for
- Nearby there are many different attractive points, such as Palazzo del most of it is quite isolated. Also, it’s
Quirinale and the curch of Sant’Andrea al Quirinale. important to remember that it’s on a
- Behind San Vitale also, there is an important public building in case of different level compared to the street and
emergency, a fire station. the other buildings.
1.b. TERRITORIAL FRAMEWORK
The seismicity of Rome, even if modest from the point of view of intensity, takes on an aspect of great peculiarity considering
the number and type of buildings of historical and social interest existing in Rome. Suffice it to recall here that the
monumental buildings damaged by an earthquake were 139 (1995 data). In speaking of seismicity in Rome, one must
certainly take into account the fact that the presence of voids in the subsoil can induce to amplify the effects of seismic
waves. Moreover, sometimes the collapse of the vault of a cavity can be attributed to a seismic event. Rome, rather than
suffering earthquakes of local origin, suffers the effects of those nearby. The strongest resentments in the city are due to the
activity of the central Apennines. Important is the fact that the damages caused by an earthquake are closely correlated with
the geomechanical qualities of the various lithological types emerging in Rome. The greatest damage is obviously found in
those areas located above the Holocene floods, while the areas where the volcanic products appear have less resentment.
1.b. CLIMATE FRAMEWORK
1.b. CLIMATE FRAMEWORK – Snow in Rome during the decades
December, 1939 – Abundant snow, from 15 to 30 cm
February, 1956 – Abundant snow in all Italy, temperature
in Rome -35°
December,1788 - Abundant snow on days 27, 28 and 29
November, 1796 – Abundant snow in days 11,12,14 and 18
January, 1823 – Abundant snow
December, 1846 - Snow on days 16, 17 and 18 with a total
accumulation of 20 cm
December, 1939 – 30 cm of snow a.
March-April, 1971 - From 5 to 10 cm of snow

February, 1999 – Snow in the northern part of the city,
6cm
February, 2010 – Abundant snow in most of the city, from
2 to 6 cm b.
February, 2012 – Abundant snow in most of the city, from

10 to 30 cm
January, 2016 – Last snow recorded in Rome, without
snow on the ground
In the pictures :
a. The snow in 1939
b. 2012
c. 1956
c
.
1.b.HISTORICAL SEISMICITY
AREA LAT LON DIST Io
YEAR MONTH DAY
EPICENTRALE (°.mil) (°.mil) (km) (°MCS)
1091 1 27 ROME 41.899 12.477 VII
1895 11 1 CAMPAGNA ROMANA 41.76 12.43 11 VII
1909 8 31 ROME 41.93 12.41 12 V - VI
1953 4 3 ROME 41.86 12.47 11 IV
1993 1 11 ROME 41.83 12.45 12 IV
1995 6 12 ROME 41.81 12.51 12-14 V-VI
- Rome during its history, suffered maximun

effects, VII MCS which occurred in the southern
neighbourhood.
- Heavy damage usually occurs to buildings built
on the Tiber River alluvium.
- Althouh Rome was settled in a low seismicity area, it may still suffer earthquake damage particularly in its historical center, that
was built on a the alluvial sediments of the Tiber River valley. During the past one hundred years Rome has experienced shaking
due to local earthquakes, with a maximun intensity of VII MCS, and external earthquakes, reaching similar intensity.
1.c.GEOMETRICAL FEATURES OF THE BUILDING AND
PHOTOGRAPHIC VIEWS 16,05m
44,90 m
6,00 m
2 4 10 GROUND FLOOR ROOF PLAN

PHOTOGRAPHIC VIEWS
PHOTOGRAPHIC VIEWS
Sections through
the portico
1.d.ENGINEERING FEATURES OF THE BUILDING
MATERIAL OF THE MAIN STRUCTURAL ELEMENTS
Roof: wood
construction
Roof Portico: wood

construction
Brick arches
Brick walls
Stone column

COLUMNS – STONE MATERIAL
The arches of the portico are
supported by stone columns. We
find some of these columns also
integrated in the wall supporting
arches that are also integrated.

WALLS – BRICK MATERIAL
The main construction material

of the Basilica is the brick. The
walls of the portico and the
facade walls are from masonry.
The thickness of this walls is
around 80cm around the main
nave and 60cm around the
portico, according to our
observation.

BRICK MATERIAL
SOLID WALLS WITH THICK JOINTS
Old and ancient brick masonries had usually very thick sections (from 600.0 mm on) generally with
homogeneous distribution of the bricks in the section then in the outer faces. Sometime only the external leaf
of the masonry was made with whole regular bricks, while the internal part was made with pieces of bricks and
large mortar joints for economic reasons.

ARCHES – BRICK MATERIAL

The roof of the portico is one
ROOF: Portico
pitched roof and with wood
truss construction which lay
on the brick walls.
1 3 8

The are four wood trusses
ROOF: Portico supporting the roof, the ending
parts of the roof are supporting
by the brick walls.
1 3 8

ROOF: Interior ceiling
Beams
The ceiling is supported

by Wood beams: main
and secondary, that lead
the loads on the brick
masonry.
CONNECTIONS AND FORCES
Distribution of the forces in the structural elements of the portico
CONNECTIONS AND FORCES
Connection details of the structure elements assumed by
observation on place.
Detail between the roof of the

portico and the brick
supporting wall.
We assume rigid connections

of the brick walls in the corners
of the portico and with the
main nave of the Basilica.
1.e.SURVEY AND DESCRIPTION OF EXISTING DAMAGE
PRINCIPAL FACADE
- The existing damage in the facade building are some cracks specially in the
intersection between arches, caused by the height of the roof.
SECTION - PORTICO
- The existing damage in the lateral walls are also about

the change of materials, and humidity caused by the
rain.
SECTION B - PORTICO
- The existing damage in the lateral walls are also about

the change of materials, and humidity caused by the
rain.
FACADE 2
- Most of the existing damage in the facade building is refer to the change of,
material between stones /bricks and concrete.
MINOR STRUCTURAL DEFECTS
ROOF
MINOR STRUCTURAL DEFECTS
COLUMNS
- Most of the existing damage in the columns are in the capitel of each one.
NON-STRUCTURAL DEFECTS
HUMIDITY / CRACKS
SECTION 2
2. PERMANENT LOADS OF STRUCTURAL AND NON
STRUCTURAL ELEMENTS
STRUCTURAL ELEMENTS
COLUMN
density = mass
volumen
Volumen = hπr2
V = (4.29)(0.16)
V = 0.686m3
Mass= 0.686m3 x 27 kN/m3
Mass = 18.53kN
2. PERMANENT LOADS OF STRUCTURAL AND NON
STRUCTURAL ELEMENTS
STRUCTURAL ELEMENTS
ROOF
CALCULATION OF THE ROOF LOAD
Permanent loads /mq of slope
Tiles of slope: g1 = 60 Kg/mq.
Impermeabilization: g2 = 10 Kg/mq.
Specific weight of wood: 700 Kg/mc
Little wooden beams of the slope
Interax i= 0.35 m
section 0.07 x 0.07 x 700 / 0.35 g3 = 10 Kg/mq.
Internal panels of the slope:
Thickness m 0.55 x 700 g g4 = 385 Kg/mq.
Angle of the slope a= 30 °
Total load in the orizontal direction q/cosa G= 537 Kg/mq.
Bigger beams (arcarecci):

interax i= 0.95 m
section 0.15 x 0.12 x 700 / 0.95 g5 = 13 Kg/mq.
Overloads q= 0 Kg/mq.
Carico totale Q= 550 Kg/mq.
CAPRIATA
interasse m 2.65
b h l g (kg/m3)
-puntone m 0.18 m 0.18 m 6.00 620.00 108.03 Kg
-monaco e saettoni m 0.18 m 0.18 m 2.20 620.00 28.12 Kg
-tirante m 0.18 m 0.18 m 6.00 620.00 123.21 Kg
259.36 Kg
incidenza peso a mq 98 Kg/mq
2. SNOW LOAD ON THE EXTERNAL ROOF
qSK = 0,60 kN/mq
CE = 1,1
mi= 0,8
Ct = 1
qs= 0,60 kN/mq x 1,1 x 0,8 x 1 = 0,528 kN/ mq

SECTION 3
3. ARCH ANALYSIS: Verification of the arch
MAIN CHARACTERISTIC OF THE ARCH:
CHARACTERISTICS OF THE ARCH

Width of arch Measure between Specific weight of the
Span [m] Rise [m]
voussoirs [m] extrodox/introdox [m] material [kN/m³]
2,3 1,15 0,562 0,4 18
MAIN CHARACTERISTIC OF THE WALL:
CHARCTERISTICS OF THE MASONRY WALL
Wall width Wall height above Specific weight of the

[m] arch [m] material [kN/m³]
0,562 1,6 18
VERIFICATION: Method of Mery /graphic approach/
Culculating the area of the voussoirs and wall segments
above each of them.
AREA OF A
VOUSSOIR:
A = π(Re² - Ri²)
360/12
SELF-WEIGHT OF A
VOUSSOIR [ kN/m²]:
W = V.y
Culculation the weight of the voussoirs.
WEIGHT VOUSSOIRS
Specific weight
№ A [m²] Width [m] Volume [m³] Weight [kN]
material [ kN/m³]
1 0,112 0,562 0,062944 18 1,133
2 0,112 0,562 0,062944 18 1,133
3 0,112 0,562 0,062944 18 1,133
4 0,112 0,562 0,062944 18 1,133
5 0,112 0,562 0,062944 18 1,133
Culculation the weight of the wall segments above each
voussoir.
WEIGHT MASONRY WALL

Specific weight
№ A [m²] Width [m] Volume [m³] Weight [kN]
material [ kN/m³]
1 0,519 0,562 0,291678 18 5,250
2 0,517 0,562 0,290554 18 5,230
3 0,507 0,562 0,284934 18 5,129
4 0,48 0,562 0,26976 18 4,856
5 0,42 0,562 0,23604 18 4,249
Combining vectors for finding the forces of the both
elements.
TOTAL WEIGHT [kN]

Wwall
№ Wvous. [kN] Wtot [kN]
[kN]
R1 1,133 5,250 6,383
R2 1,133 5,230 6,363
R3 1,133 5,129 6,262
R4 1,133 4,856 5,989
R5 1,133 4,249 5,382
Building the first funicular polygon for finding the Resultant
force.
TOTAL WEIGHT [kN]

Wwall
[kN]
R1 1,133 5,250 6,383
R2 1,133 5,230 6,363
R3 1,133 5,129 6,262
R4 1,133 4,856 5,989
R5 1,133 4,249 5,382
Rresultant= 30,379kN
Building the second funicular polygon to find the curve of the
pressure inside the arch.
TOTAL WEIGHT [kN]

Wwall
[kN]
R1 1,133 5,250 6,383
R2 1,133 5,230 6,363
R3 1,133 5,129 6,262
R4 1,133 4,856 5,989
R5 1,133 4,249 5,382
Curve of the pressure inside the arch.
The curve in the lower part

of the arch is out of the one
middle third border, which
is the secure zone.
According to
this, we consider that the
arch is not stable and need
an additional reinforcement.
Checking the resultant force of the column from the roof and the
arches.
Total area of the roof: 104,3 Culculation of the load of the roof with its
m² components.
CALCULATION OF THE ROOF LOAD
Permanent loads /mq of slope
Tiles of slope: g1 = 60 Kg/mq.
Impermeabilization: g2 = 10 Kg/mq.
Specific weight of wood: 700 Kg/mc
Little wooden beams of the slope
Interax i= 0,35 m
section 0,07 x 0,07 x 700 / 0,35 g3 = 10 Kg/mq.
Internal panels of the slope:
Thickness m 0,55 x 700 g g4 = 385 Kg/mq.
Angle of the slope a= 30 °
Total load in the orizontal direction q/cosa G= 537 Kg/mq.
Bigger beams (arcarecci):

interax i= 0,95 m
Tributary area of the section 0,15 x 0,12 x 700 / 0,95 g5 = 13 Kg/mq.
Overloads q= 0 Kg/mq.
column Carico totale Q= 550 Kg/mq.
The weight from the wall that the column

CAPRIATA
supports: 60,756kN interasse m 2,65
b h l g (kg/m3)
The weight from the roof that the column -puntone m 0,18 m 0,18 m 6,00 620,00 108,03 Kg
-monaco e saettoni m 0,18 m 0,18 m 2,20 620,00 28,12 Kg
Supports on its tributary area is: -tirante m 0,18 m 0,18 m 6,00 620,00 123,21 Kg
Tributary area = 11,5 m² 259,36 Kg
incidenza peso a mq 98 Kg/mq
Load on tributary area = 648 kg/m² * 11,5 m² =
7452 kg
7452kg = 73,03 kN
Checking the resultant force of the column from the roof and the
arches.
Graphic of force direction in the wall Graphic of force direction in the column.
Wall Column
SECTION 4
4.A. IDENTIFICATION OF RETROFITTING INTERVENTIONS
After the calculations on the arches of our
church, we found out that the main
problem for the stability of the whole
system could be the pushing towards the
centre of the imposts of the arches
themselves.
This kind of problem can be maybe seen

in the cracks already existent on the
masonry wall upon them.
The structure though it’s pretty stable,
because the pressure of the roof above
the arches pushes in the centre of the
extrados preventing the mechanism to
collapse.
4.A. RETROFITTING INTERVENTION: GROUT INJECTIONS
To give more stabilization to our arches, a good

solution would be to put a load on the centre of
the arch that can push the internal forces causing
a stabilization ( the same job done by the roof in
the actual state).
To put a load in a certain point of the masonry, it

could be possible to use the GROUT INJECTION,
a method in wich a binder mixture is injected
directly into the wall.
The aim of this procedure, other than our specific
case, is: Applicability of grout injection is strictly related to the presence of
- Re-integrate the continuity of the masonry voids in the core of masonry, interconnected net and/or cracks,
- Improve the masonry mechanical properties allowing the mixture to penetrate and spread within the wall or, in
- Enhance the junction between the external general, to the structural element.
cover and the core of the wall
The main problems connected to the grout injection can be:
• the lack of knowledge on the size distribution of voids in the wall
• the difficulty of the grout to penetrate into thin cracks (2 to 3mm),
even if microfine binders are used
• the presence in the wall, of fine and large size voids, which makes
it difficult to choose the type of mixture
• the need for sufficiently low injection pressure to avoid either air
trapping within the cracks and fine voids or even wall disruption;
• the lack of a preliminary control of the chemical properties of the
masonry
4.A. GROUT INJECTIONS: CHARACTERISTICS
Characteristics required for injection materials are:

• INJECTABILITY (i.e. penetrability to fine voids - min. 0,20mm, and fluidity)
• LOW HYDRATION HEAT (to avoid effects on the substrate)
• ADEQUATE SETTING AND HARDENING TIME
• STABILITY (limited bleeding, no segregation phenomena
• HYGROSCOPIC PROPERTIES (e.g. water insoluble salts)
• ADHESION TO THE MASONRY MATERIALS
• CHEMICAL AND PHYSICAL COMPATIBILITY with existent mortars and units
• SALT RESISTANCE
• MECHANICAL EFFICIENCY (enhancement of strength and deformability properties) similar to the original masonry (or
depending on the case).
4.A. GROUT INJECTIONS: TYPES
1.POLYMER INJECTION GROUTING
Polymer injection grouting is based on use of polymers such as polyester,

epoxy, vinyl ester, polyurethane and acrylic resins. The most popular polymer
used for epoxy grout is epoxy. Polyurethane and acrylic resin based polymers
are used for treatment of water retaining structure, underground structures
as well as to prevent seepage of water.
2. FIBER-REINFORCED INJECTION GROUTS
Fiber reinforced concrete is used for repair of concrete and masonry

structural members. Fibers such as polypropylene, Steel or Glass fibers are
used with Portland cement or shrinkage compensating mortar to repair and
strengthening of structural members to provide improved flexural strength,
impact resistance and ductility. Fiber reinforced injection grouts require
skilled handling to avoid segregation of fibers.
3. CEMENT – SAND GROUTS
Cement-sand grout is the most popular type of grout used for repair of
concrete or masonry structure and is easily available. This grout is used for
the places where strength enhancement of structure is not required. This is
also most popular because it is readily available in the market and is cheapest
form of repair of concrete and masonry structural members.
This method requires high water and cement contents for injection purpose.
The use of cement-sand grouts results in shrinkage and cracking of grout at
hardening and to minimize this, suitable shrinkage compensating agents are
required. Use of cement-sand grouts is very common in masonry buildings, but
not very common in concrete.
4. GAS-FORMING GROUTS
The gas-forming injection grout is used based on the principle that the gas
bubbles expand the grout to compensate shrinkage of grout after application.
These gas bubbles are generated on reaction of some ingredients (usually
Aluminium and Carbon powder contained in grout) with the cement liquor.
The gas bubble forming injection grouts are temperature sensitive and is not
suitable for high temperature application require proper confinement to
develop strength and volume stability, as the reaction forming gas bubbles
may be too fast and may complete before placing of the grout.
5. SULFO-ALUMINATE GROUTS
Sulfo-alum injection grout is also based on the principle shrinkage

compensation. In these grouts either shrinkage-compensating cement or
anhydrous sulfo-aluminate expansive additive is used with Portland
cement. The additive results, in expansion at hydration.
This produces expansion after the grout has set and is more reliable than
gas -forming grouts. But the expansion of such grouts requires post-
hardening curing and it will not be effective if moist curing is not available
4.B. CRITICAL ANALYSIS OF THE SUGGESTED RETROFITTING
INTERVENTIONS IN CONSIDERATION OF CONSERVATION PRINCIPLES
REPAIR CRITERIA BASED ON

CONSERVATION PRINCIPLES
RESPECT FOR STRUCTURAL AUTHENTICITY x
STRUCTURAL RELIABILITY REQUIREMENTS x
MINIMAL INTERVENTION x
COMPATIBILITY x
DURABILITY x
NON INTRUSIVENESS
NON OBTRUSIVENESS x
REMOVABILITY
MONITORABILITY AND CONTROLLABILITY

RESPECT FOR STRUCTURAL AUTHENTICITY
Monuments are also interesting and valuable because they constitute a structural achievement and provide an
immediate and tangible experience on past construction technologies. Structures of monuments are in fact living
legacies which, centuries after their construction, still carry out their resisting mission and keep on enduring loads, wind
and earthquakes; they are a living and persistent proof of the skills of their creators and builders. Proper restoration of
monuments must focus on preserving the original features of the structure. If repair or strengthening works are needed,
they should cause the minimum possible alteration.
STRUCTURAL RELIABILITY REQUIREMENTS
It is required or accepted that structures of high cultural significance should be upgraded to remain unaffected
(undamaged) by possible earthquakes. It must be noted, however, that this requirement may often lead to very impacting
an invasive upgrading measures causing a significant loss in terms of cultural heritage. The extent of seismic upgrading in
heritage constructions needs to be carefully considered in every individual case based on a cost-benefit analysis which
takes into account the cultural losses conveyed by the upgrading itself. In the case of valuable monuments, seismic
upgrading leading to non-damageable structure may be also considered to reduce the material or artistic losses
(ultimately, cultural losses) that the building could experience due to an earthquake.
MINIMAL INTERVENTION
Interventions causing only a reduced impact on the original structure should be preferred, provided that they are enough
to warrant the required safety level. Reaching an “optimum” solution requires, as a first step, conceiving and tentatively
developing a set of alternative solutions. Similarly, and as a first step, reaching an “optimum” intervention requires to
the engineer or architect to foresee and develop a set of alternative possibilities involving different strategies, techniques
or materials. According to the ISO/FDIS 13822 final draft, the solution finally adopted should consists of a “minimal
intervention”, defined as “an intervention that balances the safety requirements with the protection of character-
defining elements, ensuring the least harm to heritage values”.
COMPATIBILITY
“The characteristics of materials used in restoration work (in particular new materials) and their compatibility with
existing materials should be fully established (as for example to avoid risk of negative chemical reaction, etc...). In any
case, it has to be clear that compatibility is a necessary condition but not sufficient to accept a product because its
benefit has to be demonstrated. This must include long-term effects, so that undesirable side effects are avoided”.
The materials and the technical devices used for repair or strengthening must be compatible with the original ones, in
the sense that no undesirable side-effect should result from their physical or mechanical combination. New materials or
mechanical devices should not deform too differently from the original ones when subjected to environmental thermal
variations
DURABILITY
Conservation and restoration aim at significantly enlarge the life expectancy of heritage structures. Hence, the repair
materials or strengthening mechanical devices used must be satisfactorily durable. Both the overall safety of the
structure and the durability of the original parts can be compromised by the decay of new repair material.
NON OBTRUSIVENESS
Obtrusiveness refers to the quality of being undesirably noticeable. The Venice Charter for the Conservation and
Restoration of Monuments and Sites, 1964) states that “replacements of missing parts must integrate harmoniously
with the whole, but at the same time must be distinguishable from the original so that restoration does not falsify the
artistic or historic evidence. Additions cannot be allowed except in so far as they do not detract from the interesting
parts of the building, its traditional setting, the balance of its composition and its relation with its surroundings”.
According to this understanding, any additional structural device included as part of a strengthening action must
integrate harmoniously with the existing structure and should not cause a significant alteration of its initial aspect.
It should, however, be distinguishable from the original parts or materials.
SECTION 5
5. BIBLIOGRAPHY
Books / monographies:
- Norme tecniche per le costruzioni 2008
- Eurocode 1: Actions on structures - Part 1-1: General actions - Densities, self-weight, imposed loads for buildings
[Authority: The European Union Per Regulation 305/2011, Directive 98/34/EC, Directive 2004/18/EC]
- D.3.1. Inventory of earthquake-induced failure mechanisms related to construction types, structural elements, and
materials, POLIMI
- D.3.2. Critical review of retrofitting and reinforcement techniques related to possible failure, POLIMI
- Earthquakes in Rome during the past one hundred years , Istituto Nazionale di Geofisica e Vulcanologia
- Istituto studi romani, “San Vitale:cenni religiosi,storici,artistici”, Roma 1938
Web pages:
- Istituto Nazionale di Geofisica e Vulcanologia: https://emidius.mi.ingv.it/CPTI15-DBMI15/query_place/
- Google maps
- PRG of the city of Rome, about geological risks (http://www.urbanistica.comune.roma.it/prg-vigente-g95.html)
- For soil condition : Geomorphologic chart of Rome
(http://www.isprambiente.gov.it/Media/carg/374_ROMA/Foglio.html )
- For climate framework : https://it.climate-data.org/location/1185/
Architectural drawings:
- - Direct Survey of the Basilica Di San Vitale

1 - Basilica Di San Vitale

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

You might also like

1 - Basilica Di San Vitale

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

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

1 - Basilica Di San Vitale

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

BASILICA DI SAN VITALE, ROMA

IV Century – The first building built 2. Drawing of the church by Achille

VII Century – The curch is dedicated Legend

1475 – Sisto V rebuilt the church, destroying the lateral naves

1595 – Clemente VIII, seeing the risk of the church’s ruin,

1859 – Pio IX restored completely the whole building; this

1937- 38 – Restorations brought back the original portico

March-April, 1971 - From 5 to 10 cm of snow

February, 2012 – Abundant snow in most of the city, from

1895 11 1 CAMPAGNA ROMANA 41.76 12.43 11 VII

1909 8 31 ROME 41.93 12.41 12 V - VI

1953 4 3 ROME 41.86 12.47 11 IV

1993 1 11 ROME 41.83 12.45 12 IV

1995 6 12 ROME 41.81 12.51 12-14 V-VI

- Rome during its history, suffered maximun

2 4 10 GROUND FLOOR ROOF PLAN

Roof Portico: wood

MATERIAL OF THE MAIN STRUCTURAL ELEMENTS

MATERIAL OF THE MAIN STRUCTURAL ELEMENTS

The main construction material

MATERIAL OF THE MAIN STRUCTURAL ELEMENTS

MATERIAL OF THE MAIN STRUCTURAL ELEMENTS

MATERIAL OF THE MAIN STRUCTURAL ELEMENTS

MATERIAL OF THE MAIN STRUCTURAL ELEMENTS

MATERIAL OF THE MAIN STRUCTURAL ELEMENTS

The ceiling is supported

Detail between the roof of the

We assume rigid connections

- The existing damage in the lateral walls are also about

- The existing damage in the lateral walls are also about

Bigger beams (arcarecci):

qSK = 0,60 kN/mq

qs= 0,60 kN/mq x 1,1 x 0,8 x 1 = 0,528 kN/ mq

CHARACTERISTICS OF THE ARCH

CHARCTERISTICS OF THE MASONRY WALL

Wall width Wall height above Specific weight of the

WEIGHT MASONRY WALL

TOTAL WEIGHT [kN]

TOTAL WEIGHT [kN]

TOTAL WEIGHT [kN]

The curve in the lower part

Bigger beams (arcarecci):

The weight from the wall that the column

This kind of problem can be maybe seen

To give more stabilization to our arches, a good

To put a load in a certain point of the masonry, it

Characteristics required for injection materials are:

Polymer injection grouting is based on use of polymers such as polyester,

2. FIBER-REINFORCED INJECTION GROUTS

Fiber reinforced concrete is used for repair of concrete and masonry

Sulfo-alum injection grout is also based on the principle shrinkage

REPAIR CRITERIA BASED ON

MONITORABILITY AND CONTROLLABILITY

RESPECT FOR STRUCTURAL AUTHENTICITY

STRUCTURAL RELIABILITY REQUIREMENTS

You might also like