Abstract
Abstract
The new Italian building code, published in 2018 [MIT in NTC 2018: D.M. del Ministero delle Infrastrutture e dei trasporti del 17/01/2018. Aggiornamento delle Norme Tecniche per le Costruzioni (in Italian), 2018], explicitly refers to the Italian “Guidelines for the assessment and mitigation of the seismic risk of the cultural heritage” [PCM in DPCM 2011: Direttiva del Presidente del Consiglio dei Ministri per valutazione e riduzione del rischio sismico del patrimonio culturale con riferimento alle norme tecniche per le costruzioni, G.U. n. 47 (in Italian), 2011] as a reliable source of guidance that can be employed for the vulnerability assessment of heritage buildings under seismic loads. According to these guidelines, three evaluation levels are introduced to analyse and assess the seismic capacity of historic masonry structures, namely: (1) simplified global static analyses; (2) kinematic analyses based on local collapse mechanisms, (3) detailed global analyses. Because of the complexity and the large variety of existing masonry typologies, which makes it particularly problematic to adopt a unique procedure for all existing structures, the guidelines provide different simplified analysis approaches for different structural configurations, e.g. churches, palaces, towers. Among the existing typologies of masonry structures there considered, this work aims to deepen validity, effectiveness and scope of application of the Italian guidelines with respect to heritage masonry towers. The three evaluation levels proposed by the guidelines are here compared by discussing the seismic risk assessment of a representative masonry tower: the Cugnanesi tower located in San Gimignano (Italy). The results show that global failure modes due to local stress concentrations cannot be identified if only simplified static and kinematic analyses are performed. Detailed global analyses are in fact generally needed for a reliable prediction of the seismic performance of such structures.
Funder
Tuscany Regional Administration
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Subject
Geophysics,Geotechnical Engineering and Engineering Geology,Building and Construction,Civil and Structural Engineering
Reference65 articles.
1. Acito M, Bocciarelli M, Chesi C, Milani G (2014) Collapse of the clock tower in Finale Emilia after the May 2012 Emilia Romagna earthquake sequence: numerical insight. Eng Struct 72:70–91
2. Atzeni C, Bicci A, Dei D et al (2010) Remote survey of the leaning tower of Pisa by interferometric sensing. IEEE Geosci Remote Sens Lett 7:185–189
3. Autodesk (2013) Autodesk simulation multuphysics—simulation mechanical, v.2013. User’s guide:
https://knowledge.autodesk.com/support/simulation-mechanical
4. Bartoli G, Betti M (2018) Seismic risk of monumental buildings: outcomes of the research project RiSEM. J Perform Constr Facil.
https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)CF.1943-5509.0001193
5. Bartoli G, Betti M, Spinelli P, Tordini B (2006) An “innovative” procedure for assessing the seismic capacity of historical tall buildings: the “ Torre Grossa ” masonry tower. Proc V Int Conf Struct Anal Hist Constr SAHC 2006 929–937
Cited by
70 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献