seismic vulnerability of architectural heritage at ... · –interactive website for data...

SYNER-G Final Workshop, Milano, 21-22 March 2013

Systemic Seismic Vulnerability and Risk Analysis

for Buildings, Lifeline Networks

and Infrastructures Safety Gain

Seismic vulnerability of architectural

heritage at territorial scale :

Use of numerical and cognitive

procedures

Dina D’Ayala, CEGE,UCL

Viviana Novelli, CEGE, UCL


AIM: guidelines for performance based assessment for architectural

and artistic heritage assets, which meets the requirement of both

European code seismic provisions and ICOMOS principle for heritage

preservation.

M1 M2 M4 M5

WP9. Coordination

WP1. Definition of safety

levels

Steering

Committee

WP8. GUIDELINES - DISSEMINATION

WP3. Foundation problems

and soil/structure

interactions

WP4. Diagnostic

techniques, material

parameters and structural

identification

WP5. Models for the

seismic analysis and

the design of

interventions

WP6. Models for the

seismic vulnerability

assessment at

territorial scale

WP7. Development of an

integrated methodology and

application to case studies

WP2. Definition of the

seismic hazard

M6 M7M1 M2 M4 M5

WP9. Coordination

WP1. Definition of safety

levels

Steering

Committee

WP8. GUIDELINES - DISSEMINATION

WP3. Foundation problems

and soil/structure

interactions

WP4. Diagnostic

techniques, material

parameters and structural

identification

WP5. Models for the

seismic analysis and

the design of

interventions

WP6. Models for the

seismic vulnerability

assessment at

territorial scale

WP7. Development of an

integrated methodology and

application to case studies

WP2. Definition of the

seismic hazard

M6 M7

RELATIONSHIP TO

OTHER

WORKPACKAGES

Principal Investigator:

Dr. D. F. D’Ayala

Research Assistant:

V. I. Novelli

Contributors:

UNIGE

UL

BRGM

USTHB

Proind S.r.l . - Italy

University of Genoa

Coordinator – Italy

ENEA - Italian National Agency for

the new technologies, the energy

and the sustainable economic development - Italy

BRGM - Bureau de Recherches

G é ologiques et Mini è res - France

Aristotle University of

Thessaloniki - Greece

National Technical University of

Athens - Greece

University of Ljubljana - Slovenia

University of Bath - United Kingdom

University of Science and

Technology Houari Boumediene - Algeria

Building and Civil Engineering

Institute - Slovenia

Il Cenacolo S.r.l . - Italy

Project duration:

January 2010 - December 2012

http:// www.perpetuate.eu

Department of Civil, Environmental & Geomatic Engineering

Dina D’Ayala, Viviana Novelli

Seismic vulnerability of architectural heritage at territorial scale


1. URBAN MORPHOLOGY EFFECT ON CHOICE OF SAMPLE

2. IDENTIFICATION OF TYPOLOGIES AND CONSTRUCTION DETAILS

3. SIZE AND DISTRIBUTION OF THE SAMPLE

4. SAFETY AND CONSERVATION REQUIREMENTS

5. SEISMIC HAZARD

6. DATA COLLECTION

7. DATA ANALYSIS

8. DEFINITION OF PERFORMANCE POINTS

9 DEFINITION OF CUMULATIVE FRAGILITY FUNCTIONS

10 REHABILITION DECISION

Seismic vulnerability at territorial scale based on performance displacement-method

Applicable to diverse typologies



Seismic vulnerability and risk of architectural heritage at territorial scale





• FaMIVE

– Introduction to procedure

– Damage mechanisms

– Capacity curves

– Fragility curves

– Applications

• LOG-IDEAH

– Hierarchical asset deconstruction

– Damage position, type, level

– Interactive website for data collection

– Logic tree for the interpretation of data

– Applications

• Conclusions


LOG-IDEAH FAMIVE

TWO PARALLEL APPROACHES:

Data collection based on rapid survey on site or by pictures

Assessment is carried out on

Seismic damage types and

seismic damage levels

Geometric and mechanical

properties

Intuitive logic Numerical procedure

For the identification of the collapse mechanism

Processing collected data by





Training and Surveys

1 day Training on the

survey form for local

survey team

3 survey teams

Tot # of people: 9 (6 surveyors + 3 local persons)

9 days Survey




ILOT D 40 BUILDINGS + 7 collapsed

ILOT A2 20 BUILDINGS + 4 collapsed

ILOT A1 18 BUILDINGS

ILOT B1 18 BUILDINGS + 1 collapsed

ILOT B2 32 BUILDINGS + 8 collapsed

128 SURVEYED BUILDINGS +

20 collapsed

Buildings





FaMIVE

LOG-IDEAH


Identification of the masonry

building performance based on

limit analysis and mechanism

approach

FaMIVE

SouthEas

tW

est

North

South East NorthWest

Data Collection

A .. M

AnalysisSouth East NorthWest

A .. M A .. M A .. M

Min Min Min Min

Equivalent Shear Capacity Mechanism

Meff

Teff

Keff

DL SD NC

Mean STD

Logn. Distr

C

eff

Fb

Meffug(t)..

Non-Linear

SDOF

Y

vU

v

vY

sd

Ca

pa

cit

y C

urv

e

DL

SD NC

U

Lateral displacement

Lat

eral

cap

acit

y

C

c

DL

Sp

ec

tra

l R

es

po

ns

e A

ccele

rati

on

for a selected SITE

SD NC

C

Sd (cm)

Sa

(a/g

)

Period T

Sa

(a/g

)

Pe

rfo

rma

nce p

oin

t

Mean STD

Logn. Distr

Mean STD

Logn. Distr

Mean STD

Logn. Distr

Computation of collapse load

multipliers

Definition of equivalent single

d.o.f. and idealised capacity curve

Definition of different limit state

and identification of performance

points

Computation of drift based

fragility curves

Computation of acceleration

based fragility curves





Identification of masonry building performance based on limit analysis and

mechanism approach

Combined Mechanisms

B1:façade

overturnin

g with one

side wall

B2: façade

overturning

with two side

walls

C: overturning

with diagonal

cracks involving

corners

F: overturning

constrained by

ring beams or

ties

In plane Mechanisms

H1:diagonal

cracks mainly

in piers

H2: diagonal

cracks mainly

in spandrel

M1: soft

storey due

to shear

M2: soft storey

due to bending

Out of Plane Mechanism

A: façade

overturning

with vertical

cracks

D: façade

overturning

with diagonal

crack

E: façade

overturning

with crack at

spandrels

G: façade

overturning

with diagonal

cracks





Definition of different limit state and identification of performance points

u

elcnlnlu

nl

elcnlnlu

c

u

elcnlcnlu

u

uelcnlnlucnl

nl

nlelcnlnlu

c

A

AgTSDTAAif

TA

AgTSDTAAif

TTif

A

AgTSDTAAif

A

gAAT SDTAATAif

TA

gTAAT SDTAAif

TTif

2

22

2

22

2

22

22

22

22

22

4

0)(

)(4

0)(

4

0)(

4*

1

0)(

)(4*

1

)(0)(

0

0,1

0,2

0,3

0,4

0,5

0,6

0,7

0,8

0,9

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Accele

rati

on

(g

)

displacement (cm)

St Irene

4.a.1.ne.1

4.a.1.ne.2

4.a.1.ne3

4.a.1.nw.1

4.a.1.nw.3

4.a.1.se.1

4.a.1.se.2

Limit state Damage state Drift range

(%)

Dy Slight: cracking limit 0.1-1.2

Du Structural damage: maximum capacity 0.6-2

Dnc Near Collapse: loss of equilibrium 2.0-4.0








Application to Algiers





Current state

Strengthening by anchors


Applications in Turkey: Vulnerability study for isolated heritage buildings, Istanbul




0

0.4

0.8

1.2

1.6

2

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3

Sp

ec

tra

l Ac

ce

lera

tio

n (

g)

Period (s)

Spectra from Site Response Analyses

Average Spectrum

Best-Fit NEHRP Envelope Spectrum


Definition of performance points and distribution of performance indicators




0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1

0 5 10 15 20

displacement (cm)

accele

rati

on

(a/g

)

St Irene

4.a.1.ne.2

4.a.1.nw.1

4.a.1.se.2

4.a.1.sw.

PP St. Irene

Kariye

4d.2.s

4d.2.w

4d.3.n

PP Kariye

Fethiye

4b.E4

4b.S2

4b.W

PP Fethiye

0

0.05

0.1

0.15

0.2

0.25

0.3

0.35

0.4

0.45

<0.15, NC TO C, >1.2 >0.15, SD TO NC, <1.2 >0.25, DL TO SD, <0.6 >0.32, ND TO DL, <0.3

perc

enta

ge o

f sam

ple

capacity (g), damage state, drift(%)

LATERAL CAPACITY

DAMAGE STATE

DRIFT

0.01

0.10

1.00

10.00

facade

safety in terms of ultimate acceleration

CAPACITY

DEMAND

SAFETY INDEX


Derivation of fragility functions




0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1

COLLAPSE LOAD FACTOR (g)

CUMULATIVE DISTRIBUTION

LOGNORMAL DISTRIBUTION

MIN PGA

MEAN PGA

MAX PGA


LOG-IDEAH

LOGic trees for Identification of Damage due to Earthquakes for Architectural Heritage

Hierarchical Approach which links

architectonic assets , facades, structural elements and artistic assets

Expert tool for the identification of the global seismic behaviour of an architectonic asset





AA: Architectonic Asset

Class

A, B,C, D,E, F, G

ME: Macroelement

Vertical ME,

Horizontal ME,

Vaulted ME,

Staircases ME

Piers, Columns and Pillars

Spandrels, Lintels, and Beams

Arches

Rafters, Purlins, Struts, Wall Plates, Tie-beams

Joists, Beams, Boarding, Slabs

Abutments, Buttresses, Springing, Fill

Arches, Transversal Arches, Ribs

Groins, Webs, Shells, Tie Rods, Boss

Columns, Beams, Cantilever, StepsSE: Structural Element

Class P1, P2, P3

Class Q1, Q2, Q3Class R1, R2, R3aa: artistic asset





2. LOG-IDEAH - Logic trees for identification of seismic damage

Title of the slide

LOG-IDEAH


Logic for the acquisition of the data

Collection of the data in situ or by photographic observations


architectonic assets , facades and structural elements


Methodology for data collection

Damage position; damage type; damage level collected at structural element level





Damage Type Damage Level

Damage Limitation

Structural Damage

Near Collapse

Collapse

DL

SD

NC

C

Horizontal Elements

Vertical Elements

Horizontal Elements

Vertical ElementsDamage Position





2. LOG-IDEAH – seismic damage on artistic assets

Title of the slide

Little Movement

Evident Movement

Near Collapse

Collapse

LM

EM

NC

C

Damage Levels

Q

R Dam

age T

ypes

P

Damage Limitation

Structural Damage

Near Collapse

Collapse

DL

SD

NC

C






Title of the slide

10.4sw 10.4sw

Reliability X High Medium Low

D1

D2

V

D1-D2

Damage level:

Structural damage






• Creation of new record

http://perpetuate.cs.bath.ac.uk/

• Design of simplified sketches

• Record damage types and damage

levels of the structural elements

• Uploading of pictures

• Record of the probable collapse mechanisms

How do we store the

collected data?






Civil, Environmental & Geomatic Engineering

Viviana Iris Novelli & Dina D’Ayala

LOG-IDEAH: LOGic trees for Identification of Damage for Architectural Heritage due to Earthquakes for Architectural

Heritage

Records from:

• L’Aquila, Italy

• Casbah of Algiers, Algeria

• Bovec, Slovenia

• Ljubljiana, Slovenia

• Llorca, Spain



Title of the slide

LOG-IDEAH


Logic for the acquisition of the data

Collection of the data in situ or by photographic observations

Logic trees and Answer set programming

knowledge of experts for the identification of the global behaviour of an architectonic asset on

the base of the collected seismic damage is expressed as a logic procedure


architectonic assets , facades and structural elements


Methodology for data collection

Damage position; damage type; damage level collected at structural element level









Username: Guest

password: l6Al6Z6x



Conclusions

The need for robust procedures to assess historic and heritage masonry buildings in

city centres has been highlighted by recent events in Italy and New Zealand

Within the FP7 PEPRPETUATE project the effort has been to develop a procedure

aligned with the performance displacement based approach

The need to validate any numerical procedure with post-seismic site observation is

considered essential

To this end two parallel procedures have been developed and applied to different

case studies

The two procedures FaMIVE and LOG-IDEAH are developed as toolkits available on

line and a number of researchers external to the project have been using it. This

ensure longevity of the products but also allow us to refine them and improve

them with feedback and additional data.




seismic vulnerability of architectural heritage at ... · –interactive website for data...

Documents