Margherita Fabris, Lorenzo Bellini, Elisa Saler, and Francesca da Porto
i Ph.D. student, Department of Geosciences of the University of Padova, Padova, Italy, margherita.fabris.2@phd.unipd.it
ii Research fellow, Department of Geosciences of the University of Padova, Padova, Italy, lorenzo.bellini.1@studenti.unipd.it
iii Technician WCRI-Sycuri, Department of Geosciences of the University of Padova, Padova, Italy, elisa.saler@unipd.it
iv Full Professor, Department of Geosciences of the University of Padova, Padova, Italy, francesca.daporto@unipd.it
ABSTRACT
Historical centres often consist of clusters of masonry buildings, commonly arranged as urban blocks or terraced houses. Their strong irregularity and the effects of interaction among adjacent structural units often lead to an increase in seismic vulnerability. The complexity of this building type makes the assessment of the seismic response a challenging undertaking. It is therefore of great interest to identify a methodology for the seismic assessment of clusters of buildings, encompassing all stages from the knowledge process to modelling and analysis. In this context, adopted modelling strategies play a crucial role, and thus a comprehensive acknowledgement of their advantages and limitations is necessary. In this work, two modelling approaches are adopted, i.e., equivalent frame model (EFM) using 3Muri and finite element model (FEM) using Diana FEA. First, a simplified prototype case was developed. This step was essential to establish modelling strategies that ensure compatibility of the two approaches. These strategies were then extended to a real case study of terraced houses, located in Castelsantangelo sul Nera (Central Italy). The structure was affected by the 2016 Central Italy earthquake. The on-site structural, material and damage surveys carried out allow for the calibration of the implemented numerical models. The global behaviour was examined by performing nonlinear static analysis. Various configurations were simulated considering single structural units, as well as the entire cluster. The results obtained by the two modelling strategies are compared and discussed.
KEYWORDS: masonry, seismic vulnerability, historical buildings, aggregate, cluster buildings, pushover analysis.
143-Fabris.pdf
