Seismic performance of non-structural elements during the 2016 Central Italy earthquake

  • D. Perrone
  • P. M. Calvi
  • R. Nascimbene
  • E. C. Fischer
  • G. Magliulo
Original Research Paper

Abstract

Non-structural elements represent most of the total construction cost of typical buildings. A significant portion of the total losses in recent earthquakes worldwide, has been attributed to damage to non-structural elements. Damage to non-structural elements occurs at low levels of ground shaking, and can significantly affect the post-earthquake functionality of buildings. However, in Europe, limited prescriptions are provided in the codes for seismic design of non-structural elements and this may partially explain why it is so common for these elements to perform poorly during earthquakes. This paper describes the observed damage to non-structural elements following the 2016 Central Italy earthquake. The most commonly damaged elements were partition walls, ceiling systems, non-structural vaults, chimneys, and storage racks. As a result, it was highlighted the need to introduce seismic regulations devoted to improving the seismic performance of non-structural elements and to reduce the associated economic losses, loss of functionality, and potential threats to life safety.

Keywords

Non-structural elements Central Italy earthquake Post earthquake reconnaissance 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank the European Center for Training and Research in Earthquake Engineering (EUCENTRE) and the Earthquake Engineering Research Institute (EERI) for providing all the data related to the inspections performed after the Central Italy earthquake.

References

  1. Adam C, Furtmuller T, Moschen L (2013) Floor response spectra for moderately heavy nonstructural elements attached to ductile frame structures. Comput Methods Earthq Eng 2:69–90CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. ASCE (2010) ASCE/SEI 7-10 Minimum design loads for buildings and other structure. American Society of Civil Engineers. ISBN-13: 978-0784410851Google Scholar
  3. Asteris PG, Kakalestis DJ, Chrysostomou CZ, Smyrou EE (2011) Failure modes of in-filled frames. Electron J Struct Eng 11(1):11–20Google Scholar
  4. ASTM C635/C635M-17 (2017) Standard specification for manufacture, performance, and testing of metal suspension systems for acoustical tile and lay-in panel ceilings. ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PAGoogle Scholar
  5. Bachman RE (2004) The ATC 58 Project, plan for non-structural components, performance-based seismic design: concepts and implementation. Peer Report 2004/05, Pacific Engineering Research Centre, University of California, Berkeley, CaliforniaGoogle Scholar
  6. Badillo-Almaraz H, Whittker AS, Reinhorn AM, Cimellaro GP (2006) Seismic fragility of suspended ceiling systems. Report MCEER-06-0001Google Scholar
  7. Baird A, Ferner H (2017) Damage to non-structural elements in the 2016 Kaikoura earthquake. Bull N Z Soc Earthq Eng 50(2):187–193Google Scholar
  8. Braga F, Manfredi V, Masi A, Salvatori A, Vona M (2011) Performance of non-structural elements in RC buildings during the L’Aquila, 2009 earthquake. Bull Earthq Eng 9:307–324CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Calvi PM (2014) Relative displacement floor spectra for seismic design of non structural elements. J Earthq Eng 18(7):1037–1059CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Calvi PM, Sullivan TJ (2014) Estimating floor spectra in multiple degree of freedom systems. Earthq Struct 7(11):17–38CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Casarotti C (2017) Rapporto attività svolta nell’ambito dell’emergenza sismica in centro Italia a seguito degli eventi del 24/08/2016. Internal Report EUCENTRE, Pavia, Italy (in Italian) Google Scholar
  12. Castello B, Gruppo di lavoro Bollettino Sismico Italiano (2017) Bolletino Sismico Italiano: Analysis of early aftershocks of the 2016 Mw 6.0 Amatrice, Mw 5.9 Visso and Mw 6.5 Norcia earthquakes in central Italy. Proceeding 36° Convegno Nazionale Gruppo Nazionale di Geofisica della Terra Solida, Trieste 14–16 November 2017, ItalyGoogle Scholar
  13. CEN (2004) Eurocode 8—design provisions for earthquake resistant structures. Comite Europeen de Normalization, Brussels, BelgiumGoogle Scholar
  14. Chiaraluce L, Di Stefano E, Tinti L, Scognamiglio L, Michele M, Casarotti E, Cattaneo M, De Gori P, Chiarabba G, Monachesi G, Lombardi A, Valoroso L, Latorre D, Marzonati S (2017) The 2016 Central Italy seismic sequence: a first look at the mainshocks, aftershocks, and source models. Seismol Res Lett 88(3):757–771CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Davies R, Retamales R, Mosqueda G, Filiatrault A (2011) Experimental seismic evaluation, model parameterization and effects of cold-formed steel-framed gypsum partition walls on the seismic performance of an essential facility. Report MCEER-11-0005Google Scholar
  16. Derakhshan S (2016) Overview of social, economical and policy impacts—August 24, 2016 Amatrice, Italy earthquake. http://www.eqclearinghouse.org. Accessed 1 Sept 2016
  17. Dhakal RP (2010) Damage to non-structural components and contents in 2010 Darfield earthquake. Bull N Z Soc Earthq Eng 43(4):404–411Google Scholar
  18. Dipartimento della Protezione Civile (2009) Linee guida per la riduzione della vulnerabilità di elementi non strutturali arredi e impianti, Presidenza del Consiglio dei Ministri, Roma, ItaliaGoogle Scholar
  19. Dolšek M, Fajfar P (2005) Simplified non-linear seismic analysis of infilled reinforced concrete frames. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 34:49–66CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Ercolino M, Petrone C, Coppola O, Magliulo G (2012) Report sui danni registrati a San Felice sul Panaro (Mo) in seguito agli eventi sismici del 20 e 29 maggio 2012—v1.0. http://www.reluis.it/. Accessed 29 May 2012
  21. FEMA 306 (1998) Evaluation of earthquake damaged concrete and masonry wall buildings—basic procedure manual. Applied Technology Council, Redwood City, CaliforniaGoogle Scholar
  22. FEMA 356 (2000) FEMA 356 Pre-standard and commentary for the seismic rehabilitation of buildingGoogle Scholar
  23. FEMA E-74 (2012) Reducing the risks of nonstructural earthquake damage—a practical guide. Federal Emergency Management Agency, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  24. Filiatrault A, Sullivan T (2014) Performance-based seismic design of nonstructural building components: the next frontier of earthquake engineering. Earthq Eng Eng Vib 13(Suppl 1):17–46CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Filiatrault A, Uang CM, Folz B, Christopoulos C, Gatto K (2001) Reconnaissance report of the February 28, 2001 Nisqually (Seattle-Olympia) earthquake. Structural Systems Research Project Report No. SSRP-2000/15, Department of Structural Engineering, University of California, San Diego, La Jolla, CAGoogle Scholar
  26. Gallipoli MR, Mucciarelli M, Sket-Motnikar B, Zupancic P, Gosar A, Prevolnik S, Herak M, Stipcevic J, Herak D, Milutinovic Z, Olumceva T (2010) Empirical estimates of dynamic parameters on a large set of European buildings. Bull Earthq Eng 8(3):593–697CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Gilani ASJ, Takhirov S, Tedesco L (2012) Seismic evaluation procedure for suspended ceilings and components, new experimental approach. In: Proceeding of the 15 WCEE, Lisbon, PortugalGoogle Scholar
  28. Glasgow B, Gilani ASJ, Miyamoto HK (2010) Resilient suspended ceilings for sustainable design of buildings. Structures Congress 2010, American Society of Civil Engineers, pp 2575–2587Google Scholar
  29. Iervolino I, Baltzopoulos G, Chioccarelli E, Suzuki A (2016) Preliminary study on strong motion data of the 2016 Central Italy seismic sequence V6, ReLUIS-INGV Workgroup. http://www.reluis.it. Accessed 10 Nov 2016
  30. Kircher C (2003) It makes dollars and sense to improve non-structural system performance. In: Proceedings of ATC 29-2 seminar of seismic design, performance and retrofit of nonstructural components in critical facilities, Newport Beach, pp 109–120Google Scholar
  31. Leal JM, Perez Gavilan LL, Castorena G, Velazquez D (2017) Infill walls with confining elements and horizontal reinforcement: an experimental study. Eng Struct 150:153–165CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Luzi L, Pacor F, Puglia R (2017) Italian Accelerometric Archive v 2.2. Istituto Nazionale di Geofisica e Vulcanologia, Dipartimento della Protezione Civile Nazionale.  https://doi.org/10.13127/itaca.2.2
  33. Magliulo G, Pentangelo V, Maddaloni G, Capozzi V, Petrone C, Lopez P, Talamonti R, Manfredi G (2012) Shake table tests for seismic assessment of suspended continuos ceilings. Bull Earthq Eng 10(6):1819–1832CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Michele M, Di Stefano R, Chiaraluce L, Cattaneo M, De Gori P, Monachesi G, Latorre D, Marzorati S, Valoroso L, Ladina C, Chiarabba C, Lauciani V, Fares M (2016) The Amatrice 2016 seismic sequence: a preliminary look at the mainshock and aftershocks distribution. Ann Geophys.  https://doi.org/10.4401/ag-7277 Google Scholar
  35. Miranda E, Taghavi S (2003) Estimation of seismic demands on acceleration-sensitive nonstructural components in critical facilities. In: Proceedings of the seminar on seismic design, performance, and retrofit of nonstructural components in critical facilities, ATC 29-2, Newport Beach, CAGoogle Scholar
  36. Miranda E, Mosqueda G, Retamales G, Pekcan G (2012) Performance of nonstructural components during the 27 February 2010 Chile earthquake. Earthq Spectra 28(S1):S453–S471CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Morandi P, Milanesi R, Magenes G (2017) Innovative seismic solution for clay masonry with sliding joints: principles and details. In: Proceeding of the 16 world conference on earthquake engineering, ChileGoogle Scholar
  38. Moschen L, Adam C (2017) Peak floor acceleration demand prediction based on response spectrum analysis of various sophistication. Acta Mech 228(4):1249–1268CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Moschen L, Adam C, Vamvatsikos D (2016) A response spectrum method for peak floor acceleration demands in earthquake excited structures. Probab Eng Mech 45:94–106CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. NFPA (2010) NFPA 13: automatic sprinkler systems handbook. National Fire Protection Association, Quincy, MAGoogle Scholar
  41. NTC08 (2008) Nuove norme tecniche per le costruzioni. D.M. Ministero Infrastrutture e Trasporti 14 Gennaio 2008, G.U.R.I. February 4th 2008, Roma, ItalyGoogle Scholar
  42. Perrone D, Filiatrault A (2017) Automated seismic design of non-structural elements with building information modelling. Autom Constr 84:166–175.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.autcon.2017.09.002 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Perrone D, Leone M, Aiello MA (2016) Evaluation of the infill influence on the elastic period of existing RC frames. Eng Struct 123:419–433CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Petrone C, Magliulo G, Manfredi G (2014) Shake table tests for the seismic assessment of hollow brick internal partitions. Eng Struct 72:203–214CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Petrone C, Magliulo G, Manfredi G (2015) Seismic demand on light acceleration-sensitive nonstructural components in European reinforced concrete buildings. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 8(10):1203–1217CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Porter K, Johnson G, Sheppard R, Bachman R (2010) Fragility of mechanical, electrical, and plumbing equipment. Earthq Spectra 26(2):451–472CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Pourali A, Dhakal P, MacRae GA (2014) Seismic performance of suspended ceilings: critical review of current design practice. In: Proceeding of NZSEE annual conference, Auckland, New ZealandGoogle Scholar
  48. Pourali A, Dhakal P, MacRae GA, Tasligedik AS (2017) Fully-floating suspended ceiling system: experimental evaluation of structural feasibility and challenges. Earthq Spectra 33:1627–1654CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Pozzi M, Der Kiureghian A (2015) Response spectrum analysis for floor acceleration. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 44:2111–2127CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Pujol S, Fick D (2010) The test of a full-scale three-story RC structure with masonry infill walls. Eng Struct 32(10):3112–3121CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Quagliarini E, Lenci S, Seri E (2012) On the damage of frescoes and stuccoes on the lower surface of historical flat suspended light vaults. J Cult Herit 13(3):293–303CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Ricci P, De Risi MT, Verderame GM, Manfredi G (2013) Influence of infill distribution and design typology on seismic performance of low- and mid-rise RC buildings. Bull Earthq Eng 11(5):1585–1616CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Sassun K, Sullivan TJ, Morandi P, Cardone D (2016) Characterising the in-plane seismic performance of infill masonry. Bull N Z Soc Earthq Eng 49(1):100–117Google Scholar
  54. Shing PB, Mehrabi AB (2002) Behaviour and analysis of masonry-infilled frames. Prog Struct Mat Eng 4:320–331CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Sivanerupan S, Wilson JL, Gad EF, Lam NTK (2014) In-plane drift capacity of contemporary point fixed glass façade systems. J Archit Eng.  https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)AE.1943-5568.0000130 Google Scholar
  56. Sullivan TJ, Calvi PM, Nascimbene R (2013a) Towards improved floor spectra estimates for seismic design. Earthq Struct 4(1):109–132CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Sullivan TJ, Calvi PM, Welch D (2013b) Estimating roof-level acceleration spectra for single storey buildings. COMPDYN 2013, Kos Island; Greece, June 12 to June 14Google Scholar
  58. Tian Y, Filiatrault A, Mosqueda G (2014) Experimental seismic fragility of pressurized fire suppression sprinkler piping joints. Earthq Spectra 30(4):1733–1748CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Tian Y, Filiatrault A, Mosqueda G (2015a) Seismic response of pressurized fire sprinkler piping systems I: experimental study. J Earthq Eng 19(4):649–673CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Tian Y, Filiatrault A, Mosqueda G (2015b) Seismic response of pressurized fire sprinkler piping systems II: numerical study. J Earthq Eng 19(4):674–699CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Vukobratovic V, Fajfar P (2016) A method for the direct estimation of floor acceleration spectra for elastic and inelastic MDOF structures. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 45(15):2495–2511CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Wang S, Yang Y, Lin F, Jeng J, Hwang J (2017) Experimental study on seismic performance of mechanical/electrical equipment with vibration isolation systems. J Earthq Eng 21(3):439–460CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Welch DP, Sullivan TJ, Filiatrault A (2014) Potential of building information modelling for seismic risk mitigation in buildings. Bull N Z Soc Earthq Eng 47(4):253–263Google Scholar
  64. Zareian F, Sampere C, Sandoval V, McCormick DL, Moehle J, Leon R (2012) Reconnaissance of the Chilean wine industry affected by the 2010 Chile offshore Maule earthquake. Earthq Spectra 28(S1):S503–S512CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V., part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • D. Perrone
    • 1
  • P. M. Calvi
    • 2
  • R. Nascimbene
    • 3
  • E. C. Fischer
    • 4
  • G. Magliulo
    • 5
  1. 1.University School for Advanced Studies IUSS PaviaPaviaItaly
  2. 2.Department of Civil and Environmental EngineeringUniversity of WashingtonSeattleUSA
  3. 3.European Centre for Training and Research in Earthquake EngineeringPaviaItaly
  4. 4.Department of Civil and Construction EngineeringOregon State UniversityCorvallisUSA
  5. 5.Department of Structures for Engineering and ArchitectureUniversity of Naples Federico IINaplesItaly

Personalised recommendations