Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering

, Volume 17, Issue 2, pp 1029–1052 | Cite as

Tracking modal parameters evolution of a school building during retrofitting works

  • Alessio Pierdicca
  • Francesco ClementiEmail author
  • Andrea Fortunati
  • Stefano Lenci
Original Research


During a seismic improvement intervention that lasted more than one year, a reinforced concrete (RC) school building had been surveyed through dynamic monitoring, granting continuous updates on its global response. Operational modal analysis was carried out to have a proper understanding of the structure’s dynamic evolution, using a finite element model to perform a non-invasive and quantitative structural assessment taking into account the interactions with the surroundings. During the whole restoration works, the long-term (periodic) monitoring campaign showed the increment of the building performance remarked by the variation of natural frequencies. Also, the experimental assessment of the influence of infill masonry panels on the dynamics of RC frame is shown at each upgraded configuration. Additional restoration works, that may eventually occur, could benefit from the data collected during the present ambient vibration survey, providing useful parameters to enhance the retrofitting and the dynamic behavior of the structure.


Ambient vibration survey Dynamic identification Retrofitting works Dynamic calibration Infill panels 



Ambient vibration


Ambient vibration survey


Reinforced concrete


Numerical model


Integrated electronic piezoelectric


Samples per second


Stochastic subspace identification



This work has been partially supported by the SHELL funded Project ID. CTN001-00128-111357 “Smart, Living Technologies”. The authors are thankful to the colleague Eng. Ph.D. Francesco Monni (CEO of A.h.R.T.E. s.r.l.) who provided the expertise that greatly assisted the research.


  1. Benavent-Climent A, Ramírez-Márquez A, Pujol S (2018) Seismic strengthening of low-rise reinforced concrete frame structures with masonry infill walls: shaking-table test. Eng Struct 165:142–151. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Benedettini F, De Sortis A, Milana G (2017) In field data to correctly characterize the seismic response of buildings and bridges. Bull Earthq Eng 15:643–666. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Cavalagli N, Comanducci G, Ubertini F (2017) Earthquake-induced damage detection in a monumental masonry bell-tower using long-term dynamic monitoring data. J Earthq Eng 13632469(2017):1323048. Google Scholar
  4. Clementi F, Quagliarini E, Maracchini G, Lenci S (2015) Post-world war II Italian school buildings: typical and specific seismic vulnerabilities. J Build Eng 4:152–166. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Clementi F, Scalbi A, Lenci S (2016) Seismic performance of precast reinforced concrete buildings with dowel pin connections. J Build Eng 7:224–238. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Clementi F, Di Sciascio G, Di Sciascio S, Lenci S (2017a) Influence of the shear-bending interaction on the global capacity of reinforced concrete frames. In: Performance-based seismic design of concrete structures and infrastructures. IGI Global, pp 84–111Google Scholar
  7. Clementi F, Lenci S, Rega G (2017b) Cross-checking asymptotics and numerics in the hardening/softening behaviour of Timoshenko beams with axial end spring and variable slenderness. Arch Appl Mech 87:865–880. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Clementi F, Pierdicca A, Formisano A et al (2017c) Numerical model upgrading of a historical masonry building damaged during the 2016 Italian earthquakes: the case study of the Podestà palace in Montelupone (Italy). J Civ Struct Heal Monit 7:703–717. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. De Angelis A, Pecce MR (2018) Out-of-plane structural identification of a masonry infill wall inside beam-column RC frames. Eng Struct 173:546–558. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Di Cesare A, Ponzo FC, Vona M et al (2014) Identification of the structural model and analysis of the global seismic behaviour of a RC damaged building. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 65:131–141. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Ditommaso R, Mucciarelli M, Parolai S, Picozzi M (2012) Monitoring the structural dynamic response of a masonry tower: comparing classical and time–frequency analyses. Bull Earthq Eng 10:1221–1235. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Dolce M, Nicoletti M, De Sortis A et al (2017) Osservatorio sismico delle strutture: the Italian structural seismic monitoring network. Bull Earthq Eng 15:621–641. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Elnashai AS, Di Sarno L (2008) Fundamentals of earthquake engineering. Wiley, ChichesterCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Elwardany H, Seleemah A, Jankowski R (2017) Seismic pounding behavior of multi-story buildings in series considering the effect of infill panels. Eng Struct 144:139–150. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Ewins DJ (2000) Modal testing: theory, practice and application, 2nd edn. Wiley, HobokenGoogle Scholar
  16. Farrar CR, Worden K (2007) An introduction to structural health monitoring. Philos Trans R Soc A Math Phys Eng Sci 365:303–315. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Federici F, Alesii R, Colarieti A et al (2014) Design of wireless sensor nodes for structural health monitoring applications. Procedia Eng 87:1298–1301. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Fiorentino G, Forte A, Pagano E et al (2018) Damage patterns in the town of Amatrice after August 24th 2016 central Italy earthquakes. Bull Earthq Eng 16:1399–1423. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Foti D, Gattulli V, Potenza F (2014) Output—only identification and model updating by dynamic testing in unfavorable conditions of a seismically damaged building. Comput Civ Infrastruct Eng 29:659–675. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Furtado A, Rodrigues H, Arêde A, Varum H (2017) Modal identification of infill masonry walls with different characteristics. Eng Struct 145:118–134. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Furtado A, Rodrigues H, Arêde A et al (2018) Prediction of the earthquake response of a three-storey infilled RC structure. Eng Struct 171:214–235. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Gentile C, Guidobaldi M, Saisi A (2016) One-year dynamic monitoring of a historic tower: damage detection under changing environment. Meccanica 51:2873–2889. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Guday F (2018) OMA of RC industrial building retrofitted with CFRP using SSI. Int J Adv Eng Res 5:759–771Google Scholar
  24. Kaya Y, Safak E (2015) Real-time analysis and interpretation of continuous data from structural health monitoring (SHM) systems. Bull Earthq Eng 13:917–934. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Masi A, Vona M (2009) Estimation of the in situ concrete strength: provisions of the European and Italian seismic codes and possible improvements. In: RELUIS—Eurocode 8 perspectives from the Italian standpoint workshop, Naples, Italy, pp 67–77Google Scholar
  26. Mezzapelle PA, Scalbi A, Clementi F, Lenci S (2017) The influence of dowel-pin connections on the seismic fragility assessment of RC precast industrial buildings. Open Civ Eng J 11:1138–1157. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Ministero delle Infrastrutture e dei Trasporti (2018) Aggiornamento delle «Norme tecniche per le costruzioni» (in Italian), Supplemento ordinario alla “Gazzetta Ufficiale n. 42 del 20 febbraio 2018—Serie generale”Google Scholar
  28. Mpampatsikos V, Nascimbene R, Petrini L (2008) A critical review of the R.C. frame existing building assessment procedure according to Eurocode 8 and Italian seismic code. J Earthq Eng 12:52–82. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Nayeri RD, Masri SF, Chassiakos AG (2007) Application of structural health monitoring techniques to track structural changes in a retrofitted building based on ambient vibration. J Eng Mech 133:1311–1325. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Ntotsios E, Papadimitriou C, Panetsos P et al (2009) Bridge health monitoring system based on vibration measurements. Bull Earthq Eng 7:469–483. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Oliveira CS, Navarro M (2010) Fundamental periods of vibration of RC buildings in Portugal from in situ experimental and numerical techniques. Bull Earthq Eng 8:609–642. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Ostachowicz WM, Güemes A (2013) New trends in structural health monitoring. Springer, WienCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Peeters B, De Roeck G (1999) Reference-based stochastic subspace identification for output-only modal analysis. Mech Syst Signal Process 13:855–878. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Pierdicca A, Clementi F, Isidori D et al (2016a) Numerical model upgrading of a historical masonry palace monitored with a wireless sensor network. Int J Mason Res Innov 1:74. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Pierdicca A, Clementi F, Maracci D et al (2016b) Damage detection in a precast structure subjected to an earthquake: a numerical approach. Eng Struct 127:447–458. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Pitilakis K, Karapetrou S, Bindi D et al (2016) Structural monitoring and earthquake early warning systems for the AHEPA hospital in Thessaloniki. Bull Earthq Eng 14:2543–2563. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Quagliarini E, Clementi F, Maracchini G, Monni F (2016) Experimental assessment of concrete compressive strength in old existing RC buildings: a possible way to reduce the dispersion of DT results. J Build Eng 8:162–171. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Quagliarini E, Maracchini G, Clementi F (2017) Uses and limits of the equivalent frame model on existing unreinforced masonry buildings for assessing their seismic risk: a review. J Build Eng 10:166–182. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Rainieri C, Fabbrocino G (2010) Automated output-only dynamic identification of civil engineering structures. Mech Syst Signal Process 24:678–695. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Rainieri C, Fabbrocino G (2014) Operational modal analysis of civil engineering structures. Springer, New YorkCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Rainieri C, Fabbrocino G, Manfredi G, Dolce M (2012) Robust output-only modal identification and monitoring of buildings in the presence of dynamic interactions for rapid post-earthquake emergency management. Eng Struct 34:436–446. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Ricci P, Di Domenico M, Verderame GM (2018) Experimental assessment of the in-plane/out-of-plane interaction in unreinforced masonry infill walls. Eng Struct 173:960–978. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Saisi A, Gentile C, Ruccolo A (2016) Pre-diagnostic prompt investigation and static monitoring of a historic bell-tower. Constr Build Mater 122:833–844. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Singh JP, Agarwal P, Kumar A, Thakkar SK (2014) Identification of modal parameters of a multistoried RC building using ambient vibration and strong vibration records of Bhuj earthquake, 2001. J Earthq Eng 18:444–457. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Spina D, Lamonaca BG, Nicoletti M, Dolce M (2011) Structural monitoring by the Italian Department of Civil Protection and the case of 2009 Abruzzo seismic sequence. Bull Earthq Eng 9:325–346. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Su L, Shi J (2013) Displacement-based earthquake loss assessment methodology for RC frames infilled with masonry panels. Eng Struct 48:430–441. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Ubertini F, Cavalagli N, Kita A, Comanducci G (2018) Assessment of a monumental masonry bell-tower after 2016 Central Italy seismic sequence by long-term SHM. Bull Earthq Eng 16:775–801. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Van Overschee P, De Moor B (1996) Subspace identification for linear systems. Springer, BostonCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Vidal F, Navarro M, Aranda C, Enomoto T (2014) Changes in dynamic characteristics of Lorca RC buildings from pre- and post-earthquake ambient vibration data. Bull Earthq Eng 12:2095–2110. CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.DRC – Diagnostic Research CompanyAnconaItaly
  2. 2.Department of Civil and Building Engineering and ArchitecturePolytechnic University of MarcheAnconaItaly

Personalised recommendations