Damage assessment of ancient masonry churches stroked by the Central Italy earthquakes of 2016 by the non-smooth contact dynamics method

  • Francesco ClementiEmail author
  • Angela Ferrante
  • Ersilia Giordano
  • Frédéric Dubois
  • Stefano Lenci
S.I.: 10th IMC conference


The non-smooth contact dynamics method was selected to investigate the damage occurred to typical masonry churches (namely Apennine churches) belonging to Central Italy areas affected by the seismic activity started in 2016. The investigated buildings show discontinuous dynamics since the optioned method gave the chance to properly model the temples as multi rigid body systems using the Signorini’s impenetrability condition and the dry-friction Coulomb’s law, achieving a thoughtful response to ground seismic solicitations. The results provided by the assessment grant an overview of the most common damages and failure mechanisms, giving the guidelines to restoration projects that fully respond to structural needs.


Non-smooth contact dynamics Central Italy earthquake Historical structures Apennine churches Damage survey 



The authors wish to acknowledge the Soprintendenza Archeologia, Belle Arti e Paesaggio delle Marche and all the Municipalities for their valuable helps during the preparation of this work.


  1. Acito M, Chesi C, Milani G, Torri S (2016) Collapse analysis of the Clock and Fortified towers of Finale Emilia, Italy, after the 2012 Emilia Romagna seismic sequence: lesson learned and reconstruction hypotheses. Constr Build Mater 115:193–213. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Asteris PG, Sarhosis V, Mohebkhah A et al (2015) Numerical modeling of historic masonry structures. In: Asteris P, Plevris V (eds) Handbook of research on seismic assessment and rehabilitation of historic structures. IGI Global, Hershey, pp 213–256CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Betti M, Galano L, Vignoli A (2014) Comparative analysis on the seismic behaviour of unreinforced masonry buildings with flexible diaphragms. Eng Struct 61:195–208. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Betti M, Borghini A, Boschi S et al (2018) Comparative seismic risk assessment of basilica-type churches. J Earthq Eng 22:62–95. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Brandonisio G, Lucibello G, Mele E, De Luca A (2013) Damage and performance evaluation of masonry churches in the 2009 L’Aquila earthquake. Eng Fail Anal 34:693–714. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Chetouane B, Dubois F, Vinches M, Bohatier C (2005) NSCD discrete element method for modelling masonry structures. Int J Numer Methods Eng 64:65–94. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 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
  8. Clementi F, Gazzani V, Poiani M, Lenci S (2016) Assessment of seismic behaviour of heritage masonry buildings using numerical modelling. J Build Eng 8:29–47. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Clementi F, Pierdicca A, Formisano A et al (2017a) 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
  10. Clementi F, Quagliarini E, Monni F et al (2017b) Cultural heritage and earthquake: the case study of in Ascoli Piceno. Open Civ Eng J 11:1079–1105. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Clementi F, Gazzani V, Poiani M et al (2018) Seismic assessment of a monumental building through nonlinear analyses of a 3D solid model. J Earthq Eng 22:35–61. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Dubois F, Acary V, Jean M (2018) The contact dynamics method: a nonsmooth story. C R Mécanique 346:247–262. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 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
  14. Formisano A (2016) Theoretical and numerical seismic analysis of masonry building aggregates: case studies in San Pio Delle Camere (L’Aquila, Italy). J Earthq Eng 21:1–19. Google Scholar
  15. Formisano A, Marzo A (2017) Simplified and refined methods for seismic vulnerability assessment and retrofitting of an Italian cultural heritage masonry building. Comput Struct 180:13–26. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Formisano A, Ciccone G, Mele A (2017) Large scale seismic vulnerability and risk evaluation of a masonry churches sample in the historical centre of Naples. In: Proceedings of the 13th International Conference of Computational Methods in Sciences and Engineering (ICCMSE 2017), Thessaloniki, Greece, pp 21–25.
  17. Formisano A, Vaiano G, Fabbrocino F, Milani G (2018) Seismic vulnerability of Italian masonry churches: the case of the Nativity of Blessed Virgin Mary in Stellata of Bondeno. J Build Eng 20:179–200. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Giordano E, Clementi F, Nespeca A, Lenci S (2019) Damage assessment by numerical modeling of Sant’Agostino’s sanctuary in Offida during the Central Italy 2016–2017 seismic sequence. Front Built Environ 4:87. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Giresini L (2016) Energy-based method for identifying vulnerable macro-elements in historic masonry churches. Bull Earthq Eng 14:919–942. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Giresini L, Sassu M (2017) Horizontally restrained rocking blocks: evaluation of the role of boundary conditions with static and dynamic approaches. Bull Earthq Eng 15:385–410. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Italian Department of Civil Protection (2017) 2016 Central Italy earthquake. Accessed Feb 2019
  22. Kadas K, Yakut A, Kazaz I (2011) Spectral ground motion intensity based on capacity and period elongation. J Struct Eng 137:401–409. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Krstevska L, Tashkov L, Naumovski N, et al (2010) In-situ experimental testing of four historical buildings damaged during the 2009 L’Aquila earthquake. In: COST ACTION C26: urban habitat constructions under catastrophic events—proceedings of the final conference, pp 427–432Google Scholar
  24. Lagomarsino S, Podestà S (2004) Damage and vulnerability assessment of churches after the 2002 Molise, Italy, Earthquake. Earthq Spectra 20:S271–S283. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Lancioni G, Lenci S, Piattoni Q, Quagliarini E (2013) Dynamics and failure mechanisms of ancient masonry churches subjected to seismic actions by using the NSCD method: the case of the medieval church of S. Maria in Portuno. Eng Struct 56:1527–1546. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Lancioni G, Gentilucci D, Quagliarini E, Lenci S (2016) Seismic vulnerability of ancient stone arches by using a numerical model based on the non-smooth contact dynamics method. Eng Struct 119:110–121. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Lemos JV (2007) Discrete element modeling of masonry structures. Int J Archit Herit 1:190–213. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Milani G (2013) Lesson learned after the Emilia-Romagna, Italy, 20–29 May 2012 earthquakes: a limit analysis insight on three masonry churches. Eng Fail Anal 34:761–778. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Milani G, Valente M (2015) Failure analysis of seven masonry churches severely damaged during the 2012 Emilia-Romagna (Italy) earthquake: non-linear dynamic analyses vs conventional static approaches. Eng Fail Anal 54:13–56. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Milani G, Shehu R, Valente M (2017) Role of inclination in the seismic vulnerability of bell towers: FE models and simplified approaches. Bull Earthq Eng 15:1707–1737. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Ministero dei Lavori Pubblici e dei Trasporti (2009) Circolare 2 febbraio 2009, n. 617 - Istruzioni per l’applicazione delle “Nuove Norme Tecniche per le Costruzioni” di cui al Decreto Ministeriale del 14/01/2008 (in Italian) Google Scholar
  32. Moreau JJ (1988) Unilateral contact and dry friction in finite freedom dynamics. In: Moreau JJ, Panagiotopoulos PD (eds) Nonsmooth mechanics and applications. Springer, Vienna, pp 1–82CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Pantò B, Cannizzaro F, Caddemi S, Caliò I (2016) 3D macro-element modelling approach for seismic assessment of historical masonry churches. Adv Eng Softw 97:40–59. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Pierdicca A, Clementi F, Isidori D et al (2016) Numerical model upgrading of a historical masonry palace monitored with a wireless sensor network. Int J Mason Res Innov 1:74–99. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 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
  36. Roca P, Cervera M, Pelà L et al (2013) Continuum FE models for the analysis of Mallorca Cathedral. Eng Struct 46:653–670. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Sarhosis V, Milani G, Formisano A, Fabbrocino F (2018) Evaluation of different approaches for the estimation of the seismic vulnerability of masonry towers. Bull Earthq Eng 16:1511–1545. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Terracciano G, Di Lorenzo G, Formisano A, Landolfo R (2015) Cold-formed thin-walled steel structures as vertical addition and energetic retrofitting systems of existing masonry buildings. Eur J Environ Civ Eng 19:850–866. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Valente M, Milani G (2016) Seismic assessment of historical masonry towers by means of simplified approaches and standard FEM. Constr Build Mater 108:74–104. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Valente M, Milani G (2018) Seismic response and damage patterns of masonry churches: seven case studies in Ferrara, Italy. Eng Struct 177:809–835. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Vasconcelos G, Lourenço PB (2009) Experimental characterization of stone masonry in shear and compression. Constr Build Mater 23:3337–3345. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Zuccaro G, Cacace F (2015) Seismic vulnerability assessment based on typological characteristics. The first level procedure “SAVE”. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 69:262–269. CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Civil and Building Engineering, and ArchitecturePolytechnic University of MarcheAnconaItaly
  2. 2.Laboratoire de Mécanique et Génie Civil, CNRSUniversity MontpellierMontpellierFrance

Personalised recommendations