Numerical approaches for cross-laminated timber roof structure optimization in seismic retrofitting of a historical masonry church

  • Nicola LongariniEmail author
  • Pietro Crespi
  • Manuela Scamardo
S.I.: 10th IMC conference


In recent earthquakes, historical masonry churches have demonstrated to be vulnerable structures. Strengthening interventions based on the introduction of a roof diaphragm can be considered a valid solution in order to obtain a box-behaviour of this kind of structures. Among the possible different roof-diaphragm solutions, the wooden based ones represent an effective alternative, satisfying the conservation requirements in terms of material compatibility and reversibility, together with a significant improvement of the structural behaviour. After a short literature review of all the wooden based strengthening interventions, the possibility to consider cross-laminated timber (CLT) as a roof-diaphragm strengthening for existing churches is discussed in this paper. The effectiveness of this retrofitting solution is inquired numerically by means of different kind of linear and nonlinear analysis, focusing on the role played by the steel connections among the different CLT panels. The Basilica of Collemaggio has been chosen as case study to test the possibility to apply CLT roof diaphragm on an existing masonry church, adopting different modelling approaches. A short discussion on the optimisation of the steel connection layout is also presented.


Cross-laminated timber Roof Historical masonry churches Seismic retrofitting Finite element model 



The authors kindly acknowledge prof. Alberto Franchi for his supervision and for the precise and useful suggestions given during the implementation of the numerical analyses.


  1. Augenti N, Parisi F (2010) Learning from construction failures due to the 2009 L’Aquila. J Perform Constr Facil, Italy, Earthquake. Google Scholar
  2. Benedetti D, Castellani A (1981) Costruzioni in zona sismica. Masson Italia, MilanoGoogle Scholar
  3. Betti M, Vignoli A (2011) Numerical assessment of the static and seismic behaviour of the basilica of Santa Maria all’Impruneta (Italy). Constr Build Mater. Google Scholar
  4. Betti M, Galano L, Vignoli A (2014) Comparative analysis on the seismic behaviour of unreinforced masonry buildings with flexible diaphragms. Eng Struct. Google Scholar
  5. Betti M, Borghini A, Boschi S et al (2018) Comparative seismic risk assessment of basilica-type churches. J Earthq Eng. Google Scholar
  6. Blass HJ, Uibel T (2013) Joints with dowel type fasteners in CLT structure. In: European conference on Cross Laminated Timber. Graz, pp 119–134Google Scholar
  7. Blass HJ, Aune P, Choo BS et al (1995) Timber engineering. Step 1: basis of design, material properties, structural components and joints. In: Hout C (ed)Google Scholar
  8. Brandonisio G, Mele E, Santaniello R, De Luca A (2008) Seismic safety of basilica churches: analysis of ten case studies. In: Struct Anal Hist Constr Preserv Saf significance Proc Sixth Int Conf Struct Anal Hist Constr 2–4 July 2008, Bath, United KingdomGoogle Scholar
  9. Ceccotti A (2010) Il progetto SOFIE sugli edifici di legno con tecnologia X-lam: riflessioni a margine delle prove sismiche su tavola vibrante. Rivista Modulo, BE MA Editrice, MilanoGoogle Scholar
  10. Corradi M, Borri A, Righetti L, Speranzini E (2017) Uncertainty analysis of FRP reinforced timber beams. Compos Part B Eng. Google Scholar
  11. D’Ayala DF, Paganoni S (2011) Assessment and analysis of damage in L’Aquila historic city centre after 6th April 2009. Bull Earthq Eng. Google Scholar
  12. Dal Cin A, Russo S (2016) Annex and rigid diaphragm effects on the failure analysis and earthquake damages of historic churches. Eng Fail Anal. Google Scholar
  13. EN1995-1-1 (2008) Eurocode 5: design of timber structures—part 1-1: general common rules and rules for buildings. Proc ICE Civ Eng. Google Scholar
  14. ETA06/0138 (2017) Solid wood slab element to be used as a structural elements in building - EOTAGoogle Scholar
  15. ETA12/0281 (2018) HASSLACHER CROSS LAMINATED TIMBER—Solid wood slab element to be used as a structural element in buildings - EOTAGoogle 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: AIP Conference ProceedingsGoogle Scholar
  17. Gattesco N, Boem I (2018) Numerical study on the reduction of the seismic vulnerability of historical industrial buildings with wide timber roofs. Procedia Struct Integr. Google Scholar
  18. Gattesco N, Macorini L (2010) High reversibility technique for in-plane stiffening of wooden floors. In: Structural analysis of historic construction: preserving safety and significanceGoogle Scholar
  19. Gavric I, Fragiacomo M, Popovski M, Ceccotti A (2014) Behaviour of cross-laminated timber panels under cyclic loads. RILEM Bookseries.
  20. Gavric I, Fragiacomo M, Ceccotti A (2015) Cyclic behaviour of typical metal connectors for cross-laminated (CLT) structures. Mater Struct Constr. Google Scholar
  21. Genshu T, Yongfeng Z (2007) Seismic force modification factors for modified-Clough hysteretic model. Eng Struct 29:3053–3070. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Giuriani E (2004) L’organizzazione degli impalcati per gli edifici storici. Spec Legno Strutt 134:30–43Google Scholar
  23. Giuriani E, Marini A (2008) Wooden roof box structure for the anti-seismic strengthening of historic buildings. Int J Archit Herit. Google Scholar
  24. Giuriani EP, Marini A, Preti M (2016) Thin-folded shell for the renewal of existing wooden roofs. Int J Archit Herit. Google Scholar
  25. Gubana A (2010) Experimental tests on timber-to-cross lam composite section beams. In: Proc 11th World Conf Timber …Google Scholar
  26. Gubana A (2015) State-of-the-Art Report on high reversible timber to timber strengthening interventions on wooden floors. Constr Build Mater. Google Scholar
  27. Hossain A, Lakshman R, Tannert T (2015) Shear connections with self-tapping screws for cross-laminated timber panels. Conference ASCE Structures Congress, Portland, Oregon. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Iervolino I, De Luca F, Cosenza E (2010a) Spectral shape-based assessment of SDOF nonlinear response to real, adjusted and artificial accelerograms. Eng Struct. Google Scholar
  29. Iervolino I, Galasso C, Cosenza E (2010b) REXEL: Computer aided record selection for code-based seismic structural analysis. Bull Earthq Eng. Google Scholar
  30. Iervolino I, Galasso C, Paolucci R, Pacor F (2011) Engineering ground motion record selection in the ITalian ACcelerometric Archive. Bull Earthq Eng. Google Scholar
  31. Izzi M, Trees CNRI (2014) Advanced modelling of CLT wall systems for earthquake resistant timber structures. In: State-of-the-art, pp 247–260Google Scholar
  32. Johansen KW (1949) Theory of timber connections, vol 9. IABSE Publications, pp 249–262Google Scholar
  33. Kubiak T (2013) Static and dynamic buckling of thin-walled plate structures. Springer, SwitzerlandCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Lagomarsino S (2012) Damage assessment of churches after L’Aquila earthquake (2009). Bull Earthq Eng 10:73–92. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Lagomarsino S, Penna A, Galasco A, Cattari S (2013) TREMURI program: an equivalent frame model for the nonlinear seismic analysis of masonry buildings. Eng Struct 56:1787–1799. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Larsen HJ (1977) Johansen’s nail tests. Bygningsstatiske meddelelser 48:9–30Google Scholar
  37. Lee J, Fenves GL (2002) Plastic-damage model for cyclic loading of concrete structures. J Eng Mech. Google Scholar
  38. Liberatore D, Doglioni C, AlShawa O et al (2019) Effects of coseismic ground vertical motion on masonry constructions damage during the 2016 Amatrice-Norcia (Central Italy) earthquakes. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng. Google Scholar
  39. Lin CCJ, Ghaboussi J (2001) Generating multiple spectrum compatible accelerograms using stochastic neural networks. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn. Google Scholar
  40. Lin H, Tang S, Lan C (2015) Damage analysis and evaluation of high strength concrete frame based on deformation-energy damage model. Math Probl Eng 2015:1–10. Google Scholar
  41. Longarini N, Crespi P, Franchi A et al (2018) Cross-lam roof diaphragm for the seismic retrofitting of historical masonry churches. In: Proceedings of the International Masonry Society ConferencesGoogle Scholar
  42. Lourenço PB, Rots JG, Blaauwendraad J (1995) Two approaches for the analysis of masonry structures: micro and macro-modeling. Heron 40(4):313–340Google Scholar
  43. Lubliner J, Oliver J, Oller S, Oñate E (1989) A plastic-damage model for concrete. Int J Solids Struct. Google Scholar
  44. Lucibello G, Brandonisio G, Mele E, De Luca A (2010) Seismic Behavior of some Basilica Churches after L’Aquila 2009 Earthquake. Adv Mater Res. Google Scholar
  45. Marini A, Giuriani E, Belleri A, Cominelli S (2018) Dowel connections securing roof-diaphragms to perimeter walls in historic masonry buildings and in-field testing for capacity assessment. Bull Earthq Eng. Google Scholar
  46. Marques R (2014) Masonry box behavior. In: Encyclopedia of Earthquake EngineeringGoogle Scholar
  47. Meda A, Riva P (2001) Strengthening of wooden floors with high performance concrete slabs. Restor Build Monum 9(6).
  48. Midas Midas GEN FX Program—general structure design systemGoogle Scholar
  49. 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. Google Scholar
  50. Milani G, Shehu R, Valente M (2017) Possibilities and limitations of innovative retrofitting for masonry churches: advanced computations on three case studies. Constr Build Mater. Google Scholar
  51. Milani G, Valente M, Alessandri C (2018) The narthex of the Church of the Nativity in Bethlehem: a non-linear finite element approach to predict the structural damage. Comput Struct. Google Scholar
  52. Mohler K, Maier G (1969) the coefficient of friction of spruce timber in view of the efficiency of timber-connections using frictional resistance. Holz als Roh und Werkst 27:303–307CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Moreira S, Ramos LF, Oliveira DV, Lourenço PB (2016) Design parameters for seismically retrofitted masonry-to-timber connections: injection anchors. Int J Archit Heritage 10:217–234Google Scholar
  54. NTC2018 (2018) Norme Tecniche per le Costruzioni. Ministero delle infrastrutture e dei trasporti. Supplemento ordinario n. 8 alla Gazzetta ufficiale Serie generale. n. 42Google Scholar
  55. Ongaretto E, Pozza L, Savoia M (2016) Wood-based solutions to improve quality and safety against seismic events in conservation of historical buildings. Int J Qual Res. Google Scholar
  56. Otani S (1981) Hysteresis models of reinforce concrete for earthquake response analysis. J Fac Eng 36:407–441Google Scholar
  57. Pagnoni T (1994) Seismic analysis of masonry and block structures with the discrete element method. In: 10th European conference, Earthquake engineering, pp 1674–1694Google Scholar
  58. Parisi MA, Piazza M (2015) Seismic strengthening and seismic improvement of timber structures. Constr Build Mater. Google Scholar
  59. Parisi MA, Chesi C, Tardini C, Piazza M (2008) Seismic vulnerability assessment for timber roof structures. In: The 14th World Conference on Earthquake EngineeringGoogle Scholar
  60. Penna A, Morandi P, Rota M et al (2014) Performance of masonry buildings during the Emilia 2012 earthquake. Bull Earthq Eng 12:2255–2273. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Piazza M, Baldessari C, Tomasi R (2008) The role of in-plane floor stiffness in the seismic behaviour of traditional buildings. In: 14th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering (WC)Google Scholar
  62. Plizzari G, Giuriani E (2001) Studio sperimentale sul comportamento dei solaio in legno rinforzati con lastra in acciaio per resistere alle azioni sismiche. In: V Workshop Italiano sulle costruzioni composte, pp 277–292Google Scholar
  63. Popovski M, Gavric I, Schneider J (2014) Performance of two-storey CLT house subjected to lateral loads. In: Proceedings of the 13th World Conference on Timber EngineeringGoogle Scholar
  64. Preti M, Bolis V, Marini A, Giuriani E (2014) Example of the benefits of a dissipative roof diaphragm in the seismic response of masonry. In: Proc 9th Int Conf Struct Anal Hist ConstrGoogle Scholar
  65. Preti M, Loda S, Bolis V et al (2017) Dissipative roof diaphragm for the seismic retrofit of listed masonry churches. J Earthq Eng. Google Scholar
  66. Rinaldin G, Amadio C, Fragiacomo M (2013) A component approach for the hysteretic behaviour of connections in cross-laminated wooden structures. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn. Google Scholar
  67. Roca P, Cervera M, Gariup G, Pela’ L (2010) Structural analysis of masonry historical constructions. Classical and advanced approaches. Arch Comput Methods Eng 17:299–325. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Roensmaens B, Van Parys L, Branco J, Descamps T (2019) Proposal of a CLT reinforcement of old timber floors. In: RILEM BookseriesGoogle Scholar
  69. Ronca P, Crespi P, Bonardi D et al (2014) High performance wooden building subjected to seismic action. Int J Hous Sci Appl 38(3):161–172Google Scholar
  70. Sandhaas C, van de Kuilen JWG (2017) Strength and stiffness of timber joints with very high strength steel dowels. Eng Struct. Google Scholar
  71. Scotta R, Trutalli D, Marchi L, Pozza L (2018) Seismic performance of URM buildings with in-plane non-stiffened and stiffened timber floors. Eng Struct. Google Scholar
  72. Shahnewaz M, Alam S, Tannert T (2018) In-plane strength and stiffness of cross-laminated timber shear walls. Buildings. Google Scholar
  73. Sivaraja SS, Thandavamoorthy TS (2015) Dynamic behaviour of single storied box-type masonry buildings with and without roof slab and shock table studies on scaled building models. 41:601–611Google Scholar
  74. Sorelli LG, Meda A, Plizzari GA (2005) Bending and uniaxial tensile tests on concrete reinforced with hybrid steel fibers. J Mater Civ Eng. Google Scholar
  75. Tomasi R, Crosatti A, Piazza M (2010) Theoretical and experimental analysis of timber-to-timber joints connected with inclined screws. Constr Build Mater. Google Scholar
  76. Turrini G, Piazza M (1983) Una tecnica di recupero statico del solai in Legno TT—technique for static reinforcement of wooden beam floors. Recuperare 5:224–237Google Scholar
  77. Valente M, Milani G (2018a) Damage assessment and partial failure mechanisms activation of historical masonry churches under seismic actions: three case studies in Mantua. Eng Fail Anal. Google Scholar
  78. Valente M, Milani G (2018b) Damage survey, simplified assessment, and advanced seismic analyses of two masonry churches after the 2012 Emilia earthquake. Int J Archit Herit. Google Scholar
  79. Valente M, Milani G (2018c) Seismic response and damage patterns of masonry churches: seven case studies in Ferrara, Italy. Eng Struct. Google Scholar
  80. Valente M, Barbieri G, Biolzi L (2017a) Damage assessment of three medieval churches after the 2012 Emilia earthquake. Bull Earthq Eng. Google Scholar
  81. Valente M, Barbieri G, Biolzi L (2017b) Seismic assessment of two masonry Baroque churches damaged by the 2012 Emilia earthquake. Eng Fail Anal. Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Nicola Longarini
    • 1
    Email author
  • Pietro Crespi
    • 1
  • Manuela Scamardo
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Architecture, Built Environment and Construction EngineeringPolitecnico di MilanoMilanItaly

Personalised recommendations