Advertisement

Materials and Structures

, Volume 49, Issue 10, pp 4247–4263 | Cite as

The protection of artistic assets through the base isolation of historical buildings: a novel uplifting technology

  • Gian Piero Lignola
  • Luigi Di Sarno
  • Marco Di Ludovico
  • Andrea Prota
Original Article

Abstract

The present paper focuses on a novel advanced procedure for the installation of base isolation system (BIS) in historical buildings. The performance objectives of such critical structures and contents are first assessed to set the ground for the reliable evaluation of the response under earthquake ground motions. A number of controversial steps in the evaluation of the seismic demand and possible performance objectives associated to different aspects for a cultural heritage asset are identified and possible solutions proposed. It is shown that BIS is a cost-effective and efficient method that can be employed to protect adequately historical structures and artistic assets. Notwithstanding, the installation of isolation devices in historical structures is not an easy task. A novel advanced procedure based on the construction of two reinforced concrete foundation mats at the base of the existing structure to uplift the sample buildings (e.g. churches, museums, palaces, etc.) is illustrated in the paper. Hydraulic jacks are located along the bearing walls and tend to be as less intrusive as possible. A case study is also investigated both experimentally and numerically; the sample structure consists of a full-scale traditional masonry residential building. Refined yet versatile finite element (FE) models of the sample structures have been implemented and are used to determine the stresses within the foundation mat and superstructure. The FE models were calibrated on in-situ measurements for both structures. Such numerical models were also utilized to perform parametric analyses.

Keywords

Earthquake damage Historical buildings Artistic assets Base isolators Seismic retrofit Uplift 

Notes

Acknowledgments

This work was financially supported by the three-year Project PON Research and Competitiveness (2007-2013) 01_02283, Modelling of the seismic isolation for historical buildings, funded by the Italian Ministry of University and Scientific Research. The patent of the uplifting technology is property of CONSTA S.p.a., an Italian Contractor. Any opinions, findings and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this paper are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of the funding agencies.

References

  1. 1.
    Feilden BM (2003) Conservation of historical buildings, 3rd edn. Architectural Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Look DW, Wong T, Augustus SR (1997) The seismic retrofit of historic buildings – keeping the preservation in the forefront. http://www.nps.gov/tps/how-to-preserve/briefs/41-seismic-retrofit.htm
  3. 3.
    Araújo AS, Lourenço PB, Oliveira DV, Leite J (2012) Seismic assessment of St James Church by means of pushover analysis—before and after the New Zealand earthquake. Open Civil Eng J 6(SPEC.ISS.1):160–172CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Lourenço PB, Oliveira DV, Leite JC, Ingham JM, Modena C, da Porto F (2013) Simplified indexes for the seismic assessment of masonry buildings: international database and validation. Eng Fail Anal 34:585–605CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Manfredi G, Lignola GP, Voto S (2013) Military quarters ‘Caserma Principe Amedeo’ in Nola, Italy: damage assessment and reconstruction of a partially collapsed XVIII century complex. Int J Arch Herit 7(2):225–246CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    MiBAC_Ministero dei Beni e delle Attività Culturali e del Turismo (2011) Linee Guida per la valutazione e riduzione del rischio sismico del patrimonio culturale allineate alle nuove Norme tecniche per le costruzioni (D.M. 14 gennaio 2008), Rome, Italy (in Italian)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Spencer BF, Nagarajaiah S (2003) State of the art of structural control. J Struct Eng ASCE 129(7):845–856CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Symans MD, Charney FA, Whittaker AS, Constantinou MC, Kircher CA, Johnson MW, McNamara RJ (2008) Energy dissipation systems for seismic applications: current practice & recent developments. J Struct Eng ASCE 134(1):3–21CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Takewaki I (2009) Building control with passive dampers, optimal performance-based design for earthquakes. Wiley, New YorkCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Lagomarsino S, Modaressi H, Pitilakis K, Bosiljkov V, Calderini C, D’Ayala D, Benouar D, Cattari S (2010) PERPETUATE Project: the proposal of a performance-based approach to earthquake protection of cultural heritage. Adv Mater Res 133–134:1119–1124CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Garevski M (1995) Earthquake hazard reduction of historical buildings under seismic isolation. Report No. UCB/EERC 95-04, University of California, USAGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Mokha A, Amin N, Constantinou M, Zayas V (1996) Seismic isolation retrofit of large historic building. J Struct Eng 122(3):298–308CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    De Luca A, Mele E, Molina J, Verzeletti G, Pinto AV (2001) Base isolation for retrofitting historic buildings: evaluation of seismic performance through experimental investigation. Earthquake Eng Struct Dyn 30(8):1125–1145CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Smirnov V, Eisenberg J, Vasileva A (2004) Seismic isolation of buildings and historical monuments. Recent developments in Russia. In: Proceedings of the 13th world conference on earthquake engineering, Vancouver, CD-ROMGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Guerreiro L, Craveiro A, Branco M (2006) The use of passive seismic protection in structural rehabilitation. Prog Struct Mater Eng 8(4):121–132CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Cuomo G, De Luca A, Mele E (2008) Design aspects in seismic isolation: application to retrofit churches. Int J Arch Herit 2(3):247–273CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Tomazevic M, Klemenc I, Weiss P (2009) Seismic upgrading of old masonry buildings by seismic isolation and CFRP laminates: a shaking table study of reduced scale models. Bull Earthq Eng 7(1):293–321CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Garevski M (2011) Fixed and base isolation retrofitting of historic masonry buildings. Int J Mater Struct Integr 5(2–3):118–135CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Gilani ASJ, Miyamoto HK (2012). Base isolation retrofit challenges in a historical monumental building in Romania. In Proceedings of the 15th world conference on earthquake engineering, Lisbon, CD-ROMGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Christopoulos C, Filiatrault A (2006) Principles of passive supplemental damping and seismic isolation. IUSS Press, PaviaGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Mezzi, M., Comodini, F., in Rossi, L., (2011). A base isolation option for the full seismic protection of an existing masonry school building. In: Proceedings of the thirteenth international conference on civil, structural and environmental engineering computing, Civil-Comp Press, StirlingshireGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Abbas N, Calderini C, Cattari S, Lagomarsino S, Rossi M, Ginanni Corradini R, Marghella G, Piovanello V, (2010) Classification of the cultural heritage assets, description of the target performances and identification of damage measures, PERPETUATE (EC-FP7 project) Deliverable D4. www.perpetuate.eu
  23. 23.
    Tassios TP (2009) Seismic protection of monuments. In: Tankut AT et al (eds) Earthquakes and tsunami, geotechnical, geological and earthquake engineering, vol 11. Springer, DordrechtGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Borri A, De Maria A (2011) Un indice per la ricognizione su larga scala della vulnerabilità sismica di beni museali. In: Proceedings of the 14th Italian national conference on earthquake engineering, Bari (in Italian)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Parisi F, Augenti N (2013) Earthquake damages to cultural heritage constructions and simplified assessment of artworks. Eng Fail Anal 34:735–760CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Eraybar K, Okazaki K, Ilki A (2010) An exploratory study on the perception of seismic risk and mitigation in two districts of Istanbul. Disasters 34(1):71–92CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Celep Zekai, Erken Ayfer, Taskin Beyza, Ilki Alper (2011) Failures of masonry and concrete buildings during the March 8, 2010 Kovancilar and Palu (Elazig) Earthquakes in Turkey. Eng Fail Anal. doi: 10.1016/j.engfai Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    MiBAC_Ministero per i beni culturali e ambientali. Soprintendenza generale agli interventi post-sismici in Campania e Basilicata. “Dopo la polvere”. Rilevazione degli interventi di recupero (1985–1989) del patrimonio artistico-monumentale danneggiato dal terremoto del 1980–1981. Roma: Istituto Poligrafico e Zecca dello Stato; 1994 (in Italian)Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    ASCE/SEI 41/06 (2006) Seismic rehabilitation of existing buildings. American Society of Civil Engineers, RestonGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    CEN European Standard EN 1998-1, 1998, Eurocode 8—“design of structures for earthquake resistance—Part 1: general rules, seismic actions and rules for buildings”. European Committee for Standardisation, 2004, BrusselsGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    CEN European Standard EN 1998-3 2005, Eurocode 8—“design of structures for earthquake resistance, Part 3: strengthening and repair of buildings” European Committee for Standardisation, 2005, BrusselsGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    DM 14-01-2008 Technical standards for contructions, (in Italian), Norme Tecniche per le CostruzioniGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Oliveira DV, Silva RA, Garbin E, Lourenĉo PB (2012) Strengthening of three-leaf stone masonry walls: an experimental research. Mater Struct 45(8):1259–1276CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Lignola GP, Prota A, Manfredi G (2012) Numerical investigation on the influence of FRP retrofit layout and geometry on the in-plane behavior of masonry walls. J Compos Constr 16(6):712–723CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Ilki A, Demir C, Bedirhanoglu I, Kumbasar N (2009) Seismic Retrofit of brittle and low strength RC columns using fiber reinforced polymer and cementitious composites. Adv Struct Eng 12(3):325–347CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Di Ludovico M, Prota A, Manfredi G (2010) Structural upgrade using basalt fibers for concrete confinement. J Compos Constr 14(5):541–552CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Parisi F, Lignola GP, Augenti N, Prota A, Manfredi G (2011) Nonlinear behavior of a masonry sub-assemblage before and after strengthening with inorganic matrix-grid composites. ASCE J Compos Constr 15(5):821–832CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Valluzzi MR, Oliveira DV, Caratelli A, Castori G, Corradi M, de Felice G, Garbin E, Garcia D, Garmendia L, Grande E, Ianniruberto U, Kwiecień A, Leone M, Lignola GP, Lourenço PB, Malena M, Micelli F, Panizza M, Papanicolaou CG, Prota A, Sacco E, Triantafillou TC, Viskovic A, Zając B, Zuccarino G (2012) Round robin test for composite-to-brick shear bond characterization. Mater Struct 45(12):1761–1791CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Parisi F, Lignola GP, Augenti N, Prota A, Manfredi G (2013) Rocking response assessment of in-plane laterally-loaded masonry walls with openings”. Eng Struct 56:1234–1248CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Micelli F, Di Ludovico M, Balsamo A (2014) Mechanical behaviour of FRP-confined masonry by testing of full-scale columns. Mater Struct 47(12):2081–2100CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Balsamo A, Iovinella I, Di Ludovico M, Prota A (2014) Masonry reinforcement with IMG composites: experimental investigation. Key Eng Mater 624:275–282CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Giamundo V, Lignola GP, Maddaloni G, Balsamo A, Prota A, Manfredi G (2015) Experimental investigation of the seismic performances of IMG reinforcement on curved masonry elements. Compos B 70:53–63CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Jain SK, Thakkar SK (2005) Experimental investigation on laminated rubber bearings. Bull Earthq Eng 3:129–136CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Jangid RS (2005) Optimum friction pendulum system for near fault motions. Eng Struct 27(3):349–359CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Jangid RS (2007) Optimum lead-rubber isolation bearings for near fault motions. Eng Struct 29(10):2503–2513CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Ozbulut OE, Hurlebaus S (2010) Evaluation of the performance of a sliding-type base isolation system with a NiTi shape memory alloy device considering temperature effect. Eng Struct 32(1):238–249CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Tashkov L, Krstevska L, Gramatikov K, Mazzolani FM (2009) Shake-table test of model of St. Nicholas Church in reduced scale 1/3.5. In: Proceedings, protection of historical buildings, conference prohitech 09, Rome, pp 1691–1697Google Scholar
  48. 48.
    Tashkov L, Manova K, Krstevska L, Garevski M (2010) Evaluation of efficiency of ALSC floating-sliding base-isolation system based on shake table test and floor response spectra. Bull Earthq Eng 8(4):995–1018CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Soveja L, Budescu M (2015) Analysis and design of a base isolation system for an old church with masonry structure. In: Proceedings of the 13th international symposium “computational civil engineering 2015”, Iasi, pp 45–52Google Scholar
  50. 50.
    Collina V, Marabello G, Zago R, Zambianchi L (2006) Method of raising a building structure, in particular a building structure subject to flooding. World Intellectual Property Organization. Patent WO/2006/016277Google Scholar
  51. 51.
    Naeim F, Kelly JM (1999) Design of seismic isolated structures: from theory to practice. Wiley, New YorkCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Di Sarno L, Elnashai AS (2005) Innovative strategies for seismic retrofitting of steel and composite structures. J Prog Struct Eng Mater 7(3):115–135CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    SAP2000 (2013) CSI analysis reference manual. Computers and Structures, Inc., BerkeleyGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Lourenço P, Rots J, Blaauwendraad J (1998) Continuum model for masonry: parameter estimation and validation. J Struct Eng 124(6):642–652CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    Salonikios T, Karakostas C, Lekidis V, Anthoine A (2003) Comparative inelastic pushover analysis of masonry frames. Eng Struct 25(12):1515–1523CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    Pasticier L, Amadio C, Fragiacomo M (2008) Non-linear seismic analysis and vulnerability evaluation of a masonry building by means of the SAP2000 v. 10 code. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 37:467–485CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. 57.
    Petrovčič S, Kilar V (2013) Seismic failure mode interaction for the equivalent frame modeling of unreinforced masonry structures. Eng Struct 54:9–22CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. 58.
    D’Ambra C, Lignola GP, Prota A (2016) Multi-scale analysis of in-plane behaviour of tuff masonry. Open Constr Build Technol J (in press)Google Scholar
  59. 59.
    Collina V, Marabello G, Zago R, Zambianchi L (2007) Method of raising a structure. World Intellectual Property Organization. Patent WO/2007/138427Google Scholar

Copyright information

© RILEM 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Gian Piero Lignola
    • 1
  • Luigi Di Sarno
    • 2
  • Marco Di Ludovico
    • 1
  • Andrea Prota
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Structures for Engineering and ArchitectureUniversity of Naples Federico IINaplesItaly
  2. 2.Department of EngineeringUniversity of SannioBeneventoItaly

Personalised recommendations