The current paper focuses on a sector of the historic centre of Muccia, in the district of Macerata (Italy), affected by the seismic sequence that involved Central Italy in 2016. The main goal is comparison, in terms of fragility curves, among two vulnerability assessment methodologies (empirical and mechanical). The study area has been structurally and typologically identified according to the Building Typology Matrix (BTM). Physical vulnerability analysis of the urban-sector was performed through application of an index-based method, specifically for masonry building aggregates. An isolated masonry building, damaged after the seismic sequences, has been selected as a case study. For the assessed building, empirical fragility curves are presented according to Guagenti & Petrini’s correlation law. Furthermore, a numerical model has been set up by using the macro-element approach, which has allowed to perform non-linear static analyses. Mechanical properties of masonry were defined according to the New Technical Codes for Constructions (NTC18), assuming a limited knowledge level (LC1). Refined mechanical fragility functions have been derived and compared to the empirical ones. Analysis results have shown that the empirical method tends to overestimate by 5% and 10% the expected damage for slight and moderate thresholds. For PGA values greater than 0,3 g the damage levels decreased by 30% and 20%, with reference to the near collapse and collapse conditions, respectively.

Comparative fragility methods for seismic assessment of masonry buildings located in Muccia (Italy) / Chieffo, N.; Clementi, F.; Formisano, A.; Lenci, S.. - In: JOURNAL OF BUILDING ENGINEERING. - ISSN 2352-7102. - STAMPA. - 25:(2019), p. 100813. [10.1016/j.jobe.2019.100813]

Comparative fragility methods for seismic assessment of masonry buildings located in Muccia (Italy)

Clementi, F.
Membro del Collaboration Group
;
Lenci, S.
Membro del Collaboration Group
2019-01-01

Abstract

The current paper focuses on a sector of the historic centre of Muccia, in the district of Macerata (Italy), affected by the seismic sequence that involved Central Italy in 2016. The main goal is comparison, in terms of fragility curves, among two vulnerability assessment methodologies (empirical and mechanical). The study area has been structurally and typologically identified according to the Building Typology Matrix (BTM). Physical vulnerability analysis of the urban-sector was performed through application of an index-based method, specifically for masonry building aggregates. An isolated masonry building, damaged after the seismic sequences, has been selected as a case study. For the assessed building, empirical fragility curves are presented according to Guagenti & Petrini’s correlation law. Furthermore, a numerical model has been set up by using the macro-element approach, which has allowed to perform non-linear static analyses. Mechanical properties of masonry were defined according to the New Technical Codes for Constructions (NTC18), assuming a limited knowledge level (LC1). Refined mechanical fragility functions have been derived and compared to the empirical ones. Analysis results have shown that the empirical method tends to overestimate by 5% and 10% the expected damage for slight and moderate thresholds. For PGA values greater than 0,3 g the damage levels decreased by 30% and 20%, with reference to the near collapse and collapse conditions, respectively.
2019
File in questo prodotto:
File Dimensione Formato  
JOBE_2019_647_Revision 2_V0_R2.pdf

accesso aperto

Descrizione: DOI: 10.1016/j.jobe.2019.100813
Tipologia: Documento in post-print (versione successiva alla peer review e accettata per la pubblicazione)
Licenza d'uso: Creative commons
Dimensione 1.37 MB
Formato Adobe PDF
1.37 MB Adobe PDF Visualizza/Apri

I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.

Utilizza questo identificativo per citare o creare un link a questo documento: https://hdl.handle.net/11566/267525
Citazioni
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.pmc??? ND
  • Scopus 89
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.isi??? 79
social impact