Assessment of Post-Earthquake Damage: St. Salvatore Church in Acquapagana, Central Italy

buildings

Article Assessment of Post-Earthquake Damage: St. Salvatore Church in Acquapagana, Central Italy

Gessica Sferrazza Papa 1,* ID and Benedetta Silva 2 ID

1 DABC Department of Architecture, Built Environment and Construction Engineering, Politecnico di Milano, 20133 Milano, Italy 2 DAStU Department of Architecture and Urban Studies, Politecnico di Milano, 20133 Milano, Italy; [email protected] * Correspondence: [email protected]; Tel.: +39-02-23994235

Received: 4 December 2017; Accepted: 15 March 2018; Published: 17 March 2018

Abstract: This article proposes a multidisciplinary approach for the assessment of seismic damage from the perspective of conservation and prevention. A comparison of the state of damage has been carried out in a case study, St. Salvatore church in Acquapagana (MC), as an example of church, which underwent two important seismic events in the Central Italy area, the 1997 and the 2016 earthquakes. The comparison of the state of damage passes through the following stages: (a) the territorial seismic overview; (b) the historical description and material analysis; (c) the identiﬁcation of macro-elements with activated damage mechanisms; (d) the comparison between the two seismic events both from a territorial- and building-scale perspective. This work puts together the archived and the on-site survey data with those elaborated starting from seismogenic information, available from the National Seismological Institute, and it provides a strategy also for other similar conditions. This work is to be considered a contribution to a wider study that could be carried out in the areas hit by the 2016 earthquake. It could also represent a way to collect documentation in the post-earthquake phase, improving the effectiveness of procedures currently applied to the ﬁrst level of damage assessment.

Keywords: damaged churches; historical masonry churches; 1997 Umbria-Marche earthquake; 2016 Central Italy earthquake

1. Introduction Earthquakes pose a threat to our cultural heritage assets, constituted in part by churches. The seismic risk of the Italian territory is well known because of the many earthquakes that have occurred over the years. This type of risk is strictly related to the vulnerability of the buildings; indeed, working on them is necessary to preserve the national cultural heritage asset. In this regard, the efforts of researchers are focused on acquiring procedures to access in detail the vulnerability of churches and to think about intervention strategies. Since the 1976 Friuli earthquake, which caused severe damage to the heritage building stock, churches have started to be studied in relation to their evidence of vulnerability under seismic actions. The study of vulnerability is strictly related to the study of damage. The post-earthquake observation of damage led to the elaboration of the forms of damage assessment of churches, whose current version [1] was approved with Decree DPCM of 23 February 2006, becoming a national standard. This survey form associates a typical mechanism of collapse to each macro-element, a well-recognizable structural unit. The observation of damage after the Friuli earthquake of 1976 and its interpretation converged in a book, Le chiese e il terremoto [2], which can be considered the basis of all the subsequent studies on the vulnerability of churches. With the 1997 Umbria-Marche earthquake, the observations of the effectiveness of strengthening and repairing interventions started, allowing one to express considerations about interventions and to collect a large

Buildings 2018, 8, 45; doi:10.3390/buildings8030045 www.mdpi.com/journal/buildings Buildings 2018, 8, 45 2 of 23 amount of data, as specified in [3]. As a consequence of this post-earthquake experience, a manual of best practices was written, Codice di pratica (The Code of Practice) [4]. It was published by the Regional Authority of Marche, as a tool in support of professionals that would operate in reconstruction and repairing, suggesting a suitable modus operandi. In addition to this manual, other similar ones were issued in those years, dealing with best practices for interventions, such as [5–10]. Other observations of damage have followed throughout the years, for the many earthquakes that have occurred in Italy. Among others, some of the episodes with the corresponding studies are: Lunigiana and Garfagnana, 1995 [11]; Umbria and Marche, 1997 [12,13]; Molise, 2002 [14]; L’Aquila, 2009 [15–21]; and Emilia, 2012 [22,23]. Moreover, several studies have been carried out to assess the seismic vulnerability of churches and to understand the relative structural behavior under seismic actions by numerical analysis [24–27]. The vulnerability assessment of churches was also studied by some researches from a large-scale perspective (i.e., [28]). Considering this context and following the recommendations of the Italian Guidelines for Cultural Heritage [29], in accordance with the Italian Building Code (N.T.C. 2008) [30], this article proposes a procedure for the assessment of the damage of churches with a multidisciplinary approach, in line with Principle 1.1 of the ICOMOS Charter [31]. This methodology is inserted in a panorama of studies, such as [32–34], which believe in the importance of achieving deep knowledge of the historical building, the object of the study, through the contribution provided by different disciplines, with the final aim of preserving the cultural heritage asset. The multidisciplinary approach in the following work is achieved observing the impact of the earthquake on the church case study from different perspectives, taking into account several aspects: the seismogenic system, the registered peak ground acceleration (PGA) values, the history of the church with the analysis of the masonry walls and the executed interventions with the two post-earthquake states of damage (1997–2016). Indeed, with such an approach, the observation of the post-earthquake damage and the study of the interventions executed on a historical building become part of a wider process, which contributes to achieve the aim of conservation and prevention of damage caused by earthquakes [35] (Chapter 29, paragraphs 1,2,4). The procedure, exposed here, is applied to the single-nave St. Salvatore church, taken as a case study representative of those churches that underwent earthquakes and interventions in the time lapse between the events. Moreover, the following work intends to provide a contribution to ongoing studies (e.g., [36]) on the state of damage of the churches of Central Italy damaged by the 2016 earthquake. In particular, in [37], a set of single-nave churches, located in Umbria, Perugia, Ascoli Piceno, Macerata and Pesaro-Urbino, is used to compare the surveyed state of damage with the expected damage, according to predictive methods [38,39]. Figure1 summarizes the procedure followed to investigate the state of damage of St. Salvatore church, which is reflected in the structure of the article. Starting from a territorial analysis (Section 2.1) of the seismicity of the area (the seismogenic source system, active faults, expected accelerations and the catalogue of seismicity), entering into the detail of the historical description and material characterization of the church (Section 2.2) and the identification of the existing macro-elements (Section 2.3), the article compares the two seismic events, the 1997 Umbria-Marche earthquake and the 2016 Central Italy earthquake: first, from a territorial perspective and, later, from a building-scale point of view. The final sections are dedicated to the discussion of the evidence and to sum up the results of the study. All in all, this work will point out how from a multidisciplinary approach for the assessment of damage it is possible, not only to obtain information regarding the technical aspects about the effectiveness of interventions and situations to be avoided for historical masonry churches, but also to interpret the damage, including seismic and territorial aspects. Meanwhile, another indirect outcome of this approach is the collection of territorial- and building-scale information. Buildings 2018, 8, 45 3 of 23 BuildingsBuildings 2018 2018, ,8 8, ,x x FOR FOR PEER PEER REVIEW REVIEW 33 of of 23 23

FigureFigureFigure 1. 1. Diagram1. Diagram Diagram of of of thethe the multidisciplinarymultidisciplinary multidisciplinary procedure procedureprocedure followed followed in in the the the article. article. article.

2. The2.2.ThThe casee case case study study study of of of San San San SalvatoreSalvatore Salvatore churchchurch church in in Acquapagana Acquapagana

2.1.2.1.2.1. Territorial Territorial Territorial Overview Overview Overview ForForFor the the the study, study, study, the the the starting starting starting point point point was was was thethe the identiﬁcationidentification identification of ofof a aa church churchchurch in in the the the territory. territory. territory. San San San Salvatore Salvatore Salvatore Church is the only church of Acquapagana, a small hamlet in the municipality of Serravalle di ChurchChurch is the is only the only church church of Acquapagana, of Acquapagana, a small a small hamlet hamlet in the in municipality the municipality of Serravalle of Serravalle di Chienti, di Chienti, in the province of Macerata (Italy). The development of the urban center follows a in theChienti, province in the of Macerata province (Italy). of Macerata The development (Italy). The of development the urban centerof the follows urban a center south-north follows axis, a southsouth-north-north axis axis, ,and and the the church church is is located located in in the the southern southern part part of of the the hamlet hamlet (Figure (Figure 2 2aa).). It It is is part part of of and the church is located in the southern part of the hamlet (Figure2a). It is part of an isolated monastic anan isolated isolated monastic monastic complex, complex, developing developing with with a a west west-east-east direction direction (Figure (Figure 2 2bb).). This This geographical geographical complex, developing with a west-east direction (Figure2b). This geographical orientation will be useful orientationorientation will will be be useful useful for for the the final final considerations considerations about about the the state state of of damage damage post post the the 1997 1997 and and for the ﬁnal considerations about the state of damage post the 1997 and post the 2016 earthquakes. postpost the the 2016 2016 earthquakes. earthquakes.

(a(a) ) (b(b) ) Figure 2. Aerial views. (a) The location of St. Salvatore Abbey in Acquapagana [40]; (b) the complex FigureFigure 2. Aerial 2. Aerial views. views. (a) ( Thea) The location location of of St. St. Salvatore Salvatore Abbey Abbey in in Acquapagana Acquapagana [40 [40]]; (;b (b)) the the complex complex of of St. Salvatore Abbey: the church (in the north) and the monastery building (in the east). St. Salvatoreof St. Salvatore Abbey: Abbey: the church the (in chur thech north) (in the and north) the monastery and the monastery building (in building the east). (in Coordinates: the east). Coordinates: 42°59′00.5′′ N 12°55′49.2′′ E [40]. 42◦59Coordinates:000.500 N 12 42°5◦5509′49.200.500′′ E[N 4012°5]. 5′49.2′′ E [40].

TheThe seismicity seismicity of of this this geographical geographical area area is is well well known, known, as as the the system system of of seismogenic seismogenic sources sources (Figure(FigureThe seismicity 3a3a),), the the map map of this of of active geographical active faults faults (Figure (Figure area is 3 3b wellb),), the the known, seismic seismic as hazard hazard the system map map of of seismogenicthethe MarcheMarche region regionsources (Figure(Figure(Figure3a), 4a 4a the),), the the map seismic seismic of active catalogue catalogue faults (Table (Table (Figure 1) 1) and and3b), the the the histogram histogram seismic of hazardof seismicity seismicity map of of Serravalle Serravalle the Marche di di Chienti Chienti region (Figure(Figure(Figure4a), 4b 4b the) )demonstrate. demonstrate. seismic catalogue (Table1) and the histogram of seismicity of Serravalle di Chienti (Figure4b) demonstrate. Buildings 2018, 8, x FOR PEER REVIEW 4 of 23 Buildings 2018, 8, 45 4 of 23 Buildings 2018, 8, x FOR PEER REVIEW 4 of 23

(a) (b)

Figure 3. (a) The map shows(a the) Marche region (black line), with Macerata province(b) highlighted (red line) and Serravalle di Chienti municipality (yellow area). The church is identified with a green FigureFigure 3.3. ((aa)) TheThe mapmap showsshows thethe MarcheMarche regionregion (black(black line),line), withwith MacerataMacerata provinceprovince highlightedhighlighted (red(red square; two stripes represent the major seismogenic faults that cross the territory, line)line) and and Serravalle Serravalle di di Chienti Chienti municipality municipality (yellow (yellow area). area). The church The church is identified is identified with a greenwith a square; green Colfiorito-Campotosto fault (purple stripe) and Vettore-Porche-Bove (light blue stripe). twosquare; stripes two represent stripe thes major represent seismogenic the major faults thatseismogenic cross the territory,faults Colfiorito-Campotostothat cross the territory, fault Source data: [41]. (b) The map shows the principal active faults of the Central Apennine Mountain (purpleColfiorito stripe)-Campotosto and Vettore-Porche-Bove fault (purple (lightstripe) blue and stripe). Vettore Source-Porche data:-Bove [41 ]. ( (lightb) The blue map stripshowse). chain: Gubbio (29), Gualdo Tadino (30), Colfiorito (31), Norcia (32), Mt.Vettore (33), Leonessa (34), theSource principal data: [41] active. (b faults) The map of the shows Central the Apennineprincipal active Mountain faults chain: of the Gubbio Central (29),Apennine Gualdo Mountain Tadino Alta Valle dell’Aterno (35), Mt. Della Laga (36), Rieti (37), Campo Imperatore-Assergi-Mt. (30),chain: Colfiorito Gubbio (31),(29), NorciaGualdo (32), Tadino Mt.Vettore (30), Colfiorito (33), Leonessa (31), Norcia (34), Alta (32), Valle Mt.Vettore dell’Aterno (33), (35),Leonessa Mt. Della (34), Cappucciata (38), Valle del Salto (39), Campo Felice-Colle Cerasito/Ovindoli-Pezza (40), Media Valle LagaAlta (36), Valle Rieti dell’Aterno (37), Campo (35), Imperatore-Assergi-Mt. Mt. Della Laga (36), Cappucciata Rieti (37), (38), Campo Valle Imperatore del Salto (39),-Assergi Campo-Mt. dell’Aterno (41), Fucino (42), Mt. Morrone (43), Alta Valle del Sangro (44), Aremogna-Cinquemiglia Felice-ColleCappucciata Cerasito/Ovindoli-Pezza (38), Valle del Salto (39), (40), Campo Media Felice Valle-Colle dell’Aterno Cerasito/Ovindoli (41), Fucino-Pezza (42), Mt.(40), Morrone Media Valle (43), (45), Sora (46), Altadell’Aterno Valle del (41), Sangro Fucino (44), (42), Aremogna-Cinquemiglia Mt. Morrone (43), Alta (45), Valle Sora del (46), Sangro St. Pietro (44), Aremogna Infine (47)- [Cinquemiglia42] (p. 10). St. Pietro Infine (47) [42] (p. 10). (45), Sora (46), St. Pietro Infine (47) [42] (p. 10).

(a) (b)

(a) (b) FigureFigure 4.4. ((aa)) MarcheMarche seismicseismic hazardhazard map.map. SerravalleSerravalle didi Chienti’sChienti’s valuevalue ofof peakpeak groundground accelerationacceleration (PGA) (% g) is pointed out [43]. (b) The histogram represents in the x axis the year of occurrence of (PGA)Figure (% 4. g)(a) is Marche pointed seismic out [43 ].hazard (b) The map histogram. Serravalle represents di Chienti in the’s value x axis theof peak year ground of occurrence acceleration of the the earthquake episode and on the y axis the intensity value [44]. earthquake(PGA) (% g) episode is pointed and out on the[43] y. axis(b) The the intensityhistogram value represents [44]. in the x axis the year of occurrence of the earthquake episode and on the y axis the intensity value [44].

Buildings 2018, 8, 45 5 of 23

Table 1. Table of major seismic events for the Serravalle di Chienti area. Data source [44].

Microseismic Date Time Localization Epicenter Moment Intensity Intensity Magnitude 10 30 04 1279 18:00 Camerino 9 6.31 8 03 05 1785 02:30 Alta valle del Chienti 7 5.14 6 28 07 1799 22:05 Appennino Marchigiano 9 6.13 NF 10 09 1919 16:57:20 Piancastagnaio 7-8 5.32 6-7 19 09 1979 21:35:37 Valnerina 8-9 5.86 4 13 10 1986 05:10:01 Appennino Umbro-Marchigiano 5-6 4.65 3 03 07 1987 10:21:58 Porto San Giorgio 5.09 4-5 04 06 1993 21:36:51 Nocera Umbra 5-6 4.50 4-5 05 06 1993 19:16:17 Gualdo Tadino 6 4.74 4 15 07 1997 08:51 Appennino Umbro-Marchigiano 4-5 3.69 5-6 03 09 1997 22:07:30 Appennino Umbro-Marchigiano 5-6 4.56 5 07 09 1997 23:28:06 Appennino Umbro-Marchigiano 5-6 4.38 4-5 09 09 1997 16:54 Appennino Umbro-Marchigiano 5-6 4.07 4-5 10 09 1997 06:46:51 Appennino Umbro-Marchigiano 5 4.16 7 26 09 1997 00:33:13 Appennino Umbro-Marchigiano 5.70 6-7 03 10 1997 08:55:22 Appennino Umbro-Marchigiano 5.25 6 06 10 1997 23:24:53 Appennino Umbro-Marchigiano 5.46 7 14 10 1997 15:23:11 Appennino Umbro-Marchigiano 7-8 5.65 4-5 09 11 1997 19:07:33 Appennino Umbro-Marchigiano 5-6 4.90 5 07 02 1998 00:59:45 Appennino Umbro-Marchigiano 5-6 4.43 4-5 16 02 1998 13:45:45 Appennino Umbro-Marchigiano 5 4.03 5-6 21 03 1998 16:45:09 Appennino Umbro-Marchigiano 6 5.03 5 26 03 1998 16:26:17 Appennino Umbro-Marchigiano 6 5.29 5-6 05 04 1998 15:52:21 Appennino Umbro-Marchigiano 6 4.81 4-5 11 08 1998 05:22:59 Appennino Umbro-Marchigiano 5-6 4.53 4-5 29 11 1999 03:20:34 Appennino Centrale 5-6 4.38 NF 09 12 2004 02:44:25 Zona Teramo 5-6 4.18 2-3 12 04 2005 00:31:52 Maceratese 4-5 4.16 4-5 15 12 2005 13:28:39 Valle del Topino 5-6 4.66 3-4 10 04 2006 19:03:36 Maceratese 5 4.51

The territory of Serravalle di Chienti is in the Colﬁorito-Campotosto seismogenic source and near that of Vettore-Porche-Bove (Figure3a). In these areas, active faults are concentrated (Figure3b), and earthquakes, therefore, are generated. For Serravalle di Chienti, values of peak ground acceleration (PGA) between 0.225 and 0.250 g are expected, according to the map in Figure4a. These values are useful in the perspective of damage prevention, but also to express an evaluation about accelerations occurring during a seismic event. The recurrence of earthquakes in this area is conﬁrmed by Table1 and Figure4b, where the correspondent microseismic intensity and the moment magnitude of the seismic events from 1279–2006 for Serravalle di Chienti are reported. This table helps to have a perceptive of how many earthquakes churches located in that territory could have undergone. Most of the listed events belong to the seismic sequence corresponding to the 1997 Umbria-Marche earthquake, labelled as Appennino Umbro-Marchigiano.

2.2. Historical Description and Material Analysis of the Building The original nucleus of the monastic complex of Acquapagana goes back to the XI Century: Saint Romualdo built both the church and the monastery in 1007. This date is conﬁrmed by Lodovico Buildings 2018, 8, 45 6 of 23

Buildings 2018, 8, x FOR PEER REVIEW 6 of 23 Jacobini, a historian who found the complex in 1653, thanks to a parchment of 1063, which has been lost [45].The church is an example of the Gothic-Umbrian style [46]: the smooth stone of the portal and ofThe the church rosette, is an the example horizontal of the frame Gothic-Umbrian on the façade, style the [46 buttresses]: the smooth and stone the single of the windows portal and on of the the rosette,lateral walls the horizontal are clearly frame elements on the of façade, this architectural the buttresses period and the and single of the windows geographical on the area lateral under wallsexamination. are clearly elements Entering of more this architectural into detail, onperiod the andwest of side the geographicalof the church area (Figure under 5b examination.), the principal Enteringfaçade more appears, into shaped detail, onas thea simple west hut side with of the two church openings: (Figure a portal,5b), the with principal a white façade stone appears,frame, and a shapedrose aswindow. a simple On hut the with lateral two sides openings: (Figurea 5 portal,a, c), the with façades a white are articulated stone frame, with and buttresses a rose window. to balance On the lateralthrust of sides the (Figureinner triumphal5a,c), the façadesarches. areIn these articulated walls, withthere buttresses are few openings to balance: two the small thrust ones of on the innerthe south triumphal side (Figure arches. 5c In) and these one walls, on the there north are and few east openings: side (Figure two small 5a, d ones). According on the south to [45 side], other (Figureinformation5c) and one on on the the church north is and dated east 1737. side (Figure At that5 a,d). time, Accordingaccording to to [ the45 ], inventory other information of Camerino on thearchbishopric’s church is dated archive, 1737. the At bell that towe time,r appeared according on to the the main inventory façade. of It Camerinois assumed archbishopric’s that the bell tower archive,on the the north bell tower side of appeared the presbytery on the main was façade. built later. It is assumedIn 1960, thatthe wooden the bell tower roof was on the replaced north side with a of theconcrete presbytery slab was and built a concrete later. In curb 1960, [4 the5], wooden also visible roof in was the replaced graphic with documentation a concrete slab of and the a 1997 concreteearthquake, curb [45 and], also then, visible after inthe the evidence graphic of documentation the damage caused of the [4 19976], the earthquake, roof was rebuilt and then, with after a light the evidencetimber structure of the damage [45]. caused [46], the roof was rebuilt with a light timber structure [45].

(a) (b)

Figure 5. Geometrical survey of the church [47]. (a) North elevation of St. Salvatore church; Figure 5. Geometrical survey of the church [47]. (a) North elevation of St. Salvatore church; (b) principal (b) principal (west) façade of St. Salvatore church; (c) south elevation of St. Salvatore church; (d) east (west) façade of St. Salvatore church; (c) south elevation of St. Salvatore church; (d) east elevation of St. Salvatoreelevation church. of St. Salvatore church.

RegardingRegarding the the planimetric planimetric conﬁguration, configuration, the the examined examined church church consists consists of a of single a single rectangular rectangular navenave surrounded surrounded by continuous by continuous stone-framed stone-framed masonry masonry walls walls withan with apse an that apse ends that the ends church the church on the on backthe side back and side gives and access gives to the access bell totower, the remaining bell tower, perfectly remaining in axis perfectl withy the in entrance axis with (Figure the entrance6a). A stair(Figure located 6a). inA thestair southwest located in cornerthe southwest of the nave corner allows of the one nave to enterallows the one timber to enter choir the above timber the choir principalabove entrancethe principal (Figure entrance6b). The (Figure nave is6b marked). The nave by triumphal is marked arches by triumphal with a regular arches inter-beamwith a regular distanceinter- tobeam provide distance support to provid to the principale support structure to the principal of the timber structure roof, of which the timber replaced roof, the which pre-existent replaced concretethe pre roof-existent after theconcrete 1997 earthquake.roof after the Today, 1997 earthquake. the roof structure Today, is the clearly roof structure visible: simple is clearly beams, visible: runningsimple along beams, the running width of along the church, the width bearing of the a church, secondary bearing structure a secondary made of structu timberre joistsmade which of timber providejoists the which support provide to the the roof support (Figure to6 thec,d). roof (Figure 6c,d). Buildings 2018, 8, 45 7 of 23 Buildings 2018, 8, x FOR PEER REVIEW 7 of 23

Buildings 2018, 8, x FOR PEER REVIEW 7 of 23

(a) (b)

Figure 6. Geometrical survey of the church [47]. (a) Entrance-level plan of St. Salvatore church; Figure 6. Geometrical survey(c) of the church [47]. (a) Entrance-level plan(d of) St. Salvatore church; (b) choir-level plan of St. Salvatore church; (c) plan at the bell tower opening level; (d) roof plan. (b) choir-levelFigure 6. Geometrical plan of St. Salvatore survey of church; the church (c) plan [47]. at ( thea) Entrance bell tower-level opening plan of level; St. Salvatore(d) roof plan. church; A( bfundamental) choir-level plan step of considered St. Salvatore in church; the comprehension (c) plan at the bell of towerthe construction opening level; history (d) roof of plan. the church is theA fundamentalanalysis of masonry. step considered The first necessary in the comprehension action is the analysis of the construction of texture to historyunderstand of the how church it iswas the analysisbuiAlt. fundamental The of correspondence masonry. step Theconsidered to ﬁrst the necessary “rule in the of comprehensionthe action art” was is the used analysisof tothe assess construction of texturethe seismic tohistory understand vulnerability of the church how of it wastheis built. churchthe analysis The masonry correspondence of masonry. walls. With The to this thefirst “rule termnecessary is of meant the action art” the wasis totality the used analysis of to all assess ofthose texture the constructive seismic to understand vulnerability techniques how it of thethatwas church guarantee built. masonry The goodcorrespondence walls. behavior With andto this the ensure term “rule is of compactness meant the art the” was totality and used mono ofto assess alllithism those the [4 constructiveseismic8] (p. 238),vulnerability techniques through of thatqualitythe guarantee church evaluation masonry good criteria behavior walls. and andWith the ensure identificationthis term compactness is meant of possible the and totality phenomena monolithism of all ofthose [instability48] constructive (p. 238), or throughdegradation. techniques quality that guarantee good behavior and ensure compactness and monolithism [48] (p. 238), through evaluationThe focus criteria was and set the on identiﬁcation the façade, extracting of possible and phenomena analyzing ofa portion instability of 200 or degradation.cm of width and quality evaluation criteria and the identification of possible phenomena of instability or degradation. 90 cmThe of focus thickness was set(see on the the red façade, square extracting in Figure and7a and analyzing redrawn a in portion Figure of 7b). 200 cm of width and 90 cm The focus was set on the façade, extracting and analyzing a portion of 200 cm of width and of thickness (see the red square in Figure7a and redrawn in Figure7b). 90 cm of thickness (see the red square in Figure 7a and redrawn in Figure 7b).

(a) (b)

Figure 7. (a) Part of the investigated(a) façade; (b) redrawn of a portion of the(b wall) of the façade of the church (2.00 × 2.00 m). Figure 7. (a) Part of the investigated façade; (b) redrawn of a portion of the wall of the façade of the Figure 7. (a) Part of the investigated façade; (b) redrawn of a portion of the wall of the façade of the church (2.00 × 2.00 m). churchFor the (2.00 global× 2.00 assessment m). of masonry quality, the selected specimen has been evaluated, following the indications, given in [48], by which seven factors, which influence the good realization of masonry,For the are global identified. assessment Each factor of masonry is evaluated quality, as: the respected selected, or specimen partially has respected, been evaluated, or not For the global assessment of masonry quality, the selected specimen has been evaluated, following respectedfollowing. The the sevenindications, factors given are: in [48], by which seven factors, which influence the good realization theof indications, masonry, given are identified. in [48], by Each which factor seven is factors, evaluated which as: inﬂuencerespected, the or good partially realization respected, of masonry, or not respected. The seven factors are: Buildings 2018, 8, 45 8 of 23 are identiﬁed. Each factor is evaluated as: respected, or partially respected, or not respected. The seven factors are:

• Good quality of the mortar. • Presence of bond stones, or stones passing through the entire thickness of the wall. • Shape of the elements. • Dimension of the elements. • Presence of staggering in the vertical joints. • Presence of horizontal rows. • Good quality of resistant elements.

These evaluation criteria help with the comprehension of the response of a masonry panel to gravity and seismic actions, and they allow one to identify parameters that, if present, guarantee the masonry quality. The considered panel is assumed to be subject to vertical loads (both concentrated and distributed) in the middle plane and orthogonal to it. Each parameter is described for every action with a score, which contributes to the definition of the final wall quality index. This index corresponds to different categories for the quality of masonry (A = good masonry behavior; B = average masonry quality; C = insufficient behavior). Regarding St. Salvatore church, stone elements do not exhibit degradation phenomena, have a regular and squared shape and well-defined edges (Figure8a). This is clearly visible in lateral walls and in the principal façade, while the state of conservation and the pattern of the material are hidden by the plaster in the east front and in the annexed body in the north side of the church. Prevalent dimensions are a 30–50-cm length, a 10–25-cm height and a 10–20-cm thickness, but many elements are also present with a major dimension of 70 cm. The wall section, analyzed with the image of the 1997 earthquake damage, shows the presence of a rubble masonry: three leaves, two external layers with a filling material, linked with some cross blocks (Figure8b). Mortar joints are in good condition and well preserved: large stone elements and thin layers of mortar are well proportioned. Horizontal rows (Figure8c) characterize all the length of the wall without interruption, while the splitting of vertical joints is only partially respected (Figure8d), because some joints are not in an intermediate position with respect to the stone element. Analyzing the corners, it is possible to observe the presence of cross blocks, which help to assume a good connection between lateral walls and the façade. The global evaluation of the masonry is summarized in Table2: a section is dedicated to show the photographic details of the masonry, another to show the schemes, one more to show the descriptions of the techniques of construction and materials and one to show the geometrical stone characteristics; finally, the last section is dedicated to the correspondence of the seven factors with a final evaluation of the quality of the masonry, resulting in being of good quality. Buildings 2018, 8, x FOR PEER REVIEW 8 of 23 BuildingsBuildings 2018 2018, 8, x, FOR8, x FOR PEER PEER REVIEW REVIEW 8 of 238 of 23  Good quality of the mortar.  GoodGood quality quality of the of themortar. mortar.  Presence of bond stones, or stones passing through the entire thickness of the wall.  PresencePresence of bond of bond stones, stones, or stones or stones passing passing through through the theentire entire thickness thickness of the of thewall. wall.  Shape of the elements.  ShapeShape of the of theelements. elements.  Dimension of the elements.  DimensionDimension of the of theelements. elements.  Presence of staggering in the vertical joints.  PresencePresence of staggering of staggering in the in thevertical vertical joints. joints.  Presence of horizontal rows.  PresencePresenceBuildings of horizontal2018 of horizontal, 8, x FOR rows PEER rows. REVIEW. 9 of 23  GoodBuildingsBuildings quality 2018 2018, 8, ofx, 8 FOR ,resistant x FOR PEER PEER REVIEW elements. REVIEW 9 of9 23 of 23  GoodGood quality quality of resistant of resistant elements. elements. These evaluation criteria help with the comprehension of the response of a masonry panelSCHEMES SCHEMESto TheseThese evaluation evaluation criteria criteria help help with with the thecomprehension comprehension of the of theresponse response of a of masonry a masonry panel SCHEMESpanel to to gravity and seismic actions, and theyBuildings allow 2018 one, 8 to, x FORidentify PEER parameters REVIEW that, if present, guarantee the 9 of 23 gravitygravity and and seismic seismic actions, actions, and and they they allow allow one one to identify to identify parameters parameters that, that, if present, if present, guarantee guarantee the the masonry quality. The considered panel is assumed to be subject to vertical loads (both concentrated masonrymasonryBuildings quality. quality. 2018 ,The 8, x TheFOR considered PEERconsidered REVIEW panel panel is assumed is assumed to be to subject be subject to vertical to vertical loads loads (both (both concentrated concentrated 9 of 23 SCHEMES and distributed) in the middle plane and orthogonal to it. Each parameter is described for every andand distributed) distributed) in thein themiddle middle plane plane and and orthogonal orthogonal to it.to Eachit. Each parameter parameter is described is described for forevery every action with a score, which contributes to the definition of the final wall quality index. This index actionaction with with a score, a score, which which contributes contributes to the to the definition definition of the of thefinal final wall wall quality quality index index. This. This indexSCHEMES index corresponds to different categories for the quality of masonry (A = good masonry behavior; correspondscorresponds to different to different categories categories for for the the quality quality of masonry of masonry (A (A = good = good masonry masonry behavior; behavior; B = average masonry quality; C = insufficient behavior). B = Baverage = average masonry masonry quality; quality; C = Cinsufficient = insufficient behavior). behavior). Regarding St. Salvatore church, stone elements do not exhibit degradation phenomena, have a RegardingRegarding St. SalvatoreSt. Salvatore church, church, stone stone elements elements do notdo notexhibit exhibit degradation degradation phenomena, phenomena, have have a a re re re Axonometry Front Section AxonometryAxonometry FrontFront SectionSection Masonry made up of two facades built with squared blocks of stones. with the interposition of a DESCRIPTI MasonryMasonry made made up upof twoof two facades facades built built with with squared squared blocks blocks of stones.of stones. with with the the interposition interposition of aof a DESCRIPTIDESCRIPTI pebble filling. Resistant elements with variable dimensions, but with defined edges. Wall ON pebblepebble filling. filling. Resistant Resistant elements elements with with variable variable dimensions, dimensions, but but with with defined defined edges. edges. Wall Wall ONON Axonometry Front Section texturetexture which which respects respects horizontal horizontal lines, lines, partial partial offsets offsets of of vertical vertical joints joints and and presence presence of of Buildingstexture2018 which, 8, 45 respects horizontal lines, partial offsets of vertical joints and presence of 9 of 23 transversaltransversal stone stone joints joints. . Masonry made up of two facades built with squared blocks of stones. with the interposition of a DESCRIPTI transversalAxonometry stone joints. Front Section Spruce travertine squares, alsopebble called filling. sponge . Resistant elements with variable dimensions, but withMATERIAL defined edges. Wall ON SpruceSpruce travertine travertine squares, squares, also also called called sponge sponge. . MATERIALMATERIAL Masonry made up of two facadestexture built with which squared respects blocks horizontal of stones. lines, with partial the interposition offsets of vertical of a jointsDESCRIPTI and presence of VariableVariable elements’ elements’ dimensions dimensions GEOMETRYGEOMETRY pebble filling. Resistant elementsVariable with variable elements’ dimensions, dimensions but with defined edges. Wall GEOMETRYON transversal(external stone facade): joints . Table 2. Wall quality(external index(external evaluation. facade): facade): Source of the axonometry and section images: [49]. texture which respects horizontalSpruce lines, partial travertine offsets squares, of vertical also calledjoints andsponge presence. of MATERIAL ss = = 10 10 ÷ ÷ 20 20 cm cm transversal stone joints. s = 10 ÷ 20 cm h = 10 ÷ 25 cm Variable elements’ dimensions GEOMETRY MASONRY BLOCKSh OF =h 10 SQUARED= ÷10 25 ÷ cm25 cm STONE AND PEBBLES, TRIPLE FACADE Spruce travertine squares, also called sponge. l = 30 ÷ 70 cm (external facade): MATERIAL l = 30l = ÷30 70 ÷ cm70 cm Variable elements’ dimensions s = 10 ÷ 20 cm GEOMETRY PHOTOS P.D. MA. F.EL. S.G. RE.(external O.R. facade):D.EL. h = 10 ÷ 25 cm P.D.P.D. MA.MA. F.EL.F.EL. S.G.S.G. RE. RE. O.R.O.R. D.EL.D.EL. CategoryCategory VerticalVertical OutOut of of InIn ANALISYSANALISYS EL. s = 10 ÷ 20Category cm Vertical Out of In ANALISYS EL. EL. l = 30 ÷plane 70 cm plane h = 10 ÷ 25 cm planeplane planeplane R R R PR R R R Schore method A A A R R R R R R PR PR R R R R R R SchoreSchore method method A A A A A A P.D. MA. l = 30F.EL. ÷ 70 cmS.G. RE. O.R. D.EL. Category Vertical Out of In ANALISYS Legend P.D. Presence of bondstones EL. LegendLegend P.D.P.D. Presence Presence of bondstonesof bondstones plane plane P.D. MA. F.EL. S.G. RE.MA. O.R. Good D.EL. quality of the mortar MA.MA. RGood Good qualityR quality Rof theofCategory the PRmor mortar tRar VerticalR R OutSchore of methodIn ANALISYSA A A EL.F. EL. Shape of the elements F. EL.F. EL. Shape Shape of theof the elements elements plane plane S.G.Legend Presence of staggering P.D.in the verticalPresence joints of bondstones R R R PR S.G.R S.G. Presence RPresence R of staggeringof Schorestaggering method in thein the vertical verticalA joints joints A A RE. EL. Good quality of resistantMA. elements Good quality of the mortar RE.RE. EL. EL. Good Good quality quality of resistantof resistant elements elements Legend P.D.O.R. Presence Presence of bondstones of horizontal F. rows EL. Shape of the elements O.R.O.R. Presence Presence of horizontalof horizontal rows rows MA.D.EL. Good Dimension quality of of the the mor elementstarS.G. Presence of staggering in the vertical joints D.EL.D.EL. Dimension Dimension of theof the elements elements F. EL. Shape of the elements RE. EL. Good quality of resistant elements Front S.G. Presence of staggeringCorner in theO.R. vertical Presence joints of horizontalInner rows masonry RE. EL. Good quality of resistant elements D.EL. Dimension of the elements SCHEMES O.R. Presence of horizontal rows PHOTOS D.EL. Dimension of the elements PHOTOSPHOTOS

Axonometry Front Section Masonry made up of two facades built with squared blocks of stones. with the interposition of a pebble DESCRIPTION ﬁlling.Resistant elements with variable dimensions, but with deﬁned edges. Wall texture which respects horizontal lines, partialFront offsets of vertical joints and presenceCorner of transversal stone joints.Inner masonry FrontFront CornerCorner InnerInner masonry masonry Spruce travertine squares, also called sponge. MATERIAL Variable elements’ GEOMETRY dimensions (external facade): s = 10 ÷ 20 cm h = 10 ÷ 25 cm l = 30 ÷ 70 cm

P.D. MA. F.EL. S.G. RE. O.R. D.EL. Category Vertical Out of In plane ANALISYS EL. plane R R R PR R R R Schore A A A method Legend P.D. Presence of bondstones MA. Good quality of the mortar F. EL. Shape of the elements S.G. Presence of staggering in the vertical joints RE. EL. Good quality of resistant elements O.R. Presence of horizontal rows Buildings 2018, 8, x FOR PEER REVIEWD.EL. Dimension of the elements 10 of 23

(a) (b) (c) (d)

Figure 8. 8. (a(a)) Quality Quality of of mortar, mortar, form form of resistant of resistant elements, elements, dimensions dimension of elements,s of elements, quality of quality resistant of elements;resistant elements; (b) presence (b) of p crossresence blocks of cross [49]; ( blocksc) splitting [49]; of (c vertical) splitting joints; of (verticald) presence joints; of horizontal (d) presence rows. of horizontal rows.

2.3. The Identification of Existing Macro-Elements Earthquakes, which have occurred in Italy in the last few decades, have produced severe damage to the masonry building stock: especially churches have been shown to be particularly vulnerable also to low seismic accelerations. The reason for such vulnerability is connected to the church typological characteristics, such as the presence of slender walls, heavy construction elements producing thrust actions on walls and the absence of diaphragm slabs. Systematic studies of church damage have been carried out since the 1976 Friuli earthquake. Indeed, a process of damage data collection has started from that occasion and has been continued also after the following major earthquakes. The observation of the structural behavior of churches clearly allows one to understand typical aspects of the response during earthquakes, identifying well-recognizable parts of the building that show unity in their behavior during earthquakes, labeled as macro-elements [2]. Since the study, Le chiese e il terremoto [2], a strong connection between macro-elements and collapse mechanisms has been pointed out, ending with the elaboration of the form of damage for churches [1], based on 28 kinematic mechanisms, including both out-of-plane and in-plane collapse modalities [50]. The survey form for the damage of churches is used for the first-level damage assessment, to have accessibility and the state of damage produced by the seismic event. It is filled by a team of experts, following the procedure indicated in a specific manual [51]. This is an essential action that helps to define the planning of safety interventions and the next repairing activities. For the present study, the existing macro-elements of the church have been identified. The tridimensional model (Figure 9) clearly shows the main structural units; out of all the possible macro-elements, only a few are present: façade, lateral walls, bell tower, apse, triumphal arch. Consequently, kinematic mechanisms have been associated with each macro-element.

Buildings 2018, 8, x FOR PEER REVIEW 10 of 23

(a) (b) (c) (d)

Figure 8. (a) Quality of mortar, form of resistant elements, dimensions of elements, quality of resistant elements; (b) presence of cross blocks [49]; (c) splitting of vertical joints; (d) presence of Buildings 2018, 8, 45 10 of 23 horizontal rows.

2.3.2.3. The IdentificationIdentification of ExistingExisting Macro-ElementsMacro-Elements Earthquakes, which which have have occurred occurred in Italy in Italy in the in last the few last decades, few decades, have produced have produced severe damage severe todamage the masonry to the building masonry stock: building especially stock: churches especially have churches been shown have to been be particularly shown to vulnerablebe particularly also tovulnerable low seismic also accelerations. to low seismic The accelerations reason for such. The vulnerability reason for such is connected vulnerability to the is church connected typological to the characteristics,church typological such as characteristics, the presence of such slender as the walls, presence heavy construction of slender walls, elements heavy producing construction thrust actionselement ons producing walls and thrust the absence actions of on diaphragm walls and slabs. the absence of diaphragm slabs. Systematic studies ofof church damage have been carried out since the 1976 Friuli earthquake. Indeed,Indeed, a processprocess ofof damagedamage datadata collectioncollection hashas startedstarted fromfrom thatthat occasionoccasion andand hashas beenbeen continuedcontinued also afterafter thethe followingfollowing majormajor earthquakes.earthquakes. The observation of the structural behavior of churcheschurches clearly allows one toto understand understand typical typical aspects aspects of of the the response response during during earthquakes, earthquakes, identifying identifying well-recognizablewell-recognizable parts parts of of the the building building that that show show unity unity in their in behavior their behavior during duringearthquakes, earthquakes, labeled aslabeled macro-elements as macro-elements [2]. [2]. Since the the study, study,Le Le chiese chiese e il terremotoe il terremoto[2], a[2], strong a strong connection connection between between macro-elements macro-elements and collapse and mechanismscollapse mechanisms has been pointedhas been out, pointed ending out, with ending the elaboration with the elaboration of the form of damagethe form for of churchesdamage [for1], basedchurches on 28[1], kinematic based on mechanisms,28 kinematic includingmechanisms, both including out-of-plane both and out in-plane-of-plane collapse and in- modalitiesplane collapse [50]. Themodalities survey [5 form0]. The for the survey damage form of for churches the damage is used of for churches the first-level is used damage for the assessment, first-level damage to have accessibilityassessment, to and have the accessibility state of damage and producedthe state of by da themage seismic produced event. by It isthe filled seismic by a event. team ofIt experts,is filled followingby a team theof experts procedure, following indicated the inprocedure a specific indicated manual [in51 a]. specific This is anmanual essential [51]. action This is that an essential helps to defineaction that the planninghelps to define of safety the interventionsplanning of safety and the interventions next repairing and activities.the next repairing For the presentactivities. study, For thethe existing present macro-elements study, the existing of the church macro have-elements been identified. of the church The tridimensional have been model identified. (Figure The9) clearlytridimensional shows the model main (Figurestructural 9) units; clearly out shows of all the the possible main structural macro-elements, units; out only of a allfew the are possible present: façade,macro-elements, lateral walls, only bell a tower, few are apse, present: triumphal façade, arch. lateral Consequently, walls, bell kinematic tower, mechanisms apse, triumphal have arch.been associatedConsequently, with kinematic each macro-element. mechanisms have been associated with each macro-element.

Figure 9. Macro-elements of St. Salvatore church. (A) Façade; (B) lateral walls; (C) bell tower; (D) apse; (E) triumphal arch; (F) beams of the roof; (G) annex building.

The possible kinematic mechanisms, in the case of St. Salvatore church, are the following:

• Overturning of the façade (mechanism 1) • Mechanisms of the upper part of the façade (mechanism 2) • In-plane mechanisms of the façade (mechanism 3) • Transversal response of the nave (mechanism 5) • Longitudinal response of the lateral wall, in-plane (mechanism 6) • Triumphal arches (mechanism 13) Buildings 2018, 8, x FOR PEER REVIEW 11 of 23

Figure 9. Macro-elements of St. Salvatore church. (A) Façade; (B) lateral walls; (C) bell tower; (D) apse; (E) triumphal arch; (F) beams of the roof; (G) annex building.

The possible kinematic mechanisms, in the case of St. Salvatore church, are the following: Buildings 2018, 8, 45 11 of 23  Overturning of the façade (mechanism 1)  Mechanisms of the upper part of the façade (mechanism 2) • OverturningIn-plane mechanisms of the apse of (mechanismthe façade (mec 16)hanism 3) • ShearTransversal mechanism response of the of the aps nave (mechanism (mechanism 17) 5) • VaultsLongitudinal of the apsresponse (mechanism of the lateral 18) wall, in-plane (mechanism 6) • MechanismTriumphal arches of the (mec elementhanism of the 13) roof-lateral walls of the nave (mechanism 19)  • InteractionOverturning with of the annexed apse (mec buildingshanism (mechanism 16) 25)  Shear mechanism of the aps (mechanism 17) • Bell tower (mechanism 27)  Vaults of the aps (mechanism 18) • Upper portion of the bell tower (mechanism 28)  Mechanism of the element of the roof-lateral walls of the nave (mechanism 19)  InteractionFigure 10 shows with annexed the activated buildings mechanisms (mechanism and 25) the relative damage, reported by the team of surveyors. Bell tower This (mec interpretation,hanism 27)made for each macro-element, leads to elaborate the general damage index Upper of the portion church (Iofd the); in bell this tower case, the(mec reportedhanism value28) is equal to 0.32 [52].

(a) (b) (c) (d)

(e) (f) (g) (h)

Figure 10. 10. ActivatedActivated mechanisms mechanisms and and level level of damage. of damage. Source Source data: data [52].: ([5a)2 Overturning]. (a) Overturning of the façade; of the (façade;b) mechanisms (b) mechanisms of the upper of the part upper of the façade;part of (c the) in-plane façade; mechanisms (c) in-plane of mechanisms the façade; ( d of) longitudinal the façade; (responsed) longitudinal of the lateral response wall, of in the plane; lateral (e) wall, shear in mechanism plane; (e) shear of the mechanism aps; (f) vaults of ofthe the aps; aps; (f) ( gvaults) bell tower;of the (aps;h) upper (g) bell portion tower; of (h the) upper bell tower. portion of the bell tower.

Figure 10 shows the activated mechanisms and the relative damage, reported by the team of As a result of the survey, the church was declared inaccessible [52]. Some of the mechanisms, surveyors. This interpretation, made for each macro-element, leads to elaborate the general damage in the church façade and in the bell tower, that occurred in the apse area have a serious or rather index of the church (Id); in this case, the reported value is equal to 0.32 [52]. diffused damage. To these aspects could be associated with the given assessment of accessibility. As a result of the survey, the church was declared inaccessible [52]. Some of the mechanisms, in the2.4. churchTwo Earthquake façade and Episodes in the in Comparison: bell tower, the that 1997 occurred Umbria-Marche in the apse Earthquake area have and athe serious 2016 Central or rather diffusedItaly Earthquake damage. To these aspects could be associated with the given assessment of accessibility.

2.4. TwoThe Earthquake seismicity Episodes of the area in C ofomparison: Serravalle the di1997 Chienti Umbria is- wellMarche known, Earthquake as pointed and the out 2016 in Central Section Italy 2.1. TheEarthquake major recent events, which hit this area and are discussed in the present work, are the 1997 Umbria-Marche and the 2016 Central Italy earthquakes. St. Salvatore Church suffered damage in bothTh cases,e seismicity even if atof different the area levels,of Serravalle as is clearly di Chienti visible is lookingwell known, at the as infographic pointed out documentation. in Section 2.1. TheUnderstanding major recent what events, happened which from hit this a seismic area and territorial are discussed perspective in the is one present of the work, essential are the steps 1997 for Umbriathe comprehension-Marche and of the the 2016 state Central of damage Italy in earthquakes. the analyzed St. case Salva study.tore Indeed, Church a suffered territorial damage overview, in together with building-scale photographic documentation, allows a deeper comprehension of the state of damage. Buildings 2018, 8, x FOR PEER REVIEW 12 of 23

Buildingsboth cases, 2018 ,even 8, x FOR if atPEER different REVIEW levels, as is clearly visible looking at the infographic documentation.12 of 23 Understanding what happened from a seismic territorial perspective is one of the essential steps for the Buildingsboth cases,2018, 8 ,even 45 if at different levels, as is clearly visible looking at the infographic documentation.12 of 23 comprehension of the state of damage in the analyzed case study. Indeed, a territorial overview, together Understanding what happened from a seismic territorial perspective is one of the essential steps for the with building-scale photographic documentation, allows a deeper comprehension of the state of damage. 2.4.1.comprehension The 1997 Umbria-Marche of the state of damage Earthquake in the analyzed case study. Indeed, a territorial overview, together with2.4.1 .building The 1997-scale Umbria photographic-Marche Edocumentation,arthquake allows a deeper comprehension of the state of damage. In the first days of September 1997, close to Colfiorito, an incremental seismic phenomenon was2.4.1 registered..In The the 1997 first UmbriaOndays 26 ofSeptember- SeptemberMarche Earthquake 1997, 1997 close at 0:33 to Colfiorito, a.m., the an first incremental shock was seismic felt with phenomenon a 5.70 moment was registered. On 26 September 1997 at 0:33 a.m., the first shock was felt with a 5.70 moment magnitude magnitudeIn the (Mw) first days (Figure of September 11a) at 3.51 1997, km close of depth, to Colfiorito, with the an epicenter incremental located seismic at phenomenon 43.022 latitude was and (Mw) (Figure 11a) at 3.51 km of depth, with the epicenter located at 43.022 latitude and 12.891 12.891registered. longitude On 26 [53 September]. After some 1997 hours, at 0:33 at a.m. 9:40, the a.m., first another shock was strong felt shock with a (Figure 5.70 moment 11b), withmagnitude 6.01 Mw longitude [53]. After some hours, at 9:40 a.m., another strong shock (Figure 11b), with 6.01 Mw and and(Mw) at 9.87 (Figure km of 11 depth,a) at 3.51 hit kmthe area of depth, with withthe epicenter the epicenter slightly loca toted the at north 43.022 (43.014 latitude lat. and and 12.891 12.853 at 9.87 km of depth, hit the area with the epicenter slightly to the north (43.014 lat. and long.)longitude [54]. Then, [53]. After on 14 some October hours, 1997 at at9:40 3:23 a.m., p.m., another a shock strong (Figure shock 11 c)(Figure of 5.65 11 Mwb), with at 7.33 6.01 km Mw of and depth 12.853 long.) [54]. Then, on 14 October 1997 at 3:23 p.m., a shock (Figure 11c) of 5.65 Mw at 7.33 km of hitat Sellano, 9.87 km with of the depth, epicenter hit theat 42.898 area latitude with the and epicenter 12.898longitude slightly to[55 ]. the Other north shocks (43.014 followed lat. and until depth hit Sellano, with the epicenter at 42.898 latitude and 12.898 longitude [55]. Other shocks the12.853 first monthslong.) [5 of4]. 1998,Then, ason is 14 visible October in 1997 the historicalat 3:23 p.m. catalogue, a shock (Figure of seismicity 11c) of of5.65 Serravalle Mw at 7.33 di km Chienti of followed until the first months of 1998, as is visible in the historical catalogue of seismicity of (Tabledepth1). hit All Sellano, the epicenters with the of epicenterthe main shocksat 42.898 belong latitude to the and Colfiorito 12.898 longitude seismogenic [55]. unit,Other indicated shocks Serravalle di Chienti (Table 1). All the epicenters of the main shocks belong to the Colfiorito withfollowed the number until 31 the in first Figure months3b. of 1998, as is visible in the historical catalogue of seismicity of seismogenic unit, indicated with the number 31 in Figure 3b. Serravalle di Chienti (Table 1). All the epicenters of the main shocks belong to the Colfiorito seismogenic unit, indicated with the number 31 in Figure 3b.

(a) (b) (c)

Figure 11. The 1997 major shocks with the location of St. Salvatore church (green square) in Figure 11. The(a) 1997 major shocks with the location(b) of St. Salvatore church (green(c) square) in Acquapagana and the seismogenic fault system of Colfiorito (purple area). (a) The red star points out AcquapaganaFigure 11. The and 1997the seismogenic major shocks fault with system the oflocation Colﬁorito of St. (purple Salvatore area). church (a) The (green red star square) points in out the epicenter of the 26 September 1997 event at 0:33 a.m. [53]; (b) the blue star specifies the epicenter theAcquapagana epicenter of theand 26 the September seismogenic 1997 fault event system at 0:33 of Colfiorito a.m. [53]; (purple (b) the bluearea). star (a) speciﬁesThe red star the points epicenter out of of the 26 September 1997 event at 9:40 a.m. [54]; (c) the yellow star indicates the epicenter of the thethe 26 epicenter September of 1997the 26 event September at 9:40 a.m.1997 [event54]; (c at) the 0:33 yellow a.m. [5 star3]; ( indicatesb) the blue the star epicenter specifies of the the epicenter 14 October 14 October 1997 event [55]. 1997of eventthe 26[ 55September]. 1997 event at 9:40 a.m. [54]; (c) the yellow star indicates the epicenter of the 14After October this 1997 series event of [5 shocks,5]. the church suffered severe damage, as the collected images document.After this The series south of shocks,portion theof the church complex suffered collapsed, severe while damage, the upper as the part collected of the images bell tower document. was After this series of shocks, the church suffered severe damage, as the collected images Thestrongly south portionaffected, oflosing the complexportions of collapsed, walls (Figure while 12) the in uppercorrespondence part of the to bellthe opening, tower was probably strongly document. The south portion of the complex collapsed, while the upper part of the bell tower was affected,due to losingthe good portions connection of walls of the (Figure transversal 12) in walls, correspondence which determined to the the opening, migration probably of the duedamage to the strongly affected, losing portions of walls (Figure 12) in correspondence to the opening, probably goodin the connection weakest ofand the un transversalbound part walls, of the whichstructure. determined the migration of the damage in the weakest due to the good connection of the transversal walls, which determined the migration of the damage andin unboundthe weakest part and of un thebound structure. part of the structure.

Figure 12. The image shows the state of damage post the 1997 earthquake of the east side of the building. In the foreground, the portion of the collapsed monastic complex is visible, while in the background, the damaged bell tower appears [56]. Buildings 2018, 8, x FOR PEER REVIEW 13 of 23 Buildings 2018, 8, 45 13 of 23 Figure 12. The image shows the state of damage post the 1997 earthquake of the east side of the building. In the foreground, the portion of the collapsed monastic complex is visible, while in the As mentionedbackground, the in Sectiondamaged 2.2 bell, thetower connection appears [56]. between lateral walls of the nave and the façade is well realized (see the image of the corner in Table2). This aspect inﬂuences the response of the building against horizontalAs mentioned forces, in Section developing 2.2, the a box-likeconnection behavior. between Indeed, lateral thewalls collapse of the nave of lateral and the walls façade is located is well realized (see the image of the corner in Table 2). This aspect influences the response of the in the upper area, in contact with the roof. In this regard, the information about the substitution of the building against horizontal forces, developing a box-like behavior. Indeed, the collapse of lateral roof in the 1960s helps to understand the damage. Under seismic cycles, the concrete roof pounded on walls is located in the upper area, in contact with the roof. In this regard, the information about the the masonrysubstitution walls, of the causing roof inlocal the damage. 1960s helps The to correlated understand state the of damage. damage isUnder clearly seismic visible cycles, in the the upper partconcrete of the lateral roof pounded walls (north on the and masonry south) walls, and ofcausing the buttresses local damage. (Figure The 13 correlateda). Moreover, state of the damage multi-leaf walls,is shakenclearly visible and pounded, in the upper show part the of separation the lateral of wa thells external (north and leaf south) from the and standing of the buttresses interior one. This(Figure phenomenon 13a). Moreover, is visible the both multi in- theleaf north walls, walls shaken (Figure and pounded, 13b) and show in the the gable separation part of of the the main façadeexternal (Figure leaf 13 fromc). As the in standing the case ofinterior the north one. wall,This phenomenon in the portion is above visible the both rose in windowthe north in walls contact with(Figure the roof, 13b the) and pounding in the gable effect part caused of the themain loss façade of a (Figure part of 13 thec). masonry. As in the Incase Figure of the 13 northc, this wall, isvisible in as rubblethe portion on the above ground the inrose front window of the in church. contact with The mainthe roof façade, the pounding also showed effect in-plane caused the shear loss cracks of a in the area,part of which the masonry. goes from In Figure the gable 13c, this to the is visible lower as south rubble west on corner.the ground These in front kinds of ofthe cracks church. followed The the pathmain offaçade the mortar, also showed denouncing in-plane the shear lower cracks strength in the capacityarea, which of thegoes mortar from the compared gable to the to that lower of the south west corner. These kinds of cracks followed the path of the mortar, denouncing the lower masonry. Moreover, none of the cracks cross the blocks of stone, conﬁrming the good quality of the strength capacity of the mortar compared to that of the masonry. Moreover, none of the cracks cross masonry evaluated in Section 2.2. the blocks of stone, confirming the good quality of the masonry evaluated in Section 2.2.

(a) (b)

(c)

Figure 13. Post-1997 earthquake damage of the exterior of the church. Photo source [56]. (a) Collapse of the upper part of the buttresses and of the lateral walls; (b) partial collapse of the north wall of St. Salvatore church; (c) damaged gable, left portion of the upper side of the façade, shear crack in the central part under the rose window and collapse of the upper portion of the buttresses of the south side. Buildings 2018, 8, x FOR PEER REVIEW 14 of 23

Figure 13. Post-1997 earthquake damage of the exterior of the church. Photo source [56]. (a) Collapse of the upper part of the buttresses and of the lateral walls; (b) partial collapse of the north wall of St. Salvatore church; (c) damaged gable, left portion of the upper side of the façade, shear crack in the Buildingscentral2018, 8 part, 45 under the rose window and collapse of the upper portion of the buttresses of the14 of 23 south side.

Finally,Finally, the the damage damage also also occurredoccurred thethe interior interior of of the the church. church. The The stiffness stiffness of of the the concrete concrete roof roof determineddetermined shear cracks cracks in in the the triumphal triumphal masonry masonry arches, arches, as asshown shown in inFigure Figure 14a 14. Furthermorea. Furthermore,, from from the theimages images of the of church the church interior, interior, the loss the of loss both of boththe internal the internal leaf of leaf the offa theçade façade wall and wall of and part of of part the ofupper the upperportion portion of the of lateral thelateral walls walls (Figure (Figure 14b) is14 visible.b) is visible. The explanation The explanation of this of damage this damage is the is same the same as the as theexterior exterior damage. damage.

(a) (b)

FigureFigure 14.14. Post-1997Post-1997 earthquakeearthquake damage of thethe interiorinterior ofof thethe church.church. Photo source: [[5577].]. (a) ViewView ofof thethe triumphaltriumphal archesarches towardstowards thethe apseapse area.area. DiffuseDiffuse shearshear crackscracks andand poundingpounding damage.damage. ((bb)) InsideInside viewview ofof St.St. Salvatore church. Partial collapse of the wall and of part of the internal leaf of the wall of thethe mainmain façadefaçade atat thethe tympanumtympanum level.level.

2.4.2. The 2016 Central Italy Earthquake 2.4.2. The 2016 Central Italy Earthquake Acquapagana in Serravalle di Chienti is among the areas hit by the several shocks that have Acquapagana in Serravalle di Chienti is among the areas hit by the several shocks that have affected Central Italy since August 2016. The major shocks happened on 24 August 2016, on 26 and affected Central Italy since August 2016. The major shocks happened on 24 August 2016, on 26 and 30 30 October 2016 and on 18 January 2017. The I.N.G.V. (Istituto Nazionale di Geofisica e Vulcanologia) October 2016 and on 18 January 2017. The I.N.G.V. (Istituto Nazionale di Geoﬁsica e Vulcanologia) identifies these events with the so-called Amatrice-Norcia-Visso seismic sequence. Maps in Figure 15 identiﬁes these events with the so-called Amatrice-Norcia-Visso seismic sequence. Maps in Figure 15 show the PGA curves for each seismic event together with the church location. For the series of show the PGA curves for each seismic event together with the church location. For the series of shocks, shocks, other data, such as the shake maps, could be found in [58–61]. other data, such as the shake maps, could be found in [58–61]. Buildings 2018, 8, 45 15 of 23

Buildings 2018, 8, x FOR PEER REVIEW 15 of 23

(a) (b)

Figure 15. PGA isocurves of the main shocks. (a) Event of 24 August (12% g); the epicenter is the red Figure 15. PGA isocurves of the main shocks. (a) Event of 24 August (12% g); the epicenter is the red star [58]; (b) event of 26 October (8% g); the epicenter is the yellow star [59]; (c) event of star [58]; (b) event of 26 October (8% g); the epicenter is the yellow star [59]; (c) event of 30 October 30 October (12% g); the epicenter is the blue star [60]; (d) Event of 18 January (2.5% g); the epicenter is (12%the g); green the epicenter star [61]. is the blue star [60]; (d) Event of 18 January (2.5% g); the epicenter is the green star [61]. These maps are the result of a QGIS software [62] elaboration: the overlapping of geographical Theseinformation maps— areSt. theSalvatore result Church of a QGIS coordinates software (42°5 [62]9′ elaboration:00.5′′ N 12°55′ the49.2 overlapping′′ E) and administrative of geographical information—St.limits—with the Salvatore curves of Church the PGA coordinates (% g) allows (42 one◦59, for000.5 each00 N seismic 12◦55 0event,49.200 toE) connect and administrative different kinds of information. Even if a more specific assessment would require the acceleration time history limits—with the curves of the PGA (% g) allows one, for each seismic event, to connect different kinds at the site, this step of knowledge is helpful for the comprehension of what happened in those areas. of information. Even if a more specific assessment would require the acceleration time history at the Indeed, these maps show that, on 24 August, the church reached a PGA curve of 12% g (Figure 15a), site, thison the step 26 of October knowledge of 8% is of helpful g. (Figure for the15b), comprehension on 30 October of what12% of happened g (Figure in15c those), while, areas. on Indeed,18 theseJanuary, maps show the church that, onis out 24side August, the curve the churchof 2.5% of reached g (Figure a PGA 15d). curveEven if of in 12% this glast (Figure case, the 15 a),PGA on the 26 Octobervalue is of lower 8% of than g. (Figure in the 15 precedingb), on 30 shocks, October the of church 12% of structure g (Figure could 15c), have while, suffered on 18 damageJanuary, the churchbecause is outside it was the already curve ofcompromised. 2.5% of g (Figure In this 15 regard,d). Even [63,6 if4 in] could this last contribute case, the toPGA explain valueing isthe lower than inprogression the preceding of damage shocks, caused the churchby the repetitive structure shocks. could Moreover, have suffered all the damage values stay because in the it range was alreadyof compromised.the expected In acceleration this regard, of [63 the,64 area,] could specified contribute in Section to explaining 2.1. the progression of damage caused by the repetitiveThe effects shocks. of the Moreover, 2016 earthquake all the on values the building stay in have the range been studied of the expected according acceleration to: the onsite of the external survey, the collection of photographic documentation related to the moment before the area, specified in Section 2.1. provisional interventions and the survey form [52] of St. Salvatore filled out by a ReLUIS (Rete The effects of the 2016 earthquake on the building have been studied according to: the onsite external survey, the collection of photographic documentation related to the moment before the provisional interventions and the survey form [52] of St. Salvatore filled out by a ReLUIS (Rete Buildings 2018, 8, 45 16 of 23 Buildings 2018, 8, x FOR PEER REVIEW 16 of 23

Buildings 2018, 8, x FOR PEER REVIEW 16 of 23 LaboratoriLaboratori Universitari Universitari di di Ingegneria Ingegneria Sismica) Sismica team) team after after the the 2016 2016 earthquake. earthquake. Both Both the the bell bell tower tower and theandLaboratori church the church building Universitari building present di present Ingegneria a significant a significant Sismica state )state ofteam damage. of after damage. the Externally, 2016 Externally, earthquake. in particular in particular Both onthe o thebelln the east tower east side, theside,and bell the the tower church bell appears tower building appears compromised: present compromised: a significant along thealong state height, theof damage. height, shear shear cracksExternally, cracks are present; in are particular present; due tooduen the the to plaster, eastthe it isplastside, not er thepossible, it bellis not tower to possible affirm appears thatto affirm thecompromised: cracks that the follow cracks along the follow the mortar. height, the mortar. Probably shear Probably cracks the path are the of present; path the cracks,of thedue cracks, to at somethe points,atplast someer provides, itpoints, is not evidenceprovides possible ofevidenceto theaffirm discontinuity ofthat the the discontinuity cracks ofthe follow masonry of thethe mortar.masonry caused Probably caused by reconstruction by the reconstruction path of afterthe cracks, seismicafter eventsseismicat some (Figure eventspoints, 16 (Figurea,b).provides This 16 evidencea, is b visible). This of is in the visible the discontinuity upper in the part upper of of the the part masonry bell of tower.the causedbell Indeed, tower. by reconstruction Indeed, Figure 12Figure confirms after 12 thatconfirmsseismic this portion events that this (Figure was portion rebuilt 16 a,was b after). rebuilt This the is 1997after visible the earthquake. in 1997 the earthquake. upper Moreover, part Moreover,of the the bell upper thetower. upper part Indeed, ofpart the ofFigure bell the tower,bell 12 tower, on the west side, shows not only shear cracks, but also torsional ones (Figure 16c). The onconfirms the west that side, this shows portion not was only rebuilt shear after cracks, the 1997 but alsoearthquake. torsional Moreover, ones (Figure the upper 16c). part The of presence the bell of presence of the tie rods efficiently works: indeed, this portion of the tower reacts with a box-like thetower, tie rods on efficiently the west works:side, shows indeed, not this only portion shear cracks, of the tower but also reacts torsional with a ones box-like (Figure behavior 16c). The effect, behavior effect, providing a contrast to the torsional action and causing cracks at the base of the providingpresence a contrastof the tie to rods the torsionalefficiently action works: and indeed, causing this cracks portion at the of basethe tower of the reacts terminal with part a box of the-like bell terminal part of the bell tower. Figure 16d shows a diagonal and vertical crack that should be tower.behavior Figure effect, 16d showsproviding a diagonal a contrast and to vertical the torsional crack that action should and becausing connected cracks to at the the pounding base of the effect connected to the pounding effect between the annexed body and the buttress of the nave, which betweenterminal the par annexedt of the body bell and tower. the Figure buttress 16d of shows the nave, a diagonal which shows and vertical Mechanism crack 5 that(see Sectionshould be2.3 ). showsconnected Mechanism to the pounding 5 (see Section effect 2.3). between the annexed body and the buttress of the nave, which shows Mechanism 5 (see Section 2.3).

(a) (b) (c) (d)

Figure ( 16.a) Exterior post-2016 earthquake(b) damage. (a) Shear cracks(c) along the height of( d the) bell Figure 16. Exterior post-2016 earthquake damage. (a) Shear cracks along the height of the bell tower [47]; (b) damaged bell tower with provisional interventions; (c) torsional and shear cracks [47]; towerFigure [47 ]; 16. (b )Exterior damaged post bell-2016 tower earthquake with provisional damage. interventions; (a) Shear cracks (c) torsional along the and height shear of cracks the bell [47 ]; (d) diagonal and vertical crack in the annexed building in contact with the buttress of the north wall (d)tower diagonal [47]; and (b) damaged vertical crack bell tower in the with annexed provisional building intervention in contacts with; (c) torsional the buttress and ofshear the cracks north wall[47]; of of the nave [47]. the(d nave) diagonal [47]. and vertical crack in the annexed building in contact with the buttress of the north wall of the nave [47]. The state of damage observed outside has a correspondence with the interior part of the bell tower,TheThe where state state of the of damage cracksdamage cross observed observed the different outsideoutside lev hashasels aof correspondence the structure (Figures w withith the 16c the interior and interior 17a, part b part). of ofthe the bell bell tower,tower, where where the the cracks cracks cross cross the the different different levels levels ofof thethe structurestructure (Figures 16c16c and and 17a, 17a,b). b).

(a) (b) (c)

Figure 17. Interior( a state) of damage of the bell (tower.b) (a) Shear cracks of the(c )ground floor [47]; (Figureb) continuous 17. Interior part of state the ofshear damage crack of the the firstbell floor tower. [47 ]; (a ()c ) Shear shear crackscrack o ofn the the north ground side floor [47]. [47]; Figure 17. Interior state of damage of the bell tower. (a) Shear cracks of the ground floor [47]; (b) continuous part of the shear crack of the first floor [47]; (c) shear crack on the north side [47]. (b)The continuous damage part of the of thechurch shear building crack of appeared the first floor more [47 concentrated]; (c) shear crack in onthe the principal north side façade. [47]. Indeed, from Theexternal damage images of the (Figure church 18) building, the faç appearedade shows more light concentrated visible lesions in thein correspondence principal façade. with Indeed, the timberfrom external beam of images the roof, (Figure which 18) causes, the fa çshearade shows cracks light because visible of thelesions pounding in correspondence effect. Light withlines the of timber beam of the roof, which causes shear cracks because of the pounding effect. Light lines of Buildings 2018, 8, 45 17 of 23

The damage of the church building appeared more concentrated in the principal façade. Indeed, from external images (Figure 18), the façade shows light visible lesions in correspondence with the Buildings 2018, 8, x FOR PEER REVIEW 17 of 23 timber beam of the roof, which causes shear cracks because of the pounding effect. Light lines of Buildings 2018, 8, x FOR PEER REVIEW 17 of 23 damage are present,present, retracingretracing the discontinuity of the masonry due to the post-1997 post-1997 earthquake earthquake damagereconstruction are present of thethe, gablegableretracing ofof thethe the façade.fa ç discontinuityade. of the masonry due to the post-1997 earthquake reconstruction of the gable of the façade.

Figure 18. Post-2016 earthquake damage of the external façade with the damage pattern. Figure 18. Post-2016 earthquake damage of the external façade with the damage pattern. Figure 18. Post-2016 earthquake damage of the external façade with the damage pattern. The pounding effect of the timber beams of the roof, introduced post-1997 earthquake, is more evidentThe from pounding the int effect erior ofof the the timber church beams (Figure of 19a the ). roof, The introduced overturning post-1997post mechanism-1997 earthquake, of the fa is çade more is evidentshown infromfrom Figure thethe interior int 19berior. A of verticalof the the church church line (Figure of (Figure discontinuity 19a). 19a The). The overturning denounces overturning mechanism the mechanism overturning of the of façade of the the fa is ç façade, shownade is showninevaluated Figure in 19 in Figureb. Figure A vertical 19b 10,. Aunderlined line vertical of discontinuity linealso ofby discontinuitythe denouncesdiagonal cracks denounces the overturning in the thelateral overturning of walls. the façade, ofevaluated the façade, in evaluatedFigure 10, in underlined Figure 10, also underlined by the diagonal also by cracksthe diagonal in the lateralcracks walls.in the lateral walls.

(a) (b) (a) (b) Figure 19. Post-2016 earthquake damage of the inside view of the west wall of the church. (a) Cracks at the intersection between the beams of the roof and the facade [47]; (b) vertical crack between the Figure 19. PostPost-2016-2016 earthquake damage of the inside view of the west wall of the church. ( a) Cracks façade and the lateral wall where there are also diagonal cracks [47]. at the intersection between the beams of the roof and the facade [4 [477]; (b) verticalvertical crack between the façade and the lateral wall where there are alsoalso diagonaldiagonal crackscracks [[4477].]. 3. Discussion 3. Discussion 3. DiscussionThe multidisciplinary approach, exemplified in this article, for the assessment of the state of damageThe hasmultidisciplinary provided a more approach, exhaustive exemplified vision, noint thislimited article, to thefor buildingthe assessment scale. Several of the stateaspects of The multidisciplinary approach, exempliﬁed in this article, for the assessment of the state of damagehave been has considered, provided aas more summarized exhaustive in Figurevision, 1. no Informationt limited to onthe the building seismogenic scale. sourceSeveral systems, aspects damage has provided a more exhaustive vision, not limited to the building scale. Several aspects have haveon the been PGA considered, accelerations, as summarized on the localization in Figure of1. Information the epicenters, on the archived seismogenic data ofsource the historicalsystems, been considered, as summarized in Figure1. Information on the seismogenic source systems, on the onseismicity the PGA of accelerations,the area, the documentation on the localization of the of state the epicenters,of damage archivedfrom the datasurvey of form the historical used for PGA accelerations, on the localization of the epicenters, archived data of the historical seismicity of the seismicitychurches and of theimages area, of thethe documentationstate of damage ofhave the been state employed. of damage from the survey form used for area, the documentation of the state of damage from the survey form used for churches and images of churchesThe comparisonand images ofbetween the state the of two damage seismic have episodes, been employed. the 1997 Umbria -Marche and 2016 Central the state of damage have been employed. Italy Theearthquake, comparison show betweens a milder the state two seismicof damage episodes, in the lastthe 1997one. InUmbria summary-Marche, this and could 2016 be Centralcaused The comparison between the two seismic episodes, the 1997 Umbria-Marche and 2016 Central Italyby: ( a)earthquake, a lower distanceshows a frommilder the state epicenters of damage of in the the several last one. shocks In summary in the , 1997 this could Umbria be- Marchecaused Italy earthquake, shows a milder state of damage in the last one. In summary, this could be caused by: by:earthquake (a) a lower compared distance to thosefrom theof the epicenters 2016 Central of the Italy several earthquake shocks (Figurein the 1997 20); ( Umbriab) the different-Marche (a) a lower distance from the epicenters of the several shocks in the 1997 Umbria-Marche earthquake earthquakepropagation compared direction toof thosewaves, of from the 2016the northwest Central Italy (26 earthquake and 27 September (Figure) 20); and (b) from the the different south compared to those of the 2016 Central Italy earthquake (Figure 20); (b) the different propagation propagation(14 October) in direction the 1997 of earthquake, waves, from while the southeast/eastnorthwest (26 in and the 272016 September earthquake,) and in fromreference the tosouth the (position14 October) of the in thechurch 1997 explained earthquake, in Sectionwhile southeast/east 2.1 and in Figure in the 2c 2016, as wellearthquake, as the effectiveness in reference ofto the positioninterventions of the done church after explained the 1997 earthquake.in Section 2.1 and in Figure 2c, as well as the effectiveness of the interventions done after the 1997 earthquake. Buildings 2018, 8, 45 18 of 23 direction of waves, from the northwest (26 and 27 September) and from the south (14 October) in the 1997 earthquake, while southeast/east in the 2016 earthquake, in reference to the position of the church explained in Section 2.1 and in Figure2c, as well as the effectiveness of the interventions done after the 1997 earthquake. Buildings 2018, 8, x FOR PEER REVIEW 18 of 23 Buildings 2018, 8, x FOR PEER REVIEW 18 of 23

(a) (b) (a) (b) Figure 20. Maps showing the distances of epicenters of the principal shocks from the church. (a) The Figure 20. Maps showing the distances of epicenters of the principal shocks from the church. (a) The Figure 20. Maps showing the distances of epicenters of the principal shocks from the church. (a) The map presents presents the the 1997 1997 Umbria-Marche Umbria-Marche earthquake earthquake shocks. shocks. Data Data source: source [41,53: [41,5–55].3– (b5)5] This. (b) map This shows map map presents the 1997 Umbria-Marche earthquake shocks. Data source: [41,53–55]. (b) This map showsthe 2016 the Central 2016 Central Italy earthquake Italy earthquake shocks. shocks. Data source: Data source [41,58:– 61[41,5]. 8–61]. shows the 2016 Central Italy earthquake shocks. Data source: [41,58–61]. At the building scale, from the comparison of the state of damage between the two earthquakes, At the building scale, from the comparison of the state of damage between the two earthquakes, someAt considerations the building scale,can be from made the. Observing comparison Figure of the 21, state the of shear damage cracks between on the the plane two of earthquakes the façade,, some considerations can be made. Observing Figure 21, the shear cracks on the plane of the façade, belowsome considerations the rose window can are be lightlymade. markedObserving from Figure the recent 21, the earthquake. shear cracks on the plane of the façade, below the rose window are lightly markedmarked fromfrom thethe recentrecent earthquake.earthquake.

Figure 21. Comparison of the state of damage on the façade after the 1997 earthquake (on the left) andFigure the 21.2016 Comparison one (on the of right the). state of damage on the façade after the 1997 earthquake (on the left) Figure 21. Comparison of the state of damage on the façade after the 1997 earthquake (on the left) and and the 2016 one (on the right). the 2016 one (on the right). On the contrary, the upper portion of the gable, in contact with the roof, is in good condition, and itOn does the notcontrary, show thethe upperseparation portion of ofthe the leaves. gable, It inseems contact that with a good the roof,interlocking is in good between condition the, internaland itOn does the and contrary,not the show external the the upper separation leaf portion of the of fa of çthe thead eleaves. gable, has been inIt contactseems performed withthat a the withgood roof, theinterlocking is inpost good-1997 condition, between earthquake andthe intervention.itinternal does not and show Moreover,the the external separation the leaf substitution of of the the leaves. faç ad of e the It has seems heavy been that concrete performed a good roof interlocking with with the a lightpost between -1997 timber the earthquake structure internal (Figureandintervention. the 22)external has Moreover, contributed leaf of the the façade to substitution reduc hasing been the of performed themass, heavy which with concrete during the post-1997 roof the with cyclic earthquake a dynamic light timber effects intervention. structure of the earthquakeMoreover,(Figure 22) the, hascould substitution contributed have severelyof to the reduc damaged heavying concretethe the mass, façade. roof which with during a light the timber cyclic structure dynamic (Figure effects 22 of) has the contributedearthquake, tocould reducing have severely the mass, damaged which during the faç theade. cyclic dynamic effects of the earthquake, could have severely damaged the façade. Buildings 2018, 8, 45 19 of 23 Buildings 2018, 8, x FOR PEER REVIEW 19 of 23

Figure 22. Comparison of the types of roof and the relative state of damage after the 1997 earthquake Figure 22. Comparison of the types of roof and the relative state of damage after the 1997 earthquake and the 2016 one. and the 2016 one. The effectiveness of these interventions seems to be demonstrated, even if further studies shouldThe be effectiveness done in this of regard. these interventionsAn improvement seems in tothe be connection demonstrated, between even the if further timber studiesbeams and should the bewall done is in recommended. this regard. An A improvement good box-like in effectthe connection of the building between was the timber observed beams in and both the events. wall isNevertheless, recommended. the Arather good high box-like level effectof damage of the of building Mechanism wass observed 1 and 2 (Fi ingure both 10) events. suggests Nevertheless, the use of thetie rods rather at highthe level level of of the damage gable, ofin correspondence Mechanisms 1 and with 2 the (Figure transversal 10) suggests walls. theIn the use case of tie of rodsthe bell at thetower, level the of tie the rods gable, helped in correspondence to keep the four withwalls the together transversal and to walls. limit the In damage. the case ofThe the interventions bell tower, theperformed tie rods on helped the main to keep façade, the on four the walls lateral together masonry and walls to limit and theon the damage. buttresses The have interventions provided performedgood on the main façade, on the lateral masonry walls and on the buttresses have provided good seismicseismic performance.performance. Finally,Finally, other other general general considerations considerations can can be be added: added: • InIn thethe bellbell tower,tower, anan additionaladditional steelsteel structure,structure, tyingtying togethertogether thethe fourfour wallswalls ofof thethe bellbell tower,tower, couldcould guaranteeguarantee ductilityductility and and reduce reduce torsional torsional movement movement of of the the upper upper portion. portion. • TheThe existing existing independent independent steel steel structure, structure, used used to carry to thecarry bells, the has bells, shown has a shown satisfactory a satisfactory response toresponse seismic to actions seismic and actions probably and hasprobably reduced has the reduced damage the to damage the masonry to the structure. masonry structure.

4.4. ConclusionsConclusions TheThe multidisciplinarymultidisciplinary procedureprocedure forfor thethe assessmentassessment ofof seismicseismic damage,damage, presentedpresented inin thisthis work,work, demonstratesdemonstrates the the advantages advantages that that such such an approachan approach can canprovide provide in terms in terms of a more of a exhaustive more exhaustive vision ofvision the damage. of the damage. ThisThis methodology methodology could could be be applied applied to other to other churches churches recently recently affected affected by earthquakes by earthquakes in Central in ItalyCentral and Italy to other and similar to other situations, similar situations, thanks to thanks its replicability to its replicability and adaptability. and adaptability. Indeed, inserting Indeed, churchesinserting with churches their ownwith coordinatestheir own coo inrdinates a GIS work in a space, GIS work together space, with together seismic with data seismic of an earthquake, data of an accessibleearthquake, from accessible the INGV from website the INGV [65] or website in general [65 from] or in similar general authorities, from similar the authorities, damage of the the building damage canof the be studied; building moreover, can be studied; seismic accelerations, moreover, seismic directions accelerations, and distances directions can be considered. and distances In keeping can be withconsidered. such an In approach, keeping awith knowledge such an of approach, the territorial a knowledge scenario couldof the be territorial achieved, scenario in terms could both of be theachieved, vulnerability in terms of the both geographical of the vulnerability area and of of the the interventions geographical performed area and afterof the seismic interventions events. Meanwhile,performed after this methodologyseismic events. for M theeanwhile, assessment this of methodology damage could for help the toassessment store and collectof damage territorial- could andhelp building-scale to store and collect information, territorial which- and would building be- usefulscale information, for future advancement which would of be knowledge. useful for future advancement of knowledge. Buildings 2018, 8, 45 20 of 23

Acknowledgments: The valuable help of Floriana Pergalani, Claudio Chesi and Maria Adelaide Parisi (Politecnico di Milano), of the Assessore Pietro Ricci and of the Municipality of Serravalle di Chienti, is gratefully acknowledged. The research was partially supported by the ReLUIS-DPC Project 2017. Author Contributions: Both authors are responsible of the whole article. Gessica Sferrazza Papa, mostly, contributed on the territorial, structural and damage analysis; while, Benedetta Silva on the historical and material investigation. Conﬂicts of Interest: The authors declare no conﬂicts of interest.

References

1. Form A-DC PCM-DPC MIBAC. 2006. Available online: http://www.beniculturali.it/mibac/multimedia/ MiBAC/documents/1338454237471_allegato4.pdf (accessed on 1 September 2017). 2. Doglioni, F.; Moretti, A.; Petrini, V. Le Chiese e il Terremoto; LINT Press: Trieste, Italy, 1994; ISBN 8886179367. 3. Lagomarsino, S. Seismic damage survey of the churches in Umbria. In Proceedings of the Workshop on Seismic Performance of Monuments, Lisbon, Portugal, 12–14 November 1998. 4. Doglioni, F.; Mazzotti, P. Codice di Pratica per la Progettazione Degli Interventi di Miglioramento Sismico nel Restauro del Patrimonio Architettonico, 2nd ed.; Regione Marche: Ancona, Italy, 2007; ISBN 978-88-902669-0-4. 5. Giovanetti, F. Manuale di Recupero. Città di Roma; Edizioni DEI; Tipografia del Genio Civile: Roma, Italy, 1997; ISBN 88-7722-552-1. 6. Giovanetti, F. Manuale del Recupero del Comune di Città di Castello; Edizioni DEI; Tipografia del Genio Civile: Roma, Italy, 1997; 239p, ISBN 9788849652260. 7. Giuffrè, A.; Carocci, C. Codice di Pratica per la Conservazione dei Sassi di Matera; Edizioni La Bautta: Matera, Italy, 1997; 302p, ISBN 9788885425361. 8. Giuffrè, A.; Carocci, C. Codice di Pratica per la Sicurezza e la Conservazione del Centro Storico di Palermo; Laterza: Bari, Italy, 1999; 200p, ISBN 88-420-5687-1. 9. Guerrieri, F. Regione Umbria. Manuale per la Riabilitazione e Ricostruzione Post Sismica Degli Edifici; Edizioni DEI; Tipografia del Genio Civile: Roma, Italy, 1999; 591p, ISBN 88-496-0851-9. 10. Cangi, G. Manuale Recupero Antisismico; Edizioni DEI; Tipografia del Genio Civile: Roma, Italy, 2005; ISBN 88-496-1421-7. 11. Angeletti, P.; Ferrini, M.; Lagomarsino, S. Survey and evaluation of the seismic vulnerability of the churches: An application in Lunigiana and Garfagnana. In Proceedings of the Associazione Nazionale Italiana Di Ingegneria Sismica, 8th Italian National Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Taormina, Italy, 20–24 September 1997. 12. Tobriner, S.; Comerio, M.; Green, M. Reconnaissance Report on the Umbria-Marche, Italy, Earthquakes of 1997. EERI Special Earthquake Report. December 1997, pp. 1–12. Available online: https://www.eeri.org/lfe/ pdf/Italy_Umbria_Marche_Insert_Dec97.pdf (accessed on 1 November 2017). 13. Lagomarsino, S.; Podestà, S. Seismic vulnerability of ancient churches: I. Damage assessment and emergency planning. Earthq. Spectra 2004, 20, 377–394. [CrossRef] 14. Lagomarsino, S.; Podestà, S. Damage and vulnerability assessment of Churches after the 2002 Molise, Italy, Earthquake. Earthq. Spectra 2004, 20, S271–S283. [CrossRef] 15. Da Porto, F.; Silva, B.; Costa, C.; Modena, C. Macro-scale analysis of damage to churches after earthquake in Abruzzo (Italy) on April 6, 2009. J. Earthq. Eng. 2012, 16, 739–758. [CrossRef] 16. Modena, C.; Binda, L. Monumental historical buildings. Protection of the cultural heritage in the post-earthquake emergency. Progettazione Sismica 2009, 3, 107–115. 17. Kaplan, H.; Bilgin, H.; Yilmaz, S.; Binici, H.; Oztas, A. Structural damages of L’Aquila Earthquake (2009). Nat. Hazards Earth Syst. Sci. 2010, 10, 499–507. [CrossRef] 18. Lagomarsino, S. Damage assessment of churches after L’Aquila earthquake (2009). Bull. Earthq. Eng. 2012, 10, 73–92. [CrossRef] 19. Brandonisio, G.; Lucibello, G.; Mele, E.; De Luca, A. Damage and performance evaluation of masonry churces in the 2009 L’Aquila earthquake. Eng. Fail. Anal. 2013, 34, 693–714. [CrossRef] 20. De Matteis, G.; Criber, E.; Brando, G. Damage probability matrices for three-nave masonry churches in Abruzzi after the 2009 L’Aquila earthquake. Int. J. Archit. Herit. 2015, 10, 120–145. Buildings 2018, 8, 45 21 of 23

21. Krstevska, L.; Tashkov, L.; Naumovski, N.; Florio, G.; Formisano, A.; Fornaro, A.; Landolfo, R. In situ experimental testing of four historical buildings damaged during the 2009 L’Aquila earthquake. In Proceedings of the Cost Action C26 Final Conference “Urban Habitat Constructions under Catastrophic Events”, Naples, Italy, 16–18 September 2010; pp. 427–432. 22. Sorrentino, L.; Liberatore, L.; Decanini, L.D.; Liberatore, D. The performance of churches in the 2012 Emilia earthquakes. Bull. Earthq. Eng. 2014, 12, 2299–2331. [CrossRef] 23. Indirli, M.; Marghella, G.; Marzo, A. Damage and collapse mechanisms in churches durign the Pianura Padana Emiliana earthquake. EAI 2012, 4–5, 69–94. 24. Clementi, F.; Quagliarini, E.; Monni, F.; Giordano, E.; Lenci, S. Cultural heritage and earthquake: The case study of ‘Santa Maria della Carità’ in Ascoli Piceno. Open Civ. Eng. J. 2017, 11, 1079–1105. [CrossRef] 25. Lancioni, G.; Piattoni, Q.; Lenci, S.; Quagliarini, E. 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. 2013, 56, 1527–1546. [CrossRef] 26. Milani, G.; Valente, M. Comparatiove pushover and limit analyses on seven masonry churches damaged by the 2012 Emilia-Romagna (Italy) seismic events: Possibilities of non-linear Finite Elements compared with pre-assigned failure mechanisms. Eng. Fail. Anal. 2015, 47, 129–161. [CrossRef] 27. Cundari, A.; Milani, G.; Failla, G. Seismic vulnerability evaluation of historical masonry churches: Proposal for a general and comprehensive numerical approach to cross-check results. Eng. Fail. Anal. 2017, 82, 208–228. [CrossRef] 28. Formisano, A.; Ciccone, G.; Mele, A. Large scale seismic vulnerability and risk evaluation of a masonry churces 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, 21–25 April 2017. 29. 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). Available online: http://www.beniculturali.it/ mibac/multimedia/MiBAC/documents/1295444865088_LINEE.pdf (accessed on 01 September 2017). 30. NTC 2008. Decreto Ministeriale delle Infrastrutture 14 Gennaio 2008. Approvazione Delle Nuove Norme Tecniche per le Costruzioni. 2008. Available online: http://www.ca.archiworld.it/normativa/italia/ NORME_TECNICHE/DM_14_01_2008.PDF (accessed on 3 December 2017). 31. ICOMOS Charter. Principles for the analysis, conservation and structural restoration of architectural heritage; International council on monumental and sites(ICOMOS). In Proceedings of the 14th ICOMOS General Assembly, Victoria Falls, Zimbabwe, Harare, Zimbabwe, 27–31 October 2003; Available online: https://www.icomos.org/charters/structures_e.pdf (accessed on 24 October 2017). 32. Savorra, M.; Fabbrocino, G.; Marra, A. Un approccio multidisciplinare per la conoscenza dei beni architettonici: Il caso della Certosa di Trisulti. In La Baia di Napoli. Strategie Integrate per la Conservazione e la Fruizione del Paesaggio Culturale; Aveta, A., Marino, B.G., Amore, R., Eds.; Artstudio Paparo: Naples, Italy, 2017. 33. Ranieri, C.; Marra, A.; Ranieri, G.M.; Gargaro, D.; Pepe, M.; Fabbrocino, G. Integratednon-descructive assessment of relevant structural elements of an Italina heritage site: The Carthusian monastery of Trisulti. J. Phys. Conf. Ser. 2015, 628, 012018. [CrossRef] 34. Marra, A. Il complesso monumentale di Santa Chiara a Napoli: Un modello innovative per la conoscenza e la valorizzazione. In Conoscere, Conservare, Valorizzare il Patrimonio Religioso; Niglio, O., Visentin, C., Eds.; ARACNE Editore: Rome, Italy, 2017; Volume 3. 35. MiBACT. Codice dei Beni Culturali e del Paesaggio ai Sensi dell’Articolo 10 Legge 6 Luglio 2002, n. 137 (D.L. 22 Gennaio 2004, n. 42). Available online: www.unesco.beniculturali.it/getFile.php?id=226 (accessed on 24 October 2017). 36. Carbonari, S.; Catanzaro, A.; D’Agostino, V.; Dall’Asta, V.; Dezi, L.; Gara, F.; Leoni, G.; Morici, M.; Prota, A.; Zona, A. Prime analisi e considerazioni circa di danni rilevati al patrimonio culturale delle marche a valle del terremoto del Centro Italia (2016). In Proceedings of the Associazione Nazionale Italiana Di Ingegneria Sismica 2017, XVII Convegno L’Ingegneria sismica in Italia, Pistoia, Italy, 17–21 September 2017. 37. De Matteis, G.; Zizi, M.; Corlito, V. Analisi preliminare degli effetti del terremoto del Centro italia del 2016 sulle chiese a una navata. In Proceedings of the Associazione Nazionale Italiana Di Ingegneria Sismica 2017, XVII Convegno L’Ingegneria sismica in Italia, Pistoia, Italy, 17–21 September 2017. Buildings 2018, 8, 45 22 of 23

38. Lagomarsino, S.; Podestà, S. Seismic vulnerabilty of ancient churches: II. statistic analysis of surveyed data and methods for risk analysis. Earthq. Spectra 2004, 20, 395–412. [CrossRef] 39. Lourenço, P.B.; Roque, J.A. Simplified indexes for the seismic vulnerability of ancient masonry buildings. Constr. Build. Mater. 2006, 20, 200–208. [CrossRef] 40. Aerial View. Available online: https://maps.google.com/ (accessed on 15 June 2017). 41. DISS Working Group. Database of Individual Seismogenic Sources (DISS), Version 3.2.0: A Compilation of Potential Sources for Earthquakes Larger than M 5.5 in Italy and Surrounding Areas; Istituto Nazionale di Geofisica e Vulcanologia: Roma, Italy, 2015; Available online: http://diss.rm.ingv.it/diss/.[CrossRef] 42. Galadini, F.; Meletti, C.; Vittori, E. Stato delle Conoscenze Sulle Faglie Attive in Italia: Elementi Geologici di Superficie. Risultati del Progetto 5.1.2 “Inventario delle Faglie Attive e dei Terremoti ad esse Associabili” di Superficie. Available online: ftp://ftp.ingv.it/pro/gndt/Pubblicazioni/Meletti/2_01_galadini.pdf (accessed on 20 November 2017). 43. Istituto Nazionale di Geofisica e Vulcanologia. Seismic Hazard Map of Marche Region. Available online: http://zonesismiche.mi.ingv.it/mappa_ps_apr04/marche.html (accessed on 15 June 2017). 44. Istituto Nazionale di Geofisica e Vulcanologia—Database Macrosismico Italiano 2015. Available online: https://emidius.mi.ingv.it/CPTI15-DBMI15/query_place/ (accessed on 15 June 2017). 45. Historical Description of the Monastic Complex. Available online: http://www.beniculturali.marche.it/ Ricerca.aspx?ids=69805 (accessed on 15 June 2017). 46. Tassi, C. Le chiese romaniche delle Marche dopo il sisma del 1997. In Il Sisma. Ricordare Prevenire Progetto; Fiandaca, O., Lione, R., Eds.; Alinea editrice s.r.l: Firenze, Italy, 2009; pp. 265–279, ISBN 978-88-6055-460-4. 47. Castrataro, M.; Silvestri, M. Relazione Generale sul Progetto per la Messa in Sicurezza Della Chiesa di San Salvatore—Loc. Acquapagana; Technical Report; Comune di Serravalle di Chienti: Serravalle di Chienti MC, Italy, December 2016; pp. 1–8. 48. Baila, A.; Binda, L.; Borri, A.; Cangi, G.; Cardani, G.; Castori, G.; Corradi, M.; De Maria, A.; Del Monte, E.; Donà, C.; et al. Manuale delle Murature Storiche; DEI: Rome, Italy, 2011; ISBN 978-8849604030. 49. 2003 Regolamento Regionale 15 luglio 2003, n. 9. Norme Regolamentari di Attuazione dell’Art. 5 della Legge Regionale del 23 Ottobre 2002, n. 18—Norme in Materia di Prevenzione Sismica del Patrimonio Edilizio; Bolletino Ufficiale: Perugia, Italy, 2003; p. 95. 50. Giuffrè, A. Letture Sulla Meccanica Delle Murature Storiche; Edizioni Kappa: Rome, Italy, 1991; ISBN 9788880241591. 51. Papa, S.; Di Pasquale, G. Manuale per la Compilazione Della Scheda per il Rilievo del Danno ai Beni Culturali, Chiese MODELLO A—DC. Available online: http://www.awn.it/component/attachments/download/1247 (accessed on 15 June 2017). 52. Palomba, V. Form of Damage for San Salvatore Church; Technical Report; Comune di Serravalle di Chienti: Serravalle di Chienti MC, Italy, 22 February 2017; pp. 1–19. 53. Archivio Storico Macrosismico Italiano. (a) Data Relative to the 1997 Umbria-Marche Earthquake (26 September 1997-00:33). Available online: https://emidius.mi.ingv.it/ASMI/event/19970926_0033_000 (accessed on 10 November 2017). 54. Archivio Storico Macrosismico Italiano. (b) Data (epicenter, Mw, depth) Relative to the 1997 Umbria-Marche Earthquake (26 September 1997-09:40). Available online: https://emidius.mi.ingv.it/ASMI/event/19970926_ 0940_000 (accessed on 10 November 2017). 55. Archivio Storico Macrosismico Italiano. (c) Data (Epicenter, Mw, Depth) Relative to the 1997 Umbria-Marche Earthquake (14 October 1997-15:23). Available online: https://emidius.mi.ingv.it/ASMI/event/19971014_ 1523_000 (accessed on 10 November 2017). 56. Archived Photo in MiBACT GIS Website. Available online: http://vincoliinretegeo.beniculturali.it/vir/vir/ vir.html (accessed on 15 June 2017). 57. Direzione Regionale per i Beni Culturali e Paesaggistici delle Marche. RiMARCANDO. 1997–2007: A 10 Anni dal Sisma, Special ed.; Tecnostampa: Loreto, Italy, 2007. 58. Istituto Nazionale di Geofisica e Vulcanologia. (a) Data of the Shock of 24 August 2016 in Central Italy. Available online: https://ingvterremoti.files.wordpress.com/2016/09/relazione_di_dettaglio_rieti_ mw_6-0_del_2016-08-24_01_36_32_utc_versione_del_2016-08-24_ore_04_26_02_utc-1.pdf (accessed on 15 June 2017). Buildings 2018, 8, 45 23 of 23

59. Istituto Nazionale di Geofisica e Vulcanologia. (b) Data of the Shock of 26 October 2016. Available online: https://ingvterremoti.files.wordpress.com/2016/10/relazione_di_dettaglio_macerata_mw_5-9_ del_2016-10-26_19_18_05_utc_versione_del_2016-10-26_ore_22_42_54_utc.pdf (accessed on 15 June 2017). 60. Istituto Nazionale di Geofisica e Vulcanologia. (c) Data of the Shock of 30 October 2016. Available online: https://ingvterremoti.files.wordpress.com/2016/12/relazionedettaglio_30ott_m6-5.pdf (accessed on 15 June 2017). 61. Istituto Nazionale di Geofisica e Vulcanologia. (d) Data of the Shock of 18 January 2017. Available online: https://ingvterremoti.files.wordpress.com/2017/01/relazione-di-dettaglio-dei-3-eventi-di-m_-5- 0-del-2017-01-18.pdf (accessed on 15 June 2017). 62. Q-GIS, software version 2.18.4; with GRASS 7.2.0.; Q-GIS Development Team: Girona, Spain, 2018. 63. Casolo, S. A numerical study on the cumulative out-of-plane damage to church masonry facades due to a sequence of strong ground motion. Earthq. Eng. Struct. Dyn. 2016, 1–22. [CrossRef] 64. Parisi, M.A.; Sferrazza Papa, G. Chiese nel terremoto del Centro Italia: Confronti e osservazioni. In Atti del IV Convegno di Ingegneria Forense, VII Convegno su Crolli, Affidabilità Strutturale, Consolidamento, Proceedings of Convegno IfCrasc17, Milan, Italy, 14–16 September 2017; Augenti, N., Jurina, L., Eds.; Volume 2, pp. 277–285, ISBN 9788857907208. 65. Istituto Nazionale di Geofisica e Vulcanologia Site. Available online: http://www.ingv.it/it/ (accessed on 28 February 2018).

© 2018 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).