Vulnerability Analysis of Unreinforced Masonry Churches (EQC 14/660) - Final Report
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Vulnerability analysis of unreinforced masonry churches (EQC 14/660) - Final Report T. Goded S. Cattari S. Lagomarsino S. Giovinazzi J.M. Ingham A. Marotta D. Liberatore L. Sorrentino D. Ottonelli M. Pinna W. Clark GNS Science Report 2016/53 June 2016 DISCLAIMER This report has been prepared by the Institute of Geological and Nuclear Sciences Limited (GNS Science) exclusively for and under contract to Earthquake Commission Research Foundation (EQC). Unless otherwise agreed in writing by GNS Science, GNS Science accepts no responsibility for any use of or reliance on any contents of this report by any person other than EQC and shall not be liable to any person other than EQC, on any ground, for any loss, damage or expense arising from such use or reliance. Use of Data: Date that GNS Science can use associated data: June 2016 BIBLIOGRAPHIC REFERENCE Goded, T.; Cattari, S.; Lagomarsino, S.; Giovinazzi, S.; Ingham, J.M.; Marotta, A.; Liberatore, D.; Sorrentino, L.; Ottonelli, D.; Pinna, M.; Clark, W. 2016. Vulnerability analysis of unreinforced masonry churches (EQC 14/660) – Final Report, GNS Science Consultancy Report 2016/53. 132 p. AUTHOR AFFILIATIONS T. Goded1, S. Cattari2, S. Lagomarsino2, S. Giovinazzi3, J.M. Ingham4, A. Marotta5, D. Liberatore5, L. Sorrentino5, D. Ottonelli2, M. Pinna2, W. Clark6 1 GNS Science 2 University of Genoa (Italy) 3 University of Canterbury 4 University of Auckland 5 La Sapienza University (Rome, Italy) 6 Heritage New Zealand Pouhere Taonga Confidential 2016 CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ....................................................................................................... V 1.0 INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................ 1 2.0 OBJECTIVES ............................................................................................................. 3 3.0 CONFERENCES, PUBLICATIONS AND MEDIA RELEASES ................................... 5 3.1 CONFERENCES GIVEN IN NEW ZEALAND BY PROFESSOR LAGOMARSINO, FEBRUARY 2014 ............................................................................................... 5 3.2 CONFERENCE PAPERS ....................................................................................... 5 3.3 PUBLICATIONS .................................................................................................. 6 3.4 MEDIA RELEASES .............................................................................................. 7 4.0 METHOD AND RESULTS .......................................................................................... 9 4.1 RESEARCH METHOD .......................................................................................... 9 4.2 TYPOLOGICAL CLASSIFICATION OF NEW ZEALAND URM CHURCHES.................... 11 4.3 AN INVENTORY OF UNREINFORCED MASONRY CHURCHES IN NEW ZEALAND ........ 13 4.4 DAMAGE ANALYSIS OF THE CHURCH STOCK HIT BY THE CANTERBURY 2010– 2011 EARTHQUAKE SEQUENCE ......................................................................... 16 4.4.1 A new method to assess the damage index for URM churches ......................17 4.5 DERIVATION OF EMPIRICAL VULNERABILITY CURVES ........................................... 18 4.6 DAMAGE SURVEY FORM AND SPECIFIC VULNERABILITY FACTORS FOR NEW ZEALAND URM CHURCHES ...................................................................... 20 4.6.1 Typological and vulnerability survey form ........................................................20 4.6.2 Vulnerability index factors and modifiers for New Zealand URM churches ...........................................................................................................21 4.6.3 Results in terms of Vulnerability Curves for the New Zealand churches .........28 4.7 SEISMIC SCENARIOS FOR URM CHURCHES IN DUNEDIN, WELLINGTON AND AUCKLAND ...................................................................................................... 28 5.0 CONCLUSIONS AND FUTURE WORK ................................................................... 35 6.0 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ......................................................................................... 37 7.0 REFERENCES ......................................................................................................... 37 FIGURES Figure 4.1 Classification of URM churches in New Zealand: ....................................................................... 12 Figure 4.2 Examples of different URM churches typologies in New Zealand. ............................................. 12 Figure 4.3 Frequency of the macroelements on the stock of 48 URM churches from Christchurch. ........... 13 Figure 4.4 Geographical distribution of URM churches in New Zealand. .................................................... 14 Figure 4.5 Estimated provincial distribution of URM churches in New Zealand. .......................................... 15 Figure 4.6 Schematic plan showing the common parts of a church............................................................. 15 Figure 4.7 Comparison between the damage indices obtained from three different approaches applied on the 48 URM Christchurch churches. ......................................................................... 17 Figure 4.8 Frequency of the damage index not weighted (left) and weighted (right) on the sample. ........... 17 GNS Science Consultancy Report 2016/53 i Confidential 2016 Figure 4.9 Correlation between Intensity and PGA...................................................................................... 19 Figure 4.10 Beta discrete distribution for I from 4 to 9 MMI ........................................................................... 19 Figure 4.11 Vulnerability curves for New Zealand and Italian churches. ....................................................... 20 Figure 4.12 Correlations between Intensity and PGA; ................................................................................... 22 Figure 4.13 Masonry types ............................................................................................................................ 23 Figure 4.14 Quality of masonry ..................................................................................................................... 23 Figure 4.15 Plan configuration (according to Figure 4.1) ............................................................................... 24 Figure 4.16 Presence of Dome ...................................................................................................................... 24 Figure 4.17 Presence of Vaults ..................................................................................................................... 24 Figure 4.18 Regularity in plan ........................................................................................................................ 24 Figure 4.19 Regularity in elevation ................................................................................................................ 25 Figure 4.20 Presence of adjacent buildings ................................................................................................... 25 Figure 4.21 Presence of pinnacles ................................................................................................................ 25 Figure 4.22 Covering roof .............................................................................................................................. 25 Figure 4.23 Presence of the rose/big windows .............................................................................................. 26 Figure 4.24 Presence of buttresses on the lateral walls ................................................................................ 26 Figure 4.25 Presence of façade buttresses ................................................................................................... 26 Figure 4.26 Presence of façade tie-rods ........................................................................................................ 26 Figure 4.27 Presence of large openings on the lateral walls ......................................................................... 27 Figure 4.28 Type of roof ................................................................................................................................ 27 Figure 4.29 Type of masonry transversal section .......................................................................................... 27 Figure 4.30 Material distribution for the URM churches in Dunedin, Wellington and Auckland. .................... 29 Figure 4.31 Medium damage grades distribution obtained for Dunedin, Wellington and Auckland URM churches. ........................................................................................................................... 33 Figure 4.32 Distribution of medium damage probabilities obtained for Dunedin (a), Wellington (b) and Auckland (c) URM churches. ...................................................................................................... 34 TABLES Table 2.1 Project objectives (as listed in the EQC funding application, April 2013). .................................... 3 Table 2.2 Project objectives: status and publications. .................................................................................. 4 Table 4.1 List of the possible collapse mechanisms (Cattari et al., 2015a). ............................................... 18 Table 4.2 List of URM churches in Dunedin, Wellington and Auckland for which seismic scenarios have been developed.