Numerical simulations of earthquake damage on buildings require the definition of a reliable and appropriate seismic input (e.g., acceleration time histories and/or response spectra) in order to validate the accuracy of structural models in reproducing the observed level of damage – or no damage – associated with a particular earthquake. However, for sites that are not located close to active seismic stations, the definition of the ground motion that would have likely been recorded during an earthquake is not a trivial task. In this paper, we present the results of a case study where the seismic input at the sites of construction of three modern unreinforced masonry buildings caused by the Emilia May 29, 2012 M6.0 earthquake has been recreated following three different methods involving natural, artificial, and deconvolved accelerograms. The differences in the results are compared and contrasted highlighting the intrinsic limitations of the three different approaches while addressing an appropriate use of the seismic input when assessing the seismic performance of the three buildings.

An inter-disciplinary/multi-step approach in defining the input motion for the seismic analysis of masonry buildings struck by the May 29, 2012 M6.0 Emilia earthquake in Northern Italy

Zuccolo E.;
2021-01-01

Abstract

Numerical simulations of earthquake damage on buildings require the definition of a reliable and appropriate seismic input (e.g., acceleration time histories and/or response spectra) in order to validate the accuracy of structural models in reproducing the observed level of damage – or no damage – associated with a particular earthquake. However, for sites that are not located close to active seismic stations, the definition of the ground motion that would have likely been recorded during an earthquake is not a trivial task. In this paper, we present the results of a case study where the seismic input at the sites of construction of three modern unreinforced masonry buildings caused by the Emilia May 29, 2012 M6.0 earthquake has been recreated following three different methods involving natural, artificial, and deconvolved accelerograms. The differences in the results are compared and contrasted highlighting the intrinsic limitations of the three different approaches while addressing an appropriate use of the seismic input when assessing the seismic performance of the three buildings.
2021
Emilia earthquake, time histories, epistemic uncertainty, ground response analyses, seismic input.
File in questo prodotto:
File Dimensione Formato  
Fama_Author.pdf

non disponibili

Tipologia: Versione Editoriale (PDF)
Licenza: Copyright dell'editore
Dimensione 3.92 MB
Formato Adobe PDF
3.92 MB Adobe PDF   Visualizza/Apri   Richiedi una copia

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

Utilizza questo identificativo per citare o creare un link a questo documento: https://hdl.handle.net/20.500.14083/27435
 Attenzione

Attenzione! I dati visualizzati non sono stati sottoposti a validazione da parte dell'ateneo

Citazioni
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.pmc??? ND
  • Scopus 1
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.isi??? 1
social impact