Seismic safety assessment of the tower of S.

Maria Maggiore
Cathedral in Guardiagrele, Italy
G. Camata1, L. Cifelli1, E. Spacone1, J. Conte2, Maurizio Loi3 and P. Torrese4
1

Department of design, rehabilitation and monitoring of structures, University of ChietiPescara, viale Pindaro 42, 65127 Pescara, Italy

Department of Structural Engineering, University of California at San Diego, La Jolla,

CA 92093, USA

Department of Science and history of architecture and restoration, University of ChietiPescara, viale Pindaro 42, 65127 Pescara, Italy

Department of Earth Sciences, University of Pavia, via Ferrata 1, 27100 Pavia, Italy

Summary
This paper presents the results of seismic vulnerability assessment of an ancient
tower erected in the XIV century and located in Guardiagrele, Chieti province
(Italy). An extensive in situ experimental campaign was conducted to identify the
material properties and the geometry of the tower as well as the stratigraphy of the
supporting soil. The tower natural frequencies and mode shapes are extracted from
ambient vibration data using state-of-the-art system identification techniques.
The onsite investigation results were used to calibrate a 3D finite element model of
the tower in which the foundation soil was explicitly modelled in order to study the
effects of soil-foundation-structure interaction. Results from the modal analysis
showed a good correlation between the elastic properties of the model and the
ambient vibration data.
Realistic linear and nonlinear constitutive models for cyclic loading were used for
the structural and soil materials. The tower was modelled with damage-coupled
plasticity both in tension and compression. The ground was modelled with linear
base conditions to study the influence of the ground flexibility on the tower
response. The seismic safety was evaluated with nonlinear time-history analyses
(NLTHA).
Results to date show the importance of the selection of the input ground motion for
the NLTHA as well as the importance of the correct evaluation of the structure
geometry and mechanical properties. In particular, the results indicate that a
rigorous evaluation of the seismic vulnerability should consider the historical
seismic activity related to the seismogenic zones as well as the frequency content of
the input.

Keywords: seismic vulnerability, response spectrum, nonlinear analysis, damage

model, plasticity model, soil-foundation-structure interaction.

Abstract
This paper presents the results of seismic vulnerability assessment of an ancient
tower erected in the XIV century and located in Guardiagrele, Chieti province
(Italy). An extensive in situ experimental campaign was conducted to identify the
material properties and the geometry of the tower as well as the stratigraphy of the
supporting soil. The tower natural frequencies and mode shapes are extracted from
ambient vibration data using state-of-the-art system identification techniques. The
onsite investigation results are used to calibrate the elastic properties of the 3D finite
element model (FEM) of the tower developed using the commercial programs
ABAQUS v. 6.5.1 (ABAQUS inc. 2005) and MIDAS Gen, v. 7.21 (MIDAS, 2006).
The foundation soil is modeled explicitly in order to study the soil-foundationstructure interaction effects. A damage-coupled plasticity model is used the tower
masonry. Results to date indicate that the response of the tower is greatly influenced
by the frequency content of the input ground motion used in the Nonlinear Time
History Analyses (NLTHA). The results are also very sensitive to the material
properties used, and in particular to the selected damage evolution parameters.
Keywords: seismic vulnerability, response spectrum, nonlinear analysis, damage
model, plasticity model, soil-foundation-structure interaction.

Introduction

The bell tower of the cathedral of Guardiagrele is located in the Chieti Province
(Italy) and was erected more than 6 centuries ago. The masonry tower is 20 meter
high above the ground level and is made of stones from the nearby Majella mountain
and lime mortar. The floors are made of barrel vaults and the vertical structure,
including the foundations, is made of infill walls as shown in Figure 1.

Figure 1: Internal and external view of the tower

The monument sits on a thin layer of compact gravel. Beneath this layer, the soil is
mainly composed of very dense sand and stiff clay layers as shown in Figure 2.

Figure 2: Soil domain stratigraphy and FE model

Two boreholes documented in Sciarra and Rainone (1999) were performed within
200 meters from the tower and provide a wave velocity profile down to a depth of
60 meters.
Table 1 shows shear wave velocities Vs, p-wave velocities Vp, specific weight s,
elastic E0 and shear G moduli obtained with the downholes.

Realistic linear and nonlinear constitutive models for cyclic loading are used for the
structural and soil materials. The ground is modeled with linear base conditions to
assess the ground flexibility influence on the tower response.
Table 1 Dynamic values obtained with the down-halls
Layer
1
2
3

Vs
Vp
s
m/sec m/sec kN/m3
125 1820 21.0
350 1820 21.0
350 1340 19.5

E0
G
MPa MPa
984
33
7714 262
7153 244

Experimental campaign

One of the most challenging tasks in the seismic assessment of an ancient monument
is its structural evaluation. It is crucial to know the geometry, the composition of
the load bearing walls and of the horizontal structures, the mechanical properties of
each structural component and the static and dynamic interaction among the above
elements.
These tasks are particularly difficult to perform because the tower was built with
heterogeneous materials and over a long period of time, consequently the data
obtained from in situ tests have a high variability. Therefore, it is very important to
obtain data from different parts of the structure using different investigation
techniques.

2.1 Geometry and material properties

The experimental campaign included the determination of the masonry working
stress with the use of single flat jacks and several core drills. The latter was used to
extract material for laboratory testing as well as to explore the masonry structure
through the wall thickness using the endoscopy technique.
The on-site tests, as well as the structural and architectonic survey, allowed a
comprehensive knowledge of the bell tower geometry. The structural walls are
made of three-leaf Majella stone masonry and lime mortar. The wall thickness is
variable and ranges between 2 meters and 2.80 meters. The two external leaves
have an average thickness of 80 cm and are made of compacted regular Majella
stone blocks, whereas the infills are made of irregular masonry that includes gravel,
cobblestones and mortar. The endoscopy revealed the presence of several voids in
the infills.
The tower floors are carried by barrel vaults. The first floor barrel vault structural
thickness is 35 cm at the key-stone. The vault consists of regular Majella stone
blocks and is filled with 12 cm incoherent material. The second floor vault is
similar to that of the first floor, but has a structural thickness of 28 cm. The tower
top consists of a reinforced concrete bidirectional slab added in recent years. The
floor and the walls below the slab are particularly damaged because of water
infiltration and consequent chemical degradation of the materials.
3

2.1 Ambient vibration results

In order to identify the structure dynamic properties, accelerometric data from
ambient vibrations were recorded. With the parameters obtained it was possible to
calibrate the 3D FEM to accurately predict the dynamic behavior of the monument.
The results give a good indication of the material quality and damage (e.g.
equivalent elastic modulus, cracking in the masonry etc.)
Ambient vibration registrations consist of recording signals induced by ambient
perturbation with the use of accelerometers. Sensors were placed at each story. This
paper presents the results obtained with the servo-accelerometers placed on two
opposite corners of the tower roof, as indicated in Figure 3.

Figure 3: Plan view of the tower roof with the position of the servo-accelerometers
12, 13, 14 e 15
The frequencies recorded from the ambient vibration measurements are shown in
Table 2. The first frequency range represents the first two modes in the direction
east-west and north-south, respectively. The frequencies of these two modes were
too close and it was not possible to distinguish them during the test. The second
range provides the frequency of the first torsional mode.
Table 2: Frequency recorded
Range Frequency (Hz)
1
3.7-4.0
2
7.2 - 8.4
3
10.4 10.6
4
14.8 15.4
5
19.4 19.9
6
31.3

Seismic input definition

Two natural accelerograms were selected among the main events recorded from the
accelerometric station GRD, located on rock soil (Type A according to EC8, CEN

2004) in Bocca di Valle in the Guardiagrele county, which is part of the Italian
national accelerometric network RAN (Department of the National Civil Protection).
The choice of the seismic input was made based considering:
The historical seismic activity in the Guardiagrele area (Boschi et al. 2007),
with particular attention to the seismogenic zones which caused major
damages in the past;
The input frequency content, which relates to the different epicentral areas
and to the geodynamic evolution of the Appenini range.
One dimensional numerical modeling with an equivalent linear analysis was carried
out in the frequency domain (Schnabel et al., 1972) to calculate the local seismic
effects at the basement of the tower. This was performed considering the
vulnerability of the monument in respect to the events originated from different
epicentral areas. The geological model and the moduli degrading curves used to
perform the analysis were obtained using the geological and geophysical (down
hole) data available at the site.

Figure 4: Majella and Fucino earthquakes deconvoluted to the base of the soil
domain

The accelerograms were then scaled to the reference acceleration at bedrock (PGA=
0.169 g), according to the national seismic zoning code OPCM 3519 ( 2006) and
properly deconvoluted in the frequency domain using the transfer function obtained.
Figure 4 shows the two accelerograms, their frequency content and the elastic
response spectra obtained.
It is evident that even though the PGA of the two earthquakes is the same and the
maximum acceleration is quite close, the frequency contents are quite different.

Finite element modeling

A 3D model that includes the soil and the structure was developed to study the
dynamic soil-foundation-structure interaction. Several linear and non linear analyses
were performed to calibrate the model. The geometry and the mechanical
parameters were extrapolated from the experimental data and the visual survey.

3.1 Modal Analysis

The ambient vibration data were compared to the results obtained with the modal
analysis. The modal analysis was carried out with Midas Gen (vers. 7.21, Midas,
2007) and 50 eigenvalues were extracted. In order to consider the interaction with
the external boundaries, the lateral external walls were modeled with 3D 8-node
brick elements, whereas for the modal analysis the tower was considered fixed at the
base. The elastic modulus considered was E = 3000 MPa. Table 3 shows the values
obtained, in the table the participating masses of the tower are indicated in bold
(Figure 5) whereas the other modes refer to the boundary external walls. As for the
experimental data the first two modes are translational and the third is torsional.
The vibration modes obtained show that the tower is quite regular. The model
represents quite well the experimental frequencies obtained from the ambient
vibration tests.

3.2 Time history analyses

A three-dimensional nonlinear FE model of the bell tower, including the supporting
soil was developed using the version 6.5.1 of the commercial code Abaqus (Abaqus
Inc., 2005) as shown in Figure 2.
The ground was modeled with linear base condition using 21320 nodes and 18720
8-node hexahedral elements (C3D8R) to study the influence of ground flexibility on
the tower response. The tower was modeled using 11040 nodes, 26251 4-node
linear tetrahedral elements (C3D4), 4488 linear hexahedral elements (C3D8R) and
72 4-node linear quadrilateral elements (S4R). The tower was connected to the soil
using the tie option (Abaqus Inc., 2005), which allows to fuse together two
surfaces with different meshes.
The analyses have been so far performed neglecting the interaction with the lateral
external walls. A more advanced model is under development but the results are not
yet available.

The soil was modeled as linear elastic and the mechanical parameters used in the
analyses are those in Table 1.
Table 3 Vibration modes. In bold the modes relative to the tower (X: direction
North-South, Y: direction East-West)
Mode

Freq.

Period

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20

(Hz)
3.78
3.93
4.58
4.58
8.10
8.16
8.53
9.68
11.12
11.85
12.05
13.32
13.95
14.39
14.41
14.86
17.58
18.09
18.79
18.93

(sec)
0.26
0.25
0.22
0.22
0.12
0.12
0.12
0.10
0.09
0.08
0.08
0.08
0.07
0.07
0.07
0.07
0.06
0.06
0.05
0.05

Participating
mass
MX(%)
MY(%)
2.25
70.29
54.76
3.08
0.00
0.01
0.00
2.73
0.01
0.06
0.00
0.00
0.03
0.28
0.05
0.37
4.40
0.15
0.14
0.04
3.39
0.00
0.00
6.55
0.75
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.01
0.01
1.28
1.19
1.09
13.02
0.08
0.00
0.08
0.34
0.11

Mode

Freq.

Period

21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40

(Hz)
21.99
22.98
23.69
23.74
23.80
24.82
25.09
25.09
26.55
26.74
28.07
28.34
28.46
28.91
29.08
30.01
31.07
31.50
32.08
33.46

(sec)
0.05
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.03
0.03
0.03
0.03
0.03
0.03
0.03

Participating
mass
MX(%)
MY(%)
0.14
0.00
0.00
0.20
0.01
0.33
0.00
0.00
0.01
0.52
0.01
0.00
0.00
1.52
0.00
0.01
0.43
0.12
0.03
0.01
0.02
0.11
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.01
0.00
0.03
0.09
0.01
0.20
0.28
0.00
0.03
0.28
0.01
1.07
0.00
0.01

Figure 5 Principal vibration modes from modal analysis

The nonlinear constitutive model used for the masonry of the tower is based on
classical damage plasticity. The evolution of the failure surface is controlled by two
hardening parameters which are linked to failure mechanisms under compression
and tension loading (Abaqus Inc., 2005). The stress-strain response follows a linear
elastic relationship until the value of the failure/yield stress is reached. In
compression, beyond the yield stress the plastic behavior is represented by stress
hardening and strain softening as shown in Figure 6(a).
In the case of tension loading, the failure stress corresponds to the onset of microcracking in the masonry material. The crack formation is modeled with a softening
stress-displacement response, as shown for the uniaxial case in Figure 6(b).
The damage in the material is represented through a scalar parameter d. The stressstrain relations for the general three-dimensional multiaxial condition are given by

the scalar damage elasticity equation:

= (1 d ) D0el : ( pl )

(1)

where D0el is the initial (undamaged) elasticity matrix.

Figure 6 (a) inelastic compressive behavior, (b) tensile behavior

Since the value of the scalar damage under cyclic loading is unknown, three damage
conditions were examined as shown in Table 4. The scalar damage parameter d
was varied to represent conditions of no damage, low damage and high damage. It
is worth noting that in the case of high damage, when the inelastic compressive
strain reaches 0.003 mm/mm the material has only 5% of its initial elastic stiffness.
Table 4 Scalar damage used in the analyses

no damage

d
0

low

high

0
0.01
0.4

0
0.001
0.022

0
0.01
0.55
0.8
0.94

p
0
0.001
0.0022
0.00295
0.003

The analyses were performed considering a shear beam constraint across the
horizontal direction of the soil domain (Zhang et al., 2003). This constraint is
achieved by forcing lateral nodes at the same elevation to deform equally. The total
ground acceleration is applied at the base of the soil domain with the assumption
that the base moves rigidly and therefore neglecting spatial variability, which is
considered to be not important for our analysis due to limited extension of the soil
base.
The analyses consisted of three steps. In the first step only the soil domain was
loaded with the gravity loads. In the second strep the bell tower was loaded with its
self weight. Finally, the total ground acceleration was applied at the base of the soil
domain in two orthogonal directions.
Figure 7 and Figure 8 show the principal inelastic strain components in the tower at
35 and 80 seconds for the case with high damage. The results indicate that the
Fucino earthquake is far more demanding compared to the Majella earthquake. At

35 seconds the Fucino earthquake caused large tensile cracks at the key stone and at
the spring rings, whereas the Majella earthquake did not cause any large cracking.
The compressive behavior is similar to the tensile response. A plastic compressive
strain of 0.0035 mm/mm was selected as the parameter defining the compressive
failure of the masonry. At 80 seconds the tower collapsed under the Fucino
earthquake and survived without large plastic deformations to the Majella
earthquake.

35 sec

80 sec

Figure 7 Maximum inelastic principal strains. Left: Majella earthquake, right:

Fucino earthquake

Figure 8 Minimum inelastic principal strains. Left: Majella earthquake, right:

Fucino earthquake
It is important to point out that the tower plastic deformations after 35 seconds of the
Fucino earthquake are larger than after 80 seconds of the Majella earthquake, even
though Figure 4 shows that the maximum acceleration of the Majella earthquake is
higher than the maximum acceleration of the Fucino earthquake up to 35 seconds.
This underlines the importance of the frequency content of the input. In fact,
although the peak ground acceleration of the two earthquakes is the same, the
Fucino earthquake has large frequency amplitudes at 4 Hz, a frequency that is very
close to that of the first two fundamental modes of the tower (Table 3). It is
therefore important to consider the historical seismic activity as well as the

frequency content of the input to evaluate accurately the vulnerability of an existing

structure.
The use of damage reduces the plastic energy dissipated during the analysis, as
shown in Figure 9. This result alone could be misleading. The tower dissipates less
plastic energy not because it undergoes smaller deformations but because the scalar
parameter d lessens the hysteretic capacity of the material, since it reduces the
elastic stiffness of the material during the cycles.

Figure 9 Plastic dissipation of the whole model

Furthermore, the introduction of damage reduces the capacity of the tower to
withstand cyclic loading, as shown in Figure 10, emphasizing the importance of this
parameter. It is worth mentioning that the effect of cyclic degradation cannot be
taken into consideration in the case of nonlinear static analysis (Pushover), which is
often used for seismic vulnerability assessment of existing structures.

Figure 10 Minimum inelastic principal strain, Majella earthquake at 50 seconds.

Left: no damage, right: low damage
Figure 11 shows the tower roof horizontal displacement for the two earthquakes. In
the case of the Majella earthquake the behavior is hysteretic. The analysis
performed without damage caused smaller displacements compared to that with high
damage and for both analyses the displacements are far below the limit of collapse.
The tower height to horizontal displacement ratio is about 0.02 percent.
On the contrary, the analysis performed with the Fucino earthquake with high
damage shows that the structure experiences displacements that are way beyond

10

collapse. In addition, the displacements cycles are small at the beginning, then they
increase their amplitude and at the end they becomes very small. This is due to the
fact that the tower at the end of the analysis is essentially elastic but with highly
damaged material properties. The damage parameter reaches a value of 0.9, thus
substantially reducing the dissipating properties of the structure.

Figure 11 tower roof displacements

Conclusions and work in progress

This paper discusses a study that applies damage plasticity to seismic vulnerability
assessment of the bell tower of the cathedral of S.Maria Maggiore in Guardiagrele
(Chieti province, Italy).
The objectives of this work are threefold:
1) define of the correct input to evaluate the tower seismic safety level;
2) evaluate the geometry and the mechanical parameters for the construction
of the FE model, refined based on the correlation between modal analysi
and ambient vibration tests;
3) assess the tower seismic performance through nonlinear dynamic
analyses, including the soil-foundation structure interaction.
The paper shows the importance of the selection of the input ground motion records
for time history analyses. In particular, the results indicate that the structural
response is greatly influenced by the frequency content of the input and that the
PGA alone is not a sufficient indication. In order to correctly evaluate the
vulnerability it is important to consider the historical seismic activity as well as the
frequency content of the input. In this respect, the joint efforts of engineers and
geophysicists could greatly improve the international codes and guidelines for the
seismic vulnerability assessment of existing structures and monuments.
This paper reports the results of an ongoing study. Currently, the importance of
several other parameters are investigated. In particular, the tower is analyzed with
fixed based conditions as well as with nonlinear supporting soil. In addition, the
interaction between the external walls showed in Figure 2 and the tower is
considered.

11

Acknowledgements
This study was partially sponsored by the parish church of the Santa Maria
Maggiore Cathedral of Guardiagrele. The authors would like to express their
gratitude to the Cathedral parish priest. The onsite tests were conducted at the
University of Chieti-Pescara in conjunction with Labortec S.r.l. The writers express
their appreciation for the helpful assistance provided during the experimental data
acquisition by Prof. Claudio Valente, Dr. Elena Candigliota and Mr. Carlo Di Cinzio
of the Structures and Materials Testing Laboratory of the University of ChietiPescara, and by Mr. Dalmazio Ciotti of Labortec S.r.l.

References
[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]
[5]

[6]

[7]
[8]
[9]

CEN, Comite Europeen de Normalisation. Eurocode 8. Design of Structures

for Earthquake Resistance. Part 1: General Rules, Seismic Actions and Rules
for Buildings, CEN, Brussels EN 1998-1, 2004.
N. Sciarra and M.L. Rainone. Analyses and modeling of the soil of the
historical center, (in Italian), report on the County of Guardiagrele, Indagine
geologico-tecnica ad integrazione del documento fornito al Genio-Civile per il
progetto del Piano Particolareggiato del Centro Storico in osservanza dellart.
13 della L. 64/74 e D.M. 11.3.1988 lett. H, Chieti, 16th of April, 1999.
E. Boschi, E. Guidoboni, G. Ferrari, G. Valensise e P. Gasperini. Catalogue of
Strong Earthquakes in Italy from 461 a.C. to 1990 (in Italian), ING e SGA
Bologna, 644 pp., 1997.
S.L. Kramer. Geotechnical Earthquake Engineering, Prentice Hall, Upper
Saddle River, New Jersey, 653 pp., 1996.
P.B. Schnabel, J. Lysmer and H.B. Seed. "SHAKE: A computer program for
earthquake response analysis of horizontally layered sites", Report No. EERC
72-12, Earthquake Engineering Research Center, University of California,
Berkeley, California, 1972.
Y. Zang, Z. Tang, J. Bielak, J.P. Conte, A. Elgamal. Treatment of seismic
input and boundary conditions in nonlinear analysis of a bridge ground
system, 16th ASCE Engineering mechanics Conference, July 16-18,
University of Washington, Seattle, 2003.
MIDAS Gen, ver. 7.21, 2007.
HKS ABAQUS Reference Manuals, ver. 6.5.1, 2005.
OPCM 3519. Criteri generali per lindividuazione delle zone sismiche e per
la formazione e laggiornamento degli elenchi delle medesime zone (General
criteria for seismic zoning), Italian Civil Protection Department, (In Italian)
2006.

12