Performance of masonry buildings during

the Emilia 2012 earthquake

Andrea Penna, Paolo Morandi, Maria

Rota, Carlo Filippo Manzini, Francesca
da Porto & Guido Magenes

Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering

Official Publication of the European
Association for Earthquake Engineering

ISSN 1570-761X

Bull Earthquake Eng

DOI 10.1007/s10518-013-9496-6

1 23
Your article is protected by copyright and all
rights are held exclusively by Springer Science
+Business Media Dordrecht. This e-offprint
is for personal use only and shall not be self-
archived in electronic repositories. If you wish
to self-archive your article, please use the
accepted manuscript version for posting on
your own website. You may further deposit
the accepted manuscript version in any
repository, provided it is only made publicly
available 12 months after official publication
or later and provided acknowledgement is
given to the original source of publication
and a link is inserted to the published article
on Springer's website. The link must be
accompanied by the following text: "The final
publication is available at link.springer.com.

1 23
 Author's personal copy
Bull Earthquake Eng
DOI 10.1007/s10518-013-9496-6

ORIGINAL RESEARCH PAPER

Performance of masonry buildings during the Emilia

2012 earthquake

Andrea Penna Paolo Morandi

Maria Rota Carlo Filippo Manzini
Francesca da Porto Guido Magenes

Received: 3 December 2012 / Accepted: 22 July 2013

Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2013

Abstract The earthquake sequence started on May 20th 2012 in Emilia (Italy) affected a
region where masonry constructions represent a large part of the existing building stock
and the construction of new modern masonry buildings is a common practice. The paper is
focused on the performance of common architectural configurations, typical for residential
or business use. The large majority of old masonry buildings is made of fired clay bricks. The
seismic performance of these buildings is particularly interesting since major past earthquakes
in Italy affected areas with mainly stone masonry structures. Apart from examples showing
systematic or peculiar structural deficiencies governing the vulnerability of several buildings,
the overall seismic performance of these structures to repeated shaking, with PGA as large as
0.250.3 g was rather good, despite the major part of them were only conceived for carrying
vertical loads. In fact, seismic design is mandatory in the area only since 2003. Modern low-
rise masonry buildings erected after this date and incorporating seismic design and proper
detailing resulted in most cases practically undamaged. The examples reported in the paper
allow an evaluation of the superior performance of seismically designed modern masonry
buildings in comparison to older ones.

Keywords 2012 Emilia earthquake Masonry buildings Vulnerability Clay brick

Seismic design

A. Penna P. Morandi G. Magenes (B)

Department of Civil Engineering and Architecture, University of Pavia,
Via Ferrata 3, 27100 Pavia, Italy
e-mail: guido.magenes@unipv.it
A. Penna M. Rota C. F. Manzini G. Magenes
European Centre for Training and Research in Earthquake Engineering,
Via Ferrata 1, 27100 Pavia, Italy
F. da Porto
Department of Civil, Architectural and Environmental Engineering, University of Padua,
via Marzolo 9, 35131 Padua, Italy

123
 Author's personal copy
Bull Earthquake Eng

1 Introduction

The seismic sequence that began on the 20th of May 2012 in Northern Italy mostly affected the
North-Eastern part of the geografical region of Emilia, i.e. part of the provinces of Modena,
Ferrara and Bologna in the administrative region of Emilia-Romagna, the Southern portion
of the province of Mantova in Lombardia and some municipalities of the province of Rovigo
in Veneto. The magnitude of the two main events of May 20th and May 29th was Mw 6.0 and
Mw 5.8, respectively. The earthquakes caused, directly and indirectly, a total of 27 victims,
but only three of them were due to structural damage of residential buildings. The others
were mostly caused by the collapse of precast industrial buildings. Several deaths occurred
because of heart attacks and other illnesses. Two persons died for non-structural damages
(collapse of a chimney and falling of rubble material) and a parish priest was killed during
the collapse of a church in Rovereto sulla Secchia.
The affected territory is quite homogeneous in terms of geography, socio-economic devel-
opment and built heritage. Most of the damaged municipalities are located in the alluvium
plain formed by the Po river, just South of the river itself. The economic activities, which
show a generally higher development in the provinces of Modena and Mantova, not only
are associated with traditional sectors such as agriculture, breeding, textile and engineering
industry and tourism, but also include sectors of excellence in food industry and specific
districts like the biomedical one in Mirandola. The availability of the same raw materials and
a similar history make the characteristics of the existing building stock rather homogeneous
within the different municipalities. No large cities were affected but several medium sized
municipalities were involved, including a number of medium-small towns with population
between 10,000 and 35,000 inhabitants.
Although in 1570 the area of Ferrara was struck by a Mw 5.4 earthquake (Guidoboni et
al. 2007), which also boosted some of the pioneering studies in the field of historical seis-
mology (e.g. Breventano 1576), the knowledge on the seismic sources of the buried Northern
Apennines thrust is still limited and only recent works have deepened the understanding of
their seismogenic potential (e.g. Toscani et al. 2009). This only partly justifies the very recent
seismic classification (OPCM3274 2003) of the municipalities affected by the 2012 events.
Before 2003, structures were built without any seismic design concept and the seismic safety
of existing buildings was not required to be assessed nor improved.
As shown in Table 1 for the settlements for which macroseismic intensity data were
evaluated (Arcoraci et al. 2012), the large majority of the residential building stock in the area
is made of masonry buildings (ISTAT 2001), generally low-rise. To some extent this fact can
be considered as a circumstance which has probably counterbalanced the lack of a purposely
introduced seismic protection. In fact, masonry buildings, although conceived for resisting to
vertical loads only, possess an inherent additional capacity of resisting to horizontal actions,
provided some good practice rules are followed (e.g. when walls are present along at least
two orthogonal directions and a certain degree of connection between intersecting walls is
guaranteed, contrasting the occurrence of out-of-plane failure of entire faades). This may not
be the case for other structural types (e.g. precast r.c. framed structures), when optimised
for a single loading condition. The use of fired clay bricks masonry with lime mortar was
particularly common since many centuries in the flat areas of the Po valley, where clay is
largely available and ancient Roman kilns can be found in several archeological sites. Stone
masonry buildings are quite rare in this area.
The most significant seismic events occurred in Italy in the last century affected areas where
the buildings stock was mainly constituted of stone masonry buildings. This was the case for
earthquakes occurred in mountain regions in the Apennines (e.g. Mw 7.0 1915 Avezzano,

123
 Author's personal copy
Bull Earthquake Eng

Table 1 Observed macroseismic intensity (after Arcoraci et al. 2012), estimated PGA (Bozzoni and Lai 2012)
and percentage of residential buildings with masonry structures and built before 1945 according to the 2001
Italian census data (ISTAT 2001) for some of the settlements mostly affected by the 2012 Emilia earthquake
sequence (bold values indicate recorded PGA)

Settlement IEMS,May20 IEMS,Final IEMS PGA,May20 (g) PGA,May29 (g) Masonry Bldgs
buildings < 1945
(%) (%)

Cavezzo 67 8 12 0.18 0.240.26 95 25

Concordia 6 78 12 0.16 0.280.30 94 45
s/Secchia
Mirandola 67 78 1 0.265 0.296 80 36
Moglia 78 N/A 0.100.12 0.245 72 34
Novi di Modena 78 N/A 0.100.12 0.240.26 84 25
Rovereto 78 N/A 0.120.14 0.240.26 84 25
s/Secchia
Finale Emilia 7 7 0.280.3 0.234 83 37
Reggiolo 7 N/A 0.060.08 0.140.16 83 24
San Felice 7 7 0 0.280.3 0.224 80 34
s/Panaro
Alberone 67 67 0.240.26 0.18 83 29
Camposanto 6 67 01 0.22 0.160.18 88 38
Crevalcore 6 67 01 0.120.14 0.100.12 95 34
Mirabello 6 67 01 0.120.14 0.000.02 96 25
S. Giacomo 67 N/A 0.180.2 0.260.28 99 41
d/ Segnate
San Carlo 67 67 0.16 0.040.06 84 28
Bondeno 6 6 0.2 0.036 92 38
Carpi 6 N/A 0.08 0.173 73 22
Cento 5 6 0.140.16 0.296 83 29
Medolla 56 6 01 0.220.24 0.24 88 32
Poggio Renatico 6 6 0.10 0.020.04 94 29
Poggio Rusco 5 6 1 0.28 0.200.22 80 31
Quistello 6 N/A 0.120.14 0.220.24 69 41
San Possidonio 6 N/A 0.18 0.280.30 97 47
San Prospero 5 6 1 0.140.16 0.160.18 95 30
SantAgostino 6 6 0.160.18 0.081 84 28
Villarotta 6 N/A 0.060.08 0.100.12 88 45
Census data for Alberone, Rovereto s/Secchia and San Carlo are aggregated to those of the municipalities
of Cento, Novi di Modena and SantAgostino, respectively

Mw 6.3 1919 Mugello, Mw 6.6 1930 and Mw 6.9 1980 Irpinia, Mw 6.0 1997 Umbria-Marche
and Mw 6.3 2009 LAquila earthquakes), in the Alps (Mw 6.4 1976 Friuli) and Sicily (Mw
6.3 1968 Belice earthquake). Hence, the analysis of the seismic behaviour of brick masonry
buildings is particularly interesting because the earthquake damage observation provides in
this case a valuable and unique information.
As evident from Table 1 and from Arcoraci et al. (2012), another interesting aspect of
the damage caused by the 2012 seismic sequence is that some settlements were mainly
struck by just one of the two main events of the sequence (Mw 6.0 May 20th and Mw 5.8
May 29th events), while others, including the mostly affected centres of Mirandola, Cavezzo,

123
 Author's personal copy
Bull Earthquake Eng

Fig. 1 Map of horizontal peak ground acceleration estimated for the May 29th 2012 event from interpolation
of the recorded peak values of horizontal accelerationstations are identified by blue triangles, while green
dots indicate points of interest (Bozzoni and Lai 2012)

Concordia, Novi and San Felice, cumulated a final damage resulting from the repeated shaking
induced by the different events. The EUCENTRE Geotechnical Earthquake Engineering
Section (Bozzoni and Lai 2012) estimated the values of peak ground acceleration felt at
the different sites. Estimates are definitely more reliable for the May 29th event, because of
the presence of a number of temporary stations which recorded the shaking. A shake map
obtained from spline interpolation of the peak horizontal recorded values of acceleration is
reported in Fig. 1. Data reported for the May 20th event were instead evaluated based on
ground motion prediction equations (Bozzoni et al. 2012).
The construction of new structural masonry buildings, both unreinforced and reinforced,
is still ongoing in Italy and, in the areas affected by the seismic events of May 2012, it is
even more frequent than in other parts of the country. This may be also associated with the
presence of several producers of modern blocks for masonry in the Emilia-Romagna region.
This paper aims to provide some insights into the seismic performance exhibited by
both historical/old and modern masonry buildings in the area affected by the Emilia 2012
earthquake sequence. Special architectural forms such as churches, castles or towers (which
constitute the major part of heritage buildings) are not considered herein, where the attention
is focused on the most common residential/commercial/public building structural forms.
Damages to churches and fortresses are reported in Sorrentino L, Liberatore L, Decanini LD,
Liberatore D (2013) The prformance of churches in the 2012 Emilia earthquakes, Bulletin of
Earthquake Engineering (submitted for this issue) and in Cattari S, Degli Abbati S, Ferretti
D, Lagomarsino S, Ottonelli D, Tralli A (2013) Damage assessment of fortresses after the
2012 Emilia earthquake (Italy), Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering (submitted for this issue),
respectively.

2 Structural damage in historical/old masonry buildings

Historical and old masonry structures are a significant part of the building stock in the
earthquake affected area of Emilia.

123
 Author's personal copy
Bull Earthquake Eng

Fig. 2 Partial out-of-plane collapses of masonry faades triggered by thrusting timber roofs in the historical
centre of Concordia sulla Secchia (top) and in Moglia (bottom) (survey on May 30th 2012)

Since the affected area was classified as potentially earthquake prone only very recently
(since 2003), existing masonry buildings often show typical defects and lack of proper detail-
ing which increase their seismic vulnerability. As an example, the presence of thrusting or
unstable timber roofs caused a number of local collapses in residential and farm buildings
(Sorrentino et al. 2013).
As it can be noted in Fig. 2, timber roof structures simply resting on top of perimeter walls,
without any capacity of contrasting out-of-plane collapse of the upper part of the walls and
in some cases transferring horizontal thrust components, can be often identified as causes of
partial collapse. In some cases the collapse involved a higher portion of the faade, when
other vulnerability causes were also present (e.g. the damaged building in Moglia, reported at
the bottom left of Fig. 2, shows a significant distance between main cross-walls perpendicular
to the faade and door openings systematically close to the walls intersections).
Several strategic buildings (e.g. the Moglia city hall, bottom right of Fig. 2) suffered this
type of damage, which made them unusable during the emergency period. As it is clearly
shown in Fig. 3, the development of this relatively frequent damage mode ranged from a
collapse limited to the upper part of a faade, far from its connection with perpendicular
walls, to the complete collapse of the roof structure following the failure of the top part of
all supporting masonry walls. In some cases (Fig. 3) overturning of gable walls with low
vertical compression were also observed.
In many other situations local failure modes resulting from the interaction of roof structure
and perimeter walls were only triggered, inducing several damages without however reaching
collapse conditions (examples in Fig. 4).

123
 Author's personal copy
Bull Earthquake Eng

Fig. 3 Collapses due to wall-roof interaction in Medolla (top left), San Possidonio (top right and bottom left)
and Cavezzo (bottom right) (survey on May 30th 2012)

Fig. 4 Damage due to roof-wall interaction observed in Moglia (left) and Concordia sulla Secchia (right)

Buildings which did not suffer this sort of damage generally exhibited a mainly global
behaviour governed by the in-plane wall response. This is confirmed by the damage observed
in piers and spandrel beams.
During the post-earthquake surveys, a lot of damaged masonry spandrels were found.
These elements, sometimes considered of secondary importance, appeared to be rather vul-
nerable. In-plane shear failure of spandrels was quite common and it was even observed
in the absence of a steel tie rod applying an axial (horizontal) compression to the member.
This observation suggests that a horizontal compression force could have been generated in

123
 Author's personal copy
Bull Earthquake Eng

Fig. 5 Damaged spandrel beams in Mirandola: shear (left) and flexural (right) failure modes

Fig. 6 Damaged and collapsed masonry lintels supporting spandrel beams (Mirandola)

the deformed spandrels when their axial deformation was inhibited by the presence of floor
diaphragms (right part of Fig. 5).
As already observed in laboratory tests (e.g. Beyer and Dazio 2012), an important role
in governing the spandrel failure mode was also played by the type of lintel supporting
it. Flexural damage was mainly observed for spandrels supported by timber lintels, while
spandrels supported by masonry shallow arches generally failed in shear. Failures of spandrels
supported by masonry arches (Fig. 6) could have been potentially much more dangerous for
people inside and outside buildings due to potential falling of masonry portions.
In several cases damages were concentrated in spandrel beams while the rest of the faades
seemed to be almost undamaged, i.e. weak spandrels prevented the diffusion of shear damage
to other structural members. On the contrary, in case of stronger spandrels, damage occurred

123
 Author's personal copy
Bull Earthquake Eng

Fig. 7 Buildings with in-plane damage concentrated in piers (left, Novi di Modena), in spandrels (centre,
Mirandola) and in both structural members (right, Rovereto sulla Secchia)

Fig. 8 Theatre in Novi di Modena (1926, left) and building in Cavezzo (right)

mainly in masonry piers at the first storeys. Figure 7 reports examples of the two aforemen-
tioned cases together with an example of a building with both piers and spandrels damaged.
Existing masonry buildings with slight to moderate damage were frequently observed.
Buildings with proper wall-to-wall, wall-to-floor and wall-to-roof connections, adequate
wall thickness and sufficient masonry density (ratio between wall area and total floor area)
generally presented limited damages. In the left part of Fig. 8, the damage state of the theatre
of Novi di Modena is reported, which was undergoing renovation works and only suffered
the local collapse of a parapet wall in the main faade, while other damages were limited by
the presence of regularly distributed steel tie-rods. The building reported in the right part of
Fig. 8 did not show any evidence of damage.
In some buildings heavier and anomalous damages were observed. This was generally
related to some deficiencies of the structure causing specific vulnerability of the buildings.
An example of the defects causing an increase in the seismic vulnerability of the buildings
can be identified in the use of relatively slender walls with large unsupported clear length and
height, and large wall-to-wall distances such as in the case of the SantAgostino city hall,
Fig. 9.
Other examples of damage concentration due to some form of structural irregularity are
reported in Fig. 10, where the presence of inclined cracks involving the central part of masonry
arches in buildings with colonnades at the ground storey is noticed, and in Fig. 11, where
in-plane damage and collapse of masonry turrets rising over the roof gutter or ridge level are
evident.
In some cases, multi-leaf clay brick masonry walls were also observed. The impres-
sive collapse of a building in Concordia sulla Secchia (Fig. 12) shows the presence of two
unconnected leaves in the collapsed faade rather than a solid brickwork, which could have

123
 Author's personal copy
Bull Earthquake Eng

Fig. 9 The heavily damaged city hall of SantAgostino (survey on May 30th 2012)

Fig. 10 Diagonal cracks starting from the central part of arcades in Cento (left) and Moglia (right)

benefitted from the total wall thickness. In this case, a single-headed brick wall was simply
added externally to the pre-existing double-headed wall. Figure 13 presents a zoom of this
detail together with other similar examples of partial collapses of the external veneers. Sev-
eral cases were also observed of multi-leaf masonry walls originally constructed with heavy
diaphragms resting on the internal leaf and only partially loading the external veneer. In these
cases, instability of the internal leaf occurred, with pounding of the external one.
Other structural deficiencies were particularly highlighted by the shaking of relatively high
intensity which repeatedly struck the same buildings. An impressive example is reported in
Fig. 14 for a masonry building in Cavezzo. The building was actually composed by two
different structural units, erected in different periods. The more recent one was simply added
against the pre-existing one, without any proper structural connection nor the realisation of
a proper seismic joint. The May 20th event evidenced this situation by causing a vertical

123
 Author's personal copy
Bull Earthquake Eng

Fig. 11 Damage concentration in turrets: in-plane damage to the turret masonry piers (Moglia, left and centre)
and complete collapse of a central turret (San Possidonio, right)

Fig. 12 Building collapse in the historical centre of Concordia sulla Secchia. The picture shows that the
building faade was made of two unconnected leaves of clay brick masonry

separation crack due to pounding. The May 29th events significantly increased the damage
and caused the collapse of the added structural unit.
As also evident from Table 1, the final damage condition of the buildings in the affected
area, and in particular in the Western part of the area damaged by the main event of May 20th,
has to be associated with damage accumulation. Almost all events in the seismic sequence
with magnitude higher than 5.0 induced peak ground acceleration values higher than 0.25 g
at the recording station of Mirandola.
Lack of maintenance certainly contributed in many cases to increase the seismic vulner-
ability of existing masonry buildings, in particular for what concerns the effect of timber
degradation in reducing the structural efficiency of roof and floor systems. However, the
mechanical quality of traditional solid brick masonry is also rather sensitive to mortar qual-
ity, and in several of the most damaged structures the quality of mortar seemed to be rather
low, partly due to weathering/degradation.
As already evidenced by past earthquakes in Italy, also in the case of the Emilia earth-
quakes several issues related to seismic vulnerability of historical centres arose, such as for
example structural behaviour of building aggregates, negative interaction in the presence of
irregularities in elevation between neighbour buildings, pounding of adjacent structures. Due
to severe damages of a relatively limited number of buildings, to the difficulties of escape

123
 Author's personal copy
Bull Earthquake Eng

Fig. 13 Presence of multi-leaf clay brick walls and collapse of the external leaf: detail of collapse in Concordia
sulla Secchia (left) and partial collapses in Moglia (top right) and Mirandola (bottom right)

Fig. 14 Effect of repeated shaking on a portion of a building erected against a pre-existing building without
proper structural connection nor seismic joint: the May 20th event caused the separation of the two independent
structural units (left, courtesy of M. Messori) while the May 29th events determined the final collapse of the
added one (right)

123
 Author's personal copy
Bull Earthquake Eng

and rescue in narrow streets potentially occupied by debris and to the risk of falling of rubble
material and non-structural elements, the historical centres of the affected cities were closed
and the population evacuated. This also led in some cases to traffic detour, such as for the case
of Rovereto sulla Secchia. Obviously all useful safety measures have to be implemented in
these cases, but recent examples (e.g. Nocera Umbra, LAquila) also showed that the longer
is the inactivity period of the city centre the higher are the socio-economic costs added to
those directly associated with the earthquake damage.

3 Structural damage in modern masonry buildings

Typical modern masonry structures in this area of Italy are constituted by unreinforced
masonry buildings usually not more than three storey high, with a prevalence of masonry
erected with vertically perforated clay units, although also different types of concrete blocks
are used. Several reinforced masonry buildings, mainly built with clay units or lightweight
aggregate concrete (LAC), are also present in the area. The unreinforced clay masonry is
usually constructed using medium to large thick units, usually in the range between 25
up to 45 cm, having a void ratio of about 45 % and mechanical properties which should
guarantee, in accordance with the latest national norms, a sufficient robustness for avoiding
local brittle failure. Both general purpose and, more recently, thin layer mortar bed-joints
are used and head-joints are filled by mortar on the vertical face of the plain units or in the
mortar pockets. For the erection of autoclaved aerated concrete (AAC) masonry, solid units
and thin mortar joints are instead used. The reinforced masonry is usually constituted by
units with proper holes which allow the casing of vertical steel bars, whereas the horizontal
reinforcement is usually placed in the thickness of the bed-joints (general purpose mortar,
1015 mm thickness).
Moreover, recent masonry buildings should have been conceived, designed and detailed
to avoid the main sources of vulnerability of old masonry structures, following the national
design provisions which promote the use of regular and robust units, the limitation of the
slenderness of the walls, the effectiveness of the connections between intersecting walls and
between floor/roof and walls through reinforced concrete ring beams at each floor (and roof)
level to favour box action, a sufficient in-plane stiffness of the floor/roof diaphragms and the
regularity of the structure. Conversely, prior to 2003, i.e. before the revision of the seismic
classification and the enforcement of the seismic design code, modern masonry buildings
erected in the area were only conceived to resist vertical loads and wind action. This often
resulted in an inadequate building lateral strength due to an insufficient area of masonry
walls in the two orthogonal directions, possible irregularities in plan and in elevation and
differences in the required structural details (e.g. reinforced concrete ring beams, minimum
wall length, intersections of orthogonal walls) and minimum mechanical properties of units
and mortar (e.g. minimum compressive strength).
After the seismic events of May 2012, several post-earthquake surveys were carried out
on different types of modern structural masonry buildings in order to evaluate the seis-
mic performance of the different structural systems also as a function of the estimated or
measured seismic action. In particular, inspections on 70 buildings were performed: 47 on
unreinforced clay masonry buildings, 16 on reinforced clay masonry buildings, 4 on unrein-
forced AAC masonry buildings and 3 on reinforced lightweight concrete masonry buildings.
In some cases, isolated r.c. vertical elements (normally r.c. columns or slender r.c. walls)
were present in the internal parts of the buildings and also outside the buildings, for example
to bear the portico. Among the structures inspected, the seismic response of five masonry

123
 Author's personal copy
Bull Earthquake Eng

Fig. 15 Examples of undamaged buildings: a two-storey unreinforced clay masonry building in Casoni di
Sopra, municipality of Finale Emilia; b three-storey reinforced clay masonry buildings in S. Felice sul Panaro;
c single-storey unreinforced masonry building with AAC units in Carpi; d four-storey reinforced masonry
building with LAC units in Vigarano Mainarda

buildings (an unreinforced clay masonry, a reinforced clay masonry, an unreinforced AAC
masonry, a reinforced masonry with lightweight concrete units and an unreinforced clay
masonry building constructed in the late 60s), taken as reference of the typical behaviour
of the structural typologies, is described in the following. Moreover, the case of a residential
district in Rovereto sulla Secchia, in the municipality of Novi di Modena, where some unre-
inforced masonry buildings have manifested relevant damages, is also reported. The shaking
experienced during the two main events of May 20th and May 29th was estimated in order to
provide a rough correlation of the performances of the masonry structures with PGA. Green
dots numbered from 1 to 6 are reported on the map in Fig. 1 to identify the six sites. The first
case is a two-storey unreinforced clay masonry building constructed in 2009 and located in
Casoni di Sopra, a part of the municipality of Finale Emilia at about 9 km South/South West
from downtown, at an epicentral distance of about 10 km for both events of the 20th and the
29th of May. The estimation of the PGA for this site is 0.200.30 g for the first event and
0.26 g for the second one. The building is constituted by 45 cm thick peripheral walls and 30
cm thick internal walls with vertically perforated lightweight clay units having a void ratio of
about 45 %, thin layer bed-joints and mortar pocket head-joints. The intermediate floor and
the roof are rigid in their plane and the structure is substantially regular in plan and in eleva-
tion. No cracks or any kind of damage was observed in the internal and in the external walls
and in all other structural and non-structural components. The picture reported in Fig. 15a,
taken just after the main seismic event of the 29th of May 2012, shows the external part of
the building, exempt from any damage.

123
 Author's personal copy
Bull Earthquake Eng

The second case is an undamaged three-storey reinforced masonry building erected with
vertically perforated clay units (see Fig. 15b). The external and the internal walls are, respec-
tively, 30 and 25 cm thick and the structural configuration is very regular in plan and in
elevation. This residential house, constructed in 2009, is located in S. Felice sul Panaro at
a distance of 10 and 4 km from the epicentres of the two main seismic events. The value
of estimated PGA which has stricken the structure at the 20th of May is 0.29 g (Bozzoni et
al. 2012), whereas the acceleration registered after the 29th of May main earthquake at the
seismic station of S. Felice sul Panaro, temporary installed at few hundred meters from the
building, was equal to 0.22 g.
The third case is a single storey unreinforced masonry building with autoclaved aerated
concrete (AAC) units and thin layer mortar joints having 40 cm thick walls, without plaster,
built in 2006 and used as an agricultural warehouse; the timber roof is set on two different
levels. The structure is located in the municipality of Carpi at about 4 km South East from
downtown, at epicentral distances of 31 and 19 km and PGA of 0.010.10 g and 0.14 g as
respect of the two main seismic events. No damage on this building is visible (see Fig. 15c).
The fourth case is a residential reinforced masonry building with LAC units, constructed in
2008 in Vigarano Mainarda, made up by 2 storeys with an attic floor. The structural thickness
of the walls is 24.5 cm and the units are constituted by an assemblage of a load-bearing part,
an insulation panel and an external non-structural masonry block. The vertical reinforcement
is placed in sufficiently large holes of the units which allow to cast small r.c. pillars, whereas
the horizontal reinforcement is placed in the mortar bedjoints. Making reference to the two
main seismic events considered above, the epicentral distances are about 22 and 33 km and the
values of the estimated PGA are 0.100.20 g and 0.000.02 g. Although the seismic action of
the reference earthquakes was not particularly high, further rather intense earthquakes have
stricken the vicinity of this area, in particular the magnitude MW 5.1 event of the 20th of May
at 3.18 pm (about 11 h after the main earthquake) with the epicentre located at only 1.5 km
from this building. As illustrated in Fig. 15d, the building does not show any type of damage.
Figure 16 reports pictures of some of the damaged parts of a four-storey unreinforced
masonry building constructed in the late 60s, located in Finale Emilia (epicentral distance
equal to 8 and 16 km and PGA equal to 0.30 and 0.23 g for the events of the 20th and the
29th of May, respectively). The damage is mainly concentrated at the ground storey, where
wide diagonal cracks have occurred in the external and in the internal structural walls and
also in the partitions. Masonry walls with vertically perforated clay units having a thickness
of 20 cm are connected to mixed r.c. joist-clay tile floors through r.c. ring beams.
This building, although showing an adequate connection between structural walls and
sufficiently rigid diaphragms, was not calculated for seismic resistance and does not fulfil
all the modern concepts of seismic design for the lack of a sufficient amount or density of
walls, especially along one of the two main directions. This deficiency leads to concentration
of large vertical stress levels in particular on the slender and thin piers at the ground storey,
causing a reduced in-plane deformation capacity of the walls for shear mechanisms with the
occurrence of typical diagonal shear cracks. Moreover, a higher number of storeys is usually
acknowledged as incrementing seismic vulnerability. This was one of the few cases in which
this tendency was clearly observed. In most other cases of damaged masonry buildings the
influence of the number of storeys was blurred by other main vulnerability factors such as
lack of appropriate connections and presence of flexible diaphragms, confirming the outcome
of previous post-earthquake observations in Italy (Rota et al. 2011).
A great extent of structural and non-structural damages on recently constructed infilled
r.c. frames and structural masonry buildings is reported in a residential district located in the

123
 Author's personal copy
Bull Earthquake Eng

Fig. 16 Four-storey unreinforced clay masonry building in Finale Emilia built without any seismic design

North/North West part of Rovereto sulla Secchia, in the municipality of Novi di Modena at
epicentral distances of about 22 and 11 km from the two main seismic events (Fig. 17).
In this area, 12 three and four storey modern unreinforced masonry buildings with clay
unit structural walls were surveyed. The majority of these buildings were built between the
late 90s and 2003, one was in construction in 2003 and one was built after 2003; 6 buildings
out of 12 are constituted by two different typologies of three identical buildings each. Among
the 12 surveyed buildings, only two houses were found to be exempt by any visible damage
or only slightly cracked and still in use. The other structures considered were unusable since
affected by different levels of damage varying from moderate to very severe. Significant
damages were concentrated mainly in the walls at the ground storeys where diagonal and
bi-diagonal cracks, being in some cases very wide, and failures at the corners of L shape
flanged walls occurred. Some bi-diagonal shear cracks were also found at the first storey of
the buildings.
Most of the significant cracks were oriented in North/North East direction on the masonry
piers parallel to the main street of entrance of the dwellings, where the walls, in some cases,
possess large openings (such as the garage doors) and therefore lower amount of structural
masonry, but also suggesting a possible directivity effect of the seismic action. The PGA
of this site was estimated to be 0.100.20 g and 0.240.26 g for the two seismic events,
according to the criteria defined in the introduction. However, possible local site effects of
ground acceleration amplification may also have occurred. The earthquake has in fact hit
strongly and almost indiscriminately different structural typologies (structural masonry and
infilled r.c. buildings) in a limited area surrounded by adjacent zones with a much lower
extent of damage. Therefore, the high level of damage to the structures constructed in this
area could be attributed in part to their own vulnerability, considering also that the majority
of these buildings has been built before the seismic reclassification of the site and most likely
without the application of seismic design principles, but possibly also to a higher level of
ground motion due to site effects.

4 Non-structural damage

As mentioned in the introduction, non-structural damage was responsible of two casualties

in the May 29th Mw 5.8 event. One of the most common examples of non-structural damage

123
 Author's personal copy
Bull Earthquake Eng

Fig. 17 Some examples of damage in the unreinforced masonry buildings in a district of Rovereto sulla
Secchia, municipality of Novi di Modena

in both new and existing buildings consisted of the damage occurring in masonry or precast
chimneys. Figure 18 presents some examples of these damages, which tend to separate the
chimney into different blocks. Rigid body rocking and sliding are then activated, often leading
to the collapse of the non-structural element.
Some peculiar non-structural damages were also observed in existing masonry buildings.
Figure 19 shows examples of damages to the roof tiles and to balustrades and clay brick
sunshade elements. All these damages can be particularly dangerous for the safety of people
walking just outside (or exiting) the building. Roof tile displacements may also cause seepage
of rainwater and further degradation of timber elements.

123
 Author's personal copy
Bull Earthquake Eng

Fig. 18 Examples of damage to precast and masonry chimneys

Fig. 19 Examples of non-structural damages in existing masonry buildings: collapse of sunshade elements
made of clay bricks (top left), collapse of a balcony stone balustrade (bottom left) and displacement of roof
tiles (right pictures)

5 Conclusions

The damage to old existing clay brick masonry buildings in the area affected by the 2012
Emilia earthquake sequence evidenced some recurrent vulnerability elements typical of
masonry structures which were not conceived to resist to seismic actions. Nevertheless,
majority large part of existing masonry buildings showed some inherent capacity to resist to
horizontal actions. With respect to the damage surveys performed after Italian (e.g. DAyala
and Paganoni 2011) and international (e.g. Javed et al. 2006) earthquakes affecting areas with
a building stock mostly consisting of stone masonry buildings, the failure modes observed
in the clay brick masonry buildings of Emilia showed the occurrence of out-of-plane failure
modes limited to some specific cases, i.e. presence of thrusting roofs (or roofs with very
limited diaphragm action and poor connections to wall edges) and/or combinations of large
wall slenderness or unrestrained wall lengths and some structural irregularity. Mortar qual-
ity seems to be also an issue for some buildings, since in-plane capacity of old solid brick
masonry is sensitive to mortar strength.

123
 Author's personal copy
Bull Earthquake Eng

The outcome of the post-earthquake inspections on modern masonry buildings have evi-
denced, in the great majority of the cases, a good seismic performance without the occurrence
of any significant damage in structural and non-structural elements, even in zones very close
to the epicentres of the main seismic events. Such satisfactory seismic behaviour has been
achieved on those low-rise (two- or three-storey maximum) modern masonry buildings char-
acterized by a sufficient wall density or amount of walls, built with good quality materials
and in accordance with the more recent detailing principles; similar situations have also
been identified from the experimental and the past-earthquake experiences. After the 1992
Erzincan earthquake, Saatcioglu and Bruneau (1993) also noted that the extremely good per-
formance exhibited by some URM buildings was mainly attributable to their high structural
redundancy. In a more detailed analysis on the performance of masonry buildings in the
same event, Sucuoglu and Erberik (1997) concluded that URM complying with seismic code
requirements possess a remarkable lateral load resistance, in particular in case of regular
structures with diaphragm action, which also provide significant shear redistribution among
walls and overstrength. However, on the other hand, a limited number of recent unreinforced
masonry buildings suffered a rather large extent of damage, in the form of shear diagonal
and bi-diagonal cracks at the ground floor. A possible explanation for this could be that the
majority of these damaged buildings had been built prior to 2003 with no seismic design (lack
of a proper conceptual seismic design, possible deficiencies in the quality of the materials
and in the structural details, low amount of structural walls), although the hypothesis of local
soil effects should be further investigated for the site located in Rovereto sulla Secchia.
The performance of non-structural elements such as chimneys and balustrades was in
many cases so poor that it compromised the safety conditions of the occupants of slightly
damages structures, in particular in historical centres. Higher importance should be given to
properly designing, detailing or retrofitting these components.

Acknowledgments The authors would like to acknowledge the contribution of Stefano Bracchi, Alessandro
Galasco and Michele Palmieri, who voluntarily participated to the surveys, also providing a fundamental con-
tribution to the Civil Protection Department for the post-earthquake damage survey, and the help of Francesco
Graziotti, who also contributed to the critical discussion on the observed damages and Martina Mandirola and
Annalisa Rosti who also helped in the organisation of the collected information. Sincere thanks are finally
due to Francesca Bozzoni and Prof. Carlo Lai, for providing the estimated values of peak ground acceleration
experienced at the sites where the different considered damaged buildings were located.

References

Arcoraci L, Berardi M, Bernardini F, Brizuela B, Caracciolo CH, Castellano C, Castelli V, Cavaliere A, Del
Mese S, Ercolani E, Graziani L, Maramai A, Massucci A, Rossi A, Sbarra M, Tertulliani A, Vecchi M,
Vecchi S (2012) Rapporto macrosismico sui terremoti del 20 (Ml 5.9) e del 29 maggio 2012 (Ml 5.8e5.3)
nella pianura Padano-Emiliana, QUEST-INGV. available from www.ingv.it (in Italian)
Beyer K, Dazio A (2012) Quasi-static cyclic tests on masonry spandrels. Earthquake Spectra 28(3):907929
Bozzoni F, Lai CG, Scandella L (2012) Preliminary results of ground-motion characteristics. Ann Geophys
55(4):609614
Bozzoni F, Lai CG (2012) Personal communication
Breventano S, (1576) Trattato del terremoto, 2007 edition by Paola Albini. IUSSPress, Pavia (in Italian)
DAyala D, Paganoni S (2011) Assessment and analysis of damage in LAquila historic city centre after 6th
April 2009. Bull Earthq Eng 9(1):81104
Guidoboni E, Ferrari G, Mariotti D, Comastri A, Tarabusi G, Valensise G (2007) CFTI4Med, Catalogue of
Strong Earthquakes in Italy (461 B.C.-1997) and Mediterranean Area (760 B.C.-1500). INGV-SGA. http://
storing.ingv.it/cfti4med/
ISTAT (2001) Italian census data, available at dawinci.istat.it

123
 Author's personal copy
Bull Earthquake Eng

Javed M, Khan AN, Penna A, Magenes G (2006) Behaviour of masonry structures during the Kashmir
2005 earthquake, In: Proceedings of first European conference on earthquake engineering and seismology,
Geneva, Switzerland, Paper No. 1077
OPCM 3274 (2003) Ordinanza del Presidente del Consiglio dei Ministri n. 3274 del 20 marzo 2003 Primi
elementi in materia di criteri generali per la classificazione sismica del territorio nazionale e di normative
tecniche per le costruzioni in zona sismica, S.O. n. 72, G.U. n.105 del 8 maggio 2003, Annex 1 (in Italian)
Rota M, Penna A, Strobbia C, Magenes G (2011) Typological seismic risk maps for Italy. Earthquake Spectra
27(3):907926
Saatcioglu M, Bruneau M (1993) Performance of structures during the 1992 Erzincan earthquake. Can J Civ
Eng 20:305325
Sorrentino L, Liberatore L, Liberatore D, Masiani R (2013) The behaviour of vernacular buildings in the 2012
Emilia earthquakes. Bull Earthq Eng. doi:10.1007/s10518-013-9455-2
Sucuoglu H, Erberik A (1997) Performance evaluation of a three-storey unreinforced masonry building during
the 1992 Erzincan earthquake. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 26:319336
Toscani G, Burrato P, Di Bucci D, Seno S, Valensise G (2009) Plio-Quaternary tectonic evolution of the
Northern Apennines thrust fronts (Bologna-Ferrara section, Italy): seismotectonic implications. Bollettino
della Societ Geologica Italiana 128(2):605613

123