Soil–foundation–structure interaction and

vulnerability assessment of the Neoclassical

School in Rhodes, Greece

Anna Karatzetzou, Dimitris Pitilakis,

Meta Kržan & Vlatko Bosiljkov

Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering

Official Publication of the European
Association for Earthquake Engineering

ISSN 1570-761X

Bull Earthquake Eng

DOI 10.1007/s10518-014-9637-6

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/s10518-014-9637-6

ORIGINAL RESEARCH PAPER

Soil–foundation–structure interaction and vulnerability

assessment of the Neoclassical School in Rhodes, Greece

Anna Karatzetzou · Dimitris Pitilakis · Meta Kržan ·

Vlatko Bosiljkov

Received: 27 June 2013 / Accepted: 25 May 2014

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2014

Abstract The paper presents the application of the seismic assessment procedure developed
in the PERPETUATE project on a single monument, the Neoclassical School in the Medieval
City of Rhodes. The PERPETUATE methodology for the estimation of seismic risk of cultural
heritage assets is based on the principles of performance-based assessment (PBA), using
nonlinear static procedures. The outcome of the PBA methodology is the maximum seismic
intensity measure compatible to different performance levels. The focus of the paper is on
the application of the methodology, considering the effects of both soil–foundation–structure
interaction (SFSI) and masonry foundation flexibility on the building response, before and
after rehabilitation design measures. It is found that SFSI and foundation flexibility produce
larger displacements and reduce the maximum ground acceleration that the building can
sustain by over 50 %. However, despite the detrimental effects of SFSI on the acceleration
capacity, SFSI and foundation flexibility may have a favorable effect on the structure safety,
as they modify the collapse mechanism. The results of seismic analyses showed that the
building, in its current state, does not sustain the demands for the Life Safety and Collapse
Prevention performance levels. Stiffening the roof of the structure and providing sufficient
anchorage to the structure, along with systematic grouting of the masonry walls, are the
principal rehabilitation decisions considered herein. Mitigation measures were evaluated,
considering SFSI and the analyses revealed the adequacy of the proposed retrofitting measure,
which combines vertical (wall) and horizontal (roof) stiffening.

A. Karatzetzou (B) · D. Pitilakis

Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, Thessaloníki, Greece
e-mail: akaratze@civil.auth.gr
D. Pitilakis
e-mail: dpitilak@civil.auth.gr
M. Kržan · V. Bosiljkov
University of Ljubljana, Ljubljana, Slovenia
e-mail: meta.krzan@fgg.uni-lj.si
V. Bosiljkov
e-mail: vbosiljk@fgg.uni-lj.si

123
 Author's personal copy
Bull Earthquake Eng

Keywords Flexible masonry foundations · Rehabilitation · Performance · Single asset ·

Soil–foundation–structure interaction

1 Introduction

This paper presents an application of the methodology developed in the framework of the
European project “Performance-based approach to earthquake protection of cultural heritage
in European and Mediterranean countries (PERPETUATE)” (Lagomarsino et al. 2010), on
the performance-based assessment of an unreinforced masonry monumental building located
in the Medieval City of Rhodes in Greece, called hereby “Neoclassical School”. The proposed
methodology is composed of the following steps:
(1) Classification of the architectonic asset and the contained artistic assets.
(2) Definition of performance limit states (safety and conservation requirements).
(3) Evaluation of seismic hazard.
(4) Description of the construction material properties using information from in-situ non-
destructive and laboratory testing (as-built information).
(5) Definition of structural models for the seismic analysis of the masonry building and the
contained artistic assets (modelling).
(6) Verification of safety.
(7) Rehabilitation decisions.
The paper presents the application of the aforementioned methodology on the selected struc-
ture, emphasizing the effects of dynamic soil–foundation–structure interaction (SFSI). Static
soil–foundation–structure interaction in masonry buildings has been the subject of numerous
studies during the last decades (e.g.: Liu et al. 2001; Masia et al. 2004). The present study is
one of the few addressing soil–foundation–structure interaction in masonry structures in the
earthquake engineering framework. Limited reported studies include Hacıefendioğlu (2010)
and Karatzetzou et al. (2012).

2 Construction history

The Neoclassical School is located in the Medieval City of Rhodes. It is a one-storey building
with an internal atrium and two entrances (Fig. 1). Three distinct construction phases were
identified. The School was built in 1876 (Phase A). Some years later, the School was destroyed
in a fire. After the reconstruction in 1898 (Phase B), it remained in operation until 1985. Up
to present (2014), the Neoclassical School is not in use.
During Phase A, the monument had a rectangular ground plan view and part of it was
founded on the ruins of the Knights’ Templar Cathedral, Saint John of the Collacium, which
used to be the most important church in Rhodes. In Phase B, it was constructed in square
ground plan view, with an internal atrium and four symmetric wings. The east wing is founded
on the pedestal of the foundation of Phase A, while the north and a part of the west wing
are founded on the embankment of an older crater, created by the explosion of the powder
magazine in the cellar of the bell-tower of Saint John Cathedral, in 1856. In 1970, and due
to extensive cracking of the west side, restoration of the building took place, marking Phase
C of construction. In Phase C, reinforced concrete elements were placed in several parts of
the building. Finally, in 1989 and in need of an archeological excavation, the foundation soil
of the north-east side was carefully removed.

123
 Author's personal copy
Bull Earthquake Eng

Fig. 1 Ground floor plan view and north façade of the school together with its construction phases (courtesy
of the Foundation for the Financial Administration and Realization of Archaeological Projects, FFARAP)

Fig. 2 a Current condition, b east facade and c vertical cross-section of the neoclassical school in Rhodes
(courtesy of FFARAP)

The importance of this monument, from an architectural and historical point of view, can
be found in both the superstructure and the structure underneath, where ruins of the Knights’
Templar Cathedral of Saint John of the Collacium can be found. The building is the first
modern school to be constructed in Rhodes. The Neoclassical School adopts an eclectic
architectural style, as it combines neoclassical characteristics (symmetry in plan view and in
positioning of the openings) with arched elements. Traditional materials of rubble and ashlar
masonry were used in the construction, which is also of great importance. Figure 2 depicts
the current condition of the structure, the east façade and a vertical cross-section.

123
 Author's personal copy
Bull Earthquake Eng

3 Classification of the architectonic asset and the contained artistic assets

According to the PERPETUATE classification of architectonic assets (Lagomarsino and

Cattari 2014), the Neoclassical School is classified in Class A, which concerns assets with
in-plane damage prevailing. Such buildings are characterized by the so-called “box behavior”.
Classification of monuments is necessary for choosing the proper mechanical model for the
seismic assessment. Equivalent-frame modelling by discretization in terms of piers, spandrels
and other linear and nonlinear elements (SEM: Structural Elements Models) was considered
for this study as it adequately describes the global behavior of assets of Class A.

4 Definition of performance limit states (safety and conservation requirements)

Prevention against earthquakes of cultural heritage assets is obtained by assuring that each
asset is able to achieve a certain performance level in case of a target earthquake, which is
described by a given probability of occurrence in that particular site. The PERPETUATE
project methodology proposes specific correlation between performance and damage levels,
as described in Lagomarsino and Cattari (2014).
Using the proposed in PERPETUATE project damage levels, performance and related
return periods (Lagomarsino and Cattari 2014), the following target performances were
selected for the evaluation of Neoclassical School:

• 2U (Immediate occupancy), i.e. the building maintains its overall functionality, even if
limited damage occurred or some parts may be not immediately usable. This performance
level is of secondary importance in this case, as it is considered of major importance
for buildings with relevant public functions (hospitals, schools, etc). According to the
PERPETUATE methodology, this performance level would not have to be checked for
Neoclassical School considering its current function.
• 3U (Life safety), i.e. the building retains its structural integrity and a sufficient residual
load bearing capacity after seismic events. Human life is preserved. Damage is very high
but there is a low risk of local collapses, affecting the safety of people.
• Building conservation: 3B (Collapse prevention). The building retains its overall struc-
tural integrity and a residual load bearing capacity. It can be restored, even if partial
reconstructions may be required. The building may be conserved over time.
• Artistic assets conservation: No artistic assets were found in the studied monument.

For each one of these targets, up to four performance levels are defined, which are correlated
to corresponding damage levels, defined from the observational approach. Table 1 shows the
target performance levels assumed herein, together with their corresponding return period. For
performance levels 3U and 3B, the return period TR is equal to 475 years and for performance
level 2U, 72 years, referring to 10 and 50 % probability of occurrence in 50 years, respectively.
Moreover, in order to take into account the importance and significance of each cultural
heritage asset, the use of three extra factors is proposed (Lagomarsino and Cattari 2014).
These factors modify the above-mentioned return periods in order to evaluate the seismic
hazard for the assessment of different types of performance. These three factors are notably the
use coefficient (γU ), the building coefficient (γ B ) and the artistic coefficient (γ A ). However,
as the building has no important artistic assets and it is rarely used, it is assumed that, for the
purpose of this study, all complementary factors are equal to unity.

123
 Author's personal copy
Bull Earthquake Eng

Table 1 Safety and conservation objectives for neoclassical school

Use and human life Architectonic assets Artistic assets

Immediate occupancy Life safety Collapse prevention Ruins Low damage Loss prevention

72 (2U)
TR
475 (3U) 475 (3B)

Table 2 Shear wave velocity

Thickness (m) Vs (m/s)
profile for the soil site of
Neoclassical School (Manakou et
50 471
al. 2011)
50 501
150 1,043
150 1,139

Fig. 3 Hazard curve and relative

points for target performance
levels (2U, 3U/3B) considered in
this study

5 Evaluation of seismic hazard

The intensity measure (IM) adopted for this specific monument is the peak ground acceleration
(PGA), which is reported as an adequate parameter for buildings of Class A according to
Lagomarsino and Cattari (2014). The PGA values adopted for the Neoclassical School result
from Gherboudj et al. (2011), and the spectrum shape is the one proposed in Eurocode 8
Part 1 (CEN 2004) for soil class B. Soil classification stems from the shear wave velocity
profile defined from the array of microtremor measurements which were conducted within
the framework of the PERPETUATE project, at the exact location of Neoclassical School
(Table 2; Manakou et al. 2011).
Results in Gherboudj et al. (2011) were obtained by post-processing scalar-valued hazard
curves, computed using CRISIS 2007 version 7.2 (Ordaz et al. 2007). According to this
study, the PGA values for return periods TR = 95, 475 and 2,475 years are 0.06, 0.18 and
0.42 g, respectively. The relation between the maximum PGA value of the seismic input and
the annual rate of exceedance λ (or the earthquake return period TR ∼ = 1/λ) is depicted in
Fig. 3. In addition, Fig. 3 shows PGA and λ R values for the two target performance levels
considered herein. More specifically, for performance levels 2U and 3U/3B, the target PGA
values are equal to 0.038 and 0.181 g, respectively.

123
 Author's personal copy
Bull Earthquake Eng

Fig. 4 a Ground floor plan view, b cross section B2-B2 and c cross section C-C of school (courtesy of
FFARAP)

6 Description of the construction material properties using information from in situ

non-destructive and laboratory testing (as-built information)

According to the PERPETUATE project methodology, for buildings with prevailing in-plane
damage, like the Neoclassical School (as stems from the analysis crack pattern observations),
three-dimensional modelling of the whole building is required (global scale approach) and the
assessment should be performed on its overall capacity curve (Lagomarsino and Cattari 2014).
Nonlinear static analyses considering global-mechanism response of the entire building were
conducted with the research version of Tremuri software (Lagomarsino et al. 2013), in order
to evaluate the seismic resistance of the monument and to account also for SFSI effects.
With reference to the global behavior, the analysis aims to evaluate an intensity measure
for each performance level (I M P Li ), and it can be summarized in the following steps: (a)
execution of the pushover analysis; (b) identification of the damage levels (DLs) and the
related performance levels (PLs) on the pushover curve; (c) conversion of the pushover curve
to capacity curve; (d) computation of the maximum intensity measure (IM) value compatible
with the i-th PL (I M P Li ). A sensitivity analysis should be also performed, in order to obtain
confidence factors for various parameters. The latter, however, was not necessary in this case,
because of the very good knowledge of all necessary parameters. In this study, only epistemic
uncertainties will be accounted for, concerning the sensitivity to the models.

6.1 Geometry

The plan view dimensions are 31.69 m × 32.57 m and the overall height is 10.60 m, including
the roof. The internal level of the rooms is at +1.80 m from ground level. The height of the
walls on the external side is 7.40 m and on the internal side is 5.60 m. Wall thickness varies
from 0.35 to 0.52 m. The building is founded partially at level −2.80 m and partially at
−2.20 m on the external ground surface (−4.60 and −4.00 m on the internal ground surface,
respectively). Figure 4 shows the plan view of the school and the main cross-sections with
their dimensions.

6.2 Construction

The building material of the superstructure is rubble masonry, except for the atrium and the
main entrance arches and columns, which are made of ashlar masonry. Internal walls are

123
 Author's personal copy
Bull Earthquake Eng

connected with the columns of the atrium via iron ties. The upper part of the foundation
of the pedestal is made of ashlar masonry, and the lower part of the continuous footing of
rubble masonry. At the northwest part, the walls are founded on a system of arches and piers
made from rubble masonry. The roof is composed of timber trusses without ties. The ceiling
is suspended by a system of beams based on the crest of the walls. The floor of each room
is made of timber beams lying on a central beam. The interventions at Phase C consist of
reinforced concrete frames along the whole length of the west wing and the west sides of
the north and south wings (Fig. 1). The timber floors of the west wing were replaced with
floorings made of reinforced concrete plates along with a system of joists, columns and
jackets of the perimetric walls that were constructed in the rooms of the west wing.

6.3 Pathology

The building exhibits extensive damages and deteriorations (Fig. 4b, c). Intense cracks exist
in the masonry in the north wings, in both sides of the two entries, in the exterior side of the
east wing and mainly in the north-east and in the middle of the south wing, at the connection
points of traverse walls. Rusting of iron ties, humidity and growth of micro-organisms were
also found. The extensive cracking (wider than 3 mm) is attributed mostly to previous seismic
actions and to differential settlements. Cracking is more intense in the North and North–East
sides of the building, where the foundation lies on the debris of the church of Saint John,
which was completely destroyed, in the late Ottoman period, by a large explosion.

6.4 Materials

The building stones, of local limestone, are of rather low strength with compressive strength
equal to f bc = 2.69 MPa (core) and f bc = 3.60 MPa (hammer test) for the superstructure
and f bc = 4.35 MPa (hammer test) for the foundation. The mortar is weak lime mortar with
a moderate proportion of aggregates (natural origin with angular shapes). Past retrofitting
attempts in certain parts of the building were provided by using reinforced concrete elements
with a compressive strength equal to f ck = 7.38 MPa (core) and f ck = 9.75 MPa (hammer
test) (Papayanni et al. 2004).

7 Definition of structural models for the seismic analysis of the masonry building and
the contained artistic assets (modelling)

Masonry compressive strength, f Mc , has been assumed equal to 1.25 MPa for the foundation
and 0.98 MPa for the masonry of superstructure. Such values are consistent with the 1.25 MPa
strength given by Gazepidis (2011), for a similar masonry, and approximately fall within the
range to be found in commentary to the Italian Building Code (IMIT 2009), for irregular stone
masonry. The difference between foundation and elevation is based on the different strengths
of stone units. Masonry tensile strength, f Mt , has been estimated using Eq. 1, as suggested
in Syrmakezis et al. (1995). Elastic and shear modulus E and G of masonry assemblages
(Eq. 2) were calculated according to Eurocode 6 Part 1-1 (CEN 2005b). Material properties
of the masonry assemblages are given in Table 3, together with the elastic soil properties
estimated from in situ measurements (Manakou et al. 2011)

f Mt = 2/3 f mt (1)
E = 1,000 · f Mc , G = 0.4E (2)

123
 Author's personal copy
Bull Earthquake Eng

Table 3 Material properties

Foundation masonry Superstructure masonry Soil
considered for numerical analysis
E (MPa) 1,251 984 1,183
G (MPa) 501 394 444
fMc (MPa) 1.25 0.98 –
fMt (MPa) 0.066 0.066 –

Fig. 5 Equivalent frame 3D model M1 of the superstructure in Tremuri. Positive convention is defined towards
the north (for the North–South direction) and towards the west (for the East–West direction)

Tests on mortar samples were not executed. Reinforced-concrete elements were not modelled
because the knowledge of their details is too limited, because at the moment the models
available to account for poorly confined masonry are not robust and because the aim of
this paper is to show the relevance of soil–foundation–structure interaction on the seismic
performance of a building and on its retrofitting, rather than to perform the actual seismic
assessment and strengthening of the building under consideration.
Nonlinear static (pushover) analyses of two equivalent 3D frame models were performed.
First a model of the superstructure from the ground level up (M1) was set up, where SFSI
was not considered and the nodes at the bottom were constrained (fixed). This model is
referred herein as M1. In the second model (M2), SFSI and flexibility of the foundation
were considered by means of stiffness springs. In Pitilakis and Karatzetzou (2014), where
the procedure for accounting soil–foundation interaction in compliant systems is proposed,
the stiffness is evaluated at the centroid of the foundation. In this case, springs are assumed
in the model below the ground level at the half-height of the foundation. Apart from these
differences in the modelling of foundation, the rest of the models are identical, therefore
one model is presented in Fig. 5. It should be also mentioned that the Neoclassical school
is characterized by a very complicated foundation system for practical modelling purposes.
Some simplifications have been introduced because of lack of adequate knowledge and
robust models. The foundation height, ranging between 3.0 and 4.6 m, has been assumed
constant in the models (even if the actual value was considered for the calculation of the
impedance values) because this parameter has no marked effect on the response. Although
part of the building is founded on debris, a uniform soil has been assumed underneath the
whole foundations because of the unknown stiffness of the debris. Estimation of shear wave
velocity of an extremely heterogeneous material such as the debris is one of the main issues
of the characterization of materials for monumental structures in ancient cities. However,

123
 Author's personal copy
Bull Earthquake Eng

such topic cannot be addressed in the present study. All the assumptions have been made on
the safe side.
At the roof level, a low-stiffness floor with shear modulus G = 10 MPa is considered.
Steel ties are used to complete the model at the middle part of the building, where the atrium
with arcade walls is situated. In the place where a vertical crack practically divides a wall
segment in two parts, we modelled the wall considering two separated sub-walls with the
same material characteristics. Columns at the entrance gates are also modelled, despite the
fact that they are severely cracked (vertical cracks).

7.1 Stiffness of embedded flexible foundations

Effects of the flexibility of masonry foundation–soil system under seismic loading were con-
sidered for the case of Neoclassical School according to Pitilakis and Karatzetzou (2014).
In the afore-mentioned study, stiffness of flexible masonry foundations is provided for hor-
izontal, vertical and rocking modes of vibration with respect to the foundation wall-to-soil
elasticity modulus ratio E w /E s for certain h/b ratios (h is the total height of the founda-
tion and b is the half-width of the foundation). At a first step we evaluate the dimensionless
frequency α0, which should not exceed the value of 1. Next, we calculate “static” stiff-
ness K static of the foundation–soil system, for all translational and rotational modes from
analytical solutions proposed in literature for rigid foundations (Gazetas 1991). Then, we
calculate the E w /E s ratio, which is equal to 1.06 for this specific case. Finally, we evaluate
the reduction of stiffness of the flexible masonry wall foundation compared to the rigid one
by the proposed diagrams in Pitilakis and Karatzetzou (2014). In the latter, formulas for
both surface and embedded foundations are provided. For the case study of the Neoclassical
School, the resulting reduction factors from rigid foundation stiffness range between 0.33
and 0.78. In other words, this means that foundation–soil flexibility reduces the stiffness up
to almost 70 % compared to the rigid footing case. More details concerning the estimation of
the impedances for flexible masonry foundations can be found in Pitilakis and Karatzetzou
(2014). The results of all subsequent sections focus on the role of both SFSI and foundation
flexibility, as model M2 considers both effects in a single step.

7.2 Pushover analyses for current state of the building

The pushover analyses were performed for positive and negative directions for applied dis-
placement, in both North–South (NS) and East–West (EW) directions of the building, as
defined in Fig. 5. Horizontal mass distribution and 5 % mass eccentricity were considered
consistent to Eurocode 8, Part 1 (CEN 2004). The maximum capacity for shear failure of the
structural elements was determined according to the Turnšek and Čačovič (1971) criterion.
In order to account for the “cracked” section, a reduction of G equal to 50 % was assumed
(Lagomarsino et al. 2013). Drift limits of structural elements were again assumed accord-
ing to Eurocode 8, Part 3 (CEN 2005a) i.e. 0.4 % for shear and 0.8 % for bending failure
mechanism.
In Fig. 6 we present the pushover curves for the two models (M1 and M2) for the most
critical cases (in terms of minimum ground acceleration that the building can sustain for the
evaluated performance level) for NS and EW directions. On each pushover curve four damage
levels (DLs) for the related performance levels (PLs) are marked. The damage level (DL)
is assumed to coincide with the corresponding PL. PL1 was considered at the point of first
damage, while PL2 at the point of first local maximum value of shear base Fb . Criteria for
reaching PL3 were at global scale 20 % reduction of the obtained maximum shear capacity

123
 Author's personal copy
Bull Earthquake Eng

Fig. 6 Pushover curves for a NS and b EW direction for the model M1 (fixed) and model M2 (SFSI)

and at structural element scale criteria of damage of structural elements (two elements out of
ten). The first of the two achieved criteria was considered critical for determination of PL3.
Finally, PL4 is defined at the point where, at global scale, the shear capacity is reduced by
40 % of the maximum shear capacity.
Positive direction for applied displacement proved to be more critical for the NS direction
for both models. For the EW direction, applied displacement was more critical in the negative
direction for M1 and in the positive direction for M2. Besides, the better global response of
the monument in the NS direction, compared to the EW direction, could be attributed to the
fact that in NS direction there are four walls going through the entire length of the monument,
while in EW direction there are only two (Fig. 5). It is important to note that the simulation of
the vertical cracks (separating walls assuming the same material characteristics) influences
the final global response as well, and produces different results in the two directions.
If SFI effects are considered at the centroid of foundation (in model M2), the complete
system becomes more flexible in both directions. In the NS direction, SFI effects are more
pronounced as the structure is stiffer (more full-length walls, Fig. 5) than in the EW direction,
resulting in higher relative structure-to-soil stiffness, which in turn increases interaction
effects. The displacement capacity of the system when considering SFI effects is higher in
NS direction, compared to EW direction, for damage levels DL2 and DL3. On the other
hand, in EW direction the results in terms of displacement, as well as force capacity, are
more or less the same for both models, implying that soil–foundation–structure interaction
is not prevailing.
Table 4 provides the computed period values for the first performance level of the two
models, which values maybe considered corresponding to the elastic range. SFSI increases
the period by 90 % in the NS and by 33 % in the EW directions of the building. Depending on
the shape of the seismic demand spectrum, this period elongation may affect the performance
of the structure.
SFI also affects the sequence and position of damage (and collapse) of structural elements.
In Fig. 7, the deformed shapes at collapse for the two models are presented in both directions.
In Fig. 8 we present the computed collapse mechanism of model M1 of the critical east (P2)
wall in NS direction. One can see that, for model M1 (fixed-base), the collapse occurs

123
 Author's personal copy
Bull Earthquake Eng

Table 4 Period values (in

Direction M1 (Fixed) M2 (SFSI) Percentile increase (%)
seconds) for M1 and M2 at PL1
(first damage) and percentile of
NS 0.133 0.252 89
increase from fixed-base
EW 0.132 0.176 33

Fig. 7 Deformed shape of the building at PL3 for a M1—NS direction, b M1—EW direction, c M2—NS
direction, d M2—EW direction

practically simultaneously in all piers of the wall. Figure 9 depicts the collapse of the same
east (P2) wall for model M2. In model M2 (SFSI) the collapse of structural elements occurs
sequentially and not at all piers. Due to SFSI effects, the superstructure has an improved
behaviour concerning the collapse mechanism.

8 Verification of safety

From the obtained response resulting from nonlinear static analyses, we evaluated the max-
imum ground acceleration values (ag,P Li ) that the building can sustain for anticipated per-

123
 Author's personal copy
Bull Earthquake Eng

Fig. 8 Damage and collapse of structural elements of the east (P2) wall for PL3 obtained with model M1

Fig. 9 Damage and collapse of structural elements of east (P2) wall for PL3 obtained with model M2

formance levels, using the procedure proposed in PERPETUATE (Lagomarsino and Cattari
2014). The PERPETUATE procedure is based on the classical capacity spectrum method
(Freeman 1998; Fajfar 1999) that uses overdamped spectra, but it is simpler and more direct,
as it requires the evaluation of the maximum IM compatible with each PL. To this end, it is
sufficient for a given IM to define the period T and the damping associated to each PL, as
reflected on the capacity curve. Period values are calculated directly for each PL from the
corresponding displacement and base shear on the pushover curve.
Equivalent damping ξeq is needed for the evaluation of the equivalent elastic spectrum,
and concerns a certain PL evaluated as the sum of viscous damping (assumed herein as 5 %)
and hysteretic damping. The latter is calculated from the corresponding hysteresis loops from
cyclic pushover analysis. Figure 10 illustrates the results of cyclic pushover analysis of the
most critical case in NS direction for model M1 (positive direction, negative eccentricity),
along with the result of monotonic pushover analysis for the same case. Cyclic pushover
analysis is carried out to displacements approximately equal to displacements at characteristic
damage levels DLi attained by monotonic pushover analysis. The elastic response spectrum
Sa,e was calculated according to Eurocode 8, Part 1 (CEN 2004), and therefore reduced by
damping correction factor η as proposed in the code:

ξeq = ξel + ξhys (3)


10
η= (4)
5 + ξeq
⎧  
⎪
⎪ P G A · S 1 + T
(2.5 · η − 1) , if T ≤ TB
⎨ TB
Sa,e = P G A · S · η · 2.5,
if TB ≤ T ≤ TC (5)
⎪
⎪
⎩ P G A · S · η · 2.5 TC , if T ≥ TC
T

In Eqs. 4 and 5, parameters S, TB and TC are the soil coefficient and the lower and upper
limit of the periods of the constant branch of the spectrum and are defined by the code
requirements. It is noted that the calculated equivalent damping values ξeq were low for PL3,

123
 Author's personal copy
Bull Earthquake Eng

Fig. 10 Cyclic and monotonic pushover analysis of the most critical case in NS direction for model M1
(positive direction, negative eccentricity)

in most cases around 10 %, as the target PL was reached relatively soon, and also due to the
prevailing flexural damage of structural elements.
Figure 11 shows the values of maximum ground accelerations ag,max corresponding to
each performance level for both directions and for both models, as well as the demand for the
target performance levels PL2 and PL3 (Fig. 3), from which it is clear that the Neoclassical
School cannot sustain the seismic demand for PL3. However, if the target performance level
were PL2, the building would sustain the seismic demand in both directions.
Furthermore, it is apparent that flexible foundation and SFSI effects are more critical
in NS direction, whereas in EW direction the two models can sustain similar maximum
acceleration demand. SFSI has a detrimental effect on the structural response in NS direction
(M2), reducing the capacity in ground acceleration by about 50 %, compared to the case in
which the monument is fixed at its base (M1). However, as it has already been mentioned,
foundation compliance is in favour of the structure in terms of displacement capacity, which
is increased in NS direction when considering interaction effects. In the EW direction for all
PLs, SFSI does not influence the response.
Figure 12 shows the results for all performance levels in terms of return period values
TR,max , where the effect of SFSI on the results is more pronounced in NS direction for all
PLs.

9 Rehabilitation decisions

The building needs severe interventions in order to achieve performance level PL3. Strength-
ening measures were studied for model M2 and three retrofitting measures are evaluated.
Based on the pathology of the building and the results of the field survey, using ambient
noise measurements (Karatzetzou et al. 2014), the structure presents two main weaknesses:
poor connection of the walls at the roof level and a complex foundation system, as the school
is practically founded on old ruins. The second problem cannot be solved without destroying
the important archaeological remains; so the basic proposal for intervention would be to
increase the stiffness of the roof and connect it to the walls, which also need strengthening

123
 Author's personal copy
Bull Earthquake Eng

Fig. 11 Maximum acceleration values for performance levels obtained by M1 and M2 for a NS direction
and b EW direction

Fig. 12 Return period values for performance levels obtained by M1 and M2 for a NS direction and b EW
direction

actions. To do so, the floor (roof) stiffness was augmented by increasing ten times the elastic
modulus and shear modulus, which is improvement within reasonable expectations according
to Wilson (2012), who used plywood boards for strengthening the floor. Connecting the
wooden planks or the boards to the perimeter walls was not foreseen for this measure.
Therefore, the elastic modulus remained zero in the direction perpendicular to joists as in the
un-rehabilitated condition. This was considered the first possible measure (referred hereafter
as “floor intervention”).
In addition to stiffening the floors, it was proposed to re-strengthen walls by utilizing
a grout injection technique (referred hereafter as “floor and grouting intervention”). The
impact of this strengthening technique on masonry material characteristics has been made
according to the Commentary to the Italian Building Code (IMIT 2009; NTC 2008), which
prescribes that an improvement of actual characteristics by coefficient 1.7 can be expected
by increasing both strength and elastic characteristics. This was the second rehabilitation
measure evaluated in this study.
A third measure considered was to sufficiently connect the plywood boards to the perimeter
walls, together with floor stiffening and grouting, thus introducing elastic modulus in the
direction perpendicular to the beams (referred hereafter as “floor, detailing and grouting
intervention”). It is noted that, in the case of an actually planned intervention with known
materials and details, the floor stiffness parameters should be calculated appropriately.
Figure 13 presents the estimated critical pushover curves for all strengthening interven-
tions. As the main purpose was to increase capacity for Life Safety and Collapse Prevention,
only PL3 is marked on these curves. Figures 14 and 15 present the critical ag,max and TR,max
for all evaluated PLs and for both directions.

123
 Author's personal copy
Bull Earthquake Eng

Fig. 13 Pushover curves for a NS and b EW direction for the three strengthening interventions. The dot refers
to PL3 (life safety and collapse prevention)

Floor stiffening increases the maximum shear capacity and displacement capacity (espe-
cially in the NS direction) but, in general, the improvement is not sufficient. Altogether,
the increase of ag,max and Tr,max that the retrofitted structure can sustain is higher in NS
direction, which is more critical. As expected, wall grouting does not significantly improve
seismic resistance. The first two strengthening measures increase the allowable displace-
ments with no significant increase of strength capacities. In the EW direction, the maximum
shear capacity is also increased but, due to unfavourable collapse mechanism, the allowable
displacement is lower, resulting in only a slight increase of ag,max and TR,max . The most
favourable strengthening measure is the third one, where the floor rigidity is increased in
both directions. In this case, seismic demand was achieved as ag,max was increased by 81
and 207 % in NS and EW direction, respectively, in comparison to the first two strengthening
measures and more than 300 % to the current condition of the building. The TR,max achieved
for PL3 were 818 years for NS and 562 years for EW direction.

10 Conclusions

The PERPETUATE methodology has been applied in the case study of the Neoclassical
School, a masonry building situated in the Medieval City of Rhodes, in order to assess
masonry building response and to evaluate the efficiency of different retrofitting techniques.
Two structural models were considered: one assuming rigid foundation and fixed at its base,
and the other accounting for foundation flexibility and soil–foundation interaction, using
appropriate stiffness for flexible masonry foundations. For flexible masonry foundations,
even if the underlying soil could be characterized as stiff, we observed that the effect of
interaction, but foremost of foundation flexibility, is important for the seismic response of the
structure. For the specific case study presented herein, the foundation–soil and the masonry

123
 Author's personal copy
Bull Earthquake Eng

Fig. 14 Maximum acceleration values for performance levels obtained by M2 (current) model and for the
three strengthening interventions. a NS direction and b EW direction

Fig. 15 Return period values for performance levels obtained by M2 (current) model and for the three
strengthening interventions. a NS direction and b EW direction

wall foundation have almost equal elasticity moduli, which in turn results in an important
reduction of the foundation stiffness from the (typical) rigid footing assumption.
The results of seismic analysis showed that the building in its present state does not sustain
the demands for the Life Safety and Collapse Prevention performance level. Comparison of
the results produced with different models showed that the SFSI changes the response, as it
increases the compliance of the system. In the case where dynamic springs are used to simulate
soil–foundation interaction, the maximum ground acceleration the building can resist was
reduced by over 50 % in NS direction, meaning that SFSI has detrimental effects. In the EW
direction, however, SFI effects are not that intense. On the other hand, foundation flexibility
and interaction effects act in favour of the structure in terms of the collapse mechanism
as, for the fixed-base monument, collapse occurs simultaneously on all piers of the wall,
whereas, in the SFSI model, collapse of structural elements occurs sequentially. In the model
considering foundation flexibility and soil–foundation interaction, the building does not reach
the demand for Life Safety and Collapse Prevention performance level, and thus the proposal
of an appropriate rehabilitation decision was needed.
Three rehabilitation measures were considered: (a) stiffening of the roof structure (b)
systematic grouting and (c) additionally to stiffening and grouting, providing sufficient floor-

123
 Author's personal copy
Bull Earthquake Eng

to-wall connection. All these mitigation measures were evaluated considering SFSI. The
results of the analyses revealed that the most favourable retrofitting measure is a combina-
tion of grouting, stiffening of the floor and providing efficient connection between floors
and walls. Nevertheless, regarding the observations of on-site investigation, a systematic
strengthening of foundations (especially in the East and South sides) should be exercised
before any intervention on the ground floor level.

Acknowledgments The work was funded by the project PERPETUATE (www.perpetuate.eu), funded by
the European Commission in the 7th Framework Programme (FP7/2007–2013), under Grant agreement No.
244229. The authors are grateful to ”Foundation for the Financial Administration and Realization of Archae-
ological Projects” of Ministry of Cultures of Greece, and to Dr. Georgios Ntellas and Emmanuil Kallioudakis
for supporting and providing data for the monuments of the Medieval City of Rhodes in Greece. The help
of students Ana Naglič and Luka Kurnjek from University of Ljubljana, Faculty of Civil and Geodetic Engi-
neering with model setup is acknowledged. We would also like to thank two anonymous reviewers for their
valuable comments, effort and time allocated to improve the paper.

References

CEN (European Committee for Standardization) (2004) Eurocode 8: design of structures for earthquake
resistance, part 1: general rules, seismic actions and rules for buildings. EN 1998–1:2004. Brussels, Belgium
CEN (European Committee for Standardization) (2005a) Eurocode 8: design of structures for earthquake
resistance, part 3: assessment and retrofitting of buildings. EN 1998–3:2005. Brussels, Belgium
CEN (European Committee for Standardization) (2005b) Eurocode 6: Design of masonry structures—part 1–1:
common rules for reinforced and unreinforced masonry structures. EN 1996-1-1:2004. Brussels, Belgium
Fajfar P (1999) Capacity spectrum method based on inelastic spectra. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn. doi:10.1002/
(SICI)1096-9845(199909)28:9<979:AID-EQE850>3.0.CO;2-1
Freeman SA (1998) The capacity spectrum method as a tool for seismic design. In: Proceedings of 11th
European conference of earthquake engineering, September 6–11th, 1998, Paris, A.A, Balkema, Rotterdam
Foundation for the financial administration and realization of archaeological projects (FFARAP), Ministry of
Cultures, Greece. http://www.tdpeae.gr/
Gazepidis F (2011) Aseismic design and reinforcement recommendations of a masonry structure using fragility
curves. Master thesis at National Technical University of Athens school of Civil Engineering Graduate
Program Analysis and Design of Earthquake Resistant Structures
Gazetas G (1991) Formulas and charts for impedances of surface and embedded foundations. J Geotech Eng
Div ASCE 117(9):1363–1381. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9410(1991)117:9(1363)
Gherboudj F, Laouami N, Benouar D (2011) Report on vector-valued characterization of seismic hazard with
respect to strong-motion parameters. PERPETUATE (EU-FP7 Research Project), Deliverable D24. www.
perpetuate.eu/final-results/reports/
Hacıefendioğlu K (2010) Seasonally frozen soil’s effect on stochastic response of masonry minaret–soil inter-
action systems to random seismic excitation. Cold Reg Sci Technol 60(1):66–74. doi:10.1016/j.coldregions.
2009.08.007
IMIT (2009) Circolare 02.02.2009, n. 617: Istruzioni per l’applicazione delle “Nuove Norme Tecniche per
le Costruzioni” di cui al decreto ministeriale 14 gennaio 2008, Italian Ministry of Infrastructures and
Transportations. Italy (in Italian), Rome
Karatzetzou A, Pitilakis D, Abbas N, Cattari S (2012) Effects of soil-structure interaction on performance
based assessment of masonry buildings. In: 15th World conference on earthquake engineering, Lisbon,
24–28 Sep 2012, paper 4207
Karatzetzou A, Negulescu C, Manakou M, François B, Seyedi DM, Pitilakis D, Pitilakis K (2014) Ambient
vibration testing for seismic hazard and modal identification of historical buildings in Rhodes. Bull Earthq
Eng (this issue)
Lagomarsino S, Modaressi H, Pitilakis K, Bosjlikov V, Calderini C, D’Ayala D, Benouar D, Cattari S (2010)
PERPETUATE Project: the proposal of a performance-based approach to earthquake protection of cultural
heritage, Advanced Materials Research, vol 133–134, pp 1119–1124, Trans Tech Publications, Switzerland.
doi:10.4028/www.scientific.net/AMR.133-134.1119
Lagomarsino S, Cattari S (2014) PERPETUATE guidelines for seismic performance-based assessment of
cultural heritage masonry structures. Bull Earthq Eng (this issue)

123
 Author's personal copy
Bull Earthquake Eng

Lagomarsino S, Penna A, Galasco A, Cattari S (2013) TREMURI program: an equivalent frame model for
the nonlinear seismic analysis of masonry buildings. Eng Struct 56:1787–1799
Liu G, Houlsby GT, Augarde CE (2001) Two-dimensional analysis of settlement damage to masonry buildings
caused by tunnelling. Struct Eng 79(1):19–25
Manakou M, Pitilakis K, Karatzetzou A, Riga E, Kotlida D, Stais V (2011) Results of in-situ microtremors
surveys and array measurements at selected sites. PERPETUATE (EU-FP7 Research Project), Deliverable
D18. www.perpetuate.eu/final-results/reports/
Masia MJ, Kleeman PW, Melchers RE (2004) Modeling soil/structure interaction for masonry structures. J
Struct Eng 130(4):641–649. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9445(2004)130:4(641)
NTC (2008) DecretoMinisteriale 14/1/2008. Normetecniche per le costruzioni. Ministry of Infrastruc-
tures.G.U. S.O. n.30 on 4/2/2008; (in Italian)
Ordaz M, Aguilar A, Arboleda J (2007) CRISIS2007 version 7.2: Program for computing seismic hazard,
Instituto de Ingenieria UNAM
Papayanni I, Stefanidou M, Konopisi S, Anastasiou E, Pachta V (2004) Stability issues of the fortification of the
Medieval City of Rhodes, Technical report (in Greek). Laboratory of Building Materials, Civil Engineering
Department, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki
Pitilakis D, Karatzetzou A (2014) Dynamic stiffness of monumental flexible masonry foundations. Bull Earthq
Eng. doi:10.1007/s10518-014-9611-3
Syrmakezis CA, Chronopoulos MP, Sophocleous AA, Asteris PG (1995) Structural analysis methodology for
historical buildings. Struct Stud Repairs Maint Hist Build IV 1:373–382. doi:10.2495/STR950431
Turnšek V, Čačovič F (1971) Some experimental results on the strength of brick masonry walls. In: West
HWH, Speed KH (eds) Proceedings of the 2nd international brick masonry conference, stoke-on-trent.
British Ceramic Res. Assoc., London, England, pp 149–156
Wilson AW (2012) Seismic assessment of timber floor diaphragms in unreinforced masonry buildings. PhD
thesis, Supervisor Jason M. Ingham, The University of Auckland, Department of Civil and Environmental
Engineering, New Zealand

123