PSI - Issue 78

Franco Braga et al. / Procedia Structural Integrity 78 (2026) 2184–2191

2191

2016. 5) Re-evaluation of the shear capacity of all panels, highlighting their condition under the recorded seismic actions.

Fig. 11. Summary of in-plane shear failures

Fig. 11, summarizing the results of the described procedure, shows that even if the building had been upgraded to comply with NTC08, a significant number of masonry panels (Figure 11b) would have failed under the August 24, 2016 earthquake. 6. Conclusions The study of the recordings obtained on the night of August 24, 2016, from the AMT and AMTS accelerometric stations made it possible to classify this earthquake as a “ near-fault ” earthquake, which exhibits a higher severity compared to far-fault earthquakes codified by current Italian and European seismic codes. A masonry building that suffered a generalized collapse on August 24, 2016, was then analyzed. The building was located close to the AMTS station, allowing a precise assessment of the seismic demands it experienced during the event. To specifically assess the severity of the August 24, 2016 earthquake, and more generally the impact of near-fault earthquakes on this type of structure (residential masonry buildings constructed before 1980), a seismic retrofitting intervention was designed to bring the building into compliance with NTC08. The analysis demonstrated that, even if retrofitted, the building would have exhibited numerous structural deficiencies under the 2016 event. The findings of this study therefore highlight the need to update European and Italian seismic design codes, which currently do not account for the distance between the expected earthquake source and the structure’s location, effectively disregarding near-fault earthquakes. References Somerville, P. G., Smith, N. F., Graves, R. W., & Abrahamson, N. A. (1997). Modification of empirical strong ground motion attenuation relations to include the amplitude and duration effects of rupture directivity. Seismological research letters, 68(1), 199-222. Braya&Rodriguez Marek, 2004 “Characterization of forward -directivity ground motions in the near- fault region”, Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering,24: 815-828 Ghahari et al., 2010 “Study on elastic response of structures to near -fault ground motions through record decomposition” Memarpour M.M., GhodratiAmiri G., Razeghi H., Akbarzadeh M., Tajik Davoudi A., 2016 “Characteristics of Horizontal and Vertic al Near Field Ground Motions and Investigation of Their Effects on the Dunamic Respons e of Bridges”, Journal of Rehabilitation in Civil Engineering, 4-(2): 1-24 Uniform Building Code 1997 (ICBO 1997) ATC- 40 (ATC,1996) “Seismic Evaluation and Retrofit of Concrete Buildings” ASCE/SEI 7- 10 (ASCE, 2010) “Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and Other Structures” New Zealand NZS 1170 – part 5 and commentary (NZS, 2004): Near-fault factor (NZS, 2004, Clause 3.1.6, C3.1.6) UNI EN 1998- 1 “Eurocode 8 – Design of structures for earthquake resistance NTC2008 D.M. 01.14.2008 – “Norme tecniche per le costruzioni ” NTC2018 D.M. 01.17.2018 – “Aggiornamento delle Norme tecniche per le costruzioni” CNR- DT 200 R1/2013 “Istruzioni per la Progettazione, l’Esecuzione ed il Controllo di Interventi di Consolidamento Statico mediante l’utilizzo di Compositi Fibrorinfo rzati Materiali, strutture di c.a. e di c.a.p., strutture murarie”