Earthquakes and Structures

Techno-Press (테크노프레스)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Practical seismic assessment of unreinforced masonry historical buildings

  • Pardalopoulos, Stylianos I. (Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of Cyprus) ;
  • Pantazopoulou, Stavroula J. (Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of Cyprus) ;
  • Ignatakis, Christos E. (Department of Civil Engineering, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki)
  • Received : 2015.10.09
  • Accepted : 2016.07.12
  • Published : 2016.08.25
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

Rehabilitation of historical unreinforced masonry (URM) buildings is a priority in many parts of the world, since those buildings are a living part of history and a testament of human achievement of the era of their construction. Many of these buildings are still operational; comprising brittle materials with no reinforcements, with spatially distributed mass and stiffness, they are not encompassed by current seismic assessment procedures that have been developed for other structural types. To facilitate the difficult task of selecting a proper rehabilitation strategy - often restricted by international treaties for non-invasiveness and reversibility of the intervention - and given the practical requirements for the buildings' intended reuse, this paper presents a practical procedure for assessment of seismic demands of URM buildings - mainly historical constructions that lack a well-defined diaphragm action. A key ingredient of the method is approximation of the spatial shape of lateral translation, ${\Phi}$, that the building assumes when subjected to a uniform field of lateral acceleration. Using ${\Phi}$ as a 3-D shape function, the dynamic response of the system is evaluated, using the concepts of SDOF approximation of continuous systems. This enables determination of the envelope of the developed deformations and the tendency for deformation and damage localization throughout the examined building for a given design earthquake scenario. Deformation demands are specified in terms of relative drift ratios referring to the in-plane and the out-of-plane seismic response of the building's structural elements. Drift ratio demands are compared with drift capacities associated with predefined performance limits. The accuracy of the introduced procedure is evaluated through (a) comparison of the response profiles with those obtained from detailed time-history dynamic analysis using a suite of ten strong ground motion records, five of which with near-field characteristics, and (b) evaluation of the performance assessment results with observations reported in reconnaissance reports of the field performance of two neoclassical torsionally-sensitive historical buildings, located in Thessaloniki, Greece, which survived a major earthquake in the past.

Keywords

References

  1. ATC-40 (1996), Seismic evaluation and retrofit of concrete buildings, Applied Technical Council-California Seismic Safety Commission, Report No. SSC 96-01 (two volumes), Redwood City, CA, USA.
  2. Borzi, B., Crowley, H. and Pinho, R. (2008), "Simplified pushover-based earthquake loss assessment (SPBELA) method for masonry buildings", Int. J. Architect. Herit., 2(4), 353-376. https://doi.org/10.1080/15583050701828178
  3. Bracchi, S., Rota, M., Penna, A. and Magenes, G. (2015), "Consideration of modelling uncertainties in the seismic assessment of masonry buildings by equivalent-frame approach", Bull. Earthq. Eng., 13(11), 3423-3448. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10518-015-9760-z
  4. D' Ayala, D. and Lagomarsino, S. (2015), "Performance-based assessment of cultural heritage assets: outcomes of the European FP7 PERPETUATE project", Bull. Earthq. Eng., 13(1), 5-12. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10518-014-9710-1
  5. EN 1998-1 (2004), Eurocode 8-Design of Structures for Earthquake Resistance-Part 1: General Rules, Seismic Actions and Rules for Buildings, European Committee for Standardization, Brussels.
  6. EN 1998-3 (2005), Eurocode 8-Design of Structures for Earthquake Resistance-Part 3: Assessment and retrofitting of Buildings, Brussels: European Committee for Standardization.
  7. Clough, R.W. and Penzien, J. (1976), Dynamics of Structures, 1st Edition, Mc Graw Hill, New York, USA.
  8. Giresini, L., Fragiacomo, M. and Lourenco, P.B. (2015), "Comparison between rocking analysis and kinematic analysis for the dynamic out-of-plane behavior of masonry walls", Earthq. Eng. Struct. Dyn., 44(13), 2359-2376 https://doi.org/10.1002/eqe.2592
  9. Griffith, M., Magenes, G., Melis, G. and Picchi, L. (2003), "Evaluation of out-of-plane stability of unreinforced masonry walls subjected to seismic excitation", J. Earthq. Eng., 7(S1), 141-169.
  10. ICOMOS (1964), "International charter for the conservation and restoration of monuments and sites, decisions and resolutions, document 1", 2nd International Congress of the Architects and Technicians of Historic Monuments, Venice.
  11. Illampas, R., Charmpis, D.C. and Ioannou, I. (2014), "Laboratory testing and finite element simulation of the structural response of an adobe masonry building under horizontal loading", Eng. Struct., 80, 362-376. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2014.09.008
  12. KADET (2014), Hellenic code for assessment and structural interventions in masonry buildings, Organization for Seismic Design and Earthquake Protection, Athens, Greece.
  13. Kouris, L.A.S. and Kappos, A.J. (2015), "Fragility curves and loss estimation for traditional timber-framed masonry buildings in Lefkas, Greece", Seismic Assessment, Behavior and Retrofit of Heritage Buildings and Monuments, Computational Methods in Applied Sciences, 37, 199-233
  14. Lagomarsino, S., Penna, A., Galasco, A. and Cattari, S. (2013), "TREMURI program: an equivalent frame model for the nonlinear seismic analysis of masonry buildings", Eng. Struct., 56, 1787-1799 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2013.08.002
  15. Muto, K., Takahasi, R., Aida, I., Ando, N., Hisada, T., Nakagawa, K. and Osawa, Y. (1960), "Nonlinear response analyzers and application to earthquake resistant design", Proceedings, 2nd World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Japan.
  16. Newmark, N.M., Blume, J.A. and Kapur, K.K. (1973), "Seismic design spectra for nuclear power plants", Journal of the Power Division, American Society of Civil Engineers, 99, No PO2, New York, NY, USA.
  17. Pantazopoulou, S.J. (2013), "State of the art report for the analysis methods for unreinforced masonry heritage structures and monuments", European Center for Preparedness and Forecasting of Earthquakes, http://www.ecpfe.oasp.gr/en/node/89.
  18. Pardalopoulos, S.I., Pantazopoulou, S.J. and Kontari, M.Th. (2015), "Rapid seismic assessment procedure of masonry buildings with historic value", Seismic Assess., Behav. Retrofit Herit. Build. Monuments, Comput. Meth. Appl. Sci., 37, 113-137.
  19. Pardalopoulos, S.I. and Pantazopoulou, S.J. (2015), "Vulnerability of torsionally sensitive historical buildings under seismic loads", 5th ECCOMAS Thematic Conference on Computational Methods in Structural Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering-COMPDYN 2015, Crete Island, Greece.
  20. Psycharis, I.N., Fragiadakis, M. and Stefanou, I. (2013), "Seismic reliability assessment of classical columns subjected to near-fault ground motions", Earthq. Eng. Struct. Dyn., 42(14), 2061-2079.
  21. Roca, P., Cervera, M., Gariup, G. and Pela, L. (2010), "Structural analysis of masonry historical constructions. Classical and advanced approaches", Arch. Comput. Meth. Eng., 17(3), 299-325. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11831-010-9046-1

Cited by

  1. Simplified method for rapid seismic assessment of older R.C. buildings vol.154, 2018, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2017.10.052
  2. Confined masonry as practical seismic construction alternative–the experience from the 2014 Cephalonia earthquake 2017, https://doi.org/10.1007/s11709-017-0390-1
  3. Methodology for practical seismic assessment of unreinforced masonry buildings with historical value vol.46, pp.15, 2017, https://doi.org/10.1002/eqe.2931
  4. Strengthening techniques for masonry structures of cultural heritage according to recent Croatian provisions vol.15, pp.5, 2016, https://doi.org/10.12989/eas.2018.15.5.473
  5. Masonry building behaviors during the February 6-12, 2017 Ayvacik-Çanakkale Earthquakes vol.17, pp.4, 2019, https://doi.org/10.12989/eas.2019.17.4.355
  6. Vulnerability and seismic improvement of architectural heritage: the case of Palazzo Murena vol.18, pp.3, 2020, https://doi.org/10.12989/eas.2020.18.3.321
  7. Seismic performance of South Nias traditional timber houses: A priority ranking based condition assessment vol.18, pp.6, 2016, https://doi.org/10.12989/eas.2020.18.6.731