DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Seismic analysis and performance for stone pagoda structure under Gyeongju earthquake in Korea

  • Kim, Ho-Soo (Department of Architectural Engineering, Cheongju University) ;
  • Kim, Dong-Kwan (Department of Architectural Engineering, Cheongju University) ;
  • Jeon, Geon-Woo (Department of Architectural Engineering, Cheongju University)
  • Received : 2021.08.18
  • Accepted : 2021.11.18
  • Published : 2021.11.25

Abstract

Analytical models were developed and seismic behaviors were analyzed for a three-story stone pagoda at the Cheollyongsa temple site, which was damaged by the Gyeongju earthquake of 2016. Both finite and discrete element modeling were used and the analysis results were compared to the actual earthquake damage. Vulnerable parts of stone pagoda structure were identified and their seismic behaviors via sliding, rocking, and risk analyses were verified. In finite and discrete element analyses, the 3F main body stone was displaced uniaxially by 60 and 80 mm, respectively, similar to the actual displacement of 90 mm resulting from the earthquake. Considering various input conditions such as uniaxial excitation and soil-structure interaction, as well as seismic components and the distance from the epicenter, both models yielded reasonable and applicable results. The Gyeongju earthquake exhibited extreme short-period characteristics; thus, short-period structures such as stone pagodas were seriously damaged. In addition, we found that sliding occurred in the upper parts because the vertical load was low, but rocking predominated in the lower parts because most structural members were slender. The third-floor main body and roof stones were particularly vulnerable because some damage occurred when the sliding and rocking limits were exceeded. Risk analysis revealed that the probability of collapse was minimal at 0.1 g, but exceeded 80% at above 0.3 g. The collapse risks at an earthquake peak ground acceleration of 0.154 g at the immediate occupancy, life safety, and collapse prevention levels were 90%, 52%, and 6% respectively. When the actual damage was compared with the risk analysis, the stone pagoda retained earthquake-resistant performance at the life safety level.

Keywords

Acknowledgement

This research was supported by the National Research Foundation of Korea (NRF) grant funded by the Korea government (MSIT) (No. 2019R1F1A1057903). The authors would like to express sincere gratitude for their support.

References

  1. Preciado, A., Bartoli, G. and Ramirez-Gaytan, A. (2017), "Earthquake protection of the Torre Grossa medieval tower of San Gimignano, Italy by vertical external prestressing", Eng. Fail. Anal., 71, 31-42. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)CF.1943-5509.0000746.
  2. ATC-40 (1996), Chapter 4: Seismic Hazard, Seismic Evaluation and Retrofit of Concrete Buildings, Seismic Safety Commission, State of California, U.S.A.
  3. Kim, D.K., Park, H.G., Kim, D.S. and Lee, H. (2020), "Nonlinear system identification on shallow foundation using Extended Kalman Filter", Soil Dyn. Earthq. Eng., 128, 105857. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soildyn.2019.105857.
  4. European Strong-Motion Database (ESMD) (2021), The European Strong-Motion Database, https://www.isesd.hi.is/
  5. FEMA 356 (2000), Chapter 2: General Requirements, Prestandard and commentary for the seismic rehabilitation of buildings, Federal Emergency Management Agency, Washington, DC, U.S.A.
  6. Pena, F., Lourenco, P.B., Mendes, N. and Oliveira, D.V. (2010), "Numerical models for the seismic assessment of an old masonry tower", Eng. Struct., 32(5), 1466-1478. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2010.01.027.
  7. Micelli, F. and Cascardi, A. (2020), "Structural assessment and seismic analysis of a 14th century masonry tower", Eng. Fail. Anal., 107, 104198. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engfailanal.2019.104198.
  8. KDS 41 17 00 (2019), Seismic Building Design Code. Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport (MOLIT), Sejong, Korea
  9. Jeong, K.H. and Lee, H.S. (2018), "Ground-motion prediction equation for South Korea based on recent earthquake records", Earthq. Struct., 15(1), 29-44. http://dx.doi.org/10.12989/eas.2018.15.1.029.
  10. Adam, M.A., El-Salakawy, T.S., Salama, M.A. and Mohamed, A.A. (2020), "Assessment of structural condition of a historic masonry minaret in Egypt", Case Studies Construct. Mater., 13, e00409. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cscm.2020.e00409.
  11. Hejazi, M., Moayedian, S.M. and Daei, M. (2016), "Structural analysis of Persian historical brick masonry minarets", J. Perform. Construct. Facili., 30(2), 04015009. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)CF.1943-5509.0000746.
  12. Naderi, M. and Zekavati, M. (2018), "Assessment of seismic behavior stone bridge using a finite element method and discrete element method", Earthq. Struct., 14(4), 297-303. http://dx.doi.org/10.12989/eas.2018.14.4.297.
  13. Ministry of Public Safety and Security (2017), 9.12 Earthquake Whitepaper, Ministry of Public Safety and Security, Sejong, Korea
  14. Yurdakul, M., Yilmaz, F., Artar, M., Can, O., Oner, E. and Daloglu, A.T. (2021), "Investigation of time-history response of a historical masonry minaret under seismic loads", Struct., 30, 265-276). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.istruc.2021.01.008.
  15. National Research Institute of Cultural Heritage (NRICH) (2009), Stone pagoda of Gyeongsangbuk-do III (in Korean), National Research Institute of Cultural Heritage (NRICH), Deajeon, Korea.
  16. OpenSees (2020), Open System for Earthquake Engineering Simulation, https://opensees.berkeley.edu/
  17. Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Centre (PEER) (2021), Strong motion database, http://ngawest2.berkeley.edu/
  18. Hong, S.I., Shin, H.B., Kim, D.M. and Kim, H.S. (2011), "Structural behavior evaluation according to roughness of discontinuum surface of stone pagoda", Architect. Institutue Korea, 27(10), 63-70. https://doi.org/10.5659/JAIK_SC.2018.34.6.19.
  19. Altiok, T.Y. and Demir, A. (2021), "Collapse mechanism estimation of a historical masonry minaret considered soil-structure interaction", Earthq. Struct., 21(2), 161-172. http://dx.doi.org/10.12989/eas.2021.21.2.161
  20. Three-dimensional distinct element code(3DEC) (2007), Itasca Consulting Group, Mimmeapolis, U.S.A. https://www.itascacg.com/software/3DEC
  21. United States Geological Survey (USGS) (2021), Earthquake Hazards Program, https://earthquake.usgs.gov/