DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

A mechanical model for the seismic vulnerability assessment of old masonry buildings

  • Pagnini, Luisa Carlotta (Department of Civil, Environmental and Architectural Engineering - DICAT, University of Genova) ;
  • Vicente, Romeu (Department of Civil Engineering - DECIVIL, University of Aveiro) ;
  • Lagomarsino, Sergio (Department of Civil, Environmental and Architectural Engineering - DICAT, University of Genova) ;
  • Varum, Humberto (Department of Civil Engineering - DECIVIL, University of Aveiro)
  • Received : 2010.06.09
  • Accepted : 2010.11.29
  • Published : 2011.03.25

Abstract

This paper discusses a mechanical model for the vulnerability assessment of old masonry building aggregates that takes into account the uncertainties inherent to the building parameters, to the seismic demand and to the model error. The structural capacity is represented as an analytical function of a selected number of geometrical and mechanical parameters. Applying a suitable procedure for the uncertainty propagation, the statistical moments of the capacity curve are obtained as a function of the statistical moments of the input parameters, showing the role of each one in the overall capacity definition. The seismic demand is represented by response spectra; vulnerability analysis is carried out with respect to a certain number of random limit states. Fragility curves are derived taking into account the uncertainties of each quantity involved.

References

  1. Applied Technology Council (1996), Seismic evaluation and retrofit of concrete buildings, Report no. ATC-40, Redwood City, California.
  2. Bal, I.E., Crowley, H. and Pinho, R. (2008), "Displacement-based earthquake loss assessment for an earthquake scenario in Istanbul", J. Earthq. Eng., 12(1), 12-22. https://doi.org/10.1080/13632460802013388
  3. Cardone, D. (2007), "Nonlinear static methods vs experimental shaking table test results", J. Earthq. Eng., 11, 847-975. https://doi.org/10.1080/13632460601173938
  4. Cattari, S., Curti, E., Giovinazzi, S., Lagomarsino, S., Parodi, S. and Penna, A. (2004), "A mechanical model for the vulnerability assessment and damage scenario of masonry buildings at urban scale", Proc. 11th Italian Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Genoa, Italy.
  5. Cattari, S., Lagomarsino, S. and Parodi, S. (2009), "Formulazione di un modello meccanico per l'analisi di vulnerabilita sismica del costruito in muratura", Atti del XIII Convegno ANIDIS "L'Ingegneria Sismica in Italia", Bologna, Italy, CD-Rom.
  6. Cattari, S., Lagomarsino, S., Pagnini, L. and Parodi, S. (2010), "Probabilistic seismic damage scenario by mechanical models: the case study of Sulmona (Italy)", Proc., 14th European Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Ohrid, Republic of Macedonia.
  7. Crowley, H., Pinho, R. and Bommer, J.J. (2004), "A probabilistic displacement-based vulnerability assessment procedure for earthquake loss estimation", Bull. Earthq. Eng., 2(2), 173-219. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10518-004-2290-8
  8. Crowley, H., Bommer, J.J., Pinho, R. and Bird, J. (2005), "The impact of epistemic uncertainty on an earthquake loss model", Earthq. Eng. Struct. Dyn., 34, 1653-1685. https://doi.org/10.1002/eqe.498
  9. D'Ayala, D.F. (2005), "Force and displacement based vulnerability assessment for traditional buildings", Bull. Earthq. Eng., 3, 235-265. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10518-005-1239-x
  10. Erberik, M.A. (2008), "Generation of fragility curves for Turkish masonry buildings considering in-plane failure modes", Earthq. Eng. Struct. Dyn., 37(3), 387-405. https://doi.org/10.1002/eqe.760
  11. Eurocode 8 (2005), BS EN 1998-1:2005, Design of structures for earthquake resistance. General rules, seismic actions and rules for buildings, European Committee for Standardization, Brussels.
  12. Fajfar, P. (1999), "Capacity spectrum method based on inelastic demand spectra", Earthq. Eng. Struct. Dyn., 28, 979-993. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1096-9845(199909)28:9<979::AID-EQE850>3.0.CO;2-1
  13. Federal Emergency Management Agency (1997), NEHRP Guidelines for the seismic rehabilitation of buildings, FEMA-273, Washington, D.C.
  14. Freeman, S.A. (1998), "The capacity spectrum method", Proc. 11th European Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Balkema, Paris.
  15. Haldar, A. and Mahadevan, S. (2000), Probability, reliability and statistical methods in engineering design, Wiley, New York.
  16. HAZUS 99 (1999), Earthquake loss estimation methodology, Technical Manual, FEMA, Washington, D.C.
  17. Lagomarsino, S. and Giovinazzi, S. (2006), "S. Macroseismic and mechanical models for the vulnerability and damage assessment of current buildings", Bull. Earthq. Eng., 4, 415-443. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10518-006-9024-z
  18. Lagomarsino, S., Cattari, S., Pagnini, L. and Parodi, S. (2010), Development of a dynamical model for seismic hazard assessment at national scale, Report of S2 Project, DPC-INGV 2007-2009.
  19. Mallardo, V., Malvezzi, R., Milani, E. and Milani, G. (2008), "Seismic vulnerability of historical masonry buildings: a case study in Ferrara", Eng. Struct., 30, 2223-2241. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2007.11.006
  20. Restrepo-Velez, L.F. and Magenes, G. (2004), "Simplified procedure for the seismic risk assessment of unreinforced masonry buildings", Proc. 13th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering., Vancouver, Paper No. 2561.
  21. Rota, M., Penna, A. and Magenes, G. (2010), "A methodology for deriving analytical fragility curves for masonry buildings based on stochastic nonlinear analyses", Eng. Struct., 32(5), 1312-1323. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2010.01.009
  22. Turnsek, V. and Cacovic, F. (1971), "Some experimental results on the strength of brick masonry walls", SIBMAC Proceedings, England.
  23. Vicente, R.V., Varum, H. and Mendes da Silva, J.A.R. (2006), "Vulnerability assessment of traditional buildings in Coimbra, Portugal, supported by a GIS tool", Proc First European Conference on Earthquake Engineering and Seismology, Geneva, Switzerland.

Cited by

  1. Seismic fragility evaluation of piping system installed in critical structures vol.46, pp.3, 2013, https://doi.org/10.12989/sem.2013.46.3.337
  2. The seismic performance of stone masonry buildings in Faial island and the relevance of implementing effective seismic strengthening policies vol.141, 2017, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2017.03.009
  3. Seismic vulnerability assessment of masonry facade walls: development, application and validation of a new scoring method vol.50, pp.4, 2014, https://doi.org/10.12989/sem.2014.50.4.541
  4. System-Level Seismic Risk Assessment Methodology: Application to Reinforced Masonry Buildings with Boundary Elements vol.143, pp.9, 2017, https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)ST.1943-541X.0001815
  5. Validation and improvement of Risk-UE LM2 capacity curves for URM buildings with stiff floors and RC shear walls buildings vol.15, pp.3, 2017, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10518-016-9981-9
  6. Vector-valued fragility functions for seismic risk evaluation vol.11, pp.2, 2013, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10518-012-9402-7
  7. Seismic vulnerability assessment of confined masonry wall buildings vol.7, pp.2, 2014, https://doi.org/10.12989/eas.2014.7.2.201
  8. Analysis of the impact of large scale seismic retrofitting strategies through the application of a vulnerability-based approach on traditional masonry buildings vol.16, pp.2, 2017, https://doi.org/10.1007/s11803-017-0385-x
  9. Evaluation of Uncertainties in the Seismic Assessment of Existing Masonry Buildings vol.16, pp.sup1, 2012, https://doi.org/10.1080/13632469.2012.670578
  10. Vulnerability curves of masonry constructions Algiers case study vol.42, pp.5, 2012, https://doi.org/10.12989/sem.2012.42.5.609
  11. Local- and global-scale seismic analyses of historical masonry compounds in San Pio delle Camere (L’Aquila, Italy) vol.86, pp.S2, 2017, https://doi.org/10.1007/s11069-016-2694-1
  12. Seismic vulnerability assessment of historical urban centres: case study of the old city centre in Seixal, Portugal vol.11, pp.5, 2013, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10518-013-9447-2
  13. Seismic response and retrofitting proposals of the St. Titus Chruch, Heraklion, Crete, Greece vol.10, pp.6, 2016, https://doi.org/10.12989/eas.2016.10.6.1347
  14. Fragility curves for old masonry building types in Lisbon vol.13, pp.10, 2015, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10518-015-9750-1
  15. Theoretical and Numerical Seismic Analysis of Masonry Building Aggregates: Case Studies in San Pio Delle Camere (L’Aquila, Italy) vol.21, pp.2, 2017, https://doi.org/10.1080/13632469.2016.1172376
  16. Seismic vulnerability assessment of historical urban centres: case study of the old city centre of Faro, Portugal vol.19, pp.5, 2016, https://doi.org/10.1080/13669877.2014.988285
  17. Development of an integrated approach for Algerian building seismic damage assessment vol.47, pp.4, 2013, https://doi.org/10.12989/sem.2013.47.4.471
  18. Seismic fragility of regular masonry buildings for in-plane and out-of-plane failure vol.6, pp.6, 2014, https://doi.org/10.12989/eas.2014.6.6.689
  19. Numerical calibration of an easy method for seismic behaviour assessment on large scale of masonry building aggregates vol.80, 2015, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.advengsoft.2014.09.013
  20. Seismic and Restoration Assessment of Monumental Masonry Structures vol.10, pp.8, 2017, https://doi.org/10.3390/ma10080895
  21. Seismic assessment and retrofitting of Pombalino buildings by pushover analyses vol.7, pp.1, 2014, https://doi.org/10.12989/eas.2014.7.1.057
  22. A new experimental approach to the pushover analysis of masonry buildings vol.147, 2015, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compstruc.2014.09.014
  23. Earthquake risk mitigation: the impact of seismic retrofitting strategies on urban resilience vol.20, pp.3, 2016, https://doi.org/10.3846/1648715X.2016.1187682
  24. Seismic vulnerability assessment of historic centers: description of a predictive method and application to the case study of scanno (Abruzzi, Italy) vol.12, pp.7-8, 2018, https://doi.org/10.1080/15583058.2018.1503373
  25. Stochastic Vulnerability Assessment of Masonry Structures: Concepts, Modeling and Restoration Aspects vol.9, pp.2, 2019, https://doi.org/10.3390/app9020243