Rubble Stone Masonry Buildings with Cement Mortar: Base Shear Seismic Demand Comparison for Selected Countries Worldwide
Full base shear seismic demand analyses with calculated examples for heavy stone masonry buildings are not present in the literature. To address this shortcoming, analyses and calculations are performed on nominally reinforced rubble stone masonry house and school designs, as typically built in Nepa...
Main Authors: | , , |
---|---|
Format: | Article |
Language: | English |
Published: |
Frontiers Media S.A.
2021-03-01
|
Series: | Frontiers in Built Environment |
Subjects: | |
Online Access: | https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fbuil.2021.647815/full |
id |
doaj-66545e03a9b24f9c8e0ca9f9a24bb8fd |
---|---|
record_format |
Article |
spelling |
doaj-66545e03a9b24f9c8e0ca9f9a24bb8fd2021-03-31T07:48:44ZengFrontiers Media S.A.Frontiers in Built Environment2297-33622021-03-01710.3389/fbuil.2021.647815647815Rubble Stone Masonry Buildings with Cement Mortar: Base Shear Seismic Demand Comparison for Selected Countries WorldwideMartijn Schildkamp0Stefano Silvestri1Yoshikazu Araki2Smart Shelter Research, Alphen aan den Rijn, NetherlandsDepartment of Civil, Chemical, Environmental and Materials Engineering, University of Bologna, Bologna, ItalyGraduate School of Environmental Studies, Nagoya University, Nagoya, JapanFull base shear seismic demand analyses with calculated examples for heavy stone masonry buildings are not present in the literature. To address this shortcoming, analyses and calculations are performed on nominally reinforced rubble stone masonry house and school designs, as typically built in Nepal. The seismic codes are literally applied for countries where the technique is still allowed (Nepal, India, China, Tajikistan, Iran, Croatia), or should be reintroduced based on current practices (Pakistan, Afghanistan, Turkey). First, this paper compares the base shear formulas and the inertia forces distributions of these codes, as well as material densities, seismic weights, seismic zoning, natural periods of vibration, response spectra, importance factors and seismic load combinations. Large differences between approaches and coefficients are observed. Then, by following Equivalent Lateral Force-principles for Ultimate Limit State verifications (10%PE50y), the base shear and story shears are calculated for a design peak ground acceleration of 0.20 g, as well as the effects of critical load combinations on the forces and moments acting on the lateral-resisting elements. It is concluded that Pakistan has the most tolerant code, Nepal represents an average value, whereas India and China are most conservative toward the case study buildings. Overall, it is observed that heavy-masonry-light-floor systems with negligible diaphragm action behave different under seismic motion than most other building typologies. Given the observations in this paper, the applicability of conventional ELF, S-ELF and S-Modal methods for heavy masonry buildings is questionable. The codes however do not introduce modified approaches that address these differences. Possible implications of the exclusion of plinth masonry and large portions of seismic weight need further assessment and validation, for which different (possibly more sophisticated) concepts must be considered, such as the equivalent frame method or distributed mass system. Since Nepal allows stone masonry in areas with higher seismic hazard levels >0.40 g (opposed to India <0.12 and China <0.15 g), their code is taken as the reference and starting point for follow-up research, which aims to verify the seismic demand by performing seismic capacity checks of the masonry piers and spandrels. The paper ends with an appeal for global collaboration under the research project SMARTnet.https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fbuil.2021.647815/fullrubble stone masonryseismic demand parametersseismic codesbase shear formulasseismic load combinationsseismic weight |
collection |
DOAJ |
language |
English |
format |
Article |
sources |
DOAJ |
author |
Martijn Schildkamp Stefano Silvestri Yoshikazu Araki |
spellingShingle |
Martijn Schildkamp Stefano Silvestri Yoshikazu Araki Rubble Stone Masonry Buildings with Cement Mortar: Base Shear Seismic Demand Comparison for Selected Countries Worldwide Frontiers in Built Environment rubble stone masonry seismic demand parameters seismic codes base shear formulas seismic load combinations seismic weight |
author_facet |
Martijn Schildkamp Stefano Silvestri Yoshikazu Araki |
author_sort |
Martijn Schildkamp |
title |
Rubble Stone Masonry Buildings with Cement Mortar: Base Shear Seismic Demand Comparison for Selected Countries Worldwide |
title_short |
Rubble Stone Masonry Buildings with Cement Mortar: Base Shear Seismic Demand Comparison for Selected Countries Worldwide |
title_full |
Rubble Stone Masonry Buildings with Cement Mortar: Base Shear Seismic Demand Comparison for Selected Countries Worldwide |
title_fullStr |
Rubble Stone Masonry Buildings with Cement Mortar: Base Shear Seismic Demand Comparison for Selected Countries Worldwide |
title_full_unstemmed |
Rubble Stone Masonry Buildings with Cement Mortar: Base Shear Seismic Demand Comparison for Selected Countries Worldwide |
title_sort |
rubble stone masonry buildings with cement mortar: base shear seismic demand comparison for selected countries worldwide |
publisher |
Frontiers Media S.A. |
series |
Frontiers in Built Environment |
issn |
2297-3362 |
publishDate |
2021-03-01 |
description |
Full base shear seismic demand analyses with calculated examples for heavy stone masonry buildings are not present in the literature. To address this shortcoming, analyses and calculations are performed on nominally reinforced rubble stone masonry house and school designs, as typically built in Nepal. The seismic codes are literally applied for countries where the technique is still allowed (Nepal, India, China, Tajikistan, Iran, Croatia), or should be reintroduced based on current practices (Pakistan, Afghanistan, Turkey). First, this paper compares the base shear formulas and the inertia forces distributions of these codes, as well as material densities, seismic weights, seismic zoning, natural periods of vibration, response spectra, importance factors and seismic load combinations. Large differences between approaches and coefficients are observed. Then, by following Equivalent Lateral Force-principles for Ultimate Limit State verifications (10%PE50y), the base shear and story shears are calculated for a design peak ground acceleration of 0.20 g, as well as the effects of critical load combinations on the forces and moments acting on the lateral-resisting elements. It is concluded that Pakistan has the most tolerant code, Nepal represents an average value, whereas India and China are most conservative toward the case study buildings. Overall, it is observed that heavy-masonry-light-floor systems with negligible diaphragm action behave different under seismic motion than most other building typologies. Given the observations in this paper, the applicability of conventional ELF, S-ELF and S-Modal methods for heavy masonry buildings is questionable. The codes however do not introduce modified approaches that address these differences. Possible implications of the exclusion of plinth masonry and large portions of seismic weight need further assessment and validation, for which different (possibly more sophisticated) concepts must be considered, such as the equivalent frame method or distributed mass system. Since Nepal allows stone masonry in areas with higher seismic hazard levels >0.40 g (opposed to India <0.12 and China <0.15 g), their code is taken as the reference and starting point for follow-up research, which aims to verify the seismic demand by performing seismic capacity checks of the masonry piers and spandrels. The paper ends with an appeal for global collaboration under the research project SMARTnet. |
topic |
rubble stone masonry seismic demand parameters seismic codes base shear formulas seismic load combinations seismic weight |
url |
https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fbuil.2021.647815/full |
work_keys_str_mv |
AT martijnschildkamp rubblestonemasonrybuildingswithcementmortarbaseshearseismicdemandcomparisonforselectedcountriesworldwide AT stefanosilvestri rubblestonemasonrybuildingswithcementmortarbaseshearseismicdemandcomparisonforselectedcountriesworldwide AT yoshikazuaraki rubblestonemasonrybuildingswithcementmortarbaseshearseismicdemandcomparisonforselectedcountriesworldwide |
_version_ |
1724177779587547136 |