Seismic Vulnerability Assessment of Masonry Residential Buildings in the Older Parts of Tehran through Fragility Curves and Basic RVS Scores
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Representative Buildings
2.2. Modeling Method and Assumptions
2.3. RVS Basic Score
3. Results and Discussions
3.1. Modal Analysis
3.2. Push-Over Analysis
3.2.1. Push-Over Results of the Representative URM Buildings
3.2.2. Push-Over Results of the Representative CM Buildings
4. RVS Basic Scores
5. Discussion
6. Conclusions
- -
- The addition of RC ties to the URM buildings has negligible effects on the natural frequencies of the buildings. This result is justified by the fact that RC ties have no meaningful effects on the stiffness and mass of the URM walls.
- -
- CM buildings, compared to their corresponding URM buildings, showed a significant improvement in the ultimate displacement capacity, whereas no considerable increase in the ultimate strength was achieved. This can be justified by the fact that the RC ties were placed based on common practice at the farthest possible stances from each other, i.e., at the intersection of the perpendicular walls. No special attention was given to Standard 2800 recommendations, which limit the distance of the horizontal and vertical ties to 4 and 5 m, respectively. As such, a marginal increase in the strength was observed thanks to the presence of RC ties, as shown by Yekrangnia et al. [49].
- -
- The natural frequency and strength of the studied buildings were strongly influenced by the ratio of the walls’ area to the plan area known as the walls’ relative area in each direction of the buildings. The higher this parameter, the lower the natural period and the higher the strength became. Consequently, the minimum required walls’ relative area prescribed by some seismic design codes is a good indicator of the seismic performance of URM and CM buildings.
- -
- The results of the fragility curves show that, on average, there is 100% increase in the spectral acceleration related to the 50% exceedance probability of the CP performance level of CM buildings compared to their corresponding URM buildings. Other performance levels also experienced a considerable increase in this parameter for CM buildings. This is a very significant performance improvement provided by confining the URM wall with horizontal and vertical RC ties.
- -
- It was observed that the RVS basic score of the studied CM buildings showed an average of 45% increase compared to those of their corresponding URM buildings. Moreover, the decrease in this score because of the higher seismicity of the region for CM was lower than that of the URM; with a 15% decrease in the CM buildings, basic score related to very high seismicity compared to that related to low seismicity, whereas this decrease was 20% for URM buildings.
- -
- The results of this study are of direct use in performing RVS on URM and CM residential buildings located in the older parts of the city of Tehran, and the determination of their vulnerability paves the way to more detailed studies and seismic risk reduction measures.
- -
- The results of this study can be directly applied to the RVS of URM and CM buildings. The RVS method leads to prioritization of the buildings prone to higher seismic risk and to assisting decision-makers in the application of seismic risk reduction strategies. With the aid of the basic scores proposed in this study, it is possible to quickly evaluate a large number of buildings to identify those that require more accurate analyses.
Funding
Data Availability Statement
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Muravljov, M.; Stevanović, B. Zidane i Drvene Konstrukcije Zgrada (Masonry and Timber Buildings); Faculty of Civil Engineering, University of Belgrade: Belgrade, Serbia, 2003. (In Serbian) [Google Scholar]
- PTN-Z. Pravilnik o Tehničkim Normativima za Zidane Zidove (Technical Norms Regulation for Masonry Walls); Official Gazette of SFRY No. 87/91; Yugoslav Institute for Standardization: Belgrade, Yugoslavia, 1991. (In Serbian) [Google Scholar]
- Iranian Code of Practice for Seismic Resistant Design of Buildings (Standard 2800), 4th ed.; Building and Housing Research Center: Tehran, Iran, 2013. (In Persian)
- Brzev, S.; Mitra, K. Earthquake-Resistant Confined Masonry Construction; NICEE, National Information Center of Earthquake Engineering, Indian Institute of Technology Kanpur: Kanpur, India, 2007. [Google Scholar]
- Rankawat, N.; Brzev, S.; Jain, S.K.; Gavilan, J.J.P. Nonlinear seismic evaluation of confined masonry structures using equivalent truss model. Eng. Struct. 2021, 248, 113114. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Perez Gavilan, J.J.; Flores, L.E.; Alcocer, S.M. An experimental study of confined masonry walls with varying aspect ratios. Earthq. Spectra 2015, 31, 945–968. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Singhal, V.; Rai, D.C. In-plane and out-of-plane behavior of confined masonry walls for various toothing and openings details and prediction of their strength and stiffness. Earthq. Eng. Struct. Dyn. 2016, 45, 2551–2569. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Blagojević, P.; Brzev, S.; Cvetković, R. Simplified seismic assessment of unreinforced masonry residential buildings in the Balkans: The case of Serbia. Buildings 2021, 11, 392. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ademović, N.; Hadzima-Nyarko, M. Seismic Vulnerability, Damage and Strengthening of Masonry Structures in the Balkans with a Focus on Bosnia and Herzegovina. In Proceedings of the 16th European Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Thessaloniki, Greece, 18–21 June 2018. [Google Scholar]
- Yekrangnia, M.; Eghbali, M.; Panahi, M.; Zanganeh, S.Y.; Beyti, M.; Hayatgheybi, S.V. A Preliminary Report on School Buildings Performance during M 7.3 Ezgeleh, Iran Earthquake of November 12, 2017; Earthquake Engineering Research Institute (EERI): Oakland, CA, USA, 2017. [Google Scholar]
- Yekrangnia, M.; Torabizadeh, A.; Brzev, S. Post-Earthquake Damage Assessment of Buildings: Comprehensive Experimentally-based Maximum Drift Ratio Predictive Model based on Residual Drift Ratio. J. Earthq. Eng. 2022, 26, 7073–7117. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Instruction for Seismic Rehabilitation of Existing Unreinforced Masonry Buildings (Code 376); Management and Planning Organization Office of Deputy for Technical Affairs: Tehran, Iran, 2012. (In Persian)
- Rapid Seismic Evaluation of Existing Buildings (No. 364); Management and Planning Organization Office of Deputy for Technical Affairs: Tehran, Iran, 2008. (In Persian)
- Franch, K.A.G.; Morbelli, G.M.G.; Inostroza, M.A.A.; Gori, R.E. A seismic vulnerability index for confined masonry shear wall buildings and a relationship with the damage. Eng. Struct. 2008, 30, 2605–2612. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lourenço, P.B.; Oliveira, D.V.; Leite, J.C.; Ingham, J.M.; Modena, C.; Da Porto, F. Simplified indexes for the seismic assessment of masonry buildings: International database and validation. Eng. Fail. Anal. 2013, 34, 585–605. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ortega, J.; Vasconcelos, G.; Rodrigues, H.; Correia, M.; Ferreira, T.M.; Vicente, R. Use of post-earthquake damage data to calibrate, validate and compare two seismic vulnerability assessment methods for vernacular architecture. Int. J. Disaster Risk Reduct. 2019, 39, 101242. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- FEMA. Rapid Visual Screening of Buildings for Potential Seismic Hazards: A Handbook (FEMA P-154); Federal Emergency Management Agency: Washington, DC, USA, 2015; p. 388. [Google Scholar]
- FEMA. Rapid Visual Screening of Buildings for Potential Seismic Hazards: Supporting Documentation (FEMA P-155); Federal Emergency Management Agency: Washington, DC, USA, 2015; p. 388. [Google Scholar]
- Ruggieri, S.; Perrone, D.; Leone, M.; Uva, G.; Aiello, M.A. A prioritization RVS methodology for the seismic risk assessment of RC school buildings. Int. J. Disaster Risk Reduct. 2020, 51, 101807. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ahmed, S.; Abarca, A.; Perrone, D.; Monteiro, R. Large-scale seismic assessment of RC buildings through rapid visual screening. Int. J. Disaster Risk Reduct. 2022, 80, 103219. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Perrone, D.; Aiello, M.A.; Pecce, M.; Rossi, F. Rapid visual screening for seismic evaluation of RC hospital buildings. In Structures; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2015; Volume 3, pp. 57–70. [Google Scholar]
- Doğan, T.P.; Kızılkula, T.; Mohammadi, M.; Erkan, İ.H.; Kabaş, H.T.; Arslan, M.H. A comparative study on the rapid seismic evaluation methods of reinforced concrete buildings. Int. J. Disaster Risk Reduct. 2021, 56, 102143. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gentile, R.; Galasso, C.; Idris, Y.; Rusydy, I.; Meilianda, E. From rapid visual survey to multi-hazard risk prioritisation and numerical fragility of school buildings. Nat. Hazards Earth Syst. Sci. 2019, 19, 1365–1386. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Yekrangnia, M. Advanced Design Examples of Seismic Retrofit of Structures; Butterworth-Heinemann: Oxford, UK, 2018. [Google Scholar]
- Raissi, M.; Yekrangnia, M.; Eghbali, M.; Mahdizadeh, A. Report on Retrofit Procedure of School Buildings in Islamic Republic of Iran. In Proceedings of the Second European Conference on Earthquake Engineering and Seismology, Istanbul, Turkey, 25–29 August 2014; pp. 1–11. [Google Scholar]
- Borzouie, J.; Yekrangnia, M.; Mahdizadeh, A.; Seyri, H.; Raissi, M. Financial analysis of retrofitting projects and its role in decision making. In Proceedings of the 15th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Lisbon, Portugal, 24–28 September 2012. [Google Scholar]
- Bakhshi, A.; Ghannad, M.; Yekrangnia, M.; Masaeli, H. Shaking table tests on dome-roof adobe houses. Earthq. Eng. Struct. Dyn. 2017, 46, 467–490. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- AbdelRahman, B.; Galal, K. Experimental investigation of axial compressive behavior of square and rectangular confined concrete-masonry structural wall boundary elements. Eng. Struct. 2021, 243, 112584. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Obaidat, A.T.; Ashour, A.; Galal, K. Stress-strain behavior of C-shaped confined concrete masonry boundary elements of reinforced masonry shear walls. J. Struct. Eng. 2018, 144, 04018119. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pérez-Gavilán, J.J. The effect of shear-moment interaction on the shear strength of confined masonry walls. Constr. Build. Mater. 2020, 263, 120087. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Abrams, D.P.; Moghadam, A.S.; Bozorgnia, Y.; Yekrangnia, M. Seismic retrofit of school buildings in Iran. In Proceedings of the 12th North American Masonry Conference, Denver, CO, USA, 17–20 May 2015. [Google Scholar]
- Yekrangnia, M.; Mahdizadeh, A. URM Buildings and Earthquake: In-Depth Evaluation of Earthquake Damages to URM Buildings; State Organization of Schools Renovation Development and Mobilization: Tehran, Iran, 2009. [Google Scholar]
- Practical Instructions for Partial Retrofit for Usual Buildings in Tehran; Tehran Disaster Mitigation and Management Organization: Tehran, Iran, 2010. (In Persian)
- Moghadam, A.S.; Yekrangnia, M. Prescriptive Retrofit Details for 2-Story URM School Buildings in Iran; Organization for Development, Renovation and Equipping Schools of IR Iran (DRES): Tehran, Iran, 2020. [Google Scholar]
- Tasnimi, A. The Behavior of Masonry Walls Constructed according to the Standard 2800; Bulletin of Research No. 404; Building and Housing Research Center: Tehran, Iran, 2004. [Google Scholar]
- Yekrangnia, M.; Bakhshi, A.; Ghannad, M.A.; Panahi, M. Risk assessment of confined unreinforced masonry buildings based on FEMA P-58 methodology: A case study—School buildings in Tehran. Bull. Earthq. Eng. 2021, 19, 1079–1120. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Abaqus, User’s Manual Version 6.9; Hibbitt, Karlsson and Sorensen Inc.: Pawtucket, RI, USA, 2005.
- Farahani, E.M.; Yekrangnia, M.; Rezaie, M.; Bento, R. Seismic behavior of masonry walls retrofitted by centercore technique: A numerical study. Constr. Build. Mater. 2021, 267, 120382. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lourenco, P.B. Computational Strategy for Masonry Structures; Faculdade de Engenharia da Universidade do Porto: Porto, Portugal, 1996. [Google Scholar]
- Shakib, H.; Mirjalili, A.R. Experimental investigation of the effect of transverse beams on the in-plane behavior of brick-flat-arch roofs. J. Seismol. Earthq. Eng. 2010, 12, 51–59. [Google Scholar]
- Gilbert, R.; Warner, R. Tension stiffening in reinforced concrete slabs. J. Struct. Div. 1978, 104, 1885–1900. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kent, D.C.; Park, R. Flexural members with confined con-crete. J. Struct. Div. 1971, 97, 1969–1990. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lubliner, J.; Oliver, J.; Oller, S.; Oñate, E. A plastic-damage model for concrete. Int. J. Solids Struct. 1989, 25, 299–329. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lee, J.; Fenves, G.L. Plastic-damage model for cyclic loading of concrete structures. J. Eng. Mech. 1998, 124, 892–900. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Khanmohammadi, M.; Marefat, M.S. Report of 20 Specimens of Masonry Walls; Structural Laboratory, Department of Civil Engineering, University of Tehran: Tehran, Iran, 2010. [Google Scholar]
- Singhal, V.; Rai, D.C. Role of toothing on in-plane and out-of-plane behavior of confined masonry walls. J. Struct. Eng. 2014, 140, 04014053. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Singhal, V.; Rai, D.C. Behavior of confined masonry walls with openings under in-plane and out-of-plane loads. Earthq. Spectra 2018, 34, 817–841. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Farahani, E.M.; Maalek, S. An investigation of the seismic behavior of a deck-type reinforced concrete arch bridge. Earthq. Eng. Eng. Vib. 2017, 16, 609–625. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yekrangnia, M.; Bakhshi, A.; Ghannad, M.A. Force-displacement model for solid confined masonry walls with shear-dominated failure mode. Earthq. Eng. Struct. Dyn. 2017, 46, 2209–2234. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- ASCE/SEI Seismic Rehabilitation Standards Committee. Seismic Rehabilitation of Existing Buildings (ASCE/SEI 41-17); American Society of Civil Engineers: Reston, VA, USA, 2017. [Google Scholar]
- Baltzopoulos, G.; Baraschino, R.; Iervolino, I.; Vamvatsikos, D. SPO2FRAG: Software for seismic fragility assessment based on static pushover. Bull. Earthq. Eng. 2017, 15, 4399–4425. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Instruction for Seismic Rehabilitation of Existing Buildings (Code 360); Management and Planning Organization Office of Deputy for Technical Affairs: Tehran, Iran, 2014. (In Persian)
- FEMA HAZUS-MH MR4 Earthquake; Technical Manual; Federal Emergency Management Agency, Mitigation Division: Washington, DC, USA, 2009.
- Robazza, B.R.; Yang, T.Y.; Brzev, S.; Elwood, K.J.; Anderson, D.L.; McEwen, W. Response of slender reinforced masonry shear walls with flanged boundary elements under in-plane lateral loading: An experimental study. Eng. Struct. 2019, 190, 389–409. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- ASCE (American Society of Civil Engineers). Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and Other Structures, ASCE/SEI 7-16; American Society of Civil Engineers: Reston, VA, USA, 2016. [Google Scholar]
Model Building Name | Walls’ Ratio | |
---|---|---|
X-Direction | Z-Direction | |
Type-1 | 0.07 | 0.05 |
Type-2 | 0.05 | 0.12 |
Type-3 | 0.05 | 0.03 |
Type-4 | 0.06 | 0.18 |
Material | Linear | Nonlinear | ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Compressive | Tensile | Shear | ||||||
E (MPa) | ||||||||
Masonry | 2000 | 0.15 | 3.0 | 0.002 | 0.003 | 0.1 | 0.04 | 0.4 |
Concrete | 21,000 | 0.20 | 20.0 | 0.012 | 0.018 | 2.0 | 0.32 | 3.2 |
Yield strength (MPa) | Ultimate strength (MPa) | Ultimate strain | ||||||
Steel | 210,000 | 0.30 | 300 | 420 | 0.07 |
Building Type | URM | CM | ||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
X Direction | Z Direction | X Direction | Z Direction | |||||||||
Stiffness (MN/m) | Strength (kN) | Ductility Ratio | Stiffness (MN/m) | Strength (kN) | Ductility Ratio | Stiffness (MN/m) | Strength (kN) | Ductility Ratio | Stiffness (MN/m) | Strength (kN) | Ductility Ratio | |
Type-1 | 122 | 314 | 4.5 | 40 | 162 | 1.2 | 124 | 378 | 6.6 | 46 | 292 | 3.2 |
Type-2 | 389 | 442 | 1.2 | 1143 | 875 | 1.0 | 394 | 510 | 8.9 | 1147 | 895 | 5.1 |
Type-3 | 893 | 667 | 1.2 | 223 | 415 | 1.0 | 894 | 672 | 8.4 | 224 | 452 | 8.1 |
Type-4 | 65 | 244 | 3.7 | 9947 | 1202 | 1.0 | 68 | 383 | 8.7 | 9949 | 1354 | 4.1 |
URM | CM | ||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Type-1 | Type-2 | Type-3 | Type-4 | Type-1 | Type-2 | Type-3 | Type-4 | ||||||||||
X | Z | X | Z | X | Z | X | Z | X | Z | X | Z | X | Z | X | Z | ||
1st mode period, s | 0.21 | 0.12 | 0.12 | 0.07 | 0.16 | 0.08 | 0.37 | 0.03 | 0.21 | 0.12 | 0.12 | 0.07 | 0.16 | 0.08 | 0.37 | 0.03 | |
Soil type I | |||||||||||||||||
Seismicity | Very high | 0.92 | 0.82 | 0.91 | 0.94 | 1.32 | 1.92 | 0.82 | 0.95 | 0.87 | 1.11 | 1.65 | 1.78 | 1.35 | 2.12 | 2.12 | 1.43 |
High | 0.98 | 0.84 | 0.97 | 1.01 | 1.57 | 1.98 | 0.85 | 0.98 | 0.91 | 1.22 | 1.74 | 1.82 | 1.48 | 2.22 | 2.22 | 1.52 | |
Moderate | 1.03 | 0.86 | 1.03 | 1.14 | 1.92 | 2.05 | 0.86 | 1.12 | 0.94 | 1.38 | 1.78 | 1.98 | 1.59 | 2.22 | 2.22 | 1.52 | |
Low | 1.12 | 0.97 | 1.16 | 1.27 | 2.22 | 2.22 | 0.87 | 1.22 | 1.12 | 1.59 | 1.87 | 2.12 | 1.82 | 2.35 | 2.35 | 1.65 | |
Soil type II | |||||||||||||||||
Very high | 0.92 | 0.82 | 0.91 | 0.94 | 1.32 | 1.92 | 0.82 | 0.95 | 0.87 | 1.11 | 1.65 | 1.78 | 1.35 | 2.12 | 2.12 | 1.43 | |
High | 0.98 | 0.84 | 0.97 | 1.01 | 1.57 | 1.98 | 0.85 | 0.98 | 0.91 | 1.22 | 1.74 | 1.82 | 1.48 | 2.22 | 2.22 | 1.52 | |
Moderate | 1.03 | 0.86 | 1.03 | 1.14 | 1.92 | 2.05 | 0.86 | 1.12 | 0.94 | 1.38 | 1.78 | 1.98 | 1.59 | 2.22 | 2.22 | 1.52 | |
Low | 1.12 | 0.97 | 1.16 | 1.27 | 2.22 | 2.22 | 0.87 | 1.22 | 1.12 | 1.59 | 1.87 | 2.12 | 1.82 | 2.35 | 2.35 | 1.65 | |
Soil type III | |||||||||||||||||
Very high | 0.90 | 0.82 | 0.92 | 1.00 | 1.28 | 1.98 | 0.82 | 0.95 | 0.85 | 1.12 | 1.68 | 1.82 | 1.28 | 2.12 | 2.12 | 1.43 | |
High | 0.93 | 0.85 | 0.97 | 1.08 | 1.35 | 2.05 | 0.84 | 0.98 | 0.86 | 1.23 | 1.78 | 1.87 | 1.38 | 2.22 | 2.22 | 1.52 | |
Moderate | 1.02 | 0.87 | 1.05 | 1.17 | 1.82 | 2.12 | 0.85 | 1.12 | 0.87 | 1.39 | 1.82 | 1.98 | 1.57 | 2.35 | 2.35 | 1.65 | |
Low | 1.08 | 0.98 | 1.20 | 1.44 | 2.05 | 2.35 | 0.86 | 1.22 | 1.08 | 1.62 | 1.92 | 2.22 | 1.74 | 2.35 | 2.35 | 1.65 | |
Soil type IV | |||||||||||||||||
Very high | 0.90 | 0.82 | 0.92 | 1.00 | 1.28 | 1.98 | 0.82 | 0.95 | 0.85 | 1.12 | 1.68 | 1.82 | 1.28 | 2.12 | 2.12 | 1.43 | |
High | 0.93 | 0.85 | 0.97 | 1.08 | 1.35 | 2.05 | 0.84 | 0.98 | 0.86 | 1.23 | 1.78 | 1.87 | 1.38 | 2.22 | 2.22 | 1.52 | |
Moderate | 0.94 | 0.86 | 0.98 | 1.08 | 1.38 | 2.05 | 0.85 | 0.99 | 0.88 | 1.24 | 1.78 | 1.87 | 1.38 | 2.22 | 2.22 | 1.52 | |
Low | 1.02 | 0.87 | 1.11 | 1.26 | 1.87 | 2.12 | 0.86 | 1.16 | 0.89 | 1.50 | 1.87 | 2.22 | 1.57 | 2.35 | 2.35 | 1.65 |
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. |
© 2023 by the author. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Yekrangnia, M. Seismic Vulnerability Assessment of Masonry Residential Buildings in the Older Parts of Tehran through Fragility Curves and Basic RVS Scores. Buildings 2023, 13, 302. https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings13020302
Yekrangnia M. Seismic Vulnerability Assessment of Masonry Residential Buildings in the Older Parts of Tehran through Fragility Curves and Basic RVS Scores. Buildings. 2023; 13(2):302. https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings13020302
Chicago/Turabian StyleYekrangnia, Mohammad. 2023. "Seismic Vulnerability Assessment of Masonry Residential Buildings in the Older Parts of Tehran through Fragility Curves and Basic RVS Scores" Buildings 13, no. 2: 302. https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings13020302