Advertisement

Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering

, Volume 17, Issue 2, pp 867–889 | Cite as

Seismic performance assessment of confined masonry construction at component and structure levels

  • Murat Altug ErberikEmail author
  • Cihan Citiloglu
  • Gulden Erkoseoglu
Original Research
  • 54 Downloads

Abstract

There are different techniques for masonry construction. Among these, confined masonry (CM) buildings may be regarded as an upgrade for unreinforced masonry (URM) buildings, which is the most common type. In Turkey, URM construction has been popular, especially up to the end of 1980s. These rather old URM buildings constitute a significant percent of the existing building stock. On the other hand, CM construction seems to be rare when compared to its URM counterpart in Turkey. This fact was also reflected in older versions of the Turkish seismic design codes as clauses regarding CM construction did not exist in these codes. In 2018, a new version of the Turkish seismic design code has been released, taking into account CM construction for the first time explicitly. In accordance with this fact, this study presents a comparison between the seismic performances of URM and CM building types at component and structure levels. The first phase of the study focuses on the capacity curves of URM and CM walls that have been idealized by using a piece-wise linear model with different performance limits. Empirical formulations from previous research are examined to determine the capacity curve parameters with the premise that they have the best estimate for the selected experimental dataset concerning URM and CM wall specimens. The second phase deals with the seismic performance in structure level for URM and CM buildings that are composed of masonry walls with idealized capacity curves as obtained in the first phase of the study. Capacity Spectrum Method is used for the analyses. The results reveal the superior behavior of CM construction over URM construction during seismic action.

Keywords

Confined masonry Unreinforced masonry Capacity curve Performance limits Capacity Spectrum Method Performance point 

References

  1. Aguilar G, Meli R, Diaz R, Vazquez Del Mercado R (1996) Influence of horizontal reinforcement on the behavior confined masonry walls. In: Proceedings, 11th world conference on earthquake engineering, Acapulco, MexicoGoogle Scholar
  2. Applied Technology Council ATC (1996) Seismic evaluation and retrofit of concrete buildings, ATC-40 Report, funded by the Seismic Safety Commission, published by the Applied Technology Council, Redwood City, CaliforniaGoogle Scholar
  3. Applied Technology Council, ATC (2005) Improvement of nonlinear static seismic analysis procedures. Report No: FEMA-440, Washington, D.CGoogle Scholar
  4. Architectural Institute of Japan, AIJ (1999) Ultimate strength and deformation capacity of buildings in seismic design. Committee for Concrete and Masonry Wall Building Structures, Tokyo, pp 592–593Google Scholar
  5. Argentinean Seismic Code (1983) INPRES CIRSOC 103: Normas Argentinas para construcciones sismor resistentes, Part III Construcciones de mampostería. The National Institute for Seismic Prevention (in Spanish) Google Scholar
  6. Bourzam A, Goto T, Miyajima M (2008) Shear capacity prediction of confined masonry walls subjected to cyclic lateral loading. J Jpn Soc Civ Eng 64(4):692–704Google Scholar
  7. Brzev S (2008) Earthquake resistant confined masonry construction. National Information Center of Earthquake Engineering (NICEE), Kanpur, IndiaGoogle Scholar
  8. Chourasia A, Bhattacharyya SK, Bhandari NM, Bhargava P (2016) Seismic performance of different masonry buildings: full-scale experimental study. J Perform Constr Facil 30(5):04016006CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Citiloglu C (2016) Seismic performance assessment of confined masonry buildings. Master Thesis, Middle East Technical University Civil Engineering Department, Ankara, TurkeyGoogle Scholar
  10. Dolce M (1991) Schematizzazione e modellazione degli edifici in muratura soggetti ad azioni sismiche. L’Industria delle Costruzioni 25:44–57 (in Italian) Google Scholar
  11. Erkoseoglu G (2014). Performance evaluation of confined masonry walls. Master Thesis, Middle East Technical University Civil Engineering Department, Ankara, TurkeyGoogle Scholar
  12. Erkoseoglu G, Erberik MA, Citiloglu C (2014) A parametric study on unreinforced and confined masonry wall behavior. In: Proceedings, 2nd European conference on earthquake engineering and seismology, Istanbul, TurkeyGoogle Scholar
  13. European Committee for Standardization, CEN (2004) Eurocode 8: design of structures for earthquake resistance-Part 1: general rules, seismic actions and rules for buildings, EN 1998–1. Belgium, BrusselsGoogle Scholar
  14. European Committee for Standardization, CEN (2005) Eurocode 6: design of masonry structures, Part 1-1, EN 1996-1-1. Belgium, BrusselsGoogle Scholar
  15. Fehling E, Stuerz J, Emami A (2007) Test results on the behavior of masonry under static (monotonic and cyclic) in plane lateral loads. Technical report for deliverable D7.1a in the context of FP6 Project ESECMaSE, Institute of Structural Engineering, University of Kassel, GermanyGoogle Scholar
  16. Gouveia JP, Lourenço PB (2007) Masonry shear walls subjected to cyclic loading: influence of confinement and horizontal reinforcement. In: Proceedings, 10th North American masonry conference, Missouri, pp 838–848Google Scholar
  17. Instituto Nacional de Normalisation, INN (1997) Cálculo y diseño de edificios de albañilería confinada, NCh2123.Of97, Santiago, Chile (in Spanish) Google Scholar
  18. Magenes G, Morandi P, Penna A (2008). Experimental in-plane cyclic response of masonry walls with clay units. In: Proceedings, 14th world conference on earthquake engineering, Beijing, ChinaGoogle Scholar
  19. Marinilli A, Castilla E (2004). Experimental evaluation of confined masonry walls with several confining-columns. In: Proceedings, 13th world conference on earthquake engineering, Vancouver, CanadaGoogle Scholar
  20. Marques R, Lourenço PB (2011) Possibilities and comparison of structural component models for the seismic assessment of modern unreinforced masonry buildings. Comput Struct 89(21–22):2079–2091CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Marques R, Lourenço PB (2013) A model for pushover analysis of confined masonry structures: implementation and validation. Bull Earthq Eng 11(6):2133–2150CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Marques R, Lourenço PB (2014) Unreinforced and confined masonry buildings in seismic regions: validation of macro-element models and cost analysis. Eng Struct 64:52–67CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Moroni MO, Astroza M, Tavonatti S (1994) Nonlinear models for shear failure in confined masonry walls. Mason Soc J 122:72–78Google Scholar
  24. NTC-M (2004) Normas técnicas complementarias para diseño y construcción de estructuras de mampostería (Mexican masonry code). Gaceta Oficial del Distrito Federal, Tomo I, No. 103-BIS, Ciudad de México (in Spanish) Google Scholar
  25. NTE-E.070 (2006) Reglamento Nacional de Edificaciones, Norma Técnica E.070: Albañilería (Peruvian masonry code), Ministerio de Vivienda, Construcción y Saneamiento, Lima (in Spanish) Google Scholar
  26. Perez Gavilan JJ, Manzano A (2012) Shear-moment interaction of earthquake resistance confined masonry walls. In: Proceedings, 15th world conference on earthquake engineering, Lizbon, PortugalGoogle Scholar
  27. Perez Gavilan JJ, Flores LE, Alcocer SM (2015) An experimental study of confined masonry walls with varying aspect ratios. Earthq Spectra 31(2):945–968CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Riahi Z, Elwood KJ, Alcocer SM (2009) Backbone model for confined masonry walls for performance-based seismic design. J Struct Eng 135(6):644–654CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. RPA99 (2003) Règles parasismiques algériennes (Algerian seismic code), version 2003. Ministère de l’Habitat et de l’Urbanisme, Alger (in French) Google Scholar
  30. Singhal V, Rai DC (2016) 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 45:2551–2569CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Tomazevic M (1978) The computer program POR. Technical report ZMRK, Institute for Testing and Research in Materials and Structures, Ljubljana, SloveniaGoogle Scholar
  32. Tomazevic M (1999) Earthquake-resistant design of masonry buildings. Imperial College Press, LondonCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Tomazevic M, Klemenc I (1997) Seismic behavior of confined masonry walls. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 26:1059–1071CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Turkish Building Earthquake Code, TBEC (2018) Republic of Turkey Prime Ministry Disaster and Emergency Management Authority, Ankara, TurkeyGoogle Scholar
  35. Turkish Earthquake Code, TEC (2007) Specifications for the buildings to be constructed in disaster areas. Ministry of Public Works and Settlement, Ankara, TurkeyGoogle Scholar
  36. Yáñez F, Astroza M, Holmberg A, Ogaz O (2004) Behavior of confined masonry shear walls with large openings. In: Proceedings, 13th world conference on earthquake engineering, Vancouver, CanadaGoogle Scholar
  37. Yoshimura K, Kikuchi K (1996) Effect of vertical and horizontal wall reinforcement on seismic behavior of confined masonry walls. In: Proceedings, 11th world conference on earthquake engineering, Acapulco, MexicoGoogle Scholar
  38. Yoshimura K, Kikuchi K, Kuroki M, Nonaka H, Kim KT, Wangdi R, Oshikata A (2004) Experimental study for developing higher seismic performance of brick masonry walls. In: Proceedings, 13th world conference on earthquake engineering, Vancouver, CanadaGoogle Scholar
  39. Zavala C, Honma C, Gibu P, Gallardo J, Huaco G (2004) Full scale on line test on two story masonry building using handmade bricks. In: Proceedings, 13th world conference on earthquake engineering, VancouverGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Civil Engineering DepartmentMiddle East Technical UniversityAnkaraTurkey
  2. 2.Republic of Turkey Ministry of Culture and TourismAnkaraTurkey

Personalised recommendations