Seismic Risk Assessment of Historic House of Kalantar According to Ialian Guideline

Authors

1 Historical Buildings Islamic Art University of Tabriz, Tabriz, Iran

2 Architecture and Urbanism Department, Islamic Art University of Tabriz, Tabriz, Iran

Abstract

     The importance of seismic vulnerability of historic buildings in Tabriz and the high seismic risk in this region, such as the recent Turkmenchay earthquake in 2019 (5.5 magnitude earthquake), justifies the study of seismic vulnerability of historical buildings based on a principled method specific to historical buildings. Since there is no guideline in Iran to assess the seismic vulnerability of historic buildings, therefore, the present study has aimed to evaluate the seismic vulnerability assessment of the Kalantar historic house in Ultimate Limit State (SLU) and Damage Limit State (SLD) based on the Level1 and Level3 of Italian guidelines for historical monuments (DPCM, 2005), by emphasizing on the reliability and the limits of the simplified mechanical model (Level 1). The first level of evaluation (LV1), is oriented to highlight, on a regional scale, critical situations in terms of seismic vulnerability and to provide a classification of risk and a priority list for further investigations aimed at the conservation of the architectural heritage. Adopting a force-based approach, this level relies on a simplified structural model that requires integrating a limited number of geometrical and mechanical parameters with qualitative data derived from visual tests, construction features, and stratigraphic surveys. The LV3 is based on the global structural response of the building in order to define the values of acceleration leading the structure to each limit-state. In this case, the displacement-based approach is adopted, for which the global behavior is governed by the in-plane capacity of the walls discretized in panels where the nonlinear response is concentrated. The seismic safety is evaluated for each level by an index summarizing the comparison between the expected seismic demand and the seismic capacity. It is worth noting that LV1 and LV3 are based on simple and accurate global models, respectively, which are both represented by the combined effect of floor diaphragms and the in-plane response of structural walls, so, it may be concluded that they are directly comparable.

Keywords

References

آیین ­نامه 2800، آیین­ نامه طراحی ساختمان­ ها در برابر زلزله (ویرایش 4) مرکز تحقیقات راه، مسکن و شهرسازی، 1393.
دستورالعمل بهسازی لرزه­ ای ساختمان­ های موجود (کد 360). معاونت نظارت راهبردی امور نظام فنی، 1392، 477.
Aminifar E, Akhoundi F, Lourenco PB, “Verification of Mechanical Properties of Historical Brick Masonry Walls with Masonry Quality Index Method in Iran”, International Journal of Architectural Heritage, 2022, 1-11.
ASCE41-13, “Seismic evaluation and retrofit of existing buildings”, American Society of Civil Engineers, 2013.
ASCE41-17, ASCE Standard, ASCE/SEI, 41-17: “Seismic Evaluation and Retrofit of Existing Buildings”, American Society of Civil Engineers, 2017.
Betti M, Borghini A, Ciavattone A, Boschi S, Monte ED, Vignoli A, “Assessment of the seismic risk of the museum of Casa Vasari in Arezzo (Italy)”, International Journal of Masonry Research and Innovation, 2017, 2, 107-133.
Casapulla C, Argiento LU, Maione A, “Seismic safety assessment of a masonry building according to Italian Guidelines on Cultural Heritage: simplified mechanical-based approach and pushover analysis”, Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering, 2018, 16, 2809-2837.
Castori G, Corradi M, De Maria A, Sisti R, Borri A, “A numerical study on seismic damage of masonry fortresses”, Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering, 2018, 16, 4561-4580.
DPCM 2005, Evaluation and reduction of seismic risk of cultural heritage with reference to the Technical Standards for Constructions promulgated by the Ministry of Infrastructure and Transport on 2003.
DPCM 2011, Evaluation and reduction of seismic risk of cultural heritage with reference to the Technical Standards for Constructions promulgated by the Ministry of Infrastructure and Transport on 2003.
EUROCODE8 2005, Eurocode 8: Design of structures for earthquake resistance-part 1: general rules, seismic actions and rules for buildings. Brussels: European Committee for Standardization.
FEMA273 1997, Building Seismic Safety Council. Federal Emergency Management Agency Washington, DC.
FEMA356 2000, FEMA 356 Prestandard. US Federal Emergency Management Agency Washington, DC, USA.
Formisano A, Marzo A, “Simplified and refined methods for seismic vulnerability assessment and retrofitting of an Italian cultural heritage masonry building”, Computers & Structures, 2017, 180, 13-26.
New Zealand Society For Earthquake E, “Assessment and improvement of the structural performance of buildings in earthquakes: prioritisation, initial evaluation, detailed assessment, improvement measures : recommendations of a NZSEE study group on earthquake risk buildings, [Wellington, N.Z.], New Zealand Society for Earthquake Engineering, 2006.
NTC 2008, Aggiornamento delle «Norme Tecniche per le Costruzioni». Italian Goverment: Rome, Italy.
OPCM 2005, Order of the President of the Council of Ministers. Official Gazette of Italian Republic no. 107 of 05/10/2005.
Torelli G, D’ayala D, Betti M, Bartoli G, “Analytical and numerical seismic assessment of heritage masonry towers”, Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering, 2020, 18, 969-1008.
Journal of Civil and Environmental Engineering
Volume 53.2, Issue 111 - Serial Number 111
Summer 2023
August 2023
Pages 76-83

Files

Share

How to cite

Statistics