You are on page 1of 9

Weighting Assessment of Vulnerability Index Parameters

for Reinforced Masonry Structures


Nacim Yous, Assistant Professor, National Earthquake Engineering Research Centre (CGS) earthquake engineering, Algiers,
Algeria; Mahmoud Bensaibi, Professor, National School of Built and Ground Works Engineering, Algiers, Algeria. Contact:
nacim_yous@hotmail.fr
DOI: 10.2749/101686617X14676303589435

Abstract that have an inuence on the seismic


behaviour of such structures are identi-
The ancient Algerian urban nuclei are composed of different kind of structural ed, and using a non-linear dynamic
systems, such as unreinforced masonry building (URM) buildings, reinforced con- analysis, the weighting factors of these
crete (RC) buildings, steel buildings and last but not the least the reinforced parameters are determined. This
masonry structures. This type of structure is one of the most vulnerable to seismic method will be implemented in a Delphi
action, as they were not built to seismic codes and regulations. In this paper, a con- program and applied for a certain num-
tribution for the safety assessment of reinforced masonry buildings under seismic ber of reinforced masonry structures.
loading is presented. With this purpose, a vulnerability index method has been
applied to this type of buildings for the Algerian case according to the national Vulnerability index method
seismic regulations (RPA), by identifying the most important parameters that have
The VI method is based on four
an inuence on the seismic behaviour of such structures. Weighting factors are
important steps9,10,13,1721,4245:
then assigned to each parameter in order to evaluate the vulnerability index, which
allows classifying each assessed structure according to a suggested classication. First step: Selecting parameters
The weighting factors were rst estimated by a dynamic analysis using ten seismic inuencing seismic vulnerability
records. Lastly this method was implemented in a Delphi program and performed Second step: Choosing of vulnera-
using several examples to show its efciency. bility classes
Third step: Determination of
Keywords: vulnerability index; reinforced masonry structures; finite element;
weighting parameters in each class
dynamic analysis; earthquake; risk; damage.
Fourth step: Calculation of the VI
and structure classication.
Introduction The method was also used in Algeria These steps will be explained in the
according to the Algerian seismic code following paragraphs.
Seismic feedback experiences show (RPA) and was applied to unrein- Selecting Parameters
that strong earthquakes cause many forced masonry construction
damages to existing structures and system,912 reinforced concrete The choice of parameters was done
infrastructures around the world, usu- (RC) structures,10,1316 steel struc- using a statistical analysis based on
ally because they do not comply with tures10,17,18 and reinforced masonry past earthquakes.921,4245 Fourteen
seismic code in practice. In order to constructions.10,1922 parameters have been identied in
reduce these damages to existing struc- order to assess the seismic vulnerabil-
tures, several methods have been Several studies were used to study the ity of reinforced masonry structures.
developed to upgrade and improve seismic vulnerability of masonry con- These parameters are:
their seismic performance.1,2 These structions around the world. In Italy a
methods take into account the intrinsic nite element (FE) analysis was Wall connections, seismic capacity,
characteristics of such structures to applied for typical buildings consider- type of soil, ductility of steel, steel
quantify their seismic behaviour. ing some parameters such as in-plane joints, horizontal diaphragm,
Among these methods, the vulnerabil- modications, plan regularity, elevation
and out-of-plane collapses of masonry
regularity, maintenance conditions,
ity index (VI) method is used to assess walls.2328 In USA, Spain, Portugal,
the seismic vulnerability of buildings. ground conditions, pounding effect,
Eastern Europe, Mexico, Australia and
roof and details.
The VI method has been used India, both experimental and numerical
worldwide,35 to elaborate seismic sce- analyses (FE) were used for URM Vulnerability Classes
narios at large scale as in RISKUE buildings especially for the in-plane Three vulnerability classes are
approaches,6 Hazard - United States and out-of-plane behaviour.2939 In Ire- considered: A, B and C. Class A shows
(HAZUS)7 and Risk Assessment land and Iran, a FE analysis was that the parameter is consistent with
Tools for Diagnosis of Urban Areas applied for masonry walls taking into the seismic code in use. Class C shows
against Seismic Disaster (RADIUS)8 account the plan and elevation irregu- that the parameter is not consistent
methodologies. larity.40,41 Few interests were accorded with the seismic code, while class B cor-
to steel structures and combined responds to an intermediate position.
Peer-reviewed by international ex- masonry and steel constructions.
perts and accepted for publication Determination of Weighting
by SEI Editorial Board The present study deals with reinforced
Parameters in Each Class
masonry buildings that were less studied
Paper received: May 19, 2016 than other buildings in Algeria. In this A non-linear dynamic analysis will be
Paper accepted: July 20, 2016 method, the most important parameters used to dene weighting parameters.

Structural Engineering International Nr. 1/2017 Scientic Paper 79


Three reinforced masonry buildings Number Seismic record Year Frequencies (Hz)
will be considered (low rise, mid rise
and high rise). Each parameter will be 1 Tipaza (Algeria) 1989 8.16
modelled in order to check its inu- 2 Ain Temouchent (Algeria) 1999 3.00
ence and to dene its weight in each 3 Beniourthilene (Algeria) 2000 1.624
vulnerability class. The maximum dis-
4 Boumerdes (Algeria) 2003 0.415
placement is used as a tool to quantify
the weighting factors.46 5 Alaska (USA) 1972 7.111
6 Imperial Valley (USA) 1979 1.202
VI and Structure Classication
7 Okkaido (Japan) 1994 3.345
A formula to calculate the VI is given
8 Kuril (Japan) 2007 1.611
and based on this a classication of
reinforced masonry buildings is 9 Fukushima (Japan) 2011 1.965
proposed. 10 Torishima (Japan) 2012 0.885
Table 1: Fundamental frequencies
Seismic Records
Ten seismic records are used in the
dynamic analysis as shown in Table 1, (a) (b) (c)
where the fundamental frequencies
are given.
As it can be seen, a large range of the
fundamental frequencies is considered
in order to take into account the max-
imum possibilities.

Modelling of the Parameters


Each parameter will be modelled in F i g. 1 : Types of modelled buildings according to heights: (a) Low-rise building (G.f. +
the three dened classes, A, B and 1 oor), (b) mid-rise building (G.f. + 3 oors) and (c) high-rise building (G.f. + 7 oors)
C. A dynamic analysis will be per-
formed for each type of building and
for each seismic record; i.e. 30 Dimensions e (m) L (m) W (m) H (m) Steel section
dynamic analyses for each parameter Low rise 0.40 8.0 8.0 6.40 IPE 100
and for each type of building (low
Mid rise 0.50 12.0 12.0 12.80 IPE 100
rise; mid rise and high rise) for the
corresponding vulnerability classes High rise 0.70 12.0 12.0 25.60 IPE 200
will be done, which leads to 90 ana- e: thickness of walls.
lyses by parameter. L: length of building.
W: width of building.
The seismic vulnerability analysis is H: height of building.
based on the evolution of maximum
displacements, expressing how Table 2: Building dimensions
parameters state changes from the
linear range to the non-linear range, procedure of the modelling for all class B the structure has been
then the failure in the different vul- parameters will be explained in the modelled with vertical and horizontal
nerability classes (A, B and C). How- following text. ties reaching the plastic range.46
ever the meaning of the non-linearity The hypotheses considered for the
is different for each parameter, where modelling of different parameters are Seismic Capacity
the evolution from the linear range to also explained later.
the failure (AC) is explained in the The seismic capacity is dened by the
following paragraphs. Three types of number of walls able to resist the base
Wall Connections
buildings will be considered during shear force. The distance between
the parameters analysis, the low rise, Masonry bearing walls have to be tied walls commonly is 45 m for this kind
mid rise and high rise as shown in order to avoid their out-of-plan of buildings. The buildings that have
in Fig. 1. deformation. This behaviour leads to less number of walls are the most vul-
the damage of the structure.48 The nerable to earthquakes. In the rst
According to the in situ investigation
modelling of this parameter has been class (A), the structure is modelled
of the reinforced masonry structures,
done according to the type of ties that with bearing walls every 4 m in the
the dimensions of buildings, the thick-
may exist inside masonry walls, for two directions (X and Y). In class C
ness of masonry walls and the steel
this kind of buildings. In class A the the structure is modelled with periph-
sections are given in Table 2.
structure is modelled with vertical and eral walls only, while in class B the
Through the variation of maximum horizontal steel ties. In the third class structure has less intermediate walls
displacements, factors assigned for (C) the structure has been modelled than the rst class in one or two
each parameter are obtained.47 The with horizontal steel tie only, while in directions.9

80 Scientic Paper Structural Engineering International Nr. 1/2017


Type of Soil represented by the behaviour factor the rst class, the function of the
assigned for each structural system. building and the bracing system are
According to the Algerian seismic
The behaviour factor is between not modied compared with their ini-
code four types of soil are distin-
2 and 6 for the different existing types tial states. In the third class, the
guished. The rst type is the rock soils
of structures in the Algerian seismic change is done in the function (rising
where the shear average wave velocity
code.49 For the present study, only the of the mass), and in the bracing sys-
overtakes 800 m/s, the rm soils
ductility of the steel material existing tem (eliminating a wall or a part of
where the shear average wave velocity
in the masonry walls is taken into wall). In the second class, the change
overtakes 400 m/s. The soft soils
account. The evolution of the ductility is in the function or in the bracing
where the shear average wave velocity
is according to the material strain. In system.
overtakes 200 m/s, and the very soft
the rst class, the material is distorting
soil where the shear average wave
in the elastic range; in the third class, Plan Regularity
velocity is less than 200 m/s.49 The
the material reaches the limit of the
modelling of each soil is done accord- The irregularity of this parameter was
failure; while in the second class the
ing to its rigidity factor. This factor is considered changing the mass in the
material reaches the plastic range (see
calculated according to Eqs. (1)
Fig. 2).51 same oor; it means that in one oor
(6) developed in Ref.50. there is an inequality of loads. In the
Steel Joints rst class, the structure is modelled
Translation along
"  Z axis : #
 with an equal distribution of loads. In
GB L 0:75 Steel joints must transmit forces the second class, the dead loads or the
Kz = 3:1 + 1:6 1 between different steel frames (col-
1 B live loads are changed, while in the
umns and beams). The modelling was third class, the change is in the dead
Translation" along Y axis : # done by dividing frame elements in loads and the live loads.49
 0:65   the nodal zone, given different charac-
GB L L
Ky = 6:8 + 0:8 + 1:6 teristics.51,52 In the rst class, steel
1 B B Elevation Regularity
joints are distorting in the elastic
2 range, in the third class, steel joints Concerning the elevation regularity,
reach the limit of the failure, while in the same criterion is followed as used
Translation along
" X axis : #
 the second class, steel joints reach the in the plan regularity parameter. The
GB L 0:65 modelling is done by giving different
Kx = 6:8 + 2:4 3 plastic range.
1 B masses to different oors of the
Horizontal Diaphragm structure.
Torsion about " Z axis : #
 2:45 Floors must be rigid and have good
L Maintenance
3
Kzz = GB 4:25 + 4:06 4 connections with vertical bracing sys-
B tem in order to have good diaphragm Each construction must be main-
behaviour. In the rst class, all nodes tained regularly in order to keep its
Rocking about " Y axis : #
 2:4 of oors are selected and assigned as initial state, especially the bracing
GB3 L diaphragm. In the last class (C), nodes
Kyy = 3:73 + 0:27 system elements. The modelling of
1 B are not connected to the vertical brac- this parameter was focused on bear-
ing system, while in the second class ing masonry walls. In the rst class
5
only half of nodes are connected to (A) bearing walls are distorted in the
Rocking about X
  axis :  the vertical bracing system. elastic range, in the second class
GB3 L (B) walls reach the plastic range
Kxx = 3:2 + 0:8 6 Modications
1 B while in the class C, walls reach the
where G: shear modulus, L: length of The modication refers to the change limit of the failure as is represented
the foundation, B: width of the foun- of the buildings function and/or the in Fig. 3.5254 While considering
dation, : Poissons ratio. structural system. This parameter was maintenance, the elasticity modulus
modelled by applying the modication (E) and the strain () of the masonry
Ductility of Steel to the building function (live loads) are taken as variable in the non-
The ductility of a material is the and in the vertical bracing system. In linear case.
capacity to distort in the plastic range
without reaching the failure. In the
seismic codes, the ductility is fk

Idealised diagram.


fy
Design diagram.
f
fd = k
m
d
=E
d"
"
"
0.002 0.0035
Fi g. 2: Diagram showing stressstrain of
steel. (Units: []) Fi g . 3: Diagram showing stressstrain for masonry. (Units: [])

Structural Engineering International Nr. 1/2017 Scientic Paper 81


The compressive strength is taken In class B, the structure has one or elastic range, in the second class,
equal to f = 2 N/mm2. more adjacent buildings with d strains reach the plastic range, while
40 mm. In this case, the weighting fac- in the last class (C) balconies reach
E = 1000*f 7 tor is calculated according to the dif- the limit of the failure.53
ference of the thickness of joints given
In order to avoid the resonance phe-
Ground Conditions by the formula (8) (40 mm), and the
nomenon, the seismic records frequen-
thickness (d) is calculated for each
Constructions built near cliffs or rivers cies used in the analysis, should not be
type of building.
are most vulnerable to earth- in the frequencies range of different
quakes.49,55 This parameter is mode- In class C, the structure has one models. In this case, any model having
lled to take account of phenomena or more adjacent buildings with a similar frequency as a seismic record
such landslides and liquefactions. d = 0 mm. In this case weighting fac- will not be considered to estimate
Unlike the parameter type of soil tor Kl = 1. weighting factors. Table 3 shows
explained above, the modelling was different frequencies of models used,
dmin = 15 mm + 1 + 2 40 mm obtained from the modal analysis.
done according to the support of
structures. In the rst class, structures 8
These frequencies are compared to
are modelled with all supports where dmin: width of calculated joint; those obtained for each elaborated
restrained. In the third class, struc- 1: maximum displacement of building model.
tures are simply supported, while in 1; and 2: maximum displacement of
the second class, half of supports are building 2.
restrained. Calculating Factors
Roof Weighting factors assigned to differ-
Pounding Effect The modelling of this parameter is the ent parameters are obtained from
Two structures built close to each same as the horizontal diaphragm maximum displacements of models of
other must be separated by a seismic parameter. For the roof parameter, the non-linear dynamic analysis
joint according to the seismic code the dead loads and live loads are dif- according to the following procedure:
regulations. The absence of the seis- ferent (most heavy) than typical oors. First, weighting factors are calculated
mic joint could cause damages in the for each parameter with each seismic
structure by the hammering effect. Detail record and for each type of building
The checking of this parameter was modelled according to Eq. (9).
Detail parameter concerns elements
done according to the formula
that do not interfere in the structural dmax
(8) given by the Algerian seismic code Ki = Xi = 3 9
system such as balcony, partition
RPA99.v.2003.49 This formula gives d
the minimum dimension between two
walls, handrail, acroterion, stairsetc. i = 1 maxi
The existence of such elements
adjacent buildings.
depends of the architecture of the where dmax: maximum displacement
In class A, the structure is isolated assessed building. As an example, for each vulnerability class (A, B and
or has adjacent buildings with d > balcony is taken and modelled C); dmaxi: the sum of maximum dis-
40 mm. In this case the weighting fac- according to its strain. In the rst placements of the three vulnerability
tor Kl = 0. class, the strain of balcony stay in the classes.

Frequencies (Hz)
Low rise (6.4 m) Mid rise (12.8 m) High rise (25.6 m)
Vulnerability classes Vulnerability classes Vulnerability classes
Parameters A B C A B C A B C
Walls connections 9.1 9.1 9.1 4.34 4.34 4.34 1.69 1.69 1.69
Seismic capacity 9.1 8.33 8.33 4.34 3.57 3.57 1.69 1.53 1.53
Type of soil 9.43 9.43 8.33 4.34 4.34 3.84 1.69 1.61 1.47
Ductility of steel 9.1 9.1 9.1 4.34 4.34 4.34 1.69 1.69 1.69
Steel joints 9.1 9.1 9.1 4.34 4.34 4.34 1.69 1.25 1.25
Horizontal diaphragm 9.1 9.1 9.1 4.34 4.16 4.16 1.69 1.66 1.66
Modications 9.1 9.1 9.1 4.34 4.34 4.34 1.69 1.69 1.02
Plan regularity 9.1 9.1 9.1 4.34 4.34 4.34 1.69 1.69 1.69
Elevation regularity 9.1 9.1 9.1 4.34 4.34 4.34 1.69 1.69 1.69
Maintenance 9.1 6.66 5.26 4.34 3.03 1.25 1.69 1.23 0.97
Ground conditions 9.1 2.13 0.27 4.34 2.27 0.10 1.69 0.72 0.10
Roof 9.1 9.1 9.1 4.34 4.34 4.34 1.69 1.69 1.69
Details 9.1 9.1 9.1 4.34 4.34 4.34 1.23 1.23 1.23
Table 3: Fundamental frequencies of different models

82 Scientic Paper Structural Engineering International Nr. 1/2017


Then for each parameter, a rst aver- where Kl: weighting factors obtained as a sample to show the application of
age is calculated of Ki factors for each parameter for the 10 seismic the procedure.
obtained for the three models (low records and for the three types of
In Table 4, displacement results
rise, mid rise and high rise) according buildings.
obtained for the maintenance parame-
to Eq. (10). This average is obtained
Factors used for the classication of ter are illustrated according to differ-
for each seismic record.
reinforced masonry structures before ent seismic records.
Xj = n
K or after an earthquake are obtained According to Table 4, maximum dis-
j=1 i
Kj = 10 according to the Eq. (12) below. All placements generated by different
n these values will be divided by 6.23 in seismic records change in a growing
where Kj: weighting factor obtained for order to obtain factors between 0 and 1 form, from class A to class C. Also
each parameter for each seismic record (0 and 100%). These express a percent- the seismic record effects are differ-
for the three types of buildings; n: num- age of the total seismic vulnerability ent, which cause more and less high
ber of buildings taken into account for the reinforced masonry structures. displacements. However, the results
(n =1, 2 or 3). See Tables 3 and 5. Kl found are similar for each parameter
Kn = 12 for the different models.
A second average of Kj factors 6:23
obtained from formula (10) is calcu- From Eq. (9), Ki factors are obtained
lated according to Eq. (11), for the The value 6.23 represents the sum of
for each parameter and for each seis-
different vulnerability parameters, for Kl factors obtained in the class C,
mic record. Models with frequencies
the 10 seismic records used. which is the maximum of the VI that
which coincide with those of seismic
Xl = 10 may be assigned to a structure.
records are not taken into account in
Kj To calculate weighting factors, the order to avoid the resonance effect as
Kl = l=1
11
10 parameter maintenance was chosen shown in Table 5.

Maximum displacements (mm)


Low-rise models Mid-rise models High-rise models
Seismic records A B C A B C A B C
Tipaza 0.42 0.95 0.98 0.90 1.53 1.60 1.43 1.64 3.45
Ain Temouchent 3.95 5.68 6.01 8.23 8.25 8.30 8.23 8.25 8.40
Beniourthilene 1.36 2.78 6.15 16.80 41.17 41.95 16.80 41.71 42.05
Boumerdes 0.43 7.64 18.74 19.35 48.35 146.33 120.62 163.35 232.25
Alaska 0.03 0.04 0.07 0.07 0.10 0.46 0.27 0.52 0.52
Imperial Valley 0.02 0.05 0.09 0.10 0.28 0.92 0.50 1.00 1.07
Okkaido 0.31 0.41 0.42 0.36 0.46 0.48 0.36 0.47 0.54
Kuril 4.80 5.68 13.82 23.77 42.37 47.73 76.23 77.00 77.46
Fukushima 5.47 12.34 38.58 56.75 68.51 246.33 225.84 246.34 247.00
Torishima 0.25 0.68 1.67 2.53 4.53 7.92 8.43 11.00 17.03
Table 4: Maximum displacement values (dmax) for the maintenance parameter

Factor Ki
Low-rise models Mid-rise models High-rise models
Seismic records A B C A B C A B C
Tipaza 0.22 0.38 0.40 0.22 0.25 0.53
Ain Temouchent 0.25 0.36 0.38 0.28 0.36 0.36
Beniourthilene 0.13 0.27 0.60 0.17 0.41 0.42
Boumerdes 0.02 0.28 0.70 0.09 0.23 0.68 0.23 0.32 0.45
Alaska 0.21 0.29 0.50 0.11 0.16 0.73 0.19 0.37 0.43
Imperial Valley 0.13 0.31 0.56 0.08 0.22 0.71
Okkaido 0.32 0.33 0.34 0.28 0.30 0.42
Kuril 0.20 0.23 0.57 0.21 0.37 0.42
Fukushima 0.10 0.22 0.68
Torishima 0.10 0.26 0.64 0.17 0.30 0.53 0.23 0.30 0.47
Table 5: Factor Ki values for maintenance parameter

Structural Engineering International Nr. 1/2017 Scientic Paper 83


Factor Kj Classes
Three types of No. Parameters Class A Class B Class C
buildings 1 Walls connections 0.30 0.33 0.36
Seismic records A B C 2 Seismic capacity 0.25 0.36 0.39
Tipaza 0.22 0.31 0.46 3 Type of soil 0.25 0.33 0.44
Ain Temouchent 0.26 0.35 0.37 4 Ductility of steel 0.30 0.34 0.36
Beniourthilene 0.15 0.34 0.50 5 Steel joints 0.30 0.34 0.36
Boumerdes 0.11 0.27 0.61 6 Horizontal diaphragm 0.28 0.32 0.36
Alaska 0.17 0.27 0.55 7 Modications 0.28 0.32 0.39
Imperial Valley 0.10 0.26 0.63 8 Plan regularity 0.30 0.34 0.36
Okkaido 0.30 0.31 0.38 9 Elevation regularity 0.30 0.34 0.35
Kuril 0.20 0.30 0.49 10 Maintenance 0.18 0.30 0.52
Fukushima 0.09 0.29 0.68 11 Ground conditions 0.11 0.26 0.62
Torishima 0.16 0.28 0.54 12 Pounding effect 0 0.49 1.00
Table 6: Factor Kj values in each 13 Roof 0.30 0.34 0.36
vulnerability class for the maintenance
14 Details 0.31 0.33 0.35
parameter
Sum 6.23
Using Eq. (10), a rst average is cal- Table 7: Non-normalized factor Kl according to vulnerability classes
culated for Ki factors in Table 5 for
each seismic record to obtain Kj fac-
tors in each vulnerability class (see Classes
Table 6). No. Parameters Class A Class B Class C
A second average is calculated to 1 Walls connections 0.04 0.05 0.06
obtain Kl factors using Eq. (11), for 2 Seismic capacity 0.04 0.05 0.06
each parameter of the three models
3 Type of soil 0.04 0.05 0.07
(low rise, mid rise and high rise) as
4 Ductility of steel 0.04 0.05 0.06
illustrated in Table 7.
5 Steel joints 0.04 0.05 0.06
Factors obtained in Table 7 are not
6 Horizontal diaphragm 0.04 0.05 0.06
used immediately in the classication
of the reinforced masonry structures. 7 Modications 0.04 0.05 0.06
These are treated using Eq. (12) to be 8 Plan regularity 0.04 0.05 0.06
classied between 0 and 1 (0100%) 9 Elevation regularity 0.04 0.05 0.06
as shown in Table 8.
10 Maintenance 0.03 0.05 0.08
11 Ground conditions 0.00 0.04 0.10
VI Calculation and Structure
12 Pounding effect 0.00 0.08 0.15
Classication
13 Roof 0.04 0.05 0.06
From normalized factors given in
14 Details 0.04 0.05 0.06
Table 8, the VI is calculated using
Eq. (13). Table 8: Kn factor values according to vulnerability classes

nX
= 14
VI = Kn 13 Class Green Orange Red
n=1
VI 0.000.60 0.600.86 0.861.00
Three vulnerability classes are pro-
posed (green, orange and red), Table 9: Reinforced masonry structure classication according to the VI
explaining the state of reinforced
masonry buildings assessed. This clas- different levels. Five vulnerability The data sheet allows regrouping all
sication is shown in Table 9. levels are dened in the three vulner- necessary information to calculate the
ability classes as shown in Table 10. VI of buildings. This sheet contains
The green class represents structures
having a good resistance to the seis- six parts as shown here21:
mic loading. The red class represents Digital Implementation
Part A: Structure identication
structures having a bad resistance to
Elaboration of the Data Sheet This part contains general information
earthquakes, while the orange class
represents structures having a medium Assigning factors to each parameter about the structure such as address,
resistance to earthquakes. Each will be established from a survey. To age, use, number of oors, basement
vulnerability class is composed of do this a data sheet was elaborated. and others.

84 Scientic Paper Structural Engineering International Nr. 1/2017


Green Orange Red the interface part and the pro-
gram part.
Class Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 4 Level 5
Vulnerability level Iv < 0.53 Iv 0.53 Iv < 0.72 Iv 0.72 Iv 0.86 Interface Part

Table 10: Different vulnerability levels according to the VI The visual part, it allows access to dif-
ferent menus and ll in the necessary
elds. It is made up of several pages.
An example of a page to ll in is
given in Fig. 4.
Program Part
This part treats different information,
carries out different calculations and
assigns a factor to each parameter.
The calculation of the VI and the
structure classication are car-
ried out.

Application
Several examples were assessed. Two
examples will be presented in the
present paper.

Example 1
This construction was built before the
rst Algerian seismic regulations in
1981. The shape is rectangular con-
Fi g. 4: View of the handling page in the interface (reinforced masonry constructions) taining four oors for a dwelling use
with a height of 15.20 m. The struc-
ture is composed of bearing periph-
eral masonry walls with steel ties. The
building is on a slope ground and does
not have an adjacent construction. It
is situated at 06, Rue Mohamed Tou-
nani, Algiers (see Fig. 5 and
Table 11).
The calculation of the VI for this
example is 0.52. The construction
belongs to the green class. This con-
struction was assessed by an Algerian
national agency (CGS), which classi-
ed it as green level 2 according to
the visual inspection. The ndings of
Fi g. 5: Principal face of 06, Rue Mohamed Tounani the inquiry report57 are in adequacy
with the obtained result.
Part B: Geometric characteristics Part F: Maintenance and modications
Example 2
This part describes building dimen- General information on the state of
sions as length, width, height, plan the structure, as well as modications The second construction also was
and elevation shape. brought to the structure. built before 1981. The shape is rec-
tangular containing three oors for a
Part C: Structural system A Delphi program was elaborated dwelling use with a height of
in order to treat the collected infor- 11.40 m. The structure is composed
This part indicates the type and mation and to carry out the classi-
structural system quality. of bearing peripheral masonry walls
cation of the studied buildings.56 with steel ties. The building is on a
Part D: Soil and layout slope ground and does not have an
Type of soil and layout of the building Developed Program adjacent structure. It is situated at
are found in this part. 12, Rue El Biar, Boulevard
The developed program called VIP
Mohamed V, Algiers (see Fig. 6 and
or Vulnerability Index Program can
Part E: Non-structural elements Table 12).
treat different types of structures
This part contains details for elements (masonry; RC structures; steel and The calculation of the VI for this
such as balcony, partition walls, other reinforced masonry structures). example is 0.80. The building belongs
handrails, acroterion and stairs. This program contains two parts, to the orange class. This construction

Structural Engineering International Nr. 1/2017 Scientic Paper 85


Parameters Classes Factors Kn phenomenon, a modal analysis was
performed and the fundamental fre-
Wall connections A 0.04
quencies were compared to those of
Seismic capacity A 0.04 each elaborated model (117 models).
Type of soil A 0.04
A VI between 0 and 1 is given; this
Ductility of steel C 0.06 allows organization of the reinforced
Steel joints B 0.05 masonry structure according to a pro-
Horizontal diaphragm A 0.04 posed classication.
Modications A 0.04 The developed program gives satisfac-
Plan regularity A 0.04 tory results. This method can help city
stakeholders to make decisions for the
Elevation regularity A 0.04
strengthening or replacement of exist-
Maintenance A 0.03 ing buildings.
Ground conditions A 0.00 This method may also be used to
Pounding effect A 0.00 elaborate vulnerability curves, in
Roof B 0.05 order to complete the seismic scenar-
ios. This allows city managers to
Details B 0.05
develop emergency and recovery
Table 11: Results of example 1 plans.

References
[1] Revet S. Vivre dans un monde plus sr Cat-
astrophes naturelles et scurit globale. Cult.
Con. 2009; 75(1): 3351.
[2] Colin A. La rsilience : un concept pour la
gestion des risques. Ann. Gograph. 2007;
654(2): 115125.
[3] Kenneth A, Franch G, Gian M, Morbelli G,
Maximiliano A, Inostroza A, Gori RE. A seis-
mic vulnerability index for conned masonry
shear wall buildings and a relationship with the
damage. Eng. Struct. 2008; 10(30): 26052612.
F ig . 6: Principal face of 12, Rue El Biar
[4] Lourenco PB, Roque JA. Simplied indexes
Parameters Classes Factors Kn inspection. The ndings of the inquiry for the seismic vulnerability of ancient masonry
report57 are in adequacy with the buildings. Construct. Build. Mater. 2006; 4(20):
Wall connections B 0.05 obtained result. 200208.
Seismic capacity A 0.04 [5] Lourenco PB, Oliveira DV, Leite JC,
Ingham JM, Modena C, Da Porto F. Simplied
Type of soil A 0.04 Conclusion indexes for the seismic assessment of masonry
Ductility of steel C 0.06 buildings: International database and validation.
In this paper, a seismic vulnerability Eng. Fail. Anal. 2013; 1(34): 585605.
Steel joints B 0.05 analysis was conducted, using the VI
method and was applied to Algerian [6] Milutinovic ZV, Trendaloski GS. An
Horizontal C 0.06
advanced approach to earthquake risks scenar-
diaphragm reinforced masonry structures. ios with applications to different European
Modications B 0.05 In the rst step, parameters inuen- towns. WP4: Vulnerability of Current Buildings
Risk-UE 2003, Greece, 2003.
Plan regularity B 0.05 cing the seismic vulnerability of such
structures were identied. Three vul- [7] National Institute of Building Sciences.
Elevation B 0.05
nerability classes (A, B and C) were Hazards Risk Assessment Program.
regularity Washington, DC, 1997.
then dened to determine the state of
Maintenance C 0.08 [8] OYO Corporation. RADIUS methodology.
each vulnerability parameter.
Ground conditions A 0.00 IDNDR, 1999.
The third step leads to the determina-
Pounding effect C 0.15 [9] Boukri M, Bensaibi M. Dtermination de
tion of weighting factors. These fac- lindice de vulnrabilit des constructions en
Roof C 0.06 tors were obtained using non-linear maonnerie. Thse de Magistr, Saad Dahleb
Details C 0.06 dynamic analyses. University, Bilda, Algeria, 2003.

These analyses are based on the maxi- [10] Bensaibi M, Djaalali F, Belheouane FI,
Table 12: Results of example 2
Amellal O, Yous N. Seismic vulnerability
mum displacements generated by dif-
index method: Algerian case studies. Proceed-
was assessed by an Algerian national ferent models (low rise, mid rise and ings of the 8th International Conference on
agency (CGS), which classied it as high rise). Ten seismic records were Urban Earthquake Engineering, Tokyo Institute
orange level 4 according to the visual used. In order to avoid the resonance of Technology, Tokyo, Japan, 78 March 2011.

86 Scientic Paper Structural Engineering International Nr. 1/2017


[11] Djaalali F, Bensaibi M. Dtermination des [26] Mallardo V, Malvezzia R, Milani E, [42] Belheouane FI, Bensaibi M. Evaluation of
courbes de vulnrabilit pour le bti en Milani G. Seismic vulnerability of historical the vulnerability index for reinforced concrete
maonnerie de la capitale Alger (Algrie). masonry buildings: a case study in Ferrara. Eng. construction in Algeria under seismic action.
National High School of Public Works, Algeria, Struct. 2008; 8(30): 22232241. Int. J. Adv. Trends Eng. Mater. Appl. 2012;
2013. 1(1): 101106.
[27] Formisano A, Florio G, Landolfo R,
[12] Djaalali F, Bensaibi M, Bourahla N, Mazzolani FM. Numerical calibration of an easy [43] Djaalali F, Bensaibi M, Bourahla N. Indice
Davenne L. Vulnerability curves of masonry method for seismic behaviour assessment on de vulnrabilit pour les constructions en
constructions Algiers case study. Struct. Eng. large scale of masonry building aggregates. maonnerie: application la ville dAlger.
Mech. 2012; 5(42): 609630. Adv. Eng. Softw. 2015; 1(80): 116138. Algrie Equip. 2011; 49(6): 210.
[13] Belhouane FI, Bensaibi M. Dtermination [28] Betti M, Vignoli A. Numerical assessment [44] Djaalali F, Bensaibi M, Bourahla N. Evalu-
de lindice de vulnrabilit des constructions en of the static and seismic behaviour of the basil- ation of the vulnerability index for unreinforced
bton arm. Saad Dahleb University, Algeria, ica of Santa Maria allImpruneta (Italy). Con- masonry structures. Appl. Mech. Mater. 2012;
2006. struct. Build Mater. 2011; 12(25): 43084324. 166169: 13871390.

[14] Belheouane FI, Bensaibi M. Dtermination [29] Park J, Towashiraporn P, Craig JI, [45] Belheouane FI, Bensaibi M. Seismic vul-
des Courbes de Vulnrabilit Pour Les Struc- Goodno BJ. Seismic fragility analysis of low-rise nerability index for reinforced concrete con-
tures en Bton Arm en Algrie National High unreinforced masonry structures. Eng. Struct. struction in Algeria. Adv. Sci. Lett. 2012; 13:
School of Public Works: Algeria, 2013. 2009; 1(31): 125137. 364368.

[15] Belheouane FI, Bensaibi M. Assessment of [30] Aref AJ, Dolatshahi KM. Three- [46] SAP 2000 [Structural Analysis Program].
vulnerability curves using vulnerability index dimensional cyclic meso-scale numerical proce- Version Advanced 14.0.0 Computers and Struc-
method for reinforced concrete structures. dure for simulation of unreinforced masonry tures, Inc.: Berkeley, 2009.
World Acad. Sci. Eng. Technol. 2013; 6: structures. Comput. Struct. 2013; 1(120): 923.
[47] Py B. Statistique Descriptive, 4th edn. Eco-
153156. [31] Bolhassani M, Hamid AA, Moon FL. nomica: Paris, 1996.
[16] Belheouane FI, Bensaibi M. Vulnerability Enhancement of lateral in-plane capacity of
[48] Karantoni F, Lyrantzaki F, Tsionis G,
curves of reinforced concrete buildings. Pro- partially grouted concrete masonry shear walls.
Fardis MN. Seismic fragility functions of stone
ceedings of the International Conference on Eng. Struct. 2016; 1(108): 5976.
masonry buildings. Proceedings of the 15th
Engineering and built Environment, Bangi, [32] Minaie E, Moon FL, Hamid AA. Nonlinear World Conference on Earthquake Engineering
Malaysia, 1920 November 2013. nite element modeling of reinforced masonry (WCEE), Lisboa, Portugal, 2428 September
[17] Amellal O, Bensaibi M, Grine K. Seismic shear walls for bidirectional loading response. 2012.
vulnerability index method for steel structures. Finite Elem. Anal. Des. 2014; 1(84): 4453.
[49] Ministry of Housing and Urban Planning.
Proceedings of the 15th World Conference on [33] Pel L, Cervera M, Roca P. An orthotropic Rgles parasismique algriennes RPA 99/ ver-
Earthquake Engineering (WCEE), Lisboa, Por- damage model for the analysis of masonry sion 2003, DTR-B.C.2.48, Algeria, 2004.
tugal, 2428 September 2012. structures. Construct. Build Mater. 2013; 1(41):
[50] NEHRP Consultants Joint Venture. A
[18] Amellal O, Bensaibi M. Dtermination de 957967.
partnership of the Applied Technology Council
lindice de vulnrabilit des constructions en [34] Almeida C, Guedes JP, Arde A, Costa A. and the Consortium of Universities for
charpente mtallique. Saad Dahleb University, Geometric indices to quantify textures irregular- Research in Earthquake Engineering: Soil-
Algeria, 2008. ity of stone masonry walls. Construct. Build Structure Interaction for Building Structures.
[19] Yous N, Bensaibi M. Evaluation de la Mater. 2016; 1(111): 199208. Applied Technology Council, Redwood City,
vulnrabilit sismique des constructions en 2012.
[35] Zimmermann T, Strauss A, Bergmeister K.
maonnerie et charpente mtallique. Proceed- Numerical, investigation of historic masonry [51] Association Franaise de Normalisation
ings of the Colloque International Rduction du walls under normal and shear load. Construct. (AFNOR). Eurocode 3, Calcul des Structures en
Risque Sismique, Chlef, 1011 October 2012. Build Mater. 2010; 8(24): 13851391. Acier et Document dApplication AFNOR:
[20] Yous N, Bensaibi M. Estimation de lin- Paris, 1999.
[36] Petrovcic S, Kilar V. Seismic failure mode
dice de vulnrabilit de structures mixte interaction for the equivalent frame modeling [52] Saint marin JM, Calgaro JA. Les Eurocodes
maonnerie/charpente mtallique. Proceedings of unreinforced masonry structures. Eng. Struct. Conception des Btiments et Des Ouvrages de
of the 8me Colloque National AFPS, Paris, 68 2013; 1(54): 922. Gnie Civil Editions du Moniteur: Paris, 2005.
September 2011.
[37] Ruiz-garcia J, Negrete M. Simplied drift [53] European Committee for Standardisation.
[21] Yous N, Bensaibi M. Dtermination de based assessment procedure for regular con- Eurocode 8: Calcul des Structures Pour Leur
lindice de vulnrabilit des structures. Saad ned masonry building in seismic regions. Rsistance Aux Sismes European Committee
Dahleb University, Algeria, 2010. J. Earthq. Eng. 2009; 4(13): 520539. for Standardisation: Brussels, 2003.
[22] GNDT. The Catania Project: Earthquake [38] Dhanasekar M. Shear in reinforced and [54] Building and Civil Engineering Sector Pol-
damage scenarios for a high risk area in the unreinforced masonry: response, design and icy and Strategy Committee. Eurcode 6: Design
Mediterranean. CNR-Gruppo Nazionale per la construction. Proc. Eng. 2011; 1(14): 20692076. of Masonry Structures BSI Group: London,
Difesa dai Terremoti, Rome, Italy, 2000. 2001.
[39] Kumar N, Rajagopal A, Pandey M. Plastic-
[23] Betti M, Vignoli A. Modeling and analysis ity based approach for failure modeling of [55] Czares U, Nio M, Reinoso E. Vulnera-
of a Romanesque church under earthquake unreinforced masonry. Eng. Struct. 2014; 1(80): bility functions for buildings due to liquefaction.
loading: Assessment of seismic resistance. Eng. 4052. Proceedings of the 15th world conference on
Struct. 2008; 2(30): 352367. earthquake engineering (WCEE), Lisboa, Portu-
[40] Truong-Hong L, Laefer DF. Impact of
[24] Lignola GP, Nigro E, Cosenza E. Seismic gal, 2428 September 2012.
modeling architectural detailing for predicting
vulnerability of natural stone pinnacles on the unreinforced masonry response to subsidence. [56] Borland Software Corporation. Borland
Amal Coast in Italy. J. Cult. Herit. 2010; 1(11): Autom.Construct. 2013; 1(30): 191204. Delphi [Computer program]. Version 7.0 (build
6880. 4.453) Borland Software Corporation: Paris,
[41] Ghalehnovi M, Rahdar HA. Seismic vul-
[25] Cali I, Marletta M, Pant B. A new dis- 2002.
nerability and performance level of conned
crete element model for the evaluation of the brick walls. Proceedings of the Seismic Engineer- [57] National Earthquake Engineering
seismic behavior of unreinforced masonry build- ing Conference Commemorating the 1908 Mes- Research Centre (CGS). Rapports dExpertises
ings. Eng. Struct. 2012; 1(40): 327338. sina and Reggio Calabria Earthquake, 2008. de la Ville dAlger. Algiers, 2005.

Structural Engineering International Nr. 1/2017 Scientic Paper 87

You might also like