Professional Documents
Culture Documents
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: [])
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
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
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.
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
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.
[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.