This paper presents a benchmark exercise for the seismic assessment of unreinforced masonry (URM) buildings as a follow-up of a blind prediction test organized in the context of the European Conference of Earthquake Engineering Series. The blind prediction exercise was aimed at better defining the open issues in current procedures for modeling and performing seismic analysis of URM buildings, by highlighting the uncertainty that can influence the results. This work presents an overview of the approaches used by different research teams and the scope of predictions. The benchmark structure was a three-story building with traditional European architecture from which two Cases were considered: A) stone masonry walls and flexible horizontal diaphragms and B) brick masonry walls and rigid horizontal diaphragms. A wide range of approaches was used by the participating teams concerning modeling strategies, methods of analysis and criteria for the attainment of limit states, which are here addressed as potential sources for the dispersion of predictions. The results were compared in terms of capacity curves, predicted failure mechanisms compatible with the fulfillment of limit states of near collapse and damage limitation, and related minimum values of peak ground acceleration (PGA). The results show an overall good agreement for damage patterns and collapse mechanisms in both benchmark structures, presenting some differences in the type of failure mode and its extent. However, the scatter of predicted capacity curves and critical PGAs is very high, especially for the Case with brick masonry and rigid diaphragms, indicating that clearer procedures in the building codes are required for professionals.

Benchmarking the seismic assessment of unreinforced masonry buildings from a blind prediction test

Cattari S.;
2021-01-01

Abstract

This paper presents a benchmark exercise for the seismic assessment of unreinforced masonry (URM) buildings as a follow-up of a blind prediction test organized in the context of the European Conference of Earthquake Engineering Series. The blind prediction exercise was aimed at better defining the open issues in current procedures for modeling and performing seismic analysis of URM buildings, by highlighting the uncertainty that can influence the results. This work presents an overview of the approaches used by different research teams and the scope of predictions. The benchmark structure was a three-story building with traditional European architecture from which two Cases were considered: A) stone masonry walls and flexible horizontal diaphragms and B) brick masonry walls and rigid horizontal diaphragms. A wide range of approaches was used by the participating teams concerning modeling strategies, methods of analysis and criteria for the attainment of limit states, which are here addressed as potential sources for the dispersion of predictions. The results were compared in terms of capacity curves, predicted failure mechanisms compatible with the fulfillment of limit states of near collapse and damage limitation, and related minimum values of peak ground acceleration (PGA). The results show an overall good agreement for damage patterns and collapse mechanisms in both benchmark structures, presenting some differences in the type of failure mode and its extent. However, the scatter of predicted capacity curves and critical PGAs is very high, especially for the Case with brick masonry and rigid diaphragms, indicating that clearer procedures in the building codes are required for professionals.
File in questo prodotto:
File Dimensione Formato  
1-s2.0-S235201242100103X-main.pdf

accesso aperto

Descrizione: Articolo su rivista
Tipologia: Documento in Post-print
Dimensione 4.06 MB
Formato Adobe PDF
4.06 MB Adobe PDF Visualizza/Apri

I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.

Utilizza questo identificativo per citare o creare un link a questo documento: https://hdl.handle.net/11567/1054867
Citazioni
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.pmc??? ND
  • Scopus 36
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.isi??? 32
social impact