Masonry Italian Code-Conforming Buildings. Part 1: Case Studies and Design Methods

Abstract

Various architectural configurations of URM residential buildings are designed according to the different methods the Italian code: rules for the so-called simple masonry buildings, linear and nonlinear static analyses. Always complying with code requirements, for each building-site combination the design was made, as much as possible, without an excessive margin of safety. The different design methods provided buildings with very different levels of safety, being linear static analysis largely overconservative with respect to the nonlinear static approach. These buildings were then analyzed in the companion paper by Cattari et al. (2018).

Masonry Italian Code-Conforming Buildings. Part 2: Nonlinear Modelling and Time-History Analysis

“…The final aim of the project is then to verify whether these different typologies guarantee a uniform risk across the national territory. Within this framework, this paper specifically discusses the procedure and the results of the seismic assessment carried out on the unreinforced masonry (URM) configurations, designed according to the requirements of the Italian building code (NTC08, 2008) and illustrated in the companion paper by Manzini et al (2018).…”

“…Several regular and irregular configurations with two or three stories were verified with the different design methods allowed by the code (namely "C", "I", "E" configurations), for a set of sites with different levels of seismic hazard, that were identified within the RINTC project. As illustrated in detail in Manzini et al (2018), "E" buildings represent examples of real modern unreinforced masonry buildings, "C" configurations were conceived as structural variations of regular wall arrangements based on the same architectural plan and "I" buildings incorporate the degrees of irregularity allowed by the code. The aim of the design/verification procedure described in Manzini et al (2018) was to identify meaningful building-site combinations, complying with code requirements without being excessively over-designed, i.e.…”

“…As illustrated in detail in Manzini et al (2018), "E" buildings represent examples of real modern unreinforced masonry buildings, "C" configurations were conceived as structural variations of regular wall arrangements based on the same architectural plan and "I" buildings incorporate the degrees of irregularity allowed by the code. The aim of the design/verification procedure described in Manzini et al (2018) was to identify meaningful building-site combinations, complying with code requirements without being excessively over-designed, i.e. with a safety factor as close as possible to unity.…”

“…Model parameters and dispersion of mechanical properties were estimated starting from experimental results on modern masonry structural elements and components available in the literature. The complete overview of the results of building-site combinations presented in Manzini et al (2018) is illustrated in the RINTC Workgroup report (2018), whereas, for the sake of brevity, in this paper the attention is focused on the sites characterized by the highest seismicity (L'Aquila and Naples). The assessment was carried out by performing nonlinear dynamic analyses (NLDA), which represent the most accurate method currently available for the evaluation of the seismic response of masonry buildings, despite being rarely used in engineering practice.…”

Rintc-E Project: Towards the Seismic Risk of Retrofitted Existing Italian Urm Buildings

“…RINTC-e is an ongoing research project, funded by the Italian Civil Protection Department, aimed at computing the risk of collapse of existing buildings. As a continuation of the previous work, which concerned new buildings [7], [8], [9], this paper focuses on understanding the different level of risk implicit in existing unreinforced masonry (URM) buildings retrofitted according to the prescriptions of different Italian seismic codes.…”