Seismic Behaviour of Traditionally-Built Constructions

Touliatos, P.

doi:10.1007/978-3-7091-2656-1_3

Cited by 6 publications

(6 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The interventions aimed to combine the principles of conservation (i.e. mainly compatibility and reversibility) with those of safety and structural robustness (Touliatos, 1996; Modena et al , 2006; Modena and Bernardini, 1987).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Best practice of structural retrofit: the SS. Rosario Church in Gesualdo, Italy

Cennamo¹,

Fiore

2013

International Journal of Disaster Resilience in the Built Environment

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

PurposeThe purpose of this paper is to show the importance of a total understanding of the manufacture, before approaching any structural intervention.Design/methodology/approachThe adopted methodology consists of a non‐invasive kind of structural retrofit, in accordance with the history of the manufacture and, at the same time, giving effective respect to seismic solicitations.FindingsThe results are very important for demonstration purposes, and they may be taken as examples in many similar problems.Research limitations/implicationsThe limitation of this research principally consists in the old datation of the study case, because it could be approached more easily with the help of modern concepts.Practical implicationsMany applications can be carried out from the study case: first, the respectful approach to the cultural heritage, in the sense of knowledge and understanding of the “art rule” belonging to the ancient constructors.Social implicationsThe paper has implications for the safety and conservation of historical heritage.Originality/valueThe originality consists in showing the almost unknown work of a master: he reasoned anticipating the technological progress.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Best practice of structural retrofit: the SS. Rosario Church in Gesualdo, Italy

Cennamo¹,

Fiore

2013

International Journal of Disaster Resilience in the Built Environment

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Then, in 1969, he first classified structural systems for tall buildings in the form of "Height for structural systems" diagrams ( Figure 4): frames appear adequate for buildings up to around 10 stories, while for higher constructions, shear walls, core supported structures, tubular structures, modular or bundled tubes are much more efficient systems (Khan, 1972(Khan, , 1973. Examples of such innovative structural solutions ( Figure 5) are in pioneering buildings, such as: John Hancock Building (completed in the 1969) and Sears Towers (completed in 1974) designed by Khan (1967Khan ( , 1969, and the Onterie Center designed by Skidmore, Owings & Merrill (completed in 1986 The so-called "tube, " which was identified by Khan as one of the most efficient earthquake-resistant systems, has the same working principle of the typical building type constructed in FigURe 6 | From the left: "Box" behavior [adapted from Touliatos (1996)]; typical plan of a masonry building (Parisi and Augenti, 2012).…”

Section: Brief History Of Frame Structuresmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…2 Indeed, these types of structures are typically characterized by quite regular plans (often rectangular) with external perimeter walls and interior walls standing from the ground to the roof (only partially perforated due to the presence of few openings, e.g., doors and windows) connected to each other to obtain a sort of "box" behavior [see the famous schematization of Touliatos (1996) reproduced in Figure 6]. Even though the construction materials (brick and mortar) were characterized by quite poor mechanical properties (practical null tensile strength and limited compression strength), the resistance against lateral loads was merely due to a box-type structural response: in-plane response of the walls parallel to the seismic input with negligible out-of-plane solicitations thanks to proper connections between orthogonal walls along with the presence of perimeter roof beams (Casapulla and Argiento, 2016).…”

Section: Brief History Of Frame Structuresmentioning

confidence: 99%

Seismic-Proof Buildings in Developing Countries

Laghi

Palermo

Trombetti

et al. 2017

Front. Built Environ.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The use of "ductile seismic frames," whose proper seismic behavior largely depends upon construction details and specific design rules, may do not always lead to effective seismic resistant structures, as dramatically denounced by the famous Chinese artist Ai Weiwei in his artwork Straight. The artwork (96 t of undulating metal bars that were salvaged from schools destroyed by the 2008 Sichuan, China earthquake, where over 5,000 students were killed) is a clear denounce against the corruption yielding to shoddy construction methods. The issue of safe constructions against natural hazards appears even more important in developing countries where, in most cases, building structures are realized by non-expert workers, or even by simple "people from the street," who does not have any technical knowledge on construction techniques and seismic engineering. In this paper, a brief history from the first frame structures to the more efficient wall-based structures is provided within Earthquake Engineering perspectives. The superior structural properties of box-type wall structures with respect to conventional frame structures envisage a change of paradigm from actual "ductility-based" Earthquake Engineering (centered on frame structures) toward 100% safe buildings through a "strength-based" design exploiting the use of box-type wall-based structures.

show abstract

“…In the structural evaluation of existing masonry buildings, understanding the structural system is crucial for quantification of the risk affecting the goods. Referring to masonry structures, during ground motion old constructions tend to behave following two distinct and complementary penchants: out-of-plane versus in-plane [1]. This distinction does not only apply to the direction of the seismic action but is also related to the general capacity of masonry structures to exhibit a global behavior.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…This distinction does not only apply to the direction of the seismic action but is also related to the general capacity of masonry structures to exhibit a global behavior. The so-called box behavior is assumed when the individual parts of a masonry structure are able to cooperatively participate in the structural performance of the system [1,2]. To this aim, it is important that the orthogonal connections within walls are solid and follow good workmanship practices.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Knowledge-Based Investigation of Seismic Vulnerability Assessment and Compatible Strengthening Design of an Existing Masonry Building

Cristofaro

Tanganelli

2023

Applied Sciences

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Most existing masonry buildings were built without following code regulations for seismic criteria. Hence, their performance compared to the demands of the current codes, for both seismic and static actions, could be very low. In engineering practice, strengthening interventions can be pursued at different levels, based on qualitative assessments of masonry structures. Firstly, the structures are evaluated through in situ inspections. Then, based on the structural system of the building a strengthening design is proposed. The design can be targeted at guaranteeing a box behavior of structures acting through macro-elements, or at strengthening the in-plane capacity of piers and spandrels. However, lower cognitive levels may drive inaccurate impressions about the capacity of structures, leading to unreliable strengthening solutions. While in some cases the confidence factor could underestimate the effects of the reinforcements, in other cases lower knowledge levels could lead to incorrect reinforcements that do not provide helpful solutions. In this paper, the issues concerning the strengthening design of masonry structures are presented and discussed with regard to an existing building. The construction is a 20th century masonry building used as a nursing home for elderly persons. The study follows a knowledge-based procedure where, after achievement of the highest knowledge level and the proposal of compatible and effective strengthening interventions, the analysis of the potential effects of achieving lower knowledge levels is discussed both in terms of vulnerability computations and in terms of strengthening effectiveness. Regarding vulnerability assessment, a lower knowledge level leads to non-conservative results, with an increase in the estimated capacity of around 80%. Critical evaluation of the different configurations for the case study makes it clear that for the considered masonry building the mortar investigation represented the most important parameter to be investigated. The proposal of strengthening interventions before assessment of this parameter may lead to ineffective improvements resulting in index values lower than 0.60. The study represents the opportunity to assess comparisons in the setting of different investigation strategies and their effect on the definition of the strengthening solutions.

show abstract

Seismic Behaviour of Traditionally-Built Constructions

Cited by 6 publications

References 0 publications

Best practice of structural retrofit: the SS. Rosario Church in Gesualdo, Italy

Best practice of structural retrofit: the SS. Rosario Church in Gesualdo, Italy

Seismic-Proof Buildings in Developing Countries

Knowledge-Based Investigation of Seismic Vulnerability Assessment and Compatible Strengthening Design of an Existing Masonry Building

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About