The Borah Peak, Idaho Earthquake of October 28, 1983—Buildings and Schools

Adham, Samy A.; Ballif, Brent

doi:10.1193/1.1585307

Cited by 6 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The performance of such buildings is extensively documented in published reconnaissance reports (Scholl and Stratta 1984;Shah et al 1984;Reitherman et al 1984;Kariotis 1984;Adham 1985;Reitherman 1985;Swan et al 1985;Esteva 1988;Hart et al 1988;Deppe 1988;Moore et al 1988;Muria-Vila and Meli 1989;Meli 1989;"Armenia" 1989;Mitchell et al 1989;"Loma" 1990;Bruneau 1990;Cross and Jones 1991;Rutherford and Chekene 1991;Kariotis et al 1991) from which a number of observations are possible. Generally 9 With the exception of a comprehensive data collection by Rutherford and Chekene (1991) and a few other reports, damage surveys reported in the literature tend to concentrate on the downtown cores where the building stock consists mostly of older URM buildings, and may thus be biased toward higher damage (Shah et al 1984).…”

Section: General Modes Of Failure Of Urm Buildings During Earthquakesmentioning

confidence: 99%

State‐of‐the‐Art Report on Seismic Performance of Unreinforced Masonry Buildings

Bruneau

1994

J. Struct. Eng.

139

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A large proportion of North America's older building inventory is of unreinforced masonry (URM), constructed in the absence of mandatory earthquake design requirements, and unquestionably recognized as the type of construction most vulnerable to earthquakes. Awareness of this seismic hazard is relatively new in eastern North America. In addition, the nature of the seismic risk and other engineering constraints there shed a new and different perspective on the problem. This state-of-the-art paper on the seismic performance of URM buildings summarizes knowledge that has already gained some acceptance in parts of North America, and outlines current limitations. Concerns regarding the seismic performance of existing URM buildings are formulated in an eastern North American seismicity context. The various failure modes of URM buildings or components subjected to earthquake excitation are described, and, when possible, illustrated. The state-of-practice as required by North American building design codes and standards is summarized. A special analytical procedure of the Uniform Code for Building Conservation, largely inspired from the Agbabian, Barnes, and Kariotis (ABK) methodology for the mitigation of seismic hazards in existing buildings, is reviewed.

show abstract

Section: General Modes Of Failure Of Urm Buildings During Earthquakesmentioning

confidence: 99%

State‐of‐the‐Art Report on Seismic Performance of Unreinforced Masonry Buildings

Bruneau

1994

J. Struct. Eng.

139

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Although not part of the load bearing structure, their significance stems from the survivability requirement in the aftermath of a seismic event and their vast contribution to the overall construction costs [1]. Nevertheless, past earthquakes have demonstrated that current methods for the seismic analysis of secondary substructures lack the necessary rigour and robustness, resulting in expensive and often unreliable solutions [2,3,4,5].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%