This preprint is under consideration at Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering. A preprint is a preliminary version of a manuscript that has not completed peer review at a journal. Research Square does not conduct peer review prior to posting preprints. The posting of a preprint on this server should not be interpreted as an endorsement of its validity or suitability for dissemination as established information or for guiding clinical practice.
Learn more about In Review
Research Article
Marco Nale
University of Ferrara: Universita degli Studi di Ferrara
Corresponding Author
ORCiD: https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4565-3489
License:
This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License. Read Full License
The unreinforced masonry buildings can be present frequent local failure mechanisms and represent a serious life-safety hazard as recent strong earthquakes have shown. Compared to new building, existing unreinforced masonry buildings prone to be more vulnerable, not only because they have been designed without seismic or limited loading requirements, but also because horizontal structures and connections amid the walls are not always suitable. Out-of-plane collapse can be caused by important slenderness of walls also when connections are effective.
The purpose of this paper is to evaluate fragility functions for unreinforced masonry walls in the presence of local failure mechanisms considering the out-of-plane response. The wall response, very often, can be idealized as rigid bodies undergoing rocking motion. Depending on its configuration, a wall is assumed either as a rigid body undergoing simple one-sided rocking or an assembly of two coupled rigid bodies rocking along their common edge. A set of 44 ground motions from earthquake events occurred from 1972 to 2017 in Italy is used in this study. The likelihood of collapse is calculated via Multiple Stripe Analysis (MSA) from a given wall undergoing a specific ground motion. Later, the single fragility functions are suitably combined to define a typological fragility function for a class of buildings. The procedure is applied to a historical aggregate in the city center of Ferrara (Italy) as a case study. The fragility functions developed in this research can be a very helpful tool for estimating damage and economic loss for unreinforced masonry buildings and for a seismic assessment on a regional scale.
Keywords
unreinforced masonry buildings, fragility functions, out-of-plane failure, local collapse mechanisms
Figure 1
Figure 2
Figure 3
Figure 4
Figure 5
Figure 6
Figure 7
Figure 8
Figure 9
Figure 10
Figure 11
Figure 12
Figure 13
Figure 14
Figure 15
Figure 16
Figure 17
Loading...
Badges
Prescreen
This manuscript passed our Prescreen assessment
Complete author information
Appropriate declaration statements
Potential risks to human health
Prescreen
Peer Review Timeline
CURRENT STATUS: Under Review
Version 1
Posted 03 Mar, 2021
No community comments so far
Reviewers invited
Invitations sent on 27 Feb, 2021
Review #? received
Received 27 Feb, 2021
Editor invited
On 22 Feb, 2021
Editor assigned
On 21 Feb, 2021
First submitted
On 21 Feb, 2021
Metrics
Comments: 0
PDF Downloads: ...
HTML Views: ...
Learn more about our company.
This preprint is under consideration at Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering. A preprint is a preliminary version of a manuscript that has not completed peer review at a journal. Research Square does not conduct peer review prior to posting preprints. The posting of a preprint on this server should not be interpreted as an endorsement of its validity or suitability for dissemination as established information or for guiding clinical practice.
Learn more about In Review
Research Article
Marco Nale
University of Ferrara: Universita degli Studi di Ferrara
Corresponding Author
ORCiD: https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4565-3489
Badges
Prescreen
This manuscript passed our Prescreen assessment
Complete author information
Appropriate declaration statements
Potential risks to human health
Prescreen
Peer Review Timeline
CURRENT STATUS: Under Review
Version 1
Posted 03 Mar, 2021
No community comments so far
Reviewers invited
Invitations sent on 27 Feb, 2021
Review #? received
Received 27 Feb, 2021
Editor invited
On 22 Feb, 2021
Editor assigned
On 21 Feb, 2021
First submitted
On 21 Feb, 2021
Metrics
Comments: 0
PDF Downloads: ...
HTML Views: ...
License:
This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License. Read Full License
The unreinforced masonry buildings can be present frequent local failure mechanisms and represent a serious life-safety hazard as recent strong earthquakes have shown. Compared to new building, existing unreinforced masonry buildings prone to be more vulnerable, not only because they have been designed without seismic or limited loading requirements, but also because horizontal structures and connections amid the walls are not always suitable. Out-of-plane collapse can be caused by important slenderness of walls also when connections are effective.
The purpose of this paper is to evaluate fragility functions for unreinforced masonry walls in the presence of local failure mechanisms considering the out-of-plane response. The wall response, very often, can be idealized as rigid bodies undergoing rocking motion. Depending on its configuration, a wall is assumed either as a rigid body undergoing simple one-sided rocking or an assembly of two coupled rigid bodies rocking along their common edge. A set of 44 ground motions from earthquake events occurred from 1972 to 2017 in Italy is used in this study. The likelihood of collapse is calculated via Multiple Stripe Analysis (MSA) from a given wall undergoing a specific ground motion. Later, the single fragility functions are suitably combined to define a typological fragility function for a class of buildings. The procedure is applied to a historical aggregate in the city center of Ferrara (Italy) as a case study. The fragility functions developed in this research can be a very helpful tool for estimating damage and economic loss for unreinforced masonry buildings and for a seismic assessment on a regional scale.
Figure 1
Figure 2
Figure 3
Figure 4
Figure 5
Figure 6
Figure 7
Figure 8
Figure 9
Figure 10
Figure 11
Figure 12
Figure 13
Figure 14
Figure 15
Figure 16
Figure 17
Loading...