Advertisement

Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering

, Volume 17, Issue 9, pp 4987–5019 | Cite as

Intervened URM buildings with RC elements: typological characterisation and associated challenges

  • Gonçalo Correia LopesEmail author
  • Romeu Vicente
  • Tiago Miguel Ferreira
  • Miguel Azenha
Original Research
  • 70 Downloads

Abstract

The past reconstruction processes that took place after important earthquakes, and the development and progressive use of reinforced concrete (RC) since the beginning of the twentieth century, led to the creation of a mixed unreinforced masonry–reinforced concrete typology, hereinafter designated as URM–RC. The implementation of such practices, mainly in retrofitting interventions of existing unreinforced masonry (URM) buildings, has been spread all over the world, especially due to numerous vague recommendations given in certain building codes. However, over the years, these derived mixed URM–RC buildings revealed to be extremely vulnerable to seismic loads, and their inherent complex structural behaviour is still understudied. Only in recent years researchers have started to turn their attention to the seismic vulnerability of these structures, by studying and observing their particular damage patterns, mechanisms and interaction effects from coupling RC structural elements to URM loadbearing walls. Moreover, the beneficial nature of structural interventions with RC on URM buildings located in seismically prone regions is still a contentious issue for most of the research community. In this context, the present paper represents a stepping stone for the thorough understanding of the existing derived mixed URM–RC building typologies. A comprehensive cataloguing and categorization of the different intervention typologies is presented in order to support a more reliable assessment of their seismic vulnerability in future studies, as well as to design proper strengthening interventions so as to avoid future disasters. Furthermore, a comprehensive array of open issues is given in a section dedicated to the associated challenges.

Keywords

Derived mixed URM–RC buildings Building typologies Modelling strategies Seismic retrofit Structural codes and standards 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The first author would like to acknowledge the PhD grant PD/BD/135201/2017 provided by Foundation for Science and Technology (FCT), within the scope of the Doctoral Programme InfraRisk- (Analysis and Mitigation of Risks in Infrastructures). Thanks are also due to University of Aveiro, FCT/MEC for the financial support to the research Unit RISCO – Aveiro Research Centre of Risks and Sustainability in Construction – (FCT/UID/ECI/04450/2013) and to the Research Unit ISISE – Institute for Sustainability and Innovation in Structural Engineering – (POCI-01-0145-FEDER-007633).

References

  1. Aguilar A (2016) The seismic rehabilitation of historic buildings. National Park Service, pp 1–20. ISSN: 0885-7016Google Scholar
  2. Arbuckle AQ. Gutting the White House. https://mashable.com/2016/01/06/white-house-renovation/?europe=true#.uHQlf.lyuqb. Accessed 11 Jan 2019
  3. Arce D, Retamozo S, Aguilar R, Castañeda B (2016) A mixed methodology for detailed 3D modeling of architectural heritage. In: Van Balen K, Verstrynge E (eds) Structural analysis of historical constructions: anamnesis, diagnosis, therapy, controls. Belgium, Leuven, pp 104–111CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Asteris PG, Sarhosis V, Mohebkhah A et al (2015) Numerical modeling of historic masonry structures. In: Asteris PG, Plevris V (eds) Handbook of research on seismic assessment and rehabilitation of historic structures. IGI Global, pp 213–256CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Augenti N, Parisi F (2008a) Preliminary analysis on masonry-RC combined systems: structural assessment. In: 14th International brick and block masonry conference. Sydney, pp 58–67Google Scholar
  6. Augenti N, Parisi F (2008b) Three-dimensional seismic analysis of masonry combined systems. In: Proceedings of the 14th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering. Beijing, ChinaGoogle Scholar
  7. Augenti N, Parisi F (2009) Numerical analyses of masonry-RC combined systems. In: Proceedings of the 1st international conference on protection of historical buildings, PROHITECH. Rome, Italy, pp 1109–1114Google Scholar
  8. Augenti N, Parisi F (2010) Learning from construction failures due to the 2009 L’Aquila, Italy, Earthquake. J Perform Constr Facil 24:536–555.  https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)CF.1943-5509.0000122 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Baggio C, Bernardini A, Colozza R et al (2007) Field manual for post-earthquake damage and safety assessment and short term countermeasures (AeDES). European Commission, Joint Research CentreGoogle Scholar
  10. Borri A, Sisti R, Corradi M, Giannantoni A (2016) Experimental analysis of masonry ring beams reinforced with composite materials. In: 16th IB2MAC—international brick and block masonry conference 2016, 26th–30th June 2016. Padua, Italy, pp 717–725Google Scholar
  11. Carlevaro N, Roux-Fouillet G (2015) Guide book for building earthquake-resistant houses in confined masonry. Swiss Agency for Development and Cooperation - SDC, BernGoogle Scholar
  12. Cattari S (2007) Modellazione a telaio equivalente di strutture esistenti in muratura e miste muratura-c.a.: formulazione di modelli sintetici. (PhD thesis). Università degli Studi di Genova. (in Italian) Google Scholar
  13. Cattari S, Lagomarsino S (2013) Seismic assessment of mixed masonry-reinforced concrete buildings by non-linear static analyses. Earthq Struct 4:241–264.  https://doi.org/10.12989/eas.2013.4.3.241 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Cattari S, Lagomarsino S, Bazzurro A et al (2015) Critical review of analytical models for the in-plane and out-of-plane assessment of URM buildings. In: New dimensions in earthquake resilience–2015 NZSEE Technical Conference and AGM. Rotorua, New ZealandGoogle Scholar
  15. CEN (1996) Eurocode 8: Design provisions for earthquake resistance of structures—part 1–4: general rules, seismic actions and rules for buildings. Comite Europeen de Normalisation, BrusselsGoogle Scholar
  16. CEN (2005a) Eurocode 6: Design of masonry structures—part 1–1: general rules for reinforced and unreinforced masonry structures. Comite Europeen de Normalisation, BrusselsGoogle Scholar
  17. CEN (2005b) Eurocode 8: Design of structures for earthquake resistance—part 3: assessment and retrofitting of buildings. Comite Europeen de Normalisation, BrusselsGoogle Scholar
  18. Cimellaro GP, Christovasilis IP, Reinhorn AM et al (2010) L’Aquila Earthquake of April 6th, 2009 in Italy: Rebuilding a Resilient City to Multiple Hazard. In: MCEER Technical Rep.—MCEER-10Google Scholar
  19. Ciro Cuono PE (2015) Cinder Concrete Slab Construction. https://www.structuremag.org/?p=8405. Accessed 11 Jan 2019
  20. CML (1945) Revista Municipal. Câmara Municipal de Lisboa, Lisbon (in Portuguese) Google Scholar
  21. Cóias V (2007) Reabilitação Estrutural de Edifícios Antigos, 2a Edição. ARGUMENTUM GECoRPA, Lisbon (in Portuguese) Google Scholar
  22. Cóias V, Soares I (1996) Utilização do betão armado no reforço sísmico de edifícios de alvenaria. Caso dos edifícios de placa—Betão Estrutural. LNEC, Lisbon (in Portuguese) Google Scholar
  23. Davide C (2007) Assessment of existing mixed R.C.—masonry structures and strengthening by R.C. shear walls. (MSc thesis). Università degli Studi di PaviaGoogle Scholar
  24. Decanini L, De Sortis A, Goretti A et al (2004) Performance of masonry buildings during the 2002 Molise, Italy, earthquake. Earthq Spectra 20:S191–S220.  https://doi.org/10.1193/1.1765106 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Echavarri P Apartment building rehabilitation and expansion. https://www.mimoa.eu/projects/Spain/Madrid/ApartmentBuildingRehabilitationandExpansion. Accessed 11 Jan 2019
  26. FEMA (2003) HAZUS-MH MR4 Technical Manual. Federal Emergency Management Agency, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  27. Ferreira TM, Costa AA, Vicente R, Varum H (2015) A simplified four-branch model for the analytical study of the out-of-plane performance of regular stone URM walls. Eng Struct 83:140–153.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2014.10.048 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Fessenden M (2015) The White House is mostly a reconstruction of the original. https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/white-house-mostly-reconstruction-original-180955229/. Accessed 11 Jan 2019
  29. Forell/Elsesser Engineers Seismic Retrofits. http://www.forell.com/seismic-retrofits/. Accessed 11 Jan 2019
  30. Geocimenta (2008) Curiosidade: Microestacas. https://engenhariacivil.wordpress.com/2008/02/17/curiosidademicroestacas/. Accessed 11 Jan 2019
  31. Giuffrè A (1993) Sicurezza e conservazione dei centri storici. Il caso Ortigia. Editori Laterza, Bari (in Italian) Google Scholar
  32. Gruppo Sismica (2013) 3DMacro—Manuale Teorico. Gruppo Sismica s.r.l, Catania (in Italian) Google Scholar
  33. Guo T, Xu W, Song L, Wei L (2014) Seismic-isolation retrofits of school buildings: practice in China after recent devastating earthquakes. J Perform Constr Facil 28:96–107.  https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)CF.1943-5509.0000411 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. IBC (2008) Italian Building Code: Norme Tecniche per le Costruzioni. D.M. 14 gennaio 2008, Suppl. ord. n° 30 alla G.U. n. 29 del 4/02/2008, Ministero delle Infrastrutture e dei Trasporti, Roma. (in Italian) Google Scholar
  35. IBCC (2009) Italian Building Code Commentary: Circolare n. 617 del 02.02.2009: Istruzioni per l’applicazione delle “Norme tecniche per le costruzioni” di cui al D.M. 14 gennaio 2008. GU n. 47 del 26-2-2009—Suppl. Ordinario n.27, Ministero delle Infrastrutture e dei Trasporti, Roma. (in Italian) Google Scholar
  36. Irmãos Gigante (2016) Timelapse Construção Hotel Fabrica do Chocolate. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dRraWYwZdpg. Accessed 11 Jan 2019
  37. Jaiswal KS, Wald DJ (2008) Creating a global building inventory for earthquake loss assessment and risk management: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 2008-1160. USGSGoogle Scholar
  38. Jurukovski D, Krstevska L, Alessi R et al (1992) Shaking table tests of three four-storey brick masonry models: Original and strengthened by RC core and by RC jackets. In: 10th World conference on earthquake engineering. Balkema, Rotterdam, pp 2795–2800Google Scholar
  39. Klingner RE (2003) Seismic behavior, design, and retrofitting of masonry. In: Scawthorn C, Chen W-F (eds) Earthquake Engineering Handbook. CRC Press, Boca RatonGoogle Scholar
  40. Klingner RE (2010) Masonry structural design. McGraw-Hill, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  41. Lagomarsino S, Cattari S (2015a) PERPETUATE guidelines for seismic performance-based assessment of cultural heritage masonry structures. Bull Earthq Eng 13:13–47.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10518-014-9674-1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Lagomarsino S, Cattari S (2015b) Seismic performance of historical masonry structures through pushover and nonlinear dynamic analyses. In: Ansal A (ed) Perspectives on European earthquake engineering and seismology. Springer, Cham, pp 265–292CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Lagomarsino S, Magenes G (2009) Evaluation and reduction of the vulnerability of masonry buildings. In: Manfredi G, Dolce M (eds) The state of earthquake engineering research in Italy: the ReLUIS-DPC 2005–2008 Project. Doppiavoce, Napoli, pp 1–50Google Scholar
  44. Lagomarsino S, Penna A, Galasco A, Cattari S (2013) TREMURI program: an equivalent frame model for the nonlinear seismic analysis of masonry buildings. Eng Struct 56:1787–1799.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2013.08.002 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Lamego P (2014) Reforço sísmico de edifícios de habitação. Viabilidade da mitigação do risco. (PhD thesis). Universidade do Minho. (in Portuguese) Google Scholar
  46. Liberatore L, Tocci C (2008) Analisi non lineari su modelli semplificati per la valutazione della risposta sismica di edifici misti muratura-c.a. In: Atti del Convegno Valutazione e riduzione della vulnerabilitd sismica di edifici esistenti in c.a. Polimetrica, Roma. (in Italian) Google Scholar
  47. Liberatore L, Decanini LD, Benedetti S (2007) Le strutture miste muratura-cemento armato, uno stato dell’arte. In: Atti del XII Convegno Nazionale L’Ingegneria Sismica in Italia. Edizioni PLUS-Pisa University Press, Pisa. (in Italian) Google Scholar
  48. Liberatore L, Tocci C, Masiani R (2008) Non linear analyses for the evaluation of seismic behavior of mixed R.C.-masonry structures. In: Proceedings of the 2008 seismic engineering conference commemorating the 1908 Messina and Reggio Calabria Earttiquake (MERCEA’08). Reggio Calabria, pp 1211–1218Google Scholar
  49. Lopes M (ed) (2008) Sísmos e Edifícios. ORION, Lisbon (in Portuguese) Google Scholar
  50. Lopes M, Meireles H, Cattari S, et al (2014) Pombalino constructions: description and seismic assessment. In: Costa A, Guedes JM, Varum H (eds) Structural rehabilitation of old buildings. Springer, Berlin, pp 187–234Google Scholar
  51. Lourenço PB (1996) Computational strategies for masonry structures. Delft University of Technology, DelftGoogle Scholar
  52. Lourenço PB (2002) Computations on historic masonry structures. Prog Struct Eng Mater 4:301–319.  https://doi.org/10.1002/pse.120 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Lourenço PB (2004) Current experimental and numerical issues in masonry research. In: SÍSMICA 2004—6o Congresso Nacional de Sismologia e Engenharia Sísmica. Universidade do Minho. Departamento de Engenharia Civil (DEC), pp 119–136Google Scholar
  54. Lourenço PB, Mendes N, Ramos LF, Oliveira DV (2011) Analysis of masonry structures without box behavior. Int J Archit Herit 5:369–382.  https://doi.org/10.1080/15583058.2010.528824 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Magenes G, Menon A (2009) A review of the current status of seismic design and assessment of masonry buildings in Europe. J Struct Eng 35:443–452Google Scholar
  56. Magenes G, Penna A (2011) Seismic design and assessment of masonry buildings in Europe: recent research and code development issues. In: 9th Australasian masonry conference. Queenstown, New Zealand, pp 583–603Google Scholar
  57. Magenes G, Penna A, Rota M et al (2012) Shaking table test of a full scale stone masonry building with stiffened floor and roof diaphragms. In: 15th World conference on earthquake engineering (15WCEE). Lisbon, PortugalGoogle Scholar
  58. Maio RA, Ferreira TM, Vicente RS (2017) The use of macro-element approach for the seismic vulnerability assessment of stone masonry buildings. In: 3rd International conference on protection of historical constructions (PROHITECH 2017). Lisbon, PortugalGoogle Scholar
  59. Marques R (2014) Masonry box behavior. Encycl Earthq Eng.  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-36197-5 Google Scholar
  60. Marques R, Lamego P, Lourenço PB et al (2017) Efficiency and cost-benefit analysis of seismic strengthening techniques for old residential buildings in Lisbon. J Earthq Eng 00:1–36.  https://doi.org/10.1080/13632469.2017.1286616 Google Scholar
  61. Meireles H, Bento R (2013) Rehabilitation and strengthening of old masonry buildings. Report ICIST, DTC no 02/2013Google Scholar
  62. Milosevic J, Bento R, Cattari S (2016) Sensitivity analyses of the seismic performance of mixed masonry-RC buildings: The “Rabo de Bacalhau” building type in Lisbon. In: Van Balen K, Verstrynge E (eds) Structural analysis of historical constructions: anamnesis, diagnosis, therapy, controls. Leuven, pp 1551–1558Google Scholar
  63. Milosevic J, Bento R, Cattari S (2018a) Seismic behavior of Lisbon mixed masonry-RC buildings with historical value: a contribution for the practical assessment. Front Built Environ 4:1–19.  https://doi.org/10.3389/fbuil.2018.00043 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Milosevic J, Cattari S, Bento R (2018b) Sensitivity analyses of seismic performance of ancient mixed masonry-RC buildings in Lisbon. Int J Mason Res Innov 3:108–154CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Modena C, Casarin F, Porto F et al (2009) Structural interventions on historical masonry buildings: review of Eurocode 8 provisions in the light of the Italian experience. In: Cosenza E (ed) Eurocode 8 perspectives from the Italian Standpoint workshop. Doppiavoce, Napoli, pp 225–236Google Scholar
  66. Modena C, Valluzzi MR, Da Porto F, Casarin F (2011) Structural aspects of the conservation of historic masonry constructions in seismic areas: remedial measures and emergency actions. Int J Archit Herit 5:539–558.  https://doi.org/10.1080/15583058.2011.569632 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Monteiro M, Bento R (2012) Characterization of ‘Placa’ buildings, Report ICIST, DTC no 02/2012Google Scholar
  68. Nardone F, Verderame GM, Prota A, Manfredi G (2010) Comparative analysis on the seismic behavior of combined RC-masonry buildings. J Struct Eng 136:1483–1496.  https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)ST.1943-541X.0000249 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Neves F (2008) Avaliação da Vulnerabilidade Sísmica do Parque Habitacional da Ilha do Faial. (MSc thesis). Universidade de Aveiro, Aveiro. (in Portuguese) Google Scholar
  70. Oliveira CS, Carvalho EC, Fragoso MR, Vidália M (1998) Regras Gerais de Reabilitação e Reconstrução de Edifícios Correntes Afectados Pela Crise Sísmica do Faial, Pico e S. Jorge Iniciada Pelo Sismo de 9 de Julho de 1998. Ponta Delgada. (in Portuguese) Google Scholar
  71. Paparo A, Beyer K (2012) Pushover analyses of mixed RC-URM wall structures. In: 15th World conference on earthquake engineering (15WCEE). Lisbon, PortugalGoogle Scholar
  72. Paparo A, Beyer K (2014) Performance-based approach for the retrofit of URM wall structures by RC walls. In: 2nd European conference on earthquake engineering and seismology. Istambul, TurkeyGoogle Scholar
  73. Paparo A, Beyer K (2016) Modeling the seismic response of modern URM buildings retrofitted by adding RC walls. J Earthq Eng 20:587–610.  https://doi.org/10.1080/13632469.2015.1091798 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Parisi F, Augenti N (2013) Earthquake damages to cultural heritage constructions and simplified assessment of artworks. Eng Fail Anal 34:735–760.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engfailanal.2013.01.005 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Piazza M, Baldessari C, Tomasi R (2008) The role of in-plane floor stiffness in the seismic behaviour of traditional buildings. In: 14th World conference on earthquake engineering, Beijing, ChinaGoogle Scholar
  76. Rai DC (2005) IITK-GSDMA guidelines on seismic evaluation and strengthening of existing buildings. Indian Institute of Technology Kanpur, KanpurGoogle Scholar
  77. Rossetto T, D’Ayala D, Gori F et al (2014) The value of multiple earthquake missions: the EEFIT L’Aquila earthquake experience. Bull Earthq Eng 12:277–305.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10518-014-9588-y CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Sangirardi M (2016) Seismic Behaviour of Mixed Masonry-Reinforced Concrete Buildings. An insight into Modelling Approaches. (PhD thesis). Universidade do Minho, Portugal and Politecnico di Bari, ItalyGoogle Scholar
  79. Scawthorn C, Charleson A, Allen L et al (2013) GEM global earthquake model GEM Building Taxonomy Version 2.0 exposure modelling. GEM Foundation, Pavia, ItalyGoogle Scholar
  80. Senaldi I, Magenes G, Penna A et al (2014) The effect of stiffened floor and roof diaphragms on the experimental seismic response of a full-scale unreinforced stone masonry building. J Earthq Eng 18:407–443.  https://doi.org/10.1080/13632469.2013.876946 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. SIPA Igreja de São João Baptista, Ilha Terceira, Angra do Heroísmo, Açores, Portugal. http://www.monumentos.gov.pt/Site/APP_PagesUser/SIPA.aspx?id=8105. Accessed 11 Jan 2019
  82. Sisti R, Corradi M, Borri A (2016) An experimental study on the influence of composite materials used to reinforce masonry ring beams. Constr Build Mater 122:231–241.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2016.06.120 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. Tomaževič M (1999) Earthquake-resistant design of masonry buildings. Imperial College Press, LondonGoogle Scholar
  84. Tomaževič M (2011) Seismic resistance of masonry buildings in historic urban and rural nuclei: lessons learned in Slovenia. Int J Archit Herit 5:436–465.  https://doi.org/10.1080/15583051003792898 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. Tomaževič M, Modena C, Velechovsky T, Weiss P (1990) The effect of reinforcement on the seismic behavior of masonry buildings with mixed structural systems: an experimental study. In: Proceedings of 9th European conference on earthquake engineering. Moscow, RussiaGoogle Scholar
  86. Valluzzi MR (2006) On the vulnerability of historical masonry structures: analysis and mitigation. Mater Struct 40:723–743.  https://doi.org/10.1617/s11527-006-9188-7 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  87. Vamvatsikos D, Allin Cornell C (2002) Incremental dynamic analysis. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 31:491–514.  https://doi.org/10.1002/eqe.141 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  88. Vicente R, D’Ayala DF, Ferreira TM et al (2014) Seismic vulnerability and risk assessment of historic masonry buildings. In: Structural rehabilitation of old buildings. Springer, Berlin, pp 307–348Google Scholar
  89. WHE (2014) Retrofit information. In: World Housing Encyclopedia. http://db.world-housing.net/building/17/. Accessed 11 Jan 2019
  90. Yang TY, Brzev S, Stojadinovic B (2014) Seismic performance evaluation of an unreinforced masonry building in Switzerland. In: Tenth U.S. National conference on earthquake engineering, frontiers of earthquake engineering. Anchorage, Alaska, USAGoogle Scholar
  91. Zeibak-Shini R, Sacks R, Ma L, Filin S (2016) Towards generation of as-damaged BIM models using laser-scanning and as-built BIM: first estimate of as-damaged locations of reinforced concrete frame members in masonry infill structures. Adv Eng Inform 30:312–326.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aei.2016.04.001 CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.RISCO – Aveiro Research Centre of Risks and Sustainability in ConstructionCivil Engineering Department, University of AveiroAveiroPortugal
  2. 2.ISISE, Institute of Science and Innovation for Bio-Sustainability (IB-S)Civil Engineering Department, School of Engineering, University of MinhoGuimarãesPortugal

Personalised recommendations