Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Risk assessment of confined unreinforced masonry buildings based on FEMA P-58 methodology: a case study—school buildings in Tehran

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Seismic performance of a representative single-story confined unreinforced masonry school building in Tehran, Iran is evaluated by means of incremental dynamic analyses according to FEMA P-58 framework. For this purpose, fragility curves are derived for each of the constituent walls of the building. The in-plane behavior of the walls is considered only. Both flexible and rigid diaphragm conditions are investigated. For comparison purposes, the corresponding unconfined building exactly duplicating the considered confined unreinforced masonry building is also studied. In order to analyze the effects of near-source seismic actions on the performance of masonry buildings, two separate far-field and near-field ground motion sets containing 326 records are used. By utilizing the results of the incremental dynamic analyses and the available data of unreinforced masonry school buildings in Tehran, a scenario-based risk assessment of this type of school buildings is performed considering all three adjacent faults for three different earthquake magnitudes. Considerable performance improvement is achieved by providing confinement to the walls which leads to over $100 million reduction in the damage costs for masonry school buildings in Tehran. Also, significant reduction in seismic vulnerability, especially for unconfined masonry buildings, is observed by providing the roof with more rigidity. The findings in this study can be of direct use for disaster management of masonry school buildings in Tehran and similar cities.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9
Fig. 10
Fig. 11
Fig. 12
Fig. 13
Fig. 14
Fig. 15
Fig. 16
Fig. 17
Fig. 18
Fig. 19
Fig. 20
Fig. 21
Fig. 22
Fig. 23

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Amiri GG, Dana FM (2005) Introduction of the most suitable parameter for selection of critical earthquake. Comput Struct 83(8):613–626

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • ASCE (2005) Minimum design loads for buildings and other structures (ASCE/SEI 7–05). American Society of Civil Engineers, Reston, VA, USA

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • ASCE (2013) Seismic rehabilitation of existing buildings (ASCE/SEI 41–13). American Society of Civil Engineers, Reston, VA, USA

    Google Scholar 

  • Azizi-Bondarabadi H, Mendes N, Lourenço PB, Sadeghi NH (2016) Empirical seismic vulnerability analysis for masonry buildings based on school buildings survey in Iran. Bull Earthq Eng 14(11):3195–3229

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baker JW (2015) Efficient analytical fragility function fitting using dynamic structural analysis. Earthq Spectra 31(1):579–599

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bakhshi A, Ahmadi MH, Yekrangnia M (2014) Development of fragility curves of confined masonry buildings. 9th International masonry conference, Guimaraes, Portugal

  • Basim MC, Estekanchi HE (2015) Application of endurance time method in performance-based optimum design of structures. Struct Saf 56:52–67

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Benjamin JR, Cornell CA (1970) Probability, statistics, and decision for civil engineers. McGraw-Hill, New York, USA

    Google Scholar 

  • Berberian M, Yeats RS (2001) Contribution of archaeological data to studies of earthquake history in the Iranian plateau. J Struct Geol 23:563–584

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bommer JJ, Magenes G, Hancock J, Penazzo P (2004) The influence of strong-motion duration on the seismic response of masonry structures. Bull Earthq Eng 2(1):1–26

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Campbell KW, Bozorgnia Y (2003) Updated near-source ground-motion (attenuation) relations for the horizontal and vertical components of peak ground acceleration and acceleration response spectra. Bull Seismol Soc Am 93(1):314–331

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chiou B, Darragh R, Gregor N, Silva W (2008) NGA project strong-motion database. Earthq Spectra 24(1):23–44

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dhakal RP, Singh S, Mander JB (2007) Effectiveness of earthquake selection and scaling method in new zealand. Bull N Z Soc Earthq Eng 40(3):160–171

    Google Scholar 

  • Dolatshahi KM, Yekrangnia M (2015) Out-of-plane strength reduction of unreinforced masonry walls because of in-plane damages. Earthq Eng Struct Dynam 44(13):2157–2176

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dolatshahi KM, Aref AJ, Yekrangnia M (2014) Bidirectional behavior of unreinforced masonry walls. Earthq Eng Struct Dynam 43(15):2377–2397

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ebrahimian H, Jalayer F, Lucchini A, Mollaioli F, Manfredi G (2015) Preliminary ranking of alternative scalar and vector intensity measures of ground shaking. Bull Earthq Eng 13(10):2805–2840

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • EN 1052-3 (2002) Methods of test for masonry—Part 3: Determination of initial shear strength. European Committee for Standardization, Brussels

  • Fenves GL, Mazzoni S, McKenna F, Scott MH (2004) Open system for earthquake engineering simulation OpenSees. University of California, Berkeley, CA, USA, Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center

    Google Scholar 

  • FEMA-395 (2002) Incremental seismic rehabilitation of school buildings (K-12). Federal Emergency Management Agency, Washington, D.C, USA

  • FEMA 461 (2007) Interim testing protocols for determining the seismic perfromace characterstics of structural and nonstructural components. Federal Emergency Management Agency, Washington, D.C., USA

  • FEMA 440 (2005) Improvement of nonlinear static seismic analysis procedures. Federal Emergency Management Agency, Washington, D.C., USA

  • FEMA P-440A (2009) Effects of strength and stiffness degradation on seismic response. Federal Emergency Management Agency, Washington, D.C., USA

  • FEMA-P-58 (2012) Seismic performance assessment of buildings. Federal Emergency Management Agency. Washington, D.C., USA

  • FEMA-P-695 (2009). Quantification of building seismic performance factors. Federal Emergency Management Agency, Washington, D.C., USA

  • Ghahari SF, Jahankhah H, Ghannad MA (2010) Study on elastic response of structures to near-fault ground motions through record decomposition. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 30(7):536–546

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Iranian code of practice for seismic resistant design of buildings (Standard 2800) (2015) Fourth Revision, Building and Housing Research Center, Iran (in Persian)

  • Jalayer F, Beck JL, Zareian F (2012) Analyzing the sufficiency of alternative scalar and vector intensity measures of ground shaking based on information theory. J Eng Mech 138(3):307–316

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • KhalafRezaei M (2012) Analytical and experimental evaluation of confined masonry walls retrofitted by shotcreting with ordinary and steel fibers concrete. MSc Thesis, Tarbiat Modares University, Tehran, Iran (in persian)

  • Kostov M, Koleva N (2007) Damage potential of the seismic strong motion. 8th pacific conference on earthquake engineering, Singapore

  • Lovon H, Tarque N, Silva V, Yepes-Estrada C (2018) Development of fragility curves for confined masonry buildings in Lima Peru. Earthq Spectra 34(3):1339–1361

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Luco N, Cornell CA (2007) Structure-specific scalar intensity measures for near-source and ordinary earthquake ground motions. Earthq Spectra 23(2):357–392

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Meli R, Brzev S, Astroza M, Boen T, Crisafulli F, Dai J, Farsi M, Hart T, Mebarki A, Moghadam AS, Quiun D, Tomazevic M, Yamin L (2011) Seismic design guide for low-rise confined masonry buildings. Confined Masonry Network, A Project of the World Housing Encyclopedia, EERI and IAEE, Oakland, CA, USA

  • Mitropoulou CC, Lagaros ND, Papadrakakis M (2010) Building design based on energy dissipation: a critical assessment. Bull Earthq Eng 8:1375–1396

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moehle J, Deierlein GG (2004) A framework methodology for performance-based earthquake engineering. 13th world conference on earthquake engineering and seismology (13WCEE), Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada

  • Moghaddam H (2015) Seismic design of brick buildings, 6th edn. Sharif University of Technology, Tehran, Iran

    Google Scholar 

  • Mosalam KM, White RN, Gergely P (1997) Static response of infilled frames using quasi-static experimentation. J Struct Eng 123(11):1462–4169

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nazari H (2006) Analyse de la tectonique récente et active dansl’alborz central et la région de Téhéran: approche morphotec-toniqueet paléoseismologique, PhD thesis, University of Mont-pellier II

  • New Zealand standard structural design actions part 5: Earthquake actions (2004) (NZS1170.5), Wellington, New Zealand

  • Panahi M, Rezaie F, Meshkani SA (2014) Seismic vulnerability assessment of school buildings in Tehran city based on AHP and GIS. Nat Hazards Earth Syst Sci 14:969–979

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Quiroz LG, Maruyama Y (2017) Seismic assessment of Peruvian confined masonry dwellings using fragility functions, 16th world conference on earthquake engineering and seismology (16WCEE), Santiago, Chile

  • Reinoso E, Ordaz M, Guerrero R (2000) Influence of strong motion duration in seismic design of structures. 12th world conference on earthquake engineering and seismology (12WCEE), Auckland, New Zealand

  • Rural houses specifications count (2003) Housing Foundation of Iran, Tehran, Iran

  • Sarrafi B, Eshghi S (2012) Experimental study on lateral strength of confined masonry walls. 15th world conference on earthquake engineering (15WCEE), Lisbon, Portugal

  • Shome N, Cornell AC, Bazzurro P, Carballo JE (1998) Earthquakes, records and nonlinear responses. Earthq Spectra 14(3):469–500

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tasnimi A (2004) The behavior of masonry walls constructed according to the Standard 2800. Building and Housing Research Center, Bulletin of research No 404, Tehran, Iran

  • Tomaževič M, Gams M (2012) Shaking table study and modelling of seismic behaviour of confined AAC masonry buildings. Bull Earthq Eng 10(3):863–893

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wen Y, Kang Y (2001) Minimum building life-cycle cost design criteria. II: applications. J Struct Eng 127:338–346

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yekrangnia, M, Mahdizadeh A (2009). URM Buildings and earthquake: in-depth evaluation of earthquake damages to URM buildings. Scientific report. Organization for Development, Renovation and Equipping Schools of I.R. Iran

  • Yekrangnia M, Bakhshi A, Ghannad MA (2017) Force-displacement model for confined masonry walls with shear-dominated failure mode. Earthq Eng Struct Dynam 46(13):2209–2234

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yekrangnia M, Mohammadi M (2017) A new strut model for solid masonry infills in steel frames. Eng Struct 135:222–235

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yekrangnia, M., Eghbali, M., Panahi, M., Zanganeh, S.Y., Beyti, M., and Hayatgheybi, S.V. (2017). A preliminary report on school buildings performance during M 7.3 Ezgeleh, Iran earthquake of November 12, 2017. Earthquake Engineering Research Institute (EERI)

  • Yekrangnia M, Aghababai A, Bakhshi A, Ghannad MA, Mirghaderi SR, Khanmohammadi M (2018) In-situ cyclic testing on a typical URM school building-Part II: the confined masonry building. 10th international masonry conference, Milan, Italy

  • Zhai CH, Xie LL (2007) A new approach of selecting real input ground motions for seismic design: the most unfavourable real seismic design ground motions. Earthq Eng Struct Dynam 36(8):1009–1027

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors acknowledge the technical assistance provided by Organization for Development, Renovation and Equipping of Schools in Iran (DRES). Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of the DRES. Also, the comments of the anonymous reviewers which greatly improved the quality of this paper are highly valued.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Civil Engineering, Shahid Rajaee Teacher Training University, 16785-163, Tehran, Iran

    Mohammad Yekrangnia

  2. Department of Civil Engineering, Sharif University of Technology, 11155-9313, Tehran, Iran

    Ali Bakhshi & Mohammad Ali Ghannad

  3. Geoscience Platform Division, Korea Institute of Geoscience and Mineral Resources (KIGAM), 124, Gwahak-ro Yuseong-gu, Daejeon, 34132, South Korea

    Mahdi Panahi

Authors
  1. Mohammad Yekrangnia
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Ali Bakhshi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Mohammad Ali Ghannad
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Mahdi Panahi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ali Bakhshi.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Yekrangnia, M., Bakhshi, A., Ghannad, M.A. et al. Risk assessment of confined unreinforced masonry buildings based on FEMA P-58 methodology: a case study—school buildings in Tehran. Bull Earthquake Eng 19, 1079–1120 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10518-020-00990-1

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10518-020-00990-1

Keywords

Search

Navigation