5 views

Uploaded by magdyamdb

Seismic vulnerability of the Himalayan half-dressed rubble stone
masonry structures, experimental and analytical studies

- Mechanical Vibrations Tutorial
- NEHRP2001
- Performance-Based Earthquake Design.pdf
- ADVANCE EARTHQUAKE RESISTANT DESIGN OF STRUCTURES.pdf
- Numerical modeling on vibroﬂotation soil improvement techniques using a densiﬁcation constitutive law
- Seismic Evaluation of Existing Buildings and Strengthening Techniques
- Preliminary Design of BRBF System - Use of Equivalent Force Method
- A story shear-based adaptive pushover procedure for estimating seismic demands buildings
- Matlab Scripts for Hilbert Transform
- Av 25288292
- IB Lab - 07 Loaded Metre Rule (DCP)
- UBC97 Earthquak Lateral Forces-Edit Protected -09!06!2012
- Chiodi - A Performance-Based Design Approach for Viaduct Seismic
- Mid Term Presentation
- EARTHQUAKE Ground Shaking
- 1-s2.0-S0141029606004962-main
- Seismic Performance of Steel Towers
- efc737af-ff9a-487c-8bcf-d5047dc1652e-150727114433-lva1-app6892 (2)
- Ground Vibratixzxxzxon From Sheetpile
- Residual Deformation

You are on page 1of 14

www.nat-hazards-earth-syst-sci.net/12/3441/2012/

doi:10.5194/nhess-12-3441-2012

Author(s) 2012. CC Attribution 3.0 License.

Natural Hazards

and Earth

System Sciences

masonry structures, experimental and analytical studies

N. Ahmad1,2 , Q. Ali2 , M. Ashraf3 , B. Alam3 , and A. Naeem3

1 ROSE

Engineering Center, University of Engineering & Technology (UET), Peshawar, Pakistan

3 Civil Engineering Department, University of Engineering & Technology (UET), Peshawar, Pakistan

2 Earthquake

Received: 27 April 2012 Revised: 10 July 2012 Accepted: 9 October 2012 Published: 21 November 2012

Abstract. Half-Dressed rubble stone (DS) masonry structures as found in the Himalayan region are investigated using experimental and analytical studies. The experimental

study included a shake table test on a one-third scaled structural model, a representative of DS masonry structure employed for public critical facilities, e.g. school buildings,

offices, health care units, etc. The aim of the experimental study was to understand the damage mechanism of the

model, develop damage scale towards deformation-based assessment and retrieve the lateral force-deformation response

of the model besides its elastic dynamic properties, i.e. fundamental vibration period and elastic damping. The analytical study included fragility analysis of building prototypes using a fully probabilistic nonlinear dynamic method.

The prototypes are designed as SDOF systems assigned

with lateral, force-deformation constitutive law (obtained experimentally). Uncertainties in the constitutive law, i.e. lateral stiffness, strength and deformation limits, are considered through random Monte Carlo simulation. Fifty prototype buildings are analyzed using a suite of ten natural accelerograms and an incremental dynamic analysis technique.

Fragility and vulnerability functions are derived for the damageability assessment of structures, economic loss and casualty estimation during an earthquake given the ground shaking intensity, essential within the context of risk assessment

of existing stock aiming towards risk mitigation and disaster

risk reduction.

Introduction

masonry in building constructions, either as load-bearing

walls or as an infill in timber framing structures. For example, in Pakistan stone masonry is used in construction in 40 to

80 percent of sub-administrative units (Tehsil) of the state of

Khyber Pakhtoonkhwa and Punjab (Maqsood and Schwarz,

2008). This is due to the fact that stone material is abundantly

available in northern parts of Pakistan. Low-cost and lowskilled labour may be employed for construction work that

consequently results in overall economical schemes.

Stone masonry buildings in the Himalayan region consist

of two-wythe, load-bearing walls (Fig. 1). The void between

the wythes is left empty or filled with small stones. For rural constructions, i.e. residential buildings, bearing walls are

built in rubble stone masonry in which undressed stone units

are laid randomly in mud mortar or simply placed in dry

form, whereas half-dressed stone units laid in cement mortar

are employed for urban constructions, i.e. public buildings.

The buildings are provided with wooden floors in case of rural constructions, whereas reinforced concrete slab floors and

roofs are used in the case of urban constructions (Ali and Mohammad, 2006; Gupta et al., 2008). The public buildings are

also provided with a lightly reinforced roof band (ring beam)

at the top of the walls.

Stone masonry buildings, having thick walls provided with

heavy roofing, perform excellently in protecting the inside of

the building from the extremity of the outside temperature

and humidity, a characteristic essential in most of the Himalayan region. However, due to the low quality of construction, this structure type has performed very poorly in recent

that represent critical facilities like sch

also

roof band

offices,

healthstructures

care units, e

3442 with aN.lightly

Ahmad et reinforced

al.: Seismic vulnerability

of the Himalayanbuildings,

half-dressed rubble

stone masonry

are constructed of load bearing walls b

(ring beam) at the top of the walls.

in the Governors estate in Darjeeling were damaged during

in half-dressed stone masonry in cem

the recent 2011 Sikkim earthquake in India. Typical damages

with

reinforced

concr

observed inmortar

Darjeelingprovided

public buildings

included

separation

at wall junctions

and

in-plane

shear

failure

(EERI,

2012).

slab floors and roofing. In the recent 20

The complex seismic behavior of this construction type renKashmir

ab

ders its modeling

timid forearthquake

analytical studies.unfortunately

Thus, experimental investigations

essential to calibrate

19,000 arechildren

died engineering

because of

tools and help develop simplified hypotheses for seismic

collapse

of school

buildings

of

analysis and

vulnerability assessment

of the considered

construction type.

mentioned characteristics (EERI, 200

This study presents research carried out on the seismic

state of

geodynamic

assessmentThe

of DScurrent

masonry structures

employed

for public setting

buildings (schools,

offices, health

units, etc.).

the region

hascareshown

toIt isbepartcapable

of the research program focusing on the seismic vulnerabilFigure

1

Cross-section

of

the

typical

stone

masonry

Fig. 1. Cross-section of the typical stone masonry load-bearing

trigger further future large earthquakes

load

practiced

Himalayan.

From ity assessment of typical building types in the Himalayan rewalls bearing

practiced in walls

the Himalayan

region.in

From

left to right: halftowards

mitigation

and disaster

risk reducor risk

even

greater

than

magnitude

dressed

wall employed

for publicmasonry

buildings (in-wall gion aimingto

left

to coursed

right:masonry

half-dressed

coursed

tion

in

the

region

(Ali

et

al.,

2012).

Fragility

and

vulnerabilvestigated in the present study) and undressed random masonry wall

(Avouac

et by

al.,means2006;

Bilham,

200

employed

for public buildings (investigated in the ity functions

are derived herein

of analytical

and

employed for rural residential buildings.

present study) and undressed random masonry wall experimental

investigations.

The presentessential

study provides eswhich

makes

to asse

sential input for risk assessment of the considered DS maemployed for rural residential buildings.

communicate and consequently mitig

sonry structures aiming towards risk mitigation (pre-event

and past earthquakes (e.g., Ali and Mohammad, 2006; Bothphase) andthe

disaster

riskof

reduction

(post-eventvulnerable

phase) in the stock.

risk

the existing

ara and Brzev,

2011; Guptabuildings

et al., 2008; Kaushik

et al., 2006;

Stone

masonry

having

thick Himalayan region in general and northern Pakistan in particMurty, 2003; Naseer et al., 2010; Rai and Murthy, 2006,).

walls

provided with heavy roofing perform ular.

Figure 2 reports an office building

The poor performance of stone masonry buildings have also

been observedin

in other

parts of thethe

worldinside

(Adanur, 2010;

excellent

protecting

of the

Mansehra

City

of Pakistan

that w

2 Experimental

investigation

of half-dressed

stone

Akkar et al., 2011; Gulkan et al., 1992; Ingham and Griffith,

building

from

the

extremity

of

the

outside

masonry

model by means

of dynamic shake

table test

moderately

damaged

in 2005

Kashmir M

2011; Spence, 2007a).

temperature

and humidity,

characteristic

Earthquakes observations

may provide a

significant

qualita7.6objective

earthquake.

Typical

2.1 Aim and

of the dynamic

test damages observ

tive information on the earthquake resistance and vulneraessential

in

most

of

the

Himalayan

region.

in the building are also described. This c

bility of stone masonry buildings common in the Himalayan

Earthquake observations in the Himalayan region have

However,

due

to

the

low

quality

of

region. However, there is very limited quantitative informareported

with

of VII-VIII

shown verywas

complex

behavior of

ruble intensity

masonry structures,

tion available to help this

derive analytical

fragility and

vulnera-has including in-plane shear cracking, damage to walls from roof

construction

structure

type

MMI scale (Javed et al., 2008). Sim

bility functions for half-dressed stone DS masonry in urban

thrust, delamination of stone units, damage to building corperformed

very

poorly

in

recent

and

past

structures found in the Himalayan region. It is very essential

type bulging,

of collapse

dressed

stone

maso

ners, out-of-plane

of walls

and totalDS

colto

investigate

this

construction

type,

as

most

of

the

public

earthquakes (Ali and Mohammad, 2006; lapse of structures

(EERI,found

2012; Javed

al.,Governors

2008; Naseer

buildings

in etthe

estate

buildings that represent critical facilities like school buildet al., 2010). This fact makes the analytical modeling of rubBothara

and

Brzev,

2011;

Gupta

et

al.,

ings, offices, health care units, etc., are constructed of loadDarjeeling

damaged

during

ble stone masonry

structureswere

less confident

for seismic

anal- the rec

bearing walls

built in half-dressed

stone masonry

in cement

2008;

Kaushik

et al., 2006;

Murty,

2003; ysis, which2011

makes the

experimental

investigation in

essential.

Sikkim

earthquake

India. Typi

mortar and are provided with reinforced concrete slab floors

The

aim

of

the

dynamic

test

was

to

retrieve

the

elastic

dyNaseer

et Inal.,

Rai

and earthquake,

Murthy,about

2006, namic properties

and roofing.

the 2010;

recent 2005

Kashmir

damages

observed

Darjeeling

pub

(i.e. fundamental

vibrationin

period

and elas19 000 children

unfortunately

because

of the collapse of tic viscous damping) of the building, understand the damage

among

others).

The died

poor

performance

buildings included separation at w

of school buildings of the mentioned characteristics (EERI,

mechanism

of the model, obtain lateral force-deformation restone

buildings

been

2006). Themasonry

current state of geodynamic

settingshave

in the region

and limits

in-plane

shear failure (EE

sponse and junctions

deduce performance

for deformation-based

has shown to also

be capable

of triggering

further

observed

in other

parts

of future

the large

world assessment2012).

of the building

model.

These

properties

will be

The complex seismic

behavior

earthquakes up to or even greater than a magnitude 8 (Avouac

employed

later

for

analytical

modeling

and

fragility

analysis

(Adanur,

2010;

Akkar

et

al.,

2011;

Gulkan

et al., 2006; Bilham, 2004), which makes it essential to asthisengineering

construction

using simplified

tools. type renders its modell

communicate

consequently

mitigate

the risk of2011;

the

etsess,al.,

1992; and

Ingham

and

Griffith,

timid for analytical studies. Th

existing vulnerable stock.

2.2 Model description

Spence,

2007a).

experimental investigations are essentia

Figure 2 reports an office building in Mansehra City of

Pakistan that was moderately damaged in the 2005 KashThe DS masonry structure investigated herein is a represencalibrate engineering tools and h

mir Mw = 7.6 earthquake. Typical damages observed in the

tative model of public buildings, e.g. school buildings, ofEarthquakes

observations

may

provide

develop

simplified

hypotheses

building are also described. This city was reported with an

fice buildings,

health care

units, etc., common

in the north-for seism

significant

qualitative

on the ern areas ofanalysis

intensity of VIIVIII

on the MMI information

scale (Javed et al., 2008).

Pakistan. Theand

modelvulnerability

is designed respecting

the

assessment

Similar types of dressed stone DS masonry buildings found

similitude requirements for a reduced scaled Simple Model

earthquake resistance and vulnerability of

the considered construction type.

stone

masonry

buildings

common

in

the

Nat. Hazards Earth Syst. Sci., 12, 34413454, 2012

www.nat-hazards-earth-syst-sci.net/12/3441/2012/

Himalayan. However, there is very limited

This study presents research carried out

quantitative information available to help

the seismic assessment of DS maso

375

OUT SIDE

375

IN SID E

THE ROOM

N. Ahmad et al.: Seismic vulnerability of the Himalayan half-dressed rubble stone masonry structures

3443

Page 1/1

observed in load-bearing

walls.

Horizontal

large

cracks

developed between the floor

and walls.

Separation of paint coating is

observed in slab and walls.

Delamination of wall is

observed whereby stone units

fell out of walls.

Mansehra City, Pakistan. It was subjected to the 2005

Kashmir earthquake Mw 7.6 at a distance of about 40 km

from seismic source.

Fig. 2. A moderately damaged half-dressed stone DS masonry structure. From left to right: view of the building and description of the

observed main damages in the building.

to reduce the dimensions of the model, whereas a scale factor of 1 is used for scaling the mechanical properties (stressstrain constitutive law) of materials (stone units, mortar, masonry, concrete, steel).

Table 1 reports the characteristics of the simple model and

similitude requirements for model-to-prototype conversion

of quantities. Figure 3 shows details of the building model

tested at the Earthquake Engineering Center of UET Peshawar.

2.3

2.3.1

Testing program

of building model.

2.3.2

for the dynamic excitation of the model. The acceleration

record is modified to respect the prototype to model similitude requirements (Tomazevic, 2000). The time duration and

predominant period of the record was reduced by 3. It resulted in a compressed acceleration time history with peak

ground acceleration (PGA) of 0.83 g, predominant period of

0.12 s and total duration of 10 s.

2.3.3

was firmly connected to the shake table by means of bolts.

The model was tested in the weaker direction. Three accelerometers were installed on the model: two at the base to

record the input excitation and one at the roof level to record

the response acceleration of the model. Four displacement

transducers were installed to record the displacement time

history of the model: two at the base of the model and two at

the roof level. The difference of the top and bottom transducers will provide an estimate of the relative lateral deformation

of the model. All the gauges were connected to a data acquisition system where the data (acceleration and displacement

time history) were recorded at a time step of 0.005 s. Cameras were installed to continuously monitor the behavior of

Testing scheme

phases. The input excitations were designed accordingly to

push the structure from elastic to inelastic to collapse state,

thereby enabling the monitoring of the complete response of

the model. The first phase included a low amplitude, 5 percent scaled record excitation of the model, having a PGA of

0.04 g. This phase was mainly included to retrieve the dynamic characteristics, i.e. fundamental vibration period and

viscous damping, of the model. For the second and third

run, the record was scaled up in 5 percent increments in

the excitation amplitude resulting in a PGA of 0.083 g and

0.20 g, respectively. The model was completely collapsed

in the last run. The test video can be viewed online at the

Copernicus Publications

Contact

Bahnhofsallee 1e

publications@copernicus.org

www.nat-hazards-earth-syst-sci.net/12/3441/2012/

Nat. Hazards

37081 Gttingen

http://publications.copernicus.org

Germany

Phone +49-551-900339-50

Fax +49-551-900339-70

Martin Rasmussen (Managing Director)

Legal Body

Copernicus Gesellschaft mbH

Earth

Syst. Sci., 12, 34413454,

Based in Gttingen

Registered in HRB 131 298

County Court Gttingen

Tax Office FA Gttingen

2012

Table 1. Characteristics of the simple test model and similitude requirements for quantities conversion

of The Tested

Model of the HimalayanSimilitude

Requirements

formasonry

Simple Model

N. Characteristics

Ahmad et al.: Seismic

vulnerability

half-dressed

rubble stone

structures

3444

Physical Quantity

Prototype Building

Model

Building for quantities

Table 1. Characteristics

of the simple test model1/3

andScaled

similitude

requirements

conversion.

Scale Factor

3.00

Length

Load bearing walls: 450mm thick Load bearing walls: 150mm thick

Characteristics

of

The

Tested

Model

Similitude

Requirements

two wythes coursed half-dressed two wythes coursed half-dressed

Stress, Strengthfor Simple Model1.00

stone masonry.

stone masonry.

1.00

Strain

1/3Cement-sand

Scaled modelmortar

building

Prototype

building mortar with Mortar:

Physical quantity Scale factor

Mortar:

Cement-sand

with 4

Load-bearing

walls:

150

mm

thick

Load-bearing

walls:

450

mm

thick

4 MPa compressive strength.

MPa compressive strength.

1.00

Specific

Mass

Length

3.00

two wythes

half-dressed

two wythes

coursed

half-dressed

Concrete:

Normal

concrete

with stone

Concrete:

Normalcoursed

concrete

with stone Stress, Strength

1.00 3.00

Displacement

masonry.

masonry. strength of 17 MPa.

compressive

compressive

strength of 17 MPa.

1.00

Mortar: Cement-sand mortar with Mortar: Cement-sand mortar with Strain

Force

Horizontal Band: 150mm thick Horizontal Band: 50mm thick beam

Specific Mass

1.00 9.00

4 MPa compressive strength.

4 MPa compressive strength.

beam lightly reinforced with 4 10 lightly reinforced with 4 3

Displacement

3.00 3.00

Concrete: Normal concrete with com- Concrete: Normal concrete with

Time

longitudinal bars tied with 1 3 longitudinal bars tied with 1 1

Force

9.00

strength of 17 MPa.

pressive strength of 17 MPa.

stirrup

provided at 150mm center- stirrupcompressive

provided at 50mm center-toFrequency

Time

3.00 0.33

Horizontal

Band:

50

mm

thick

beam

Horizontal

Band:

150

mm

thick

beam

to-center distance.

center distance.

Frequency

0.33 1.00

lightly reinforced with 410 longitudi- lightly reinforced with 43 longitudinal Velocity

Roof:

150mm

thick

reinforced

Roof:

50mm

thick

reinforced

Velocity

1.00

nal bars tied with 13 stirrup provided bars tied with 11 stirrup provided at

concrete slab.

concrete slab.

Acceleration

0.33 0.33

Acceleration

50 mm center-to-center distance.

at 150 mm center-to-center distance.

Roof: 150 mm thick reinforced concrete

slab.

slab.

5" [127.00mm]

5' [1524.00mm]

6" [152.40mm]

3' [914.40]

MESONARY

MODEL

6" [152.40mm]

5" [127.00mm]

4' [1219.20mm]

4" [101.60mm]

6" [152.40mm]

6" [152.40mm]

4" [101.60mm]

(Plan View)

2" [50.80mm]

1' [304.80]

WINDOW

1' [304.80]

1'-212" [368.30]

Concrete Pad

1'-6" [457.20]

3' [914.40mm]

1'-6" [457.20]

3' [914.40mm]

4" [101.60mm]

3" [76.20]

WINDOW

1'-6" [457.20]

1'-6" [457.20]

3" [76.20]

2" [50.80mm]

Concrete Pad

4" [101.60mm]

Fig. 3. Geometric details of the structural model tested at the Earthquake Engineering Center of UET Peshawar.

www.nat-hazards-earth-syst-sci.net/12/3441/2012/

N. Ahmad et al.: Seismic vulnerability of the Himalayan half-dressed rubble stone masonry structures

YouTube videos database maintained by EERI Institute of

USA (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r8JDj-DFzJs).

2.4

2.4.1

Global performance under input excitation

The first test run at PGA of 0.04 g did not cause any appreciable damage in the model. The building behaved primarily

in a boxlike manner. A horizontal crack was developed between the walls and ring beam during the second test run at

PGA of 0.08 g. Slight cracks were also developed in the inplane and out-of-plane walls. The building collapsed during

the third test run at PGA of 0.20 g.

2.4.2

out-of-plane walls, which widened largely with increased

shaking intensity. Damage in the in-plane walls included diagonal, horizontal and inclined pattern cracks. Horizontal

and inclined cracks developed in the out-of-plane walls. The

widening of cracks and separation of roof from walls upon

increased shaking intensity led to extensive damage in the

in-plane walls, delamination of stone units from the out-ofplane walls, damage to corners and consequent stone falling,

out-of-plane collapse of walls and complete collapse of the

building model. The observed behavior of the model in the

initial stages were comparable with the observed damages in

the recent 2005 Kashmir earthquake for public buildings (see

Fig. 2).

2.4.3

comparison with EMS-98 scale

last run to deduce damage states of the buildings and develop

a damage scale towards performance-based assessment of the

building for future applications. Figure 5 reports the global

damage states of the building observed during the test with

increased shaking level. The observed damage states are also

compared with the EMS-98: European Macroseismic Scale

(Grunthal et al., 1998) for masonry buildings. It is a standard

scale adopted in Europe for masonry building damage rating

within the context of post-earthquake screening, vulnerability and fragility analysis. It is observed that the two scales

are comparable for DS1 and DS2 damage states. However,

the EMS-98 damage scale seems more conservative for DS3

and DS4 limit states, i.e. the extent of building damage specified by the EMS-98 scale is more than the observed damages in the considered building. The observed damage, particularly of the floor, is different than the EMS-98 specified

damage pattern. The floor for the considered building failed

in an abrupt manner upon the complete damage and spalling

of load-bearing walls, which is due to the rigid nature of the

floor and its monolithic connection with the walls. This type

www.nat-hazards-earth-syst-sci.net/12/3441/2012/

3445

of roof collapse was also observed during the 2005 Kashmir earthquake for block masonry buildings with monolithic

RCC roof slab (Bothara and Brzev, 2011). Generally, the typical roof used for European masonry buildings is composed

of timber, roof trusses braced with timber, covered with an

iron sheet (in some cases) and roof tiles. For these types of

buildings, the tiles from the roof detach in a progressing manner during earthquakes, unlike the rigid RCC slab employed

for the considered buildings.

2.4.4

walls and out-of-plane walls, were also closely monitored

with increased shaking level, in order to fully understand

the seismic response of each component wall. Figure 6 reports the damage mechanism and cracking propagation for

each component wall. It can be observed that the response

of rubble masonry structure is very complex, which is due to

the random nature of rubble masonry and rough construction

work.

For example, one of the piers (with similar characteristics)

of the in-plane wall developed diagonal shear mechanism,

whereas the other pier developed sliding and rocking mechanism, with progressing disintegration of piers. Such complex behavior, which is due to the random nature of masonry,

cannot be simulated with available numerical tools and thus

presents a challenge for computing tools for seismic behavior assessment of rubble stone masonry buildings. This fact

also point to the importance of experimental investigation of

rubble masonry buildings for understanding the seismic behavior and evaluating the seismic performance.

2.4.5

walls

The low amplitude input excitation (PGA 0.04 g) was primarily meant to help retrieve the elastic dynamic properties of the model, including fundamental vibration period

T0 and damping coefficient . Both the vibration period T0

and damping were obtained from the response acceleration

time history (Fig. 7). The period is obtained using the basic

definition of period of an oscillating body (i.e. the time required for a complete oscillation). An average value of 0.07 s

is obtained for the vibration period. The decay function for

the time history of the response acceleration as proposed by

Chopra (2003) is used to calculate the model damping

A1

1

Ln

,

(1)

=

2n

An

where represents elastic damping coefficient; A1 represents the peak amplitude of response acceleration at reference point 1; An represents the peak amplitude of response

acceleration at reference point after n cycles; and n represents the number of cycles between the peaks. The model

Nat. Hazards Earth Syst. Sci., 12, 34413454, 2012

3446

Characteristics of Input Excitation: The

maintained by EERI Institute of USA

north-south component of the Kobe 1995

(http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r8JDjrecord is used for the dynamic excitation

DFzJs&feature=plcp&context=C45c7e56VDvjVQa1PpcFMfBU

of theN.model.

acceleration

record isof the Himalayan

0O_Ox2aFLz4o5w8JWsi84jR0y4ZEw%3D).

AhmadThe

et al.:

Seismic vulnerability

half-dressed rubble stone masonry structures

D4,D2

A3

SINGLE ROOM STONE

MESONARY

MODEL

A1

A2

W

D

Instrument Type

Designation

D3,D1

Accelerometer

A1

A2

Displacement Transducer

A3

D1

D2

D3

D4

Figure 4 Testing setup and instrumentation details of the building model tested on shake table at the Earthquake

Engineering

Center

of Peshawar.

Fig. 4. Testing

setup and

instrumentation

details of the building model tested on shake table at the Earthquake Engineering Center of

Peshawar.

peaks and 5.404 % using the negative peaks. On average a

damping value of 4.71 % is computed, which may be approximated as 5 % for the building model.

3.1

masonry structures

Seismic assessment framework

fragility functions of structures (Borzi et al., 2008; Calvi et

al., 2006; Crowley, 2004; Coburn and Spence, 2002; DAyala

et al., 1997; Erberik, 2008; Kappos and Panagopoulos, 2010;

Porter et al., 2007; Rota et al., 2010, among others). The

present study included a fully probabilistic, nonlinear, dynamic reliability-based method (NDRM) recently developed

by Ahmad (2011) for the seismic performance evaluation and

fragility analysis of considered structure, as employed recently for other structure types (Ahmad et al., 2012a, b). This

method is found to provide reasonable estimates of building

damageability when compared with earthquake observations

in Pakistan (Ahmad et al., 2012c).

The NDRM is a probabilistic method for calculating the

damage exceedance probability of structures for a specified

ground motion. The method of incremental dynamic analysis (IDA) proposed by Vamvatsikos and Cornell (2002) was

used to derive the structure response curve that correlates the

shaking intensity with the drift demand. The method incorporates total uncertainties in the drift demand. The drift demand on structure is convolved then with the structure drift

capacity for a specified limit state to obtain the exceedance

probability of target limit state at a given shaking level. It is

Nat. Hazards Earth Syst. Sci., 12, 34413454, 2012

carried out for all the intensity levels to allow the derivation

of fragility functions.

3.2

Mathematical modeling

Other available, more or less sophisticated modeling techniques may be calibrated for global seismic analysis of masonry buildings (Magenes and Fontana, 1998; Galasco et al.,

2002; Kappos et al., 2002). However, these methods cannot be confidently extended for seismic response evaluation

of rubble masonry buildings due to its complex behavior as

observed during the experimental investigation. The present

study included single degree of freedom (SDOF) mathematical model for seismic analysis. The SDOF system is assigned

with observing the global lateral force-deformation response

of the building simulating the lateral stiffness, strength and

deformation capacity of the tested building model. Thus,

fully respecting the fundamental response parameters importance for global dynamic seismic analysis and response evaluation of buildings (Elnashai and Di-Sarno, 2008).

The SDOF system is assigned with lateral forcedeformation constitutive law, which is derived from the observed response of the model, i.e. the peak drift and the corresponding base shear observed during each test run. The

model is assigned with the mass of the building model,

which is adjusted to achieve the fundamental vibration period (T0 0.07 s) of the model as observed during the test. The

model is assigned with 5 % elastic viscous damping, as observed during the low amplitude test. For dynamic seismic

analysis, the Rayleigh damping model with tangent stiffness proportionality is used in the present study. The system of nonlinear equations in the analysis is solved using the KrylovNewton algorithm (Scott and Fenves, 2010)

and the average acceleration Newmark time-stepping method

www.nat-hazards-earth-syst-sci.net/12/3441/2012/

N. Ahmad et al.: Seismic vulnerability of the Himalayan half-dressed rubble stone masonry structures

3447

Present Study

EMS-98

Damage States

Grade1: DS1

Slight diagonal cracks are initiated in walls

parallel to excitation direction.

Horizontal cracks initiated at the opening base

corner of walls parallel to excitation, likely to

forming short pier.

Horizontal cracks initiated between walls and

roof.

Vertical cracks initiated at the end of walls

parallel to excitation direction, likely to form

failure plane for detachment of walls

perpendicular to excitations i.e. face loaded

walls.

Horizontal cracks initiated in the face loaded

walls at mid-height and top of wall.

Inclined cracks initiated in the face loaded

walls, likely to form a wedge for out-of-plane

failure.

Grade2: DS2

Diagonal cracking increased in walls parallel

to excitation direction.

Horizontal cracks developed at the opening

base and top corners of walls parallel to

excitation, short pier is formed.

Horizontal cracks fully developed between

walls and roof.

Inclined cracks developed at the end of walls

parallel to excitation direction, failure plane for

detachment of face loaded wall is developed.

Horizontal cracks fully developed in the face

loaded walls at mid-height and top of wall.

Inclined cracks developed in the face loaded

walls, a wedge for out-of-plane failure is

formed.

Grade3: DS3

Diagonal cracking widened significantly in

walls parallel to excitation direction.

Horizontal cracks developed at the opening

base and top corners of walls parallel to

excitation, short pier is formed to slide and

rock.

Horizontal cracks fully developed between

walls and roof.

Inclined cracks fully developed at the end of

walls parallel to excitation direction,

detachment of face loaded wall is likely to

occur.

Horizontal cracks fully developed in the face

loaded walls at mid-height and top of wall. Top

wall portion is likely to rock.

Inclined and horizontal cracks developed in the

face loaded walls, a wedge is likely to separate.

Grade4: DS4

Diagonal cracking widened extensively in

walls parallel to excitation direction.

Horizontal cracks fully formed at the opening

base and top corners of walls parallel to

excitation, short pier is responding through inplane sliding and rocking.

The face loaded wall fully detached from walls

parallel to excitation direction, separating a

wing from transverse walls. The face loaded

wall fully developed horizontal crack at the

top, base and mid-height, forming three pivot

points for rocking.

A wedge like portion started falling in out-ofplane direction from the face loaded walls.

The structure is at the verge of total collapse.

No structural damage, slight nonstructural damage.

Hair-line cracks in very few

walls.

Fall of small pieces of plaster

only.

Fall of loose stones from upper

parts of buildings in very few

cases.

Remarks: comparable damage

state.

Moderate damage,

Slight

structural

damage,

moderate non-structural damage.

Cracks in many walls.

Fall of fairly large pieces of

plaster.

Partial collapse of chimneys.

Remarks: comparable damage

state.

Moderate structural damage,

heavy non-structural damage.

Large and extensive cracks in

most walls.

Roof tiles detach. Chimneys

fracture at the roof line; failure of

individual

non-structural

elements

(Partitions,

Gable

Walls)

Remarks: conservative damage

state.

Heavy structural damage,

Very

heavy

non-structural

damage.

Serious failure of walls; partial

structural failure of roofs and

floors.

Remarks: conservative damage

state.

Figure 5. Global damage mechanism of half-dressed stone DS masonry building model retrieved through

shake tableof

test

and comparison

withmasonry

the EMS-98

(Grunthal

et al., 1998)

damage

scale.shake

Fromtable

left test

to and comparFig. 5. Global dynamic

damage mechanism

half-dressed

stone DS

building

model retrieved

through

dynamic

right: observed

damage

label

andleft

description

observed

and EMS

damage

scale.

ison with the EMS-98

(Grunthal

et al.,state,

1998)damage

damagestate

scale.

From

to right: of

observed

damage

state,

damage

state label and description of

observed and EMS damage scale.

www.nat-hazards-earth-syst-sci.net/12/3441/2012/

3448

N. Ahmad et al.: Seismic vulnerability of the Himalayan half-dressed rubble stone masonry structures

0.06

0.02

Response Acceleration(g)

Response Acceleration(g)

Response Acceleration(g)

and Collapse)

Response Acceleration(g)

0.015

Building Model

0.04

Free Vibration

characteristics) of in-plane wall developed

0.01

diagonal shear

0.02 mechanism whereas the

0.005

other pier developed sliding and rocking

0

mechanism, 0

with

progressing

disintegration of piers. Such complex

-0.005

-0.02

behavior, which is due to the random

-0.01

nature of masonry,

cannot be simulated

-0.04

-0.015

with available numerical tools and thus

3 Cy

-0.06

-0.02

presents a challenge

for

computing

tools

40

42

44

46

48

50

47

for seismic behavior assessment

of rubble

Time(sec)

(Response

stone masonry buildings.

This Acceleration)

fact also

0.06

7. Dynamic characterization

of building model under 0.04g inp

point toFigure

the0.02

importance

of experimental

3 Cycles in and

0.21 Secs

response

acceleration

freebuildings

vibration time history processed for the

0.015

Building Model investigation

of

rubble

masonry

0.04

(47.05,0.0078g)

and elastic damping

coefficient.

Free Vibration

for understanding

the seismic behavior and

0.01

(47.26,0.0037g)

evaluating

the seismic performance.

0.02

drift dem

3 Fragility

Assessment of Half0.005

total unce

Dressed

Stone

DS

Masonry

0

0

DynamicStructures

Characteristics

of The Building

drift dem

Model: Walls:

-0.005 The low amplitude input

then with

-0.02

excitation

0.04g)

was primarily

(47.23,0.0036g)

specified

-0.01

3.1 (PGA

Seismic

Assessment

Framework

meant to help retrieve

the elastic dynamic

(47.015,0.01g)

-0.04

exceedanc

-0.015

properties

includingmay be

3the

Cycles inmodel

0.215 Secs

at a given

Manyof available

techniques

-0.06

-0.02vibration period T0 and

fundamental

40

42

44

46

48

50

47

47.1

47.2

47.3

47.4

47.5

for all th

employed to derive the fragility functions

damping coefficient . Both Time(sec)

the vibration

Time(sec)

derivation

of structures (Borzi et al., 2008; Calvi et

period T0 and damping

were Model

obtained

(Response Acceleration)

(Building

Freefrom

Vibration)

al., 2006; Crowley,

2004;

Coburn and

Figure 7. Dynamic characterization of building model

under 0.04gacceleration

input excitation.

From

left to right: model

the response

time

history

2002;

DAyala

et model

al.,

1997;

Fig.

7.Spence,

Dynamic

of building

under

0.04 g in- 3.2 Math

response acceleration and free vibration time history

processed

for characterization

the

estimation

of

building

vibration

period

(Figure

7).

The

period

is obtained

using

put

excitation.

From

top

to

bottom:

model

response

acceleration

and

Erberik,

2008;

Kappos

and

Panagopoulos,

and elastic damping coefficient.

the free

basic

definition

ofprocessed

periodforof

an

vibration

time

history

the

estimation

of

building

2010;

Porter

et

2007;

Rota et

Other ava

oscillating

body

(i.e.elastic

theal.,

time

required

foral., 2010,

periodothers).

and

damping

coefficient.

drift

demand.

The

method

incorporates

3 Fragility Assessment of Half- vibration

among

The

present

study

included

modelling

a complete oscillation). An average value

total

uncertainties

in nonlinear

the drift demand.

The

Dressed

Stone

DS

Masonry

a

fully

probabilistic

dynamic

for globa

of 0.07 sec is obtained for vibration period.

drift

demand

on

structure

is

convolved

Structures

reliability-based

method

(NDRM)

recently

The(Chopra,

decay function

for the

time

ofA time step equal buildings

2003) with

= 0.5

and history

= 0.25.

then

with

the

structure

drift

capacity

for a

developed

by

Ahmad

(2011)

for the

the toresponse

acceleration

proposed

by record

the sampling

size of theasground

motion

is consid- Galasco e

specified

limit

state

to

obtain

3.1 Seismic Assessment Framework

seismic

evaluation

and the

However,

Chopra

(2003)

isperformance

used to calculate

the

ered in

the analysis.

exceedance

probability

of

target

limit

state

fragility

analysis

of

considered

structure,

modelUncertainties

damping: that may be observed when considering a confidentl

recently

for

other

evaluation

a given

shaking

level.

It is structure

carried

out

Many available techniques may be groupasofatemployed

buildings

the

characteristics

are incorpo same

of

1

A

Ln 1et al., 2012a, 2012b).

= (Ahmad

(1)

This

for

all

the

intensity

levels

to

allow

the

employed to derive the fragility functions ratedtypes

in the 2constitutive

n A n law through Monte Carlo simula- due to its

method

is found

to

provide

reasonable

tions.

In

this

regard,

SDOF

systems

were generated, during the

of fifty

fragility

functions.

of structures (Borzi et al., 2008; Calvi where

et

derivation

represents

elastic

damping

which

are

assigned

with

random

constitutive

Uncertain- present s

estimate

building damageability

when

al., 2006; Crowley, 2004; Coburn and

the peak law.

coefficient;

A1 ofrepresents

ties

in

the

lateral

stiffness,

strength

and

deformation

compared

with earthquake

observations

in limits freedom (

Spence, 2002; DAyala et al., 1997;

3.2

Modelling

amplitude

of Mathematical

response

acceleration

at

are

modeled

considering

lognormal

distribution.

The

exper- seismic a

Pakistan

(Ahmad

et al., 2012c).

Erberik, 2008; Kappos and Panagopoulos,

reference

point 1;

A represents

the peak

imentally obtained nmechanical properties are considered as assigned

2010; Porter et al., 2007; Rota et al., 2010,

available acceleration

less or more atsophisticated

amplitude Other

of response

the median

estimate.

A

logarithmic standard

deviation

of force-defo

The

NDRM

istechniques

a probabilistic

for

among others). The present study included

modelling

may method

be calibrated

reference

point

after

n

cycles;

n represents

0.25 calculating

is considered tothe

modeldamage

variability in

the

peak

strength,

exceedance

simulating

the whereas

number

ofglobal

cycles

between

the peaks.

a fully probabilistic nonlinear dynamic

for

seismic

analysis

of is

masonry

0.50

logarithmic

standard

deviation

considered

probability

of

structures

for

a

specified

and defo

The

model

gives

estimate

of

4.008%

for

reliability-based method (NDRM) recently to model

buildings

and Fontana,

variability(Magenes

in the deformation

limits. The1998;

ratios of

ground

motion.

The

method

of

incremental

damping

using

the

positive

peaks

and

developed by Ahmad (2011) for the the lateral

Galasco

et al.,

2002;

2002). lat- building m

force (i.e.,

limit

stateKappos

force to et

theal.,

maximum

dynamic

analysis

(IDA)

proposed

by be to fundamen

5.404%

using

negative

peaks.

Figure 6.seismic

Local damage

mechanism of half-dressed

performance

evaluation and

However,

these limits

methods

cannot

eral force)

andthe

deformation

(i.e.,On

limit

state drift

Vamvatsikos

and

Cornell

(2002)

was

used

stone damage

DSfragility

masonry

wallsofobserved

during

average

damping

of 4.71%

Fig. 6. Local

mechanism

half-dressed

stoneshake

DS masonry

analysis

of considered

structure,

extended

for seismic

response as importanc

the firstaconfidently

drift

limit) ofvalue

the constitutive

lawisare considered

table

test.

From

top

to

bottom:

damages

observed

to evaluation

derive

the structure

response

curve

that

computed

which

may

be approximated

as

walls observed during

shake table test.

From topfor

to bottom:

observed

experimentally.

The uncertainty

in the

stiffnesses analysis

asand

employed

recently

otherdamages

structure

of

rubble

masonry

buildings

in in

in-plane

out-of-plane

walls.

observed

in-plane

and

out-of-plane

walls.

correlates

the

shaking

intensity

with

the

5%

for

the

building

model.

are

considered

then

accordingly.

Figure

8

reports

the lateral buildings

types (Ahmad et al., 2012a, 2012b). This

due to its complex behavior as observed

Damage Pattern with Increasing Shaking Intensity

law obtained

experimentally.

method is found to provide reasonable force-deformation

during theconstitutive

experimental

investigation.

The

estimate of building damageability when

present study included single degree of

earthquake

observations

in

freedom

(SDOF) mathematical model for

Nat. Hazards compared

Earth Syst. with

Sci., 12,

34413454,

2012

www.nat-hazards-earth-syst-sci.net/12/3441/2012/

Pakistan (Ahmad et al., 2012c).

seismic analysis. The SDOF system is

assigned with the observed global lateral

The NDRM is a probabilistic method for

force-deformation response of the building

Normalized

when

f the

ed in

variability that

in the

Uncertainties

maydeformation

be observedlimits.

whenThe assigned to each of the fifty SDOF systems

ratios of athe

lateral

(i.e. limit

considering

group

of force

buildings

of thestate are also shown in Figure 8.

force

to the maximum

lateral force)in and

same

characteristics,

are incorporated

N. Ahmad et al.: Seismic vulnerability of the Himalayan half-dressed rubble stone masonry structures

3449

deformation limits (i.e. limit state drift to

2

the0.2first drift limit) of the constitutive law Table 2. Damage

scale considered for fragility

Medianfunctions derivation.

BSC = BSCmax

Random Simulation

are considered as observed

experimentally.

(%) = 0.50

Limit States (LS) versus Damage State (DS)

Drift Limits

1.5

The

0.15 uncertainty in the stiffnesses are

LS1: Damage level Grade-1 DS1 will be attained. 1 = 0.7y

consideredBSC then

accordingly. Figure 8 LS2: Damage level Grade-2 DS2 will be attained. 2 = 1.5y

= 0.80BSCmax

(%) = 0.16

Damage1 level Grade-3 DS3 will be attained. 3 = 0.5 y + u

reports

the lateral force-deformation LS3:

0.1

LS4: Damage level Grade-4 DS4 will be attained. 4 = u

constitutive law obtained experimentally.

where i represents the mean target drift limit states; y represents the idealized yield

The

simulated constitutive laws drift limit derived

0.5 from the possible bi-linearization of lateral force-deformation

0.05 randomly

BSC = 0.33BSCmax

response of model; u represents the ultimate drift limits. A mean value of 0.16 % is

(%) = 0.02

assigned to each of the fifty SDOF systems considered for y and 0.60 % for u . A logarithmic standard deviation of 0.20 is

considered for each of the drift limit sates.

are also

shown in Figure 8.

0

0

Base Shear Coefficient

n the

inear

using

and

erage

pping

and

pling

rd is

0.03ki

-0.10ki

0.16ki

ki

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

0.5

1.5

2.5

3.4 Fragility functions

(Randomly Generated, Fifty Simulations)

2

Figure 8 Lateral

force-deformation

constitutive

law

of

DS

masonry

structures.

From using

left totheright:

constitutive

Each

SDOF

system

is analyzed

selected

ground

Median

motions

scaled

to

multiple

PGA

levels.

The

drift

demand

law obtained experimentally and randomly

generated

for

SDOF

mechanical

model.

The

lateral

force

in

thefor

later

Random Simulation

each

record

and

target

PGA

is

obtained

for

all

the

SDOF

syscase is normalized

by the peak lateral strength.

1.5

tems. The drift demand is correlated with the corresponding

ground motion intensity to derive response curves for each

natural

accelerograms

are record.

obtained

from

3.3 Selection

and

Scaling

of

SDOF

system under

each ground motion

The mean

1

thespectral

PEER

NGA strong

motions

database.

elastic

acceleration,

considering

all the records

for a

Accelerograms

target

PGA,

at

0.30

s

is

considered

as

the

intensity

measure

The acceleration response spectrum of the

0.5

in the present study. Figure 10 shows the response curves obThe

NDRM

method

requires

selected

accelerograms

is The

compatible

tained

for the considered

structure class.

drift demand with

for

accelerograms to perform the nonlinear

the building

code

specified

a specified

shaking level

takes into

account allspectrum

the uncertain-for

0

ties, type

material

and record-to-record

variability.

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

1

dynamic time

history

analysis

as2.5 part3 of

D uncertainties

soil of NEHRP

classification

(BCP,

Peak Normalized Drift(%)

For the fragility functions derivation, the NDRM method

the IDA

of structures. A suite of ten

2007). The accelerograms were also

computes the limit state probability of exceedance for a spec(Randomly Generated, Fifty Simulations)

ve law of DS masonry structures. From left to right: constitutive ified ground motion through the integration of the joint probFig. 8. Lateral force-deformation constitutive law of DS masonry

enerated forstructures.

SDOF mechanical

model.constitutive

The lateral

in experthe later ability density function of the drift demand and drift capacFrom top to bottom:

law force

obtained

ity. The First Order Reliability Method, FORM, approximah.

imentally and randomly generated for SDOF mechanical model.

tions (Der Kiureghian, 2005; Pinto et al., 2004) are employed

The lateral force in the later case is normalized by the peak lateral

to obtain the limit state exceedance probability. A damage

strength.

natural accelerograms are obtained from scale was developed as per recommended of FEMA (2003)

of

the PEER NGA strong motions database. for the derivation of fragility functions (see Table 2). The

idealized yield drift limit y was selected such that the damThe randomly

simulated constitutive

lawsspectrum

assigned to each

The acceleration

response

of the age state between 0.7y and

1.5y is a slight damage, as

of the fifty SDOF systems are also shown in Fig. 8.

quires

selected accelerograms is compatible with per FEMA (2003) recommendation, which is roughly simSelection

and scaling

of accelerograms

inear 3.3 the

building

code

specified spectrum for ulated compared to the observed behavior. The ultimate drift

limits u corresponds to the lateral deformation when the

art of The NDRM

type Dmethod

soil of

NEHRP

classification

requires

accelerograms

to perform(BCP,

the

lateral force drops by 20 %, as proposed by Magenes and

f ten nonlinear

2007).

The

accelerograms

also Calvi (1997), which corresponds to the near collapse limit

dynamic

time history

analysis as part were

of the IDA

of structures. A suite of ten natural accelerograms are obstate. This limit state in our study approximately corresponds

tained from the PEER NGA strong motions database. The acto the near collapse limit state as the strength drops very

celeration response spectrum of the selected accelerograms

rapidly after the ultimate limit state (see Fig. 8).

is compatible with the building code specified spectrum for

The FORM approximation is used to obtain the limit state

type D soil of NEHRP classification (BCP, 2007). The acprobability of exceedance for various target ground motions.

celerograms were also selected and used elsewhere (Ahmad

A lognormal cumulative distribution function is assumed,

et al., 2012a, b, c; Menon and Magenes, 2011). The acceleroas employed elsewhere (Kircher et al., 1997; Porter et al.,

grams are normalized, anchored to common PGA, and lin2007), and fitted to the observed points. The median and logearly scaled to multiple shaking levels for IDA of each SDOF

arithmic standard deviation of each limit state are obtained,

system.

which can be used for fragility derivation (see Fig. 11):

Normalized

Drift (%)

(Experimentally Derived)

www.nat-hazards-earth-syst-sci.net/12/3441/2012/

N. Ahmad et al.: Seismic vulnerability of the Himalayan half-dressed rubble stone masonry structures

1.5

BCP-2007, D Soil

Mean Spectrum

4.5

Individual Record

4

3.5

BCP-2007, D Soil

Mean Spectrum

Individual Record

BCP-2007, D Soil

Mean Spectrum

Individual Record

3450

7, D Soil

ctrum

Record

of each SDOF system.

Spectral Displacement (1/PGD)

genes,

lized,

approximations (Der Kiureghian, 2005;

3

Porter et al., 2007), and fitted to the

1 Pinto et al., 2004) is employed to obtain

2.5

the limit state exceedance probability. A

points. The median and

1 observed

2

damage

scale was developed as per

logarithmic standard deviation of each

0.5

1.5

limit state are obtained which can be used

recommended

of FEMA (2003) for the

0.5

1

derivation of fragility functions (see Table

for fragility derivation (see Figure 11):

0.5

2).

The

idealized

yield

drift

limit

was

1 SA

y

0

P[D d LS / SA = sa ] = Ln

0

1

2

3

4

5

(2)

5

0

selected

such

that

the3 damage

state

0

0

1

2

3

4 sa LS 5

0

1 Period (sec)

2

4

5

Period (sec)

between

and

1.5y

isSpectrum)

a slight

(EC8 Specified

PGD at 0.7y

Target PGA

0.4g-Normalized

Period

(sec)

where

P

represents

the Spectrum)

limit state

(EC8

Specified

PGD

at

Target

PGA 0.4g-Normalized

(PGA-Normalized

damage,

as

per Spectrum)

FEMA

(2003)

probability of exceedance;

represents

recommendation, which is roughly

the

standard

normal

cumulative

simulated compared to the observed

distribution function; represents the

behavior. The ultimate drift limits u

logarithmic standard deviation of fragility

corresponds to the lateral deformation

function; SA represents the seismic

when the lateral force drops by 20%, as

intensity; sa LS represents the median

proposed by Magenes and Calvi (1997),

estimate of the distribution. The values of

which corresponds to the near collapse

and sa LS are also provided in Figure 11.

limit state. This limit states in our study

The functions can be employed in future

approximately corresponds to(Detailsnear

of Individual Record)

Details of Individual Record)

applications for the damageability

collapse limit state as the strength drops

Fig.

9.

Characteristics

of

the

accelerograms

used

in

the

present

study.

From

left

to right and top to

acceleration

response

spectrum,

assessment

ofbottom:

considered

DS

masonry

s used in the present vary

study.rapidly

From left

to right

and top tolimit

bottom:

after

the ultimate

states

displacement

response

spectrum

and

details

of

the

individual

record.

t response spectrum and

details

of the

structures during earthquake induced

(see

Figure

8).individual record.

ground

motions.

3.4 Fragility Functions

0.8

function;

represents

the logarithmic

standard deviation

Order

Reliability

Method

FORMof

fragility function;

SA

represents

the

seismic

intensity;

The FORM approximation is usedandto

exceedance

various

target

Nat. Hazards

Earth Syst. for

Sci., 12,

34413454,

2012ground

motions.

A

lognormal

cumulative

distribution function is assumed, as

Probability of Exceedance

0.7

SA(g)@0.30sec

functions

derivation

Each

SDOF

system is analyzed using the

0.7

Limit States

(LS)motions

versus scaled to multiple

selected

ground

Drift Limits

0.6 Damage State (DS)

PGA levels. The drift demand for each

LS1: Damage

level PGA

Grade-1

0.5

record

and target

is obtained

1 = 0for

.7 yall

DS1 will be attained.

the

SDOF

systems.

The

drift

demand

is

0.4 LS2: Damage level Grade-2

=

1

.

5

correlated

with

the

corresponding

ground

2

y

0.3 DS2 will be attained.

LS3: Damage

level

motion

intensity

to Grade-3

derive response

curves

= 0 .5 ( y + u )

0.2 DS3 will be attained.

for each SDOF system under 3each ground

LS4: Damage level Grade-4

0.1

motion

record.

The mean elastic

4 spectral

= u

DS4 will

be attained.

acceleration,

considering

all

the

records

0

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

for

a target

PGA,

at (%)

0.30sec

is considered

Drift

where

i represents

the mean

target drift

as 10

the Structure

intensity response

in the obtained

present

Figure

curves

limit

states;

y measure

represents

the

idealized

Fig. 10. Structure

response

curves

obtained

through

IDA

of SDOF

study.

Figure

10

shows

the

response

through

IDA

of

SDOF

systems.

yield drift limit derived from the possible

systems. curves

obtained for the considered

bi-linearization

of

lateral

forceclass.functions

The driftderivation,

demand forthea

For structure

the

fragility

deformation

specified

shakingresponse

level takesofintomodel;

account u

NDRM

methodthecomputes

the limits.

limit A

state

represents

ultimate

drift

mean

all the uncertainties,

material

uncertainties

1 is SA

probability

of

exceedance

for

a

specified

value

of

0.16%

considered

for

y and

and

record-to-record

P [D dLS

/SA

= sa] 8

Ln variability.

,

(2)

ground

motion

of

0.60%

for through

u. Asathe

logarithmic

standard

LS integration

deviation

0.20

isprobability

considered

forofeach

theP joint

probability

density

function

the of

where

represents

theof

limit

state

of exceedance;

driftstandard

limit

drift the

demand

and sates.

drift

First

8 represents

the

normalcapacity.

cumulativeThe

distribution

SA(g)@0.30sec

g the

ultiple

each

or all

nd is

round

urves

round

ectral

cords

dered

resent

ponse

dered

for a

count

inties

0.8Table

0.6

0.5 0.8

0.4

0.3

0.2

0.6

0.4

0.1

0 0.2

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

LS1(0.15,0.31)

LS2(0.25,0.31)

LS3(0.33,0.31)

0.5

0.6

LS4(0.45,0.31)

NDRM

Drift (%)

Figure 10

Structure response curves obtained

0

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

through IDA of SDOF systems.

SA(g)(0.30sec,5%)

Fig.

11.

Fragility

functions

for Himalayan

DS NDRM.

masonry

For

the

fragility

functions

derivation,

the structures

masonry

structures

obtained

through

obtained

through

NDRM.

NDRM

method

computes the limit state

probability

of exceedance

for a specified

3.5 Vulnerability

Functions

ground motion through the integration of

the The

joint impact

probability

density

functiononofthe

the built

of an

earthquake

driftenvironment

demand andisdrift

capacity.

The

First

computed in terms of the

Reliability

Method

saOrder

represents

the

median

estimate

of casualties.

the FORM

distribution.

LS monetary losses and

human

TheThe

valuesmonetary

of and sa LSlosses

are also provided

in

Fig.

11.

The

funccorrespond to the

tions economic

can be employed

in

future

applications

for

the

damlosses the authority has to bear

ageability assessment of considered DS masonry structures

to bring the devastated society to habitable

during earthquake induced ground motions.

condition. It includes the direct losses due

to building damage and indirect losses

www.nat-hazards-earth-syst-sci.net/12/3441/2012/

including

business downtime and loss of

means of income besides the response and

relief expenditure. The direct economic

earthquake on the built environment is computed in terms

of

monetary losses and human casualties. The

80

monetary losses correspond to the economic losses the authority has

to bear to bring the devastated society to habit60

able condition. It includes the direct losses due to building

damage and indirect losses, EL

including

business downtime and

= (ELR/100)xNxC

40

loss of means of income besides the response and relief exwhere

penditure. The direct economic

losses Losses

related to the buildEl = Economic

20

ELR = Economic

Loss Ratio

ing damage represent the amount

required

to pay for the reN = Number of Buildings

pair, demolishment and replacement

of structures

C = Replacement

Cost of Buildingdamaged

0

in earthquakes

(Bal0.2et al., 2008;

FEMA,

2003).

0

0.4

0.6

0.8 Only1 the direct economic losses are

considered in the present research

SA(g)(0.30sec,5%)

study. The human casualties include the number of people

injured and trapped in the collapsed buildings which are essential for rescue operation soon after the earthquake (Erdik

et al., 2011; Hancilar et al., 2010). The casualties may be further classified into minor, moderate and serious injuries and

deaths (Spence, 2007b).

Vulnerability function for economic losses is derived from

the building fragility functions. It included the estimation

of probability of building damages at a specified shaking

intensity, which are convolved with the economic consequence factor ECF (Ahmad, 2012c), where ECF refers to

the scale relating building damage with the monetary losses.

The FEMA model which assigns a cost ratio (the ratio of

damaged building repair to replacement cost) of 0.02 for

DS1, 0.10 for DS2, 0.50 for DS3 and 1.0 for DS4, is employed herein to derive vulnerability curve for the considered DS masonry building. Figure 12 reports the vulnerability curve for the considered DS masonry structures where the

losses are represented in terms of the economic loss ratio.

The function can be used to compute the economic losses for

the structures during earthquake given the shaking intensity

(SA @ 0.30 s).

www.nat-hazards-earth-syst-sci.net/12/3441/2012/

Figure 13 Vulnerability functions for Himalayan

Human

loss ratio which can provide

economic loss ratio. The function can be

DS masonry structures obtained using the Spence

probability of building damages at a

used to compute the economic losses for

estimates

of human

casualties

(2007b) human

consequence

factor. in collapsed

specified shaking intensity which are

the structures

during

earthquake

given the

buildings during earthquake given 3451

the

N. Ahmad

et al.: Seismic

vulnerability

the Himalayan half-dressed rubble stone masonry structures

convolved

with the

economicofconsequence

shaking intensity (SA@0.30sec).

shaking

intensity

(SA@0.30sec).

4 Seismic

Risk

of DS Masonry

factor ECF (Ahmad 2012c), where ECF

Structures

in

Scenario

Earthquakes

100

50

refers to theELR(0.38,0.37)

scale relating building damage

Slight Injuries

HL = (HLR/100)xNxO

with the monitory losses. The FEMA

80

40

The present studywherealso included case

model which assigns a cost ratio (the ratio

Hl = Human Injuries

studies for risk assessment

ofRatioconsidered

HLR = Human Loss

of damaged

building repair to replacement

60

N = Number of Buildings

30

DS masonry structures

in large

scenario

O = Occupants

Per Building

cost) of 0.02 for DS1, 0.10 for DS2, 0.50

earthquakes.

Three

scenario

earthquakes

= (ELR/100)xNxC

Moderate Injuries

40

for DS3

and 1.0 ELfor

DS4, is employed

20

Critical Injuries

with

Mw

7.0,

7.5

and

8.0Injuries

are &considered

where

Serious

Fatalities

herein to derive vulnerability

curve for the

El = Economic Losses

20

for

which

building

damageability

is

ELR = Economic Loss Ratio

10

considered DS masonry

Figure

N = Numberbuilding.

of Buildings

assessed

at

various

source-to-site

C = Replacement Cost of Building

12 reports

the vulnerability

curve for the

0

distances.

Each

of the1 scenario

earthquake

0

0.2

0.4

0.8

1

0

considered DSSA(g)(0.30sec,5%)

masonry0.6structures

where

0

0.5

1.5

2

ground motions

is simulated with 1000

SA(g)(0.30sec,5%)

the losses are represented in terms of the

different

motion

fields,for

considering

Figure

13 ground

Vulnerability

functions

Himalayan

Fig. economic

12. Vulnerability

function

for The

Himalayan

DS masonry

loss

ratio.

function

canstrucbe

Fig. 13. Vulnerability functions for Himalayan DS masonry strucDS masonry structures obtained using the Spence

tures obtained using the FEMA (2003) economic consequence factures obtained using the Spence (2007b) human consequence factor.

used to compute the economic losses for

(2007b) human consequence factor.

tor.

the structures during earthquake given the

shaking intensity (SA@0.30sec).

4 Seismic

Risk

of casualties

DS Masonry

Vulnerability

functions

for human

are derived

3.5 Vulnerability functions

from

the

collapse

fragility

function

of

the

buildings.

For this

Structures in Scenario Earthquakes

100

Spence (2007b) is employed in the present study. It includes

present

case

the The

convolution

of the study

collapse also

fragilityincluded

function with

the

forSpence

risk model.

assessment

of assigns

considered

lossstudies

ratio of the

This model

ratio of

slight

with 0.50,

moderate injuries

withscenario

0.12, seriDSinjuries

masonry

structures

in large

ous earthquakes.

injuries with 0.08Three

and critical

injuries

and

deaths

with

scenario earthquakes

0.064 in collapsed buildings. Figure 13 reports the vulnerawith

Mwderived

7.0, 7.5

and

8.0 are

considered

bility

functions

for the

casualty

estimation

in earthfor

which

building

damageability

is

quakes. The losses are represented in terms of the Human

lossassessed

ratio, which canatprovide

estimates ofsource-to-site

human casualties

various

in collapsed

buildings

during

earthquake

given

the shaking

distances. Each of the scenario earthquake

intensity (SA @ 0.30 s).

different ground motion fields, considering

scenario earthquakes

The present study also included case studies for risk assessment of considered DS masonry structures in large scenario

earthquakes. Three scenario earthquakes with Mw = 7.0, 7.5

and 8.0 are considered, for which building damageability is

assessed at various source-to-site distances. Each of the scenario earthquake ground motions is simulated with 1000 different ground motion fields, considering uncertainties in the

ground motions estimate. Empirical ground motion prediction equations (GMPEs) are used to estimate ground motions

(Abrahamson and Silva, 2008; Boore and Atkinson, 2008;

Campbell and Bozorgnia, 2008).

Damageability of structures is assessed using the previously derived fragility function. For a given earthquake and

specified source-to-site distance, the corresponding seismic

intensity is obtained using the GMPEs. The associated limit

state probability of exceedance is obtained to compute the

percentage of structures in various damage states. Figure 14

reports the damage probability matrix, showing the mean

Nat. Hazards Earth Syst. Sci., 12, 34413454, 2012

the damage probability matrix, showing

Damageability of structures is assessed

the mean estimate of the percentage of

3452using the N.previously

Ahmad et al.:derived

Seismic vulnerability

of

the

Himalayan with

half-dressed

stone

masonry structures

fragility

structures

variousrubble

damage

levels.

function. For a given earthquake and

Rjb = 0 10km

Rjb = 10 20km

Rjb = 20 30km

Rjb = 30 40km

Rjb = 40 50km

100

Mw = 7.0

80

60

40

20

0

100

Mw = 7.5

80

60

40

20

0

100

Mw = 8.0

80

60

40

20

0

Figure 14 Damageability (percentage of total stock) of DS masonry structures in scenario earthquakes. DS1

Fig. 14. Damageability (percentage of total stock) of DS masonry structures in scenario earthquakes. From top to bottom: Damageability

represents slight damages; DS2 represents moderate damages; DS3 represents heavy damages; DS4 represents

for Mw = 7.0, Damageability for Mw = 7.5 and Damageability for Mw = 8.0. DS1 represents slight damages; DS2 represents moderate

near-collapse/collapse

limit

state.

damages;

DS3 represents heavy

damages.

The

observed

damageability

of

the

estimate

of the percentage

of type

structures

withvery

various

damage

considered

structure

seems

high.

levels.

It can be observed that more than 40

The observed damageability of the considered structure

percent of the stock may collapse during

type seems very high. It can be observed that more than

earthquake

withmay

Mwcollapse

equal during

or greater

thanwith

40 percent

of the stock

earthquake

buildings

located

in the

nearinand

Mw7.0,

equalfor

or greater

than 7.0,

for buildings

located

the near

field.

The percentage

and intermediate

intermediate field.

The percentage

of collapsedof

structurescollapsed

can even rise

to

7080

during

large

earthquakes

structures can rise even up to 70- and

for buildings

located

in close

source-to-site and

distance.

80 during large

earthquakes

forThis

huge percentage of damageability will consequently result in

buildings located in close source-to-site

highly associated socio-economic losses. This high vulneradistance. This huge percentage of

bility of the considered building type gives merit to the use

damageability

will consequently

resultbyinAli et

of simple

retrofitting interventions,

as investigated

high toassociated

losses.

al. (2012),

mitigate the socio-economic

risk of vulnerable stone

masonry

buildings

the future

expected large

This inhigh

vulnerability

of earthquake.

the considered

simple retrofitting interventions, as

5 Conclusions

investigated by Ali et al. (2012), to

the a risk

vulnerable

The mitigate

paper presents

study of

carried

out as part stone

of the research

aiming buildings

towards riskinmitigation

and disaster

risk remasonry

future expected

large

duction

in

the

Himalayan

region,

which

could

be

subjected

earthquakes.

to very large earthquakes in the future. Half-dressed masonry structures representing public critical facilities in the

region are considered for investigation, a very common type

in the region. Fragility functions are derived for the considered construction type using experimental and numerical

investigations. Furthermore, vulnerability functions are derived for economic loss estimation and human casualty estimation. The derived fragility and vulnerability functions are

employed for earthquake scenario risk assessment considNat. Hazards Earth Syst. Sci., 12, 34413454, 2012

Conclusions

earthquakes. Up to 40 percent of building stock can collapse

The

paper presents a study carried out as

in large earthquakes, where the percentage of collapse can

part

the

research

aiming

towards

rise asof

high

as 7080

for large

earthquakes

with risk

close sourcemitigation

and

riskcan

reduction

in for comto-site distance.

Thedisaster

present study

be employed

the

Himalayan

region,

could authorities

be

municating

the expected

risk which

level to public

to

take

measures

aiming

towards

risk

mitigation

and

disaster

subjected to very large earthquakes in the

risk reduction.

This can in turn

result in the

mitigation of ecofuture.

Half-dressed

masonry

structures

nomic losses from future earthquakes. The findings from the

representing public critical facilities in the

present study can also be employed for rapid earthquake loss

region

are considered for investigation, a

estimation within the context of prompt response to disaster

very

common

inoperation

the region.

Fragilityplanning

sites, essential fortype

rescue

and emergency

functions

arehuman

derived

for the

considered

that can reduce

casualties

in earthquakes.

construction

using

experimental

and

Supplementarytype

material

related

to this article

is

numerical

investigations.

Furthermore,

available online

at:

vulnerability

functions are derived for

http://www.nat-hazards-earth-syst-sci.net/12/3441/2012/

nhess-12-3441-2012-supplement.zip.

economic loss estimation and human

casualty estimation. The derived fragility

and

vulnerability

Acknowledgements.

Thefunctions

reviewers are

effortemployed

in evaluating the

for

earthquake

risk assessment

manuscript

and kindlyscenario

providing encouraging

remarks is highly

appreciated. The experimental study presented herein is financially

supported by the Board of Advanced Studies and Research

(BOASAR) of the University of Engineering & Technology

(UET) Peshawar and the Higher Education Commission (HEC) of

Pakistan, which are gratefully acknowledged.

Edited by: M. E. Contadakis

Reviewed by: J. M. Dulinska, T. Makarios, and

one anonymous referee

www.nat-hazards-earth-syst-sci.net/12/3441/2012/

N. Ahmad et al.: Seismic vulnerability of the Himalayan half-dressed rubble stone masonry structures

References

Abrahamson, N. and Silva, W.: Summary of the Abrahamson and

Silva NGA ground-motion relations, Earthq. Spectra, 24, 6797,

2008.

Adanur, S.: Performance of masonry buildings during the 20 and

27 December 2007 Bala (Ankara) earthquakes in Turkey, Nat.

Hazards Earth Syst. Sci., 10, 25472556, doi:10.5194/nhess-102547-2010, 2010.

Ahmad, N.: Seismic risk assessment and loss estimation of building

stock of Pakistan, PhD Thesis, ROSE School-IUSS Pavia, Pavia,

Italy, 2011.

Ahmad, N., Ali, Q., Ashraf, M., Naeem, A., and Alam, B. Seismic

performance evaluation of reinforced plaster retrofitting technique for low-rise block masonry structures, Int. J. Earth Sci.

Eng., 5, 193206, 2012a.

Ahmad, N., Ali, Q., and Umar, M.: Seismic vulnerability assessment of multistorey timber braced frame traditional masonry

structures, Appl. Mech. Materials Trans Tech Publications, accepted, 2012b.

Ahmad, N., Ali, Q., Crowley, H., and Pinho, R. Earthquake loss estimation of structures in Pakistan, in Proceedings of the 9CUEE

& 4ACEE, Tokyo, Japan, 2012c.

Akkar, S., Aldemir, A., Askan, A., Bakir, S., Canbay, E., Demirel, I.

O., Erberik, M. A., Gulerce, Z., Gulkan, P., Kalkan, E., Prakash,

S., Sandikkaya M. A., Sevilgen, V., Ugurhan, B., and Yenier, E.:

8 March 2010 Elazg-Kovanclar (Turkey) Earthquake: Observations on Ground Motions and Building Damage, Seismol. Res.

Lett., 82, 4258, 2011.

Ali, Q. and Mohammad, T. Stone masonry residential buildings in

northern areas of Pakistan. Housing Report, Earthquake Engineering Research Institute (EERI), Oakland, CA, USA, 2006.

Ali, Q., Naeem, A., Ashraf, M., Ahmed, A., Alam, B., Ahmad,

N., Fahim, M., Rahman, S., and Umar, M.: Seismic performance

of stone masonry buildings used in the Himalayan Belt, Earthq.

Spectra, accepted, , 2012.

Avouac, J., Ayoub, F., Leprince, S., Konca, O., and Helmberger, D.

V.: The 2005 Mw 7.6 Kashmir earthquake: Subpixel correlation

of ASTER images and seismic waveforms analysis, Earth Planet.

Sci. Lett., 249, 514528, 2006.

Bal, I. E., Crowley, H., Pinho, R., and Gulay, G.: Detailed Assessment of Structural Characteristics of Turkish RC Building Stock

for Loss Assessment Model, Soil Dynam. Earthquake Eng., 28,

914932, 2008.

BCP-2007: Building Code of PakistanSeismic provision 2007,

Technical Document, Ministry of Housing and Works, Islamabad, Pakistan, 2007.

Bilham, R.: Earthquakes in India and in the Himalaya: tectonic,

geodesy, and history, Ann. Geophys., 47, 839858, 2004,

http://www.ann-geophys.net/47/839/2004/.

Boore, D. M. and Atkinson, G. M.: Ground-motion prediction equations for the average horizontal component of PGA, PGV, and

5 %damped PSA at spectral periods between 0.01s and 10.0s,

Earthq. Spectra, 24, 99138, 2008.

Borzi, B., Crowley, H., and Pinho, R. Simplified pushoverbased

earthquake loss assessment (SPBELA) method for masonry

buildings, Int. J. Architectural Heritage, 2, 353376, 2008.

Bothara, J. and Brzev, S. A. Tutorial: Improving the seismic performance of stone masonry buildings, Earthquake Engineering

Research Institute (EERI), Oakland, CA, USA, 2011.

www.nat-hazards-earth-syst-sci.net/12/3441/2012/

3453

Calvi, G. M., Pinho, R., Magenes, G., Bommer, J. J., RestrepoVelez, L. F., and Crowley, H.: Development of seismic vulnerability assessment methodologies over the past 30 years, ISET J.

Earthqu. Technol., 43, 75104, 2006.

Campbell, K. and Bozorgnia, Y.: NGA ground motion model for the

geometric mean horizontal component of PGA, PGV, PGD and

5 % damped linear elastic response spectra for periods ranging

from 0.01 to 10s, Earthq. Spectra, 24, 139171, 2008.

Chopra, A. K.: Dynamics of structures: Theory and applications

to earthquake engineering, 3rd Edition, Prentice-Hall, NJ, USA,

2003.

Coburn, A. and Spence, R. Earthquake Protection. John Wiley and

Sons, Ltd., West Sussex, England, 2002.

Crowley, H., Pinho, R., and Bommer, J. J.: A probabilistic displacement-based vulnerability assessment procedure for

earthquake loss estimation, Bull. Earthq. Eng., 2, 173219, 2004.

DAyala, D., Spence, R., Oliveira, C., and Pomonis, A. Earthquake

loss estimation for Europes historic town centers, Earthq. Spectra, 13, 773793, 1997.

Der Kiureghian, A.: First- and second-order reliability methods,

edited by: Nikolaidis, E., Ghiocel, D. M., and Singhal, S., in:

Engineering Design Reliability Handbook, CRC Press 2005.

EERI: Learning from Earthquakes: The Kashmir earthquake of October 8, 2005: impacts in Pakistan. EERI Special Earthquake Report, Earthquake Engineering Research Institute (EERI), Oakland, CA, USA, 2006.

EERI: Learning from Earthquakes: The Mw 6.9 Sikkim-Nepal border earthquake of September 18, 2011. EERI Special Earthquake

Report, Earthquake Engineering Research Institute (EERI), Oakland, CA, USA, 2012.

Elnashai, A. S. and Di-Sarno, L.: Fundamentals of earthquake engineering. John Wiley and Sons Ltd., West Sussex, UK, 2008.

Erberik, M. A.: Generation of fragility curves for Turkish masonry

buildings considering in-plane failure modes, Earthquake Eng.

Struct. Dynam., 37, 387405, 2008.

Erdik, M., Sesetyan, K., Demircioglu, M. B., Hancilar, U., and Zulfikar, C. Rapid earthquake loss assessment after damaging earthquakes, Soil Dynam. Earthq. Eng., 31, 247266, 2011.

FEMA: Multi-hazard loss estimation methodology, earthquake

model. HAZUS-MH Technical Manual, Federal Emergency

Management Agency (FEMA), Washington, DC, USA, 2003.

Galasco, A., Lagomarsino, S., and Penna, A.: TREMURI Program:

Seismic analyses of 3D masonry buildings, University of Genoa,

Genoa, Italy, 2002.

Grunthal, G., Musson, R. M. W., Schwarz, J., and Stucchi, M.:

EMS-98: European Macroseismic Scale, Centre Europ`een de

Geodynamique et de Seismologie, Luxembourg, 1998.

Gulkan, P., Sucuoglu, H., and Ergunay, O.: Earthquake vulnerability, loss and risk assessment in Turkey. Proceedings of the Tenth

World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Madrid, Spain,

1992.

Gupta, I., Shankar, R., and Sinvhal, A. Earthquake vulnerability assessment of house constructions in Himalayas, J. Design Built

Environ, 3, 114, 2008.

Hancilar, U., Tuzun, C., Yenidogan, C., and Erdik, M.: ELER software a new tool for urban earthquake loss assessment, Nat.

Hazards Earth Syst. Sci., 10, 26772696, doi:10.5194/nhess-102677-2010, 2010.

3454

N. Ahmad et al.: Seismic vulnerability of the Himalayan half-dressed rubble stone masonry structures

Masonry Buildings in the 2010/2011 Canterbury Earthquake

Swarm, Technical Report, Royal Commissions and Commissions of Inquiry, Wellington, New Zealand, 2011.

Javed, M., Naeem, A. and Magenes, G.: Performance of masonry

structures during earthquake-2005 in Kashmir, Mehran University Res. J. Eng. Technol., 27, 271282, 2008.

Kappos, A. and Panagopoulos, G.: Fragility curves for reinforced

concrete buildings in Greece. Structure and Infrastructure Engineering: Maintenance, Management, Life-Cycle Design and Performance, 6, 3953, 2010.

Kappos, A. J., Penelis, G. G., and Drakopoulos, C. G.: Evaluation

of simplified models for lateral load analysis of unreinforced masonry buildings, J. Struct. Eng., 128, 890897, 2002.

Kaushik, H. B., Dasgupta, K., Sahoo, D. R., and Kharel, G.: Performance of structures during the Sikkim earthquake of 14 February

2006, Curr. Sci., 91, 449455, 2006.

Kircher, C. A., Nassar, A. A., Kustu, O., and Holmes, W. T.: Development of building damage functions for earthquake loss estimation, Earthq. Spectra, 13, 663682, 1997.

Magenes, G. and Calvi, G. M.: In-plane seismic response of brick

masonry walls, Earthq. Eng. Struct. Dynam., 26, 10911112,

1997.

Magenes, G. and Fontana, D.: Simplified non-linear seismic analysis of masonry buildings, Proc. British Masonry Soc., 5, 190

195, 1998.

Maqsood, S. T. and Schwarz, J.: Seismic vulnerability of existing

building stock in Pakistan. Proceedings of the Fourteenth World

Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Beijing, China, 2008.

Menon, A. and Magenes, G.: Definition of seismic input for out-ofplane response of masonry walls: I. parametric study, J. Earthq.

Eng., 15, 165194, 2011.

Murty, C. V. R.: Earthquake Tips: Learning seismic design and construction. Technical Report, Indian Institute of Technology, Kanpur, Uttar Pradesh, India, 2003.

Naseer, A., Naeem, A., Hussain, Z., and Ali, Q. Observed seismic

behavior of buildings in northern Pakistan during the 2005 Kashmir earthquake, Earthq. Spectra, 26, 425449, 2010.

Pinto, P. E., Giannini, R., and Franchin, P.: Seismic reliability analysis of structures. IUSS Press, Pavia, Italy, 2004.

Porter, K., Kennedy, R., and Bachman, R.: Creating fragility functions for performance-based earthquake engineering, Earthq.

Spectra, 23, 471489, 2007.

Rai, D. C. and Murthy, C. V. R.: Preliminary report on the 2005

north Kashmir earthquake of October 8, 2005. Field Report, Indian Institute of Technology, Kanpur, Uttar Pradesh, India, 2006.

Rota, M., Penna, A., and Magenes, G.: A methodology for deriving analytical fragility curves for masonry buildings based on

stochastic nonlinear analyses, Eng. Struct., 32, 13121323, 2010.

Scott, M. H. and Fenves, G. L.: A Krylov Subspace Accelerated

Newton Algorithm: application to dynamic progressive collapse

simulation of frames, J. Struct. Eng., 136, 473480, 2010.

Spence, R.: Saving lives in earthquakes: successes and failures in

seismic protection since 1960, Bulletin Earthq. Eng., 5, 139251,

2007a.

Spence, R.: Earthquake disaster scenario predictions and loss modelling for urban areas, LESSLOSS Report, IUSS Press, Pavia,

Italy, 2007b.

Tomazevic, M.: Some aspects of experimental testing of seismic behavior of masonry walls and models of masonry buildings, ISET

J. Earthq. Technol., 37, 101117, 2000.

Vamvatsikos, D. and Cornell, C.: Incremental dynamic analysis,

Earthq. Eng. Struct. Dynam., 31, 491514, 2002.

www.nat-hazards-earth-syst-sci.net/12/3441/2012/

- Mechanical Vibrations TutorialUploaded byNada Badr
- NEHRP2001Uploaded byOerip Djajasentosa
- Performance-Based Earthquake Design.pdfUploaded byAlrack sinner
- ADVANCE EARTHQUAKE RESISTANT DESIGN OF STRUCTURES.pdfUploaded byVijay Kumar
- Numerical modeling on vibroﬂotation soil improvement techniques using a densiﬁcation constitutive lawUploaded byPiotr Zieliński
- Seismic Evaluation of Existing Buildings and Strengthening TechniquesUploaded bySujan Shrestha
- Preliminary Design of BRBF System - Use of Equivalent Force MethodUploaded by^password
- A story shear-based adaptive pushover procedure for estimating seismic demands buildingsUploaded byFadhila Fadi
- Matlab Scripts for Hilbert TransformUploaded byMarcos Manzano
- Av 25288292Uploaded byAnonymous 7VPPkWS8O
- IB Lab - 07 Loaded Metre Rule (DCP)Uploaded byringo_tiger
- UBC97 Earthquak Lateral Forces-Edit Protected -09!06!2012Uploaded byYasser AbdAllah Snosy
- Chiodi - A Performance-Based Design Approach for Viaduct SeismicUploaded bypmullins_11
- Mid Term PresentationUploaded bySujan Singh
- EARTHQUAKE Ground ShakingUploaded byIsha Regacho
- 1-s2.0-S0141029606004962-mainUploaded byfarhan danish
- Seismic Performance of Steel TowersUploaded byBambangTeguhPrasetyo
- efc737af-ff9a-487c-8bcf-d5047dc1652e-150727114433-lva1-app6892 (2)Uploaded byRony Amara
- Ground Vibratixzxxzxon From SheetpileUploaded byAdheesha Bandara
- Residual DeformationUploaded byrajarajathan
- WCEE2012_3005Uploaded byNitin shepur
- Assessment of Spectrum Matching Procedure for Nonlinear Analysis of Symmetric - And Asymmetric - Plan Buildings Reyes2014Uploaded byArnold Mendo Rodriguez
- Plan CivseismUploaded bygawoke
- IJCIET_08_05_010Uploaded byRajapandian
- OJER_2013081311033759Uploaded bychetan talawar
- IJETAE_1112_37Uploaded byArchana Rajan
- MTech.,SEUploaded byRavi Malik
- reviewUploaded bysoapy
- Solving Super-Synchronous Vibration on a Double Suction PumpUploaded byRajagopal
- 44.pdfUploaded byDammika Seneviratne

- Dr Fixit Waterproofing ReckonerUploaded bySusheel Talreja
- Concrete Cores-lift Walls DesignUploaded bymagdyamdb
- Dr_Fixit_General_Repair_Remedial_Waterproofing_Guide.pdfUploaded byandrealeger755774
- 372Uploaded bymagdyamdb
- IJCTT-V4I4P188Uploaded bymagdyamdb
- EIJCSE3085Uploaded bymagdyamdb
- ENERCALC Biaxial Concrete Solver BasisUploaded bymagdyamdb
- Confined Reinforced Concrete BeamUploaded bymagdyamdb
- PILEGRP (1)Uploaded bybasithal
- Pile Cap Design 26102009Uploaded bymagdyamdb
- LatPilePY_2 SAP EXAMPLE.xlsUploaded bymagdyamdb
- BROMS Horiz Loading on Piles(Cohesionless)-LABKOMPUSATUploaded byDanny Erlangga Supriyadi
- Horiz Loading on Piles CohesiveUploaded bymagdyamdb
- Pilegroup-stiffpilecap VERY GOOD MahfuzUploaded bymagdyamdb
- Rehabilitation and Strengthening of Old Masonry Buildings H. Meireles; R. Bento Março de 2013Uploaded bymagdyamdb
- Repair and Strengthening of Bridge SubstructuresUploaded byLuis Alberto Riquelme Vidal
- Alcocer Recent Experimental Evidence on the Seismic Performance of Rehabilitation Techniques in Mexico(1)Uploaded bymagdyamdb
- Rebuild Volume 6 3 3Uploaded bymagdyamdb
- plandoc_4_3763Uploaded bymagdyamdb
- EQ31 Seismic Behavior of Beam Column Joints-libreUploaded bymagdyamdb
- 1. S123 Sas and Blanksvard 2011-12-10 Clean-libreUploaded bymagdyamdb
- Cylindrical Concrete Tanks Conical BaseUploaded byWilman Barrera Grados
- Lat Short PileUploaded bymagdyamdb

- Hydraulic Design of Stilling Basins AndUploaded byRautateRea
- Secondary Electron Emission by Bruce Darrow GaitherUploaded bybrucedar
- CAMEL in GPRS Prepaid ServiceUploaded byImran
- ElectricityUploaded byDeepali Singh
- enve 300 staj raporu-summer practice reportUploaded bymihrican302
- New Text DocumentUploaded bynuti_85
- Mario Editor ManualUploaded by400benja
- IPTC-17009-MSUploaded byAnyul Lozano Rodríguez
- Linkage User's GuideUploaded byVíctorSalazarHeredia
- ElectrolysisUploaded bysaeikip
- Curriculum VitaeUploaded bysmartamanagarwal
- Production Management BBA(II) MDU studentsUploaded byRishabh Gupta
- Science 7 PrelimUploaded byBernardino Pring
- Linux Training Guide for system administrationUploaded bycioby23
- Sedimen TransportUploaded byOnni Linoarfrino
- 6T40 HYBRIDA.pdfUploaded byAnonymous TMFgAgR09t
- Size-dependent melting properties of Sn nanoparticles by.pdfUploaded byeid elsayed
- Gagandeep Singh BenipalUploaded byGagandeep Singh Benipal
- DataMaxProgHB EngUploaded bypjaguilar
- 32E2000a Service ManualUploaded byAlex Rivera
- 51285476.pdfUploaded byCem Alpaslan
- Asa 8 With Gns3Uploaded bylocmap99
- 57-39 Central locking system.pdfUploaded bymefisto06c
- Crucial Experiments in Modern Physics by George L TriggUploaded byThem Learns Joys Stay
- .NET NOTESUploaded byVenkat Pappu
- OPM_I_Problem_Solutions_Ch2_4s_5s_7_SDUploaded byKaushal Bakhai
- ACCU2014_PeterSommerlad_C++14Uploaded byPratibha Gupta
- Handbook CUploaded bySew
- Lecture2.Linux InstallationUploaded byBogdan Curmei
- Interview TechincalUploaded byddua76