You are on page 1of 9

Weighting Assessment of Vulnerability Index Parameters

for Reinforced Masonry Structures
Nacim Yousfi, Assistant Professor, National Earthquake Engineering Research Centre (CGS) – earthquake engineering, Algiers,
Algeria; Mahmoud Bensaibi, Professor, National School of Built and Ground Works Engineering, Algiers, Algeria. Contact:
nacim_yousfi@hotmail.fr
DOI: 10.2749/101686617X14676303589435

Abstract that have an influence on the seismic
behaviour of such structures are identi-
The ancient Algerian urban nuclei are composed of different kind of structural fied, and using a non-linear dynamic
systems, such as unreinforced masonry building (URM) buildings, reinforced con- analysis, the weighting factors of these
crete (RC) buildings, steel buildings and last but not the least the reinforced parameters are determined. This
masonry structures. This type of structure is one of the most vulnerable to seismic method will be implemented in a Delphi
action, as they were not built to seismic codes and regulations. In this paper, a con- program and applied for a certain num-
tribution for the safety assessment of reinforced masonry buildings under seismic ber of reinforced masonry structures.
loading is presented. With this purpose, a vulnerability index method has been
applied to this type of buildings for the Algerian case according to the national Vulnerability index method
seismic regulations (RPA), by identifying the most important parameters that have
The VI method is based on four
an influence on the seismic behaviour of such structures. Weighting factors are
important steps9,10,13,17–21,42–45:
then assigned to each parameter in order to evaluate the vulnerability index, which
allows classifying each assessed structure according to a suggested classification. • First step: Selecting parameters
The weighting factors were first estimated by a dynamic analysis using ten seismic influencing seismic vulnerability
records. Lastly this method was implemented in a Delphi program and performed • Second step: Choosing of vulnera-
using several examples to show its efficiency. bility classes
• Third step: Determination of
Keywords: vulnerability index; reinforced masonry structures; finite element;
weighting parameters in each class
dynamic analysis; earthquake; risk; damage.
• Fourth step: Calculation of the VI
and structure classification.
Introduction The method was also used in Algeria These steps will be explained in the
according to the Algerian seismic code following paragraphs.
Seismic feedback experiences show (RPA) and was applied to unrein- Selecting Parameters
that strong earthquakes cause many forced masonry construction
damages to existing structures and system,9–12 reinforced concrete The choice of parameters was done
infrastructures around the world, usu- (RC) structures,10,13–16 steel struc- using a statistical analysis based on
ally because they do not comply with tures10,17,18 and reinforced masonry past earthquakes.9–21,42–45 Fourteen
seismic code in practice. In order to constructions.10,19–22 parameters have been identified in
reduce these damages to existing struc- order to assess the seismic vulnerabil-
tures, several methods have been Several studies were used to study the ity of reinforced masonry structures.
developed to upgrade and improve seismic vulnerability of masonry con- These parameters are:
their seismic performance.1,2 These structions around the world. In Italy a
methods take into account the intrinsic finite element (FE) analysis was Wall connections, seismic capacity,
characteristics of such structures to applied for typical buildings consider- type of soil, ductility of steel, steel
quantify their seismic behaviour. ing some parameters such as in-plane joints, horizontal diaphragm,
Among these methods, the vulnerabil- modifications, plan regularity, elevation
and out-of-plane collapses of masonry
regularity, maintenance conditions,
ity index (VI) method is used to assess walls.23–28 In USA, Spain, Portugal,
the seismic vulnerability of buildings. ground conditions, pounding effect,
Eastern Europe, Mexico, Australia and
roof and details.
The VI method has been used India, both experimental and numerical
worldwide,3–5 to elaborate seismic sce- analyses (FE) were used for URM Vulnerability Classes
narios at large scale as in RISK–UE buildings especially for the in-plane Three vulnerability classes are
approaches,6 Hazard - United States and out-of-plane behaviour.29–39 In Ire- considered: A, B and C. Class A shows
(HAZUS)7 and Risk Assessment land and Iran, a FE analysis was that the parameter is consistent with
Tools for Diagnosis of Urban Areas applied for masonry walls taking into the seismic code in use. Class C shows
against Seismic Disaster (RADIUS)8 account the plan and elevation irregu- that the parameter is not consistent
methodologies. larity.40,41 Few interests were accorded with the seismic code, while class B cor-
to steel structures and combined responds to an intermediate position.
Peer-reviewed by international ex- masonry and steel constructions.
perts and accepted for publication Determination of Weighting
by SEI Editorial Board The present study deals with reinforced
Parameters in Each Class
masonry buildings that were less studied
Paper received: May 19, 2016 than other buildings in Algeria. In this A non-linear dynamic analysis will be
Paper accepted: July 20, 2016 method, the most important parameters used to define weighting parameters.

Structural Engineering International Nr. 1/2017 Scientific Paper 79

2 Ain Temouchent (Algeria) 1999 3.0 12. (b) mid-rise building (G.46 ever the meaning of the non-linearity The hypotheses considered for the is different for each parameter. based on the evolution of maximum displacements. expressing how Table 2: Building dimensions parameter’s state changes from the linear range to the non-linear range.70 12. The seismic vulnerability analysis is H: height of building. + 7 floors) C. 1.80 IPE 100 rise.965 proposed. In class A the the structure is modelled with periph- sections are given in Table 2.f. + 3 floors) and (c) high-rise building (G. B and 1 floor). In the third class structure has less intermediate walls displacements. Modelling of the Parameters Each parameter will be modelled in F i g.415 placement is used as a tool to quantify the weighting factors. Masonry bearing walls have to be tied walls commonly is 4–5 m for this kind mid rise and high rise as shown in order to avoid their out-of-plan of buildings. a large range of the fundamental frequencies is considered in order to take into account the max- imum possibilities. A dynamic analysis will be per- formed for each type of building and for each seismic record. which leads to 90 ana. while in directions. factors assigned for (C) the structure has been modelled than the first class in one or two each parameter are obtained.f.0 12. mid rise and high rise). B and C).624 vulnerability class. The buildings that have in Fig. the low rise.0 8.f.60 IPE 200 will be done. In class C ness of masonry walls and the steel this kind of buildings. mid rise and high rise) for the corresponding vulnerability classes High rise 0.885 Table 1: Fundamental frequencies Seismic Records Ten seismic records are used in the dynamic analysis as shown in Table 1. 10 Torishima (Japan) 2012 0. In the first According to the in situ investigation modelling of this parameter has been class (A). deformation. + the three defined classes. Three types of number of walls able to resist the base Wall Connections buildings will be considered during shear force. for two directions (X and Y). lyses by parameter. procedure of the modelling for all class B the structure has been then the failure in the different vul.111 6 Imperial Valley (USA) 1979 1. W: width of building. Each parameter will be 1 Tipaza (Algeria) 1989 8.0 25. How. The distance between the parameter’s analysis. done according to the type of ties that with bearing walls every 4 m in the the dimensions of buildings. e: thickness of walls.611 and based on this a classification of reinforced masonry buildings is 9 Fukushima (Japan) 2011 1.50 12. the structure is modelled of the reinforced masonry structures. following text.46 5 Alaska (USA) 1972 7. L: length of building.16 modelled in order to check its influ. 1/2017 . 1 : Types of modelled buildings according to heights: (a) Low-rise building (G. A.00 ence and to define its weight in each 3 Beniourthilene (Algeria) 2000 1. This behaviour leads to less number of walls are the most vul- the damage of the structure. parameters will be explained in the modelled with vertical and horizontal nerability classes (A. As it can be seen.0 12.345 A formula to calculate the VI is given 8 Kuril (Japan) 2007 1. the thick- may exist inside masonry walls. ties reaching the plastic range. (a) (b) (c) where the fundamental frequencies are given. while in class B the Through the variation of maximum horizontal steel ties.40 8. The maximum dis- 4 Boumerdes (Algeria) 2003 0. structure is modelled with vertical and eral walls only.47 The with horizontal steel tie only.e. i.0 6. the failure (A–C) is explained in the The seismic capacity is defined by the following paragraphs.202 VI and Structure Classification 7 Okkaido (Japan) 1994 3. where modelling of different parameters are Seismic Capacity the evolution from the linear range to also explained later.40 IPE 100 and for each type of building (low Mid rise 0. 30 Dimensions e (m) L (m) W (m) H (m) Steel section dynamic analyses for each parameter Low rise 0.Three reinforced masonry buildings Number Seismic record Year Frequencies (Hz) will be considered (low rise.48 The nerable to earthquakes.9 80 Scientific Paper Structural Engineering International Nr.

while in the same criterion is followed as used Translation along " X axis : #  the second class. (Units: [–]) Fi g . this parameter was focused on bear- ing system. it means that in one floor (6) developed in Ref.002 0. the firm soils ductility of the steel material existing tem (eliminating a wall or a part of where the shear average wave velocity in the masonry walls is taken into wall). the structure is modelled Translation along "  Z axis : #  with an equal distribution of loads. In linear case. the guished.52 In the first class. In the last class (C). 2: Diagram showing stress–strain of steel. B: width of the foun. while in the second class ing masonry walls. 1/2017 Scientific Paper 81 . and in the bracing sys- overtakes 800 m/s. 2). and the very soft the first class. all nodes tained regularly in order to keep its Rocking about " Y axis : #  2:4 of floors are selected and assigned as initial state. Plan Regularity velocity is less than 200 m/s. L: length of The modification refers to the change limit of the failure as is represented the foundation.50. The irregularity of this parameter was failure. ν: Poisson’s ratio.Type of Soil represented by the behaviour factor the first class. while in the umns and beams). Torsion about " Z axis : #  2:45 Floors must be rigid and have good L Maintenance 3 Kzz = GB 4:25 + 4:06 ð4Þ connections with vertical bracing sys- B tem in order to have good diaphragm Each construction must be main- behaviour. In the Steel Joints first class. elastic range.  fy Design diagram. The modelling was third class. 3. overtakes 200 m/s. nodes Kyy = 3:73 + 0:27 system elements. This factor is considered changing the mass in the material reaches the plastic range (see calculated according to Eqs. In the second class.49 The the material reaches the limit of the modelling of each soil is done accord. there is an inequality of loads. The GB L 0:65 modelling is done by giving different Kx = 6:8 + 2:4 ð3Þ plastic range. only the of the mass). the elasticity modulus modelled by applying the modification (E) and the strain (ε) of the masonry Ductility of Steel to the building function (live loads) are taken as variable in the non- The ductility of a material is the and in the vertical bracing system. the dead loads or the Kz = 3:1 + 1:6 ð1Þ between different steel frames (col- 1−ν B live loads are changed. given different charac- GB L L Ky = 6:8 + 0:8 + 1:6 teristics. the function of the assigned for each structural system.49 For the present study. steel 1 −ν B B Elevation Regularity joints are distorting in the elastic ð2Þ range.52–54 While considering dation. steel joints reach the in the plan regularity parameter. especially the bracing GB3 L diaphragm.of the building’s function and/or the in Fig. In system.51. In the seismic codes. in the third class.49  0:65   the nodal zone. The first type is the rock soils of structures in the Algerian seismic change is done in the function (rising where the shear average wave velocity code.0035 Fi g. the change overtakes 400 m/s. In the first class. the ductility is fk Idealised diagram. 3: Diagram showing stress–strain for masonry. reach the limit of the failure. while in the second class the ing to its rigidity factor. This parameter was maintenance.51 same floor. The evolution of the ductility is in the function or in the bracing where the shear average wave velocity is according to the material strain. In the first class ð5Þ only half of nodes are connected to (A) bearing walls are distorted in the Rocking about X   axis :  the vertical bracing system. in the second class GB3 L (B) walls reach the plastic range Kxx = 3:2 + 0:8 ð6Þ Modifications 1 −ν B while in the class C. walls reach the where G: shear modulus. f fd = k m d =E d" " " 0. structural system. steel joints Concerning the elevation regularity. in the third class. the material is distorting soil where the shear average wave in the elastic range. In GB L 0:75 Steel joints must transmit forces the second class. The soft soils account. (Units: [–]) Structural Engineering International Nr. In the third class. building and the bracing system are According to the Algerian seismic The behaviour factor is between not modified compared with their ini- code four types of soil are distin- 2 and 6 for the different existing types tial states. the change is in the dead Translation" along Y axis : # done by dividing frame elements in loads and the live loads. capacity to distort in the plastic range without reaching the failure. (1)– Fig. The modelling of 1 −ν B are not connected to the vertical brac. 1 −ν B masses to different floors of the Horizontal Diaphragm structure.

34 4. Detail parameter concerns elements done according to the formula that do not interfere in the structural dmax (8) given by the Algerian seismic code Ki = Xi = 3 ð9Þ system such as balcony. in the last class (C) balconies reach E = 1000*f ð7Þ tor is calculated according to the dif. for each vulnerability class (A.69 0.49.34 1. Frequencies (Hz) Low rise (6.34 3.1 9.1 9.1 9.23 1.1 9.6 m) Vulnerability classes Vulnerability classes Vulnerability classes Parameters A B C A B C A B C Walls connections 9.69 1.4 m) Mid rise (12. will not be considered to estimate Unlike the parameter type of soil tor Kl = 1.25 1.25 Horizontal diaphragm 9. In this case the weighting fac.61 1.34 1. while 40 mm.34 4.69 Elevation regularity 9.57 1. Detail record and for each type of building The checking of this parameter was modelled according to Eq.33 8. the structure has one models.34 1. class.16 1.1 4.69 1. more adjacent buildings with d ≤ strains reach the plastic range. In the first placements of the three vulnerability tor Kl = 0.1 4.33 4.1 9. i = 1 maxi The existence of such elements adjacent buildings.23 Table 3: Fundamental frequencies of different models 82 Scientific Paper Structural Engineering International Nr. handrail.66 Modifications 9. the structure has one or elastic range.34 4. in the second class.1 9.34 4.69 1.69 1.69 1.34 4.1 4.34 1.69 1.1 4.55 This parameter is mode. Calculating Factors Roof Weighting factors assigned to differ- Pounding Effect The modelling of this parameter is the ent parameters are obtained from Two structures built close to each same as the horizontal diaphragm maximum displacements of models of other must be separated by a seismic parameter. weighting factors are calculated mic joint could cause damages in the for each parameter with each seismic structure by the hammering effect.1 6. δ1: maximum displacement of building model.84 1.The compressive strength is taken In class B. 1/2017 .1 4.13 0.49 This formula gives d the minimum dimension between two walls.53 ference of the thickness of joints given In order to avoid the resonance phe- Ground Conditions by the formula (8) (40 mm).1 9.47 Ductility of steel 9. the seismic records frequen- thickness (d) is calculated for each Constructions built near cliffs or rivers cies used in the analysis.69 1.03 1.34 4.34 1. tures are simply supported. the non-linear dynamic analysis joint according to the seismic code the dead loads and live loads are dif.1 4. the limit of the failure.34 4. depends of the architecture of the where dmax: maximum displacement In class A.69 1.2003.02 Plan regularity 9.69 1.1 9.1 9.1 9.1 9.53 1. d = 0 mm.34 4.69 1.34 1. according to its strain.97 Ground conditions 9. equal to f = 2 N/mm2.72 0.69 Details 9.1 9. In this case.1 4.34 4.23 1.v.34 4. Table 3 shows explained above.34 4.26 4.69 1.1 9.69 1.1 2.27 4. Σdmaxi: the sum of maximum dis- 40 mm. weighting factors.34 1. In this case.1 9. In the third class.34 4. ferent (most heavy) than typical floors.34 2.1 9. acroterion.33 4.69 1. and the nomenon. in the frequencies range of different quakes. any model having lled to take account of phenomena or more adjacent buildings with a similar frequency as a seismic record such landslides and liquefactions. the strain of balcony stay in the classes. those obtained for each elaborated restrained.1 4.57 3. struc.23 0.43 8. (9). done according to the support of structures. First.34 4.34 3.34 4.10 1.66 5. and δ2: maximum displacement of the second class. dmin = 15 mm + ðδ1 + δ2Þ ≥ 40 mm obtained from the modal analysis.34 3. As an example.34 4. partition RPA99. half of supports are building 2.34 4. should not be type of building.8 m) High rise (25.69 Seismic capacity 9.66 1.43 9.69 1.1 9.34 1. the structure is isolated assessed building.69 1. The absence of the seis.34 4. the weighting fac.34 4.10 Roof 9.1 9. restrained.27 0.16 4.1 4. B and or has adjacent buildings with d > “balcony” is taken and modelled C). are most vulnerable to earth. structures ð8Þ These frequencies are compared to are modelled with all supports where dmin: width of calculated joint.1 9. For the roof parameter.69 1.53 Type of soil 9. stairs…etc. the modelling was different frequencies of models used. In this case weighting fac. In class C. In the first class.25 1. according to the following procedure: regulations.69 Maintenance 9. while in 1.69 1.69 Steel joints 9.1 8.

obtained for the three models (low records and for the three types of In Table 4.43 1.17 41. the results (n =1. displacements.34 38. Ki factors are obtained lated according to Eq.73 0. a first aver.05 Boumerdes 0.25 0.22 0. (12) below. Models with frequencies the 10 seismic records used.23 0.42 0.84 246.21 0. the seismic record effects are differ- for the three types of buildings.33 225. Maximum displacements (mm) Low-rise models Mid-rise models High-rise models Seismic records A B C A B C A B C Tipaza 0.22 0.30 8.26 0. maximum dis- j=1 i Kj = ð10Þ according to the Eq.80 41.71 42.36 Beniourthilene 0.42 Kuril 0.02 0. displacement results rise.00 Torishima 0.25 Alaska 0.03 Table 4: Maximum displacement values (dmax) for the maintenance parameter Factor Ki Low-rise models Mid-rise models High-rise models Seismic records A B C A B C A B C Tipaza – – – 0.53 7.00 1.34 – – – 0. Kl found are similar for each parameter Kn = ð12Þ for the different models.36 0.45 Ain Temouchent 3.73 76.43 Imperial Valley 0.95 5.38 0.23 8.25 8.31 0.30 0.53 Ain Temouchent 0. mid rise and high rise) according buildings.46 0. See Tables 3 and 5.27 0. These express a percent.58 56. obtained for the maintenance parame- to Eq.17 0.23 represents the sum of for each parameter and for each seis- different vulnerability parameters.28 0.35 146. (9).Then for each parameter.03 0.28 0.10 0.92 0.36 0.13 0.74 19.68 1.25 0.25 0.22 0.08 0.42 – – – Fukushima 0.23 0. mic record.47 0.31 0.64 0.22 0.23 0.16 0.57 0. which is the maximum of the VI that which coincide with those of seismic Xl = 10 may be assigned to a structure. where Kl: weighting factors obtained as a sample to show the application of age is calculated of Ki factors for each parameter for the 10 seismic the procedure.52 0.68 – – – – – – Torishima 0.10 0.53 0.82 23.09 0. records are not taken into account in Kj To calculate weighting factors.71 – – – Okkaido 0.36 2.20 0.27 0.51 246.50 0.01 8.53 1.25 8.78 6.48 0. (10).41 0.90 1.80 41.80 5.33 0. Xj = n K or after an earthquake are obtained According to Table 4.13 0. the order to avoid the resonance effect as Kl = l=1 ð11Þ 10 parameter “maintenance” was chosen shown in Table 5.30 0.95 0.23 8.98 0.28 0. Also each parameter for each seismic record (0 and 100%).11 0.00 17.38 – – – 0.30 0. 1/2017 Scientific Paper 83 .02 0.47 Table 5: Factor Ki values for maintenance parameter Structural Engineering International Nr.50 1. reinforced masonry structures before ent seismic records. This average is obtained Factors used for the classification of ter are illustrated according to differ- for each seismic record.23 77.37 0.40 Beniourthilene 1.95 16.42 – – – Boumerdes 0.23 in seismic records change in a growing where Kj: weighting factor obtained for order to obtain factors between 0 and 1 form.32 0.60 0.46 0.52 Imperial Valley 0.29 0. for the The value 6. age of the total seismic vulnerability ent. All placements generated by different n these values will be divided by 6.64 18.33 120. from class A to class C.00 77. 2 or 3).67 2. which cause more and less high ber of buildings taken into account for the reinforced masonry structures.70 0.54 Kuril 4. (11).43 7.15 16. A second average of Kj factors 6:23 obtained from formula (10) is calcu.92 8.37 47.47 12.42 0.23 0.46 Fukushima 5.36 0.36 0. n: num.10 0. for Kl factors obtained in the class C.17 0.43 11.45 Alaska 0.68 13.05 0.07 0.04 0.56 0.53 4. From Eq. However.68 0.07 0.60 1.40 0.19 0.35 232.28 0.75 68.62 163.21 0.64 3.68 6.37 0.41 0.10 0.09 0.34 247.35 48.77 42.32 0.07 Okkaido 0.

30 0.22 0.28 0.07 (low rise.05 0.50 5 Steel joints 0.06 each parameter of the three models 3 Type of soil 0.04 0. To age. (10).30 0.15 Classification 13 Roof 0. Table 7: Non-normalized factor Kl according to vulnerability classes culated for Ki factors in Table 5 for each seismic record to obtain Kj fac- tors in each vulnerability class (see Classes Table 6).06 used immediately in the classification of the reinforced masonry structures.60 0.05 0.30 0.36 Alaska 0.31 0.18 0.37 4 Ductility of steel 0.33 0. 10 Maintenance 0.34 0.30 0.00 0.06 illustrated in Table 7.32 0.04 0.04 0.68 11 Ground conditions 0.26 0.05 0. The red class represents Digital Implementation Part A: Structure identification structures having a bad resistance to Elaboration of the Data Sheet This part contains general information earthquakes. (11).28 0. Parameters Class A Class B Class C buildings 1 Walls connections 0. a first average is cal. Each will be established from a survey.33 0.15 0. (13).06 obtain Kl factors using Eq.05 0. basement vulnerability class is composed of do this a data sheet was elaborated. 7 Modifications 0.04 0.04 0. 5 Steel joints 0.86–1.39 Tipaza 0. This clas. the VI is calculated using Eq.61 6 Horizontal diaphragm 0.28 0. Five vulnerability The data sheet allows regrouping all sification is shown in Table 9.08 0.05 0. Parameters Class A Class B Class C A second average is calculated to 1 Walls connections 0.05 0.04 0.49 10 Maintenance 0.32 0. six parts as shown here21: mic loading.26 0.36 Beniourthilene 0.34 0. Table 8: Kn factor values according to vulnerability classes nX = 14 VI = Kn ð13Þ Class Green Orange Red n=1 VI 0.55 7 Modifications 0.31 0. Factor Kj Classes Three types of No.25 0.30 0.03 0.05 0.60–0.20 0.04 0.34 0.05 0. 1/2017 .09 0.08 11 Ground conditions 0.16 0.11 0. 84 Scientific Paper Structural Engineering International Nr.06 These are treated using Eq.04 0. VI of buildings.46 3 Type of soil 0.04 0.30 0.49 1.35 parameter Sum – – 6.33 0.10 0. use.30 0.63 8 Plan regularity 0.10 VI Calculation and Structure 12 Pounding effect 0.04 0.06 Factors obtained in Table 7 are not 6 Horizontal diaphragm 0. resistance to earthquakes.05 0.36 Boumerdes 0.30 0. orange and red).36 Okkaido 0.06 classified between 0 and 1 (0–100%) 9 Elevation regularity 0.11 0.00–0.39 Imperial Valley 0. mid rise and high rise) as 4 Ductility of steel 0.00 0. different levels. and others.30 0.34 0. for 2 Seismic capacity 0. levels are defined in the three vulner.31 0.27 0.04 0.27 0. number of floors. necessary information to calculate the ability classes as shown in Table 10.35 Kuril 0.44 Ain Temouchent 0.36 vulnerability class for the maintenance 14 Details 0.35 0.05 0.05 0.36 Seismic records A B C 2 Seismic capacity 0. while the orange class represents structures having a medium Assigning factors to each parameter about the structure such as address.86 0.04 0.38 9 Elevation regularity 0.52 Fukushima 0.36 0.23 Using Eq.54 12 Pounding effect 0 0.06 Table 8. This sheet contains The green class represents structures having a good resistance to the seis.17 0. No.00 Table 6: Factor Kj values in each 13 Roof 0. (12) to be 8 Plan regularity 0.05 0.29 0.34 0.06 as shown in Table 8.00 Three vulnerability classes are pro- posed (green.25 0.62 Torishima 0.34 0. Table 9: Reinforced masonry structure classification according to the VI explaining the state of reinforced masonry buildings assessed.06 From normalized factors given in 14 Details 0.26 0.

80.72 Iv ≥ 0. steel and The calculation of the VI for this such as balcony. The structure is composed This part indicates the type and mation and to carry out the classifi- structural system quality.86 Interface Part Table 10: Different vulnerability levels according to the VI The visual part. height. The shape is rectangular con- Fi g. This construction Structural Engineering International Nr. other reinforced masonry structures).20 m. built before 1981. The findings of Fi g. example is 0. Program Part This part treats different information. acroterion and stairs. Application Several examples were assessed. as well as modifications The second construction also was and elevation shape. This program contains two parts. The building belongs handrails.56 with steel ties. It is situated at 06. Class Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 4 Level 5 Vulnerability level Iv < 0. Rue Mohamed Tounani the inquiry report57 are in adequacy with the obtained result. Rue El Biar. The shape is rec- tangular containing three floors for a Part C: Structural system A Delphi program was elaborated dwelling use with a height of in order to treat the collected infor. Example 1 This construction was built before the first Algerian seismic regulations in 1981. 6 and or Vulnerability Index Program can Part E: Non-structural elements Table 12). 5 and Table 11). The calculation of the VI for this example is 0. This con- struction was assessed by an Algerian national agency (CGS). General information on the state of sions as length. The construction belongs to the green class. Part B: Geometric characteristics Part F: Maintenance and modifications Example 2 This part describes building dimen.53 Iv ≥ 0.53 Iv < 0. An example of a page to fill in is given in Fig. 11. 5: Principal face of 06. 1/2017 Scientific Paper 85 . treat different types of structures This part contains details for elements (masonry. It is situated at are found in this part. of bearing peripheral masonry walls cation of the studied buildings. Boulevard The developed program called VIP Mohamed V. 4. RC structures. carries out different calculations and assigns a factor to each parameter. which classi- fied it as green level 2 according to the visual inspection. Green Orange Red the interface part and the pro- gram part.52. 4: View of the handling page in the interface (reinforced masonry constructions) taining four floors for a dwelling use with a height of 15. The building is on a Part D: Soil and layout slope ground and does not have an Type of soil and layout of the building Developed Program adjacent structure.72 Iv ≥ 0.40 m. Two examples will be presented in the present paper. it allows access to dif- ferent menus and fill in the necessary fields. Algiers (see Fig. width. The struc- ture is composed of bearing periph- eral masonry walls with steel ties. It is made up of several pages. brought to the structure. The building is on a slope ground and does not have an adjacent construction. plan the structure. partition walls. Algiers (see Fig. to the orange class. Rue Mohamed Tou- nani. The calculation of the VI and the structure classification are car- ried out. 12.

2007. Proceed- was assessed by an Algerian national ferent models (low rise. 2009. This allows city managers to Details B 0. Steel joints B 0.04 The developed program gives satisfac- Plan regularity A 0. Bilda. Gori RE. then defined to determine the state of Maintenance C 0.05 order to complete the seismic scenar- ios. Elevation B 0.06 allows organization of the reinforced Steel joints B 0. [2] Colin A.05 nerability classes (A. a seismic vulnerability Eng.06 tors were obtained using non-linear maçonnerie. [10] Bensaibi M. Modena C.00 IDNDR. Oliveira DV. Ground conditions A 0.06 buildings: International database and validation. which classified it as high rise).08 [8] OYO Corporation.05 masonry structure according to a pro- Horizontal diaphragm A 0. 1/2017 . Tokyo Institute orange level 4 according to the visual used. Parameters Classes Factors Kn phenomenon. 7–8 March 2011.05 analysis was conducted. Rue El Biar [4] Lourenco PB. Tokyo. Confl. parameters influen. 654(2): 115–125.15 [9] Boukri M. B and C) were Hazards Risk Assessment Program. La résilience : un concept pour la gestion des risques. 2003. This method can help city stakeholders to make decisions for the Elevation regularity A 0. 2003. Yousfi N. in Roof B 0. Algeria.04 tory results. Fail. Da Porto F.04 posed classification. 86 Scientific Paper Structural Engineering International Nr. RADIUS methodology.04 strengthening or replacement of exist- Maintenance A 0. Japan. Bensaibi M. this Ductility of steel C 0. Ten seismic records were Urban Earthquake Engineering.06 dynamic analyses. Djaalali F. The third step leads to the determina- Pounding effect C 0. University. Ingham JM. Modifications A 0. Gian M. 200–208.05 develop emergency and recovery Table 11: Results of example 1 plans. Three vul. Trendafiloski GS. towns. using the VI method and was applied to Algerian [6] Milutinovic ZV.04 each elaborated model (117 models). WP4: Vulnerability of Current Buildings Risk-UE 2003. Inostroza A.03 ing buildings. In this paper.05 obtained result. Belheouane FI.06 advanced approach to earthquake risks scenar- diaphragm reinforced masonry structures. In order to avoid the resonance of Technology. Détermination de tion of weighting factors. Ann. Table 12: Results of example 2 Amellal O.04 quencies were compared to those of Seismic capacity A 0. DC. [7] National Institute of Building Sciences. Maximiliano A. Seismic vulnerability mum displacements generated by dif- index method: Algerian case studies. ios with applications to different European Modifications B 0. l’indice de vulnérabilité des constructions en Roof C 0.00 This method may also be used to Pounding effect A 0. each vulnerability parameter. A seis- mic vulnerability index for confined masonry shear wall buildings and a relationship with the damage. 1(34): 585–605. regularity Washington. a modal analysis was performed and the fundamental fre- Wall connections A 0. Struct. F ig .04 [5] Lourenco PB. Plan regularity B 0. Seismic capacity A 0.00 elaborate vulnerability curves. An Horizontal C 0. Greece. Franch G. 2006. 2013. Vivre dans un monde plus sûr Cat- astrophes naturelles et sécurité globale. [3] Kenneth A. The findings of the inquiry for the seismic vulnerability of ancient masonry report57 are in adequacy with the buildings. 1999. Mater. Géograph. Eng. Ground conditions A 0. Anal. mid rise and ings of the 8th International Conference on agency (CGS). Construct. These fac. Simplified indexes Parameters Classes Factors Kn inspection. 75(1): 33–51. 4(20): Wall connections B 0. 6: Principal face of 12. Saad Dahleb Details C 0. Roque JA.05 In the first step. Morbelli G.05 cing the seismic vulnerability of such structures were identified. References [1] Revet S. Simplified Type of soil A 0.04 Conclusion indexes for the seismic assessment of masonry Ductility of steel C 0. Build.04 A VI between 0 and 1 is given. 10(30): 2605–2612. Type of soil A 0. Thèse de Magistèr. Cult. 1997. 2008. Leite JC. These analyses are based on the maxi.

Numerical. 2014. 1(80): 116–138. Bensaibi M. 1(80): bility functions for buildings due to liquefaction. 2005. [42] Belheouane FI. Struct. Modeling and analysis ity based approach for failure modeling of [55] Cázares U. 2012. Finite Elem. Towashiraporn P. Struct. [49] Ministry of Housing and Urban Planning. partnership of the Applied Technology Council l’indice de vulnérabilité des constructions en [34] Almeida C. [22] GNDT. Inc. Reinoso E. masonry buildings. Landolfo R. Sci. Anal. vulnerability index method for steel structures. 2009. Saad fined masonry building in seismic regions. Pantò B.2. 19–20 November 2013. Build Structure Interaction for Building Structures. 2(30): 352–367. September 2011. Algérie Equip. Comput. masonry buildings: a case study in Ferrara. Evaluation de la Mater. Portu- [40] Truong-Hong L. earthquake engineering (WCEE). Nonlinear World Conference on Earthquake Engineering Malaysia. Acier et Document d’Application AFNOR: [20] Yousfi N. Rome. Moon FL. Lisboa. and the Consortium of Universities for charpente métallique. 2012. 2013. [47] Py B. 10–11 October 2012. Lisboa. Algeria. Hamid AA. Rajagopal A. 166–169: 1387–1390. 2016. 8(30): 2223–2241. Algeria. Résistance Aux Séismes European Committee Dahleb University. Bensaibi M. Bensaibi M. Paris. Seismic vul- des Courbes de Vulnérabilité Pour Les Struc. Des. 1(1): 101–106. Arêde A. 2012. Impact of [24] Lignola GP.C. large scale of masonry building aggregates. Vulnerability Enhancement of lateral in-plane capacity of [48] Karantoni F. 1999. Rahdar HA. Proceedings of the 15th World Conference on [33] Pelà L. construction in Algeria under seismic action. Proceedings of the 15th world conference on Struct. Mater. loading: Assessment of seismic resistance. Eng. [32] Minaie E. curves of reinforced concrete buildings. dure for simulation of unreinforced masonry tures. Seismic failure mode dice de vulnérabilité de structures mixte interaction for the equivalent frame modeling [52] Saint marin JM. Proc. [16] Belheouane FI. Bensaibi M. A [18] Amellal O. 2009. tugal. Build Mater. Eng. Mech. ing Conference Commemorating the 1908 Mes. Milani E. Eurcode 6: Design Mediterranean. Negrete M. sina and Reggio Calabria Earthquake. ity of stone masonry walls. Proceedings of the Seismic Engineer. Bensaibi M. damage model for the analysis of masonry sion 2003.Construct. vulnerability curves using vulnerability index dimensional cyclic meso-scale numerical proce. partially grouted concrete masonry shear walls. [27] Formisano A. 8(24): 1385–1391. Lisboa. 2000.48. Calgaro JA. Strauss A. Construct. Eco- 153–156. Geometric indices to quantify textures irregular. Technol. Bensaibi M. 1(84): 44–53. Struct. 2002. struct. Pro. Vulnerability curves of masonry method for seismic behaviour assessment on de vulnérabilité pour les constructions en constructions Algiers case study. Bensaibi M. Marletta M. structures. 1(14): 2069–2076. Structural Engineering International Nr. 6: structures. Int. Version Advanced 14. 2009. Nigro E. Malvezzia R. [56] Borland Software Corporation. Cosenza E. Eng. Por. [39] Kumar N. Eurocode 3. 4th edn. [35] Zimmermann T. [57] National Earthquake Engineering seismic behavior of unreinforced masonry build. Evaluation of courbes de vulnérabilité pour le bâti en Milani G.: Berkeley. Bensaibi M. 2012. Sci. Bangi. [31] Bolhassani M. [19] Yousfi N. finite element modeling of reinforced masonry (WCEE). Build Mater. 2016. Build Mater. A new dis. 49(6): 2–10. maçonnerie: application à la ville d’Alger. 1(41): [50] NEHRP Consultants Joint Venture. Goodno BJ. (AFNOR). modeling architectural detailing for predicting vulnerability of natural stone pinnacles on the unreinforced masonry response to subsidence. 2013. Les Eurocodes maçonnerie/charpente métallique. Con. Chlef. Eurocode 8: Calcul des Structures Pour Leur l’indice de vulnérabilité des structures. World Acad. Bensaibi M. Bensaibi M. Bourahla N. 40–52. Détermination [29] Park J. Mazzolani FM. Eng. Portugal. Trends Eng. Bourahla N. [46] SAP 2000 [Structural Analysis Program]. An orthotropic Règles parasismique algériennes RPA 99/ ver- Earthquake Engineering (WCEE). design and icy and Strategy Committee. 2010. 1(111): 199–208. [12] Djaalali F. masonry structures. 2010. Adv.0. Simplified drift [53] European Committee for Standardisation. 12(25): 4308–4324. [21] Yousfi N. [15] Belheouane FI. Hamid AA. 1(54): 9–22. Plastic- [23] Betti M. Difesa dai Terremoti. Bensaibi M. Numerical assessment [44] Djaalali F. Proceedings of the 15th Engineering and built Environment. 2013. Proceed. Algiers. Struct. 1(11): Autom. 24–28 September 2012. Craig JI. Construct. J. Italy. Algeria. [13] Belhouane FI. National High School of Public Works.[11] Djaalali F. Détermination [28] Betti M. Bensaibi M. Bergmeister K. 2013. [45] Belheouane FI. Pandey M. maçonnerie et charpente métallique. 364–368. Bensaibi M. 1(30): 191–204. 2008. [14] Belheouane FI. Kilar V. Struct. Mech. Roca P. ation of the vulnerability index for unreinforced béton armé. Tsionis G. Proceedings of unreinforced masonry structures. Lyrantzaki F. Adv. Research Centre (CGS). Dolatshahi KM. 2012. Earthq. Eng. Appl. Saad Dahleb University. Bourahla N. 1(40): 327–338. Statistique Descriptive. Conception des Bâtiments et Des Ouvrages de of the 8éme Colloque National AFPS. 2012.453) Borland Software Corporation: Paris. Adv. 2013. Eng. Détermination de based assessment procedure for regular con. Seismic shear walls for bidirectional loading response. Lett. Evalu- de l’indice de vulnérabilité des constructions en of the static and seismic behaviour of the basil. Fardis MN. Eng. ica of Santa Maria all’Impruneta (Italy). 13: School of Public Works: Algeria. 2010. Eng. de la Ville d’Alger. 2008. [41] Ghalehnovi M. Seismic fragility functions of stone ceedings of the International Conference on Eng. Cult. 6–8 2013. 2003. 24–28 September 2012. J. nomica: Paris. Seismic fragility analysis of low-rise nerability index for reinforced concrete con- tures en Béton Armé en Algérie National High unreinforced masonry structures. 1(120): 9–23. Appl. Grine K. Calcul des Structures en Risque Sismique. Estimation de l’in. Construct. Shear in reinforced and [54] Building and Civil Engineering Sector Pol- damage scenarios for a high risk area in the unreinforced masonry: response. J. nerability and performance level of confined crete element model for the evaluation of the brick walls. investigation of historic masonry [51] Association Française de Normalisation ings of the Colloque International Réduction du walls under normal and shear load. 4(13): 520–539.0 Computers and Struc- method for reinforced concrete structures. Struct. Three. Borland Amalfi Coast in Italy. Vignoli A. Détermination des [26] Mallardo V. Redwood City. Delphi [Computer program]. Assessment of [30] Aref AJ. Paris. 2011. Eng. 2015. The Catania Project: Earthquake [38] Dhanasekar M. Rapports d’Expertises ings. Numerical calibration of an easy [43] Djaalali F. Seismic vul- [25] Caliò I. 2008. Seismic gal. Vignoli A. 1(31): 125–137. Florio G. Softw.0 (build 68–80. of Masonry Structures BSI Group: London. [37] Ruiz-garcia J. Laefer DF. Struct. CNR-Gruppo Nazionale per la construction. 2011. DTR-B. Détermination de 957–967. 4. Bensaibi M. Indice Davenne L. Research in Earthquake Engineering: Soil- Algeria. 5(42): 609–630. Bensaibi M. 1(108): 59–76. Algeria. vulnérabilité sismique des constructions en 2012. Herit. Eng. 2013. Seismic vulnerability of historical the vulnerability index for reinforced concrete maçonnerie de la capitale Alger (Algérie). [36] Petrovcic S. Cervera M. 2014. 2011. for Standardisation: Brussels. 2005. Moon FL. Guedes JP. struction in Algeria. 24–28 September [17] Amellal O. Vulnera- of a Romanesque church under earthquake unreinforced masonry. 2004. Génie Civil Editions du Moniteur: Paris. Mater. Niño M. Saad Dahleb University. 1/2017 Scientific Paper 87 . 1996. Applied Technology Council. 2008. Costa A. Version 7. 2006. Struct. 2001. Eng.