Base shear seismic demand comparison for buildings with natural stone walls in Nepal, Russia and Tajikistan

DOI: 10.37153/2618-9283-2022-6-18-45

Authors:  
Rubric:     Theoretical and experimental studies   
Key words: natural stone walls, seismic demand parameters, seismic codes, base shear, seismic weight, load combinations, peak ground acceleration
Annotation:

Introduction: The current norms for construction in seismic areas in the Russian Federation prohibit the construction of buildings with natural stone walls, but for the restoration and reconstruction of historic buildings located in earthquake-prone regions, seismic demand of such structures should be determined. Full base shear seismic demand analyses with calculated examples for heavy stone masonry buildings are not present in the literature.

Materials and methods: To address this shortcoming, analyses and calculations are performed on nominally reinforced natural stone walls house and school designs, as typically built in Nepal. A detailed comparison of the seismic codes of the three countries Nepal, Russian and Tajikistan was carried out.

Results: This paper compares the base shear formulas and the inertia forces distributions of these codes, as well as material densities, seismic weights, seismic zoning, natural periods of vibration, response spectra, importance factors and seismic load combinations. Large differences between approaches and coefficients are observed. Then, by following Equivalent Lateral Force method (ELF) and simplified modal analysis (S-modal) the base shear and story shears are calculated for a design peak ground acceleration of 0.20 g, as well as the effects of critical load combinations on the forces and moments acting on the lateral-resisting elements. Particular attention is paid to possible discrepancies and interpretations of certain provisions of the normative documents of the Russian Federation and Tajikistan. This study also proposes a new terminology to emphasize the differences between two countries: the methods of double (DCA) and of single application (SCA) of the combination coefficients.

Conclusions: Overall, it is observed that heavy-masonry–light-floor systems with negligible diaphragm action behave different under seismic motion than most other building typologies. Given the observations in this paper, the applicability of conventional ELF and S-Modal methods for heavy masonry buildings is questionable. The codes however do not introduce modified approaches that address these differences. The paper ends with an appeal for global collaboration under the research project SMARTnet. Further, the paper aims to start discussions within the Russian community and neighboring countries about possible revisions and improvements of certain inaccuracies and ambiguities in the various norms.

Used Books:

1. Arya A. S. Non-engineered construction in developing countries - An approach toward earthquake risk reduction. Bulletin of the New Zealand Society for Earthquake Engineering. 2000, Vol 33 (3), pp. 187–208. DOI: 10.5459/bnzsee.33.3.187-208.

2. Schildkamp M., Silvestri S., Araki Y. Rubble Stone Masonry Buildings with Cement Mortar: Base Shear Seismic Demand Comparison for Selected Countries Worldwide. Frontiers in Built Environment. 2021. DOI: 10.3389/fbuil.2021.647815.

3. Schildkamp M., Araki Y. Cost Analysis of Mountain Schools in Nepal: Comparison of Earthquake Resistant Features in Rubble Stone Masonry vs. Concrete Block Masonry. Frontiers in Built Environment. 2019. DOI: 10.3389/fbuil.2019.00055.

4. Schildkamp M., Silvestri S., Araki Y. Rubble Stone Masonry Buildings with Cement Mortar: Design Specifications in Seismic and Masonry Codes Worldwide. Frontiers in Built Environment. 2020. DOI: 10.3389/fbuil.2020.590520.

5. Schildkamp M., Araki Y. School Buildings in Rubble Stone Masonry with Cement Mortar in Seismic Areas: Literature Review of Seismic Codes, Technical Norms and Practical Manuals. Frontiers in Built Environment. 2019. DOI: 10.3389/fbuil.2019.00013.

6. Abaev Z., Kodzaev M., Valiev A. Assessment of the Seismic Resistance Deficit of Brick Masonry Chimney According to Relevant Design Codes. Construction and industrial safety. 2020, no 19 (71), pp. 13–25. DOI: 10.37279/2413-1873-2020-19-13-25 (In Russian).

7. Ministry of Culture of the Russian Federation. State Register of Cultural Heritage Objects (Monuments of History and Culture) of the Peoples of the Russian Federation [Internet]. Availavle from: https://opendata.mkrf.ru/opendata/7705851331-egrkn/. (Accessed: 24.11.2022).

8. Gol’dshteyn A.F. Medieval architecture in Checheno-Ingush and North Ossetia Republics. Publishing house Science. 1975. 157 p. (In Russian). (In Russian).

9. Gol’dshteyn A.F. Towers in the mountains. Soviet artist. 1977. 335 p. (In Russian).

10. Sumilenko S. D. North Caucasian Towers. Project-Press. 1997. 150 p. (In Russian).

11. Feng D. A Comparative Study of Seismic Isolation Codes Worldwide. In: Response Control and Seismic Isolation of Buildings. Routledge; 2006, pp. 47–74.

12. Sergio Hampshire De C Santos, Zanaica L., Bucur C., Silvio S Lima. Comparative Study of Codes for Seismic Design of Structures. Mathematical Modelling in Civil Engineering. 2013, Vol. 9, no. 1-2013, pp. 1–12. DOI: 10.2478/mmce-2013-0001

13. Dhanvijay V., Telang D., Nair V. Comparative Study of Different Codes in Seismic Assessment. International Research Journal of Engineering and Technology. 2015, Vol. 6, no, 2, pp. 1371­–1381.

14. Ali M.U., Khan S.A., Anwar M.Y. Application of BCP-2007 and UBC-97 in seismic vulnerability assessment of gravity designed RC buildings in Pakistan. Frontiers of Structural and Civil Engineering. 2017, pp. 396–405.

15. Zeynalov L., Polukhov I., Gölalmş M. Comparison of Azerbaijan and other seismic codes. ERES 2013. 2013, Vol. 132, pp. 205–217. DOI: 10.2495/ERES130171.

16. Massumi A., Imashi N., Massumi A. A Comparative Study of the Seismic Provisions of Iranian Seismic Code (Standard No. 2800) and International Building Code 2003 [Internet]. Asian Journal of Civil Engineering (Building and Housing). 2011, Vol. 12. Available from: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/232703221.

17. Neupane P., Shrestha S. Comparative Analysis of Seismic Codes of Nepal and India for RC Buildings. International Journal of Engineering Trends and Technology. 2015, Vol. 28 (2), pp. 102–105. DOI:10.14445/22315381/IJETT-V28P220.

18. Tamrakar A., Chen S. Comparison of the Seismic Design Code for Buildings of Nepal with the Chinese, European and American Seismic Design Codes. The Thirtieth KKHTCNN Symposium on Civil Engineering. 2017. URL: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/321133131

19. Chock G. Comparison of the USA, China and Japan Seismic Design Procedures [Internet]. Civil Engineering Conference in the Asia Region CECAR 7. 2016. URL: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/296706982.

20. Xiaoguang C., Jingshan B., You-wei S., Jianyi Z., Yudong Z. Comparison of Seismic Fortification Criterion of Eight Asian Countries. Proceedings of the 15th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering. 2012.

21. Khose V., Singh Y., Lang D. A Comparative Study of Design Base Shear for RC Buildings in Selected Seismic Design Codes. Earthquake Spectra. 2012, Vol. 28, no 3, pp. 1047–1070.

22. Shi G., Hu F., Shi Y. Comparison of seismic design for steel moment frames in Europe, the United States, Japan and China. Journal of Constructional Steel Research. 2016, Vol. 127, pp. 41–53.

23. Vasconcelos G., Lourenço P.B. In-Plane Experimental Behavior of Stone Masonry Walls under Cyclic Loading. Journal of Structural Engineering. 2009, pp. 1269–1277.

24. Haziq D., Kiyotaka M. Afghanistan Building Codes (ABC): Focused on Comparative Analysis and the Viability of Enforcement. AEI 2017. Reston, VA: American Society of Civil Engineers. 2017, pp. 138–149.

25. Babarmahal K. Nepal Housing Reconstruction Programme. Aswin. 2015.

26. Nakamura Y., Derakhshan H., Magenes G., Griffith M.C. Influence of Diaphragm Flexibility on Seismic Response of Unreinforced Masonry Buildings. Journal of Earthquake Engineering. 2017, pp. 935–960.

27. Code of Practice for Design Loads (other than Earthquake) for Buildings and Structures, Part 1 Dead Loads – Unit Weights of Building Materials and Stored Materials (Second Revision), 9th Reprint 2010 (Including Amendment No.1), Reaffirmed 2018. New Delhi: Bureau of Indian Standards. 2018.

28. MSN 20-02-2013 Loads and impacts. MNTSK, 2013. 33 p. (In Russian).

29. SP 20.13330.2016 Loads and impacts. М., 2016. 95 p. (In Russian).

30. SNiP RT 22-07-2018 / Committee for Architecture and Construction under the Government of the Republic of Tajikistan. GUP «NIISA» Izdatel'skij centr». Dushanbe. 2019. 48 p.

31. CSRIIB. Manual for the design of frame industrial buildings for construction in seismic areas (to SNiP II-7-81). M.: Stroyizdat. 1985. 292 p. (In Russian).

32. Nikolaev I.I. Design of RC structures for seismic areas. Tashkent, Ukituvchi. 1990. 232 p. (In Russian).

33. Forum «DWG» [Internet]. Available from: https://forum.dwg.ru/showthread.php?t=95403. (Accessed: 24.11.2022).

34. Lira service. Structural analysis software. Available from: https://rflira.ru/kb/107/656/. (Accessed: 24.11.2022).

35. EN 1991-1-3 (2003) (English): Eurocode 1: Actions on structures - Part 1-3: General actions - Snow loads. Authority: The European Union Per Regulation 305/2011, Directive 98/34/EC. 2018.

36. Fardis M., Carvalho E., Elnashai A., Faccioli E., Pinto P., Plumier A., et al. Designers’ Guide to EN 1998-1 and 1998-5. Eurocode 8: Design Provisions for Earthquake Resistant Structures [Internet]. Designers’ Guide to Eurocodes. Thomas Telford Publishing. 2005. 1. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1680/dgte8.33481.

37. Raiser V.D. Structural reliability theory. M.: Izdatel’stvo ACB. 2010. 384 p. (In Russian).

38. Villaverde R. Fundamental Concepts of Earthquake Engineering. CRC Press. 2009, 960 p.

39. Priestley M.J.N., Calvi G.M., Kowalsky M.J. Displacement Based Seismic Design of Structures. IUSS Press. 721 p.

40. Charleson A. Seismic Design for Architects. Routledge. 2008. 296 p.

41. Brashtein M.F., Borodachev N.M., Bluemin L.H. Dynamic analysis of structures for special efforts. M.: Stroyizdat. 1981. 215 p. (In Russian).

42. Elmenshawi A, Sorour M, Mufti A, Jaeger LG, Shrive N. Damping mechanisms and damping ratios in vibrating unreinforced stone masonry. Engineering Structures. 2010, pp. 3269–3278.

43. Tomaževič M., Lutman M. Heritage Masonry Buildings in Urban Settlements and the Requirements of Eurocodes: Experience of Slovenia. International Journal of Architectural Heritage. 2007, pp. 108–130.

44. SP 14.13330.2018 «SNiP II-7-81* Earthquake construction». М., 2018. (In Russian).

45. NBC 202:2015. Guidelines on: load bearing masonry. Kathmandu: Department of Urban Development and Building Construction. 2015.