Seismic Evalution K of Corner and Containment Reinforced for Masonry Buildings

0
367
Seismic Evalution Kof Corner And Containment Reinforced For Masonry Buildings

 Seismic Evalution K of Corner and Containment Reinforced for Masonry Buildings

Abstract

Seismic Evalution Kof Corner And Containment Reinforced For Masonry Buildings Developing analytical models to simulate a masonry building’s failure patterns under lateral dynamic loads is extremely difficult due to a number of inherent complexities associated with masonry, such as openings, heterogeneity of masonry materials, orthotropic behavior, boundary conditions, etc.

Shock table is an effective tool in demonstrating the complex masonry failure patterns observed during earthquakes, though not an alternative to shaking table. This is essentially a rigid wheel mounted platform on which the models of masonry can be built.

Through some impacting devices like a pendulum, the rigid platform can be subjected to a series of controlled shocks. It is therefore possible to simulate the progressive failure patterns of a masonry building’s walls.

This paper describes the evolution in the recent past of shock table tests on masonry building models. This paper also gives details of a few tests performed to evaluate and demonstrate the effectiveness of “vertical containment reinforcement” in mitigating seismic vulnerability of masonry buildings.

Keyword: building masonry, dynamic behaviour, shock table, reinforcement of vertical containment. Introduction Masonry structures are the bulk of the world’s building stock. They are highly durable, energy efficient, economical and easy to build with a minimum of equipment.

Such structures are generally called a “non-engineered structure.”It is well known that unreinforced masonry structures are the most vulnerable during an earthquake.URM buildings are normally designed for vertical loads and the structures behave as long as the loads are vertical as the masonry has adequate compressive strength.

Conclusion

The seismic inadequacies indicated that the shock table test was built in accordance with the BIS codal provisions. It developed patterns of failure that are usually seen during an earthquake. On the other hand, the Model-II performed extremely well with an additional band at sill level and vertical containment reinforcement, clearly indicating the effectiveness of additional features. This model could withstand the energy imparted to the Model-I more than 2.5 times while developing much less distress.