Adobe building
Raffaele De Risi, Fatemeh Jalayer, Iunio Iervolino, Gaetano Manfredi
Dipartimento di Ingegneria Strutturale Universit degli studi Federico II di Napoli. Via Claudio 21, 80125 Napoli.
Keywords: Adobe structures, earth structures, seismic performance assessment, seismic upgrading, retrofit
strategies.
ABSTRACT
Buildings made of adobe (unbaked masonry) material are particularly vulnerable to seismic excitation. The adobe
material has typically low compression strength and stiffness with respect to baked masonry blocks. In this paper,
generic adobe buildings located in zones of moderate and high seismicity are studied. For comparison, under the
same working assumptions, a low-quality Italian masonry building is considered. The in-plane behavior of the
considered structures is modeled by applying the equivalent frame approach; whereas, the out of plane behavior is
modeled based on the rigid body out-of-plane overturning mechanism. It is observed that for structures the critical
mechanism is the overturning. As an upgrade strategy, the use of chains is proposed. In the case of the generic
frame located in high seismicity zone, the structure cannot withstand also the required in-plane performance. This
was addressed by increasing the connectivity through the use of reinforced mortar. It is also observed that the
configuration of the openings in the walls can affect their in-plane resistance.
INTRODUCTION
CASE STUDIES
Seismic scenarios
2.2
a)
b)
Figure 2 - Plan view: a) first configuration, b) second
configuration, for the openings in the longitudinal wall.
(unit: meters).
Figure 1 - Acceleration spectra for Grottaminarda (hard
line) and for Bam (dashed line).
a)
STRUCTURAL MODELING
b)
Figure 3 - frontal view: a) first configuration, b) second
configuration, for the openings in the longitudinal walls.
(unit: meters)
Material properties
(MPa)
(MPa)
(MPa)
(MPa)
(kN/m3)
1.40
0.026
870
290
19
II
0.49
0.030
150
50
18
Type
My
N B
N
1
2
NU
(1)
(2)
1.5 0
N
1
b
1.5 0 t B
3 0 t B 0.8 N
1
Vy N
2
3 0 t H N
M MAX
M MAX M MIN
if
H / B 1.5
if
1.0 H / B 1.5
if
H / B 1.0
(6)
(7)
(3)
4
(4)
1.5
b H /B
1.0
(5)
ASSESSMENT PROCEDURE
In-plane response
(8)
(9)
TM
m*
TM TM
(10)
V*
z
H
(11)
Out-of-plane response
T z P yP Pw yw
P z Pw zw
(12)
P z P
g P z
zw
w 2
(13)
0 P Pw
M*
(14)
NUMERICAL RESULTS
Geo.
Conf.
1.686
4.51
1.649
4.45
II
1.047
1.40
1.079
1.61
aOT
(g)
0.127
Site (Iran).
+
Geo.
Conf.
2.636
2.72
2.590
2.72
II
1.388
1.63
1.434
1.66
aOT
(g)
0.127
6
6.1
direction
RETROFIT SOLUTIONS
Chains
Grottaminarda
Bam
2.035
9.36
3.025
3.75
aOT
(g)
0.123
a g M* P z P w z w P y P P w y w
z (P P w )
(15)
6.2
s min
T
fm
(16)
3T
4 f pd
(17)
Wire mesh
Amin
2
bmin
smin
(kN)
(mm )
(mm)
(mm)
Grottaminarda
4.94
12.62
60
3.00
Bam
4.72
12.06
100
3.00
Transversal direction
SITE
Amin
2
bmin
smin
(kN)
(mm )
(mm)
(mm)
Grottaminarda
2.36
6.03
45
2.15
Bam
2.25
5.75
70
2.00
Site (Iran).
+
Geo.
Conf.
2.636
2.01
1.934
2.710
Bam Site.
2.395
4.08
CONCLUSIONS