2020
DOI: 10.1016/j.engfailanal.2020.104662
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Seismic vulnerability assessment methodology for historic masonry buildings in the near-field areas

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
2

Citation Types

0
28
0

Year Published

2021
2021
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
5
2
2

Relationship

2
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 59 publications
(28 citation statements)
references
References 25 publications
0
28
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Also, the vertical cracks can be seen due to the presence of strong vertical forces and L and R surface waves. Following the on-site observation, there was defined a specific failure mechanism for historic masonry buildings located in the near-field areas, after earthquakes of crustal type, as illustrated in Figure 8 [9]. Figure 8: The specific failure mechanism for historic masonry buildings in the near-field areas similar to Banloc seismic region [9] When the real observed damages were compared with the EMS-98 damage scale for masonry buildings [10], there was noticed the fact that the real damage was around damage state D2-D3, as shown in Figure 9 [9].…”
Section: Seismicity Of the Areamentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…Also, the vertical cracks can be seen due to the presence of strong vertical forces and L and R surface waves. Following the on-site observation, there was defined a specific failure mechanism for historic masonry buildings located in the near-field areas, after earthquakes of crustal type, as illustrated in Figure 8 [9]. Figure 8: The specific failure mechanism for historic masonry buildings in the near-field areas similar to Banloc seismic region [9] When the real observed damages were compared with the EMS-98 damage scale for masonry buildings [10], there was noticed the fact that the real damage was around damage state D2-D3, as shown in Figure 9 [9].…”
Section: Seismicity Of the Areamentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Following the on-site observation, there was defined a specific failure mechanism for historic masonry buildings located in the near-field areas, after earthquakes of crustal type, as illustrated in Figure 8 [9]. Figure 8: The specific failure mechanism for historic masonry buildings in the near-field areas similar to Banloc seismic region [9] When the real observed damages were compared with the EMS-98 damage scale for masonry buildings [10], there was noticed the fact that the real damage was around damage state D2-D3, as shown in Figure 9 [9]. Figure 9: Correlation between EMS-98 damage scale and real damage observed after Banloc earthquake, 1991 [9] For Timisoara city, there can be generated an expected damage scenario, similar to the one that occurred in Banloc area.…”
Section: Seismicity Of the Areamentioning
confidence: 99%
“…These vulnerabilities significantly affect the dynamic response of the structure. In this context, many mechanical models have been developed in different works [14][15][16], where the uncertainties related to the vulnerability factors have been taken into consideration to quantify the seismic response of the entire aggregate.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Since these existing buildings are frequently grouped in aggregate configuration into urban centers, the intrinsic vulnerability factors are difficult to be identified in advance, since the construction matrix of SUs is the living representation of the evolution of a set of design techniques relating to different time periods. Moreover, the complex structural articulation makes these buildings mutually interacting, so to further aggravate their susceptibility at damage under seismic phenomena [9][10][11].…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%