Please wait a minute...

Frontiers of Structural and Civil Engineering

Front. Struct. Civ. Eng.    2018, Vol. 12 Issue (3) : 270-290     https://doi.org/10.1007/s11709-017-0390-1
RESEARCH ARTICLE |
Confined masonry as practical seismic construction alternative–the experience from the 2014 Cephalonia Earthquake
Fillitsa KARANTONI1(), Stavroula PANTAZOPOULOU2, Athanasios GANAS3
1. Department of Civil Engineering, University of Patras, Rio?Achaia 26504, Greece
2. The Lassonde Faculty of Engineering, Deptartment of Civil Engineering, York University, Toronto M3J 1P3, Canada
3. Institute of Geodynamics, National Observatory of Athens, Athens, Greece
Download: PDF(8039 KB)   HTML
Export: BibTeX | EndNote | Reference Manager | ProCite | RefWorks
Abstract

During August 1953 three strong earthquakes of magnitude ranging from 6.3 to 7.2 shook the Ionian Island of Cephalonia (Kefalonia), Greece, and destroyed almost the entire building stock of the Island which consisted primarily of traditional unreinforced masonry (URM) houses. The authorities went on to restructuring of the building stock, using a structural system that is most like what is known today as confined masonry. They designed about 14 types of one- to two-storey buildings providing the engineers with detailed construction plans. These buildings are known as “Arogi” buildings (Arogi in Greek meaning Aid). On the 24th of January and 3rd of February 2014, two earthquakes of magnitude 6.1 and 6.0 struck the island, causing significant soil damages, developing excessively high ground accelerations. Surprisingly, no damage was reported in the “Arogi” buildings. The seismic behavior of the buildings is examined by FEM linear analysis and it is compared to that of URM structures. Computed results illustrate that the displacements of identical URM buildings would be about twice the magnitudes observed in the corresponding “Arogi” ones, with the implication that the earthquake sequence of 2014 would have caused critical damage should the type of structure be of the URM type. Furthermore, it is illustrated that this low cost alternative method of construction is a very effective means of producing earthquake resilient structures, whereas further reduction of seismic displacement may be achieved in the order of 50% with commensurate effects on damage potential, when reinforced slabs are used to replace the timber roofs.

Keywords Cephalonia      confined masonry      comparative FEM analysis      unreinforced masonry      seismic damage     
Corresponding Authors: Fillitsa KARANTONI   
Online First Date: 13 April 2017    Issue Date: 22 May 2018
 Cite this article:   
Fillitsa KARANTONI,Stavroula PANTAZOPOULOU,Athanasios GANAS. Confined masonry as practical seismic construction alternative–the experience from the 2014 Cephalonia Earthquake[J]. Front. Struct. Civ. Eng., 2018, 12(3): 270-290.
 URL:  
http://journal.hep.com.cn/fsce/EN/10.1007/s11709-017-0390-1
http://journal.hep.com.cn/fsce/EN/Y2018/V12/I3/270
Service
E-mail this article
E-mail Alert
RSS
Articles by authors
Fillitsa KARANTONI
Stavroula PANTAZOPOULOU
Athanasios GANAS
Fig.1  The Cephalonia Transform Fault (CTF) and the epicenters (yellow stars) of the main events of the seismic sequence of January – February 2014
Fig.2  Seismic damage due to the 2014 Cephalonia Eartquake, (a) and (b) recently constructed R.C. buildings with notable deficiencies non-conforming to the established code practices, (c) and (d) in URM buildings built prior to the big earthquake of 1953
Fig.3  The town of Argostoli, capital of Cephalonia, after the 12/8/1953 earthquake
Fig.4  Typical plans of two Arogi houses. (a) 70.63 m2; (b) 65.65 m2
Fig.5  An unfinished brick CM
Fig.6  Reinforcing detail in the pilasters
Fig.7  Vertical section of a wall of concrete units
Fig.8  Structural print with plan view of the buildings of concrete units masonry depicted in Fig. 4
Fig.9  A wall comprising concrete-block masonry. Note the arrangement of the lintel beam
Fig.10  In the entrance corner of the semi-complete house note the vertical reinforcement as well as the starter bars for lap splicing reinforcement of the second floor at the crest of the first floor perimeter beam
Fig.11  Structural print, plan view of buildings of Fig. 4 of clay brick masonry units
Fig.12  Two “Arogi Houses” - condition of both as was after the earthquake. (a) As built (b) with lateral extension to the left, through a URM addition
Fig.13  Extension in height with the addition of a reinforced concrete frame
building typesumber of storiesfloor typeroof typecase ID
Arogi-house
(concrete block masonry)
1-timberCM-1T *
1-R.C. slabCM-1S
2timbertimberCM-2TT
2R.C. slabtimberCM-2ST
R.C. slabCM-2SS
stone URM1-timberURM-1T
1-R.C. slabURM-1S
2timbertimberURM-2TT
2R.C. slabtimberURM-2ST
R.C. slabURM-2SS
plain masonry1-timberPM-1T
2timbertimberPM-2TT
Tab.1  Cases studied in parametric investigation
Fig.14  Acceleration response spectra of the strong ground motion recorded in the Chavriata Station on 03/02/2014 (in g)
Fig.15  Displacement response spectra (for 5% damping) of the strong ground motion recorded in the Chavriata Station on 03/02/2014 (in cm)
Fig.16  Idealized buildings studied parametrically and corresponding finite element discretization
Fig.17  The basis of the proposed failure criterion
buildingdeformed shapepeak displacementdpl/%dh/%
% reductionreductionreduction
URM-1T3.64 mm0.140.13
reference valuereference valuereference value
UMR-1S0.93 mm0.010.03
74%92%77%
CM-1T1.3 mm0.040.07
64%70%45%
CM-1S0.6 mm0.0040.03
84%97%78%
PM-1T1.53 mm0.050.08
58%64%35%
Tab.2  Distribution of displacement and drifts of 1-storey buildings for G + Ex + Ey
building IDoverstressed area
percent reduction
URM-1T8.6%
reference value
URM-1S2%
78%
CM-1T0.3%
96%
CM-1S0%
100%
PM-1T1%
88%
Tab.3  Wall areas where failure criteria is exceeded
building????deformed shapemax displacement /mmdpl/%dh/%
% reduction from reference% reduction from reference% reduction from reference
URM-2TT8.25 mm0.2850.18
ref. valueref. valueref. value
URM-2ST5.6 mm0.1560.15
32%45%17%
URM-2SS3.54 mm0.0070.03
57%97%81%
CM-2TT2.64 mm0.0660.06
68%77%68%
CM-2ST2.09 mm0.0370.08
75%87%74%
CM-2SS2.05 mm0.0030.05
75%99%87%
PM-2TT3.21 mm0.080.08
61%77%68%
Tab.4  Distribution of displacement and drift ratios of 2-storey buildings for G + Ex + Ey
IDoverstressed areaIDoverstressed area
percent
reduction
percent
reduction
URM-2TT23%CM-2TT2.6%
-88.7%
URM-2ST13%CM-2ST2.4%
43%89.5%
URM-2SS18%CM-2SS3.14%
21.7%86.3%
PM-2TT9.5%
59%
Tab.5  Wall areas where failure criterion is exceeded in two-storey building models
Fig.42  Max displacement (a) and failure criteria values (b) for one-storey buildings under G + 0.3Q + Ex + Ey; (c) comparison of relative drift ratios
Fig.43  Max displacement (a) and failure criteria values (b) for two-storey buildings under G + 0.3Q + Ex + Ey; (c) comparison of relative drift ratios
1 Scordilis E M, Karakaisis G F, Karakostas B G, Panagiotopoulos D G, Comninakis P E, Papazachos B C. Evidence for Transform Faulting in the Ionian Sea: the Cephalonia Island Earthquake Sequence of 1983. Pure and Applied Geophysics, 1985, 123(3): 388–397
2 Louvari E, Kiratzi A A, Papazachos B C. The CTF and its extension to western Lefkada Island. Tectonophysics, 1999, 308: 223–236
3 Sachpazi M, Hirn A, Clément C, Haslinger F, Laigle M, Kissling E, Charvis P, Hello Y, Lépine J C, Sapin M, Ansorge J. Western Hellenic subduction and Cephalonia Transform: local earthquakes and plate transport and strain. Tectonophysics, 2000, 319(4): 301–319
4 Pérouse E, Chamot-Rooke N, Rabaute A, Briole P, Jouanne F, Georgiev I, Dimitrov D. Bridging onshore and offshore present-day kinematics of central and eastern Mediterranean: Implications for crustal dynamics and mantle flow. Geochemistry Geophysics Geosystems, 2012, 13(9): 371–387
5 Ganas A, Elias P, Bozionelos G, Papathanassiou G, Avallone A, Papastergios A, Valkaniotis S, Parcharidis I, Briole P. Coseismic deformation, field observations and seismic fault of the 17 November 2015M=6.5, Lefkada Island, Greece earthquake. Tectonophysics, 2016, 687: 210–222
6 Papaioannou Chr. Report of Institute of Engineering Seismology and Earthquake EngineeringResearch and Technical Institute, Strong Ground Motion Of The February 3, 2014 (in Greek)
7 Karastathis V K, Mouzakiotis E, Ganas A, Papadopoulos G A. High-precision relocation of seismic sequences above a dipping Moho: the case of the January–February 2014 seismic sequence on Cephalonia island (Greece). Solid Earth, 2015, 6(1): 173–184
8 Boncori M J P, Papoutsis I, Pezzo G, Tolomei C, Atzori S, Ganas A, Karastathis V, Salvi S, Kontoes C, Antonioli A. 2015, The February 2014 Cephalonia Earthquake (Greece): 3D Deformation Field and Source Modeling from Multiple SAR Techniques. Seismological Research Letters, 2015, 86(1): 124–137
9 Valkaniotis S, Ganas A, Papathanassiou G, Papanikolaou M. Field observations of geological effects triggered by the January–February 2014 Cephalonia (Ionian Sea, Greece) earthquakes. Tectonophysics, 2014, 630: 150–157
10 Papathanassiou G, Ganas A, Valkaniotis S. Recurrent liquefaction-induced failures triggered by 2014 Cephalonia, Greece earthquakes: Spatial distribution and quantitative analysis of liquefaction potential. Engineering Geology, 2016, 200: 18–30
11 Pavlatos D. 1988, Coram Populo, Editor Municipality of Argostoli, Greece
12 Tomaževič M, Klemenc I. Seismic behaviour of confined masonry walls. Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics, 1997, 26(10): 1059–1071
13 Astroza M, Moroni O, Salinas C. Seismic behavior qualification methodology for confined masonry buildings. In: Proceedings of the 12th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, 2000, 1123–1124
14 Astroza M, Moroni O, Brzev S, Tanner J. Seismic performance of engineered masonry buildings in the 2010 Maule Earthquake. Earthquake Spectra, 2012, 28(S1 No. S1): S385–S406
15 Brzev S N. Earthquake-resistant confined masonry construction, national information center of earthquake engineering. Indian Institute of Technology Kanpur, 2007
16 Karantoni F B, Fardis M N, Vintzileou E, Harisis A. Effectiveness of Seismic Strengthening Interventions. In: Proceedings of the International Conference on Structural Preservation of the Architectural Heritage, Rome, 1993, 549–556
17 EN 1996–1-1, 2005. Eurocode 6: Design of Masonry Structures- Part 1–1: General Rules for Reinforced and Unreinforced. Masonry Structures. Europ. Comm. for Standardization: Brussels
18 EN 1998–3:2020:E. Eurocode 8, Design of Structures for Earthquake Resistance- Part 3: Assessment and retrofitting of Buildings, Brussels: European Committee for Standardization. Brussels
19 Theodoulidis N, Karakostas Ch, Lekidis V, Makra K, Margaris B, Morfidis K, Papaioannou Ch, Rovithis E, Salonikios T, Savvaidis A. The Cephalonia, Greece, January 26 (M6.1) and February 3, 2014 (M6.0) earthquakes: near-fault ground motion and effects on soil and structures. Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering, 2016, 14(1): 1–38
20 Clough R.W., Penzien J. Dynamics of Structures, New York: Mc Graw Hill, 1975
21 Karantoni F, Papadopoulos M, Pantazopoulou S J. Simple seismic assessment of traditional unreinforced masonry buildings. International Journal of Architectural Heritage, 2016, 10(8): 1055–1077
22 Karantoni F.V., Pantazopoulou S. J. Criteria guiding seismic upgrading of traditional masonry buildings. In: Proceedings 12th Canadian Masonry Symposium, Vancouver, 2013
23 Pardalopoulos S, Pantazopoulou S J, Ignatakis Ch. 2016, “Practical seismic assessment of unreinforced masonry historical buildings. Earthquakes and Structures, 2016, 11(2): 195–215
24 Marques R, Lourenço P B. Possibilities and comparison of structural component models for the seismic assessment of modern unreinforced masonry buildings. Computers & Structures, 2011, 89(21–22): 2079–2091
25 Page A W. The biaxial compressive strength of brick masonry. Proceedings- Institution of Civil Engineers, 1981, 71(Part 2): 893–906
26 Page A W. The strength of brick masonry under biaxial tension-compression. Int J of Mason Constr, 1983, 3(1): 26–31
27 Ganz H R, Thurlimann B. Test on the biaxial strength of masonry. Report No. 7502–3 Institute of Structural Engineering, Zurich, 1982
28 Mann W, Müller H. Nachrechnung der Wandversuche mit einem erweiterten Schubbruchmodell unter Berücksichtigung der Spannungen in den Stossfugen, Anlage 2 zum Forschungsbericht: Untersuchungen zum Tragverhalten von Mauerwersbauten unter Erdbebeneinwirkung, T.H. Darmstadt, 1986
29 Lourenço P B, Rots J G. A multi-surface model for the analysis of masonry structures. Journal of Engineering Mechanics, 1997, 123(7): 660–668
30 Ottosen N. A failure criterion for concrete. Journal of Engineering Mechanics, 1977, 103(4): 527–535
31 Grünthal G. European Macroseismic Scale 1998 (EMS-98). Centre Européen de Géodynamique et de Séismologie, Luxembourg, Luxembourg, 1998
32 Karantoni F, Tsionis G, Lyrantzaki F, Fardis M N. Seismic Fragility of regular masonry buildings for in-plane and out-of-plane failure. Earthquakes and Structures, 2014, 6(6): 689–713
33 Marques R, Lourenço P B. Unreinforced and confined masonry buildings in seismic regions: Validation of macro-element models and cost analysis. Engineering Structures, 2014, 64: 52–67
Viewed
Full text


Abstract

Cited

  Shared   
  Discussed