journal article·2022-01-01Open access

Confined hollow concrete block masonry buildings: An experimental approach for vulnerability assessment

Hafiz Asfandyar Ahmed, Abdul Sadiq, Khan Shahzada

Abstract

This paper presents experimental study on the response of a sustainable structure 3.65 x3.05x3.35 m, made with confined hollow concrete block masonry (CHCBM). The model was tested under quasi-static cyclic test to assess the response against seismic load and to determine the potential vulnerability. Based on test data, envelope curves and bilinear idealized curves were drawn according to both Magenes–Calvi and Elnashai methods. Different performance levels i.e. Immediate Occupancy (IO), Life Safety (LS) and Collapse Prevention (CP) were evaluated based on both methods. Damage pattern and force-deformation behavior of CHCBM building was compared with models of the similar configuration and loading conditions. Similarly values of Response modification factor (R), Displacement Ductility (µ D ) and Displacement amplification factor (C d ) were calculated and compared with the previously tested models and it confirmed that CHCBM building was ductile and structurally integrated under earthquake loading.
Source: crossref · Quality: baseline

Research context

OpenAlex topics: Masonry and Concrete Structural Analysis · Structural Response to Dynamic Loads · Seismic Performance and Analysis

SciVX discovery tags are terminology-based. OpenAlex topics are source-provided classifications.

Affiliations

Department of Civil Engineering, University of Engineering and Technology Peshawar, Peshawar, Pakistan

References (41)

Show source-provided references
1. Magenes G · 1992 · 3517
2. CEN · 2005
3. Tomazevic M · J Struct Eng · 1996 · 122
4. Abrams D · 2004
5. 10.1016/B978-0-08-102704-2.00015-910.1016/B978-0-08-102704-2.00015-9 ↗
6. Anthoine A · 1995 · 1657
7. 10.1061/(ASCE)ST.1943-541X.000012510.1061/(ASCE)ST.1943-541X.0000125 ↗
8. 10.1016/j.engstruct.2011.01.01510.1016/j.engstruct.2011.01.015 ↗
9. 10.1016/j.engstruct.2013.09.00410.1016/j.engstruct.2013.09.004 ↗
10. 10.1016/j.engstruct.2016.10.03510.1016/j.engstruct.2016.10.035 ↗
11. 10.1016/j.engstruct.2017.11.05710.1016/j.engstruct.2017.11.057 ↗
12. 10.1016/j.jog.2018.01.00910.1016/j.jog.2018.01.009 ↗
13. 10.1016/j.tecto.2018.01.00310.1016/j.tecto.2018.01.003 ↗
14. Papadimitriou P · 2017
15. 10.1029/2018JB01595010.1029/2018JB015950 ↗
16. Lekkas E · 2017
17. 10.1016/j.ijdrr.2019.10116910.1016/j.ijdrr.2019.101169 ↗
18. Papaioannou C · 2018
19. Annunziato A · 2017
20. Zaman S · 2012
21. Lisa M · 2005
22. Asian Development Bank (ADB)-World Bank (WB) Islamabad, Pakistan · 2005
23. Ali Q · 2004
24. Durrani AJ · 2005
25. Hussain S · 2006
26. Shahzada K · 2011
27. 10.1193/1.338311910.1193/1.3383119 ↗
28. Javed M · 2009
29. 10.1139/L07-12810.1139/L07-128 ↗
30. 10.1155/2018/475635210.1155/2018/4756352 ↗
31. 10.1080/13632469.2014.96374410.1080/13632469.2014.963744 ↗
32. 10.9790/3021-02101050810.9790/3021-021010508 ↗
33. 10.1016/j.engstruct.2014.10.00610.1016/j.engstruct.2014.10.006 ↗
34. 10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2018.05.25410.1016/j.conbuildmat.2018.05.254 ↗
35. 10.1007/s40999-017-0275-710.1007/s40999-017-0275-7 ↗
36. 10.1007/s42107-019-00207-010.1007/s42107-019-00207-0 ↗
37. 10.1193/1.158587210.1193/1.1585872 ↗
38. International Conference of Building Officials · 1997
39. 2007
40. Magenes G, Calvi GM. Plane seismic response of brick masonry walls: earthquake engineering and structural dynamics, 26, 1997, p. 1091–1112.10.1002/(SICI)1096-9845(199711)26:11<1091::AID-EQE693>3.3.CO;2-Y ↗
41. 10.1002/978047002486710.1002/9780470024867 ↗