4.7 Article

Seismic performance evaluation and strengthening proposal for a reconstruction project of a historic masonry building demolished in the 1940s

Journal

JOURNAL OF BUILDING ENGINEERING
Volume 66, Issue -, Pages -

Publisher

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.jobe.2023.105914

Keywords

Cultural heritage; Demolished masonry building; Nonlinear analysis; Kinematic analysis

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This article discusses the importance of seismic evaluation in the reconstruction of disappeared or demolished heritage buildings, and presents an evaluation methodology and strengthening technique.
For heritage structures demolished or disappeared over the years, reconstruction projects are prepared based on the original architecture and structural characteristics. Before reconstruction of historic buildings, which represent construction techniques and material characteristics of their era, assessing seismic performance is very important. Otherwise, these valuable heritage buildings may pose a risk of earthquake-induced collapse. However, this important procedure is mostly overlooked in reconstruction practices. Accordingly, the current paper presents a seismic evalu-ation of a reconstruction project for a historic masonry building built in 1866 and was later demolished in the 1940s. Linear, nonlinear, and kinematic limit analyses were conducted. The seismic performance was determined by comparing the shear force and inter-story drifts as well as overturning and bending behaviors with the limit values given in the code. As the seismic per-formance level was found to be inadequate, a strengthening proposal was made. It is believed that the evaluation methodology including global and local analyses as well as the strengthening technique presented in the current study would make a valuable contribution to the literature on the reconstruction of disappeared or demolished buildings based on the original construction technique and materials.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available