PSI - Issue 44

Franco Braga et al. / Procedia Structural Integrity 44 (2023) 331–338 Franco Braga et al. / Structural Integrity Procedia 00 (2022) 000–000

335

5

Fig. 2. The graph shows the average damage assessed as vulnerability changes (9 combinations due to the 3 levels assessed for vulnerability items #5 and #6).

In order to have a better correlation and to assess the sensitivity of the damage to the other parameters, the following criteria were used, the configurations below, which tend to standardize the data sample by limiting as much as possible the effects due to masonry quality, connection at masonry intersections, the presence of masonry weighing in false on the slab, and decks lying on staggered planes: 1. initial sample (local seismic amplification S<=1.2 and seismic amplification by stratigraphic effects S T =1, a condition common to all configurations); 2. buildings with poor or average masonry; 3. buildings with poor or average masonry and connections to angles irregular or absent; 4. buildings with poor or average masonry, connections to the angles irregular or absent, and with masonry not falsely encumbering the floors; 5. buildings with poor or medium masonry, connections to irregular or absent angles, with masonry not bearing in false on the floors and without staggered decks; 6. buildings with poor masonry, connections to the angles irregular or absent, with masonry not bearing in false on the floors and without staggered decks.

Fig. 3. The graph shows, for each configuration, the average damage in the case of effective (green bars) and ineffective (orange bars) floor connections. The broken line in red highlights the difference in damage for each configuration.