PSI - Issue 44

Giovanni Tondo et al. / Procedia Structural Integrity 44 (2023) 243–250 Giovanni Tondo et al. / Structural Integrity Procedia 00 (2022) 000–000

247

5

In order to investigate the effectiveness of the main RVS methodologies available in the literature for Italian masonry buildings, three methods were applied and compared in this study. In particular, the methodologies proposed by Petrini (1984), GNDT (1994) and Vicente (2008), specifically developed for masonry buildings, were applied. In these methodologies, a specific weight is assigned to each building feature based on its importance to the overall structural vulnerability. At the same time, four classes of increasing vulnerability (A, B, C and D) can be assigned to each feature. The final score, Iv, is obtained by the weighted sum of the scores assigned to each feature and is normalized to the interval 0 ≤ I V ≤ 100. 4. Application of RVS methods to the building portfolio In a preliminary stage, a small portion of the entire masonry building portfolio was analysed through the RVS methods previously selected. Ten two-story buildings were thus extracted from the aforementioned database of 100 buildings. Table 3 reports the features of such analysed buildings. In the selection of the case study buildings, it was decided to not consider the influence of the number of storeys but to investigate the influence of all other variables introduced in the database with different combinations.

Table 3. Building characteristics of the selected case study buildings.

Plan surface 170-230

Building label

storeys

Storey height

Date of 1945

construction

Masonry

quality

Horizontal

diaphragms

Perimetral Absence Absence Absence Absence Presence Presence Absence Absence Presence Absence

beams / steel tie

Plan Regular Regular Regular Irregular Regular Regular Regular Irregular Regular Regular

regularity

Roofing Thrust, light No thrust, light No thrust, light Thrust, light No thrust, heavy No thrust, heavy No thrust, light No thrust, light No thrust, heavy No thrust, heavy system

Num. of

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2

3,25 2,75

Bad Bad Bad Bad

beams with a deformable slab beams with semi-rigid slab beams with a deformable slab beams with a deformable slab

50-70 70-100 70-100

1945 1981 1919 1919 1919 1919 2010 1919 1919

3

3,5 3,5

<50 <50 <50 <50 <50

Good beams with semi-rigid slab

2,75 3,25

Bad

beams with rigid slab

Good beams with semi-rigid slab

3,5

70-100

Bad

beams with semi-rigid slab

3,25

Good beams with rigid slab Good beams with rigid slab

10

2,5

4.1. Results

Tables 4 to 6 report all the details related to the application of the three RVS methodologies. Due to space limitations, all the questions available in the considered RVS methodologies are not discussed in detail and the interested readers are referred to the specific references (Petrini, 1984; GNDT, 1994; Vicente, 2008). Table 4. Vulnerability Indices obtained by applying the RVS methodology proposed by Petrini (1984). Parameters Class ( C i ) Weight 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 A B C D ( p i ) 1 Vertical structures configuration 0 5 20 45 1.00 45 45 45 45 5 45 5 45 5 5 2 Type of vertical structures 0 5 25 45 0.25 11,3 11,3 11,3 11,3 0 11,3 0 11,3 0 0

3 Building location and foundation type 4 Distribution of structural elements 5 Plan regularity 6 Height regularity

0 5

25

45

0.75

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0 5

25

45

1.50

67,5

67,5

67,5

67,5

37,5

67,5

37,5

67,5

37,5

37,5

0 5 0 5 0 5

25 25 15

45 45 45

0.50 0.75 0.75

22,5

22,5

22,5

22,5

22,5

22,5

22,5

22,5

22,5

22,5

0

0

0

0

0

0 0

0

0

0 0

0 0

7 Horizontal diaphragm

33,8

11,3

33,8

33,8

11,3

11,3

11,3