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

249

7

BP13. Fragilities and conservation status

0 5 20

50

1.00

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

BP14. Non-structural elements

0 5 20

50

0.50

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

I *

vf = Σ C vi x p i =

205

141

224

308

45

194

50

198

45

45

For the RVS model proposed by Petrini (1984), buildings 1 and 4 present the highest vulnerability index. These buildings are mainly penalized by the presence of poor masonry quality, deformable floor, thrust roof system, and plan irregularity, although building 1 is actually rectangular in plan. In the GNDT (1994) method, the parameter mainly affecting the building vulnerability is the conventional resistance, which consists in the working rate of the masonry walls. Furthermore, according to this method, buildings 3 and 4 are the most vulnerable. The methodology proposed by Vicente (2008) identifies building 4 as the most vulnerable due to plan irregularity, poor masonry quality, thrust roof and deformable floor. In general, the three methods tend to present the same vulnerability trends (Fig. 4), although they differ in the setting of the methodology, such as in the scores assigned to the weights and classes. 4.2. Preliminary evaluation through pushover analysis The evaluation of the effectiveness of the analysed RVS methodologies was carried out through comparison with equivalent indices obtained from nonlinear static analysis results. The pushover index is obtained as the ratio between the acceleration at which the life safety limit state is achieved and the acceleration demand at the same limit state.

Fig. 4. Trends of vulnerability indices obtained by application of different RVS methods and execution of pushover analysis.

In contrast with the RVS methodology by Vicente (2008), according to the pushover analysis results, the most vulnerable building is no. 1, likely due to the flexible slab and roof and to the greater in-plan dimensions. On the other hand, the nonlinear static analysis and the RVS methodology converge in the identification of the building with the lowest vulnerability index (building n. 10), characterized by rigid slab and good masonry. Moreover, the method proposed by Vicente assigned the same low vulnerability scores also to buildings n. 5 and n. 9, which are similar to building n. 10 but are characterized by higher interstorey height. The significant discrepancy found for building n. 4 is mainly due to the high value assigned to the plan configuration parameter in the RVS methodology. This parameter is calculated referring to the ratio between the sides of the building, to higher ratios are assigned higher vulnerability classes. For the considered case study, the calculation for this feature led to the worst class D even if only slightly, heavily affecting the vulnerability index. 5. Conclusions The need for a large-scale seismic vulnerability assessment of masonry building portfolios is nowadays widely recognized. To do so, different tools are available in the literature, such as rapid visual screening (RVS) methodologies. Accordingly, this study developed a masonry building portfolio based on the data available in the