Impact of Engineering Modeling Assumptions on Assessing Seismic Resistance of Montgomery Block Building
Publication: Journal of Structural Engineering
Volume 123, Issue 11
Abstract
The Montgomery Block building is used as a case study to assess the effectiveness of conventional analysis methods commonly used by practicing engineers throughout North America when conducting seismic evaluation work to predict the seismic performance of unreinforced masonry (URM) buildings. This building predominantly constructed of URM pier-and-spandrel facades and URM shear walls was built in 1853 and survived the 1906 San Francisco Earthquake despite being roughly 15 km from the San Andreas Fault that ruptured in 1906. It is found that the impact of engineering modeling assumptions can be of nearly an order of magnitude for buildings of that type, depending on the structural model selected by the engineer. Of all the conventional modeling procedures considered in this paper, it is found that only the special procedure of the Uniform Code for Building Conservation (UCBC) comes close to predicting the observed seismic response. However, some extensions of the more conventional modeling procedures are useful in demonstrating the potentially beneficial period elongation that accompanies structural strength degradation as damage progresses.
Get full access to this article
View all available purchase options and get full access to this article.
References
1.
ABK, A Joint Venture. (1984). “Methodology for mitigation of seismic hazards in existing unreinforced masonry buildings: The Methodology.”Rep. No. ABK-TR-08, Agbabian Associates, El Segundo, Calif.
2.
Abu-El-Magd, S. A., and Mac Leod, I. A. (1980). “Experimental tests on brick beams under in-plane bending conditions.”The Struct. Engrg., London, U.K., 58B, 62–66.
3.
Bathe, K. L. (1995). Automatic dynamic incremental non-linear analysis—Version 6.1—Theory and Modeling Guide, Rep. No. ARD 95-8, ADINA R&D Inc., Watertown, Mass.
4.
Bhattacharjee, S. S., and Léger, P.(1993). “Finite element modeling of the tensile strain softening behavior of plain concrete structures.”Engrg. Computations, Swansea, Wales, 10, 205–221.
5.
Boussabah, K. L. (1993). “Impact of engineering modeling assumptions on assessing the seismic performance of Montgomery block building,” MSc thesis, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.
6.
Bruneau, M.(1994a). “State-of-the-art report on seismic performance of unreinforced masonry buildings.”ASCE Struct. J., 120(1), 230–251.
7.
Bruneau, M.(1994b). “Seismic evaluation of existing unreinforced masonry buildings—a state-of-the-art report.”Can. J. Civ. Engrg., Ottawa, Canada, 21(3), 512–539.
8.
Bruneau, M., Boussabah, L., Shao, X. Y., and Hans, A. (1994). “Impact of modeling decisions on the seismic performance of unreinforced masonry buildings.”Res. Rep. to the Nat. Res. Council, Inst. for Res. in Constr., Ottawa, Canada.
9.
“Building code requirements for masonry structures.” (1988). ACI 530-88/ASCE 5-88, ASCE, New York, N.Y.
10.
Canadian Standards Association. (1984). CAN2-S304-M84, masonry design for buildings. Canadian Standard Association, Rexdale, Ontario, Canada.
11.
Cardwell, K., Bell, D. W., Weber, W. L., Carty, J. R., and Hughes, M. (1958). “Reconstructed drawings of the Montgomery block buildings,” 13 sheets, Microfilm collection of the College of Environmental Design, University of California, Berkeley, Calif.
12.
Costley, A. C., and Abrams, D. P. (1995). “Dynamic response of URM buildings with flexible diaphragms.”Struct. Res. Ser. Rep., Civ. Engrg. Studies, Univ. of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Ill.
13.
Englekirk, R. E., and Hart, G. C. (1984). “Earthquake design of concrete masonry buildings.”Strength design of one-to-four-story buildings, Vols. 1 and 2, Prentice-Hall, Inc., Englewood Cliffs, N.J.
14.
Epperson, G. S., and Abrams, D. P. (1990). “Evaluating lateral strength of existing unreinforced brick piers in the laboratory.”Proc., 5th North Am. Masonary Conf., Vol. 2, Urbana-Champaign, Ill., 735–746.
15.
Freeman, J. R. (1932). Earthquake damage and earthquake insurance. McGraw-Hill, Inc., New York, N.Y.
16.
Hill, J. (1991). “Code overview.”Seminar on the New State Wide Earthquake Hazard Reduction Code (UCBC Appendix Chapter 1), Seminar Notes, Structural Engineers Association of California, Sacramento, Calif.
17.
Kariotis, J. C. (1986). “Rule of general application—basic theory.”Earthquake Hazard Mitigation of Unreinforced Pre-1933 Masonry Buildings, Seminar Notes, Structural Engineers Association of California, Sacramento, Calif.
18.
Kirker, H. (1973). California's architectural frontier, style and tradition in the nineteenth century. Peregrine Smith, Inc.
19.
Lawson, R. S., and Vance, V., and Krawinkler, H. (1994). “Nonlinear static push-over analysis—why, when, and how?”Proc., 5th Nat. Conf. on Earthquake Engrg., Vol. 1, Chicago, Ill., 283–292.
20.
Mayes, R. L., and Clough, R. W. (1975). “State-of-the-art seismic shear strength of masonry—an evaluation and review.”Earthquake Engrg. Res. Ctr. Rep. No. EERC 75-21, Univ. of Calif., Berkeley, Calif.
21.
Naeim, F. (1989). Seismic design handbook. Van Nostrand Reinhold, New York, N.Y.
22.
“National Building Code of Canada.” (1990). National Research Council of Canada, Ottawa, Canada.
23.
Newmark, N. M., and Hall, W. J. (1982). Earthquake spectra and design. Earthquake Engineering Research Institute, Oakland, Calif.
24.
Prawel, S. P., and Lee, H. H. (1990). “The performance of upgraded brick masonry piers subjected to out-of-plane motion.”Proc., 4th Nat. Conf. on Earthquake Engrg., Vol. 3, Palm Springs, Calif., 273–281.
25.
Priestley, M. J. N.(1985). “Seismic behavior of unreinforced masonry walls.”Bull. New Zealand Soc. for Earthquake Engrg., Waikanae, New Zealand, 18(2), 191–205.
26.
Seismic Safety Commission. (1990). Draft commentary to the structural engineers association of California and California building officials joint recommended unreinforced masonry building seismic safety provisions. California Seismic Safety Commission, Sacramento, Calif.
27.
Structural Engineers Association of Southern California. (1981). Earthquake hazard mitigation of unreinforced masonry buildings built prior to 1934, seminar notes. Structural Engineers Association of Southern California, Sacramento, Calif.
28.
Structural Engineers Association of Southern California. (1983). Earthquake hazard mitigation of unreinforced masonary buildings built prior to 1934—update, seminar notes. Structural Engineers Association of Southern California, Sacramento, Calif.
29.
Structural Engineers Association of Southern California. (1986). Earthquake hazard mitigation of unreinforced pre-1933 masonry buildings, seminar notes. Structural Engineers Association of Southern California, Sacramento, Calif.
30.
Structural Engineers Association of Southern California. (1991). Seminar on the new state wide earthquake hazard reduction code (1991 UCBC appendix chapter 1), seminar notes. Structural Engineers Association of Southern California, Sacramento, Calif.
31.
Uniform building code (UBC). (1994). International Conference of Building Officials, Whittier, Calif.
32.
Uniform code for building conservation (UCBC). (1994). International Conference of Building Officials, Whitter, Calif.
33.
Wilson, E. L., and Habibullah, A. (1990). SAP90—a series of computer programs for the finite element analysis of structures. Computers & Structures, Inc., Berkeley, Calif.
Information & Authors
Information
Published In
Journal of Structural Engineering
Volume 123 • Issue 11 • November 1997
Pages: 1423 - 1434
Copyright
Copyright © 1997 American Society of Civil Engineers.
History
Published online: Nov 1, 1997
Published in print: Nov 1997
Authors
Metrics & Citations
Metrics
Citations
Download citation
If you have the appropriate software installed, you can download article citation data to the citation manager of your choice. Simply select your manager software from the list below and click Download.