Assessing the seismic vulnerability of masonry buildings - Seismic Risk Analysis and Management of Civil Infrastructure Systems - page 343

Substantial differences also exist for the same structural typology from dif-
ferent regional settings. In Fig. 13.5, average capacity curves for structural
typologies based on unreinforced brickwork with different mortars and
horizontal structures are compared for different sites, two in Italy, one in
Turkey, and one in Nepal.
The diagrams show that the location, and hence construction details, has
greater infl uence than structural typology on the resulting curves, in par-
ticular for sub-typology UFB5, masonry brickwork with reinforced con-
crete horizontal slab, characterised by the large dispersion of results. This

0.40
0.35
0.30
0.25
0.20
0.15
0.10
0.05
0

0 0.01 0.02 0.03

Drift

0.04 0.05 0.06

L ′ Aquila UFB3
Nepal UFB1

Serravalle UFB3 Istanbul UFB3

Nepal UFB3

(a)

0.40
0.35
0.30
0.25
0.20
0.15
0.10
0.05
0

0 0.01 0.02 0.03

Drift

0.04 0.05 0.06

L ′ Aquila UFB3
Nepal UFB1

Serravalle UFB3 Istanbul UFB3

Nepal UFB3

(b)

13.5 Average capacity curves for different locations and masonry
typologies.