Citation

Khan FZ, Ahmad ME, Ahmad N. Earthq. Struct. 2021; 20(2): 149-160.

Copyright

(Copyright © 2021, KoreaScience Techno-Press)

DOI

10.12989/eas.2021.20.2.149

PMID

unavailable

Abstract

Buildings made using the locally available clay materials are amongst the least expensive forms of construction in many developing countries, and therefore, widely popular in remote areas. It is despite the fact that these low-strength masonry structures are vulnerable to seismic forces. Since transporting imported materials like cement and steel in areas inaccessible by motorable roads is challenging and financially unviable. This paper presents, and experimentally investigates, adobe masonry structures that utilize the abundantly available local clay materials with moderate use of imported materials like cement, aggregates, and steel. Shake-table tests were performed on two 1:3 reduce-scaled adobe masonry models for experimental seismic testing and verification. The model AM1 was confined with vertical lightly reinforced concrete columns provided at all corners and reinforced concrete horizontal bands (i.e., tie beams) provided at sill, lintel, and eave levels. The model AM2 was confined only with the horizontal bands provided at sill, lintel, and eave levels. The models were subjected to sinusoidal base motions for studying the damage evolution and response of the model under dynamic lateral loading. The lateral forcedeformation capacity curves for both models were developed and bi-linearized to compute the seismic response parameters: stiffness, strength, ductility, and response modification factor R. Seismic performance levels, story-drift, base shear coefficient, and the expected structural damages, were defined for both the models. Seismic performance assessment of the selected models was carried out using the lateral seismic force procedure to evaluate their safety in different seismic zones. The use of vertical columns in AM1 has shown a considerable increase in the lateral strength of the model in comparison to AM2. Although an R factor equal to 2.0 is recommended for both the models, AM1 has exhibited better seismic performance in all seismic zones due to its relatively high lateral strength in comparison to AM2.

Language: en