Seismic performance of school buildings in 2017 Ezgeleh earthquake, Iran
Due to the high number of students and the possibility of a high death toll during an earthquake, school buildings are considered as highly important structures in most of today’s seismic codes. The constituents of the structures of these buildings including the load bearing walls and the steel/ concrete components have to be designed so that they are at least capable of life-safety structural performance in the face of strong earthquakes. Meanwhile, due to their significant effects on the response of the structure, the performance of load-bearing and infill walls is particularly important. Observations from educational facilities after the Ezgeleh earthquake of November 12th, 2017 have revealed that the school buildings with unconfined load-bearing wall structural system located in near and far fields of the earthquake have sustained the highest level of damage. Schools with steel and reinforced concrete (RC) structural systems have fared much better in terms of seismic performance and damage. In this study, in addition to the specifications of the 2017 Ezgeleh earthquake, the structural systems and the infill walls used in the educational facilities in the earthquake – affected areas are introduced. Then, the performances of different school buildings with varying structural systems located in the far and near fields of the earthquake were investigated. The results obtained from field observations have been summed up and presented.
International Institute for Earthquake Engineering, Seismology (IIEES), Iran (2017). Preliminary Report of Kermanshah Earthquake. http://www.iiees.ac.ir. Accessed 21 November 2017.
Iranian Seismological Center (IRSC) (2017). Institute of Geophysics, University of Tehran. Earthquake Statistics Report. http://irsc.ut.ac.ir.
Road, Housing and Urban Development Research Center (BHRC), Iran (2017). Iran Strong Motion Network. http://ismn.bhrc.ac.ir/en.
Dizhur D, Ismail N, Knox C, Lumantarna R and Ingham JM (2010). “Performance of unreinforced and retrofitted masonry buildings during the 2010 Darfield earthquake”. Bulletin of the New Zealand Society for Earthquake Engineering, 43(4): 321-339.
Bothara J, Beetham D, Brunsdon D, Stannard M, Brown R, Hyland C, Lewis W, Miller S, Sanders R and Sulistio Y (2010). “General observations of effects of the 30th September 2009 Padang earthquake, Indonesia”. Bulletin of the New Zealand Society for Earthquake Engineering, 43(3): 143-173.
Dizhur D, Ingham J, Moon L, Griffith M, Schultz A, Senaldi I, Magenes G, Dickie J, Lissel S, Centeno J and Ventura C (2011). “Performance of masonry buildings and churches in the 22 February 2011 Christchurch earthquake”. Bulletin of the New Zealand Society for Earthquake Engineering, 44(4): 279-296.
Dizhur D, Dhakal RP, Bothara J and Ingham JM (2016). “Building typologies and failure modes observed in the 2015 Gorkha (Nepal) earthquake”. Bulletin of the New Zealand Society for Earthquake Engineering, 49(2): 211-232.
Building and Housing Research Center (2015). “Standard No. 2800: Iranian Code of Practice for Seismic Resistant Design of Buildings”. 4th Edition.
Polyakov SV (1963). “Masonry in Framed Buildings”: National Lending Library for Science and Technology Yorkshire, UK. (Translated from original work published in 1956).
Smith BS (1962). “Lateral stiffness of infilled frames”. Journal of the Structural Division, ASCE, 88(6): 183-226.
Smith BS (1966). “Behavior of square infilled frames”. Journal of the Structural Division, ASCE, 92(1): 381-404.
Moghaddam HA and Dowling PJ (1987). “The State of the Art in Infilled Frames”. London: Imperial College of Science and Technology, Civil Engineering Department, UK.
Abrams DP (1994). “Proceedings of the NCEER Workshop on Seismic Response of Masonry Infills”. NCEER, USA.
Santini S (1996). “Experimental and numerical investigations on the seismic response of RC infilled frames and recommendations for code provisions”. Geology.
Crisafulli FJ, Carr AJ and Park R (2000). “Analytical modelling of infilled frame structures - A general review”. Bulletin of the New Zealand Society for Earthquake Engineering, 33(1): 30-47.
Kahrizi M and TahamouliRoudsari M (2019). “Experimental and numerical investigation of the parameters affecting the behavior of steel frames with masonry infill walls anchored with the ADAS yielding damper”. European Journal of Environmental and Civil Engineering, DOI: 10.1080/19648189.2018.1543057.
Mohebkhah A, Tasnimi AA and Moghadam HA (2008). “Nonlinear analysis of masonry-infilled steel frames with openings using discrete element method”. Journal of Constructional Steel Research, 64(12): 1463-1472.
Tasnimi AA and Mohebkhah A (2011). “Investigation on the behavior of brick-infilled steel frames with openings, experimental and analytical approaches”. Engineering Structures, 33(3): 968-980.
Chen X and Liu Y (2015). “Numerical study of in-plane behaviour and strength of concrete masonry infills with openings”. Engineering Structures, 82: 226-235.
Housner GW and Trifunak MD (1967). “Analysis of accelerograms – Parkfield earthquake.” Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America , 57: 1193-1220.
Mollaioli F and Decanini LD (2006). “Characterization of the dynamic response of structures to damaging pulse-type near-fault ground motions.” Meccanica , 41: 23-46.
Kalkan E and Kunnath SK (2006). “Effects of fling step and forward directivity on seismic response of buildings.” Earthquake Spectra, 22: 367-390.