Old monumental structures like temples, historical buildings are constructed in stone masonry with large walls and massive arches which are in compression. These structures are beautifully constructed ,well jointed still standing. At that time, knowledge of advanced earthquake engineering was not available. Are these structures have enough capacity to resist earthquake? How it can be analysed?
Most of structural members like slabs, beams in existing rcc structures are always subjected to bending action, hence tensile stresses. Is this is a reason for more damage that occur in such concrete structures as compared to old stone masonry structures?
Then what we can learn from it?
old structures and monuments can resist earthquake much better. There are many examples like parthenon of athens, Santa Sophia which has excellent lateral force resisting system. Lateral forces are handled by efficient action of arches and pyramids with large compression forces. For example the pyramid like structure in Thanjuvur big temple has 80 tonne of stone at the top. First impression tells us it is not OK since large mass at Top. But they act as pre compression to the stone walled pyramid, any lateral force can be idealized as increase in compression on one side and decrease in compression on the other. Essentially they are no tension structure. There are lot of impressive mechanics behind every monument. We have lot of monuments which survived for thousands of years even when they are in active seismic region.
I don't think these types of structures are capable of resisting seismic forces due to their brittlenss, lack of ductility, and lack of energy absorption.
As you noticed, the old structures are massive which means it will be much expensive to built them now (material+ land+ time).
More mass means higher stability of structure assuming foundation is safe enough. If joints are constructed properly interlocked, these old structures can stand well in earthquakes.
Further, massive structure means it will have longer life against environmental degradation such as rain, co2, UV etc.
I believe the answer for Ishwa Sonar's question has its origin in the horizontal acceleration that an earthquake carry out. These accelerations involve a frequency of vibration. Old structures like monuments are overcalculated and absorb accelerations more than new structures.
old structures and monuments can resist earthquake much better. There are many examples like parthenon of athens, Santa Sophia which has excellent lateral force resisting system. Lateral forces are handled by efficient action of arches and pyramids with large compression forces. For example the pyramid like structure in Thanjuvur big temple has 80 tonne of stone at the top. First impression tells us it is not OK since large mass at Top. But they act as pre compression to the stone walled pyramid, any lateral force can be idealized as increase in compression on one side and decrease in compression on the other. Essentially they are no tension structure. There are lot of impressive mechanics behind every monument. We have lot of monuments which survived for thousands of years even when they are in active seismic region.
As Krishnamurthy Muthumani said, old structures are much more resistant to the forces of nature such as earthquakes or hurricanes. An example is the Mayan or Aztec pyramids. These structures have existed for approximately 1000 years and have withstood many earthquakes and hurricanes. Pyramidal structures are more stable, likewise the Mayans and Aztecs didn't worry about the costs of materials or of operation. To top it off , they did not suffer floods, because they understood that they had to locate their urban centers in high areas.
If interested, you can find info on how to deal with this challenging topic at http://www.msc-sahc.org/. Applications are opened up to January 20, 2019.
This is not a simple question that can be answered in few lines. However, let me answer the main question:
Are these structures have enough capability to resist earthquakes?
The many historical monuments; situated in seismic-prone areas around the world, that remained safe during many centuries are living examples of the capability of such buildings to resist earthquakes.
In my opinion, three main factors are responsible to these behaviors:
1. The use of massive walls that work as shear walls against horizontal forces.
2. The use of rigid and homogenous roofs (in the case of timber roofs) or vaults or domes that can resist the seismic forces in compression.
3. The use of good construction materials and suitale construction practices.
How it can be analysed?
Many methods are available. I reviewed some of these methods in my paper "Seismic Vulnerability of Arches, Vaults and Domes in Historical Buildings", published in "Handbook of Research on Seismic Assessment and Rehabilitation of Historic Structures", 2015, IGI Global
The vibration frequencies of such kind of structures are so high that its dynamic response is summarized to the static one. The structure follows the ground movement, without any amplification due to the ressonance effect. It also has its importance.
A great master program can provide you with information on how to deal with this rather challenging topic at http://www.msc-sahc.org/. I attended this master and I can recomment it to all.
Many researchers evaluated old masonry using FE method，see the following article.
Article Seismic Assessment of Masonry Towers by Means of Nonlinear S...
In my personal opinion，seismic performance of a structure，not the stronger the better，ductility as one engineers highlighted all the time. Another concept is resilience，like self-centering structures，for example，segmental assembled columns. Are they similar to the old masonry structures？
Dear Dr. Naida Ademovic
The report by S. J. Pantazopoulou could be useful;
S. J. Pantazopoulou, "STATE OF THE ART REPORT FOR THE ANALYSIS METHODS FOR UNREINFORCED MASONRY HERITAGE STRUCTURES AND MONUMENTS"
Regards,
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Entomology
- Resistance