Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
RESEARCH ARTICLE
www.ijera.com
OPEN ACCESS
Professor & Dean, Department Of Civil Engineering, VMKV Engineering College, Vinayaka Missions
University, Salem, India.
2
Assistant Professor, Department Of Civil Engineering, VMKV Engineering College, Vinayaka Missions
University, Salem, India.
3
Associate Professor, Department Of Civil Engineering, Annapoorana Engineering College, Salem, Tamilnadu,
India.
4
Professor & Director, Salem School of Architecture, Vinayaka Missions University, Salem, India.
ABSTRACT
From olden days until now in our construction filed unreinforced masonry blocks of rocks is used as
foundation and super structure wall as load bearing structure. I n which blocks are stacked, sometimes being
mortared with various cements. Ancient civilizations used locally available rocks and cements to construct rock
block columns, walls and edifices for residences, temples, fortifications and infrastructure. Monuments still
exist as testaments to the high quality construction by historic cultures, despite the seismic and other
potentially damaging geo-mechanical disturbances that threaten them. Conceptual failure modes under
seismic conditions of rock block structures, observed in the field or the laboratory, are presented. Our
proposed work is analytically is carried out with rock block of 1m by 1m with 200 mm rock block under
seismic loading to find out the damaged caused by the Mw 6.7 and 6.0 earthquakes on that block subject to
dynamic load. Finally graphical output has generated and suggested for safe construction with more seismic
load on rock blocks.
Keywords: Rock block structures, Earthquakes, Earthquake observations, to failures.
I INTRODUCTION
Construction of unreinforced masonry is
common in various earthquake-prone regions,
particularly in developing countries, and rural areas
of developed countries. This vulnerable type of
construction is susceptible to often devastating
damage, as evident from the effects of the
2001 Bhuj, India earthquake (Murty et al. 2002),
where 1,200,000 masonry buildings built primarily
based on local traditional construction practices,
either collapsed or were severely damaged.
Buildings constructed with adobe and unreinforced
masonry suffered devastating damage in the Bam,
Iran 2003 earthquake (Nadim et al. 2004).
However, in the 2002 Molise, Italy earthquake
post-1850
unreinforced
masonry
buildings
performed worse than medieval and renaissanceage masonry buildings (Decanini et al.2004)
indicating that certain methods and materials of
construction used
in
culturally
valuable
archaeological and monumental structures may
have properties that have resisted significant
earthquakes. This paper reviews some aspects of
the geo-mechanical performance of structures
assembled as unreinforced masonry using blocks of
rock.
www.ijera.com
www.ijera.com
www.ijera.com
56 | P a g e
www.ijera.com
www.ijera.com
57 | P a g e
www.ijera.com
58 | P a g e
www.ijera.com
www.ijera.com
59 | P a g e
www.ijera.com
www.ijera.com
STAAD.Pro Report
To:
Fro
m:
Dat
e:
Copy
to:
www.ijera.com
R ca/
e Document1
f
:
Job Information
14/05
/2013
09:33
:00
Engineer
Name:
Date:
Checke
d
Approved
14-May-13
Structure Type
Number of Nodes
SPACE FRAME
8
Highest Node
61 | P a g e
Highest Solid
www.ijera.com
13
Y
Node
X
(kN/mm
)
(kN/
mm)
Fixed
Fixed
Fixed
Fixed
Fixed
Fixed
Fixed
Fixed
Z
(k
N/
m
m)
Fix
ed
Fix
rX
(kNm/de
g)
rY
(kNm/deg)
rZ
(kNm/deg)
Fixed
Fixed
Fixed
Fixed
Fixed
Fixed
Fixed
Fixed
Fixe
d
Fixe
ed
Fix
ed
Fix
d
Fixe
d
Fixe
ed
All
L/C
Primary
Number
Name
1
LOAD CASE 1
X
(m)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Y
(m)
0.000
1.000
0.000
1.000
0.000
1.000
0.000
1.000
Z
(m)
0.000
0.000
1.000
1.000
0.000
0.000
1.000
1.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.500
0.500
0.500
0.500
Node Displacements
Solid
Nod
eB
Nod
eC
Nod
eD
Node
E
13
No
de
F
8
Node
G
Y
(mm)
Z
(mm)
Resultant
(mm)
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
1:LOAD CASE 1
2.81E 3
1:LOAD CASE 1
2.81E 3
1:LOAD CASE 1
0.000
1.34E
3
-1.34E
3
0.000
146.9
146.9
0.000
1:LOAD CASE 1
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
1:LOAD CASE 1
2.81E 3
146.9
3.12E 3
1:LOAD CASE 1
2.81E 3
1.34E
3
-1.34E
3
L/C
1:LOAD CASE 1
1:LOAD CASE 1
Nod
eH
2Node
Materials
Name
STEEL
ALUMINU
M
CONCRETE
4
5
Supports
www.ijera.com
E
(kN/mm2
)
205.000
Density
(kg/m3)
0.300
7.83E 3
12E -6
68.948
0.330
2.71E 3
23E -6
21.718
0.170
2.4E 3
10E -6
146.9
3.12E 3
3.12E 3
0.000
3.12E 3
rX
(rad)
rY
(rad)
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
rZ
(rad)
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
Displacement Summary
No
de
Mat
X
(mm)
Node
Solids
Node
A
LOAD CASE 1
Nodes
Node
Name
L/C
X
(mm
)
Y
(mm
)
Z
(m
m)
Res
ulta
nt
(mm
)
rX
(rad)
rY
(rad)
rZ
(rad)
(1/K)
Max
X
1:Load
2.81
Case 1
E3
1.34
E3
14
6.9
74
3.12
E3
0.00
0
0.00
0
0.000
Min X
1:Load
0.00
Case 1
0
0.00
0
0.0
00
0.00
0
0.00
0
0.00
0
0.000
Max
Y
1:Load
2.81
Case 1
E3
1.34
E3
14
6.9
74
3.12
E3
0.00
0
0.00
0
0.000
62 | P a g e
Min Y
Max Z
Min Z
Max
rX
1.34
E3
1:Load
2.81
Case 1
E3
14
6.9
74
1:Load
2.81
Case 1
E3
1.34
E3
14
6.9
74
1:Load
2.81
Case 1
E3
1.34
E3
14
6.9
74
1:Load
0.00
Case 1
0
0.00
0
0.0
00
3.12
E3
0.00
0
Max
Fx
Max
0.000
Fy
Max
Fz
Max
Sxy
Max
Syz
0.000
Max
Szx
0.00
0
3.12
E3
0.00
0
0.00
0
3.12
E3
0.00
0
0.00
0
13
13
13
0.00
00.00
00.00
00.00
00.00
00.00
0
1:LOAD
CASE 1
1:LOAD
CASE 1
1:LOAD
CASE 1
1:LOAD
13
13
13
www.ijera.com
1:LOAD
CASE 1
1:LOAD
CASE 1
-0.000
-0.000
0.001
0.000
-0.000
-0.000
-0.000
0.001
0.000
-0.000
-0.000
-0.000
0.001
0.000
-0.000
-0.000
-0.000
0.001
0.000
-0.000
-0.000
-0.000
0.001
0.000
-0.000
-0.000
-0.000
0.001
0.000
-0.000
0.000
0.00
0
0.00
0
There
0.000 is no data of this type.
Solid Centre Principal Stress Summary
Min
rX
1:Load
0.00
Case 1
0
0.00
0
0.0
00
0.00
0
0.00
0
0.000
0.00
0
Principal
Soli
d
Max
rY
Min
rY
1:Load
0.00
Case 1
0
0.00
0
0.0
00
0.00
0
0.00
0
0.00
0
1:Load
0.00
Case 1
0
Max
rZ
1:Load
0.00
Case 1
0
0.00
0
0.0
00
0.00
0
0.00
0
0.00
0
Min
rZ
1:Load
0.00
Case 1
0
0.00
0
0.0
00
0.00
0
0.00
0
0.00
0
Max
Rst
1:Load
2.81
Case 1
E3
1.34
E3
14
6.9
74
3.12
E3
0.00
0
0.00
0
0.00
0
0.0
00
0.00
0
0.00
0
0.00
0
L/C
Max
13
S10.000
Max
13
S2
Max
13
S3
Max
13
Von
0.000
Mis
1:L
OA
D
1:L
OA
D
1:L
OA
D
1:L
OA
D
S1
(N/
mm2
)
0.00
1
0.00
1
0.00
1
0.00
1
S2
(N/m
m2)
-0.000
-0.000
-0.000
-0.000
S3
(N/
mm2
)
0.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
1
Von
Mis
Von
Mis
(N/mm2
)
Direction
S2
Direction S1
0.001
0.707
0.001
0.707
0.001
0.707
0.001
0.707
0
.
0
.
0
.
0
.
0.
00
0.
00
0.
00
0.
00
0
.
0
.
0
.
0
.
0
.
0
.
0
.
0
.
1
.
1
.
1
.
1
.
0.000
0.000
Solid
Corner Stress Summary
Normal
Sol
id
Normal
Sol
id
L/C
13
1:LO
AD
Sxx
(N/mm2)
Shear
Syy
(N/mm2)
-0.000
-0.000
Szz
(N/m
m2)
-0.000
Sxy
(N/mm2)
0.001
Syz
(N/
mm2
)
0.00
N
o
d
e
Szx
(N/mm2)
Max
-0.000Fx
13
Max
Fy
13
Max
Fz
13
L/C
www.ijera.com
Sxx
(N/
mm2
)
Syy
(N/m
m2)
Shear
Szz
(N/m
m2)
Sxy
(N/m
m2)
Syz
(N/mm2)
Szx
(N/mm2
)
L/C
1:L
OA
D
CAS
E1
1:L
OA
D
CAS
E1
1:L
OA
D
CAS
E1
Shear
Sx
y
(N/
M
m2)
Sy
z
(N/
M
m2)
Sxx
(N/
Mm2
)
Syy
(N/
Mm2
)
0.00
1
0.00
1
-0.001
0.0
01
0.0
00
0.00
0
0.00
1
0.00
4
0.002
0.0
01
0.0
00
0.00
0
0.00
1
0.00
4
0.002
0.0
01
0.0
00
0.00
0
Szz
(N/M
m2)
63 | P a g e
Szx
(N/
Mm2
)
Max
Sxy
Max
Syz
Max
Szx
13
1:L
OA
D
CAS
E1
1:L
OA
D
CAS
E1
1:L
OA
D
CAS
E1
13
13
0.00
1
0.00
1
0.00
1
0.00
1
0.00
1
0.00
1
-0.001
0.0
01
0.0
01
-0.001
0.0
01
-0.001
0.0
00
-Max
0.00 FY
0
0.0
00
Min FY
0.00
0
Max FZ
0.00
0
Min FZ
0.0
00
Max S1
Max S2
Max S3
Max Von
Mis
S
o
l
i
d
1
13
13
13
3
S1
(N/mm2)
L/C
5
5
6
3
1:LOAD CASE 1
1:LOAD CASE 1
1:LOAD CASE 1
1:LOAD CASE 1
2
5
6
0.004
0.004
-0.001
0.001
L/C
1:LOAD
CASE 1
1:LOAD
CASE 1
1:LOAD
CASE 1
1:LOAD
CASE 1
Vertic
al
Horiz
ontal
FX
(kN)
FY
(kN)
FZ
(kN)
-0.095
-0.190
-0.097
-0.095
0.190
0.097
-0.095
-0.190
0.097
-0.095
0.190
-0.097
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
MY
(kNm)
MZ
(kNm)
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
Node
Reaction Summary
Nod
e
Min FX
L/C
1:LO
AD
CASE
1
1:LO
AD
CASE
1
www.ijera.com
FX
(kN)
Verti
cal
FY
(kN)
0.09
5
-0.190
0.09
5
-0.190
0.190
0.09
5
-0.190
0.09
5
0.190
0.09
5
0.0
97
0.0
00
0.00
0
0.000
0.0
97
0.0
00
0.00
0
0.000
0.0
97
0.0
00
0.00
0
0.000
-0.190
0.0
97
0.0
00
0.00
0
0.000
0.09
5
-0.190
0.0
97
0.0
00
0.00
0
0.000
0.09
5
-0.190
0.0
97
0.0
00
0.00
0
0.000
0.0
00
0.00
0
Von Mis
0.09 -0.190
0.0
5
97
Von Mis
- (N/mm2)
0.09 -0.190
0.0
5
97
0.002
0.002 0.002 0.0
0.09 -0.190
0.003 97
5
0.09
5
0.0
97
-0.190
Direction S1
0.000
Y
0.0
00
0.000
0.0
00
0.00
0
0.290
0.290
0.957
0.00
0.2890
0.0
00
0.00
0
0.000
0.955
0.955
0.000 0.288
0.957
Reaction Envelope
Hori
zont
al
0.09
5
Moment
MX
(kN
m)
Max
FX
Min
MZ
Horiz
ontal
Min
MX
S2
2
(N/mm
Min )
1
MY
0.002
0.002
Max
-0.002 1
MZ
-0.001
Reactions
Node
Max
Principal
MY
Nod
e
1:LO
AD
CASE
1
1:LO
AD
CASE
1
1:LO
AD
CASE
1
1:LO
AD
CASE
1
1:LO
AD
CASE
1
1:LO
AD
CASE
1
1:LO
AD
CASE
1
S3
1:LO
2
(N/mm
AD )
CASE
1 0.001
1:LO0.001
AD-0.004
CASE
-0.002
1
1:LO
AD
CASE
1
Max
MX
www.ijera.com
Ho
riz
ont
al
Moment
2
M
X
(k
N
m)
MY
(kN
m)
0.0
97
0.0
00
0.00
0
0.0
97
0.0
00
0.00
0
FZ
(k
N)
2
MZ
(kN
2
2
0.0005
5
5
0.000
5
E
n
v
+
v
+
v
v
v
+
v
+
v
v
v
+
v
+
v
v
v
Horiz
ontal
Vertical
Horizon
tal
FX
(kN)
FY
(kN)
FZ
(kN)
0.000
-
0.000
-
-0.095
Load: 1
Load: 1
Load:
1
Load: 1
Load: 1
0.000
Load: 1
-0.190
Load: 1
0.000
0.000
-
0.000
-
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.097
0.000
0.000
0.000
MY
(kNm
)
0.000
0.097
0.000
-
0.000
-0.097
0.190
Load:
1
0.000
-0.095
0.000
-0.190
-0.095
MX
(kNm)
Load:
1
0.000
Moment
0.000
-
0.000
-
64 | P a g e
0.000
-
MZ
(kNm
)
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
-
6
6
6
6
0.000
-
0.190
Load: 1
-0.095
Load:
1
0.000
-
0.000
-
0.000
-
-0.097
Load: 1
0.000
0.000
-
0.000
-
0.000
Min FZ
-
1:LOAD
CASE 1
www.ijera.com
0.000
0.00
0
0.000
-
Failure Ratio
There is no data of this type.
Failed Members
There is no data of this type.
Base Pressure
Node
FX
(N/mm2)
L/C
FY
(N/mm2)
FZ
(N/mm2)
1:LOAD CASE 1
0.000
0.000
0.000
1:LOAD CASE 1
0.000
0.000
0.000
1:LOAD CASE 1
0.000
0.000
0.000
1:LOAD CASE 1
0.000
0.000
0.000
Node
L/C
FX
(N/mm2)
FY
(N/
mm
2
)
Max FX
1:LOAD
CASE 1
0.000
0.00
0
0.000
Min FX
1:LOAD
CASE 1
0.000
0.00
0
0.000
Max FY
1:LOAD
CASE 1
0.000
0.00
0
0.000
Min FY
1:LOAD
CASE 1
0.000
0.00
0
0.000
Max FZ
1:LOAD
CASE 1
0.000
0.00
0
0.000
www.ijera.com
65 | P a g e
0.000
www.ijera.com
www.ijera.com
66 | P a g e
www.ijera.com
www.ijera.com
VI CONCLUSIONS
Construction with unmortared block of
rocks is venerable and universal even in seismically
active regions. That so many historic and culturally
valuable structures have survived is a testament to
careful engineering craftsmanship. Finely fitted,
massive blocks of rock and well-constructed interior
cores and backfill assure the survival of these
structures
better
than
poorly constructed
unreinforced masonry of modern communities
nearby. Modes of failure of rock block structures
under seismic loading observed in the STAAD
output results in graphically .The major failure zone
has be identify with red pattern which is highly
stressed zone in that location seismic loading will be
more and it indicate the failure of the block has took
place. In our project with small sample of block has
subject to dynamic load which indicates more stress
points and their deformation in detail. Thus we
conclude the result generate from our STAAD has
vital role in construction field with rock blocks and
their features.
REFERENCES
[1]. Decanini L, De Sortis A, Goretti A,
Langenbach R, Mollaioli F, and Rasulo A,
Performance of Masonry Buildings During
the 2002 Molise, Italy Earthquake. 2002
Molise, Italy, Earthquake Reconnaissance
Report, Vol. 20, Earthquake Spectra, EERI,
2004
[2]. Dewey, J W and Silva, W J, Seismicity
and Tectonics, 2001 Southern Peru
Earthquake Reconnaissance
Report,
Supplement A to Volume 19, January
2003, Earthquake Spectra, Earthquake
Spectra, pp.1-10.
[3]. Greene, LW. Cultural History of Three
Traditional Hawaiian Sites on the West
Coast of Hawai'i Island, United States
Department of the Interior, National Park
Service, Denver Service Center, September
1993:
67 | P a g e
[6].
[7].
[8].
[9].
www.ijera.com
www.ijera.com
68 | P a g e