Energy Comparison of LBW Structures With MRF Structures

www.cafetinnova.org

Indexed in

Scopus Compendex and Geobase Elsevier, Chemical

Abstract Services-USA, Geo-Ref Information Services-USA,

List B of Scientific Journals, Poland,

Directory of Research Journals

ISSN 0974-5904, Volume 07, No. 05

October 2014, P.P.XXXXX

Energy Comparison of LBW Structures With MRF Structures

S SAILEYSH SIVARAJA1 AND T S THANDAVAMOORTHY

1 Dept. of Civil Engineering, Dr MGR University, India,

2Dept. of Civil Engineering, Adhiparasakthi Engineering College, India,

Email: sivaraja05@gmail.com, tan_44@yahoo.com

Abstract: The paper presents the experimental investigation on the performance of the 1/3rd scale masonry model

of box type of size 2 m × 1 m × 1m without and with a roof slab as well as consisting of LBW (Load Bearing Wall)

and MRF (Moment Resisting Frame) arrangement, mounted on a shake table and impacting it with a pendulum

weighing 115 kg and 150 kg and measuring the acceleration of the building and the energy absorption capacity. The

representative prototype masonry was of size 6 m 3 m with roof height of 3 m. A brick masonry building was

constructed using cement-lime mortar of mix proportion 1:10:20. The Model-1A was constructed without roof slab

for LBW structures system. Model-1B was constructed without roof slab for MRF structures. Model-2A was

constructed with a roof slab for LBW system of size 2.1 m × 1.1 m, thickness of the slab being 35 mm. Model-2B

was constructed with a roof slab for MRF structures. From the velocity of impact the energy impacted to the

building was computed for each impact and the test was carried out till the building suffered extensive damages and

was unable to resist further impacts. The total energy absorbed by LBW buildings without roof slab (Model-1A) was

4,304 Nm after 23rd impacts; by MRF structures without roof slab (Model-1B) was 8,108 Nm after 40 impacts; by

the LBW building with roof slab (Model-2A) was 6,500 Nm after 35 impacts and by MRF building with a roof slab

(Model-2B) was 10,032 Nm after 38 impacts. Relevant conclusions drawn from the experimental programme are

also discussed in the paper.

Keywords: Masonry building, Scaled Bricks, LBW and MRF and Shock Table, Energy Absorption, Base

Acceleration.

1. Introduction:

A masonry wall can undergo in-plane shear stresses due

to gravity loads in the plane of the wall. Shear failure in

the form of diagonal cracks is observed due to this. The

brittle nature of masonry leads to sudden and

catastrophic collapse of walls when the wall experiences

out-of-plane failure. A masonry building with openings

and different types of roofing system is a complex

structure and it is very difficult to understand and

simulate the failure patterns of the building analytically,

especially when it is subjected to ground induced lateral

vibrations. To understand the complex behaviour of

masonry buildings during ground motion sophisticated

facilities such as a shaking table with data acquisition

systems with associated instrumentation are needed.

However, the test on a full-scale prototype is an

expensive proposition, especially when parametric

studies are to be carried out. In the context of the study

of earthquake resistant features, test on small scale

model becomes indispensable. Here, tests are conducted

on small scale models in order to obtain the response

characteristics of a geometrically similar full scale

prototype.

The primary objective of the test carried out here was to

develop a shock table and to study the base shock

resistance and failure patterns of simple box type

masonry-building models with and without roof slab.

IS: 13828 (1993) has defined a box type construction as

consisting of masonry wall along both the axes of the

building. The walls support vertical loads and also act

as shear wall for horizontal loads acting in any

direction. Jagadish et al. (2002) had fabricated a small

rectangular shock table to test the behaviour of (1/6)th

scale building models to base shock induced vibrations.

The primary objective was to study the failure pattern of

simple box type masonry building without any

earthquake resistant feature particularly the out-of-plane

(flexural) failure of the longer cross wall. Sivaraja et al

(2012) studied on the development in research relating

to masonry structures and an annotated bibliography

was prepared by reviewing the available literature. This

bibliography presented various aspects of research on

masonry structures. Deodhar and Patel (1996) worked

on behaviour of brick masonry in compression. They

studied different parameters like size of brick, role of

frog, and mortar thickness on crushing strength of brick

masonry. The conclusions were that large brick size

gave more strength and economy; hence only metric

1881 S SAILEYSH SIVARAJA AND T S THANDAVAMOORTHY

International Journal of Earth Sciences and Engineering

ISSN 0974-5904, Vol. 07, No. 05, October, 2014, pp. 1880-1890

bricks of size 200 mm 100 mm 100 mm should be

used in practice. Rectangular frog gave higher strength.

Frog was found to be more useful to increase load

carrying capacity of masonry in flexure and shear. A

joint thickness of 5 mm to 10 mm gave the maximum

strength. Higher mortar thickness reduced adhesion

between brick and mortar and consequently reduced the

strength of brick masonry. Balasubramanian et al (2005)

studied the damages suffered by brick masonry during

earthquakes. In the Bhuj earthquake, majority of the

masonry structures were damaged because they were

built with un-reinforced masonry. The code of practice

for brick masonry IS 4326 (1993) suggested the use of

lintel band to integrate the structure and thus introduced

a rigid box. Patil and Achawal (2000) investigated the

strength of brick masonry prisms constructed using low

strength bricks and cement mortar. The author discussed

the strength of bricks collected from different

geographical location of Marathawada region of

Maharashtra state of India. Brick strength ranged

between 3 to 7 MPa. Water absorption of bricks was an

independent parameter and did not depend on the

compressive strength of bricks. Compressive strength

of brick masonry prisms fabricated using brick samples

from different regions of Marathwada was determined

using cement mortars of various proportions. Increase in

mortar strength and brick strength both lead to increased

masonry strength according to Thomas (1971), but in

neither case in direct proportion. It is more economical

to increase brick strength rather than mortar strength for

improving the strength of the masonry. The paper

presents the development of a shock-table, its use to

study the base shock resistance and failure patterns of a

simple box type masonry building models with and

without roof slab consisting of LBW and MRF

structures (Figs. 1- 6). It also presents the conclusions

drawn there from.

2. EXPERIMENTAL PROGRAMME:

In this experimental investigation a shock table was

designed and fabricated to conduct test on one-third

scaled brick building model subjected to dynamic

loading as base excitation, and to study its behaviour

such as energy absorption capacity and various failure

modes under this excitation. Pertinent details of this

experimental investigation are presented in the

following sections.

2.1 Development of Shock Table:

A simple version of the shaking table was a shock table,

which was a horizontal table over which building

models could be built and tested under base shock

excitation. The shock table could be used to simulate the

cumulative effects of ground motion by subjecting it to

a series of base impacts. Using a simple pendulum

impact device (Fig. 7), it was possible to control the

magnitude of base shock. This helped in reproducing

the masonry building failure modes. Also, after each

shock it was possible to study the progress of failure of

walls. Figure 8 showed the details of shock table. The

main components of the shock table were the channel

frame that supported the building model and the wheels

that allowed the motion. As for the wheels, a grooved

pulley was used so that it allowed for motion only in

one direction as it rolled over the rails. Inverted ‘T’

sections of size 50 mm 50 mm 6 mm were used as

rails. The rails were supported over a masonry wall of

23 cm thickness and 45 cm high. An angle section of

ISA 40 mm 40 mm 6 mm was used for stiffness as

shown in Fig. 8. An angle section of ISA 100 mm 100

mm 8 mm was used to support the table frame as

shown in Fig. 8. The total mass of the shock table with

wheels was 200 kg. The shock table was fabricated such

that the motion was perpendicular to the plane of the

cross walls (here longer walls), thus causing out-of-

plane vibrations in them (Sivaraja, 2006).

2.2 Construction of Scaled Building Models:

Openings were provided only in cross walls i.e., one

door and one window on the east wall and two windows

on the west wall; Windows were of size 0.30 m 0.45

m and 0.45 m .0.45 m; and Doors were 0.30 m 0.70

m. No openings were provided in shear wall (here

shorter walls). This paper deals only with the study of

out-of-plane (flexural) failure of the longer cross walls

(Balasubramanian, 2005). Slab was 35 mm thick and its

size was 2.10 m 1.10 m. MS welded mesh made with

3 mm rods with spacing at 50 mm center to center was

used as reinforcement for slab. Lintel band was 50 mm

thickness with 4 nos. of 3 mm MS rod as main

reinforcement and 2 mm MS wire at 50 mm c/c as

stirrups.

2.3 Base Impact Test:

The schematic diagram of the test setup with necessary

the instrumentation and vibration measurement was

shown lucidly. The base impact was very much useful

to simulate the effects of lateral ground motions on

building. In this experiment, pendulum impact device

was used for base shock. The input energy was

controlled by varying the height of release (h). The

pendulum weight of 150 kg and 115 kg were used for

models with and without roof slab, respectively. The

chord length of release of pendulum was varied from 30

cm to 75 cm. The weight of hammer was calculated as

10% of the total weight of shock table and masonry

model.

3. Discussion of Test Results:

The amount of energy imparted during each shock was

calculated by knowing the velocity of impact and mass

1882 Energy Comparison of LBW Structures with MRF Structures

of the pendulum i.e., ½mv² where v = (2gh). Figures 9

to 11 shows the failure patterns of models. Figure 12

shows energy comparison of all Models. Figure 13

shows the energy comparison values of LBW and MRF

models. Tables 1 to 5 shows the details of Base Impact

Test conducted on all models, respectively. The remarks

columns in the tables describe the progress of collapse

and failure modes in detail sequentially. The total

energy absorbed by LBW buildings without roof slab

(Model-1A) was 4,304 Nm after 23 impacts. The energy

absorbed by MRF structures without roof slab (Model-

1B) was 8,108 Nm after 40 impacts. The energy

absorbed by the LBW building with roof slab (Model-

2A) was 6,500 Nm after 35 impacts. The energy

absorbed by MRF with a roof slab (Model-2B) was

10,032 Nm after 38 impacts. The Model-1A without

roof slab is less stiff than that of Modei-1B without roof

slab for MRF Structures. For the same velocity in the

impact, the energy capacity in the case of the Model-1B

is 88 per cent higher than that of the Model-1A.

Similarly the energy capacity in the case of the Model-

2B is 54 per cent higher than that of the Model-2A. This

shows that the sustainability of model with MRF

structures under base shock excitation is better than that

LBW structures.

As for failure pattern, there was a diagonal crack on

short wall as shown in Fig. 9 as well as at sill level at

window on the long wall. In the model shown in Fig.

10 there was extensive cracking on all walls. There

were two horizontal cracks on the right segment of

longer walls with the result the walls got displaced

relatively. There was separation of wall at lintel level

on the right segment. Corresponding to the horizontal

wall on the right segment there was also a horizontal

crack on the left segment. On the right side of the door

there was a diagonal crack from the sill of the window

down to the plinth. A diagonal crack was observed on

the right side short wall. The portion of the wall on the

western side of the model was severely damaged with

fragmented segment and the segments were rendered

out of plumb.

4. Conclusions

The experimental investigation has disclosed that

Model-1A without roof slab is less stiff than that of

Model-1B without roof slab for MRF Structures. For

the same velocity of the impact, the energy capacity in

the case of the Model-1B was 88 per cent higher than

that of the Model-1A. Similarly, the energy capacity in

the case of the Model-2B was 54 per cent higher than

that of the Model-2A. This showed that the

sustainability of model with MRF structures under base

shock excitation was better than that LBW structures.

The failure pattern mostly disclosed extensive cracking

of masonry with progressive increase in the number of

impacts. The crack pattern was so severe that the walls

become out-of-plumb and the walls were also

fragmented.

5. Acknowledgement

The authors express their deep gratitude to the

Reviewers Dr. V. Ramaswamy, Professor, Dept. of

Civil Engineering, Adhiparasakthi Engineering College,

Melmaruvathur, Tamils Nadu and Dr. P.N. Ragunath,

Professor, Civil and Strural Engineering, Annamalai

University, Chidambaram, Tamil Nadu for their

valuable comments. Sincere thanks are also due to Prof.

Dr. D.V. Reddy, Editor-in-Chief, International Journal

of Earth Science and Engineering, Suratkal, Karnataka

for his laudable interest in publishing this important

paper.

References

[1] Balasubramanian, R., Saileysh Sivaraja, S., Senthil,

R. and Santhakumar A.R. (2005), “Behaviour of

Masonry Building under base shock vibrations,’

National Symposium on Structural Dynamics,

Random Vibrations and Earthquake Engineering,”

(Ed.) C.S. Manokar and D. Roy, Indian Institute of

Science, Bangalore, India, pp 99-106.

[2] Deodhar, S.V and Patel, A.N., (1996), ”Behaviour

of Brick Masonry in Compression”, Journal of

Structural Engineering, Vol. 22, No. 4, pp. 221-

[3] Patil, K.A. and Achawal, V.G., (2000), “Strength of

Brick Masonry Prisms Using Low Strength Bricks

and Cement Mortar”, Proceedings of 6th Inter-

national Seminar on Structural Masonry for

Developing Countries, Organised by the

Department of Civil Engineering, I.I.Sc.,

Bangalore, 11-13 October, pp. 134-137.

[4] IS: 4326, (1993), ”Bureau of Indian Standards,

New Delhi, India.

[5] IS: 13828 (1996), “Improving Earthquake

Resistance of Low Strength Masonry Buildings –

Guidelines,” Bureau of Indian Standards, New

Delhi, India.

[6] Jagdish K.S., Ragunath S. and Nanjunda Rao K.S.

(2002), ‘Shock Table Studies on Masonry Building

Model with Containment Reinforcement’, Journal

of Structural Engineering, Vol. 29, No.1, pp. 9-17.

[7] Saileysh Sivaraja, S., (2006), “Behaviour of Rat-

trap Bond Masonry Building Under Base Shock

Vibration,” M.S. Dissertation, Anna University,

Chennai, 2006, 54 pp.

[8] Saileysh Sivaraja S, Moses Aranganathan.S and

Thandavamoorthy.T.S, (2012), “Bibliography on

Masonry Structures-Technical Report”, (2012),

Technical Report No. Vol

[9] No:01/Bib/Civil/DrMGRU/2012, Dr MGR

Educational and Research Institute University,

Maduravayal, Chennai, Tamil Nadu, India.pp01-

[10] Thomas, K., (1971), “Structural Brickwork-

Materials and Performance,” The Structural

Engineer, Vol. 49, No. 10, pp. 441 – 450

Figures

Fig. 1-Plan of Model 1A & 2A (LBW)

Fig. 2-Plan of Model 1B & 2B (MRF)

Fig. 3-3D View of Model 1A without slab (LBW)

Fig.4-3D view of Model 2B w/o roof slab (MRF)

Fig. 5-3D View of Model 2A with slab (LBW)

Fig.6-3D view of Model 2B with roof slab (MRF)

Fig. 7 View of pendulum

Fig. 8 Plan view of Shock Table

Fig. 9 Model without slab after 12th

impact

Fig. 10 Model with slab after 22nd

impact

Fig. 11 Model with slab after 23rd

Fig. 12 Energy Comparison Of All Models Of LBW And MRF Structures

Fig. 13 Energy Comparison of LBW Vs MRF Structures (Light Blue cum Green colors shows LBW models & Dark

blue cum Dark pink colors show the MRF models)

Table 1 Model-1a without Roof Slab for LBW Structures

Impact

Velocity of

impact

Energy

Cumulative

Energy

(m/ s2)

(m/s2)

Remarks

1. 0.89 59.40 59.40 10.2 10.32 Pendulum released from 30cm and height

of 4 cm. Mass of Pendulum is 115 kg. No

visible cracks.

2. 1.17 102.66 162.06 9.23 9.63 Pendulum released from 45 cm. and height

of 7 cm. No visible cracks.

3. 1.17 102.66 264.72 7.66 8.11 First crack near right side of door, below

lintel on East Wall.

4. 1.17 102.66 367.38 8.21 8.11 -do-

5. 1.17 102.66 470.04 6.77 7.21 Pendulum released from 45 cm. and the

height of 7 cm. Cracks in roof slab joint on

west wall.

6. 1.17 102.66 572.64 7.45 8.01 -do-

7. 1.66 206.67 779.31 8.91 8.31 Pendulum released from height of 14 cm.

Cracks in roof slab joint on south wall

8. 1.66 206.67 985.98 7.99 8.11 -do-

9. 1.66 206.67 1192.65 8.43 9.11 South side wall crack is widened

10. 1.66 206.67 1399.92 8.93 8.78 -do-

11. 1.66 206.67 1605.99 7.61 7.11 Outward displacement of wall in between

windows on Western side.

12. 1.66 206.67 1812.66 8.32 7.21 -do-

windows on Northern side.

windows on North-West corner side.

15. 1.66 206.67 2432.67 7.66 7.77 All previous cracks much widened north

16. 1.66 206.67 2639.34 8.11 7.88 -do-

17. 1.66 206.67 2846.01 6.99 8.54 All previous cracks much widened

Western side.

18. 1.66 206.67 3052.68 9.12 8.66 All previous cracks much widened north-

west side.

19. 1.66 206.67 3259.35 8.66 7.76 -do-

20. 1.66 206.67 3466.02 7.88 7.21 Outward movement of wall from roof slab

above lintel on Eastern side.

21. 1.66 206.67 3745.38 8.89 8.11 Wall displacement from roof slab on

Western side.

22. 1.93 279.36 4024.74 7.66 7.44 Pendulum released from height is 19 cm,

South East and North East Corners

Severely damaged.

23. 1.93 279.36 4304.10 8.67 8.65 Damage observed and likely to fall.

Table 2 Model-1b without Roof Slab for MRF Structures

Impact No. Velocity of

impact

Energy

Cumulative

energy

(m/s2)

Remarks

1. 0.88 46.46 46.46 8.32 7.21 Pendulum released from 30

cm. and height is 4 cm Mass

of Pendulum is 150 kg

2. 0.88 46.46 92.93 8.12 7.99 No visible cracks

cm. and height is 7 cm.

cm. First crack at window sill

level on west wall.

6. 1.77 187.97 539.62 6.99 8.54 Cracks on shear wall started

and of the pendulum is 16

7. 1.77 187.97 727.59 9.12 8.66 Cracks formed at lintel level

on North wall.

8. 1.77 187.97 915.56 8.66 7.76 In South shear wall diagonal

cracks formed below lintel

level.

9. 1.77 187.97 1103.53 7.88 7.21 -do-

10. 1.77 187.97 1291.05 6.99 8.54 -do-

11. 1.77 187.97 1479.04 9.12 8.66 -do-

12. 1.77 187.97 1667.44 8.66 7.76 -do-

13. 1.93 223.49 1890.93 8.23 8.12 Cracks developed at sill level

of window on West wall.

Height of pendulum is 19 cm.

15. 1.93 223.49 2337.91 8.11 7.88 Multiple minor cracks on east

and west wall.

16. 1.93 223.49 2561.40 6.99 8.54 Crack developed in between

windows on east side

17. 1.93 223.49 2784.89 9.23 9.63 -do-

18. 1.93 223.49 3008.38 7.66 8.11 -do-

19. 1.93 223.49 3231.87 8.21 8.11 Previous cracks are widened

20. 1.93 223.49 3455.36 6.77 7.21 -do-

21. 1.93 223.49 3678.85 9.23 9.63 -do-

22. 1.93 223.49 3902.34 9.23 9.63 -do-

23. 1.93 223.49 4125.83 7.66 8.11 Relative Portion of wall

displaced on East side

24. 1.93 223.49 4349.32 8.21 8.11 -do-

25. 1.93 223.49 4572.81 6.77 7.21 -do-

26. 1.93 223.49 4796.30 8.32 7.21 -do-

27. 1.93 223.49 5220.20 8.12 7.99 Diagonal cracks much

widened on shear walls.

28. 1.93 223.49 5243.69 8.23 8.12 -do-

29. 1.93 223.49 5467.18 7.66 7.77 -do-

30. 1.93 223.49 5690.67 8.11 7.88 -do-

31. 1.93 223.49 5914.16 6.99 8.54 Cracks widened at sill level

of window on west wall.

Height of pendulum is 19 cm.

32. 1.93 223.49 6137.65 9.12 8.66 Pendulum released from

34. 1.93 223.49 6361.14 8.66 7.76 Multiple cracks on East and

West wall. More cracks at

below lintel level on North

35. 2.21 293.05 6584.63 7.88 7.21 -do-

36. 2.21 293.05 6877.68 9.23 9.63 -do-

37. 2.21 293.05 7170.73 9.23 9.63 -do-

38. 2.21 293.05 7463.78 7.66 8.11 Cracks developed above

window on west wall.

39. 2.42 351.38 7756.83 8.21 8.11 Pendulum released from

40. 2.42 351.38 8108.21 6.77 7.21 Multiple cracks on East and

West wall. More cracks at

below lintel level on Northern

41. 2.42 351.38 8459.59 9.23 9.63 Portion of crack formed in

between window on west side

42. 2.42 351.38 8810.97 8.23 8.12 -do-

43. 2.42 351.38 9162.35 7.66 7.77 -do-

44. 2.42 351.38 9513.73 8.11 7.88 -do-

45. 2.42 351.38 9865.11 6.99 8.54 The structures totally

damaged and likely to fall

Table 3 Model-2b with a Roof Slab for LBW Structures

Velocity

impact

Energy

Cumulativ

e energy

(m/s2)

Remarks

1. 0.88 44.52 44.52 10.01 9.89 Pendulum released from 30cm. and

height is 4 cm. Mass of Pendulum is

150 kg. No visible cracks

4. 1.33 101.71 235.27 9.32 8.34 Pendulum released from 45 cm. and

height is 7 cm.

5. 1.33 101.71 336.98 5.78 4.45 Pendulum released from 30 cm. First

crack at window sill level on West wall.

6. 1.77 180.14 517.12 8.78 7.48 Cracks on shear wall started when the

pendulum is 16 cm.

7. 1.77 180.14 697.26 6.89 5.56 Cracks formed at lintel level on North

8. 1.77 180.14 887.40 8.59 7.56 In South shear wall, long diagonal

cracks formed below lintel level.

9. 1.77 180.14 1057.54 9.50 9.21 -do-

10. 1.77 180.14 1237.68 8.50 8.46 --do-

11. 1.77 180.14 1417.82 4.69 5.30 --do-

12. 1.77 180.14 1597.96 7.58 7.81 --do-

13. 1.93 214.18 1812.14 5.50 6.01 Cracks developed at sill level of

window on West wall. Height of

pendulum is 19 cm.

14. 1.93 214.18 2026.32 4.90 5.21 Pendulum released from 75 cm.

15. 1.93 214.18 2240.50 6.40 6.56 Multiple cracks on East wall. More

cracks at below lintel level on Northern

16. 1.93 214.18 2454.68 6.90 7.81 Portion of wall between window on

West side severely damaged

17. 1.93 214.18 2668.86 8.40 8.67 Multiple cracks on East and West wall.

18. 1.93 214.18 2883.04 5.40 6.21 -do-

19. 1.93 214.18 3097.22 6.40 7.21 -do-

20. 1.93 214.18 3311.40 6.30 6.14 More cracks at below lintel level on

Eastern side wall

21. 1.93 214.18 3525.58 7.69 7.25 -do-

22. 1.93 214.18 3739.76 5.59 8.50 -do-

23. 1.93 214.18 3953.94 9.50 10.01 Relative Portion of wall between door

and window displaced on East side,

likely to fall

24. 1.93 214.18 4168.12 5.50 6.50 Diagonal cracks much widened on

shear walls.

25. 1.93 214.18 4382.30 7.40 6.38 -do-

26. 1.93 214.18 4596.48 6.40 9.30 Relative Portion of wall between door

and window displaced on North East

corner side

27. 1.93 214.18 4810.66 8.45 8.40 Diagonal cracks much widened on

shear walls and northwest corner.

28. 1.93 214.18 5024.84 5.38 6.90 -do-

29. 1.93 214.18 5239.02 7.48 3.45 -do-

30. 1.93 214.18 5453.20 8.67 5.55 -do-

31. 1.93 214.18 5667.38 8.45 11.60 All wall side cracks are widened

32. 1.93 214.18 5881.56 9.30 12.50 -do-

33. 1.93 214.18 6095.74 9.30 9.05 -do-

34. 1.93 214.18 6309.92 7.60 9.10 Wall became non functional on Western

side, portion above lintel band intact.

Table 4 Model-2b with a Roof Slab for MRF Structures

Impact

Velocity

of impact

Energy

Cumulative

energy

(m/s2)

Remarks

cm and height of 4cm. Mass

of Pendulum is 115 kg.

2. 1.17 106.08 167.46 8.50 8.46 No visible cracks.

cm and height of 7 cm. No

visible cracks.

4. 1.17 106.08 379.62 7.58 7.81 First crack near right side of

door, below lintel on East

5. 1.17 106.08 485.70 5.50 6.01 -do-

cm. and the height of 7 cm

7. 1.66 213.55 805.33 4.69 5.30 -do-

8. 1.66 213.55 1018.88 7.58 7.81 -do-

9. 1.66 213.55 1232.43 9.50 9.21 All previous cracks much

widened.

10. 1.66 213.55 1445.98 8.50 8.46 -do-

11. 1.66 213.55 1659.33 4.69 5.30 -do-

12. 1.66 213.55 1873.08 7.58 7.81 Cracks in roof slab joint on

West and South wall

13. 1.66 213.55 2086.63 5.50 6.01 -do-

14. 1.66 213.55 2300.18 8.32 7.21 Outward movement of wall

from roof slab above lintel on

North-Eastern side.

15. 1.66 213.55 2513.73 8.12 7.99 Wall displacement from roof

slab on North-West side.

16. 1.66 213.55 2727.28 8.23 8.12 -do-

17. 1.66 213.55 2940.83 7.66 7.77 -do-

18. 1.66 213.55 3154.38 8.11 7.88 -do-

19. 1.66 213.55 3367.89 6.99 8.54 -do-

20. 1.66 213.55 3581.42 9.12 8.66 Cracks are much widened.

21. 1.66 213.55 3794.95 8.66 7.76 -do-

22. 1.93 288.67 4083.62 7.88 7.21 -do-

23. 1.93 288.67 4372.29 9.23 9.63 -do-

24. 1.93 288.67 4660.36 7.66 8.11 -do-

25. 2.16 361.58 5022.54 8.21 8.11 Outward movement of above

lintel on Shear wall side.

slab on South-Western side.

27. 2.16 361.58 5745.70 7.58 7.81 -do-

28. 2.16 361.58 6107.28 9.50 9.21 -do-

29. 2.16 361.58 6468.86 8.50 8.46 -do-

30. 2.16 361.58 6830.44 4.69 5.30 -do-

31. 2.16 361.58 7192.02 7.58 7.81 All previous cracks are much

widened.

32. 2.16 361.58 7553.60 8.23 8.12 -do-

33. 2.16 361.58 7915.18 7.66 7.77 -do-

34. 2.16 361.58 8276.76 8.11 7.88 -do-

35. 2.38 438.99 8715.75 6.99 8.54 -do-

36. 2.38 438.99 9154.74 9.50 9.21 Outward movement on South-

East side.

slab on North-West side.

38. 2.38 438.99 10032.72 4.69 5.30 Structure became non

functional and at failure stage

aPBA: Peak Base Acceleration;

bPRM: Peak Response (Acceleration) of Model

Table 5 Energy Comparisons of LBW and MRF Models

Impact

Cumulative Energy

Model-1A (Without

slab of LBW)

Model-2A (With slab

of LBW)

Model-1B ( Without

slab of MRF)

Model-2B (With slab

of MRF)

1 59.40 44.52 46.46 61.38

5 470.04 336.98 351.65 485.70

10 1399.92 1237.68 1291.05 1445.98

15 2432.67 2240.50 2337.91 2513.73

20 3466.02 3311.40 3455.36 3581.42

23 4304.10 3953.94 4125.83 4372.29

30 - 5453.20 5690.67 6830.44

34 - 6309.92 6361.14 7915.18

38 - - 7463.78 10032.72

40 - - 8108.21 -

45 - - 9865.11 -

Energy Comparison of LBW Structures With MRF Structures

Documents

Sedimentary Structures

Multilayered Structures

Sound radiation from point-excited structures: Comparison of plate and sphere

Coordination structures

Models for Identifying Structures in the Data: A Performance Comparison

Normative structures in Mesopotamian rituals - A comparison of hand-lifting rituals in the second and first millenium BC

Hydraulic Structures

Discrete Mathematical Structures

Tekla Structures glossary

Tekla Structures configurations

Markov Random Fields (MRF)-Based Texture Segmentation for Road Detection

MRF Agent Based Segmentation: Application to MRI Brain Scans

Comparison of High Rate Laser Ablation and Resulting Structures Using Continuous and Pulsed Single Mode Fiber Lasers

Landcover Classification in MRF Context Using Dempster

Novel and de novo PKD1 mutations identified by multiple restriction fragment-single strand conformation polymorphism (MRF-SSCP)

structures standards - FDOT

Modelling of historical masonry structures: comparison of different approaches through a case study

MRF LIMITED, Regd. Office - Amazon AWS

Comparison of DNA- and RNA-based bacterial community structures in soil exposed to 2,4-dichlorophenol

MRF prezentare