You are on page 1of 12

STRUCTURAL EVALUATION OF

TRADITIONAL ROMANIAN
CHURCHES
ing. Constantin-Flavian GAFIA

coord. teacher: conf. univ. dr. ing Petru MIHAI


SUMMARY

CHAPTER 1: Architecture and Principles of Design Used for Masonry Orthodox Churches

CHAPTER 2: Bricks and Mortars Used for Masonry Structures

CHAPTER 3 Case-Study: Existing Cross-Shape Church Masonry


Structural response of existing traditional church with various geometrical characteristics
CHAPTER 1 ARCHITECTURE AND PRINCIPLES OF DESIGN USED
FOR MASONRY ORTHODOX CHURCHES

Architectural church styles on Romanian teritory


Basilicas architectural style Byzantine architectural style

Wooden Church loc. Rzoare, county Maramure - 1875 Curtea de Arge Monastery, city Curtea de Arge - 1515

.
CHAPTER 1

PRINCIPLES OF DESIGN OF MASONRY CHURCH STRUCTURES


Church structures have a complex design compound of many structural elements
like large panel walls, arches, vaults, domes, towers a.s.o

Using of confined or unreinforced loadbearing masonry systems

Churches show the absence of box behaviour with the consequent partial collapse
possibility so good connections between structural elements must be provided

Using of large wall cross-sections and small openings

The ceilings (vaults) are placed at a higher level than other constructions
CHAPTER 2

Variation law of design strength used according to CR 6


Variation law of design strength used until 2006
design code

The values used in design practice are similar to the ones provided by STAS 10109/1-
82 standard and the ones calculated based on CR 6 code
CHAPTER 3
Case-study: existing cross-shape church masonry

Structure Geometry

Planar View Perespective


CHAPTER 3
Structural response of existing traditional church with various geometrical characteristics

The study was conducted for optimizing wall thicknessess in order to


establish if traditional design concepts are structurally relevant

Elements
STRUCTURE 3
STRUCTURE 1 STRUCTURE 2
Existing structure

Walls
40 cm 50 cm 60 cm
Columns
40x40 cm 50x50 cm 40x40 cm
Beams
40x30 cm 50x30 cm 60x30 cm
CHAPTER 3
MODAL ANALYSIS Dynamic Characteristics

Period Relative Mass Ux Relative Mass Uy TOTAL MASS Ux Uy (kg)


T (s) (%) (%)

0,19 62,43 0,00


0,17 0,02 67,92
850742,55
0,16 0,62 8,96
0,16 20,80 0,16

Period Relative Mass Ux Relative Mass Uy TOTAL MASS Ux Uy (kg)


T (s) (%) (%)
0,18 62,54 0,01
0,16 0,02 70,42
982744,57
0,15 19,93 0,11
0,15 0,13 6,84

Period Relative Mass Ux Relative Mass Uy TOTAL MASS Ux Uy


T (s) (%) (%) (t)
0,18 59,68 0,00
0,16 0,01 71,26
1115
0,15 21,83 0,09
0,15 0,21 5,66
CHAPTER 3
MODAL ANALYSIS Dynamic Characteristics

Deformed shape from accidental combination on y direction

Deformed shape from accidental combination on x direction


CHAPTER 3

Fundamental Period Chart Mass Chart


Fundamental Period 1200

0.200
1000
0.180
0.160 800
PERIOD [S]

0.140

MASS [T]
0.120 600
1115
0.100 983 Mass
0.188 0.181 0.178
0.080 400 851
0.060
0.040 200
0.020
0.000 0
1 2 3 1 2 3
STRUCTURES STRUCTURES

It results from these charts that incresing the walls cross-section does
not have a major influence over the fundamental period of the structures
CHAPTER 3

The influence of the type of FORCE CHART


VON-MISSES STRESS [MPA]

analysis on the results 2500

1.00
0.90 2000

Seismic Force [kN]


0.80
0.70 1500
0.60
0.50 2174
0.40 0.85 0.92 0.85 0.82 P100 1000 1980 Seismic Force
0.74 0.69 1718
0.30 TH
0.20 500
0.10
0.00
1 2 3 0
1 2 3
STRUCTURES
STRUCTURES

Even if the mass increase and so the seismic force the added cross-sections off the walls will sustain the
excess of the forces. But the stresses will not decrease in a linear way because of the type of materials and
type of the structure.

The time-history analysis show increased values of stresses because the computation is conducted with the
NS component of Vrancea earthquake from 1977. In P100-1/2013 the seismic force is reduced with the
behavior factor which in our case is 2.00.
CHAPTER 3

SEISMIC ASSURANCE CHART


1.00
0.90
0.80
0.70
0.60

R3
0.50
0.40 R3
0.63 0.68
0.30 0.61
0.20
0.10
0.00
1 2 3
STRUCTURES

The differences are small even if 50 % of wall thickness is added. This means that the added material
doesnt have great impact on the seismic safety. It is better to keep the structure more flexible with
optimum cross-section of the wall.

You might also like