Seismic Risk Assessment of Historic House of Kalantar According to Ialian Guideline

The importance of seismic vulnerability of historic buildings in Tabriz and the high seismic risk in this region, such as the recent Turkmenchay earthquake in 2019 (5.5 magnitude earthquake), justifies the study of seismic vulnerability of historical buildings based on a principled method specific to historical buildings. Since there is no guideline in Iran to assess the seismic vulnerability of historic buildings, therefore, the present study has aimed to evaluate the seismic vulnerability assessment of the Kalantar historic house in Ultimate Limit State (SLU) and Damage Limit State (SLD) based on the Level1 and Level3 of Italian guidelines for historical monuments (DPCM, 2005), by emphasizing on the reliability and the limits of the simplified mechanical model (Level 1). The first level of evaluation (LV1), is oriented to highlight, on a regional scale, critical situations in terms of seismic vulnerability and to provide a classification of risk and a priority list for further investigations aimed at the conservation of the architectural heritage. Adopting a force-based approach, this level relies on a simplified structural model that requires integrating a limited number of geometrical and mechanical parameters with qualitative data derived from visual tests, construction features, and stratigraphic surveys. The LV3 is based on the global structural response of the building in order to define the values of acceleration leading the structure to each limit-state. In this case, the displacement-based approach is adopted, for which the global behavior is governed by the in-plane capacity of the walls discretized in panels where the nonlinear response is concentrated. The seismic safety is evaluated for each level by an index summarizing the comparison between the expected seismic demand and the seismic capacity. It is worth noting that LV1 and LV3 are based on simple and accurate global models, respectively, which are both represented by the combined effect of floor diaphragms and the in-plane response of structural walls, so, it may be concluded that they are directly comparable.