RETROSPECTIVE ANALYSIS OF THE REQUIREMENTS OF REGULATORY DOCUMENTS FOR SEISMIC RESISTANT CONSTRUCTION OF MASONRY BUILDINGS

Abstract

The article presents the results of a retrospective analysis of the building codes for the design of masonry buildings in seismic areas. The main attention is paid to the regulatory documents that were developed from the 1930s. The main regulatory documents that were introduced in Soviet times and their improvement are considered. The approval of regulatory requirements for seismic resistance in Ukraine, the introduction of seismic zoning maps depending on the place of construction. The main part of the paper contains a table comparing the main parameters, criteria and requirements of regulatory documents for the design of masonry buildings in seismic areas. The table can be used to track trends in the increase of requirements for seismicresistant construction both by certain criteria (checking the strength of off-center compression, opening width, the ratio of the width of the partition to the width of the opening, etc. Based on the results of the assessment, the paper describes the possible use of retrospective analysis in the visual assessment of the seismic resistance of masonry buildings. The systematisation of building codes performed in the paper makes it possible to: first, to trace trends in the development of regulatory documents; second, to identify elements that are obviously deficient in seismic resistance; third, to emphasise the list of issues that should be given priority attention during certification. Thus, the year of construction, when compared with the regulatory documents which were valid at the time of construction, makes it possible to make a conclusion about the degree of initial prerequisites and solutions made in the project. The practical interest of this table is that when collecting information as part of the assessment process, based on the date of construction of the building, it is possible to conclude which clauses of the applicable regulatory documents the facility potentially does not comply with.