Azamat Valiev
Azamat Valiev

Валиев Азамат Джониевич Azamat Valiev
Ph.D student; Department of Civil Engineering; North Caucasian Institute of Mining and Metallurgy (State Technological University), NCIMM (STU); 2403 VT, The Netherlands, Alphen aan den Rijn, Distelstraat 5; 362021, Republic of North Ossetia - Alania, Vladikavkaz, Nikolaeva st. 44; RISC ID: 1124556


Development of recommendations for the implementation of seismic risk mitigation policy in the Russian Federation based on world experience
Issue: #3-2023
read more

The current state of practice of seismic risk mitigation policy in the following countries is analyzed: Japan, USA, China, Italy and the Russian Federation. In particular, the paper compares seismic retrofit policies for existing buildings and financing mechanisms for comprehensive seismic risk mitigation in the context of each country's regulatory framework. The analysis of the current seismic risk mitigation policy in the Russian Federation leads to the conclusion that it needs serious modernization and reorganization, including: 1) development of a new generation of standards specifying nonlinear analysis methods and 2) development of effective financing mechanisms for the seismic evaluation and seismic modernization of the existing building stock.

            The aim of this paper is to identify best practices in seismic retrofitting policy that may be useful for the implementation and adjustment of seismic risk mitigation policies in the Russian Federation at the federal and regional levels.

            The result of the paper is a set of recommendations based on the most effective seismic risk mitigation policy instruments, grouped according to the key stages of the seismic amplification process:

–   risk assessment of existing buildings;

–   knowledge transfer;

–   setting targets for the seismic modernization;

–   implementation of the seismic strengthening policy;

–   policy implementation monitoring.

Base shear seismic demand comparison for buildings with natural stone walls in Nepal, Russia and Tajikistan
Issue: #6-2022
read more

Introduction: The current norms for construction in seismic areas in the Russian Federation prohibit the construction of buildings with natural stone walls, but for the restoration and reconstruction of historic buildings located in earthquake-prone regions, seismic demand of such structures should be determined. Full base shear seismic demand analyses with calculated examples for heavy stone masonry buildings are not present in the literature.

Materials and methods: To address this shortcoming, analyses and calculations are performed on nominally reinforced natural stone walls house and school designs, as typically built in Nepal. A detailed comparison of the seismic codes of the three countries Nepal, Russian and Tajikistan was carried out.

Results: This paper compares the base shear formulas and the inertia forces distributions of these codes, as well as material densities, seismic weights, seismic zoning, natural periods of vibration, response spectra, importance factors and seismic load combinations. Large differences between approaches and coefficients are observed. Then, by following Equivalent Lateral Force method (ELF) and simplified modal analysis (S-modal) the base shear and story shears are calculated for a design peak ground acceleration of 0.20 g, as well as the effects of critical load combinations on the forces and moments acting on the lateral-resisting elements. Particular attention is paid to possible discrepancies and interpretations of certain provisions of the normative documents of the Russian Federation and Tajikistan. This study also proposes a new terminology to emphasize the differences between two countries: the methods of double (DCA) and of single application (SCA) of the combination coefficients.

Conclusions: Overall, it is observed that heavy-masonry–light-floor systems with negligible diaphragm action behave different under seismic motion than most other building typologies. Given the observations in this paper, the applicability of conventional ELF and S-Modal methods for heavy masonry buildings is questionable. The codes however do not introduce modified approaches that address these differences. The paper ends with an appeal for global collaboration under the research project SMARTnet. Further, the paper aims to start discussions within the Russian community and neighboring countries about possible revisions and improvements of certain inaccuracies and ambiguities in the various norms.