TARIXIY OBIDALARNI ZILZILALARDAN HIMOYA QILISH VA ULARNING SEYSMIK BARQARORLIGINI OSHIRISH USULLARI
Keywords:
geodezik monitoring, konstruktiv kuchaytirish, minimal aralashuv, seysmik xavfsizlik, gʻishtli devorlar, chekli elementlar modeliAbstract
Tarixiy obidalarning zilzila paytida shikastlanishi nafaqat konstruktiv xavfsizlikni, balki qayta tiklanishi murakkab boʻlgan madaniy qatlamning saqlanishini ham xavf ostiga qoʻyadi. Tadqiqotning maqsadi mavjud konstruktiv tuzilmani imkon qadar kam oʻzgartirgan holda seysmik taʼsirga chidamlilikni oshiradigan kuchaytirish yechimlarini aniqlashdan iborat. Buning uchun geodezik oʻlchash, materiallarning mexanik xossalarini sinovlash, ISO GUM boʻyicha kalibrovka, chekli elementlar usuli va dasturiy sinovlar yagona hisoblash ketma-ketligiga birlashtirildi. Geodezik maʼlumotlar konstruktiv modelning geometrik asosi sifatida qabul qilindi, sinov natijalari esa material parametrlarini belgilashda ishlatildi. Uchta kuchaytirish varianti siljish, kuchlanish va deformatsiya mezonlari boʻyicha taqqoslandi. Dasturiy sinovlarda eng maqbul yechim asosiy siljishni 51,6 foizga, kuchlanishning kritik qiymatini 31,1 foizga, deformatsiya amplitudasini 47,4 foizga kamaytirdi; oʻlchash va hisoblash natijalari oʻrtasidagi tafovut 3,8 foizdan oshmadi. Muhokama konstruktiv samaradorlikni minimal aralashuv talabi bilan birgalikda baholash zarurligini koʻrsatdi. 07-85 hamda seysmik talablar asosida metrologik attestatsiya va simulyatsiya validatsiyasini kuchaytirish tavsiya etiladi. Ilmiy hissa kuchaytirish variantlarini tanlash uchun geodezik nazorat, material sinovi va chekli elementlar modelini bogʻlaydigan amaliy baholash sxemasining ishlab chiqilganidadir; u merosni asrash va konstruktiv xavfsizlikni muvozanatlashtiradi.
References
1. ICOMOS. Principles for the Analysis, Conservation and Structural Restoration of Architectural Heritage [Electronic resource]. — Paris: ICOMOS, 2003. — 6 p. — URL: https://www.icomos.org/charters/structures_e.pdf (murojaat sanasi: 08.03.2025).
2. Lourenço P.B. Recommendations for restoration of ancient buildings and the survival of a masonry building // Construction and Building Materials. — 2006. — Vol. 20. — № 4. — P. 239–251. — DOI: 10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2005.08.026.
3. Oʻzbekiston Respublikasi Vazirlar Mahkamasi. Moddiy madaniy merosning koʻchmas mulk obyektlarini muhofaza qilish va ulardan foydalanish toʻgʻrisidagi nizom [Elektron resurs]. — Toshkent, 2019. — 24 b. — URL: https://lex.uz/docs/4237483 (murojaat sanasi: 08.03.2025).
4. Magenes G., Calvi G.M. In-plane seismic response of brick masonry walls // Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics. — 1997. — Vol. 26. — № 11. — P. 1091–1112. — DOI: 10.1002/(SICI)1096-9845(199711)26:11<1091::AID-EQE693>3.0.CO;2-6.
5. Rota M., Penna A., Strobbia C.L. Processing Italian damage data to assess buildings' seismic vulnerability // Journal of Earthquake Engineering. — 2010. — Vol. 14. — № 3. — P. 368–385. — DOI: 10.1080/13632460903093872.
6. D'Ayala D., Speranza E. Definition of collapse mechanisms and seismic vulnerability of historic masonry buildings // Earthquake Spectra. — 2003. — Vol. 19. — № 3. — P. 479–509. — DOI: 10.1193/1.1599890.
7. De Matteis G., Brando G., Corlito V. Seismic vulnerability assessment of masonry churches: a review of methods and applications // Buildings. — 2022. — Vol. 12. — № 10. — Article 1645. — DOI: 10.3390/buildings12101645.
8. Lagomarsino S., Podestà S. Damage and vulnerability assessment of churches after the 2002 Molise earthquake // Earthquake Spectra. — 2004. — Vol. 20. — № 2. — P. 271–283. — DOI: 10.1193/1.1737735.
9. Valluzzi M.R., Porto F., Modena C. Behavior and modeling of strengthened masonry walls // Structural Analysis of Historical Constructions. — 2005. — Vol. 1. — P. 1–12. — DOI: 10.1201/9781439833467.
10. Formisano A., Florio G., Landolfo R., Mazzolani F.M. Numerical calibration of a simplified procedure for the seismic behaviour assessment of masonry building aggregates // Advances in Engineering Software. — 2015. — Vol. 80. — P. 116–138. — DOI: 10.1016/j.advengsoft.2014.09.013.
11. Cattari S., Lagomarsino S. Seismic assessment of mixed masonry–reinforced concrete buildings by nonlinear static analyses // Earthquake and Structures. — 2013. — Vol. 4. — № 3. — P. 241–264. — DOI: 10.12989/eas.2013.4.3.241.
12. Sorrentino L., D'Ayala D., de Felice G., Griffith M.C., Lagomarsino S., Magenes G. Review of the 2016 central Italy earthquake sequence and lessons learned // Earthquake Spectra. — 2018. — Vol. 34. — № 4. — P. 1547–1572. — DOI: 10.1193/081017EQS156M.
13. UNESCO. Recommendation on the Historic Urban Landscape [Electronic resource]. — Paris: UNESCO, 2011. — 6 p. — URL: https://whc.unesco.org/en/hul/ (murojaat sanasi: 08.03.2025).
14. Kouris L.A.S., Kappos A.J. Detailed and simplified non-linear models for timber-framed masonry buildings // Journal of Earthquake Engineering. — 2012. — Vol. 16. — № 1. — P. 1–31. — DOI: 10.1080/13632469.2011.609049.
15. Kouris L.A.S., Penna A., Magenes G. Seismic design of masonry buildings: a review of current practice and research needs // Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering. — 2021. — Vol. 19. — P. 1–35. — DOI: 10.1007/s10518-020-00972-7.
