Citas bibligráficas
Siapo, B., Gutierrez, K. (2024). Comparación del Sistema Constructivo Emmedue (M2), Muros de Ductilidad Limitada (SMDL) y Albañilería Confinada para Optimizar la Construcción de Vivienda Unifamiliar en el Distrito de San Juan de Lurigancho [Trabajo de Suficiencia Profesional, Universidad Peruana de Ciencias Aplicadas (UPC)]. http://hdl.handle.net/10757/683584
Siapo, B., Gutierrez, K. Comparación del Sistema Constructivo Emmedue (M2), Muros de Ductilidad Limitada (SMDL) y Albañilería Confinada para Optimizar la Construcción de Vivienda Unifamiliar en el Distrito de San Juan de Lurigancho [Trabajo de Suficiencia Profesional]. PE: Universidad Peruana de Ciencias Aplicadas (UPC); 2024. http://hdl.handle.net/10757/683584
@misc{renati/1300661,
title = "Comparación del Sistema Constructivo Emmedue (M2), Muros de Ductilidad Limitada (SMDL) y Albañilería Confinada para Optimizar la Construcción de Vivienda Unifamiliar en el Distrito de San Juan de Lurigancho",
author = "Gutierrez Arcos, Kelvin Guillermo",
publisher = "Universidad Peruana de Ciencias Aplicadas (UPC)",
year = "2024"
}
Our country, Peru, is in a region with high probability of having seismic events, because it is located in the Pacific Ocean Fire Belt, threatening the houses built the system of confined masonry. This is because, in districts forgotten by the government, such as San Juan de Lurigancho, the construction of housing is done empirically, since the resources of the population are limited, ignoring the use of other more optimal building systems, with regard to cost and time, and with good structural performance. The objective of this research is to compare the limited ductility wall systems (LDWS) and Emmedue (M2), with the confined masonry system, to optimize the construction of single-family homes in the district of San Juan de Lurigancho. For this purpose, the plans of all specialties for LDWS and M2 systems were designed based on the confined masonry plans with an area of 36.48 m2. Additionally, 3D models were also developed in the Etabs software to verify that they comply with standard E.030. Then, the total budgets and execution time of each system were obtained. Finally, all systems meet the minimum requirements of E.030, with system M2 having the lowest inelastic distortion. The most optimal system was M2 with a reduction of 30.98% and 67.57% in terms of cost and time respectively, compared to confined masonry.
Este ítem está sujeto a una licencia Creative Commons Licencia Creative Commons