Advertisement

Two-way bending out-of-plane collapse of a full-scale URM building tested on a shake table

  • Umberto Tomassetti
  • António A. Correia
  • Paulo X. Candeias
  • Francesco GraziottiEmail author
  • Alfredo Campos Costa
Original Research
  • 84 Downloads

Abstract

This paper describes a shake table test on a one-storey full-scale unreinforced masonry structure, which complements an earlier testing of a two-storey structure with similar characteristics. The building specimen was meant to represent the upper floors of the end-unit of a terraced house, built with cavity walls and without any particular seismic design or detailing. In these specimens, the masonry walls were composed of two leaves: a load-bearing inner one made of calcium silicate bricks sustaining a reinforced concrete floor and an external leaf made of clay-bricks connected to the inner leaf by means of metallic ties. A pitched timber roof was supported by two triangular gable walls. Floor acceleration response histories of the previously tested two-storey specimen were used as input motions. An incremental dynamic test, with vertical and horizontal inputs, was carried out up to the explicit collapse of some bearing elements of the structure. In particular, a two-way bending out-of-plane collapse of a load-bearing wall was observed and described.

Keywords

Shake table Out-of-plane Collapse Timber roof Non-structural components Vertical acceleration 

Notes

Acknowledgements

This paper describes an activity that is part of the project entitled “Study of the vulnerability of masonry buildings in Groningen” at EUCENTRE, undertaken within the framework of the research program for hazard and risk of induced seismicity in Groningen sponsored by the Nederlandse Aardolie Maatschappij BV. The authors would like to thank all the parties involved in this project: LNEC Lab and EUCENTRE Lab, together with NAM, Arup and TU Delft. The useful advice of R. Pinho, are gratefully acknowledged. Special thanks, go also to J. Uilenreef, G. Magenes, A. Penna, H. Crowley, A. I. Marques, M. Mandirola, S. Sharma for their support in the different phases of the experimental campaign.

References

  1. Arias A (1970) A measure of earthquake intensity. In: Hansen RJ (ed) Seismic design for nuclear power plants. Massachusetts Inst. of Tech. Press, Cambridge, USA, pp 438–483Google Scholar
  2. AS 3700–2001 (2001) Masonry structures. Australian Standard, Sydney, AustraliaGoogle Scholar
  3. Avenas C, Fusco C, Mooneghi A, Huang Y, Palmieri M, Sturt R (2018) LS-DYNA numerical simulation of full scale masonry cavity wall terraced house tested dynamically. In: 16th European Conference on Earthquake Engineering (ECEE), Thessaloniki, GreeceGoogle Scholar
  4. Beyer K, Tondelli M, Petry S, Peloso S (2015) Dynamic testing of a four-storey building with reinforced concrete and unreinforced masonry walls: prediction, test results and data set. Bull Earthq Eng 13:3015–3064.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10518-015-9752-z CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bianchini M, Diotallevi PP, Baker JW (2009) Prediction of inelastic structural response using an average of spectral accelerations. In: 10th International conference on structural safety and reliability, pp 2164–2171Google Scholar
  6. Blanco BZ, Tondelli M, Jafari S, Graziotti F, Rots J, Palmieri M (2018) A masonry catalogue for the Groningen region. In: 16th ECEE, Thessaloniki, GreeceGoogle Scholar
  7. Bourne SJ, Oates SJ, Bommer JJ, Dost B, Van Elk J, Doornhof D (2015) A Monte Carlo method for probabilistic hazard assessment of induced seismicity due to conventional natural gas production. Bull Seismol Soc Am 105:1721–1738.  https://doi.org/10.1785/0120140302 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Calvi GM (1999) A displacement-based approach for vulnerability evaluation of classes of buildings. J Earthq Eng 3:411–438.  https://doi.org/10.1080/13632469909350353 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. CEN (2005) Eurocode 8—design of structures for earthquake resistance—part 3: assessment and retrofitting of buildings. EN 1998-3:2005, Brussels, BelgiumGoogle Scholar
  10. Correia AA, Tomassetti U, Campos Costa A, Penna A, Magenes G, Graziotti F (2018) Collapse shake-table test on a URM-timber roof structure. In: 16th ECEE, Thessaloniki, GRGoogle Scholar
  11. Crowley H, Polidoro B, Pinho R, van Elk J (2017) Framework for developing fragility and consequence models for local personal risk. Earthq Spectra 33:1325–1345.  https://doi.org/10.1193/083116EQS140M CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Crowley H, Pinho R, van Elk J, Uilenreef J (2018) Probabilistic damage assessment of buildings due to induced seismicity. Bull Earthq Eng.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10518-018-0462-1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Degée H, Denoel V, Candeias PX, Campos Costa A, Coelho E (2008) Experimental investigation on non-engineered masonry houses in low to moderate seismicity areas. In: 14th World conference on earthquake engineering, Beijing, ChinaGoogle Scholar
  14. EN 1015-11 (1999) Methods of test for mortar for masonry—part 11: determination of flexural and compressive strength of hardened mortar. European Standards, CEN/TC, Brussels​, BelgiumGoogle Scholar
  15. EN 1052-1 (1998) Methods of test for masonry—part 1: determination of compressive strength. European Standards, CEN/TC, Brussels​, BelgiumGoogle Scholar
  16. EN 1052-3 (2002) Methods of test for masonry—part 3: determination of initial shear strength. European Standards, CEN/TC, Brussels​, BelgiumGoogle Scholar
  17. EN 1052-5 (2005) Methods of test for masonry—part 5: determination of bond strength by the bond wrench method. European Standards, CEN/TC, Brussels​, BelgiumGoogle Scholar
  18. EN 772–1 (2011) Methods of test for masonry units—part 1: determination of compressive strength. European Standards, CEN/TC, Brussels​, BelgiumGoogle Scholar
  19. Graziotti F, Rossi A, Mandirola M, Penna A, Magenes G (2016a) Experimental characterisation of calcium-silicate brick masonry for seismic assessment. In: Proceedings of the 16th international brick and block masonry conference, Padua, Italy, pp 1619–1627CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Graziotti F, Tomassetti U, Penna A, Magenes G (2016b) Out-of-plane shaking table tests on URM single leaf and cavity walls. Eng Struct.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2016.07.011 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Graziotti F, Tomassetti U, Kallioras S, Penna A, Magenes G (2017) Shaking table test on a full scale URM cavity wall building. Bull Earthq Eng.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10518-017-0185-8 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Graziotti F, Penna A, Magenes G (2018a) A comprehensive in situ and laboratory testing programme supporting seismic risk analysis of URM buildings subjected to induced earthquakes. Bull Earthq Eng.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10518-018-0478-6 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Graziotti F, Tomassetti U, Sharma S, Grottoli L, Magenes G (2018b) Experimental response of URM single leaf and cavity walls in out-of-plane two-way bending generated by seismic excitation. Constr Build Mater.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2018.10.076 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Griffith MC, Vaculik J (2007) Out-of-plane flexural strength of unreinforced clay brick masonry walls. Mason Soc J 25:53–68Google Scholar
  25. Grünthal G (1998) European Macroseismic Scale 1998. European Seismological Commission (ESC)Google Scholar
  26. Housner GW (1952) Intensity of ground motion during strong earthquakes. Technical Report, Calif Inst Technol, USA. https://authors.library.caltech.edu/26481/1/Housner_gw_1952.pdf
  27. Jacobsen L (1930) Steady forced vibrations as influenced by damping. Trans Am Soc Mech Eng 1:169–181Google Scholar
  28. Jafari S, Rots JG, Esposito R, Messali F (2017) Characterizing the material properties of Dutch unreinforced masonry. Procedia Eng 193:250–257.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.proeng.2017.06.211 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Kallioras S, Guerrini G, Tomassetti U, Marchesi B, Penna A, Graziotti F, Magenes G (2018a) Experimental seismic performance of a full-scale unreinforced clay-masonry building with flexible timber diaphragms. Eng Struct 161:231–249.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2018.02.016 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Kallioras S, Correia AA, Marques AI, Candeias PX, Graziotti F (2018b) LNEC-BUILD-3: experimental investigation of the seismic response of a Dutch URM detached house with chimneys, Tech Report. EUCENTRE, Pavia, ItalyGoogle Scholar
  31. Kallioras S, Graziotti F, Penna A (2018c) Numerical assessment of the dynamic response of URM terraced house exposed to induced seismicity. Bull Earthq Eng.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10518-018-0495-5 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Kinovea Software (2011) Kinovea. http://www.kinovea.org/
  33. Lagomarsino S, Cattari S (2015) PERPETUATE guidelines for seismic performance-based assessment of cultural heritage masonry structures. Bull Earthq Eng 13:13–47.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10518-014-9674-1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Magenes G, Calvi GM (1997) In-plane seismic response of brick masonry walls. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 26:1091–1112.  https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1096-9845(199711)26:11<1091::AID-EQE693>3.0.CO;2-6 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Magenes G, Penna A, Senaldi IE, Rota M, Galasco A (2014) Shaking table test of a strengthened full-scale stone masonry building with flexible diaphragms. Int J Archit Herit 8:349–375.  https://doi.org/10.1080/15583058.2013.826299 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Malomo D, Pinho R, Penna A (2018) Using the applied element method for modelling calcium silicate brick masonry subjected to in-plane cyclic loading. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 47:1610–1630.  https://doi.org/10.1002/eqe.3032 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Messali F, Esposito R, Maragna M (2016) Pull-out strength of wall ties. Technical Report, TU Delft, NLGoogle Scholar
  38. Messali F, Ravenshorst G, Esposito R, Rots J (2017) Large-scale testing program for the seismic characterization of Dutch masonry walls. In: Proceedings of the 16th world conference earthquake engineering, Santiago, ChileGoogle Scholar
  39. Nederlands Normalisatie Instituut (NEN) (2017) NEN NPR 9998:2017 Assessment of structural safety of buildings in case of erection, reconstruction and disapproval—basic rules for seismic actions: induced earthquakes, The NetherlandsGoogle Scholar
  40. Rots JG, Messali F, Esposito R, Mariani V, Jafari S (2017) Multi-scale approach towards Groningen masonry and induced seismicity. Key Eng Mater 747:653–661.  https://doi.org/10.4028/www.scientific.net/KEM.747.653 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Sharma S, Tomassetti U, Grottoli L, Graziotti F (2018) Out-of-plane two-way bending shaking table tests on single leaf and cavity walls; technical report: EUC137/2018U. EUCENTRE, Pavia, ItalyGoogle Scholar
  42. Skroumpelou G, Messali F, Esposito R, Rots JG (2018) Mechanical characterization of wall tie connection in cavity walls. In: 10th Australian masonry conference, Sydney, AustraliaGoogle Scholar
  43. Tomassetti U, Correia AA, Graziotti F, Marques AI, Mandirola M, Candeias PX (2017) Collapse shaking table test on a URM cavity wall structure representative of a Dutch terraced house, Tech Report. EUCENTRE, Pavia, ItalyGoogle Scholar
  44. Tomassetti U, Graziotti F, Penna A, Magenes G (2018) Modelling one-way out-of-plane response of single-leaf and cavity walls. Eng Struct 167:241–255.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2018.04.007 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Tomaževič M, Weiss P, Velechovsky T (1991) The influence of rigidity of floors on the seismic behaviour of old stone-masonry buildings. Eur Earthq Eng 5(3):28–41Google Scholar
  46. Tondelli M, Graziotti F, Rossi A, Magenes G (2015) Characterization of masonry materials in the Groningen area by means of in situ and laboratory testing, Tech Report. EUCENTRE, Pavia, ItalyGoogle Scholar
  47. Tondelli M, Beyer K, Dejong M (2016) Influence of boundary conditions on the out-of-plane response of brick masonry walls in buildings with RC slabs. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 45:1337–1356.  https://doi.org/10.1002/eqe.2710 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Willis C (2004) Design of unreinforced masonry walls for out-of-plane loading. PhD Thesis, University of Adelaide, AustraliaGoogle Scholar
  49. Wilson A, Quenneville PJH, Ingham JM (2014) In-plane orthotropic behavior of timber floor diaphragms in unreinforced masonry buildings. J Struct Eng 140:4013038.  https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)ST.1943-541X.0000819 CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Civil Engineering and Architecture – DICArUniversity of PaviaPaviaItaly
  2. 2.European Centre for Training and Research in Earthquake Engineering – EUCENTREPaviaItaly
  3. 3.National Laboratory for Civil Engineering – LNECLisbonPortugal

Personalised recommendations