Advertisement

Experimental seismic performance of a half-scale stone masonry building aggregate

  • Ilaria E. SenaldiEmail author
  • Gabriele Guerrini
  • Paolo Comini
  • Francesco Graziotti
  • Andrea Penna
  • Katrin Beyer
  • Guido Magenes
S.I. : 10th IMC conference
  • 30 Downloads

Abstract

This paper focuses on the unidirectional dynamic shake-table test performed on a prototype of a natural stone masonry building aggregate. The half-scale prototype was designed to reproduce the features of existing unreinforced stone masonry building aggregates, typical of the historical centres in many European cities, including the city of Basel, Switzerland. The three-storey-high aggregate prototype consisted of two weakly connected structural units, with double-leaf undressed stone masonry walls incorporating a limited percentage of river pebbles. The specimen included flexible timber floor diaphragms and side-gabled timber roofs with different heights above the two units. Scaling the material mechanical properties of the specimen was necessary to satisfy similitude relationships without altering accelerations and material densities. An incremental, unidirectional dynamic test was performed up to near-collapse conditions of the prototype, using input ground motions selected to be compatible with realistic seismic scenarios for the region of Basel. This paper summarizes the main characteristics of the specimen and illustrates the evolution of its dynamic response and damage mechanisms.

Keywords

Unreinforced masonry (URM) building Half-scale shake-table test Seismic performance Natural stone masonry Flexible diaphragm Building aggregate 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The work presented is part of the research project “Seismic assessment of natural stone masonry buildings in Basel—A research and training project”, jointly carried by the École Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne and the University of Pavia, which was supported by the Swiss Federal Office for the Environment and the Construction Department of the Canton Basel-Stadt. The authors would like to thank Mapei S.p.a. for its support to the project. The help provided during the tests by M. Caruso, F. Dacarro, S. Girello, L. Grottoli, M. Mandirola, B. Marchesi and U. Tomassetti is gratefully acknowledged. Any opinions, finding and conclusions expressed in this paper are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the sponsors.

References

  1. Arias A (1970) A measure of earthquake intensity. In: Hansen RJ (ed) Seismic design of nuclear power plants. MIT Press, Cambridge, pp 438–483Google Scholar
  2. Benedetti D, Carydis P, Pezzoli P (1998) Shaking table test on 24 masonry buildings. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 27(1):67–90Google Scholar
  3. Bianchini M, Diotallevi P, Baker JW (2009) Prediction of inelastic structural response using an average of spectral accelerations. In: Proceedings of the 10th international conference on structural safety and reliability, Osaka, JapanGoogle Scholar
  4. Bradley BA (2011) Correlation of significant duration with amplitude and cumulative intensity measures and its use in ground motion selection. J Earthq Eng 15(6):809–832Google Scholar
  5. Brando G, De Matteis G, Spacone E (2017) Predictive model for the seismic vulnerability assessment of small historic centres: application to the inner Abruzzi Region in Italy. Eng Struct 153:81–96Google Scholar
  6. Buckingham E (1914) On physically similar systems; illustrations of the use of dimensional equations. Phys Rev 4:345–376Google Scholar
  7. Calvi GM (1999) A displacement-based approach for vulnerability evaluation of classes of buildings. J Earthq Eng 3:411–438Google Scholar
  8. Carocci CF (2012) Small centres damaged by 2009 L’Aquila earthquake: on site analyses of historical masonry aggregates. Bull Earthq Eng 10(1):45–71Google Scholar
  9. Coutinho CP, Baptista AJ, Rodrigues JD (2016) Reduced scale models based on similitude theory: a review up to 2015. Eng Struct 119:81–94Google Scholar
  10. Croci G, Viskovic A, Herzalla A, Erdik M, Akdoğan M, de Canio G, Antonelli L (2010) Seismic assessment by numerical analyses and shaking table tests for complex masonry structures: the Hagia Irene case study. Adv Mater Res 133:777–782Google Scholar
  11. da Porto F, Munari M, Prota A, Modena C (2013) Analysis and repair of clustered buildings: case study of a block in the historic city centre of L’Aquila (Central Italy). Constr Build Mater 38:1221–1237Google Scholar
  12. Eads L, Miranda E, Lignos D (2015) Average spectral acceleration as an intensity measure for collapse risk assessment. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 44(12):2057–2073Google Scholar
  13. EN 1015–11 (1999) Methods of test for mortar for masonry—Part 11: Determination of flexural and compressive strength of hardened mortar. European Committee for Standardization, BrusselsGoogle Scholar
  14. EN 1998–1, Eurocode 8 (2004) Design of structures for earthquake resistance. European Committee for Standardization, BrusselsGoogle Scholar
  15. Fäh D, Huggenberger P (2006) Erdbebenmikrozonierung am Südlichen Oberrhein. Zusammenfassung für das Projektgebiet Gebiet in der Schweiz. Report. Available from the authors upon request (in German) Google Scholar
  16. Fäh D, Wenk T (2009) Mikrozonierung für die Kantone Basel Stadt und Basel Landschaft, Optimierung der Form der Antwortspektren und der Anzahl der Mikrozonen. Report, Swiss Seismological Service, ETH, Zurich, Switzerland (in German) Google Scholar
  17. Fäh D, Gisler M, Jaggi B, Kästli P, Lutz T, Masciadri V, Matt C, Mayer-Rosa D, Rippmann D, Schwartz-Zanetti G, Tauber J, Wenk T (2009) The 1356 Basel earthquake: an interdisciplinary revision. Geophys J Int 178(1):351–374Google Scholar
  18. Fiorentino G, Forte A, Pagano E, Sabetta F, Baggio C, Lavorato D et al (2018) Damage patterns in the town of Amatrice after August 24th 2016 Central Italy earthquakes. Bull Earthq Eng 16(3):1399–1423Google Scholar
  19. Formisano A (2017) Theoretical and numerical seismic analysis of masonry building aggregates: case studies in San Pio Delle Camere (L’Aquila, Italy). J Earthq Eng 21(2):227–245Google Scholar
  20. Formisano A, Florio G, Landolfo R, Mazzolani FM (2015) Numerical calibration of an easy method for seismic behaviour assessment on large scale of masonry building aggregates. Adv Eng Softw 80:116–138Google Scholar
  21. Fragomeli A, Galasco A, Graziotti F, Guerrini G, Kallioras S, Magenes G et al (2017) Comportamento degli edifici in muratura nella sequenza sismica dell’Italia centrale del 2016-Parte 1: Quadro generale. Progettazione Sismica 2:49–78 (in Italian) Google Scholar
  22. Fragomeli A, Galasco A, Graziotti F, Guerrini G, Kallioras S, Magenes G et al (2018) Comportamento degli edifici in muratura nella sequenza sismica dell’Italia centrale del 2016-Parte 2: Esempi di centri colpiti. Progettazione Sismica 3:75–104 (in Italian) Google Scholar
  23. Graziotti F, Penna A, Magenes G (2016) A nonlinear SDOF model for the simplified evaluation of the displacement demand of low-rise URM buildings. Bull Earthq Eng 14(6):1589–1612Google Scholar
  24. 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 15(12):5329–5364Google Scholar
  25. Grünthal G (ed) (1998) European Macroseismic Scale 1998 (EMS-98). Cahiers du Centre Européen de Géodynamique et de Séismologie 15. Centre Européen de Géodynamique et de Séismologie, LuxembourgGoogle Scholar
  26. Guerrini G, Senaldi I, Scherini S, Morganti S, Magenes G, Beyer K, Penna A (2017) Material characterization for the shaking-table test of the scaled prototype of a stone masonry building aggregate. In: Proceedings of the 17th ANIDIS conference, Pistoia, ItalyGoogle Scholar
  27. Hancock J, Bommer JJ (2006) A state-of-knowledge review of the influence of strong-motion duration on structural damage. Earthq Spectra 22(3):827–845Google Scholar
  28. Housner GW (1952) Intensity of ground motion during strong earthquakes. Report, California Institute of Technology, California, United States. Available at http://authors.library.caltech.edu. Accessed 1 Nov 2018
  29. Kallioras S, Guerrini G, Tomassetti U, Marchesi B, Penna A, Graziotti F, Magenes G (2018) Experimental seismic performance of a full-scale unreinforced clay-masonry building with flexible timber diaphragms. Eng Struct 161:231–249Google Scholar
  30. Lagomarsino S, Cattari S (2015) PERPETUATE guidelines for seismic performance-based assessment of cultural heritage masonry structures. Bull Earthq Eng 13(1):13–47.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10518-014-9674-1 Google Scholar
  31. Lutz T, Wesselkamp G (2005) Dächer der Stadt Basel. Basler Denkmalpflege, Basel. ISBN 3-9522166-0-7Google Scholar
  32. Magenes G, Penna A, Galasco A (2010) A full-scale shaking table test on a two-storey stone masonry building. In: Proceedings of the 14th European conference on earthquake engineering, Ohrid, Republic of MacedoniaGoogle Scholar
  33. 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(3):349–375Google Scholar
  34. Maio R, Vicente R, Formisano A, Varum H (2015) Seismic vulnerability of building aggregates through hybrid and indirect assessment techniques. Bull Earthq Eng 13(10):2995–3014Google Scholar
  35. Mazzon N, Chavez CM, Valluzzi MR, Casarin F, Modena C (2010) Shaking table tests on multi-leaf stone masonry structures: analysis of stiffness decay. Adv Mater Res 133:647–652Google Scholar
  36. Moncarz PD, Krawinkler H (1981) Theory and application of experimental model analysis in earthquake engineering, vol 50. Stanford University, CaliforniaGoogle Scholar
  37. Moss RES, Crosariol VA (2013) Scale model shake table testing of an underground tunnel cross section in soft clay. Earthq Spectra 29(4):1413–1440Google Scholar
  38. Mouzakis C, Adami CE, Karapitta L, Vintzileou E (2018) Seismic behaviour of timber-laced stone masonry buildings before and after interventions: shaking table tests on a two-storey masonry model. Bull Earthq Eng 16(2):803–829Google Scholar
  39. Ripperger J, Kästli P, Fäh D, Giardini D (2009) Ground motion and macroseismic intensities of a seismic event related to geothermal reservoir stimulation below the city of Basel - observations and modelling. Geophys J Int 179(3):1757–1771Google Scholar
  40. SED (2018) Basel 1356. Swiss Seismological Service. ETH, Zurich, Switzerland. Available at http://www.seismo.ethz.ch/it/knowledge/earthquake-country-switzerland/historical-earthquakes/basel-1356/. Accessed 1 Nov 2018
  41. Senaldi IE, Magenes G, Penna A (2010) Numerical investigations on the seismic response of masonry building aggregates. Adv Mater Res 133:715–720Google Scholar
  42. Senaldi IE, Magenes G, Penna A, Galasco A, Rota M (2014) The effect of stiffened floor and roof diaphragms on the experimental seismic response of a full-scale unreinforced stone masonry building. J Earthq Eng 18(3):407–443Google Scholar
  43. Senaldi I, Guerrini G, Scherini S, Morganti S, Magenes G, Beyer K, Penna (2018) A Natural stone masonry characterization for the shaking-table test of a scaled building specimen. In: Proceedings of the 10th international masonry conference, Milan, ItalyGoogle Scholar
  44. Sextos A, De Risi R, Pagliaroli A, Foti S, Passeri F, Ausilio E et al (2018) Local site effects and incremental damage of buildings during the 2016 Central Italy earthquake sequence. Earthq Spectra 34(4):1639–1669Google Scholar
  45. SIA 261:2014 (2014) Einwirkungen auf Tragwerke. Swiss Society of Engineers and Architects, Zurich (in German) Google Scholar
  46. Sorrentino L, Cattari S, da Porto F, Magenes G, Penna A (2018) Seismic behaviour of ordinary masonry buildings during the 2016 central Italy earthquakes. Bull Earthq Eng.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10518-018-0370-4 Google Scholar
  47. Sullivan TJ, Pinho R, Pavese a (2004) An introduction to structural testing techniques in earthquake engineering. Educational Report ROSE–2004/01, vol 1, IUSS PressGoogle Scholar
  48. Tomaževic M, Weiss P, Velechovsky T (1991) The influence of rigidity of floors on the seismic behaviour of old stone-masonry buildings. Eur Earthq Eng 3:28–41Google Scholar
  49. Travasarou T, Bray JD, Abrahamson NA (2003) Empirical attenuation relationship for Arias intensity. J Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 32(7):1133–1155Google Scholar
  50. Vicon Motion Systems (2016) Vicon Nexus user guide. Centennial, Colorado, United States. Available at https://www.vicon.com. Accessed 1 Nov 2018
  51. Vintzileou E, Mouzakis C, Adami CE, Karapitta L (2015) Seismic behavior of three-leaf stone masonry buildings before and after interventions: shaking table tests on a two-storey masonry model. Bull Earthq Eng 13(10):3107–3133Google Scholar
  52. Wenk T, Fäh D (2012) Seismic microzonation of the Basel area. In: Proceedings of the 15th world conference on earthquake engineering, Lisbon, PortugalGoogle Scholar
  53. Wiemer S, Danciu L, Edwards B, Marti M, Fäh D, Hiemer S, Wössner J, Cauzzi C, Kästli P, Kremer K (2016) Seismic Hazard Model 2015 for Switzerland (SUIhaz2015). Report, Swiss Seismological Service, ETH, Zurich, SwitzerlandGoogle Scholar
  54. Zheng D, Liu FZ, Ju NP, Frost JD, Huang RQ (2016) Cyclic load testing of pre-stressed rock anchors for slope stabilization. J Mt Sci 13(1):126–136Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Civil Engineering and Architecture (DICAr)University of PaviaPaviaItaly
  2. 2.European Centre for Training and Research in Earthquake Engineering (EUCENTRE)PaviaItaly
  3. 3.Ècole Politechnique de LausanneLausanneSwitzerland

Personalised recommendations