Collapse shake-table testing of a clay-URM building with chimneys

  • Stylianos Kallioras
  • António A. Correia
  • Francesco GraziottiEmail author
  • Andrea Penna
  • Guido Magenes
Original Research


This paper discusses the results of a unidirectional shake-table test carried out on a full-scale unreinforced clay-brick masonry building with chimneys. The specimen embodied construction details representative of old detached single-storey houses of the Groningen province in the Netherlands, without any specific seismic-resistant detailing. The house featured a typical Dutch gambrel roof that allowed for living space above the attic floor, with high gables that were vulnerable to out-of-plane excitation. The floor consisted of timber joists and planks, resulting in a flexible diaphragm. Two clay-brick chimneys were included to investigate the performance of falling non-structural masonry elements in earthquakes. A cumulative incremental dynamic test was performed up to collapse conditions, using input ground motions compatible with induced seismicity scenarios for the examined region. The paper summarises the key characteristics of the specimen and the observations from the shake-table tests, illustrating the evolution of the structural and non-structural damage, and the dynamic response of the building. The attainment of significant damage limit states is correlated with experimentally defined engineering demand parameters and ground-motion intensity measures for the performance-based seismic assessment of unreinforced masonry buildings. All data from the tests are available upon request on


Clay-brick chimney Collapse Damage limit states Flexible diaphragm Full-scale shake-table test Gambrel roof Induced seismicity Unreinforced masonry (URM) building 



This work is part of the EUCENTRE Project “Study of the vulnerability of masonry buildings in Groningen”, within the research framework programme on hazard and risk of induced seismicity in the Groningen province, sponsored by the Nederlandse Aardolie Maatschappij BV (NAM). The authors would like to thank all parties involved in this Project: the Dutch construction team of Ronda BV and the local Portuguese carpenters for their diligent work and enthusiasm in building the test house; the technical staff of the Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics Unit of LNEC, who performed the tests; and partners NAM, Arup, and TU Delft for their insight and contributions related to the shake-table test programme. The valuable advice of R. Pinho was essential to the Project and is gratefully acknowledged. Thanks also go to J. Uilenreef, J. Klement-Kroezen, P. X. Candeias, A.I. Marques, V. Bernardo, and L. Grottoli for the practical support.


  1. Arias A (1970) A measure of earthquake intensity. In: Hansen RJ (ed) Seismic design of nuclear power plants, 1st edn. MIT Press, Cambridge, pp 438–483Google Scholar
  2. Baggio C, Bernardini A, Colozza R, Corazza L, Della Bella M, Di Pasquale G, Dolce M, Goretti A, Martinelli A, Orsini G, Papa F, Zuccaro G (2007) Field manual for post-earthquake damage and safety assessment and short term countermeasures (AeDES). JRC research report EUR 22868 EN, European Commission, Joint Research Centre, Institute for the Protection and Security of the Citizen, LuxemburgGoogle 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 (ICOSSAR09), OsakaGoogle Scholar
  4. Bommer JJ, Martinez-Pereira A (1999) The effective duration of earthquake strong motion. J Earthq Eng 3(2):127–172. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bommer JJ, Crowley H, Pinho R (2015a) A risk-mitigation approach to the management of induced seismicity. J Seismol 19(2):623–646. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bommer JJ, Crowley H, Pinho R, Polidoro B (2015b) Selection of acceleration time-series for shake table testing of Groningen masonry building at the EUCENTRE, Pavia. Report on Groningen field seismic hazard and risk assessment project, EUCENTRE, PaviaGoogle 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(3):1721–1738. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Brown D (2018) Tracker 5.0: video analysis and modelling tool. Open source physics. Accessed 12 Oct 2019
  9. Calvi GM (1999) A displacement-based approach for vulnerability evaluation of classes of buildings. J Earthq Eng 3(3):411–438. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Casapulla C, Portioli F (2016) Experimental tests on the limit states of dry-jointed tuff blocks. Mater Struct 49(3):751–767. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Correia AA, Tomassetti U, Campos AC, Penna A, Magenes G, Graziotti F (2018) Collapse shake-table test on a URM-timber roof substructure. In: Proceedings of the 16th European conference on earthquake engineering (ECEE), ThessalonikiGoogle Scholar
  12. Crowley H, Polidoro B, Pinho R, Van Elk J (2017) Framework for developing fragility and consequence models for local personal risk. Earthq Spectra 33(4):1325–1345. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Crowley H, Pinho R, Cavalieri F (2019a) Report on the v6 fragility and consequence models for the Groningen field. Report on Groningen field seismic hazard and risk assessment project, Pavia. Accessed 12 Oct 2019
  14. Crowley H, Pinho R, Van Elk J, Uilenreef J (2019b) Probabilistic damage assessment of buildings due to induced seismicity. Bull Earthq Eng 17(8):4495–4516. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Dost B, Kraaijpoel D (2013) The August 16, 2012 earthquake near Huizinge (Groningen). KNMI technical report, Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute, De Bilt. Accessed 12 Oct 2019
  16. Dost B, Goutbeek T, Van Eck T, Kraaijpoel D (2012) Monitoring induced seismicity in the North of the Netherlands: status report 2010. KNMI scientific report WR 2012-2013, Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute, De BiltGoogle Scholar
  17. Drosos V, Anastasopoulos I (2014) Shaking table testing of multidrum columns and portals. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 43(11):1703–1723. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Electrical Power Research Institute (EPRI) (1988) A criterion for determining exceedance of the operating basis earthquake. EPRI report NP-5930, Electrical Power Research Institute, Palo AltoGoogle Scholar
  19. Esposito R, Messali F, Ravenshorst GJP, Schipper HR, Rots JG (2019) Seismic assessment of a lab-tested two-storey unreinforced masonry Dutch terraced house. Bull Earthq Eng 17(8):4601–4623. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. European Committee for Standardization (CEN) (1998) EN 1052-1: methods of test for masonry—part 1: determination of compressive strength. European Committee for Standardization, BrusselsGoogle Scholar
  21. European Committee for Standardization (CEN) (1999a) EN 1015-11: methods of test for mortar for masonry—part 11: determination of flexural and compressive strength of hardened mortar. European Committee for Standardization, BrusselsGoogle Scholar
  22. European Committee for Standardization (CEN) (1999b) EN 1052-2: methods of test for masonry—part 2: determination of flexural strength. European Committee for Standardization, BrusselsGoogle Scholar
  23. European Committee for Standardization (CEN) (2002) EN 1052-3: methods of test for masonry—part 3: determination of initial shear strength. European Committee for Standardization, BrusselsGoogle Scholar
  24. European Committee for Standardization (CEN) (2005) EN 1052-5: methods of test for masonry—part 5: determination of bond strength by the bond wrench method. European Committee for Standardization, BrusselsGoogle Scholar
  25. European Committee for Standardization (CEN) (2011) EN 772-1: methods of test for masonry units—part 1: determination of compressive strength. European Committee for Standardization, BrusselsGoogle Scholar
  26. Giaretton M, Ingham JM, Dizhur D (2017) Experimental validation of seismic retrofit solutions for URM chimneys. Bull Earthq Eng 16(1):295–313. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Giaretton M, Dizhur D, Ingham JM (2018) Shake table testing of seismically restrained clay-brick masonry parapets. Earthq Spectra 34(1):99–119. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Graziotti F, Rossi A, Mandirola M, Penna A, Magenes G (2016a) Experimental characterisation of calcium-silicate brick masonry for seismic assessment. In: Brick and block masonry and proceedings of the 16th international brick and block masonry conference (IBMAC), Padova. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Graziotti F, Tomassetti U, Penna A, Magenes G (2016b) Out-of-plane shaking table tests on URM single leaf and cavity walls. Eng Struct 125:455–470. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 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):5329–5364. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Graziotti F, Penna A, Magenes G (2019a) A comprehensive in situ and laboratory testing programme supporting seismic risk analysis of URM buildings subjected to induced earthquakes. Bull Earthq Eng 17(8):4575–4599. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Graziotti F, Tomassetti U, Sharma S, Grottoli L, Magenes G (2019b) Experimental response of URM single leaf and cavity walls in out-of-plane two-way bending generated by seismic excitation. Constr Build Mater 195(20):650–670. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 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
  34. Housner GW (1952) Intensity of ground motion during strong earthquakes. Caltech technical report, California Institute of Technology, Pasadena. Accessed 12 Oct 2019
  35. 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. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Kallioras S, Correia AA, Marques A, Bernardo V, Candeias PX, Graziotti F (2018b) LNEC-BUILD-3: experimental investigation of the seismic response of a Dutch detached URM house with chimneys. EUCENTRE technical report EUC203/2018U, EUCENTRE, Pavia. Accessed 12 Oct 2019
  37. Kallioras S, Correia AA, Candeias PX, Campos AC, Graziotti F (2019) Dataset from the dynamic shake-table tests of a full-scale unreinforced clay-masonry building with chimneys. Submitted for publication in data in briefGoogle Scholar
  38. Kempton JJ, Stewart JP (2006) Prediction equations for significant duration of earthquake ground motions considering site and near-source effects. Earthq Spectra 22(4):985–1013. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Kounadis AN (2015) New findings in the rocking instability of one and two rigid block systems under ground motion. Meccanica 50(9):2219–2238. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Lagomarsino S, Cattari S (2015) PERPETUATE guidelines for seismic performance-based assessment of cultural heritage masonry structures. Bull Earthq Eng 13(1):13–47. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 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 Conserv Anal Restor 8(3):349–375. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Ministry of Infrastructures and Transport (MIT) (2018) Norme tecniche per le costruzioni (NTC18). Decreto Ministeriale del 17 gennaio 2018, Supplemento ordinario n. 8 alla Gazzetta Ufficiale n. 42 del 20 febbraio 2018, Ministry of Infrastructures and Transport, Rome (in Italian)Google Scholar
  43. Netherlands Standardization Institute (NEN) (2018) Assessment of structural safety of buildings in case of erection, reconstruction, and disapproval—basic rules for seismic actions: induced earthquakes (NPR 9998). Netherlands Standardization Institute, Delft (in Dutch). The code response spectra are available at Accessed 12 Oct 2019
  44. Pinho R, Malomo D, Brunesi E (2017) Nonlinear dynamic analysis of index buildings for v5 fragility and consequence models. Report on the v5 fragility and consequence models for the Groningen Field, Mosayk, Pavia. Accessed 12 Oct 2019
  45. 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. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Tomassetti U, Correia AA, Candeias PX, Graziotti F, Campos Costa A (2019) Two-way bending out-of-plane collapse of a full-scale URM building tested on a shake-table. Bull Earthq Eng 17(4):2165–2198. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 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. EUCENTRE technical report, EUCENTRE, Pavia. Accessed 12 Oct 2019
  48. Vaculik J, Griffith MC (2018) Out-of-plane shaketable testing of unreinforced masonry walls in two-way bending. Bull Earthq Eng 16(7):2839–2876. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Van Elk J, Bourne SJ, Oates SJ, Bommer JJ, Pinho R, Crowley H (2019) A probabilistic model to evaluate options for mitigating induced seismic risk. Earthq Spectra 35(2):537–564. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Zapico BB, Tondelli M, Jafari S, Graziotti F, Millekamp H, Rots J, Palmieri M (2018) A masonry catalogue for the Groningen region. In: Proceedings of the 16th European conference on earthquake engineering (ECEE), ThessalonikiGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.UME Graduate SchoolIUSS PaviaPaviaItaly
  2. 2.European Centre for Training and Research in Earthquake Engineering (EUCENTRE)PaviaItaly
  3. 3.National Laboratory for Civil Engineering (LNEC)LisbonPortugal
  4. 4.Department of Civil Engineering and Architecture (DICAr)University of PaviaPaviaItaly

Personalised recommendations