Advertisement

Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering

, Volume 15, Issue 12, pp 5329–5364 | Cite as

Shaking table test on a full scale URM cavity wall building

  • F. Graziotti
  • U. Tomassetti
  • S. Kallioras
  • A. Penna
  • G. Magenes
Original Research Paper

Abstract

A shaking table test on a two-storey full scale unreinforced masonry (URM) building was performed at the EUCENTRE laboratory within a comprehensive research programme on the seismic vulnerability of the existing Dutch URM structures. The building specimen was meant to represent the end-unit of a terraced house, built with cavity walls and without any particular seismic design or detailing. Cavity walls are usually composed of an inner loadbearing leaf and an outer leaf having aesthetic and weather-protection functions. In the tested specimen, the loadbearing masonry was composed of calcium silicate bricks, sustaining two reinforced concrete floors. A pitched timber roof was supported by two gable walls. The veneer was made of clay bricks connected to the inner masonry by means of metallic ties, as seen in common construction practice. An incremental dynamic test was carried out up to the near-collapse limit state of the specimen. The input motions were selected to be consistent with the characteristics of induced seismicity ground motions. The article describes the characteristics of the building and presents the results obtained during the material characterization and the shaking table tests, illustrating the response of the structure, the damage mechanism and its evolution during the experimental phases. All the processed data are freely available upon request (see http://www.eucentre.it/nam-project).

Keywords

Shaking table test Full-scale building URM cavity walls Induced seismicity Calcium silicate bricks 

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: DICAr Lab of University of Pavia and EUCENTRE Lab that performed the test, together with NAM, Arup and TU Delft. The useful advices of R. Pinho, are gratefully acknowledged. Thanks go also to H. Crowley, A. Rossi, M. Mandirola, E. Cenja, F. Dacarro, S. Peloso, F. Cuppari and E. Mellia for their support in the different phases of the experimental campaign.

References

  1. 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). European Commission—Joint Research Centre—Institute for the Protection and Security of the Citizen, EUR, 22868Google Scholar
  2. 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. doi: 10.1785/0120140302 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Brincker R, Zhang L, Andersen P (2000) Modal Identification from Ambient Responses using Frequency Domain Decomposition. In: Proceedings on 18th international seminar on modal analysis, San Antonio, TexasGoogle Scholar
  4. Brincker R, Ventura C, Andersen P (2001) Damping estimation by frequency domain decomposition. In: Proceedings of IMAC XIX, the 19th international modal analysis conference, Kissimmee, USAGoogle Scholar
  5. Calvi GM (1999) A displacement-based approach for vulnerability evaluation of classes of buildings. J Earthq Eng 3:411–438Google Scholar
  6. Degée H, Denoel V, Candeias P, 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
  7. EN 1015–11 (1999) European standard: methods of test for mortar for masonry—part 11: determination of flexural and compressive strength of hardened mortar. CEN, BrusselsGoogle Scholar
  8. EN 1052–1, -3, -5 (1998) European standard: methods of test for masonry. CEN, BrusselsGoogle Scholar
  9. EN 772-1 (2000) European standard: methods of test for masonry units—part 1: determination of compressive strength. CEN, BrusselsGoogle Scholar
  10. Esposito R, Messali F, Rots JG (2016) Material characterization of replicated masonry and wall ties. Final report 18 April 2016, Delft University of Technology, Delft, The NetherlandsGoogle Scholar
  11. Eucentre (2015a) Videos of full-scale shaking table test on a URM cavity-wall building model. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h8sZCRUCons&list=PLRDMVFxhFvQm8pxSTPpzHN1AQH0G7sMGk
  12. Eucentre (2015b) Videos of full-scale shaking table test on a URM cavity-wall building model. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1xw2GqIQtTw
  13. Graziotti F, Tomassetti U, Rossi A, Kallioras S, Mandirola M, Cenja E, Penna A, Magenes G (2015) Experimental campaign on cavity-wall systems representative of the Groningen building stock. Technical Report EUC318/2015U, Eucentre, Pavia, Italy. http://www.eucentre.it/project-nam/
  14. Graziotti F, Rossi A, Mandirola M, Penna A, Magenes G (2016a) Experimental characterization of calcium-silicate brick masonry for seismic assessment. In: Brick and block masonry: trends, innovations and challenges—proceedings of the 16th international brick and block masonry conference, IBMAC 2016, pp 1619–1628Google Scholar
  15. 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. doi: 10.1016/j.engstruct.2016.07.011 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Graziotti F, Tomassetti U, Rossi A, Marchesi B, Kallioras S, Mandirola M, Fragomeli A, Mellia E, Peloso S, Cuppari F, Guerrini G, Penna A, Magenes G (2016c) Shaking table tests on a full-scale clay-brick masonry house representative of the Groningen building stock and related characterization tests. Technical Report EUC128/2016U, Eucentre, Pavia, Italy. http://www.eucentre.it/project-nam/
  17. Graziotti F, Penna A, Magenes G (2016d) A nonlinear SDOF model for the simplified evaluation of the displacement demand of low-rise URM buildings. Bull Earthq Eng 14(6):1589. doi: 10.1007/s10518-016-9896-5
  18. Graziotti F, Guerrini G, Kallioras S, Marchesi B, Rossi A, Tomassetti U, Penna A, Magenes G (2017) Shaking table test on a full-scale unreinforced clay masonry building with flexible diaphragms. In: Proceedings of 13th Canadian masonry symposium, Halifax, CanadaGoogle Scholar
  19. Ingham J, Griffith M (2011) Performance of unreinforced masonry buildings during the 2010 Darfield (Christchurch, NZ) earthquake. Aust J Struct Eng 11(3):207–224Google Scholar
  20. Lagomarsino S, Cattari S (2015) PERPETUATE guidelines for seismic performance-based assessment of cultural heritage masonry structures. Bull Earthq Eng 13:13–47. doi: 10.1007/s10518-014-9674-1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Magenes G, Calvi GM (1997) In-plane seismic response of brick masonry walls. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 26:1091–1112CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 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. doi: 10.1080/15583058.2013.826299 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Messali F, Esposito R, Maragna M (2016) Pull-out strength of wall ties. Technical Report, TU Delft, NLGoogle Scholar
  24. NTC08 (2008) Italian National Building Code, Ministero delle Infrastrutture e dei Trasporti, Decreto Ministeriale del 14 gennaio 2008, Supplemento ordinario alla G.U. n. 29 del febbraio 2008Google Scholar
  25. Peralta D, Bracci J, Hueste M (2004) Seismic behavior of wood diaphragms in pre-1950s unreinforced masonry buildings. J Struct Eng 130(12):2040–2050CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 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 3:28–41Google Scholar
  27. 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. Technical Report, Eucentre, Pavia, Italy. http://www.eucentre.it/project-nam/
  28. Wilson A, Quenneville P, Ingham J (2014) In-plane orthotropic behavior of timber floor diaphragms in unreinforced masonry buildings. J Struct Eng 140(1):04013038. doi: 10.1061/(ASCE)ST.1943-541X.0000819 CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2017

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.UME SchoolIUSS PaviaPaviaItaly

Personalised recommendations