Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering

, Volume 16, Issue 10, pp 4761–4796 | Cite as

Cyclic testing and analysis of a full-scale cast-in-place reinforced concrete wall-slab-wall structure

  • E. Brunesi
  • S. Peloso
  • R. Pinho
  • R. Nascimbene
Original Research Paper


The phenomena of induced seismicity have recently become of increasing interest for public/private authorities and stakeholders due to the impact that some of these low-intensity earthquakes might have on the built environment of regions that were not historically prone to hazard from natural seismicity. This has led to the deployment of experimental campaigns aimed at investigating and assessing the seismic response of existing structures in such now-seismically active regions, which were typically built without any particular seismic design and/or detailing criteria. A pseudostatic cyclic test on a full-scale one-storey two-bay cast-in-place reinforced concrete (RC) wall-slab-wall structure, representative of a building typology that is a very common form of housing in the Netherlands, was thus carried out. The test specimen was designed according to Dutch building practice and tried to combine several common characteristics as well as customary detailing of multi-unit cast-in-place RC terraced houses, which, together with precast ones, constitute the vast majority of the Groningen RC building stock. The present paper describes the main features of the building mock-up and discusses the foremost results obtained by the testing, which was performed in a bi-directional fashion and was therefore meant to address several open questions regarding the seismic behaviour/performance of this specific structural typology in both longitudinal/weak and transverse/strong directions. Hysteretic response curves of the specimen and key parts of it are provided, along with a discussion of the building damage evolution during the phases of testing, showing how rocking of walls around their base was the dominating response mechanism for both directions of loading. Issues of strength degradation and energy dissipation were also addressed, illustrating the main trends observed with the changing of imposed drift level as well as with the number of applied cycles for a given drift amplitude. Finally, a simple yet reliable fibre-based finite element model was developed, with a view to allow the readily assessment of the seismic response of structures of this type; feasibility and limitations of such numerical model were evaluated through comparison with the obtained test data.


Cyclic testing Pseudostatic testing Cast-in-place structure Wall-slab-wall structure Tunnel construction Lightly reinforced wall Induced seismicity Fibre modelling 



This paper describes an activity that is part of the project entitled “Experimental campaign on RC buildings typical of the Groningen region”. The project, carried out at Eucentre, was undertaken within the framework of the research programme 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: including the experimental laboratories of Eucentre and of the Civil Engineering Department at the University of Pavia that performed the tests, together with NAM, Arup and TU Delft. We also acknowledge Jeroen Uilenreef, Filippo Dacarro and Alberto Pavese for their support and feedback in the different phases of the experimental campaign. Finally, we are grateful to Giulia Fagà for her valuable support with figure editing.


  1. Arup (2017) EUC-BUILD-3 Prototype building description. Report n. 229746_031_NOT2007_Rev0.06_Issue, Amsterdam. Accessed Dec 2017
  2. Bommer JJ, Crowley H, Pinho R (2015) A risk-mitigation approach to the management of induced seismicity. J Seismol 19(2):623–646CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 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):1721–1738CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bruggi M (2009) Generating strut-and-tie patterns for reinforced concrete structures using topology optimization. Comput Struct 87(23–24):1483–1495CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Brunesi E, Nascimbene R (2017a) Experimental and numerical investigation of the seismic response of precast wall connections. Bull Earthq Eng 15(12):5511–5550CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Brunesi E, Nascimbene R (2017b) Numerical modelling and analysis of a full-scale reinforced concrete wall-slab-wall structure representative of the Groningen building stock. Report EUC096/2017U. EUCENTRE, Pavia. Accessed Dec 2017
  7. Brunesi E, Nascimbene R, Pavese A (2016) Mechanical model for seismic response assessment of lightly reinforced concrete walls. Earthq Struct 11(3):461–481CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Brunesi E, Peloso S, Pinho R, Nascimbene R (2017a) Cyclic testing of a full-scale cast-in-place reinforced concrete wall-slab-wall structure representative of the Groningen building stock. Report EUC095/2017U. EUCENTRE, Pavia. Accessed Dec 2017
  9. Brunesi E, Peloso S, Pinho R, Nascimbene R (2017b) Cyclic testing of a full-scale two-storey RC precast wall-slab-wall structure representative of the Groningen building stock. Report EUC173/2017U. EUCENTRE, Pavia. Accessed Dec 2017
  10. Brunesi E, Peloso S, Pinho R, Nascimbene R (2017c) Dynamic testing of a full-scale two-storey RC precast wall-slab-wall structure representative of the Groningen building stock. Report EUC215/2017U. EUCENTRE, Pavia. Accessed Dec 2017
  11. CEN (2004) European Committee for Standardization, EN 1992-1-1. Eurocode 2 (EC2): Design of concrete structures-part 1.1: general rules and rules for buildings, BrusselsGoogle Scholar
  12. Correia AA, Virtuoso FBE (2006) Nonlinear analysis of space frames. In: Mota Soares et al. (eds) Proceedings of the third european conference on computational mechanics: solids, structures and coupled problems in engineering, LisbonGoogle Scholar
  13. Crisafulli FJ, Restrepo JI, Park R (2002) Seismic design of lightly reinforced precast rectangular wall panels. PCI J 47(4):104–121CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Crowley H, Pinho R (2017) Report on the v5 fragility and consequence models for the Groningen Field, Pavia. Accessed Dec 2017
  15. 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):1325–1345CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. De Borst R (1987) Smeared cracking, plasticity, creep and thermal loading—a unified approach. Comput Methods Appl Mech Eng 62(1):89–110CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Hung C-C, El-Tawil S (2010) Hybrid rotating/fixed-crack model for high performance fiber reinforced cementitious composites. ACI Mater J 107(6):568–576Google Scholar
  18. Kruiver PP, van Dedem E, Romijn R, de Lange G, Korff M, Stafleu J, Gunnink JL, Rodriguez-Marek A, Bommer JJ, van Elk J, Doornhof D (2017) An integrated shear-wave velocity model for the Groningen gas field, The Netherlands. Bull Earthq Eng 15(9):3555–3580CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Mander JB, Priestley MJN, Park R (1988) Theoretical stress-strain model for confined concrete. J Struct Eng 114(8):1804–1826CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Martinez-Rueda JE, Elnashai AS (1997) Confined concrete model under cyclic load. Mater Struct 30(3):139–147CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. NAM (2017) Assessment of hazard, building damage and risk for induced seismicity in Groningen. Update 1st November 2017. Accessed Dec 2017
  22. Nederlands Normalisatie-instituut (2011) National Annex to NEN-EN 1990+A1+A1/C2: Eurocode: basis of structural design, DelftGoogle Scholar
  23. Palermo M, Trombetti T (2016) Experimentally-validated modelling of thin RC sandwich walls subjected to seismic loads. Eng Struct 119:95–109CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Palermo M, Gil-Martín LM, Trombetti T, Hernandez-Montes E (2013) In-plane shear behaviour of thin low reinforced concrete panels for earthquake reconstruction. Mater Struct 46(5):841–856CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Pavese A, Bournas DA (2011) Experimental assessment of the seismic performance of a prefabricated concrete structural wall system. Eng Struct 33:2049–2062CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Pecce M, Ceroni F, Bibbò FA, De Angelis A (2014) Behaviour of RC buildings with large lightly reinforced walls along the perimeter. Eng Struct 73:39–53CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Seismosoft (2016) SeismoStruct—a computer program for static and dynamic nonlinear analysis of framed structures.
  28. Spacone E, Filippou FC, Taucer FF (1996) Fibre beam-column model for non-linear analysis of RC frames: part I. Formulation. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 25(7):711–725CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. van Elk J, Bourne SJ, Oates SJ, Bommer JJ, Pinho R, Crowley H (2018) A probabilistic model to evaluate options for mitigating induced seismic risk. Earthq Spectra (under review) Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V., part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • E. Brunesi
    • 1
  • S. Peloso
    • 1
  • R. Pinho
    • 2
  • R. Nascimbene
    • 1
  1. 1.European Centre for Training and Research in Earthquake EngineeringEUCENTREPaviaItaly
  2. 2.Department of Civil Engineering and Architecture (DICAr)University of PaviaPaviaItaly

Personalised recommendations