Shaking table testing for masonry infill walls: unreinforced versus reinforced solutions

Several factors influence the behaviour of infilled frames, which have been a subject of research in the past with moderate success. The new generation of European design standards imposes the need to prevent brittle collapse of the infills and makes the structural engineer accountable for this requ...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Earthquake engineering & structural dynamics 2016-11, Vol.45 (14), p.2241-2260
Main Authors: Lourenço, Paulo B., Leite, João M., Paulo-Pereira, Manuel F., Campos-Costa, A., Candeias, P. X., Mendes, Nuno
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Bed joint reinforcement
Collapse
Design engineering
Design standards
Earthquake engineering
Engenharia Civil
Engenharia e Tecnologia
Masonry
Masonry infills
Reinforced concrete
Reinforced concrete frame
Reinforced plaster
Science & Technology
Shake table tests
Shaking table tests
Walls
Citations: Items that this one cites
Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:Several factors influence the behaviour of infilled frames, which have been a subject of research in the past with moderate success. The new generation of European design standards imposes the need to prevent brittle collapse of the infills and makes the structural engineer accountable for this requirement, yet it fails to provide sufficient information for masonry infills design. Therefore, the present work aims at understanding the seismic behaviour of masonry infill walls within reinforced concrete frames, using both unreinforced and reinforced solutions (bed joint reinforcement and reinforced plaster). For this purpose, three reinforced concrete buildings with different infill solutions were constructed at a scale of 1:1.5, all with the same geometry, and were tested on the shaking table of the National Laboratory for Civil Engineering, Portugal. All solutions performed adequately for the design earthquake, with no visible damage. Still, the experimental tests show that the double-leaf-unreinforced infill walls underperformed during a large earthquake, collapsing out of plane by rotating as rigid bodies with multiple configurations. Also the reinforced concrete buildings collapsed, because of the adverse interaction with the infill walls. The infill walls with bed joint reinforcement and reinforced plaster did not collapse out of plane, because of their connection to the concrete frame, which is an essential requirement.
ISSN:0098-8847
1096-9845
DOI:10.1002/eqe.2756