Shaking table testing of as-built and retrofitted clay brick URM cavity-walls

Abstract Masonry cavity-wall construction incorporates a continuous air gap that separates the inner and outer brick leaves of the wall cross-section. This wall configuration was originally developed because of improved thermal performance and in particular reduced moisture transmission across the wall, as the presence of the air-cavity serves to capture and drain moisture back to the building exterior. However, it was subsequently established that clay-brick unreinforced masonry (URM) cavity-wall buildings typically exhibit poor seismic performance due to inadequate connections between the separate masonry leaves in the wall cross-section. Experimental shaking table testing of five cavity-walls was undertaken with an emphasis on developing and experimentally validating simple and efficient retrofit solutions to improve cavity-wall seismic capacity. Wall specimens closely simulated in-situ conditions for the URM cavity-wall arrangements that are most commonly encountered in New Zealand. Two different retrofit solutions were tested, namely, the addition of mechanical screw-ties with different spacings or a combination of mechanical screw-ties and timber strong-backs. Specimen construction details, retrofit procedures, test set-up and results are presented herein. Reported results include observed crack-patterns, peak ground acceleration (PGA) corresponding to both induced initial cracking and failure, acceleration and displacement profiles at failure, and quantification of the improvement in seismic capacity from using the proposed retrofit techniques.

[1]  Jan Carmeliet,et al.  Brick Cavity Walls: A Performance Analysis Based on Measurements and Simulations , 2007 .

[2]  Dmytro Dizhur,et al.  Observed Performance of Residential Masonry Veneer Construction in the 2010/2011 Canterbury Earthquake Sequence , 2013 .

[3]  A. J. Newman,et al.  Full-scale water penetration tests on twelve cavity fills—Part I. Nine retrofit fills , 1982 .

[4]  Dmytro Dizhur,et al.  Post-Earthquake Reconnaissance of Unreinforced and Retrofitted Masonry Parapets , 2016 .

[5]  Francesca da Porto,et al.  Construction Details and Observed Earthquake Performance of Unreinforced Clay Brick Masonry Cavity-walls , 2016 .

[6]  Adrian Page Unreinforced masonry structures : An Australian overview , 1996 .

[7]  Jason Ingham,et al.  Material properties of existing unreinforced clay brick masonry buildings in New Zealand , 2014 .

[8]  Najif Ismail,et al.  PERFORMANCE OF UNREINFORCED AND RETROFITTED MASONRY BUILDINGS DURING THE 2010 DARFIELD EARTHQUAKE , 2010 .

[9]  Behdad Moghtaderi A Comparative Study of the Thermal Performance of Cavity and Brick Veneer Construction , 2004 .

[10]  Paulo B. Lourenço,et al.  Performance of masonry buildings and churches in the 22 February 2011 Christchurch earthquake , 2011 .

[11]  Jason Ingham,et al.  Historical development and observed earthquake performance of unreinforced clay brick masonry cavity walls , 2015 .

[12]  Jason Ingham,et al.  In situ out-of-plane testing of unreinforced masonry cavity walls in as-built and improved conditions , 2015 .

[13]  C. E. Ventura,et al.  Shake table tests on the out-of-plane response of unreinforced masonry wallsThis article is one of a selection of papers published in this Special Issue on Masonry. , 2007 .

[14]  Humberto Varum,et al.  Performance of masonry enclosure walls: lessons learned from recent earthquakes , 2012, Earthquake Engineering and Engineering Vibration.