A multiscale experimental characterisation of Dutch unreinforced masonry buildings

In recent years, induced seismicity in the north of the Netherlands significantly increased. As a consequence, the seismic assessment of the built environment, which mainly consists of unreinforced masonry (URM) structures not designed for seismic loads, became of high relevance. Within this context, an extensive multiscale testing program has been performed at the laboratory of Delft University of Technology since 2014 to characterize the behavior of URM buildings from structural down to material level and provide benchmarks for the validation of numerical and analytical models. The paper presents an overview on the experimental campaign, which was structured in three phases: characterization of existing buildings; study of the structural response up to near collapse on replicated specimens; study of light damage state, also on replicated URM walls. The experimental campaign was characterized by a multiscale approach, with tests at structural, component, connection, and material level. At structural level, the campaign comprehended two quasi-static cyclic tests on full-scale two-story high assembled structures and a large number of both in-plane and out-of-plane tests performed either on single piers or on walls with openings. The in-plane stiffness and capacity of as-built and retrofitted timber floors was also assessed. At material level, destructive and slightly-destructive laboratory tests were performed on both existing and replicated masonry and timber specimens. Existing and retrofitting connections between the leaves of cavity walls and between concrete slabs and masonry veneers were studied. To study the initiation and propagation of cracking in URM structures, Digital Image Correlation (DIC) was used during dedicated in-plane tests.

[1]  Jan G. Rots,et al.  Large-scale testing program for the seismic characterization of Dutch masonry walls. , 2017 .

[2]  R. van der Pluijm,et al.  Out-of-plane bending of masonry behaviour and strength , 1999 .

[3]  Jan G. Rots,et al.  Structural Masonry , 2020 .

[4]  R. Esposito,et al.  Quasi-static cyclic in-plane tests on masonry components 2016/2017 , 2017 .

[5]  Jason Ingham,et al.  Shaking table testing of as-built and retrofitted clay brick URM cavity-walls , 2016 .

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

[7]  Giorgia Giardina,et al.  Modelling of settlement induced building damage , 2013 .

[8]  J. Rots,et al.  Characterizing the Material Properties of Dutch Unreinforced Masonry , 2017 .

[9]  Stefano Pampanin,et al.  In-plane stiffness of wooden floor , 2008 .

[10]  R. de Borst,et al.  The role of crack rate dependence in the long-term behaviour of cementitious materials , 2001 .

[11]  Guido Magenes,et al.  Out-of-plane shaking table tests on URM single leaf and cavity walls , 2016 .

[12]  Jan G. Rots,et al.  Cyclic pushover test on an unreinforced masonry structure reseambling a typical Dutch terraced house , 2017 .

[13]  Julian J. Bommer,et al.  Hazard and risk assessments for induced seismicity in Groningen , 2017, Netherlands Journal of Geosciences.

[14]  Roberto Tomasi,et al.  Pushover analysis of traditional masonry buildings : influence of refurbished timber-floors stiffness , 2010 .

[15]  Guido Magenes,et al.  Shaking table test on a full scale URM cavity wall building , 2017, Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering.