March 30-31, 2007 - Prague, Czech Republic

Full-scale cyclic tests of a real masonry-infilled RC building for seismic upgrading

F.M. Mazzolani, Gaetano Della Corte, L. Fiorino, E. Barecchia

Department of Structural Engineering University of Naples Federico II

Original building
BASIC DATA Construction period: end of 70s Plan dimensions: 18.50m x 12.00m Floor area: 222 mq N of floors: 2 Total height on ground: 8.85 m Total volume: 1965 mc
TRANSVERSE SECTION Scale 1:100
scale Ground Floor (+9.45) scale Second (Top) Floor 1:100 1:100
EAST VIEW SOUTH VIEW

60

1850

375

435

ENTRANCE

NORTH VIEW
510

WEST VIEW

OFFICE OFFICE

OFFICE

OFFICE

AIR OFFICE CONDITIONING

1200 1200

60

DEPOSIT

390

440

OFFICE

OFFICE

OFFICE

WC

OFFICE OFFICE

(+0.60) (-0.50)

(+0.70)

1270

615

885

(+5.10)

Original building
BASIC DATA Construction period: end of 70s Plan dimensions: 18.50m x 12.00m Floor area: 222 mq N of floors: 2 Total height on ground: 8.85 m Total volume: 1965 mc
TRANSVERSE SECTION Scale 1:100
(+9.45) 60
EAST VIEW SOUTH VIEW

435

375

NORTH VIEW

WEST VIEW

60

390

(+0.60) (-0.50)

(+0.70)

1270

440

885

(+5.10)

Research objectives
Multi-task research
1. Experimental task: Multi-step tests on a real masonry-infilled RC building 1.1 One push-pull test on the original building (next indicated as test #1) 1.2 One push-pull test on the building with MW_FRP (next indicated as test #2) 1.3 One push-pull test on the building with BRB 2. Numerical task: 2.1 Development and calibration of numerical models 2.2 Vulnerability assessment

Original building
STRUCTURAL AND NON STRUCTURAL ELEMENTS Columns: 30x30cm Beams: 15x60cm; 20x60cm; 25x60cm First floor slab: mixed RC-hollow tiles H=20+4=24cm Second floor slab: mixed RC-hollow tiles H=18+4=22cm External claddings: two parts internal part: concrete and lapillo blocks (s=10cm) external part: semi-hollow clay blocks (s=12cm) Internal partitions: concrete and lapillo blocks (s=10cm)
INTERNAL PARTITION WALLS 1,5 12 1,5
EXTERNAL CLADDING DETAIL 30 1 10 5 12 2 bricks of light concrete bricks of clay with a 50% of voids in volume

bricks of concrete and lapillo

cement plaster
cement plaster

ground floor
(+5.15) 4 20

beam

Test equipment

Test #1 - Summary
3000 2500 2000 Average 1st floor

Base Shear (kN)

1500 1000 500 0 -500 -1000 -1500 -2000 -0.031 -0.021 -0.011 -0.001 0.009 0.019 0.029 0.039 0.049

Drift angle (rad)

Test #1 - Summary
3000 2500 2000 Average 1st floor 1500 1000 500 0 -500 -1000 -1500 -2000 -0.031 -0.021 -0.011 -0.001 0.009 0.019 0.029 0.039 0.049

Base Shear (kN)

Drift angle (rad)

Reconstruction of perimeter infill panels and FRP structural repointing (NSM FRP bars in
the bed joints)

Test #2: experimental results

2500 2000 1500

Test #1

Base Shear (kN)

1000 500 0 -500 -1000 -1500 -2000 -2500

-35 -30 -25 -20 -15 -10 -5 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35

Test #2

Roof displacement (cm)

Test #2: experimental results

2500 2000 1500

Test #1

Base Shear (kN)

1000 500 0 -500 -1000 -1500 -2000 -2500

-35 -30 -25 -20 -15 -10 -5 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35

Test #2

Roof displacement (cm)

Test #2: experimental results

2500 2000 1500

Test #1

Base Shear (kN)

1000 500 0 -500 -1000 -1500 -2000 -2500

-35 -30 -25 -20 -15 -10 -5 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35

Test #2

Roof displacement (cm)

Test #2: experimental results

2500 2000 1500

Test #1

Base Shear (kN)

1000 500 0 -500 -1000 -1500 -2000 -2500

-35 -30 -25 -20 -15 -10 -5 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35

Test #2

Roof displacement (cm)

Test #2: experimental results

2500 2000 1500

Test #1

Base Shear (kN)

1000 500 0 -500 -1000 -1500 -2000 -2500

-35 -30 -25 -20 -15 -10 -5 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35

Test #2

Roof displacement (cm)

Test #2: experimental results

2500 2000 1500

Test #1

Base Shear (kN)

1000 500 0 -500 -1000 -1500 -2000 -2500

-35 -30 -25 -20 -15 -10 -5 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35

Test #2

Roof displacement (cm)

Test #2: experimental results

2500 2000 1500

Test #1

Base Shear (kN)

1000 500 0 -500 -1000 -1500 -2000 -2500

-35 -30 -25 -20 -15 -10 -5 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35

Test #2

Roof displacement (cm)

Test #2: experimental results

2500 2000 1500

Test #1

Base Shear (kN)

1000 500 0 -500 -1000 -1500 -2000 -2500

-35 -30 -25 -20 -15 -10 -5 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35

Test #2

Roof displacement (cm)

Test #2: experimental results

2500 2000 1500

Test #1

Base Shear (kN)

1000 500 0 -500 -1000 -1500 -2000 -2500

-35 -30 -25 -20 -15 -10 -5 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35

Test #2

Roof displacement (cm)

Test #2: experimental results

2500 2000 1500

Test #1

Base Shear (kN)

1000 500 0 -500 -1000 -1500 -2000 -2500

-35 -30 -25 -20 -15 -10 -5 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35

Test #2

Roof displacement (cm)

Test #2: experimental results

2500 2000 1500

Test #1

Base Shear (kN)

1000 500 0 -500 -1000 -1500 -2000 -2500

-35 -30 -25 -20 -15 -10 -5 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35

Test #2

Roof displacement (cm)

Test #2: experimental results

2500 2000 1500

Test #1

Base Shear (kN)

1000 500 0 -500 -1000 -1500 -2000 -2500

-35 -30 -25 -20 -15 -10 -5 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35

Test #2

Roof displacement (cm)

Test #2: experimental results

2500 2000 1500

Test #1

Base Shear (kN)

1000 500 0 -500 -1000 -1500 -2000 -2500

-35 -30 -25 -20 -15 -10 -5 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35

Test #2

Roof displacement (cm)

Experimental results - comments

Components contributing to lateral resistance Test #1: one fully-reversed load cycle into inelastic range (degradation) 1. RC columns 2. Staircase structure 3. Perimeter MWs (two-sided: clay + light concrete bricks) 4. Internal MWs (single-sided: light concrete bricks) Test #2: lack of contribution of staircase and internal MWs 1. RC columns (only few external columns repaired) 2. Perimeter MWs (two-sided: clay + light concrete bricks)

It explains the strength reduction in the second test

Experimental results - comments

2500 2000 1500

Test #1

Base Shear (kN)

1000 500 0 -500 -1000 -1500 -2000 -2500

-35 -30 -25 -20 -15 -10 -5 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35

Strength contribution from: (columns + staircase + MWs) (columns + MWs/FRP) = staircase (at
Test #2

large displacements, strength contribution from MWs vanishes and the FRP contribution is considered negligible)

Roof displacement (cm)

At uroof = 20cm, Hence:

Test #1 gives: Vb,1 = 1425kN Test #2 gives: Vb,2 = 1000kN Vb,2 - Vb,1 = 425kN

Estimated contributions to resistance: Staircase structure 425/1425=0.30 RC columns + MWs 1000/1425=0.70

Experimental results - comments

1150 900

Base Shear (kN)

650 400 150 -100 -350 -600 -850 -1100

-35 -30 -25 -20 -15 -10 -5 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35

Strength contribution from MWs/FRP Vb,max = 1106kN Vb,min = 978kN (at 30cm) Vb,max Vb,min = 128kN
Test #2

Roof displacement (cm)

Estimated contributions to resistance: MWs/FRP 978/1106=0.12 columns 1000/1425=0.88

Back-analysis of building response during both test #1 and test #2 will help in quantifying the percentage contribution to strength of different sources Numerical models must be set-up and calibrated against experimental data

Seismic performance criteria

0. - 0.0025 rad 0.0025 0.005 rad 0.005 0.01 rad 0.01 0.02 rad > 0.02 rad Sd : T = 475 years (severe damage) Fully Operational Immediate Occupancy Moderate damage Life safe Severe damage Life danger 1.5Sd : T 1600 years (collapse)
0.011 0.008 0.005 0.002 0.017 0.012 0.007 0.002 0.027 0.019 0.011 0.003

RC frame + MW

max (rad) Soil A Soil B,C,E Soil D

Zone 1 Zone 2 Zone 3 Zone 4 0.007 0.005 0.003 0.001 0.011 0.008 0.005 0.002 0.018 0.012 0.007 0.002

max (rad) Soil A Soil B,C,E Soil D

Zone 1 Zone 2 Zone 3 Zone 4

Simplified analysis of seismic demand - results

Sd : T = 475 years (severe damage)

RC frame + MW

1.5Sd : T 1600 years (collapse)

0.011 0.008 0.005 0.002 0.017 0.012 0.007 0.002 0.027 0.019 0.011 0.003

max (rad) Soil A Soil B,C,E Soil D

Zone 1 Zone 2 Zone 3 Zone 4 0.007 0.005 0.003 0.001 0.011 0.008 0.005 0.002 0.018 0.012 0.007 0.002

max (rad) Soil A Soil B,C,E Soil D

Zone 1 Zone 2 Zone 3 Zone 4

Sd : T = 475 years (severe damage)

max (rad)
Zone 1 Zone 2 Zone 3 Zone 4 Soil A 0.010 0.007 0.004 0.001

RC frame
Soil D 0.027 0.019 0.011 0.003 0.016 0.012 0.007 0.002

1.5Sd : T 1600 years (collapse)

max (rad) Soil A Soil B,C,E Soil D
Zone 1 Zone 2 Zone 3 Zone 4 0.016 0.011 0.007 0.002 0.024 0.017 0.010 0.003 0.041 0.029 0.017 0.005

Soil B,C,E

Tests on masonry specimens

Tests on single blocks Shear tests on sub-assemblages

Compression tests on sub-assemblages

Tests on masonry specimens - results

Original masonry (test #1)
Bricks: fb,m = 17.1MPa; fb,k= 10.0MPa Mortar: fm,m = 2.5MPa (Italian standard M4) Masonry: fm,m = 6.6MPa Bricks: fb,m = 3.1MPa Masonry: fm,m = 1.4MPa
Only 3 specimens Experimental results (6 specimens)

Mortar: fm,m = 2.5MPa (Italian standard M4)

Masonry:

f w = 0.9
=
hm 4.1hb

U ( f bt + fb )

fb ( f bt + f m )

U = 2 f m 34.5

f m < 27.6

fm fb fbt hm hb

mortar compression strength brick compression strength brick tensile strength mortar joint depth brick depth
Hilsdorf (Paulay & Priestley, 1992)

Non-uniform stress distribution factor

Tests on masonry specimens - results

Original masonry (test #2)
Bricks: fb,m = 20.7MPa; fb,k= 9.5MPa Mortar: fm,m = 8.0MPa (Italian standard M2) Masonry: fm,m = 6.6MPa Bricks: fb,m = 3.1MPa Mortar: fm,m = 8.0MPa (Italian standard M2) Masonry: fm,m = 1.4MPa Masonry:
Experimental results (6 specimens)

f w = 0.9
=
hm 4.1hb

U ( f bt + fb )

fb ( f bt + f m )

U = 2 f m 34.5

f m < 27.6

fm fb fbt hm hb

mortar compression strength brick compression strength brick tensile strength mortar joint depth brick depth
Hilsdorf (Paulay & Priestley, 1992)

Non-uniform stress distribution factor

MW modelling (without openings)

Basic concepts

Initial stiffness

composite shear wall

Strength

equivalent strut

(with partial interaction because of microcracking, initial separation,)

bw

The equivalent strut width (contact area) reduces as far as the displacement increases.

MW modelling (without openings)

Basic features
V = Vc + Vm u Vm Vm,max

h hm

lm l Vm,max = min Diagonal tension failure Sliding failure Compression failure

(crushing of the equivalent strut)

Vm,T =

Ss lt 0.6

(Stafford Smith et al., 1978)

Diagonal tension failure

Sliding failure

Vm,s = 0 l m t + N
2

u N = Em l m t h

(FEMA 306, 1998)

0 = 0.04fm (kgf / cm 2 )

(Paulay & Priestley, 1992)

MW modelling (without openings)

Basic features
V = Vc + Vm u Vm Vm,max

h hm

lm l

Compression failure

Vm,cr = atfm cos

a = 0.175 ( h )

0.4

dm

dm = l + h
2 m

2 m

Em t sin 2 = 4E I h c g m

14

Stafford Smith et al. 1966; Mainstone, 1974; Klingner & Bertero, 1978 ; FEMA 306, 1998)

MW_FRP modelling (without openings)

Basic features
V = Vc + Vm u Vm Vm,max

h hm

lm l Diagonal tension or sliding failure Compression failure

Vmf ,cr = Vm + ff Af k
(test results by Grando, 2002)

VMW _ FRP ,cr = 1.6VMW ,cr

Design guidelines for the strengtheningusing FRP systems University of Missouri-Rolla, March 2005

MW_FRP modelling (with openings)

Basic features

Each sub-panel is substituted by an equivalent strut. The height of the sub-panel is obtained by a suggestion given by Dolce (1989).

H eff = h '+

1 ( H - h ') D 3 h'

MW_FRP modelling (with openings)

Basic features
Al-Chaar, 2002

A open A open +1 1.6 R = 0.6 A A panel panel

Aopen 60% Apanel
GNDT (National Italian Team for Seismic Protection)

Aa = 100(ab)/(hl); Ac = 100(a/l)
h l

Unstrengthened Intermediate Strengthened

rac1; Aa25%; Av40% If a = l then the panel contribution is neglected

MW modelling
Panagiotakos & Fardis, 1994
k0 (0.5%-10%)k0

Vm,max Vm,y

(5%-10%)Vm,max k0 uy um up

k0 =

Gm t m l m hm

Vm,y = fms t m l m Vm,max = 1.30Vm,y

fms = shear strength according to diagonal compression test Openings empirically taken into account by reducing the strut width

k0 =

Em t m a cos2 dm

MW modelling
Mostafaei & Kabeyasawa, 2004
V = Vc + Vm u Vm Vm,max Vm,y

k0
80%Vm,max Vm,p k0 uy um u80 up

h hm

lm l Vm,max = maximum strength of the wall = min

Sliding failure Compression failure

(of the equivalent strut)
2 2 lw + hw

um =
k0 = 2

m dw cos
um

m = compression strain of the hw equivalent strut at maximum stress = arctg dw = lw

Vm,max

; = 0.20

Vm,y =

Vm,max k0um 1

= 0.75Vm,max (Vm,max = 1.33Vm,y )

MW modelling
Mostafaei & Kabeyasawa, 2004
V = Vc + Vm V = Vc + Vm u Vm Vm

MW modelling
Mostafaei & Kabeyasawa, 2004

V RC V RC_M

V Vm

V RC_M

RC

MW modelling
Al-Chaar, 2002
lcolumn

Vm Vm,max

Strut width from FEMA 306

column
K = Ematm lbeam

l column =

a cos column

a coscolumn l

tgcolumn =

Openings and existing infill damage are considered by reducing the diagonal strut width

ared = aR1R2

Aopen R1 = 0.6 A panel

Aopen 1.6 A panel

+1

R2 Table from
FEMA 306

RC modelling
300

Long 14mm St. 20cm

300

Bending Moment (kNm)

Column cross section

150 120 90 60 30 0 -3000

Plastic domain

-2000

-1000 0 Axial Load (kN)

1000

Numerical modelling test #1

Numerical modelling test #1

2500 Equivalent shear springs 2000 Base shear (kN) 1500 1000 500 0 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 Roof displacement (cm) Eccentric diagonal struts

Numerical modelling test #1

2500 2000 Base shear (kN) 1500 1000 500 0 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 Roof displacement (cm) 18 20 22

Numerical modelling test #1

Diagonal struts RC frame 37% Staircase 35% RC frame 37% Shear springs Staircase 35%

Interior panels 9%

Exterior panels 19%

Interior panels 4%

Exterior panels 21%

Numerical modelling test #2

1200 1000 Base Shear (kN) 800 600 400 200 0 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 Roof displacement (cm) Experimental results Numerical results