In-plane test campaign on different load-bearing URM typologies with thin shell and web clay units

Masonry Italian Code-Conforming Buildings. Part 2: Nonlinear Modelling and Time-History Analysis

“…In particular, values equal to 1.6 and 0.7 were assumed for kr and k0 in case of masonry piers (k0 = 0.5 for spandrels); such assumptions are compatible with the experimental evidences from Morandi et al (2016Morandi et al ( , 2018, in the case of piers, and from Beyer and Dazio (2012), in the case of spandrels.…”

“…Table 2 summarizes the median values of drift thresholds used as a reference point for the calibration of the adopted constitutive laws. They were derived from processing of data reported in Magenes et al (2008), Morandi et al (2016) and Petry and Beyer (2014) and refer to the case of URM panels composed by hollow clay blocks and cement mortar. Usually, experimental tests refer to the attainment of a 20% loss in peak strength assumed as "ultimate state".…”

“…median and dispersion, whose values for each random variable are summarized in Table 7. The median value of E was derived by fitting a lognormal distribution to the experimental values available in the literature from tests on vertically perforated clay block masonry walls with filled head-and bed-joints (Morandi et al 2016, Franchin et al 2018; the value of dispersion was derived from the data. The mean value of E is the same assumed in the design phase (Manzini et al 2018).…”

“…The drift thresholds were derived from cyclic shear-compression tests on clay block masonry piers (Morandi et al 2016). These tests allowed defining the dispersion of the three considered random variables, as well as the median values of the incremental aleatory variables defined above.…”

Timber-Based Strategies for Seismic Collapse Prevention and Energy Performance Improvement in Masonry Buildings

“…All the analyzed retrofit solutions increased considerably the load bearing and displacement capacities of the masonry walls. The ultimate displacement of the walls was evaluated as the displacement corresponding to a strength degradation of 20% of the maximum lateral capacity [42]. In the case of rocking behavior (wall 1), the failure of the retrofitted walls occurred when the ultimate strength of the tensile anchors was reached and, consequently, the four analyzed solutions provided the same load bearing capacity (71 kN, with an increase of 145%).…”