2018
DOI: 10.1007/s10518-018-00528-6
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Shake table tests on the two-storey dry-joint stone masonry structures reinforced with timber laces and steel wires

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1

Citation Types

0
8
0

Year Published

2021
2021
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
5
1
1
1

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 13 publications
(10 citation statements)
references
References 16 publications
0
8
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Costa et al 14,15 and Candeias et al 16 tested two C-plan wall assemblies without roof, with wall thickness ranging from 0.50 to 0.65 m and mortar compressive strength of 1.3 MPa. Sathiparan et al, 17 Ali et al 18 and Wang et al 19 tested single-room, single-story models with geometric scale ranging between 1:4 and 1:2 and mortar being either absent or up to a 4.0 MPa strong in compression. Benedetti et al, 20 Dolce et al, 21 Mazzon et al, 22 Magenes et al 23 and Vintzileou et al 24 investigated single-room, two-stories models with geometric scale ranging between 1:2 to approximately natural scale and mortar compressive strength between 0.7 and 4.6 MPa.…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Costa et al 14,15 and Candeias et al 16 tested two C-plan wall assemblies without roof, with wall thickness ranging from 0.50 to 0.65 m and mortar compressive strength of 1.3 MPa. Sathiparan et al, 17 Ali et al 18 and Wang et al 19 tested single-room, single-story models with geometric scale ranging between 1:4 and 1:2 and mortar being either absent or up to a 4.0 MPa strong in compression. Benedetti et al, 20 Dolce et al, 21 Mazzon et al, 22 Magenes et al 23 and Vintzileou et al 24 investigated single-room, two-stories models with geometric scale ranging between 1:2 to approximately natural scale and mortar compressive strength between 0.7 and 4.6 MPa.…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…This parameter depends on the arrangement of the units at the corners and on the presence of openings near the corners, which both need to be accurately surveyed, and/or on the presence of tie-bars, for which the number at each oor and the effectiveness of end plates need to be carefully evaluated. A number of solutions have been proposed to improve the connections between orthogonal walls, ranging from traditional tie-bars and connectors (Ismail et al, 2010) to low-technological solutions using timber laces (Wang et al, 2019), crowning beam in reinforced masonry (Castori et al, 2018) and externally bonded reinforcements (De Santis and de Felice, 2021).…”
Section: Connection Between Orthogonal Walls (#1)mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…A single halfscale stone masonry structure was constructed on a rigid steel base connected to a shake table [21]. Three dry stone masonry models scaled by a factor of 0.55 were constructed outside the shake table on a concrete base frame simultaneously [22], but the process of moving those structures up to the shake table was not reported. A similar concrete base was used to construct two 1:3 reduced-scale adobe models [23]; the displacement of the model up to the table was performed using a forklift, and the final lifting and placement of the models on the table were performed with the help of an overhead crane.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%