2018
DOI: 10.1002/cepa.876
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Shaking table test study on a steel frame with autoclaved aerated concrete walls

Abstract: This paper studies the seismic performance of a steel frame with autoclaved aerated concrete (AAC) walls through full-scale shaking table tests. In the tested single-span two-storey steel frame, two types of AAC walls, AAC panel, and AAC block masonry wall, were adopted. Damage distribution and progress, acceleration and displacement responses, and the effect of window openings and corresponding strengthening methods were investigated. Test results showed that good seismic performance of the model structure wa… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1

Citation Types

0
3
0

Year Published

2023
2023
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
1

Relationship

0
1

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 1 publication
(3 citation statements)
references
References 7 publications
0
3
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Horizontal and vertical cracks occurred in the AAC block masonry wall due to an acceleration of 1.90 g in the AAC panels. In our study, the maximum IDR obtained was approximately 10‰, and the maximum mid-height acceleration for both infills tested was almost equal to 1.40 g. Moreover, the connection system utilized to constrain the AAC infills is distinct from that used by Cheng and He (2018), but in both cases, there was no damage or loosening in the connection system. For the sake of clarity, Figure 12 illustrates the midheight accelerations for the two types of infills tested, categorized by the various test levels of Table 3.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 51%
See 2 more Smart Citations
“…Horizontal and vertical cracks occurred in the AAC block masonry wall due to an acceleration of 1.90 g in the AAC panels. In our study, the maximum IDR obtained was approximately 10‰, and the maximum mid-height acceleration for both infills tested was almost equal to 1.40 g. Moreover, the connection system utilized to constrain the AAC infills is distinct from that used by Cheng and He (2018), but in both cases, there was no damage or loosening in the connection system. For the sake of clarity, Figure 12 illustrates the midheight accelerations for the two types of infills tested, categorized by the various test levels of Table 3.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 51%
“…In our experimental campaign, only light damage occurred close to the anti-overturning devices when the peak ground acceleration (PGA) was equal to 0.80 g, resulting in the ejection of small fragments of PU resin and AAC block debris (see Figure 10). Various studies in the literature (Cheng and He, 2018) on the seismic performance of AAC infills assembled without robots and using traditional mortar joints have shown damage occurring at an interstory drift ratio (IDR) of 12.5‰ for excitations in both directions. Horizontal and vertical cracks occurred in the AAC block masonry wall due to an acceleration of 1.90 g in the AAC panels.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation