Latest revision as of 14:31, 30 November 2021

Abstract

In the North-East part of The Netherlands, induced seismicity due to gas extraction is affecting a local building stock consisting mainly of unreinforced masonry (URM) houses not designed for earthquake resistance. Experimental and numerical studies conducted at EUCENTRE, Pavia (Italy), have demonstrated that buildings with URM cavity-walls structural systems are among the most vulnerable existing Dutch construction typologies. A light and reversible retrofit system made of timber frames and oriented-strands boards was then designed and tested to increase the in-plane and out-of-plane capacities of masonry piers and to enhance their connections with the floor diaphragms. The development of modelling approaches able to simulate the influence of the retrofit system is of fundamental importance for future applications to real-case existing buildings and for vulnerability studies on different building stocks. Based on two quasi-static in-plane shear-compression tests on two full-scale masonry piers, one in bare and one in retrofitted configuration, a specific macroelement was calibrated to simulate the bare pier lateral response and the effects of the retrofit on the in-plane flexural and shear capacities. This paper discusses the adopted modelling strategies and the comparison between numerical and experimental results.

Full document

References

[1] Bourne, S.J., Oates, S.J., Bommer, J.J., Dost, B., van Elk, J., & Doornhof, D. A Monte Carlo method for probabilistic hazard assessment of induced seismicity due to conventional natural gas production. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America (2015) 105(3): 1721-1738.

[2] Crowley, H., Pinho, R., van Elk, J., & Uilenreef, J. Probabilistic damage assessment of buildings due to induced seismicity. Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering (2019) 17(8): 4495-4516.

[3] Graziotti, F., Penna, A., & Magenes, G. A comprehensive in situ and laboratory testing programme supporting seismic risk analysis of URM buildings subjected to induced earthquakes. Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering (2018) 17(8): 4575-4599.

[4] Horton Jr., J.W. & Williams, R.A. The 2011 Virginia earthquake: What are scientists learning? Eos, Transactions American Geophysical Union (2012) 93(33): 317-318.

[5] Babaeidarabad, S., Arboleda, D., Loreto, G., & Nanni, A. Shear strengthening of un- reinforced concrete masonry walls with fabric-reinforced-cementitious-matrix. Construction and Building Materials (2014) 65: 243-253.

[6] Giaretton, M., Dizhur, D., Garbin, E., Ingham, J. M., & da Porto, F. In-plane strengthening of clay brick and block masonry walls using textile-reinforced mortar. Journal of Composites for Construction (2018) 22(5): 04018028.

[7] Ma, R., Jiang, L., He, M., Fang, C., & Liang, F. Experimental investigations on masonry structures using external prestressing techniques for improving seismic performance. Engineering Structures (2012) 42: 297-307.

[8] Podestà, S., & Scandolo, L. Earthquakes and Tie-Rods: Assessment, Design, and Ductility Issues. International Journal of Architectural Heritage (2019) 13(3), 329-339.

[9] Senaldi, I. E., Guerrini, G., Comini, P., Graziotti, F., Penna, A., Beyer, K., & Magenes, G. Experimental seismic performance of a half-scale stone masonry building aggregate. Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering (2019) 1-35.

[10] Guerrini, G., Damiani, N., Miglietta, M. & Graziotti, F. Cyclic response of masonry retrofitted with timber frames and boards. Structures and buildings (2020) in press. DOI: 10.1680/jstbu.19.00134.

[11] Damiani, N., Miglietta, M., Mazzella, L., Grottoli, L., Guerrini, G., & Graziotti, F. Full- scale shaking table test on a Dutch URM cavity-wall terraced-house end unit – A retrofit solution with strong-backs and OSB boards – EUCBUILD-7. Research report EUC052/2019U, (2019) EUCENTRE Pavia, Italy.

[12] European Committee for Standardization (CEN). EN 14081-1: Timber Structures. Strength graded structural timber with rectangular cross section. Part I: General requirements. European Committee for Standardization (2016), Brussels, Belgium.

[13] European Committee for Standardization (CEN). EN 300: Oriented Strand Boards (OSB). Definitions, classification and specifications (2006), Brussels, Belgium.

[14] Rothoblaas. Wood connectors and timber plates (2015). https://www.rothoblaas.com/catalogues-rothoblaas.

[15] Lagomarsino, S., Penna, A., Galasco, A., & Cattari, S. TREMURI program: an equivalent frame model for the nonlinear seismic analysis of masonry buildings. Engineering structures (2013) 56: 1787-1799.

[16] Penna, A., Lagomarsino, S., & Galasco, A. A nonlinear macroelement model for the seismic analysis of masonry buildings. Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics (2014) 43(2): 159-179.

[17] Bracchi, S., Mandirola, M., Rota, M. & Penna, A. A new macroelement-based strategy for modelling reinforced masonry piers. 17th International Brick and Block Masonry Conference (2020).

[18] Ministero delle infrastrutture e dei trasporti. Aggiornamento delle Norme tecniche per le costruzioni. Gazzetta Ufficiale (2018). Rome, Italy.

[19] Magenes, G., & Calvi, G. M. In‐plane seismic response of brick masonry walls. Earthquake engineering & structural dynamics (1997) 26(11): 1091-1112.

[20] Eurocode 6. Design of masonry structures. Part 1-1: General rules for buildings. Rules for reinforced and unreinforced masonry (2005). British Standard Institution, London.

[21] American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE). ASCE/SEI 41-17: Seismic evaluation and retrofit of existing buildings (2017). Reston, Virginia, USA.

[22] American Wood Council (AWC). ANSI/AF&PA SDPWS-2008: Special design provisions for wind and seismic (2018). Washington, DC.