4.6 Article

Development of a System for Cyclic Shear Tests on Full-Scale Walls

期刊

APPLIED SCIENCES-BASEL
卷 13, 期 13, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/app13137498

关键词

seismic; cyclic shear tests; shear combined with bending; development of a test system; test setup; disaster risk reduction

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The SHS-Multirisk Project proposes a residential model that is resistant to earthquakes and hurricanes. It uses simple, low-cost, and environmentally friendly construction technologies. A test system was developed to carry out cyclic shear tests on reinforced soil-cement compressed earth block walls. The project management framework of Scrum mode was adopted for designing and manufacturing the test system.
Featured Application Providing cyclic shear tests for full-scale walls. The SHS-Multirisk Project proposes a residence model that is simultaneously resistant to earthquakes and hurricanes within a specific range of magnitude to be defined in the project. It uses simple, low-cost, and environmentally friendly construction technologies compared with traditional alternatives or more technological, but less accessible ones. To reach the SHS-Multirisk objectives, an experimental campaign to carry on cyclic shear tests involved a set of 15 reinforced soil-cement compressed earth block walls. Within this program, a particular test system was developed, conditioned by the guidelines: simplicity, availability of resources (especially components, equipment, and workmanship), rationalization of the available space, and scalability of the tests. Considering the short time available for designing and manufacturing the test system and for carrying out the shear tests, it was decided to adopt a project management framework in Scrum mode. This article presents the system developed to conduct full-scale cyclic shear (combined with bending) tests on walls, exploring its characteristics, the development process, the experiment execution process, and a basic analysis of the main test outputs.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据