4.7 Article

Experimental assessment of the in-plane/out-of-plane interaction in unreinforced masonry infill walls

期刊

ENGINEERING STRUCTURES
卷 173, 期 -, 页码 960-978

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.engstruct.2018.07.033

关键词

URM infill wall; Out-of-plane; Experimental; In-plane/out-of-plane interaction; Out-of-plane strength; Out-of-plane response

资金

  1. METROPOLIS (Metodologie e tecnologie integrate e sostenibili per l'adattamento e la sicurezza di sistemi urbani - PON Ricerca e Competitivith 2007-2013)
  2. ReLUIS-DPC 2014-2018 Linea Cemento Armato WP6 Tamponature - Italian Department of Civil Protection (DPC)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

During earthquakes, unreinforced masonry (URM) infills are subjected to in-plane (IP) and out-of-plane (OOP) actions. Displacement demands in the IP direction affect the OOP response to seismic accelerations and vice versa: this phenomenon is called IP/OOP interaction. In this study, experimental tests aimed at investigating the IP action effects on the OOP response of thin URM infills are presented. Three URM infills in reinforced concrete frames are first cyclically loaded in-plane up to three different drift levels. Then, on each test specimen, monotonic OOP tests are performed. Tests' results are compared to the pure OOP response of an IP-undamaged reference specimen. For each specimen, the evolution of cracking pattern during the IP and the successive OOP test is presented and discussed. Data concerning the variation of secant stiffness and force at first OOP macro-cracking and at peak load due to the increasing IP damage are presented. Based also on experimental tests presented in the literature, empirical relationships relating the reduction of force and secant stiffness at first macro-cracking and peak load due to the IP damage to the maximum interstorey drift ratio attained during IP tests are proposed. Finally, some considerations concerning the different post-peak behaviour, up to collapse displacement, of IP-undamaged and IP-damaged infills are reported.

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

4.7
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