2024 - 2024
Enrico Tubaldi
Francesca Turchetti
Marko Marinković
Christoph Butenweg
Matija Gams
Fabio Freddi
+11 more
2024 - 2024
FLExible JOInts for seismic-resilient design of masonry-infilled RC frames
FLEJOI
Dataset Description
The project involves a wide range of tests aimed to characterise the dynamic behaviour and seismic response of a prototype representative of RC frames with masonry infills, equipped with the two proposed joint systems. The tests have been carefully designed taking into account the specific equipment available at the preferred research infrastructure and budget constraints, based on the indications provided by the contacts at the infrastructure.
Specimens
1. Prototype 1
3
The specimen consists of a three-dimensional one-storey full-scale RC frame with masonry infills. The RC frame is the same as the one of INMASPOL project, designed according to EC2 and EC8 (including capacity-design principles). It has plan dimensions of 3m x 3m and a total height of 3.3m.
The class of concrete is C30/37. The columns have a square section of 20cm x 20cm and are 2.7m high. They are reinforced with B450 steel rebars. The beams are embedded within the top slab, which is 30cm thick and is reinforced with welded meshes at the top and at the bottom. Differently from INMASPOL project, the slab has no hole at the centre, since access to inside the frame is possible viathe windows. The frames are constructed on a special foundation, with holes to attach them to the shake table and hooks for lifting it. The infill walls are made with Poroton hollow blocks (Fig. 2c) typically employed in construction practice for traditional infills. These will be provided as an in-kind contribution by the German ZIEGEL association of brick producers (UG member), which will also advise on the characteristics of the mortar joints between the blocks and on construction techniques. The interior side of the walls will be covered in plaster to check also the damage incurred by this.
The Type 1 joint system (Fig.3a) consists of the horizontal joints developed by TARRC (Type 1T in Fig. 2a,b) and of elastomeric joints at the interface between the panel and the frame’s columns (Type 1E in Fig. 2a,b). This system is a “compliant system” that aims to increase the flexibility of the panel as well as in controlling the interaction between the panel and the frame. Type 1T joints (Fig.3a) are made from a high-damping natural rubber (HDNR) compound having different stiffnesses along the three orthogonal directions, which is an essential requisite in order to achieve optimal behaviour in the in-plane and out-of-plane directions. Added pins enhance the strength of the bond between the rubber and the thick mortar layers connecting the joints to the blocks. Type 1E rubber layers (Fig. 3b), made with recycled rubber (provided by Regupol, UG member), have low compressive stiffness and high deformation capacity to avoid stress concentration along the column-infill interface. The Type 2 joints system (Fig.3c,d) is a “decoupling system” consisting of Regupol’s rubber strips that isolate the infill from the frame. Decoupling in the in-plane direction is achieved because rubber strips have low compressive stiffness and are highly deformable. The out-of-plane connection is provided with the arrangement of the rubber strips, having them divided in three parts, where two outer parts are connected to the infill wall and inner strips are glued to the frame (columns and top/bottom beam). Rubber strips are connected to the frame/wall using thin-layer mortar usually applied in practice.
The prototype has two sides that are fully infilled and two sides with openings (see Fig.2a). They have horizontal Type 1T joints and Type 1E vertical joints between the infill and the columns. It has horizontal Type 2 joints around all four sides of the infill wall, between the infill and frame. A symmetric arrangement of the walls has been considered to avoid torsional effects, so that simplified modelling strategies, based on 2D models (e.g. [8]) can be employed for the preliminary analysis of the system and for interpreting the test results.
1. EMA – Hammer excitation
The Impact hammer testing was performed to determine the dynamic characteristics of the walls. A total of 3 walls/sides per model have been tested for each configuration. The impact points are marked in the photos. Each hit was done with 30 seconds pause between the previous and next one.
Instrumentation
For the EMA Impact hammer testing the instrumentation consisted of total of 20 accelerometers placed on the appropriate places according to the attached scheme.
2. Dynamic time history – Shake table excitation
The shaking table testing was performed in order to determine the response of the model to the different dynamic excitation, i.e. earthquake records. After testing the model and its response until the desired state, due to the biaxial shaking table characteristics the model was rotated for 90 degrees and retested again. This is denoted as phase 2.
mp4
mp4
Instrumentation
The instrumentation setup comprised of 30 accelerometers, 3 linear potentiometers (LP) and 10 linear variable differential transducers (LVDT) measuring the acceleration, total displacement and relative displacement respectively. For the second phase there were a total of 20 accelerometers, 7 LP and 9 LVDT.
3. EMA – Shake table random excitation
The shaking table testing was performed in order to determine the dynamic characteristics via experimental modal analysis using random excitation between the main seismic tests. After testing the model and its response until the desired state, due to the biaxial shaking table characteristics the model was rotated for 90 degrees and retested again. This is denoted as phase 2.
Instrumentation
The instrumentation was the same as from the seismic tests - Shake table excitation.
2. Prototype 2
3
The specimen consists of a three-dimensional one-storey full-scale RC frame with masonry infills. The RC frame is the same as the one of INMASPOL project, designed according to EC2 and EC8 (including capacity-design principles). It has plan dimensions of 3m x 3m and a total height of 3.3m.
The class of concrete is C30/37. The columns have a square section of 20cm x 20cm and are 2.7m high. They are reinforced with B450 steel rebars. The beams are embedded within the top slab, which is 30cm thick and is reinforced with welded meshes at the top and at the bottom. Differently from INMASPOL project, the slab has no hole at the centre, since access to inside the frame is possible viathe windows. The frames are constructed on a special foundation, with holes to attach them to the shake table and hooks for lifting it. The infill walls are made with Poroton hollow blocks (Fig. 2c) typically employed in construction practice for traditional infills. These will be provided as an in-kind contribution by the German ZIEGEL association of brick producers (UG member), which will also advise on the characteristics of the mortar joints between the blocks and on construction techniques. The interior side of the walls will be covered in plaster to check also the damage incurred by this.
The Type 1 joint system (Fig.3a) consists of the horizontal joints developed by TARRC (Type 1T in Fig. 2a,b) and of elastomeric joints at the interface between the panel and the frame’s columns (Type 1E in Fig. 2a,b). This system is a “compliant system” that aims to increase the flexibility of the panel as well as in controlling the interaction between the panel and the frame. Type 1T joints (Fig.3a) are made from a high-damping natural rubber (HDNR) compound having different stiffnesses along the three orthogonal directions, which is an essential requisite in order to achieve optimal behaviour in the in-plane and out-of-plane directions. Added pins enhance the strength of the bond between the rubber and the thick mortar layers connecting the joints to the blocks. Type 1E rubber layers (Fig. 3b), made with recycled rubber (provided by Regupol, UG member), have low compressive stiffness and high deformation capacity to avoid stress concentration along the column-infill interface. The Type 2 joints system (Fig.3c,d) is a “decoupling system” consisting of Regupol’s rubber strips that isolate the infill from the frame. Decoupling in the in-plane direction is achieved because rubber strips have low compressive stiffness and are highly deformable. The out-of-plane connection is provided with the arrangement of the rubber strips, having them divided in three parts, where two outer parts are connected to the infill wall and inner strips are glued to the frame (columns and top/bottom beam). Rubber strips are connected to the frame/wall using thin-layer mortar usually applied in practice.
The prototype also has two sides that are fully infilled and two sides with openings (see Fig.2g). It has horizontal Type 2 joints around all four sides of the infill wall, between the infill and frame. A symmetric arrangement of the walls has been considered to avoid torsional effects, so that simplified modelling strategies, based on 2D models (e.g. [8]) can be employed for the preliminary analysis of the system and for interpreting the test results.
1. EMA – Hammer excitation
The Impact hammer testing was performed to determine the dynamic characteristics of the walls. A total of 3 walls/sides per model have been tested for each configuration. The impact points are marked in the photos. Each hit was done with 30 seconds pause between the previous and next one.
Instrumentation
For the EMA Impact hammer testing the instrumentation consisted of total of 19 accelerometers placed on the appropriate places according to the attached scheme.
2. Dynamic time history – Shake table excitation
The shaking table testing was performed in order to determine the response of the model to the different dynamic excitation, i.e. earthquake records. After testing the model and its response until the desired state, due to the biaxial shaking table characteristics the model was rotated for 90 degrees and retested again. This is denoted as phase 2.
Instrumentation
The instrumentation setup comprised of 30 accelerometers, 3 linear potentiometers (LP) and 10 linear variable differential transducers (LVDT) measuring the acceleration, total displacement and relative displacement respectively. For the second phase there were a total of 20 accelerometers, 7 LP and 10 LVDT.
3. EMA – Shake table random excitation
The shaking table testing was performed in order to determine the dynamic characteristics via experimental modal analysis using random excitation between the main seismic tests. After testing the model and its response until the desired state, due to the biaxial shaking table characteristics the model was rotated for 90 degrees and retested again. This is denoted as phase 2.
Instrumentation
The instrumentation was the same as from the seismic tests - Shake table excitation.
Project Metadata
Rights
Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International.
CC BY 4.0
0 sessions
0 downloads
0 views
0 metadata
0 file previews
Feedback
We are always looking to improve the quality of our data and metadata. If you have any feedback or suggestions, please let us know.
Send Feedback