Advertisement

Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering

, Volume 17, Issue 1, pp 391–411 | Cite as

Increasing the lateral capacity of dry joint flat-stone masonry structures using inexpensive retrofitting techniques

  • Ming Wang
  • Kai LiuEmail author
  • Hongfei Lu
  • Hima Shrestha
  • Ramesh Guragain
  • Wen Pan
  • Xiaodong Yang
Original Research
  • 159 Downloads

Abstract

This paper presents an experimental investigation of various seismic retrofitting techniques for dry joint flat-stone masonry. During post-earthquake reconstruction in Nepal, it is suggested that flat stone buildings are retrofitted by considering the local economy and material availability. However, effective seismic design of dry joint flat-stone masonry buildings is needed to ensure that these buildings will be safer during future earthquakes. Five retrofitting schemes are proposed using locally available and affordable materials. Cyclic in-plane testing was performed for both unreinforced and reinforced specimens. The behavioural characteristics of the specimens are evaluated with the failure mode, load–displacement response, and hysteretic energy dissipation. The experimental results show that the use of wooden/gabion wire bandages and gabion wire jacketing can significantly increase the seismic performance of a dry joint flat-stone masonry building in terms of its energy dissipation and ductility. This study provides scientific support and engineering guidance for development and revision of guidelines and standards for stone masonry structures in Nepal and other developing countries.

Keywords

Dry stone masonry Seismic retrofit In-plane cyclic testing Guidelines 

List of symbols

Fcrack

Load at the occurrence of the first crack

Dcrack

Displacement at the occurrence of the first crack

Fmax

Maximum lateral force during test

DFmax

Displacement at the maximum lateral force

Ffailure

Load at the structural failure

Dfailure

Displacement at the structural failure

\( \upxi \)

Equivalent viscous damping ratio

\( E_{hys} \)

Hysteretic energy dissipated during one cycle of the inelastic system

\( E_{ela} \)

Elastic deformation energy of the system

\( E_{pos} \)

Elastic deformation energy at the positive side in the hysteresis diagrams

\( E_{neg} \)

Elastic deformation energy at the negative side in the hysteresis diagrams

Vy

Yielding strength

Dy

Displacement at yielding strength

De

Displacement at 60% of yielding strength

Du

Displacement at 85% of maximum force

Ke

Effective lateral stiffness

\( \upmu \)

Structural ductility

Notes

Acknowledgements

The research for this article was supported by the National Key Research and Development Plan (2017YFC1502902) and International Center for Collaborative Research on Disaster Risk Reduction (ICCR-DRR) (Grant RETROFIT PROJECT). The financial support is highly appreciated.

References

  1. Aykac B, Ozbek E, Babayani R, Baran M, Aykac S (2017) Seismic strengthening of infill walls with perforated steel plates. Eng Struct 152:168–179CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Borri A, Castori G, Corradi M (2011a) Shear behavior of masonry panels strengthened by high strength steel cords. Constr Build Mater 25:494–503CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Borri A, Castori G, Corradi M, Speranzini E (2011b) Shear behavior of unreinforced and reinforced masonry panels subjected to in situ diagonal compression tests. Constr Build Mater 25:4403–4414CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Carozzi FG, Poggi C, Bertolesi E, Milani G (2018a) Ancient masonry arches and vaults strengthened with TRM, SRG and FRP composites: experimental evaluation. Compos Struct 187:466–480CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Carozzi FG, Colombi P, Fava G, Poggi C (2018b) Mechanical and bond properties of FRP anchor spikes in concrete and masonry blocks. Compos Struct 183:185–198CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Corradi M, Borri A, Vignoli A (2002) Strengthening techniques tested on masonry structures struck by the Umbria–Marche earthquake of 1997–1998. Constr Build Mater 16:229–239CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Dautaj AD, Kadiri Q, Kabashi N (2018) Experimental study on the contribution of masonry infill in the behavior of RC frame under seismic loading. Eng Struct 165:27–37CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. De Santis S, Roscini F, de Felice G (2018) Full-scale tests on masonry vaults strengthened with steel reinforced grout. Compos B 141:20–36CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Gams M, Tomazevic M, Berset T (2017) Seismic strengthening of brick masonry by composite coatings: an experimental study. Bull Earthq Eng 15:4269–4298CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Giaretton M, Ingham JM, Dizhur D (2018) Experimental validation of seismic retrofit solutions for URM chimneys. Bull Earthq Eng 16:295–313CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Khan HA, Nanda RP, Das D (2017) In-plance strength of masonry panel strengthened with geosynthetic. Constr Build Mater 156:351–361CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Leone M, Aiello MA, Balsamo A et al (2017) Glass fabric reinforced cementitious matrix: tensile properties and bond performance on masonry substrate. Compos B 127:196–214CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Lignola GP, Caggegi C, Ceroni F et al (2017) Performance assessment of basaly FRCM for retrofit applications on masonry. Compos B 128:1–18CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Liu K, Wang M, Wang YA (2015) Seismic retrofitting of rural rammed earth buildings using externally bonded fibers. Constr Build Mater 100:91–101CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Milosevic J, Lopes M, Gago AS, Bento R (2013a) Testing and modeling the diagonal tension strength of rubble stone masonry panels. Eng Struct 52:581–591CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Milosevic J, Gago AS, Lopes M, Bento R (2013b) Experimental assessment of shear strength parameters on rubble stone masonry specimens. Constr Build Mater 47:1372–1380CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Milosevic J, Lopes M, Gago AS, Bento R (2015) In-plane seismic response of rubble stone masonry specimens by means of static cyclic tests. Constr Build Mater 82:9–19CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Nadege R, Zyed M, Amir SL, Emmanuel F (2018) Experimental study of the in-plane cyclic behaviour of masonry walls strengthened by composite materials. Constr Build Mater 164:70–83CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Najarkolaie KF, Mohammadi M, Fanaie N (2017) Realistic behavior of infilled steel frames in seismic event: experimental and analytical study. Bull Earthq Eng 15:5365–5392CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Oskouei AV, Jafari A, Bazli M, Ghahri R (2018) Effect of different retrofitting techniques on in-plane behavior of masonry wallettes. Constr Build Mater 169:578–590CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Pan Y, Wang X, Guo R, Yuan S (2018) Seismic damage assessment of Nepalese cultural heritage building and seismic retrofit strategies: 25 April 2015 Gorkha (Nepal) earthquake. Eng Fail Anal 87:80–95CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Parghi A, Alam MS (2018) A review on the application of sprayed-FRP composites for strengthening of concrete and masonry structures in the construction sector. Compos Struct 187:518–534CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Pourfalah S, Suryanto B, Cotsovos DM (2018) Enhancing the out-of-plane performance of masonry walls using engineered cementitious composite. Compos B 140:108–122CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Rescalvo FJ, Valverde-Palacios I, Suarez E, Gallego A (2017) Experimental comparison of different carbon fiber composites in reinforcedment layouts for wooden beams of historical buildings. Materials 10(1113):1–22Google Scholar
  25. Shabdin M, Zargaran M, Attari NKA (2018) Experimental diagonal tension (shear) test of un-reinforced masonry (URM) walls strengthended with textile reinforced mortar (TRM). Constr Build Mater 164:704–715CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Silva B, Pigouni AE, Valluzzi MR, Modena C (2014) Calibration of analytical formulations predicting compressive strength in consolidated three-leaf masonry walls. Constr Build Mater 64:28–38CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Uranjek M, Bosiljkov V, Zarnic R, Bosiljkov VB (2012) In situ tests and seismic assessment of a stone-masonry building. Mater Struct 45:861–879CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Wang YA, Wang M, Liu K, Yang XD (2016) Shaking table tests on seismic retrofitting of rammed-earth structures. Bull Earthq Eng 15:1037–1055CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Wang M, Liu K, Lu H et al (2017) In-plane cyclic tests of seismic retrofits of rubble-stone masonry walls. Bull Earthq Eng.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10518-017-0262-z Google Scholar
  30. Wang X, Lam CC, Iu VP (2018) Experimental investigation of in-plane shear behaviour of grey clay brick masonry panels strengthened with SRG. Eng Struct 162:84–96CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ming Wang
    • 1
    • 2
  • Kai Liu
    • 1
    • 2
    Email author
  • Hongfei Lu
    • 2
  • Hima Shrestha
    • 3
  • Ramesh Guragain
    • 3
  • Wen Pan
    • 4
  • Xiaodong Yang
    • 4
  1. 1.Key Laboratory of Environmental Change and Natural Disaster, Ministry of EducationBeijing Normal UniversityBeijingChina
  2. 2.Academy of Disaster Reduction and Emergency ManagementMinistry of Civil Affairs and Ministry of EducationBeijingChina
  3. 3.National Society for Earthquake Technology-NepalKathmanduNepal
  4. 4.School of Civil EngineeringKunming University of Science and TechnologyKunmingChina

Personalised recommendations