Seismic vulnerability assessment and retrofitting strategies for masonry infilled frame buildings considering in-plane and out-of -plane behaviour

(1)

Seismic vulnerability assessment

and retrofitting strategies for

masonry infilled frame buildings

considering in-plane and

out-of-plane behaviour

A

NDRÉ

F

ILIPE

C

ASTANHEIRA

A

LVES

F

URTADO

A dissertation presented to the Faculty of Engineering of the University of Porto for the degree of Doctor in Civil Engineering

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

ACKNOWLEGMENTS

Since the day I first entered to the Faculty of Engineering of the University of Porto, I felt that this was my home, that this was a school where I could grow up as a student, as an engineer but above all as a man. Prove of that, is the fact that with this thesis I am reaching the top a mountain that sometimes was so hard to climb, but for sure it was the most beautiful journey of my life until the moment. It has been a really fruitful journey full of new experiences both academically and personally. However, as any other experiences in our life, it would not have been possible without the contribution and support of the kind people who accompanied me throughout this process. In the following paragraphs, I would like to express my most sincere gratitude and appreciation for those who have helped me in completing this journey.

First of all, I would like to start by expressing my gratitude to Professor António Arêde. Acknowledge him for giving me the opportunity in 2013 to join in this long and challenging journey. I will never forget all the opportunities, all the confidence, all the knowledge that He shared with me. For all the friendship, for all the concern but most of all, for all the support and encouragement throughout this journey. For being an exceptional Professor and Supervisor. Thanks for sharing with me all the love by the experimental field and for the earthquake engineering.

Second, I would like to express a special gratitude to Professor Hugo Rodrigues. More than my co-supervisor, one of my best friends during all these years. I will never forget all the support,

(6)

ii

every single day during this period. All the advices, the concern, the friendship. I consider myself a lucky person for have a person like Hugo in my life. An inspiration and an example for me. He always know how to push my best capacities and how to motivate me. For all the beers, all the late night hours working, for all the adventures during all these years, and for other thousand reasons that I think it is not possible to express in words, thank you.

To Professor Humberto Varum, for his strong and close support that made it possible to complete this PhD. I will not forget all the efforts to ensure that everything was going well. For his friendship and concern during all this period. For all the opportunities. For all the knowledge shared with me, for his contributions along the development of this work and enthusiastic ideas.

Large part of this PhD was carried out at the Laboratory for Earthquake and Structural Engineering and during all this period followed by exceptional persons who helped me to develop all the experimental work. Starting with Mr. Valdemar Luis, the “welding master” that have taught me many things in the lab, a friend that is always there for helping me and supporting me. To Mr. Nuno “Strain” Pinto, an unbelievable person and friend who shared with me many moments, the songs, the dry jokes, the coffees. To Mr. Guilherme “Walls“ Nogueira, who since embraced the adventure in LESE was always a person close of mine. He became an amazing friend who shared with me all the love for “breaking walls”. All the moments with these three persons, during and after the work were the key to motivating me for all the tasks developed in the scope of this thesis. Thanks for helping me so much, for making me feel part of the LESE family.

To José Melo for all his support in the experimental tests, for helping me in the development of some of the drawings herein presented and for his friendship.

To Sérgio Pereira a special acknowledgement for being a support to me, my housemate and a big friend of mine. To Aires Colaço for all his friendship, for all the good moments that we have shared during all these years.

(7)

To room H304, a special place that introduced to me so many people that I will have always in my heart. To Alexandre Pinto for all the good and funny moments and for his friendship. To João Pacheco, To Ana Gomes, to Gustavo Pereira, to Rodrigo Falcão, to Ricardo Santos, to Silvia Basili, to Rui Valente, to Cássio Gaspar, to Joana Delgado and to Arturo Pascuzzo. To other friends and colleagues that are also considered as part of the “H304 family”, to Cláudio Horas for his friendship, to Ana Ramos for his friendship and funny moments, To Paulo Soares and to João Lázaro.

To Mr. Miguel Guerra and to Professor Carlos Moutinho, for their friendship and barbecue moments. To João Oliveira and Rakesh Dumaru for all the friendship and Nepalese food. To Marta Poinhas, Ana Matos and Carla Silva for supporting me in all the secretarial tasks. To Paula Silva for the realization of the tests in the Labest laboratory. To Maria Teresa de Risi, who I had the lucky to meet and learn so many things in this topic. A special acknowledgement to her for some of the ideas discussed with me. To Gilda Santos for all the support and friendship. To Patrício Rocha for all the funny moments that we have shared.

To all the master students that I co-supervised that helped me in the development of some of the works herein, namely to Patrícia Raposo, to Leonardo Pereira, to Miguel Pinho, to Mariana Rocha and to Rui Sousa.

To my colleagues of the Civil-FEUP team, for so many moments that we shared during the last three years, for the medals but most of all for the friendship.

To Instituto da Construção, for all the works carried out during all these years, for all the experiences and knowledge that I gathered with that. For all the people who work at the Instituto da Construção that always receive me so well. Thanks to Instituto da construção for all the support to my PhD.

To all my closest friends that supported me during all this time and were always concerned about me. Special gratitude to Diogo Martins, to Filipa Oliveira and Rute Aleixo. To my friends Luís

(8)

iv

Coelho, Filipe Neves, Bruno Morais, Mário Andrade, Isabel Barros, Cármen Estima, Tomé Gomes, Tiago Andrade, Filipe Rebelo and to Teófilo Monteiro.

To Helena Henriques and Zé Carlos for all their love throughout these years.

A special acknowledgment to Telma Cruz, who supported during all this journey, for her patience and understanding. For all the adventures that we have shared during this period.

Because family is the support of our lives, this work would not be possible without the support and inspiration of my mother and my grandparents. All of them were present in each word of this thesis. They were the base of my force and ambition since I was born. Thanks for your love and for being always there for me.

I would like also to address my gratitude to Preceram, Cimpor and Fassa Bortolo for supporting all the experimental campaign herein presented by supplying all the material.

This work was financially supported by: Base Funding - UIDB/04708/2020 and Programmatic Funding - UIDP/04708/2020 of the CONSTRUCT - Instituto de I&D em Estruturas e Construções - funded by national funds through the FCT/MCTES (PIDDAC). This work was object of specific financial support of FCT through the P0CI-01-0145-FEDER-016898 – “ASPASSI - Safety Evaluation and Retrofitting of Infill masonry enclosure Walls for Seismic demands”.

(9)

List of Figures

Figure 1 – Infilled RC structure damages after L’Aquila earthquake in 2009 Vicente et al. (2012). ... 2 Figure 2 – Infill panels OOP collapse after: a) Lorca earthquake in 2009 (Romão et al. 2013)

and b) L’Aquila earthquake in 2009 (Vicente et al. 2012). ... 3 Figure 3 – Schematic layout of the work plan framework: sequence and interaction between

tasks. ... 5 Figure 4 – Location of the post-earthquake damage reconnaissance missions carried out by the

LESE laboratory. ... 13 Figure 5 – Types of damages’ definition in infilled RC frames due to earthquakes. ... 15 Figure 6 – Flowchart of the most common damages observed in RC structures due to

earthquakes. ... 16 Figure 7 – Damage Type 1 – Example of post-earthquake damages in RC columns: a) absence

of transverse reinforcement, b) hoops’ poor detailing, c) large spacing between stirrups and d) insufficient transverse reinforcement. ... 17 Figure 8 – Damage Type 2 – Example of post-earthquake damages in RC columns: a) Bond and

inadequate spacing of the bars and stirrups; b) deficient stirrups detailing and inadequate spacing; and c) deficient stirrups’ detailing and use of plain smooth bars (stirrups). ... 19 Figure 9 – Damage Type 3 – Example of post-earthquake damages in RC columns: a)

insufficient transverse reinforcement and longitudinal reinforcement in two faces only; b) Shear failure due to poor transverse reinforcement; c) Poor detailing and transverse

reinforcement; and d) inadequate stirrups spacing. ... 22 Figure 10 – Damage Type 4 – Example of post-earthquake damages in beam-column RC joints:

a) absence of transverse reinforcement; b) Bond-split of the reinforcement and inadequate reinforcement anchorage; c) shear failure of the column due to poor transverse

reinforcement and d) poor detailing and design of the beam-column joint. ... 23 Figure 11 – Damage Type 5 – Example of post-earthquake damages in beam-column RC joints:

a) Strong beam-weak column mechanism and b) absence of transverse reinforcement in the beam-column joint. ... 24 Figure 12 – Damage Type 6 – Example of post-earthquake damages in RC structures:

short-column mechanism a) due to the presence of beam (situation 1) and b) due to a sloping site (situation 2) (adapted from Sharma et al. (2012). ... 25 Figure 13 – Damage Type 6 – Example of post-earthquake damages in RC structures:

(22)

xviii

Figure 14 – Structural configurations vulnerable to trigger out soft-storey mechanisms: a) stiffness difference between storeys; b) columns discontinuity; c) height variations among the storeys. ... 27 Figure 15 – Damage Type 7 – Example of buildings collapsed due to the soft-storey

mechanism. ... 28 Figure 16 – Examples of buildings with soft-storey configuration located in Portugal: a)

11-storey building; b) general view of 11-11-storey structures with soft-11-storey configuration; c) 4-storey building; and d) school building. ... 29 Figure 17 – Damage Type 7 – Example of partial collapse of the upper-storeys: a) general view;

b) detail of the column shear failure; c) general view; d) profile view of the building structure. ... 30 Figure 18 – Examples of seismic joints to avoid pounding between the units. ... 31 Figure 19 – Damage Type 8 – Example of pounding effect after the Lorca, Spain 2011

earthquake: a) adjacent buildings with different heights; b) and c) and d) cumulative stresses and cracking in common points among adjacent buildings. ... 32 Figure 20 – Damage Type 9 – Damages in secondary elements: a) partial collapse of the stairs;

b) absence of proper connection between the stairs and the main structural resistant system; c) excessive deformation of cantilever – general view d) use of props to support the cantilevers with excessive deformation. ... 33 Figure 21 – Examples of masonry parapets collapses in the Lorca (Spain) earthquake (adapted

from Romão et al. (2013)). ... 33 Figure 22 – Damage Type 10 – Damages in infill panels: detachment of the panel from the

envelope frame. ... 35 Figure 23 – Damage Type 10 – Damages in infill panels: diagonal cracking. ... 36 Figure 24 – Damage Type 10 – Damages in infill panels: a) and b) sliding cracking; c) and d)

corner crushing. ... 37 Figure 25 – Damage Type 10 – Damages in infill panels: OOP collapse in low-medium RC

structures... 38 Figure 26 – Damage Type 10 – Damages in infill panels: OOP collapse in medium-high RC

structures... 39 Figure 27 – AeDES Sheet of the damage to the structural elements (adapted from De Martino et

al. (2017)). ... 41 Figure 28 – Systematic review methodology: Selection of studies. ... 52

(23)

Figure 29 – Data information gathered from each specimen’ force-displacement result. ... 54 Figure 30 – Global overview results: a) Type of test; b) Specimen’ scale; c) Specimen

condition; and d) Type of frame. ... 59 Figure 31 – Gravity load application approaches: a) and b) Distributed load on the top beam

(adapted from Moreno-Herrera et al. (2016); c) and d) Local loads on the top of the columns (adapted from Furtado et al. (2016)). ... 61 Figure 32 – Global overview results: a) loading protocol; b) OOP loading application strategy.

... 63 Figure 33 – OOP loading application approaches: a) Airbag (adapted from Silva (2017); b)

Airbag with the RC frame structure attached to a reaction wall (adapted from Lunn et al. (2011); c) 4 points load application not aligned (adapted from (Di Domenico et al. 2018); d) 4 points load application aligned (adapted from Hak et al. (2014)). ... 64 Figure 34 – Global overview results: a) masonry unit type; b) panel height vs panel length; c)

panel area vs panel thickness; d) aspect ratio vs slenderness. ... 66 Figure 35 – As built specimens’ results: a) RC frame detailing; b) Maximum OOP strength

capacity according to RC frame detailing. ... 68 Figure 36 – As built specimens’ maximum OOP strength: Assessment of the effect a) aspect

ratio; b) slenderness; c) percentage of voids; d) masonry wallets compressive strength; e) flexural strength parallel to the horizontal bed joints; and f) perpendicular to the horizontal bed joints. ... 71 Figure 37 – Force-displacement curves from the tests carried out by Di Domenico et al. (2019)

bounded along a) four edges; b) three edges and c) two edges. ... 72 Figure 38 – Experimental results obtained by Akhoundi et al. (2018): a) Force-displacement

curve; b) SIF-O-1L-A cracking pattern and c) SIF-O-1L-B cracking pattern. ... 72 Figure 39 – As built specimens’ results: a) OOP driftFmax vs OOP drift0.8Fmax; b) OOP driftFmax vs

OOP driftFult, and c) Relative stiffness; d) OOP driftFmax vs panel aspect ratio; e) OOP

driftFmax vs panel slenderness. ... 74

Figure 40 – Effect of previous IP damage: a) Cracking strength; b) Assessment of the Eq. 10 accuracy; c) Secant cracking strength; and d) Assessment of the Eq. 11 accuracy. ... 82 Figure 41 – Effect of previous IP damage: a) Maximum strength, b) Secant Strength; c)

Assessment of the Eq. 12 accuracy, and d) Assessment of the Eq. 13 accuracy. ... 84 Figure 42 – Seismic retrofit and strengthening techniques of infill panels. ... 91 Figure 43 – Detail of specimen SF-SP3 cross-section (adapted from Mohammadi et al. (2011)).

(24)

xx

Figure 44 – Specimen SF-SP3 damage due to 7.1% drift (adapted from Mohammadi et al. (2011)). ... 93 Figure 45 – General view of the specimen tested on second group (adapted from Mohammadi et al. (2011)). ... 93 Figure 46 – Detail of the fuse in the second group of testing (adapted from Mohammadi et al.

(2011)). ... 94 Figure 47 – General view of the EIF-1 damaged specimen after the IP test (adapted from

Mohammadi et al. (2011)). ... 95 Figure 48 – Specimen EIF-1 damaged due to the OOP test (adapted from Mohammadi et al.

(2011)). ... 95 Figure 49 – Schematic layout of the design solution proposed by Preti et al. (2012): a) detail of

the partition joints’ folded plates, and b) fired clay hollow bricks and joints view. ... 96 Figure 50 – Testing campaign carried out by Vailati et al. (2018): a) detail of the components’

assemblage; b) detail of the specimen; and c) lateral view of the specimen deformation under 5% OOP drift. ... 98 Figure 51 – Example of a cladding system proposed by Goodno et al. (1996). ... 98 Figure 52 – SIWIS sub-frame system example: a) schematic layout; b) detail of the connection

infill-sub-frame (adapted from Aliaari et al. (2005)). ... 99 Figure 53 – Gaps between infill and columns and beam (adapted from Charleston (2008)). ... 101 Figure 54 – Examples of solutions adopted to execute the gaps between infill and the frame

(adapted from Charleston (2008)): a) layout scheme; and b) office building, Wellington in New Zealand (solution with local connection); c) building example with clear gap between the panel and the structure (adapted from Aliaari et al. (2005))... 102 Figure 55 – Example of application of ETIC solution. ... 103 Figure 56 – Testing campaign carried out by Carney et al. (2003): a) FRP laminate detail –

method 1; and b) NSM FRP rod detail – Method 2 (Adapted from Carney et al. (2003)). ... 104 Figure 57 – Testing campaign carried out by Almusallam et al. (2007): Retrofit schematic

layout of the FRP strengthening solution. ... 106 Figure 58 – Testing campaign carried out by Lunn et al. (2011): FRP anchorage systems a) FRP overlap onto RC frame; b) no overlap onto RC frame; c) shear restraint anchorage system (in-elevation view); d) Shear restraint anchorage system (top view). ... 108

(25)

Figure 59 – Testing campaign carried out by Lunn et al. (2011): Failure mode a) flexural failure; b) shear sliding failure; c) FRP debonding failure; and d) no failure for the shear restrained specimens. ... 109 Figure 60 – Testing campaign carried out by Valluzzi et al. (2014): a) Schematic layout of the

strengthening solution; b) applications of the FRP layer; c) Example of tensile rupture; and d) example of debonding. ... 110 Figure 61 – Testing campaign (IP tests) carried out by Erol et al. (2016): a) general view of the

strengthened specimens; b) schematic layout of the anchorage of the strengthening

material; and c) schematic layout of the FRP retrofit. ... 112 Figure 62 – Testing campaign carried out by Billington et al. (2009): schematic layout of the

strengthening solution. ... 114 Figure 63 – Testing campaign carried out by Kyriakides et al. (2014): EW-25 specimen design.

... 116 Figure 64 – Testing campaign carried out by Kyriakides et al. (2014): EWBD-40 specimen

design. ... 117 Figure 65 – Testing campaign carried out by Kyriakides et al. (2014): EWUD-40 specimen

design. ... 118 Figure 66 – Testing campaign carried out by Kyriakides et al. (2014): cracking pattern: a) UW;

b) EW-25; c) EWBD-40; d) EWUD-40 and; e) energy dissipation. ... 120 Figure 67 – Testing campaign carried out by Kyriakides et al. (2014): failure modes a)

specimen FUED; b) specimen FLRED. ... 121 Figure 68 – Testing campaign carried out by Barros (2017): damages observed after the flexural

strength tests parallel to the horizontal bed joints a) as-built specimens, b) group A and c) group B. ... 122 Figure 69 – Testing campaign carried out by Barros (2017): flexural strength tests parallel to the horizontal bed joints a) flexural strength and b) df,oop,max. ... 123

Figure 70 – Testing campaign carried out by Barros (2017): damages observed after the flexural strength tests parallel to the horizontal bed joints a) as-built specimens, b) group A, c) Group B – detail of distributed damage along the specimen and d) group c – masonry crushing. ... 124 Figure 71 – Testing campaign carried out by Barros (2017): flexural strength tests perpendicular to the horizontal bed joints a) flexural strength and b) df,oop,max. ... 124

Figure 72 – Strengthening of RC elements using TRM: a) beam; and b) column (adapted from Koutas et al. (2019)) ... 127

(26)

xxii

Figure 73 – Examples of textile meshes, for TRM based solutions. ... 128 Figure 74 – Strengthening of infill panels using TRM based solutions: mortar-textile mesh

interaction/adhesion a) lateral view of the application of the mesh in a fresh plaster; and b) lateral view of the TRM composite after an OOP test. ... 128 Figure 75 – Strengthening of infill panels using TRM based solutions: textile meshes-panel

connectors a) examples of plastic connectors; and b) application of the plastic connector. ... 129 Figure 76 – Strengthening of infill panels using TRM based solutions: textile meshes-frame

connectors a) examples of plastic, L-shape GFRP and metallic connectors; and b)

application of an L-shape GFRP connector. ... 129 Figure 77 – Strengthening of infill panels using TRM based solutions: overlap of the textile

mesh a) frame-panel transition; and b) between layers of the textile meshes. ... 130 Figure 78 – Testing campaign carried out by Angel et al. (1994): Schematic layout of the

repairing method of the infill panel. ... 131 Figure 79 – Testing campaign carried out by Calvi et al. (2001): a) schematic layout; b) detail of the strengthening. ... 132 Figure 80 – Testing campaign carried out by Pereira et al. (2012): OOP Force-displacement

curves. ... 133 Figure 81 – Testing campaign carried out by Pereira et al. (2012): Cracking pattern a) reference

specimen Wall_REF_01; b) Wall_RAR. ... 133 Figure 82 – Testing campaign carried out by Guidi et al. (2013): Force-displacement curves a)

thick walls; b) thin walls. ... 134 Figure 83 – Testing campaign carried out by Koutas et al. (2014): TRM strengthening of infill

with different possible boundary conditions a) schematic layout b) schematic placement of anchors. ... 135 Figure 84 – Testing campaign carried out by Koutas et al. (2014): Textile meshes a)

epoxy-coated E-glass; b) elastomeric polymer-epoxy-coated glass; and c) unepoxy-coated basalt textile. ... 136 Figure 85 – Testing campaign carried out by Koutas et al. (2014): TRM application process a)

application of mortar; b) application of first textile layer; c) impregnation of anchor dry fibres with epoxy adhesive; and d) bonding of the anchor fan over the first textile layer. ... 137 Figure 86 – Testing campaign carried out by Koutas et al. (2015)Strengthening scheme

application steps: a) bare frame; b) step 1; c) infilling with masonry; d) step 2; e) step 3; f) stage 4; g) stage 5; h) stage 6; and i) stage 7. ... 139

(27)

Figure 87 – Testing campaign carried out by Francesca da Porto et al. (2015): Failure mode of flexural tests specimens a) HB-UR series; b) HB-NR series; c) VB-NR series. ... 140 Figure 88 – Testing campaign carried out by Martins et al. (2015): a) Construction detail of the

manufactured carbon mesh; b) ductility factors (adapted from Martins et al. (2015))... 141 Figure 89 – Testing campaign carried out by De Risi et al. (2020): detail from the detachment

from the plastic connector: a) lateral view; b) detail of the connector; and c) detachment of the plaster from the column. ... 143 Figure 90 – Testing campaign carried out by De Risi et al. (2020): detail from shear cutting. 143 Figure 91 – Examples of bed joints reinforcement. ... 145 Figure 92 – Testing campaign carried out by Dawe et al. (1989) Cracking pattern of the

specimen a) 6a (without bed joints reinforcement) and b) 7a (with bed joints

reinforcement). ... 146 Figure 93 – Testing campaign carried out by Silva (2017): Uniko system a) schematic layout;

and b) masonry unit detail (Adapted from Silva (2017)). ... 147 Figure 94 – Testing campaign carried out by Silva (2017): Termico system a) schematic layout;

b) details of construction; c) masonry unit, d) bed joint reinforcement, and connectors. 147 Figure 95 – Examples of RC building structures built with HCHB units in the façades. ... 152 Figure 96 – Examples of RC building structures built with a) and b) Vertical hollow concrete

blocks; and c) and d) vertical hollow clay brick units. ... 153 Figure 97 – Historical evolution of the masonry units used in the building’s façade in Portugal.

... 153 Figure 98 – Schematic layout of the testing campaign for material, mechanical and dynamic

characterization. ... 156 Figure 99 – Geometric dimensions of the masonry units used in this experimental campaign: a)

HCHB110 and b) HCHB150. ... 157 Figure 100 – Compression strength tests of masonry units: test setup a) HCHB110 units; and b)

HCHB150 units. ... 159 Figure 101 – Measurement of the brick units’ geometric dimensions: a) HCHB150 units; and b)

HCHB110 units. ... 160 Figure 102 – Compression strength tests of masonry units: HCHB150 damage evolution a)

cracking in the horizontal septs; b) spalling of half-part of the brick; c) collapse of three vertical septs; and d) total rupture. ... 162

(28)

xxiv

Figure 103 – Compression strength tests of masonry units: HCHB110 damage evolution a) cracking in the horizontal septs; b) spalling of half-part of the brick; c) collapse of two vertical septs; and d) total rupture. ... 164 Figure 104 – Mortar samples for testing according to EN 1015-11 (CEN 2004): a) compression

strength test; and b) flexural strength test. ... 167 Figure 105 – Details of the existing masonry panels made with HCHB150 units: a) front view;

and b) lateral views. ... 168 Figure 106 – Example of construction of wallets made with HCHB110 units. ... 168 Figure 107 – Compressive strength tests: specimens’ geometric dimensions according to

standard EN 1052-1 (CEN 1998). ... 171 Figure 108 – Compressive strength tests: test setup a) Front view; and b) Lateral view. ... 172 Figure 109 – Compressive strength tests: specimens’ geometric dimensions and respective

instrumentation. ... 172 Figure 110 – Compressive strength test results: Stress vs Strain curves a) HCHB110, b)

HCHB150, c) HCHB150 (existing); d) HCHB 150P10 (existing); and e) global average curves. ... 175 Figure 111 – Compressive strength tests: observed damages a) HCHB110, b) HCHB150; c)

HCHB150 (existing) and d) HCHB150P10 (existing). ... 178 Figure 112 – Diagonal tensile strength tests: a) Test setup view and b) instrumentation and

specimen’s geometric dimensions. ... 180 Figure 113 – Diagonal tensile strength test results: a) HCHB110; b) HCHB150; c) HCHB150

(existing); and d) Global groups’ comparison. ... 182 Figure 114 – Diagonal tensile strength test results: a) HCHB110; b) HCHB150; c) HCHB150

(existing); and d) Global groups’ comparison. ... 183 Figure 115 – Diagonal tensile strength tests: Failure modes a) HCHB110; b) HCHB150 and c)

HCHB150 (existing). ... 184 Figure 116 – Flexural strength tests parallel to horizontal bed joints: specimens’ geometric

dimensions according to NP EN1052-2 standard (CEN 1999). ... 185 Figure 117 – Flexural strength tests parallel to horizontal bed joints: test setup for a) HCHB150

specimen; and b) HCHB110 specimen. ... 186 Figure 118 – Flexural strength tests parallel to horizontal bed joints: a) detail view of the

(29)

Figure 119 – Flexural strength tests parallel to horizontal bed joints: Flexural strength vs OOP displacement: a) HCB110; b) HCB150; c) HCHB150P10; d) HCB150 (existing) and HCHB150P10 (existing) and e) global results. ... 189 Figure 120 – Flexural strength tests parallel to horizontal bed joints: example of shear failure of

HCHB150 specimen. ... 190 Figure 121 – Flexural strength tests parallel to horizontal bed joints: Failure modes a)

HCHB110; b) HCHB150; c) HCHB150P10 (existing); and d) HCHB150 (existing). .... 190 Figure 122 – Flexural strength tests perpendicular to horizontal bed joints: specimens’

dimensions according to NP EN1052-2 standard (CEN 1999). ... 191 Figure 123 – Flexural strength tests perpendicular to horizontal bed joints: test setup a) lateral

view; b) back view and c) top view. ... 192 Figure 124 – Flexural strength tests perpendicular to horizontal bed joints: a) detail view and b)

instrumentation and specimens’ geometric dimensions. ... 193 Figure 125 – Flexural strength tests perpendicular to horizontal bed joints stress-OOP

displacement: a) HCHB110; b) HCHB150; c) HCHB150P10; d) HCHB150 (Existing) and e) global results. ... 194 Figure 126 – Flexural strength tests perpendicular to horizontal bed joints failure modes: a)

HCHB110; b) HCHB150; c) HCB150P10; d) HCHB150P10 (existing). ... 195 Figure 127 – Ambient vibration tests in infill walls methodology: a) schematic layout of the test

setup; b) general view of the test setup in laboratory; c) acquisition device; and d) example of the evolution of the acceleration over time. ... 200 Figure 128 – Examples of modal identification test results: a) peak picking of the singular

values of spectral density matrices; b) 1st_{OOP vibration mode (panel); c) 2}nd_OOP

vibration mode (panel); d) 3rd_{OOP vibration mode (panel); e) 1}st_{IP vibration mode}

(global mode) and f) 2nd_{IP vibration mode (global mode) (green – mode shape; blue –}

original position). ... 202 Figure 129 – Modal identification test in LESE speciment:a) layout of the test setup; b) lateral

view; and c) front view. ... 203 Figure 130 – Building A: a) in-plan layout; and b) general elevation view. ... 207 Figure 131 – Masonry units geometric dimensions (mm) a) HCHB110; b) HCHB150 and c)

HCHB220. ... 207 Figure 132 – Building A – Infill panels general view: a) external wall partially supported; b)

elevation view; and c) cross-section view. ... 208 Figure 133 – Building A – Tested infill walls geometric dimensions. ... 214

(30)

xxvi

Figure 134 – Building A test results: 1st_{OOP frequency. ... 216}

Figure 135 – Building A test results: Linf/Hinf ratio: a) global results; b) panels 110mm thick; c)

panels 150mm thick, and d) panels 220mm thick ... 217 Figure 136 – Building A test results: Diagonal dimension D: a) global results; b) panels 110mm

thick; c) panels 150mm thick, and d) panels 220mm thick ... 218 Figure 137 – Building A test results: OOP frequency vs μ. ... 219 Figure 138 – Building B: a) in-plan disposition; and b) general elevation overview. ... 219 Figure 139 – Building B – Tested wall panels’ geometries: a) Wall B1; b) Wall B2 and c) Wall

B3. ... 221 Figure 140 – Building B test results: a) 1st_{OOP frequency; b) OOP frequency vs L/H ratio; c)}

OOP frequency vs diagonal dimension D and d) OOP frequency vs μ. ... 222 Figure 141 – Building C a) General view b) Transversal view and c) Building plan. ... 223 Figure 142 – Building C: General view of the tested infill walls a) Panel C1_ext b) Panel C3.

... 224 Figure 143 – Building C – geometry of the tested infill wall: a) Panel C1; b) Panel C2 and c)

Panel C3... 225 Figure 144 – Building C test results: a) 1st_{OOP frequency; b) OOP frequency vs L/H ratio; c)}

OOP frequency vs D and d) OOP frequency vs μ. ... 227 Figure 145 – Global results: a) OOP frequency vs L/H ratio; b) OOP frequency vs diagonal

dimension D and c) OOP frequency vs μ. ... 228 Figure 146 – Infilled RC frame specimen dimensions (units in meters): a) general dimensions;

b) front view of the specimen; c) RC frame reinforcement detailling; d) column and e) beam dimensions and reinforcement detailing ... 236 Figure 147 – Mortar Type M5 (“Ciarga”) used to build the infill panels: a) exterior view of the

bag; and b) general view of the mortar preparation. ... 240 Figure 148 – Construction methodology of the infill panels under test: a) application of the first

layer of mortar and the first brick next to the column; b) execution of the first row of bricks; c) construction of the panel penultimate row of bricks; and d) execution of the last row of bricks. ... 242 Figure 149 – Layout of the OOP test set-up: a) front, b) plan and c) lateral view. ... 244 Figure 150 – General view of the OOP experimental test set-up: a) front view, b) near view. 245 Figure 151 - Test setup view: axial load application in the top of the RC frame columns. ... 245

(31)

Figure 152 - OOP test instrumentation: a) schematic layout; b) Lateral view of the

instrumentation; and c) Front view of the instrumentation. ... 247 Figure 153 – Inf_01: a) First cracking; b) Final cracking pattern; c) Damages observed (Back

view); d) detail from the detachment of the panel from the bottom RC beam; e) Force-displacement response. ... 249 Figure 154 – Inf_02: a) First macro-cracking; b) cracking pattern (Front view); c) detail of the

deformation in the centre of the panel; d) damages observed (near view); e)

Force-displacement response. ... 250 Figure 155 – Inf_03: IP test a) Damages observed (Front view); b) detail of corner crushing. 251 Figure 156 – Inf_03: a) Observed damages (Front view); b) detail of the panel detachment; c)

cracking pattern and d) Force-displacement response. ... 252 Figure 157 – Inf_04: a) First cracking; b) Observed damages; c) cracking pattern and d)

Force-displacement response. ... 253 Figure 158 – Inf_05: a) First cracking; b) Lateral view of the damages observed; c) cracking

pattern; and d) Force-displacement response. ... 254 Figure 159 – Inf_06: a) First cracking; b) Observed damages; c) cracking pattern; and d)

Force-displacement response. ... 255 Figure 160 – Stage 1 - Comparative analysis: Cracking pattern a) Inf_01; b) Inf_02; c) Inf_03;

d) Inf_04; e) Inf_05 and f) Inf_06. ... 257 Figure 161 – Stage 1 - Comparative analysis: Force displacement envelope curves. ... 259 Figure 162 – Stage 1 - Comparative analysis: OOP displacements vertical profiles at: a)

L=1/4Lpanel; b) L=1/2Lpanel and c) L=3/4Lpanel; OOP displacement horizontal profiles at d)

H=1/4Hpanel; e) H=1/2Hpanel and f) H=3/4Hpanel. ... 267

Figure 163 – Stage 1 - Comparative analysis: OOP displacement contour level maps a) OOP displacement transducers considered for the contour level maps b) Inf_01; c) Inf_02; d) Inf_03; e) Inf_04; f) Inf_05 and g) Inf_06. ... 268 Figure 164 – Stage 1 - Comparative analysis: Methodology adopted to assess stiffness

degradation. ... 269 Figure 165 – Stage 1 - Comparative analysis: global relative stiffness. ... 270 Figure 166 – Stage 1 - Comparative analysis of individual half-cycle and cumulative energy

dissipation a) Inf_02; b) Inf_03; c) Inf_04; d) Inf_05 and e) Inf_06. ... 271 Figure 167 – Stage 1 - Comparative analysis: cumulative energy dissipation. ... 272

(32)

xxviii

Figure 168 – Layout of the OOP test set-up using pneumatic actuators: a) front and b) near view. ... 274 Figure 169 – View of the OOP test set-up using pneumatic actuators: a) overall view; b) lateral

view; c) near view and d) front view. ... 275 Figure 170 – Stage 2: Instrumentation: a) schematic front layout; and b) general view. ... 276 Figure 171 – Specimen Inf_08: a) First cracking; b) Cracking at Peak Load; c) Final damage

observed; d) Cracking Pattern; and e) force-displacement curve. ... 278 Figure 172 – Specimen Inf_09: a) First cracking; b) Cracking at Peak Load; c) last instant

before the collapse; d) beginning of the collapse mechanism; e) panel collapse; f) Cracking Pattern and g) Force-displacement curve. ... 280 Figure 173 – Specimen Inf_11: Damages after IP test a) Cracking pattern; b) detail of the plaster

detachment; c) detail of the panel-frame separation; and d) near view with detail of the brick crushing. ... 281 Figure 174 – Specimen Inf_11: a) First cracking; b) Cracking at Peak Load; c) Final observed

damages; d) Cracking pattern; and e) force-displacement curve. ... 282 Figure 175 – Stage 2 - Comparative analysis: Cracking pattern a) Inf_08; b) Inf_09 and c)

Inf_11. ... 284 Figure 176 – Stage 2 - Comparative analysis: Force displacement curves. ... 285 Figure 177 – Stage 2 - Comparative analysis: Vertical OOP displacements profiles at: a)

L=1/4Lpanel; b) L=1/2Lpanel and c) L=3/4Lpanel; horizontal OOP displacement profiles at d)

H=1/4Hpanel; e) H=1/2Hpanel and f) H=3/4Hpanel. ... 289

Figure 178 – Stage 2 - Comparative analysis: OOP displacement contour level maps a) Inf_08; b) Inf_09; and c) Inf_11. ... 289 Figure 179 – Comparative analysis: global relative stiffness. ... 290 Figure 180 – Stage 2 - Comparative analysis: individual half-cycle and cumulative energy

dissipation a) Inf_08; b) Inf_09 and c) Inf_11... 291 Figure 181 – Stage 2 - Comparative analysis: cumulative energy dissipation. ... 292 Figure 182 – Summary of the global results – a) OOP strength (FOOP); and b) OOP drift (dOOP).

... 294 Figure 183 – Effect of the gravity load: a) Inf_02 cracking pattern; b) Inf_04 cracking pattern;

(33)

Figure 184 – Effect of the reduction of panel support width: a) Inf_02 cracking pattern; b) Inf_05 cracking pattern; c) Force-displacement curves; and d) cumulative energy

dissipation. ... 297 Figure 185 – Effect of the previous damage: a) Inf_08 cracking pattern; b) Inf_11 cracking

pattern; c) Force-displacement curves; and d) cumulative energy dissipation. ... 299 Figure 186 – Effect of the previous damage: a) Inf_02 cracking pattern; b) Inf_03 cracking

pattern; c) Force-displacement curves; and d) cumulative energy dissipation. ... 300 Figure 187 – Effect of the plaster: a) Inf_02 cracking pattern; b) Inf_06 cracking pattern; c)

Force-displacement curves; and d) cumulative energy dissipation. ... 301 Figure 188 – Effect of the workmanship: a) Inf_08 cracking pattern; b) Inf_09 cracking pattern;

c) Force-displacement curves; and d) cumulative energy dissipation. ... 302 Figure 189 – Effect of the test setup a) Inf_06 cracking pattern; b) Inf_08 cracking pattern; c)

Force-displacement curves; and d) cumulative energy dissipation. ... 303 Figure 190 – Strengthening materials used for the GFRP group specimens: a) detail of the

textile mesh; b) metallic connectors; c) strenghtening strategy adopted for specimens without connectors; and d) strenghtening strategy adopted for specimens with connectors. ... 311 Figure 191 – Strengthening process of the GFRP group specimens: a) splashing of the panels ;

b) application of the first layer of the plaster (about 5mm); c) aplication of the textile mesh and second layer of plaster (5mm); d) fixation of the mesh to the top of the panel; e) lateral view of the metalic connectors fixing the mesh to the top and back side; and f) aplication of 5mm thick plaster. ... 312 Figure 192 – Strengthening materials used for the PP group specimens: a) detail of the textile

mesh; b) strenghtening strategy adopted for specimens without connectors; and c)

strenghtening strategy adopted for specimens with connectors. ... 313 Figure 193 – Four points flexural strength tests according to NP EN 1052-2: instrumentation a)

schematic layout; and b) side view of the LVDTs layout. ... 314 Figure 194 – Cantilever flexure strength tests: preparation of the specimens: a) overview of the

specimens; b) filling with mortar process; c) top view of half-brick filled with mortar; and d) profile view of the final aspect. ... 315 Figure 195 – Cantilever flexural strength tests: test setup: schematic layout. ... 316 Figure 196 – Cantilever flexural strength tests: test setup: a) left view; b) right view; c) detail of

(34)

xxx

Figure 197 – Cantilever flexural strength tests: instrumentation: a) schematic layout b)

clinometer view. ... 317 Figure 198 – Four point flexural strength tests: Schematic layout. ... 318 Figure 199 – Four point flexural strength tests: force-displacement curves a) GFRP group b) PP

specimens; flexural strength c) GFRP group; and d) PP group. ... 319 Figure 200 – Four point flexural strength tests: GFRP group failure modes a) Specimen 1 b)

Specimen 2; c) Specimen 3; d) Specimen 4 and e) Specimen 5. ... 321 Figure 201 – Four point flexural strength tests: PP group failure modes a) Specimen 1 b)

Specimen 2; c) Specimen 3; d) Specimen 4 and e) Specimen 5. ... 321 Figure 202 – Cantilever flexural strength tests: force-displacement curves a) GFRP group b) PP

specimens; flexural strength c) GFRP group; and d) PP group. ... 323 Figure 203 – Cantilever flexural strength tests: GFRP group failure modes a) Development of

flexural crack b) top view of the damaged specimen. ... 325 Figure 204 – Cantilever flexural strength tests: PP group failure modes a) development of

horizontal flexural crack b) collapse of the panel; c) lateral view of the panel collapsed; and d) detail view of the mesh failure. ... 326 Figure 205: Strengthening materials used for the panel Inf_10: a) detail of the steel connectors

and plastic disk used in the panel; b) general view of the mesh fixed to the panel; c) detail of the M8 steel connectors and plastic disk used to fix the mesh to the frame; and d) detail view of the application. ... 331 Figure 206 - Strengthening process of the panel Inf_10: a) Application of the first layer of

plaster; b) positioning of the mesh; c) anchorage of the mesh to the frame; and d)

application of the second layer of mortar. ... 332 Figure 207: Schematic layout of the Inf_10 strengthening strategy... 332 Figure 208: Strengthening materials used for the panel Inf_12 and Inf_13: a) general view of the mesh fixed to the panel; b) detail of the plastic connector for the mesh-panel anchorage; c) detail of the M8 steel connectors for the frame-mesh anchorage and general view of the steel plate; and d) detail view of the steel conector and plate. ... 334 Figure 209 - Strengthening process of the panels Inf_12 and Inf_13: a) general view of the panel as-built condition; b) application of the first layer of plaster; c) positioning of the mesh; d) holes drilling in the column for connector; e) tightening of the steel connector; f) detail view of the mesh-frame anchorage; g) general view of the strengthened panel with mesh and all the connectors applied; and h) application of the second layer of mortar. ... 336

(35)

Figure 210 - Strengthening process of the panel Inf_12: a) Schematic layout; and b) general view of the strengthened specimen. ... 337 Figure 211 – Experimental results: Specimen Inf_10: a) force-displacement curve; b) first

cracking; and c) cracking pattern... 340 Figure 212 – Experimental results: Specimen Inf_10: a) Lateral view of the damage in the front

of the panel; b) right view of the panel near side; and c) left view of the panel back side. ... 341 Figure 213 – Experimental results: Specimen Inf_12: a) general view of the final damage after

IP test; and d) cracking pattern after IP test. ... 341 Figure 214 – Experimental results: Specimen Inf_12: a) force-displacement curve; b) first

cracking; and c) cracking pattern... 342 Figure 215 – Experimental results: Specimen Inf_12: a) detail of the mesh sliding; b) detail of

the detachment of the panel and the mesh sliding; c) left view of the panel back side; d) right view of the panel back view; e) detail of the deformed shape of the panel; and f) detail of the measurement of the OOP displacement. ... 344 Figure 216 – Experimental results: Specimen Inf_13: a) force-displacement curve; b) first

cracking; and c) cracking pattern... 345 Figure 217 – Experimental results: Specimen Inf_13: a) lateral view of the bottom part of the

panel front; b) detail of the mesh-frame anchorage after detached the plaster; c) detail of few examples of sliding of the mesh; d) detail of the top mesh-frame anchorage; e) left view of the panel back side; and f) right view of the panel back side. ... 346 Figure 218 – Assessment of the efficiency of the strengthening techniques: a) force

displacement envelope curves (specimens without prior damage); b) force displacement envelope curves (specimens with previous IP damage); c) relative stiffness (specimens without prior damage); and d) relative stiffness (specimens without prior damage). ... 347 Figure 219 – Assessment of the efficiency of the strengthening techniques: a) OOP strength

FOOP; and b) OOP drift dOOP. ... 351

Figure 220 – Assessment of the efficiency of the strengthening techniques: Cracking pattern a) Inf_08; b) Inf_10; c) Inf_11; d) Inf_12 and e) Inf_13. ... 352 Figure 221 – Assessment of the efficiency of the strengthening techniques: Dissipated energy

per cycle: a) Inf_08; b) Inf_10; c) Inf_11; d) Inf_12 and e) Inf_13. ... 353 Figure 222 – Assessment of the efficiency of the strengthening techniques: Cumulative energy

(36)

xxxii

Figure 223 – Analysis of the strengthening techniques efficiency: force-displacement curves: a) Inf_08 vs Inf_10; b) Inf_08 vs Inf_13; c) Inf_10 vs Inf_13; d) Inf_11 vs Inf_12 and e) Inf_12 vs Inf_13. ... 358 Figure 224 – Crisafulli et al. (2007) numerical model: a) parallel struts; and b) Shear-springs.

... 366 Figure 225 – Kadysiewski et al. (2009) numerical model: a) schematic layout b) IP-OOP

displacement interaction curve. ... 368 Figure 226 – Trapani et al. (2018) numerical model schematic layout. ... 368 Figure 227 – Ricci et al. (2018) numerical model: a) schematic layout; and b) OOP backbones

curves. ... 369 Figure 228 – Mazza (2019) numerical model schematic layout: a) IP modelling; and b) OOP

modelling. ... 370 Figure 229 – Al Hanoun et al. (2019) numerical model schematic layout. ... 371 Figure 230 – Macro-model proposed to simulate the infill panels’ seismic behaviour. ... 374 Figure 231 – Hysteretic material behaviour of the central element. ... 376 Figure 232 – Simplified numerical model: framework layout scheme. ... 381 Figure 233 –Infill wall displacement interaction law envelope to define element removal

activation. ... 381 Figure 234 – Single-story, single-bay infilled masonry RC frame tested by Pires (1990): a)

frame geometry b) top beam cross sections and c) columns’ cross-section dimensions and detailing of RC elements (units in meters). ... 383 Figure 235 –Experimental campaign by Pires (1990): uniaxial material model – backbone curve.

... 384 Figure 236 – Calibration of the numerical model results: Experimental campaign by Pires

(1990) a) Base shear – Top displacement; b) base-shear-top displacement envelopes and c) Cumulative energy dissipation. ... 385 Figure 237 – Experimental campaign by Calvi et al. (2001): single-story single-bay infilled

masonry RC frame: a) global specimen dimensions; b) top and bottom beams’ section and reinforcement detailing and c) columns’ section and reinforcement detailing. ... 386 Figure 238 – Calvi et al. (2001) specimens numerical modelling: Bare frame Test 01: Base

Shear – top displacement results. ... 388 Figure 239 – Calvi et al. (2001) specimens numerical modelling: a) Full infill test 02, and b) test 03 Shear force – top displacement. ... 389

(37)

Figure 240 – Kakaletsis et al. (2008) single-storey and single-bay infilled masonry RC frame: a) frame geometry, b) cross sections dimensions and detailing of top beam and c) columns. ... 390 Figure 241 – Experimental campaign by Kakaletsis et al. (2008): specimens dimensions a) Test

S - Full infill, b) Test WO2 - Infill with window, and c) Test DO2 – Infill with Door. ... 392 Figure 242 – Kakaletsis et al. (2008) specimens numerical modelling results: a) Test 01 - Bare

Frame b) Test 02 - Full infill c) Test 03 - Infill with window d) Test 04 – Infill with Door. ... 395 Figure 243 –Blind test prediction contest: a) lateral view of the specimen; b) front view of the

specimen and c) general views. ... 399 Figure 244 – Case study: a) plant layout, b) 3D bare frame model; c) Front view; and d) Lateral

view. ... 401 Figure 245 – In-plane and out-of-plane infill wall behaviour linear interaction adopted for the

OOP model. ... 405 Figure 246 – Seismic vulnerability assessment: methodology... 409 Figure 247 – Elastic spectra of the ground motions used for the IDA analyses: a) Type 1; b) type 2. ... 409 Figure 248 - Incremental dynamic analysis results: ISDMAX (Direction X) for a) BF model; b) IP

model; and c) IP_OOP model. ... 410 Figure 249 – Incremental dynamic analysis results: ISDMAX (Direction Y) for a) BF model; b) IP

model; and c) IP_OOP model. ... 411 Figure 250 – Incremental dynamic analysis results: maximum base shear evolution of a) BF, b)

IP, and c) IP_OOP models, for the longitudinal direction (20 IDA curves). ... 411 Figure 251 – Incremental dynamic analysis results: envelope of ISDMAX: a) pga = 0.15g, b) pga

= 0.30g, and c) pga = 0.50g. ... 412 Figure 252 – Fragility curves for a) BF model, b) IP model, and c) IP_OOP model... 413 Figure 253 – Fragility curves for a) moderate, b) extensive and c) collapse damage states. .... 414 Figure 254 – Schematic layout of the workflow. ... 417 Figure 255 – Global results of PFA: a) BF model (Longitudinal); b) BF model (transverse); c)

IP_OOP model (Longitudinal); d) IP_OOP model (transverse); e) Comparison

(38)

xxxiv

Figure 256 – Global results: Ratio PFA/pga a) BF model (Longitudinal); b) BF model (transverse); c) IP_OOP model (Longitudinal); d) IP_OOP model (transverse); e)

Comparison (longitudinal) and f) Comparison (transverse). ... 419 Figure 257 – Global results: PFA heightwise profiles a) Longitudinal; b) Transverse. ... 420 Figure 258 – Global results: FRS a) BF model; b) IP_OOP model; and c) Comparison. ... 422 Figure 259 – Global results: CRS a) BF model; b) IP_OOP model; and c) Comparison. ... 424 Figure 260 – Global results: PFV a) BF model (Longitudinal); b) BF model (transverse); c)

IP_OOP model (Longitudinal); d) IP_OOP model (transverse); e) Comparison

(longitudinal) and f) Comparison (transverse). ... 425 Figure 261 – Global results: inter-storey PFV profile a) Longitudinal; b) Transverse. ... 426 Figure 262 – Infill masonry walls OOP accelerations a) PIA; b) ratio PIA/pga; c) comparison

PIAvsPFA(longitudinal); and d) comparison PIAvsPFA(Transverse). ... 428 Figure 263 – Infill masonry walls OOP accelerations: inter-storey PIA profile a) Longitudinal;

b) Transverse. ... 429 Figure 264 – Infill masonry walls OOP accelerations: IARS a) Storey 1; b) Storey 2; c) Storey

3; d) Storey 4; e) Storey 5; f) Storey 6; g) Storey 7 and h) Storey 8. ... 431 Figure 265 – Infill masonry walls OOP accelerations: IACS a) Storey 1; b) Storey 2; c) Storey

3; d) Storey 4; e) Storey 5; f) Storey 6; g) Storey 7 and h) Storey 8. ... 432 Figure 266 – Infill masonry walls OOP velocities: a) PIV; b) comparison PIV vs PFV

(longitudinal); and c) comparison PIV vs PFV(Transverse). ... 433 Figure 267 – Infill masonry walls OOP velocities: IVRS a) Storey 1; b) Storey 2; c) Storey 3; d)

Storey 4; e) Storey 5; f) Storey 6; g) Storey 7 and h) Storey 8. ... 434 Figure 268 – Comparison with the EC8 provision a) storey PIA (longitudinal); b)

inter-storey PIA profile (transverse) and c) Sa,EC8 vs PIA. ... 436

Figure 269 –Seismic assessment methodology adopted for evaluating the influence of

aftershocks in the structural damage. ... 441 Figure 270 – Example of mainshock–aftershock sequences applied to analyse the seismic

vulnerability of damaged structures: a) SA1-SA1x1; b) SA1-SA1x0.6; c) a) SA1-SA1x0.3; d)

SA1-SA2xSFx1; e) SA1-SA2xSFx0.6; and f) SA1-SA2xSFx0.3 (SF- scale factor)... 443

Figure 271 - Damaged Structures: ISDMAX evolution (direction X) a) BF model and b) IP_OOP

model. ... 445 Figure 272 - Damaged Structures: ISDMAX evolution (Direction Y) a) BF model and b) IP_OOP

(39)

Figure 273 – Damaged Structures: Fragility curves for slightly damaged structures a) BF model and b) IP_OOP model. ... 446 Figure 274 – Damaged Structures: Fragility curves for moderately damaged structures a) BF

model and b) IP_OOP model... 446 Figure 275 – Damaged Structures: Fragility curves for extensively damaged structures a) BF

model and b) IP_OOP model... 447 Figure 276 – Damaged Structures: Fragility curves for partially collapsed structures a) BF

model and b) IP_OOP model... 448 Figure 277 – Damaged Structures: Assessment of the infill walls impact – ISDMAX according to

each damage group due to mainshock impact. ... 450 Figure 278 – Damaged Structures: Assessment of the infill walls impact – Fragility curves of

slight damaged structures due to mainshock impact. ... 451 Figure 279 – Damaged Structures: Assessment of the infill walls impact – Fragility curves of

moderately damaged structures due to mainshock impact for a) Extensive damage; and b) Partial Collapse. ... 451 Figure 280 – Damaged Structures: Assessment of the infill walls impact – Fragility curves of

extensively damaged structures due to mainshock impact for: a) partial collapse and b) collapse. ... 452 Figure 281 – Damaged Structures: Assessment of the infill walls impact – Fragility curves of

partially collapsed structures due to mainshock impact for collapse damage state. ... 453 Figure 282 – Measurement of the brick units’ geometric dimensions: a) HCHB150 units; and b)

(40)

(41)

List of Tables

Table 1 – Correspondence between the damage level according to EMS-98 and AeDES form (adapted from De Risi et al. (2019)). ... 44 Table 2 - Extension of intervention for each elementary actions and related unit cost (adapted

from De Risi et al. (2019)) ... 45 Table 3 – Systematic review of infill walls OOP tests available in the literature: Final database

and respective classification of each work selected. ... 56 Table 4 – Effect of previous IP damage: Cracking strength and secant cracking stiffness. ... 80 Table 5 – Effect of previous IP damage: Maximum peak strength and secant stiffness. ... 83 Table 6 – Summary of testing campaigns of FRP strengthening of infill walls. ... 113 Table 7 – ECC mixture proportion of sprayable (all ratio in volume except fibre volume

fraction) adopted by Kyriakides et al. (2014). ... 115 Table 8 – Summary of testing campaigns of ECC strengthening of infill walls. ... 125 Table 9 – Summary of testing campaigns of TRM strengthening of infill walls. ... 144 Table 10 - Summary of the masonry units’ material properties (information provided by the

product datasheet). ... 157 Table 11 - HCHB150- Group A: Geometric dimensions. ... 160 Table 12 - HCHB150- Group B: Geometric dimensions (units in millimeters). ... 160 Table 13 - HCHB110- Group A: Geometric dimensions (units in millimeters). ... 161 Table 14 - HCHB110- Group B: Geometric dimensions (units in millimeters). ... 161 Table 15 – Summary of the experimental results: HCHB150 (Group A). ... 163 Table 16 – Summary of the experimental results: HCHB150 (Group B). ... 163 Table 17 – Summary of the experimental results: HCHB110 (Group A). ... 165 Table 18 – Summary of the experimental results: HCHB110 (Group B). ... 165 Table 19 – Summary of the results obtained in the compression strength tests of brick units. . 166 Table 20 - Summary of the mortar material properties of each specimens’ group. ... 169 Table 21 - Summary of the experimental campaign: number of specimens tested. ... 170 Table 22 – Masonry wallets geometric dimensions according to the standard EN 1052-1 (CEN

1998) recommendations. ... 171 Table 23 – Compressive strength results: statistical parameters. ... 175

(42)

xxxviii

Table 24 – Elasticity modulus results: statistical parameters. ... 176 Table 25 – Shear stress results: statistical parameters. ... 182 Table 26 – Shear stiffness (G) modulus’ results: statistical parameters. ... 183 Table 27 – Flexural strength parallel to horizontal bed joints: statistical parameters. ... 188 Table 28 – Flexural strength perpendicular to horizontal bed joints: summary of test results. . 194 Table 29 – Summary of mechanical properties obtained from the experimental campaign. .... 196 Table 30 – Summary of the OOP frequencies obtained in the ambient vibration tests in

Laboratory. ... 204 Table 31 – Summary of the IP frequencies obtained in the ambient vibration tests in Laboratory.

... 205 Table 32 – OOP frequencies evolution for different axial load levels. ... 206 Table 33 – Building A: Tested infill walls characteristics. ... 209 Table 34 – Building A: Ambient vibration test results. ... 215 Table 35 – Building B: Characteristics of the tested wall panels. ... 221 Table 36 – Building B: ambient vibration results. ... 221 Table 37 – Building C: Tested IMW characteristics. ... 224 Table 38 – Building C: Ambient vibration test results. ... 226 Table 39 - Comparative summary of the experimental tests performed. ... 238 Table 40 – Results from compression tests and elastic modulus determination tests on concrete

specimens according to NP-EN206 2000 (CEN 2000). ... 239 Table 41 – Results from tensile tests on steel bar specimens according to NP-EN10002-1 2006

(CEN 2006). ... 239 Table 42 – Results from flexure and compressive strength tests on mortar specimens. ... 241 Table 43 – Stage 1 - Global results comparison: list of the tested infill panels and corresponding

reference specimens. ... 256 Table 44 – Stage 1 - Global results comparison: Cracking OOP drift and strength... 261 Table 45 – Stage 1 - Global results comparison: OOP maximum strength and corresponding

drift. ... 263 Table 46 – Stage 1 - Global results comparison: Equivalent horizontal acceleration. ... 264 Table 47 – Stage 1 - Global results comparison: OOP Ultimate strength and corresponding drift.

Seismic vulnerability assessment and retrofitting strategies for masonry infilled frame buildings considering in-plane and out-of -plane behaviour