Matija Gams

A Composite-Reinforced Mortar (CRM) designed for the seismic strengthening of existing single or double-leaf brick masonry walls on one side only is presented and extensively tested through experiments. The benefit of the proposed strengthening method is that it does not require temporary relocation of residents. The existing single and double-leaf solid brick masonry used in the research is typical throughout Europe. The CRM coating consisted in a natural hydraulic lime mortar coating with a nominal thickness of 30 mm, reinforced with a Glass Fiber-Reinforced Polymer (GFRP) mesh applied to the wall using GFRP transverse connectors and steel injected transverse connectors for double-leaf brick masonry. Cyclic in-plane shear compression tests and out-of-plane cyclic tests were carried out on 250 mm thick full-scale masonry walls. The results demonstrated that the single-sided coating effectively enhanced the resistance, deformation capacity and dissipated energy under seismic loads, despite existing design models tending to underestimate the shear capacity to some extent.

The seismic response of confined masonry (CM) walls, built from innovative hollow clay blocks featuring large thermal insulation cavities and bonded with polyurethane glue instead of thin-layer mortar, was investigated. A 3D micro-model was subsequently developed in Abaqus and validated against results from cyclic shear tests on full-scale CM wall specimens. Once validated, the model was utilized in an extensive parametric study to investigate the effects of openings on the walls. This parametric study considered the size of the opening, its position, the aspect ratio of the walls, and different sizes of tie-columns. The results showed that the size and placement of openings substantially and negatively affected seismic response, and that the detrimental effects can be alleviated by placing strong tie-columns next to the openings.

An extensive parametric study of the seismic response of one-storey precast buildings with horizontal cladding panels frequently used in Central Europe was conducted to analyse the panels’ influence on the overall response of buildings and to find out if the panels can be considered non-structural elements when they are attached to the main building with the connections typically used in practice in Central Europe. The studied structural system consisted of reinforced concrete columns and beams connected by dowels. Horizontal cladding panels were attached to columns using one of the most frequently used isostatic fastening systems. The top connections provided out-of-plane stability, and the bottom connections supported the panel in the vertical direction. The parametric study was preceded by extensive experimental research, including cyclic tests on connections and full-scale shaking table tests of whole buildings. The results of experiments were used to reveal the basic response mechanisms of panels and connections and to develop, validate and calibrate numerical models employed in the parametric study presented herein. Fifteen generalised structures with different masses and heights were subjected to 30 accelerograms with two peak ground acceleration (PGA) intensities of 0.3 g and 0.5 g, corresponding to significant damage and near-collapse limit states. The effects of the construction imperfections in connections, the silicon sealant panel-to-panel connections and different types of connections of the bottom panel to the foundation were analysed. The crucial parameter influencing the response was the displacement capacity of the connections, which was considerably affected by the construction imperfections and, consequently, difficult to estimate. It has been observed that in some buildings, particularly in shorter structures with smaller mass, cladding panels can have a somewhat more notable influence on the overall response. However, in general, when the considered types of connections are used, the panels can be considered as non-structural elements, which do not importantly influence the response of the main building. Owing to structural imperfections and relatively short available gaps, the failure of the considered top connections and falling of the panels is very likely in the high seismicity regions. In the most adverse cases, it can occur even in the moderate seismicity regions.