Experimental analysis of rubble stone masonry walls strengthened by transverse confinement under compression and compression-shear loadings

ABSTRACT

Stone masonry walls of ancient buildings have reasonable resistance to vertical loads but lower resistance to shear forces and reduced tensile strength. However, to achieve such compressive strength the masonry must not disaggregate when subjected to loading. This can be achieved if during the construction of the walls larger stones, usually referred as “through stones”, are used, spanning the thickness of the wall, making it possible to improve the transverse confinement of the masonry. For rehabilitation projects and structural reinforcement of such buildings, the transverse confinement can be achieved by fixing steel elements perpendicular to the wall. This confinement technique is often part of a more comprehensive rehabilitation solution, which includes the application of mortar or concrete reinforced layers applied to the wall surface.

This article presents results of an experimental research on material properties and mechanical characterisation of stone masonry specimens strengthened by two transverse confinement solutions (independent steel reinforcing rods and continuous steel ribbons wrapping the specimen). Specimens were tested under compression and compression and shear loadings.

This experimental work is part of a major research project to study the mechanical behavior of URM and strengthened walls, and the characteristics of the building materials of such specimens.

KEYWORDS:

• Ancient building
• material properties
• mechanical characterisation
• rubble stone masonry wall
• transverse confinement

Funding

This research was carried out at the Faculty of Science and Technology of Universidade NOVA de Lisboa, and the first author was financially supported by a scholarship under the Programme 2/5.3/PRODEP/2002.

The authors are grateful to the following companies for sponsoring much of the work: Grupo Edifer; Secil Outão, SA; Secil Martingança, Lda; Lusical, SA; Tecnasol-FGE, SA; Betopal, SA; Tecnima-Enerpac; Betão LIZ, SA; SPGO Lda; Cimianto, SA; Lusoceram, SA; Construtora do Infantado, Lda; Ensul, SA; SIKA Portugal, SA; Degussa - Bettor MBT, SA; Codimetal, SA; Vimaplás, Lda; Fradical, Lda; Dywidag, SA; Parapedra, Lda; Somator, Lda; J. Piteira, Lda; F. F. Caçador, Lda.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.