In-situ seismic verification of non-structural components of unreinforced masonry buildings

Abstract

An experimental campaign was developed to evaluate the response of non-structural elements of unreinforced masonry buildings for simulated earthquake loads. Eleven walls within 4 URM properties were subjected, in situ, to uniformly distribute static loads applied using a system of airbags. The buildings were located in Darlington, a suburb of Adelaide, South Australia. Three of them were built in the 1960s and the fourth was built in the 1980s. Accompanying material tests were done in situ and in the laboratory, enabling a comparison to be made between the old buildings material strength and the default material strengths recommended in the Australian Masonry Standards, AS3700. Tests were also conducted on 3 URM chimneys to establish their failure mechanism and strength. A highlight of this research is the findings that existing masonry chimneys are vulnerable to a ‘design earthquake’ in Australia. The results also suggest that despite masonry material strength being significantly lower than the code default values, the walls satisfied expected seismic force demands. The reasons include the beneficial effects of in situ wall boundary conditions on out-of-plane wall strength.

Keywords:

• Unreinforced masonry
• out-of-plane loading
• cavity wall
• chimney
• in-situ tests

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

Acknowledgements

The authors gratefully acknowledge the financial support of the Australian Research Council through its Cooperative Research Centre programme and specifically the Bushfire and Natural Hazards CRC. The cooperation of the Department of Planning, Transport and Infrastruture (DPTI), South Australia, for allowing access to the structures prior to their scheduled demolition is also gratefully acknowledged. Finally, the authors express their gratitude towards the technical team at the University of Adelaide’s Structural laboratory for their assistance with the testing. The views and opinions expressed in this paper are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the sponsors.