Report - PEER - University of California, Berkeley

Recently, six models representing buildings of two different structuralconfigurations and two different types of masonry materials have been tested on aunidirectional shaking table at ZAG: a two-story terraced house with main structuralwalls orthogonal to seismic motion and a three-story apartment house with uniformlydistributed structural walls in both directions. Four models of the first and two modelsof the second type, built at 1:5 scale, have been tested. In the case of the terracedhouse, two models have been built as either partly or completely confined masonrystructures (Table 2).Table 2. Shaking-table tests — description of tested modelsDesign Type Material Bed joint RemarksM1-1 Terraced house Calcium silicate Thin no confinementM1-2 Terraced house Hollow clay unit Normal no confinementM1-1c Terraced house Calcium silicate Thin confinedstaircase wallsM1-1d Terraced house Calcium silicate Thin fully confinedwallsM2-1 Apartm. house Calcium silicate Thin no confinementM2-2 Apartm. house Hollow clay unit Normal no confinementThe seismic behavior of the tested models has been analyzed in order to verifythe Eurocode 8 proposed values of structural behavior q. The results of tests aresummarized in Table 3, where the values of the maximum attained base shearcoefficient BSC max , evaluated on the basis of the known masses of the modelsconcentrated at floor levels, and measured floor acceleration responses, as well as themeasured values of the story rotation angle at the damage limit Φ dam (correspondingto damage index I d = 0.25), maximum attained resistance Φ Hmax (I d = 0.50) andultimate limit (before collapse) Φ u (I d = 0.75) are given.Table 3. Parameters of seismic resistance of the tested models atcharacteristic limit statesModel BSC max Ф dam Ф Hmax Ф uM1-1 0.52 0.19% 0.82% 0.91%M1-2 0.49 0.25% 0.56% 3.98%M1-1c 0.99 0.26% 0.26% 3.96%M1-1d 1.86 0.25% 1.31% 2.63%M2-1 0.69 0.33% 0.33% 0.43%M2-2 0.55 0.30% 0.66% 1.66%306