Comparative Studies of the Confined Effect of Shear Masonry Walls Made of Autoclaved Aerated Concrete Masonry Units
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Research Models
- Stage I—placing starter rebars in the bottom horizontal member, filling openings with cement mortar,
- Stage II—building masonry on the bottom horizontal member, keeping lapped toothings, placing reinforcement of vertical cores on starter rebars,
- Stage III—shuttering and concreting vertical cores to a height of ca. 1.5 m. Then, stirrups were added to the upper parts of the cores without concrete, and later, the top horizontal members were reinforced. Continuity of reinforcement in the wall corners was achieved using bars bent at the right angle.
- Stage IV—shuttering and concreting of the top parts of cores and horizontal members. Elements were stripped after 28 days and prepared for testing.
3. Testing Technique
4. Test Results
4.1. Mechanism of Cracking and Failure of the Models without Openings
4.2. Mechanism of Cracking and Failure of Models with Openings
4.3. Stress-Strain Relationships
4.4. Effect of Wall Confinement
5. Analysis of Test Results
6. Conclusions
- The observed processes of destruction of shear masonry with confinement indicate that:
- ○
- Cracks in the models of the series HAS-C1-AAC with openings were formed in the tension corners of openings and then in the corners of window piers. At failure, inclined cracks in the piers and corners of the wall and confining elements were found in construction joints;
- ○
- The morphology of cracks in the models of the series HAS-C2-AAC was significantly different because the first cracks were formed in the bottom corners of the window piers (no signs of cracks in tension corners of the window openings), and an increase in loads led to crack formation at the interface with confinement and in spandrel areas.
- Regarding the shear stresses at the time of cracking τcr and failure τu, the following observations were made:
- ○
- In the models of the series HAS-C1-AAC with an opening and circumferential confinement, subjected to maximum compression, cracking stress at failure increased by nearly 35% when compared to the unconfined models. The maximum stress of confined models was greater in each case by 36% and 33%;
- ○
- The applied confinement along the vertical edges of the models of the series HAS-C2-AAC led to an increase in cracking stress from 22% to 89%, regardless of values of initial compressive stress. A similar trend was found for maximum stresses, which increased within a range of 68–105%.
- Regarding shear strain angles at the time of cracking Θcr and failure Θu, the following observations were made:
- ○
- In the models of the series HAS-C1-AAC (circumferential confinement), deformations at the moment of cracking in the model subjected to minimum compression were greater by 17% than in the unconfined model. The angles of shear deformation in the models under maximum compression were narrower than in the unconfined models;
- ○
- A similar trend was found near openings in the confined models of the series HAS-C2-AAC. Only in the model under minimum compressive stress did shear deformation at the time of cracking increase by ca. 12% and by 388% when subjected to maximum stress. Even under the greatest initial compressive stresses, deformations were smaller than in the unconfined models analysed in a similar way.
- Considering the initial stiffness K0 and stiffness at the time of cracking Kcr, it was found that:
- ○
- Only in the model under minimum compressive stress did stiffness at the moment of cracking increase by ca. 33%. In other models, values of stiffness did not dramatically differ or demonstrate lower stiffness than in the unconfined wall;
- ○
- Initial compressive stress in the models of the series HAS-C1-AAC increased by 65–83%. That tendency was a bit different at the time of the cracking. An increase in stiffness was 83% only in the model under maximum compression, and in other models stiffness was lower than in the unconfined models;
- ○
- In the elements of the series HAS-C2-AAC, initial stiffness tended to increase when compared to the unconfined models; however, an increase in stiffness was between 204% and 304%. At the moment of cracking, stiffness determined in the same way increased in every case by 11% and 112%.
- Considering dissipated energy Eobs, it was found that:
- ○
- An increase in initial values of compressive stress in the unconfined models of the series HOS-C-AAC caused a clear increase in values of dissipated energy. The energy increased by more than 200% when compared to the unconfined models;
- ○
- A situation in the elements of the series HAS-C1-AAC with circumferential confinement was the same as in the models without openings, and a mean increase in dissipated energy was above 68% when compared to the elements without confinement;
- ○
- Confinement along openings in the models of the series HAS-C2-AAC followed an already observed trend, and the energy increased by 77% when compared to elements without confinement.
- Considering maximum force Pmax it was found that:
- ○
- In the walls of the series HOS-C-AAC an increase in initial compressive stresses did not cause an increase in maximum force when compared to the unconfined models;
- ○
- A similar trend was noticed in the models of the series HAS-C1-AAC with confinement along circumference, and a mean increase of maximum force was 23%,
- ○
- No significant changes were observed in the models of the series HAS-C2-AAC, and a mean increase of shear force Pmax was 77%.
- Considering the coefficient of ductility μ it was found that:
- ○
- In the walls of the series HOS-C-AAC an increase in initial compressive stresses had a significant effect on the coefficient of ductility, and a mean increase in ductility was 109% when compared to the unconfined models;
- ○
- In the walls of the series HAS-C1-AAC with C1-type confinement, an increase in initial compressive stress led to the reduced coefficient of ductility, and the trend similar to the reference walls was observed. Ductility of the confined walls was greater by 13% when compared to the unconfined walls;
- ○
- An increase in initial compressive stress in test elements of the series HAS-C2-AAC also reduced the coefficient of ductility. In that case ductility of confined walls was lower by 7% when compared to the reference models.
- Considering recommendations specified in the standard EN-1996-1-1 [37], according to which circumferential confinement is required for all openings with an area greater than 1.5 m2, for the walls without confinement it was found that:
- ○
- Confining reinforced concrete elements along vertical edges of openings eliminated the formation of cracks in tensions corners of openings, which led to a clear increase in wall stiffness;
- ○
- Confinement increased plastic displacements uy by 17% on average, and maximum displacements umax by 18%;
- ○
- Maximum force Pmax corresponding to softening increased by more than 45%;
- ○
- Ductility of the models with confinement recommended by the standard EN-1996-1-1 dropped slightly by ca. 8%;
- ○
- No confinement in the spandrel area could result in too early cracking in that part of the wall.
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Raj, A.; Borsaikia, A.C.; Dixit, U.S. Compressive and shear bond strengths of grooved AAC blocks and masonry. Mater. Struct. Mater. Constr. 2019, 52, 1–15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Voon, K.C.; Ingham, J.M. Experimental In-Plane Strength Investigation of Reinforced Concrete Masonry Walls. J. Struct. Eng. 2008, 134, 758–768. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ghobarah, A.; Galal, K.E.M. Out-of-Plane Strengthening of Unreinforced Masonry Walls with Openings. J. Compos. Constr. 2004, 8, 298–305. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Liu, Z.; Crewe, A. Effects of size and position of openings on in plane capacity of unreinforced masonry walls. Bull. Earthq. Eng. 2020, 18, 4783–4812. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Shariq, M.; Abbas, H.Ã.; Irtaza, H.; Qamaruddin, M. Influence of openings on seismic performance of masonry building walls. Build. Environ. 2008, 43, 1232–1240. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Arslan, M.E.; Celebi, E. An experimental study on cyclic behavior of aerated concrete block masonry walls retrofitted with different methods. Constr. Build. Mater. 2019, 200, 226–239. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Babatunde, S.A. Review of strengthening techniques for masonry using fiber reinforced polymers. Compos. Struct. 2017, 161, 246–255. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cheng, S.; Yin, S.; Jing, L. Comparative experimental analysis on the in-plane shear performance of brick masonry walls strengthened with different fiber reinforced materials. Constr. Build. Mater. 2020, 259, 120387. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Doran, B.; Ulukaya, S.; Aslan, Z.U.; Karslioglu, M. Experimental Investigation of CFRP Strengthened Unreinforced Masonry Walls with Openings Experimental Investigation of CFRP Strengthened Unreinforced Masonry Walls. Int. J. Archit. Herit. 2021, 16, 1907–1920. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Timperman, P.; Rice, J.A. Bed Joint Reinforcement in Masonry. In Proceedings of the Fourth International Masonry Conference, London, UK, 23–25 October 1995; Volume 2, pp. 451–453. [Google Scholar]
- Elsamny, M.K.; Abd-Elhamed, M.K.; Mahmoud, M.H. Rehabilitation of Brick Walls with Openings Using Steel Wire Mesh. Int. J. Sci. Eng. Res. 2016, 7, 236–248. [Google Scholar]
- Elsamny, M.K.; Ezz-Eldeen, H.A.; Elmokrany, A.A. Experimental study of brick walls with opening strengthened during construction by using steel wire mesh embedded into bed joint mortar between bricks. Int. J. Eng. Sci. Invent. 2017, 6, 15–24. [Google Scholar]
- Elsamny, M.; Ezz-Eldeen, H. Strengthening of Brick Walls with openings during Construction by Steel Wire Mesh around Openings on Both Sides of Wall. IOSR J. Mech. Civ. Eng. 2017, 14, 131–139. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kamrava, A.R.; Najafgholipour, M.A.; Fathi, F.; Dehghan, S.M. An experimental study on the in-plane behavior of unreinforced masonry walls with an opening strengthened using steel fiber reinforced concrete overlays. J. Build. Eng. 2020, 36, 102084. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jäger, W.; Schöps, P. Confined masonry–A Chance to Improve the Load Bearing Capacity. In Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Autoclaved Aerated Concrete, Bydgoszcz, Poland, 14–17 September 2011; Boroński, D., Ed.; University of Technology and Life Sciences Press: Bydgoszcz, Poland; pp. 225–236. [Google Scholar]
- Constantinescu, S. Study of confined masonry buildings in seismic areas. Energy Procedia 2017, 112, 545–554. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Asinari, M. Buildings with Structural Masonry Walls Connected to Tie-Columns and Bond-Beams. Ph.D. Thesis, Università degli Studi di Pavia, Pavia, Italy, 2007. [Google Scholar]
- Brzev, S. Earthquake-Resistant Confined Masonry Construction; National Information Center of Earthquake Engineering Indian Institute of Technology: Kanpur, India, 2007. [Google Scholar]
- Tena-Colunga, A.; Juárez-Ángeles, A.; Salinas-Vallejo, V.H. Cyclic behavior of combined and confined masonry walls. Eng. Struct. 2009, 31, 240–259. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Torrisi, G.S.; Crisafulli, F.J.; Pavese, A. An innovative Model for the In-Plane Nonlinear Analysis of Confined Masonry and Infilled Frame Structures. In Proceedings of the 15th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Lisbon, Portugal, 24–28 September 2012. [Google Scholar]
- Iernutan, R.; Andrei, B.F. Autoclaved cellular concrete (ACC) masonry with vertical hollows confined with disperse reinforced concrete. Procedia Eng. 2017, 181, 300–307. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dhanasekar, M.; Shrive, N.G. Strength and deformation of confined and unconfined grouted concrete masonry. ACI Struct. J. 2002, 99, 819–826. [Google Scholar]
- Miccoli, L. Seismic performances of AAC masonry: A review of experimental and numerical approaches. Procedia Eng. 2018, 22, 301–309. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Marques, R.; Lourenço, P.B. Structural behaviour and design rules of confined masonry walls: Review and proposals. Constr. Build. Mater. 2019, 217, 137–155. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ahmed, A.; Shahzada, K.; Muhammad Ali, S.; Naeem Khan, A.; Azmat Ali Shah, S. Confined and unreinforced masonry structures in seismic areas: Validation of macro models and cost analysis. Eng. Struct. 2019, 199, 109612. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jasiński, R. Comparisons of confined and different types of reinforcement on the behavior of masonry shear walls. In Proceedings of the ICAAC 6th International Conference on Autoclaved Aerated Concrete, Postdam, Germany, 4–6 September 2018; pp. 353–365. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pérez Gavilán Escalante, J.J.; Brzev, S.; Espinosa Cazarin, E.F.; Ganzerli, S.; Quiun, D.; Reiter, M.T. Experimental Research Studies on Seismic Behaviour of Confined Masonry Structures: Current Status and Future Needs. Buildings 2023, 13, 1776. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Alcocer, S.; Meli, R. Test Program on the Seismic Behavior of Confined Masonry Structures. Mason. Soc. J. 1995, 13, 68–76. [Google Scholar]
- Riahi, Z.; Elwood, J.; Alcocer, S. Backbone Model for Confined Masonry Walls for Performance-Based Seismic Design. J. Struct. Eng. 2009, 135, 644–654. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Meli, R. Behavior of Masonry Walls under Lateral Loads. In Proceedings of the 5th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Rome, Italy, 25–29 June 1974. [Google Scholar]
- Gouveia, J.; Lourenço, P. Masonry Shear Strength Walls Subjected to Cyclic Loading: Influence of Confinement and Horizontal Reinforcement. In Proceedings of the 10th North American Masonry Conference, St. Luis, MI, USA, 3–6 June 2007. [Google Scholar]
- Yáñez, F.; Astroza, M.; Holmberg, A.; Ogaz, O. Behavior of Confined Masonry Shear Walls with Large Openings. In Proceedings of the 13th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Vancouver, BC, Canada, 1–6 August 2004. [Google Scholar]
- Singhal, V.; Rai, D.C. Behavior of Confined Masonry Walls with Openings under In-Plane and Out-of-Plane Loads. Earthq. Spectra 2018, 34, 817–841. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tu, Y.; Hsu, Y.; Chao, Y. Lateral Load Experiment for Confined and Infilled Unreinforced Masonry Panels with Openings in RC Frames. In Proceedings of the 12th North American Masonry Conference, Denver, CO, USA, 17–20 May 2015. [Google Scholar]
- Qin, C.; Gao, Z.; Wu, T.; Bai, G.; Fu, G. Shear Testing and Analysis of the Response of Confined Masonry Walls with Centered Openings Made with Innovative Sintered Insulation Shale Blocks. Soil Dyn. Earthq. Eng. 2021, 150, 106901. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Vegas, C. Efectos de la Conexión Albañilería—Columna en el Comportamiento Sísmico de Muros de Albañilería Confinada. Civil Engineering Thesis, Facultad de Ciencias e Ingeniería, Pontificia Universidad Católica del Perú, San Miguel, Peru, 1992. (In Spanish). [Google Scholar]
- EN 1996-1-1:2013; Eurocode 6: Design of Masonry Structures–Part 1–1: General Rules for Reinforced and Unreinforced Masonry Structures. European Committee for Standardization: Brussels, Belgium, 2013.
- Idrizi, I.; Idrizi, N.; Idrizi, Z.; Idrizi, S.; Idrizi, I. Effect of infill walls in structural response of RC buildings. In Challenges, Opportunities and Solutions in Structural Engineering and Construction; Ghafoori, N., Ed.; CRC Press: London, UK, 2009. [Google Scholar]
- Gusella, F. Effect of the plastic rotation randomness on the moment redistribution in reinforced concrete structures. Eng. Struct. 2022, 252, 113652. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Qazi, A.U.; Rasool, A.M.; Ibrahim, Y.E.; Hameed, A.; Ali, M.F. Behavior of Scaled Infilled Masonry, Confined Masonry & Reinforced Concrete Structures under Dynamic Excitations. Buildings 2022, 12, 774. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- FEMA-356 Prestandard; Commentary for the Seismic Rehabilitation of Buildings (FEMA-356). Federal Emergency Management Agency: Washington, DC, USA, 2000.
- EN 1052-1:2000; Methods of Tests for Masonry. Part 1: Determination of Compression Strength. European Committee for Standardization: Brussels, Belgium, 2000.
- EN 1052-3:2004; Methods of Tests for Masonry. Part 3: Determination of Initial Shear Strength. European Committee for Standardization: Brussels, Belgium, 2004.
- ASTM E519-81; Standard Test Method for Diagonal Tension (Shear) of Masonry Assemblages. ASTM: West Conshohocken, PA, USA, 2000.
- Jasiński, R. Effects of Opening Shapes on Behaviour of Shear Walls Made of AAC Masonry Units. IOP Conf. Ser. Mater. Sci. Eng. 2019, 471, 022011. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jasiński, R. Research on the influence of bed joint reinforcement on strength and deformability of masonry shear walls. Materials 2019, 12, 2543. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Marcari, G.; Manfredi, G.; Prota, A.; Pecce, M. In-plane shear performance of masonry panels strengthened with FRP. Compos. Part B Eng. 2007, 38, 887–901. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Banerjee, S.; Nayak, S.; Das, S. Shear and flexural behaviour of unreinforced masonry wallets with steel wire mesh. J. Build. Eng. 2019, 10125. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Banerjee, S.; Nayak, S.; Das, S. Improving the In-Plane Behavior of Brick Masonry Wallet Using PP Band and Steel Wire Mesh. J. Mater. Civ. Eng. 2020, 32, 04020132. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Singhal, V.; Rai, D.C. Role of Toothing on In-Plane and Out-of-Plane Behavior of Confined Masonry Walls. J. Struct. Eng. 2014, 140, 04014053. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Varela-Rivera, J.; Fernandez-Baqueiro, L.; Alcocer-Canche, R.; Ricalde-Jimenez, J.; Chim-May, R. Shear and Flexural Behavior of Autoclaved Aerated Concrete Confined Masonry Walls. Struct. J. 2018, 115, 1453–1462. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Series | Description | σc N/mm2 | Stresses | Angles of Non-Dilatational Strain (Deformation) | Total Stiffness | |||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Cracking | Failure | Cracking | Failure | Initial | At the Time of Cracking | |||
τcr N/mm2 | τu N/mm2 | Θcr mrad | Θu mrad | K0 MN/m | Kcr MN/m | |||
HOS- AAC | Unconfined walls without reinforcement | 0.1 | 0.196 | 0.235 | 0.281 | 0.97 | 932 | 229 |
0.75 | 0.372 | 0.426 | 0.724 | 2.44 | 1168 | 169 | ||
1.0 | 0.298 | 0.385 | 0.524 | 1.45 | 1541 | 187 | ||
HOS-C-AAC | Confined walls | 0.1 | 0.213 | 0.260 | 0.191 | 2.234 | 2588 | 366 |
0.1 | 0.168 | 0.242 | 0.229 | 1.813 | 2606 | 242 | ||
0.75 | 0.252 | 0.425 | 0.499 | 3.039 | 1741 | 166 | ||
0.75 | 0.245 | 0.386 | 0.482 | 5.879 | 1805 | 167 | ||
1.0 | 0.331 | 0.387 | 1.380 | 11.494 | 871 | 79 | ||
1.0 | 0.303 | 0.431 | 0.472 | 4.505 | 1506 | 210 |
Series | Description | σc N/mm2 | Stresses | Angles of Non-Dilatational Strain (Deformation) | Total Stiffness | |||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Cracking | Failure | Cracking | Failure | Initial | At the Time of Cracking | |||
τcr N/mm2 | τu N/mm2 | Θcr mrad | Θu mrad | K0 MN/m | Kcr MN/m | |||
HAS- AAC | Unconfined walls without reinforcement | 0.1 | 0.11 | 0.136 | 0.424 | 0.774 | 669 | 84.9 |
1.0 | 0.097 | 0.144 | 0.422 | 2.237 | 602 | 75.6 | ||
HAS-C1-AAC | Confined walls C1-type confinement | 0.1 | 0.101 | 0.168 | 0.486 | 6.900 | 1192 | 68.1 |
0.1 | 0.104 | 0.202 | 0.507 | 7.327 | 1017 | 67.5 | ||
0.75 | 0.133 | 0.218 | 0.376 | 1.378 | 2372 | 116 | ||
0.75 | 0.140 | 0.205 | 0.443 | 1.578 | 2507 | 104 | ||
1.0 | 0.138 | 0.211 | 0.332 | 1.323 | 657 | 136 | ||
1.0 | 0.124 | 0.172 | 0.291 | 0.769 | 1540 | 140 | ||
HAS-C2-AAC | Confined walls C2-type confinement | 0.1 | 0.135 | 0.225 | 0.413 | 3.745 | 2329 | 107 |
0.1 | 0.133 | 0.229 | 0.538 | 3.812 | 1746 | 80.9 | ||
0.75 | 0.191 | 0.253 | 0.535 | 2.045 | 3036 | 117 | ||
0.75 | 0.158 | 0.265 | 0.295 | 2.572 | 1635 | 176 | ||
1.0 | 0.182 | 0.297 | 0.316 | 1.505 | 2593 | 189 | ||
1.0 | 0.186 | 0.294 | 0.466 | 2.080 | 2506 | 131 |
Series | Description | σc N/mm2 | Stresses | Angles of Non-Dilatational Strain (Deformation) | Total Stiffness | |||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Cracking | Failure | Cracking | Failure | Initial | At the Time of Cracking | |||
HOS-C- AAC | Confined Walls [26] | 0.1 | 0.97 | 1.07 | 0.75 | 2.09 | 2.79 | 1.33 |
0.75 | 0.67 | 0.95 | 0.68 | 1.83 | 1.52 | 0.99 | ||
1.0 | 1.06 | 1.06 | 1.77 | 5.50 | 0.77 | 0.77 | ||
HAS-C1- AAC | Confined walls C1-type confinement | 0.1 | 0.93 | 1.36 | 1.17 | 9.20 | 1.65 | 0.80 |
1.0 | 1.35 | 1.33 | 0.74 | 0.47 | 1.83 | 1.83 | ||
HAS-C2- AAC | Confined walls C2-type confinement | 0.1 | 1.22 | 1.68 | 1.12 | 4.88 | 3.04 | 1.11 |
1.0 | 1.89 | 2.05 | 0.93 | 0.80 | 4.24 | 2.12 |
Series | Description | σc N/mm2 | Maximum Angle of Shear Deformation Θmax mrad | Maximum Horizontal Displacement umax, mm | Dissipated Energy Eobs kJ | Maximum Force Pmax, kN | Horizontal Displacement uy, mm | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
HOS-C- AAC | Confined Walls [26] | 0.1 | 1.95 | 4.74 | 0.846 | 191 | 0.651 | 7.28 |
0.75 | 5.99 | 14.5 | 4.10 | 301 | 1.81 | 8.01 | ||
1.0 | 9.05 | 22.0 | 6.42 | 316 | 2.69 | 8.18 | ||
HAS-C1-AAC | Confined walls C1-type confinement | 0.1 | 7.12 | 17.3 | 2.04 | 124 | 1.83 | 9.45 |
0.75 | 3.44 | 8.35 | 1.16 | 150 | 1.36 | 6.14 | ||
1.0 | 1.89 | 4.58 | 0.518 | 124 | 0.90 | 5.09 | ||
HAS-C2-AAC | Confined walls C2-type confinement | 0.1 | 3.97 | 9.64 | 1.43 | 163 | 1.76 | 5.48 |
0.75 | 3.26 | 7.91 | 1.41 | 195 | 1.38 | 5.73 | ||
1.0 | 3.67 | 8.90 | 1.77 | 216 | 1.39 | 6.40 |
Series | Description | σc N/mm2 | Maximum Angle of Shear Deformation Θmax mrad | Maximum Horizontal Displacement umax, mm | Dissipated Energy Eobs kJ | Maximum Force Pmax, kN | Horizontal Displacement uy, mm | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
HOS- AAC | Unconfined Walls [26] | 0.1 | 1.04 | 2.52 | 0.393 | 186 | 0.812 | 3.10 |
0.75 | 6.79 | 16.5 | 5.04 | 325 | 1.93 | 8.55 | ||
1.0 | 1.80 | 4.36 | 1.06 | 299 | 1.60 | 2.73 | ||
HAS- AAC | Confined walls unconfined | 0.1 | 3.55 | 8.61 | 0.794 | 99 | 1.16 | 7.42 |
1.0 | 2.89 | 7.01 | 0.652 | 103 | 1.36 | 5.15 |
Series | Description | σc N/mm2 | Maximum Angle of Shear Deformation | Maximum Horizontal Displacement | Dissipated Energy | Maximum Force | Horizontal Displacement | Ductility Coefficient |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
HOS-C- AAC | Confined Walls [26] | 0.1 | 1.88 | 1.88 | 2.15 | 1.03 | 0.80 | 2.34 |
0.75 | 0.88 | 0.88 | 0.81 | 0.93 | 0.94 | 0.94 | ||
1.0 | 5.03 | 5.03 | 6.03 | 1.06 | 1.68 | 2.99 | ||
Mean: | 2.60 | 2.60 | 3.00 | 1.00 | 1.14 | 2.09 | ||
HAS-C1- AAC | Confined walls C1-type confinement | 0.1 | 2.01 | 2.01 | 2.57 | 1.26 | 1.57 | 1.28 |
1.0 | 0.65 | 0.65 | 0.79 | 1.20 | 0.66 | 0.99 | ||
Mean: | 1.33 | 1.33 | 1.68 | 1.23 | 1.12 | 1.13 | ||
HAS-C2- AAC | Confined walls C2-type confinement | 0.1 | 1.12 | 1.12 | 1.80 | 1.65 | 1.51 | 0.74 |
1.0 | 1.13 | 1.13 | 2.71 | 1.89 | 1.01 | 1.11 | ||
Mean: | 1.12 | 1.12 | 2.26 | 1.77 | 1.26 | 0.93 |
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. |
© 2023 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Jasiński, R.; Gąsiorowski, T. Comparative Studies of the Confined Effect of Shear Masonry Walls Made of Autoclaved Aerated Concrete Masonry Units. Materials 2023, 16, 5885. https://doi.org/10.3390/ma16175885
Jasiński R, Gąsiorowski T. Comparative Studies of the Confined Effect of Shear Masonry Walls Made of Autoclaved Aerated Concrete Masonry Units. Materials. 2023; 16(17):5885. https://doi.org/10.3390/ma16175885
Chicago/Turabian StyleJasiński, Radosław, and Tomasz Gąsiorowski. 2023. "Comparative Studies of the Confined Effect of Shear Masonry Walls Made of Autoclaved Aerated Concrete Masonry Units" Materials 16, no. 17: 5885. https://doi.org/10.3390/ma16175885