Scholarlink

<p>The seismic vulnerability of unreinforced masonry (URM) structures has triggered an exploration of multiple methods for retrofitting and repairing. Nevertheless, the majority of research has concentrated on the in-plane performance of recently built walls, paying little attention to the seismic behavior and failure patterns of damaged walls both before and after retrofitting. Displacement-controlled reverse cyclic testing, also known as quasi-static loading, was therefore used in this study to assess the failure modes and seismic behavior of damaged walls retrofitted with grout injected ferrocement overlays (FCO). In order to accomplish the goal two full-scale fly ash brick (FAB) masonry walls one unreinforced (2858&#xa0;mm × 3505&#xa0;mm × 225&#xa0;mm) and other confined (3315&#xa0;mm × 3505&#xa0;mm × 225&#xa0;mm) were erected using traditional masonry techniques found in Pakistan and across South Asian countries. First, to determine their maximum resistance, testing was done with a fixed vertical load and a progressive increase in the horizontal load and displacement reversals. Following that, the damaged walls were repaired using an economical retrofitting method that involved FCO and grout injection, and they were retested until they ultimately failed. Finally, the performance of the RURFABM and RCFABM walls was compared by examining force–displacement curves, failure modes, and other experimental characteristics. The findings revealed that properly installed meshes enhances the in-plane lateral load capacity by 23% and 65%, while also increasing effective stiffness by 75% and 62% for retrofitted reinforced and unconfined walls, respectively. In addition, other factors such as performance levels, damage patterns, energy dissipation, and stiffness degradation were evaluated. At the end, a comparison was made between fly ash and conventional brick masonry, considering factors such as CO<sub>2</sub> emissions, cost assessment and various seismic performance parameters.</p>

错误：搜索内容不能为空，请输入英文关键词
错误：关键词超出字数限制，请精简
高级检索

Seismic capacity assessment of eco-friendly fly ash brick masonry structures after retrofitting

  • 期刊论文

  • 发表日期：

    2025年2月21日

查看全文
  • Shah Zeb,
  • Khan Shahzada,
  • Umar Ahmad Noor,
  • Muhammad Adeel Arshad,
  • Abdur Rahim Khan,
  • Haleem Ullah Khan

摘要

The seismic vulnerability of unreinforced masonry (URM) structures has triggered an exploration of multiple methods for retrofitting and repairing. Nevertheless, the majority of research has concentrated on the in-plane performance of recently built walls, paying little attention to the seismic behavior and failure patterns of damaged walls both before and after retrofitting. Displacement-controlled reverse cyclic testing, also known as quasi-static loading, was therefore used in this study to assess the failure modes and seismic behavior of damaged walls retrofitted with grout injected ferrocement overlays (FCO). In order to accomplish the goal two full-scale fly ash brick (FAB) masonry walls one unreinforced (2858 mm × 3505 mm × 225 mm) and other confined (3315 mm × 3505 mm × 225 mm) were erected using traditional masonry techniques found in Pakistan and across South Asian countries. First, to determine their maximum resistance, testing was done with a fixed vertical load and a progressive increase in the horizontal load and displacement reversals. Following that, the damaged walls were repaired using an economical retrofitting method that involved FCO and grout injection, and they were retested until they ultimately failed. Finally, the performance of the RURFABM and RCFABM walls was compared by examining force–displacement curves, failure modes, and other experimental characteristics. The findings revealed that properly installed meshes enhances the in-plane lateral load capacity by 23% and 65%, while also increasing effective stiffness by 75% and 62% for retrofitted reinforced and unconfined walls, respectively. In addition, other factors such as performance levels, damage patterns, energy dissipation, and stiffness degradation were evaluated. At the end, a comparison was made between fly ash and conventional brick masonry, considering factors such as CO2 emissions, cost assessment and various seismic performance parameters.