PSI - Issue 78

Riccardo Raimondo Milanesi et al. / Procedia Structural Integrity 78 (2026) 1374–1381

1377

Figure 1. Sketch of the experimental setup adopted for the cyclic in-plane and dynamic out-of-plane tests (Morandi et al., 2025).

Instrumentation varied between in-plane and out-of-plane tests. Both configurations employed accelerometers (Acc) and linear potentiometers (Pot), while out-of-plane testing additionally relied on optical tracking with markers and high-resolution infrared cameras to capture displacements. Sensors were arranged to record the global response of each specimen, including the frame and masonry infill, in terms of acceleration and displacement. Figure 2 and Figure 3 present the instrumentation layouts for cyclic in-plane and dynamic out-of-plane tests, respectively. When a specimen approached collapse, some devices were removed to prevent damage.

Figure 2. Instrumentation installed for in-plane cyclic pseudo-static tests (Morandi et al., 2025).

(a) (b) Figure 3. Instrumentation installed for out-of-plane dynamic shaking table tests: (a) accelerometers in the plastered side; (b) markers for displacement measurement in the unplastered side. (Morandi et al., 2025). For the in-plane cyclic quasi-static tests, each specimen underwent three fully reversed, displacement-controlled loading cycles at successively increasing drift levels. Prior to infill installation, all bare frames were subjected to preliminary cyclic tests, as described by Morandi et al. (2025), to establish their force -displacement response. This