PSI - Issue 44

Corrado Chisari et al. / Procedia Structural Integrity 44 (2023) 1108–1115 Corrado Chisari et al./ Structural Integrity Procedia 00 (2022) 000 – 000

1110

3

(a)

(b)

(c)

(d)

(e)

(f)

Fig. 1 Material tests: (a) flexural, and (b) compressive tests on mortar, (c) compressive tests on tuff cubes and (d) tuff-mortar assemblies, (e) flexural tests on tuff, and (f) shear tests on triplets.

Table 1. Material properties (coefficient of variation is given between brackets).

Property

Tuff stone

Pozzolanic mortar Ordinary mortar FRLBM

Masonry

Density [kg/m 3 ]

1264 (1.3%) 1608 (2.5%)

1871 (2.0%) 6.28 (4.9%) 27.49 (11.9%)

2046 (2.1%)

-

Tensile strength [MPa]

1.0 (18.1%)

0.207 (22%) 0.786 (25.8%)

4.85 (14.9%) -

Compressive strength [MPa] 3.15 (9.1%)

29.26 (7.5%) 1.54 (18.4%)

Friction coefficient [-]

- -

- -

- -

- -

0.210 0.178

Cohesion [MPa]

2.2. Tests on arches The structures tested were three 1.5 m span circular arches having 11-cm in-plane thickness and 37-cm out-of plane width, made of a single layer of 11×10×37 cm 3 yellow tuff blocks (Fig. 2a). The nominal thickness of the pozzolanic mortar used between the blocks was equal to 10 mm. The arches were built onto a steel support, designed to be handled by means of a removable frame (Fig. 2b). They were erected on a styrofoam formwork, which was removed after 15 days, and left curing for at least 28 days. After this period, the retrofitting, consisting of a 10mm-thick layer of mortar was applied at intrados and left curing for at least 28 days. Two different types of mortar were used as reinforcement: ordinary lime-based M15 mortar (specimen RI1) and FRLBM (specimen RI2). A control unreinforced specimen (UR) was also built to highlight the strength enhancement brought by the retrofitting.