PSI - Issue 44

Carlo Vienni et al. / Procedia Structural Integrity 44 (2023) 2262–2269 Vienni et al. / Structural Integrity Procedia 00 (2022) 000–000

2266

5

a c Fig. 2. (a) Application of CRM on masonry panels; main dimensions of URM (b) and RM (c) panels b

Hence, the vertical load was transferred from masonry to CRM layers only through shear stresses or by mechanical connectors, simulating a more realistic loading condition. In a real scenario, in fact, reinforcement is applied to the wall already subject to compression load, f.i. dead weight and permanent load. The behaviour of reinforced panels varies depending on whether the reinforcement system is continuous or not at the level of floors: if the plaster was applied along the whole height of the wall (continuous at the level of floors) and effectively anchored to the foundation, then the lateral response could be studied considering a composed CRM-masonry section; on the other hand, if reinforced plaster was interrupted at the level of floors, the axial loads would be transferred to the CRM only through shear stresses. Since in a real scenario the second situation is the most common, in this work the compression load was applied to the masonry panel only. A similar assumption was made in Donnini et al. (2021). The monitoring of displacements during the test was guaranteed by four diagonal LVDTs placed on the faces of the specimens. The top displacement of the panels was also recorded using a measuring laser positioned at the top of each panel (Laser 1 in Fig. 3). A second laser (Laser 2 in Fig. 3) was used to monitor the displacements of the contrast beam at mid-height and to verify the efficiency of the system. Finally, the vertical and horizontal loads of the two actuators were recorded.

Fig. 3. Sketch and picture of the test setup utilized for shear-compression tests