Construction and Building Materials 333 (2022) 126961

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Construction and Building Materials

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/conbuildmat

Confined vs. unreinforced masonry: Construction and shaking table tests of

two-storey buildings
Massimiliano Gioffrè, Nicola Cavalagli, Vittorio Gusella, Chiara Pepi ∗
Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of Perugia, Perugia, Italy

ARTICLE INFO ABSTRACT

Keywords: Confined masonry (CM) is a simple, convenient and effective building construction technology in seismic areas.
Confined masonry Although a large background of experimental testing aimed to study the behavior of CM walls to vertical and
Shaking-table test in-plane lateral loads is available in literature, only a few experimental studies about the CM buildings behavior
Seismic load
to seismic loads have been carried out. In this work, the results of a series of shaking-table tests carried out on
Seismic behavior
two-storey unreinforced (URM) and confined masonry (CM) buildings are presented. Two structural systems
Masonry structures
Masonry walls
with the same geometry were built and tested on a shaking table, in order to compare the dynamic response
of the two different construction systems. The structures were subjected to seismic accelerations of increasing
intensity yielding performance states ranging from minor damage to near collapse. The paper describes both the
dynamic response using intensity measures, drift and acceleration profiles, and the observed damage evolution.
The obtained results highlight the better performance of CM vs URM to withstand dynamic loads and provide
crucial information to be used for numerical models calibration and response estimation.

1. Introduction of confining RC elements, able to avoid the damage of the tie-columns

Confined Masonry (CM) is a seismic resistant construction technique
in which the masonry walls are built before the Reinforced Concrete
(RC) columns and beams, so that all the materials contribute to resist
to load effects. This construction technique has been widely used over
the years in various high-seismic risck countries, especially in South
America (Mexico, Chile and Perú) and South Europe (Italy and Balkan
peninsula) [1–4]. Different to what occur to UnReinforced Masonry
(URM) buildings, CM buildings perform well during earthquake, with-
out several damages or collapsing, even in case of strong events,
representing an alternative to RC frame structures [5–7]. CM structures
are similar to the RC infilled frame but in the RC frame the columns
and the beams are built before the masonry walls and designed as load
bearing elements. In CM the load bearing masonry walls are built before
the RC confinement elements (tie beams and tie columns) in order to
ensure an effective contact between the masonry and the confinement
elements, avoiding the out of plane collapse of the masonry panels
during earthquake, typical of the RC frame and mainly due to the
progressive detachment between the masonry and the concrete beam.
The efficacy of the connection between the confinement elements
and the masonry determines the structural behavior of the CM walls to
the vertical and horizontal in-plane loads [8]. The failure due to vertical
load does not represent a critical issue in CM buildings for the presence
and the wall panels [9–11]; the failure of a CM panel due to horizontal
in-plane loads can occur following a shear and/or a flexural mode [12].
In the first case, the failure mode is characterized by diagonal cracks
taking place in the masonry wall and propagating into the top and
the bottom of the tie-columns with the formation of plastic hinges
leading to a complete shearing failure of the CM wall panel [13–15].
Therefore, the horizontal load capacity of a CM panel is strictly related
to the geometrical and mechanical characteristics of the masonry, to
the geometrical and mechanical details of the tie-beams and the tie-
columns and to the possible presence of openings, such as windows and
doors [11]. In particular, the walls built with solid units performs better
than those built with hollow units during earthquake because they
are characterized by an higher compressive strength [2,16,17]. The
geometry of the tie-columns and the tie-beams and the amount of steel
reinforcement are crucial when the diagonal cracks due to the lateral
in-plane force propagate into the tie-columns since the failure occurs
for the longitudinal rebars yielding and the concrete crushing [15].
Finally, when openings are present in the masonry walls, the diagonal
cracks take place on the opening lintel edge propagating into the
piers [18]. The flexural failure mode is not common as the shear one
and is characterized by horizontal cracks taking place in the masonry

∗ Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: massimiliano.gioffre@unipg.it (M. Gioffrè), nicola.cavalagli@unipg.it (N. Cavalagli), vittorio.gusella@unipg.it (V. Gusella),
chiara.pepi@unipg.it (C. Pepi).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2022.126961
Received 5 November 2021; Received in revised form 9 February 2022; Accepted 22 February 2022
Available online 12 April 2022
0950-0618/© 2022 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
M. Gioffrè et al.
Fig. 1. (a) View of the two building models after the construction outside the shaking table. Details of the tie (b) and of other confinement elements (c) of the CM building.
bed joints and propagating into the tie-columns. The failure occurs
with the yielding of the rebars in the tie-columns and the subsequent
detachment between the masonry and the column. This failure mode is
strictly related to the amount of reinforcement in the tie-columns, the
slenderness of the wall and the bonding behavior between the masonry
and the RC vertical elements [11,19].
Concerning the dynamic behavior and the seismic performance of
the CM buildings, only a few experimental studies using shaking table
tests are present in literature [20–22]. CM buildings with different plan
geometry, amount of steel rebars in the tie-columns and number of
storeys were tested on unidirectional shaking table, using seismic loads
with increasing amplitude until the failure was fulfilled. It was observed
that CM structures performed well during the highest seismic intensity
loads, showing only minor cracks and suggesting a behavior in the
elastic range [23]. Moreover, only a CM structure designed on purpose
with an insufficient amount of longitudinal rebars in the vertical con-
finement elements showed the typical failure modes due to the lateral
in-plane loads characterized by diagonal cracks in the masonry wall
and the plastic hinges formation in the vertical tie-columns [24].
The first reported use of CM construction in Italy was in the recon-
struction of buildings destroyed by the 1908 Messina (Magnitude 7.2).
Despite the large amount of experimental studies and post earthquakes
observations, its use did not spread mainly because missing standard
prescriptions and recommendations. CM technique has been introduced
recently by the Italian Standard Code (NTC 2018), but no specific
roles are reported and the seismic design and assessment methods are
only partially covered by the European codes for masonry structures
(Eurocode 6 and Eurocode 8). Reference is made in particular to the
specification of a minimum concrete section for confining elements, the
stirrups diameter and spacing, reinforcing steel bars diameter and lap
length. The large dispersion of the prescriptions individually developed
and proposed in the several countries during the last decades do not
encourage the use of CM construction technique comparatively to URM
and RC.
To improve the understanding of CM structures behavior to seismic
loads a research program was started. Two building models (i.e. URM
and CM) with equal geometry and materials were built and a shaking
table experimental investigation was carried out, in order to compare
the dynamic response and the seismic performance of the two different
construction types. The same seismic sequence with increasing ampli-
tude acceleration time histories was given by discrete steps to each of
the two masonry models and its effects were observed and recorded. In
the first part of the paper the testing units, facilities and load program
are described; the damage evolution with increasing shaking intensity
is discussed and finally the global response results described in terms
of seismic response intensity measures and drift profiles are reported.
The seismic performance of the two structural systems is compared
using damage observations. The obtained qualitative and quantitative
results are important for both validation of numerical models and
improvements of seismic design and assessment methods of such CM
structures.
2
Construction and Building Materials 333 (2022) 126961
2. Models description
The two URM and CM buildings tested on the 3D shaking table
had dimensions 3.00 × 3.50 m in plan and height 2.20 m for each
storey. The two building models were constructed outside the table
(Fig. 1(a)) and then transported and anchored to the shaking table. The
models were characterized by openings with different dimensions and
positions on three façades whereas one façade is blind (Fig. 2(a) and
(b)). The buildings dimensions and layouts were chosen according to
the dimension of the shaking table [25].
The two buildings were built on a reinforced concrete foundation
made of four beams for transportation and fastening of the two pro-
totypes to the shaking table (Fig. 3(a)). Each beam is reinforced with
6 rebars having 14 mm diameter and tied by 8 mm diameter stirrups
at 20 cm spacing. The first floor is a hollow tile slab reinforced with
manufactured 14 cm length truss joists, made of one 7 mm diameter
and two 5 mm diameter rebars anchored to a 16 cm thick concrete curb
with 4 rebars, having 10 mm diameter (Fig. 3(b)). The roof is made of
four HEA 100 steel beams in the two orthogonal directions and fixed
to a 16 cm thick concrete curb reinforced by 10 mm diameter 6 rebars
(Fig. 3(c)). Both first floor slab and the roof were specially designed
in order to allow the positioning of additional masses and to obtain a
rigid plane behavior. On the West façade two balconies, made with four
HEA100 steel beams, stack out of both the first and the second curbs.
The walls were built using 25 × 18 × 16 bearing clay blocks, obtained
by cutting commercial unit block with 45% volume of vertical holes
(group 2 according to [26], characteristic compressive strength 𝑓𝑏𝑘 =
22.30 MPa). Fig. 3(d) shows a sample of the clay blocks used in the
construction of both prototypes. The walls were assembled in a running
bond texture using M10 mortar joints of about 1 cm thickness. Further,
reinforced concrete and hollow tiles mixed lintels were placed over the
openings, with 16 cm height to match the height of the bricks.
In the CM model, the tie-columns and the tie-beams were built at
each corner, at each wall intersection and at the vertical borders of
windows and doors in order to confine the masonry panel (Fig. 1(b)).
The tie-columns placed at the corners have cross section of 15 × 15 cm
while the elements confining the openings such as doors and windows,
have a cross section of 10 × 13 cm (Fig. 1(c)). These elements were
reinforced by 4 rebars having 8–10 mm diameter dimension and tied
by 6 mm diameter stirrups at 10 cm spacing for corner cases and
confinement elements, respectively (Fig. 4(a)). The first and second
floor RC tie-beams have cross section of 15 × 16 cm and 15 × 25 cm,
respectively. The first floor RC tie-beam elements were reinforced by 4
rebars having 12 mm diameter and tied by 6 mm diameter stirrups at
10 cm spacings; the second floor RC tie-beam elements were reinforced
by 6 rebars having 12 mm diameter and tied by 6 mm diameter stirrups
at 10 cm spacings (Fig. 4(b)). The connection detail between the lintel
and the tie-columns confining the openings are shown in detail in
(Fig. 4(c)). C25/28 concrete class (characteristic compressive strength
𝑓𝑐𝑘 = 25 MPa) and B450C steel bars (modulus of elasticity 𝐸𝑠 = 210 000
MPa, characteristic yield strength 𝑓𝑦𝑘 = 450 MPa) were used according
M. Gioffrè et al.
Fig. 2. Geometry of the URM and CM model: façades (a,b), plans (c,d) and threedimensional views (e,f).
to Eurocode 2 [27]; S275 steel (modulus of elasticity 𝐸𝑠 = 205 000
MPa, characteristic yielding strength 𝑓𝑦𝑘 = 275 MPa) was used for the
steel members according to Eurocode 3 [28]. The confining vertical
elements were built with masonry toothing to improve the connection
and ensuring adhesion between the components. In particular, toothing
3
Construction and Building Materials 333 (2022) 126961
between the masonry panels and the tie-columns was achieved by
means of a proper running bond pattern (Fig. 1(c)).
A prefabricated horizontal steel reinforcement consisting of two
parallel rods connected by continuous diagonal wires (characteristic
yield strength 𝑓𝑦𝑘 = 580 MPa) was embedded in the horizontal bed
joints every two masonry rows (Fig. 4(d)) in order to improve the
M. Gioffrè et al.
Fig. 3. Structural details of the building models: (a) foundation; (b) first floor slab; (c) roof and (d) clay block.
tensile strength and the ductility of the masonry wall panels and to
reduce the risk of cracking. Further description details on the geometry
and the construction phase of the two building models can be found
in [29,30].
3. Testing setup
3.1. Instrumentation
Different kind of sensors were used in order to obtain accurate
information about the dynamic response of both the shaking table sys-
tem and the two building models: MEMS (Micro Electrical Mechanical
Systems) accelerometers with sensitivity of 1 V/g mainly used during
the seismic tests and a Motion Capture System (MCS) based 3D optical
displacement measurement (Fig. 5).
A first acceleration system made of three uniaxial MEMS accelerom-
eters directly fixed to the shaking table was used in order to measure
the effective acceleration time histories in the three directions at the
platform level (Fig. 6(a)). A second acceleration system made of ten
sensors deployed on the North façade was used in order to measure
the acceleration time histories of both masonry building foundation
and slabs level (Fig. 6(b)-(c)). Six accelerometers, identified with the
red symbol, were installed to measure the out-of-plane accelerations
of the North façade (i.e. 𝑦 direction in Fig. 6); three accelerometers,
identified with the blue symbol were used to measure the in-plane
accelerations of the North façade (i.e. 𝑥 direction in Fig. 6). In addition,
one accelerometer, identified with the green symbol, was installed
at the foundation beam mid-span in order to measure the vertical
acceleration time histories. The accelerometers were directly connected
to the building models using steel plates.
4
Construction and Building Materials 333 (2022) 126961
For the sake of clarity, in the following the acceleration systems
used to measure the dynamic response of the shaking table and the two
building models are referred to as MEMS#1 and MEMS#2, respectively.
The displacement response time histories of the structure during the
tests were recorded using a 3D optical measurement system allowing to
obtain the three spatial components of motion of predefined measure-
ment points identified by passive markers fixed on the structure. The
system uses high-frequency and high-resolution cameras to compute
the position of the reflecting passive markers placed on the masonry
building façades. The cameras are equipped with a near-infrared filter
project light that is reflected by cheap spherical markers coated with
reflective material. The positions of the markers along the four façades
of the URM and the CM building model are reported in Fig. 7(a)(d)
and (e)(h), respectively. Twenty-six markers were installed to measure
the displacements of the West façade; sixteen markers were installed to
measure the displacements of the North and South façades; eight mark-
ers were installed to measure the displacements of the East façade. This
configuration gives the dynamic displacement profile of the entire URM
and CM masonry building model by synchronizing of the cameras [25].
3.2. Testing sequence
The two building models were subjected to the same seismic se-
quence with increasing amplitude acceleration time histories in order
to directly compare the URM and CM buildings dynamic response. The
Reference Earthquake (RE) was referred to the seismic event recorded
by the NRC station close to the city of Norcia (Umbria Region, central
Italy) in October 30th, 2016. This earthquake (Magnitude 6.6) caused
M. Gioffrè et al.
Fig. 4. Cross sections: tie-columns (a) and first and second floor RC tie-beam and slab connection (b); tie-column and lintel connection (c); lattice details (d).
significant damages, collapses and widespread failures on several build-
ings. The record was chosen for its significant vertical component,
higher than those prescribed by the Italian Instructions for seismic
design. Indeed, this earthquake exceeded the prescribed 975 years
response spectrum by more than double [29,31,32]. Fig. 8(a) shows
the reference earthquake acceleration time histories, RE, in the 𝑥, 𝑦, 𝑧
directions. The right panel in the figure demonstrates the significant
amplitude of the vertical component. Fig. 8-(b) reports the correspond-
ing response spectra, 𝑆𝑎 (𝑇 , 𝜁), computed from the acceleration time
series assuming critical damping ratio 𝜁 = 0.05.
The seismic test sequence is reported in Tables 1 and 2 for the
URM and the CM building, respectively. Each seismic test was carried
out by multiplying the RE amplitude for a scale factor, up to 1.20
and 1.80 times RE for the URM and the CM building, respectively.
In between each seismic test a broadband stationary base excitation,
having almost white noise (WN) characteristics, was imposed to both
buildings. The dynamic response in terms of acceleration time histories
5
Construction and Building Materials 333 (2022) 126961
was measured and used to identify the modal characteristics (natural
frequencies and mode shapes) of the two buildings right after each
seismic tests. The obtained results are reported and deeply discussed
in [29]. In particular, three vibration modes were identified below
25 Hz for both structural systems. As it was expected, the higher
natural frequencies were obtained for the CM building models in all the
considered testing setups. Moreover, the change of modal parameters
after each level of the seismic load for each of the masonry models
was used for assessing the different seismic performance of the CM
structural system compared to the URM.
4. Damage comparison by visual inspection
The shaking table tests on the URM building model were performed
according to Table 1. No visible damage on the structure was observed
after E1-URM earthquake. Fig. 9 shows the damage state after the main
M. Gioffrè et al. Construction and Building Materials 333 (2022) 126961

seismic events E2-URM with main cracks C1, C2, . . . ,C12. A widespread
cracking pattern was observed at the lower level, due to shear action
as expected, with typical cracks starting from the opening corners, the
edges of West and North façades (C1,C2, C3, C4 in Fig. 9(a)) and
from the concrete foundation of East and South façades (C5, C6, C7
in Fig. 9(a)). The crack pattern was increased by the E3-URM seismic
input with new cracks (C8,C11 in Fig. 9-(b)) developed in particular
on the North and South façades (C9, C10,C12 in Fig. 9-(b)). Moreover,
each step of the seismic sequence did not induce any visible damage
on the concrete parts of the URM building model.
The shaking table tests on the CM building model were performed
with the seismic sequence in Table 2. Differently, the seismic tests
carried out on the CM model did not show any visible damage on the
structure, even after the seismic input 1.5 times the maximum level
given to the URM model. The results demonstrate the improvement of
the seismic performance when using the CM construction technique.

Fig. 5. Image of the URM model equipped with accelerometers and optical markers 5. Response comparison
on the shaking table (b).

The main aim of the research program was to compare the structural
performance of the two masonry building models subjected to increas-
Table 1 ing seismic excitation. The performance investigation was carried out
Shaking table test sequence for the URM building model. by comparing the dynamic response of the two models during each
Test Code Description seismic test using different seismic Intensity Measures (IMs). The used
1 WN0 - URM White Noise Loading IMs are able to describe the three main features of an earthquake
2 E1-URM Seismic Input 0.25 RE from an engineering point of view: amplitude, frequency content and
3 WN1 - URM White Noise Loading duration. In the last decades, a number of intensity parameters have
4 E2-URM Seismic Input RE
5 WN2- URM White Noise Loading
been proposed in the literature, each of which providing information
6 E3-URM Seismic Input 1.20 RE about one or more features [33–40]. In this work the Peak Ground
7 WN3 - URM White Noise Loading Acceleration (PGA), the Peak Response Acceleration (PRA), the Arias
intensity IA and the Housner intensity IH , are used to compare the
structural response of the two masonry building models.
It is worth noting that the IMs can be considered as both a measure
Table 2 of the seismic input (i.e. computed directly from the ground motion
Shaking table test sequence for the CM building model.
records) and the structural system response (i.e.computed directly from
Test Code Description
the acceleration time histories recorded on the structure during an
1 WN0 - CM White Noise Loading earthquake). Therefore, in the following, the chosen ground motion IMs
2 E1-CM Seismic Input 0.25RE
are used to characterize both the acceleration time histories recorded
3 WN1 - CM White Noise Loading
4 E2-CM Seismic Input RE at the base of the two building models as well as the acceleration
5 WN2- CM White Noise Loading time histories recorded on the structural building models during each
6 E3-CM Seismic Input 1.20 RE seismic test.
7 WN3 - CM White Noise Loading
8 E4-CM Seismic Input 1.50 RE
9 WN4 - CM White Noise Loading
5.1. Seismic input analysis
10 E5-CM Seismic Input 1.80 RE
11 WN5 - CM White Noise Loading The seismic sequences reported in Tables 2 and 3 consist of several
time histories which refer to the RE accelerogram through specific scale
factors. However, the motion of the shaking table does not accurately
Table 3 reproduce the input motion because of the interaction between the
IMs estimated from the acceleration time histories used as input.
table and the masonry buildings, modifying the system dynamics [41–
Input PGA [g] IA [m/s] IH [cm] 43]. The acceleration time histories were sampled at 200 Hz and
𝑥 𝑦 𝑧 𝑥 𝑦 𝑧 𝑥 𝑦 𝑧 post-processed using a pass band filter between 0.1 Hz and 50 Hz.
E1-URM 0.082 0.112 0.088 0.121 0.183 0.086 30.34 38.26 13.87
E2-URM 0.327 0.447 0.351 1.922 2.930 1.374 121.36 153.05 55.49 5.1.1. URM building model
E3-URM 0.392 0.536 0.421 2.767 4.219 1.978 145.63 183.66 66.59
Fig. 10 shows a graphical comparison between the IMs (i.e. PGA,
IA , IH ) estimated from the acceleration time histories used as shaking
Table 4 table input and those recorded by MEMS#1 at the platform in 𝑥, 𝑦 and
IMs estimated from the acceleration time histories recorded by MEMS#1. 𝑧 directions, whose values are reported in Tables 3 and 4, respectively.
Recorded PGA [g] IA [m/s] IH [cm] The recorded signals are often characterized by the presence of
𝑥 𝑦 𝑧 𝑥 𝑦 𝑧 𝑥 𝑦 𝑧 noise and spikes mainly due to the interaction between the shak-
E1-URM 0.192 0.236 0.110 0.470 0.489 0.123 24.58 32.50 11.65 ing table system and the URM building model. This characteristic is
E2-URM 0.411 0.672 0.404 2.473 3.345 1.954 95.11 126.92 45.48 reflected by the IMs values. In particular, the PGA derived by the
E3-URM 0.459 0.844 0.519 3.165 4.455 2.675 113.83 152.39 54.54 acceleration time histories recorded at the table level are significantly
higher than those obtained from the acceleration time histories used as
input signal for the actuator. Similar trend is observed for IA , while
when considering IH it is obtained that the values estimated on the
input signals are always greater than those of the recorded signals.

6
M. Gioffrè et al. Construction and Building Materials 333 (2022) 126961

Fig. 6. Sensors layout used for the acceleration measurements on the shaking table (MEMS#1 in (a)) and on the URM (b) and CM (c) building model (MEMS#2).

Fig. 7. Markers layout used for the 3D displacement measurements on the URM (a–d) and CM (e–h) building model.

5.1.2. CM building model Table 5

IMs obtained from the acceleration time histories used as input.
Fig. 10, Tables 5 and 6 report the results of Section 5.1.1 for the Input PGA [g] IA [m/s] IH [cm]
CM tests. As already observed for the URM case, the PGA derived by 𝑥 𝑦 𝑧 𝑥 𝑦 𝑧 𝑥 𝑦 𝑧
the acceleration time histories recorded at the table are significantly E1-CM 0.082 0.112 0.088 0.121 0.183 0.086 30.34 38.26 13.87
higher than those obtained from the acceleration time histories used E2-CM 0.327 0.447 0.351 1.922 2.930 1.374 121.3 153.05 55.49
E3-CM 0.392 0.536 0.421 2.767 4.219 1.978 145.6 183.7 66.59
as input for the actuator. As an example, the PGA recorded at the
E4-CM 0.490 0.670 0.526 4.324 6.592 3.091 182.0 229.6 83.24
platform for the 𝑦 direction is almost two times the PGA of the input E5-CM 0.588 0.804 0.631 6.227 9.493 4.452 218.5 275.5 99.89
signal, when 1.8 scale factor is used. However, as occur for the URM
building model, despite the significant difference in the PGA value, a
different behavior can be observed when IH is considered: the values
of IH obtained from the input signals are always greater than those
obtained from the recorded signals.

7
M. Gioffrè et al. Construction and Building Materials 333 (2022) 126961

Fig. 8. Acceleration time histories used as reference earthquake, RE, in the 𝑥, 𝑦, 𝑧 directions a), and corresponding response spectra 𝑆𝑎 (𝑇 , 𝜁), 𝜁 = 0.05 b).

Fig. 9. Cracking patterns on the URM building model obtained from shaking table tests by increasing seismic input intensity: E2-URM (a) and E3-URM (b).

8
M. Gioffrè et al.
Fig. 10. IMs obtained from the acceleration time histories used as input (red line) and recorded by MEMS#1 on URM (magenta line) and CM (blue line) building in directions 𝑥
(left panels), y(center panels) and z (right panels).
5.2. Seismic response analysis
This section discusses the seismic response of the two building
models comparing the chosen ground motion IMs estimated from the
acceleration time histories recorded during each seismic test by the
acceleration system MEMS#2 at each storey level including founda-
tion. All the acceleration time histories were recorded by MEMS#2
using 1000 Hz sampling frequency, then resampled to 200 Hz and
post-processed using a pass-band filter between 0.1 Hz and 50 Hz.
9
Construction and Building Materials 333 (2022) 126961
5.2.1. URM building model
The IMs estimated from the acceleration time histories recorded
by MEMS#2 on the URM building model are shown in Fig. 11. The
IMs reported in the left and center panels of Fig. 11 refers to the IMs
estimated from the acceleration time histories measured in 𝑦 direction
(Fig. 6) by the accelerometers located at the two opposite edges of
North façade; the IMs reported in the right panels are estimated using
the acceleration time histories recorded in 𝑥 direction (Fig. 6).
PRA values are mainly influenced by the typical outliers charac-
terizing the structural response acceleration signals mainly due to the
impulsive loadings provided by the interaction between the structure
M. Gioffrè et al. Construction and Building Materials 333 (2022) 126961

Fig. 11. IMs obtained from the acceleration time histories recorded by MEMS#2 in the 𝑦 (left and central panels) and 𝑥 (right panels) directions on the URM building model.

Table 6 estimated from the acceleration time histories recorded at the founda-
IMs obtained from the acceleration time histories recorded by MEMS#1. tion increase when the intensity acceleration used as input increase,
Recorded PGA [g] IA [m/s] IH [cm] except for the 𝑦 direction in central panel; similarly, the IA values
𝑥 𝑦 𝑧 𝑥 𝑦 𝑧 𝑥 𝑦 𝑧 obtained from the acceleration time histories recorded at the first floor
E1-CM 0.263 0.263 0.114 0.893 0.584 0.139 24.87 32.57 11.69 increase when the input acceleration intensity increase, except for 𝑦
E2-CM 0.461 0.772 0.447 2.885 3.485 2.123 97.98 130.8 45.45 direction in both left and central panels; the IA values obtained from
E3-CM 0.572 0.966 0.585 4.109 4.926 3.100 115.8 152.9 56.38 the acceleration time histories recorded at second floor increase when
E4-CM 0.707 1.304 0.667 5.794 7.389 4.635 143.4 190.7 68.23
E5-CM 0.735 1.580 0.678 7.411 10.286 6.392 171.4 228.9 81.86
the intensity acceleration used as input increase. Almost a proportional
trend in the IH as a function of the seismic input amplitude finally can
be observed in the lower panels of Fig. 11.

and the shaking table system. This is highlighted by the values assumed
by the PRA at the foundation level that, contrarily to what is expected,
are not always lower than those obtained on the upper floors. Different
results are obtained when cumulative IMs are used for estimating the
seismic performance of the URM specimen. In particular, the IA values
5.2.2. CM building model
The IMs estimated from the acceleration time histories recorded by
MEMS#2 on the CM building model are plotted in Fig. 11 with the
same layout described previously for the URM building model. As occur
for the URM building model and contrarily to what is expected, PRA
values estimated using the acceleration time histories recorded at the

10
M. Gioffrè et al.
Fig. 12. In-plane (y direction in left panels) and out-of-plane (x direction in right panels) max inter-storey drifts for URM (a) and CM (b) masonry buildings.
foundation level are significantly higher than those obtained using the
accelerations recorded at the first floor level. In this case, PRA values
increase when the amplitude of the seismic input increases with the
exception of the 𝑥 direction at the foundation level after E4-CM.
The IA values estimated from the acceleration time histories
recorded at the foundation increase with the increasing of the accel-
eration used as input. Moreover, in all the considered directions a
sharp increase can be observed after CM-E2, particularly evident for the
values obtained from the acceleration records of first and second floor.
It is worth noting that these results are different to those obtained for
the URM model, where the IA values does not always increase with the
increasing of the acceleration used as input. Therefore, starting from
11
Construction and Building Materials 333 (2022) 126961
the definition of the IA and considering the damage pattern observed
after each seismic test reported in Fig. 9, a possible relation between
the damage occurred on the URM building model and the IA values
can be observed. In fact, the IA estimated from the specimen response
acceleration time histories gives information about amplitude and
frequency content characteristics. The IA values can be thus related to
the frequency content variation characterizing the structural response
and the structural damage developed in the dynamic response.
Finally, almost a proportional trend of the IH as a function of the
seismic input amplitude can be finally observed in the lower panels of
Fig. 11, with some visible exceptions (i.e. IH in 𝑥 and 𝑦 direction for
the second floor and IH in 𝑥 direction for the foundation level).
M. Gioffrè et al. Construction and Building Materials 333 (2022) 126961

Fig. 13. In-plane (y direction in left panels) and out-of-plane (x direction in right panels) residual inter-storey drifts for URM (a) and CM (b) masonry buildings.

5.3. Drift profiles the storey height. The IDR are computed from the displacement time
histories measured in the in-plane direction (𝑦 in Fig. 6) and out-of-
Inter-storey drift (IDR) is a crucial parameter for estimating the plane (𝑥 in Fig. 6) of the markers installed on the two slabs of the
seismic performance of buildings during earthquake. The IDR can be West façade. The displacements of each slab is computed as an average
calculated as the maximum relative horizontal displacements estimated horizontal displacements of the two markers along the slabs.
during each seismic test, divided by the corresponding storey height as The IDR profiles for the URM and CM masonry building are plotted
follow for each seismic test in Fig. 12(a) and (b), respectively. Left panels
( ̄ ) and right panels refer to the in-plane (𝑦 in Fig. 6) and out-of-plane
𝑑 (𝑡) − 𝑑̄𝑖−1 (𝑡)
IDR(𝑡) = max 𝑖 × 100 (1) (𝑥 in Fig. 6) direction of the West façade. It can be seen that each
𝐻𝑖
run yields drift profiles that are equal in the two directions. Further,
where 𝑑̄𝑖 (𝑡) and 𝑑̄𝑖−1 (𝑡) are the average slab displacements (𝑖 = 0 refers the first floor storey drift ratios associated to the URM building model
to the foundation level) measured during each seismic test and 𝐻𝑖 is are greater than the second floor ones, in all the tests, with maximum

12
M. Gioffrè et al.
differences occurring during E2-URM and E3-URM, resulting from the
existence of damage mainly interesting the first floor masonry panels.
Almost same values of the first floor storey drift ratios are obtained
for the URM and the CM building model, during E2 and E3 seismic
input; on the contrary, values of the second floor storey drift ratios
lower than 0.2% and higher than 1% are obtained for the URM and CM
building respectively, during the same seismic input. This means that
the CM building can withstand higher deformation and displacements
without damage. Finally, it is worth noting that IDR values obtained for
the CM model in the two considered directions are significantly higher
than those obtained for the URM model, indicating that CM technique
can improve the deformation capacity and the damage tolerance of
buildings.
Residual IDR (RIDR) is then estimated for each seismic test as
the residual horizontal displacements, divided by corresponding storey
height as follow
( ̄𝑅 𝑅 )
𝑑𝑖 − 𝑑̄𝑖−1
RIDR = × 100 (2)
𝐻𝑖
where 𝑑̄𝑖𝑅 and 𝑑̄𝑖−1
𝑅 are the residual slab relative displacements (𝑖 = 0
refers to the foundation level) measured during each seismic test and
𝐻𝑖 is the storey height. The RIDR is a crucial parameter to obtain useful
information about the existence of damage after earthquake. The RIDR
profiles for the URM and CM masonry building are plotted for each
seismic test in Fig. 13(a) and (b), respectively. Left panels and right
panels refer to the in-plane (𝑦 in Fig. 6) and out-of-plane (𝑥 in Fig. 6)
directions of the West façade. It can be seen that most of runs yield drift
profiles that are not equal in the two directions. Maximum RIDR values
in both in plane and out of plane directions higher than 0.5% and 0.2%,
respectively, are obtained for the URM model during E2-URM. These
values reflect the relative displacements due to the cracks formation on
the first floor masonry panel. RIDR values lower than 0.1% are obtained
for the URM model during E3-URM, confirming that most of damage
occur during the seismic test carried out using the reference earthquake
and the damage pattern evolution already discussed in Fig. 9. Finally,
RIDR values lower than 0.08% and 0.02% are obtained in the in-plane
(𝑦 in Fig. 6) and out-of-plane (𝑥 in Fig. 6) direction for the CM model
when seismic intensity lower than 1.20 times the reference earthquake
is used as input, indicating that the residual displacements estimated on
the URM building model are significantly higher than those obtained
for the CM building model when the same input are used and, therefore,
the higher damage tolerance of the CM building model.
6. Conclusions
In this paper the seismic performance of CM construction technique
is investigated using shaking table tests carried out on an URM and
a CM building model, characterized by the same geometry, material
properties and characteristics. The two 2-storey models were made of
bearing clay blocks and mortar, while horizontal reinforcement and
concrete tie-beams and tie-columns were used as confining elements
for the CM case. Detailing rules for CM walls were set according
to International and European codes, accounting for the similitude
requirements. The same sequence of increasing amplitude earthquake
acceleration time histories was given by discrete steps to each of the
two masonry models and its effects were observed and recorded using
acceleration and optical sensors. The earthquake recorded by one of
the seismic stations of Norcia (Central Italy) on October 30th, 2016
was used as reference.
The performance comparison between the URM and the CM build-
ings showed a significant increase of the capacity to withstand dynamic
actions when CM technique is used. The URM model was characterized
by an important damage scenario when the intensity equal 1.00 and
1.20 times the reference earthquake is used as input. In the same
time, the CM building was able to withstand input intensity levels of
about 1.80 times the reference intensity, without showing any visible
13
Construction and Building Materials 333 (2022) 126961
damages. This capacity has been confirmed by the estimation of both
seismic response intensity measures and drift profiles.
All the results confirmed that reinforcing masonry walls with tie-
columns and tie-beams can increase the strength and global ductility
of the building. The obtained results can be used as reference for
calibrating suitable numerical models and designing strategies.
CRediT authorship contribution statement
Massimiliano Gioffrè: Conceptualization, Formal analysis, Inves-
tigation, Validation, Writing – review & editing, Supervision, Project
administration, Funding acquisition. Nicola Cavalagli: Methodology,
Formal analysis, Investigation, Data curation, Writing – review & edit-
ing, Visualization. Vittorio Gusella: Formal analysis, Validation, Writ-
ing – review & editing. Chiara Pepi: Methodology, Investigation, Soft-
ware, Validation, Formal analysis, Data curation, Writing – original
draft, Visualization.
Declaration of competing interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing finan-
cial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to
influence the work reported in this paper.
Acknowledgments
The Authors gratefully acknowledge the financial support of the
Fondazione Cassa di Risparmio di Perugia, Italy that funded this study
through the project ‘‘Casa Sicura: tecniche antisismiche innovative nella
tradizione delle costruzioni, Italy’’ (Project Code 2017.0233.021).
References
[1] M. ElGawady, P. Lestuzzi, M. Badoux, A review of conventional seismic
retrofitting techniques for URM, in: 13th International Brick and Block Masonry
Conference, 2004, pp. 1–10.
[2] R. Meli, Seismic design of masonry buildings: The mexican practice, in: Proceed-
ings of the International Symposium on Building Technology and Earthquake
Hazard Mitigation, Kunming, China, 1991, pp. 193–210.
[3] H. Gallegos, Masonry in peru 147, 1994, pp. 307–332, Special Publication.
[4] P. Hidalgo, Seismic behavior and earthquake-resistant design of masonry
buildings in Chile, 147, 1994, pp. 333–356, Special Publication.
[5] R. Su, Y. Lee, C. Lee, J. Ho, Typical collapse modes of confined masonry buildings
under strong earthquake loads, Open Construct. Build. Technol. J. 5 (2011)
50–60.
[6] F. Karantoni, S. Pantazopoulou, A. Ganas, Confined masonry as practical seismic
construction alternative–the experience from the 2014 Cephalonia earthquake,
Front. Struct. Civ. Eng. 12 (2018) 270–290.
[7] B. Borah, V. Singhal, H. Kaushik, Sustainable housing using confined masonry
buildings, 2018, Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019.
[8] R. Meli, S. Brzev, M. Astroza, T. Boen, F. Crisafulli, J. Dai, M.N. Farsi, T. Hart,
A. Mebarki, A. S. Moghadam, D. Quinn, M. Tomaževič, L. Yamin, Seismic design
guide for low-rise confined masonry buildings, 2011.
[9] I. León, L. Flores, C. Reyes, Estudio experimental de muros de mampostería de
barro sometidos a compresión pura, in: Anales Del XIV Congreso Nacional de
IngenierÍa Estructural, Acapulco, MÉxico, 2004.
[10] J. Lizárraga, Comportamiento de Muros de Mampostería Confinada sobre Ele-
mentos Flexibles Tesis de Doctorado, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México,
Ciudad de México, 2016.
[11] R. Marques, P.B. Lourenço, Structural behaviour and design rules of confined
masonry walls: Review and proposals, Constr. Build. Mater. 217 (2019) 137–155.
[12] A.I. Cruz O., J. Perez Gavilan, Seismic performance of confined masonry walls
with joint reinforcement and aspect ratio: An experimental study, Eng. Struct.
242 (2021) 112484.
[13] R. Meli, Behavior of CM walls under lateral load, in: Proceedings of the 5th
World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Rome, 25-29 June 1973, 2003.
[14] G.y.A.S.M. Aguilar, Efecto del refuerzo horizontal en el comportamiento de
muros de mampostería confinada ante cargas laterales, 2001, 1a Ed., MÉeico,
CENAPRED, Área de IngenierÍa Estructural y Geotecnia.
[15] M. Tomaževič, I. Klemenc, Seismic behaviour of confined masonry walls, Earthq.
Eng. Struct. Dynam. 26 (10) (1997) 1059–1071.
M. Gioffrè et al.
[16] S. Alcocer, J. Cesin, L. Flores, O. Hernández, A. Tena-Colunga, D. Vasconcelos,
The new Mexico city building code requirements for design and construction of
masonry structures, in: Conference Proceedings,Ninth North American Masonry
Conference, Vol. 86, 2003.
[17] A. San Bartolomé, Comentarios a la norma técnica de edificación e.070
albaçilería, 2008.
[18] H. Okail, A. Abdelrahman, A. Abdelkhalik, M. Metwaly, Experimental and
analytical investigation of the lateral load response of confined masonry walls,
HBRC J. 12 (1) (2016) 33–46.
[19] M. Tomaževič, Earthquake-Resistant Design of Masonry Buildings, in: Series on
innovation in structures and construction, Imperial College Press, 1999.
[20] L. Flores, J. Pérez Gavilán, S. Alcocer, Displacement capacity of confined masonry
structures reinforced with horizontal reinforcement: Shaking table tests, in:
Proceeding of the 16th World Conference in Earthquake Engineering, Santiago
de Chile, Sn, 2017.
[21] M. Tomaževič, I. Klemenc, Verification of seismic resistance of confined masonry
buildings, Earthq. Eng. Struct. Dynam. 26 (10) (1997) 1073–1088.
[22] S. Alcocer, N. Casas, Shake table testing of a small scale five story confined
masonry building, in: Proceeding of the 13th World Conference North American
Masonry Conference, Salt Lake City, Ut, USA, 2019.
[23] S.M. Alcocer, J.G. Arias, A. Vázquez, Response assessment of Mexican confined
masonry structures through shaking table tests, in: Proceedings of the 13th World
Conference on Earthquake Engineering, no. 2130, Vancouver, Canada, Paper,
2004.
[24] J.L. Bustos, F. Zabala, A.R. Masanet, J.R. Santalucía, Estudio del comportamiento
dinámico de un modelo de mampostería encadenada mediante un ensayo en
mesa vibratoria, XXIX Jornadas Sudam. de Ing. Estruct. (2000).
[25] I. Roselli, G. De Canio, M. Rossi, C. Calderini, S. Lagomarsino, Relative displace-
ments of 3D optical markers for deformations and crack monitoring of a masonry
structure under shaking table tests, Int. J. Comput. Methods Exp. Meas. 7 (2019)
350–362.
[26] European Committee fS En 1992, Eurocode 6: design of masonry structures,
1996.
[27] European Committee fS En 1992, Eurocode 2: design of concrete structures,
1992.
[28] European Committee fS En 1992, Eurocode 3: design of steel structures, 1993.
[29] C. Pepi, N. Cavalagli, V. Gusella, M. Gioffrè, Damage detection via modal analysis
of masonry structures using shaking table tests, Earthq. Eng. Struct. Dyn. 50 (8)
(2021) 2077–2097.
[30] A. Meoni, A. D’Alessandro, N. Cavalagli, M. Gioffré, F. Ubertini, Shaking table
tests on a masonry building monitored using smart bricks: Damage detection and
localization, Earthq. Eng. Struct. Dyn. 48 (8) (2019) 910–928.
14
Construction and Building Materials 333 (2022) 126961
[31] N. Cavalagli, M. Ciano, G. Fagotti, M. Gioffré, V. Gusella, C. Pepi, Shaking table
investigation on the masonry structures behaviour to earthquakes with strong
vertical component, in: Nonlinear Dynamics of Structures, Systems and Devices
- Proceedings of NODYCON 2019 - First International Nonlinear Dynamics
Conference, Rome, Italy, 2019, 2020.
[32] F. Mollaioli, O. AlShawa, L. Liberatore, D. Liberatore, L. Sorrentino, Seismic
demand of the 2016–2017 central Italy earthquakes, Bull. Earthq. Eng. 17 (10)
(2019) 5399–5427.
[33] A. Arias, A measure of earthquake intensity, Seismic Des. Nucl. Power Plants
(1970) 438–469.
[34] E. Cosenza, G. Manfredi, Damage indices and damage measures, Progr. Struct.
Eng. Mater. 2 (1) (2000) 50–59.
[35] J. Douglas, D. Seyedi, T. Ulrich, H. Modaressi, E. Foerster, K. Pitilakis, D.
Pitilakis, A. Karatzetzou, G. Gazetas, E. Garini, M. Loli, Evaluation of seismic
hazard for the assessment of historical elements at risk: description of input and
selection of intensity measures, Bull. Earthq. Eng. 13 (1) (2015) 49–65.
[36] G. Housner, Spectrum intensities of strong-motion earthquakes, in: In Proc.
Symposium on Earthquake and Blast Effects on Structures, 1952, pp. 20–36.
[37] S. Kramer, Geotechnical Earthquake Engineering, first ed., in: Prentice Hall
International Series in Civil Engineering and Engineering Mechanics, Upper
Saddle River, New Jersey, 1996.
[38] R. Riddell, On ground motion intensity indices, Earthq. Spectra 23 (1) (2007)
147–173.
[39] M. Ciano, M. Gioffrè, M. Grigoriu, The role of intensity measures on the accuracy
of seismic fragilities, Probab. Eng. Mech. 60 (2020).
[40] A. Kita, N. Cavalagli, M.G. Masciotta, P.B. Lourenço, F. Ubertini, Rapid post-
earthquake damage localization and quantification in masonry structures through
multidimensional non-linear seismic IDA, Eng. Struct. 219 (2020) 110841.
[41] K. Beyer, M. Tondelli, S. Petry, S. Peloso, Dynamic testing of a four-storey
building with reinforced concrete and unreinforced masonry walls: Prediction,
test results and data set, Bull. Earthq. Eng. 13 (10) (2015) 50. 3015–3064.
[42] F. Graziotti, U. Tomassetti, S. Kallioras, A. Penna, G. Magenes, Shaking table test
on a full scale URM cavity wall building, Bull. Earthq. Eng. (2017).
[43] M. Deng, Z. Dong, X. Wang, Y. Zhang, T. Zhou, Shaking table tests of a half-scale
2-storey URM building retrofitted with a high ductility fibre reinforced concrete
overlay system, Eng. Struct. 197 (2019) 109424.