earthquake-resistant and thermo-insulating infill panel with recycled-plastic joints

Earthquake-Resistantand Thermo-Insulating Infill Panelwith Recycled-Plastic Joints

Marco Vailati and Giorgio Monti

1 Introduction

The impellent need of endowing our cities with environment-friendly buildings thatare also safe against destructive events, such as earthquakes, has been the maininspiration for this work.

In particular, the attention of the authors has been focused on the role of infillpanels, which are in recent times gaining a widespread attention in the mostadvanced construction codes.

Thereby, they are now regarded as critical elements, both from the thermal insu-lation (Lgs, D. 311 2006) and from the earthquake resistant standpoints (NTC-082008; Circolare n.617 2009).

Infill panels are the key elements to ensure that the internal temperature of thebuilding be kept constant, regardless of the external environment temperature.

Unfortunately, we are all aware that most of the heat (or cold) dispersion inbuildings is due to the scarce insulating properties of infill panels.

In addition, their role as non-structural elements, not designed to sustain hori-zontal loads, becomes dramatically inadequate during exceptional events, such asmedium-high intensity earthquakes, which always produce severe damage in theseelements, if not complete collapse due to either in-plane shear or overturning.

These aspects have stimulated the scientific community towards a significantresearch effort to arrive at conceiving new types of external infill panels—andinternal partition walls—that could satisfy both basic requirements: beingeco-friendly from the thermal standpoint, while also resisting to severe earthquakeswithout endangering the people living and working in those buildings.

M. Vailati (&) � G. MontiDepartment of Structural and Geotechnical Engineering,Sapienza University of Rome, Rome, Italye-mail: [email protected]

G. Montie-mail: [email protected]

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016S. D’Amico (ed.), Earthquakes and Their Impact on Society,Springer Natural Hazards, DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-21753-6_15

417

The literature on this subject has produced a wealth of results and interestingapproaches so that current advanced structural codes incorporate specific proce-dures aimed at checking the safety of non-structural elements, as well.

For example, when the seismic action acts orthogonal to the infill panel, it maytend to overturn (Abrams et al. 1996) and it is now mandatory that this verificationbe carried out to ensure its stability.

Besides, several studies have pointed out that, in seismic conditions, infill panelsbecome elements that contribute to the seismic response, by working in parallelwith the main structural system and by changing its stiffness and strength (Berteroet al. 1981; Fardis and Panagiotakos 1998).

The approach currently followed to tackle this problem is as follows: if theinteraction between infill masonry panels and reinforced concrete frame is notnegligible, their contribution must be explicitly taken into account when modelingthe structural system.

For the sake of exemplification, Fig. 1 shows some numerical examples on asimple non-linear frame with concentrated plastic hinges, without and with infillinteraction (Vailati 2004).

One should readily notice that the presence of the infills dramatically changes theresponse.

In general, we observe: (a) a significant increase in the initial stiffness; and (b) anabrupt decrease of stiffness and strength (saw-tooth shape) corresponding to thein-plane collapse of the infills.

The interaction with the infills may also trigger partial failures in the maincolumns, due to the locally applied shear coming from the inclined strut thatnaturally develops within the infill panel.

These simplified analyses confirm the conclusions reached when observing thedamage in buildings after many severe earthquakes: infills have in general too highan in-plane stiffness, which gives rise to in-plane shear collapses.

0 0.02 0.04

100

200

300Frame with equivalent rods

Pushover

mm

kN

0 0.02 0.04 0.06

50

100

150Un-infilled frame

Pushover

mm

kN

Fig. 1 Simplified force-displacement response of a multistory frame building. LeftWithout infills.Right With infills interacting with the structural system. The strength drop is due to the in-planecollapse of the infills

418 M. Vailati and G. Monti

The main conclusion is therefore that such undesirable behavior is due to theexceedingly high stiffness of those elements. Why then not to try and solve theproblem by following a completely different strategy? In other words: by pursuingflexibility rather than stiffness.

In an essay published in An American Architecture magazine (Kaufmann 1955),the great American architect F.L. Wright said:

We solved the problem of the menace of the quake by concluding that rigidity could not bethe answer, and that flexibility and resiliency must be the answer… Why fight the quake?Why not sympathize with it and outwit it?

This brief reflection, which 80 years ago anticipated one of the founding prin-ciples of modern seismic engineering, suggests a strategy to effectively reduce thevulnerability of infill panels subject to the devastating effects of earthquakes.

However, in many post-quake surveys, it has also been observed that infillpanels often exhibit an out-of-plane instability, which gives rise to collapses due topartial/total overturning. Both behaviors are of course extremely dangerous for thesafety of occupants. In these cases, it would be instead desirable that the infillpanels be endowed with a high stiffness when subjected to out-of-plane forces.

These two requirements appear therefore to be contradicting. How can onedevelop a solution that ensures adequate flexibility in the in-plane response and, onthe other hand, high stiffness in the out-of-plane behavior?

This unconventional problem stimulated the development of an innovativeconstruction system of infill panels and partition walls having large in-plane dis-placement capacity and not interacting with the surrounding structural system.Moreover, these newly conceived infills also exhibit a remarkable stability withrespect to overturning actions of any kind.

The key concept of the proposed solution was found in the horizontal connectionsystem among the infill blocks: it consists of thermoformed recycled plastic jointsthat are dry-assembled and are meant to replace the traditional mortar joints.

Under the in-plane displacement imposed by the seismic action, the wall can bemade to behave as an assemblage of blocks that slide relatively to each other alongthe plastic bed joints. This modifies the mechanics of the resisting system; the infillpanel acts in fact as a series system consisting of rigid blocks, the bricks, and offlexible elastic interface springs, the plastic joints.

The horizontal displacement is localized at the joints, thus keeping the blocksessentially undeformed and undamaged. In a sense, the approach taken follows theline of the capacity design principle: failure of brittle elements, the bricks, isavoided by increasing the ductility of the deformable elements, the joints.

Under the overturning out-of-plane forces, the panels attain stability by means ofplastic strips hidden in the vertical joints and connected to the horizontal plasticjoints, which realize a continuous vertical reinforcement that prevents the panelfrom bending outwards. The technological details and the relevant design issues aredealt with in this paper.

Earthquake-Resistant and Thermo-Insulating Infill Panel … 419

2 Safety of Infill Panels Under Earthquakes

The most advanced construction codes are concerned with the safety of aconstruction as a whole and thus require the verification of both structural andnon-structural elements.

Non-structural elements are generally defined as “those having stiffness, strengthand mass such to influence significantly the structural response, and those, thoughnot influencing the structural response, that may put the safety of people at risk”.

Infill panels fall in this category and therefore their safety under seismic actionshas to be verified. Both Eurocode 8 (EN 1998-1) and the current Italian CodeNTC-08 (and also its more recent proposed revision of 2014) require thatnon-structural elements be verified for the in-plane response, under the DamageLimit State (DLS) seismic action, and for the out-of-plane response, under the LifeSafety Limit State (LSLS) earthquake.

For DLS, it is required to check that under the design seismic action thenon-structural elements are not damaged, so that the entire building can still beusable after the earthquake.

An implicit check is performed by limiting the interstory drift of structuralelements to a certain percent of the story height, depending on the panel type.

By doing this, it is expected that the infill panels, which undergo a drift equal tothat of the structural elements, can sustain low-intensity earthquakes withoutdamage. As mentioned, the drift limits are given depending on the panel type: infillsinteracting with the structural elements require small interstory drifts (of the orderof 0.005 the story height), while infills having limited or no interaction with thesurrounding structural elements allow for a larger (double) interstory drift.

This suggests to follow an alternative approach to that pursuing stronger infills:these can be made to have no interaction with the structural elements so to increasethe limit drift under frequent earthquakes.

As a matter of fact, it is interesting to note that, in case of infills purposelydesigned as collaborating with the earthquake-resisting structure, it is recommendedthat their design and construction be performed following widely accepteddocuments.

Nothing is said about infills that are purposely designed not to collaborate withthe structure, which clearly reveals a lack of available solutions.

For LSLS, it should be underlined that the only verification performed is that ofstability of the infills, that is, to check that panels are not going to overturn in caseof medium-high-intensity earthquakes. Nothing is currently said about theirin-plane behavior.

This amounts to saying that, when strong earthquakes hit the building, the mainconcern is to ensure that all structural elements perform adequately, while it isimplicitly accepted that non-structural elements can actually fail in-plane, whilethey are not allowed to overturn outside the building.


To ensure this, verifications are carried out by comparing the overturning forcewith the corresponding capacity. The overturning force is determined as:

Fa ¼ Sa �Wa

qað1Þ

in which: Fa = horizontal seismic force applied at the centroid of the non-structuralelement in the most unfavorable direction; Wa = weight of the element;qa = behavior factor of the element (at most qa = 2); Sa = spectral acceleration, interms of gravity acceleration g, which can be determined from formulations ofproven validity, such as, for example:

Sa ¼ a � S �3 � 1þ z

H

� �

1þ 1� Ta

T1

� �2 � 0:5

264

375� a � S ð2Þ

where: α = peak Ground Acceleration, in terms of gravity acceleration g;S = coefficient accounting for soil type and topographical conditions;Ta = fundamental period of vibration of the non-structural element;T1 = fundamental period of vibration of the building in the considered direction;Z = height of the overturning line of the non-structural element, measured from thefoundation level; H = height of the building, measured from the foundation level.

The demand generated on the element by the force calculated in Eq. (1) iscompared with the capacity of the system.

An interesting aspect of these modern codes is that they recognize the impor-tance of a proper design of these non-structural elements and thus they identify alsothe corresponding areas of responsibility of the different actors involved in thedesign process.

Thus, responsibilities are defined as follows: “When the non-structural elementis constructed on site, it is up to the designer of the structure to identify the demandand to design its capacity according to formulations of proven validity and it is thetask of the project manager to follow their implementation; on the other hand, whenthe non-structural element is only assembled on site, it is up to the designer of thestructure to identify the demand, while it is the duty of the supplier and/or installerto provide elements and connection systems of adequate capacity”.

It is finally worth mentioning that codes also deal largely with the role ofnon-structural elements within the overall response of the building, and with theway of correctly modeling them.

It is said: “When setting up the structural analysis model, all non-structuralelements (cladding and partitions), should be represented only in terms of mass,while their contribution to the stiffness and strength of the structural system shouldbe considered only if their strength and stiffness can significantly change thebehavior of the model”.


However, despite the intentions of the Code, very rarely happens that designersconsider explicitly the presence of infills within the structural model, even if theyinteract with the response of the structural system and modify it.

This is a matter of particular relevance, since in most cases the design is per-formed on a structural model without infills, whose response, both local and global,can be very different from that of the building that will be realized.

It is sufficient to think about the interaction with the structural elements atbeam-column joints and about the natural period of oscillation, which may besignificantly different.

Even in case of seismic assessment of existing buildings, neglecting the con-tribution of the infills to the strength and stiffness of the structure may result in anunderestimation of the risk of exceeding the limit states considered.

Again, this brings us towards the choice of a solution that reduces the interac-tions between infills and structures to the least possible.

3 The “PlastiBloc®” System

All the consideration expressed in the previous sections found a natural outcome ina non-structural element that can actually solve all the concerns raised with respectto the seismic safety, with the additional desirable feature of being completelysustainable.

The developed infill panel is composed by the traditional (concrete or clay)hollow-core blocks, by an insulation layer, and by the recycled-plastic joints, whichis the truly innovative part. The plastic joint is a 300 × 258 mm horizontal planewith a thickness of about 2 mm, having some thermoformed extruded hollow teethon both sides. These are meant to be inserted into the holes of the blocks, which arethen transformed into blocks ready to be dry-assembled by simply stacking them ontop of each other. Figure 2 shows a graphical representation of the joint. Therecycled-plastic joints are produced according to a controlled industrial process thatguarantees stability of the physical-mechanical properties of each piece.

Since we had to comply with performance requirements of multidisciplinarynature, the block system was optimized to satisfy all of them; the double alignmentof the blocks, represented in Fig. 2, right, provides the wall with excellent thermalproperties (up to 0.29 W/m2 K), thanks to the insertion of insulating elements in theair chamber between the blocks. Moreover, the teeth size is optimized so to have theneeded deformation capacity and give the joint the desired sliding capability, whichsignificantly reduces the horizontal stiffness of the wall. Consequently, theso-realized wall does not interact with the surrounding structural system, thusreducing the damage potential during earthquakes.

In addition to the above, the system was also endowed with another usefulfeature: in order to provide stability with respect to forces acting orthogonal to thewall face, a series of vertical plastic strips can be placed, if needed, in between theadjacent blocks, hidden in the vertical joints.


These strips, shown in Fig. 3, are connected to the horizontal joints by means ofspecial self-seizing connectors and can be regarded as a continuous reinforcementalong the entire panel height that provides the necessary resistance when it tends tobend outwards.

Thus, the system so conceived complies with two apparently contradictingrequirements: high flexibility under in-plane actions and high strength and stiffnessunder out-of-plane actions.

3.1 Comparison with Traditional Infills

The differences between the innovative system and traditional infill panels, madefrom either concrete or clay blocks connected with mortar bed joints, are severaland all remarkable.

As a first instance, PlastiBloc® has a better constructability in that it isdry-assembled and thus it does not require preparation, application and curing ofmortar joints as in the traditional infills. This significantly speeds up constructiontime, which is almost halved. Also, from the construction standpoint, there is no

Fig. 2 Left Geometry of the recycled-plastic joint in mm. Right Assembled PlastiBloc®, systemwith horizontal joint (red, numbered as 1), blocks (yellow, numbered as 2), insulation layer (grey,numbered as 3)


need of shifting the vertical joints. It should as well be noted that the internal voidsof the hollow core blocks, which are closed by the mortar in the traditional infills,are in this case all connected along the panel height and can be used to host pipingand lines.

In addition, it is safer in case of earthquakes, both because of its already men-tioned performance in the in-plane and in the out-of-plane behavior, but alsobecause, being lighter that the traditional panels, it reduces the overall mass of thebuilding and, consequently, the corresponding seismic forces.

On passing, being lighter than traditional infills makes transportation andhandling at the construction site easier.

From the sustainability point of view, it should be remarked that, beingdry-assembled, the entire infill panel can be disassembled and reused. In this sense,it can be considered as fully recyclable and environment-friendly.

It is even more eco-friendly if one considers that the plastic used to make thejoints is recycled from production leftovers that otherwise would be wasted.

Its thermal insulation capability allows for a significant energy saving, both incold and hot climates. Finally, the unit costs is lower than traditional infills.

Fig. 3 PlastiBloc® system with vertical reinforcing plastic strips between blocks (as shown byarrows)


3.2 Some Experimental Studies

The infill panel system has recently undergone an extensive program of experi-mental tests. The study, reported in Vailati et al. (2014), shows in great detail theresults of tests performed on the constituent material, on the single joint, on smallassemblages of blocks and joints, and on full-scale panel assemblages, under bothin-plane and out-of-plane actions.

Figure 4 shows the force-displacement graph of a failure test conducted on asmall assemblage of three blocks with two plastic joints interposed.

Note that, shifting the diagram by 5 mm, the joint can attain a maximum dis-placement of about 20 mm while still remaining elastic.

The tests performed on 3 × 3 m panels with opening, to represent real cases,gave very satisfactory results (Fig. 5): under an imposed drift of 100 mm, equiv-alent to 3 % of the interstory height, no constructive element of the panel, neitherthe plastic joints nor the blocks, showed any visible damage and remained perfectlyfunctional.

All tests conducted on full-scale infills confirmed the remarkable displacementcapacity of the infills with plastic joints, which reached much higher displacementlevels than those usually experienced during seismic events.

The out-of-plane tests (not shown here) provided equally satisfactory outcomes:the infill panel was rotated by several degrees until the horizontal position, whichrepresents an orthogonal acceleration of 1 g, without any sign of instability.

0 5 10 15 20 25

7

14

21cycle 1cycle 2cycle 3

Relationship F/d - Collapse tests

mm

kN

Fig. 4 Failure test of anassemblage of blocks withplastic joints. TheForce-displacement graphshows the remarkabledisplacement capacity of thesystem


3.3 Some Modeling Studies

The out-of-plane behavior of the proposed system was studied using two models,one analytical and one numerical, both aiming at comparing the seismic demand onthe infill panel and its outwards bending capacity.

In the analytical model, the seismic demand on the infill panel was evaluated byconsidering two types of horizontal force patterns: a point force at the panel cen-troid (mid-height), and a uniformly distributed force along the height of the panel.Their values were determined, for the former case, directly from Eq. (1), while forthe latter, by smearing the force in Eq. (1) over the height h of the panel.

The capacity of the infill panel was evaluated by assuming a linear compressivestress distribution on the panel cross-section, and a constant tensile stress in thetension strips. These give rise to compression and tension resultants as shown inFig. 6, having a lever arm equal to 0.8 d, where d is the overall thickness of thepanel.

Figure 6 shows a generic cross-section of the panel and the corresponding stressdistribution, used to compute the outward bending capacity.

In addition, the elastic stiffness of the system was computed under the hypothesisthat the entire panel made of the stacked blocks be regarded as a simply supportedbeam.

The numerical model was developed by using a commercial nonlinear finiteelement software. The following considerations are worth recalling:

Fig. 5 Shear test on full-scalemodel of infill panel made byplastic joints


Each block is assumed as undeformable;The panel cross-section does not remain plane throughout, because the two blocklayers are actually coupled by the plastic joint, which is deformable;The plastic joints do not offer tensile resistance;The plastic strips do not offer compressive resistance;The panel is hinged at both ends.

The tests were conducted in the nonlinear field. Sources of nonlinearity are to befound in the plastic material (constitutive laws are all non-symmetric) and in thegeometry. In fact, the system geometry changes significantly under horizontalactions, because its stiffness is initially very low before the vertical strips areactually activated.

Analytical and numerical results were compared with respect to six parameters:

• 1st mode natural period of vibration of the panel;• C1 the compression force in the external layer of the panel;• C2 the compression force in the internal layer of the wall;• T the tensile resultant in the strips;• d the mid-height displacement under seismic action.

Table 1 shows a summary of the results obtained with the two models. It can beseen that the results obtained with the analytical model subjected to distributed loadare closer to numerical model, where such load pattern naturally arises.

The results allow concluding that the analytical model can be effectively used fordesigning panels made with the proposed system.

Fig. 6 Generic cross-section of the PlastiBloc® system of 1 m length. The reinforcing plasticstrips (between blocks, in red), placed inside the vertical joints of the hollow-core blocks, providethe tensile resultant that equilibrates the compressive one on the blocks

Table 1 Comparison between the results obtained with analytical and numerical models

Model 1st mode (s) C1 (kN) C2 (kN) T (kN) d (mm)

Analytical (point load) 0.28 15.4 15.4 13.2 5.3

Analytical (distributed load) 0.28 7.7 7.7 6.6 5.3

Numerical 0.11 5.4 4.0 2.3 7.2


4 An Application

The PlastiBloc® system has been recently adopted in the construction of the infillwalls of the expansion of the Faculty of Law, within the University Campus ofRome, Italy.

A two-story steel frame building was built on top of the existing masonrybuilding. Figure 7 highlights the newly constructed portion. The first interstory hada net height of almost 6 m, while the second reached almost 5 m. The infill panelsinstalled on the perimeter had to ensure adequate thermal insulation and at the sametime, notwithstanding their slenderness, a high resistance against possible over-turning, due to either seismic actions or accidental thrusting forces.

The extremely unusual slenderness of the walls required a dedicated study thatfinally led to the development of an additional vertical strengthening, made of thespecial plastic strips, shown above in Fig. 3. As mentioned previously, these stripsare designed to act as surface tensile reinforcement, suitably arranged inside thevertical joints of the blocks and connected to the horizontal plastic joints by meansof special connectors, so to form a continuous plastic strip along the entire height ofthe infill, which provides the required lateral resistance against out-of-plane actions.

Figure 8 shows two phases of the assemblage of the infill panels. One shouldnote the layering of the system that is composed of two adjacent blocks, made ofclay in this case, with the insulating element placed in between, to provide therequired thermal resistance. In the picture, the horizontal plastic joints are clearlyvisible. The walls were assembled without using any mortar, with the onlyexception of that needed to place the bottom joints over the bottom slab. Right

Fig. 7 Center Super-elevated portion of the building where the PlastiBloc® system was adopted(two last levels). Left First of two levels with height of almost 6 m. Right Top level with height ofalmost 5 m


picture in Fig. 8 also shows some vertical plastic strips. Also, it should be noted thatthe holes in correspondence of the teeth of the plastic joint, allow to easily installpipes and lines through the wall thickness.

Finally, Fig. 9 shows a completed infill wall, having height close to 6 m.Construction details were devised in discontinuity zones, to allow assembling theblocks near openings, at corners, and at the beams soffit. At the construction site, itwas estimated that this system allowed assembling all the walls in a quarter of thetime that would have been taken by traditional infills.

5 Impact on Society

The innovative system for infill panels here presented can be defined, by severalpoints of view, as a sustainable and eco-friendly product. It brings several advan-tages at the social and economical level, by introducing a series of changes in theusual production process and in the quality of the resulting product. The followingis a, certainly not exhaustive, list:

Fig. 8 Two phases of the assemblage of the PlastiBloc® system. In evidence, at right, the plasticstrips


1. Being made from recycled plastic waste, the joints material can be fully recycledfor the production of new artifacts, thus becoming a product with close to zeroCO2 emissions (ISO/TS 14067 2013);

2. The assembly process is fully reversible so that all the basic elements: blocks,insulation, joints and strips can be reused;

3. The dry assembly of the plastic joints significantly reduces construction time,eliminating not only the time necessary for mixing and curing of mortar, but alsothe very realization of laying surfaces for the blocks;

4. A weight reduction between 30 and 60 %, which implies less transportationcosts and less related emissions;

5. High safety against horizontal forces, either due to earthquakes or accidentalimpact;

6. Self-extinguishing, thus avoiding problems associated with possible propagationof a fire.

6 Conclusion

An innovative solution for infill panels has been presented, which have interestingand promising properties for as regards, both, thermal insulation and seismicresistance. The basic idea is that of replacing the traditional mortar bed joints withrecycled plastic joints that are thermoformed. These are placed on top of the tra-ditional (concrete or clay) blocks for infills and make them into blocks that areready to be dry-assembled on top of each other.

Fig. 9 A completed infill wall of almost 6 m in height, with and without openings


These joints are designed to deform and to allow stacked layers of blocks to slidewith respect to each other, thus offering the least possible strength and stiffnesscontribution to the main structural system. In this way, the interaction between themain structural elements and the non-structural elements is reduced to a minimum.

During a low intensity earthquake, this has the beneficial effect that the infillpanels can easily accommodate the interstory drifts of the structural elementswithout suffering any damage, while during a medium-high-intensity earthquake,the panel can suffer some light damage, but they do not interact with the structuralelements, which then can exploit the performance levels they were designed for.

This technology does not require avoiding alignment of the vertical joints. Onthe contrary, the vertical alignment of the joints allows for the insertion of plasticvertical strips that can be helpful in those cases where tensile reinforcement is needin too slender walls. In this way, the panel can effectively resist horizontal forcesacting orthogonal to its plane, be they of accidental nature or due to earthquakes.This prevents the panels from overturning during medium-intensity earthquakes.

Some recent experimental and modeling studies are also presented (Vailati et al.2014), which have highlighted the potentialities of the system and have given someinsight in its mechanics.

The system is therefore to be seen as a first step towards a way of designing andrealizing buildings that comply with different requirements, be they related tostructural safety or to sustainability. It is also a further step towards a structuraldesign that looks at the building as a compound ensemble of structural andnon-structural elements, each of them worth being protected in case of exceptionalevents.

The technology proposed lends itself for a smooth introduction in the con-struction industry, since it effectively replaces a traditional way of realizing infills,without any abrupt change, rather, by using the same basic components and byreplacing mortar with an element, the plastic joint, which has the advantage ofproducing more eco-friendly panels, with less construction time and less cost.

Acknowledgments The authors thank the probe! company in Rome, Italy, patent holder of theplastibloc® system. Additional information about the system can be find at www.probeitalia.com.

References

Abrams, D. P., Angel, R., & Uzarski, J. (1996). Out of plane strength of unreinforced masonryinfill panels. Earthquake Spectra, 12(4), 825–844.

Brokken, S., Steven, T., Bertero, V. V., & Vitelmo, V. (1981). Studies on effects of infills inseismic resistant R/C construction. Berkeley: University of California (Report UCB/EERC81-12).

Circolare n. 617 C.S.LL.PP. (2009). Istruzioni per l’applicazione delle nuove norme tecniche per lecostruzioni di cui al decreto ministeriale 14 gennaio 2008. Supplemento ordinario n. 27 allaGazzetta Ufficiale 26 febbraio 2009.

NTC-08. (2008). Nuove norme tecniche per le costruzioni. Gazzetta Ufficiale della RepubblicaItaliana 4 febbraio 2008.


http://www.probeitalia.com

Fardis, M. N., & Panagiotakos, T. B. (1998). Seismic response and design of masonry infilledreinforced concrete buildings. In N.K. Srivastava (Ed.), Proceedings of the StructuralEngineering World Congress. San Francisco.

ISO/TS 14067. (2013). Greenhouse gases. Carbon footprint of products. Requirements andguidelines for quantification and communication.

Kaufmann, E. (1955). An American architecture. New York: Horizon press.Lgs, D. 311. (2006). Disposizioni correttive ed integrative al decreto legislativo 19 agosto 2005,

n. 192, recante attuazione della direttiva 2002/91/CE, relativa al rendimento energeticonell’edilizia. Gazzetta Ufficiale della Repubblica Italiana 1 febbraio 2007.

Vailati, M. (2004). Contenuti dell’ordinanza n.3274 in materia di costruzioni antisismiche, risvoltiapplicativi e confronti con altre normative. 2nd Level Master Degree Thesis, University ofRome.

Vailati, M., Caluisi, A., & Monti, G. (2014). Environmentally-friendly joints for seismic resistantinfill panels. Atti delle giornate AICAP 2014-Strutture nel tessuto urbano, Bergamo, 1998.


earthquake-resistant and thermo-insulating infill panel with recycled-plastic joints

Documents