Assessing the effect of bi-directional loading on nonlinear static and dynamic behaviour of masonry-infilled frames with openings

Yuen, Terry Y.P.; Kuang, Jingming; Ali, Balhassn S. M.

doi:10.1007/s10518-016-9899-2

Cited by 20 publications

(7 citation statements)

References 27 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Several other studies and efforts were carried out by other authors [68,[138][139][140][141][142][143][144][145][146][147][148]. Asteris et al [131] present an extensive and in-depth state-of-the-art review concerning the infill masonry micromodelling approaches.…”

Section: Detailed Micromodelling Approachesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Recent Findings and Open Issues concerning the Seismic Behaviour of Masonry Infill Walls in RC Buildings

Furtado

Risi

2020

Advances in Civil Engineering

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

e extension of the damages observed after the last major earthquakes shows that the seismic risk mitigation of infilled reinforced concrete structures is a paramount topic in seismic prone regions. In the assessment of existing structures and the design of new ones, the infill walls are considered as nonstructural elements by most of the seismic codes and, generally, comprehensive provisions for practitioners are missing. However, nowadays, it is well recognized by the community the importance of the infills in the seismic behaviour of the reinforced concrete structures. Accurate modelling strategies and appropriate seismic assessment methodologies are crucial to understand the behaviour of existing buildings and to develop efficient and appropriate mitigation measures to prevent high level of damages, casualties, and economic losses. e development of effective strengthening solutions to improve the infill seismic behaviour and proper analytical formulations that could help design engineers are still open issues, among others, on this topic. e main aim of this paper is to provide a state-of-the-art review concerning the typologies of damages observed in the last earthquakes where the causes and possible solutions are discussed. After that, a review of in-plane and out-of-plane testing campaigns from the literature on infilled reinforced concrete frames are presented as well as their relevant findings. e most common strengthening solutions to improve the seismic behaviour are presented, and some examples are discussed. Finally, a brief summary of the modelling strategies available in the literature is presented.

show abstract

Section: Detailed Micromodelling Approachesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Recent Findings and Open Issues concerning the Seismic Behaviour of Masonry Infill Walls in RC Buildings

Furtado

Risi

2020

Advances in Civil Engineering

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…It, thus, remains challenging to design and assess masonry buildings for seismic safety, which often display complex nonlinear dynamic behavior owing to the heterogeneous, anisotropic, and quasi‐brittle material properties. Diagonal or sliding cracks of unreinforced masonry (URM) walls can occur under cyclic in‐plane excitations and lead to severe strength and stiffness degradation 5–8 . Numerous experimental studies, research evidence, and reconnaissance reports of several past earthquakes established that confining elements play a vital role in seismic resistance of masonry walls as well as in‐plane (IP) and out‐of‐plane (OFP) behavior of structures 5,9–12 .…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Bi‐directional collapse fragility assessment by DFEM of unreinforced masonry buildings with openings and different confinement configurations

Deb

Yuen

Lee

et al. 2021

Earthq Engng Struct Dyn

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Unreinforced masonry (URM) buildings that are characterized by brittle, heterogeneous, and anisotropic responses have complex nonlinear dynamic behavior and high vulnerability under seismic loading. While masonry confined by tie‐columns and lintel beams can achieve better ductility and stability, the wall openings induce stress concentration around the corners and diminish the strength. Furthermore, the interacting in‐plane and out‐of‐plane responses of masonry walls could significantly affect the post‐cracking behavior and increase the collapse risk. To attain reliable seismic design of confined masonry buildings with openings, the collapse fragility under bi‐directional seismic loading shall be addressed and thoroughly investigated in this study. Advanced discrete finite element models (DFEM) with coupled damage‐plasticity traction‐separation law, which can simulate complex nonlinear dynamic behavior such as disintegration and progressive collapse, were developed for the masonry structures and validated against experimental results. Four one‐storey residential masonry buildings: (1) unconfined (UCM), (2) confined by tie‐columns at four building corners (CM‐I), (3) confined by toothed tie‐columns (CM‐II), and (4) confined by toothed tie‐columns and lintel beams (CM‐III) were considered. A series of incremental dynamic analyses (IDA) with 15 bi‐directional ground motions and fragility analyses were performed to investigate the dynamic characteristics, base shear, hysteresis behavior, failure mechanism, collapse probability, and exceedance probability for different drift limits were studied in‐depth. CM‐II with toothed tie‐columns had the lowest collapse probability and fragility at different drift limit states. The introduction of lintel beams to CM‐III lead to an increase of the storey‐drift‐based fragility compared to CM‐II, as a result of the increased maximum base shear of CM‐III with higher post‐damage stiffness. The lintel beams also inflicted short‐column effects on the tie‐columns. Nevertheless, the lintel beams could delay the out‐of‐plane collapse of the masonry walls by shortening the effective wall arching length. In some cases, the CM‐III could achieve better performances than CM‐II even in terms of storey drifts. The response variations of CM‐III to the changing of the non‐intensity related ground motion parameters are also lower than CM‐II.

show abstract

“…However, as demonstrated by many researchers [1][2][3][4][5], infill panels may completely alter the structural behaviour by their non-negligible bracing actions during strong earthquake excitation. The cost-effective, easy construction and flexible layout characteristics of masonry infill panels make them a popular choice for architects to arrange interior and exterior partitions.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Most of the seismic codes of practice nowadays tend to designate masonry infill panels as non-structural elements and neglect their structural participation during earthquake excitation. However, as demonstrated by many researchers [1][2][3][4][5], infill panels may completely alter the structural behaviour by their non-negligible bracing actions during strong earthquake excitation. The severe interaction between infill walls and bounding frame can be detrimental to the seismic performance of buildings, resulting in irreparable damage or even collapse of the whole structure, tremendously endangering people's lives and properties.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Low‐seismic damage strategies for infilled RC frames: shake‐table tests

Zhang

Kuang

Yuen

2017

Earthq Engng Struct Dyn

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Summary Unreinforced masonry (URM) infill panels are widely used as partitions in RC frames and typically considered as non‐structural elements in the design process. However, observations from recent major earthquakes have shown that under seismic excitation, the structural interaction between columns and infill walls can significantly alter the structural behaviour, thus causing catastrophic consequences. The purpose of this research was to propose and test an innovative low seismic damage detailing method, which isolates the infill panel from bounding columns with finite width vertical gaps during the infill panel construction phase and deploys steel wire connections in mortar layers anchored to columns. Taking into account the similitude requirements, a total of six one‐third scale, single‐storey single‐bay RC frames with different infill configurations and flexible connection details were carefully designed and tested on a shake‐table. Three real earthquake records were selected and scaled to ascending intensity levels and used as input signals. A series of thorough investigations including dynamic characteristics, hysteretic behaviour, failure mechanisms, out‐of‐plane vulnerabilities and the effect of different gap filling materials and load transfer mechanisms were rigorously studied. The experimental results indicate that the undesirable interaction between infill panels and bounding frame is significantly reduced using the proposed low seismic damage detailing concept. Direct shear failure of columns at an early stage is prevented, and structural redundancy at high levels of excitation can be provided. In general, the structural stability and integrity, and displacement ductility of infilled RC frames can remarkably be improved. Copyright © 2017 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

show abstract

Assessing the effect of bi-directional loading on nonlinear static and dynamic behaviour of masonry-infilled frames with openings

Cited by 20 publications

References 27 publications

Recent Findings and Open Issues concerning the Seismic Behaviour of Masonry Infill Walls in RC Buildings

Recent Findings and Open Issues concerning the Seismic Behaviour of Masonry Infill Walls in RC Buildings

Bi‐directional collapse fragility assessment by DFEM of unreinforced masonry buildings with openings and different confinement configurations

Low‐seismic damage strategies for infilled RC frames: shake‐table tests

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About