Behavior of Masonry-Infilled Nonductile Reinforced Concrete Frames

Al-Chaar, Ghassan; Issa, Mohsen A.; Sweeney, Steve

doi:10.1061/(asce)0733-9445(2002)128:8(1055)

Cited by 165 publications

(97 citation statements)

References 2 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Tuff infills of the Tower of the Nations are characterized by an unusual shape factor with respect to typical practice in ordinary RC buildings; in fact, h w is higher than L w . According to the latter observation, the consistency of the strut mechanism is verified through an empirical formulation, resulting from experimental studies on brick and concrete infilled non-ductile frames (Al-Chaar et al, 2002). In Figure 8a is shown a schematic description of the characterization of strut macro-models employed for tuff masonry.…”

Section: Infills' Structural Contributionmentioning

confidence: 79%

Seismic Assessment via EC8 of Modern Heritage Structures

Verderame

Luca

Manfredi

2015

Handbook of Research on Seismic Assessment and Rehabilitation of Historic Structures

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, without written permission from the publisher. Product or company names used in this set are for identification purposes only. Inclusion of the names of the products or companies does not indicate a claim of ownership by IGI Global of the trademark or registered trademark.Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data British Cataloguing in Publication Data A Cataloguing in Publication record for this book is available from the British Library.All work contributed to this book is new, previously-unpublished material. The views expressed in this book are those of the authors, but not necessarily of the publisher.For electronic access to this publication, please contact: eresources@igi-global.com.Handbook of research on seismic assessment and rehabilitation of historic structures / Panagiotis G.

show abstract

Section: Infills' Structural Contributionmentioning

confidence: 79%

Seismic Assessment via EC8 of Modern Heritage Structures

Verderame

Luca

Manfredi

2015

Handbook of Research on Seismic Assessment and Rehabilitation of Historic Structures

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…According to the latter observation, the consistency of the strut mechanism is verified through an empirical formulation [31], resulting from experimental studies on brick and concrete infilled non-ductile frames (see equation 5). Due to their poor longitudinal reinforcement and their limited thicknesses (100 mm lateral; 150 mm in the lift-shaft zone), concrete walls are treated as concrete infills.…”

Section: Tuff and Concrete Infillingsmentioning

confidence: 89%

“…Maximum point estimate (F max , Δ max ) is also compared with experimental results ( [31], [32], [33]). Concrete infills' model has three characteristic points (Figure 9b): (i) cracking point (F cr , Δ cr ), force is assumed as the product of  o , t w and L w , and displacement is defined as the ratio between F cr and shear stiffness (G w •L w •t w /h w ), both transformed along the diagonal direction; (ii) maximum point (F max , Δ max ), force is the product of f cm and the area of the equivalent strut (b w •t w ), while displacement is equal to 2‰ of strut's length d w ; (iii) ultimate point (F u , Δ u ), force is 5% of the maximum strength, and displacement computed assuming a softening stiffness equal to (0.01 K el ).…”

Section: Tuff and Concrete Infillingsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Eurocode-based seismic assessment of modern heritage RC structures: The case of the Tower of the Nations in Naples (Italy)

Luca

Verderame

Manfredi

2014

Engineering Structures

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Given the interest earned recently by modern heritage structures, seismic assessment criteria of Eurocode 8 for ordinary reinforced concrete structures are applied to a modern heritage RC building. The case study building, the Tower of the Nations in Naples, was designed at the end of 30's. Modal dynamic identification, in situ inspections and testing provided the necessary knowledge of the structure in terms of geometry, structural details, and material properties. Two nonlinear models of the structure are built up in both the hypotheses of accounting and not accounting for tuff infills' stiffness and strength contribution. Lumped plasticity model for reinforced concrete elements and equivalent strut models for tuff and concrete infills are employed. Seismic assessment through nonlinear dynamic analyses is carried out for both Damage Limitation and Significant Damage limit states. Assessment of bare and infilled models emphasizes a lower demand in terms of maximum interstorey drift of the infilled model with respect to the bare model, for both limit states considered. Record-to-record variability for the sets of seven records becomes larger if infills strength and stiffness contribution is taken into account. The outcome of the assessment is not affected by infills, i.e. the structure can be considered safe (according to EC8 provisions) for both limit states, and in both modeling hypotheses. On the other hand, the demand over capacity ratio, for both the limit states considered, is strictly influenced by infills' contribution. Results provided show that Eurocode assessment tools for ordinary RC structures can be addressed to modern heritage buildings, even if specific care is necessary for nonlinear structural modeling in case of non-conventional structural elements and nonconventional structural materials (e.g., tuff infills in lieu of clay hollow brick infills).

show abstract

“…Al-Chaar et al [36] An experimental program was carried out by Al-Chaar et al [36] to evaluate the behavior of ve half-scale, single-story laboratory models with di erent numbers of bays. The results indicated that in lled RC frames exhibit signi cantly higher ultimate strength, residual strength, and initial sti ness than bare frames without compromising any ductility in the load-de ection response.…”

Section: Experimental Studiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

State of the art on the maximum strength of masonry infilled frames

Mohammadi

2017

Scientia Iranica

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract. For in ll panels, the expected strength is very close to the cracking strength; however, experimental values of the cracking strength are very scattered, and there is no formula to estimate it accurately. That is why some new codes have been assumed to focus on determining the expected strengths of In ll panels by their maximum strengths. In this paper, an extensive statistical analysis is conducted on experimental data to achieve a formula for the maximum (mostly referred as ultimate) strength of solid masonry in lled frames. For the ultimate strength, reliability of the existing empirical relations (9 formulas) is investigated, based on the available experimental data, categorized in accordance with their con ning frames. The obtained results of 51 experimental specimens show that the formula, recommended by Maintone et al., is the best one; however, it mostly underestimates the ultimate strength and is more accurate for the in lls in concrete frames. The formula is also improved to have a better correlation with the experimental data.

show abstract

Behavior of Masonry-Infilled Nonductile Reinforced Concrete Frames

Cited by 165 publications

References 2 publications

Seismic Assessment via EC8 of Modern Heritage Structures

Seismic Assessment via EC8 of Modern Heritage Structures

Eurocode-based seismic assessment of modern heritage RC structures: The case of the Tower of the Nations in Naples (Italy)

State of the art on the maximum strength of masonry infilled frames

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About