Experimental response of framed masonry structures designed with new reinforcing details

Crisafulli, Francisco J.; Carr, Athol J.; Park, Robert

doi:10.5459/bnzsee.38.1.19-32

Cited by 10 publications

(9 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Several single-and multi-strut macro-models are provided in the literature. Since the adoption of a single truss generally leads to an inaccurate estimation of the shear forces in the columns, these models are mostly used to conduct global analyses (Crisafulli et al 2005). Multi-truss approaches are preferred to investigate the local interaction, since the total stiffness of the panel is distributed among the trusses (Chrysostomou et al 2002;Verderame et al 2011;Burton and Deierlein 2013;Jeon et al 2015) and a better estimation of the shear in the column can be obtained.…”

Section: Infill Macro-modelmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The ultimate lateral strength Vu is equal to 4×Mu/L, where Mu is the ultimate moment evaluated from a fibre analysis of the section, while the corresponding ultimate displacement is evaluated as Du = L·qu, where qu is the ultimate rotation, evaluated according to Eurocode 8 Part 3 (EN 1998(EN -3 2005. Haris and Hortobágyi (2012) 11 Non-Ductile Solid Mehrabi et al (1996) 13 Ductile (2) and Non-Ductile (10) Hollow (7) and Solid (5) Crisafulli et al (2005) 2 Ductile (1) and Non-Ductile (1) Solid Colangelo (2003) 6 Ductile (4) and Non-Ductile (2) Hollow Colangelo (1996) 1 Ductile Hollow Colangelo (2005) 5 Non-Ductile Hollow Al-Chaar et al (2002) 4 Non-Ductile Hollow Baran and Sevil (2010) 8 Non-Ductile Hollow Calvi and Bolognini (2001) 7 Ductile Hollow Al-Nimry (2014) 5 Non-Ductile Solid Di 12 Non-Ductile Hollow (8) and Solid (4) Basha and Kaushik (2016) 6 Ductile (2) and Non-Ductile (3) Solid Zovkić et al (2013) 3 Ductile Hollow Piries and Carvalho (1992) 3 Ductile Hollow Skafida et al (2014) 1 Non-Ductile Hollow…”

Section: Overstrength Factors and Shear Strength Of The Infillmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The equivalent truss macro-model, originally proposed by Polyakov (1960), is one of the most commonly adopted models in numerical and analytical studies. Various configurations of this approach have been proposed in the literature, depending on the number of trusses adopted and their mechanical properties (e.g., Chrysostomou et al 2002;Varum et al 2005;Crisafulli and Carr 2005). Generally, the mechanical behaviour of the equivalent strut is evaluated by considering the properties of both the frame members and infills.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Brittle failure in RC masonry infilled frames: The role of infill overstrength

Blasi¹,

Luca²,

Aiello³

2018

Engineering Structures

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The interaction between an infill panel and a reinforced concrete (RC) column can lead to the brittle failure of the structural element. A novel combination of cutting-edge analytical modelling approaches for masonry infills and RC elements is employed to simulate five experimental tests (three infilled and two bare) characterized by brittle failure modes. The infill is modelled with a multi-strut idealisation, and the RC column is modelled using the recently developed PinchingLimitStateMaterial in OpenSees. The effects of the infill type (solid or hollow) and ductility characteristics of the RC elements on the optimal modelling parameters are investigated. The focus of this study is on the assumption of the overstrength ratio between the maximum and cracking strengths of the panel when brittle failure occurs. The preliminary assumption for this parameter is the widely accepted value of 1.3 suggested in the formulation by Panagiotakos and Fardis. This value is found to influence the shear failure simulation. To more accurately predict brittle failure, higher overstrength values of the infill are used in the numerical model to improve the matching between the numerical and experimental tests. These values are then compared with the approximate estimation of the overstrength ratio from a database of 98 experimental tests. The suggested estimation of the overstrength ratio is systematically greater than 1.3 and dependent on the infill type (i.e., 1.44 for hollow and 1.55 for solid infills). The proposed values can have a high impact on future code-compliant recommendations aimed at verifying the likelihood of the occurrence of brittle failure in columns due to their interaction with infill panels. KEYWORDS: masonry infilled reinforced concrete frame; experimental tests; equivalent strut model; shear failure; infill overstrength. * Corresponding author Numerous studies were conducted on different types of infilled frames to provide simplified analytical models to evaluate the forces transferred to the frames, depending on the failure mode of the infill (e.g., Mehrabi et al. 1996;Colangelo 2005;Cavaleri and Di Trapani 2014;Noh et al. 2017). At the onset of damage in the panel, a strut mechanism occurs due to the migration of the stresses to the diagonal zone, and stresses at the interface between the corners of the panel and the frame members increase. Experimental studies on the local interaction between frames and masonry panels showed that, in the case of poor transverse reinforcement of the columns, early shear failure can occur due to the presence of the infill Basha and Kaushik 2016;Verderame et al. 2016). Based on the experimental observations, different analytical models were derived in the literature to consider the effect of the infill panel on the response of RC frames under lateral loads. Many numerical analyses aimed at simulating the local interaction phenomena through micro-and macro-modelling approaches (e.g., Stavridis and Shing 2010;Jeon et al. 2015;Ning et al. 2017). The equivalent truss macro-model...

show abstract

Section: Infill Macro-modelmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Overstrength Factors and Shear Strength Of The Infillmentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Brittle failure in RC masonry infilled frames: The role of infill overstrength

Blasi¹,

Luca²,

Aiello³

2018

Engineering Structures

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…They also observed that the failure mechanism is highly dependent on the location and size of the opening. Several numerical models have also been used to investigate the influence of the size and location of the openings in masonry infilled frame structures (Gazić & Sigmund 2013;Sigmund & Penava 2013;Asteris et al 2011;Crisafulli & Carr 2007;Moghadam et al 2006;Crisafulli et al 2005;Al-Chaar et al 2003;Crisafulli et al 2000;Saneinejad 1990;Negro & Colombo 1997;Mehrabi & Shing 1997;Achyutha et al 1986).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Contribution of RC columns and masonry wall to the shear resistance of masonry infilled RC frames containing different in size window and door openings

Penava

Sarhosis

Kožar

et al. 2018

Engineering Structures

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In design, the contribution of the masonry infill wall to the shear resistance of the infilled frame structural system is often neglected. However, past research shows that ignoring this element can lead to inaccurate predictions of the system's behaviour. This paper investigates the influence of the opening type, size and position on the shear resistance and deformation capacity of individual components (infill and frame) in masonry infilled reinforced concrete (RC) frame structures. A computational model based on the non-linear finite element (FE) method of analysis has been developed. The computational model has been validated against a series of experimental tests carried out in the laboratory. An extensive parametric study was carried out and the influence of differences in size and location of window and door openings on the shear resistance of infilled frame was investigated. As a measure of the influence of the infill component, a shear resistance ratio for the frame was introduced. The normalized shear resistance capacity ratio represented the ratio of the shear force taken by the frame component (infilled frame case) divided by the shear force induced by the RC bare frame at observed drift ratios (damage grades). From the results analysis, it was found that the type of opening influences the design characteristics of the infilled RC frame. In particular, the shear resistance at columns of the infilled RC frame with a window opening is lower than the shear resistance of the columns of the RC frame. In contrast, the shear resistance at the columns of the infilled RC frame with a door opening is higher than the shear resistance of the columns of the RC frame, and in this case the contribution of the shear capacity of the frame is underestimated.

show abstract

“…Nevertheless, observations from past earthquakes also displayed that catastrophes and loss of life could occur in such buildings. The collapse is more likely to occur in the out-of-plane direction or in the partially infilled RC frame, which has led to the idea that this type of structure possesses some poor seismic performance [3]. Normally, the masonry infill is not taken as a structural element but as secondary.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Strengthening/Retrofitting Techniques on Unreinforced Masonry Structure/Element Subjected to Seismic Loads: A Literature Review

Wang¹,

Sarhosis²,

Nikitas³

2018

TOBCTJ

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Masonry structures commonly exist in reality and still are popular all over the world. It has been reported and studied that these buildings are vulnerable to strong external loadings imposed by earthquake, strong wind, blast etc. In the past few decades, different seismic retrofitting and strengthening approaches for masonry structures/elements have been developed and implemented. In this paper, the previous studies on the strengthening/retrofitting techniques for Unreinforced Masonry (URM) buildings subjected to seismic and extreme loads are reviewed and summarized. The fundamental concept of strengthening/retrofitting approaches is to (i) reduce the influence of external loading, (ii) upgrade the individual element's load-carrying capacity and (iii) improve the integrity of masonry structure. A comparison and assessment of the advantages and disadvantages of each method is presented to identify the most suitable method in different cases. It is expected that this paper will provide some helpful information and guidance for the engineers and householders in choosing an appropriate technique in strengthening/retrofitting URM structures.

show abstract

Experimental response of framed masonry structures designed with new reinforcing details

Cited by 10 publications

References 0 publications

Brittle failure in RC masonry infilled frames: The role of infill overstrength

Brittle failure in RC masonry infilled frames: The role of infill overstrength

Contribution of RC columns and masonry wall to the shear resistance of masonry infilled RC frames containing different in size window and door openings

Strengthening/Retrofitting Techniques on Unreinforced Masonry Structure/Element Subjected to Seismic Loads: A Literature Review

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About