Strength and Stiffness of Masonry-Infilled Frames with Central Openings Based on Experimental Results

Mohammadi, Mitra; Nikfar, Farzad

doi:10.1061/(asce)st.1943-541x.0000717

Cited by 57 publications

(33 citation statements)

References 18 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Among the existing methods, the methods by Tasnimi and Mohebkhah [24] (Eq. (8)) and Mohammadi and Nikfar [26] (Eq. (11)) provide estimates close to test results where the average R F(exp) /R F(ana) is 0.93 and 0.96 respectively and a COV of 13% for both methods.…”

Section: Verification Of Proposed Methodsmentioning

confidence: 98%

“…Mohammadi and Nikfar (2013) Through a statistical analysis using experimental data, Mohammadi and Nikfar [26] concluded that the material of confining frames (steel or concrete) affected the reduction in strength but not the stiffness due to openings. Reduction on the infill strength with RC bounding frames was less than that with steel bounding frames.…”

Section: Tasnimi and Mohebkhah (2011)mentioning

confidence: 98%

“…Reduction on the infill strength with RC bounding frames was less than that with steel bounding frames. Hence Mohammadi and Nikfar [26] proposed two separate sets of reduction factor expressions for strength and stiffness of infill with openings as follows:…”

Section: Tasnimi and Mohebkhah (2011)mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…It is commonly accepted though that the presence of openings reduces the lateral stiffness and strength of the infilled system. Several analytical methods have been proposed to account for these reductions as affected by openings in infills [20][21][22][23][24][25][26]. However, the efficacy of these methods has not been thoroughly examined.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Numerical study of in-plane behaviour and strength of concrete masonry infills with openings

Chen

Liu

2015

Engineering Structures

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Verification Of Proposed Methodsmentioning

confidence: 98%

Section: Tasnimi and Mohebkhah (2011)mentioning

confidence: 98%

Section: Tasnimi and Mohebkhah (2011)mentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Numerical study of in-plane behaviour and strength of concrete masonry infills with openings

Chen

Liu

2015

Engineering Structures

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…The majority of the structural damage is noticed in the frame, whereas the upper structure remains in the elastic stage. In other words, the overall specimen is unevenly damaged [11,12]. The Southeast University of China (Jiangsu Province) scaled a reinforced framework structure with the bottom layer of a large bay supported by specially shaped columns to 1/6 of the prototype and performed seismic simulations on a vibration test rig.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Analysis of the Stiffness Ratio at the Interim Layer of Frame-Supported Multi-Ribbed Lightweight Walls under Low-Reversed Cyclic Loading

et al. 2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

By conducting low-reversed cyclic loading tests, this paper explores the load-bearing performance of frame-supported multi-ribbed lightweight wall structures. The finite-element software (OpenSees) is used to simulate the process with the shear wall width (at the frame-supported layer) and different hole opening approaches (for multi-ribbed lightweight walls) as variables. The conclusions reflect the influence of the stiffness ratio at the interim layer on the load-bearing performance of the structure. On this basis, the paper identifies the preferable numerical range for engineering design, which provides a solid foundation for the theoretical advancement of the structures in this study.

show abstract

In‐plane and out‐of‐plane behavior of confined masonry walls for various toothing and openings details and prediction of their strength and stiffness

Singhal

Durgesh

2016

Earthq Engng Struct Dyn

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Summary Eight half‐scale brick masonry walls were tested to study two important aspects of confined masonry (CM) walls related to its seismic behavior under in‐plane and out‐of‐plane loads. Four solid wall specimens tested to investigate the role of type of interface between the masonry and tie‐columns, such as toothing varying from none to every course. The other four specimens with openings were tested to study the effectiveness of various strengthening options around opening to mitigate their negative influence. In the set of four walls, one wall was infilled frame while the other three were CM walls of different configurations. The experimental results were further used to determine the accuracy of various existing models in predicting the in‐plane response quantities of CM walls. Confined masonry walls maintained structural integrity even when severely damaged and performed much better than infill frames. No significant effect of toothing details was noticed although toothing at every brick course was preferred for better post‐peak response. For perforated walls, provision of vertical elements along with continuous horizontal bands around openings was more effective in improving the overall response. Several empirical and semi‐empirical equations are available to estimate the lateral strength and stiffness of CM walls, but those including the contribution of longitudinal reinforcement in tie‐columns provided better predictions. The available equations along with reduction factors proposed for infills could not provide good estimates of strength and stiffness for perforated CM walls. However, recently proposed relations correlating strength/stiffness with the degree of confinement provided reasonable predictions for all wall specimens. Copyright © 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

show abstract

Strength and Stiffness of Masonry-Infilled Frames with Central Openings Based on Experimental Results

Cited by 57 publications

References 18 publications

Numerical study of in-plane behaviour and strength of concrete masonry infills with openings

Numerical study of in-plane behaviour and strength of concrete masonry infills with openings

Analysis of the Stiffness Ratio at the Interim Layer of Frame-Supported Multi-Ribbed Lightweight Walls under Low-Reversed Cyclic Loading

In‐plane and out‐of‐plane behavior of confined masonry walls for various toothing and openings details and prediction of their strength and stiffness

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About