Summary of a Large- and Small-Scale Unreinforced Masonry Infill Test Program

Henderson, R. C.; Fricke, K.E.; Jones, W.D.; Beavers, James E.; Bennett, Richard M.

doi:10.1061/(asce)0733-9445(2003)129:12(1667)

Cited by 42 publications

(17 citation statements)

References 8 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…It was also observed that infill compressive strength and panel dimensions have a significant effect on the ultimate load, whereas the presence of a central opening (amounting to 20 % of the infill area) does not affect the ultimate strength but reduces post-cracking ductility [12]. A summary of large-and reduced-scale unreinforced masonry infill testing programmes is presented in [17]. In the large-scale in situ airbag pressure testing it was concluded that the out-of-plane strength of the infill is many times greater than the predicted values that do not take into account the influence of arching mechanism.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Zudem kam man zu dem Schluss, dass die Druckfestigkeit der Ausfachung und die Feldabmessungen signifikante Auswirkungen auf die Bruchlast haben, während das Vorhandensein einer zentralen Öffnung (mit einem Ausfachungsbereich von 20 %) keine Auswirkungen auf die Bruchlast hat, aber zu einer Reduzierung der Duktilität nach der Rissbildung führt [12]. Eine Zusammenfassung des Versuchsprogramms für un-verstärkte Ausfachungen aus Mauerwerk im Großformat und im verkleinerten Maßstab wird in [17] …”

Section: Introductionunclassified

See 1 more Smart Citation

Lessons learned from the testing of RC frames with masonry infills and proposals for new solutions / Untersuchungen an mit Mauerwerk ausgefachten Stahlbetonrahmen und neue Lösungsvorschläge

et al. 2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionunclassified

Lessons learned from the testing of RC frames with masonry infills and proposals for new solutions / Untersuchungen an mit Mauerwerk ausgefachten Stahlbetonrahmen und neue Lösungsvorschläge

et al. 2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…These advantages of masonry buildings persuade some people to construct and utilize them. But masonry structural elements, which can only bear small tensile stresses, can not resist earthquake effects [2][3][4][5][6][7].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparing static linear and nonlinear analyses of safe rooms in a poor performance masonry building

Mazloom¹

2007

WIT Transactions on the Built Environment, Vol 93

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The idea of safe rooms has been developed for decreasing the earthquake casualties in masonry buildings. The information obtained from previous ground motions occuring in seismic zones expresses the lack of enough safety of these buildings against earthquakes. For this reason, an attempt has been made to create some safe areas inside the existing masonry buildings, which are called safe rooms. The practical method for making these safe areas is to install some prefabricated steel frames in some parts of the existing structure. These frames do not carry any service loads before an earthquake. However, if a devastating earthquake happens and the load bearing walls of the building are destroyed, some parts of the floors, which are in the safe areas, will fall on the roof of the installed frames and the occupants who have sheltered there will survive. This paper presents the performance of these frames located in a destroying three storey masonry building with favorable conclusions. In fact, the experimental pushover diagram of the safe room located at the ground-floor level of this building is compared with the analytical results and it is concluded that pushover analysis is a good method for seismic performance evaluation of safe rooms. Also this experimental diagram shows that the strength and displacement capacity of the steel frame are adequate to accommodate the distortions generated by seismic loads and aftershocks properly.

show abstract

“…Damage to an infill wall from earlier lateral load demands results in a reduction of initial in-plane stiffness under reloading, but overall performance under secondary in-plane loading appears to be comparable to an undamaged wall (Henderson et al 2003). …”

Section: Structural Behaviormentioning

confidence: 99%

“…As long as an infill wall panel is restrained in-plane, which allows the arch-action to develop, only panels with high height-to-thickness ratios are susceptible to loss of stability under uniform loads (Flanagan and Bennett 1999). Tests of infill wall panels have noted that due to vertical and sometimes horizontal arching action, the infill wall panel usually remains stable after ultimate capacity is reached (Henderson et al 2003). height-to-thickness ratios, cracked infill walls can still display high levels of strength (Abrams and Angel 1993).…”

Section: Figure R: Compression Strut Analogy For a Solid Infill Wallmentioning

confidence: 99%

A Study of the Seismic Performance of Early Multi-Story Steel Frame Structures with Unreinforced Masonry Infill

Potterton

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Steel frame construction with unreinforced masonry infill walls is a common system found in high-rise structures built in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. Recorded performance of this dual system during seismic events shows that the structures are able to resist a high level of lateral loads without collapse, primarily because a majority of damage is confined to the infill walls instead of the gravity carrying frame. To better understand expected performance of this structural system in different seismic risk regions, a prototypical building was analyzed using modal and nonlinear static procedures based on currently accepted evaluation guidelines. Nonlinear results from the computer model were compared with calculated target displacements for seventeen cities likely to have steel frame construction with unreinforced masonry infill in order to determine expected damage levels at varying levels of seismic risk. It was concluded that the structural system studied could experience damage in all seismic risk regions, including post-yield damage of the structure, although in low risk regions that damage is confined entirely to the infill walls. Practicing structural engineers should be aware that in all seismic risk zones existing steel frame buildings with unreinforced masonry infill, while able to resist a high magnitude of displacement without complete structural failure, will require additional lateral support under currently accepted rehabilitation guidelines. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

show abstract

Summary of a Large- and Small-Scale Unreinforced Masonry Infill Test Program

Cited by 42 publications

References 8 publications

Lessons learned from the testing of RC frames with masonry infills and proposals for new solutions / Untersuchungen an mit Mauerwerk ausgefachten Stahlbetonrahmen und neue Lösungsvorschläge

Lessons learned from the testing of RC frames with masonry infills and proposals for new solutions / Untersuchungen an mit Mauerwerk ausgefachten Stahlbetonrahmen und neue Lösungsvorschläge

Comparing static linear and nonlinear analyses of safe rooms in a poor performance masonry building

A Study of the Seismic Performance of Early Multi-Story Steel Frame Structures with Unreinforced Masonry Infill

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About