Influence of Opening Ratio and Position in Infill Wall on Constitutive Law of Equivalent Compression Strut

Abstract

Infill walls are widely used in any building to create a separation between spaces intended for different purposes. In general, partial openings exist in infill wall with different opening ratio and position due to architectural considerations, functional needs and aesthetic concerns. In current practice, buildings are considered as bare frames ignoring infills and openings. However, infill walls and partial openings may significantly affect the seismic behavior of structures. Equivalent compression strut model is frequently used in modelling of infill walls for structural analysis. Accordingly, the force-displacement (F–D) relationship of equivalent compression strut is quite important in nonlinear analysis of infilled frames. In particular, opening sizes and position are essential parameters in order to properly constitute F–D relationship of infill wall with openings simulated by means of an equivalent compression strut. In this study, F–D relationship of equivalent compression strut is determined for different opening ratios and positions in infill wall considering three different F–D relationship models available in the literature. The maximum strength of equivalent compression strut and the corresponding displacement, the compression cracking force and the corresponding displacement, the residual strength and the axial compressive stiffness of the strut are compared and discussed for different constitutive F–D laws. It is found that force values of F–D relationships decrease as opening ratio increases. However, displacement values are not generally effected by opening ratio or position. Furthermore, openings upon the diagonal are more influential on F–D relationships of equivalent compression strut in comparison to other opening positions.

Keywords

• Infill walls with openings,Opening ratio and positions,force-displacement relationship,equivalent compression strut

References

1. K. M. Mosalam, R. N. White, and P. Gergely, “Static response of infilled frames usıng quasi-static experimentation,” Journal of Structural Engineering, vol. 123(11), pp. 1462–1469, 1997.
2. H. B. Kaushik, D. C. Rai, and S. K. Jain, “Stress-strain characteristics of clay brick masonry under uniaxial compression,” Journal of Materials in Civil Engineering, vol. 19(9), pp. 728–739, 2007.
3. D. J. Kakaletsis, and C. G. Karayannis, “Experimental investigation of infilled reinforced concrete frames with opening,” ACI Structural Journal, vol. 106(2), pp. 132–141, 2009.
4. P. G. Asteris, D. J. Kakaletsis, C. Z. Chrysostomou, and E. E. Smyrou, “Failure modes of in-filled frames,” Electronic Journal of Structural Engineering, vol. 11(1), pp. 11–20, 2011.
5. S. M. M. Emami, and M. Mohammadi, “Influence of vertical load on in-plane behavior of masonry infilled steel frames,” Earthquakes and Structures, vol. 11(4), pp. 609-627, 2016.
6. M. Bolhassani, A. A. Hamid, C. Johnson, and A. E. Schultz, “Shear strength expression for partially grouted masonry walls,” Engineering Structures, vol. 127, pp. 475-494, 2016.
7. M. Dolsek, and P. Fajfar, “Mathematical modelling of an infilled RC frame structure based on the results of pseudo-dynamic tests,” Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics, vol. 31(6), pp. 1215–1230, 2002.
8. G. Mondal, and S. K. Jain, “Lateral stiffness of masonry infilled reinforced concrete (RC) frames with central opening,” Earthquake Spectra, vol. 24(3), pp. 701–723, 2008.

9. E. Smyrou, C. Blandon, S. Antoniou, R. Pinho, and F. Crisafulli, “Implementation and verification of a masonry panel model for nonlinear dynamic analysis of infilled RC frames,” Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering, vol. 9(5), pp. 1519–1534, 2011.
10. A. Fiore, F. Porco, D. Raffaele, and G. Uva,. “About the influence of the infill panels over the collapse mechanisms actived under pushover analyses: Two case studies,” Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, vol. 39, pp. 11–22, 2012.
11. E. Martinelli, C. Lima, and G. D. Stefano, “A simplified procedure for nonlinear static analysis of masonry infilled RC frames,” Engineering Structures, vol. 101, pp. 591–608, 2015.
12. P. G. Asteris, C. C. Repapis, A. K. Tsaris, F. D. Trapani, and L. Cavaleri, “Parameters affecting the fundamental period of infilled RC frame structures,” Earthquakes and Structures, vol. 9(5), pp. 999–1028, 2015.
13. O. Ozturkoglu, T. Ucar, and Y. Yesilce, “Effect of masonry infill walls with openings on nonlinear response of reinforced concrete frames,” Earthquakes and Structures, vol. 12(3), pp. 333–347, 2017.
14. G. Uva, D. Raffaele, F. Porco, and A. Fiore, “On the role of equivalent strut models in the seismic assessment of infilled RC buildings,” Engineering Structures, vol. 42, pp. 83–94, 2012.
15. A. Madan, A. M. Reinborn, J. B. Mander, and R. E. Valles, “Modeling of masonry infill panels for structural analysis,” Journal of Structural Engineering, vol. 123(10), pp. 1295–1307, 1997.
16. P. Ricci, G. M. Verderame, and G. Manfredi, “Analytical investigation of elastic period of infilled RC MRF buildings,” Engineering Structures, vol. 33(2), pp. 308–319, 2011.
17. G. Uva, F. Porco, and A. Fiore, “Appraisal of masonry infill walls effect in the seismic response of RC framed buildings: A case study,” Engineering Structures, vol. 34, pp. 514–526, 2012.
18. M. Ercolino, P. Ricci, G. Magliulo, and G.M Verderame, “Influence of infill panels on an irregular RC building designed according to seismic code,” Earthquakes and Structures, vol. 10(2), pp. 261–291, 2016.
19. S. H. Bertoldi, L. D. Decanini, and C. Gavarini, “Telai tamponati soggetti ad azioni sismiche, un modello semplificato: confronto sperimentale e numeric,” in Proc. Atti del 6° Convegno Nazionale L’ingegneria Sismica in Italia, Perugia, Italy, 1993.
20. T. B. Panagiotakos, and M. N. Fardis, “Proposed nonlinear strut models for infill panels,” University of Patras, Greece, 1st Year Progress Report of HCM-PREC8 Project, 1994.
21. K. B. Hanoglu, “Fiber reinforced plastic overlay retrofit of hollow clay tile masonry infilled reinforced concrete frames,” PhD Thesis, Bogazici University, Istanbul, Turkey, 2002.
22. M. Dolsek, and P. Fajfar, “The effect of masonry infills on the seismic response of a four-storey reinforced concrete frame-a deterministic assessment,” Engineering Structures, vol. 30(7), pp. 1991–2001, 2008.
23. H. Rodrigues, H. Varum, and A. Costa, “Simplified macro-model for infill masonry panels,” Journal of Earthquake Engineering, vol. 14(3), pp. 390-416, 2010.
24. M. H. Tsai, and T. C. Huang, “Numerical investigation on the progressive collapse resistance of an RC building with brick infills under column loss,” World Academy of Science, Engineering and Technology, vol. 58, pp. 946–953, 2011.
25. SAP2000 Integrated Structural Analysis and Design Software, Ver.16.0.0, Computer and Structures Inc., USA, 2016.
26. Prestandard and Commentary for the Seismic Rehabilitation of Buildings (FEMA 356), Federal Emergency Management Agency, Washington, D.C., 2000.