Bidirectional behavior of unreinforced masonry walls

Dolatshahi, Kiarash M.; Aref, Amjad J.; Yekrangnia, Mohammad

doi:10.1002/eqe.2455

Cited by 29 publications

(15 citation statements)

References 19 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…This model has been improved with the introduction of a routine that removes from the structural model the elements representative of the infill when their IP-OOP displacement history exceeds the interaction domain in ultimate displacements. 54 In 2014, Dolatshahi et al 55 carried out three-dimensional FEM analyses resulting in interaction domains in yielding and peak load represented by elliptical yielding curves. In this model, the infill is represented by four diagonal rigid elements joined in the center by one element, which takes into account the nonlinearity of the infill behavior.…”

Section: Infills' Modeling Accounting For the In-plane/out-of-planementioning

confidence: 99%

Empirical‐based out‐of‐plane URM infill wall model accounting for the interaction with in‐plane demand

Ricci

Domenico

Verderame

2017

Earthq Engng Struct Dyn

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Summary The role of masonry infills in the seismic behavior of reinforced concrete buildings has been widely studied in terms of their strength and stiffness contribution in the in‐plane (IP) direction, while fewer studies have been carried out on their response and modeling in the out‐of‐plane (OOP) direction. In this paper, the state of the art in code and literature provisions regarding infills' OOP capacity and seismic demand is presented, together with a review of the experimental tests that have been carried out to investigate infills' OOP behavior and the effects of IP‐OOP interaction. This review aims to collect an experimental database that is used to evaluate the effectiveness of literature and code provisions and to propose a semiempirical approach both for predicting infills' OOP strength, stiffness, and displacement capacity and for modeling the effects of IP displacement demand on OOP behavior and vice versa. Then, the state of the art on modeling of infills' OOP behavior and IP‐OOP interaction is presented together with a new macro model based on the proposed formulations and conceived to represent the IP and OOP behavior by taking into account the mutual interaction effects. Finally, the proposed model is used for an example application on two case‐study buildings, showing the effects of taking into account or neglecting the IP‐OOP interaction phenomena.

show abstract

Section: Infills' Modeling Accounting For the In-plane/out-of-planementioning

confidence: 99%

Empirical‐based out‐of‐plane URM infill wall model accounting for the interaction with in‐plane demand

Ricci

Domenico

Verderame

2017

Earthq Engng Struct Dyn

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In another work by Dolatshahi et al . , IP–OP interaction of a URM wall with a typical aspect ratio under different monotonic and cyclic loading protocols was examined. The results indicate that the direction of the resultant force of the wall is initially proportional to the ratio of stiffness in the IP and the OP directions.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Out‐of‐plane strength reduction of unreinforced masonry walls because of in‐plane damages

Dolatshahi

Yekrangnia

2015

Earthq Engng Struct Dyn

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Summary There are numerous studies on the behavior of Unreinforced Masonry (URM) walls in both in‐plane (IP) and out‐of‐plane (OP) directions; however, few aimed at understanding the simultaneous contribution of these intrinsic responses during earthquakes. Undoubtedly, even a strong URM wall shows weakened capacity in the OP direction because of minor cracks and other damages in the IP direction, and this capacity reduction has not yet been accounted for in seismic codes. In this study, performance of three URM walls is evaluated by several numerical analyses in terms of the OP capacity reduction because of IP displacements and failure modes. Several parameters influencing the OP capacity have been studied including aspect ratio, roof boundary condition, IP displacement and IP loading patterns. The results indicate that reduction in the OP capacity of URM walls varies from negligible to very high depending on boundary conditions, IP failure mode and IP damage severity. Moreover, IP loading pattern is more important in walls with higher aspect ratios because of their IP failure modes. Copyright © 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

show abstract

“…19 against the normalized IP load which is the IP force at each considered IP displacement demand level (FME, SME or TME) normalized to the IP force capacity (at SME). For comparison purposes, the results of the relation proposed by Dolatshahi et al [24] albeit for Unreinforced Masonry (URM) walls are also presented which is a simple circle with these normalized parameters. The results obviously show that, URM infill walls benefit from arching action (the blue ellipses in the figure) prior to reaching SME level (the peak in the IP force-displacement curve) compared to URM walls.…”

Section: Results Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…It was shown that regardless of the aspect ratio and existence of vertical loads, the OP behavior of infilled frames is not noticeably affected by the IP displacement demand, provided that the displacement is smaller than the displacement related to IP ultimate strength. Unlike the unreinforced masonry walls in which they experience considerable reduction in the OP strength capacity even by applying a small IP displacement [24,25], masonry infill walls benefit from the positive effects of formation of IP diagonal compressive struts in improving the arching action as well as in increasing their OP strength capacity. This is an interesting finding in this study since it clearly proves that the IP and OP interaction for masonry infilled frames may not be much of concern and therefore, the available relations in the design codes for determination of the IP and OP strength capacity of infilled frames as independent behaviors can lead to accurate results.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Evaluation of brick infill walls under in-plane and out-of-plane loading

Bahreini¹,

Mahdi²,

Najafizadeh³

2017

J. vibroeng.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In this paper, the in-plane (IP) and out-of-plane (OP) interaction of masonry infill walls with various length-to-height ratios and vertical forces from dead and live loads are studied. For this purpose, calibrated numerical simulation for IP and OP behaviors of infilled frames has been exploited. In this method, first, the vertical loads are applied, then increasing IP displacement is imposed at the top of the models and finally OP demands are applied to the walls up to their failure. Two different methods of applying OP loading are studied: increasing static uniform pressure on the wall, and increasing dynamic acceleration. Three levels of IP displacement demands are considered: at the first reduction of tangential stiffness for IP force-displacement response, at the maximum IP strength, and at the displacement related to 20 % reduction of IP strength. The results obviously show that up to the point of the maximum IP strength capacity, the OP behavior of the considered models slightly enhanced due to the effects of improved arching actions originated from the development of IP compressive diagonal struts. Moreover, slight differences exist between the static and dynamic loadings in OP direction, hence proving the accuracy of the equivalent static loading in determining OP capacity for the studied infilled frames. Comparing the results of masonry infilled frames with those of the corresponding masonry walls indicate that the IP displacements negatively affect the OP strength in the latter, even at small IP displacement demands; however, the rate of OP strength reduction in larger IP drift ratios is lower compared to that of the corresponding infilled frame.

show abstract

Bidirectional behavior of unreinforced masonry walls

Cited by 29 publications

References 19 publications

Empirical‐based out‐of‐plane URM infill wall model accounting for the interaction with in‐plane demand

Empirical‐based out‐of‐plane URM infill wall model accounting for the interaction with in‐plane demand

Out‐of‐plane strength reduction of unreinforced masonry walls because of in‐plane damages

Evaluation of brick infill walls under in-plane and out-of-plane loading

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About