Experimental Evaluation of Masonry-Infilled RC Frames

Mehrabi, Armin; Shing, P. Benson; Schüller, M.; Noland, James L.

doi:10.1061/(asce)0733-9445(1996)122:3(228)

Cited by 438 publications

(310 citation statements)

References 9 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

278

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Only for large drift of about 2 %, some surface cracking appeared in the masonry corners, limited to the plaster. The infill specimen reached up to 3 % drift deformation with practically no damage, a very high value compared to traditional masonry infill that typically suffers moderate damage at up to 0.5 % drift and collapse at up to 1.5 % drift (Mehrabi et al 1996;Preti et al 2012;Hak et al 2012;Sigmund and Penava 2014). Figure 14a shows the response of the infill wall with an opening for all the in-plane loading cycles.…”

Section: Specimen Amentioning

confidence: 87%

“…In particular, the predictability of the response is a main issue for engineered infill walls to overcome the vulnerability of infilled frames. Infill walls built according to traditional construction techniques are typically characterized by uncertain and often brittle collapse mechanisms (Mehrabi et al 1996), which depend on several construction aspects (material and type of masonry units and mortar, geometry, infill-frame contact conditions, etc. ), so they are difficult to be accounted for in structural design.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Experimental testing of engineered masonry infill walls for post-earthquake structural damage control

Preti

Migliorati

Giuriani

2014

Bull Earthquake Eng

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The paper presents the results of an experimental campaign on the behaviour of engineered masonry infill walls subjected to both in-and out-of-plane loading. The aim of the research was to develop a design approach for masonry infill walls capable of solving their vulnerability and detrimental interaction with the frame structure when exposed to seismic excitation. Tests on two large-scale specimens and sub-assemblies were performed in order to evaluate the infill deformation capacity, the damage associated with different drift levels, and the mechanical properties of the components. A design solution with sliding joints to reduce the infill-frame interaction and ensure out-of-plane stability, which was proposed in a previous study, was developed and refined with focus on construction details. The aim of sliding joints is to ensure a predetermined mechanism in the infill wall, which is governed by hierarchy of strength and is capable of ensuring ductility and energy dissipation that can be taken into account in the design practice, thanks to the predictability of the response. The two infill wall specimens, one of them including an opening, reached up to 3 % in-plane drift with very little damage and supported an out-of-plane force equivalent to a horizontal acceleration four times the acceleration of gravity. The force-displacement hysteretic curve, sliding at the joints and crack pattern show the efficiency of the construction technique, based on affordable and tradition-like construction processes and materials. The technique, presented here for hollow fired-clay masonry units, can be extended to different masonry infill typologies.

show abstract

Section: Specimen Amentioning

confidence: 87%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Experimental testing of engineered masonry infill walls for post-earthquake structural damage control

Preti

Migliorati

Giuriani

2014

Bull Earthquake Eng

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…A significant bracing action, affecting both the strength and stiffness, originates by this mechanism, as demonstrated by a large number of experimental investigations [1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13] and analytical-numerical studies [14][15][16][17][18][19][20][21][22][23][24][25][26][27][28][29][30][31][32]. However, despite several modelling strategies available in the literature, going from pinned equivalent struts macromodeling to FE micromodeling [33][34][35][36][37][38], masonry infills are generally not accounted for in models because of the large amount of uncertainties arising during their structural identification.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Inelastic Response of Masonry Infilled Reinforced Concrete Structures

Fotos¹,

Foskolos²,

Tsaris³

et al. 2017

Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Computational Methods in Structural Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering (COM

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Although they are not commonly included in structural models, laboratory tests [e.g. [1][2][3][4] and real observation of post-earthquake damage have demonstrated that masonry infills have a strong interaction with primary structures, influencing overall and local strength, stiffness and structural ductility [5][6][7]. Basically two different approaches are used to model infill-frame interaction.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…This is due to the fact that the overall lateral response of the infilled frame basically depends on the damage mechanism occurring from time to time, which in turns, as summarized in [1], depends on the different possible assemblage of masonry infills and frames. Because of this, sliding of mortar joints, rather than corner crushing of units, of diagonal failure may occur.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%