In-plane seismic performance of different infill wall systems in ductile reinforced concrete frames

Demirel, İsmail Ozan; Binici, Barış; Yakut, Ahmet

doi:10.1007/s10518-023-01663-5

Cited by 10 publications

(6 citation statements)

References 60 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Although enhancing the infill wall through rebars 16 or fiber-reinforced polymers 17 would alleviate its vulnerability, such a method may exacerbate the adverse infill-frame interaction by increasing strut forces of the infill walls on the structures. 18 Separating the infill wall from the boundary frame could mitigate the adverse interaction, 19 while this method may compromise the out-of-plane capacity of the infill wall. 20 A ductile behavior can be achieved by subdividing the infill wall into subpanels with sliding joints constructed by sliding materials 21,22 or dampers.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…To mitigate the detrimental infill‐frame interaction, three solutions are of most interest currently 12–15 : strengthening the infill wall, decoupling the infill wall from the surrounding frame, and incorporating a sliding mechanism into the infill wall. Although enhancing the infill wall through rebars 16 or fiber‐reinforced polymers 17 would alleviate its vulnerability, such a method may exacerbate the adverse infill‐frame interaction by increasing strut forces of the infill walls on the structures 18 . Separating the infill wall from the boundary frame could mitigate the adverse interaction, 19 while this method may compromise the out‐of‐plane capacity of the infill wall 20 .…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Experimental and analytical studies of infill wall with sliding joints considering a door opening

Huang,

Niu,

Zhang

et al. 2024

Earthq Engng Struct Dyn

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Semi‐rigid steel frame stands out due to its remarkable deformation capability under seismic loading, while the introduction of partitioned walls would disturb the expected seismic behavior of the infilled steel frames. Furthermore, the presence of door openings might exacerbate these negative effects. To mitigate the detrimental multiple‐diagonal strut effect of traditional infill walls around the door opening, an innovative low‐damage wall panels system: prefabricated infill wall panels with a door opening and sliding joints are presented for semi‐rigid steel frames. For testifying the effectiveness of the proposed structure, a quasi‐static test was carried out on three half‐scaled steel frames: a bare frame, a frame infilled with conventional wall panels with a door opening, and a frame infilled with the novel wall panel system with a door opening. Experimental results reveal that the developed innovative wall panels with a door opening could avoid unfavorable crack developments and opening deformation around the door area. It is mainly attributed to the releasement of the adverse multiple‐diagonal strut mechanism of traditional wall panels with door openings. Thus, the presented infilled frame showcases seismic performance similar to the bare steel frame, while having a higher energy dissipation capacity. Moreover, the developed analytical prediction method based on the superposition principle could accurately estimate the lateral load‐carrying capacity of the structures. Due to negligible deformation of the both bottom infill wall panel and the door opening, the innovative infill wall only contributes about 10% lateral load‐carrying capability to the infilled frame.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Experimental and analytical studies of infill wall with sliding joints considering a door opening

Huang,

Niu,

Zhang

et al. 2024

Earthq Engng Struct Dyn

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Their findings indicate that the placement and material of infill walls have a noteworthy impact on the horizontal loadcarrying capacity and horizontal drifts of the structures (Sancıoğlu et al 2022). Demirel et al (2023) evaluates the seismic performance of infill wall systems in ductile reinforced concrete frames, focusing on different construction techniques like isolation joints, mesh overlays, and sliding joints. Through cyclic tests on seven half-scale RC frame specimens, it compares the seismic responses of frames with hollow clay bricks and aerated concrete blocks against bare frames.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The findings show that the choice of infill material and construction technique greatly impacts strength, stiffness, energy dissipation, and damage progression. Systems using isolation joints and mesh coverings have been found to be significantly more effective in maintaining structural integrity and enhancing energy dissipation (Demirel et al 2023). Grubišic et al (2023 evaluated six reinforced concrete frames that were ductile and had minimal damage.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A parametric study in reinforced concrete frames with different infill wall materials

Onat,

Evci

2024

Bull Earthquake Eng

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Understanding the behavior of structures during earthquakes is crucial for ensuring safety. Despite their significant impact on buildings, infill walls are often overlooked in seismic assessments, contributing to the complexity of a structure. Because of their intricate nature and modeling difficulties, infill walls are frequently excluded from seismic models. However, given the prevalence of reinforced concrete buildings with various infill wall materials in earthquake-prone areas, it is essential to incorporate infill walls for a more realistic evaluation of seismic behavior. This study scrutinizes a building that sustained damage in the Izmir earthquake in Turkey. The building was represented in four distinct models using the SAP2000 V24 finite element program: without infill walls, with porotherm clay blocks, burnt clay brick, and autoclaved aerated concrete blocks. Real parameters of the building were utilized in the modeling process. Upon comparing the results of the time history analysis, it was observed that the presence of infill walls had a positive impact on various building properties, including period, ground floor shear force, column bearing capacity, and inter-story drift ratio. Additionally, infill walls increased base shear forces on the ground floors and the overall base shear force. Notably, similar outcomes were obtained with porotherm clay blocks and burnt clay brick as infill wall types, while autoclaved aerated concrete blocks exhibited lower stiffness than other infill wall models.

show abstract

“…However, bending moments and shear demands, in turn, cause damage to the surrounding RC frame, depending on the flexibility of the RC frame with respect to infill masonry [27]. Meanwhile, from previous studies on ferrocement strengthened masonry infilled RC frames [1,[28][29][30][31][32], it is evident that ferrocemnt strengthened masonry infill can improve lateral capacity and decrease deformation capacity when compared to that of masonry infilled RC frames. Although strengthening infill masonry walls with ferrocemnt can also change the shear demand and damage of RC frames, however, a comprehensive study is not available in the literature.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A comparative investigation on experimental lateral behaviour of bare RC frame, non-strengthened and ferrocement strengthened masonry infilled RC frame

Sen,

Tuz Zahura,

Das

et al. 2024

BNZSEE

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Although concrete framed structures are widely used with masonry infills, the contribution of masonry infills in structural design is limited to their dead loads only. Therefore, the full-fledged stiffness characteristics of masonry infill are not often considered. However, recent earthquakes showed the impact of masonry infill on the lateral behavior of surrounding RC frames. Moreover, sometimes existing masonry infills are strengthened using Ferrocement (FC), Textile Reinforced Mortar (TRM), Carbon Fiber Reinforced Polymer (CFRP), etc., which might also have a similar impact on surrounding RC frames. The impact includes enhanced shear demand, damage, etc. However, the effect of the enhanced shear demand on RC columns is a relatively less investigated issue. In this context, an experimental program was designed to compare the effect of non-strengthened and FC strengthened masonry infill on the behavior of the surrounding RC frame in terms of lateral strength, hinge formation, shear demand enhancement, and damage to columns. The test specimens, including a bare RC frame, a masonry infilled RC frame, and a FC strengthened masonry infilled RC frame, were subjected to a quasi-static cyclic lateral loads. The experimental result showed that the masonry infill and FC strengthened masonry infill increased lateral strength, on average, by 81% and 244%, respectively, when compared to that of the bare RC frame. Meanwhile, FC strengthening of masonry infill improved the lateral strength, on average, by 90% when compared with the masonry infilled RC frame’s lateral strength. In this study, low-strength masonry infill caused the formation of a short column on the tension column of the RC frame. The application of ferrocement to low-strength masonry altered the position of the plastic hinge formed on the tension column of the RC frame when compared to that of the masonry infilled RC frame. Therefore, ferrocement strengthening of masonry eliminated the short column phenomenon in this particular study. Nevertheless, the shear demand (in terms of strain on the column tie) enhancement of the tension column was not substantial due to the ferrocement strengthening of the masonry infill when compared to that of the masonry infilled RC frame. Moreover, the damage concentration on RC columns (i.e., residual crack width) after insertion of masonry infill and ferrocement strengthened masonry infill changed to a smaller extent when compared to the bare RC frame damages, where the residual crack widths were within 1.0 ~ 2.0 mm.

show abstract

In-plane seismic performance of different infill wall systems in ductile reinforced concrete frames

Cited by 10 publications

References 60 publications

Experimental and analytical studies of infill wall with sliding joints considering a door opening

Experimental and analytical studies of infill wall with sliding joints considering a door opening

A parametric study in reinforced concrete frames with different infill wall materials

A comparative investigation on experimental lateral behaviour of bare RC frame, non-strengthened and ferrocement strengthened masonry infilled RC frame

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About