Seismic Behavior of Framed Masonry Panels with Prior Damage When Subjected to Out-of-Plane Loading

Komaraneni, S.; Durgesh, C.; Singhal, Vaibhav

doi:10.1193/1.3651624

Cited by 54 publications

(30 citation statements)

References 8 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The testing method involved successive applications of out-of-plane and in-plane loading [11]. The test setup for the out-of-plane and in-plane loading are shown in Figure 3.…”

Section: Test Procedures and Loading Historymentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Earlier experimental studies on masonry infill frames concluded that the prior in-plane damage could significantly reduce the out-of-plane capacity of infill panels [9][10][11]. Earlier experimental studies on masonry infill frames concluded that the prior in-plane damage could significantly reduce the out-of-plane capacity of infill panels [9][10][11].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

In‐plane and out‐of‐plane behavior of confined masonry walls for various toothing and openings details and prediction of their strength and stiffness

Singhal

Durgesh

2016

Earthq Engng Struct Dyn

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Summary Eight half‐scale brick masonry walls were tested to study two important aspects of confined masonry (CM) walls related to its seismic behavior under in‐plane and out‐of‐plane loads. Four solid wall specimens tested to investigate the role of type of interface between the masonry and tie‐columns, such as toothing varying from none to every course. The other four specimens with openings were tested to study the effectiveness of various strengthening options around opening to mitigate their negative influence. In the set of four walls, one wall was infilled frame while the other three were CM walls of different configurations. The experimental results were further used to determine the accuracy of various existing models in predicting the in‐plane response quantities of CM walls. Confined masonry walls maintained structural integrity even when severely damaged and performed much better than infill frames. No significant effect of toothing details was noticed although toothing at every brick course was preferred for better post‐peak response. For perforated walls, provision of vertical elements along with continuous horizontal bands around openings was more effective in improving the overall response. Several empirical and semi‐empirical equations are available to estimate the lateral strength and stiffness of CM walls, but those including the contribution of longitudinal reinforcement in tie‐columns provided better predictions. The available equations along with reduction factors proposed for infills could not provide good estimates of strength and stiffness for perforated CM walls. However, recently proposed relations correlating strength/stiffness with the degree of confinement provided reasonable predictions for all wall specimens. Copyright © 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

show abstract

“…The testing method involved successive applications of out-of-plane and in-plane loading [11]. The test setup for the out-of-plane and in-plane loading are shown in Figure 3.…”

Section: Test Procedures and Loading Historymentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

In‐plane and out‐of‐plane behavior of confined masonry walls for various toothing and openings details and prediction of their strength and stiffness

Singhal

Durgesh

2016

Earthq Engng Struct Dyn

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…From the available published experimental [134,31,189,70,87,[92][93][94]138,139,17,158,103,140,95,100,175,132,71] and numerical [135,128,80,86,11,16,186,67,164,64,69,60,161] [110,17,18,42,37,68,172,76,144,176,24,96] data, it can be observed that masonry infill walls (referred to also as infill walls in this paper) can have a significant effect on the structural performance of RC frames under seismic actions. This can result in a localized or global increase of strength and stiffness depending on the extent and the position of the infill walls within the frame.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 94%

Mathematical micromodeling of infilled frames: State of the art

Asteris

Cotsovos

Chrysostomou

et al. 2013

Engineering Structures

207

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Models based on the arching behaviour provide conservative or unconservative estimates of the capacity according to the model under consideration. Moreover, there are situations in which the arching behaviour does not develop even in the case of small slenderness [26,27].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Predicting models for the evaluation of out-of-plane ultimate load carrying capacity of masonry infill walls

Pasca¹,

Liberatore²

2015

WIT Transactions on the Built Environment

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In recent years, the interest in the out-of-plane response of infills has been growing due to the need of limiting damage to these elements, commonly considered as non structural. Different experimental tests and theoretical studies have been carried out on this subject. They highlighted that the slenderness and the boundary conditions of the panel, the mechanical characteristics of the masonry, the stiffness of the surrounding frame elements and the presence of cracks due to prior in-plane damage noticeably affect the out-of-plane carrying capacity of infill walls. In this paper, a review and a comparison of analytical models developed for the assessment of the out-of-plane response of masonry infills is presented. The suitability of selected models to predict the out-of-plane capacity is investigated by means of some experimental results available in the literature. It is concluded that, even though the considered models take into account the main parameters involved (slenderness of the panel, masonry compressive strength, etc.), they are not always able to adequately predict the actual resistance.

show abstract

Seismic Behavior of Framed Masonry Panels with Prior Damage When Subjected to Out-of-Plane Loading

Cited by 54 publications

References 8 publications

In‐plane and out‐of‐plane behavior of confined masonry walls for various toothing and openings details and prediction of their strength and stiffness

In‐plane and out‐of‐plane behavior of confined masonry walls for various toothing and openings details and prediction of their strength and stiffness

Mathematical micromodeling of infilled frames: State of the art

Predicting models for the evaluation of out-of-plane ultimate load carrying capacity of masonry infill walls

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About