Earthquakes and Structures

  • 제19권3호
  • /
  • Pages.157-174
  • /
  • 2020
  • /
  • 2092-7614(pISSN)
  • /
  • 2092-7622(eISSN)
테크노프레스 (Techno-Press)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Verifying ASCE 41 the evaluation model via field tests of masonry infilled RC frames with openings

  • 투고 : 2020.01.30
  • 심사 : 2020.08.20
  • 발행 : 2020.09.25
⟨ 이전 논문 다음 논문 ⟩

초록

The in-situ pushover test differs from the shake-table test because it is performed outdoors and thus its size is not restricted by space, which allows us to test a full-size building. However, to build a new full-size building for the test is not economical, consequently scholars around the world usually make scale structures or full-scale component units to be tested in the laboratory. However, if in-situ pushover tests can be performed on full-size structures, then the seismic behaviors of buildings during earthquakes can be grasped. In view of this, this study conducts two in-situ pushover tests of reinforced concrete (RC) buildings. One is a masonry-infilled RC building with openings (the openings ratio of masonry infill wall is between 24% and 51%) and the other is an RC building without masonry infill. These two in-situ pushover tests adopt obsolescent RC buildings, which will be demolished, to conduct experiment and successfully obtain seismic capacity curves of the buildings. The test results are available for the development or verification of a seismic evaluation model. This paper uses ASCE 41-17 as the main evaluation model and is accompanied by a simplified pushover analysis, which can predict the seismic capacity curves of low-rise buildings in Taiwan. The predicted maximum base shear values for masonry-infilled RC buildings with openings and for RC buildings without masonry infill are, respectively, 69.69% and 87.33% of the test values. The predicted initial stiffness values are 41.04% and 100.49% of the test values, respectively. It can be seen that the ASCE 41-17 evaluation model is reasonable for the RC building without masonry infill walls. In contrast, the analysis result for the masonry infilled RC building with openings is more conservative than the test value because the ASCE 41-17 evaluation model is limited to masonry infill walls with an openings ratio not exceeding 40%. This study suggests using ASCE 41-17's unreinforced masonry wall evaluation model to simulate a masonry infill wall with an openings ratio greater than 40%. After correction, the predicted maximum base shear values of the masonry infilled RC building with openings is 82.60% of the test values and the predicted initial stiffness value is 67.13% of the test value. Therefore, the proposed method in this study can predict the seismic behavior of a masonry infilled RC frame with large openings.

키워드

참고문헌

  1. Ahani, E., Mousavi, M.N., Ahani, A. and Kheirollahi, M. (2019), "The effects of amount and location of openings on lateral behavior of masonry infilled RC frames", KSCE J. Civil. Eng., 23(5), 2175-2187. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12205-019-0714-x.
  2. Aknouche, H., Airouche, A. and Bechtoula, H. (2019), "Effect of masonry infilled panels on the seismic performance of a R/C frames", Earthq. Struct., 16(3), 329-348. https://doi.org/10.12989/eas.2019.16.3.329.
  3. Al-Chaar, G., Lamb G.E. and Abrams, D.P. (2003), "Effect of openings on structural performance of unreinforced masonry infilled frames", Content uploaded by Ghassan Al-Chaar. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/265562695.
  4. Ali1, Q., Badrashi, Y.I., Ahmad, N., Alam, B., Rehman, S. and Banori, F.A. (2012), "Experimental investigation on the characterization of solid clay brick masonry for lateral shear strength evaluation", Int. J. Earth. Sci. Eng., 5(4), 782-791. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/224771692.
  5. ASCE/SEI 41-17 (2017), Seismic Rehabilitation of Existing Buildings, American Society of Civil Engineer, New York, U.S.A.
  6. Asteris, P.G., Kakaletsis, D.J., Chrysostomou, C.Z. and Smyrou, E.E. (2011b), "Failure modes of in-filled frames", Electronic J. Struct. Eng., 11(1), 11-20. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/233961174_Failure_Modes_of_In-filled_Frames.
  7. ASTM C1531 (2016), Standard Test Methods for In-situ Measurement of Masonry Mortar Joint Shear Strength Index, American Society for Testing and Materials.
  8. Balik, F.S., Korkmaz, H.H., Kamanli, M., Bahadir, F., Korkmaz, S.Z. and Unal, A. (2013), "An experimental study on reinforced concrete infilled frames with openings", Advan. Mater. Res., 747, 429-432. https://doi.org/10.4028/www.scientific.net/AMR.747.429.
  9. Bergami, A.V. and, Nuti, C. (2015), "Experimental tests and global modeling of masonry infilled frames", Earthq. Struct., 9(2), 281-303. https://doi.org/10.12989/eas.2015.9.2.281.
  10. Chung, L.L., Wu, L.Y., Yang, Y.S., Ku, T.Y., Lai, Y.A. and Huang, C.T. (2012), "Verification of simplified pushover analysis of school buildings by in-Situ Tests", NCREE Research Programs and Accomplishments, National Center for Research on Earthquake Engineering, Taipei, Taiwan. https://www.ncree.narl.org.tw/assets/file/101E4.pdf.
  11. Construction and Planning Agency Ministry of the Interior (2011), Seismic Design Specifications and Commentary of Buildings, Construction and Planning Agency Ministry of the Interior, Taipei, Taiwan.
  12. Fenerci, A., Binici, B., Ezzatfar, P. and Ozcebe, G. (2016), "The effect of infill walls on the seismic behavior of boundary columns in RC frames", Earthq. Struct., 10(3), 539-562. https://doi.org/10.12989/eas.2016.10.3.539.
  13. Fiorato, A.E., Sozen, M.A., and Gamble, W.L. (1970), "An investigation of the interaction of reinforced concrete frames with masonry filler walls", Research Report No. UILU-ENG 70-100, Department of Civil Engineering, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Champaign, I.L., U.S.A. http://hdl.handle.net/2142/14303.
  14. Jiang, W.C., Chiou, T.C., Hsiao, F.P., Tu, Y.S., Chien, W.Y., Yeh, Y.K., Chung, L.L. and Hwang, S.J. (2008), "In-situ static pushover tests of school building at youlin kou-hu school", Research Report No. NCREE-08-044, National Center for Research on Earthquake Engineering, Taipei, Taiwan.
  15. Kakaletsis, D. and Karayannis, C. (2007), "Experimental investigation of infilled r/c frames with eccentric openings", J. Earthq. Eng. Mech., 26(3), 231-250. https://doi.org/10.12989/sem.2007.26.3.231.
  16. Kakaletsis, D. and Karayannis, C.G. (2008), "Influence of masonry strength and openings on infilled R/C frames under cycling loading", J. Earthq. Eng., 12(2), 197-221. https://doi.org/10.1080/13632460701299138.
  17. Lin, B.C. (2011), "Experiment and Analysis of Confined Masonry Wing-walls under In-plane Loading", Master's Thesis, National Cheng Kung Univ., Tainan.
  18. Lo, T.Y. (2010), "Masonry Infill Panels under In-plane Loading", Master's Thesis, National Cheng Kung Univ., Tainan.
  19. Lourenco, P.B., Leite, J.M., Paulo-Pereira, M.F., Campos-Costa, A., Candeias, P.X. and Mendes, N. (2016), "Shaking table testing for masonry infill walls: unreinforced versus reinforced solutions: Shaking table testing for masonry infill walls", Earth Eng Struct. Dyn., 45(14), 2241-2260. https://doi.org/10.1002/eqe.2756.
  20. Maidiawati, Tanjung, J., Hayati, Y., Agus and Medriosa, H. (2019), "Experimental investigation of seismic performance of reinforced brick masonry infilled reinforced concrete frames with a central opening", Int. J. Geomate., 16(57), 35- 41. https://doi.org/10.21660/2019.57.4592.
  21. Mansouri, A., Marefat, M.S. and Khanmohammadi, M. (2013), "Experimental evaluation of seismic performance of low-shear strength masonry infills with openings in reinforced concrete frames with deficient seismic details", Struct Des Tall Spec., 23(15), 1190-1210. https://doi.org/10.1002/tal.1115.
  22. Mosalam, K.M., White, R.N. and Gergely, P. (1997), "Static response of infilled frames using quasi-static experimentation", J. Struct. Eng., 123(11), 228-237. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)07339445(1997)123:11(1 462).
  23. Okail, H., Abdelrahman, A., Abdelkhalik, A. and Metwaly, M., (2016), "Experimental and analytical investigation of thelateral load response of confined masonry walls", J Hbrc., 12(1), 33-46. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.hbrcj.2014.09.004.
  24. Ozturkoglu, O., Ucar, T. and Yesilce, Y. (2017), "Effect of masonry infill walls with openings on nonlinear response of reinforced concrete frames", Earthq. Struct., 12(3), 333-347. https://doi.org/10.12989/eas.2017.12.3.333.
  25. Penava, D., Anic, F., Sarhosis, V. and Abrahamczyk, L. (2019), "Distribution of shear resistance among components Of R.C. frames with masonry infill walls containing confined door and window openings", Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Computational Methods in Structural Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, June.
  26. Shah, S.A.A., Khan, J.S., Ali, S.M., Shahzada, K., Ahmad, W. and Shah, J. (2019), "Shake table response of unreinforced masonry and reinforced concrete elements of special moment resisting frame", Advan. Civil Eng. https://doi.org/10.1155/2019/7670813.
  27. Sigmund, V. and Penava, D. (2012), "Experimental study of masonry infilled R/C frames with opening", Proceedings of the 15th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Lisbon, Portugal, September.
  28. Stavridis, A. (2009), "Analytical and experimental study of seismic performance of reinforced concrete frames infilled with masonry walls", Ph.D. Dissertation, University of California, San Diego, U.S.A.
  29. Stavridis, A., Koutromanos, I. and Shing, P. (2012), "Shake-table tests of a three-story reinforced concrete frame with masonry infill walls", Earth Eng. Struct. Dyn., 41(6), 1089-1108. https://doi.org/10.1002/eqe.1174
  30. Stavridis, A., Tempestti, J.M. and Bose, S. (2017), "Updating the ASCE 41 Provisions for Infilled RC Frames", Proceedings of 2017 SEAOC Convention, San Diego, U.S.A, September.
  31. Tekeli, H. and Aydin A. (2017), "An experimental study of the seismic behavior of Infilled RC frames with opening", Scientia Iranica., 24(5), 2271-2282. https://doi.org/10.24200/sci.2017.4150.
  32. Tu, Y.H., Chuang, T.H., Lin, P.C., Weng, P.W. and Weng, Y.T. (2011), "Experiment of slender confined masonry panels under monotonic and cyclic loading", Proceedings of the 15th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Lisbon, Portugal, September.
  33. Tu, Y.H., Lo, T.Y. and Chuang, Y.T. (2020), "Lateral loading test for partially confined and unconfined masonry panels", Earthq. Struct., 18(3), 379-390. https://doi.org/10.12989/eas.2020.18.3.379.
  34. Tu, Y.H., Yeh, P.L., Liu, T.W. and Jean, W.Y. (2009), "Seismic Damage evaluation for low-rise RC school buildings in Taiwan", Proceedings of the 2009 Structures Congress, Austin, Texas, U.S.A, April.
  35. Voon, K.C. and Ingham, J.M. (2008), "Experimental in-Plane Strength investigation of reinforced concrete masonry walls with openings", J. Struct. Eng., 134(5), 758-768. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)07339445(2008)134:5(758).
  36. Wang, Lei., Qian, K., Fu, F. and Deng, X.F. (2019), "Experimental study on the seismic behaviour of reinforced concrete frames with different infill masonry, Magazine Concrete Res., https://doi.org/10.1680/jmacr.18.00484.
  37. Weng, Y.T., Lin, K.C., Hwang, S.J. and Chiou, T.C. (2008), "In-situ pseudo- dynamic tests and cyclic pushover test of existing school building", Research Report No. NCREE-08-004, National Center for Research on Earthquake Engineering, Taipei, Taiwan