Advertisement

Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering

, Volume 16, Issue 9, pp 4053–4080 | Cite as

Local effects on RC frames induced by AAC masonry infills through FEM simulation of in-plane tests

  • Riccardo R. Milanesi
  • Paolo Morandi
  • Guido Magenes
Original Research Paper

Abstract

Unreinforced masonry infills are widely used in many parts of the world and it is common practice for seismic design to use simplified methods that usually do not take into account the interaction between the infill and the structure. Starting from the 1950s, many researchers have investigated the lateral response of masonry infills focusing on several different topics. The scientific interest on masonry infills is continuously raising due to the unsatisfactory seismic response of the infilled frame structures observed during post-event inspections and to the difficulty to contrive a widely scientifically and practical recognized solution. Although some modern codes consider the presence of infills with some specifications to prevent damage in the masonry panels and global and local effects on the structure, an effective evaluation of these detrimental effects has not been achieved yet. Within this paper, a FEM simulation of in-plane pseudo-static cyclic tests on a RC frame specimen infilled with unreinforced Autoclaved Aerated Concrete (AAC) masonry infill has been performed in order to study accurately the influence and the interaction of the infill with the RC structure. The experimental results performed by Calvi and Bolognini (J Earthq Eng 5:153–185, 1999), and Penna and Calvi (Campagna sperimentale su telai in c.a. con tamponamenti in Gasbeton (AAC) con diverse soluzioni di rinforzo” (in Italian), 2006) on one-bay one-storey full scale specimens are taken as reference. Non-linear static analyses using a “meso-modelling” approach have been carried out. The masonry used in the model has been calibrated according to tests of mechanical characterization and to in-plane cyclic tests on load-bearing AAC masonry conducted by Costa et al. (J Earthq Eng 15:1–31, 2011). The analyses performed have allowed to investigate the local effects on the frame and, in particular, the changes in the moment and shear demands on the RC elements due to the presence of the AAC infill in comparison with the ones in the bare structure, and to estimate the thrust and the contact length activated by the infill on the frame.

Keywords

Local effects AAC masonry Infilled structure FEM simulation Infill-structure interaction 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The research, upon which this work is based, has been carried out at the University of Pavia/EUCENTRE and at the Middle East Technical University, and it has been sponsored by the Erasmus Mundus Programme and by the Executive Projects DPC-RELUIS 2013–2016 and DPC-RELUIS 2017. The financial support for this study is gratefully acknowledged.

References

  1. Asteris PG (2003) Lateral stiffness of brick masonry infilled plane frames. J Struct Eng 129(8):1071–1079CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Asteris PG, Kakaletsis DJ, Chrysostomou CZ, Smyrou E (2011) Failure modes of infilled frames. Electron J Struct Eng 11(1):11–20Google Scholar
  3. Barzegar F, Maddipudi S (1994) Generating reinforcement in FE modeling of concrete structures. J Struct Eng 120(5):1656–1662CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bertoldi SH, Decanini LD, Gavarini C (1993) Telai tamponati soggetti ad azione sismica, un modello semplificato: confronto sperimentale e numerico. Atti del 6 convegno nazionale ANIDIS 6:815–824 (in Italian) Google Scholar
  5. Bolis V, Stavridis A, Preti M (2017) Numerical investigation of the in-plane performance of masonry-infilled RC frames with sliding subpanels. J Struct Eng 143(2):04016168CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Braga F, Manfredi V, Masi A, Salvatori A, Vona M (2011) Performance of nonstructural elements in RC buildings during the L’Aquila 2009 earthquake. Bull Earthq Eng 9:307–324CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Buonopane SG, White RN (1999) Pseudodynamic testing of masonry infilled reinforced concrete frame. J Struct Eng 125(6):578–589CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Calvi GM, Bolognini D (1999) Seismic response of reinforced concrete frames infilled with weakly reinforced masonry panels. J Earthq Eng 5:153–185Google Scholar
  9. Calvi GM, Bolognini D (2001) Seismic response of R.C. frames infilled with weakly reinforced hollow masonry panels. University of Pavia, PaviaGoogle Scholar
  10. CEB/FIP (2010) Model Code 2010Google Scholar
  11. Celano F, Cimmino M, Coppola O, Magliulo G, Salzano P (2016) Report dei danni registrati a seguito del terremoto del Centro Italia del 24 Agosto 2016 (Release 1). http://www.reluis.it (in Italian)
  12. CEN (2004a) Eurocode 2—design of concrete structures, part 1-1: general rules and rules for building. European Committee for Standardisation, BrusselsGoogle Scholar
  13. CEN (2004b) Eurocode 6—design of masonry structures, part 1–1: common rules for reinforced and unreinforced masonry structures. European Committee for Standardisation, BrusselsGoogle Scholar
  14. CEN (2004c) Eurocode 8—design of structures for earthquake resistance, part 1: general rules, seismic actions and rules for building. European Committee for Standardisation, BrusselsGoogle Scholar
  15. Costa AA, Penna A, Magenes G (2011) Seismic performance of Autoclaved Aerated Concrete (AAC) masonry: from experimental testing of in-plane capacity of walls to building response. J Earthq Eng 15:1–31CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Crisafulli FJ (1997) Seismic behaviour of reinforced concrete structures with masonry infills. PhD thesis, University of Canterbuty, Christchurch, New ZealandGoogle Scholar
  17. Crisafulli FJ, Carr AJ, Park R (2000) Analytical modeling of infilled frame structures—a general review. Bull N Z Soc Earthq Eng 33:30–47Google Scholar
  18. Da Porto F, Guidi G, Dalla Benetta M, Verlato N (2012) Sistemi costruttivi e risultati sperimentali Reluis Research Report. Experimental report, University of Padova, Italy (in Italian) Google Scholar
  19. D’Ayala D, Worth J, Riddle O (2009) Realistic shear capacity assessment of infill frames: comparison of two numerical procedures. Eng Struct 31:1745–1761CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Decanini LD, Liberatore D, Liberatore L, Sorrentino L (2012) Preliminary report on the 2012, May 20, Emilia Earthquake, vol 1. http://eqclearinghouse.org/2012-05-20-italy-it/
  21. EN (2001) UNI EN 1052-1—methods of test for masonry, part 1: determination of compressive strength. European Committee for Standardisation, BrusselsGoogle Scholar
  22. EN (2007) UNI EN 1052-3—methods of test for masonry, part 3: determination of initial shear strength. European Committee for Standardisation, BrusselsGoogle Scholar
  23. FEMA 306 (1998) Evaluation of earthquake damaged concrete and masonry wall building: basic procedures manual. Federal Emergency Management Agency, WashingtonGoogle Scholar
  24. Hak S, Morandi P, Magenes G (2013a) Local effects in the seismic design of rc frame structures with masonry infills. In: 4th ECCOMAS thematic conference on computational methods in structural dynamics and earthquake engineeringGoogle Scholar
  25. Hak S, Morandi P, Magenes G (2013b) Evaluation of infill strut properties based on in-plane cyclic tests. Gravedinar 65:411–422Google Scholar
  26. Hak S, Morandi P, Magenes G (2018) Prediction of inter-storey drifts for regular RC structures with masonry infills based on bare frame modelling. Bull Earthq Eng 16(1):397–425CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Hordijk DA (1991) Local approach to fatigue of concrete. PhD thesis, Delft, University of Technology, NetherlandGoogle Scholar
  28. Lourenço PB (1995) An orthotropic continuum model for the analysis f masonry structures. University of Technology, DelftGoogle Scholar
  29. Magenes G, Bracchi S, Graziotti F, Mandirola M, Manzini CF, Morandi P, Palmieri M, Penna A, Rosti A, Rota M, Tondelli M (2012) Preliminary damage survey to masonry structures after the May 2012 Emilia earthquakes, vol 1. http://eqclearinghouse.org/2012-05-20-italy-it
  30. Mainstone RJ (1971) On the stiffnesses and strengths of infilled frames. Proc Inst Civil Eng Suppl(iv):57–90Google Scholar
  31. Mainstone RJ (1974) Supplementary note on the stiffness and strengths of infilled frames. Current Paper CP 13/74, Garston, Watford, UKGoogle Scholar
  32. Manzini CF, Morandi P (2012) Rapporto preliminare sulle prestazioni ed i danneggiamenti agli edifici in muratura portante moderni a seguito degli eventi sismici emilani del 2012, vol 1. Eucentre. http://eqclearinghouse.org/2012-05-20-italy/ (in Italian)
  33. Markou G, Papadrakakis M (2012) An efficient generation method of embedded reinforcement in hexahedral elements for reinforced concrete simulations. Adv Eng Softw 45:175–187CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Mehrabi AB (1994) Behavior of masonry-infilled reinforced concrete frames subjected to lateral loading. PhD thesis, University of Colorado, USAGoogle Scholar
  35. Morandi P, Milanesi RR, Magenes G (2016) Innovative seismic solution for clay masonry infills with sliding joints: principles and details. In: Proceedings of the 16th IBMAC (international brick and block masonry conference), 26–30 June 2016, Padova, ItalyGoogle Scholar
  36. Morandi P, Hak S, Magenes G (2018) Performance-based interpretation of in-plane cyclic tests on RC frames with strong masonry infills. Eng Struct 156:503–521.  https://doi.org/10.1016/.engstruct.2017.11.058 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Paulay T, Priestley MJ (1992) Seismic design of reinforced concrete and masonry building. Wiley, New YorkCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Penna A, Calvi GM (2006) Campagna sperimentale su telai in c.a. con tamponamenti in Gasbeton (AAC) con diverse soluzioni di rinforzo. Experimental report, University of Pavia, Italy (in Italian) Google Scholar
  39. Preti M, Bettini N, Plizzari G (2012) Infill walls with sliding joints to limit infill–frame seismic interaction: large-scale experimental test. J Earthq Eng 16(1):125–141CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Preti M, Bolis V, Stavridis A (2017) Seismic infill–frame interaction of masonry walls partitioned with horizontal sliding joints: analysis and simplified modelling. J Earthq Eng.  https://doi.org/10.1080/13632469.2017.1387195 Google Scholar
  41. Ricci P, Manfredi V, De Luca F, Verderame GM (2011) 6th April 2009 L’Aquila earthquake, Italy: reinforced concrete building performance. Bull Earthq Eng 9:285–305CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Roots JG (1988) Computational modeling of concrete fracture. PhD thesis, Delft, University of Technology, NetherlandGoogle Scholar
  43. Saneinejad A, Hobbs B (1995) Inelastic design of infilled frames. J Struct Eng 121:634–650CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Selby RG, Vecchio FJ (1993) Three-dimensional constitutive relations for reinforced concrete. Technical report 93-02, University of Toronto, Toronto, CanadaGoogle Scholar
  45. Stafford Smith B (1967) Methods for predicting the lateral stiffness and strength of multistorey infilled frame. Build Sci 2:247–257CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Stavridis A (2009) Analytical and experimental study of seismic performance of reinforced concrete frames infilled with masonry walls. PhD thesis, University of California, USAGoogle Scholar
  47. Tarque N, Candido L, Camata G, Spacone E (2015) Masonry infilled frame structures: state of the art and review of numerical modeling. Earthq Struct 8(1):731–757Google Scholar
  48. TNO-Diana (2010) User’s manual—version 9.4.3, Analysis procedure, TNO-Diana, Delft, NetherlandGoogle Scholar
  49. Totoev Y, Lin K (2012) Frictional energy dissipation and damping capacity of framed semi-interlocking masonry infill panel. In: Proceedings of the 15th IBMAC (international brick and block masonry conference), Florianopolis, BrazilGoogle Scholar
  50. Vecchio FJ, Collins MP (1986) The modified compression-field theory for reinforced concrete elements subjected to shear. ACI Struct J 83:219–231Google Scholar
  51. Verlato N, Guidi G, Da Porto F, Modena C (2016) Innovative systems for masonry infill walls based on the use of deformable joints: combined in-plane/out-of-plane tests. In: Proceedings of 16th IBMAC (international brick and block masonry conference), 26–30 June 2016, Padova, ItalyGoogle Scholar
  52. Vintzileou E, Adami CE, Palieraki V (2016) In-plane and out-of-plane response of a masonry infilled divided into smaller wallettes. In: Proceedings of 16th IBMAC (international brick and block masonry conference), 26–30 June 2016, Padova, ItalyGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V., part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Riccardo R. Milanesi
    • 1
  • Paolo Morandi
    • 1
    • 2
  • Guido Magenes
    • 1
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Civil Engineering and ArchitectureUniversity of PaviaPaviaItaly
  2. 2.EUCENTREPaviaItaly

Personalised recommendations