Advertisement

EARTHQUAKE RESPONSE OF MASONRY INFILLED PRECAST CONCRETE STRUCTURES

  • Fuat Demir
  • Mustafa Türkmen
  • Hamide Tekeli
  • Iffet Çırak
Conference paper
  • 1.3k Downloads
Part of the Springer Proceedings in Physics book series (SPPHY, volume 111)

Abstract

In design of precast concrete structures, frames are generally assumed to be two dimensional and analysed accordingly without taking into account participation of infill walls. However, it is well known that, the infill walls increase lateral stiffness and load carrying capacity of the frame structures. The objective of this study is to investigate the effects of infill masonry on structural behavior, performance and collapse mechanism of precast concrete structures. The diagonal strut model is adopted for modeling masonry infill. Load deformation relationship and collapse mechanism and of bare and infilled precast concrete structures are evaluated comparatively and results are given in figures.

Keywords

Plastic Hinge Base Shear Federal Emergency Management Agency Infill Wall Earthquake Response 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Demir F., Sivri M. (2002) Earthquake Response of Masonry Infilled Frames, ECAS International Symposium on Structural and Earthquake Engineering METU, Ankara.Google Scholar
  2. Dowrick D. J. (1987) Earthquake Resistant Design for Engineers and Architects, John Wiley & Sons, New York.Google Scholar
  3. Hong Hao, Guo-Wei M., Yong L. (2002) Damage RC Frames Subjected to Blasting Induced Ground Excitations, Engineering Structures 24 671–838.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Langenbach, R. (2002–2003) Traditional Timber-laced Masonry Buildings that Survived the Great 1999 Earthquakes in Turkey and the 2001 Earthquake in India, While Modern Buildings Fell, Senior Disaster Recovery analyst, Federal Emergency Management Agency, USA.Google Scholar
  5. Negro P., Colombo A. (1996) Irregularities Induced by Nonstructural Masonry Panels in Framed Buildings, Engineering Structures 19 576–585.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. NEHRP Guidelines for the Seismic Rehabilitation of Buildings, FEMA 273, Developed by the Building Seismic Safety Council for the Federal Emergency Management Agency (Report No. FEMA 273), Washington, D. C., (1997) Google Scholar
  7. Penelis G. G., Kappos A. J. (1997) Earthquake-Resistant Concrete Structure, E&FN Spon, London.Google Scholar
  8. Seismic Evaluation and Retrofit of Concrete Buildings, 1, ATC-40 Report, Applied Technology Council, Redwood City, California, (1996). Google Scholar
  9. Tankut T., Korkmaz H. H. (2005) Performance of a precast concrete beam-to-beam connection subject to reversed cyclic loading, Engineering Structures 27 1392–1407.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Tassios T. P. (1984) Masonry Infill and R/C Walls Under Cyclic Actions, CIB Symposium on Wall Structure, Invited State- of-the Art Report, Warsaw.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • Fuat Demir
    • 1
  • Mustafa Türkmen
    • 1
  • Hamide Tekeli
    • 1
  • Iffet Çırak
    • 1
  1. 1.Engineering Faculty, Department of Civil EngineeringSDüIspartaTurkey

Personalised recommendations