P. 1
Earthquake Assessment of RC Structures with Masonry.pdf

Earthquake Assessment of RC Structures with Masonry.pdf

|Views: 1|Likes:

More info:

Published by: Emily Lita Ramirez Palacios on Jun 17, 2013
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial


Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less





International Journal of Science & Technology Volume 2, No 2, 155-164, 2007

Earthquake Assessment of R/C Structures with Masonry Infill Walls
Kasım Armağan KORKMAZ, Fuat DEMİR and Mustafa SİVRİ
Suleyman Demirel University, Civil Engineering Department, Cunur, Isparta, TURKIYE armagan@mmf.sdu.edu.tr
(Received: 06.08.2007; Accepted: 03.10.2007)

Abstract: The infill masonry walls are seldom included in numerical analysis of reinforced concrete structural
systems, since masonry panels are generally considered as non-structural components. However, these panels affect the structural response, although the complexity they introduce to analysis, generally keep them unaccounted for.The typical construction type in Turkey is reinforced concrete structures with masonry infill walls. Therefore, it is crucial to understand the contribution of infill walls to earthquake response of these structures. In this study, a 3-story R/C frame structure with different amount of masonry infill walls is considered to investigate the affect of infill walls on earthquake response of these type of structures. The diagonal strut approach is adopted for modeling masonry infill walls. Pushover curves are obtained for the structures using nonlinear analyses option of commercial software SAP2000. Nonlinear analyses are realized to sketch pushover curves and results are presented in comparison and the effects of irregular configuration of masonry infill wall on the performance of the structure are studied. From the pushover curves, story displacements, relative story displacements, maximum plastic rotations are determined. Regarding with the analysis results, the effects of irregularities are determined in the structural behavior under earthquake.
Keywords: RC structures, masonry infill walls, nonlinear pushover analysis

Dolgu Duvarlı Betonarme Yapıların Deprem Davranışlarının Değerlendirilmesi Özet: Yapı davranışına oldukça büyük etkisi olmasına rağmen, dolgu duvarlar betonarme yapı analizinde oldukça nadir olarak hesaplara dahil edilirler. Bu da yanlış sonuçlar doğurmaktadır. Türkiye gibi dolgu duvarların betonarme yapılarda sıklıkla kullanıldığı ülkeler için bu durum oldukça önemlidir. Bu çalışma kapsamında dolgu duvarlı betonarme yapıların deprem davranışlarının değerlendirilmesi amaçlanmıştır. Çalışma kapsamında 3 katlı betonarme çerçeve bir yapı ele alınmış, bu 3 katlı yapının, doğrusal olmayan analizleri gerçekleştirilmiştir. Bu şekilde dolgu duvarların yapısal davranışa etkileri belirlenmeye çalışılmıştır. Dolgu duvarın modellenmesi için çapraz eleman kullanılmaktadır. Elde edilen sayısal sonuçlar, dolgu duvarların yapının yatay rijitliğini etkilediğini göstermektedir. Analizler kapsamında doğrusal olmayan statik itme analizleri gerçekleştirilmiş, yapıların kapasite eğrileri, yatay kat yer değiştirmeleri, göreli kat ötelemeleri, katlardaki maksimum plastik dönmeler belirlenmiştir. Analiz sonuçlarına göre, yapıların deprem davranışlarındaki değişiklikler yorumlanmıştır.
Anahtar Kelimeler: Betonarme yapılar, Dolgu duvarlar, Doğrusal olmayan statik itme analizi.

1. Introduction Recently, it becomes important to determine the earthquake behavior of structures with infill walls in earthquake engineering. Nonlinear structural analyses are to be used to determine the earthquake behavior of structures with infill walls. For decades, nonlinear analyses are getting improved and so many methods are developed in nonlinear structural analyses (Atımtay, 2000; 2001). The aim of the nonlinear

structural analyses is to determine and control the performance of the structure under earthquake. The significant effects of the infilled masonry on the structural responses of frames have been realized by many researcher (Harpal et al.1998, Honget al. 2002, Sahota and Riddington, 2001, Nollet and Smith, 1998). It yields that the presence of nonstructural masonry infill

2002) Figure 3. The objective of this study is to investigate the behavior of infill walls in existing structures in Turkey when considered as structural components. 2002). (a) Pounding between a six-story building and two-story building in Golcuk. 2005) Figure 2.. potentially negative effects may occur such as torsional effects induced by in plan-irregularities. Figure 1. 156 . Demir and M. Sivri walls can affect the seismic behavior of framed building to large extent (Nollet and Smith. Some applications related with masonry infill walls are given in figure 1 to 4. 1998). Typical brick infill wall construction in Turkey (Gulkan et al. These effects are generally positive: masonry infill walls can increase global stiffness and strength of the structure. Turkey. (b) Detail of pounding damage (Gulkan et al. Examples of RC frame construction (Rodriguez and Jarque. A. soft-storey effects induced by irregularities and shortcolumn effects. On the other hand.K. The infill walls are commonly seen in Turkey and it is very important to determine the effects of infill walls to structural behavior. F. Korkmaz.

Sivri et al. First. (b) continuum model 3. Typical building with a soft ground story (EERI 2001) 2. The presence of the infill walls increases the lateral stiffness considerably. Düzce and İzmit showed that infill walls have an important effect on the resistance and stiffness of buildings. Furthermore. identifying the equivalent nonlinear stiffness of the infill masonry structures using diagonal struts is not straightforward. the effects of the infill walls on the building response under seismic loading is very complex and math intensive. 2006). if the properties and the sources of nonlinearity of the masonry are carefully defined (İrtem et al. Although they are designed to perform architectural functions. The former is simple and computationally attractive but is theoretically weak. 157 . such as doors or windows. Modelling the real behavior of the structural systems is very difficult by analytical methods unless the models are supported by experimental (Penelis and Kappos.. These masonry infill walls which are constructed after completion of concrete frames are considered as non-structural elements. Due to the change in stiffness and mass of the structural system. 1997). Recent earthquakes as Erzincan. especially when there exist some openings. the dynamic characteristics change as well. 2005. (a) Diagonal strut model. There is a general agreement among of the researchers that infilled frames have greater strength as compared to frames without infill walls. In addition to this infill walls have a considerable strength and stiffness and they have significant effect on the seismic response of the structural system. it is also not possible to be predicted the damaged area of masonry either.Earthquake Assessment of R/C Structures with Masonry Infill Walls Figure 4. Modelling of Masonary Infill Walls In conventional analysis of infilled frame systems. However. the masonry infill wall is modelled using either equivalent strut model in Figure 5(a) or a refined continuum model in Figure 5(b). Effects of Masonary Infill Walls Masonry infill walls are found in most existing concrete frame building systems. The latter method based on continuum model can provide an accurate computational representation of both material and geometry aspects. in the wall. (a) (b) Figure 5. Models for masonry. This type of infill walls is common in Turkey where seismicity has one of the prime importances. masonry infill walls do resist lateral forces with substantial structural action.

Moreover. 2000. 2000). and the rest of the system shows linear elastic behavior (Li.. vertical forces and incremental earthquake induced lateral forces are taken into account. Ec. Due to these kinds of difficulties. t is the thickness of the infill panel. This method varies in methodology as nonlinear static pushover analysis and nonlinear dynamic time history analysis. Korkmaz. In Figure 6. In order to capture the nonlinear behavior of the structure. to sketch the capacity curves in order to define structural capacity. nonlinear static pushover analysis is used to determine the structural earthquake behavior. ATC40. 4. Nonlinear Structural Analyses Nonlinear structural analysis is the method for determining the earthquake response of the structural systems. In the present paper adopting diagonal strut model. fictitious bars are used and the tension resistance is ignored. According to this hypothesis plastic deformations are lumped on the plastic hinges. it is also suggested to use the nonlinear static pushover analysis (FEMA356.175 (λ h H ) (1) −0.4 H 2 + L2 where λh = 4 (2) Ei t sin 2θ 4 Ec I c H i H and L are the height and length of the frame. 1996). F. Sivri Wef H L Figure 6. θ is the angle defining diagonal strut. In FEMA and ATC. the elastic in-plane stiffness of a solid unreinforced masonry infill wall is represented with an equivalent diagonal compression strut of width Wef. SAP 2000 analysis commercial software is used for the structural nonlinear analyses (Wilson. In this study.K. In modeling the infill walls. Compression diagonal model for estimation of the infill wall stiffness. Demir and M. Sap 2000 Nonlinear static pushover analysis is based on axial forces-displacement relationship. Habibullah). the numerical analysis is carried out by considering specific frame to investigate its earthquake response. plastic hinge hypothesis is used. nonlinear static pushover analysis becomes more efficient and common. and Ei are the elastic moduli of the column and of the infill panel. In nonlinear static pushover analysis. 1996). which shows capacity of the structure under axial forces. 158 . regarding with materially and geometrically nonlinear structural theory (İrtem et al. Ic is the modulus of inertia of the column and Hi is the height of the infill panel. Nonlinear dynamic time history analysis is one of the most reliable structural nonlinear analyses however it is very complex and time consuming (FEMA356. A. it is also considered the effects of the geometrical changes on the equilibrium equations. The width is given by Wef = 0. 2002). The capacity curves for each models of structure are sketched under the loads.

5 EIg (FEMA356. axial moments and axial force for columns. 5.60 m and 0. The beam and column sections are 0. Figure 7. the infill walls reach their capacity with compression (Sivri et al. Story height is 3 m. are taken as given in FEMA 356 and section rigidity for beam and column members is taken as 0. The plan and the section view of the sample structure are given in figure 7.5 MPa and Young’s Modulus is 5000 MPa for infill walls. Numerical Application For analytical application. Concrete strength is 1. 2000). Plastic deformations are assumed to be occurred under biaxial moment for beams. The sample structure is assumed to be in 2nd earthquake zone according to Turkish design code’98 (ABYYHY. Young’s Modulus is Ec=28500MPa. dead loads and story weights. Cracked section rigidity for beam and column members. 1996). 2000). The thicknesses of equivalent bracings and representing infill walls are 19 cm. ATC40. Moment-plastic rotation relationship for members is assumed as strength hardening-rigid-plastic. Plan and Section View of the Sample Structure 1 1 4 Figure 8. 2006). Infill Wall Application Axes 4 159 . The formulations for plastic moment (Mp) and Max Plastic Rotation (θp) are given in ATC 40 (FEMA356.40 m X 0. 2000. a sample RC structure is selected. The concrete material is C20 and steel material S220 for sample structure.20 m X 0. 1998.40 m respectively.Earthquake Assessment of R/C Structures with Masonry Infill Walls It is assumed that. TS 500. Equivalent earthquake static loads are determined by using live loads. The sample structure is analyzed as 5 different infill wall applications as given in Figure 8 and 9 to determine the effects of possible infill wall applications on the structural response.

Demir and M. Regarding with the results given in Table 1. masonry walls added irregularly affect the structural capacity in negative manner. Korkmaz. 4 and 5. Infill Wall Models The obtained maximum forces are shown in Table 1. if the infill walls are considered. For Model 3. model 2 has the highest. Push-over curves are given in figure 10. 3 and lastly 1 follow. 1600 1200 Model 1 Model 2 Base Shear (kN) 800 Model 3 Model 4 400 Model 5 0 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 Displacement (mm) Figure 10. From this point of view. capacities of the beams and columns are controlled. Sivri 1-1 4-4 Model 1 1-1 4-4 Model 2 1-1 4-4 Model 3 1-1 Model 4 4-4 1-1 Model 5 4-4 Figure 9. Pushover Curves for all models 160 . shows yield points for structural system. 5. regularly added masonry walls help the structural capacity in positive manner. the plastic hinges are shown at the frames. F. As it is seen from the table 1. model 1 has the lowest structural capacity. In the analyses. According to figure 10. the displacements stand stable. model 2 has the highest capacity. Regarding with the wall application. The plastic hinge observations are given in figure 11 in order. then model 4. Vise versa. The first plastic hinge is seen at the infill walls for model 2.K. The first changes in curves. the plastic rotation levels of the frames with infill walls are at less value than the one with no infill walls. Table 1 and figure 10 work on the same way and show the structural capacity with the wall adding in regular and irregular way. the displacements considerably increase because of the irregularities. Regarding with the plastic hinge rotations. A.

Plastic Hinges e-2) Model 5 Axis 4-4 161 .Earthquake Assessment of R/C Structures with Masonry Infill Walls a-1) Model 1. Axis 4-4 b-1) Model 2 Axis 1-1 b-2) Model 2 Axis 4-4 c-1) Model 3 Axis 1-1 c-2) Model 3 Axis 4-4 d-1) Model 4 Axis 1-1 d-2) Model 4 Axis 4-4 e-1) Model 5 Axis 1-1 Figure 11. Axis 1-1 a-2) Model 1.

05 Plastic Hinge Rotation (rad) Figure 14.01 0. 155-164.03 0.1 Displacement (m) 0.2 Figure 12. No 2. Relative Displacements for all Models of Structure 3 Model 1 2 Story Model 2 Model 3 1 Model 4 Model 5 0 0 0.01 0. Displacement versus Story Number for all Models of Structures 3 Model 1 2 Model 2 Model 3 1 Model 4 Model 5 0 0 0.02 0.15 0.05 0.04 0.02 0. 2007 3 Model 1 2 Story Model 2 Model 3 1 Model 4 Model 5 0 0 0. Max.03 Stroy Relative Story Displacement Figure 13. Plastic Hinge Rotation for all Models of Structures 162 .International Journal of Science & Technology Volume 2.

Turkey.Earthquake Assessment of R/C Structures with Masonry Infill Walls In figure 12. displacements of all models of the structure are given. Relatively simple and accurate approach can be obtained by using these models for including the effects of the infill walls. Model 5 to Model 1. 5 and minimum as in Model 1 in order.2. it is understandable that the axial force levels are getting increase for the frames with infill walls. model 3 than 2 and the minimum as in Model 1. In figure 12. the problem of RC frame construction with masonry infill walls is not just an engineering problem but also an important governmental issue. Conclusion This study highlights the poor seismic performance of RC frame buildings with masonry infill walls in Turkey. Those of the capacity of the structures are getting worse in this order: from Model 2. Regarding with the results of the pushover analyses. The first plastic hinge is seen at the infill walls for model 2. The maximum displacements are ordered from Model 2 to 4. the displacements are given. becomes more and more urbanized. maximum from Model 4 at the second flor and Model 5. It thus becomes the responsibility of all stakeholders involved in the design and construction process to advocate for safer buildings. In figure 14. The rodations are given in figure 14. and underlies design and construction factors causing weak performance. Regarding with the plastic hinge rotations. the story displacements are in order as model 4. displacements exceed the limit level. The results of the present study show that structural infill walls have very important effects on structural behavior under earthquake effects. displacement and relative story displacement are affected by the structural irregularities. Moreover. To determine the earthquake performance of the structural systems. seismic risks will rise dramatically unless fundamental changes in policy. Presence of masonry infill wall also alters displacements and base shear of the frame. 163 .3 and 1. especially. The time for these changes is long overdue. nonlinear static pushover analyses are used instead of time history analyses. Therefore. Irregular distributions of masonry infill walls in elevation can result in unacceptably elastic displacement in the soft storey frame. the infill walls are under investigation via nonlinear analyses. the plastic rotation levels of the frames with infill walls are at less value than the one with no infill walls. Push Over Analysis Results Model 1 2 3 4 5 Forces (kN) Linear Behavior Collapse Limits Limits 353 539 735 1607 373 541 421 828 418 801 6. Ultimately. as one of the developing countries. 3. Table 1. The behavior of structure with infilled walls can be predicted by means of simplified diagonal models. Model 4. According to figure 13. the plastic hinge rotations are given. 3-story R/C frame structure is used and this structure is designed according to Turkish Standard TS 500 and Turkish Design Code ABYYHY 1998. 5 different Models of this structure with different wall application are taken into consideration for nonlinear static pushover analyses. design. In the present study. The stability and integrity of reinforced concrete frames are enhanced with masonry infill walls. Model 3. infill walls have very important effects on structural behavior. The results of elastic analysis show that the presence of nonstructural masonry infill walls can modify the global seismic behavior of framed buildings to a large extent. There is a significant concern in the earthquake engineering that many of the buildings in Turkey are potential death risk in the earthquakes.5. and construction are implemented. Structural capacity under earthquake effect. relative story displacements are given. In figure 13.

ATC 40. “Non-Linear Time History And Pushover Analyses for Seismic Design and Evaluation” PhD Dissertation. Earthquake Engineering Research Institute and International Association for Earthquake Engineering. Earthquake engineering Research Institute. WHE Report 115 (Mexico).. Irtem. Afet Bölgelerinde Yapılacak Yapılar Hakkında Yönetmelik Bayındırlık ve İskan Bakanlığı Afet İşleri. 1998. Ankara 4. F. Nollet. pp. Federal Emegency Management Agency.world-housing. 14. A. 2002.. Atımtay. Turkish Standard Betonarme Yapıların Tasarım ve Yapım Kuralları.G. 9. 2000.671-838.. CA. “Yapıların Deprem Yükleri Altındaki Lineer Olmayan Davranışının Belirlenmesinde Kullanılan Statik Yöntemlerin Karşılaştırılması”.. Vol.. FEMA 356. Damage Assessment of Masonry Infilled RC Frames Subjected to Blasting Induced Ground Excitations. F. Vol. Balıkesir 11. 5... An imprint of Chapman & Hall. cilt 4. Demir and M. Inelastic Dynamic Response of Reinforced Concrete Infilled Frames. 2001 (CD). EERI. D.net). 1998. StiffenedStory Wall-Frame Tall Building Structure. Korkmaz. B. Turkish Code. pp. (ABYYHY). 1996. TX. 16. Turker K. Hasgül U. Oakland. USA 7. Vol. Afet Bölgelerinde Yapılacak Yapılar İçin Yönetmelik Esasları. ACE 2006. Yong L. Sivri M.R. FEMA.. 8. Harpal singh. Washington. Sahota. Çerçeveli ve Perdeli Betonarme Sistemlerin Tasarımı.. Austin." Seventh International Congress on Advances in Civil Engineering.. Y. 2-3. 1997.94-101. CA. Demir ve A Kuyucular.. İstanbul. 2005. Computers and Structure. Atımtay.. Li. Temel Kavramlar ve Hesasp Yöntemleri. Sastry. Irtem. Habibullah A. No 23. "Farklı Duvar Yerleşimli Çerçeveli Yapıların Doğrusal Olmayan Davranışı ve Göçme Mekanizması.V. “Dolgu duvarlarının betonarme bina davranışına etkisi” İTÜ Mühendislik Dergisi/d. Computers and Structures. 685-693. Ankara 18. 2001. 66. and Jarque. 1996. M. Vol. 2005.S.USA 164 . 2000. E. USA 12.. DC. 1998. pp. 2006.R.. Guo-Wei M. Reinforced concrete multistory buildings. İstanbul 10. Engineering Structure..6.. A.69. E. Prestandart and Commentary for the Seismic Rehabilitation of Buildings. 2000. Earthquake-Resistant Concrete Structure.. World Housing Encyclopedia (www. Annotated Images from the Bhuj. a project of the Earthquake Engineering Research Institute and the International Association for Earthquake Engineering 6. Engineering Structure. Yıldız Technical University. Berkeley.K. Hong hao. M.. A Tutorial Developed by a committee of the World Housing Encyclopedia. Paul. 2001. F.K. E.24. T.S. & E FN Spon. ATC. Computers and Structures. Kappos. Ankara 3. India Earthquake of January 26. TS 500..J. No.. 1998. J. AT RISK: The Seismic Performance of Reinforced Concrete Frame Buildings with Masonry Infill Walls.E. Turker K. Sivri References 1. Seismic Evaluation and Retrofit of Concrete Buildings. Wilson E.. Ankara 19. M.. Experimental Investigation into Using Lead to Reduce Vertical Load Transfer in Infilled Frames. 1. Penelis. Riddington.G. Smith. 2001. Sap 2000 Integrated Finite Element Analysis and Design of Structures Basic Analysis Refence Manual. No. EERI. 13. Applied Technology Council.K. 2002. Rodriguez.. 2006 17. G.. USA 2. 15.. sayı 4.225240. E. pp. London.J. University of Texas. V.

You're Reading a Free Preview

/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->