2008-Influence of Masonry Strength and Openings On Infilled RC Frames Under Cycling Loading

This article was downloaded by: [Indiana Universities]
On: 13 April 2013, At: 10:48

Publisher: Taylor & Francis
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered
office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK
Journal of Earthquake Engineering

Publication details, including instructions for authors and
subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/ueqe20
Influence of Masonry Strength and

Openings on Infilled R/C Frames Under
Cycling Loading
a b
D. J. Kakaletsis & C. G. Karayannis
a
Technological Educational Institution of Serres, Serres, Greece
b
Department of Civil Engineering, Democritus University of Thrace,
Xanthi, Greece
Version of record first published: 18 Mar 2008.
To cite this article: D. J. Kakaletsis & C. G. Karayannis (2008): Influence of Masonry Strength and
Openings on Infilled R/C Frames Under Cycling Loading, Journal of Earthquake Engineering, 12:2,
197-221
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13632460701299138
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE
Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions
This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any
substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,
systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden.
The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation
that the contents will be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any
instructions, formulae, and drug doses should be independently verified with primary
sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss, actions, claims, proceedings,
demand, or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or
indirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material.
Journal of Earthquake Engineering, 12:197–221, 2008
Copyright © A.S. Elnashai & N.N. Ambraseys
ISSN: 1363-2469 print / 1559-808X online
DOI: 10.1080/13632460701299138
Influence of Masonry Strength and Openings on

1559-808X
1363-2469
UEQE
Journal of Earthquake Engineering
Engineering, Vol. 0, No. 0, May 2007: pp. 0–0
Infilled R/C Frames Under Cycling Loading
D. J. KAKALETSIS1 and C. G. KARAYANNIS2

Influence
D. J. Kakaletsis
of Masonry
and C.Strength
G. Karayannis
and Openings on Infilled Frames
1
Technological Educational Institution of Serres, Serres, Greece
2
Department of Civil Engineering, Democritus University of Thrace, Xanthi, Greece
The influence of masonry infills with openings on the seismic performance of reinforced concrete (R/C)
frames that were designed in accordance with modern codes provisions is investigated. Two types of
Downloaded by [Indiana Universities] at 10:48 13 April 2013
masonry infills were considered that had different compressive strength but almost identical shear
strength. Infills were designed so that the lateral cracking load of the solid infill is less than the
available column shear resistance. Seven 1/3 – scale, single–story, single–bay frame specimens
were tested under cyclic horizontal loading up to a drift level of 40%. The parameters investigated
are the opening shape and the infill compressive strength. The assessment of the behavior of the
frames is presented in terms of failure modes, strength, stiffness, ductility, energy dissipation capac-
ity, and degradation from cycling. The experimental results indicate that infills with openings can
significantly improve the performance of RC frames. Further, as expected, specimens with strong
infills exhibited better performance than those with weak infills. For the prediction of the lateral
resistance of the studied single-bay, single-story infilled frames with openings, a special plastic
analysis method has been employed.
Keywords Infilled R/C Frames; Masonry Infills; Masonry Strength; Openings; Cyclic Behavior;
Experimental Results; Plastic Analysis; Lateral Resistance
1. Introduction
Masonry infills are usually used in R/C frame structures, in the form of interior or exterior
partition walls. Investigations for the influence of infill panels on structural performance
have yielded so far controversial results and there are no code provisions or rational guide-
lines available for the design and safety assessment of such structures. In high–rise struc-
tures, the frames are generally well engineered in accordance with the state of knowledge
of the day, whereas the infill panels are considered as “non structural.” Retrofit of old
buildings and improvement of the seismic resistance require an accurate evaluation of the
building response including the contribution of the existing infills [Dritsos, 2005]. How-
ever, the interaction of infills with the bounding frame may or may not be beneficial to the
performance of the structure [Karayannis et al., 2005] and has been a subject of many
debates.
Basic impediments to reliable modeling generalizations of infilled-frame systems are
the large variation in construction practice over different geographic regions and changes
of materials over time. Early infilled-frame construction generally consisted of steel
frames and with time, concrete frames while infills typically included bricks, concrete
blocks (both reinforced and unreinforced), and reinforced concrete.
Received 27 April 2006; accepted 23 February 2007.

Address correspondence to D. J. Kakaletsis, Technological Educational Institution of Seres, Seres, 62124,
Greece; E-mail: dkak@teiser.gr
197
198 D. J. Kakaletsis and C. G. Karayannis
On the basis of the available experimental results, the role of several parameters
have been examined. The parameters on which the characteristics related to the behav-
ior of infilled frames are dependent may be divided into two categories [CEB, 1996]:
those which are more quantifiable and easy to generalize (such as geometry and strength
of infill, relative stiffness of the infill with respect to the frame, strength and rigidity of
frame elements, amount of infill reinforcement, geometry of openings, etc.) and those
which are difficult to quantify and generalize, although they might be of the same
importance and even more so than the parameters of the first category. This latter cate-
gory includes such parameters as workmanship, type and size of units, interface bond
condition, initial lack of fit between infill and frame, bond between mortar and bricks/
blocks, etc.
It can be concluded [FEMA 307, 1999] that there is a wealth of experimental data
reported in the literature on infilled frames. Unfortunately, only a limited amount of the
research has been performed under cyclic loading conducted on specimens that reflect
current construction practice [Klingner and Bertero, 1976; Bertero and Brokken, 1983;
Zarnic and Tomazevic, 1985]. For these test results, it is evident that infilled frames can
possess stable hysteresis loops and continue to carry substantial lateral loads at significant
interstory drifts. This is true in spite of the highly damaged appearance and even complete
loss of some of the masonry units within an infill panel.
For the purposes of damage evaluation, FEMA 306 [1999] identifies that open-
ings within the infill panels are the most significant parameter affecting seismic
behavior of infilled systems. Doors and windows are the two most prevalent opening
types. Infilled panels with openings are best viewed as assemblies of subcomponents
of the appropriate material. These subcomponents interact with the surrounding frame
and can alter the frame response. Principal types of interaction that can occur are
strong columns and strong piers inducing shear failure in the beams, strong spandrel
components reducing the ductility by causing short–column effects and infills induc-
ing tension yielding or bar splice failures in the column. The effect of openings has
been experimentally investigated by several researchers [Benjamin and Williams,
1958; Mallick and Garg, 1971; Liauw, 1979; Dawe and Young, 1985] as reported in
Maghaddam and Dowling [1987].
In this article, the results of an experimental program aiming to the investigation of
the performance of masonry–infilled R/C frames with openings under in-plane lateral
cyclic loads are presented. The main objects of the present article include the study of: (a)
the effect of two shapes of concentric openings, windows, and doors, on the hysteretic
characteristics of infilled frames; (b) the behavior of two types of masonry infills, weak
and strong, under identical geometry and loading conditions; and (c) the presentation of a
simple analysis method based on the experimental observations.
2. Experimental Program
2.1. Test Specimens

The experimental program as shown in Table 1 consisted of seven tests of single–story
one – bay 1/3 – scale specimens of reinforced concrete frames with infills of clay brick
and vitrified ceramic brick. The program results provide data for the evaluation of the
influence of different opening shapes and different infill compressive strengths on the sur-
rounding frames. The program included the test of: bare frame, frame specimens with
solid weak and solid strong infills, frame specimens with concentric window opening, and
frame specimens with concentric door opening with weak and strong infills.
Influence of Masonry Strength and Openings on Infilled Frames 199
TABLE 1 Test specimens

Specimen Opening Shape Opening size Opening location Masonry type
Notation Window Door la/l = 0.25 x/l = 0.5 Weak Strong
B Bare frame Bare frame – –
S Solid Solid – – 䊏
IS Solid Solid – – 䊏
WO2 䊏䊏䊏䊏
IWO2 䊏䊏䊏䊏
DO2 䊏䊏䊏䊏
IDO2 䊏䊏䊏䊏
The shape, cross-sections of the members, and design details for the frame specimens
are shown in Figs. 1a,b,c. The reinforced concrete frame represents a typical ductile con-
crete construction, built in accordance with the currently used codes and standards in
Greece which are very similar to EC2 and EC8.
Masonry infills had a height/length ratio H/l = 1/1.5 and were constructed with
two selected brick types cut into two halves for complete accordance to the test scale.
The configuration is shown in Fig. 1d. The “weak” common clay brick usually used in
Greece had a thickness of 60 mm, while the “strong” vitrified ceramic brick that
proved to be important for the specimen behavior had a thickness of 52 mm. A typical
mortar mix was used for the two types of infills with portions 1:1:6 of cement: lime:
sand, respectively, and produced mechanical properties similarly to type M1 mortar
according to EN 998–2 standard. Masonry properties were chosen in such a way to
produce the desired lateral strength of the two types in a magnitude Vw,u equal to 27.36
or 25.58 kN which is lower than that of the lateral strength of the frame Ff equal to
42.48 kN as presented in the following paragraph. This closely represents actual con-
struction in Greece.
2.2. Material Properties

Supplementary material tests were conducted on concrete, reinforcing steel and
masonry samples. The mean compressive strength of the frame concrete was 28.51
MPa. Yield stress of longitudinal and transverse steel was 390.47 and 212.2 MPa,
respectively. The results from mortar, brick, and infill masonry tests are presented in
Table 2. The relationship of the shear strength of the bed joints fv versus the normal
stress fn, derived from the cohesion tests and the diagonal compression tests of
masonry panels with various length L to height H ratios and full size panels as well
(fv/fn = L/H) is presented in Fig. 2. It can be noted from the Table 2 that the compres-
sive strength of the “weak” masonry prisms was lower than that of the “strong” ones
while from Fig. 2 the shear strength of the bed joints in the “weak” and “strong” spec-
imens compared with the same of the full size infills length / height ratio (l/H = 1.5/1)
were almost identical.
2.3. Test Setup and Instrumentation

The test setup is shown in Fig. 3a. The lateral load was applied by means of a double
action hydraulic actuator. The vertical loads were exerted by hydraulic jacks that were
(a)
(b) (c)
(d)
FIGURE 1 Description of infilled frame specimens and instrumentation: (a) reinforce-
ment detailing of the R/C frame model (mm); (b) weak masonry (cm); (c) strong masonry
(cm); (d) weak and strong brick units (mm).
TABLE 2 Mechanical properties of the used material (MPa)

Masonry type
Weak Strong
Material Properties t = 6 cm t = 5.2 cm
Mortar
Compressive Strength fm 1.53 1.75
Brick Units
Compressive Strength fbc 3.10 26.4
Masonry
Compressive Strength ⊥ to holes fc 2.63 15.18
Elastic Modulus ⊥ to holes E 660.66 2837.14
Compressive strength // to holes fc90 5.11 17.68
Elastic Modulus // to holes E90 670.30 540.19
Friction Coefficient m (rads) 0.770 0.957
Shear Modulus G 259.90 351.37
FIGURE 2 Determination of shearing stress for wall cracking.
tensioning four strands at the top of the column whose forces were maintained con-
stant during each test. The level of this axial compressive load per column was set 50
kN (0.1 of the ultimate load). One LVDT measured the lateral drift of the frame and a
load cell measured the lateral force of the hydraulic actuator. The loading sequence
comprises full cycles of gradually increasing displacements. Two full loading cycles
were applied at each displacement level (Fig. 3b). The loading cycles started from
ductility level m = 0.8 which corresponds to amplitude equal to ±2 mm (the displace-
ment of yield initiation for the system is considered as ductility level m = 1).
(a) (b)
FIGURE 3 (a) Test setup (cm) and (b) loading program.

3. Experimental Results
A load–displacement response curve has been obtained for each frame (Figs. 4–6). The
initial stiffnesses, critical loads, energy dissipation capacities, and critical displacements
of the seven specimens are summarized in Table 3. It must be pointed out that the hyster-
etic characteristic values of the weak masonry infill are in some cases higher than the cor-
responding ones of the strong masonry infill. It may be attributed to the larger units of the
weak masonry infill. The appearance and the propagation of cracking was also recorded
for both infills and frames throughout each test (Figs. 4–6).
Specimen “B” was a bare pilot frame (reference specimen). Flexural cracks and
corresponding plastic hinges occurred at predicted critical locations at the bottom and
the top of the columns and at the ends of the beam (Figs. 4a,b). The sequence of the
cracks development followed the distribution of the applied moments to the frame that
is, first cracks were formed at the bottom part of the left column where moments were
the largest ones and the axial compression was the smallest one, at a drift 4%, followed
by cracking of the beam near the column face, at a drift 6%. The first bottom crack in
the beam appeared before the first top crack. Spalling and crushing of concrete in col-
umns occurred at a drift 28%.
Specimens “S” and “IS” had solid weak and solid strong infills, respectively. The
nonlinear behavior was initiated by the cracking of the infill. First cracks appeared in
the form of inclined cracks in the top compression corners with approximately a 45°
angle and were later joined by horizontal sliding cracks developed along the bed
joints near the mid height of the panel at a drift 3%. Then plastic hinges were devel-
oped at the top and the bottom of the columns, at a drift 4–11%, while the lower por-
tions of the column were braced by the bottom segment of the wall and flexural cracks
formed at the columns. However, as shown by the damage patterns of specimens, the
failure of the specimen “S” (weak solid infill) (Figs. 4c,d) was dominated by internal
crushing in the infill, at a drift 19%, while the failure of the specimen “IS” (strong
solid infill) (Figs. 4e,f) was dominated by sliding of the infill along its bed joints at a
drift 14%.
Specimen “WO2” had weak infill with window opening and specimen “IWO2” had
strong infill with window opening too (Figs. 5a,b,c,d). The first major diagonal/sliding
crack in the infill was observed at a drift 3–4%. Plastic hinges developed at the top and the
bottom of the columns at a drift 4–9%. Flexural cracks appeared in the external faces of
the columns higher than their bottom, because the tensile columns were braced by the
(a) (b)
(c) (d)
(e) (f)
FIGURE 4 Lateral load–displacement hysteresis curves and failure modes of reference

specimens: (a), (b) bare frame; (c), (d) weak solid infill; (e), (f) strong solid infill.
bottom segment of the wall, up to a height level equal to 330 mm with the bottom of the
opening. Also, flexural cracks appeared in the external faces of the columns between the
lower face of the beam and the top of the opening. The reason is because the upper
(a) (b)
(c) (d)
FIGURE 5 Lateral load–displacement hysteresis curves and failure modes of infilled

frame specimens with concentric openings: (a), (b) window in weak infill; (c), (d) window
in strong infill.
segment of the wall formed a compressive bearing at the intersection of the compressive
column with the top beam up to a height level with the top of the opening. The failure of
these bottom and upper segments of the wall was dominated by sliding along their bed
joints. In the specimen “WO2” with weak infill interior crushing of the piers from shear
failure was observed at a drift 20% and/or corner crushing of the piers at one or at both
piers was observed at a drift 35% (Figs. 5a,b). Diagonal sliding of the piers was observed
only in the specimen “IWO2” with strong infill at a drift 13% (Figs. 5c,d).
Specimen “DO2” had weak infill with door opening and specimen “IDO2” had strong
infill with door opening (Figs. 6a,b,c,d). The first major diagonal/sliding crack in the infill
was observed at a drift 3%. Plastic hinges developed at the top and the bottom of the col-
umns at a drift 4–6%. Besides, flexural cracks appeared in the external faces of the col-
umns between the lower face of the beam and the top of the opening. The reason is
because the upper segment of the wall formed a compressive bearing at the intersection of
the compressive column with the top beam up to a height level with the top of the opening.
This segment failed in sliding along the bed joints. The pier between the door and the
(a) (b)
(c) (d)
FIGURE 6 Lateral load–displacement hysteresis curves and failure modes of infilled

frame specimens with concentric openings: (a), (b) door in weak infill; (c), (d) door in
strong infill.
tensile column was rocking and it failed by excess of the compressive and tensile strength
both at the top and bottom edges at a drift 12–13%. The other pier between the door and
the compressive column appeared interior crushing in the specimen “DO2” (weak infill) at
a drift 27% (Figs. 6a,b) and the shear sliding in the specimen “IDO2” (strong infill) at a
drift 13% (Figs. 6c,d).
In all infilled specimens with openings the cracking of the beam occurred not near the
column face but near the mid–span part of the beam. Plastic hinges were developed at
drifts higher than 11% or they did not developed at all. In general, the infills restrained the
beams from bending and postponed the development of plastic hinges in the beams. The
cracks mainly appeared on the top face of the beam at the same time with the interior
crushing or shear sliding in the piers. This was evidently due to the moments developed in
the mid–span part of the beam from the formation of struts in the piers.
In the examined cases of the presented project no shear failure of the columns was
observed.
206
TABLE 3 Critical hysteretic characteristics of specimens
Maximum normalized Displacement at maxi-
Secant Initial Maximum Displacement at Energy Dissipation mum Cumulative Energy
Stiffness Lateral Load maximum Load (W/2d)* (W/2d)* Dissipation
Specimen Ko (kN/mm) Vu (kN) du (mm) (kN·mm/mm) dmax(W/2d) (mm) ΣW (kN/mm)
B 8.34 44.27 13.95 19.08 18 8316.35
S 20.71 81.46 8.31 51.36 12 13,101.14
IS 21.84 72.92 12.32 35.35 6 11,834.44
WO2 14.55 66.56 10 36 12 11,931.82
IWO2 20.88 68.13 18.15 31.81 12 11,739.72
DO2 13.1 61.56 10.82 24.67 12 8497.87
IDO2 14.45 59.06 11.88 30.99 12 10,635.72
*The energy dissipated at a given cycle (in terms of the area bounded by the hysteretic curve for that cycle), W, normalized by the total peak-to-peak displacement
variation for that cycle, 2d.
4. Interpretation of Experimental Results
4.1. Comparison of Critical Hysteretic Characteristics

From the hysteresis loops envelopes (Fig. 7) and the data shown in Table 4 it can be con-
cluded that:
(i) For all cases lateral resistance (v) of infilled frames with openings was from
1.33–1.54 times that of the corresponding bare frames, while the resistance of the
solid weak and the solid strong infill specimen was 1.84 and 1.65 times greater
than the ones of the corresponding bare frames, respectively. Resistance was
reduced in proportion to the reduction in the area of the weak wall due to the
openings. The observed influence of the openings appeared to be less important
in the cases of the strong infill.
(ii) The residual resistance (bres) of infilled frames with openings at the maximum
deformation (equal to 36 mm corresponded to a drift 40% and at a stage of
advanced damage) was as high as 1.06–1.27 times the resistance of the bare
frame. It was larger in the case of windows than in the case of doors. In the case
of strong infills it observed to be less decreased than in the case of weak infills.
(iii) The presence of the infill with openings in all cases increased considerably the
initial stiffness (k) of the system about 1.57–2.50 times that of the one of the bare
frame while the solid weak and solid strong infill increased the stiffness 2.48 and
2.62 times, respectively. Stiffness was decreased in higher proportion compared
to the corresponding reduction in cross–sectional area of the wall from openings.
Strong infills smoothed the influence of the openings in terms of stiffness.
(iv) In all the tested specimens the first major crack in the infill occurred at a drift (gy)
between 2.54% and 3.87% which can be regarded as the serviceability limit state for
this type of structure. As a result of the increased stiffness, in most cases, this drift
was smaller than that of 3.44% of the case of bare frame. The drift (gu) correspond-
ing to the maximum lateral resistance of infilled frames ranges from 9.23–20.17%
and it can be considered as the ultimate limit state. It should be noted that the con-
finement of infill walls offered by the surrounding frame influenced considerably the
drift of the infills at failure. In fact, although the drifts of bare solid weak and strong
masonry at failure were 0.91% and 0.51%, respectively (see Fig. 2 and Section 2.2
for more details), in the cases the same masonries were used to fill R/C frames, the
drifts at failure became 9.23% and 13.69%, respectively. Specimens with strong
infills had almost identical serviceability limit with those with weak infills but they
had ultimate limit occurring at a higher drift level than those with weak infills.
(v) The presence of the infills with openings increased the ductility factor (m0,85) of
frames. The range of ductility was from 3.20–6.77 for the weak/strong infills
with openings, respectively, against 3.97 for the bare frame and 4.24/6.31 for the
solid weak/strong infill, respectively. In general, the specimens with windows
exhibited the same ductility with those with doors. The strong infills resulted to
higher values of ductility factor.
(vi) The total energy dissipation capacity (ΣW) of the infilled frames with openings was
1.02–1.43 times the capacity of the corresponding bare frame while for the solid
weak/strong infill was 1.57/1.42 times the capacity of the corresponding bare frame,
respectively. It must be pointed out that infill strength did not substantially influenced
the values of energy dissipation ratio especially in the case of windows.
(vii) During the second cycle at each loading step in all specimen cases a force
degradation with a mean value equal to 10–15% can be observed. Besides it is
(a)
(b)
FIGURE 7 Laterals load against displacement envelops: (a) weak and strong infill with
window; (b) weak and strong infill with door.
TABLE 4 Comparison of hysteretic characteristics for test specimens

Spec. Specimen description v gy(%) gu (%) k vlim m0,85 bres V2 / V1 (m. v.) W2/W1 (m. v.) ΣW/ΣWB
B Bare frame 1.00 3.44 15.50 1.00 0.54 3.97 1.00 0.90 0.70 1.00
S Weak solid infill 1.84 2.82 9.23 2.48 0.65 4.24 1.34 0.87 0.85 1.57
IS Strong solid infill 1.65 3.10 13.69 2.62 0.84 6.31 1.68 0.87 0.70 1.42
Weak infill
WO2 Window la/l = 0.25 1.50 3.87 11.11 1.74 0.76 3.89 1.20 0.85 0.72 1.43
Strong infill
IWO2 Window la/l = 0.25 1.54 2.54 20.17 2.50 0.70 6.42 1.26 0.88 0.75 1.41
Weak infill
DO2 Door la/l = 0.25 1.39 2.76 12.02 1.57 0.53 3.20 1.06 0.87 0.69 1.02
Strong infill
IDO2 Door la/l = 0.25 1.33 3.24 13.2 1.73 0.71 6.77 1.27 0.86 0.70 1.28
v: Lateral resistance, bres: Residual resistance, gy: Serviceability limit, gu: Ultimate limit, k: In. stiffness, vlim = Vy /Vu, m0.85: Ductility factor, V2/V1: mean value for all
cycle amplitudes of the ratios of the maximum recorded force during the second cycle to the maximum recorded force during the first cycle, W2/W1: mean value for
all cycle amplitudes of the ratios of the energy dissipation during the second cycle to the energy dissipation during the first cycle, ΣW/ΣWB: ratio of the cumulative
energy dissipation by each infilled frame to the cumulative energy dissipation by the bare frame.
209
apparent that a drastic reduction of energy dissipation capacity with a mean value
equal to 15–31% occurred during the second loading cycle in all specimen cases
due to the pronounced pinching effect. The loss of energy dissipation capacity is
greater than the corresponding loss of strength in all cases of specimens. Speci-
mens with strong infills seemed to loose a smaller amount of strength and energy
even in the case of opening than the specimens with weak infills and the loss was
independent of the amplitude of the imposed cyclic deformation.
4.2. Comparison of Hysteretic Characteristics for Test Specimens Versus Imposed

Displacements
The degradation of the observed stiffness versus the imposed lateral displacements is
shown in Fig. 8. At very high drifts the loss of stiffness tends asymptotically to that of the
one of the bare frame because shear failure of the columns has not been observed in the
examined specimens. Strong infills presented lower influence of the opening on the loss of
stiffness compared to the one of weak infill. At low drifts though increased loss of stiff-
ness was observed for the specimens with strong infills because of the different failure
mechanism compared to that of the specimens with weak infills.
The ratios of the lateral strength, V, of the specimens to the strength, VB, of the corre-
sponding bare frame were also calculated. These ratios show the effectiveness of an infill
with opening in increasing the lateral strength of a frame. From Figs. 9a,b it can be con-
cluded that the strength added to the system due to the infill was more significant at low
displacement ranges (from 2–12 mm) than at higher displacement ranges (from 18–36
mm). At high displacements the influence of the infill on the strength of the system was
decreased but it was still considerable. The average increase of strength of the frame due
to a solid weak and a solid strong infill was 2.00/1.48 and 2.11/1.62 times, respectively, at
low/high displacement ranges, respectively. The increase of strength of the frame due to
weak infill with window opening was 1.79/1.21 times, respectively. The increase of strength
of the frame due to weak infill with door opening was 1.45/1.10 times, respectively. Strong
infill resulted in higher values of average increase of strength as much as 2.00/1.35 times in
the case of window and 1.63/1.26 times in the case of door openings, because those infills
developed a better distribution of cracking than in the cases of weak infills.
(a) (b)
FIGURE 8 Reduced stiffness of the infilled frames: (a) weak and strong infill with win-
dow; (b) weak and strong infill with door.
(a) (b)
(c) (d)
FIGURE 9 Strength of the infilled frames over the strength of the bare frame and energy
dissipation capacity of the infilled frames over the energy dissipation capacity of the bare
frame: (a), (c) weak and strong infill with window; (b), (d) weak and strong infill with door.
Comparing Figs. 9a,b with Figs. 9c,d it can be concluded that the contribution of the
infill to energy dissipation capacity of the system was a little greater than the contribution
to the strength especially at low distortions. From Figs. 9c,d it can be concluded that the
energy dissipation increase of the system due to infills was more significant at low dis-
placement ranges (from 2–12 mm) than at higher displacement ranges (from 18–36 mm).
The average increase of energy dissipation of the frames due to a solid weak and a solid
strong infill was 2.42/1.63 and 2.94/1.43 times, respectively, at low/high displacement
ranges, respectively. The average increase of energy dissipation of the frame due to weak
infills with window openings was 2.11/1.36 times at low/high displacement ranges,
respectively. The average increase of energy dissipation of the frame due to weak infills
with door openings was 1.61/1.04 times at low/high displacement ranges, respectively.
Strong infill resulted in higher values of average increase of energy dissipation of the
frames as much as 2.52/1.33 times at low/high displacement ranges, respectively, in the
case of window opening and 2.19/1.28 times at low/high displacement ranges, respec-
tively, in the case of door opening. This may be attributed to a more favorable distribution
of cracking in the case of strong infills than the ones of the weak infills.
From Figs. 10a,b it is evident that in the bare frame at low levels of displacement
cycles the energy dissipation capacity normalized by the total peak-to-peak displacement
variation for that cycle was increasing as the imposed displacements were increased. After
(a) (b)
(c) (d)
FIGURE 10 Energy dissipation per cycle divided by the corresponding displacement 2d

of the cycle and equivalent viscous damping ratio during the loading cycles: (a), (c) weak
and strong infill with window; (b), (d) weak and strong infill with door.
reaching a maximum value at drift about 20% the energy dissipated by the bare frame
remained more or less constant. The effective mechanism of energy dissipation was the
rotation of the hinges of the bare frame. On the contrary in all infilled frames with open-
ings (Figs. 10a,b), initially, normalized energy dissipation per cycle increased rapidly with
increasing deflections, due to increased wall cracking and to the dissipation caused by
friction across these cracks. Dissipation was the greatest just prior to crushing of the criti-
cal equivalent compression struts at drift about 13% in weak infills with opening and just
prior shear sliding at drift about 7–13% in strong infills with opening coinciding with the
formation of plastic hinges in frame elements. After this, dissipation dropped with a
steeper branch in the case of weak infills or with a smoother branch in the case of strong
infills, because of the decrease in overall shear resistance of the subassemblage, and also
because of the pinching effect produced by crack openings. Subsequent increased infill
deterioration led to increased friction but also to decreased strength, and as a result, the
normalized dissipation continued to decrease gradually with increasing deflections tend-
ing to reach the values of the corresponding bare frame.
In terms of hysteresis loops obtained from the tests the equivalent viscous damping
ratio z is calculated as z=W/(4pWe) where W = the area of the hysteresis loop at the
given amplitude of force and deformation (the amount of energy absorbed during one
loading cycle), We = the area of the triangle defined by the given amplitude of force and
deformation (the amount of elastic input energy at one loading cycle). It is evident from
the results shown in Figs. 10c,d that there was an increasing hysteretic damping, z, with
increasing imposed deformation. The energy absorption increased abruptly in relatively
low distortion levels. After reaching a high value at drift about 13% in weak infills and
about 7–13% in strong infills, it continued increasing with a smoother branch in weak
infills or remained more or less constant in strong infills.
5. Analytical Evaluation of Lateral Resistance of Infilled Frames

From the foregoing commendation on the failure modes presented in Figs. 4–6, the failure
mechanisms that can be possibly caused due to the interaction of the frame with the infill
with openings have been identified and are summarized in Fig. 11. The behavior of the
infill eventually is dominated by zones of masonry acting in compression. Thus, a system
of compressive struts develops within the frame as indicated in Fig. 12 and the stress
transfer zone in the joint [Karayannis et al., 1998] is relocated out of the beam-column
joints and into the beam itself at the points where the zones of masonry of the piers are act-
ing. Similar verification of this behavior can be obtained based on other investigators’
results [Fiorato et al., 1970; Hamburger and Chakradeo, 1993; Mehrabi et al., 1996].
5.1. Failure Mechanisms for Individual Masonry Zones

The failure mechanisms of the individual masonry zones formed by the wall segments
flanking the openings being loaded diagonally are selected, according to the observed
major damage modes presented in Fig.11a, depending on the geometric configuration of
the infill opening and the strength of the infill. The ultimate resistance, provided by the
aforementioned mechanisms, can be derived as follows:
The ultimate load due to shear-sliding failure of each wall segment is given by the
shearing strength of the bed joints depending on the length to height ratio of each wall seg-
ment Li/Hi and is determined from the masonry failure envelope presented in Fig. 2.
The ultimate load due to compression failure of the equivalent diagonal strut (hori-
zontal component of the diagonal strut capacity) is taken according to FEMA 306 [1999];
where the equivalent strut width is defined for the solid infills using the recommendation
given in FEMA 356 [2000] based on the work of Mainstone [1971] and Mainstone and
Weeks [1970] and for the wall segments flanking the openings using the recommendation
given by Hamburger and Chakradeo [1993].
The ultimate shear force that can be transmitted from wall segment in rocking stage is
given by Paulay and Priestley [1992]; where the axial load on an infill due to shortening of
the height of the panel, (according to FEMA 306, [1999]), is distributed between the piers
in accordance with their length and the interstory drift angle is taken based on experimen-
tal data equal to 13%.
5.2. Failure Mechanisms for Infilled Frames

By applying commonly used engineering strength assessment techniques, analytical for-
mulas have been derived to evaluate the lateral resistance Vu of the identified failure
mechanisms of the infilled frames with openings and presented in the following:
5.2.1. Failure Mechanism “1” for Frame with Weak Solid Infill. In this mechanism as
shown in Fig. 11b, plastic hinges are assumed to develop at both ends of the columns and
the masonry is assumed to reach interior crushing. No significant shear transfer is assumed
between the beam and the infill. Taking moment about A, in column AB, results in
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
(e)
FIGURE 11 Major damage modes: (a), and failure mechanisms: (b), (c), (d), (e).
FIGURE 12 Formation of wall segments flanking the opening being loaded diagonally
and corresponding mechanism of secondary struts.
Fc . h = 2 . M pc (1)
where Fc is the shear force in each column and Mpc is the plastic moment of the column
considering the effect of the axial force. Hence, considering the equilibrium of the frame
floor in the horizontal direction results in
Vu = Vw + 2 Fc = Vw + 4 . M pc / h (2)
where Vw is the horizontal component of the diagonal strut capacity from FEMA 306
[1999].
5.2.2. Failure Mechanism “2” for Frame with Strong Solid Infill. In this mechanism, as
shown in Fig. 11c, the frame and the infill are considered as two parallel systems with dis-
placement compatibility at the compression corners. Hence, the lateral resistance of this
mechanism is considered to be the sum of the flexural resistance of the frame and the
shear-sliding resistance of the wall as
Vu = Vw + Ff (3)
where Vw can be obtained from Fig. 2. The resistance of a bare frame, Ff, with plastic
hinges at the end sections of the columns can be expressed taking moment about A in col-
umn AB and considering the equilibrium in the horizontal direction as
Ff = 4.M pc / h (4)
where in the calculation of Mpc the influence of the axial load is taken into account.
5.2.3. Failure Mechanism “3” for Frame with Weak Infill and Window Opening. In this
mechanism as shown in Fig. 11d, plastic hinges are assumed to develop at both ends of the
columns. The masonry piers w1 and w2 between the left and the right column and the win-
dow in the middle of the bay, respectively, reach the internal crushing. The masonry zones
w3 and w4 above and below the window fail in shear sliding. It is assumed that the lateral
resistance of the masonry zone w4 braces the column to a height level with the bottom of
the opening and no other significant shear transfer occurs between frame and infill. Taking
moment about A, in column AB, results in
Fc . h + Vw 4 . 0.43 = 2 . M pc (5)
where Fc is the shear force in each column, Mpc is the plastic moment of the column con-
sidering the effect of the axial force, and Vw4 is the shear resistance of the wall segment
from Fig. 2. Hence, considering the equilibrium of the frame floor in the horizontal direc-
tion results in
Vu = Vw1 + Vw 2 + Vw3 + Vw 4 + 2.Fc (6)

where Vw1, Vw2 are the horizontal components of the diagonal strut capacities of the
masonry piers w1 and w2 from FEMA 306 [1999] and Vw3, Vw4 are the shear resistances
of the masonry segments w3 and w4 from Fig. 2.
5.2.4. Failure Mechanism “4” for Frame with Strong Infill and Window Opening.
This mechanism is the same as the previous mechanism “3” with the difference that the
masonry piers w1 and w2 between the left and the right column and the window in the mid-
dle of the bay, respectively, fail in shear sliding. Hence, considering the equilibrium of the
frame floor in the horizontal direction (Fig. 11d) results in
Vu = Vw1 + Vw 2 + Vw3 + Vw 4 + 2.Fc (7)
where the shear resistance of the masonry segments Vw1, Vw2, Vw3, Vw4 are given from
Fig. 2.
5.2.5. Failure Mechanism “5” for Frame with Weak Infill and Door Opening. In this mecha-
nism as shown in Fig. 11e, plastic hinges are assumed to develop at both ends of the columns.
The masonry pier w1 between the tensile column and the door is rocking and fails due to cor-
ner/toe crushing. The other masonry pier w2 between column and door reaches the internal
crushing. The masonry zone w3 above the door fails in shear sliding. Assuming that no signifi-
cant shear transfer occurs between the beam and the infill and taking moment about A, in col-
umn AB, it results in
Fc . h = 2 . M pc (8)
where Fc is the shear force in each column and Mpc is the plastic moment of the column
considering the effect of the axial force. Hence, from the equilibrium of the frame floor in
the horizontal direction it is derived
Vu = Vw1 + Vw 2 + Vw3 + 2 . Fc (9)

where Vw1 is the maximum shear of pier w1 in rocking stage calculated from Paulay and
Priestley [1992], Vw2 is the horizontal component of the diagonal strut capacity of the
masonry pier w2 from FEMA 306 [1999], and Vw3 is the shear resistance of the masonry
segment w3 from Fig. 2.
5.2.6. Failure Mechanism “6” for Frame with Strong Infill and Door Opening. This
mechanism is the same as the previous mechanism “5” with the difference that the masonry
pier w2 between the compressive column and the door (that is not rocking), fails in shear
sliding. Hence, considering the equilibrium of the frame floor in the horizontal direction
(Fig. 11e) results in
Vu = Vw1 + Vw 2 + Vw3 + 2 . Fc (10)

where Vw1 is the maximum shear of pier w1 in rocking stage from Paulay and Priestley
[1992] and Vw2, Vw3 are the shear resistances of the masonry segments w2 and w3 from
Fig. 2.
5.3. Comparison of Results

Using the dimensions shown in Fig. 1 and Table 1 and the material properties listed in
Table 2, the lateral resistances based on the observed mechanisms are calculated for the
specimens tested and are summarized in Table 5. Table 5 also shows the actual failure
TABLE 5 Comparison of experimental and analytical result

Lateral resistance
of failure Actual lateral Comparison
Specimen Failure mechanism Vu resistance Vua (Vua-Vu)/Vua
Specimen description mechanism (KN) (KN) (%)
B Bare frame – 42.48 44.27 +4.04
S Weak solid “1” 94.26 81.46 -15.71
infill
IS Strong solid “2” 68.06 72.92 +6.66
infill
WO2 Weak infill- “3” 82.56 66.56 −24.04
window
la/l=0.25
IWO2 Strong infill- “4” 66.85 68.13 +1.88
window
la/l=0.25
DO2 Weak infill- “5” 66.97 61.56 −8.79
door la/
l=0.25
IDO2 Strong infill- “6” 62.82 59.06 −6.37
door la/
l=0.25
loads and actual failure mechanisms of the specimens. The comparison of the experimen-
tal with the analytical results shows that the analytical failure loads are in good compli-
ance with the actual lateral resistances except for the specimen with window opening and
weak infill, i.e., specimen “WO2.” The difference is within the range -8.79% and +1.88%
for all the cases with openings. Especially for the specimen “WO2” a difference equal to
−24.04% is observed between the experimental and analytical results. This may be attrib-
uted to a premature downwards displacement of the spandrel as shown in Fig. 5b. In gen-
eral the identified failure mechanisms reflect satisfactorily the effects of masonry strength
and the influence of the openings.
6. Conclusions
Experimental results have been presented from the investigation of the behavior in cycling
loading of several types of infilled R/C frame specimens: reference frame specimens (bare
frame, frame with weak solid infill, frame with strong solid infill), frame specimens with
concentric window opening and door opening with weak and strong infills.
The experimental results indicate that the presence, behavior and failure of the infills
even in the cases with openings can significantly improve the performance of R/C frames.
Shear failure of the R/C columns was excluded and infills restrained the beams from bend-
ing and, consequently excluded the development of plastic hinges in the beams. As long as
the infilled frames are designed the way that the solid infill cracking resistance is less than
the available shear resistance of the columns, the use of infills with door or window open-
ings can not cause a brittle frame failure.
Furthermore, specimens with strong infills exhibit a better performance than those
with weak infills in terms of the observed load resistance, stiffness, ductility, and energy
dissipation capacity. The use of infill with improved compressive strength but almost
identical shear strength decreases the influence of the openings in terms of resistance,
stiffness, ductility and energy dissipation capacity. Strong infills exhibit a better distribu-
tion of cracking than the one of the weak infills and, thereby, a more effective mechanism
for energy dissipation.
Infills with opening are cracking and separating from the surrounding frame at early
stage before yielding occurs at the column reinforcement. For low lateral displacements,
the energy dissipation is higher for the specimens with openings in comparison with the
bare frame specimen. For high lateral displacements, the energy dissipation is reduced for
the specimens with openings, and remains constant for the bare frame specimen. For high
lateral displacements in the case of infilled frames with openings the energy continuous to
be absorbed by the reinforced concrete elements, while the infills discontinue absorbing
energy.
Based on the experimental results and the observed damage modes, the most likely
failure mechanisms have been identified for the single-bay single-story infilled frames
with opening. Analytical formulas have been derived to evaluate the lateral resistance of
infilled frames based on possible stress fields that can potentially develop within the infill.
The concept of compressive struts or braces that develop within the frame by the wall seg-
ments flanking the openings being loaded diagonally is employed. The method has been
used successfully for the analysis of the specimens tested in this study.
Finally, taking into account all the involved uncertainties and scale effects it has to be
emphasized that the experimental results of the presented work and the above yielded con-
clusions are mainly limited to the study cases and must be used and extrapolated carefully
and cautiously.
Acknowledgments
The authors would like to thank the Research Committee of Technological Educational
Institution of Serres for funding of this research project.
References
Benjamin, J. R. and Williams, H. A. [1958] “The behavior of one-story shear walls,” Proceedings of
ASCE ST. 4, Paper 1723, 1–30.
Bertero, V. V. and Brokken, S. T. [1983] “Infills in seismic resistant building,” Proceedings of
ASCE 109(6).
Comite Euro – International du Beton [1996] “RC Frames under Earthquake Loading – State of the art
report. Chapter 5: Reinforced Concrete Infilled frames,” Thomas Telford, London, pp. 231–284.
Dawe, J. L. and Young, T. C. [1985] “An investigation of factors influencing the behavior of
masonry infill in steel frames subjected to in-plane shear,” Proceedings of 7th International Brick
Masonry Conference, Melbourne, Australia.
Dritsos, S. E. [2005] “Seismic retrofit of buildings. A Greek perspective,” Bulletin of the New
Zealand Society for Earthquake Engineering, 38(3), 165–181.
FEMA – 306 [1999] “Evaluation of Earthquake Damaged Concrete and Masonry Wall Buildings –
Basic Procedures Manual. Chapter 8: Infilled Frames,” pp. 183–213.
FEMA – 307 [1999] “Evaluation of Earthquake Damaged Concrete and Masonry Wall Buildings –
Technical Resources. Chapter 5: Infilled Frames,” pp. 85–94.
FEMA – 356 [2000], “Prestandard and Commentary for the Seismic Rehabilitation of Buildings,
Chapter 7, Masonry,” pp. 7.1–7.31.
Fiorato, A. E., Sozen, M. A., and Gamble, W. L. [1970] “An investigation of the interaction of rein-
forced concrete frames with masonry filler walls.” Civil Engineering Studies, University of Illi-
nois, Urbana. IL, Struct. Res. Series No. 370, pp. 117.
Hamburger, R. O. and Chakradeo, A. S. [1993] “Methodology for seismic capacity evaluation of
steel-frame buildings with infill unreinforced masonry,” Proceedings of the 1993 National
Earthquake Conference, Earthquake Hazard Reduction in the Central and Eastern United
States: A Time for Examination and Action, Memphis, Tennessee, II, pp. 173–182.
Karayannis, C. G., Chalioris, C. E., Sideris, K. K. [1998] “Effectiveness of RC beam-column con-
nection repair using epoxy resin injections,” Journal of Earthquake Engineering, 2(2), 217–240.
Karayannis, C. G., Kakaletsis D. J., and Favvata, M. J. [2005] “Behavior of bare and masonry
infilled R/C frames under cyclic loading. Experiments and analysis,” Proceedings of the Fifth
International Conference on Earthquake Resistant Engineering Structures, (ERES 2005),
Skiathos, pp. 429–438.
Klingner, R. E. and Bertero, V. V. [1976] “Infilled frames in earthquake resistant construction,”
Earthquake Engineering Research Centre, University of California at Berkeley, Report No.
EERC 76-32.
Liauw, T. C. [1979] “Tests on multistorey infilled frames subjected to dynamic lateral loading,” ACI
J, 76(4), 551–564.
Maghaddam, H. A. and Dowling, P. J. [1987] “The state of the art in infilled frames,” Civil
Engineering Department, Imperial College, ESEE Research Report No, 87-2, London.
Mainstone R. J. [1971] “On the stiffness and strengths of infilled frames,” Proceedings of the Insti-
tute of Civil Engineers, suppl. (iv), paper 7360S, 57–90.
Mainstone, R. J. and Weeks, G. A. [1970] “The influence of bounding frame on the racking stiffness
and strength of brick walls,” 2nd International Brick Masonry Conference.
Mallick, D. V. and Garg, R. P. [1971] “Effect of openings on the lateral stiffness of infilled frames,”
Proceedings of the Institute of Civil Engineers, 49, 193–209.
Mehrabi, A. B., Shing, P. B., Shuller, M. P., and Noland, J. L. [1996] “Experimental evaluation of
masonry-infilled RC frames,” Journal of Structural Engineering, 122, 228–237.
Paulay, T. and Priestley, M. J. N. [1992] “Seismic Design of Reinforced Concrete and Masonry
Buildings,” John Wiley & Sons, New York, pp. 636–637.
Stafford-Smith, B. and Carter, C. [1969] “A method of analysis for infilled frames,” Proceedings of
the Institute of Civil Engineers, 44, 31–48.
Zarnic, R. and Tomazevic, M. [1985] “Study of the behavior of masonry infilled reinforced concrete
frames subjected to seismic loading,” Part 2, A report to the research community of Slovenia,
ZRMK/IKPI – 8502, Ljubljana.
Appendix A. Notations
A.1. General Symbols

Fc = the shear force in each column
Ff = flexural resistance of the frame, Ff = 4Mpc/h
H = height of masonry infill
Hi = height of each wall segment
h = H-lp where lp = plastic hinge length equal to 0.5 times the column depth
K = stiffness, K = V/d
k = initial stiffness of infilled frames normalized to the initial stiffness of the bare
frame, k = Ko/Ko,B
Li = length of each wall segment
l = length of masonry infill
la = width of opening
Mpc = plastic moment of the column considering the effect of the axial force
t = thickness of masonry infill
V = lateral load
Vu = lateral resistance of failure mechanism
Vwi = the shear force of the wall segments (horizontal component of the diagonal
strut capacity in compression or in rocking or in shear–sliding)
Vw,u = bare masonry calculated lateral strength, Vw,u = fvtl
v = ultimate shear resistance of infilled frames normalized to the ultimate shear
resistance of the bare frame, v = Vu/VuB
vlim = ratio between the shear force at the end of the linear stage and the ultimate
shear resistance
W = energy dissipation per cycle
We = elastic input energy per cycle
x = distance between opening center–edge of infill
bres = residual resistance of infilled frame at g = 40% normalized to the residual
resistance of the bare frame, bres = Vres/Vres,B
d = lateral displacement of the beam measured at a distance of hcol = 900 mm from
the bottom
g = drift in percentage of story height, g = d/hcol
gy = drift at Vy, gy = dy/hcol
gu = drift at Vu, gu = du/hcol
z = equivalent viscous damping ratio, z= W/(4pWe)
m0.85 = ductility factor corresponding to a lateral load 0.85 of the maximum
SW = cumulative energy dissipation
A.2. Nomenclature of Frame Models

B : Bare frame
S : Infilled frame with solid weak infill
IS : Infilled frame with solid strong infill

WO2 : Infilled frame with concentric window in weak infill
DO2 : Infilled frame with concentric door in weak infill
IWO2 : Infilled frame with concentric window in strong infill
IDO2 : Infilled frame with concentric door in strong infill
A.3. Symbols of the Material Properties

fm : compressive strength of mortar
fbc : compressive strength of brick units
fc : compressive strength ⊥ to holes of masonry
E : elastic modulus ⊥ to holes of masonry
Ef : expected modulus of elasticity of frame material
fc90 : compressive strength // to holes of masonry
E90 : elastic modulus // to holes of masonry
m : friction coefficient of masonry

G : shear modulus of masonry
fv : shear strength of masonry
fn : normal stress of masonry

2008-Influence of Masonry Strength and Openings On Infilled RC Frames Under Cycling Loading

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

2008-Influence of Masonry Strength and Openings On Infilled RC Frames Under Cycling Loading

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

This article was downloaded by: [Indiana Universities]

On: 13 April 2013, At: 10:48

Journal of Earthquake Engineering

Influence of Masonry Strength and

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13632460701299138

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Influence of Masonry Strength and Openings on

Infilled R/C Frames Under Cycling Loading

D. J. KAKALETSIS1 and C. G. KARAYANNIS2

Received 27 April 2006; accepted 23 February 2007.

2.1. Test Specimens

TABLE 1 Test specimens

2.2. Material Properties

2.3. Test Setup and Instrumentation

TABLE 2 Mechanical properties of the used material (MPa)

Shear Modulus G 259.90 351.37

FIGURE 2 Determination of shearing stress for wall cracking.

FIGURE 3 (a) Test setup (cm) and (b) loading program.

FIGURE 4 Lateral load–displacement hysteresis curves and failure modes of reference

FIGURE 5 Lateral load–displacement hysteresis curves and failure modes of infilled

FIGURE 6 Lateral load–displacement hysteresis curves and failure modes of infilled

4. Interpretation of Experimental Results

4.1. Comparison of Critical Hysteretic Characteristics

TABLE 4 Comparison of hysteretic characteristics for test specimens

4.2. Comparison of Hysteretic Characteristics for Test Specimens Versus Imposed

FIGURE 10 Energy dissipation per cycle divided by the corresponding displacement 2d

5. Analytical Evaluation of Lateral Resistance of Infilled Frames

5.1. Failure Mechanisms for Individual Masonry Zones

5.2. Failure Mechanisms for Infilled Frames

Vu = Vw1 + Vw 2 + Vw3 + Vw 4 + 2.Fc (6)

Vu = Vw1 + Vw 2 + Vw3 + Vw 4 + 2.Fc (7)

Vu = Vw1 + Vw 2 + Vw3 + 2 . Fc (9)

Vu = Vw1 + Vw 2 + Vw3 + 2 . Fc (10)

5.3. Comparison of Results

TABLE 5 Comparison of experimental and analytical result

A.1. General Symbols

A.2. Nomenclature of Frame Models

IS : Infilled frame with solid strong infill

A.3. Symbols of the Material Properties

m : friction coefficient of masonry

You might also like