This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?

# Istituto Universitario di Studi Superiori

Università degli Studi di Pavia

EUROPEAN SCHOOL OF ADVANCED STUDIES IN REDUCTION OF SEISMIC RISK

ROSE SCHOOL

EVALUATION OF THE SEISMIC RESPONSE OF EXISTING R.C. FRAME BUILDINGS WITH MASONRY INFILLS

A Dissertation Submitted in Partial Fulfilment of the Requirements for the Master Degree in Earthquake Engineering

By Mario Galli Supervisors: Prof. GUIDO MAGENES Prof. STEFANO PAMPANIN

December, 2006

The dissertation entitled “Evaluation of the seismic response of existing R.C. frame buildings with masonry infills”, by Mario Galli, has been approved in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the Master Degree in Earthquake Engineering.

Prof. Guido Magenes …… …

………__

Prof. Stefano Pampanin __………… …

……

Abstract

ABSTRACT

Comprehensive experimental-analytical studies on the seismic vulnerability of existing reinforced concrete frame buildings, designed for gravity-loads only as typically found in most seismic prone countries before the introduction of adequate seismic design code provisions, confirmed the inherent weaknesses of these systems, due to inadequate detailing and a general lack of capacity design principles. Controversial effects on the global inelastic mechanism can be expected depending on the infills properties (mechanical characteristic and distribution) and the joint damage mechanism. In this contribution, the interaction between un-reinforced masonry infills and r.c. frame systems, when appropriately considering the joint zone non-linear behavior, is investigated through pushover and non-linear time-history analyses on 2-D and 3-D multi-storey frame systems under uni-directional or bi-directional input motions. A simplified and reliable analytical model based on a concentrated plasticity approach and validated on different experimental tests on beam-column joints and frame systems (with and without infills) is adopted and proposed for extensive studies on seismic vulnerability of existing buildings. The presence of infills can guarantee higher stiffness and strength, reducing the inter-storey drift demand, while increasing the maximum floor accelerations. A further positive influence of the infills can be recognized in the reduction of column interstorey shear contribution as well as in the possible delay of a softstorey mechanism which might instead develop in a bare frame solution. On the other side, the sudden reduction of storey stiffness due to the damage of the infills can lead to the formation of an unexpected soft storey mechanism, which, due to the interaction with the joint damage, can occur not necessarily at the first floor level and independently by the regular or irregular distribution of the infills along the elevation. Similarly, when investigating the response of 3-D frames under either unidirectional or bi-directional earthquake input excitation, inelastic torsion mechanisms can occur. In conclusion, it is worth recognizing that the high dispersion of the mechanical properties of the infills can further increase the level of uncertainties in the expected performance if simplified probabilistic approach are adopted

-i-

Acknowledgements ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS .ii - .

.........................2...................................................................2............................................................1........................................................1 Multi-Spring Models ...............42 5................................ III LIST OF TABLES....................................................................2 Concentrated Plasticity Model............................................................................................................ INTRODUCTION ........V LIST OF FIGURES....................................................... VALIDATION OF THE ANALYTICAL MODEL.......................................2....................................................................................2 Lumped Plasticity Approach ........................................................ 2...................................................................................................41 5..................... FRAME BUILDINGS WITH MASONRY INFILLS INDEX ABSTRACT .................................................................34 5.......................1 STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM ....................... JOINT MODELLING ...........................................2............................1 Fiber Element Model ..................1 Material properties......................................................................................1 Frame geometry and reinforcement details ..........................................................................................................................................................................................50 5.................................. THREE STOREY FRAME ........................................ MODELLING OF MASONRY INFILLS .......35 5.................................................................1....................................................................17 4.................................3........................................................37 5.3...........2................................................39 5...................20 4..............................................34 5.................................2.............3...................1.......................................3 Interior joint ............................................................Index EVALUATION OF THE SEISMIC RESPONSE OF EXISTING R...........C.............................1.........................................................................2 Joint elements ............................................4 Exterior joint...............41 5...........................4 LITERATURE REVIEW ........................................................................................................................ 3............................................................................................................... VI 1............................................................................................................................................41 5............26 4............................................................1 Structural elements ................................................18 4...........1...........................................................................................................3..........................2 Knee joint ................11 MODELLING ISSUES .................................................. BEAM-COLUMN SUBASSEMBLIES ........................................................................................II INDEX ......1...................................................................................50 ............................3 Joint hystetesis rule.........................................24 4............33 5..........................4 Analytical – experimental comparison .....................................................2 Mechanical Properties of the Diagonal Strut............... I ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS .......................................................................................................46 5..........................3..............17 4....1.................2........................iii - ...................16 4...........................1........................................................................27 4.................. SPECIMENS MODELLING .............................20 4.........................................1 Finite Element and Multi-Spring Models ..................29 5.......... 4.........2............... MODELLING OF STRUCTURAL ELEMENTS ......

....1........................................2................144 7....................................................................2........113 6...............................141 7.120 7...................................................2 Frame modeling ............................112 6.................2 Six storey frame..........................2 Pushover analyses of infilled frames .......................6 Analytical-experimental comparison.......143 7...............4 Time history analyses .................................2 Six storey frame.........................3...........................iv - ..............................1......................................................................................................... NUMERICAL INVESTIGATION ON 2D FRAME SYSTEMS.................52 5..................................3 Test setup and loading history .....................2 Multi-storey three-dimensional infilled frames ..............1 Description of the frame ................................. TIME HISTORY ANALYSIS ......................................................1.........................................................................144 7................................................ DESCRIPTION OF THE MODEL .......3 Pushover analysis...................84 6..................... REINFORCED COCRETE INFILLED FRAMES.......................................................2....2.............................................171 REFERENCES ..............3 Records used for the time history analyses.........................5 Performed analyses............ SIX STOREY FRAME .................................115 6....55 5........................1.......................4...................156 8........................................................4 Time history results ...3................3..3..........................78 6................................................................. PUSHOVER ANALYSIS .................................................................................4............. THREE STOREY FRAME ... NUMERICAL INVESTIGATION ON 3D FRAME SYSTEMS....1........1............2....................................116 6..........................................................................................................3...........................53 5........1 One storey infilled frames .............................................80 6......78 6............................................................................................................... CONCLUSIONS ..............1 Three storey frame ...........................................................................................................................................................2......................................150 7........................................ 9........................................................................139 7........................................................................................................................................................1 Three storey frame ..................85 6.............................................................................140 7..................................................................................174 .........................................................................................................74 6....3.............................. DESCRIPTION OF THE FRAMES ...........................................................................69 5.........................................................69 5........................1........58 5..Index 5.....................4........................1 Description of the infilled model ..............140 7.....................................2 Material properties.....................3............4 Description of the model .................................................................77 6.......................59 5..................................................................1...............................................................................................4...................................3...........................................................

........9: Column reinforcement summary table ........................................ 2002) ..............................................58 Table 5.......................................................94 Table 6......................................................................................................................................................... 1993).............................5: Parameters needed to define hysteresis rule adopted for joint members........................... 2002). 2002).................................................4: Specimen T1 and T2 reinforcement (Pampanin........................................................................................1: Specimen material properties (Pampanin..6: Interstorey drift: mean values and standard deviation of ten analyses on the partially infilled frame ........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................14: Interstorey drift: mean values and standard deviation of ten analyses on the uniformly infilled frame.....................13: Displacement: mean values and standard deviation of ten analyses on the uniformly infilled frame ......................................................................9: Gravity load distribution (Pampanin............................................................................10: Displacement and interstorey drift: mean values and standard deviation of ten analyses on the bare frame.....................12: Interstorey drift: mean values and standard deviation of ten analyses on the partially infilled frame.............................................52 Table 5......................................1: Masonry mechanical properties: mean value and c......................................................................................58 Table 6.................................v..........................5: Displacement: mean values and standard deviation of ten analyses on the partially infilled frame ................... Decanini............12: Ratio of storey forces applied in the pushover analysis .........................11: Displacement: mean values and standard deviation of ten analyses on the partially infilled frame ..................................................................86 Table 6...............................................35 Table 5..............................31 Table 5....................................103 Table 6.11: Floor displacement ratio applied in the pushover analysis....79 Table 6..............................................................3: Specimen C2 reinforcement (Pampanin.............8: Mean steel strengths of longitudinal bars (Pampanin................................................103 Table 6.....................2: Record used for the time history analyses.............128 Table 6................94 Table 6....127 Table 6...............................1: Parameters of the equivalent diagonal strut model (Bertoldi.....8: Interstorey drift: mean values and standard deviation of ten analyses on the uniformly infilled frame..............34 Table 5.....................................................................................................................................o............................. 2002)...............37 Table 5....................................39 Table 5........................................52 Table 5....................54 Table 5.........................................................................................................7: Displacement: mean values and standard deviation of ten analyses on the uniformly infilled frame ...................3: Scale factors for the principal physical quantities...... 2002)...........................7: Concrete cylinder compressive strength values (Pampanin........................................................2: Specimen L1 reinforcement (Pampanin..............................56 Table 5..................................84 Table 6................6: Calibration of the hysteretic rule parameters for the beam-column subassemblies ...........114 Table 6............4: Displacement and interstorey drift: mean values and standard deviation of ten analyses on the bare frame.....133 Table 6.................................. Gavarini...........45 Table 5...............................................10: Interaction diagram values for the frame columns ...........................................................134 -v- .. 2002).......................List of Tables LIST OF TABLES Table 4..................121 Table 6..... 2002)..............................................................................85 Table 6........44 Table 5.....

..1: Damage on corner joint in 1999 Izmit.......................................... 2003) ..............15: Possible variations of the classical equivalent diagonal strut model . University of California.................40 Figure 5...2: Lumped plasticity beam element .......9 Figure 2.......... ................................... 2004).........12 Figure 3....25 Figure 4.....................................................26 Figure 4..... Italy.......16: Sliding shear infill model (Leuchars and Scrivener.......12: pt-γ relationships proposed for exterior (a) and interior joints (b) .................10 Figure 3............................................ 2002) ............................5 Figure 2........................7: Test setup of specimen T1 and T2 (Pampanin...................................28 Figure 4.........................20 Figure 4..... Turckey earthquake (NISEE............................................................. Berkeley)........24 Figure 4....................6: Reinforcement layout of specimens T1 and T2 (Pampanin............................................. 2002).................21 Figure 4............................................................... ...........................17 Figure 4.............................14: Equivalent diagonal strut model ......... Kianoush and Tso (2000).............................................................................................................................................................................................. b) Fukada (Fukada........................... Turkey 1999 (NISEE..................................................................... 2002).13: Modified joint model representation (Trowland..........6 Figure 2.6: Failure of an exterior masonry infill panel during the 2002 Molise-Puglia Earthquake.. 2002)................... 2003)..................................................2: Test-frame specimen: geometrical and mechanical characteristics (Colangelo........ 2002). 2002) .............2: Test setup of specimen L1 (Pampanin.................................................39 Figure 5......37 Figure 5.................2: Development of a failure mechanism typical of poorly detailed exterior beam-column joints (Pampanin......................................8 Figure 2....................................36 Figure 5....................................13 Figure 4...... 1995) ..............3: Hysteresis rules: a) Modified Takeda (Otani...............................................4: Interaction surface for a reinforced concrete column (Carr...7: Model of test specimen (Eligehausen et al.40 Figure 5...... 2002) .........................List of Figures LIST OF FIGURES Figure 2................3: Layout of frame speciemen (Negro et al.............18 Figure 4..6: Finite element model (Nagai. 2000).. 2003)........................ 2003)......1: Beam element and corresponding fiber scheme (Monti and Spacone..1: Test-frame: elevation view and reinforcement layout (Calvi et al...27 Figure 4....23 Figure 4.7 Figure 2...11: Lumped plasticity model for beam-column joints (Pampanin et al.......23 Figure 4....... 2002)...........................5: Damage resulted from column-infill wall interaction..... .....................................................................10: Reinforced concrete beam-column joint model (Lowes et al...19 Figure 4.........................................vi - ......19 Figure 4.....................4: Test setup of specimen C2 (Pampanin...................................... 2002) ....................3: Specimen C2: geometric characteristics and steel bars layout (Pampanin..................1969) .................. Berkeley)........8: Multi-spring model proposed by Youssef and Ghobarah (2001)..........17: Histeretic cycle (a) and backbone curve (b) of Crisafulli model (1997)............................................... Izmit... 2002) ..... University of California........... 2002).....5: Specimen T1: geometric characteristics and steel bars layout (Pampanin............ 1996) ................................8: Modified joint model representation (Trowland.......................................5: The effect of shear hinges on the sway mechanism of a frame (Trowland...........35 Figure 5.........29 Figure 4.4: Detailing of pre-1970s concrete structure in the Mediterranean countries (Italy) (Pampanin.21 Figure 4.........38 Figure 5......................................................1: Specimen L1: geometric characteristics and steel bars layout (Pampanin............................................................ 1973)............... 2006) ......................................................... Turkey (Baletta....41 .........................32 Figure 5.3: Soft-storey mechanism observed in 1999 Izmit Earthquake..........................................22 Figure 4......9: Joint model proposed by Elmorsi...............13 Figure 3... 2003)......... 1999) ...1974)..

................................... EQ4)..................13: Bare frame: elements contribution to the maximum interstorey drift (EQ4)......................................................66 Figure 5.................. 2002).. b) Option 2reloading slip factor .............................40: Analytical-experimental comparison of the partially infilled frame: first floor displacement and base shear time history (Galli........88 Figure 6...........9: Bare frame: time history analysis results (Loma Prieta........64 Figure 5. 2002) .........................15: Bare frame: elements contribution to the maximum interstorey drift (EQ10)...............86 Figure 6.............................57 Figure 5........................................................................11: Bare frame: time history analysis results (Superstition Hills............78 Figure 6..............75 Figure 5......35: Analytical experimental comparison for specimen L2: a) Top drift time history......................82 Figure 6........17: Lateral loading history and force distribution (Pampanin......................................47 Figure 5........................................................21: Fukada hysteresis rule (Fukada.......72 Figure 5.....................................................91 Figure 6......8: Time-history analysis on the 3-storey bare frame: interstorey drift and displacement profile ...................... 2002) ..................26: Frame damage photo report (Pampanin............................................................. 2003)..............25: Crack pattern observed at 1......................3: Displacement profile of the uniformly infilled frame ....................33: Test frames: a) L2 specimen..75 Figure 5................................ EQ10) ..87 Figure 6.................................93 ..........31: Test frame joint identification labels ................81 Figure 6........... 2002)..........4: Base shear-top drift curve of the partially infilled frame .......38: Test specimen (Negro.........23: Comparison between pushover curve (displacement control)...................65 Figure 5..........................................................................................2% top drift level (displacement controlled pushover)............62 Figure 5.................................................. 2002) ......... 2003)...................76 Figure 6................3g..............List of Figures Figure 5................................................................................ 2003) ........... 2002) ........... b) Base shear time hystory (Baletta............... 2003).........................................................2% top drift (Pampanin........76 Figure 5...................5: Displacement profile of the partially infilled frame................... 2002) ....................................................................................................... 2003) ......89 Figure 6.....39: Analytical-experimental comparison of the uniformly infilled frame: first floor displacement and base shear time history (Galli............................68 Figure 5...........................................................24: Force-controlled pushover: base shear – top drift curve and displacement profile (after Pampanin...................................... 2002) .........32: Analytical and experimental joint shear deformation (after Pampanin...................................................82 Figure 6.............................10: Bare frame: time history analysis results (Northridge.................64 Figure 5........................57 Figure 5.............................................................14: Bare frame: elements contribution to the maximum interstorey drift (EQ8)...10: Typical loading history (Pampanin...........60 Figure 5...............14: Geometrical properties and reinforcement layout of the test-frame (Pampanin..................................................43 Figure 5....... 1969) ..............56 Figure 5.................................70 Figure 5.................. b) N1 specimen (Colangelo.....12: Analytical-experimental comparison for specimen C2...............73 Figure 5..34: Bricks adopted for the specimens L2 (left) and N1 (right) (Colangelo............................................46 Figure 5..............................1974) ....................................13: Analytical-experimental comparison for specimen T1 and T2..............70 Figure 5.63 Figure 5............................... 1995).......2% top drift level (force controlled pushover)..............................53 Figure 5........................ 2003)................48 Figure 5............36: Analytical experimental comparison for specimen N1: a) Top drift time history......49 Figure 5.... b) Base shear time hystory (Baletta................................................................. 1995) .....92 Figure 6....................................80 Figure 6.............................................................20: Modified Takeda hysteresis rules(Otani............16: Test setup (Pampanin..............61 Figure 5..29: Analytical-experimental comparison of the global hysteretic behavior of the frame (after Pampanin.............2: Base shear-top drift curve of the uniformly infilled frame ...18: Geometric dimensions of the frame model .....51 Figure 5...................................19: Interaction diagrams of the frame columns....... 2002) ...........67 Figure 5.................1: Three storey frame infills distribution: a) uniformly: b) partially...........83 Figure 6.....................................55 Figure 5.................. .............. 2004): a) Option 1-reloading power factor...........................54 Figure 5....................90 Figure 6...................................11: Analytical-experimental comparison for specimen L1 ..............27: Damage pattern and curvature ductility at 1................................... 2003).............28: Damage pattern and curvature ductility at 1..............................12: Bare frame joint rotations ...........................51 Figure 5.7: Comparison between EC8 elastic spectrum (PGA = 0...59 Figure 5....................... EQ8)....vii - .......9: Pampanin histeretic rule (Carr................6: Comparison between the 3 storey frame pushover curves...............................................................84 Figure 6.........................................................22: Imposed displacement history for the cyclic analysis........ Soil type B) and mean response spectrum of ten records ......................................... 2003)...........................15: Column lap splice at floor level (units in cm) (Pampanin...30: Experimental and analytical equivalent viscous damping values (after Pampanin.............37: Plan and elevation view of the test frame (Negro.............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................

...............6: Three dimensional interaction surface adopted for columns (Carr.................29: Uniformly infilled frame: elements contribution to the maximum interstorey drift (EQ4) ......102 Figure 6.............................................Top drift curve .......104 Figure 6.................99 Figure 6.34: Column sections of the 6-storey frame ...............7: 3D bare frame pushover: X direction.......................................106 Figure 6.............................................142 Figure 7......................25: Uniformly infilled frame: time history analysis results (Loma Prieta..138 Figure 7..................17: Partially infilled frame: time history analysis results (Loma prieta.........27: Uniformly infilled frame: time history analysis results (Superstition Hills.........................................121 Figure 6...50: Partially infilled frame: time history analysis results (Superstition Hills................................144 ..............................viii - ...............46: Bare frame joint rotations ...................................36: Pushover analysis on the 6-storey bare frame: Displacements and Interstorey drift profiles corresponding to top drift value of 0..................................... EQ4) ...............................137 Figure 6.42: Time-history analysis on the 6-storey bare frame: interstorey drift and displacement profile (average of maximum and residual) .......................35: Pushover analysis on the 6-storey bare frame: Base shear ........32: Geometric dimensions of the 6-storey frame ...114 Figure 6...................... EQ10) .........131 Figure 6.....................127 Figure 6........105 Figure 6...143 Figure 7.....31: Uniformly infilled frame: elements contribution to the maximum interstorey drift (EQ10) .............112 Figure 6.......120 Figure 6.129 Figure 6......51: Partially infilled frame joint rotations............. .................47: Time-history analysis on the 6-storey partially infilled frame: interstorey drift and displacement profile (average of maximum and residual) ...................110 Figure 6...........30: Uniformly infilled frame: elements contribution to the maximum interstorey drift (EQ8) ............................101 Figure 6.....................................................................................141 Figure 7..........100 Figure 6..................................................................39: Pushover analysis on the 6-storey uniformly infilled frame: Base shear ........................ EQ8)................142 Figure 7...................................................................56: Uniformly infilled frame joint rotations............. EQ8).........117 Figure 6.......18: Partially infilled frame: time history analysis results (Northridge....123 Figure 6..................................130 Figure 6................................................................ EQ10).....33: Beam sections: geometric and mechanical characteristics................54: Uniform infilled frame: time history analysis results (Northridge....................49: Partially infilled frame: time history analysis results (Northridge...................................4: Transversal beam mechanical and geometrical properties..............................41: Comparison between the 6 storey frame pushover curves.....................48: Partially infilled frame: time history analysis results (Loma Prieta.............................52: Time-history analysis on the 6-storey uniformly infilled frame: interstorey drift and displacement profile (average of maximum and residual) ...............................126 Figure 6.................... ........135 Figure 6... ....................... EQ10)........List of Figures Figure 6..............................5: Six storey frame: infills layout.....125 Figure 6................................................118 Figure 6.....................Top drift curve ..........5% and 1%...96 Figure 6.............................. 2004)...................................107 Figure 6.................. EQ10) ........................... EQ4)......................... EQ4)................132 Figure 6......................................24: Time-history analysis on the 3-storey uniformly infilled frame: interstorey drift and displacement profile (average of maximum and residual) ...................................20: Partially infilled frame joint rotations... EQ8) ..................................................28: Uniformly infilled frame joint rotations...............................16: Time-history analysis on the 3-storey partially infilled frame: interstorey drift and displacement profile (average of maximum and residual) ..........38: Pushover analysis on the 6-storey partially infilled frame: Displacements and Interstorey drift profiles corresponding to top drift value of 0...............3: Six storey frame plan view...............................19: Partially infilled frame: time history analysis results (Superstition Hills.......5% and 1%...........................140 Figure 7............................................................40: Pushover analysis on the 6-storey uniformly infilled frame: Displacements and Interstorey drift profiles corresponding to top drift value of 0..............................1: Three storey 3D frame: plan view and beam section properties .......................................119 Figure 6....23: Partially infilled frame: elements contribution to the maximum interstorey drift (EQ10) .... EQ8) ......97 Figure 6........Top drift curve .......5% and 1%............................................45: Bare frame: time history analysis results (Superstition Hills............. EQ8) ......98 Figure 6.........114 Figure 6...................143 Figure 7...................................22: Partially infilled frame: elements contribution to the maximum interstorey drift (EQ8) ...........26: Uniformly infilled frame: time history analysis results (Northridge....................55: Uniform infilled frame: time history analysis results (Superstition Hills.......................................... EQ4) ............95 Figure 6.136 Figure 6..43: Bare frame: time history analysis results (Loma Prieta.....21: Partially infilled frame: elements contribution to the maximum interstorey drift (EQ4) ...................109 Figure 6...............119 Figure 6...........37: Pushover analysis on the 6-storey partially infilled frame: Base shear ....116 Figure 6...... EQ4).........108 Figure 6.........................133 Figure 6..........2: Three storey 3D frame: infills layout...124 Figure 6....53: Uniform infilled frame: time history analysis results (Loma Prieta....118 Figure 6.................... EQ10) .............................................44: Bare frame: time history analysis results (Northridge....111 Figure 6...................

.....................................................19: 3D partially infilled frame pushover: X direction..................12: 3D partially infilled frame pushover: displacement profiles.............16: 3D bare frame pushover: X direction............................................146 Figure 7.................25: Three storey frame model and reference system.........167 Figure 7......................................................20: 3D partially infilled frame pushover: Z direction ..........................165 Figure 7..................21: 3D partially infilled frame pushover: displacement profiles...............................13: 3D uniformly infilled frame pushover: X direction .....................................................................................159 Figure 7................152 Figure 7...........................14: 3D uniformly infilled frame pushover: Z direction....157 Figure 7.............................................................................148 Figure 7........................................................163 Figure 7............................................22: 3D uniformly infilled frame pushover: X direction .............................................................28: Bare frame: residual displacements ..........23: 3D uniformly infilled frame pushover: Z direction........162 Figure 7..........27: Bare frame: maximum interstorey drift .153 Figure 7.......................................................................................29: Bare frame: residual interstorey drift ..ix - .......................11: 3D partially infilled frame pushover: Z direction ..................158 Figure 7.15: 3D uniformly infilled frame pushover: displacement profiles ..........................................................148 Figure 7......35: Uniformly infilled frame: maximum interstorey drift.10: 3D partially infilled frame pushover: X direction.................145 Figure 7.............151 Figure 7......................................................................................................161 Figure 7.................30: Partially infilled frame: maximum displacements ......................................18: 3D bare frame pushover: displacement profiles.......................155 Figure 7...................8: 3D bare frame pushover: Z direction ............................................................................................................................................9: 3D bare frame pushover: displacement profiles...............156 Figure 7.............................................................32: Partially infilled frame: residual displacements..146 Figure 7.........................33: Partially infilled frame: residual interstorey drift...150 Figure 7............................17: 3D bare frame pushover: Z direction .....36: Uniformly infilled frame: residual displacements.........38: 3D time history analysis: maximum floor diaphragm rotations.................................147 Figure 7..37: Uniformly infilled frame: residual interstorey drift ................................155 Figure 7........List of Figures Figure 7..........147 Figure 7.............................................................................................................................................34: Uniformly infilled frame: maximum displacements .....26: Bare frame: maximum displacements............................................................................................................................................................................................................24: 3D uniformly infilled frame pushover: displacement profiles ..................164 Figure 7........................................................................................................................................153 Figure 7......................................168 Figure 7.............................................................31: Partially infilled frame: maximum interstorey drift .....149 Figure 7..............................................166 Figure 7................................................160 Figure 7.154 Figure 7.........170 ...................151 Figure 7.................

(c) lack of joint transverse reinforcement and (d) lapped splices located just above joint.Chapter 1 – Introduction 1. The main advantages are the understanding of the post-elastic seismic behavior of the structures and the improvement in the structural detailing to enhance the ductility capacity of the structural components. (b) inadequate anchorage of beam longitudinal reinforcement in the column. caused heavy damage and collapses to an excessively high number of existing reinforced concrete structures designed to outdated codes. many existing reinforced concrete structures designed and constructed before '70s may present typical deficiencies such as: (a) use of plain round bars as longitudinal reinforcement. Most of these structures have been typically designed before the 1970s when "capacity design" philosophy was not yet widely introduced in seismic design codes. Chi-Chi Earthquake in Taiwan (1999). Therefore. Izmit Earthquake in Turkey (1999) and more recent seismic events in Southern Italy. INTRODUCTION In the recent years the assessment of the seismic response of existing buildings is becoming a widely investigated topic. that was common practice in several Mediterranean countries before the introduction of specific seismic design provisions. The importance of the seismic assessment of existing reinforced concrete structures has in a relatively recent past received more and more attention following the high level of damage and socio-economical consequences observed as a result of recent severe earthquake events. -1- . did not suffer significant damage. On the other hand. Current seismic design procedures around the world have advanced significantly when compared to the time when those reinforced concrete structures were built. Several recent earthquakes such as Hyogo-ken Nanbu Earthquake in Japan (1995). proving the current knowledge on seismic design to be relatively advanced and the correspondent design guidelines adequate in limiting the disastrous consequences observed in the past. Special attention has been given to the vulnerability of reinforced concrete frames designed for gravity loads only. most of the reinforced concrete structures built recently and designed according to modern seismic code provisions.

All the numerical analyses have been run using the Inelastic Dynamic Analysis Program RUAUMOKO (Carr. An interesting feature is the model refinement obtained with the introduction of non-linear rotational springs to represent the effect of beam-column joint shear deformation on the overall response of the frame. In the present work the model used for the numerical analyses is based on the lumped plasticity approach. Some of the seismic assessment procedures are already advanced using capacity design philosophy and taking into account the global structural behavior in the post-elastic range. there is still a need of further investigation to understand more the response of R. 2004). infills layout and direction of seismic action can have on the development of torsional effects on the frame behavior. frame buildings. The final objective of this work is the investigation of the three-dimensional response of the frame structures and the influence that structural configuration. A good understanding of the weak point of a structure under seismic loading could allow to complement and design the most appropriate retrofit solution to reduce the seismic vulnerability. The need to perform a large number of parametrical analyses brings to light the importance of developing a numerical model which ensures a good compromise between simplicity. and sufficient refinement to adequately capture the different mechanisms that influence the structural response. the approach adopted was based on the identification of an upper and lower bound in the infills characteristics trying to obtain a reasonable range of results representing a wide number of possible situation that can be met in the practice.C. To better understand the problem is important to perform a large number of parametric analyses taking into account various structural layout and masonry infills distributions. Due to the high variability of mechanical properties of masonry and to the uncertainty in the determination of parameters necessary for the modeling of masonry struts. Scope of this work is to investigate the seismic response or reinforced concrete frame buildings and the influence of masonry infills on the global structural response. In the analyses performed in this work the lower bound was represented by a weak infill constituted by a single leaf panel and the upper bound has been identified in a stronger double leaf infill panel. However. with members having the inelastic regions located at their ends. Another objective of this work is to investigate the influence of the presence of masonry infills on the seismic behavior of existing R. Experimental research to investigate the possible seismic behavior of pre-1970s reinforced concrete structures have been carried out in the past.C. -2- . especially in the computation and elaboration of results. buildings under seismic loading.Chapter 1 – Introduction Seismic assessment is the first step within the retrofit strategy to reduce the seismic risk.

to identify what has been done and what still needs to be done for a more comprehensive understanding of the seismic performance of existing frame buildings. It has also been investigated the influence of the direction and inclination of seismic loading on the final response of the structure and the possible development of torsional effects affecting the frame behavior. At first pushover analyses were performed to better understand the global behavior on the structures subjected to seismic loading. -3- . Then the structural response is investigated by mean of non-linear time history analyses on the structural models. a part from this first introductive chapter. The validation of joint springs had been performed comparing the numerical results with results obtained from the experimental tests on beam-column subassemblies. Finally the validation of equivalent diagonal struts are carried base on experimental results obtained from tests on 2D and 3D reinforced concrete frame structures. can be briefly resumed as follows. Chapter 3 gives a review of previous researches carried out by different authors on the topic. Particular attention is focused on the modeling solutions adopted in the present work such as equivalent diagonal struts used to represent the masonry infills and rotational springs which have been adopted to model the beam-column joints. The results of the global frame model has been compared with the results of cyclic tests performed on a 2/3 scaled three storey reinforced concrete bare frame. Chapter 7 presents results of numerical analyses performed on three dimensional frames considering various structural configurations and infills disposition. with and without masonry infills. Chapter 5 describes the validation of the analytical model carried out by comparison of numerical and experimental results.Chapter 1 – Introduction Thesis outline This thesis consists of eight chapters that. Chapter 2 presents the typical seismic deficiencies of pre-1970s concrete frame structures. Chapter 4 presents an overview of different modeling approaches existing in literature for various structural and non-structural components which constitute the building. Chapter 6 presents the results of numerical investigations carried out on two dimensional frame structures with different structural configurations and infills layout. This review clarify the importance of understanding the actual local behavior of concrete structure components for conducting the seismic assessment of structures designed for gravity loads only. Chapter 8 summarize the conclusions reached in this work and gives suggestions for further development and future research investigations.

-4- . Due to the absence of 'capacity design' philosophy before the 1970s. the lack of ductility has been acknowledged as one of the main reason of the unsatisfactory seismic performance of the reinforced concrete structures designed during that period and which is accentuated by poor reinforcement detailing. moment capacity of the column is lower then that of beams. a given return period). which means an undesirable seismic mechanism such as a soft-storey mechanism might occur. This will lead to weak column-strong beam mechanism which have disastrous outcomes. lack or even absence of transverse reinforcement in the joint core. STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM The construction and design practice of reinforced concrete structures have significantly advanced around the world since the 1970's. Current seismic design provisions require a structure to have adequate reinforcement detailing to provide an adequate ductile behavior necessary to resist a targeted level earthquake (i. not on the possible load coming from the beams. Up to the 70's. most of the structures were not designed using 'capacity design' principles and the seismic detailing was poor if compared to those currently implemented in more recent design codes. Typical structural deficiencies found in these buildings are: • • • • lack of appropriate confinement through transverse reinforcement in the plastic hinge regions.e. This chapter reviews the typical detailing and the deficiencies of pre-1970s reinforced concrete structures. As mentioned most of the pre-1970s reinforced concrete structures were not designed with capacity design philosophy. mainly in the understanding of the seismic hazard.Chapter 2 – Statement of the problem Equation Section 2 2. It is found that columns were designed to provide strength only to restrain the lateral load applied on the structure . use of plain round bars instead of deformed bars and inadequate reinforcement anchorage.

2003) has been used to describe this mechanism. Turckey earthquake (NISEE. low strength and poor quality material when compared to present practice. Most of the reinforced concrete structures designed in the pre-1970s exhibit a lack of shear reinforcement in the joint region. alternative and dual to a typical flexural plastic hinge. High diagonal compressive and tensile stresses occur in the joint as the result of the shear forces. The cracking in the concrete develops according to the tensile stresses and it will lead to a large shear deformation of the joint. Sometimes. which may lead to a joint shear failure mechanism.1: Damage on corner joint in 1999 Izmit. The term 'shear hinge' (Pampanin. one stirrup only or no shear reinforcement at all was provided in the joint core. Without adequate shear reinforcement in the joint. Figure 2. the concrete has to resist all the forces from the beam and the column passing through the joint.Chapter 2 – Statement of the problem • • • lap splices located in potential member plastic hinge regions. presence of masonry infill walls with complex interaction with bare frame. University of California. Berkeley) -5- .

-6- . rather then the preferred beam sway mechanism. the columns were mainly designed for gravity load only or to resist the bending moment from the low level of lateral forces specified by the code (typically a small portion of the building weight) without consideration on the relative hierarchy of strength with the beam moment capacity.Chapter 2 – Statement of the problem Figure 2. 2002) In most of the pre-1970s reinforced concrete structures. soft-storey mechanism).2: Development of a failure mechanism typical of poorly detailed exterior beam-column joints (Pampanin. This may cause the column to be weaker than the beams. and possibly resulting in the column side sway mechanism (i.e.

This will lead to inadequate local ductility for the beams and columns. plain round bars with hook-end were widely used for longitudinal reinforcement in the reinforced concrete structures before the 1970s. where the maximum moment develop. as mentioned. In addition. Lapped splices are usually located in the plastic hinge regions of the beams and just above the beam-column joint area. The performance of a structure using plain round bars with end hooks as longitudinal reinforcement can result to a very poor behavior under reversed cyclic inelastic loading due to the lack of bond strength between the steel and the concrete which leads to bar slipping and high global deformation of the system.3: Soft-storey mechanism observed in 1999 Izmit Earthquake. Turkey (Baletta.Chapter 2 – Statement of the problem Figure 2. -7- . 2002). 2003). Anchorage provided by hook-end bars was likely not to be sufficient to prevent the bars from slipping and the concentration of strut and compression force at the hook can lead to a peculiar damage and failure mechanism due to the expulsion of a 'concrete wedge' (Pampanin. The location of lap splices of the longitudinal reinforcement is another seismic inadequacy typically found in pre-1970s reinforced concrete structures.

Chapter 2 – Statement of the problem Figure 2. therefore there will be an increase in seismic action. the increment of structure's lateral stiffness will reduce its fundamental period. Infill walls provide additional stiffness to the structure reducing the deformation demand. The presence of infills. it can alter the structural mechanism.4: Detailing of pre-1970s concrete structure in the Mediterranean countries (Italy) (Pampanin. if on one hand can increase the structural resistance of a reinforced concrete frame. 1997). 2003). If the use of infills is not distributed evenly in the frame. For -8- . On the other side. on the other hand could also provide controversial effects to the structural capacity as well as increase the seismic demand (Crisafulli.

-9- . like the formation of soft storey mechanisms of the shear failure of columns due to the interaction between the masonry panel and the surrounding frame. University of California. This mechanism is characterized by the formation of typical "stepped" cracks running along the diagonal of the wall panel.Chapter 2 – Statement of the problem example in 1999 Chi-Chi Earthquake in Taiwan or in the 1999 Izmit Earthquake in Turkey. leading to the masonry failure.5: Damage resulted from column-infill wall interaction. instead. Berkeley). a lot of buildings show a soft-storey mechanism due to the irregular distribution of infills. causing the development of diagonal cracks starting from the center of the panel towards the corners. The lateral deformation of the frame can produce a reduction in the contact length between the infill and the columns. It is worth noting however that often the infill panels show hybrid failures in which different mechanisms can coexist. Figure 2. is likely to develop when the infill panel is surrounded by a flexible frame. along the panel diagonal. Izmit. Typical practice is to use infill panels in the higher storey leaving the ground storey free from infill walls. Another possible failure mechanism is that associated with the diagonal traction. Typically the masonry infill panels can show three different failure mechanism when subjected to cyclic loading. The compression failure mechanism. causing a dramatic increase of compressive stress in the panel corners. Turkey 1999 (NISEE. This situation occurs when the principal tensile stress in the brick overcomes the tensile resistance. Another source of irregularity is the large scatter that characterizes the mechanical properties of masonry infills. The concomitance of these different aspects can lead to unexpected or peculiar effects on the global response of infilled frames if compared with bare frames. When the shear stresses present in the panel are significant if compared with the compression stresses perpendicular to the mortar layers. is likely that a shear failure mechanism will develop in the infill.

10 - .Chapter 2 – Statement of the problem Figure 2.6: Failure of an exterior masonry infill panel during the 2002 Molise-Puglia Earthquake. . Italy.

Chapter 3 – Literature Review Equation Section (Next)

3.

LITERATURE REVIEW

The topic of seismic assessment of existing reinforced concrete frame structures and the investigation of seismic response of infilled frame systems is a topic that recently has gathered the interest of different researchers. Studies have been carried out both on existing under designed buildings and on R.C. infilled frames designed following the recent seismic code provisions. In this chapter an overview of a series of studies performed by different authors is presented.

The seismic response of existing reinforced concrete frame structures designed for gravity loads only has been investigated by Calvi, Magenes and Pampanin (2002). A quasi-static cyclic experimental test on a three storey frame system, 2/3 scaled, were performed at the Laboratory of Structural Mechanics of the University of Pavia. The frame tested shows the structural inadequacies typical of pre-seismic code provisions such as: plain round bars, inadequate reinforcement detailing and absence of any capacity design principle that result in brittle local and global failure mechanisms. Particularly critical joint damage, with no alternative sources for gravity-load bearing capacity, was observed in the exterior joints. On the basis of the observed global frame response, the concept of "shear hinge", due to joint damage, is introduced by the authors as an alternative to flexural plastic hinge in structural members.

- 11 -

Chapter 3 – Literature Review

Figure 3.1: Test-frame: elevation view and reinforcement layout (Calvi et al., 2002)

Colangelo (1999) presents the results obtained from experimental tests performed at the DISAT laboratory of the University of L'Aquila on RC frames with weak columns, filled in with hollowbrick masonry. The work is mainly based on pseudo-dynamic tests carried out on single -storey single -bay half-scale specimens. The response exhibited by bare and infilled frames is compared and interpreted, stressing the influence of the infill on stiffness, strength, dissipation capacity (by dynamic linear equivalent parameters too), cyclic deterioration, and failure mechanism. Colangelo underlines the beneficial effect of masonry infills on the elastic response of existing reinforced concrete frames. In particular the stiffness increases of one order of magnitude while the resistance doubles respect to a bare frame. In the post-elastic range, instead, the presence of infills panel and their rapid strength degradation can lead to the development of undesirable failure mechanisms.

- 12 -

Chapter 3 – Literature Review

Figure 3.2: Test-frame specimen: geometrical and mechanical characteristics (Colangelo, 1999)

Negro et al. (1995) performed a series of pseudo-dynamic tests on a three dimensional, full-scale four-storey reinforced concrete frame designed in accordance with Eurocode 8 provisions. Three different specimens have been considered: a bare frame, a uniform infilled frame and a partial infilled frame without panels at the ground level. The results of pseudo-dynamic tests are presented and in conclusion some analytical results obtained from numerical analyses are shown and compared with experimental results.

D ire c tio n o f te s tin g

Figure 3.3: Layout of frame speciemen (Negro et al., 1995)

- 13 -

The specimen are full scale reinforced concrete frames infilled with masonry hollow blocks. and from pseudo-dynamic test on a three storey frame with different infills distribution along building height. Negro & Verzeletti (1998) and Fardis. the presence and distribution of openings in the panel. Manfredi and Verderame (2002) face the problem of seismic assessment of R.Chapter 3 – Literature Review Mosalam. A series of three reports present the work carried out (Mosalam et al. White and Gergely carried out a work consisting of a first experimental phase and a following phase focused on modeling and numerical investigation.. the simplified model has been used to derive the fragility curves of bare and infilled frames designed for gravity loads only. The study was finalized to the evaluation of the Eurocode 8 prescriptions regarding the three-dimensional analysis of irregular structures Cosenza. one of them is a single storey single bay frame while the other four are single storey two bays frames. The crack pattern at increasing level of peak ground acceleration has been investigated and a system of equivalent struts representing the stress distribution is individuated in the central region of the panel. 1997). In conclusion. The second report presents the results of pseudo-dynamic tests performed on a two storey two bays infilled frame characterized by an opening in the upper storey infill panels. An innovative numerical model is presented which takes into account the most important mechanical phenomena affecting the non-linear behavior of the RC frames. and the infill panels are made of hollow concrete blocks. The parameters investigated during the experimental tests were the effect of different ratios of block to mortar resistance. The structure is constituted of a steel frame designed for gravity loads only. the influence of different strength and deformation sources on the global behavior of existing buildings is studied and the needed capabilities of the numerical models are underlined.C. The first approach considers dimensionless elements to represent the mortar layers and a new constitutive law has been proposed. After a numerical validation. The second approach. A summary of models that permit the analysis of the non-linear behavior of RC structures is discussed. The specimen has been subjected to a sequence of accelerograms with increasing level of intensity. Bousias & Panagiotakos (1998) present experimental results obtained from shake table tests. less refined but more computationally effective. . The first report presents the results of cyclic test performed on five 1/4 scaled infilled frame specimens. frames designed for gravity loads only. Colombo.14 - . The third report treats the modeling of infilled frames at different levels of refinement. performed on a 2-storey frame considering at first the bare frame configuration and then an infilled frame with irregular distribution of panels in plant. is based on masonry homogenization.

A further scope of the work was the investigation of the out-of-plane behavior of the infill panels.C.Chapter 3 – Literature Review Attention to the theme of code prescriptions has been given by Fardis (1997). frame at the ELSA Laboratory at Ispra.15 - . full scale infilled R. proposes some modifications to the EC8 code provisions. Some experimental test results (monotonic and on shaking table) are reported together with the analytical results of a proposed non-linear model which describes the in-plane and out-of-plane behavior of infills . The report by Fardis presents a series of local and global models. validated comparing the numerical results with the results of pseudo-dynamic test performed on a four storey. that on the basis of extended numerical analyses performed using a global model for masonry infills.

In this chapter a brief review of the principal existing modeling solutions. frame buildings characterized by structural deficiencies typical of older design practice were performed.Chapter 4 – Modeling issues Equation Section 4 4. Several numerical models are available in literature depending on the refinement level that one wants to achieve.C. for the various structural and non-structural elements. . both simplicity and reliability were targeted as fundamental properties of the numerical model. resulting in a quite extended amount of data that can be used to better calibrate and refine simplified numerical models. Dealing with the vulnerability assessment of existing reinforced concrete frame structure. with and without infills.16 - . Furthermore in the last few decades a series of experimental tests performed on R. based on the concentrated plasticity approach. is presented and they are compared with the model adopted in the present work. It is considered inappropriate the use of a excessively refined model when dealing with a topic characterized by several uncertainties in the geometrical and mechanical properties of the structure object of study. it is essential to define an adequate numerical model to describe the various aspect that contribute to the global structural behavior. MODELLING ISSUES When the seismic response of a structure is investigated.

MODELLING OF STRUCTURAL ELEMENTS Various levels of refinement are available to describe the in-elastic behavior of linear structural elements such as beams and columns. In figure 4. Figure 4. With this approach is also possible to describe slip phenomena occurring between concrete and steel reinforcement by introducing an adequate stress-slip relationship.1 Fiber Element Model Each beam and column is divided into a finite number of elements depending on the variation of geometric or mechanical properties. It is to notice that this approach in the determination of the plasticity of the structural member doesn't need the preliminary definition of the plastic hinge length that is a source of uncertainties in the solution. 2000) . In this way is possible to take into account the different amount of reinforcement along the element. In this way is possible to describe the in-elastic behavior of the element governed by flexure. The sections of the element are subdivided into areas. the integration of flexibility along the element length allows the determination of the stiffness matrix by inverting the flexibility matrix. After defining the materials constitutive laws and the reinforcement distribution in the element section. In the following paragraphs a brief description of these two types is presented.1. called fibers.1. 4. In particular the two most common approaches are the fiber element model and the lumped plasticity model.17 - .Chapter 4 – Modeling issues 4. whose number and dimensions vary depending on the level of precision one wants to achieve. proposed by Monti and Spacone (2000) is shown.1: Beam element and corresponding fiber scheme (Monti and Spacone.1 a structural member and the corresponding fiber element schematization.

Furthermore. 4. Elastic elastico ElementoElement Molle rotazionali Plastic Hinges Figure 4. Often this is not the case when the objective of the study are existing buildings for which high level of uncertainties usually exists.2 Lumped Plasticity Approach The lumped plasticity approach is a good compromise between accuracy and simplicity. L is the element length. Using a lumped plasticity model the parts of the member which are likely to undergo plastic deformations have to be identified through a preliminary analysis.18 - .08 L + 0. Beams and columns are modeled by mono-dimensional elastic elements with in-elastic behavior concentrated at the ends in plastic hinge regions (Giberson one component beam model) and defined by appropriate moment-curvature hysteresis rules available in RUAUMOKO. fyl is the yielding strength of longitudinal reinforcement bars and dbl is the diameter of steel bars.1.. due to the high refinement of the model.Chapter 4 – Modeling issues The fiber element approach can describe very precisely the various mechanisms influencing the non-linear behavior of structural elements but to obtain reliable results a good level of knowledge of structural properties (mechanical and geometrical) is needed. Typical hysteresis rules with bi-linear or tri-linear monotonic branch has been used to describe the cyclic behavior of structural elements. In the present work the following relationship has been used (Priestley et al. For frame structures this is a simple process because plastic hinges generally form at the ends of the members.022 f yl dbl 2 (4. .1) where Lp is the plastic hinge length. 1996): L p = 0. long time for the integration of the solution is usually needed.2: Lumped plasticity beam element The plastic hinge length has to be evaluated before the analysis using one of the several formula present in literature.

can be associated to the chosen hysteretic rule to consider the increasing loss of strength in elements which experience in-elastic deformations. The RUAUMOKO program (Carr.4. see figure 4. b) Fukada (Fukada. furthermore strength degradation curves.3: Hysteresis rules: a) Modified Takeda (Otani.4: Interaction surface for a reinforced concrete column (Carr. 2004) allows to assign a three dimensional interaction surface to the reinforced concrete column members with the possibility of choosing between a linear or elliptic Mz – My interaction.1969) b) To take into account the effect of axial load variation on the capacity of the column elements an MN interaction diagram can be defined.19 - .Chapter 4 – Modeling issues a) Figure 4. When the three dimensional seismic response of a building wants to be investigated is important to represent adequately the effective behavior of columns when subjected to bi-axial flexure together with axial load variation. function of number of cycles or ductility demand.1974). 2004) . Figure 4.

C. The inelastic behavior of interior wide column joints subjected to uniaxial . the damage occurring in the beam-column joint can result in a modification of the deformed shape of the structure subjected to lateral loading.1 Finite Element and Multi-Spring Models Among finite elements models proposed.5: The effect of shear hinges on the sway mechanism of a frame (Trowland. The most complete option available is to use three dimensional non-linear finite element models. Less refined techniques can be chosen based on the use of spring elements such as multi-spring models or lumped plasticity models which vary depending on the number and characteristics of the element used to represent the joint.2. with a spread of the inter-storey drift over several stories (Figure 4. is possible to achieve different levels of detailing and complexity in modeling the non-linear behavior of beam-columns joints. 2003) 4. As for structural members.2.Chapter 4 – Modeling issues This modeling approach allows to describe well the mechanisms governed by flexure without the possibility of considering directly the occurrence of shear failures in the members.20 - . As shown by experimental tests on R. followed by a more accurate description of the lumped plasticity approach used in the present study. Kashiwazaki and Noguchi (1996) used three dimensional non-linear finite elements to model a high strength concrete joint subjected to biaxial monotonic loading. 4. 2002). Figure 4. Nagai. that should be checked separately after the analysis.5). JOINT MODELLING An adequate modeling of the joint panel zone non-linear behavior is a critical basis for a correct evaluation of the seismic response of the whole system. In the following paragraphs a brief overview of finite element and multi-spring model if presented. frames designed for vertical loads only (Calvi.

Figure 4. 1996) A finite element approach specially developed for detailed modeling of fracture in quasi brittle materials has been recently proposed by Eligehausen et al. The discrete bond model implemented consists of a one-dimensional finite element with a realistic bond-slip relationship. Figure 4. 2006) .21 - . The microplane material model with relaxed kinematic constraint is used for the concrete and particular interest has been addressed to the proper modeling of the behavior of smooth reinforcement with hooked ends as well as to the accurate representation of brittle shear failure modes in joint.6: Finite element model (Nagai.Chapter 4 – Modeling issues loading has been investigated by Bing. In figure 4. Figure 4. The microplane model is a threedimensional..7: Model of test specimen (Eligehausen et al. Yiming and Tso-Chien (2003) using two dimensional nonlinear finite elements. (2006). macroscopic model in which the material is characterized by uniaxial relations between the stress and strain components on planes of various orientations called "microplanes".7 shows the beam-column joint model used for the validation.6 a sketch of the Nagai three dimensional model is shown.

8 shows a scheme of the multi-spring beam column joint model described above.9).8: Multi-spring model proposed by Youssef and Ghobarah (2001) A different model for the joint region has been proposed by Elmorsi et al. (2000). Furthermore this model allows the introduction of a "bond-slip element" to represent the slipping of steel bars that in some cases plays a basic role in the seismic response of under-designed reinforced concrete frames.22 - . Longitudinal reinforcing steel bars are modeled with non-linear elements placed along the upper and lower sides of the joint panel. Figure 4. This model allows to describe the material behaviors with the introduction of the stress-strain relationships of steel and concrete. In this approach beams and columns are described by elastic elements and are connected to the joint through the interposition of non-linear transitional elements.Chapter 4 – Modeling issues In the multi-spring model proposed by Youssef and Ghobarah (2001) the joint region is modeled by four rigid elements that include the node and elastic members represent beams and columns convergent into the joint. The shear deformation of the joint region is modeled with two springs (shear spring) placed along the diagonals of the node panel. . The model is completed by springs describing the concrete and steel cyclic behavior to which the constitutive laws of the materials are associated. Figure 4. The effective node panel region is modeled with another element constituted by 10 joints (Figure 4. Concrete is defined by two different relationships defining the pre and post cracking behavior.

9: Joint model proposed by Elmorsi. Kianoush and Tso (2000) Recently a multi-spring model for beam-column joints has been proposed by Lowes and Altoontash (2003). function of joint geometry. can be associated to the various components of the model in order to represent the non-linear joint response. material properties and reinforcement layout. Figure 4.10 shows a scheme of the proposed joint model.Chapter 4 – Modeling issues Elastic column element Non-linear transitional element Elastic beam element Joint element Figure 4. 2003) .23 - . Different constitutive relationships.10: Reinforced concrete beam-column joint model (Lowes et al.. The model is constituted of eight bar-slip springs. four interface shear springs and one shear-panel component. Figure 4. The proposed model represents the basic mechanisms which govern the joint behavior such as shear failure of joint panel and anchorage failure of beam and column longitudinal reinforcement passing through the joint region.

While exterior joints show a strength degradation in the post-cracking behavior.29 f c ' . Beam and column elements are modeled as one dimensional elements with lumped plasticity in the end sections with an associated moment-curvature relationships defined by a section analysis. A relation between the shear deformation and the principal tensile stress in the panel region was found and transformed into a moment-rotation relation to be assigned to the rotational spring. 2002). 2002) The definition of the moment-rotation relationship of the rotational spring is based on the results of experimental tests performed at the Department of Structural Mechanics of the University of Pavia (Pampanin et al.11: Lumped plasticity model for beam-column joints (Pampanin et al. The shear deformation is assumed to be equal to the rotation of the spring and the moment is deduced as corresponding to the principal tensile stress evaluated on the basis of Mohr theory. On the basis of the experimental results a first cracking level for external joints can be found corresponding to a principal tensile stress value of pt = 0. To represent the real geometric dimensions of the joint panel region.Chapter 4 – Modeling issues 4.2 f c ' . For internal joint the same phenomenon occurs at a value of pt = 0.42 f c ' . The effect of momentaxial load interaction are taken into account for columns. CLOSE UP VIEW Panel Zone Region Rigid element Link rigidi Molla rotazionale Rotational spring Figure 4.2 Concentrated Plasticity Model A simple model has been proposed by Pampanin et al. . (2002). interior joints are characterized by a hardening behavior up to a value of principal tensile stress of pt = 0...2. it consists of a non-linear rotational spring that permits to model the relative rotation between beams and columns converging into the node and to describe the post-cracking shear deformation of the joint panel. rigid elements are used to connect the beam and column members to the rotational spring.24 - .

29 f c ' . pt pt 0.20√fc' 0.2 f c ' . In this case a bi-linear relationship is adopted to represent the hardening behavior of interior joints. .00015 γ b) 0.29√fc' 0. • Interior joints: cracking occurs at a moment value corresponding to a pt = 0.12 the moment-rotation relationships previously described are shown.25 - .12: pt-γ relationships proposed for exterior (a) and interior joints (b) This type of model doesn't take into any account the change in the joint resistance due to the variation of axial load when the structure is subjected to cyclic lateral loading. In figure 4.0007 Figure 4. To solve the problem a modification of the previous model has been proposed. The rotational spring in fact connects two nodes that are respectively the conjunction of beams and columns. the spring has been split in two elements that are interposed between the beams connection node and the upper and lower column respectively.Chapter 4 – Modeling issues Following these considerations the moment-rotation relationships governing the monotonic behavior of the joint rotational spring model have been defined: • Exterior joints: cracking occurs at a moment value corresponding to a pt = 0.42 f c ' . in this way the axial load passes through the column elements without affecting the spring element. The ultimate limit state corresponds to a value of pt = 0.42√fc' 0.0007 0. The post-cracking behavior is described by a elasto-plastic relation without taking into account the strength degradation.00015 γ a) 0.

4. Several models have been proposed in literature to model un-reinforced masonry infills. . The beam is essentially continuous through the joint. The beam is connected to the column through the joint rotational spring. This arrangement means that the joint forms a link in the chain of elements through which the loads must be transmitted. A rough classification can be obtained distinguishing between the level of complexity of the model and the ability of capturing alternative failure mechanisms in the infill panel together with local effects caused by the interaction with the frame. If on one hand the infill panels will increase the stiffness and strength of the building. The column can not transmit any load to the beam except through the joint and vice versa.26 - . It is essential that axial load be transmitted through the joint because the joint behaviour is dependent on the level of axial load. This solution also provides an axial load path which passes through both the column and the joint. 2003) In the model the upper column end is slaved to the lower column end in lateral translation and rotation.13: Modified joint model representation (Trowland. MODELLING OF MASONRY INFILLS The presence of masonry infills can drastically change the global seismic response of reinforced concrete frames. on the other hand some unavoidable irregularities in both geometrical and mechanical distribution of infills can lead to undesirable failure mechanisms that can compromise the bearing capacity of the structure. The joint must be split into two so that it can be both an axial load path and a link between the column and beam. The correct modeling of masonry infills becomes therefore a basic issue for a realistic evaluation of the seismic response of existing buildings. The two springs are identical and both have half of the joints strength and stiffness.3.Chapter 4 – Modeling issues Figure 4.

because of its simplicity and reliability.E.15. Another aspect that makes not worth using a highly refined model for masonry infills is the elevated level of scatter of mechanical properties of masonry.Chapter 4 – Modeling issues As for structural members and for joints. 4.14: Equivalent diagonal strut model The biggest limit of this modeling solution is that it doesn't allow to describe accurately the local effects of the frame-panel interaction. This approach can provide more complete results which can capture both the global response and the local effects between the panel and the surrounding frame elements but becomes less suitable when a large number of analyses have to be performed because of the high computational effort requested. For this reason some variations to the classical model has been proposed.27 - . the diagonal strut model is the solution most widely adopted to represent the interaction between masonry infills and reinforced concrete frame. that increases uncertainties in the definition of the model. as shown in Figure 4. In the following paragraph an overview of the available multi-spring models is presented focusing the attention on the solution adopted in the present work and on the method used to describe the mechanical properties of the equivalent struts. .3. finite element models (F.14).M. Compressive Strut Biella compressa Figure 4.) are available to model masonry infills too. For these reasons an approach based on the use of axial springs acting as equivalent compression diagonal struts has been widely adopted.1 Multi-Spring Models Although it has been frequently modified. especially in existing buildings. The simplest option is the use of two diagonal compressive struts connecting centre to centre of the panel zone (Figure 4.

The models described up to now are not able to describe adequately the response of infilled frames governed by shear failure with horizontal sliding. For this purpose Leuchars and Scrivener (1973) propose a model made of two struts. As shown by Crisafulli (1997).16). comparing the results obtained using the models described above with those obtained from a finite element analysis it was found that the model C is best describing the effective distributions of moments and shears in the structural elements. even if unavoidable differences are still present caused by the concentrated application of the strut reaction to columns and beams. which transfer the bending moment at mid-height of the columns.15: Possible variations of the classical equivalent diagonal strut model The two alternative models proposed (B and C) try to describe the effective stress migration along the contact length between the panel and the structural elements when the building experiences a lateral deformation. and of a spring linked to the struts.Chapter 4 – Modeling issues Model Modello A Aw Modello B Model B hz = z / 2 hz = z / 3 Modello C Model Aw / 4 Aw / 2 Aw / 2 Figure 4. . that allows to describe the effect of friction developing along the crack (Figure 4.28 - .

Chapter 4 – Modeling issues Friction Attrito Figure 4. several studies has been done with the objective of defining some empirical relationships to evaluate the parameters which govern the monotonic and cyclic behavior of the diagonal strut.25. This means that the strut length is slightly bigger then the effective length of the infill panel diagonal. where dw is the diagonal length of the panel. between 0. The basic parameters to be defined are the stiffness and strength of the panel. for a non-linear monotonic analysis and of course the hysteretic behavior if a non linear dynamic analysis has to be performed. as a function of the mechanical and geometrical characteristics of the masonry. on the basis of experimental tests. 1996).29 - . Stiffness Classically the diagonal strut is connected to the intersection points of the geometrical axes of structural elements constituting the frame. 1973) 4. Usually the thickness and the elastic modulus of the strut are taken equal to those typical of the masonry (although the Young Modulus can be modified taking into account the inclination of the strut respect to the horizontal) . Paulay and Priestley (1992) notice that an overestimation of bw can lead to excessive values of the global stiffness of the system . It is generally recognized though that this discrepancy is not affecting the reliability of the seismic response evaluation.2 Mechanical Properties of the Diagonal Strut Since the equivalent diagonal strut model is widely adopted. so that the only parameter to be defined to evaluate the axial stiffness is the height of the cross section bw. Stafford Smith (1969. suggests values of the ratio bw/dw .16: Sliding shear infill model (Leuchars and Scrivener. Holmes (1961) proposes a value of bw equal to one third of the diagonal length of the panel.1 and 0.3.

but it can reduce to very limited values when the masonry panel is close to the failure. hw and tw height and thickness of the panel. Decanini and Gavarini (1993) propose a model applicable to masonry panels with and without openings on the basis of results obtained from experimental tests on infilled frames and from finite element non-linear analyses. A fundamental aspect is cracking level reached by the infill.5) Bertoldi. The correct definition of the bw/dw ratio should take into account the correlation existing with the infill-frame contact length and the masonry panel conditions. The ratio bw/dw is calculated as representative of the complete cracking level of the masonry panel subjected to cyclic loading and is evaluated through the following expression: bw K1 = + K2 dw λh (4. When the panel is uncracked.30 - . 1978).175(λ h) −0. Usually the beam corresponds to the frame column and the elastic support to the infill panel.3) with Ew and Ec elastic moduli of masonry and concrete. developing a previous relation (Mainstone. The height of the equivalent strut cross section is calculated as: bw = 2 z sin(θ ) = π sin(θ ) λ (4. propose the following formula to evaluate the bw/da ratio both for concrete and masonry infills: bw = 0.4) Klingner and Bertero (1976.6) . For this reason they suggest to use bw equal to the 25% of dw. Ip moment of inertia of the columns cross section and θ the panel inclination respect to the horizontal. the height of the strut cross section can be relevant.Chapter 4 – Modeling issues resulting in unrealistically high seismic forces. Several studies based on the analogy of a beam on elastic support has been performed starting from the sixties. 1974).2) where λ is a factor which defines the relative stiffness between frame and panel: λ=4 Ewtw sin(2θ ) 4 Ec I p hw (4. in fact. One of the first researcher investigating this phenomenon was Stafford Smith (1969) who studied the behavior of steel infilled frame with square shape and compared the experimental results with the theoretical contact length evaluated as: z= π 2λ (4.4 dw (4.

85 0. G is the masonry shear modulus. for this reason the most correct approach is to calculate a strength value associated to each mechanism and assume for the equivalent diagonal strut the lowest of the values obtained. Strength The failure mechanisms of a masonry infill are multiple. considering it as the resistance corresponding to the most probable failure mechanism for the panel. sliding shear failure and diagonal tension.1: Parameters of the equivalent diagonal strut model (Bertoldi. The previous equations require the evaluation of the elastic modulus of masonry Ew that is necessary to define the axial stiffness of the equivalent strut. Ewv are the masonry elastic moduli in the horizontal and vertical direction respectively.31 - .7) where Ewh . The horizontal projection of the ultimate load corresponding to each mechanism is calculated as: Fw = σ wtwbw cos θ (4. λh < 3. θ the inclination of the diagonal respect to the horizontal direction and ν the Poisson coefficient.04 Table 4. 1982): Eθ = [ cos 4 θ sen 4 θ 1 ν + + cos 2 θ * sen 2 θ * ( − 2 ) E wh E wv G E wv ]−1 (4.178 3.8) The equivalent strength σw for the four mechanism considered are evaluated with the following equations: . Decanini and Gavarini (1993) identify four different possible failures: compression at the center of the panel. Gavarini.85 0. In an anisotropic material subjected to a bi-axial tensile stress the elastic modulus in the direction inclined θ respect to the horizontal is (Sacchi Mandriani et al. Bertoldi.707 0. Decanini. To each of these phenomena a value of ultimate stress σw is associated and considered constant on the cross section of the strut. compression of corners.14 < λh < 7.47 0.14 K1 K2 1.1.Chapter 4 – Modeling issues where the parameters K1 and K2 are expressed as function of the product λh as shown in Table 4.01 λh > 7.3 -0. 1993)..

32 - .9) 1.12 + K 2 (λ h)0.88 σw = (1. Cyclic Behavior In the present work the cyclic behaviour of the infill panel has been modelled adopting the hysteretic rule proposed by Crisafulli (1997).3σ v bw dw σw = diagonal tension where fwu is the sliding resistance of the mortar joints and σv is the vertical compression stress due to gravity loads.to simulate the axial response of masonry. This model takes into account the non-linear response of masonry in compression. a) b) Figure 4. In Figure 4. In this way is possible to consider the loss of stiffness due to the shortening of the contact length between frame and panel as the lateral load increases.2sin θ + 0.16 f w' tan θ K1 + K 2 λ h compression at center of panel compression of corners sliding shear (4.17 the stress-strain relationship and the backbone curve for the hysteretic model proposed are shown.45cos θ ) f wu + 0.12 f w' sin θ cos θ σw = K1 (λ h) −0.Chapter 4 – Modeling issues σw = 1.6 f ws + 0. including contact effects in the cracked material (pinching) and small cycle hysteresis. fws is the shear resistance under diagonal compression and f'w is the compression resistance of the material.17: Histeretic cycle (a) and backbone curve (b) of Crisafulli model (1997) .3σ v bw dw 0. This model also allows to take into account the variation of strut's cross section as function of the axial deformation experienced by the element.

In a second phase the accuracy of the equivalent diagonal strut model proposed to represent the masonry infill panels has been evaluated through comparison with the experimental pseudodynamic tests on a series of 1/2 scaled one-storey one-bay frames performed at the Structural Laboratory of the University of L'Aquila (Colangelo. .Chapter 5 – Validation of the analytical model Equation Section (Next) 5. 2003). The same experimental program was completed with a test on a 2/3 scaled three storey reinforced concrete bare frame.C. In this chapter a more detailed description of the analytical – experimental comparisons used to validate the reliability of the lumped plasticity model adopted in the present work is presented. 1995). the results of this test has been compared with the analytical results obtained from numerical analyses of a frame model where beam-column joints were modeled with the proposed joint rotational spring model. 1999. Finally efficiency of the infills model was checked comparing the analytical results with the results of experimental pseudodynamic tests on a full scale four storey three dimensional R.33 - . 2002). frame carried out at the European Laboratory for Structural Assessment (ELSA) of the Joint Research Centre of Ispra (Negro et al. VALIDATION OF THE ANALYTICAL MODEL The model of the joint shear hinge has been first validated through a series of analytical – experimental comparisons with the results obtained from tests on beam-column subassemblies performed at the Department of Structural Mechanics of the University of Pavia (Pampanin..

BEAM-COLUMN SUBASSEMBLIES A series of different typologies of 2/3 scaled one-way beam columns subassemblies specimens were tested at the Department of Structural Mechanics of the University of Pavia. A low-strength concrete Rck 200 was specified (which refers to the Italian standard and corresponds to a cube compression strength of around 20 MPa).1: Specimen material properties (Pampanin. 2002) . with mechanical properties (allowable stress 160 MPa) similar to those typically used in that period.6 (1.64) 385.49) Diameter φ 12 345.6 (2. Steel smooth bars.9 (2. the materials used were chosen in accordance with the design practice of the time.52) 29.2 (3.1 shows the average mechanical properties of materials used in the tests.75) 451.9 (0.1 Material properties Since the specimens were intended to be representative of older structures.34 - .1 (0.1.17) Table 5.1. However significantly higher values of the concrete average compression strengths at 28 days were obtained. 5.Chapter 5 – Validation of the analytical model 5. designed and built between 1950 and 1970. were adopted for both longitudinal and transverse reinforcements.17) 458. Table 5. They were chosen to be representative of the different typologies of connections existing in a reinforced concrete frame structure such as: • • • Knee joints (specimen L1 and L2) Exterior tee-joints (specimen T1 and T2) Interior joints (specimen C1 to C4) Within each joint type the beam longitudinal reinforcement was varied between the specimens and for the interior joints different anchorage details were assumed for the longitudinal rebars passing through the joint region. CONCRETE STEEL (longitudinal bars) Cylindric compression Cube compression Yielding Ultimate strength (MPa) strength (MPa) (MPa) (MPa) Average Average Diameter φ 8 23.

SPECIMEN COLUMN REINFORCEMENT BEAM REINFORCEMENT 2Φ8+2Φ12 2Φ8+2Φ12 Top L1 3 Φ8 + 3 Φ8 Bottom Table 5. Figure 5.Chapter 5 – Validation of the analytical model 5.1 the geometric dimensions and the reinforcement layout of the L1 specimen are shown. The specimen has been built trying to reproduce the real boundary conditions of joint in a reinforced concrete frame building. respectively.35 - .1: Specimen L1: geometric characteristics and steel bars layout (Pampanin.2: Specimen L1 reinforcement (Pampanin. In figure 5. 2002) .2 Knee joint The knee joint taken in consideration is the one named L1. 2002) Table 5. The beams and columns scaled dimensions were 330mm (depth) x200mm (width) and 200x200mm. To simulate the simple support at the beam end a pin-end steel member was placed to connect the beam to the floor. Beam and column elements were extended between contraflexure points (assumed to be at midspan of the beams and at midheight of the columns) and connected with pins to the ground.2 reports a summary of the reinforcement present in the beam and column.1.

2: Test setup of specimen L1 (Pampanin.36 - . 2002) .Chapter 5 – Validation of the analytical model Cyclic horizontal loading was applied to the beam end using a hydraulic actuator in displacement control (figure 5. Figure 5.2).

2002) .37 - .Chapter 5 – Validation of the analytical model 5.3.3: Specimen C2 reinforcement (Pampanin.3: Specimen C2: geometric characteristics and steel bars layout (Pampanin.1. Figure 5. The same boundaries conditions as for the specimen L1 were adopted to simulate the presence of a surrounding frame. 2002) SPECIMEN COLUMN REINFORCEMENT 3 Φ8 + 3 Φ8 BEAM REINFORCEMENT 2Φ8+2Φ12 2Φ8+1Φ12 Top Bottom C2 Table 5. In this specimen the beam reinforcement is running continuously through the panel joint region. a vertical load has been applied to describe the axial load variation in columns happening during a seismic event. The variation law of the vertical load was taken as a linear function of the lateral load applied. The geometrical dimensions and the reinforcement layout for the specimen C2 are shown in figure 5.1) The axial load was applied by means of a vertical hydraulic jack.3 and table 5. as described by the following relation: N = −120 + 1. in addition to the horizontal load applied to the top of the upper column. The geometrical dimensions of beams and columns are the same as those used for the knee joint test. acting on a steel plate connected to the column base plate by vertical external post-tensioned bars. Furthermore.4 ⋅ Fh [kN ] (5.3 Interior joint The specimen considered as representative of the interior joint typology (cruciform joint) is the C2.

38 - . Figure 5.4 shows the test setup for the interior joint typology (specimen C2). 2002) .4: Test setup of specimen C2 (Pampanin.Chapter 5 – Validation of the analytical model Figure 5.

In table 5. This choice was made to investigate the different behavior of the joint in the case the beam is yielding (T2) or not (T1). 2002) . The geometric dimensions of beam and columns are the same as the previous specimens (knee and interior joints) and are shown in figure 5.39 - .1. 2002) The two specimens differ only in the beam longitudinal reinforcing steel ratio.6 the reinforcing steel amount and disposition is reported. Figure 5.Chapter 5 – Validation of the analytical model 5.4: Specimen T1 and T2 reinforcement (Pampanin.4 Exterior joint Both exterior joint specimens tested (T1 and T2) have been considered in the numericalexperimental comparison. SPECIMEN T1 T2 COLUMN REINFORCEMENT 3 Φ8 + 3 Φ8 3 Φ8 + 3 Φ8 BEAM REINFORCEMENT Top Bottom Top Bottom 2Φ8+2Φ12 2Φ8+2Φ12 2Φ8+1Φ12 2Φ8+1Φ12 Table 5.5.4 and figure 5.5: Specimen T1: geometric characteristics and steel bars layout (Pampanin.

7: Test setup of specimen T1 and T2 (Pampanin.2) The test setup for the exterior joint specimens T1 and T2 is shown in the figure 5.6: Reinforcement layout of specimens T1 and T2 (Pampanin. Figure 5. 2002) As for the case of interior joint a vertical load variation has been imposed to the top of the upper column through an hydraulic jack. The axial load (N) varies linearly with the lateral force (Fh) applied to the specimen. following the relationship: N = −100 + 2.7.40 - . 2002) . starting from a value of 100 kN taken as representative of the gravity load effect.44 ⋅ Fh [kN ] (5.Chapter 5 – Validation of the analytical model Sezione pilastro Column Section Sezione trave Beam Section (T1) Beam Section (T2) Sezione trave Figure 5.

2.Chapter 5 – Validation of the analytical model 5. due to cyclic lateral loading. The elastic stiffness is taken as the secant stiffness at yielding point.3) The monotonic behavior has been defined starting from a moment-curvature analysis of the section. Otani.2. The inelastic behavior is concentrated at the member ends in a plastic hinge region with a length defined by the following formula (Priestley et al.022 f yl dbl 2 (5.2. To describe the cyclic behavior of the section the Takeda (Takeda.41 - .2.1 Structural elements Beams and columns has been modeled with two dimensional linear elements. 1970. An axial load-bending moment interaction diagram has been assigned to the column member to take into account the effect of axial load variation. 2003) .08 L + 0.2. on the column strength.2 Joint elements The beam-column joint has been modeled with a couple of rotational spring as described in paragraph 4. Figure 5. The column is connected to the ground with a hinge and the beam is simply supported with free horizontal translation in order to represent the real restraint conditions of the specimens tested.8: Modified joint model representation (Trowland. 1974) hysteresis rule has been used (see figure 4.. 1996): L p = 0.3 a). SPECIMENS MODELLING 5. 5.

The springs are actually zero length elements and the effective dimensions of the panel zone region are modeled with rigid and blocks.2 the cracking moment of the joint has been calculated as correspondent to a principal tensile stress value of 0.5) As described in paragraph 4.42 f c ' .9d b ⎠ (5. The elastic rotational stiffness of the joint spring is calculated as: ⎛ 0.2. After the cracking point interior joints show an hardening behavior up to a level of pt = 0.2 f c ' for exterior and knee joints and 0. The spring elements used are identical and they both have half of the joint strength and stiffness.42 - .4) with: G: concrete shear modulus Ac: column cross section area H: interstorey height db: beam depth The springs have the same axial stiffness of the columns connecting to the joint and is calculated as: K= with: E: concrete elastic modulus Ac: column cross section area L: half of the joint panel height EAc L (5. In particular the adopted hysteretic loop is able to describe the typical "pinching" effect due to the slippage of plain round reinforcing bars through the joint panel zone and to the opening and closing of diagonal shear cracks in the joint region. .8 schematically shows the model adopted. The hysteresis rule needs the definition of six parameters governing the unloading and reloading phases of the cycle and in addition is possible to chose between two different options for the definition of the reloading branch (figure 5.9d b H ⎞ K = G⎜ ⎟ Ac ⎝ H − 0. The upper column end is slaved to the lower column end in lateral translation and rotation.29 f c ' for interior joint.2.9).Chapter 5 – Validation of the analytical model Figure 5. 5.3 Joint hystetesis rule The cyclic behavior of the joint rotational spring has been defined using an hysteretic rule available in the RUAUMOKO program and specifically proposed to describe the characteristics of the joint response.

43 - . 2004): a) Option 1-reloading power factor. the first is characterized by a stiffness .9: Pampanin histeretic rule (Carr. b) Option 2-reloading slip factor The monotonic branch is a bi-linear curve where the initial stiffness K0 is the cracked stiffness of the joint and the second branch represent the hardening phenomenon noticed during the tests on interior joints.Chapter 5 – Validation of the analytical model dp F βdp ∆F Option 1 rK0 Ks2 K0 Ks1 Ku1=K0 µαu1 Ku2=K0 µαu2 d Ku2 Ks2 ∆F Ks1= K0 µαs1 Ks2= K0 µαs2 Ku1 rK0 a) dp F Option 2 rK0 Xidr dr K0 Ks1 βdp ∆F Ku1=K0 µαu1 Ku2=K0 µαu2 d Ku2 Ks1= K0 µαs1 rK0 Ks2= K0 µαs2 Ku1 b) Figure 5. The unloading path is described by two lines.

5 the parameters necessary to define the hysteretic rule are listed for both versions. Considering that the reloading target point is known and defined by the reloading factor β as a percentage of the plastic deformation reached in the previous cycle. defined as follows: Ks1 = K0 s1 µα δ s = Xidr (5. In the option 2 the reloading phase is described by the stiffness of the first branch Ks1 and by the slippage length. In table 5. The reloading phase of the hysteresis rule is still defined by two braches with different stiffness.e. together with an indication of the process to which they are associated. The second unloading branch is governed by the stiffness Ku2 = K0 u2 µα where the final unloading power factor αu2 is another parameter of the cycle.5: Parameters needed to define hysteresis rule adopted for joint members .7) where Xi is the reloading slip factor and dr is the residual displacement obtained after the last unloading phase.9a) needs the definition of two stiffness. The stiffness Ks1 and Ks2 are calculated as: Ks1 = K0 K0 s2 µ αs 1 Ks 2 = µα (5. Option 1 Option 2 Related Process αs1 αs2 αu1 αu2 ∆F β αs1 Xi αu1 αu2 ∆F β reload reload unload unload unload reload Table 5. the first (Ks1) governing the slipping reloading branch and the second (Ks2) which defines the second reloading phase up to the target point βdp. the reloading process can be completely defined by two parameters. In this way the more extensive is the damage of the joint (i. defined as percentage of the yielding force. It is so assumed that the slippage length is directly proportional to the residual displacement that is an index of the damage level reached by the joint. the wider are the cracks in the joint panel region) the more evident is the "pinching" behavior in the hysteresis loop. The option 1 (figure 5.Chapter 5 – Validation of the analytical model Ku1 = K0 u1 µα where µ is the ductility level reached in the last cycle and αu1 is the initial unloading power factor and it develops along a force interval defined by the unloading force factor ∆F. This hysteresis rule allows the choice between two reloading options.6) where m is the ductility level reached in the last cycle and αs1 and αs2 are empirical parameters.44 - .

1 0.2 1. 5. to a sudden strength reduction with loss of vertical-load bearing capacity.5 -0.6 summarizes the values of the parameters obtained from the calibration process and used in the numerical analyses performed in the present work.Chapter 5 – Validation of the analytical model The calibration of the parameters of the cycle has been made on the basis of the results of the experimental tests on the beam-column subassemblies for both the versions of the hysteresis rule.2 1.4 Limit states for joints As observed in the experimental tests and confirmed by the numerical investigations. (through activation of a shear hinge) to a reduction of the interstorey drift demand. 2004) allows the definition of a strength degradation relationship that can be either function of the ductility or the number of load reversal from the backbone or spine curve of the hysteresis rule.3 -0.8 30 -0. Parameter Specimen T1 T2 L1 C2 αs1 Xi αu1 αu2 ∆F β 1.6: Calibration of the hysteretic rule parameters for the beam-column subassemblies The RUAUMOKO program (Carr. thus postponing or avoiding the development of a soft storey mechanism.3 1.2 1.1 0. the increased shear deformation demand in the joint region can lead. the occurrence of damage in the joint region can result. On the other hand.45 - .9 30 -0.4 -0. Table 5.3 1. By comparing the damage observed in the experimental tests with the level of joint .3 1. No strength degradation is used for the knee and interior joint typologies. The maximum joint shear deformation γ has thus to be considered a primary parameter to be monitored during numerical analysis and compared with reference values corresponding to different limit states in order to appropriately define the structural performance or damage level.8 20 -0.3 -0.1 0. depending on the joint type and on the structural details adopted. In particular a ductility based strength degradation has been assigned to the exterior joint model to describe the loss of resistance showed by the T1 and T2 specimens during the experimental tests. In the present work it was chosen to use the second option in which the relation between the damage and the definition of the slippage length is more direct to recognize.1 1.2.1 0.95 30 0 Table 5.

of semi-cycles Figure 5.2 % 0.Chapter 5 – Validation of the analytical model rotation obtained in the spring model.5 Analytical – experimental comparison A series of three cycles at increasing level of interstorey drift was applied thought the horizontal hydraulic actuator.10: Typical loading history (Pampanin.0002 < γ < 0. 2002): PL1: first cracking and limited damage PL2: extensive damage PL3: critical damage (reparability issues arise) PL4: incipient collapse 0.01 < γ < 0.10. Since the model’s strength degradation was based on ductility and not inelastic cycles. 2002) Knee joint specimen In the knee-joint specimen L1 the damage is mainly concentrated at the column interfaces with crushing and spalling of the concrete at the top face of the joint zone at higher level of drift. due to slippage of the column reinforcement and stress concentration at the end-hook. .5 % 30 40 50 n. when reproducing the overall hysterisis behaviour. The general loading time history is illustrated in figure 5.01 0. 4 3% 3.46 - .8 % 1% 1.005 < γ < 0..6 % 0. only one cycle was made at each level of drift in the numerical simulation. preliminary values corresponding to Limit States (LS) or Performance Level (PL) related to the damage in exterior joints can be tentatively suggested as follows (Pampanin et al.005 0.2.5% 3 Imposed Top Drift (%) 2% 2 1 0 -1 -2 -3 -4 10 20 0.015 γ > 0-015 5.

taken into consideration for the scope of this work. Interior joint specimen The interior joint specimen C2.Chapter 5 – Validation of the analytical model Top Displacement[mm] -60 15 10 Lateral Force [kN] 5 0 -5 -10 -15 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 Top Drif t [%] Experimental Analytical -40 -20 0 20 40 60 L1 JOINT Figure 5. . is characterized by continues longitudinal reinforcing bars through the joint region. flexural damage concentrated at the column end. Furthermore the axial load-bending moment interaction associated to the joint spring allows to describe the difference in the value of the cracking moment in the positive and negative directions. widening the existing interface crack and leading (from 2. After an initial cracking at both column-to-joint and beam-to-joint interfaces.11: Analytical-experimental comparison for specimen L1 The comparison between the experimental results (grey line) and the numerical values obtained from the analysis (black line) show a good agreement both in the description of the unloading phase and the "pinching" phenomenon characterizing the reloading branch and due in this case to the slipping of the column reinforcing bars.47 - .0 % drift level) to progressive damage. The behavior of the beamcolumn subassemblies is governed by the yielding of the column.

The T2 specimen shows the formation of a plastic hinge in the beam (with a lower longitudinal reinforcement ratio respect to the specimen T1) and the subsequent formation of a "shear hinge" in the joint. The fundamental source of the peculiar damage mechanism was related to the concentration of compression force of beam reinforcing bars at the hook-end. Exterior joint specimen The specimen T1 is characterized by an amount of longitudinal reinforcement ratio in the beam high enough to make the joint the weak element of the subassembly.48 - . after premature loss of bond strength within the joint region.Chapter 5 – Validation of the analytical model Top Displacement[mm] -80 20 15 Lateral Force [kN] 10 5 0 -5 -10 -15 -20 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 Top Drif t [%] Experimental Analytical -60 -40 -20 0 20 40 60 80 C2 JOINT Figure 5. The cyclic response of both specimens is characterized by a strength degradation phenomenon that is more evident for the specimen T2.12: Analytical-experimental comparison for specimen C2 Also in this case the adopted hysteretic loop leads to a good agreement in results for all values of interstorey drift. For this reason the response of the specimen is governed by the joint that is the only damaged element. .

In the modeling of the exterior joint specimens a strength degradation relationship.Chapter 5 – Validation of the analytical model Top Displacement[mm] -80 15 10 Lateral Force [kN] 5 0 -5 -10 -15 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 Top Drift [%] Experimental Analytical Top Displacement[mm] 60 80 15 -80 -60 -40 -20 0 20 40 60 80 -60 -40 -20 0 20 40 T1 JOINT 10 5 0 -5 -10 -15 -3 T2 JOINT Experimental Analytical -2 -1 0 Top Drif t [%] 1 2 3 Figure 5. It is believed that the lower level of accuracy in the description of the elastic behavior of the joints can be acceptable when a non-linear dynamic analysis of a frame structure is performed. there is some discrepancy between the initial uncracked stiffness of the specimens and the elastic stiffness of the models.49 - . has been used calibrated on the effective loss of strength of joints recorded during the tests. It has to be noticed that.13: Analytical-experimental comparison for specimen T1 and T2 The model adopted describes well the "pinching" effect typical of the specimens response and due to the opening of diagonal cracks in the joint panel region and to the slipping of longitudinal steel bars in beams and columns connecting to the node. function of the ductility. . since the cracking of the joint panel zone is likely to occur early during a seismic event. because of the bi-linear idealization of the moment rotation relationship of the joint. The capability of the model to take into account the effect of the variation of axial load on the strength of the spring element allows to describe the difference between the positive and negative value of the cracking force.

2 and 3.14 m and 2. The design recommendations provided by the current national design provisions. The column sections were 300x300 mm and the beam sections 500x300mm (depth x width). as typical in Italy between the 1950's and the 1970's.13 m long respectively. a quasi-static cyclic experimental test was performed on a 2/3 scaled three storey frame. Consistently with the old practice.5. THREE STOREY FRAME The joint model calibrated on the beam-column subassemblies was then used to represent the effect of the cyclic behavior of joints on the global seismic response of a reinforced concrete frame building. The total height of the 2/3 scaled test frame was 6 m with interstorey height of 2 m. The validation of the model was made comparing the numerical results with the results obtained from an experimental test performed at the Laboratory of the Department of Structural Mechanics of the University of Pavia. Plain round bars.15.3.Chapter 5 – Validation of the analytical model 5. The geometrical and reinforcement characteristics.3. no transverse reinforcement were placed in the joint region.14 and 5.50 - . integrated by text-books broadly adopted in the engineering practice and available between the 1950’s and 1970’s were followed. As part of a coordinated national project on the seismic vulnerability of existing reinforced concrete frame buildings designed for gravity loads only.5 m respectively). but anchored with end-hooks.81 m. were adopted for both longitudinal and transverse reinforcement. respectively.1 Frame geometry and reinforcement details The prototype building was a multiple frame system consisting of a three-story (3 m height) and three-bays (4. . The bays were 2. 5. Beam bars in exterior joints were not bent in the joint region. The scaled section dimensions of columns and beams were 200x200mm and 330mm (depth) x 200mm (width). together with a detail of columns lap slices are reported in figures 5. Lap splices with hook anchorages were adopted in the beam bars crossing interior joints as well as in column longitudinal bars at each floor level above the joint region and at the column-to-foundation connection. 1. with mechanical properties similar to those typically used in older periods.

Chapter 5 – Validation of the analytical model

B1

B3

B3 B5

B5

B5

C

Column section C

20 mm

Beam section B1

20 mm

Beam section B3

2+2 Ø 8

20 mm

Beam section B5

2+2 Ø 8

20 mm

3+3 Ø 8 tie Ø 4

2+2 Ø 8

200 mm

330 mm

330 mm

330 mm

tie Ø 4

tie Ø 4

tie Ø 4

200 mm

2+2 Ø 12

200 mm

200 mm

3 Ø 12

2+1 Ø 12

200 mm

Figure 5.14: Geometrical properties and reinforcement layout of the test-frame (Pampanin, 2003)

Figure 5.15: Column lap splice at floor level (units in cm) (Pampanin, 2003)

- 51 -

**Chapter 5 – Validation of the analytical model
**

5.3.2 Material properties

Material used in the construction of the test frame have characteristics similar to those most widely used in the period 1950-70. Mean values and standard deviations for concrete cylinder compression strength, f’c, are indicated in table 5.7.

Concrete strength f’c (MPa) @28 days f’c(MPa) @starting test-day 17.83 13.28 13.19 13.84 13.47 12.72 14.06 1.89 13.30 0.41

**1st Floor 2nd Floor 3rd Floor
**

Mean Value Standard Deviation Mean(1st floor excluded) Stand. Dev. (1st floor excl)

Column Beam Column Beam Column Beam

15.97 13.19 12.63 12.82 13.00 12.63 13.37 1.29 12.85 0.24

Table 5.7: Concrete cylinder compressive strength values (Pampanin, 2002)

It should be noted that, as typical of construction practice, the columns and beam elements at each floor were casted at subsequent stages, leading to a high standard deviation in the mechanical properties of the concrete. In particular the concrete strength values of the first storey columns result higher than the upper floors members. After casting the first storey, the characteristic of the concrete were in fact modified to increase the workability leading to the aforementioned lower strength values for the next casting. Average values and standard deviations are thus shown in the two cases: including and excluding the strength value of the first floor columns. Plain round steel bars with characteristic yielding stress fy = 350 MPa were adopted for the longitudinal and transversal reinforcement. From laboratory tests on steel bars the mean yielding and ultimate strength values were established. Table 5.8 reports the main mechanical properties of the longitudinal reinforcement.

Bar Diameter (mm) Steel Strength Ultimate Yielding f (MPa) fy (MPa) u

8 12

Mean Standard Deviation Mean Standard Deviation

385.64 1.74 345.87 2.17

451.22 3.48 458.63 2.17

Table 5.8: Mean steel strengths of longitudinal bars (Pampanin, 2002)

- 52 -

Chapter 5 – Validation of the analytical model

5.3.3

Test setup and loading history

The test frame was subjected to a quasi-static cyclic loading at increasing levels of top displacement, applied to the structure using three actuators connected to the closest beam through a steel level arm (figure 5.16).

Quasi-Static Cyclic Loadin

Gravity loads

Screw Jack Actuators

Reaction wall

Strong floor

Figure 5.16: Test setup (Pampanin, 2003)

- 53 -

1st Bay (2.4 kN (2*480 kg) 27.13 m) 3rd Bay (2.90⎬ ⎪ F F ⎪ ⎪(m / m ) ⋅ h h ⎪ ⎪0.17: Lateral loading history and force distribution (Pampanin.2%) with one conclusive cycle at ± 1. 2002) The presence of gravity loads where simulated using concrete blocks supported by the beams and arranged as shown in figure 5. 4 3% 3.3) ⎪F ⎪ ⎩ i3 ⎭i { } indicate the jth-floor mass and height (relative to the foundation level).6 % 0.2%.2 % 0.6%.1 kN (4*570 kg + 1*480 kg) 27.1 kN (3*480 kg) 14.8 m) 1st floor 2nd floor 3rd floor 2nd Bay (1.6%.8 kN (4*570 kg+ 2*480 kg) 31.Chapter 5 – Validation of the analytical model The loading history consisted of a series of three cycles at increasing level of top drift ( ± 0.1 kN (see first floor) 9. the following lateral force ratio was obtained: ⎧1 ⎫ ⎧1 ⎫ ⎧1 ⎫ ⎪ ⎪ ⎪ ⎪ ⎪ ⎨ i 2 Fi1 ⎬ = ⎨(m2 / m1 ) ⋅ h2 h1 ⎬ ≅ ⎨0.16. The top floor displacement was directly controlled while maintaining a constant ratio between the applied lateral forces accordingly to a code type distribution proportional to the mass and the floor level height. m j and h j (with j=1.4 kN (4*570 kg) 14.54 - . of semi-cycles Figure 5. ± 0. ± 1. 2002) .5% 3 Imposed Top Drift (%) 2% 2 1 0 -1 -2 -3 -4 10 20 0.45⎪ ⎭ ⎩ i 3 i1 ⎭ ⎩ 3 1 3 1 ⎭ ⎩ {F } = ⎪F i Fi1 (5. Figure 5.1 kN (see first floor) 22.17 shows the test loading history and the lateral force distribution.8) ⎧ Fi1 ⎫ ⎪ ⎪ where F i = ⎨ Fi 2 ⎬ is the vector of floor forces at the ith loading step. Table 5.8 kN (see first floor) 22.5 % 30 40 50 n.9: Gravity load distribution (Pampanin.9 reports the values of gravity loads applied to the structure for each bay and floor level. Being the mass at the top floor lower than those at the first and second floor.13 m) 31.4 kN (4*570 kg) Table 5.8 % 1% 1.

The initial and post-yielding stiffness of beams and columns elements were defined through a moment curvature analysis of each section.4 Description of the model The modeling approach used for the test frame follows the same principles of the one used to represent the beam-column subassemblies and described in chapter 2.18 shows the geometrical dimensions of the numerical model.55 - .Chapter 5 – Validation of the analytical model 5. The base nodes have been modeled as fully fixed since the test frame foundation was constituted by a 300mm thick continuous beam anchored to the laboratory ground floor by means of continuous steel girder beams. Figure 5.18: Geometric dimensions of the frame model Beams and columns members are represented by mono-dimensional elements with inelasticity concentrated in the end critical sections.10 and figure 5. Figure 5. . For column members a series of moment-curvature analysis with increasing value of applied axial load were performed in order to define a realistic axial load-bending moment interaction diagram to assign to each element in the numerical model (table 5.19).3. thus providing enough rigidity to consider the structure fully fixed to the ground.

0 19.0 9.0 322.19: Interaction diagrams of the frame columns The non linear behavior of the beam members was described adopting a modified Takeda (Otani.1 0. setting the cycle parameters α = 0.0 180.5 215. as typically happens in under designed structural elements.8 0.0 Table 5.0 270.1 0.10: Interaction diagram values for the frame columns 25 1st Storey 2nd-3rd Storey 20 Moment [kNm] 15 10 5 0 -200 0 200 400 600 800 Axial Load [kN] Figure 5. .4 15.5 750. These values allows to minimize the area of the hysteretic loop thus limiting the energy dissipated by the plastic hinges.56 - .Chapter 5 – Validation of the analytical model 1st storey columns N [kN] M [kNm] 2nd-3rd storey columns N [kN] M [kNm] -110. 1974) hysteretic rule.5 (for the unloading phase) and β = 0 (for the reloading branch).2 22.1 0.2 0.1 0.0 90.5 16.0 630.0 9.0 20.0 107.0 -110.5 18.

2.3 . 1969) tri-linear hysteresis to better describe the effect of cracking on the element seismic response (figure 5. Figure 5. Performing the cyclic analysis.21: Fukada hysteresis rule (Fukada. so it has been decided to adopt a Takeda hysteresis both for beams and columns.Chapter 5 – Validation of the analytical model Figure 5. The cyclic behavior of the beam-column joints has been described using the hysteretic rule described in paragraph 5. 1969) The beam-column joints are modeled with two axial-rotational spring interposed between the upper and lower column as described in paragraph 5.2.29 f c ' for exterior and interior joints respectively.21).2. it has been assumed reasonable to use as elastic stiffness the secant stiffness at yielding point.57 - . This type of rule is numerically more stable and since is supposed that the columns will crack for relatively small value of displacement (drift).2 f c ' and pt = 0.20: Modified Takeda hysteresis rules(Otani. as described in paragraph 4. This solution has been used for the pushover analyses performed on the frame. The cracking moments for the joint panels have been calculated as correspondent to a value of principal tensile stress pt = 0. the presence of a tri-linear loop led to a excessive increase of computational efforts.1974) The columns members has been provided with Fukada (Fukada.2.

Chapter 5 – Validation of the analytical model whose parameters were calibrated on the basis of the results of the experimental test on beamcolumn subassemblies as reported in the previous paragraphs.

5.3.5

Performed analyses

The frame model has been first studied performing two different pushover analyses (displacement controlled and force-controlled) to investigate the monotonic response of the structure. A displacement controlled cyclic analysis was then performed to compare the hysteretic response of the frame with the experimental results obtained during the test and to investigate the cyclic behavior of structural members and joints.

Displacement-controlled pushover

A vector of displacements with increasing amplitude has been applied to the exterior joints at each floor level. The ratio between the floor displacement amplitudes was kept constant and equal to the ratio between the experimental displacements recorded at 1.6% of top drift. Table 5.11 shows the ratio between floor displacements applied to the model. DOF 1 2 3 where: ∆i is the displacement at the ith storey ∆3 is the displacement of the 3rd storey The analysis was performed loading the structure both in the positive and negative directions.

Force-controlled pushover

∆3/∆i

0.52 0.83 1

Table 5.11: Floor displacement ratio applied in the pushover analysis

The forces applied to each storey reflected the force ratio defined in the test setup and calculated as function of the floor height and mass (see paragraph 5.3.3). The applied force ratio is reported in table 5.12. DOF 1 2 3

F3/Fi

0.45 0.9 1

Table 5.12: Ratio of storey forces applied in the pushover analysis

- 58 -

Chapter 5 – Validation of the analytical model

where: Fi is the force applied at the ith storey F3 is the force applied of the 3rd storey Also the force controlled pushover analysis was performed applying the loads first in the positive and than in the negative direction.

Cyclic analysis

In the cyclic analysis the displacement history applied to the joints of the frame was the same used in the experimental test: 3 cycles at increasing level of top drift (0.2%, 0.6% and 1.2%) and a final cycle at 1.6% of top drift (see figure 5.22).

Imposed Top Drif t [%] 2 1 0 -1 -2 0 10 20 Test Sequence 30 40 0.6% 0.2% 1.2% 1.6%

Figure 5.22: Imposed displacement history for the cyclic analysis

5.3.6

Analytical-experimental comparison

Pushover Analysis

The pushover analysis was intended to investigate the monotonic response of the frame and compare it with the envelope curve of the cyclic response of the test frame obtained from the quasistatic experimental test. The numerical results have been then compared with a series of base shear – top drift curves presented by the participants to a blind analytical prediction contest organized as part of the coordinated research program. The contest consisted on the prediction of the expected response of the frame system under simulated seismic loading and has been carried out within some partners of the project (Third University of Rome, University on Naples) as well as some external research teams either from academic (University of Canterbury, Christchurch, New Zealand) or from consulting-industry (Rutherford & Checkene Engineers, San Francisco, USA).

- 59 -

Chapter 5 – Validation of the analytical model Figure 5.23 shows the comparison between the analytical results of the displacement controlled pushover, the blind prediction results and the experimental cyclic response of the frame.

Top Floor Drift (%) -2

80 60 40

-1.5

-1

-0.5

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

Base Shear (kN)

20 0 -20 -40 -60 -80

Experimental Prediction- Naple Prediction- Rome3 Prediction- Canterbury Prediction-Salerno Prediction-Ruth.&Check.Eng.

Analytical

-120

-80

-40

0

40

80

120

Top Floor Displacement (mm)

Figure 5.23: Comparison between pushover curve (displacement control), blind predictions and experimental results (after Pampanin, 2002)

The analytical results show a good agreement with the experimental response, in particular the adoption of a tri-linear hysteresis rule to the columns members allows to describe well the initial stiffness of the frame. The maximum base shear capacity was well estimated both in the positive and in the negative direction. Any strength degradation rule was adopted for the structural elements of the model (except that for the rotational springs of the exterior joints) and this is reflected by the loss of accuracy in the description of the response at higher level of ductility. In is worth noting that while the curves obtained by the competitors of the contest are blind predictions calculated knowing the information on geometrical and mechanical characteristics, the numerical analysis has been performed after the experimental test with the complete access to all experimental results. In figure 5.24 the base shear – top drift curve calculated from the force-controlled pushover analysis is presented. It can be noticed a slight overestimation of the maximum base shear capacity in the positive direction while in the negative the value of the base shear is similar to that obtained from the displacement controlled pushover. The displacement profile at increasing value of top drift is also shown in the figure. The overestimation of the displacement is marked at higher level of top drift (1.2% and 1.6%) and is due to the higher inelastic deformation demand of the joint springs respect to the effective shear deformation suffered by the beam column joints during the test. - 60 -

5 1 1. 2002) .6 3 Storey 2 1 0 -120 -80 0 0.5 0 0.24: Force-controlled pushover: base shear – top drift curve and displacement profile (after Pampanin.2 -0.5 -1 -0.Chapter 5 – Validation of the analytical model Top Floor Drif t (%) -2 80 60 40 -1.6 1.8 -1.8 6 4 2 0 120 Height (m) -40 0 40 80 Displacement profile (mm) Analytical Profile Experimental Profile Figure 5.2 1.61 - .5 2 Base Shear (kN) 20 0 -20 -40 -60 -80 -120 -80 -40 0 40 80 120 Top Floor Displacement (mm) Experimental Analytical Top floor drift (%) -1.

Chapter 5 – Validation of the analytical model The experimental test on the frame system confirmed the high vulnerability of the panel zone region and the tendency to develop undesirable global mechanism due to the absence of an adequate hierarchy of strength. 2003) . Top Displacement Shear Hinges Plastic Hinges Figure 5. Figure 5.2% top drift (Pampanin.62 - .25 show an overview of the structural damage pattern correspondent to a top drift level of 1.2%.25: Crack pattern observed at 1.

63 - .26: Frame damage photo report (Pampanin. . The damage pattern that results from the displacement controlled pushover analysis is presented in figure 5.27. 2002) It can be noted that damage mostly concentrated in the joint region (exterior tee-joints) or at the beam/column interfaces with a wide flexural crack as expected due to plain round bars slip.Chapter 5 – Validation of the analytical model Figure 5. In the interior joint panel regions no cracks were observed.

04 2.28).29 4.44 1. However the overall response is consistent with what have been observed during the experimental test.81 2.2% Loading Direction 1. At the first storey level.41 Figure 5.74 3.27 2.83 3.24 1.55 2.71 2.57 2.57 3.25 3.26 3.75 2.66 3.Chapter 5 – Validation of the analytical model Loading Direction Top Drift 1.36 3.53 2.22 1.91 1.2% Top Drift 1. the inelastic deformation was concentrated into the joint springs.07 2.70 3.40 1.88 2.30 2.92 2.2% Top Drift 1.52 1.13 4.89 1.57 1.28: Damage pattern and curvature ductility at 1.16 1.64 - .07 3. Similar results were obtained from the force controlled pushover (figure 5.25 2.2% top drift level (force controlled pushover) .02 2.55 1.33 1.78 2.99 2.39 3.2% top drift level (displacement controlled pushover) The plastic hinge distribution on the numerical model frame reflects the effective damage pattern observed during the experimental test.95 3.21 1.61 3.36 3.67 2. in this case a general increase of ductility demand in the column members is noticed and consequently the interior joints of the first storey show some slight damage.23 3.90 3.57 2.2% Loading Direction 2.27: Damage pattern and curvature ductility at 1.11 2.38 3.19 1.94 1.58 Figure 5.37 2. It is worth noting in particular that the exterior joint spring of the first and second storey experienced the higher damage while the interior joint didn't reach the cracking limit.54 2.69 2. Furthermore the higher curvature ductility demands are recorded at the base column sections and at the upper section of the 2 storey columns.55 4.88 2.83 2. Loading Direction Top Drift 1.59 3. thus preventing higher plastic deformations in the column sections.66 2.2 3.99 1.96 1. in fact .

Top Floor Drif t (%) -2 80 60 40 -1.5 0 0. A very good agreement with the experimental results is found in terms of maximum base shear capacity (52 kN) both in the positive and negative direction. This effect cannot be completely described by the Takeda hysteresis rule associated to the structural elements and the only contribution to the "pinching" phenomenon is due to the inelastic behavior of the joint springs.65 - .29: Analytical-experimental comparison of the global hysteretic behavior of the frame (after Pampanin. Finally the shear deformation experienced by the panel zone regions during the experimental test was compared with the rotation of the joint springs adopted in the modeling. the experimental response is characterized by a more marked "pinching" effect mainly due to the splippage of longitudinal reinforcing bars of beams and columns. A good general agreement in global results is shown from the figure 5.5 -1 -0. for this reason the initial stiffness obtained numerically is lower then the effective elastic stiffness of the frame. As described in paragraph 5.Chapter 5 – Validation of the analytical model Cyclic Analysis The cyclic analysis results were compared with the hysteretic response of the test frame to investigate the accuracy of the modeling solution in describing the non-linear cyclic behavior of an existing frame. Furthermore a comparison between analytical and experimental results has been made in terms of equivalent viscous damping calculated on the 1st and 3rd hysteretic cycle.3.29. 2002) .4 a bilinear hysteresis rule has been adopted for the column members.5 2 Base Shear (kN) 20 0 -20 -40 -60 -80 -120 -80 -40 0 40 80 120 Top Floor Displacement (mm) Figure 5.5 1 1.

2%) the numerical model doesn't experiences any inelasticity so the correspondent equivalent viscous damping value was taken equal to 5% to take into account the energy dissipated by the opening of cracks in the beams and columns. 2002) Finally the correspondence between the joint shear deformation and the spring rotation is investigated.30: Experimental and analytical equivalent viscous damping values (after Pampanin. At low level of top drift (0. .2% top drift is mainly due to the incapability of accurately describe the "pinching" effect that governs the hysteretic response of the frame.6% top drift level) with a consistent reduction (ξ values lower than 10%) when subjected to the second and third cycles at the same drift level.Chapter 5 – Validation of the analytical model The values of equivalent viscous damping ξ . due to both stiffness and strength degradation. ranging between values of ξ = 10% and ξ = 20% (when considering cycles above the 0.66 - . Top Displacement (mm) 0 Equivalent Viscous Damping (%) 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 25 20 1st cycle 15 10 3rd cycle 5 0 0 0.6% and 1.4 0. At higher top drift level (0.31).4 Top Drift (%) Experimental Analytical Figure 5.2%) the value of ξ calculated from the analysis is consistent with what obtained form the test.2 1. referred to the global Base Shear-Top Drift hysteretic behavior.6 0.2 0.8 1 1. It is worth noting that the overestimation of the equivalent viscous damping value corresponding to the 3rd loading cycle at 1. The exterior joint at the first and second storey are considered (figure 5. were computed for the first and third cycle at each drift level.

It can be explained considering that the calibration of the parameters governing the hysteretic behavior of the joint springs has been made on the basis of the global response of the beam-column subassembly rather that on the effective shear deformation of the node region.32.Chapter 5 – Validation of the analytical model LS IS IN LN T2-S C2-S C2-N T2-N T1-S C1-S C1-N T1-N Figure 5. Thus the joint modeling approach takes into account the contribution to the rotation due to external effects like the slippage of longitudinal steel bars in cracked beams.31: Test frame joint identification labels A tendency to overestimating the inelastic deformation of the joint panel region is noticeable in figure 5. Looking at the graphs it appears that the best correspondence between results has been obtained for the south side exterior joint of the first storey (T1-S) where the model describes satisfactorily the joint response in terms of deformation amplitude.67 - . even if a plastic hinge is not yet developed. .

025 0.0075 -0.005 0 -0.01 0.01 -0.02 0.0025 -0.0025 -0.0025 -0.015 -0.005 -0.0075 0.015 0.68 - .005 0 -0.01 -0.0075 -0.32: Analytical and experimental joint shear deformation (after Pampanin.005 -0.02 -0.015 -0.Chapter 5 – Validation of the analytical model T1-S 0.0025 -0.025 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 Test Sequence Joint Shear Def ormation [rad] T1-N T2-S 0.025 0.025 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 Test Sequence 0.02 0.0125 Joint Shear Deformation [rad] 0.0125 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 Test Sequence 0.0075 0.015 0. 2002) .01 0.02 -0.0125 0 1000 2000 T2-N 3000 4000 5000 6000 Test Sequence Analytical Experimental Figure 5.0125 0.

The geometrical dimensions of the typical frame used for the tests is shown in figure 5. full scale. R.1 One storey infilled frames The experimental investigation performed at the University of L'Aquila comprised of six infilled one-storey 1/2 scale frames. designed for gravity load only following an allowable stress approach and adopting hollow bricks arranged in a double panel. 2003). threedimensional building carried out at the European Laboratory for Structural Assessment (ELSA) of the Joint Research Centre in Ispra were used as a comparative basis (Negro. The N1 specimen is provided with a double panel masonry infill made of horizontal hollowed bricks (8x25x12 cm).Chapter 5 – Validation of the analytical model 5.33.69 - . The validation has been first carried out comparing the numerical results with experimental pseudo-dynamic tests on a two dimensional one storey one bay frame performed at the Structural Laboratory of the University of L'Aquila (Colangelo. designed according to the EC8 with vertically hollowed bricks arranged in a single panel. At a second stage the experimental results from the pseudo-dynamic tests on a four-storey. either typical of the Italian construction practice before the introduction of modern seismic design provisions (designed for gravity only) or designed accordingly to the Eurocode 8 (1998). Different infill types. REINFORCED COCRETE INFILLED FRAMES The final stage of the model validation process was oriented to the evaluation of the accuracy of the proposed model including equivalent-struts using the Crisafulli hysteresis rule to represent the infill panels. arranged in a single or double panel. The infill panel of the specimen L2 is composed by masonry bricks (12x25x12 cm) with vertical holes. 1999. 5.4. . 1995).4.C. consisting of either vertically or horizontally hollowed bricks. The validation of the numerical model involved the comparison with the experimental test response of two specimens: specimen L2. specimen N1.

b) N1 specimen (Colangelo. 2003) Figure 5. 2003) .Chapter 5 – Validation of the analytical model a) b) Figure 5.34: Bricks adopted for the specimens L2 (left) and N1 (right) (Colangelo.33: Test frames: a) L2 specimen.70 - .

The cyclic behavior of the masonry infills has been represented adopting the Crisafulli hysteresis rule. a Takeda hysteretic rule has been assigned to the rotational springs in order to describe the post-cracking behavior of the beam-column connections. typical of older building design.2. are represented by elastic springs.71 - . The joints of the L2 specimen. In particular beams and columns were modeled with mono-dimensional elements with lumped inelasticity at member ends. The cyclic behavior has been described by a modified Takeda hysteresis rule.Chapter 5 – Validation of the analytical model Analytical-experimental comparison The model used in the numerical analyses follows the approach described in chapter 4. The joints were modeled through a rotational spring able to describe the differential rotation between beam and column and to simulate the joint shear deformation. For the specimen N1. . The infill panels were modeled by equivalent diagonal struts which mechanical properties have been defined accordingly to what described in paragraph 4.3. designed accordingly to EC8.

2002) . b) Base shear time hystory (Baletta.72 - .35: Analytical experimental comparison for specimen L2: a) Top drift time history.Chapter 5 – Validation of the analytical model 2 1 Drif t [%] 0 -1 -2 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Time [sec] a) 300 200 Base Shear [kN] 100 0 -100 -200 -300 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Time [sec] b) Experimental Analytical Figure 5.

Chapter 5 – Validation of the analytical model 3 2 Drif t [%] 1 0 -1 -2 -3 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Time [sec] a) 200 Base Shear [kN] 100 0 -100 -200 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Time [sec] b) Experimental Analytical Figure 5.73 - . In particular the correct prediction of the initial stage of the . b) Base shear time hystory (Baletta.36: Analytical experimental comparison for specimen N1: a) Top drift time history. 2002) The numerical – experimental results comparison show a good agreement both in terns of top drift and base shear for the L2 specimen.

typically occurring in under designed frames. More detailed information regarding the characteristics of the model and on the validation procedure can be found in Baletta (2002). The structure is composed by three parallel frames at a distance of 5 m. The accelerogram used for the pseudo-dynamic test was artificially generated from the EW record of Tolmezzo (Friuli. The beams have rectangular cross section with 450 mm depth and 300 mm width. Italy.Chapter 5 – Validation of the analytical model response. . governed by the masonry infill stiffness. It is supposed that the discrepancy in terms of top drift is mainly due to the damage in the frame leading to slippage of longitudinal reinforcing bars in beams and columns. thus underestimating the effective value of displacement experienced by the system. Three different solution in the infills distribution along the elevation were tested: bare frame.3 g and Soil Type B. The response of the N1 specimen model is very accurate in terms of force prediction but less in terms of displacement.37).74 - . All the columns have a square cross section (400x400 mm) except for the central one having a 450x450 mm cross section. 6/5/1976) to be compatible with the EC8 elastic design spectrum. each frame is made of two bays of 6 and 4 m respectively (figure 5. 10x10 m calculated at the columns centerline.2 Multi-storey three-dimensional infilled frames The evaluation of the modeling approach on a more complex structure has been carried out through a comparison with the experimental results of pseudo-dynamic tests on a full scale four storey 3D infilled frame performed at the European Laboratory for Structural Assessment (ELSA) of the Joint Research Centre in Ispra. 5. The type of hysteresis rule adopted in the modeling of the structural members is not able to represent the "pinching" behavior associated to slip phenomena. The interstorey height is equal to 3.4. The infills panels are constituted of vertical hollowed bricks (245x112x190 mm) with a void ratio of 42%. denotes that the modeling approach allows to adequately describe the effect of the infill panel of the overall response of the frame. The reinforced concrete frame design has been carried out in accordance with the provisions given by the Eurocode 2 (1991) and 8 (1998) assuming a design PGA of 0. Further information on the specimen properties.5 m for the first floor and 3 m for the upper storey. The building has a square plan. uniformly infilled frame and partially infilled frame (no infills at the ground floor). testing procedure and experimental results can be found in Negro (1995).

1995) Figure 5. .Chapter 5 – Validation of the analytical model D ire c tio n o f te s tin g Figure 5.75 - .37: Plan and elevation view of the test frame (Negro. the analytical-experimental comparison confirmed the satisfactory prediction capabilities of the numerical model adopted.38: Test specimen (Negro. 1995) Analytical – experimental comparison Regardless of the distribution of infills.

40 show a very good agreement between experimental and analytical results confirming the validity of the modeling approach adopted for the representation of the infill panels.39: Analytical-experimental comparison of the uniformly infilled frame: first floor displacement and base shear time history (Galli.1 Displacement [m] 0. 2003) The figures 5. . In particular it is worth noting that the correspondence between the results is adequate at any stage of the analysis denoting a realistic evaluation of the elastic properties of the equivalent diagonal struts as well as of the masonry cyclic behavior.Chapter 5 – Validation of the analytical model 3000 0.40: Analytical-experimental comparison of the partially infilled frame: first floor displacement and base shear time history (Galli.02 0 -0.04 0 2 4 Time [sec] 6 8 1000 0 -1000 -2000 -3000 0 2 4 Time [sec] Experimental Analytical 6 8 Figure 5.15 0 2 4 Time [sec] Experimental Analytical 6 8 Base Shear [kN] 3000 2000 1000 0 -1000 -2000 -3000 0 2 4 Time [sec] 6 8 Figure 5. 2003) 0.05 0 -0.1 -0.39 and 5.76 - .15 0. More detailed information about the analytical – experimental comparisons can be found in Galli (2003).04 2000 Displacement [m] Base Shear [kN] 0.05 -0.02 -0.

In particular. as commonly done in the Italian engineering practice of the past. In this chapter the attention is focused of the analysis of 2D frames. and partially infilled frames (without infills at the ground floor).77 - . the main object of the study is the analysis of the two and three dimensional seismic response of existing frame buildings designed for gravity load only.Chapter 6 – Numerical investigation on 2D frame systems Equation Section (Next) 6. uniformly infilled frames with strong and weak panels. different solution in the distribution of infill panels are considered: bare frame. first analyzing the 2/3 scaled three storey frame tested at the Department of Structural Mechanics of the University of Pavia and described in the previous chapter. Another interesting topic to be investigated through dynamic time history analyses is the effect of the presence of masonry infills in the frame. . reliable analytical tool. This modeling approach is a valuable support for extensive numerical investigation studies that are one of the scopes of the present work. to represent external walls and internal partitions respectively. At a second stage the seismic response of a case-study 6 storey three-bays frame system has been analyzed first performing some pushover analyses and then through a series of non-linear dynamic time history analyses. NUMERICAL INVESTIGATION ON 2D FRAME SYSTEMS The process of calibration and validation of the numerical model based on a concentrated plasticity approach leaded to the development of a simple and. at the same time.

Chapter 6 – Numerical investigation on 2D frame systems 6. The model of the bare frame has been then modified by the introduction of equivalent diagonal struts to simulate the presence of masonry infills accordingly to two widely adopted structural schemes: a) uniform distribution of infills. The wallets tested were composed of . THREE STOREY FRAME The numerical investigation carried out in the following paragraphs is focused on the evaluation of the seismic response of a 2/3 scaled three-storey three-bays reinforced concrete frame tested at the University of Pavia. a) b) Figure 6.1 Description of the infilled model Figure 6. with insulating purpose. The test frame has been described in paragraph 5.78 - . instead.3. have been chosen to model the external walls which are often built using two parallel masonry panels with an air inter-space in between. 1999).1. The model provided with weak masonry infills (single panel) can be considered representative of internal partition walls used to separate different rooms inside the building. The properties of the equivalent diagonal struts used in the model were defined to be representative of a masonry type similar to the one used for the pseudo-dynamic tests performed at the Structural Laboratory of the University of L'Aquila (Colangelo. The strong infills (double panel).1. The two solutions are considered as the most representative for a wide range of existing buildings built between 1950 and 1970 in the Mediterranean area.1: Three storey frame infills distribution: a) uniformly: b) partially In both cases the frames have been studied considering masonry infills composed by a single panel and a double panel of bricks. b) partial distribution of infills (no infills at the ground level).1 shows the distributions of masonry infills adopted for the numerical investigations. 6.

2.v. thus indicating how difficult is to model adequately the masonry infills characteristics and their effect on the global response of the structure in which they are inserted.o.3. 24. Quantity fwh [MPa] fwv [MPa] Ewh [MPa] Ewv [MPa] G [MPa] fws [MPa] fwu [MPa] ν Mean 3.8% 44% 6. The wall specimens were tested under compression load parallel and perpendicular to the holes and under diagonal compression. The stiffness and strength of the equivalent diagonal struts have been evaluated accordingly to what described in paragraph 4.57 0.19 MPa in the perpendicular direction.7% 66..3 0.1% - Table 6.79 - . In particular the width of the strut cross section has been evaluated with the formula: bw K1 = + K 2 (Decanini et al.v with: fwh horizontal compressive strength (parallel to the holes) fwv vertical compressive strength (perpendicular to the holes) Ewh horizontal elastic modulus of masonry Ewv vertical elastic modulus of masonry G shear modulus of masonry obtained from diagonal compression test fws shear strength of masonry obtained from diagonal compression test fwu sliding resistance of mortar ν Poisson coefficient The values of fws and ν has been taken as representative of an average masonry since any indication was available in the experimental documentation.8%.8% 3.84 2.36 MPa in the direction parallel to the holes and 2. The mean values of the mechanical quantities that characterize the masonry are reported in table 6. with a void ratio equal to 53.o. a compressive strength equal to 16.1: Masonry mechanical properties: mean value and c. In worth noting how the values of the mechanical properties of masonry are highly affected by dispersion respect to the mean values.).Chapter 6 – Numerical investigation on 2D frame systems horizontal hollowed bricks (246x118x79 mm).9% 3.v.2 c.7 2586 1195 1389 0.1 together with the correspondent coefficient of variation (c.o. 1993) where the constants K1 and K2 can be read dw λh .

In particular the ratio between the storey forces is shown in table 5.2: Base shear-top drift curve of the uniformly infilled frame Comparing the monotonic response of the uniformly infilled frames to the bare frame response the contribution of infill panels in terms of strength and stiffness appear evident.5 Top Drif t [%] 1 1. The elastic modulus of the masonry in the direction of the strut.12. compression of corners. 6. corresponding to the response curve of the bare frame. considering both the single and the double panel solution. Top Displacement [mm] 0 250 200 Base Shear [kN] 150 100 50 0 0 0.7.80 - . As expected the single panel infilled frame (dashed line curve) shows a lower value of strength and after the masonry infills have cracked the response of the two frames converge to the same value of force.Chapter 6 – Numerical investigation on 2D frame systems in table 4. . sliding shear and diagonal tension. The strength assigned to the strut member is the values correspondent to the most probable failure mechanism among for possible mechanisms taken into account: compression at centre of panel. inclined at an angle α respect to the horizontal. has been evaluated with the equation 4.1.5 Uniformly Infilled (2 panel) Uniformly Infilled (1 panel) 30 60 90 Figure 6.2 Pushover analyses of infilled frames A series of pushover analyses has been performed on the uniformly and partially infilled frame. A triangular distribution of forces has been applied to the structure similarly to what have been done for the bare frame.1.

The pushover analysis performed on the partially infilled frame shows a monotonic behavior of the building that is very similar to the response of the bare frame (figure 6. of the frames infilled with single and double masonry panels appears very similar and characterized by a storey mechanism at the lower level. . The response of the structure is not influenced by the type of masonry infill used since the infills suffer very little damage and the soft storey mechanism develops at the first storey where no infill is present.81 - . the response of the partially infilled frame is dominated by the inelastic deformation of base columns where the absence of infill panels leads to a drastic reduction of stiffness compared with the upper storey. in terms of displacement.3: Displacement profile of the uniformly infilled frame The displacement profile of the uniformly infilled frames analyzed clearly shows the development of a soft storey mechanism located at the first level. The inelastic deformation request at the first storey rapidly increases with loading and mainly all the deformation of the structure is concentrated at this level. The displacement profile plot (figure 6. similarly to what happens to the bare frame.5 6 Height [m] Storey 2 4 1 2 0 0 20 40 60 80 Top Displacement [mm] Double Panel Infill Single Panel Infill 0 Figure 6.5 1 1.Chapter 6 – Numerical investigation on 2D frame systems Top Drift [%] 0 3 0.5) clearly shows the type of mechanism governing the global response of the partially infilled frame. The response. The infill panels start to damage at displacement value correspondent to a top drift level of 0.4). It is worth noting that. regardless of the type of masonry panels present.5%.

5 1 1.4: Base shear-top drift curve of the partially infilled frame Top Drift [%] 0 3 0.5: Displacement profile of the partially infilled frame .5 2 6 Height [m] Storey 2 4 1 2 0 0 40 80 120 Top Displacement [mm] Double Panel Infill Single Panel Infill 0 Figure 6.5 Top Drif t [%] 1 1.5 Figure 6.82 - .Chapter 6 – Numerical investigation on 2D frame systems Top Displacement [mm] 0 80 30 60 90 60 Base Shear [kN] 40 20 Panrtially Infilled (2 panel) Partially Infilled (1 panel) 0 0 0.

taking into account the uncracked response. show a response characterized by higher strength and stiffness up to the failure point of the masonry panels and the consequent development of the storey mechanism.5 Figure 6.5 Top Drif t [%] 1 1. It is worth noting how the presence of masonry infills increases the strength and stiffness of the structure. The uniform infilled frame.6: Comparison between the 3 storey frame pushover curves Figure 6. For this reason the first stiffness of the bare frame is similar to the initial stiffness of the partial infilled frame. The bare frame curve shows a higher initial stiffness because the columns were modeled with a Fukada tri-linear hysteresis rule.6 shows a comparison between the pushover curves of the three typologies of frame analyzed.83 - . instead.Chapter 6 – Numerical investigation on 2D frame systems Top Displacement [mm] 0 200 Bare Frame Uniformly Infilled Frame Partial Infilled Frame 30 60 90 160 Base Shear [kN] 120 80 40 0 0 0. In the post elastic range the curve rapidly decreases eventually falling on the response curve of the partial infilled frame .

2004) using ten recorded accelerograms chosen between a more complete set of Californian input ground motions used in other studies on seismic assessment of frame systems (Pampanin.44 0.42 0.1.Chapter 6 – Numerical investigation on 2D frame systems 6.3 Records used for the time history analyses The time history analyses have been performed with the dynamic analysis program Ruaumoko 2D (Carr.7 6.4 0.35 0.2 0 0 1 2 Period [sec] 3 4 5 Mean elastic spectrum EC8 elastic spectrum Figure 6.6 0.41 Duration [sec] 44 50 44 40 30 25 40 30 40 22 Table 6. EQ n° Event EQ1 Cape Mendocino EQ2 Landers EQ3 Landers EQ4 Loma Prieta EQ5 Northridge EQ6 Northridge EQ7 Northridge EQ8 Northridge EQ9 Superstition Hills EQ10 Superstition Hills Year 1992 1992 1992 1989 1994 1994 1994 1994 1987 1987 Magnitude 7.3 6.3g and soil type B.44 0.49 0.7 PGA [g] 0.9 6.1 7. 1 0.8 0.33 0. The characteristics of the accelerograms as taken from the original set are shown in table 6.2: Record used for the time history analyses The records have been scaled to 75% of the original PGA value so that the average spectrum was compatible with the EC8 elastic spectrum at 5% damping.84 - .3g. considering PGA = 0. Soil type B) and mean response spectrum of ten records PGA [g] .7 6.7: Comparison between EC8 elastic spectrum (PGA = 0.7 6.43 0. 2003).37 0.7 6.36 0.3 7.2.7 6.

3: Scale factors for the principal physical quantities 6. scaled by a factor β. is analyzed.Chapter 6 – Numerical investigation on 2D frame systems For the analysis of the 2/3 scaled reinforced concrete frame the records were scaled so that the duration and the amplitude of the accelerograms were consistent with the other physical quantities of the scaled specimen. In particular the original acceleration has been divided by the scale factor β = 2/3. thus obtaining an higher value of the acceleration to be used for the analysis of the scaled model.1.4 as average of the ten ground motions. On the other hand the duration of the records is reduced multiplying the real time length by the scale factor. Bare frame The results of the dynamic time history analyses performed of the bare frame model are shown in figure 6. . Northridge (EQ8).85 - . Table 6.8 and reported in table 6. The plots show the maximum displacement and maximum drift profile recorded during the analysis to have an indication of the maximum deformation experienced by the frame. Quantity Prototype Model Length Mass Time Stress Velocity Acceleration Force Damping l M t s v a F c βl β3M βt s v β-1a β2F β2c Table 6. together with some more detailed results for three particular accelerograms: Loma Prieta (EQ4). The following relationships are obtained with the hypothesis of keeping constant the material density and the stress.3 reports the coefficients to be used for the main physical quantities to obtain the correspondent value when a model.4 Time history results In the following pages the average results obtained from the analyses using 10 input records are reported. Residual values of displacement and drift are also reported as a good indicator of the damage suffered by the structure. Superstition Hills (EQ10).

067 (0.0042 Drift [%] maximum 3.071 (0.4: Displacement and interstorey drift: mean values and standard deviation of ten analyses on the bare frame 3 Storey Storey 2 1 0 0 2 4 6 Maximum Interstorey Drif t [%] 3 2 1 0 -0.9 to 6.79 (0. Superstition Hills (EQ10)) are analyzed in more details.020) residual -0.1 0.11 show the global results for the three storey frame.1 0.07) 0.08) 0.05 0.44%.020) -0.86 - .028) positive 0.8: Time-history analysis on the 3-storey bare frame: interstorey drift and displacement profile (average of maximum and residual) Looking at the plot of the average maximum drift profile it appear evident a high request of inelastic deformation at the first storey where a soft storey mechanism is likely to develop.028) -0.059 (0.028) 0. In the following pages three records (Loma Prieta (EQ4). In particular the level reached by the joint deformation is investigated together with the contribution of the different elements to the maximum drift.2 Height [m] Height (m) Envelope Max Floor Displacements [m] 3 Storey Storey 2 1 0 0 2 4 6 Residual Interstorey Drift (%) 3 2 1 0 -0.1 0 0.0037 -0.0036 0.2 6 4 2 0 -0.046 (0.44 2 3 -0.055 (0. .1 0 0.Chapter 6 – Numerical investigation on 2D frame systems Maximum displacement [m] storey 1 negative -0.38 (0.2 6 4 2 0 -0.2 Residual Displacement (m) Figure 6. Figures 6. Northridge (EQ8).33) residual 0. The plastic deformation and consequent probable damage suffered by the elements of the first storey is also evidenced by an average residual drift value of 0.063 (0.020) 0.20 (1.01 Table 6.

04 -0.1 0 0.5 0 -0.05 6 4 2 0 0.04 0 -0.5 -1 -1.5 Top Drift [%] Height [m] 80 60 Base Shear [kN] 40 20 0 -20 -40 -60 -80 0 5 10 15 20 Time [sec] 25 30 35 40 3 Storey Storey 2 1 0 0 0. EQ4) .8 1.08 1.9: Bare frame: time history analysis results (Loma Prieta.2 Envelope Max Floor Displacements [m] Figure 6.4 0.1 0.08 0.Chapter 6 – Numerical investigation on 2D frame systems Loma Prieta (EQ4) Top Floor Displacement [m] 0.2 0 Residual Displacement (m) 3 Storey Storey 0 2 4 6 2 1 0 Maximum Interstorey Drift [%] 3 2 1 0 -0.87 - .5 1 0.2 Residual Interstorey Drift (%) 3 2 1 0 -0.05 Height (m) 6 4 2 0 -0.

04 0 -0.4 0.08 0.8 1.05 6 4 2 0 0.05 0 Residual Displacement (m) 3 Storey Storey 0 2 4 6 2 1 0 Maximum Interstorey Drift [%] 3 2 1 0 -0.1 0 0.10: Bare frame: time history analysis results (Northridge.2 Envelope Max Floor Displacements [m] Figure 6.88 - .2 Residual Interstorey Drift (%) 3 2 1 0 -0.08 -0.2 Height [m] 80 60 Base Shear [kN] 40 20 0 -20 -40 -60 -80 0 5 10 15 Time [sec] 20 25 30 3 Storey Storey 2 1 0 0 0. EQ8) .1 0.12 0.Chapter 6 – Numerical investigation on 2D frame systems Northridge (EQ8) Top Floor Displacement [m] 0.04 -0.12 2 1 0 -1 -2 Top Drif t [%] Height (m) 6 4 2 0 -0.

1 0.08 80 60 Base Shear [kN] 40 20 0 -20 -40 -60 -80 0 5 Superstition Hills(EQ10) 1 0.2 0 Residual Displacement (m) 3 Storey Storey 0 2 4 6 2 1 0 Maximum Interstorey Drift [%] 3 2 1 0 -0.05 6 4 2 0 0.2 Residual Interstorey Drift (%) 3 2 1 0 -0.2 Envelope Max Floor Displacements [m] Figure 6.08 Top Floor Displacement [m] 0.4 0.1 0 0.5 0 -0.5 -1 Top Drift [%] Height [m] 10 Time [sec] 15 20 25 3 Storey Storey 2 1 0 0 0.89 - .05 Height (m) 6 4 2 0 -0.11: Bare frame: time history analysis results (Superstition Hills.04 0 -0. EQ10) .Chapter 6 – Numerical investigation on 2D frame systems 0.8 1.04 -0.

column and joint) of the beam column connection to the maximum interstorey drift. This behavior has been also predicted by the pushover analyses performed on the three storey R.Chapter 6 – Numerical investigation on 2D frame systems Loma Prieta (EQ4) 3 3 Northridge (EQ8) 3 Superstition Hills (EQ10) Storey N° Storey N° 1 1 Storey N° 0 0.13 to 6.12 shows the maximum joint rotation recorded during the dynamic analyses with the three records under consideration. 5.C.004 0.01 rad. Figures 6. All the plots indicate a higher level of deformation for the exterior joints (column 1 and 4).3).008 2 2 2 1 0 0 0. These plots show again that the higher contribution to the drift comes from the exterior joints located at the first storey level.008 Joint rotation [rad] 0 Joint rotation [rad] Column 1 Column 2 Column 3 Column 4 0 0 0. . that can be assumed as a limit state for critical damage (Pampanin.004 0. The maximum and residual displacement profiles for the EQ4 and EQ8 records show a marked difference between positive and negative direction and this is confirmed by the joint rotations which are higher on one side of the frame respect to the other.008 Joint rotation [rad] Figure 6. this result confirms what has been obtained from the experimental tests on the beam-column subassemblies and on the three storey frame tested at the University of Pavia.90 - . frame model (par. 2002). However it is worth noting that the joint rotation never exceeds the value of 0. indicating a more severe level of damage reached by one particular node.12: Bare frame joint rotations Figure 6.15 report the contribution of each single element (beam.004 0.

91 - .13: Bare frame: elements contribution to the maximum interstorey drift (EQ4) .Chapter 6 – Numerical investigation on 2D frame systems Loma Prieta (EQ4) Column 1 Column 2 Column 3 Column 4 3 3 Beam Beam Storey N° Storey N° 2 Column 2 Column Joint Joint 1 0 20 40 60 80 100 Drift contribution [%] 3 Joint Beam Beam 3 1 0 20 40 60 80 100 Drift contribution [%] Storey N° Storey N° 2 Column 2 Column Joint 1 0 20 40 60 80 100 Drift contribution [%] 1 0 20 40 60 80 100 Drift contribution [%] Figure 6.

14: Bare frame: elements contribution to the maximum interstorey drift (EQ8) .Chapter 6 – Numerical investigation on 2D frame systems Northridge (EQ8) Column 1 Column 2 Column 3 Column 4 3 Column Storey N° Storey N° Beam 3 Beam 2 2 Column Joint 1 0 20 40 60 80 100 Drift contribution [%] 3 Joint 3 1 0 20 40 60 80 100 Drift contribution [%] Joint Beam Storey N° Storey N° Beam 2 Column 2 Column Joint 1 0 20 40 60 80 100 Drift contribution [%] 1 0 20 40 60 80 100 Drift contribution [%] Figure 6.92 - .

15: Bare frame: elements contribution to the maximum interstorey drift (EQ10) .Chapter 6 – Numerical investigation on 2D frame systems Superstition Hills (EQ10) Column 1 Column 2 Column 3 Column 4 3 Beam 3 Beam Storey N° 2 Column Joint 1 0 20 40 60 80 100 Drift contribution [%] 3 Beam Joint Storey N° 2 Column Joint 1 0 20 40 60 80 100 Drift contribution [%] 3 Beam Storey N° 2 Column Storey N° 2 Column Joint 1 0 20 40 60 80 100 Drift contribution [%] 1 0 20 40 60 80 100 Drift contribution [%] Figure 6.93 - .

021) 0.025) -0.000 Single panel infill maximum residual 3.00) 0.071 (0.38% at the first level versus 0.003 0.00 (0. and the corresponding standard deviation.6 shows the maximum interstorey drift. reached by the structure during the time histories. causes a big stiffness discontinuity.38 (1.94 - .00) 0.6: Interstorey drift: mean values and standard deviation of ten analyses on the partially infilled frame The graphical representation of the values shown in the previous tables is presented in figure 6. Looking at the interstorey drift values it is immediate to notice that the inelastic deformation is nearly completely concentrated at the first storey (3. double or single panel). The residual drift values confirm the activation of the aforementioned mechanism and indicate the concentration of damage in the structural elements located at the first storey.01% at the upper levels for the double panel infilled frame).Chapter 6 – Numerical investigation on 2D frame systems Partially infilled frame Table 6.048 (0.000 Table 6.0036 -0. leading to a high level of damage mainly in columns and joints.5: Displacement: mean values and standard deviation of ten analyses on the partially infilled frame Drift [%] storey 1 2 3 Double panel infill maximum residual 3. .063 (0.059 (0. The absence of infills at the ground level. in fact.03% and 0.357 0. As expected the behavior of the partially infilled frame is governed by a soft storey mechanism located at the ground floor.05 (0.051 (0. give an indication of the dispersion of the results depending on the type of record used as input.0004 -0.016) 0.0042 -0.020) -0.020) residual -0.00) 0.01 (0. Again it appear evident the storey mechanism activated at the first level where a remarkable request of plastic deformation is located.02 (0.047 (0.021) 0.0004 Table 6.025) -0.79) 0.049 (0.16. storey 1 2 3 Maximum displacement [m] Double panel infill Single panel infill Negative positive residual negative positive -0.025) -0.e. the coefficient of variation.046 (0.050 (0. Table 6.17) 0.0037 -0.016) 0.021) 0. in brackets. Moreover it is worth noting how the response of the structure is not to much influenced by the type of infills adopted (i.051 (0. that governs the structural behavior. where the absence of infill panels causes a big discontinuity in terms of strength and stiffness. regardless of level of strength and rigidity of the masonry panels present at the upper levels.020) -0.5 reports the average of the maximum displacement recorded during the time history analyses using ten accelerograms.067 (0.00) 0.430 0.001 0.055 (0.016) 0.0004 -0.03 (0.

Chapter 6 – Numerical investigation on 2D frame systems 3 Storey 2 1 0 0 2 4 6 Maximum Interstorey Drif t [%] Storey 3 2 1 0 -0. In figures 6.1 0 0. looking at the maximum rotations experienced by the single spring.2 6 4 2 0 -0.19 displacement and drift profiles (maximum and residual) are reported together with the top floor displacement and base shear time history plots.1 0. and on the contribution of the different elements to the global interstorey drift. The limited values of residual displacements obtained can be explained considering that the analyses performed do not take into account strength degradation and P-∆ effects .2 6 4 2 0 -0.16: Time-history analysis on the 3-storey partially infilled frame: interstorey drift and displacement profile (average of maximum and residual) In the following pages the results of the analyses performed using as input Loma Prieta (EQ4). In the graphs the solid line represents the response of the frame provided with strong infills (double panel) and the dashed line corresponds the frame infilled with weak panels (single panel infills).17 to 6. Northridge (EQ8) and Superstition Hills (EQ10) records are overviewed focusing the attention on the behavior of joints.1 0 0.2 Residual Displacement (m) Double panel Single panel Figure 6.95 - .2 Height [m] Height (m) Envelope Max Floor Displacements [m] 3 Storey Storey 2 1 0 0 2 4 6 Residual Interstorey Drift (%) 3 2 1 0 -0.1 0.

04 -1 80 60 Base Shear [kN] 40 20 0 -20 -40 -60 -80 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 Time [sec] 3 Storey Storey 2 1 0 0 0.8 1.5 -0.4 0.17: Partially infilled frame: time history analysis results (Loma prieta.1 Envelope Max Floor Displacements [m] Figure 6.1 0.5 0 0 -0.05 6 4 2 0 0.2 Residual Interstorey Drift (%) 3 2 1 0 -0.Chapter 6 – Numerical investigation on 2D frame systems Loma Prieta (EQ4) 1 Top Floor Displacement [m] 0.04 Top Drift [%] Height [m] Height (m) 6 4 2 0 0 0.05 0 Residual Displacement (m) 3 Storey 0 2 4 6 Storey 2 1 0 Maximum Interstorey Drif t [%] 3 2 1 0 -0.96 - . EQ4) .

1 Height [m] 20 25 30 -1 0 Top Drift [%] 0.5 1 0 Residual Displacement (m) 3 Storey 0 2 4 6 Storey 2 1 0 Maximum Interstorey Drif t [%] 3 2 1 0 -0.Chapter 6 – Numerical investigation on 2D frame systems Northridge (EQ8) 0.4 0.05 6 4 2 0 0.02 -0.8 1.2 Residual Interstorey Drift (%) 3 2 1 0 -0.18: Partially infilled frame: time history analysis results (Northridge. EQ8) .06 80 60 Base Shear [kN] 40 20 0 -20 -40 -60 -80 0 5 10 15 Time [sec] 3 Storey Storey 2 1 0 0 0.5 -0.06 Top Floor Displacement [m] 0.1 Envelope Max Floor Displacements [m] Figure 6.97 - .02 0 -0.05 Height (m) 6 4 2 0 0 0.04 0.04 -0.

03 -0.06 Top Floor Displacement [m] 0.2 Residual Interstorey Drift (%) 3 2 1 0 -0.06 80 60 Base Shear [kN] 40 20 0 -20 -40 -60 -80 0 5 10 Time [sec] 3 Storey Storey 2 1 0 0 0.05 6 4 2 0 0.4 0.05 Height (m) 6 4 2 0 -0.19: Partially infilled frame: time history analysis results (Superstition Hills.5 0 -0.5 -1 0 Residual Displacement (m) 3 Storey Storey 2 1 0 0 2 4 6 Maximum Interstorey Drif t [%] 3 2 1 0 -0.98 - Top Drif t [%] .1 0 0.1 0.2 Envelope Max Floor Displacements [m] Figure 6.8 1.2 Height [m] 15 20 25 1 0. EQ10) .Chapter 6 – Numerical investigation on 2D frame systems Superstition Hills (EQ10) 0.03 0 -0.

The drift contribution plots (figure 6. is the structural typology that suffered a higher level of inelastic deformation. representing the infill panel and converging into the node. .0008 0. respect to the single panel solution. that exerts a stiffening effect on the beam-column subassembly so that the deformation demand of the region is concentrated into the plastic regions lower columns.99 - .00016 Joint rotation [rad] 0 0 0.12). especially at the first storey level where the higher level of drift is concentrated. This can be due to the presence of the equivalent diagonal strut.0012 Joint rotation [rad] b) Column 1 Column 2 Column 3 Column 4 0 0 8e-005 0.21 to 6.00016 Joint rotation [rad] c) Figure 6.Chapter 6 – Numerical investigation on 2D frame systems Loma Prieta (EQ4) 3 3 Northridge (EQ8) 3 Superstition Hills (EQ10) Storey N° Storey N° Storey N° 2 2 2 1 1 1 0 0 8e-005 a) 0.20: Partially infilled frame joint rotations As expected the higher level of joint deformation is experienced by the joints of the first storey.0004 0.23) confirm the predominant role of the column members to the maximum storey deformation. It is worth noting however that generally the maximum values of rotation experienced by the joints of the partially infilled frame are markedly lower that those of the bare frame (see figure 6. The following graphs are referred to the case of double panel infilled frame that is believed to be more interesting since. where the exterior joints suffered a maximum deformation much higher than the other nodes. It appears that there is no big difference in the value of rotation between interior and exterior joints except for the case of the double panel infilled frame (solid line) analyzed using Northridge record as input.

Chapter 6 – Numerical investigation on 2D frame systems Loma Prieta (EQ4) Column 1 Column 2 Column 3 Column 4 3 Joint Beam 3 Joint Beam Storey N° Storey N° 2 Column 2 Column 1 0 20 40 60 80 100 Drift contribution [%] 3 Beam 1 0 20 40 60 80 100 Drift contribution [%] 3 Joint Storey N° Joint 2 Column Storey N° Beam 2 Column 1 0 20 40 60 80 100 Drift contribution [%] 1 0 20 40 60 80 100 Drift contribution [%] Figure 6.21: Partially infilled frame: elements contribution to the maximum interstorey drift (EQ4) .100 - .

101 - .22: Partially infilled frame: elements contribution to the maximum interstorey drift (EQ8) .Chapter 6 – Numerical investigation on 2D frame systems Northridge (EQ8) Column 1 Column 2 Column 3 Column 4 3 Column Beam Storey N° Storey N° 3 Beam 2 2 Column Joint Joint 1 0 20 40 60 80 100 Drift contribution [%] 3 Joint 3 1 0 20 40 60 80 100 Drift contribution [%] Beam Storey N° Storey N° Beam 2 Column 2 Column Joint 1 0 20 40 60 80 100 Drift contribution [%] 1 0 20 40 60 80 100 Drift contribution [%] Figure 6.

23: Partially infilled frame: elements contribution to the maximum interstorey drift (EQ10) .Chapter 6 – Numerical investigation on 2D frame systems Superstition Hills (EQ10) Column 1 Column 2 Column 3 Column 4 3 3 Beam Storey N° 2 Column Storey N° Beam Joint 2 Column Joint 1 0 20 40 60 80 100 1 0 20 40 60 80 100 Drift contribution [%] 3 Beam Drift contribution [%] 3 Storey N° Storey N° Beam 2 Column Joint 2 Column Joint 1 0 20 40 60 80 100 Drift contribution [%] 1 0 20 40 60 80 100 Drift contribution [%] Figure 6.102 - .

20 (0.Chapter 6 – Numerical investigation on 2D frame systems Uniformly infilled frame In the following tables the results in terms of displacement and interstorey drift of the analyses performed of the uniformly infilled 3 storey frame are reported.016 (0.005) 0.009 (0.009 (0.103 - .007 0. The displacement and drift profiles of the frame infilled with strong panels (double layer of bricks) indicate a low level of deformation (maximum interstorey drift of 0.002) 0.001) -0.017 0.011 (0.03) 0.06 (0.003) 0.0001 Table 6.7: Displacement: mean values and standard deviation of ten analyses on the uniformly infilled frame Drift [%] storey 1 2 3 Double panel infill maximum residual 0.05) 0.012 (0.008 (0. a soft storey mechanism is likely to develop as a consequence of a drastic and sudden decrease in lateral stiffness.08 (0.004) 0.0001 -0.047 0.001 Single panel infill Maximum residual 0.016 (0.0001 Single panel infill negative Positive residual -0.8: Interstorey drift: mean values and standard deviation of ten analyses on the uniformly infilled frame .02) 0.003) 0.0000 -0. where.03) 0.005 (0.006 (0.005 0.007 (0.29 (0. Displacement [m] storey 1 2 3 Double panel infill Negative positive -0. In particular the higher value of deformation is recorded at the first storey. The values shown are the average of ten analyses and the values in bracket are the coefficient of variation of the correspondent quantity.002) residual -0. instead.003 Table 6.0002 -0.005) 0. after the failure of the masonry infills.002) 0. reached approximately twice the value of maximum storey displacement and drift.0001 -0.07) 0.19) 0. The frame provided with weak infills (single layer of bricks).3%) and negligible value of residual deformation thus indicating that nearly any damage has been suffered by the structure. It is reasonable to assume that due to the limited height and mass of the frame the stiffening effect of the masonry panels is enough to prevent the failure of the infills and the following damage of the structural elements.14 (0.002) 0.014 (0.003) -0.017 (0.59 (0.002) -0.

6 0.03 -0.2 0.03 Height [m] Height (m) 0 Envelope Max Floor Displacements [m] 3 Storey Storey 2 1 0 0 0.4 0.03 0 Residual Displacement (m) Double panel Single panel Figure 6. The plots of maximum and residual displacement and interstorey drift versus the building height are also presented.Chapter 6 – Numerical investigation on 2D frame systems 3 Storey 2 1 0 0 0. In the following pages the maximum joint rotations and the contribution of different elements to the interstorey drift will be discussed. Northridge (EQ8) and Superstition Hills (EQ10).03 -0.24: Time-history analysis on the 3-storey uniformly infilled frame: interstorey drift and displacement profile (average of maximum and residual) Figures 6.6 0.8 1 Maximum Interstorey Drif t [%] Storey 3 2 1 0 -0.015 0.015 6 4 2 0 0.015 6 4 2 0 0.8 1 Residual Interstorey Drift (%) 3 2 1 0 -0.2 0.25 to 6. In the following plots the dashed line is representative of the single panel infilled frame and the solid line represents the response of the frame infilled with strong panels.104 - . .4 0.015 0.27 show the top storey displacement and base shear time history for three input records: Loma Prieta (EQ4).

6 0.15 0 -0.15 -0.2 0.Chapter 6 – Numerical investigation on 2D frame systems Loma Prieta (EQ4) 0.02 0.05 0 Envelope Max Floor Displacements [m] Figure 6.4 0.4 0.05 6 4 2 0 0.105 - .01 0 -0.02 Top Floor Displacement [m] 0.05 6 4 2 0 0.3 300 200 Base Shear [kN] 100 0 -100 -200 -300 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 Time [sec] 3 Storey Storey 2 1 0 0 0.05 Height (m) 0 Residual Displacement (m) 3 Storey Storey 2 1 0 0 0.8 1 Residual Interstorey Drift (%) 3 2 1 0 -0. EQ4) .8 1 Maximum Interstorey Drif t [%] 3 2 1 0 -0.01 -0.6 0.25: Uniformly infilled frame: time history analysis results (Loma Prieta.3 Top Drift [%] Height [m] 0.2 0.

2 0.8 1 Maximum Interstorey Drif t [%] 3 2 1 0 -0.3 200 Base Shear [kN] 100 0 -100 -200 0 5 10 15 Time [sec] 3 Storey Storey 2 1 0 0 0.15 -0.6 0.05 6 4 2 0 0.4 0.6 0.02 Top Floor Displacement [m] 0.8 1 Residual Interstorey Drift (%) 3 2 1 0 -0. EQ8) .15 0 -0.01 0 -0.05 Height (m) 20 25 30 0 Residual Displacement (m) 3 Storey Storey 2 1 0 0 0.05 0 Envelope Max Floor Displacements [m] Figure 6.05 6 4 2 0 0.106 - .01 -0.4 0.26: Uniformly infilled frame: time history analysis results (Northridge.3 Top Drift [%] Height [m] 0.Chapter 6 – Numerical investigation on 2D frame systems Northridge (EQ8) 0.02 0.2 0.

EQ10) .01 -0.5 0 Top Drift [%] Height [m] Height (m) 0.107 - .8 1 Residual Interstorey Drift (%) 3 2 1 0 -0.05 15 20 25 0 Residual Displacement (m) 3 Storey Storey 2 1 0 0 0.03 Top Floor Displacement [m] 0.4 0.05 6 4 2 0 0.27: Uniformly infilled frame: time history analysis results (Superstition Hills.05 0 Envelope Max Floor Displacements [m] Figure 6.25 -0.8 1 Maximum Interstorey Drif t [%] 3 2 1 0 -0.Chapter 6 – Numerical investigation on 2D frame systems Superstition Hills (EQ10) 0.6 0.05 6 4 2 0 0.5 200 Base Shear [kN] 100 0 -100 -200 0 5 10 Time [sec] 3 Storey Storey 2 1 0 0 0.01 0 -0.02 -0.2 0.02 0.2 0.4 0.03 -0.25 0.6 0.

The following plots show the important contribution of the columns deformation to the maximum interstorey drift.0008 0. Looking at the graphs in figure 6. In some cases (see fig 6.28 it is evident that the joints of the frame with strong infills experience a low level of shear deformation as a consequence of the overall limited value of deformation reached by the structure. as already noticed in the analyses on the bare and infilled frames.0012 Joint rotation [rad] b) Column 1 Column 2 Column 3 Column 4 0 0 0.001 rad that can be assumed as a limit state of critical damage for the beam column connection. the joints that suffered the higher values of rotation are the exterior nodes of the first storey. .0004 0. On the other hand it is evident how the failure of the weak infills (dashed lines) lead to a more severe request of inelastic deformation request on the beam-column subassemblies. In this case the extensive damage of the node region could compromise the bearing capacity of the frame or at least require big efforts in repairing the structure.Chapter 6 – Numerical investigation on 2D frame systems Loma Prieta (EQ4) 3 3 Northridge (EQ8) 3 Superstition Hills (EQ10) Storey N° 1 Storey N° Storey N° 2 2 2 1 1 0 0 8e-005 0.28 b) the joint rotations exceed the value of 0.00016 Joint rotation [rad] a) 0 0 0. Moreover they confirm the greater contribute of the exterior joints to the frame deformation.0008 Figure 6.108 - .28: Uniformly infilled frame joint rotations As noticed in the cases of bare and partially infilled frame.0004 Joint rotation [rad] c) 0.

109 - .Chapter 6 – Numerical investigation on 2D frame systems Loma Prieta (EQ4) Column 1 Column 2 Column 3 Column 4 3 Joint 3 Joint Beam Storey N° Storey N° Beam 2 Column 2 Column 1 0 20 40 60 80 100 Drift contribution [%] 3 Joint 1 0 20 40 60 80 100 Drift contribution [%] 3 Joint Storey N° Storey N° Beam Beam 2 Column 2 Column 1 0 20 40 60 80 100 Drift contribution [%] 1 0 20 40 60 80 100 Drift contribution [%] Figure 6.29: Uniformly infilled frame: elements contribution to the maximum interstorey drift (EQ4) .

110 - .Chapter 6 – Numerical investigation on 2D frame systems Northridge (EQ8) Column 1 Column 2 Column 3 Column 4 3 Column Beam Storey N° Storey N° 3 Beam 2 2 Column Joint Joint 1 0 20 40 60 80 100 Drift contribution [%] 3 Joint 3 1 0 20 40 60 80 100 Drift contribution [%] Beam Storey N° Storey N° Beam 2 Column 2 Column Joint 1 0 20 40 60 80 100 Drift contribution [%] 1 0 20 40 60 80 100 Drift contribution [%] Figure 6.30: Uniformly infilled frame: elements contribution to the maximum interstorey drift (EQ8) .

111 - .31: Uniformly infilled frame: elements contribution to the maximum interstorey drift (EQ10) .Chapter 6 – Numerical investigation on 2D frame systems Superstition Hills (EQ10) Column 1 Column 2 Column 3 Column 4 3 3 Joint Beam Storey N° 2 Column Storey N° Beam Joint 2 Column 1 0 20 40 60 80 100 Drift contribution [%] 3 Joint 1 0 20 40 60 80 100 Drift contribution [%] 3 Joint Storey N° Storey N° Beam Beam 2 Column 2 Column 1 0 20 40 60 80 100 Drift contribution [%] 1 0 20 40 60 80 100 Drift contribution [%] Figure 6.

**Chapter 6 – Numerical investigation on 2D frame systems
**

6.2. SIX STOREY FRAME

After the investigation on the seismic response of the three storey frame has been carried out, the modeling procedure described in the previous chapters has been applied to a case-study six-storey three-bay frame system assumed as typical of the buildings designed in Italy between the 1950 and 1970. The structure as been studied in three different configurations: bare frame, uniformly infilled frame (uniform distribution of infills along the elevation) and non-uniformly infilled frame ( no infills at the first storey). Either single or double panel arrangements for the infills were considered. In the following paragraphs the case-study frame is described and the results from non-linear pushover and time history analyses are presented.

3m

C1

C1

C1

C1

3m

C1

C1

C1

C1

17,75 m

3m

3m

C1

C1

C1

C1

C1

C2

C2

C1

3m

C1

C2

C2

C1

2,75 m

C2

C3

C3

C2

4,5 m

2m 11 m

4,5 m

Figure 6.32: Geometric dimensions of the 6-storey frame

- 112 -

**Chapter 6 – Numerical investigation on 2D frame systems
**

6.2.1 Description of the frame

The structure is considered as part of a frame system building formed by a series of parallel frames at a distance of 4.5 m between centerlines of columns. The frame is six storey high with a interstorey height of 3 m with the exception of the first storey (2.75 m), and is constituted by three bays. The middle span is 2 m long while the exterior bays are 4.5 m long. The design of the frame as been carried out assuming the materials usually adopted in the 50's: • • plain round bars with characteristic yielding strength fy = 3800 Kg/cm2 and allowable stress σs = 1600 Kg/cm2 concrete with characteristic cubic compressive strength Rck = 200 Kg/cm2 .

The value of allowable stress for concrete was evaluated with the following relationship:

σ c = 60 +

Rck − 150 = 72.5 Kg/cm 2 4

The structural elements has been designed following the allowable stress approach, accordingly to the Italian Code Provisions and design hand-books available at the time (1950-70). The beams were designed considering a continuous beam scheme on four supports and the accidental design load was taken as 600 Kg/m2 on the floor slabs and 500 Kg/m2 on the roof. The geometrical dimensions of beams were takes as 300 mm (width) and 500 mm (depth) and the required amount of reinforcement steel has been evaluated with the following equation:

As =

M 0.9dσ s

(6.1)

where M is the design moment, d is the effective depth of the section and σs is the steel allowable stress. The column dimensions were obtained considering the element simply subjected to the design axial compression force and using the following relation:

Ac =

N

σc

(6.2)

where σc is the allowable compressive strength of concrete. As a common design practice between 50's and 70's the amount of longitudinal reinforcing steel has been evaluated imposing a reinforcing ratio ρ = 1%.

- 113 -

Chapter 6 – Numerical investigation on 2D frame systems

A

B

A

A

B

A

A

B

A

A

B

A

A

B

A

A

B

A

4,5 m

2m 11 m

Φ 6 φ6/10cm staffe / 10cm Φ / 10cm staffe6φ6/20cm Φ / 10cm staffe6φ6/10cm

4,5 m

Φ / 10cm staffe6φ6/10cm

Φ / 10cm staffe6φ6/20cm

Φ 6 / 10cm staffe φ6/20cm

Φ 6 φ6/10cm staffe / 10cm

2 φ16 2 φ16

2 φ16

Section A-A Sezione A-A

20

4 φ16

Section B-B Sezione B-B

20

2 φ16 4 φ16

500

300

500

2 φ16

300

Figure 6.33: Beam sections: geometric and mechanical characteristics

Pilastro C1 Section C1

250

20

Pilastro C2 Section C2

300 350 4 φ16

20

PilastroC3 Section C3

4 φ16

20

4 φ18

250

300

350

Figure 6.34: Column sections of the 6-storey frame

Longitudinal reinforcement [mm] C1 C2 C3

Stirrups diameter and spacing [mm]

Cover [mm]

4Φ16 4Φ16 4Φ18

Φ6 / 100 Φ6 / 150 Φ6 / 150

20 20 20

Table 6.9: Column reinforcement summary table

- 114 -

1974) hysteresis rule has been adopted.5 b = 0.0 to define the unloading stiffness to define the reloading point on the monotonic curve For beams. The frame has been analyzed with different distribution of infill panels (uniformly infilled and partially infilled) and with different typology of infills (strong panels with double layer of bricks and weak panels with a single layer of bricks).2 Frame modeling The modeling of beams and columns has been made through members with lumped plasticity at the ends. To describe the inelastic behavior of beam and column members a modified Takeda (Otani. The joint elements have been provided with the hysteretic loop described in paragraph 5. The parameters used to define the hysteretic cycle has been deduced to the validation process on beam-column subassemblies described in paragraph 5.Chapter 6 – Numerical investigation on 2D frame systems 6. with a couple of axial-rotational spring to which a M-N interaction relationship has been associated. The parameters which define the loop (α and β) have been chosen in order to minimize the energy dissipation capacity because the structures designed for gravity loads only are usually characterized by a low dissipative behavior.2 and chapter 5. on the shear joint capacity. Strong infills instead can represent exterior frame of the building were the panels are used as perimeter walls of the structure. In this way the cyclic behavior of elements is governed by rotational springs. The beam-column joints has been modeled.3.2.115 - . typical of structures subjected to seismic loading. Equivalent diagonal struts have been used to model the infill panels and the properties of the struts . since the hysteretic rule adopted doesn't allow to define different values for the positive and negative stiffness. located in the sections were a plastic hinge is more likely to occur.2. This type of modeling allows to describe the relative rotation between beams and columns converging into the node and the post-cracking shear deformation of the panel region.2. as described in paragraph 4. In particular the following values has been used: • • a = 0.3 and capable to represent the "pinching" effect typical of the behavior of beam-column joints in existing buildings and mainly due to the slippage of longitudinal reinforcing bars and the shear strength degradation. result of the joint cracking. The weak infill panels are considered representative of interior frames were the walls are used as partitions between rooms. an average value for the cracked stiffness in both direction has been assumed.2. Furthermore the presence of a moment-axial load interaction diagram associated to the spring elements allows to take into account the affect of the variation of axial load.

1).1 0.116 - .5 Top Drif t [%] 1 1. 1999) (see table 6.35: Pushover analysis on the 6-storey bare frame: Base shear .5 Figure 6. A triangular force distribution has been assumed consistently with what have been done for the 3 storey frame system.Top drift curve . partially infilled and uniformly infilled frames).3) Bare frame Top Displacement [m] 0 0.Chapter 6 – Numerical investigation on 2D frame systems have been calculated on the basis of the mechanical properties of wallets tested at the University of L'Aquila (Colangelo.2 300 Base Shear [kN] 200 100 0 0 0. 6.2. considering all the different infills distribution options (bare.3 Pushover analysis A series of pushover analyses has been performed on the six storey frames. The applied lateral forces has been calculated with the following equation: Fi = with: Fi is the force at the ith storey mi is the mass at the ith storey hi is the height of the ith storey Fbase is the total base shear mi ⋅ hi ⋅ Fbase mr ⋅ hr ∑ r (6.

Chapter 6 – Numerical investigation on 2D frame systems Top Drift [%] 0 6 16 4 12 8 2 4 0 0 0.1 0. The pushover analysis performed on the bare frame system shows an evident soft storey mechanism developing between the 3re and 4th storey. This behavior could be expected considering that at this particular level there is a sensible reduction in the columns cross sections thus leading to a sudden reduction in the lateral stiffness of the frame.117 - Storey .5 1 1. The interstorey drift profile graph confirms how after the mechanism starts.5% and 1%.2 Top Displacement [m] 0 0 0 2 4 6 Interstorey Drift [%] Height [m] 4 0.5 6 16 12 8 2 4 0 Height [m] Figure 6. reaching values that could not be sustained by the structure. Storey . Both from the monotonic curve and from the displacement profiles it can be noted that the mechanism starts to develop at a value of top drift close to 1%.36: Pushover analysis on the 6-storey bare frame: Displacements and Interstorey drift profiles corresponding to top drift value of 0. a rapid increase in floor deformation is recorded.

show once again the similarity in the seismic response of the frame.5 Figure 6. Is believed that this type of response is due the marked difference in strength and stiffness of the ground floor respect to the upper storey. . The base shear – top drift curve of the two infills solutions.4 0. The partially infilled frame.2 300 Base Shear [kN] 200 100 Panrtially Infilled (2 panel) Partially Infilled (1 panel) 0 0 0.118 - Storey . when compared. shows a very similar behavior regardless of the type of masonry infill adopted.1 0. as already noted in the case of the 3-storey frame.Chapter 6 – Numerical investigation on 2D frame systems Partially infilled frame Top Displacement [m] 0 400 0.5% and 1%.Top drift curve Top Drift [%] 0 6 16 Height [m] 4 12 8 2 4 0 0 0.5 Top Drif t [%] 1 1.1 0. The effect of the reduced thickness of the masonry panels is traduced in a slight difference in terms of elastic stiffness of the building.38: Pushover analysis on the 6-storey partially infilled frame: Displacements and Interstorey drift profiles corresponding to top drift value of 0.2 6 16 12 8 2 4 0 Height [m] Storey Figure 6.2 Top Displacement [m] 0 0 0 2 4 6 8 10 Interstorey Drift [%] 4 0.8 1.37: Pushover analysis on the 6-storey partially infilled frame: Base shear .

2 600 Base Shear [kN] 400 200 Uniformly Infilled (2 panel) Uniformly Infilled (1 panel) 0 0.4 0. The lost of stiffness provided by the masonry infills leads to a high deformation demand to the structural elements which rapidly yield and cause the development of the storey mechanism. In both cases a soft storey mechanism develops at the 2nd storey as a consequence of the cracking and subsequent failure of the infills panels. .Top drift curve Top Drift [%] 0 6 16 4 12 8 2 4 0 0 0.2 Top Displacement [m] 0 0 0 4 8 12 Interstorey Drift [%] Height [m] 4 0.1 0.8 1.5 0 Figure 6. The global behavior in terms of displacement and drifts is very similar between the two solutions.1 0.2 6 16 12 8 2 4 0 Height [m] Figure 6.5% and 1%.119 - Storey Storey .Chapter 6 – Numerical investigation on 2D frame systems Uniformly infilled frame Top Displacement [m] 0 800 0.5 Top Drif t [%] 1 1.40: Pushover analysis on the 6-storey uniformly infilled frame: Displacements and Interstorey drift profiles corresponding to top drift value of 0.39: Pushover analysis on the 6-storey uniformly infilled frame: Base shear . The pushover analysis results of the 6-storey frames infilled with strong (solid line) and weak (dashed line) infills are compared in the previous figures.

6.1. but it happened at a value of force almost 50% lower respect to the case of double panel infills. indicating that the damaging of the infills panels is strictly linked to the deformation of the frame. after the failure of a group of panels and the consequent development of a soft storey mechanism.4 Time history analyses The ten records described in paragraph 6.41 a comparison between the base shear – top displacement curves of the analyzed frames is reported.120 - .5 Top Drif t [%] 1 1.1 0. the difference in strength and stiffness due to the presence of weak panels instead of the strong ones is very evident looking at the base shear – top drift curve.41: Comparison between the 6 storey frame pushover curves In figure 6. partially and . the resistance of the structure decreases but still remaining at an higher level respect to the bare frame. The graph highlights the influence of the presence of masonry infills on the characteristics of the global structural response.2 600 Base Shear [kN] 400 200 0 0 0. indicating that the presence of undamaged panels contributes to the structural resistance even in the post-elastic range. The infill panels guarantee an increase of maximum resistance and initial stiffness of the frame.5 Figure 6.3 has been used to perform a series of time-history analyses.2. The damaging of the panels occurs almost at the same level of deformation. for each of the structural solutions of the frame (bare. Top Displacement [m] 0 800 Bare Frame Uniformly Infilled Frame Partial Infilled Frame 0. In the following pages plots of the average results in terms of maximum displacement and drift will be presented.Chapter 6 – Numerical investigation on 2D frame systems On the other hand.

0068 0.121 - .34) 0.148) 0.153) 0.16) residual 0.0077 0.086) -0.0058 0.251 (0.57 (0.91 (0.42: Time-history analysis on the 6-storey bare frame: interstorey drift and displacement profile (average of maximum and residual) Maximum displacement [m] storey 1 negative -0.45 (3.31 0.202 (0.91 (1. in order to give an immediate idea of the scatter that affects the analyses results.2-0.3 0.0000 Drift [%] maximum 0.90 (0.145) 0.1 0.07 0.100 (0.3-0.38) 4.275 (0.02 2 3 4 5 6 -0.307 (0.4 Envelope Max Floor Displacements [m] 6 5 Storey Storey 4 3 2 1 0 0 2 4 6 Residual Interstorey Drift (%) 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 -0.2 0.225 (0.1 0.278 (0.098) 0.1 0 0.2 18 12 6 0 -0.005) positive 0.034) -0.4-0.14 Table 6. Bare frame 6 5 Storey Storey 4 3 2 1 0 0 2 4 6 Maximum Interstorey Drif t [%] 6 5 4 3 2 1 18 12 6 Height [m] Height (m) 0 0 -0.022 (0.2 Residual Displacement (m) Figure 6.005) residual 0.101) -0.116 (0. The same results will also be presented in tables together with the standard deviation values.043) -0.26 0.21) 2.10: Displacement and interstorey drift: mean values and standard deviation of ten analyses on the bare frame The analyses performed on the bare frame confirmed what was anticipated by the pushover analysis.1 0 0.71) 1.51) 1.52 (0.049) 0.081 (0.022 (0.0081 2.Chapter 6 – Numerical investigation on 2D frame systems uniformly infilled).29 0. A soft storey mechanism is expected to develop at the 4th storey of the building where .060) 0.0040 0.141 (0.

However the limited values of residual displacement obtained can be explained considering that the model adopted in the analyses do not take into account the member strength degradation and P-∆ effects. . The plots of residual displacement and interstorey drift show that some permanent inelastic deformation has been experienced by structural elements located at the 4th floor as a consequence of the failure of masonry infills. In the following pages some more detailed results of the analyses performed using three particular records (Loma Prieta (EQ4).21%). The maximum interstorey drift registered during the ten analyses results in an average value of 4. Superstition Hills (EQ10)) are presented and the maximum recorded values of beam-column joints rotation are reported. The relative high value of standard deviation indicates that the damage and consequent deformation is strictly correlated to the type of record used in the analysis.Chapter 6 – Numerical investigation on 2D frame systems reduction of columns cross sections is located.45% (± 3.122 - . Northridge (EQ8).

5 -0.2 -0.8 1.5 -1 -1.2 0.3 1.3 0.2 Residual Interstorey Drift (%) 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 -0.1 18 12 6 0 0.4 0.5 1 0.Chapter 6 – Numerical investigation on 2D frame systems Loma Prieta (EQ4) Top Floor Displacement [m] 0.3 -0.123 - .5 Top Drif t [%] Height [m] 200 150 Base Shear [kN] 100 50 0 -50 -100 -150 -200 0 5 10 15 20 25 Time [sec] 6 5 Storey Storey 4 3 2 1 0 0 0.1 -0.1 0 -0.43: Bare frame: time history analysis results (Loma Prieta.05 6 12 Height (m) 18 30 35 40 45 50 Residual Displacement (m) 6 5 Storey Storey 4 3 2 1 0 0 2 4 6 Maximum Interstorey Drif t [%] 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 -0.3 0.1 0.5 0 -0.5 Envelope Max Floor Displacements [m] Figure 6.05 0 0 0. EQ4) .

05 0 0 0.1 0 -0.8 1.4 0.3 1.2 0.5 Top Drif t [%] Height [m] 200 150 Base Shear [kN] 100 50 0 -50 -100 -150 -200 0 5 10 15 20 Time [sec] 6 5 Storey Storey 4 3 2 1 0 0 0.1 18 12 6 0 0.3 0.5 -1 -1.44: Bare frame: time history analysis results (Northridge.3 0.1 0. EQ8) .5 1 0.3 -0.5 Envelope Max Floor Displacements [m] Figure 6.Chapter 6 – Numerical investigation on 2D frame systems Northridge (EQ8) Top Floor Displacement [m] 0.05 6 12 Height (m) 18 25 30 35 40 Residual Displacement (m) 6 5 Storey Storey 4 3 2 1 0 0 2 4 6 Maximum Interstorey Drif t [%] 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 -0.5 0 -0.1 -0.5 -0.2 -0.124 - .2 Residual Interstorey Drift (%) 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 -0.

3 0.4 0.5 -1 -1.2 Residual Interstorey Drift (%) 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 -0.3 0.05 6 12 Height (m) 18 25 30 35 40 Residual Displacement (m) 6 5 Storey Storey 4 3 2 1 0 0 2 4 6 Maximum Interstorey Drif t [%] 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 -0. EQ10) .2 -0.Chapter 6 – Numerical investigation on 2D frame systems Superstition Hills (EQ10) Top Floor Displacement [m] 0.3 1.1 -0.5 Top Drif t [%] Height [m] 200 150 Base Shear [kN] 100 50 0 -50 -100 -150 -200 0 5 10 15 20 Time [sec] 6 5 Storey Storey 4 3 2 1 0 0 0.5 Envelope Max Floor Displacements [m] Figure 6.1 0 -0.05 0 0 0.2 0.5 1 0.5 0 -0.1 18 12 6 0 0.1 0.5 -0.45: Bare frame: time history analysis results (Superstition Hills.8 1.3 -0.125 - .

004 0.46: Bare frame joint rotations Figure 6. The joints that experience the higher deformation demands are the exterior ones.46 shows the maximum values of joint rotation recorded during the three time history.126 - .C. This confirms what has already been noticed during the experimental tests and numerical analyses on the three storey R.Chapter 6 – Numerical investigation on 2D frame systems Loma Prieta (EQ4) 6 6 Northridge (EQ8) 6 Superstition Hills (EQ10) Storey N° Storey N° 2 2 Storey N° 0 0.008 4 4 4 2 0 0 0. frame and on the beam-column subassemblies.004 0.008 Joint rotation [rad] Figure 6.008 Joint rotation [rad] 0 Joint rotation [rad] Column 1 Column 2 Column 3 Column 4 0 0 0.004 0. .

130 (0.059) 0.118 (0.0012 -0.0013 -0.061) 0.057) 0.062) 0.061) 0.122 (0.11: Displacement: mean values and standard deviation of ten analyses on the partially infilled frame .119 (0.126 (0.057) 0.125 (0.057) 0.127 - .0008 -0.1 0 0.061) 0.121 (0.121 (0.2 18 12 6 Height [m] Height (m) 0 -0.118 (0.117 (0.064) 0.056) 0.2 Residual Displacement (m) Double panel Single panel Figure 6.056) 0.111 (0.120 (0.155 (0.133 (0.0012 -0.124 (0.056) 0.130 (0.122 (0.126 (0.Chapter 6 – Numerical investigation on 2D frame systems Partially infilled frame 6 5 Storey Storey 4 3 2 1 0 0 2 4 6 Maximum Interstorey Drif t [%] 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 -0.064) 0.056) 0.1 0.064) 0.056) 0.126 (0.1 0.057) 0.123 (0.0008 Table 6.135 (0.057) 0.122 (0.0012 -0.47: Time-history analysis on the 6-storey partially infilled frame: interstorey drift and displacement profile (average of maximum and residual) storey 1 2 3 4 5 6 Maximum displacement [m] Double panel infill Single panel infill Negative positive residual negative positive residual -0.0008 -0.0008 -0.0008 -0.0008 -0.1 0 0.062) 0.062) 0.064) 0.0012 -0.056) 0.2 Envelope Max Floor Displacements [m] 6 5 Storey Storey 4 3 2 1 0 0 2 4 6 Residual Interstorey Drift (%) 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 -0.0012 -0.2 18 12 6 0 -0.129 (0.064) 0.114 (0.056) 0.

03 (0.29) 0. In the following pages the results of the analyses using Loma Prieta (EQ4).001 Single panel infill maximum residual 5.30 (0.00) 0. Northridge (EQ8) and Superstition Hills (EQ3) as input records are presented. The type of behavior observed is consistent with what has been recorded during the pushover analyses.495 0.13 (0.Chapter 6 – Numerical investigation on 2D frame systems Drift [%] storey 1 2 3 4 5 6 Double panel infill maximum residual 5. In this case the infill panels suffer few or any damage since the deformation of the frame is completely concentrated in the ground floor ad is sustained by the column members.09 (0.16 (0.06 (0.00) 0.07 0. indicating that this structural solution is not very sensitive to the geometry and dimension of the structure and that the difference in the building height doesn't influence the global response of the structure.011 0.000 0. if compared to the other two solutions (bare and uniformly infilled).01) 0. A similar response has also been noticed during the analysis of the 3-storey partially infilled frame. .530 0.18 (0.000 0.128 - .12: Interstorey drift: mean values and standard deviation of ten analyses on the partially infilled frame The response of the partially infilled frame system is governed by a soft storey mechanism located at the 1st floor (without infills).09 (2.000 0.003 0. as indicated by the lower value of standard deviation of displacement and drift.23 (2.001 0.01) 0.02) 0.001 Table 6.00) 0.01) 0. Also the type of record used to analyze the structure doesn't have a big influence on the response of the frame.04 (0.09 (0.09) 0. In the following graphs the solid line represent the response of the frame infilled with strong panels while the dashed line is representative of the single panel infilled frame.001 0.07 (0.00) 0.001 0.02) 0.

08 0.129 - .8 1.08 -0.2 18 12 6 0 -0. EQ4) .2 Envelope Max Floor Displacements [m] Figure 6.04 0 -0.4 0.1 0.48: Partially infilled frame: time history analysis results (Loma Prieta.2 Residual Interstorey Drift (%) Storey 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 -0.12 Top Floor Displacement [m] 0.12 350 250 Base Shear [kN] 150 50 -50 -150 -250 -350 0 5 10 15 20 25 Time [sec] 6 5 Storey 4 3 2 1 0 0 0.05 0 0 0.Chapter 6 – Numerical investigation on 2D frame systems Loma Prieta (EQ4) 0.1 0 0.04 -0.5 1 Residual Displacement (m) 6 5 Storey 4 3 2 1 0 0 2 4 6 Maximum Interstorey Drif t [%] Storey 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 -0.05 6 12 Height (m) Height [m] 18 30 35 40 45 50 -1 0 Top Drif t [%] 0.5 -0.

1 0.05 6 12 Height (m) Height [m] 18 25 30 35 40 -1 -0.08 0.2 Envelope Max Floor Displacements [m] Figure 6.5 1 Residual Displacement (m) 6 5 Storey 4 3 2 1 0 0 2 4 6 Maximum Interstorey Drif t [%] Storey 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 -0.08 -0.05 0 0 0.16 350 250 Base Shear [kN] 150 50 -50 -150 -250 -350 0 5 10 15 20 Time [sec] 6 5 Storey 4 3 2 1 0 0 0.04 0 -0.2 Residual Interstorey Drift (%) Storey 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 -0.04 -0.12 0.4 0.16 Top Floor Displacement [m] 0.12 -0. EQ8) .8 1.1 18 12 6 0 0 0.130 - .5 0 Top Drif t [%] 0.49: Partially infilled frame: time history analysis results (Northridge.Chapter 6 – Numerical investigation on 2D frame systems Northridge (EQ8) 0.

16 Top Floor Displacement [m] 0.04 0 -0.5 1 Residual Displacement (m) 6 5 Storey 4 3 2 1 0 0 2 4 6 Maximum Interstorey Drif t [%] Storey 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 -0.1 0.05 0 0 0.2 Envelope Max Floor Displacements [m] Figure 6.04 -0.4 0.8 1.1 18 12 6 0 0 0. EQ10) .12 0.05 6 12 Height (m) Height [m] 18 25 30 35 40 -1 -0.50: Partially infilled frame: time history analysis results (Superstition Hills.08 -0.5 0 Top Drif t [%] 0.Chapter 6 – Numerical investigation on 2D frame systems Superstition Hills (EQ10) 0.12 -0.16 350 250 Base Shear [kN] 150 50 -50 -150 -250 -350 0 5 10 15 20 Time [sec] 6 5 Storey 4 3 2 1 0 0 0.131 - .2 Residual Interstorey Drift (%) Storey 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 -0.08 0.

004 Joint rotation [rad] a) 0.004 Joint rotation [rad] c) 0.Chapter 6 – Numerical investigation on 2D frame systems Loma Prieta (EQ4) 6 6 Northridge (EQ8) 6 Superstition Hills (EQ10) Storey N° Storey N° Storey N° 4 4 4 2 2 2 0 0 0. Generally the deformation level of the joints is not affected by the type of masonry infills adopted. for the case of partially infilled frame. thus indicating that cracking and damage of the panel region is more likely to affect this typology of beam to column connection. Again the exterior joints (Columns 1 and 4) are those which undergo the higher level of inelastic deformation.132 - .51: Partially infilled frame joint rotations As expected.004 0.008 Figure 6.008 0 0 0. the maximum values of joint rotations were recorded at the first storey. .008 Joint rotation [rad] b) Column 1 Column 2 Column 3 Column 4 0 0 0.

022) 0.13: Displacement: mean values and standard deviation of ten analyses on the uniformly infilled frame .055 (0.059 (0.064 (0.0045 -0.Chapter 6 – Numerical investigation on 2D frame systems Uniformly infilled frame 6 5 Storey Storey 4 3 2 1 0 0 0.060 (0.048 (0.0039 -0.057 (0.074 (0.0032 -0.0049 -0.050 (0.018) 0.020) 0.52: Time-history analysis on the 6-storey uniformly infilled frame: interstorey drift and displacement profile (average of maximum and residual) storey 1 2 3 4 5 6 Maximum displacement [m] Double panel infill Single panel infill Negative positive residual negative positive residual -0.049 (0.074 (0.004) 0.0008 -0.064 (0.060 (0.03 Residual Displacement (m) Double panel Single panel Figure 6.0041 -0.0048 Table 6.055 (0.013 (0.8 1.015 0 18 12 6 0 0.022) 0.070 (0.016) 0.0051 -0.014) 0.020) 0.068 (0.4 0.0045 -0.047 (0.6 0.019) 0.006) 0.0036 -0.021) 0.016 (0.015) 0.0011 -0.2 0.03 -0.015) 0.2 Maximum Interstorey Drif t [%] 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 -0.018) 0.022) 0.4 0.0042 -0.005) 0.043 (0.022) 0.022) 0.08 -0.033 (0.022) 0.08 Envelope Max Floor Displacements [m] 6 5 Storey Storey 4 3 2 1 0 0 0.04 0 18 Height [m] Height (m) 12 6 0 0.018) 0.8 1 Residual Interstorey Drift (%) 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 -0.014 (0.078 (0.015 0.012) 0.04 0.004) 0.018) 0.133 - .039 (0.016 (0.021) 0.

11) 0.62 (0.16% (weak infills).058 1.013 0.24 (0.65 (0.Chapter 6 – Numerical investigation on 2D frame systems Drift [%] storey 1 2 3 4 5 6 Double panel infill maximum residual 0.14: Interstorey drift: mean values and standard deviation of ten analyses on the uniformly infilled frame The seismic response of the uniformly infilled frame considered in the analyses is characterized by a storey mechanism located at the second storey.43 (0.18 (0. As a consequence of this event.094 0.134 - .021 0.18 (0.19) 0. In the following pages some more detailed results of the analyses performed on the uniform infilled frame with both strong (double panel) and weak (single panel) infills are reported. The brittle failure of the masonry infills during the seismic event.07% (strong infills) and 1.23 (0.16 (0. in fact.03) 0.016 0.016 0. the structural elements (mainly columns) are subjected to a high level of inelastic deformation demand.33 (0.15) 0.07) 0.023 0. The residual displacement and drift plots show that the soft storey mechanism at the 2nd level causes some permanent deformation that is an indicator of the damage that the structure could suffer.073 1.04) 0. The single panel infilled frame is indicated by the dashed line and the double panel masonry is represented by the solid line.103 0.40 (0.07 (0. The maximum values of joint rotations are also reported as a measure of the contribution of joints to the global deformation of the building.014 Table 6. .03) 0.02) 0.013 Single panel infill maximum residual 0.58) 0.02) 0.31 (0.013 0. reaching values of interstorey drift of 1.51) 0.07) 0. cause a sudden decrease of strength and stiffness at a particular level of the building.

9 1. EQ4) .06 -0.05 0 0 0.2 Maximum Interstorey Drif t [%] 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 -0.1 18 12 6 0 -0.06 0.02 0 -0.05 6 12 Height (m) 18 30 35 40 45 50 Residual Displacement (m) 6 5 Storey Storey 4 3 2 1 0 0 0.135 - .Chapter 6 – Numerical investigation on 2D frame systems Loma Prieta (EQ4) 0.1 -0.1 Envelope Max Floor Displacements [m] Figure 6.53: Uniform infilled frame: time history analysis results (Loma Prieta.1 Top Floor Displacement [m] 0.3 0.02 -0.15 -0.4 0.3 800 600 Base Shear [kN] 400 200 0 -200 -400 -600 -800 0 5 10 15 20 25 Time [sec] 6 5 Storey Storey 4 3 2 1 0 0 0.2 0.05 0.6 0.15 0.6 0.05 0 0.3 Top Drif t [%] Height [m] 0.8 1 Residual Interstorey Drift (%) 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 -0.

136 - .1 Top Floor Displacement [m] 0.5 Maximum Interstorey Drif t [%] 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 -0.8 1 Residual Interstorey Drift (%) 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 -0.6 0.4 0.15 0.1 -0.05 0.05 6 12 Height (m) 18 25 30 35 40 Residual Displacement (m) 6 5 Storey Storey 4 3 2 1 0 0 0.05 0 0 0.15 -0.3 Top Drif t [%] Height [m] 0.02 0 -0.1 18 12 6 0 -0.54: Uniform infilled frame: time history analysis results (Northridge.06 0.05 0 0.3 800 600 Base Shear [kN] 400 200 0 -200 -400 -600 -800 0 5 10 15 20 Time [sec] 6 5 Storey Storey 4 3 2 1 0 0 0.06 -0.2 0.1 Envelope Max Floor Displacements [m] Figure 6.5 1 1.02 -0. EQ8) .Chapter 6 – Numerical investigation on 2D frame systems Northridge (EQ8) 0.

02 0 -0.3 Top Drif t [%] Height [m] 0. EQ10) .05 0 0 0.05 0 0.15 -0.55: Uniform infilled frame: time history analysis results (Superstition Hills.06 -0.05 6 12 Height (m) 18 Residual Displacement (m) 6 5 Storey Storey 4 3 2 1 0 0 0.3 800 600 Base Shear [kN] 400 200 0 -200 -400 -600 -800 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 Time [sec] 6 5 Storey Storey 4 3 2 1 0 0 0.5 1 Maximum Interstorey Drif t [%] 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 -0.137 - .06 0.1 18 12 6 0 -0.6 0.1 Envelope Max Floor Displacements [m] Figure 6.05 0.Chapter 6 – Numerical investigation on 2D frame systems Superstition Hills (EQ10) 0.1 Top Floor Displacement [m] 0.8 1 Residual Interstorey Drift (%) 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 -0.2 0.1 -0.4 0.02 -0.15 0.

.138 - .004 Joint rotation [rad] c) 0. the values of rotation recorded in the case of weak panel infills (dashed line) and strong infills (solid line) are very close to each other as shown in figure 6.004 0.e.008 Joint rotation [rad] b) Column 1 Column 2 Column 3 Column 4 0 0 0.56.56: Uniformly infilled frame joint rotations Also in the case of uniformly infilled frame system the exterior joint suffer the higher level of rotation (i.004 Joint rotation [rad] a) 0. shear deformation).006 0.008 0 0 0.Chapter 6 – Numerical investigation on 2D frame systems Loma Prieta (EQ4) 6 6 Northridge (EQ8) 6 Superstition Hills (EQ10) 2 Storey N° Storey N° Storey N° 4 4 4 2 2 0 0 0. The beam-column joints seem not to be influenced by the different typology of masonry adopted for the infill panels.008 Figure 6.002 0.

2) linked through weaker beams in the transversal direction. frame constituted of 3 parallel plane frames (described in par. NUMERICAL INVESTIGATION ON 3D FRAME SYSTEMS In this chapter the seismic response of existing three dimensional reinforced concrete frames has been investigated. The two models have been analyzed through 3D pushover analyses and non-linear time history analyses varying the direction of the input record has been performed on the three storey frame model.Chapter 7 – Numerical investigation on 3D frame systems Equation Section (Next) 7. The frame structures has been considered with different distribution of infills (bare. Particular interest was turn on the effect of the direction of the input ground motion on the overall response of the structure. The first building is a 3 storey 2/3 scaled frame that has been constructed by coupling two plane frames (identical to the model tested an the Department of Structural Mechanics of the University of Pavia and analyzed in the previous chapters) with weak transversal beams as it has been typically done in the Italian design practice between 1950 and 1970.139 - . .C. partially and uniformly infilled) and with single panel infills placed in the interior frames to represent the weak partition walls typically present in residential buildings and stronger double panel infills along the perimeter of the frame. in particular this phenomenon is more likely to occur in three dimensional infilled frame as a consequence of sudden panel failure that can generate some sort of asymmetry in the structural stiffness and strength. The three dimensional analyses has been performed on two different frame systems. 6. Another interesting aspect is the possible occurrence of torsional effects in the response of the buildings. The second structure is a six storey R.

200x800 in prototype building).1 shows a plan view of the frame and the properties of the link beam sections. Figure 7. A A B B B B A A Section A-A Section B-B 12φ8 4φ8 2φ8 6φ8 Figure 7.1. The exterior beam sections are 330x200 mm (depth x width) correspondent to a 500x300 mm section in the full scale frame. The interior beam sections are 103 mm (depth) x 535 mm (width) (i.140 - .5 m in a full scale building) and are connected by four transversal beams. The two parallel frames are placed at distance of 3 m (correspondent to 4.e. This type of wide section beams were very common in Italian structures especially in interior frames in order to avoid architectural interferences that deeper beam sections could generate. DESCRIPTION OF THE FRAMES 7.Chapter 7 – Numerical investigation on 3D frame systems 7.1.1 Three storey frame The three dimensional 2/3 scaled frame is constituted of two parallel 3 bays plane frames identical to the model tested at the Department of Structural Mechanics of the University of Pavia and described in the present work in chapter 3.1: Three storey 3D frame: plan view and beam section properties .

.Chapter 7 – Numerical investigation on 3D frame systems The infills layout has been chosen as representative of a large number of existing buildings of the Mediterranean area.4).2: Three storey 3D frame: infills layout 7. double panel infills single panel infills Figure 7.0 m) of the central frame has been left free of infill panels to represent a possible location for the stair well. The weaker infills. which characteristics have been already described in paragraph 4. The diaphragm is 220 mm thick with a top concrete slab of 40 mm and small concrete beams at an inter-axis of 400 mm symmetrically reinforced with 2φ12 bars at top and bottom level of section.141 - . located in correspondence of the exterior columns. are representative of interior partition walls and are placed inside the bays of interior frames. In figure 7.5 m and are linked by means of transversal beams. constituted by a single layer of masonry blocks. represents the exterior walls that are often constituted of two layers of bricks with an air inter-space in between with insulating purpose. placed along the perimeter of the frame. Figure 7.2 shows the typical infills layout.5 the layout of masonry infills adopted for the six storey three dimensional frame is shown. The exterior perimeter beams are 400x300 (depth x width) (Fig 7. 3 bays each. The parallel plane frames are placed at an inter-axis of 4. The double panel infills.2 Six storey frame The six storey 3D frame is constituted of three plane frames. and of a mixed masonry-concrete floor diaphragm. The small bay (2. The exterior walls have been modeled with double panel infills while the interior bays have been infilled with weak masonry panels.1.2.

00 11.50 Figure 7.5 9 2Φ12 2Φ12 2Φ12 4.4: Transversal beam mechanical and geometrical properties .5 Section A-A Sezione A-A 4φ12 4Φ12 2φ12 2Φ12 300 Sezione B-B Section B-B 400 2Φ12 2φ12 4φ12 4Φ12 300 400 Figure 7.50 2.00 4.50 4.142 - .3: Six storey frame plan view Transversal Beam Trave di bordo A staffe Φ6/20 cm B A A B staffe Φ6/20 cm A A B A A B A 4.Chapter 7 – Numerical investigation on 3D frame systems 9.00 4.50 4.

143 - . the numerical model adopted for the analysis of the three dimensional frames is based on the concentrated plasticity approach.Chapter 7 – Numerical investigation on 3D frame systems Double panel doppio tamponature a infills paramento (strong) no infills maglia vuota tamponature ainfills Single panel singolo paramento (weak) Figure 7. DESCRIPTION OF THE MODEL As for the case of plane frames. To adequately investigate the effective three dimensional response of the building.5: Six storey frame: infills layout 7. it was important to describe the behavior of columns when subjected to bi-axial flexure together with axial load variation. Figure 7. 2004) .2. For this reason a three dimensional interaction surface has been assigned to column members using an elliptic domain to represent the Mz – My interaction function.6: Three dimensional interaction surface adopted for columns (Carr.

7. The results of these analyses have been then compared with the response of the frame obtained applying the load diagonally (45° respect to the principal X and Z axis). In the model adopted an cyclic non-linear moment – rotation relationship (par. PUSHOVER ANALYSIS The three dimensional frames has been preliminarily analyzed through pushover analyses performed applying a triangular system of forces along the 2 principal directions of the buildings (X and Z directions).2.3) has been assigned to joint spring elements to describe the effect of shear deformation of beam-column connections on the global response of the frame.09 bare frame Figure 7. resulting in a triangular force pattern with the force modulus proportional to the floor mass and height.03 0. The external force distribution along the height of the frame has been defined through the equation 6. 7.Chapter 7 – Numerical investigation on 3D frame systems Similarly also beam-column joints three dimensional behavior is influenced by the interaction of biaxial shear deformation and axial load variation. The bi-axial interaction in joints response has been neglected mainly because of a lack of information available in literature regarding possible descriptions of the three dimensional interaction surface for joint regions.3.2 3D-X component X pushover 0.1 Three storey frame Bare frame Top Displacement [m] 0 140 120 Base Shear [kN] 100 80 60 40 20 0 0 0.2. 5.144 - .3.8 Top Drift [%] 1.06 0.2 and 5.4 0.3.7: 3D bare frame pushover: X direction .

it is worth noting how the mechanism noted during the analysis of the 3 storey plane frame. is evident again in the 3D response. The results obtained confirm the important role played by the beam-column joint deformation on the overall response of the structure. is obtained applying to the structure a system of force parallel to the X and Z direction respectively. The dashed line.8: 3D bare frame pushover: Z direction Figures 7. The effect of joint damaging causes a hybrid soft storey mechanism that is no longer concentrated at one single storey but involves the 1st and 2nd level of the structure. The structural element are subjected to a bi-axial excitation that limits their resistance capacity.9. It appear evident that the resistance of the building decreases markedly when the frame is subjected to a three dimensional force distribution.4 0. shown in figure 7.09 Figure 7. instead.8 show the comparison between the base shear – top drift curve obtained from the pushover analysis on the three dimensional three storey bare frame.06 0.03 0. This kind of mechanism of shown in both principal directions and it seems not to be influenced on the type of force system applied.Chapter 7 – Numerical investigation on 3D frame systems Top Displacement [m] 0 140 120 Base Shear [kN] 100 80 60 40 20 0 0 0.7 and 7. This kind of response has been recorded both in the frame stronger direction (X) and in the weaker one (Z).2 3D-Z component Z pushover 0.145 - . Looking at the displacement profiles. The solid line represents the response of the frame in each of the principal directions when the external force are applied diagonally (with an inclination of 45° respect to the principal axes).8 Top Drift [%] 1. .

03 0.146 - .4 0.04 0.02 0.5 6 Height [m] 3 6 4 2 0 0 0.2 3D-X component X pushover 0.02 0.08 Displacement [m] Storey n° 2 1 1 0 0 Figure 7.5 0 Z Displacement prof ile Top Drift [%] 0.06 0.04 0.5 1 1.Chapter 7 – Numerical investigation on 3D frame systems X Displacement profile Top Drift [%] 0 3 0.06 0.10: 3D partially infilled frame pushover: X direction .9: 3D bare frame pushover: displacement profiles Partially infilled frame Top Displacement [m] 0 180 160 140 Base Shear [kN] 120 100 80 60 40 20 0 0 0.09 Figure 7.06 0.08 Displacement [m] Height [m] Storey n° 2 4 2 0 0 0.8 Top Drift [%] 1.5 1 1.

147 - . as it was expected and as the analyses on the plane frame anticipated.04 0.06 0.06 0.5 1 1.5 0 Z Displacement prof ile Top Drift [%] 0.Chapter 7 – Numerical investigation on 3D frame systems Top Displacement [m] 0 180 160 140 Base Shear [kN] 120 100 80 60 40 20 0 0 0.02 0.12: 3D partially infilled frame pushover: displacement profiles .04 0.02 0.8 Top Drift [%] 1.08 Displacement [m] Height [m] Storey n° 2 4 2 0 0 0. Again the resistance of the frame is higher when the applied force exert their action along a single direction rather than in a three dimensional manner.4 0.5 6 Height [m] 3 6 4 2 0 0 0.08 Displacement [m] Storey n° 2 1 1 0 0 Figure 7.2 3D-Z component Z pushover 0.06 0. The response of the frame is governed by a soft storey mechanism located at the ground level (low strength and stiffness). X Displacement profile Top Drift [%] 0 3 0.09 Figure 7.11: 3D partially infilled frame pushover: Z direction A behavior similar to the one shown by the bare frame has been recorded also for the partially infilled frame.03 0.5 1 1.

13: 3D uniformly infilled frame pushover: X direction Top Displacement [m] 0 500 450 400 Base Shear [kN] 350 300 250 200 150 100 50 0 0 0.03 0.8 Top Drift [%] 1.Chapter 7 – Numerical investigation on 3D frame systems Uniformly infilled frame Top Displacement [m] 0 500 450 400 Base Shear [kN] 350 300 250 200 150 100 50 0 0 0.09 Figure 7.4 0.06 0.2 0.09 Figure 7.03 0.4 0.148 - .06 0.8 Top Drift [%] 1.2 3D-Z component Z pushover 0.14: 3D uniformly infilled frame pushover: Z direction .

Figure 7. The three dimensional response reflects what has been anticipated by the analysis of the plane frame model.02 0.Chapter 7 – Numerical investigation on 3D frame systems X Displacement profile Top Drift [%] 0 3 0.15 shows the displacement profile recorded during the pushover analysis for increasing level of top drift and it highlights how the sudden decrease of strength and stiffness at the first storey.5 0 Z Displacement prof ile Top Drift [%] 0.14.06 0.15: 3D uniformly infilled frame pushover: displacement profiles The response of the uniformly infilled frame is totally governed by the behavior of masonry infills.04 0.13 and 7.08 Displacement [m] Storey n° 2 1 1 0 0 Figure 7. the failure of which cause the development of a storey mechanism located at the 1st level of the building. .04 0. In this case the different direction in the application of external lateral force (principal direction vs.149 - .5 1 1. leads to the soft storey mechanism previously mentioned. consequence of the brittle failure of masonry infills.06 0.5 6 Height [m] 3 6 4 2 0 0 0.02 0.08 Displacement [m] Height [m] Storey n° 2 4 2 0 0 0. 45° degrees) doesn't influence markedly the global response of the frame as it can be noticed comparing the base shear – top drift curves reported in figures 7.5 1 1.

17 and 7. A possible explanation can be found in the development of a floor torsional deformation mechanism which causes an amplification of deformation at some particular levels of the building.Chapter 7 – Numerical investigation on 3D frame systems 7.150 - .1 0.16: 3D bare frame pushover: X direction .4 0.05 0. Looking at the displacement profiles in the two principal directions (Figure 7.3.8 Top Drift [%] 1. particularly evident in the lower storey.2 0.2 Six storey frame Bare Frame The pushover analyses performed on the six storey 3D frame show how the behavior of the building is characterized by a lower strength when it is subjected to a inclined force pattern (solid line) if compared to the pushover curve obtained pushing the structure with a system of forces acting along one of the principal axis only (dashed line).15 0. in compared to those obtained from a unidirectional distribution of forces. Top Displacement [m] 0 160 140 120 Base Shear [kN] 100 80 60 40 20 0 0 0. This type of response confirms what has been obtained from the analyses performed on the 3 storey frame. A similar behavior can be seen both along the strong (X) and weak (Z) direction of the frame.25 Figure 7.2 3D-X component X pushover 0.18) it is worth noting that the displacement recorded in the case of 3 dimensional pushover appear amplified.

1 0.05 0.5 16 12 8 2 4 0 0.5 1 1.2 Displacement [m] Pushover 3D Pushover 2D 0 0 0 Height [m] 4 0.25 Figure 7.5 6 0 Z Displacement prof ile Top Drift [%] 0.8 Top Drift [%] 1.18: 3D bare frame pushover: displacement profiles .2 Displacement [m] Height [m] Figure 7.2 0.1 0.2 3D-Z component Z pushover 0.151 - .5 1 1.Chapter 7 – Numerical investigation on 3D frame systems Top Displacement [m] 0 160 140 120 Base Shear [kN] 100 80 60 40 20 0 0 0.17: 3D bare frame pushover: Z direction X Displacement profile Top Drift [%] 0 6 16 Storey n° Storey n° 4 12 8 2 4 0 0 0.4 0.1 0.15 0.

7.1 0. indicate that the response of the frame structure is governed by a soft storey mechanism located at the first storey and that the distribution of displacement along the height of the building is not influenced by the direction of the applied forces. due to the presence of masonry infills above the first storey governs the response of the structure.25 Figure 7.19 and 7. The displacement profiles along the X and Z direction. Regardless of the method of application of load.05 0.21.19: 3D partially infilled frame pushover: X direction . the big discontinuity in terms of strength and stiffness between the ground and the upper levels.20) show how the response of the structure along one of the principal axis is influenced by the direction of application of the forces.8 Top Drift [%] 1.2 0. shown in figure 7. When the structure is subjected to a inclined force pattern the behavior of the frame is characterized by a reduced value of strength and stiffness.15 0. A similar trend in the three dimensional response of the frame has been obtained analyzing the bare frame.4 0. Top Displacement [m] 0 500 450 400 Base Shear [kN] 350 300 250 200 150 100 50 0 0 0.2 3D-X component X pushover 0.Chapter 7 – Numerical investigation on 3D frame systems Partially Infilled Frame The base shear – top drift curves obtained from the 3D pushover on the partially infilled three storey frame (Fig.152 - .

Chapter 7 – Numerical investigation on 3D frame systems Top Displacement [m] 0 500 450 400 Base Shear [kN] 350 300 250 200 150 100 50 0 0 0.8 Top Drift [%] 1.2 0.5 1 1.20: 3D partially infilled frame pushover: Z direction X Displacement profile Top Drift [%] 0 6 16 Storey n° Storey n° 4 12 8 2 4 0 0 0.1 0.25 Figure 7.1 0.1 0.2 Displacement [m] Height [m] Pushover 3D Pushover 2D Figure 7.5 16 12 8 2 4 0 0.5 1 1.05 0.4 0.153 - .15 0.2 3D-Z component Z pushover 0.5 6 0 Z Displacement prof ile Top Drift [%] 0.2 Displacement [m] 0 0 0 Height [m] 4 0.21: 3D partially infilled frame pushover: displacement profiles .

25 Figure 7.15 0.2 0. instead.154 - . The displacement profile plots (figure 7. The three dimensional pushover lead to a story mechanism located at the ground floor where the infill panels reach first their maximum resistance.1 0. showing a brittle behavior even more evident if compared with the frame subjected to a unidirectional system of forces (dashed line in the graph).2 3D-X component X pushover 0. the soft storey mechanism develop at the second level.8 Top Drift [%] 1.05 0.24) show that the response of the frame is governed by a different mechanism depending on the type of load applied. 7.22: 3D uniformly infilled frame pushover: X direction .Chapter 7 – Numerical investigation on 3D frame systems Uniformly Infilled Frame The base shear – top drift curves of the uniformly infilled frame obtained from the pushover analyses is characterized by a higher value of initial stiffness when the frame is subjected to a inclined system of forces (solid line in the graphs of fig. When the structure is subjected to unidirectional loading. After the masonry infills reach their maximum resistance the frame resistance suddenly decreases.22 and 7. Top Displacement [m] 0 2000 1800 1600 Base Shear [kN] 1400 1200 1000 800 600 400 200 0 0 0.23).4 0.

05 0.5 1 1.1 0.5 1 1.5 16 12 8 2 4 0 0.25 Figure 7.2 0.4 0.2 3D-Z component Z pushover 0.1 0.Chapter 7 – Numerical investigation on 3D frame systems Top Displacement [m] 0 2000 1800 1600 Base Shear [kN] 1400 1200 1000 800 600 400 200 0 0 0.155 - .5 6 0 Z Displacement prof ile Top Drift [%] 0.2 Displacement [m] Height [m] Figure 7.1 0.2 Displacement [m] Pushover 3D Pushover 2D 0 0 0 Height [m] 4 0.15 0.24: 3D uniformly infilled frame pushover: displacement profiles .8 Top Drift [%] 1.23: 3D uniformly infilled frame pushover: Z direction X Displacement profile Top Drift [%] 0 6 16 Storey n° Storey n° 4 12 8 2 4 0 0 0.

1.3.4. Each of the ten accelerograms used in the analyses has been applied to the structure in four different directions.25: Three storey frame model and reference system . varying the inclination of the ground motion direction respect to the principal X axis of the model. 6. Particular interest has been given to the effect of the different angle of application of the input ground motion on the 3D response of the building. In figure 7. 30°.25 the reference system for the frame model is shown. 60° and 90° (parallel to the Z axis). In particular the ground motions have been applied at 0° (i. Figure 7.156 - .Chapter 7 – Numerical investigation on 3D frame systems 7. TIME HISTORY ANALYSIS The seismic response of the three dimensional three storey frame has been investigated through a series of non-linear time history dynamic analyses using as input the ground motion set described in par. parallel to the X axis of the frame).e.

15 6 Height [m] Storey 4 2 0 0. for each inclination of the input ground motion.15 EQ Direction 30° 6 4 2 0 0.15 Height [m] Height [m] -0.15 3 2 1 0 -0. Figure 7.26 shows.26: Bare frame: maximum displacements .05 Envelope Max Floor Displacements [m] Envelope Max Floor Displacements [m] EQ Direction 60° 3 Storey 2 1 0 -0.05 -0.05 0.15 -0.Chapter 7 – Numerical investigation on 3D frame systems Bare frame The results of the time history analyses performed on the 3D three storey frame model are summarized and presented in the following pages.15 6 Height [m] Storey 4 2 0 0. EQ Direction 0° 3 Storey 2 1 0 -0.15 EQ Direction 90° 6 4 2 0 0.05 0. It is immediate to notice that when the ground motion direction coincides with one of the principal direction of the structure (0° and 90°) the influence of torsional effects on the structural response is negligible. the average of the maximum storey displacement recorded analyzing the structure with the 10 accelerograms considered.05 0. the component of the maximum displacement along the X and Z axis are comparable to those experienced during the analysis with the accelerograms acting along the principal axis.157 - .05 Envelope Max Floor Displacements [m] Envelope Max Floor Displacements [m] X direction Z direction Figure 7.05 0.15 3 2 1 0 -0.05 -0. On the other hand it is worth noting that when the structure is subjected to an inclined input.

27: Bare frame: maximum interstorey drift . EQ Direction 0° 3 Storey 2 1 0 0 1 2 3 Maximum Interstorey Drift [%] 6 Height [m] Storey 4 2 0 3 2 1 0 0 EQ Direction 30° 6 4 2 0 1 2 3 Height [m] Height [m] Maximum Interstorey Drift [%] EQ Direction 60° 3 Storey 2 1 0 0 1 2 3 Maximum Interstorey Drift [%] 6 Height [m] Storey 4 2 0 3 2 1 0 0 EQ Direction 90° 6 4 2 0 1 2 3 Maximum Interstorey Drift [%] X direction Z direction Figure 7.158 - . amplifying the deformation along the weaker direction of the building. regardless of the attaching direction of the input ground motion.Chapter 7 – Numerical investigation on 3D frame systems The maximum interstorey drift profiles (Fig. 7.27) indicate that. This indicates that when the frame is subjected to an inclined accelerogram the torsional response plays an important role in the overall behavior of the structure. the higher value of drift is experienced along the weak direction (Z axis).

In particular looking at the residual drift graphs it appears that the higher level on permanent deformation is reached at the first storey level.015 Height [m] Height [m] 0.015 3 2 1 0 0 EQ Direction 90° 6 4 2 0 0.015 -0.005 0.29 show the profiles of average residual displacement and drift that give an indication of the level of damage suffered by the frame.01 -0.Chapter 7 – Numerical investigation on 3D frame systems Figures 7.28 and 7.159 - .01 Residual Displacement [m] Residual Displacement [m] X direction Z direction Figure 7. confirming what has already been observed analyzing the 2D frame model.005 0 3 2 1 0 0 EQ Direction 30° 6 4 2 0 0.01 Residual Displacement [m] Residual Displacement [m] EQ Direction 60° 3 Storey 2 1 0 -0.28: Bare frame: residual displacements .015 6 Height [m] Storey 4 2 0 0.005 0.015 6 Height [m] Storey 4 2 0 -0.005 0. EQ Direction 0° 3 Storey 2 1 0 -0.005 0.

160 - .Chapter 7 – Numerical investigation on 3D frame systems EQ Direction 0° 3 Storey 2 1 0 0 1 2 3 Residual Interstorey Drift [%] 6 Height [m] Storey 4 2 0 3 2 1 0 0 EQ Direction 30° 6 4 2 0 1 2 3 Height [m] Height [m] Residual Interstorey Drift [%] EQ Direction 60° 3 Storey 2 1 0 0 1 2 3 Residual Interstorey Drift [%] 6 Height [m] Storey 4 2 0 3 2 1 0 0 EQ Direction 90° 6 4 2 0 1 2 3 Residual Interstorey Drift [%] X direction Z direction Figure 7.29: Bare frame: residual interstorey drift .

15 3 2 1 0 -0. EQ Direction 30° 6 Height [m] Storey 4 2 0 0.15 -0.15 3 2 1 0 -0. thus indicating that the big discontinuity in strength and stiffness between the first and second floor of the structure plays a main role in influencing the response of the frame.15 6 Height [m] Storey 4 2 0 0.05 -0.30 and 7. is not influenced by the direction of the input ground motion.15 -0.161 - .05 Envelope Max Floor Displacements [m] Envelope Max Floor Displacements [m] EQ Direction 60° 3 Storey 2 1 0 -0.15 EQ Direction 90° 6 4 2 0 0.30: Partially infilled frame: maximum displacements . averaged on ten time history analyses.05 Envelope Max Floor Displacements [m] Envelope Max Floor Displacements [m] X direction Z direction Figure 7.31 show the plot of maximum storey displacement and interstorey drift along the building height. Figure 7. recorded during the analyses in the X and Z directions.05 0. As expected the behavior of the structure is governed by a storey mechanism located at the ground level. It is worth noting how the maximum displacement and drift values.05 -0.05 0.15 Height [m] Height [m] EQ Direction 0° 3 Storey 2 1 0 -0.05 0.15 6 4 2 0 0.Chapter 7 – Numerical investigation on 3D frame systems Partially infilled frame The analyses performed on the partially infilled frame show that the response of the structure. are comparable regardless of the direction of the input motion.05 0. with this particular layout.

Chapter 7 – Numerical investigation on 3D frame systems EQ Direction 0° 3 Storey 2 1 0 0 1 2 3 4 5 Maximum Interstorey Drift [%] 6 Height [m] Storey 4 2 0 3 2 1 0 0 1 EQ Direction 30° 6 4 2 0 2 3 4 5 Height [m] Height [m] Maximum Interstorey Drift [%] EQ Direction 60° 3 Storey 2 1 0 0 1 2 3 4 5 Maximum Interstorey Drift [%] 6 Height [m] Storey 4 2 0 3 2 1 0 0 1 EQ Direction 90° 6 4 2 0 2 3 4 5 Maximum Interstorey Drift [%] X direction Z direction Figure 7.162 - . confirming what has been highlighted in the previous pages. Again the values shown seem not to be influenced by the input earthquake direction.32 and 7.31: Partially infilled frame: maximum interstorey drift Figure 7.33 show the residual displacement and drift for the partially infilled frame. .

015 0.02 Height [m] Height [m] 0 0.02 3 2 1 0 0 EQ Direction 90° 6 4 2 0 0.01 -0.005 0.02 -0.015 -0.02 -0.32: Partially infilled frame: residual displacements .01 Residual Displacement [m] EQ Direction 60° 3 Storey 2 1 0 -0.02 0 0.01 EQ Direction 30° 6 4 2 0 0.163 - .01 6 Height [m] Storey 4 2 0 0.005 Residual Displacement [m] 6 Height [m] Storey 4 2 0 0 3 2 1 0 -0.02 -0.Chapter 7 – Numerical investigation on 3D frame systems EQ Direction 0° 3 Storey 2 1 0 -0.01 0.01 Residual Displacement [m] Residual Displacement [m] X direction Z direction Figure 7.

164 - .Chapter 7 – Numerical investigation on 3D frame systems EQ Direction 0° 3 Storey 2 1 0 0 1 2 3 Residual Interstorey Drift [%] 6 Height [m] Storey 4 2 0 3 2 1 0 0 1 2 3 Residual Interstorey Drift [%] EQ Direction 30° 6 4 2 0 Height [m] Height [m] EQ Direction 60° 3 Storey 2 1 0 0 1 2 3 Residual Interstorey Drift [%] 6 Height [m] Storey 4 2 0 3 2 1 0 0 EQ Direction 90° 6 4 2 0 1 2 3 Residual Interstorey Drift [%] X direction Z direction Figure 7.33: Partially infilled frame: residual interstorey drift .

06 Height [m] Height [m] EQ Direction 0° 3 Storey 2 1 0 -0.02 0.165 - . the response of the frame show a marked amplification in deformation.35 show the average values of maximum storey displacement and drift obtained during the time history analyses.06 -0.06 6 4 2 0 0.02 Envelope Max Floor Displacements [m] Envelope Max Floor Displacements [m] X direction Z direction Figure 7.02 0. Looking at the displacement and drift profiles it can be noticed that when the structure is subjected to a input ground motion inclined at 60° respect to the X axis.02 0. It is reasonable to suppose that when the building is attacked along that particular direction.06 3 2 1 0 -0.02 0.02 Envelope Max Floor Displacements [m] Envelope Max Floor Displacements [m] EQ Direction 60° 3 Storey 2 1 0 -0. EQ Direction 30° 6 Height [m] Storey 4 2 0 0.34 and 7.06 EQ Direction 90° 6 4 2 0 0.06 -0.02 -0.06 3 2 1 0 -0.Chapter 7 – Numerical investigation on 3D frame systems Uniformly infilled frame Figure 7.06 6 Height [m] Storey 4 2 0 0.02 -0.34: Uniformly infilled frame: maximum displacements . leading to a behavior governed by torsional rotation that causes the amplification of storey deformation. the sudden failure of a masonry infill can cause an irregularity in the stiffness distribution.

36 and 7. .37) confirm the high level of deformation experienced by the first storey when the input ground motion attacks the structure with a 60° inclination. The high value of residual displacement is also an indication of an extensive level of damage suffered by the structural system and caused by the amplification in displacement due to the torsional contribution.166 - .Chapter 7 – Numerical investigation on 3D frame systems EQ Direction 0° 3 Storey 2 1 0 0 1 2 3 Maximum Interstorey Drift [%] 6 Height [m] Storey 4 2 0 3 2 1 0 0 1 2 3 Maximum Interstorey Drift [%] EQ Direction 30° 6 4 2 0 Height [m] Height [m] EQ Direction 60° 3 Storey 2 1 0 0 1 2 3 Maximum Interstorey Drift [%] 6 Height [m] Storey 4 2 0 3 2 1 0 0 EQ Direction 90° 6 4 2 0 1 2 3 Maximum Interstorey Drift [%] X direction Z direction Figure 7.35: Uniformly infilled frame: maximum interstorey drift The graphs showing the profiles of residual displacement and drift (figure 7.

03 -0.05 6 Height [m] Storey 4 2 0 -0.03 -0.04 Residual Displacement [m] Residual Displacement [m] X direction Z direction Figure 7.02 0.05 EQ Direction 30° 6 4 2 0 -0.05 6 Height [m] Storey 4 2 0 -0.04 -0.36: Uniformly infilled frame: residual displacements .02 0 0.167 - .01 3 2 1 0 EQ Direction 90° 6 4 2 0 -0.01 3 2 1 0 -0.01 Height [m] Height [m] Residual Displacement [m] Residual Displacement [m] EQ Direction 60° 3 Storey 2 1 0 -0.Chapter 7 – Numerical investigation on 3D frame systems EQ Direction 0° 3 Storey 2 1 0 -0.03 -0.

168 - .Chapter 7 – Numerical investigation on 3D frame systems EQ Direction 0° 3 Storey 2 1 0 0 1 2 3 Residual Interstorey Drift [%] 6 Height [m] Storey 4 2 0 3 2 1 0 0 1 2 3 Residual Interstorey Drift [%] EQ Direction 30° 6 4 2 0 Height [m] Height [m] EQ Direction 60° 3 Storey 2 1 0 0 1 2 3 Residual Interstorey Drift [%] 6 Height [m] Storey 4 2 0 3 2 1 0 0 EQ Direction 90° 6 4 2 0 1 2 3 Residual Interstorey Drift [%] X direction Z direction Figure 7.37: Uniformly infilled frame: residual interstorey drift .

Chapter 7 – Numerical investigation on 3D frame systems Floor rotations An interesting aspect to investigate is the amplitude of floor rotation that indicates the influence of torsional effects on the overall structural behavior. As expected the magnitude of the floor rotation reach it's maximum in the analyses performed considering the earthquake attacking the frame with a 30° or 60° inclination respect to the principal X axis.169 - . It is worth noting that a very high value of rotation has been recorded from the analyses performed on the uniformly infilled frame subjected to a 60° inclined ground motion. .37 show the average of the maximum floor rotation obtained from the time history analyses performed on the 3D three storey frame. Generally the rotation of the floor diaphragm varies between 0 and 0.01 radiant. The seismic response of this particular structural scheme can be influenced by the sudden failure of some masonry infill causing a situation of stiffness and strength irregularity that is one of the main source of torsional deformation and structural damage during a seismic event. Figure 7. The graphs show that the values of floor rotation are minimum when the input ground motion acts along the frame principal axes. indicating that the torsional deformation plays an important role on the response of the uniformly infilled frame model. This confirms the type of behavior already noted in the previous paragraph. indicated as 0° (X axis) and 90° (Z axis) in the figures.

01 0 0 30 60 90 120 Input inclination [°] Figure 7.03 Floor rotation [rad] Floor rotation [rad] 0.02 0.02 0.03 0.38: 3D time history analysis: maximum floor diaphragm rotations .03 Floor rotation [rad] 0.Chapter 7 – Numerical investigation on 3D frame systems Bare frame Partialy infilled frame 0.170 - .02 0.01 0 0 30 60 90 120 Input inclination [°] 0 0 30 60 90 120 Input inclination [°] Unif ormly infilled f rame 0.01 0.

Chapter 8 – Conclusions 8. This choice was also made with the purpose of obtaining an upper and lower limit of results. On the other hand an irregular distribution of panels along building height can lead to the development of soft storey mechanism. On one hand the infill panels contribute to increase the structural resistance against seismic action and their presence reduces the deformation demand and consequent damage of structural elements. The strength of the masonry infills gives a contribution to the maximum resistance of the building but. It is worth noting however that also when the infill panels are regularly distributed in the frame (uniformly infilled frame). whether single or double leaf. has a moderate influence on the global structural response. CONCLUSIONS In the present work the assessment of the seismic response of pre-1970 reinforced concrete frames with and without the presence of masonry infills has been investigated through non-linear numerical analyses. the seismic response of the structure was characterized by a soft storey mechanism developing as a consequence of the brittle failure of masonry panels at a particular level. . thus giving a reasonable range for the evaluation of seismic response of existing under-designed reinforced concrete frames. From the results obtained in the present work it can be noted that the presence of masonry infills has a dual effect on the overall structural response. Particular attention has been focused on the effect of mechanical properties variation and geometrical distribution of infill panels on the global structural response. The results of analyses performed on the infilled frame show that the typology of masonry panels.171 - . that produces a sudden reduction of strength and stiffness and an increase in the storey deformation demand. as it has been highlighted by the results obtained from the numerical analyses on the partially infilled frame configuration. Two different type of masonry panels have been considered: a strong double leaf panel representative of exterior walls and a weaker single leaf panel typical of interior partition walls.

suggesting that the different distribution of infills panels in the frame doesn't modify this general behavior and the exterior joints still result to be the more damaged. The experimental tests performed at the University of Pavia on a three storey R.. The results obtained from pushover analyses performed on the three storey frame confirmed the type of mechanism observed during the experimental tests. The results of the analyses performed in the present work confirmed the importance of modeling the beam-column joints to better capture the global seismic response of the frame that can be strongly influenced by the level of cracking and deformation experienced by the joint regions. highlighted that the joints of under-designed frame structures subjected to seismic loading experience extensive damage due to shear deformation. For these reasons the joint panel region often represents a weak link in the seismic structural response of these type of buildings.172 - . The results obtained from the non-linear analyses performed show that the higher level of rotation is experienced by the springs located along the exterior columns both for the 3-storey and the 6-storey frame building. The rotation of joint springs is strictly related to the shear deformation demand and damage of the joint region. 2002). alternative to the flexural plastic hinge. (2002) highlighted that the cracking in the joint and its consequent increase in deformation demand lead to the development of an hybrid failure mechanism for the frame.. The experimental tests performed by Calvi et al. the structural mechanism and the level of deformation experienced by the frame are moderately influenced by the characteristics of the infill panels. frame and on beamcolumn subassemblies (Calvi et al. 2002 and Pampanin et al.C.Chapter 8 – Conclusions considering the post-elastic response. that contributes to spread the deformation demand on two adjacent storey. As it has been underlined in the previous chapters the structures designed between 1950 and 1970 for gravity loads only present a series of typical structural deficiencies among which the lack of transverse reinforcement in beam-column joints and absence of any capacity design principles. In the present work the beam column joints were modeled using non-linear rotational spring with a constitutive law able to describe the loss of strength and stiffness due to the formation of shear cracks and the "pinching" phenomenon consequence of the slip of longitudinal reinforcing bars. due to the limited confinement provided by the surrounding structural elements. thus confirming the results of experimental tests. in which the damaged joint acts as a "shear hinge". combined with lack of transverse reinforcement and poor detailing. the high concentration of stresses rapidly causes the formation of diagonal cracking of the joint panel region and an increase of shear deformation demand. with the development of a soft storey . Furthermore it is worth noting that the same type of behavior is also shown by the analyses on the partial and uniform infilled frames. In particular the higher damage observed was mainly concentrated in the exterior beam-column joints where.

however. In order to perform a high number of analyses a reliable and refined 3D model is necessary. This particular type of structural response.C. In is to notice however that in reality beyond a certain level of deformation the structure loses his capacity of bearing vertical loads. frames. Further Investigations For a better understanding of the three dimensional response of reinforced concrete frames an extensive series of parametrical analyses is needed. did not clearly emerged from the time history analyses performed on the 3 storey and 6 storey frames. in particular the calibration of the biaxial interaction surface for columns and the determination of a biaxial interaction relationship for joint elements is important to correctly consider the influence of joint deformation on the structural response.Chapter 8 – Conclusions mechanism that interests the first and the second level of the frame. giving a more realistic description of the seismic behavior of existing R. The limited values of residual displacement that in some cases has been obtained from the analyses can be explained considering that the model adopted doesn't take into consideration any strength degradation relationship for structural elements and that no P-∆ effects have been included in the analyses performed. .173 - . The results of time-history and pushover analyses presented in this work show that the structures taken in consideration can sustain high levels of deflection with relatively small values of residual deformations. In the final chapter of the work the three dimensional response of pre-1970 reinforced concrete frames has been investigated. Particular attention has been focused on the comparison between the two and three-dimensional response of the frame and on the investigation of torsional effects. This type of mechanism wasn't captured because in the present work the P-∆ effects have not been considered in the analyses. Another important feature is the consideration of P-D effects and strength degradation laws that can significantly affect the post elastic response of the structure both at local and global level. leading to the structural failure. presented in terms of floor rotations. The input seismic motion has been applied in four different directions around the structure.

727. paper n. 7 (1).815-824. C. 2004.. and Gavarini. "Qualificazione. "Infilled frames: certainties and uncertainties". F. Colombo. London.. and Verzeletti. . Colangelo. "Ruaumoko Program for Inelastic Dynamic Analysis – Users Manual". W. Colangelo. L.D. September 611. L. and Pampanin. January-February Calvi. Bertoldi.M. 12th European Conference on Earthquake Engineering. Christchurch. Frame Designed for Gravity Only". Department of Civil Engineering.A. (2003) “Seismic Behavior of Nonseismically Detailed Interior Beam-Wides Column Joints-Part II: Theoretical Comparisons and Analytical Studies” ACI Journal. Journal of Earthquake Engineering. P.. New Zealand. Perugia 13-15 Ottobre 1993.a. pp. University of Pavia. "Risposta Sismica di Edifici a Telaio in C.H. University of Canterbury. (in Italian) DISAT. 2002.. Department of Structural Mechanics.174 - . (in Italian) atti del 6° convegno nazionale ANIDIS. Magenes. G. "Telai tamponati soggetti ad azione sismica. un modello semplificato: confronto sperimentale e numerico". 25-50. Yiming. tamponati con laterizio". 2003. con Tamponature Progettati per Soli Carichi da Gravità".J. 1. A. of the 11th European Conference on Earthquake Engineering. "Experimental Test on a Three Storey R. and Tso-Chien. Decanini. Negro. G. CD-ROM. REFERENCES Baletta. 1998. Carr. V. 100. "Experimental Evaluation of Member-by-Member Models and Damage Indices for Infilled Frames". S. Paris. G. Proc. vol. A.C.Chapter 9 – References 9. G.. Bing.2. S. (in Italian) Laurea Thesis. F. 2002. No. P. risposta sismica pseudodinamica e modelli fenomenologici di portali di c. Febbraio 1999.

Proceedings of the Annual NZSEE Conference. Special Issue 1. and Verderame. Eligehausen.. report EERC 76-32. ENV 1998-1-1.19.. Manfredi. "Modeling bond-slip deformations in reinforced concrete beam-column joints". 101-122. V. Kanto District Symposium. S and Pampanin.J. Japan. S. Kianoush M. N.E.Part 1: General rules and rules for buildings. Proc.G. 6. Hoehler. and Bertero. Y.V.473-478. 27: 490-505. Klingner.. M..104. Holmes. March 2006. M. F. Proceedings of the institution of civil engineers. M. "Seismic Behaviour of Reinforced Concrete Structures with Masonry Infills".. (in Italian) Laurea Thesis. V. Eurocode 2 .D. 2000. N. M. B. Bousias. "Experimental and numerical investigations on the seismic response of rc infilled frames and recommendations for code provisions".. December 1976.M.E. T. Journal of Earthquake Engineering. Frames: Critical Issues in Structural Modeling". 2002. Klingner. Ph. J. G. (editor). Lisbon.Design of concrete structures .Chapter 9 – References Cosenza. 1998. Brussels. "Three-Dimensional Modelling of Poorly Detailed Rc Frame Joints". Paris. Fukada. Fardis.. pp..175 - . Crisafulli. Vol.C. R. and Bertero. Imperial College Press. "Infilled frames in earthquake-resistant construction". N°40. July 1997. 1961... vol. Genesio. Earthquake engineering research center. 973-989. journal of the structural division. Elmorsi M. "Steel frames with brickwork and concrete infilling". Thesis. (In Japanese). 1969 Galli. 2003. Architectural Institute of Japan. N. Fardis. Tokyo. pp. Department of Civil Engineering. Ožbolt. Laboratorio Nacional de Engenharia Civil. Reza. Department of Structural Mechanics. vol. CEN Technical Committee 250/SC2 1991. and Tso W. Report 6 of ECOEST-PREC8 Project. Canadian Journal of Civil Engineering. M. G. "Earthquake resistance of infilled frames". CEN Technical Committee 250/SC8 1994a. 1978. ENV 1992-1-1. "Study on the Restoring Force Characteristics of Reinforce Concrete Buildings". CD-ROM. University of Canterbury. Eurocode 8 .V. Napier.K. R. "Metodi per l'Analisi della Risposta Sismica di Edifici Esistenti con Struttura a Telaio in Cemento Armato". of the 11th European Conference on Earthquake Engineering. E. S. Proc. n. "Seismic Assessment of Gravity Load Designed R. University of Pavia. July 1997. "Seismic response and design of irregularly infilled rc structures". September 6-11. R. . and Panagiotakos.Part 1-1: General rules Seismic actions and general requirements for structures.ST6. Brussels.Design provisions for earthquake resistance of structures .

Magonette. Ispra. 1686 – 1697. Lowes. Mosalam. report.176 - .54. 726. M. Nagai. December 31. N. Current paper CP13/74.. 1997. Vol. Univ. and Calvi.. N. N. University of Canterbury . Civil Engineering Studies. “Three Dimensional Nonlinear Finite Element Analysis of RC Interior Beam-Column Joints with Ultra High-Strength Materials Under Bidirectional Load” Transactions of the Japan Concrete Institute.Chapter 9 – References Leuchars. R. S. pp.. and Sake. Of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. Monti. pp. H. State University of New York at Buffalo. Buildings research establishment. Kashiwazaki. Nov. 18. E. Mosalam. and Spacone. A. 1973.. June 2000. Pegon. and Noguchi. Report UILU-ENG-74-2029. M. Journal of Structural Engineering. D.. P.-M. 2002. 107pp. and Verzeletti. Magenes. White. S. fib Symposium on Concrete Structures in Seismic Regions. Pampanin. London. Italy.M. A. Joint Research Centre. L. K. M. Molina. and Gergely. December 2003. and Carr. G.. White. E. R. K. 12th European Conference on Earthquake Engineering. and Altoontash. Mainstone. paper n. Combescure. "Tests on Four-Storey Full-Scale Reinforced Concrete Frame with Masonry Infills: Preliminary Report". I. "A Computer Program for Inelastic Response of R/C Frames to Earthquakes".. "Masonry infills panels". S. Moratti. Mosalam. "Reinforced Concrete Fiber Beam Element with Bond-Slip". Special publication No. Report NCEER-97-0021. 1974 Pampanin. Anthoine. J. "Seismic evaluation of frames with infill walls using quasi-static experiments". Report NCEER-97-0019.. 1995. and Gergely. P.. "Supplementary note on the stiffness and strength of infilled frames". G. Athens. R. P. G.. 1996. T. December 31. paper n. White. M. London 1974.C. "Modeling of Shear Hinge Mechanism in Poorly Detailed RC Beam/Column Joints". and Gergely. R. Journal of Structural Engineering. "Modeling Reinforced-Concrete Beam-Column Joints Subjected to Cyclic Loading"... A. Beam-Column Joints Designed for Gravity Loads". ASCE. State University of New York at Buffalo. Negro. State University of New York at Buffalo.95. P.. P. 1997. 1997. "Computational strategies for frames with infill walls: discrete and smeared crack analyses and seismic fragility".N.J. 654 – 661. G. 171. December 31..J. T. J. February. "Seismic Behaviour of R. Otani. European Commission. Report NCEER-97-0020. G. 2002. A. "Seismic evaluation of frames with infill walls using pseudo-dynamic experiments". K. .

F. John Wiley & Sons Inc. CLUP Editore. T. "A method of analysis for infilled frames". and Riccioni. ASCE Journal of Structural Division. 2003. vol. Stafford Smith.44. M.92. Milano. n° ST1. "Modelling the Shear Hinge in Beam Column Joints". and Ghobarah A. B. Proceedings of the institution of civil engineers.. Proceedings of the American society of civil engineering. and Nielsen. G. 686pp. University of Canterbury. 1970. 1982. 5.381-403. Sozen. and Carter.N. C. "Seismic Design and Retrofit of Bridges". Department of Civil Engineering. Sacchi Mandriani. "Comportamento statico e sismico delle strutture murarie" (in Italian). pp.M. R. 1996. M. "Modelling of RC beam column-joints and structural walls".J. 1969. journal of structural division. 744p. New York. Journal of Earthquake Engineering. vol.177 - . pp. Third Professional Year Project. and Calvi.Chapter 9 – References Paulay. "Seismic design of reinforced concrete and masonry buildings". M. Stafford Smith. Youssef M. N.J. M. John Wiley and Sons. and Priestley. No. 1996. "Behaviour of square infilled frames"..N. 1992. New Zealand. Vol. Priestley. G. 96(12).31-48.1 (2001) 93-111. Takeda. . Seible. B. T. Trowland. "Reinforced Concrete Response to Simulated Earthquake".