Existing lightly reinforced concrete (RC) moment frames are vulnerable to earthquakes. The seismic behavior of these frames could be affected by the presence of masonry infill walls. The objective of this study was to investigate the seismic behavior of gravity-designed RC frames having partial- and full-height masonry infill walls. For this purpose, experimental and numerical studies were conducted. Three one-story and one-bay gravity-designed RC moment frames with and without partial- and full-height masonry infill walls were made and tested under cyclic lateral loads. Numerical models for RC moment frames and masonry walls were proposed based on test data. Nonlinear static and incremental dynamic analyses (IDAs) were conducted for three-story RC moment frames with and without partial- and full-height masonry infill walls using the numerical models. Both experimental and numerical studies demonstrated that the masonry-infilled RC frames had larger lateral strength and stiffness than bare RC frames, whereas their drift capacity was less than that of bare frames. The partial-height masonry-infilled RC model frame had the least collapse strength among the frames.
American Concrete Institute (ACI) Committee 318 (2014) Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete and Commentary (ACI 318-14). Farmington Hills, MI: ACI.
2.
American Concrete Institute (ACI) Committee 374 (2005) Acceptance Criteria for Moment Frames Based on Structural Testing and Commentary (ACI 374.1-05). Farmington Hills, MI: ACI.
3.
American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) (2014) Seismic Evaluation and Retrofit of Existing Buildings (ASCE/SEI 41-13). Reston, VA: ASCE.
4.
American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) (2017) Seismic Evaluation and Retrofit of Existing Buildings (ASCE/SEI 41-17). Reston, VA: ASCE.
5.
American Society of Testing and Materials (ASTM) (2015) Standard Test Method for Diagonal Tension (Shear) in Masonry Assemblages (ASTM E519/E519M-15). West Conshohocken, PA: ASTM.
6.
American Society of Testing and Materials (ASTM) (2016) Standard Test Method for Compressive Strength of Masonry Prisms (ASTM C1314-16). West Conshohocken, PA: ASTM.
7.
BertoldiSHDecaniniLDGavariniC (1993) Telai tamponati soggetti ad azioni sismiche, un modello sempli fi cato: confronto sperimentale e numerico. In: Proceedings, Attidel 6 Convegno Nazionale ANIDIS, Perugia, 13–15 Ottobre 1993, pp. 815–824. [in Italian]
8.
CavaleriLDi TrapaniF (2014) Cyclic response of masonry infilled RC frames: Experimental results and simplified modeling. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering65: 224–242.
9.
CrisafulliFJ (1997) Seismic behaviour of reinforced concrete structures with masonry infills. PhD Dissertation, University of Canterbury, Christchurch, New Zealand.
10.
CrisafulliFJCarrAJParkR (2000) Analytical modeling of infilled frame structures—A general review. Bulletin of the New Zealand Society of Earthquake Engineering33: 30–47.
11.
DolsekMFajfarP (2002) Mathematical modelling of an infilled RC frame structure based on the results of pseudo-dynamic tests. Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics31: 1215–1230.
12.
El-DakhakhniWWElgaalyMHamidAA (2003) Three-strut model for concrete masonry-infilled steel frames. Journal of Structural Engineering129: 177–185.
13.
EllingwoodBGalambosTVMacGregorJG, et al. (1980) Development of a Probability-based Load Criterion for American National Standard A58 (SP 577). Washington, DC: National Bureau of Standards.
14.
ElwoodKJ (2004) Modelling failures in existing reinforced concrete columns. Canadian Journal of Civil Engineering31: 846–859.
15.
ElwoodKJEberhardMO (2006) Effective Stiffness of Reinforced Concrete Columns. PEER Research Digest, No. 2006-1.
16.
ElwoodKJMoehleJP (2005) Drift capacity of reinforced concrete columns with light transverse reinforcement. Earthquake Spectra21(1): 71–89.
17.
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) (2005) Improvement of Nonlinear Static Seismic Analysis Procedures (FEMA 440). Washington, DC: FEMA.
18.
FioreASpagnolettiGGrecoR (2016) On the prediction of shear brittle collapse mechanisms due to the infill-frame interaction in RC buildings under pushover analysis. Engineering Structures121: 147–159.
19.
GhannoumWMMoehleJP (2012) Shake-table tests of a concrete frame sustaining column axial failures. ACI Structural Journal109: 393–402.
20.
GomezHMcGregorEMahjoubN, et al. (2017) Seismic retrofit design of a multi-story non-ductile reinforced concrete building in downtown Los Angeles. In: 2017 SEAOC convention proceedings, structural engineers association of California, San Diego, CA, 12–15 September.
21.
GuevaraLTGarcíaLE (2005) The captive- and short-column effects. Earthquake Spectra21: 141–160.
22.
HanSWJeeNY (2005) Seismic behaviour of columns in ordinary and intermediate moment resisting frames. Engineering Structures27: 951–952.
23.
HanSWKwonOSLeeLH (2004) Evaluation of the seismic performance of a three-story ordinary moment-resisting concrete frame. Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics33: 669–685.
24.
HaseltonCBLielABLangeS, et al. (2007) Beam-column element model calibrated for predicting flexure response leading to global collapse of RC frame buildings. PEER Report 2007/03. Berkeley, CA: Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center, University of California at Berkeley.
25.
HaseltonCBLielABTaylor-LangeSC, et al. (2016) Calibration of model to simulate response of reinforced concrete beam-columns to collapse. ACI Structural Journal113: 1141–1152.
26.
JeonJSLowesLNDesRochesR, et al. (2015a) Fragility curves for non-ductile reinforced concrete frames that exhibit different component response mechanisms. Engineering Structures85: 127–143.
27.
JeonJSParkJHDesRochesR (2015b) Seismic fragility of lightly reinforced concrete frames with masonry infills. Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics44: 1783–1803.
28.
KentDC (1971) Flexural members with confined concrete. Journal of the Structural Division97(7): 1969–1990.
29.
KimYSBaeJH (2016) Status of Korean seismic design and improvement strategies. National Assembly Research Service, Issues and points, 31-9735026-000626-14, No. 1216, Seoul, South Korea, 4pp. (in Korean).
30.
Korean Ministry of Education (1980) Standard design of school buildings. Report 80-92-DA. Seoul, South Korea: Korean Ministry of Education.
LeBorgneMRGhannoumWM (2014) Analytical element for simulating lateral-strength degradation in reinforced concrete columns and other frame members. Journal of Structural Engineering140: 04014038.
33.
LeeCSHanSW (2018) Computationally effective and accurate simulation of cyclic behaviour of old reinforced concrete columns. Engineering Structures173: 892–907.
34.
LeeHSWooSW (2002) Effect of masonry infills on seismic performance of a 3-storey R/C frame with non-seismic detailing. Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics31: 353–378.
35.
LeeLHLeeHHHanSW (2000) Method of selecting design earthquake ground motion for tall buildings. The Structural Design of Tall Buildings9: 201–213.
36.
LiaoWCPercekaWWangM (2017) Experimental study of cyclic behavior of high-strength reinforced concrete columns with different transverse reinforcement detailing configurations. Engineering Structures153: 290–301.
37.
LignosDGKrawinklerH (2011) Deterioration modeling of steel components in support of collapse prediction of steel moment frames under earthquake loading. Journal of Structural Engineering137: 1291–1302.
38.
LowesLNAltoontashA (2003) Modeling reinforced-concrete beam-column joints subjected to cyclic loading. Journal of Structural Engineering129: 1686–1697.
39.
McKennaFScottMHFenvesGL (2010) Nonlinear finite-element analysis software architecture using object composition. Journal of Computing in Civil Engineering24: 95–107.
40.
National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) (2010) Program Plan for the Development of Collapse Assessment and Mitigation Strategies for Existing Reinforced Concrete Buildings (NIST GCR 10-917-7). Gaithersburg, MD: NIST.
41.
PanagiotakosTBFardisMN (1996) Seismic response of infilled RC framed structures. In: Proceedings of the 11th world conference on earthquake engineering, Acapulco, Mexico, 23–28 June.
42.
PerroneDLeoneMAielloMA (2016) Evaluation of the infill influence on the elastic period of existing RC frames. Engineering Structures123: 419–433.
43.
SattarS (2013) Influence of masonry infill walls and other building characteristics on seismic collapse of concrete frame buildings. PhD Thesis, University of Colorado, Boulder.
44.
SattarSLielAB (2016a) Seismic performance of nonductile reinforced concrete frames with masonry infill walls: I. Development of a strut model enhanced by finite element models. Earthquake Spectra32: 795–818.
45.
SattarSLielAB (2016b) Seismic performance of nonductile reinforced concrete frames with masonry infill walls: II. Collapse assessment. Earthquake Spectra32: 819–842.
46.
SezenHMoehleJP (2004) Shear strength model for lightly reinforced concrete columns. Journal of Structural Engineering130: 1692–1703.
47.
Stafford SmithB (1967) Methods for predicting the lateral stiffness and strength of multi-storey infilled frames. Building Science2: 247–257.
48.
TurgayTDurmusMCBiniciB, et al. (2014) Evaluation of the predictive models for stiffness, strength, and deformation capacity of RC frames with masonry infill walls. Journal of Structural Engineering140: 06014003.
