Lateral Load Behavior of an Open-Ground-Story RC Building with AAC Infills in Upper Stories

Abstract

Autoclaved aerated concrete (AAC) masonry infills in upper stories can be beneficial for improving the seismic response of open-ground-story (OGS), reinforced concrete (RC)–frame buildings. Two reduced 1:2.5-scale models of single-story, single-bay RC frames with and without AAC infill masonry were tested for resistance properties and hysteretic behavior. Low strength and stiffness of AAC masonry, about half of the conventional brick masonry, led to improved load sharing between the infill and the frame, which helped an early development of frame yield mechanism for enhanced energy dissipation. Test results were used to evaluate the reliability of using existing strength and stiffness relations of conventional masonry infilled RC frames for AAC infilled frames. Analytical models were developed to predict the observed hysteretic behavior of tested specimens. Nonlinear analyses of a five-story, four-bay OGS-RC frame were performed for conventional brick masonry infills and relatively softer and weaker AAC infills in upper stories. The results indicated that the undesirable effect of weak/soft ground story mechanism of OGS-RC frames can be reduced to an acceptable level by using AAC infills in upper stories.

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Al-Chaar

2002. Evaluating Strength and Stiffness of Unreinforced Masonry Infill Structures, Rep. No. ERDC/CERL TR-02-1, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Champaign, IL.

American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE), 2005. Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and Other Structures, ASCE 7-05, Reston, VA.

American Society of Testing and Materials (ASTM), 2007. Standard Test Method for Diagonal Tension (Shear) in Masonry Assemblages, ASTM E519, West Conshohocken, PA.

American Society of Testing and Materials (ASTM), 2010. Standard specification for thin bed mortar for Autoclaved Aerated Concrete masonry, ASTM C1660, West Conshohocken, PA.

American Society of Testing and Materials (ASTM), 2011. Standard Test Method for Compressive Strength of Masonry Prisms, ASTM C1314, West Conshohocken, PA.

American Society of Testing and Materials (ASTM), 2011. Standard Specification for Autoclaved Aerated Concrete (AAC), ASTM C1693, West Conshohocken, PA.

Applied Technology Council (ATC), 2007. Recommended Methodology for Quantification of Building System Performance and Response Parameters - 75% Interim Draft Report, ATC 63, Redwood City, CA.

Bureau of Indian Standards (BIS), 1993. Ductile Detailing of Reinforced Concrete Structures Subjected to Seismic Forces: Code of Practice, IS 13920, New Delhi, India.

Bureau of Indian Standards (BIS), 2002. Indian Standard Criteria for Earthquake Resistant Design of Structure, Part 1: General Provisions and Buildings, IS 1893, 5^th revision, New Delhi, India.

10.

Bureau of Indian Standards (BIS), 2009. Concrete Mix Proportioning Guidelines, IS 10262, New Delhi, India.

11.

Canadian Standards Association (CSA), 2004. Design of Masonry Structures, CSA S304.1-04, Ontario, Canada.

12.

Computers and Structures, Inc. (CSI), 2009. Integrated Software for Structural Analysis and Design, SAP2000, Berkeley, CA.

13.

Dawe

J. L.

and McBride

R. T.

1985. Experimental investigation of the shear resistance of masonry panels in steel frames, in Proceedings, Seventh International Brick Masonry Conference, 791–801, Melbourne, Australia.

14.

Durani

A. J.

and Luo

Y. H.

1994. Seismic retrofit of flat slab buildings with masonry infills, in Proceedings, NCEER Workshop on seismic response of masonry infills, Technical Report, 3–8.

15.

Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), 1998. Evaluation of Earthquake Damaged Concrete and Masonry Wall Buildings: Basic Procedures Manual, FEMA 306, prepared by the Applied Technology Council (ATC-43 Project), Washington, D.C.

16.

Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), 2000. Prestandard and Commentary for the Seismic Rehabilitation of Buildings, FEMA 356, prepared by the American Society of Civil Engineers, Washington, D.C.

17.

Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), 2009. Quantification of Building Seismic Performance Factors, FEMA P695, prepared by the Applied Technology Council, Washington, D.C.

18.

Flanagan

R. D.

and Bennett

R. M.

2001. In-plane analysis of masonry infill materials, Practice Periodical on Structural Design and Construction 6, 176–182.

19.

Govindan

Lakshimipathy

and Santhakumar

A. R.

1986. Ductility of infilled frames, American Concrete Institute Journal 83, 567–576.

20.

Harris

H. G.

and Sabnis

G. M.

1999. Structural Modeling and Experimental Techniques, Second Edition, CRC Press Inc., Boca Raton, FL, 808 pp.

21.

Holmes

1963. Combined loading on infilled frames, Proceedings of the Institute of Civil Engineers, vol. 25, 31–38.

22.

Imran

and Aryanto

2009. Behavior of reinforced concrete frames infilled with lightweight materials under seismic loads, Civil Engineering Dimension 11, 69–77.

23.

Kaushik

H. B.

Rai

D. C.

and Jain

S. K.

2006. Code approaches to seismic design of masonry-infilled RC frames: A state-of-the art review, Earthquake Spectra 22, 961–983.

24.

Kaushik

H. B.

Rai

D. C.

and Jain

S. K.

2007. Stress-Strain characteristics of clay-brick masonry under uniaxial compression, Journal of Material Civil Engineering 19, 738–739.

25.

Liauw

T. C.

and Kwan

K. H.

1984. Non-linear behavior of non-integral infilled frames, Computer and Structures 18, 551–560.

26.

Liu

Y. S.

and Li

G. Q.

2004. Behavior of steel frames with and without AAC infilled walls subjected to static and cyclic horizontal loads, in Proceedings, 13th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Vancouver, Canada, paper 1112.

27.

Mainstone

1971. On the stiffness and strengths of infilled frames, Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers, Supplement IV, 57–90.

28.

Masonry Standards Joint Committee (MSJC), 2011. Building Code Requirements for Masonry Structures, TMS 402-11/ACI 530-11/ASCE 5-11, The Masonry Institute, Boulder, American Concrete Institute, ASCE, Farmington Hills, MI, Reston, VA.

29.

Miranda

and Bertoro

V. V.

1989. The Mexico earthquake of September 19, 1985-performance of low rise buildings in Mexico City, Earthquake Spectra 5, 121–143.

30.

Parool

2012. Seismic Fragility of Multi-Span Simply Supported Bridge with Drop Spans and Steel Bearings, M. Tech. Thesis, Indian Institute of Technology, Kanpur.

31.

Ravichandran

S. S.

and Klingner

R. E.

2012a. Seismic design factors for steel moment frames with masonry infills: Part 1, Earthquake Spectra 28, 489–496.

32.

Ravichandran

S. S.

and Klingner

R. E.

2012b. Seismic design factors for steel moment frames with masonry infills: Part 2, Earthquake Spectra 28, 498–504.

33.

Valiasis

and Stylianidis

1989. Masonry infilled RC frames under horizontal loading: Experimental results, European Earthquake Engineering 3, 10–20.

34.

Vamvatsikos

and Cornell

C. A.

2002. Incremental dynamic analysis, Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics 31, 491–514.

35.

Vamvatsikos

and Cornell

C. A.

2004. Applied incremental dynamic analysis, Earthquake Spectra 20, 523–553.

36.

Varela

J. L.

Tanner

J. E.

and Klingner

R. E.

2006. Development of seismic force-reduction and displacement amplification factors for AAC structures, Earthquake Spectra, 22, 267–286.

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.00 MB

0.10 MB

0.36 MB