Strength, stiffness and cyclic deformation capacity of RC frames converted into walls by infilling with RC

In seismic retrofitting of concrete buildings, frame bays are converted into reinforced concrete (RC) walls by infilling the space between the frame members with RC of a thickness of not more than their width. The cyclic behavior of the resulting wall depends on the connection between the RC infill...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Bulletin of earthquake engineering 2016-03, Vol.14 (3), p.769-803
Main Authors: Biskinis, Dionysis, Fardis, Michael N., Psaros-Andriopoulos, Apostolos
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Civil Engineering
Concrete construction
Deformation
Earth and Environmental Science
Earth Sciences
Environmental Engineering/Biotechnology
Failure
Frames
Geophysics/Geodesy
Geotechnical Engineering & Applied Earth Sciences
Hydrogeology
Mathematical models
Original Research Paper
Reinforced concrete
Seismic engineering
Seismic phenomena
Shear
Shear strength
Stiffness
Structural Geology
Walls
Citations: Items that this one cites
Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:In seismic retrofitting of concrete buildings, frame bays are converted into reinforced concrete (RC) walls by infilling the space between the frame members with RC of a thickness of not more than their width. The cyclic behavior of the resulting wall depends on the connection between the RC infill and the surrounding RC members. The paper uses the results from 56 cyclic tests on such composite walls to express their properties in terms of the geometry, the reinforcement and the connection. Properties addressed are: (a) the yield moment at the story base; (b) the secant-to-yield-point stiffness over the shear span of the wall in a story; (c) the deflection at flexural failure in cyclic loading; (d) the cyclic shear resistance, including a sliding shear failure mode. Separate models are given for squat walls failing in shear and for those where the top of the column shears-off. The proposals are modifications of models developed in the past for monolithic RC walls from several hundred cyclic tests; blind application of these latter models as though the walls were monolithic gives, in general, unsafe predictions. By contrast, the diagonal compression strut approach in ASCE41-06 is safe-sided, but gives unacceptably large prediction scatter.
ISSN:1570-761X
1573-1456
DOI:10.1007/s10518-015-9847-6