Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
www.elsevier.com/locate/engstruct
Abstract
Strengthening of reinforced concrete frames by cast-in-place reinforced concrete infills is commonly used in practice. Sometimes, window
or door openings have been left in the infill wall due to architectural necessities during the strengthening of RC framed buildings. But behavior
of partially infilled reinforced concrete frames under lateral cyclic loads is not known fully. The purpose of this research is to investigate the
behaviour of ductile reinforced concrete (RC) frames strengthened by introducing partial infills under cyclic lateral loading. One-bay, one-story,
1/3 scale nine test specimens were constructed and tested under reversed cyclic loading. Aspect ratio of the infill wall (lw / h w , where lw = infill
length, h w = infill height) and its placement configurations were the parameters of the experimental study. Test results indicated that partially
infilled RC frames exhibited significantly higher ultimate strength and higher initial stiffness than the bare frame (frame with no infill). While
the aspect ratio of the infill wall was increased, the lateral strength and the rigidity were increased significantly. In addition to these variables, it
has been seen that the connection between frames and infills also affected the behavior of infilled frames. Specimens with partial infill walls both
connected to the column and beams of the frame showed the most successful behavior.
c 2006 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Reinforced concrete frame; Partially infilled; Strengthening; Cyclic loading; Seismic behavior
1. Introduction
Strengthening of existing reinforced concrete framed
buildings for improving seismic resistance is a challenging
engineering problem. Many of the existing buildings are found
to have inadequate strength, ductility, or stiffness, because they
were designed and built when modern seismic requirements
did not exist. Various strengthening techniques such as addition
of infill walls, various precast panel walls, steel bracings, and
concrete jacketing of frame members or a combination of them
are being used for such buildings in practice. The basic aim of
strengthening techniques is to upgrade strength, ductility and
stiffness of the member and/or the structural system as a whole.
If the number of members to be strengthened is limited and
the structures drift requirements are satisfied, strengthening
of members will be sufficient. But in some cases, only
strengthening of members may not be enough and appropriate,
since the structure may have stiffness problems. In such cases,
increasing the lateral stiffness of the structure by introducing
Corresponding author. Tel.: +90 3122317400x2215; fax: +90 3122319223.
Anil).
E-mail address: oanil@gazi.edu.tr (O.
c 2006 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
0141-0296/$ - see front matter
doi:10.1016/j.engstruct.2006.05.011
450
Notation
bw
db
fc
f sy
f su
hw
lw
h
v
thickness of infill
dowel reinforcement diameter
compression strength of concrete
yield strength of reinforcements
ultimate strength of reinforcements
height of infill wall
length of infill wall
sectional area horizontal reinforcement ratio of
infill
sectional area vertical reinforcement ratio of infill
2. Experimental work
2.1. Description of test specimens and material properties
In the conducted experimental study, nine specimens were
manufactured and tested. The test frame was a 1/3 scale,
one-bay, one-story ductile RC frame. During design phase of
the frames, weak-column, strong-beam connections that are
encountered frequently in practice are taken into account. The
properties of the test specimens are summarized in Table 1.
Geometrical dimensions and reinforcement of all specimen
frames were selected to be the same. Dimensions and
reinforcement details of the test frames are shown in Fig. 1.
The columns and beam were constructed with dimensions
100 150 mm and 150 300 mm, respectively. In columns
four 10 mm diameter deformed bars were used as longitudinal
reinforcement. Plain bars with a diameter of 6 mm spaced at
80 mm were used as closed ties in columns. Stirrups were
spaced at 40 mm at the end section of columns. Eight deformed
bars with a diameter of 8 mm were used as longitudinal
reinforcement in beams. Plain bars with diameter of 4 mm
spaced at 40 mm were used as closed ties in beams.
Reinforcement ratios of infill reinforcement and dowels
used in specimens were summarized in Table 2. Orthogonal
reinforcement for the infill wall consisted of 6 mm plain
bars. The reinforcement was placed on both faces of the wall.
The sectional area ratio of the vertical and horizontal wall
reinforcement was the same in both directions (h = v =
0.009). An edge member is manufactured at the free end of
infill with 130 50 mm dimensions for all specimens. In an
edge member four 6 mm diameter plain bars were used as
longitudinal reinforcement. Plain bars with a diameter of 4 mm
spaced at 50 mm were used as closed ties in an edge member.
451
Table 1
Properties of test specimens
Specimen no: (1)
Infill panel
f C (MPa)
lw (mm) (3)
h w (mm) (4)
lw / h w (5)
Frame (6)
Infill (7)
21.8
1300
750
1.73
25.3
25.3
1300
750
1.73
24.2
20.7
325
750
0.43
22.5
20.1
650
750
0.87
24.3
22.5
975
750
1.30
20.0
22.0
2 487.5
750
1.30
20.1
22.8
650
750
0.87
23.9
25.3
Configuration (2)
452
Table 1 (continued)
Specimen no: (1)
Infill panel
f C (MPa)
Configuration (2)
lw (mm) (3)
h w (mm) (4)
lw / h w (5)
Frame (6)
Infill (7)
1300
750
1.73
22.9
22.1
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
Infill
#-Bar diameter/Spacing (mm)
Horizontal (2)
6 6/140
6 6/140
6 6/140
6 6/140
6 6/140
6 6/140
6 6/140
6 6/140
Vertical (3)
Dowels
Bar diameter/Spacing (mm)
Horizontal (4)
Vertical (5)
9 6/140
9 6/140
2 6/65
5 6/122
7 6/140
4 6/112
5 6/92
9 6/140
10/150
10/150
10/150
10/150
10/150
10/150
10/150
10/163
10/130
10/173
10/211
10/179
10/173
10/163
Notes: 1Infill reinforcement has been placed at both of the infill faces.
2Each dowel consisted of one bar centered at the face of the member applied.
453
f sy (MPa) (2)
f su (MPa) (3)
Type (4)
4
6
8
10
16
326
427
592
475
425
708
489
964
689
683
Plain
Plain
Deformed
Deformed
Deformed
maintained in the elastic range for the first few cycles. In further
cycles, load was increased beyond the ultimate load level. After
reaching maximum load carrying capacity, loading applied with
similar drift increments up to 4.44% drift. A last cycle was
done for determining residual stresses for all specimens and
experiments were finalized at 7.00% drift ratio.
The specimens were instrumented with LVDTs (linear
variable differential transformers) to measure story displacements, infill shear displacements, and column curvatures. During the tests, story displacements and the lateral loads were
monitored. In the infilled specimens, average shear deformations of the walls were calculated by using diagonally placed
displacement transformers measurements. After each cycle,
new initiated cracks and crack propagation were marked on the
specimens and failure mechanisms were observed.
3. Experimental results
3.1. Specimen behaviors and failure mechanisms
The loaddisplacement hysteretic curves that were observed
during testing are illustrated in Fig. 4. Specimens load carrying
capacities were named as ultimate load. Ultimate loads of the
specimens were equal to maximum load values except for
Specimen 1. The ultimate load of Specimen 1 was taken as the
load at which longitudinal column reinforcements yielded. As
indicated in these figures, the addition of RC infill significantly
reduced the lateral drift and increased strength and stiffness of
the specimens. In general, the story drift ratios of specimens
that were strengthened with infills were between 0.57% and
1.57% at ultimate load. The largest story drift ratio (1.57%) was
obtained from Specimen 4 among all infilled specimens. This
value was 21% larger than the bare frames story drift ratio.
The measured story drift ratios of Specimen 5 and 6 at ultimate
load that are strengthened with wing infill wall were less than
that of Specimen 3, which was strengthened with infilled wall
without opening. Connection between infill and frame affected
story drift ratio significantly. The story drift ratio of Specimen
8, which was strengthened with infill connected to beams only,
was more than twice the story drift ratio of Specimen 5, which
was strengthened with the same sized infilled wing wall. The
454
455
Fig. 4. (continued)
Table 4
Summary of test results
Specimen no: (1)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
Forward cycles
Ultimate load (kN)
(2)
*
(4)
Backward cycles
Ultimate load (kN)
(5)
*
(7)
24.6
351.0
247.9
88.6
150.3
193.8
155.9
126.4
173.1
1.33
0.57
0.78
1.27
0.59
0.74
1.15
1.28
0.69
1.00
14.27
10.08
3.60
6.11
7.88
6.34
5.14
7.04
26.3
323.0
226.0
98.1
150.1
185.4
150.9
131.3
179.5
1.31
1.10
0.73
1.57
0.65
0.74
1.18
1.23
0.79
1.00
12.28
8.59
3.73
5.71
7.05
5.74
4.99
6.83
Column mechanism
Shear sliding
Web crushing
Column failure
Web crushing
Web crushing
Web crushing
Web crushing
Short column failure
456
(a) Specimen 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 7.
(b) Specimen 1, 2, 3, 8, 9.
Fig. 6. Loaddisplacement envelope curve of specimens.
457
Table 5
Stiffnesses of test specimens
Specimen no: (1)
Ratioa
(4)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
4.5
212.8
159.6
21.1
49.2
77.2
64.8
46.7
91.6
2.2
68.4
35.3
6.9
27.8
29.1
15.1
11.9
24.9
47.29
35.47
4.69
11.93
17.16
14.40
10.38
20.36
458
459
Table 6
Comparison of analytical and experimental results
Specimen no: (1)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
Analytical (3)
Ratioa (4)
Analytical (6)
Ratioa
(7)
26.30
351.00
247.90
98.10
150.30
193.80
155.90
131.30
179.50
25.60
363.00
252.30
82.19
153.40
190.80
157.50
128.30
173.70
1.03
0.97
0.98
1.19
0.98
1.02
0.99
1.02
1.03
4.50
212.80
159.60
21.10
49.20
77.20
64.80
46.70
91.60
5.10
225.70
167.40
26.50
55.62
84.71
68.99
52.55
103.69
0.88
0.94
0.95
0.80
0.88
0.91
0.94
0.89
0.88
6. Conclusions
In this study, the behavior of partially infilled concrete
frames under cyclic loads was investigated experimentally.
One-bay, one-story partially infilled reinforced concrete frames
are tested under reversed cyclic loading simulating seismic
action. Based on the test results, the following conclusions were
drawn;
(1) Strengthening of reinforced concrete frames with partially
reinforced concrete infills increased the strength and
stiffness of the bare frame substantially. Strengthening
using infills as a wing wall was found to be an effective
technique. Although Specimen 4 was strengthened with the
smallest wing wall (lw / h w = 0.43), the infill and column
of Specimen 4 behaved together quite similar to a flexible
frame column among all infilled specimens, and improved
the strength of the bare frame 3.73 times. The strengths
of bare frames were improved 3.73 to 7.37 times, when
strengthened with wing walls. While increasing aspect
ratios of the wing infill walls (lw / h w ), specimen stiffnesses
and strengths were also increased.
(2) Arrangement of infill inside the frame opening, and
connection between infill and frame influenced the strength
and stiffness of the specimen. Arrangement of the infill as a
wing wall at which both column and beam of the frame was
connected to the infill improved the strength and stiffness
behavior. Specimen 6 with one wing wall showed 20%
more strength than Specimen 7 with two wing walls, even
though both of the specimens infills had the same aspect
ratios. Although the infills in both of the specimens had
the same aspect ratios, Specimen 8, which was strengthened
with infill connected only to the beams of the frame, showed
13% less strength than Specimen 5 with the wing wall.
(3) The window opening that was reserved on Specimen
9s infill yielded a short column behavior. Specimen
3, which was strengthened with infill without opening,
displayed 28% greater strength than Specimen 9, which
was strengthened with an infill with window opening. The
window opening that was reserved on the infill caused a
significant drop in strength, stiffness and energy dissipation
capacity.
(4) In general, reinforced concrete infilled specimens showed
brittle behavior. Specimens exhibited significant strength
(5)
(6)
(7)
(8)
References
460