Effect of Vertical Load, Number of Bay and Frame Connection Rigidity on the Modeling of Infill Panel in Infilled Steel Frames

Document Type : Articles

Authors

1 Structural Engineering Research Center, International Institute of Earthquake Engineering and Seismology (IIEES), Tehran, Iran

2 Department of Civil Engineering, Najafabad Branch, Islamic Azad University, Najafabad, Iran

Abstract

Infill panel significantly affect the behavior of surrounding frame. The infill walls are usually considered as non-structural element in analysis and designing process of the structures which is due to inherent complexity and uncertainty behavior of the infill wall and its materials. However, the seismic codes and guidelines are recommended to consider the effect of infill walls on strength and stiffness of the frame structures by using some simple macro models as well as changing the fundamental period of the structures. Among many model proposed by researchers in the literatures, the equivalent diagonal compression strut model is more prevalent, which is recommended by seismic guideline codes.
Due to dead and live loads, the presence of vertical loads applied on the beams and columns of the frames is unavoidable. Moreover, the rigidity of beam to column connections of the frame is different and changed depending on the connection types. The previous studies have shown that the presence of vertical load on the frame or the rigidity of frame joints affect the behavior of infilled frames. However, these effects are not considered to estimate the mechanical and geometric characteristics of equivalent strut in seismic codes. In other words, the previous researches have not presented an obvious and explicit conclusion to take into account the vertical load and connection rigidity effect on the modeling of equivalent strut. Moreover, it is assumed that the equivalent strut of multi-bay infilled frame have the same characteristics of that in single-bay ones, which is doubtful based on results of previous researches in the literature.
In this paper, the effect of vertical load, connection rigidity and number of bays on the seismic lateral behavior of infilled frames are investigated. For this purpose, an experimental program has been carried out to investigate the lateral behavior of infilled steel frames. Seven specimens included one bare frame and six infilled frames were tested under cyclic loading. The infilled frames were containing single-bay, double-bay frames, rigid frames and pinned frames. Also two infill specimens were tested under combined lateral and vertical loadings.
Afterward, an extensive parametric finite element analyses were carried out to achieve more accurate results. The results also show that the stiffness and strength of infilled frames are increased by applying vertical load, but do not affect the properties of equivalent strut. Moreover, it is found that the contribution of infill panel on global behavior of infilled frames is decreased in specimens with pinned connections in comparison with the infill panels in rigid frames. It also concluded that using the struts with the same properties in multi-bay infilled frame are accurately acceptable. In other words, the properties of equivalent struts do not vary with the increase in the bay numbers in the infilled frames.

Keywords

References

  1. Standard No 2800 (2014) Iranian Code of Practice for Seismic Resistant Design of Buildings. 4th Revision, Housing and Urban Development Research Center, Iran (in Persian).
  2. Moghaddam, H. (1994) Seismic Design of Masonry Buildings. Sharif University Press (in Persian).
  3. Dowrick, D.J. (1987) Earthquake Resistant Design: for Engineers and Architects. Wiley-Interscience.
  4. Memari, A.M., and Aliaari, M. (2004) Seismic isolation of masonry infill walls. In Structures 2004: Building on the Past, Securing the Future, 1-10.
  5. Aliaari, M. and Memari, A.M. (2005) Analysis of masonry infilled steel frames with seismic isolator subframes. Engineering Structures, 27(4), 487-500.
  6. European Committee for Standardization (CEN) (2004). Design of Structures for Earthquake Resistance. Part 1: General Rules, Seismic Actions and Rules for Buildings. Eurocode 8.
  7. U. B. Code (1997) Uniform building code. International Conference of Building Ofï‌cials, USA.
  8. Federal Emergency Management Agency (2000) Prestandard and Commentary for the Seismic Rehabilitation of Buildings. American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE).
  9. Council, B. S. S. (2000) Recommended Provisions for Seismic Regulations for New Buildings and Other Structures. NEHRP (National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program), Washington, DC.
  10. Stafford Smith, and Bryan, (1968) Model test results of vertical and horizontal loading of infilled frames. ACI Structural Journal, American Concrete Institute, Detroit, Michigan, 618-624.
  11. Mehrabi, A.B., Benson Shing, P., Schuller, M.P. and Noland, J.L. (1996) Experimental evaluation of masonry-infilled RC frames. Journal of Structural Engineering, 122(3), 228-237.
  12. Liu, Y. and Manesh, P. (2013) Concrete masonry infilled steel frames subjected to combined in-plane lateral and axial loading–An experimental study. Engineering Structures, 52, 331-339..
  13. CSA-S304 (2004) Design of Masonry Structures. Canada: Mississauga, Ont. Canadian Standards Association.
  14. Masonry Standards Joint Committee MSJC (2008) Building Code Requirements and Specification for Masonry Structures. American Concrete Institute, USA: American Society of Civil Engineers and the Masonry Society.
  15. Murthy, C. and Hendry, A. (1996) Model experiments in load bearing brickwork. Building Science. 1, 289-298.
  16. Mosalam, K.M., White, R.N. and Gergely P. (1997) Static response of infilled frames using quasi-static experimentation. Journal of Structural Engineering, 123, 1462-4169.
  17. Al-Chaar, G., Issa, M. and Sweeney, S. (2002) Behavior of masonry-infilled nonductile reinforced concrete frames. Journal of Structural Engineering, 128, 1055-1063.
  18. Choi, H., Sanada, S., Nakano, Y. and Matsukawa, K. (2017) Diagonal Strut Mechanism of URM Wall Built in RC Frames for Multi Bays. Proceedings of the 16th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering (16WCEE).
  19. Mainstone, R.J. (1971) On The Stiffness and Strengths of Infilled Frames. Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers (ICE), 49, 57-90.
  20. Riddington, J. (1984) The Influence of Intial Gaps on Infilled Frame Behaviour. ICE Proceedings. 295-310.
  21. Abdul-Kadir and Mohammed Raouf (1974) The Structural Behaviour of Masonry Infill Panels in Framed Structures.
  22. Flanagan R.D. and Bennett, R.M. (1999) In-plane behavior of structural clay tile infilled frames. Journal of Structural Engineering, 125, 590-599.
  23. Standard No 2800 (2005) Iranian Code of Practice for Seismic Resistant Design of Buildings. Third Revision, Building and Housing Research Center, Iran (in Persian).
  24. INBC-Part 6 (2013) Buildings Design Loads. Iranian national building code, part 6. IR (Iran): Ministry of Housing and Urban Development; 2013 (in Persian).
  25. ANSI/AISC ASD-01 (2001) Specification for Structural Steel Buildings, Allowable Stress Design and Plastic Design. American Institute of Steel Construction, Chicago, IL.
  26. Motovali Emami, S.M. and Mohammadi, M. (2016) Influence of vertical load on in-plane behavior of masonry infilled steel frames. Earthquakes and Structures, 11, 609-627.
  27. Motovali Emami, S.M. (2017) Effect of Vertical Load, Number of Bays and Connection Rigidity of the Frame on the Seismic Behavior of Infilled Steel Frames. Ph.D. Thesis, IIEES (in Persian).
  28. FEMA 461 (2006) Interim Protocols for Determining Seismic Performance Characteristics of Structural and Nonstructural Components through Laboratory Testing. Federal Emergency Management Agency.
  29. ASTM C1314 (2014) Standard Test Method for Compressive Strength of Masonry Prisms. West Conshohocken: American Society for Testing and Materials.
  30. ASTM E8/E8M (2009) Standard Test Methods for Tension Testing of Metallic Materials. ASTM international, West Conshohocken PA.
  31. Lourenço, P.B. and Rots, J.G. (1997) Multisurface interface model for analysis of masonry structures. Journal of Engineering Mechanics, 123, 660-668.
  32. Estekanchi, H.E., Arjomandi, K. and Vafai, A. (2008) Estimating structural damage of steel moment frames by endurance time method. Journal of Constructional Steel Research, 64(2), 145-155.
  33. ASCE (2013) Seismic Rehabilitation of Existing Buildings. ASCE/SEI 41-13. Virginia, American Society of Civil Engineers.
  34. ABAQUS (2014) Theory Manual version 6.14. Habbit Karlsson & Sorensen Inc.
  35. Vice Presidency for Strategic Planning and Supervision (2014) Instruction for Seismic Rehabilitation of Existing Buildings (No. 360). First Revision, Tehran, Iran (in Persian).
  36. CSI (2010) Integrated Finite Element Analysis and Design of Structures Basic Analysis Reference Manual. SAP2000 V.14.1. Computers and Structures Inc, Berkeley, California, USA.

Files

History

  • Receive Date: 11 October 2017
  • Revise Date: 19 March 2021
  • Accept Date: 26 December 2020

Share

How to cite

Statistics