Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
EXPERIMENTAL MODELING OF IN
FILLED RC FRAMES WITH OPENING
M.E. Ephraim
Department of Civil Engineering, Rivers State University of Science and Technology,
P.M.B 5080 Port Harcourt, Rivers State, Nigeria
T.C. Nwofor
Department of Civil Engineering, University of Port Harcourt,
P.M.B 5323 Port Harcourt, Rivers State, Nigeria
ABSTRACT
Reinforced concrete frames are usually infilled with masonry walls but, in
most designs, both the shear strength capacity of these walls and the
contribution of the infill panel openings on the shear strength of the infilled
frame, especially in critical cases of seismic loading are generally ignored.
This paper reports the results of an experimental study of the influence of
central openings in the infill on the sway stiffness of reinforced concrete plane
frames. A series of 1:4 scaled structural models with opening ratios from 0 to
50 percent in steps of 10 percent were designed, constructed and tested in the
study to obtain the load - displacement profiles. The test results were validated
with output of FE models of the prototype walls using SAP 2000 analysis
software. The results confirm that 1:4 model adequately reproduces the
behavior of infilled frame with openings including lateral stiffness and
anisotropy. The six percent accuracy of predicted shear strength of infilled
frames under lateral loadings as a function of opening ratio is considered
sufficient for engineering design purposes.
Key words: Modeling, Similitude Requirement, Sway Deflection and
Stiffness.
Cite this Article: M.E. Ephraim and T.C. Nwofor, Experimental Modeling of
In Filled RC Frames with Opening, International Journal of Civil Engineering
and Technology, 7(2), 2016, pp. 95106.
http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/issues.asp?JType=IJCIET&VType=7&IType=2
http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/index.asp
95
editor@iaeme.com
1. INTRODUCTION
It has been established that the consideration of the infill panel in the design of RC
frame structures results in a complex modeling problem because of the large number
of interacting parameters and the many possible modes of failure that need to be
evaluated with a high degree of uncertainty[1 - 9]. The need to obtain a deeper
understanding of the influence of openings on the composite behavior of infilled
frames has further led to the development of more and more complex models with
ever increasing number of parameters [10-16]. An experimental study in which all
these factors could be taken into account is difficult to implement for obvious reasons
[17-19]. Thus, in most cases, the use of finite element approach has been considered a
most viable option in spite of its computational complexities and resource
requirements. For these reasons, the need for more simplified models of the composite
behavior of infilled frame has been recognized by researchers. In this regard, perhaps
the most popular of the simplified models remains the one-strut model (OSM),
proposed by Polyakov [10]. However, the major challenges in the development of this
model is in deciding the value of the width of the equivalent strut on the one side and
how to account for the effect of openings on the other. In this study, the shear
strength of infilled frames with openings was investigated using the structural
modeling theory and appropriate experimental techniques. The main aim of the study
was to obtain experimental data to assess the magnitude and trend of variation of the
shear strength of reinforced concrete infilled plane frames as a function of the opening
ratio. The brick masonry infill panel incorporated various sizes of square openings,
centrally located in the infill. The frame thus varied from the fully infilled frame to
the bare frame configurations. The effects of the opening ratio on the strength,
stiffness and drift of the infilled sway frames under lateral racky load were
investigated and the outputs compared with values obtained on the basis of numerical
analysis by the finite element method.
F Q, , L, t, E, 0
(1)
96
editor@iaeme.com
G Q 2 ,
, , 0
E L
EL
(2)
The functional G must be the same for various scales of measurement and hence it
must be same in the model and prototype. Therefore, similitude requirements for
modeling will result from forcing the non-dimensional terms to be equal in model and
prototype. Thus,
Q
Q
2 Pr ototype
2 Model
EL
EL
(3)
From where
Qp = QM . SE . SL2
(4)
Here, Qm and QP represent the values of racky load in model and prototype,
respectively;
SE and SL scale factors for material and geometry
Assuming the same material in prototype and model, and neglecting Poissons ratio
distortion, SE = S = 1.
Hence, the model load equals
QM
Q P /SL2
(5)
The linear scale factor SL equals to 4 for 1:4 scaled model adopted in this
investigation.
The design and structural detailing of a typical specimen are given in Table 1 and
Figure 1.
Table 1 Design Details of Prototype and Model RC Frame
Design Characteristics
Total height (mm)
Total length (mm)
Cross section of columns (mm)
Cross section of beam
Longitudinal reinforcement of columns
Tensile and Compression rein. of the beam
Stirrups
http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/index.asp
Prototype
2800
3600
300 x 300
400 x 300
4 16
2 16 Top, 3 16 Btm
10 @ 150mm c.c
97
1:4 Model
725
900
75 x 75
100 x 75
44
2 4, 3 4
2.5 @ 50mm c.c
editor@iaeme.com
3. EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURE
The experimental procedure consisted of instrumentation and testing single-bay,
single-storey reinforced concrete plane frames, infilled with one-quarter scale brick
masonry with centrally located opening of various sizes. The following nomenclature
was adopted for the frames: Model Frame (MF) followed by two digit suffixes
representing the percentage opening. Thus, for example, MF10, MF20, MF30 etc
represent model frames with 10, 20 and 30 percent opening ratios respectively. A total
of seven frame models were constructed and tested as detailed in section 3.2.
Appropriate tests were also conducted to determine the mechanical characteristics
which were required as input for the finite element validation of the experimental
results.
http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/index.asp
98
editor@iaeme.com
C
Plate 1 Test Setup for Determination of Mechanical Properties of Brickwork and Failed
Specimen
By measuring the compression load and the strains x and y, the values of
modulus of elasticity (E) and Poissons ratio (v) were obtained through the following
basic relationships
y
y
v
;
x
y
(6)
99
editor@iaeme.com
used to measure the applied lateral load during the tests. The analysis and discussion
of results obtained are presented in section 5.
Plate 2 Test Set-up and Instrumentation for Determination of Sway Stiffness of Infilled
Frames with Various Opening Ratios
5. RESULTS
The results obtained from tests on infill wall specimens and infilled frame structures
are presented in the subheadings that follow.
Mortar
Mix
No. of
Specimen
Compressive
Strength (F m)
(N/m2)
Perpendicular
to bedding
plane
1:3
1:4
1:6
2
2
2
13.46
11.54
10.58
Modulus
of
Elasticity
(Em)
y
x
(kN/m2)
1.90 0.55 8.41
2.00 0.66 7.21
4.70 1.69 6.61
Parallel to
bedding plane
1.3
1.4
1.6
2
2
2
8.50
7.20
5.10
Description
of Loading
http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/index.asp
100
Strains
10-3
Poissons
Ratio
0.29
0.33
0.36
0.18
0.21
0.28
editor@iaeme.com
(7)
Em2 = 640.00Fm2
(8)
Ex
0.33
From the above results, the anisotropy of the masonry wall is obvious.
The mechanical properties of the concrete in the frame are considered to be fairly
stable and thoroughly documented. Hence, reference values were obtained from a
previous works for example [1], [14], [18], [21] among others.
Modulus of elasticity, E x = Ey = 2.9 x 107 kN/m2
Poissons ratio,
xy yx
=
= 0.20
MF 0
(KN)
3.125
6.25
9.375
12.5
15.624
18.75
0.38
0.72
0.93
2.25
3.64
5.38
0.42
0.93
1.27
1.97
4.30
5.55
http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/index.asp
30
0.42
0.95
1.35
2.12
4.00
6.62
101
0.45
1.20
2.20
2.75
4.82
7.00
0.77
1.25
2.07
2.87
5.75
9.00
MF100
0.82
1.31
2.19
3.01
6.15
9.72
editor@iaeme.com
Specimen
Opening
Ratio %
MF 0
0%
FE model
Exp. Model
Diff. %
1.47
1.52
0.33
2.69
2.88
6.59
3.69
3.72
0.81
9.10
9.00
1.11
15.20
14.56
4.40
20.69
21.52
3.86
MF10
10%
FE model
Exp. Model
Diff. %
1.53
1.60
4.40
3.10
3.01
2.99
4.01
3.86
3.87
9.21
9.34
1.39
14.59
15.01
2.80
21.09
23.00
8.30
MF20
20%
FE model
Exp. Model
Diff. %
1.62
1.70
4.71
3.58
3.70
3.24
5.12
5.10
0.39
8.01
7.90
1.39
16.15
17.20
6.50
23.22
22.20
4.60
MF30
30%
FE model
Exp. Model
Diff. %
1.67
1.70
1.76
3.70
3.80
2.63
5.51
5.40
2.04
8.20
8.50
3.53
17.10
16.00
6.87
25.95
26.50
2.07
MF40
40%
FE model
1.99
4.51
7.72
11.02
19.11
27.12
Exp. Model
1.80
4.80
8.80
11.00
19.30
28.00
Diff. %
1.06
6.04
12.27
0.18
0.98
3.14
Model
MF50
50%
FE model
Exp. Model
Diff. %
2.79
3.10
0.10
5.79
5.00
0.16
8.05
8.30
3.01
12.44
11.50
8.17
22.45
23.00
2.39
34.12
36.00
0.05
MF100
100%
FE Model
Exp. Model
Diff. %
2.89
3.28
11.89
5.40
5.24
3.05
8.50
8.76
2.97
13.00
12.04
7.97
23.10
24.60
6.10
36.02
38.88
7.35
The value of lateral load applied to test models and the corresponding lateral
displacements were read from the proofing ring and dial gages. The experimental
results are presented in Table 3. The predicted prototype loads and the corresponding
lateral displacements, based on the similitude requirement obtained in section 2.1, are
presented in Table 4 under the appropriate rows for each model tested. The prototype
loads and deflections were extrapolated from the experimental values obtained from
model tests using the similitude expressions as follows:
QP QM SL2
and
http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/index.asp
102
editor@iaeme.com
from the test models are within 4 percent of the values based on the finite element
model. The close agreement between the results from experimental tests and
numerical analysis confirms the adequacy of the model to reproduce the strength and
deformation of the infilled frame including its anisotropy.
45
40
35
MF0
30
MF10
25
MF20
20
MF30
15
MF40
10
MF50
MF100
5
0
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/index.asp
103
editor@iaeme.com
45
40
Stiffness (kN/mm)
35
30
B=0.1
25
B=0.2
20
B=0.3
15
B=0.4
B=0.5
10
5
0
0
50
100
150
200
Sway Load (kN)
250
300
350
6. CONCLUSIONS
The following specific conclusions can be drawn from this study.
1. The 1:4 experimental model is able to reproduce the shear resistance of the infilled
frame with reasonable accuracy. The experimental values are within 4 percent of the
corresponding results based on finite element model.
2. The experimental values of the elastic modulus in the directions normal and parallel
to the mortar bedding are in the ratio of about 1.68:1. This corresponds to the range of
documented values for burnt clay brick masonry. The close agreement of the results
from the experimental test with those from finite element model confirms that the 1:4
model adequately reproduces the anisotropy of the masonry infill.
3. There is approximately linear force-displacement relationship up to a lateral racky
load of about 150kN for all values of opening ratios investigated. This portion of the
graph is followed by a more rapid increase of deflection, indicating the non linear
character of the force deflection curve beyond this load. At about 150kN, the stiffness
curves exhibit a sharp peak, followed by a falling branch of slope gradually reducing
with increasing opening ratio.
4. The peakness or kurtosis of the sway stiffness curve sharply decreased with the
opening ratio, reflecting the reduction in the stress concentration effect of the opening
ratio as it is increased from 0 to 100 percent.
5. A highly reduced rate of increase in sway stiffness in the linear zone was observed for
the test frame with opening ratio 0.5 . This in line with the observations in
previous investigations namely, that the influence of the opening ratio beyond 50% is
relatively insignificant up to a complete bare frame configuration for which 1 .
http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/index.asp
104
editor@iaeme.com
REFERENCES
[1]
[2]
[3]
[4]
[5]
[6]
[7]
[8]
[9]
[10]
[11]
[12]
[13]
[14]
[15]
[16]
[17]
[18]
[19]
Chinwah, J.G. (1973). Shear resistance of brick walls. Ph.D thesis, University of
London.
Ephraim, M.E., Chinwah J.G., & Orlu I.D. (1990). Mechanisms approach to
composite frame and infill. Proceedings of the Second International Conference
on Structural Engineering Analysis and Modelling (SEAM 2), University of
Science and Technology, Kumasi, Ghana, 1, 13-26.
Naraine, K., & Sinha, S.N. (1989). Behavior of brick masonry under cyclic
compressive loading. Journal of Strutural Engineering, ASCE, 115 (6) 14321445.
Asteris, P.G., & Tzamtzis, A.D. (2002). Non-linear FE analysis of masonry shear
walls. Proceedings of Shah International Masonry Conference. London.
Syrmakezis, C. A., & Asteris, P. G. (2001). Masonry failure criterion under
biaxial stress state. Journal Material and Civil. Engineering 13(1), 5864.
Nwofor, T.C. (2011). Finite element stress analysis of brick-mortar masonry
under compression. Journal of Applied Science and Technology, 16 (1&2), 3337.
Nwofor, T.C. (2012). Numerical micro-modeling of masonry in filled frames.
Advances in Applied Sciences Research, 4(2), 764-771.
Nwofor, T.C., & Chinwah, J.G. (2012). Shear strength of load bearing
brickwork. Canadian Journal on Environmental, Construction and Civil
Engineering, 3 (3), 146-158.
Nwofor, T.C. (2012). Shear resistance of reinforced concrete infilled frames.
International Journal of Applied Science and Technology, 2(5), 148-163.
Polyakov, S.V. (1960). On the interaction between masonry filler walls and
enclosing frame when loading in the plane of the wall, Translation in earthquake
engineering, Earth quake Engineering Research Institute, San Francisco, 36-42.
Holmes, M. (1961). Steel frames with brickwork and concrete inll. Proc., Inst.
Civ. Eng., Struct. Build, 19, 473478.
Smith, B.S. (1962). Lateral stiffness of infilled frames. Proceeding of the
American Society of Civil Engineers, Journal of Structural Engineering, ASCE,
88 (ST6), 183-199
Mallick, D.V., & Garg, R.P. (1971). Effect of infill on the lateral stiffness of
infilled frame. Proceedings of Institute of Civil Engineers, 49(6), 193-209.
Saneinejad, A., & Hobbs. B. (1995). Inelastic design of infilled frames. Journal.
Structural Engineering 121(4), 634 650
El-Dakhakhni, W. W., Mohamed E., & Ahmad H. (2003). Three-strut model for
concrete masonry-infilled steel frames. Journal of Structural Engineering, 129
(2), 177-185.
Crisafulli F. J, & Carr A. J. (2007). Proposed macro-model for the analysis of
infilled frame structures. Bull. N. Z. Soc. Earthquake Eng., 40(2) 69-77.
Giannakas, A., Patronis, D., & Fardis, M., (1987). The influence of the position
and size of openings to the elastic rigidity of infill walls. Proc. 8th Hellenic
Concrete Conf., Xanthi, kavala, Greece, 49-56.
Asteris, P.G. (2003). Lateral stiffness of brick masonry infilled plane frames. J.
Struct, Eng., 129(8), 1071-1079.
Mohammadi, M., & Nikfar, F. (2013). Strength and stiffness of masonry infilled
frames with openings based on experimental result. Journal of Structural
Engineering 139(6), 974-984
http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/index.asp
105
editor@iaeme.com
[21]
[22]
[23]
[24]
[25]
[26]
[27]
http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/index.asp
106
editor@iaeme.com