Assessment of Seismic Performance of Masonry Infilled Reinforced Concrete Frames.pdf

8/19/2019 Assessment of Seismic Performance of Masonry Infilled Reinforced Concrete Frames.pdf

1/27

Assessment of Seismic Performance

of Masonry-Infilled Reinforced

Concrete Frames

P. Benson ShingIoannis KoutromanosUniversity of CaliforniaSan Diego

Andreas StavridisUniversity of Texas

Arlington

May 22, 2012

Research to Practice Webinar

co-produced by NEES and EERI


2/27

P.B. Shing

George E. Brown, Jr. Network for Earthquake

Engineering Simulation Program

Based on research sponsored by

2

P. Benson Shing

Jose Restrepo

Andreas Stavridis

Ioannis Koutromanos

Kaspar Willam

Sivaselvan Mettupalayam

Ben Blackard

Carlo Citto

Sarah Billington

Marios Kyriakides

Stanford University


3/27

P.B. Shing

Outline of Presentation

Overview of research program

Background/Motivation.

Summary of experimental and analyticalstudies.

Major findings Observations from experiments and finite

element models.

Influence of geometry, material and designparameters on nonlinear behavior.

Simplified assessment tools Simplified analytical model.

Proposal for ASCE 41-13.

Nonlinear finite element modeling Modeling approach.

Constitutive models and their calibration.

Validation examples.

Case studies.

3

P. Benson Shing

UCSD

[email protected]

Andreas Stavridis

UT Arlington

[email protected]

Ioannis Koutromanos

UCSD

[email protected]


4/27

P.B. Shing

2000 Kocaeli Earthquake, Turkey (EERI)

1985 Mexico City Earthquake (EERI)

4Earthquake Damage of Masonry Infilled RC Structures


5/27

P.B. Shing

2008 Wenchuan Earthquake, China 5


6/27

P.B. Shing

Knee-Braced

Corner Crushing Diagonal Strut Crushing Shear Sliding

Possible Failure Mechanisms 6


7/27P.B. Shing

Nonlinear Analysis Methods for Performance Assessment 7

Limit Analysis Methods

Equivalent Strut Models

Finite Element Method

ASCE 41-06

Pros Cons

Limit AnalysisMethods

Consider differentfailure mechanisms;good estimates ofstrengths.

Do not provide force-displacementrelations.

Strut Models Simple to use forpushover ordynamic analysis.

Difficult to calibrateand to capture correctfailure mechanisms.

Finite ElementMethod

Most general andprovides detailed behavior.

Difficult to use andlimited availability.


8/27P.B. Shing

ASCE 41-06 – Seismic Rehab. of Existing Buildings 8

Strut model for assessing

stiffness and required strengths

of RC column and beam

members.

Nonlinear force-deflection relations for infill walls


9/27


10/27P.B. Shing

Development of simplified

and nonlinear finite elementanalysis methods forperformance assessment.

Development and evaluation of

retrofit methods for masonryinfill walls to enhance seismicperformance.

10Goals of Research Program

Focused on non-ductile RC frames with unreinforced

brick infill walls.


11/27P.B. Shing

2/3-Scale Shake-Table Tests at NEES@UCSD

2/3-Scale Quasi-Static Tests at NEES@Colorado

1/5-Scale Quasi-Static Tests at Stanford

Evaluate retrofit schemes

Validate analytical models Study influence of wall openings

Study multi-story, multi-bay systems

11Experimental Studies


12/27P.B. Shing

Existing 1920s Building in California

A B C D22

’

18’

3

18’

22’ 22

’

2

1

Frame Studied

12Prototype Building For Experimental Studies


13/27P.B. Shing

Stanford University 13

Prism Tests Flexural Tests

7 . 7

”

7 . 7 ” ECC

Triplet Tests

ECC Retrofit

Compress ion Tension Bond

(Billington & Kyriakides)

Engineered Cementitious

Composites (ECC)


14/27P.B. Shing

Stanford University 14

(Billington & Kyriakides)

Drift (%)

1/5-scale frames

i i f C l d


15/27P.B. Shing

University of Colorado 15

(Willam, Blackard & Citto)


16/27

N li Fi it El t M d li 17


17/27P.B. Shing

Nonlinear Finite Element Modeling 17

-2.5-2.0

-1.5

-1.0

-0.5

0.0

0.5

1.01.5

2.0

2.5

-1.5 -1.0 -0.5 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 V / W

drift ratio (%)

Experiment

Analysis

18f h d l


18/27P.B. Shing

ECC Overlay

18Retrofit with Engineered Cementitious Overlay

19A li i f E i d C i i O l


19/27P.B. Shing

19Application of Engineered Cementitious Overlay

20D i U fi d 2 d S


20/27P.B. Shing

20Damage in Unretrofitted 2nd Story

GFRP O l S h i f S d S 21


21/27P.B. Shing

GFRP Overlay Strengthening of Second Story

Installed by Fyfe Co.

21

22E I j ti d GFRP O l i 2nd St


22/27

P.B. Shing

22Epoxy Injection and GFRP Overlay in 2nd Story

23I t ll d GFRP O l


23/27

P.B. Shing

23Installed GFRP Overlays

24R i d S i


24/27

P.B. Shing

24Repaired Specimen

Test Data and Reports in NEES Repository 25


25/27

P.B. Shing

Test Data and Reports in NEES Repository

1. Stavridis, Andreas (2009). “Analytical and Experimental Study ofSeismic Performance of Reinforced Concrete Frames Infilled withMasonry Walls,” Ph.D. Dissertation, University of California, San Diego,La Jolla, CA.

2. Kyriakides, Marios (2011). “Seismic Retrofit of Unreinforced Masonry

Infills in Non-Ductile Reinforced Concrete Frames using EngineeredCementitious Composites,” Ph.D. Dissertation, Stanford University,Stanford, CA.

3. Koutromanos, Ioannis (2011). “Numerical Analysis of Masonry -InfilledReinforced Concrete Frames Subjected to Seismic Loads andExperimental Evaluation of Retrofit Techniques,” Ph.D. Dissertation,University of California, San Diego, La Jolla, CA.

4. Citto, Carlo (2008). “Two-Dimensional Interface Model Applied toMasonry Structures,” MS Thesis, University of Colorado, Boulder, CO.

25

http://nees.org/warehouse/project/422

Journal Publications 26


26/27

P.B. Shing

Journal Publications

1. Stavridis, A. and Shing, P.B. (2010). “Finite-Element Modeling of NonlinearBehavior of Masonry-Infilled RC Frames,” Journal of Structural Engineering,

Vol. 136, No. 3, 285–296.2. Blackard, B., Willam, K., and Mettupalayam, S. (2009). “Experimental

Observations of Masonry Infilled RC Frames with Openings,” ACI SP 265-9, American Concrete Institute, 199-222.

3. Koutromanos, I. and Shing, P.B. (2012). “A Cohesive Crack Model to SimulateCyclic Response of Concrete and Masonry Structures,’ ACI Structural Journal , Vol. 109, No. 3, 349-358.

4. Koutromanos, I., Stavridis, A., Shing, P.B., and Willam, K. (2011). “NumericalModeling of Masonry-Infilled RC Frames Subjected to Seismic Loads,” Computersand Structures, Vol. 89, 1026–1037.

5. Stavridis, A., Koutromanos, I., and Shing, P.B. (2012). “Shake-Table Tests of aThree-Story Reinforced Concrete Frame with Masonry Infill Walls,” Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics, Vol. 41, Issue 6, 1089–1108.

6. Kyriakides, M.A., Hendriks, M.A.N., Billington, S.L. (2012). “Simulation ofUnreinforced Masonry Beams Retrofitted with Engineered CementitiousComposites in Flexure,” Journal of Composites for Construction (in press).

7. Citto, C., Wo, S.I., Willam, K., and Schuler, M.P. (2011). "In-Place Evaluation ofMasonry Shear Behavior using Digital Image Analysis," ACI Materials Journal , Vol. 108, No. 4, 413-422.

26

Outline of Presentation 27


27/27

Outline of Presentation

Overview of research program

Background/Motivation.

Summary of experimental and analyticalstudies.

Major findings Observations from experiments and finite

element models. Influence of geometry, material and design

parameters on nonlinear behavior.

Simplified assessment tools Simplified analytical model.

Proposal for ASCE 41-13.

Nonlinear finite element modeling Modeling approach.

Constitutive models and their calibration.

Validation examples.

Case studies.

27

P. Benson ShingUCSD

[email protected]

Andreas Stavridis

UT Arlington

[email protected]

Ioannis Koutromanos

UCSD

[email protected]

Assessment of Seismic Performance of Masonry Infilled Reinforced Concrete Frames.pdf

Documents

Transcript of Assessment of Seismic Performance of Masonry Infilled Reinforced Concrete Frames.pdf