Incremental inelastic dynamic damage analysis of MRRCFs infilled with masonry panels

Abstract

Calculus complexity, time-consuming and high computational effort of the nonlinear dynamic analysis coupled with the complexity of simulating the interaction between masonry infill walls and reinforced concrete frames cause this fact that infill panels are usually considered as the non-structural elements to analyze and design the process of reinforced concrete frames infilled with masonry walls. In this study, to predict the influence of masonry infill panels on the imposed damage of moment-resisting reinforced concrete frames (MRRCFs) under earthquake excitation, incremental inelastic dynamic damage analyses are performed several MRRCFs under twenty seismic ground motions. The MRRCFs are simulated once without considering masonry infill wall effect (as bare frames) and another one considering masonry infill wall effect (as infilled frames). The diagonal compression strut model used to simulate the infill walls is compared with some other proposals in terms of the equivalent strut width, the bed-joint sliding shear strength, the diagonal tension cracking strength, the corner crushing strength, and the diagonal compression strength. Results show that the equivalent strut width, the diagonal tension cracking strength, and the corner crushing strength predicted by FEMA306 are in reasonable compliance with the model used in this study. The capacity and damage curves of bare, and partial, and full infilled frames using incremental dynamic analyses are achieved and compared. The consequences proved that masonry infill walls improve the lateral load-bearing capacity of MRRCFs and decrease the imposed damage of these frames in the seismic excitations. Furthermore, two relations are derived to predict the damage of bare and infilled frames under the earthquake excitations. To assess the accuracy of proposed relations, three new frames are designed. The values of their seismic damage are achieved through inelastic damage analyses and presented relations. Comparing the outcomes confirms the validity of proposed relations.