Abstract
The extension of the damages observed after the last major earthquakes shows that the seismic risk mitigation of infilled reinforced concrete structures is a paramount topic in seismic prone regions. In the assessment of existing structures and the design of new ones, the infill walls are considered as nonstructural elements by most of the seismic codes and, generally, comprehensive provisions for practitioners are missing. However, nowadays, it is well recognized by the community the importance of the infills in the seismic behaviour of the reinforced concrete structures. Accurate modelling strategies and appropriate seismic assessment methodologies are crucial to understand the behaviour of existing buildings and to develop efficient and appropriate mitigation measures to prevent high level of damages, casualties, and economic losses. The development of effective strengthening solutions to improve the infill seismic behaviour and proper analytical formulations that could help design engineers are still open issues, among others, on this topic. The main aim of this paper is to provide a state‐of‐the‐art review concerning the typologies of damages observed in the last earthquakes where the causes and possible solutions are discussed. After that, a review of in‐plane and out‐of‐plane testing campaigns from the literature on infilled reinforced concrete frames are presented as well as their relevant findings. The most common strengthening solutions to improve the seismic behaviour are presented, and some examples are discussed. Finally, a brief summary of the modelling strategies available in the literature is presented.
Highlights
Accurate modelling strategies and appropriate seismic assessment methodologies are crucial to understand the behaviour of existing buildings and to develop efficient and appropriate mitigation measures to prevent high level of damages, casualties, and economic losses. e development of effective strengthening solutions to improve the infill seismic behaviour and proper analytical formulations that could help design engineers are still open issues, among others, on this topic. e main aim of this paper is to provide a state-of-the-art review concerning the typologies of damages observed in the last earthquakes where the causes and possible solutions are discussed
Issues is manuscript aims at presenting an overview regarding the seismic performance of infilled reinforced concrete (RC) structures and with focus on the infill wall damages
A state-of-the-art review concerning the testing of infilled RC structures was provided where the major aspects of each testing campaign were discussed. e analysed campaigns have investigated the influence of the infill panel on the lateral response of the whole frame, depending on the brick typology, on the infill-to-frame relative stiffness and strength, and on the presence of openings with different opening ratios and eccentricities, among other investigated parameters. e experimentally observed failure mode has been different depending on the main geometrical and mechanical features of infills and frames
Summary
Recent Findings and Open Issues concerning the Seismic Behaviour of Masonry Infill Walls in RC Buildings. Considering the number of experimental and numerical studies investigating the vulnerability issues of infilled RC frames, the missing of proper prescriptions by codes, and based on the well common masonry infill walls’ presence in the RC buildings in the southern European countries, it is fundamental to carry out studies to characterize the seismic behaviour of these panels and to develop efficient strengthening strategies to improve their performance and prevent their collapse when subjected to earthquakes. 3. Literature Review on Recent Developments on Experimental Testing of Infilled RC Frames e postearthquake damage analyses reported in the previous section highlight that a comprehensive knowledge of all the vulnerability aspects related to the seismic behaviour of infilled framed structures, of their nonstructural components, and of the phenomena related to the interaction between structural and “nonstructural” elements is (a). Aly and Mooty [27] Akhoundi et al [28] Al-Chaar et al [29] Angel et al [13] Baran and Sevil [30] Basha and Kaushik [31] Bergami and Nuti [32] Calvi and Bolognini [33] Cavaleri and Di Trapani [34] Centeno et al [35] Chiou and Hwang [36] Colangelo [37] Combescure and Pegon [38] Gazic and Sigmund [39] Guidi et al [40] Haider [41] Hashemi and Mosalam [42] Kakaletsis and Karayannis [26] Khoshnoud and Marsono [43] Kyriakides and Billington [44] Lafuente and Molina [45] Mansouri et al [46] Mehrabi et al [47] Misir et al [48] Morandi et al [49] Parducci and Checchi [50] Pereira et al [51] Pires [52] Schwarz et al [53] Sigmund and Penava [54] Shing et al [55] Stylianidis [56] Suzuki et al [57] Verderame et al [58] Waly [59] Yuksel and Teymur [60] Zarnic and Tomazevic [61] Zhai et al [62] Zovkic et al [63]
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
