A Study On The Economic Benefit of Using
A Study On The Economic Benefit of Using
A Study On The Economic Benefit of Using
net/publication/299745926
CITATIONS READS
0 682
1 author:
Rodolfo Mendoza Jr
De La Salle University
14 PUBLICATIONS 7 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:
Determination of Response Modification Factor for CHB-infilled Reinforced Concrete Frame View project
Experimental and Numerical Study of Localization in Reinforced Concrete Beams View project
All content following this page was uploaded by Rodolfo Mendoza Jr on 25 September 2016.
1
School of Civil, Environmental and Geological Engineering, Mapua Institute of Technology, Intramuros,
Manila, Philippines, 1002
2
Sustainable Development Research Office, School of Civil, Environmental and Geological Engineering, Mapua Institute of
Technology, Intramuros, Manila, Philippines 1002
3
Engineering Research and Development for Technology, Department of Science and Technology, Taguig, Philippines, 1631
Abstract: This paper presents a practical method of modeling CHB masonry for seismic analysis. CHB walls are commonly
used in low-rise buildings as non-structural elements that are usually neglected in the analysis of frames as they are assumed not
to carry any lateral forces during seismic activity. The inherent in-plane strength and stiffness of these walls attract substantial
amount of in-plane forces which were solely assigned to carry by the compositing frame. These actions deviates the behavior of
the frame by decreasing the natural period of the structure and correspondingly increase the applied seismic forces. Hence, the
frame behavior cannot just be idealized as a simple bare frame but instead a CHB in-filled frame. It was therefore the objective
of the study to model the CHB walls in order to determine its effects on the low-rise reinforced concrete frame. The method used
in carrying out this study was the compression strut theory that represents the CHB walls as equivalent pin-jointed compression
strut. The model considered the mechanical properties of local CHB masonry. Experimental test was conducted by the use of
prism having four types of masonry mortars, two types of CHB units with two variable thicknesses. The resulting data were then
used to calculate the equivalent thickness of compression struts which were subsequently modeled as cross-braced-type system
for the frame. The assessment of the modeled frames was conducted through static pushover analysis using SAP 2000 in which
produced capacity curves. Comparison of the capacity curves followed, i.e., for sixteen frame models with different CHB infill
properties with bare frame model. Results showed that modeling CHB walls as infill compression struts in seismic analysis can
significantly modify the behavior of the frame by increasing its strength and stiffness compared with the conventional bare
frame approach. It was concluded that the effect of compression infill strut to the behavior of the frame had been significantly
affected by the properties of CHB masonry. Hence, quality of CHB shall be given attention and shall be considered in the design
process of concrete frame. That, failure to consider CHB properties to the frame analysis would potentially lead to property
damage and adverse impact to public health.
1
th
37 National Convention Philippine Institute of Civil Engineers
Cagayan de Oro City, Philippines
their effect by analyzing the RCF as a bare frame model. θ = angle whose tangent is the infill height to length
Past studies (Polyako 1959, Smith 1967), however, suggest aspect ratio (radians); and
that the stiffness contribution of the masonry wall may be λ = coefficient used to determine equivalent width of
represented as an equivalent compression strut, subsequently the infill strut
forming the frame as a braced –type model. The
compression strut theory was based on experimental While there are vast of existing studies about the infill-frame
observations; i.e., when frame is acted by in-plane forces, behavior and infill contribution to the strength and stiffness
the frame tends to separate from the infill near windward of a RCF, they have however limitations due to the
lower and leeward upper corners of the infill panels. This geographical variation of masonry properties. Most of the
action causes a compressive contact stresses developed past studies have concentrated on brick masonry as this type
between the frame and the infill at the other diagonally of masonry is the most commonly used masonry type in
opposite corners, and as a rough approximation, the stiffness their location. Since the equivalent idealization approach of
contribution of the masonry wall may be then assumed to considering the stiffness contribution of masonry infill relies
behave as a compression strut having the same property and primarily on the properties of the masonry elements and its
thickness of the masonry wall that it represents. The constituent material, i.e. masonry units and mortar, hence,
equivalent strut idealization simplifies the load transfer the need to determine the properties of local CHB is evident
between the frame and the masonry wall, as the load transfer and important.
actually takes place over an extended contact length, not just
at one point at the corners of the masonry wall. However, The purpose of the study is to present a simple analytical
in most practical structures, the frame is relatively flexible approach in considering the stiffness contribution of local
compared to the masonry panel, and any discrepancy caused CHB walls in the performance of low-rise RCF under
by this simplification is considered insignificant (Bashandy, seismic loading. The proposed approach aims to represent
1995). To further define the relationship between stiffness of the stiffness contribution of CHB walls as equivalent
the infill panel and frame, Smith (1967) introduced a non- compression struts acting as cross-bracing system for the
dimensional parameter, λ, (Equation 1-a) analogous to that RCF. The study was divided into a two-staged work; that is,
used in elastic foundation theory to express the stiffness of to determine the properties of local CHB masonry,
the foundation relative to an overlaying beam. The width of considering the following variables: thickness of CHB, type
equivalent strut was presented by Smith in terms of a series of CHB (load-bearing and non-load-bearing), and the type of
of curves showing the relationship between the width ‘w’ of mortar used, and to adopt these properties to calculate the
the equivalent compression strut and the stiffness parameter stiffness of CHB walls and to model them using the
‘ λ ’. The same stiffness equation was recommended by equivalent strut idealization. Comparison on the seismic
foreign building documents such as the Guidelines for the performance of a bare RCF and a CHB-infilled frame with
Seismic Rehabilitation of Buildings by the Federal varying CHB masonry properties was investigated via
Emergency Management Agency, (FEMA 273 1998) and pushover analysis.
Seismic Rehabilitation of Existing Buildings by the
American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE 41-06). 2 METHODOLOGY
However, a direct equation; given in equation 1b, to The methodologies in determining the properties of local
calculate the width of the strut designated as ‘ 𝑎 ’ was CHB masonry and the proposed modeling of CHB infill
introduced instead of a series of curves. stiffness contribution on seismic analysis of low-rise
reinforced concrete frames is described in detail on the
subsequent sections.
1
E t sin 2θ 4
λ= [ me inf ] (1a) 2.1 Testing of CHB Units, Mortar and CHB Prism
4Efe Icol hinf The CHB units used in this study were machine-built CHB
unit source from a local CHB commercial manufacturer.
Compression test of twenty-four CHB specimen consisted of
𝑎 = 0.175(λℎ𝑐𝑜𝑙 )−0.4 𝑟𝑖𝑛𝑓 (1b) 4-inch and 6-inch load bearing and non-load bearing CHB
units was conducted to compare the CHB manufacturer
reported compressive strength and the actual compressive
hcol = column height between centerlines of beams (in);
strength of CHB units. Load-bearing and non-load bearing
hinf = height of infill (in)
CHB units were designated as (S) and (T) type units,
Efe = modulus of elasticity of frame material (ksi);
respectively. Similarly, compression test was also conducted
Eme = modulus of elasticity of infill material (ksi);
on twelve 2-inch cube specimen of mortar from four types of
Icol = moment of inertia of column, (in4);
mixture proportion namely: Type M (1:3), Type S (1:4.5),
Linf = Length of infill panel (in);
Type N (1:6) and Type O (1:9). Grading requirements for the
rinf = diagonal length of infill panel (in);
aggregate used in mortar was verified by conducting a sieve
t inf = thickness of infill panel and equivalent strut (in);
analysis. Cement-to-water ratio was recorded to be 1.05 for
2
th
37 National Convention Philippine Institute of Civil Engineers
Cagayan de Oro City, Philippines
Type M, 0.65 for Type S, 0.46 for Type N, and 0.32 for Type
O mortar. The compressive strength of CHB masonry was
determined using the prism test method. Three variables
were considered in the experiment; i.e., (1) the thickness of
CHB units (4-inch and 6-inch), (2) strength of CHB units (S
for load bearing and T for non-load bearing), and (3) the
type of mortar used (Type M, S, N, and O). The sample
specimens were labeled as to the thickness of the unit,
strength of the unit and the type of mortar used (e.g. 4S-M).
The prism specimens were saw-cut in order to meet the
requirements of ASTM C1314 or the Standard Test Method
for the Compressive Strength of Masonry Prism. Forty-eight
CHB prism specimens were tested under compression of
masonry. The prisms were constructed inside a moisture-
tight bag shown as Figure 1 and sealed after the initial forty- Fig. 2a Typical Floor Plan of Building Considered
eight hours of curing.
3
th
37 National Convention Philippine Institute of Civil Engineers
Cagayan de Oro City, Philippines
study. The infill struts were placed concentrically across Table 1 Compressive Strength Results of 2-inch cube
the diagonal of the frame. Structural performance level for Mortar Specimen
the masonry infill was monitored using the FEMA 356
(2000) drift criteria given as 0.2% for Immediate Occupancy, Mortar Type Mixture Cement-to- Compressive
0.6% for Life Safety and 1.5% for Collapsed Prevention. Proportion water Ratio Strength,(Mpa)
The compression struts were modeled as axial elements with M 1:3 1.05 11.52
non-linear axial hinges applied on endpoints of the strut S 1:4.5 0.65 2.75
member. N 1:6 0.46 2.61
O 1:9 0.32 1.25
3 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
4
th
37 National Convention Philippine Institute of Civil Engineers
Cagayan de Oro City, Philippines
Fig. 5 Standard Error of Stress Means for all CHB Prism
Fig. 8 Base Shear vs Roof Displacement
The stiffness and width of the equivalent compression strut
was determined using equation 1a and equation 1b. Figure 6 CHB-infilled frame were further group into two:
shows the graph of the calculated stiffness of CHB masonry CHB-infilled frame with modulus of elasticity E of CHB
with varying properties. The graph shows that as the masonry less than 510 MPa, and CHB-infilled frame with
stiffness of masonry decreases, the width of the compression modulus of elasticity E of CHB masonry between 510 MPa
strut increases. This is in good agreement with the set of to 710 MPa. Figure 9 shows the hinges formation in bare
curves presented by Smith which are based on experimental frame, frame with relatively weak infill (Em <510 MPa) and
results which shows the contact length relationship and frame with relatively strong infill (with 710 MPa ≤ Em ≥
width of compression strut. 510 MPa). The graphical formation of hinges shows the
weak points’ location and potential failure modes that the
structure would experience in case of a seismic activity.
Significant pushover steps were selected in order to show
the global performance of each frame type. As expected, the
bare frame model (Figure 9) has achieved the desired beam
sway mechanism behavior. On the other hand, sudden
formation of collapsed hinges was observed in CHB-infilled
RCF with weak infill struts properties. These sudden
formations of collapsed hinges may have caused the sudden
reduction in stiffness which led in single storey mechanism.
On the other hand, the formation of hinges in frames with
relatively strong infill (Infill with > Em ≥ 510 MPa) was
initially observed in infill struts. It can be considered that a
partial yield beam mechanism was achieved by the frame
with no formation of hinges in collapse levels for columns.
5
th
37 National Convention Philippine Institute of Civil Engineers
Cagayan de Oro City, Philippines
4 CONCLUSION
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
The author’s would like to express their sincerest gratitude
to the Engineering Research and Development for
Technology (ERDT), Department of Science of Technology
(DOST), Philippines for funding this study.