Farzad Parsa; Abdorreza Sarvghad Moghaddam
Abstract
An experimental study is conducted on three ½ scales, single-story, single-bay, frame specimens. The first specimen was a reinforced concrete frame with solid-brick infill. The second specimen was a reinforced concrete frame with hollow clay perforated-brick infill. The last specimen was a reinforced ...
Read More
An experimental study is conducted on three ½ scales, single-story, single-bay, frame specimens. The first specimen was a reinforced concrete frame with solid-brick infill. The second specimen was a reinforced concrete frame with hollow clay perforated-brick infill. The last specimen was a reinforced concrete frame without any infill. These three specimens were tested by pseudostatic method. Different response parameters are investigated and results are compared with those resulted from analytical approach. The results of the experimental and analytical studies indicate that use of masonry infill increases the lateral stiffness of the reinforced concrete frame. The increase in the stiffness is almost the same for both types of infill considered in this study. Use of masonry infill also increases the ultimate strength of the reinforced concrete frame. However, the strength of the frame in the case of hollow clay-block decays much faster in compare with frame infilled with solid clay-bricks because of a faster rate of failure in hollow blocks. Using masonry infill increases the energy dissipation capability of the reinforced concrete frame. In the case of frame with solid clay-bricks infill, a much more uniform distribution of damages is observed in columns. Comparisons with analytical approach show that analytical method provides a good estimation of initial stiffness of solid-brick infill but its estimations of initial stiffness of perforated-brick infill and inelastic response of both types of masonry infill frames are not in good agreement with the experimental results.
