An innovative energy-dissipating hysteretic (EDH) infill system is conceptualized and designed with the help of slotted concrete blocks interlinked with energy-dissipating link elements. Full-scale reinforced concrete frames infilled with the EDH infill system and the conventional brick infill system are tested initially under in-plane cyclic test followed by out-of-plane cyclic test. A specially designed double-leaf airbag test setup maneuvered with hydraulic actuators is fabricated for out-of-plane testing of the infilled frames. The hysteresis performance of both the infill wall systems is compared experimentally. A cyclic pushover test in the out-of-plane direction is also carried out to assess the amount of damage and the residual capacity of the EDH infill system. The test results reveal that the out-of-plane performance with prior in-plane damage of the EDH infill is significantly improved over the conventional brick infill system in terms of lateral strength, stiffness degradation, deformation capacity, energy dissipation, and effective damping. A numerical model of the EDH infill system is developed based on the elastomeric properties of the energy-dissipating links in the OpenSees software platform.
AkhoundiFVasconcelosGLourençoPB (2017) Out-of-plane behavior of masonry infill walls. In: Proceedings of the 7th international conference on seismology and earthquake engineering, Tehran, Iran, 18–21 May.
2.
AngelRAbramsDShapiroDUzarskiJWebsterM (1994) Behavior of reinforced concrete frames with masonry infills. Research series no. 589. University of Illinois Engineering Experiment Station, College of Engineering, University of Illinois at Urbana–Champaign.
3.
BedaT (2007) Modeling hyperelastic behavior of rubber: A novel invariant-based and a review of constitutive models. Journal of Polymer Science Part B Polymer Physics45(13): 1713–1732.
4.
BiniciBCanbayEAldemirADemirelIOUzganUEryurtluZBulbulKYakutA (2019) Seismic behavior and improvement of autoclaved aerated concrete infill walls. Engineering Structures193: 68–81.
5.
Bureau of Indian Standards (BIS) (2016a) IS-13920: Indian Standard Ductile Design of Reinforced Concrete Structures Subjected to Seismic Forces—Code of Practice (1st revision). New Delhi, India: BIS.
6.
Bureau of Indian Standards (BIS) (2016b) IS-1893: Indian Standard Criteria for Earthquake Resistant Design of Structures (6th revision). New Delhi, India: BIS.
7.
ButenwegCMarinkovi’cM (2018) Damage reduction system for masonry infill walls under seismic loading. Cepapers2(4): 267–273.
8.
CalviGMBologniniD (2001) Seismic response of reinforced concrete frames infilled with weakly reinforced masonry panels. Journal of Earthquake Engineering5(2): 153–185.
DaweJLSeahCK (1989) Out-of-plane resistance of concrete masonry infilled panels. Canadian Journal of Civil Engineering16(6): 854–864.
11.
De la Llera CarlosJRiveraFMitrani-ReiserJJünemannRFortuñoCRíosMHubeMSanta MaríaHCienfuegosR (2017) Data collection after the 2010 Maule earthquake in Chile. Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering15(2): 555–588.
12.
De LucaFVerderameGMGómez-MartínezFPérez-GarcíaA (2014) The structural role played by masonry infills on RC building performances after the 2011 Lorca, Spain, earthquake. Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering12(5): 1999–2026.
13.
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) (2007) Interim testing protocols for determining the seismic performance characteristics of structural and nonstructural components. Technical report no. FEMA 461, June. Washington, DC: FEMA.
14.
FlanaganRDBennettRM (1999) Arching of masonry infilled frames: Comparison of analytical methods. Practice Periodical on Structural Design and Construction4(3): 105–110.
15.
FowlerJJ (1994) Analysis of dynamic testing performed on structural clay tile inflled frames. Report no. Y/EN-5310. Oak Ridge, TN: Oak Ridge National Lab.
16.
FurtadoARodriguesHArêdeAVarumH (2016) Experimental evaluation of out-of-plane capacity of masonry infill walls. Engineering Structures111: 48–63.
17.
FurtadoARodriguesHArêdeAVarumH (2018) Out-of-plane behavior of masonry infilled RC frames based on the experimental tests available: A systematic review. Construction and Building Materials168: 831–848.
18.
GautamDRodriguesHBhetwalKKNeupanePSanadaY (2016) Common structural and construction deficiencies of Nepalese buildings. Innovative Infrastructure Solutions1(1): 1.
19.
GoyalAAgarwalP (2017) Earthquake-resistant interlinked block masonry system with energy dissipator viscoelastic links. Practice Periodical on Structural Design and Construction22(3): 04017001.
20.
HakSMorandiPMagenesG (2014) Out-of-plane experimental response of strong masonry infills. In: Proceedings of the second European conference on earthquake engineering and seismology, Istanbul, 24–29 August.
21.
HendersonRCJonesWDBurdetteEGPorterML (1993) The effect of prior out-of-plane damage on the in-plane behavior of unreinforced masonry infilled frames. In: Proceedings of the fourth DOE natural phenomena hazards mitigation conference, Atlanta, GA, –22 October.
22.
KomaraneniSRaiDCSinghalV (2011) Seismic behavior of framed masonry panels with prior damage when subjected to out-of-plane loading. Earthquake Spectra27(4): 1077–1103.
23.
KoutasLNBournasDA (2019) Out-of-plane strengthening of masonry-infilled RC frames with textile-reinforced mortar jackets. Journal of Composites for Construction23(1): 4018079.
24.
MilanesiRRMorandiPManziniCFAlbanesiLMagenesG (2020) Out-of-plane response of an innovative masonry infill with sliding joints from shaking table tests. Journal of Earthquake Engineering26: 1789–1823.
25.
MisirISOzcelikOGirginSCKahramanS (2012) Experimental work on seismic behavior of various types of masonry infilled RC frames. Structural Engineering and Mechanics44(6): 763–774.
26.
MohammadiMAkramiVMohammadi-GhaziR (2011) Methods to improve infilled frame ductility. Journal of Structural Engineering137(6): 646–653.
27.
Open System for Earthquake Engineering Simulation (OpenSees) (2013) Open System for Earthquake Engineering Simulation (OpenSees) Framework. Berkeley, CA: Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center (PEER), University of California, Berkeley.
28.
PachappoyilNSAgarwalP (2021) Cyclic evaluation of energy-dissipating hysteretic infilled reinforced concrete frame: A novel approach as low-cost passive energy–dissipating device. Earthquake Spectra38(1): 677–701.
29.
PaliosXFardisMNStrepeliasEBousiasSN (2017) Unbonded brickwork for the protection of infills from seismic damage. Engineering Structures131: 614–624.
30.
PretiMMiglioratiLGiurianiE (2015) Experimental testing of engineered masonry infill walls for post-earthquake structural damage control. Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering13(7): 2029–2049.
31.
RicciPDe LucaFVerderameGM (2011) 6th April 2009 L’Aquila earthquake, Italy: Reinforced concrete building performance. Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering9(1): 285–305.
32.
RicciPDi DomenicoMVerderameGM (2018) Empirical-based out-of-plane URM infill wall model accounting for the interaction with in-plane demand. Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics47(3): 802–827.
33.
TuYHChuangTHLiuPMYangYS (2010) Out-of-plane shaking table tests on unreinforced masonry panels in RC frames. Engineering Structures32(12): 3925–3935.
34.
ValluzziMRDa PortoFGarbinEPanizzaM (2014) Out-of-plane behaviour of infill masonry panels strengthened with composite materials. Materials and Structures47(12): 2131–2145.
35.
WangC (2017) Experimental investigation on the out-of-plane behaviour of concrete masonry infilled frames. Master’s Dissertation. Dalhousie University, Halifax, NS, Canada.
36.
YamamotoMMinewakiSYonedaHHigashinoM (2012) Nonlinear behavior of high damping rubber bearings under horizontal bidirectional loading: Full-scale tests and analytical modeling. Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics41: 1845–1860.
37.
YataǧanS (2011) Damages and failures observed in infill walls of reinforced concrete frame after 1999 Kocaeli earthquake. A/Z ITU Journal of the Faculty of Architecture8(1): 219–228.
