Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
www.elsevier.com/locate/engstruct
Department of Civil and Resource Engineering, University of Western Australia, Crawley, WA 6009, Australia
b
Centre for Composite Material, University of Delaware, Newark, NJ, USA
Received 10 October 2000; received in revised form 27 December 2001; accepted 27 December 2001
Abstract
This study investigates the effect of infill masonry on damage to reinforced concrete frames subjected to underground explosion
induced ground motion. A two-storey reinforced concrete bare frame and frames with different masonry infill patterns are analysed.
A continuum material model is applied to the masonry panels. The orthotropic elastic properties, strength envelope and damage
threshold of the masonry are homogenised by analysing a representative volume element. A fracture indicator and a plastic indicator
are defined respectively for monitoring concrete damage and plastic flow of reinforcement of the frame. Numerical results based
on the current study show that the infill masonry affects not only the damage level but also the damage pattern of the frames.
Empirical regulations for inhabited building distance (IBD) in underground ammunition storage design are examined. It is found
that the empirical damage criterion for surface structures on an underground explosion site is rather conservative for modern
reinforced concrete structures, but it appears to be reasonable for the masonry infill in the frame. 2002 Elsevier Science Ltd.
All rights reserved.
Keywords: Infilled frame; Structural damage; Masonry; Reinforced concrete (RC); High frequency ground motion
1. Introduction
The frameinfill systems are used throughout the
world as they provide an economical means to enclose
and partition space that suits various usage. The infill
masonry is seldom included in numerical calculations of
structural response because masonry panels are normally
considered as secondary structures and including them
introduces some unwanted analytical complexities.
However, the significant effects of the infilled masonry
on structural responses of frames have been realised by
many researchers [1]. Neglecting such effects are
deemed to lead to inadequate assessment of the structural
damage of infilled frames subjected to intensive
ground motions.
Masonry is a two-phase material with regular distribution of mortar joint and brick. The discrete element
method (DEM) [2] is the most commonly used simplification method in simulating the behaviour of joints and
bricks. However, it is computationally very expensive if
an entire structure is analysed, and thus not applicable to
the analysis of large-scale structures [3]. In conventional
numerical analysis of frameinfill systems, the masonry
infill is usually modelled using either an equivalent strut
model [Fig. 1(a)] or a refined continuum model [Fig.
1(b)] [1]. The former method is simple and computationally attractive but is theoretically weak. First, identifying the equivalent nonlinear stiffness of the infill
masonry using diagonal struts is not straightforward,
especially when there exist some openings, such as doors
or windows, in the wall. It is also not possible to predict
the damaged area of masonry either. The latter method
based on continuum modelling can provide an accurate
computational representation of both material and
geometry aspects if the material properties and the
sources of nonlinearity of the masonry are carefully
homogenised. Most of the laboratory tests on masonry
are intended to measure the equivalent deformational
properties which are applicable to the continuum model
0141-0296/02/$ - see front matter 2002 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.
PII: S 0 1 4 1 - 0 2 9 6 ( 0 2 ) 0 0 0 1 0 - X
800
response and damage of a structure are dependent predominantly on inherent structural properties. These
empirical relations, however, do not take into consideration the unique characteristics of the site and structures
concerned. For these reasons, and considering the fact
that conducting field blasting tests is not only very
expensive, but may not be feasible owing to safety and
other environmental constraints, a more reliable numerical assessment of structural damage caused by blasting
ground motions is necessary.
Fig. 1. Material model of masonry. (a) Diagonal strut model; (b) continuum model.
1
E1
n12
0
E1
n12 1
[K0]
E1 E2
1
G
(1)
801
Table 1
Physical parameters for brick and mortar
Brick
Mortar
11,000 MPa
4580 MPa
0.20
52 MPa
2.6 MPa
2200 MPa
1100 MPa
0.20
14 MPa
1.2 MPa
Table 2
Elastic moduli of masonry
Present study
Pande I [13]
Pande II [13]
Singh [14]
E1 (MPa)
E2 (MPa)
G (MPa)
n12
7899
9543
8680
9894
6276
11,068
7676
6217
2884
4036
3071
3350
0.31
0.173
0.176
0.180
(2)
(s s )
2
1
(s2s3)2 (s3s1)2
(3)
Table 3
Strength parameters of masonry (MPa) (Notation given in Fig. 2)
pt
qc
p1
p2
q1
q2
0.4
1.0
5.4
32
16.2
48
802
(4)
{ds} [E]{de}
(5)
+e+)/e+
0 0
of reinforcement, and the bond between the reinforcement and concrete. Nonlinearity and failure of concrete
and reinforcement, both considered here as continuum
media, depend on the local stresses or strains. The
material model with separate treatments of concrete and
reinforcement is formulated in the form of a modulus
matrix as
(6)
(7)
(8)
in which [E]c and [E]s are the stiffness matrices of concrete and reinforcement, respectively. Assuming that
perfect bond exists at both elastic and inelastic deformation states, failure of the reinforced concrete component can then be distinguished either by damage of concrete or yielding of reinforcement.
A double scalar damage model was proposed by Mazars [16] to evaluate the damage of materials which have
unequal tensile and compressive strength. The present
study uses a similar damage model with double scalars,
Dt and Dc, which correspond respectively to damage
measured under uniaxial tensile and uniaxial compressive states of stress of the concrete. The two scalars are
defined as
Dt 1ea
+(e +e+)/e+
0 0
and Dc 1ea
(e
e
0 )/e0
(9)
in which a+ and a are the damage parameters associated with the two damage scalars; e0 and e
0 are threshold strains under uniaxial tension and compression.
e +
(e )
3
(e ) and e
+ 2
i
2
i
(10)
(11)
(12)
Fig. 4.
803
Fig. 5.
804
Table 4
Material constants of concrete and reinforcement
Concrete
Reinforcement
Ec
(GPa)
Gc
(GPa)
nc
Es1
(GPa)
Es2
(GPa)
Gs
(GPa)
27
14
0.2
210
21
80
e0
es0
esu
0.0035
0.00035
0.002
0.02
Fig. 6. Two storey frame. (a) Frame elevation; (b) Actual T-shape
beam section and its equivalent rectangular representation.
Fig. 8.
805
Response spectra.
806
Fig. 9. Damage and fracture indicator of bare frame (TENSILE D.=damage scalar; FRACTURE=fracture indicator as defined in Section 3).
(a) 50 m surface distance; (b) 100 m surface distance.
Fig. 11.
807
Masonry damage of infilled frames at 50 m surface distance (MASONRY D.=damage scalar in masonry as defined in Section 3).
808
5. Conclusions
This paper presented damage models for reinforced
concrete structures and masonry walls based on a continuum mechanics theory. The models were subsequently used to analyse the response and damage of
RC frames with and without masonry infill walls to
blasting ground excitations. Based on the numerical
results, the following conclusions can be drawn: (1) the
influence of masonry infill on frame response depends
on the physical properties as well as the geometry of the
wall. The stability and integrity of RC frames are
enhanced with a masonry infill wall. Besides the
response level, the presence of masonry infill also alters
809