Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Flanagan e Bennett (2001)
Flanagan e Bennett (2001)
ABSTRACT: Simple methods for determining the corner crushing strength and the in-plane stiffness of
masonry infills are developed. The methods are applicable to structural clay tile, clay brick, and concrete
masonry infills and to both steel and concrete bounding frames. The corner crushing strength is determined
as a function of the infill thickness and the infill prism compressive strength. The stiffness is determined
using a stepwise function of the displacement and is a function of the relative stiffness of the infill to the
frame. The only infill material property required for the stiffness is the modulus of elasticity. The methods
were developed by looking at a wide variety of tests as reported in the literature.
fve = (2)
have been covered in another paper (Flanagan and Bennett 1.5
1999).
There are two main failure modes of masonry infill ma- in which vte is the average bed joint shear strength and
terials: shear failure and corner crushing. A shear failure PCE is the vertical compressive force on the wall. FEMA
is characterized by sliding along the bed joint. Shear fail- 273 (1997) only considers the shear strength of the infill
ures are typically more predominant in concrete frames and not the corner crushing limit state.
than steel frames. A corner crushing failure is character- Several methods have been proposed to determine the
ized by the compressive failure of the masonry. Although corner crushing strength of masonry infills. Stafford-Smith
the term corner crushing has been used in the literature and Coull (1991) and Mainstone (1971) developed meth-
and is used herein to be consistent with the literature, the ods based on an equivalent strut analogy. Liauw and
actual crushing of the masonry can occur in parts of the Kwan (1983) used plastic collapse theory to determine the
infill other than the corner. A third limit state that is some- infill strength. To account for the nonideal plasticity of the
times considered is diagonal cracking. This is more of a masonry, Wood (1978) suggested a penalty factor. Another
serviceability limit than a strength limit state. The diag- analytical method was recently proposed by Saneinejad
onal cracking strength is related to the size of the infill, and Hobbs (1995). However, all of these methods indicate
and for large infills the diagonal cracking strength can be a higher influence of frame properties and geometry on
greater than the corner crushing strength. If this is the the corner crushing capacity than observed in recent tests
case, there is a drop in load after diagonal cracking, but (Flanagan and Bennett 1999). Based on a series of large-
the infill continues to carry load until corner crushing oc- scale tests with steel frames and structural clay tile infills
curs. that covered a wide range of frame and geometry param-
FEMA 273 (FEMA 1997) presents a method for deter- eters, a simplified method for determining the corner
crushing strength was proposed by Flanagan and Bennett
1
Asst. General Mgr., Bechtel Nevada Corp., P.O. Box 98521, MS (1999) as follows:
NLV101, Las Vegas, NV 89193-8521.
2
Prof., Dept. of Civ. and Envir. Engrg., Univ. of Tennessee, Knox- Hult = Kult tf9m (3)
ville, TN 37996-2010.
Note. Discussion open until April 1, 2002. To extend the closing date in which Hult is the corner crushing strength of the infill,
one month, a written request must be filed with the ASCE Manager of Kult is an empirical constant, t is the net thickness of the
Journals. The manuscript for this paper was submitted for review and infill, and f9m is the prism compressive strength of the ma-
possible publication on April 3, 2000; revised February 27, 2001. This
paper is part of the Practice Periodical on Structural Design and Con- sonry. The thickness, t corresponds to the prism test result,
struction, Vol. 6, No. 4, November, 2001. qASCE, ISSN 1084-0680/ f9m; if the gross area is used for f9m, then the gross thickness
01/0004-01760182/$8.00 1 $.50 per page. Paper No. 22156. is used; if the net area is used for f9m, then the net thickness
is used. The coefficient of variation of the ratio of ex- state of the infill. In examining the behavior of a 6.2 m
perimental corner crushing load to the analytical corner high versus a 2.2 m high infill, Flanagan and Bennett
crushing load was much smaller using (3) than for other (1999) determined that in-plane displacement is a better
methods. Although the units of the empirical constant, Kult, indicator of performance than in-plane drift (displacement
are length, the empirical constant does not represent the divided by height). Lacking further experimental studies,
actual bearing contact length of the infill along the col- it is proposed that actual displacement be used indepen-
umn. Approximately 50% of the force in an infill is trans- dently of infill height to determine the value of C. Values
ferred through shear along the top boundary, with the rest of C for a wide variety of masonry are presented in the
being from the column bearing against the infill (Flanagan paper.
and Bennett 1999).
One purpose of this paper is to extend (3) to clay brick CORNER CRUSHING STRENGTH
and concrete masonry infills and to infills with concrete
frames. It will be shown that (3) is applicable to a wide The results of various experimental tests as reported in
variety of conditions. The other purpose of this paper is the literature are given in Tables 15. Brief descriptions
to develop a simple means for determining the in-plane of each of the tests with comments are given in the fol-
stiffness of the infill. lowing sections. Unless noted, all tests were static tests
Typically, infills are replaced by equivalent diagonal on a single bay performed using an actuator at the top
struts for analysis purposes. The concept of using an corner of the infill. Only infills in which corner crushing
equivalent diagonal strut was first proposed by Polyakov was the failure mode are considered. In a small number
(1963). Stafford-Smith and Carter (1969) recognized that of the tests, the diagonal cracking load was larger than
the equivalent strut area (or modulus) is not constant, but the corner crushing load. The corner crushing load is what
rather varies with applied load or displacement. Often the is reported herein; where sufficient information was pres-
equivalent strut area is expressed as a function of the rel- ent, the capacity given is the net infill capacity, or the
ative panel-to-frame-stiffness parameter, lh
lh = h
4 Em t sin 2u
4EIh9
(4)
TABLE 2.
Specimen
Summary of Clay Brick in Steel Frame Tests
Description
Kult
(mm)
in which h is the height to the centerline of the beam, Em Hendry and Liauw Unreinforced 198
is the modulus of elasticity of the masonry, t is the thick- (1994)1
2 Unreinforced 201
ness of the infill, u is the angle of the infill diagonal with 3 Shear connectors 212
respect to the horizontal, EI is the flexural rigidity of the 4 Shear connectors 191
columns, and h9 is the height of the infill panel. 5 Reinforced alternate courses 211
6 Reinforced alternate courses 193
Flanagan and Bennett (1999) proposed that a piecewise 7 Reinforced every course 204
linear strut area, A, be determined as 8 Reinforced every course 212
El-Ouali et al. Clay brick masonry95 mm thick 91
pt (1991)2
A= (5)
Cl cos u 5 Lime and sand masonry95 mm thick 184
6 Lime and sand masonry47 mm thick 204
in which C is an empirical constant that varied with the Benjamin and 196
Williams (1958)
in-plane drift displacement and is an indicator of the limit
TABLE 4. Summary of Concrete Masonry in Steel Frame Tests Clay Brick Infills in Steel Frames
Kult
Hendry and Liauw (1994) monotonically tested eight
Specimen Description (mm)
clay brick infills in steel frames. All infills were 2,025 mm
Hendry and Liauw (1994)1 Unreinforced 322
(1994)2 0.4% vertical reinforcing 308 long and 1,200 mm high. The columns and beam were
(1994)3 0.8% vertical reinforcing 258 100 3 60 3 6 mm tubes, with the columns bent about
El-Ouali et al. (1991)3 90-mm thick infill 204 the strong axis. Various types of reinforcement were used,
4 45-mm thick infill 322
as indicated in Table 2, which also indicates the value of
Kult. The average value of Kult for Hendry and Liauws
maximum load minus the bare frame load at the same tests was 203 mm, with a coefficient of variation of 4%.
displacement. El-Ouali et al. (1991) tested five steel frames with ma-
sonry infills: one with clay brick, two with lime and sand
Structural Clay Tile Infills in Steel Frames bricks, and two with concrete bricks. Each frame was
2,500 mm long and 1,500 mm high, with both the col-
The results of eight tests performed on structural clay umns and the top and bottom beams being W150 3 37
tile infills in steel frames by Flanagan and Bennett (1999) members. An increasing cyclic load was applied to the
are given in Table 1. The tests included a variation of 78 specimens until failure. Results of Kult are given in Table
times in the moment of inertia of the columns, single and 2 for the clay and lime and sand bricks, and in Table 4
double wythe infills, and varying lengths of infills. Also for the concrete bricks.
reported is a test by Henderson (1994), labeled as a spec- Benjamin and Williams (1958) monotonically tested a
imen H in Table 1, which was approximately three times 3,260 mm long by 2,250 mm high by 200 m thick clay
the size of the specimens tested by Flanagan and Bennett brick infill in a pinned steel frame. No prism strength for
(1999). All of the structural clay tile tests involved in- the infill was reported. Based on the given unit strength
creasing displacement controlled loading to capture the and the relationship between unit strength and prism
hysteretic behavior. The mean value of Kult for these tests strength given in Drysdale et al. (1994), a prism strength
is 246 mm, with a coefficient of variation of 24%. of 19.3 MPa was assumed.
TABLE 5. Results from Mehrabi et al.s (1994) Concrete Frames with Concrete Masonry Infill Tests
TEST CHARACTERISTICS
Vertical Load (kN)
Aspect ratio Kult
Specimen Type of frame Type of masonry (height/length) Lateral load Columns Beams (mm)
3 weak solid 0.67 Monotonic 293 0 185
4 weak hollow 0.67 Cyclic 196 98 225
5 weak solid 0.67 Cyclic 196 98 176
6 strong hollow 0.67 Cyclic 196 98 314
7 strong solid 0.67 Cyclic 196 98 335
8 weak hollow 0.67 Monotonic 196 98 302
9 weak solid 0.67 Monotonic 196 98 197
10 weak hollow 0.48 Cyclic 196 98 324
11 weak solid 0.48 Cyclic 196 98 248
12 weak solid 0.48 Cyclic 293 147 261
Concrete Masonry Infill in Steel Frame To statistically compare different frame and infill types,
the U-test was used. The U-test is distribution-free, is
Dawe and Seah (1989) monotonically tested several dif- nearly as statistically efficient as the t-test, can handle dif-
ferent configurations of concrete masonry infills in steel ferent sample sizes, and is robust against different vari-
frames. In all cases, the infill was 3.6 m long, 2.8 m high, ances (Sachs 1984). If the U-test statistic is greater than
and constructed with 190 mm concrete blocks and Type the critical U-test statistic, the null hypothesis cannot be
S mortar. Column sections were W250 3 58 bent about rejected. A 5% significance level was chosen for the sta-
the weak axis, and the top beam was a W200 3 46. A tistical tests.
variety of conditions were tested, including joint rein- The tests with concrete masonry infills in steel frames
forcement versus no joint reinforcement, adding bond were compared to the tests with concrete masonry in con-
beams to the infill, packing mortar between the infill and crete frames to determine if there was any statistical dif-
column flanges, using column-to-panel ties, and having a ference between bounding frame material types. The U-
polyethylene bond break between the steel and masonry. statistic when comparing frame material was 94, with the
Specific characteristics of 14 solid infills that they tested critical U-statistic being 58. Thus, the null hypothesis can-
are given in Table 3, along with the value of Kult. The not be rejected at the 5% level, and the bounding frame
average value of Kult was 250 mm, with a coefficient of material does not statistically affect corner crushing
variation of 16%. strength.
Other monotonic tests of concrete masonry in steel All tests within steel frames were compared to deter-
frames were conducted by Hendry and Liauw (1994). In- mine if there were statistically significant differences be-
fills 2,700 mm long by 2,475 mm high in 100 3 100 3 tween masonry types. The null hypothesis that concrete
8 mm steel tubes were tested with various amounts of masonry infills were different from clay tile infills could
vertical reinforcement. Results of the tests are shown in not be rejected at the 5% significance level (U-statistic =
Table 4. The average value of Kult was 296 mm, with a 159; critical U-statistic = 116). However, the null hypoth-
coefficient of variation of 11%. esis that brick was the same as clay tile was rejected (U-
Table 4 also shows the results of the two tests on steel statistic = 52; critical U-statistic = 61), and the null hy-
frames with concrete brick infills performed by El-Ouali pothesis that brick was the same as concrete masonry was
et al. (1991), which were described in the previous sec- rejected (U-statistic = 49; critical U-statistic = 65).
tion. Additional statistical information is given in Table 6 for
clay tile and concrete masonry combined (both steel and
Concrete Masonry Infill in Concrete Frames concrete frames), since there was no statistically signifi-
cant difference. Table 6 also gives results if the difference
Mehrabi et al. (1994) tested several concrete masonry
between masonry types is ignored and all tests are com-
infills in concrete frames. In all tests the infill was 1,420
bined. Considering the wide variety of test conditions that
mm high. Other characteristics of the infills are given in
this data set represents, the coefficient of variation of Kult
Table 5, along with the values of Kult. The average value
is not excessive. Thus, (3) provides a simple but quite
of Kult was 257 mm, with a coefficient of variation of 23%.
reliable estimate of the corner crushing strength of a ma-
sonry infill.
Summary
Table 6 gives statistical results for values of Kult in terms IN-PLANE STIFFNESS
of the type of masonry used in the infill and frame ma-
terial. The data were checked for outliers using the max- In analytical modeling of masonry infills, the infill can
imum normed residual test (Snedecor and Cochran 1980). be replaced with an equivalent diagonal strut to account
At the 5% significance level, the only value determined for the stiffness of the infill. Eq. (5) can be used to de-
to be an outlier was the clay brick masonry test of El- termine the strut area, where the constant C varies with
Ouali et al. (1991), with Kult of 91. This value is not in- the in-plane displacement. Values of C for structural clay
cluded in further statistical analysis of the data. tile in steel frames are given in Table 7 (Flanagan and
C
Concrete masonry
Displacement Structural clay tile Concrete masonry in concrete
(mm) in steel frame in steel frame frames Proposed Typical infill damage
04 7 5 4 5 None
412 11 9 11 10 Diagonal mortar joint cracking
1218 14 12 13 Mortar crushing and cracking of units
1825 18 17 17 Failure of units (primarily corner regions)
FIG. 1. Value of C versus Infill Displacement for Dawe and Seahs FIG. 2. Value of C versus Infill Displacement for Mehrabi et al.s
(1989) Tests of Concrete Masonry Infills in Steel Frames (1994) Tests of Concrete Masonry Infills in Concrete Frames