This article was downloaded by: [University of California Santa Cruz]

On: 16 October 2014, At: 14:09

Publisher: Taylor & Francis
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House,
37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Journal of Earthquake Engineering

Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/ueqe20

SEISMIC DESIGN OF OPEN-STOREY INFILLED RC

BUILDINGS
a b a c
M. N. FARDIS , P. NEGRO , S. N. BOUSIAS & A. COLOMBO
a
Department of Civil Engineering , University of Patras , P. O. Box 1424, 26500 Patras, Greece
b
Structural Mechanics Unit , Institute for Systems, Informatics and Safety Joint Research
Centre , 1-21020, Ispra (VA), Italy
c
Grant-holder, Structural Mechanics Unit , Institute for Systems, Infotmatics and Safety Joint
Research Centre , 1-21020, Ispra (VA), Italy
Published online: 30 Apr 2008.

To cite this article: M. N. FARDIS , P. NEGRO , S. N. BOUSIAS & A. COLOMBO (1999) SEISMIC DESIGN OF OPEN-STOREY INFILLED
RC BUILDINGS, Journal of Earthquake Engineering, 3:2, 173-197, DOI: 10.1080/13632469909350344

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13632469909350344

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) contained in the
publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no representations
or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any
opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, and are not the
views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and should be
independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses,
actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever
caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic
reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any
form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://
www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions
 Journal of Earthquake Engineering Vol. 3, No. 2 (1999) 173-197
@ Imperial College Press

SEISMIC DESIGN OF OPEN-STO-Y .

INFILLED RC BUILDINGS

M. N. FARDIS
Department of Civil Engineering, University of Patrczs,
P. 0.Bm 1426, 26500 P a t m , Gmece
Downloaded by [University of California Santa Cruz] at 14:09 16 October 2014

P.NEGRO
Structuml Mechanics Unit, Institute for Syst e r n , Informatics and Safety
Joint Research Centre, I-21020, Ispm (VA), Italy .

S. N. BOUSIAS
Department of Civil Engineering, University of P a t m ,
P. 0.Box 1424, 26500 Patrus, Greece

A. COLOMBO
G m t - h o l d e r , Structusnl Mechanics Unit, Institute for S y s t e m , Infotmatics and Safety
Joint Research Centre, 1-21020, Ispm (VA), Italy

Received 2 June 1998

Revised 25 August 1998
Accepted 8 September 1998

For RC frame buildings with heightwise irregularities of the infills, Eurocode 8 (EC8)
requires increasing the resistance of beams and columns in the less-infilled storey(s) in
proportion to the deficit in infill strength there. For the columns of the less-infined storey,
a less demanding alternative rule is proposed, based on the observation that bending of
the columns in the storeys above and below is often opposite to that in the less-infilled
storey, It is proposed then t o modify the capacity design rule at beam column-joints,
in such a way that the capacity of the column of the more-infilled storey is added to
that of the beams rather than to the capacity of the column of the less-infilled (or open)
storey. A threestorey t-bay infilled RC test frame was designed on the basis of this
concept, for pseudodynamic testing at the ELSA reaction wall facility in Ispra (I), in two
configurations, each one with absence of infills from a different storey. Pretest nonlinear
dynamic analyses showing satisfactory response of the designed frame in comparison
to the ECSrule version, are verified by the test rkults. Parametric inelastic analyses for
different infill-frame relative strengths verify the proposed design rule. .

Keywords: capacity design, Eurocode 8, infilled structures, irregular structures, RC

buildings.

I. Introduction
In buildings with a frame structural system, masonry infill walls are often used
to enclose and partition space. Infills built in contact with the elements of the
structural system provide bracing against lateral forces, and so they often control
 the global response and performance of the buildings under strong ground motions.
Although there is still no agreement within the international earthquake engineer-
ing community on the implications of masonry infills for the earthquake resistance
and seismic safety of reinforced concrete buildings, it is widely accepted that nega-
t ive effects are typically associated with irregularities in the distribution of infills:
a reduction or full absence of the infills in a storey, for example, may cause con-
centration of inelastic deformation demands in its columns and development of a
soft-storey mechanism.
Our current understanding of the seismic response and performance of masonry-
infilled structures is not enough for the development and codification of detailed
rules and procedures to account for the presence and spatial distribution of infills in
Downloaded by [University of California Santa Cruz] at 14:09 16 October 2014

the seismic assessment of existing structures or in the design of new ones. Regarding
the design of new structures for earthquake resistance, Part 1.3.2 (concrete) of Eu-
rocode 8 (EC8) introduced design principles for masonry-infilled reinforced concrete
buildings and rules for the application of these principles [Comite Europeen de Nor-
malisation, 19941. Regarding irregularities of the infilling in elevation, Sec. 2.9.3.2
of Part 1-3 of EC8 requires increasing the design seismic action effects of the struc-
tural members in any storey with less infills than a neighbouring one. The increase
is effected by multiplying the seismic action effects from the analysis for the design
+
seismic action, by a factor a = 1 AVRw/VEd,with AVRv denoting the deficit
in infill resistance in the horizontal direction of the seismic action relative to the
heavier-infilled neighbouring storey and V E the ~ total design shear force of the storey
of interest, according to the. analysis for the seismic action. When the reduction in
storey infill resistance is relative to the storey above, the rationale of this rule can
be considered to be based on capacity design: if the vertical members of the storey
above are proportioned just for the seismic action effects according to the design
seismic act ion without overstrengt hs, then the rule essentially requires proport ion-
ing the columns of the less-infilled storey for the maximum horizontal force that can
develop in the storey above (with proper allowance for the total horizontal shear
that can be undertaken by the fewer infills of the storey itself). The effectiveness
of this design rule in protecting the columns of an open-first-storey from the ass*
ciated soft-storey effect has been studied analytically by Fardis and Panagiotakos
[1997b],in 12 open-first-storey buildings considered in both horizontal directions.
It was found that if the rule is applied only to the columns of the open storey, it
is typically quite effective in reducing the damage to them due to the soft-storey
effect. However, this effectiveness for the co1llmn~is reduced if the rule is applied
to the beams of the open-storey as well, as it decreases their elastic and inelastic
flexural demands and increases the tendency of deformations to concentrate in the
columns. Moreover, no special measures are needed for the beams of a lessinfilled
storey, as such beams are protected from the development of large rotations at their
ends by the in-plane stifEness of the heavier-infilled adjacent storey.
The method of Sec. 2.9.3.2 of EC8, Part 1-3, sometimes leads to very high
values of the multiplicative factor a,namely around three for low-rise o p e n - k t -
 Seismic Design of Open-Storey Infilled RC Buildings I75

storey buildings, or between five and ten in open top storeys. In this latter case the
a-factor method not only leads to absurd design action effects and reinforcements,
but also lacks a rational basis, as, despite its tendency for concentration of drifts
during the seismic response, an open top storey will never be required to transmit
upwards the ultimate resistance of the infills below. On the other hand, the high
a-values of Sec. 2.9.3.2 of EC8, Part 1-3 in an open first-storey, may lead to such
overreinforcement of its columns, that under the design seismic action they suffer
much less damage than the columns of a similar bare structure [Panagiotakos and
Fardis, I998al. Last but not least, the estimation at the design stage of the strength
of the as-built infills, as required for the application of the a-factor method, is
characterised by considerable uncertainty. For these reasons and despite its general
Downloaded by [University of California Santa Cruz] at 14:09 16 October 2014

effectiveness in protecting the columns of soft-lower-storey infilled buildings, the

a-factor method may need to be revisited. To this end, an alternative capacity-
design-based approach was proposed by Fardis (19961.
The present paper aims a t contributing to the improvement of our understanding
of the seismic response of irregularly infilled structures and to the development of
rules for their seismic design. To this end the present authors conceived, designed
and executed a series of unidirectional pseudodynamic tests on a three-storey two-
bay frame structure, tested either with the top storey open and the other two
infilled, or with only the bottom storey open. This paper presents the rationale
behind the design of the test and the specimen and draws conclusions regarding the
seismic response and design of heightwise irregularly infilled RC structures, on the
basis of the results of the test and of accompanying parametric nonlinear dynamic
analyses.

2 . Design Concept and Implementation in a Three-Storey RC

Test Structure
2.1. Design concept
The most usual case of infill irregularity in elevation is ako the most critical one:
the open-first-storey structure. As long as the infills of such a structure above the
open storey remain uncracked, they limit the interstorey drift ratio of the storey
above the open one to very low, near-zero values. As this ratio is equal to the
algebraic sum of the average beam chord rotations and the average column chord
rotations in the storey, and as the beams are typically forced by the bending of the
open-storey columns into positive chord rotations, the near-zero interstorey drift
ratio of the overlying infilled storey is typically made possible by the development
of negative chord rotations in the storey columns. This means that the bending of
the columns of the second storey is most likely in the opposite sense with respect
to that in the open-first-storey [Fardis and Panagiotakos 1997bj (see also Fig. 1 for
another example). It means also that the total shear in these columns is in the
opposite direction relative to the total storey shear. Moreover, the seismic shear
force in the open storey is less than the sum oE (a) the total shear resistance of
Downloaded by [University of California Santa Cruz] at 14:09 16 October 2014

Fig. 1. Bending moment diagram in a: (a) bare structure and (b) open-ground-storeystructure,
from elastic analysis under equivalent lateral loads.

the second-storey infills, VRw;(b) the total shear that develops in (the columns of)
that storey due to the design seismic action, and (c) the peak seismic inertia forces
at the first-floor level, as the a-factor method of EC8 implies.
In view of the above, at the first-floor node the bending moment at the top of
the column of the open first-storey, denoted here as &Ic,,ft,is related to that at the
bottom of the overlying'column of the infilled storey, Adcvinr,as follows:

in which Mb denotes the sum of the bending moments in the beams framing into
that joint. In this respect the difference with a bare or a fully infiiled structure
is in the sign of the second term of the right-hand-side of Eq. (1). Due to this
difference, in terms of bending moments the soft-storey effect is larger at the top
of the columns of an open first storey than at the bottom, which explains partly
the higher rate of flexural failures at the top of such columns than at the bottom
during earthquakes. Given that, irrespectively of the presence and the
of infills in the second storey, the moment demands at the top of the open-storey
columns are determined fiom moment equilibrium at their top node. Then, in view
of Eq. (1) the familiar capacity design rule at such a node:

(where R: resistance, c: columns, b: beam, soft: less-hfdled storey, inf.: more-

infilled storey, - y ~ d .model uncertainty factor > l should be revised as follows, for
the purposes of protection of the top of an open-storey column fiom plastic hinging:
 Seismic Design of Open-Storey fnflled RC Buildings 177

For full protection IMc,inflin Eq. (3) can be taken equal to the flexural capacity at
the bottom of the column of the infilled storey, MRCginf:

Equations (3) and (4) represent the design concept proposed herein and by
Fardis [1996]for the columns of storeys with less infills than the neighbouring ones.
Its application to a less-infilled lower storey (egg.a ground storey) requires that: (a)
the bottom section of the column of the overlying infilled storey is proportioned on
the basis of the moments from the analysis, without amplification due to moment
capacity design and (b) the extra vertical ban required at the top of the soft-storey
Downloaded by [University of California Santa Cruz] at 14:09 16 October 2014

column to cover the difference between M R C , and MRcSinf,

~ ~ ~ extend beyond the
column section at the soffit of the beam only for anchorage. In other words, the
usual practice of covering the top section of the column below the joint and the one
above it with the same vertical bars, with lapping near column mid-height or in the
bottom half of the columns, should be applied only for the bars strictly needed for
the proportioning of the bottom section of the column above against its moment
from the analysis. Otherwise, one will have b f ~ , , kfRClinf~ ~ ~and ~ fulfillment of
Eqs. (3) and (4) would be impossible. If the storey with less infills is the ground
storey, the base of its columns should be provided with the same flexural capacity
as the top (e-g. by covering both with the same vertical bars), because the point of
inflection in such a storey is typically near column mid-height.
A word of caution is due at this point: in (heavily) infilled structures with open
storey(s), avoidance of concentration of lateral drifts in the open storey(s) through
development of a beam mechanism over the full height of the building is practically
impossible. What is achieved by the proposed design concept, Eqs. (3) and (4), is
the transfer of the plastic hinges from the column end in the open storey to the ends
of the other members framing into the same joint: the column of the neighbouring
infilled storey and the one or two beams. The distribution of inelastic deformations
to three locations instead of one reduces the peak member ductility demands for
the same (inter)storey drift. Moreover, due to the stabilising effect of the infills, the
infilled storey is less vulnerable than the open storey to the consequences of plastic
hinge formation in some of its columns. Needless to say, a new capacity-design-
based procedure should be developed for joints as well, in which shear demands on
the joint core are determined not on the basis of the beam bars crossing the joint,
but on the more controlling column bars going through the joint or anchored into
it.
In line with the relaxed capacity design format, allowed by EC8:

to cover uniformly not only the case of frame structures, but also that of dual or
gravity-load-dominated beams, etc., without unduly penalising the columns, the
 following modification to Eq. (3) was proposed by Fardis [1996]:

In Eqs. (5) and (6) 6 is the "beam moment reversal ratio": 6 = n/lSb/ zh,IRb,
with Msb denoting the beam moments from the analysis for the design seismic
action. In Eq. (6) IMc,inflcan be taken equd to MRcIinf or, consistent with the
spirit of Eq. (5) to r e i a capacity design, it can be taken equal to the column
moment from the analysis, MsCtinf, for the same direction and sense of action of the
earthquake for which MSb is computed:
Downloaded by [University of California Santa Cruz] at 14:09 16 October 2014

Equstions (3) and (4) on one hand and (6), (7) on the other, represent the two
extremes of the proposed design concept: the more demanding and strict alternative,
and the more relaxed one. The proposed procedure represents a more rational
alternative to the a-method of EC8, whenever plastic hinge formation around the
joints between the infilled and the open storey is expected to precede attainment of
the shear resistance of the overlying infilled storey. If the column design moments
determined through the proposed procedure are less than those resulting from the
a-method of EC8, then plastic hinge formation around the joint is expected to take
place before the infill ultimate strength is reached in the overlying storey. Then
the proposed design procedure should be preferred, not only because it -is more
economic but also because it is physically more sensible.
If the infills are weak, then their ultimate shear resistance will be reached before
plastic hinge formation accurs around the joints between the infilled and the open
storey. Then the a-factor method of EC8 should be applied, although with a low
value of a,and with little additional strength requirements for the columns. If, on
the contrary, the infills are strong and the associated a-value is high, they will not
crack before plastic hinge formation occurs around the joints between the infilled and
the open storey. Then the proposed procedure should be applied instead. In that
case, in addition to offering a more economic alternative, the proposed procedure
is less dependent on knowledge of the as-built infill strength.

2.2. Ezperimentd implementation

The design concept was implemented in a t hree-storey full-scale test h m e , with two
parallel twebay framesin the direction of testing. The configuration and structural
dunensions are shown in Fig. 2. A concrete class of C25/30 and a steel grade of
S500 were specSed. The average concrete strength at testing and the steel yield
strength are estimated at 33 blPa and 581 MPa respectively. The test structure
was designed for the EC8 Subsoil class spectrum with a PGA of 0.3g and for
Ductility Class hrl (Medium). As testing was unidirectional, the simultaneous action
 Seismic Design of Open-Storey I'nfiiled RC Buildings 179
Downloaded by [University of California Santa Cruz] at 14:09 16 October 2014

Fig. 2. Three-storey partially infilled test structttre.

of the transverse horizontal component of the earthquake and the 5% accidental

eccentricity of the storey masses specified by Part 1-2 of EC8 were neglected in the
design in order to avoid the effect of the associated overstrengths on the test results.
Testing at the ELSA reaction wall facility in Ispra (I) wxj pseudodynamic with
the two frames infilled in two of the three storeys: first the top storey was open and
 then the ground storey (Fig. 2). The infill masonry consisted of vertically perforated
bricks with a thickness of 0.112 rn. The shear modulus G and the elastic moduhs
of the masonry parallel and normal to the bed joints were estimated from tests on
wallettes with G = 1.25 GPa, Ep = 2.95 GPa and En = 6.5 GPa respectively. The
cracking and the ultimate shear force of all the infdls in a storey were estimated at
500 kN and 650 kN respectively, on the basis of the cracking strength of 0.28 MPa
measured on wallettes in diagonal compression. For this value of infill resistance, the
a-factor equals 3.6 at the open ground storey and 6.8 a t the open top storey. Such
values of the multiplicative a-factor would result in very heavy reinforcement in the
columns: in the open ground storey, sixteen 16 mm bars in two of the corner columns
Downloaded by [University of California Santa Cruz] at 14:09 16 October 2014

and twenty 16 mm ones in the other two, and twenty 18 mm bars in the intermediate
columns (plus four more bars of the same size as starter bars in all these columns); in
the open top storey, eight 16 mm b a n in two of the comer columns, twelve 16 mm
ones in the other two and sixteen 18 mm bars in the midside columns. On the
contrary,design of the frame as bare gives everywhere the minimum reinforcement
of eight 16 mm bars in the corner columns and eight 18 mm bars in the intermediate
ones. (There is only a mid-side bar on the two faces of each column which are
parallel to the direction of testing; hence all bars but two are distributed along the
two column sides normal to the direction of testing.)
Implementation of Eqs. (3) and (4) for the design of one of the two frames of
the test structure ("Frame A") gives in the open ground storey sixteen 16 rnm bars
(plus four more 16 mrn starter bars at the base) a t the corner columns and twenty
18 mm bars at the intermediate one. Equations (6) and (7) give for the open ground
storey of the other frame ("Frame B") twelve 16 mm bars at the corner columns
and sixteen 18 mm bars at the intermediate one. For the open top storey, both
approaches, i.e. Eqs. (3) and (4) or (6) and (7), give the same results: eight 16 mm
bars in the comer columns and eight 18 mm ones in the intermediate one. These
two alternatives have been implemented in the construction of the test structure.
In the pseudodynamic test the two different frames, A and B, were subjected to
the same storey drifts but, because of their different reinforcements, they developed
different resisting forces.
Following the conclusions of Fardis [I9961 and Fardis and Panagiotakos [1997b]
that in partially infilled structures no extra protection is needed for the beams
of open storeys, beams of the threestorey test structure were designed as if the
structure were bare. They are reinforced with two continous 16 mm bars at top
and bottom, plus one 16 mm added top bar over the corner joints and two 12 rnm
ones over the central column on the k t floor, or one 12 mm bar over the central
&d the left corner column.on the second floor.
The ground motion simulated in the pseudodynamic test conforms to the 5%
damped Subsoil class B Spectrum of EC8 to which the structure was designed, but
is scaled to a PGA of 0.45g, i.e. 1.5 times the design PGA (Fig. 3).
 Seismic Design of @en-Stony Infilled RC Buildings 181
Downloaded by [University of California Santa Cruz] at 14:09 16 October 2014

6 2 4 6 8 10 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 20 25

Time (sec) Period (sec)

Fig. 3. Time-history and acceleration spectrum of motion simulated in pseudodynamic test.

3. Pre- and Post-Test Simulations of the Nonlinear Response and

Comparison with Test Results
Pre-test numerical simulations of the nonlinear dynamic response were performed
under four synthetic motions conforming to the EC8 Subsoil class B Spectrum scaled
to a PGA of 0.45g (i.e. 1.5 times the design PGA of 0.3g).
A member-type, one-component, lumped-inelasticity model was used for the RC
members in the nonlinear analyses. The model employs a bilinear (end) moment-
chord rotation relationship in monotonic loading and modified-Takeda-type of hys-
teresis rules [Takeda et aL, 1970; Otani, 1974; Litton, 19751. It has been demon-
strated by Ichinose and Takiguchi [1994],through comparisons with test results
on RC members subjected to various simultaneous uniaxial bending load-histories a

at their two ends, that this simple and numerically stable member model performs
much better overall than much more sophisticated alternatives, e.g. with distributed
inelasticity along the member and with fibre discretisation at the section level. For
columns, the model neglects the effect of ,the variation of axial force on flexural
strength and deformation. A key feature of the model is that the elastic stiffness
EI is computed as M,L/68,, from the end moment and the chord rotation, M, and
B,, at yielding in antisymmetric bending (as average of the four values at the two
ends for negative or positive bending). For the calculation of Mv and By, essen-
tially full participation of the slab reinforcement to the tension flange of the beams
is assumed. Damage is through an index based on peak-deformation
and cumulative energy (Fardis, 19941, with peak deformation capacities of beams
and columns quantified according to empirical expressions fitted by Panagiotakos
and Fardis [1998a] to a databank of several hundred monotonic or cyclic tests to
failure. At the structure level, P-A effects are included and the damping due to
 182 M. N. F a d i s et al.

sources other than post-yield hysteresis is considered to be of the Rayleigh type,

with parameters values so that a damping ratio of 5% is obtained at the first natural
period of the elastic bare structure and a t half this value. Details and validation of
the nonlinear modeling, through comparisons with quasi-static or pseudodynamic
test results on full-scale structures or subassemblies, as well as with predictions of
very detailed fibre models, are given elsewhere [Fardis and Panagiotakos, 1997a;
Panagiotakos and Fardis, 1998b;Negro and Colombo, 19971.
The in-plane mechanical behaviour of infill panels is modelled through a pair of
no-tension diagonal struts, the force-deformation law of which in monotonic loading
reproduces the elastic stiffness, G, Aw/ H,the cracking strength, AwrO, and the
ultimate strength, 1.3&~,, of the infill panel (A, and H denote the horizontal
Downloaded by [University of California Santa Cruz] at 14:09 16 October 2014

cross-sectional area of the panel and its clear height, while G, and T, are its
shear modulus and strength as measured on square wallette specimens in diagonal
compression). The secant stiffness to ultimate force is taken equal to the elastic .
stiffness of the equivalent strut according to Mainstone [1971].The shape of the
hysteresis rules reproduces well the experimental behaviour in cycling loading and
the values of the associated parameters are chosen so that an equivalent viscous
damping ratio of around 20% is obtained in the first full post-cracking cycle, or
one of about 5% in subsequent cycles. Details about the infill in-plane model, its
calibration and the estimation of its parameters from simple'tests on wallettes are
given elsewhere [Fardis, 1996; Fardis and Panagiotakos, 1997bl.
The results of the pre-test numerical simulations show that there is significant
difference in the expected response of the design according to the a-factor method of
EC8 and the design as a bare structure. The difference is much larger in the open-
first-storey configuration than in the open-topstorey one. As shown in Table 1,
design according to the four possible combinations of Eqs. ( 3 ) , (4) and (6), (7),,
namely: (a) Eqs. (3) and (4); (b) Eqs. (3) and (7); (c) Eqs. (6) and (4), and (d)
Eqs. (6) and (7),produces response results in-between those of the a-factor design
and the design a s a bare structure. Peak base shear and storey drift results and
structural damage predictions of the four cases (a) to (d) are much closer to those
of the a-factor method, and further to those of the bare structure design, than
what the difference in reinforcement of these six cases would suggest. The response
predictions of the test structure itself, i-e. with one frame according to combination
(a) above and the other according to (d), is intermediate between these cases, but
also closer to the a-factor design than to the bare structure design. It is noted
that in the open-topstorey structure the infills of the two lower storeys go through
the event essentially uncracked, and it is mainly the top storey that responds, with
a predominant period of about 0.4 s. On the contrary the predominant period
of the response of the open-first-storey structure is 0.7 s, i.e. beyond the corner
period of the excitation spectrum. This shifting of the period reduces peak seismic
force demands and contributes, along with the margin of material strengths between
their mean and their design values, to an overstrength of the structure relative to its
design [Fardis and Panagiotakos, 1997aj. This overstrength explains the relatively
low predicted structural damage.
 Seismic Design of Open-Stomy Infilled RC Buildings 183

Table 1. Main results of pretest calculations of open-storey test structure (average for four
spectrum-compat ibIe motions).

Design Open storey Drift ratio % Base Open-storey damage index %

Top Max Interst. Shear Beams CoIumns
mean max mean max
EC8, as bare ground 78
top 20
EC8, as irregularly infilled ground 21
top 8
Eqs. (3) and (4) ground 27
Downloaded by [University of California Santa Cruz] at 14:09 16 October 2014

top 21
Eqs. (3) and (7) ground 40
top 9
Eqs. (6) and (4) ground 38
top 21
Eqs. (6) and (7) ground 44
top 10
Test structure ground 36
[top: (3) and (4). (6) and (7) top 19
ground: Frame A: (3) and (4)
Fkame B: ( 6 ) and (7)]

Post-test numerical simulations refer to the structure as constructed and tested;

the two frames are considered with the asbuilt reinforcement, with the masonry
cracking strength and ultimate strengths and shear modulus as estimated from two

0 2 4 6 8 2 4 6 8 10

Time (sec) Time (sec)

Fig. 4. Computed and measured timehistories of top storey shears and drifts in open-topstorey
structure.
Downloaded by [University of California Santa Cruz] at 14:09 16 October 2014

I -Test
I ----.
Analysis
so
-1
100, . , . , . , . , . 1

0 2 4 6 10 0 2 4 6 10
Time (see) Time (sec)

Fig. 5. Computed and measured time-histories ofstorey shears and drifts in open-ground-storey
structure.
 Seismic D e s i p of Open-Storey Infilled RC Buildings 185

wallettes of the as-built masonry; the single input motion used in the test (Fig. 3) \

among four of the pre-test calculations is applied; more importantly, due to a differ-
ent setting of the parameters of the first floor actuators in the pseudodynamic test,
the masses on the first floor were equivalently increased in the numerical simulations
by 11 kN/m2, over those considered in the design and in the pre-test calculations.
Figure 4 compares the time-histories of measured and computed storey shears
and total drifts of the open-topstorey structure. Although there is overall good
agreement in the waveform, peak displacements and mainly peak shears are under-
estimated by the analysis. For the more important open-first-storey configuration,
for which computed and measured time-histories of storey shears and drifts at all
three levels are compared in Fig. 5, agreement in peak values is better.
Downloaded by [University of California Santa Cruz] at 14:09 16 October 2014

Predicted structural damage is light, in agreement with that observed in the

tests, and consisted mainly of visible cracking in the beams and columns of the
corresponding open storey (top or ground one), indicative of steel yielding during
the response. Infills in the top two storeys of the second test cracked.
Because of the limited damage achieved in the two pseudodynamic tests at
1.5 times the design PGA,these tests were followed by a quasi-static cyclic test
on the open-first-storey structure, with three cycles of imposed first-storey drift
ratios of 2.9%, three more of 5.1% (corresponding top drift ratios 1.3% and 2.4%)
and a final half cycle of 6%. The height-wise variation of imposed storey drifts
follows that of the peak measured values in the pseudodynamic test. Measured and
computed base-shear-top drift loops for this cyclic test to failure are compared in
Fig. 6. Although peak values are in fair agreement, computed hysteresis loops differ

Top displacement (m)

Fig. 6. Computed and measured b e s h e a r topdrift loops in cyclic test'of open-ground-storey

structure.
 186 M. N. Fadis et d.

significantly from the measured ones in two aspects: (a) in the three cycles to a top
drift of 1.3%, they are more narrow and they show no pinching; (b) in the three
final cycles, in addition to the lack of pinching, they do not exhibit the large cyclic
degradation of strength that led to failure. These dserences are due to the absence
of cyclic strength degradation and pinching from the nonlinear models used for the
RC members and to the simplified modeling of their joints (neglect of joint shear
deformations, lumping of bar slippage effects into the chord rotations at member
ends). Such features are available and have been activated in the model of the infill
panels, but they are incapable of influencing the pattern of the global response, as
in this last cyclic test to failure behaviour was fully dominated by the RC members
and very little influenced by the idlls.
Downloaded by [University of California Santa Cruz] at 14:09 16 October 2014

The key point of the proposed design concept is the control of plastic hinging
around the beam-column joints between the open and the adjacent infdledkorey (s).
To check the effectiveness of the design strategy proposed and implemented here,
the time-histories of computed moments around-thesejoints during the cyclic test
of the open-first-storey structure are presented in Fig. 7. This figure shows that:
Plastic hinges develop at beam ends £room the very first cycle at the lower
drift level and st rain-hardening in positive moments (top Aange in compression,
sagging moments) causes an increase in moment capacity by almost 60% over
its yield moment (this effect may be artificial, due to the indefinite hardening
considered in the beams, but in the test beam failure with fracture of the bottom
steel was not observed).
The moment a t the bottom of the column in the infilled second storey has an
opposite sign relative to the top of the underlying open-storey column, but does
not approach flexuralcapacity [this implies that Eq. (7) is more realistic than
Eq*(4)l.
Plastic hinging does not take place a t the top of the open-storey columns during
the three first cycles at the low drift level, but it does during the three last at the
higher drift level: the large strain- hardening in the beams in positive bending
and their large overstrength in negative bending due to the contribution of slab
reinforcement, more than make up for the low magnitude of moments in the
overlying column.
The results of the cyclic test mostly co* these findings: plastic hinges and
large permanent deformations appeared a t the bottom of all open-storey columns,
but were not evident at the tops, with the exception of the top of the mid-side
column of the weaker frame B, designed according to Eqs. (6) and (7) instead of
Eqs. (3) and (4). However, and in view of the low magnitude of the moments at the
. bottom of the overlying columns,plastic hinging at the top of the four corner open-
storey columns was preceded by significant damage in the cores of beam-column
joints, which failed in shear. It seems that the design of these joints according
to Sec. 2.10 of EC8, Part 1-3 is not enough to protect them against large strain
hardening in the beams and/or large demands horn the column of the open-storey.
 Seismic Design of Open-Storey Infilled RC Buildings 187

Frame A Frame B
Downloaded by [University of California Santa Cruz] at 14:09 16 October 2014

Fig. 7. Histories of computed moments around first-floor joints in cyclic test of open-ground-storey
configuration.

It is noted that, with the exception of accounting approximately for bar pull-out
from the joints, joints were considered rigid in the nonlinear dynamic analyses.
However, shear deformations of joints with peak values of 2% were measured in the
three last large cycles of the final test, accounting for more than one-third of the
 total storey drift (cf. Negro [1997])! Another important observation was that the
mid-side column of (stronger) frame A developed full-height longitudinal cracking
along the corner bars even during the pseudodynamic test. During the cyclic test to
failure, this longitudinal cracking led to full spalling of the cover concrete a t the four
corners along the full height of the column. So in the mid-side column of (stronger)
frame A, the inelastic deformations, which are kinematically necessary for the final
storey-sway mechanism, manifested themselves as bond slippage in the upper half
of the column, instead of plastic hinging, as at the top of the mid-side column of
(weaker) frame B, or of the joint shear failures in the four corner columns. This
type of behaviour is attributed to the very high bond stresses that developed along
the column bars after the flexural capacity of the column was reached both at the
Downloaded by [University of California Santa Cruz] at 14:09 16 October 2014

top and bottom of the open storey columns. The use of high strength S500 bars -
their large number in this column (nine 18 mm bars along a 0.45 m-side), as well
as their repeated excersions well into strain-hardening - have contributed to the
observed failure of bond. The failure occured despite the fact that the net height
of the column well exceeds twice the code-specified achorage length of the bars in
tension or compression, plus twice the shift length, and despite the large concrete
cover and the closely-spaced transverse reinforcement there.
It is noteworthy that in the weaker frame B, which is designed according to
the relaxed capacity design format of Eqs. ( 6 ) and (7), the yield moment MR at
the top of the open-storey column is significantly less than the sum of those of the
beam(s) and the upper column framing into the same joint. In the stronger frame
A, designed to full capacity design according to Eqs. (3) and (4), the yield moment
a t the top of an open-storey column exceeds the sum of those of the beam(s) and the
bottom of the overlying column (as it should) only at the corner columns when the
yielding beam is in positive bending (top flange in compression). If the beam yields
in negative bending (top flange in tension), its overstrength due to the contribution
of the slab bars to the tension flange upsets the balance of flexural capacities pursued
by Eqs. (3) and (4), even in the presence of a 7 ~ factord of 1.2.
Computed moment time-histories are presented in Fig. 8 for the open-kt-storey
structure subjected to 1.5 times its design ground motion. These results, which
are more meaningful for the evaluation of the design than those of the imposed
cyclic drift history, exhibit the same qualitative features as those of Fig. 7 but to
a different extent: (a) beams go into strain-hardening in positive bending (tension
a t the bottom), but due t o the overstrength offered by the slab reinforcement, they
do not reach their full yield moment in negative bending; (b) peak moments a t the
bottom of the infilled storey have the same sense of action as those of the beams
and opposite to that at the top of the underlying column, but stay well below the
corresponding yield values, with the exception of the right corner column of (strong)
frame A near 7 s in the response; and (c) bending moments at the top of the open-
storey columns have opposite sense of action relative to all other members framing
in the same joint,and stay below yiekling,-withone exception: at 7 s in the response,
the two corner columns of (strong) kame A yield and the mid-side one almost doe
 Seismic Design of Open-Storey Infilled RC Buildings 189

Frame A Frame B
Downloaded by [University of California Santa Cruz] at 14:09 16 October 2014

4 6
Time (sec)

Fig. 8. Histories of computed moments around first-floor joints in pseudodynamic test of open-
ground-storey configuration. .
- .

the same. This is the single instance in which the right corner~columnof the second
storey is forced into yielding, at a time when the beam framing in the same joint
develops considerable strain hardening in positive bending, and at the same time
at the left comer joint the beam almost attains its large overstrength in negative
 bending. It is noteworthy that in this displacement-controlled test, member end
moments in the weaker and more flexible frame B follow the same pattern as in
frame A, but stay more clear of yielding than the corresponding ones of frame A.
All these patterns are in very good qualitative agreement with the measurements
of rotations of beam or column sections at a distance of 400 rnm from the centre of
the joint, relative to the corresponding centreline of the joint (i.e. 200 mm net to
the face of the joint for beam ends at comer joints or 175 mm a t the intermediate
joints, or 175 mm net to the face of the joint in columns). These relative rotations
include flexural deformations over the corresponding length of the member, as well
as the effect of bar pull-out from the joints, but should not be affected by the shear
distortion of the joint itself. Their time-histories during the open first-storey test
Downloaded by [University of California Santa Cruz] at 14:09 16 October 2014

are shown in Fig. 9: rotations in the upper (infilled storey) column are always
in the same sense as those in the beam(s) and opposite to that in the column
below; rotations in (weak) frame B, over the first 5 s they were measured, are about
the same as those in (strong) frame A; rotations at the top of frame A columns
near 7 s in the response are large enough to suggest temporary hinging there, as
suggested also by the corresponding peak moment values in Fig. 8. The same figure
also presents the time-histories of computed member chord rotations at the ends
of the members framing into the joints. The exact magnitude of computed chord
rotations should not be compared to that of measured relative rotations as these
are two different deformation measures. Nevertheless, the waveform, the sign and
the order of magnitude of computed and measured rotations are in good overall
agreement.
Figure 10 presents the histories of relative rotations measured at the same loca-
tions during the three-plwthree displacement cycles of the final test on the open-
first-storey structure, as well as the corresponding computed member chord rota-
tions. The magnitude and sign of measured relative rotations in this figure confirms
the calculated moment results in Fig. 7. In particular they confirm that plastic hing-
ing at the top of the open-storey columns (including the joint region above) takes
place only during the three last cycles of large amplitude, with one exception: the
top of the 'mid-side column of (strong) frame A, which develops limited rotations
even in these three last cycles (this column is also an exception in the pattern of
rotations a t the bottom of the overlying column, which are in the same sense as at
the top of the column below, contrary to what happens everywhere else).
An important feature of the test results in Fig. 10, which is beyond present
modeling capabilities, is the gradual drift in measured rotations at all four corner
columns during the three last cycles at the higher displacement levels. (At the left
corner joint of the strong frame A this drift shows up in the three &st cycles of
this test, but also in the last part of the pseudodynamic test of the open-first-storey
structure at 1.5 times the design motion, see Fig. 9.) The direction of this drift,
which is opposite at the two opposite comers of the same frame and is associated
with tension at the top flange of the beams there, points to ratcheting extension
of the beams as the underlying mechanism. Such an extension is due to gradual
Downloaded by [University of California Santa Cruz] at 14:09 16 October 2014

Seismic Design of Open-Stmy InfifledRC Buildings

191
Downloaded by [University of California Santa Cruz] at 14:09 16 October 2014
 Seismic Design of Open-Storey Infilled RC Buildings 193

build- up of plastic tensile s trains in the longitudinal reinforcement within the plas-
tic hinge regions of the beams, including the slab bars which are parallel to the
beam(s). To account for such an effect in the analysis, which in this case shows
up only at storey drift ratios beyond 5% and near imminent collapse, the one-
dimensional flexural model used for beams and columns needs to be replaced with
a two-dimensional one which relates the end moment and the axial force, to the
flexural and mean axial deformations, with full coupling between bending and axial
deformations.
Numerical simulation of the response was also performed for the open-topstorey
configuration. For this configuration, results similar to those of Fig. 8 were obtained
for the moments around the joints of the second-floor: bending moments at member
Downloaded by [University of California Santa Cruz] at 14:09 16 October 2014

ends framing into such a joint have the same sense of action on the joint, with the
exception of those at the bottom of the open-storey columns, which act in the
opposite sense. Nevertheless, due to the large .overstrengths of all these members,
no yielding takes place anywhere around these joints.

4. Analyses of the Sensitivity of the Response t o the Infill Properties

In contrast to the a-factor method, the proposed design' concept for RC structures
with irregularities of the infills in elevation is independent of the strength and stiff-
' ness of the infills. To study the sensitivity of the resulting response to the infill
properties, the nonlinear response of the open-first-storey and the open-topstorey
structures to the displacement histories imposed in the ELSA tests (1.5 times the
design motion for both configurations, or the three-plusthree large amplitude dis-
placement cycles for the open-first-storey structure) is simulated, with the strength
and stiffness of the infills increased or decreased by a factor of 2.5 with respect to
the base case of the test.
As the main result of interest is the magnitude and relative sign of column
moments around joints between open and infilled storeys, Fig. 11 compares the
time-histories of these moments at the three joints of (strong) frame A, for all
three cases of infills of the open-first-storey configuration and for the bare frame.
Column moments above and below the joint have opposite sign (i.e. opposite sense
of action on the joint) in all three cases of idilk, but have the same sign (and sense
of action) in the bare frame. Moreover, the peak value of the moment at the top
of the open-storey columns is always greater than that in the bare frame, but still
below the yield moment, whereas the moments at the bottom of the W e d storey
columns are always less in the infilled structure than in the bare one. Results for
the open-topstorey configuration are similar in this respect.
To confirm the conclusion of earlier studies [Fardis, 1996; Fardis and Panagio-
takos, 1997bI that no special measures are needed for the design of the beams be-
tween the open and the infilled storeys, the magnitude of the moments at beam ends
Downloaded by [University of California Santa Cruz] at 14:09 16 October 2014
 Seismic Design of Open-Storey Infilled RC Buildings 195
Downloaded by [University of California Santa Cruz] at 14:09 16 October 2014

Time (sec) Time (sec)

Fig. 12. Sensitivity of open-storey beam end moments to variation in infill properties.

for the three cases of infill properties and for the two open-storey configurations (at
the ground or at the top storey), was compared to that in the bare fiarne. Figure 12
shows such a comparison for both frames of the open-first-storey structure subjected
to 1.5 times the design motion. In all cases beam peak moments in the bare structure
exceed those in the irregularly infilled, regardless of the stiffness and strength of the
infills. Therefore, proportioning and detailing these beams as though the frame was
bare, is sufficient. As far as the moments of the members haming into the joints
between the open and the infilled storeys are concerned, the response of the same
configuration to the three-plus-three large amplitude displacement cycles is almost
independent of the strength and stfiess of the infills in the two upper storeys and
almost the same as in the bare structure. The r e . n for this insensitivity is that
for such severe demands in cyclic lateral drifts, the strength and stiffness of the
idills in the two upper storeys degrades very fast with cycling and very little effect
on the response.
 ' 5. Conclusions
A new concept for the design of RC structures with strong irregularities of infills
in elevation has been: (a) proposed, (b) applied to a threestorey test structu in
two different versions and (c) verified through testing, numerical simulations of the
nonlinear response and parametric studies. The new design concept is based on an
alternative version of the familiar capacity design of columns in bending at beam-
column joints. The capacity design rule is modified according to the observation
that, around joints between storeys with a large difference in infill strength, m*
ments in the columns typically act on the joint not in the same sense, as in bare
or uniformly infilled structures, but in the opposite. Hence, the column on the
Downloaded by [University of California Santa Cruz] at 14:09 16 October 2014

more-infilled side works with the beam(s) against the column on the less-infilled
side, instead of with this latter column against the beam(s). Moreover, the limiting
factor on the demands placed on the columns of the open storey are the Rexu-
ral capacities of the RC members incident into the same joint (or the joint shear
strength), as these capacities are typically reached before the infills of the overlying
storey attain their ultimate shear resistance. For these reasons the proposed design
concept is independent of the unknown and uncertain properties of the infills and, in
general, yields more economic designs than the a-factor met hod currently in EC8,
Part 1-3, Sec. 2.9.3.2.
The experimental verification of two alternative versions of the proposed capa-
city-design concept has shown that both lead to acceptable behaviour and damage
under 1.5-times the design ground motion. The heavier column reinforcement re-
sulting from the more-demanding version corresponding to Eqs. (3) and (4) has
contributed to an unexpected failure of bond along the S500 column bars. More-
over, the low magnitude of computed column moments and of measured and calcu-
lated column end rotations in the infilled second storey supports the less-demanding
among the two proposed versions, i-e. that c o r r e s p o n ~ gto Eqs.. (6) and (7).
In dual structures and in frames with beams controlled by gravity loads,this latter
version, being more versatile, is also more meaningful. The test results and non-
linear calculations have demonstrated that.the participation of slab reinforcement
to the top flange of the beams is an important factor that cannot be neglected in
the application of any capacity design concept. The experimental behaviour has
also shown that under very large inekstic deformation demands the length growth
in beams becomes important and affects significantly the moment and deformation
demands in the columns. It has also been made dear that when the reinforce-
ment of the colllmns of an open-storey structure is increased to reduce the inelastic
deformation demands in these columns (regardless of whether this increase is ef-
fected through the present proposal or through the EC8 a-factor method), the force
demands on joints in shear and on column bars in bond are increased as well. These
additional joint shear and bar anchorage demands should be properly accounted for
in design codes and in the design itself.
 Seismic Design of @en-Storey lnfilled RC Buildings 197

Acknowledgement
This work was supported by Directorate General 111 of the European Commission,
within a "Support to the Commission" Administrative Arrangement n. AlCA11520
between the Commission and the Institute for Systems,Informatics and Safety, Joint
Research Cent re.

References
Comite Europeen de Normalisat ion [I9941European Pre-standard EN V 1998-1-3: Eumcode
8 - Design pmvisions for earthquake resistance of structures - Part 1-3: Geneml
d e s - Specific d e s for variow materials and elemenb, Bruxelles.
Fardis, M . N. [I9941 "Damage measures and failure criteria for reinforced concrete mem-
Downloaded by [University of California Santa Cruz] at 14:09 16 October 2014

bers," 10th Eum. Conf. Earthquake Engrg., Viema.

Fardis, M. N. and Panagiotakos, T. B. [1997a]"Seismic design and response of bare and
masonry-infilled concrete buildings. Part I: Bare structures," J. Earthq. Engq. 1(1),
214-256.
Fardis, M. N. and Panagiotakos, T. B. [1997b] "Seismic design and response of bare and
masonry-infilled concrete buildings. Part 11: Infilled structures," J. Earthq. Engrg. 1(3),
475503.
Fardis, M. N. (ed.) [1996]"Experimental and numerical investigation on the seismic re-
sponse of RC infilled frames and recommendations for code provisions," ECOEST/
PREC8 report No. 6, Laboratorio Nacional de Engenharia Civil, Lisbon, Nov. 1996,
199p.
Ichinose, T. and Takiguchi, K. [I9943 "Experimental verification of beam models for RC,"
ASCE, J. Struct. Engrg. 120(8), 2261-2280.
Litton, R. W. I19751 "A contribution to the analysis of concrete structures under cyclic
loading," Ph.D. Thesis, Civil Engineering Dept., Univ. of California, Berkeley, Ca.
Mainstone, R. J. (19711 "On the stfiesses and strengths of infilled frames," Proc. Inst.
Civil Engtg., iv 7360s.
Negro, P. [I9971 "Experimental assessment of the global cyclic damage of framed R/C
structures," J. Earthq. Engrg. l(3), 543-562.
Negro, P. and Colombo, A. (19971 "Irregularities induced by nonstructural masonry panels
in framed buildings," E n g q . Stmct. 19(7), 576-585.
Otani, A. (19741 "Inelastic analysis of R/C frame structures," J. Struct. Div., ASCE 100
ST7,1433-1449.
Panagiot akos, T.B. and Fardis, M. N. [1998a] "Deformation-cont rolled seismic design of
RC structures," 11th Eump. Conf. Earthq. Engry., Paris.
Panagiotakos, T.B. and Fardis, M.N. [1998b]"Effectof column capacity design on earth-
quake response of reinforced concrete buildings" J. Earthq. E n m . 2(1), 113-145.
Takeda, T.,Sozen, M. A. and Nielsen, N. N. [I9701 "R/C response to simulated earth-
quakes," J. Struct. Div. ASCE 96 ST12,2557-2573.