Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Assessing potential damage and energy dissipation in low-rise high-strength concrete frames with strong infill walls using applied element method

  • Technical Paper
  • Published:
Innovative Infrastructure Solutions Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Structures sustain severe structural and nonstructural damage during seismic events like earthquakes. Strong infill walls increase the stiffness and load-bearing capacity of normal-strength concrete (NSC) frames. Still, their usage in tall structures needs larger lower-storey columns, which reduces livable area. Using smaller size columns in high-strength concrete (HSC) constructions provides an option; however, when combined with masonry infill, they become stiffer and more prone to catastrophic failure. On the other hand, detecting damage patterns in reinforced concrete framed structures is constrained by the limits of current computational approaches, viz., Finite Element Method (FEM), Discrete Element Method (DEM) and Rigid Body Spring Mechanism (RBSM). To address these issues, the current study applies the Applied Element Method (AEM), a potent numerical tool for reliable nonlinear analysis to track failure in all stages of loading. The study aims to evaluate cyclic load-induced damage in HSC frames with and without robust infill walls designed using Force-Based Design (FBD), particularly emphasising probable failures using principal strain analysis and energy dissipation. The plastic hinge formation comparison between HSC and NSC for multi-storey bare frame, soft-storey and fully infilled frames marked some important outcomes. The studied specimens followed a strong column–strong beam mechanism with strong infill. For soft-storey or Open Ground Storey (OGS) frames, it is observed that HSC-OGS frames have reduced failure points and inelastic response points compared with stabilised NSC-OGS frames. Additionally, larger columns are necessary for stabilised NSC-OGS frames but not for HSC-OGS frames on the ground floor, underscoring aesthetic considerations and saving space. However, due to strong infill interference, multi-storey infilled frames experience brittle shear failure at the ground floor beam-column connection. Caution is suggested when using HSC frames and strong infill to avoid potential brittleness and premature column failure. Revised design practices, such as Capacity Spectrum Design (CSD) and appropriate confinement techniques, must be incorporated to avoid these uncertainties in HSC frames.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9
Fig. 10
Fig. 11
Fig. 12
Fig. 13
Fig. 14
Fig. 15
Fig. 16
Fig. 17
Fig. 18
Fig. 19
Fig. 20

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. ACI 363R-92 (1997) State-of-the-art report on high-strength concrete

  2. CommRep (1973) Shear strength of reinforced concrete members. J Am Concr Inst 70:471–473. https://doi.org/10.1061/jsdeag.0003532

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Xiao Y, Martirossyan A (1998) Seismic performance of high-strength concrete columns. ASCE, Reston, pp 241–251

    Google Scholar 

  4. Ashour SA (2000) Effect of compressive strength and tensile reinforcement ratio on flexural behavior of high-strength concrete beams. Eng Struct 22:413–423. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0141-0296(98)00135-7

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Bing L, Park R, Tanaka H (2001) Stress-strain behavior of high-strength concrete confined by ultra-high- and normal-strength transverse reinforcements. ACI Struct J 98:395–406. https://doi.org/10.14359/10228

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Woods JM, Kiousis PD, Ehsani MR et al (2007) Bending ductility of rectangular high strength concrete columns. Eng Struct 29:1783–1790. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2006.09.024

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Ho JCM, Lam JYK, Kwan AKH (2010) Effectiveness of adding confinement for ductility improvement of high-strength concrete columns. Eng Struct 32:714–725. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2009.11.017

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Pam HJ, Ho JCM (2009) Length of critical region for confinement steel in limited ductility high-strength reinforced concrete columns. Eng Struct 31:2896–2908. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2009.07.015

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Hong KN, Han SH, Yi ST (2006) High-strength concrete columns confined by low-volumetric-ratio lateral ties. Eng Struct 28:1346–1353. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2006.01.010

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Eid R, Dancygier AN (2006) Confinement effectiveness in circular concrete columns. Eng Struct 28:1885–1896. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2006.03.015

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Vintzileou E, Stathatos A (2007) Assessment of the seismic behaviour of RC columns. Eng Struct 29:1296–1311. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2006.07.002

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Wang Q, Zhao D, Guan P (2004) Experimental study on the strength and ductility of steel tubular columns filled with steel-reinforced concrete. Eng Struct 26:907–915. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2004.02.009

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Ellobody E, Young B (2006) Design and behaviour of concrete-filled cold-formed stainless steel tube columns. Eng Struct 28:716–728. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2005.09.023

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Bambach MR, Jama H, Zhao XL, Grzebieta RH (2008) Hollow and concrete filled steel hollow sections under transverse impact loads. Eng Struct 30:2859–2870. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2008.04.003

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Dabaon MA, El-Boghdadi MH, Hassanein MF (2009) Experimental investigation on concrete-filled stainless steel stiffened tubular stub columns. Eng Struct 31:300–307. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2008.08.017

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Sheikh SA, Li Y (2007) Design of FRP confinement for square concrete columns. Eng Struct 29:1074–1083. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2006.07.016

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Eid R, Paultre P (2007) Plasticity-based model for circular concrete columns confined with fibre-composite sheets. Eng Struct 29:3301–3311. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2007.09.005

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Ozcan O, Binici B, Ozcebe G (2008) Improving seismic performance of deficient reinforced concrete columns using carbon fiber-reinforced polymers. Eng Struct 30:1632–1646. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2007.10.013

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Wu YF, Wei YY (2010) Effect of cross-sectional aspect ratio on the strength of CFRP-confined rectangular concrete columns. Eng Struct 32:32–45. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2009.08.012

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Abd SM, Mhaimeed IS, Tayeh BA et al (2023) Investigation of the use of textile carbon yarns as sustainable shear reinforcement in concrete beams. Case Stud Constr Mater 18:e01765. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cscm.2022.e01765

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Tayeh BA, Akeed MH, Qaidi S, Bakar BHA (2022) Ultra-high-performance concrete: Impacts of steel fibre shape and content on flowability, compressive strength and modulus of rupture. Case Stud Constr Mater 17:e01615. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cscm.2022.e01615

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. El-Youbi M, Tbatou T, Kadiri I, Fertahi SED (2022) Numerical Investigation of HSC Columns Retrofitted by CFRP Materials under Combined Load. Civil Eng J (Iran) 8:765–779. https://doi.org/10.28991/CEJ-2022-08-04-011

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Ho JCM, Pam HJ (2003) Inelastic design of low-axially loaded high-strength reinforced concrete columns. Eng Struct 25:1083–1096. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0141-0296(03)00050-6

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Ho JCM, Pam HJ (2003) Influence of transverse steel configuration on post-elastic behaviour of high-strength reinforced concrete columns. HKIE Trans 10:1–9. https://doi.org/10.1080/1023697X.2003.10667903

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Lam JYK, Ho JCM, Kwan AKH (2009) Flexural ductility of high-strength concrete columns with minimal confinement. Mater Struct Mater Constr 42:909–921. https://doi.org/10.1617/s11527-008-9431-5

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Lu X, Chen S (2008) Nonlinear finite element analysis of high-strength concrete columns and experimental verification. Earthq Eng Eng Vib 7:77–89. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11803-008-0771-5

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Rautenberg JM, Pujol S, Tavallali H, Lepage A (2012) Reconsidering the use of high-strength reinforcement in concrete columns. Eng Struct 37:135–142. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2011.12.036

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Koziński K, Winnicki A (2018) Comparison of experimental research and nonlinear advanced FEM analysis of load capacity and deformability of slender HSC columns in bi-axial bending. Eng Struct 172:907–918. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2018.06.069

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Zhang J, Cai R, Li C, Liu X (2020) Seismic behavior of high-strength concrete columns reinforced with high-strength steel bars. Eng Struct 218:110861. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2020.110861

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Chen X, Yan S, Ji B (2011) Pseudo-dynamic test and numerical simulation of high-strength concrete frame structure reinforced with high-strength rebars. Earthq Eng Eng Vib 10:303–311. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11803-011-0067-z

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Paultre P, Weber B, Mousseau S, Proulx J (2016) Detection and prediction of seismic damage to a high-strength concrete moment resisting frame structure. Eng Struct 114:209–225. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2016.02.013

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Xue W, Hu X, Ren D, Hu X (2021) Seismic behavior of precast 100 MPa grade HSC frames under reversed cyclic loading. Eng Struct 243:112662. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2021.112662

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Ruggieri S, Fiore A, Uva G (2022) A new approach to predict the fundamental period of vibration for newly-designed reinforced concrete buildings. J Earthq Eng 26:6943–6968. https://doi.org/10.1080/13632469.2021.1961929

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Esmaeilabadi R, Abasszadeh Shahri A, Behzadafshar K et al (2015) Frequency content analysis of the probable earthquake in Kopet Dagh region—northeast of Iran. Arab J Geosci 8:3833–3844. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12517-014-1446-3

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Uva G, Raffaele D, Porco F, Fiore A (2012) On the role of equivalent strut models in the seismic assessment of infilled RC buildings. Eng Struct 42:83–94. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2012.04.005

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Wael WE-D, Hamid AA, Elgaaly M (2004) Strength and stiffness prediction of masonry infill panels. In: 13th World conference on earthquake engineering

  37. Hashemi A, Mosalam KM (2006) Shake-table experiment on reinforced concrete structure containing masonry infill wall. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 35:1827–1852. https://doi.org/10.1002/eqe.612

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Mosalam KM, Günay MS (2007) Behavior and Modeling of Reinforced Concrete Frames with Unreinforced Masonry Infill Walls. Encyclopedia of Life Support Systems 73:

  39. Mohyeddin-Kermani A, Goldsworthy HM, Gad EF (2008) A review of the seismic behaviour of RC frames with masonry infill. In: Australian earthquake engineering conference AEES 2008

  40. Smith BS (1962) Lateral stiffness of infilled frames. J Struct Div 88:183–199. https://doi.org/10.1061/JSDEAG.0000849

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Furtado A, Rodrigues H, Arêde A, Varum H (2018) Double-leaf infill masonry walls cyclic in-plane behaviour: experimental and numerical investigation. Open Constr Build Technol J 12:35–48. https://doi.org/10.2174/1874836801812010035

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Furtado A, Teresa de Risi M (2020) Recent findings and open issues concerning the seismic behaviour of masonry infill walls in RC buildings. Adv Civil Eng 2020:9261716. https://doi.org/10.1155/2020/9261716

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Mehrabi AB, Benson Shing P, Schuller MP, Noland JL (1996) Experimental evaluation of masonry-infilled RC frames. J Struct Eng 122:228–237. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9445(1996)122:3(228)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Kaushik HB, Rai DC, Jain SK (2009) Effectiveness of some strengthening options for masonry-infilled RC frames with Open first story. J Struct Eng 135:925–937. https://doi.org/10.1061/(asce)0733-9445(2009)135:8(925)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Mohamed H, Skoulidou D, Romão X (2023) Quantification of the effects of different uncertainty sources on the seismic fragility functions of masonry-infilled RC frames. Structures 50:1069–1088. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.istruc.2023.02.097

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. Surendran S (2012) Masonry infill RC frames with openings: review of in-plane lateral load behaviour and modeling approaches. Open Constr Build Technol J 6:126–154. https://doi.org/10.2174/1874836801206010126

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. Sigmund V, Penava D (2014) Influence of openings, with and without confinement, on cyclic response of infilled R-C frames—an experimental study. J Earthq Eng 18:113–146. https://doi.org/10.1080/13632469.2013.817362

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. Blackard B, Willam K, Sivaselvan M (2009) Experimental observations of masonry infilled reinforced concrete frames with openings. American Concrete Institute, Indianapolis, pp 199–221

    Google Scholar 

  49. Khatami SM, Mortezaei A, Barros R (2012) Comparing Effects of openings in concrete shear walls under near-fault ground motions. In: 15th World conference on earthquake engineering (15WCEE)

  50. Furtado A, Rodrigues H, Arêde A (2021) Experimental and numerical assessment of confined infill walls with openings and textile-reinforced mortar. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 151:106960. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soildyn.2021.106960

    Article  Google Scholar 

  51. Chen X, Liu Y (2015) Numerical study of in-plane behaviour and strength of concrete masonry infills with openings. Eng Struct 82:226–235. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2014.10.042

    Article  Google Scholar 

  52. Messaoudi A, Chebili R, Mohamed H, Rodrigues H (2022) Influence of masonry infill wall position and openings in the seismic response of reinforced concrete frames. Appl Sci (Switzerland) 12:9477. https://doi.org/10.3390/app12199477

    Article  Google Scholar 

  53. Hemant KB, Durgesh RC, Sudhir JK (2007) Stress-strain characteristics of clay brick masonry under uniaxial compression. J Mater Civ Eng 19:728–739. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0899-1561(2007)19:9(728)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  54. Sigmund V, Zovkić J, Guljaš I (2014) Behaviour of rc frame with strong masonry infill in response to cyclic horizontal loading [ponašanje a-b okvira s jakim zidnim ispunom na horizontalno ciklic̃ko opterećenje]. Teh Vjesn 21:389–399

    Google Scholar 

  55. Mehrabi AB, Benson SP (1997) Finite Element modeling of masonry-infilled RC frames. J Struct Eng 123:604–613. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9445(1997)123:5(604)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  56. Mehrabi AB, Shing PB, Schuller M, Noland J (1994) Performance of masonry-infilled r/c frames under in-plane lateral loads. Colorado University, Boulder

    Google Scholar 

  57. Tempestti JM, Stavridis A (2017) Simplified analytical method to predict the failure. In: 16th World conference on earthquake engineering

  58. Stavridis A, Shing PB (2010) Finite-Element modeling of nonlinear behavior of masonry-infilled RC frames. J Struct Eng 136:285–296. https://doi.org/10.1061/(asce)st.1943-541x.116

    Article  Google Scholar 

  59. Huang H, Burton HV (2019) Classification of in-plane failure modes for reinforced concrete frames with infills using machine learning. J Build Eng 25:100767. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jobe.2019.100767

    Article  Google Scholar 

  60. Mendis PACP (2000) Application of high-strength concrete in seismic regions. In: 12th World conference on earthquake engineering (12WCEE), Auckland, New Zealand, pp 809. https://doi.org/10.14359/5909

  61. Parducci A, Mezzi M (1980) Repeated horizontal displacements of infilled frames having different stiffness and connection systems. Exp Anal 7:193–196

    Google Scholar 

  62. O’Brien P, Eberhard M, Haraldsson O et al (2011) Measures of the seismic vulnerability of reinforced concrete buildings in haiti. Earthq Spectr 27:373–386. https://doi.org/10.1193/1.3637034

    Article  Google Scholar 

  63. Asteris PG, Kakaletsis DJ, Chrysostomou CZ, Smyrou EE (2011) Failure modes of in-filled frames. Electron J Struct Eng 11:11–20

    Article  Google Scholar 

  64. Cavaleri L, Di Trapani F, Asteris PG, Sarhosis V (2017) Influence of column shear failure on pushover based assessment of masonry infilled reinforced concrete framed structures: a case study. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 100:98–112. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soildyn.2017.05.032

    Article  Google Scholar 

  65. Allouzi R, Irfanoglu A (2019) Failure Mode identification of masonry infilled RC frames. Emir J Eng Res 24:1–8

    Google Scholar 

  66. Zhang HH, Kuang JS (2013) Shake table tests of infilled rc frames with different column-to-infill connections, pp 2–4

  67. ECP–201 (2012) Egyptian code of practice for calculation of loads and forces in structures and buildings. National Housing and Building Research Center, Cairo

    Google Scholar 

  68. Egyptian Code of Practice ECP 203–2007 (2007) Design and construction for reinforced concrete structures, ministry of building construction. Research Center for Housing Building and Physical Planning, Cairo, Egypt

    Google Scholar 

  69. Priestley MJN (2000) Performance based seismic design. Bull N Z Soc Earthq Eng 33:325–346. https://doi.org/10.5459/bnzsee.33.3.325-346

    Article  Google Scholar 

  70. Calvi GM, Pavese A (2022) Displacement based design of building structures. Eur Seism Des Pract 667:127–132. https://doi.org/10.1201/9780203756492-20

    Article  Google Scholar 

  71. Lignos D (1975) Capacity design principles for the ductile behaviour of conventional and high–performance steel structures under earthquake shaking, EPF Lausanne, pp 1–24

  72. Sharma A, Tripathi RK, DrG B (2020) Comparative performance evaluation of RC frame structures using direct displacement-based design method and force-based design method. Asian J Civil Eng 21:381–394. https://doi.org/10.1007/s42107-019-00198-y

    Article  Google Scholar 

  73. Malekpour S, Dashti F (2013) Application of the direct displacement based design methodology for different types of rc structural systems. Int J Concr Struct Mater 7:135–153. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40069-013-0043-2

    Article  Google Scholar 

  74. Sharma A, Tripathi RK, Bhat G (2020) Seismic assessment of RC building frames using direct-displacement-based and force-based approaches. Innov Infrastruct Solut 5:1–12. https://doi.org/10.1007/s41062-020-00364-1

    Article  Google Scholar 

  75. Bhandari M, Bharti SD, Shrimali MK, Datta TK (2021) Applicability of capacity spectrum method for base-isolated building frames at different performance points. J Earthq Eng 25:270–299. https://doi.org/10.1080/13632469.2018.1515795

    Article  Google Scholar 

  76. Naqash MT, De Matteis G, De Luca A (2012) Effects of Capacity design rules on seismic performance of steel moment resisting frames. In: 15th World conference on earthquake engineering, pp 1–10

  77. ISR–1893–Part–1 (2002) Criteria for earthquake resistant design of structures–general provisions and buildings part-1. Bureau of Indian Standards, New Delhi, pp 1–39

    Google Scholar 

  78. Sharma A, Tripathi RK, Bhatt G (2023) Influence of DDBD Approach in seismic assessment of vertically irregular RC buildings. In: Marano GC, Rahul AV, Antony J et al (eds) BT–proceedings of SECON’22. Springer, Cham, pp 331–339

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  79. Sharma A, Tripathi RK, Bhatt G (2023) Application of DDBD Method on mid-rise open-ground storey RC frame buildings. In: Hau KK, Gupta AK, Chaudhary S, Gupta T (eds) BT–recent advances in structural engineering and construction management. Springer, Singapore, pp 247–257

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  80. Kumbhare P, Saoji AC (2012) Effectiveness of changing reinforced concrete shear wall location on multi-storeyed building. Int J Eng Res Appl 2:1072–1076

    Google Scholar 

  81. Akın E (2019) Open ground story in properly designed reinforced concrete frame buildings with shear walls. Structures 20:822–831. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.istruc.2019.07.003

    Article  Google Scholar 

  82. Pendyala R, Mendis P, Patnaikuni I (1996) Full-range behavior of high-strength concrete flexural members: comparison of ductility parameters of high and normal-strength concrete members. ACI Struct J 93:30–35

    Google Scholar 

  83. Kaveh A (2014) Computational structural analysis and finite element methods. Springer, Cham

    Book  Google Scholar 

  84. Abdel Raheem SE, Abdel Zaher AK, Taha AM (2018) Finite element modeling assumptions impact on seismic response demands of MRF-buildings. Earthq Eng Eng Vib 17:821–834. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11803-018-0478-1

    Article  Google Scholar 

  85. Grunwald C, Khalil AA, Schaufelberger B et al (2018) Reliability of collapse simulation—comparing finite and applied element method at different levels. Eng Struct 176:265–278. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2018.08.068

    Article  Google Scholar 

  86. El Yassari S, El Ghoulbzouri A (2023) Numerical simulation of fiber-reinforced concrete under cyclic loading using extended finite element method and concrete damaged plasticity. Int J Eng 36:1815–1826

    Article  Google Scholar 

  87. Srisanthi VG, Keshav L, Poorna Kumar P, Jayakumar T (2014) Finite element and experimental analysis of 3D masonry compressed stabilised earth block and brick building models against earthquake forces. Period Polytech Civil Eng 58:255–265. https://doi.org/10.3311/PPci.7443

    Article  Google Scholar 

  88. Raheem SEA, Omar M, Zaher AKA, Taha AM (2018) Effects of numerical modeling simplification on seismic design of buildings. Coupled Syst Mech 7:731–753. https://doi.org/10.12989/csm.2018.7.6.731

    Article  Google Scholar 

  89. Asteris PG (2012) Numerical investigation of the effect of infill walls on the structural response of RC frames. Open Constr Build Technol J 6:164–181. https://doi.org/10.2174/1874836801206010164

    Article  Google Scholar 

  90. Alsamawi AB, Boumechra N, Hamdaoui K (2022) Numerical parametric study of fully encased composite columns subjected to cyclic loading. Civil Eng J (Iran) 8:45–59. https://doi.org/10.28991/CEJ-2022-08-01-04

    Article  Google Scholar 

  91. Roca P, Cervera M, Gariup G, Pela’ L (2010) Structural analysis of masonry historical constructions. Classical and advanced approaches. Arch Comput Methods Eng 17:299–325. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11831-010-9046-1

    Article  Google Scholar 

  92. Anić F, Penava D, Sarhosis V, Abrahamczyk L (2021) Development and calibration of a 3d micromodel for evaluation of masonry infilled rc frame structural vulnerability to earthquakes. Geosciences (Switzerland) 11:468. https://doi.org/10.3390/geosciences11110468

    Article  Google Scholar 

  93. Singh V, Sangle K (2022) Analysis of vertically oriented coupled shear wall interconnected with coupling beams. HighTech Innov J 3:230–242. https://doi.org/10.28991/HIJ-2022-03-02-010

    Article  Google Scholar 

  94. Cundall AP (1971) A Computer model for simulating progressive, large-scale movement in blocky rock system. In: Proceedings of the international symposium on rock mechanics

  95. Cundall PA, Hart RD (1992) Numerical modelling of discontinua. Eng Comput (Swansea) 9:101–113. https://doi.org/10.1108/eb023851

    Article  Google Scholar 

  96. Sarhosis V, Tsavdaridis KD, Giannopoulos I (2014) Discrete element modelling of masonry infilled steel frames with multiple window openings subjected to lateral load variations. Open Constr Build Technol J 8:93–103. https://doi.org/10.2174/1874836801408010093

    Article  Google Scholar 

  97. Kimiro M, Hakuno M (1989) Fracture analyses of RC structure by modified distinct element method. Struct Eng Earthq Eng 6:283–294

    Google Scholar 

  98. Giamundo V, Sarhosis V, Lignola GP et al (2014) Evaluation of different computational modelling strategies for the analysis of low strength masonry structures. Eng Struct 73:160–169. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2014.05.007

    Article  Google Scholar 

  99. Kikuchi A, Kawai T, Suzuki N (1992) The rigid bodies-spring models and their applications to three-dimensional crack problems. Comput Struct 44:469–480. https://doi.org/10.1016/0045-7949(92)90269-6

    Article  Google Scholar 

  100. Tagel-Din H, Meguro K (1999) Applied element simulation for collapse analysis of structures. Bull Earthq Resist Struct Res Cent 32:113–123

    Google Scholar 

  101. Karaka HK, Tripathi RK (2022) Performance evaluation of masonry infill walls in reinforced concrete frames under cyclic loading using applied element method. In: Marano GC, Ray Chaudhuri S, Unni Kartha G et al (eds) Lecture notes in civil engineering. Springer, Cham, pp 941–953

    Google Scholar 

  102. Malomo D, Pinho R, Penna A (2018) Using the applied element method for modelling calcium silicate brick masonry subjected to in-plane cyclic loading. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 47:1610–1630. https://doi.org/10.1002/eqe.3032

    Article  Google Scholar 

  103. Karaka HK, Tripathi RK (2023) Numerical modeling of weak infills with a central opening in high-strength concrete frames under pseudo-static loading using applied element method. Asian J Civil Eng. https://doi.org/10.1007/s42107-023-00838-4

    Article  Google Scholar 

  104. ASI (2016) Extreme loading ® for structures viewer manual

  105. Tawfik AS, Badr MR, ElZanaty A (2014) Behavior and ductility of high strength reinforced concrete frames. HBRC J 10:215–221. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hbrcj.2013.11.005

    Article  Google Scholar 

  106. Tawfik Essa ASA, Kotp Badr MR, El-Zanaty AH (2014) Effect of infill wall on the ductility and behavior of high strength reinforced concrete frames. HBRC J 10:258–264. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hbrcj.2013.12.005

    Article  Google Scholar 

  107. Meguro K, Tagel-Din H (2000) Applied element method for structural analysis: theory and application for linear materials. Struct Eng Earthq Eng JSCE 17:31–45

    Google Scholar 

  108. ASI (2022) Extreme loading for structures. Theoretical manual v9

  109. Okamura H, Maekawa K (1991) Nonlinear analysis and constitutive models of reinforced concrete. Gihodo, Tokyo

  110. Menegotto P (1973) Method of analysis for cyclically loaded R.C. plane frames including changes in geometry and non-elastic behaviour of elements under combined normal force and bending

  111. Gohel V, Patel PV, Joshi D (2013) Analysis of frame using applied element method (AEM). Procedia Eng 51:176–183. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.proeng.2013.01.026

    Article  Google Scholar 

  112. Christy DL, Madhavan Pillai TM, Nagarajan P (2020) A Comparison of applied element method and finite element method for elastostatic problems. Springer, Singapore

    Book  Google Scholar 

  113. Saltelli A, Bammer G, Bruno I et al (2020) Five ways to ensure that models serve society: a manifesto. Nature 582:482–484. https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-020-01812-9

    Article  Google Scholar 

  114. Asheghi R, Hosseini SA, Saneie M, Shahri AA (2020) Updating the neural network sediment load models using different sensitivity analysis methods: a regional application. J Hydroinform 22:562–577. https://doi.org/10.2166/hydro.2020.098

    Article  Google Scholar 

  115. Saltelli A, Aleksankina K, Becker W et al (2019) Why so many published sensitivity analyses are false: a systematic review of sensitivity analysis practices. Environ Model Softw 114:29–39. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsoft.2019.01.012

    Article  Google Scholar 

  116. Malomo D, Pinho R, Penna A (2020) Applied element modelling of the dynamic response of a full-scale clay brick masonry building specimen with flexible diaphragms. Int J Archit Herit 14:1484–1501. https://doi.org/10.1080/15583058.2019.1616004

    Article  Google Scholar 

  117. Malomo D, Pinho R, Penna A (2020) Numerical modelling of the out-of-plane response of full-scale brick masonry prototypes subjected to incremental dynamic shake-table tests. Eng Struct 209:110298. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2020.110298

    Article  Google Scholar 

  118. Malomo D, DeJong MJ, Penna A (2019) Distinct element modelling of the in-plane cyclic response of URM walls subjected to shear-compression. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 48:1322–1344. https://doi.org/10.1002/eqe.3178

    Article  Google Scholar 

  119. ACI 318 (1995) Building code requirements for structural concrete (ACI 318–95) and commentary (ACI 318R–95)/reported by ACI Committee 318. American Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills, MI

    Google Scholar 

  120. Mazloom M, Ramezanianpour AA, Brooks JJ (2004) Effect of silica fume on mechanical properties of high-strength concrete. Cem Concr Compos 26:347–357. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0958-9465(03)00017-9

    Article  Google Scholar 

  121. Lourenço PB, Vasconcelos G, Medeiros P, Gouveia J (2010) Vertically perforated clay brick masonry for loadbearing and non-loadbearing masonry walls. Constr Build Mater 24:2317–2330. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2010.04.010

    Article  Google Scholar 

  122. UBC (1991) ICBO: uniform building code, pp 552

  123. Matysek P, Janowski Z (1996) Analysis of factors affecting the modulus of elasticity of the walls. In: Proceedings of the conference of the committee of civil engineering, PZITB, Lublin, Poland

  124. Ciesielski R (1999) The dynamic module of elasticity of brick walls. In: Proceedings of the conference of the committee of civil engineering, PZITB, Lublin, Poland

  125. Brooks JJ, Baker A (1998) Modulus of elasticity of masonry. Mason Int 12:58–63

    Google Scholar 

  126. FEMA (2000) Prestandard and commentary for the seismic rehabilitation of buildings [electronic resource]/prepared by the American Society of Civil Engineers; prepared for Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA 356). American Society of Civil Engineers; Federal Emergency Management Agency, Reston, VA, Washington, D.C.

    Google Scholar 

  127. Drysdale RG, Hamid AA, Baker LR (1994) Masonry structures: behavior and design, 4th edn. Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ

    Google Scholar 

  128. Harris H, Sabnis G (1999) Structural modeling and experimental techniques, 2nd edn. CRC Press, London, NY, Washinton, D.C.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  129. Paulay T, Priestly MJN (1992) Reinforced concrete ductile frames. Seismic design of reinforced concrete and masonry buildings. Wiley, New York, pp 158–361

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  130. Mazzolani F, Piluso V (2012) Theory and design of seismic resistant steel frames, 1st edn. CRC Press, Boca Raton

    Book  Google Scholar 

  131. Murty CVR, Goswami R, Vijayanarayanan AR, Mehta VV (2012) Earthquake behaviour of buildings. Gujarat State Disaster Management Authority Government of Gujarat, pp 268

  132. Bulgarian SC (1987) Code for design of buildings and structures in seismic regions. Bulgarian Academy of Science Committee of Territorial and Town System at the Council of Ministers, Sofia, Bulgaria

    Google Scholar 

  133. Israel Standards (2013) Israeli standard SI 413 amendment no. 5

  134. Kim JK, Yang JK (1995) Buckling behaviour of slender high-strength concrete columns. Eng Struct 17:39–51. https://doi.org/10.1016/0141-0296(95)91039-4

    Article  Google Scholar 

  135. Ehsani M, Wight J (1990) Confinement Steel requirements for connections in ductile frames. J Struct Eng 116:751–767. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9445(1990)116:3(751)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  136. Joint ACI-ASCE Committee 352 (2002) Recommendations for Design of beam-column connections in monolithic reinforced concrete structures (ACI-ASCE 352–02). Technical Report, pp 1–37

Download references

Acknowledgements

A special thanks to the Ministry of Education in New Delhi, India, and the National Institute of Technology, Raipur, for their unwavering support in completing this work.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Civil Engineering, National Institute of Technology Raipur, Raipur, Chhattisgarh, India

    Hemanth Kumar Karaka & Rajesh Kumar Tripathi

Authors
  1. Hemanth Kumar Karaka
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Rajesh Kumar Tripathi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Hemanth Kumar Karaka.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors affirm that they do not have any competing interests.

Ethical approval

Institutional ethical approval for this study was obtained from the National Institute of Technology Raipur, India. The research was conducted in accordance with the ethical principles outlined in the Declaration of Helsinki and local regulations governing research involving human participants.

Informed consent

All participants provided informed consent before participating in the study. The study protocol, including the consent procedures, was approved by the ethics committee mentioned above. The confidentiality and anonymity of participants were strictly maintained throughout the study.

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Karaka, H.K., Tripathi, R.K. Assessing potential damage and energy dissipation in low-rise high-strength concrete frames with strong infill walls using applied element method. Innov. Infrastruct. Solut. 8, 309 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s41062-023-01283-7

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s41062-023-01283-7

Keywords

Search

Navigation