The effect of openings in URM infills on the seismic resilience of a reinforced concrete building

Figures & data

Figure 1. Infill frame stiffness reduction factor in proportion to percentage of openings (Asteris 2012).

Figure 2. Plan layout [24].

Figure 3. Three dimensional view of (BF) model.

Figure 4. Elevation of the building.

Table 1. Considered building model cases.

Model cases	Building model description
BF	Bare frame
IF	Infilled frame without openings
IF20	Infilled frame having 20% openings
IF20–15	Infilled frame having 20% (out) and 15% (inside) openings
IF30–20	Infilled frame having 30% (out) and 20% (inside) openings

Table 2. Properties of the considered materials.

S.No.	Properties	Values
1	Concrete grade	M25
2	Grade of reinforcement	Fe415
3	Modulus of elasticity of reinforcement	200 GPa
4	Modulus of elasticity of concrete & infill	25 GPa & 3.6 GPa

Figure 5. Concept of resilience and associated parameters.

Table 3. Comparison of modal time periods for each building case.

Mode number	Time period (sec)
	Building model cases
	BF	IF	IF20	IF20–15	IF30–20
1	1.126	0.468	0.481	0.508	0.648
2	1.070	0.420	0.443	0.489	0.588
3	1.067	0.298	0.403	0.441	0.451

Table 4. Cumulative damage probability.

Model cases	Spectral displacement ‘Sd” (mm)	Damage states
		Slight	Moderate	Extreme/Extensive	Collapse
BF	84.39	81.36	65	48.88	7.77
IF	26.35	97.89	94.05	59.56	1
IF20	42.71	91.01	87.89	55.6	1.44
IF20–15	22.90	94.40	86.49	52.81	1.16
IF30–20	28.5	94.24	86.24	56.52	1.97

Table 5. Discrete damage probability.

Model cases	Damage states
	Slight	Moderate	Extreme/Extensive	Collapse
BF	0.164	0.161	0.411	0.078
IF	0.079	0.337	0.517	0.012
IF20	0.038	0.345	0.586	0.010
IF20–15	0.031	0.323	0.542	0.014
IF30–20	0.080	0.297	0.546	0.020

Figure 6. Fragility curves for BF case.

Figure 7. Fragility curves for if case.

Figure 8. Fragility curves for IF20 case.

Figure 9. Fragility curves for IF20–15 case.

Figure 10. Fragility curves for IF30–20 case.

Table 6. Damage loss ratio for each building cases.

Model cases	Ratio of damage losses
BF	0.487
IF	0.620
IF20	0.580
IF20–15	0.567
IF30–20	0.583

Figure 11. Functionality curve under various recovery path (Prasanth, Ghosh, Kumar Gupta, Casapulla, et al. 2023).

Figure 12. Functionality curves for BF case.

Figure 13. Functionality curves for if case.

Figure 14. Functionality curves for IF20 case.

Figure 15. Functionality curves for IF20–15 case.

Figure 16. Functionality curves for IF30–20 case.

Table 7. Resilience of the building.

Case	Seismic resilience ‘%’
	RP1	RP2	RP3	RP4	RP5
BF	77.4	91.5	77.3	71.1	70.5
IF	68.9	89.2	71.2	63.2	62.3
IF20	71	89.3	73.1	65.6	64.8
IF20–15	71.7	90.1	73.7	66.3	65.6
IF30–20	70.9	89.8	72.9	65.4	64.7

Figure 17. Variation in LOR with URM infill openings.

Asteris, P. G. 2012. “Modeling of Infilled Frames with Openings.” The Open Construction and Building Technology Journal 6 (1): 81–91. https://doi.org/10.2174/1874836801206010081.

 Google Scholar

Prasanth, S., G. Ghosh, P. Kumar Gupta, C. Casapulla, and L. Giresini. 2023. “Accounting for Resilience in the Selection of R Factors for a RC Unsymmetrical Building.” Applied Sciences 13 (3): 1316. https://doi.org/10.3390/app13031316.

 Google Scholar

Data availability statement

All required data have been provided in the manuscript.