PSI - Issue 71

Varsha Harne et al. / Procedia Structural Integrity 71 (2025) 279–286

283

f m = 0.433f b 0.36 where, f b = compressive strength of brick, in MPa; and f mo = compressive strength of mortar, in MPa. w ds = 0.175 α h - 0.4 x L ds (1) Where, α h = h (√ 4 2 ℎ 4 ) (2) Here, represents the elastic modulus of the URM infill material (3300), is the modulus of elasticity of the RC MRF material, stands for the moment of inertia of the adjacent column, t denotes the infill wall thickness (230 mm), and θ represents the angle formed by the diagonal strut with respect to the horizontal direction. 0.64 f mo

Fig. 3. Real Configuration (Di Trapani et al., 2018).

Fig. 4. Equivalent Strut Fiber-Section Model (Di Trapani et al., 2018) .

Table 3. Equivalent diagonal strut width for prototypes with strong beams and weak columns

Strut

Brick Wall Thickness, t (m)

Ɵ

Moment of Inertia of Adjoining Column I c (m 4 )

α h

Length of Strut L ds (m)

Width of Equi. Diagonal Strut W ds (m)

W1 W2 W3 W4 W5 W6 W7 W8

0.23 0.23 0.23 0.23 0.23 0.23 0.23 0.23

27.659 27.659 33.549 35.537 29.054 29.604 33.549 29.054

0.000233201 0.002395833 0.000233201 0.000506958

4.4203 2.469 4.5475 1.7877 1.713 2.2154 1.7877 3.77

5.385434 5.385434 4.523594 4.301163 5.147815 5.060632 4.523594 5.147815

0.520 0.656 0.432 0.443 0.716 0.714 0.576 0.715

0.009 0.0108 0.00414

0.009

Table 4. Equivalent diagonal strut width for prototypes with strong columns and weak beams

Str ut

Brick Wall Thickness, t (m)

Ɵ

Moment of Inertia of Adjoining Column, I c (m 4 )

α h

Length of Strut L ds (m)

Width of Equi. Diagonal Strut W ds (m)

W1 W2 W3 W4 W5 W6 W7 W8

0.23 0.23 0.23 0.23 0.23 0.23 0.23 0.23

28.951 28.951 35.837 37.405 30.579 31.759 35.095 30.579

0.0016 0.0054 0.0072 0.00135 0.0256 0.0144 0.0128 0.0256

2.8337 2.0907

5.37122 5.37122

0.619 0.700 0.589 0.480 0.775 0.706 0.635 0.774

2.0017 4.440721 3.0546 4.280187 1.4287 5.110773 1.6587 4.939636 1.7297 4.522168 1.4287 5.110773

4. Results and Discussion 4.1 Idea of Weak Columns-Strong Beams

The pushover curves for prototypes 1,2 and 3 which were created with the idea of weak columns and strong beams, are shown in Fig. 5. It is clear that, increasing the infill walls all the way up the building greatly boosts its shear capacity, roughly twice as much as it would have with only the frame. As seen in Fig. 5, the infilled frame's shear capacity increases by about 210% in comparison to the bare frame. Crucially, though, the infilled frame loses a great deal of its shear resistance early in the response, as the roof displacement gets closer to 100 mm, at which point the shear capacity equals 500 kN. This shows that, in comparison to the resistance of the bare frame, resistance increases by around 1.67 times.