A study of the response of reinforced concrete frames with and without masonry infill walls to earthquake motions

In developing countries prone to frequent earthquakes, it is common practice to use masonry infill walls as partitions in reinforced concrete frame buildings. Frames with infill have smaller drift demands and smaller drift capacities relative to similar frames without infill. Whether the relative reduction in drift demand offsets the plausible reduction in drift capacity remains open to discussion. This investigation provides experimental evidence on drift demands and drift capacities for both frames with and frames without infill. To make fair comparisons, only experiments where sets of nominally identical reinforced concrete frames, at least one frame with no infill and at least one frame with infill, are considered. Because many static experiments provide evidence for the reduction in drift capacity caused by infill, the objective of the dynamic experiments described in this study is to quantify the reduction in drift demand attributed to infill. Results of dynamic tests show that frames with infill drifted no more than one-third the amount similar frames without infill drifted in simulated base motions of the same intensity. Results of static tests show that the smallest drift capacities of frames with infill were approximately one-half of the drift capacities of similar frames without infill. These two experimental observations indicate that infill reduces drift demand more than it reduces drift capacity suggesting an overall beneficial effect of the infill. Field data were used to test this idea. Based on surveys of low-rise school buildings, RC frames with more full-height infill walls tend to have less earthquake damage than frames with less infill. A convenient method to quantify the amount of infill walls in buildings is computing wall ratios defined as the ratio of crosssectional area of masonry infill walls on ground floor to total floor area above ground floor. Projections of the field data suggest that infill wall ratios of at least 0.5% in both directions of a building reduce the likelihood of severe structural damage by 300% compared with smaller ratios. The use of infill presents an inexpensive yet effective retrofit technique, even if only for temporary use, for strengthening buildings vulnerable to earthquake damage.