文獻信息：文獻標題：SeismicPerformanceofReinforcedConcreteBuildingswithMasonryInfill（砌體填充鋼筋混凝土建筑的抗震性能研究）文獻作者：GirmaZewdieTsige，AdilZekaria文獻出處：《AmericanJournalofCivilEngineering》,2018,6(1):24-33字數(shù)統(tǒng)計：英文3088單詞，16137字符；中文4799漢字外文文獻：SeismicPerformanceofReinforcedConcreteBuildingswithMasonryInfillAbstractUnreinforcedmasonryInfillsmodifythebehaviorofframedstructuresunderlateralloads;however,inpractice,theinfillstiffnessiscommonlyignoredinframeanalysis,resultinginanunder-estimationofstiffnessandnaturalfrequency.ThestructuraleffectofhollowconcreteblockinfillisgenerallynotconsideredinthedesignofcolumnsaswellasotherstructuralcomponentsofRCframestructures.Thehollowconcreteblockwallshavesignificantin-planestiffnesscontributingtothestiffnessoftheframeagainstlateralload.Thescopeofpresentworkwastostudyseismicperformanceofreinforcedconcretebuildingswithmasonryinfillinmediumrisebuilding.Theofficemediumrisebuildingisanalyzedforearthquakeforcebyconsideringthreetypeofstructuralsystem.i.e.BareFramesystem,partially-infilledandfully-Infilledframesystem.Effectivenessofmasonrywallhasbeenstudiedwiththehelpoffivedifferentmodels.Infillsweremodeledusingtheequivalentstrutapproach.NonlinearstaticanalysesforlateralloadswereperformedbyusingstandardpackageETABS,2015software.Thecomparisonofthesemodelsfordifferentearthquakeresponseparameterslikebaseshearvsroofdisplacement,Storydisplacement,Storyshearandmemberforcesarecarriedout.Itisobservedthattheseismicdemandinthebareframeissignificantlylargewheninfillstiffnessisnotconsidered,withlargerdisplacements.Thiseffect,however,isnotfoundtobesignificantintheinfilledframesystems.Theresultsaredescribedindetailinthispaper.Keywords:BareFrame,InfilledFrame,EquivalentDiagonalStrut,Infill,PlasticHinge1.IntroductionInfillhavebeengenerallyconsideredasnon-structuralelements,althoughtherearecodessuchastheEurocode-8thatincluderatherdetailedproceduresfordesigninginfilledR/Cframes,presenceofinfillhasbeenignoredinmostofthecurrentseismiccodesexcepttheirweight.However,eventhoughtheyareconsiderednon-structuralelementsthepresenceofinfillinthereinforcedconcreteframescansubstantiallychangetheseismicresponseofbuildingsincertaincasesproducingundesirableeffects(tensionaleffects,dangerouscollapsemechanisms,softstory,variationsinthevibrationperiod,etc.)orfavorableeffectsofincreasingtheseismicresistancecapacityofthebuilding.Thepresentpracticeofstructuralanalysisisalsototreatthemasonryinfillasnon-structuralelementandtheanalysisaswellasdesigniscarriedoutbyonlyusingthemassbutneglectingthestrengthandstiffnesscontributionofinfill.Therefore,theentirelateralloadisassumedtoberesistedbytheframeonly.Contrarytocommonpractice,thepresenceofmasonryinfillinfluencetheover-allbehaviorofstructureswhensubjectedtolateralforces.Whenmasonryinfillareconsideredtointeractwiththeirsurroundingframes,thelateralstiffnessandthelateralloadcapacityofthestructurelargelyincrease.Therecentadventofstructuraldesignforaparticularlevelofearthquakeperformance,suchasimmediatepost-earthquakeoccupancy,(termedperformancebasedearthquakeengineering),hasresultedinguidelinessuchasATC-40(1996)FEMA-273(1996)andFEMA-356(2000)andstandardssuchasASCE-41(2006),amongothers.Thedifferenttypesofanalysesdescribedinthesedocuments,pushoveranalysiscomesforwardbecauseofitsoptimalaccuracy,efficiencyandeaseofuse.Theinfillmaybeintegralornon-integraldependingontheconnectivityoftheinfilltotheframe.Inthecaseofbuildingsunderconsideration,integralconnectionisassumed.Thecompositebehaviorofaninfilledframeimpartslateralstiffnessandstrengthtothebuilding.ThetypicalbehaviorofaninfilledframesubjectedtolateralloadisillustratedinFigures1(a)and(b).Figure1.Behaviorofinfilledframes(Govindan,1986).InthispresentpaperfivemodelsofofficebuildingwithdifferentconfigurationofmasonryinfillaregeneratedwiththehelpofETABS2015andeffectivenesshasbeenchecked.Pushoveranalysisisadoptedfortheevaluationoftheseismicresponseoftheframes.EachframeissubjectedtopushoverloadingcasealongnegativeX-direction.2.BuildingDescriptionMulti-storeyrigidjointedframemixedusebuildingG+9(Figure2),wasselectedintheseismiczone(ZoneIV)ofEthiopiaanddesignedbasedontheEthiopianBuildingCodeStandardESEN:2015andEuropeanCode-2005.ETABS2015wasusedfortheanalysisanddesignofthebuildingbymodelingasa3-Dspaceframesystem.Figure2.Typicalbuildingplan.SeismicperformanceispredictedbyusingperformancebasedanalysisofsimulationmodelsofbareandinfillednonductileRCframebuildingswithdifferentarrangementofmasonrywall.Thestructurewillbeassumedtobenew,withnoexistinginfilldamage.BuildingData:1.Typeofstructure=Multi-storeyrigidjointedframe2.Layout=asshowninfigure23.Zone=Iv4.ImportanceFactor=15.SoilCondition=hard6.Numberofstories=Ten(G+9)7.HeightofBuilding=30m8.Floortofloorheight=3m9.Externalwallthickness=20cm10.Internalwallthickness=15cm11.Depthofthefloorslab=15cm12.depthofroofslab=12cm13.Sizeofallcolumns=70×70cm14.Sizeofallbeams=70×40cm15.Dooropeningsize=100×200cm16.Windowopeningsize=200×120cm3.StructuralModelingandAnalysisTounderstandtheeffectofmasonrywallinreinforcedconcreteframe,withatotaloffivemodelsaredevelopedandpushoveranalysishasbeenmadeinstandardcomputerprogramETABS2015.InthisparticularstudypushoverloadingcasealongnegativeX-axisisconsideredtostudyseismicperformanceofallmodels.Sincetheoutofplaneeffectisnotstudiedinthispaper,onlytheequivalentstrutalongX-axisareconsideredtostudytheinplaneeffectandmasonrywallsalongY-axisarenotconsideredinallmodels.Fromthisdifferentcondition,allmodelsareidentifiedbytheirnameswhicharegivenbelow.3.1.DifferentArrangementoftheBuildingModelsTounderstandtheeffectofmasonrywallinreinforcedconcreteframe,withatotaloffivemodelsaredevelopedandpushoveranalysishasbeenmadeinstandardcomputerprogramETABS2015.InthisparticularstudypushoverloadingcasealongnegativeX-axisisconsideredtostudyseismicperformanceofallmodels.Model1:-Barereinforcedconcreteframe:masonryinfillwallsareremovedfromthebuildingalongallstoriesModel2:-Reinforcedconcreteframewith75%ofmasonrywallremovedfromfullyinfilledframeFigure3.PlanViewModel2.Model3:-ReinforcedconcreteframewithhalfofofmasonrywallremovedfromfullyinfilledframeFigure4.PlanViewofModel3.Model4:-Reinforcedconcreteframewith25%ofmasonrywallremovedfromfullyinfilledframeFigure5.PlanviewofModel4.Model5:-Fullyinfilledreinforcedconcreteframe(Baseframe)Figure6.PlanviewofModel5.3.2.ModelingofMasonryInfillInthecaseofaninfillwalllocatedinalateralloadresistingframethestiffnessandstrengthcontributionoftheinfillareconsideredbymodellingtheinfillasanequivalentcompressionstrut(Smith).Becauseofitssimplicity,severalinvestigatorshaverecommendedtheequivalentstrutconcept.Inthepresentanalysis,atrussedframemodelisconsidered.Thistypeofmodeldoesnotneglectthebendingmomentinbeamsandcolumns.Rigidjointsconnectthebeamsandcolumns,butpinjointsatthebeam-to-columnJunctionsconnecttheequivalentstruts.Infillparameters(effectivewidth,elasticmodulusandstrength)arecalculatedusingthemethodrecommendedbySmith.ThelengthofthestrutisgivenbythediagonaldistanceDofthepanel(Figure7)anditsthicknessisgivenbythethicknessoftheinfillwall.Theestimationofwidthwofthestrutisgivenbelow.TheinitialelasticmodulusofthestrutEiisequatedtoEmtheelasticmodulusofmasonry.AsperUBC(1997),Emisgivenas750fm,wherefmisthecompressivestressofmasonryinMPa.Theeffectivewidthwasfoundtodependontherelativestiffnessoftheinfilltotheframe,themagnitudeofthediagonalloadandtheaspectratiooftheinfilledpanel.Figure7.Strutgeometry(GhassanAl-Chaar).Theequivalentstrutwidth,a,dependsontherelativeflexuralstiffnessoftheinfilltothatofthecolumnsoftheconfiningframe.Therelativeinfilltoframestiffnessshallbeevaluatedusingequation1(Stafford-SmithandCarter1969):Usingthisexpression,Mainstone(1971)considerstherelativeinfilltoframeflexibilityintheevaluationoftheequivalentstrutwidthofthepanelasshowninequation2.Where:λ1=Relatireinfilltoframestiffnessgarameterα=Equivalentwidthofinfillstrut,cmEm=modulusofelasticityofmasonryinfill,MPaEc=modulusofelasticityofconfiningframe,MPaIcolumn=momentofinertiaofmasonryinfill,cm4t=Grossthicknessoftheinfill,cmh=heightoftheinfillpanel,cmθ=Angleoftheconcentricequivalentstrut,radiansD=Diagonallengthofinfill,cmH=Heightoftheconfiningframe,cm3.3.EccentricityofEquivalentStrutTheequivalentmasonrystrutistobeconnectedtotheframemembersasdepictedinFigure8.Theinfillforcesareassumedtobemainlyresistedbythecolumns,andthestrutsareplacedaccordingly.Thestrutshouldbepin-connectedtothecolumnatadistancelcolumnfromthefaceofthebeam.ThisdistanceisdefinedinEquations3and4andiscalculatedusingthestrutwidth,a.Figure8.Placementofstrut(GhassanAl-Chaar).3.4.PlasticHingePlacementPlastichingesincolumnsshouldcapturetheinteractionbetweenaxialloadandmomentcapacity.Thesehingesshouldbelocatedataminimumdistancelcolumnfromthefaceofthebeamasshowninfigure9.Hingesinbeamsneedonlycharacterizetheflexuralbehaviorofthemember.Figure9.Plastichingeplacement(GhassanAl-Chaar).3.5.AnalysisoftheBuildingModelsThenon-structuralelementsandcomponentsthatdonotsignificantlyinfluencethebuildingbehaviorwerenotmodeled.Thefloorslabsareassumedtoactasdiaphragms,whichensureintegralactionofalltheverticallateralload-resistingelements.Beamsandcolumnsweremodeledasframeelementswiththecenterlinesjoinedatnodes.Rigidoffsetswereprovidedfromthenodestothefacesofthecolumnsorbeams.Thestiffnessforcolumnsandbeamsweretakenas0.7EcIg,0.35EcIgrespectivelyaccountingforthecrackinginthemembersandthecontributionofflangesinthebeams.TheweightoftheslabwasdistributedtothesurroundingbeamsasperESEN1992:2015.ThemassoftheslabwaslumpedattheCentreofmasslocationateachfloorlevel.Thiswaslocatedatthedesigneccentricityfromthecalculatedcentreofstiffness.DesignlateralforcesateachstoreylevelwereappliedattheCentreofmasslocationsindependentlyintwohorizontaldirections(X-andY-directions).Staircasesandwatertankswerenotmodeledfortheirstiffnessbuttheirmasseswereconsideredinthestaticanddynamicanalyses.ThedesignspectrumforhardsoilasspecifiedinESEN1998:2015wasusedfortheanalysis.Theeffectofsoil-structureinteractionwasignoredintheanalyses.Thecolumnswereassumedtobefixedatthelevelofthebottomofthebaseslabsofrespectiveisolatedfootings.Figure10.Force-DeformationRelationforPlasticHingeinPushoverAnalysis(Habibullah.etal.,1998).4.AnalysisResultsandDiscussionsTheresultsofpushoveranalysisofreinforcedconcreteframewithdifferentconfigurationofmasonrywallarepresented.AnalysisofthemodelsunderthestaticanddynamicloadshasbeenperformedusingEtabs2015software.AllrequireddataareprovidedinsoftwareandanalyzedfortotalfivemodelstogettheresultintermsofBaseshearvsmonitoredroofdisplacement,Storeyshear,storydisplacementandElementforce.Subsequentlytheseresultsarecomparedforreinforcedconcreteframewithdifferentconfigurationofmasonrywall.4.1.BaseShearvsMonitoredRoofDisplacementCurveBasedupontheDisplacementcoefficientmethodofASCE41-13allthefivebuildingmodelsareanalyzedinETABS2015standardstructuralsoftwareandthestaticpushovercurveisgeneratedasshowninfigure11.Figure11.Pushoveranalysisresultfor10-storyRCbuilding.Thepresenceoftheinfillwallbothstrengthensandstiffensthesystem,asillustratedinfigure11.Forthecasestudybuilding,thefully-infilledframehasapproximately3timeslargerintialstiffnessand1.5timesgreaterpeakstrengththanthebareframe.Infigure11,thefirstdropinstrengthforthefullyandpartially-infilledframeisduetothebrittlefailureofmasonrymaterialsinitiatinginthefirst-storyinfillwalls.Thisbehaviorafterfirst-storywallfailureisduetowall-frameinteractionanddependsontherelativestrengthoftheinfillandframing.So,basedontheseresults,infillwallscanbebeneficialaslongastheyareproperlytakenintoconsiderationinthedesignprocessandthefailuremechanismiscontrolled.4.2.StoryDisplacementforDifferentModelsFigure12.showsthecomparativestudyofseismicdemandintermsoflateralstorydisplacementamongstallthefivetypesofreinforcedconcreteframewithdifferentconfigurationofinfill.Thelateraldisplacementobtainedfromthebareframemodelisthemaximumwhichisabout60%greaterthanthatoffullyinfilledframe,nearly50%greaterthanthatofframewith25%ofthemasonrywallreduced,about40%greaterthanthatofframewith50%ofthemasonrywallreducedand30%greaterthanthatofframewith75%ofthemasonrywallreduced.Figure12.ComparisonofStorydisplacementsfordifferentmodels.Thus,theinfillpanelreducestheseismicdemandofreinforcedconcretebuildings.Thelateralstorydisplacementisdramaticallyreducedduetointroductionofinfill.Thisprobablyisthecauseofbuildingdesignedinconventionalwaybehavingnearelasticallyevenduringstrongearthquake.4.3.MemberForcesInthisprojecttounderstandtheeffectofdifferentconfigurationofinfillinreinforcedconcreteframe;studyofthebehaviorofthecolumninallmodelsforaxialloadswasconducted.TotaloffivenonlinearmodelsareanalyzedinETABS2015andallmodelshavesameplanofbuilding,thereforethepositionandlabelofcolumnsaresameinallplansofmodelswhichisshowninfigure2.Afteranalysisconsiderthecolumnno.1(C1)showninfigure2.fromallmodelsforpushoverloadcaseandgettheaxialforcesofcolumnatperformancepointateverystoryfromsoftware,whichisgivenintable1andthevaluesforeachmodeliscomparedwiththebareframemodel.Table1.Comparisonofaxialforcefordifferentmodels.(KN)Fromthisobservation,itisevidentthatwhenaninfilledframeisloadedlaterally,thecolumnstakethemajorityoftheforceandshearforceexertedontheframebytheinfillwhichismodeledastheeccentricequivalentstruts.Generally,therelativeincreaseofaxialforceisobservedwhenthepercentageofinfillinreinforcedconcreteframeincreases.Itisobservedthatfullyinfilledreinforcedconcreteframeshowedaround10%increaseinaxialforcerelativetobareframemodel.Theotherinfillmodelsshowedalesserincrease.Theeffectofinfilloncolumnsistoincreasetheshearforceandtoreducebendingmoments.Ingeneralcomparedtobareframemodel,theinfilledmodelspredictedhigheraxialandshearforcesincolumnsbutlowerbendingmomentsinbothbeamsandcolumns.Thus,theeffectofinfillpanelistochangethepredominantlyaframeactionofamomentresistingframesystemtowardstrussaction.4.4.StoryShearStoryshearisthetotalhorizontalseismicshearforceatthebaseofstructure.Resultsfromstaticpushoveranalysisatperformancepointforthecasestudybuildingsareshowninfigure13.Figure13.Comparisonofstoryshearfordifferentmodel.Asobservedfromthefigure13thestoryshearcalculatedonthebasisofbareframemodelgavealesservaluethantheotherinfilledframes;Itwasobservedthatthestoryshearinfullyinfilledframeisnearly15%greatercomparedtobareframemodelandframewith25%ofthemasonrywallreducedwasnearly10%greatercomparedtothebareframe,framewith50%ofthemasonrywallreducedisnearly8%greatercomparedtothebareframeandframewith75%ofthemasonrywallreducedisabout5%greatercomparedtothebareframe.Sincethebareframemodelsdonottakeintoaccountthestiffnessrenderedbytheinfillpanel,itgivessignificantlylongertimeperiod.Andhencesmallerlateralforces.Andwhentheinfillismodeled,thestructurebecomesmuchstifferthanthebareframemodel.Therefore,ithasbeenfoundthatcalculationofearthquakeforcesbytreatingRCframesasordinaryframeswithoutregardstoinfillleadstounderestimationofbaseshear.Thisisbecauseofbareframeishavinglargervalueoffundamentalnaturaltimeperiodascomparedtoothermodelsduetoabsenceofmasonryinfillwalls.Fundamentalnaturalperiodgetincreasedandthereforebasesheargetreduced.5.ConclusionsFromaboveresultsitisclearthatpushovercurveshowanincreaseininitialstiffness,strength,andenergydissipationoftheinfilledframe,comparedtothebareframe,despitethewall’sbrittlefailuremodes.Duetotheintroductionofinfillthedisplacementcapacitydecreasesasdepictedfromthedisplacementprofile(Figure12).Thelateraldisplacementobtainedfromthebareframemodelisthemaximumwhichisabout60%greaterthanthatofinfilledframe.Thepresenceofmasonrywallsistochangeaframeactionofamomentresistingframestructuretowardsatrussaction.Wheninfillsarepresent,shearandaxialforcedemandsareconsiderablyhigherleavingthebeamorcolumnvulnerabletoshearfailure.Theaxialforceandshearforceofthebareframeislessthanthatoftheinfilledframe.Columnstakethemajorityoftheforcesexertedontheframebytheinfillbecausetheeccentricallymodeledequivalentstrutstransferstheaxialloadandshearforcetransferredfromtheactionoflateralloadsdirectlytothecolumns.Thestoryshearcalculatedonthebasisofbareframemodelgavealesservaluethantheotherinfilledframes.Itwasobservedthatfullyinfilledframeisnearly15%greatercomparedtobareframemodel;framewith25%ofthemasonrywallreducedwasnearly10%greatercomparedtothebareframe;framewith50%ofthemasonrywallreducedisnearly8%greatercomparedtothebareframeandframewith75%ofthemasonrywallreducedisabout5%greatercomparedtothebareframe.Thisisbecausethebareframemodelsdonottakesintoaccountthestiffnessrenderedbytheinfillpanel,itgivessignificantlylongertimeperiod.中文譯文：砌體填充鋼筋混凝土建筑的抗震性能研究摘要無配筋砌體填充對框架結構在側向荷載作用下的受力性能有很大的影響，但在實際應用中，往往忽略了框架結構的填充剛度，導致對框架結構的剛度和固有頻率的估計不足。在鋼筋混凝土框架結構的柱體設計及其他結構構件的設計中，一般不考慮空心砌塊填充的結構效應。空心混凝土砌塊墻具有顯著的平面內剛度，對框架抗側向荷載的剛度起著重要的作用。本研究的工作范圍是研究中高層建筑砌體填充鋼筋混凝土結構的抗震性能。通過考慮三種結構體系，即裸框架體系、部分填充框架體系和全填充框架體系，對辦公中高層建筑進行了地震力分析。采用五種不同的模型對砌體墻的有效性進行了研究。填充物采用等效撐桿法建模。采用ETABS2015標準軟件包對側向荷載進行了非線性靜力分析。對不同的地震反應參數(shù)，如基底剪力與頂層位移、層間位移、層剪力和構件內力等進行了比較。結果表明，在不考慮填充剛度、位移較大的情況下，裸框架結構的抗震需求明顯增大。然而，這種效應在填充框架系統(tǒng)中并不顯著。文中對結果進行了詳細的描述。關鍵詞：裸框架，填充框架，等效斜撐，填充，塑性鉸

1.簡介填充物通常被認為是非結構構件，雖然有諸如歐洲規(guī)范Eurocode8這樣的規(guī)范，其中包含了設計填充鋼筋混凝土框架的相當詳細的程序，但在目前的大多數(shù)抗震規(guī)范中，填充物的存在被忽略了，除了它們的重量。然而，即使它們被認為是非結構構件，但在某些情況下，鋼筋混凝土框架中填充物的存在會在很大程度上改變建筑物產(chǎn)生不良影響的地震反應(張拉效應、危險的倒塌機制、柔性底層、振動周期的變化等)，或增加建筑物抗震能力的有利影響。目前的結構分析方法也是將砌體填充物視為非結構構件，分析和設計時只考慮填充物的質量，而忽略了填充物的強度和剛度貢獻。因此，假定整個側向荷載僅由框架抵抗。與通常的做法相反，砌體填充物的存在會影響結構在承受側向力時的整體性能。當考慮砌體填充物與周圍框架相互作用時，結構的側向剛度和側向承載能力大大增加。最近出現(xiàn)的針對特定級別地震性能的結構設計，如地震后立即入?。ǚQ為基于性能的地震工程），產(chǎn)生了諸如ATC-40（1996）、FEMA-273（1996）和FEMA-356（2000）等指導方針，以及諸如ASCE-41（2006）等標準。在這些文件中描述的不同類型的分析，采用了靜力彈塑性分析，因為它具有最佳的準確性、效率和易用性。填充物可以是整體的，也可以是非整體的，這取決于填充物與框架的連接性。在考慮建筑物的情況下，假設是整體連接。填充框架的綜合性能賦予建筑物側向剛度和強度。圖1（a）和（b）說明了填充框架在側向荷載下的典型行為。圖1.填充框架的行為（GovdIn，1986）本文利用ETABS2015軟件生成了五種不同砌體填充結構的辦公建筑模型，并對其有效性進行了檢驗。靜力彈塑性分析被用于評估框架的地震反應。每個框架沿負X方向承受推覆載荷情況。2.建筑描述在埃塞俄比亞地震區(qū)（IV區(qū)）中選擇了多層剛性連接框架混合建筑G+9（圖2），并根據(jù)埃塞俄比亞建筑法規(guī)標準ESEN：2015和歐洲規(guī)范CODE-2005進行了設計。將ETABS2015作為一個三維空間框架系統(tǒng)建模，對該建筑進行了分析和設計。圖2.典型的建筑平面圖采用基于性能的分析方法，對不同砌體墻布局的裸鋼筋混凝土框架和填充非延性鋼筋混凝土框架結構的抗震性能進行了預測。該結構將被假定為新的，沒有現(xiàn)有的填充損壞。建筑數(shù)據(jù)：1.結構類型=多層剛性連接框架2.布局=如圖2所示3.地帶=Iv4.重要性系數(shù)=15.土壤條件=堅硬6.樓層數(shù)=10（G+9）7.建筑高度=30m8.樓層高度=3m9.外壁厚度=20cm10.內壁厚度=15cm11.樓板深度=15cm12.屋面板深度=12cm13.所有柱的尺寸=70×70cm14.所有梁的尺寸=70×40cm15.門孔尺寸=100×200cm16.開窗尺寸=200×120cm3.結構建模與分析為了解砌體墻在鋼筋混凝土框架中的作用，開發(fā)了五種模型，并在標準計算機程序ETABS2015中進行了靜力彈塑性分析。在本文的研究中，考慮了負X軸的推覆荷載情況，對所有模型的抗震性能進行了研究。由于本文不研究平面外效應，所以只考慮沿X軸的等效撐桿來研究平面內效應，并且在所有模型中都不考慮沿Y軸的砌體墻。從這個不同的條件來看，所有的模型都由它們的名字來標識的，如下所示。3.1.建筑模型的不同布局為了解砌體墻在鋼筋混凝土框架中的作用，開發(fā)了五種模型，并在標準計算機程序ETABS2015中進行了靜力彈塑性分析。在本文的研究中，考慮了負X軸的推覆荷載情況，對所有模型的抗震性能進行了研究。模型1——裸鋼筋混凝土框架，砌體填充墻沿著所有樓層從建筑物中移走模型2——鋼筋混凝土框架，75%的磚墻從完全填充的框架中移除圖3.平面圖模型2模型3——鋼筋混凝土框架，一半的磚墻從完全填充的框架中移除圖4.平面圖模型3模型4——鋼筋混凝土框架，25%的磚墻從完全填充的框架中移除圖5.平面圖模型4模型5——全填充鋼筋混凝土框架（基礎框架）圖6.平面圖模型53.2.砌體填充建模對于位于抗側力框架內的填充墻，通過將填充物建模為等效撐桿來考慮填充物的剛度和強度貢獻(Smith)。由于它的簡單性，一些研究者推薦了等效撐桿概念。在本文的分析中，考慮了桁架模型。這種模型沒有忽略梁和柱的彎矩。剛性節(jié)點連接梁和柱，但梁柱連接處的銷接頭連接等效撐桿。填充參數(shù)（有效寬度、彈性模量和強度）采用Smith推薦的方法計算。支柱的長度由面板的對角線距離D給出（圖7），其厚度由填充墻的厚度給出。下面給出了支柱的寬度w的估計。支柱Ei的初始彈性模量等于Em砌體的彈性模量。根據(jù)UBC（1997），Em給出為750fm，其中fm是砌體在MPa中的壓縮應力。計算結果表明，填充物的有效寬度取決于填充物與框架的相對剛度、斜向載荷的大小和填充板的縱橫比。圖7.支柱幾何結構(GhassanAl-Chaar)等效撐桿寬度α取決于填充物相對于約束框架柱的抗彎剛度。對框架剛度的相對填充應使用方程式1進行評估（Stafford-Smith和Carter，1969）：利用這個表達式，Mainstone(1971)在計算面板的等效撐桿寬度時考慮了對框架的靈活性的相對填充，如方程2所示。其中，λ1=相對填充與框架剛度參數(shù)α=填充撐桿的等效寬度，cmEm=砌體填充的彈性模量，MPaEc=約束框架的彈性模量，MPalcolumn=砌體填充慣性矩，cm4t=填充物的總厚度，cmh=填充板的高度，cmθ=同心等效撐桿的角度，radiansD=填充物的對角線長度，cmH=約束框架的高度，cm3.3.等效撐桿的偏心率如圖8所示，等效的砌體撐桿與框架構件連接。假定填充力主要由支柱抵抗，并相應地放置撐桿。撐桿應與支柱在距梁面一段距離的lcolumn處用銷連接。這個距離在方程3和4中定義，并使