# 3D FEA of Infilled RC Framed Structures Protected by Seismic Joints and FRP Jackets
## 4 3D FE Analyses Results
### Immaspol Structure  
Based on the FE developments in RC frames and on the characteristics of the IN-MASPOL structure, three numerical models were developed and analyzed. The bare RC structure with no infills (model 1) was analyzed for comparison reasons. The response of analytical model 1 was compared against the response of the brick wall infilled structure with the innovative PUFJs (model 2, INMASPOL structure), as tested in PHASE 1. Then, the damaged brick wall infilled structure received external double-sided glass FRPU jacketing (model 3, corresponding to PHASE 2 shake table tests). The damage in model 3 was implemented by removing the continuous material from the infill walls, based on the observed infill type B wall damage after the end of the experimental PHASE 1 (see Figure 2a). That is, in model 3 the infill had selected 3D finite elements removed to simulate the locally damaged parts of the infill. Such approaches can also be found in the analytical investigation of the residual capacity of buildings with damaged infills or RC members in [43]. Figure 5a presents the diagrams of the experimental top slab accelerations (equivalent to the base shear divided by the excited mass of the structure) versus the relative drift of the top slab (relative top slab-column bottom displacement divided by the respective vertical distance) for each dynamic excitation of the structure on the shake table for PHASE 1, while Figure 5b shows these for PHASE 2. Herein, it should be noted that the results are reported in acceleration-drift terms, as in [20], and can be easily transformed to the equivalent base shear-top displacement terms. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c} \hline \hline  & \multicolumn{3}{c}{**A2R**} \\ \hline  & **Exp.** & **Anal.** & **AD (\%)** \\ \hline Pmax (+) (kN) & 214.1 & 204.7 & 4.4 \\ \(\delta\)Pmax (+) (mm) & 65.0 & 59.1 & 9.1 \\ Pmax (\(-\)) (kN) & 190.6 & 204.7 & 7.4 \\ \(\delta\)Pmax (\(-\)) (mm) & 65.0 & 59.1 & 9.1 \\ Pu (+) (\(\delta\)N) & 210.4 & 199.1 & 5.4 \\ \(\delta\)Pu (+) (mm) & 81.4 & 81.4 & - \\ Pu (\(-\)) (kN) & 178.7 & 199.1 & 11.4 \\ \(\delta\)Pu (\(-\)) (mm) & 81.4 & 81.4 & - \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 6: Comparative results for A2R frame. Figure 5: _Cont._Figure 5c shows the results obtained from the pushover analyses in terms of top slab acceleration (base shear divided by the excited mass of the structure) versus the drift of the structure (relative top slab-column bottom displacement divided by the respective vertical distance). The black star marks in Figure 5a,c show the experimental results from the shake table tests for the INMASPOL real-scale RC structure with OrthoBlock infills and PUFJ highly deformable seismic joints. The structure exhibits a ductile top acceleration-drift behavior which is equivalent to a ductile base shear-drift behavior. It reaches a 3.7% drift without degradation of the top acceleration (base shear). Figure 2a suggests there is no collapse of the infills tested in plane or out of plane after a 3.7% drift. Further, Figure 2c shows that the damage in infills of type B could be repaired with emergency FRPU external jackets without any special treatment of the infill (more details can be found in [20,24]). The red star marks in Figure 5b,c show the experimental results from the shake table tests for the INMASPOL real-scale RC structure with OrthoBlock infills and PUFJ highly deformable seismic joints after the repair with FRPU (PHASE 2). The structure exhibits a rather linear elastic-like top acceleration-drift behavior which is equivalent to a linear  
Figure 5: Mean slab acceleration (or base shear/mass) versus horizontal drift diagram (**a**) for experimental PHASE 1; (**b**) for experimental PHASE 3; and (**c**) for numerical model 1, model 2 and model 3, against the experimental results of PHASE 1 and PHASE 2.  
elastic base shear-drift behavior. During retesting of the retrofitted structure, the achieved drift was 1.62% without degradation of the top acceleration (base shear).