<div>Observations from experiments and post-earthquake surveys have shown that drift is the key parameter for identifying potential damage of a structure during ground motions (Sozen, 1981). These observations suggest that drift should govern seismic design and evaluation of structures.</div><div><br></div><div>In this study, three methods for estimating drift demands were considered: 1) the method proposed by Sozen (2003) referred to in this study as Velocity of Displacement (VOD), 2) the Coefficient Method and 3) Nonlinear Dynamic Analysis (NDA). The reliability of each method was evaluated by comparing estimates of roof and maximum story drift ratios with measurements from 46 reinforced concrete structures with initial periods shorter than 3 seconds.</div><div><br></div><div>Measurements from long-period structures (with periods longer than 3 seconds) were not available. To produce data to evaluate the reliability of the three mentioned methods for</div><div>long-period structures as well as understand the displacement and base-shear response of such structures, seven scaled Multi-Degree-of-Freedom (MDOF) specimens with an initial period of approximately 1.2 seconds were tested with five scaled base motions of varying intensities. Each motion was scaled in time such that its scaled spectral shape near the initial period of the specimen was similar to the spectral shape of the unscaled motions for periods ranging from approximately 1 to 10 seconds. A total of 118 tests were conducted.</div><div><br></div><div>The effect of loading history on drift demands and drift estimates was also evaluated by quantifying changes in drift demands of structures subjected to repeats of the same ground motion. Data from 1) experimental tests of structures subjected to repeated ground motions, and 2) numerical analyses of Single-Degree-of-Freedom (SDOF) oscillators subjected to multiple sequences of ground motions of varying intensities were used.</div><div><br></div><div><div>Based on comparisons of measured and calculated drifts as well as data from the experimental program, the following observations were made:</div></div><div><br></div><div>1) For structures with periods shorter than 3 seconds, all three methods for estimating drift demands produced estimates of both roof and maximum story drifts of similar</div><div>quality despite large differences in the effort required to use each method.</div><div><br></div><div>2) For structures with periods longer than 3 seconds, NDA produced drift estimates close to the mean of measured values while VOD overestimated measured values, on average, by approximately 30%. The Coefficient Method produced estimates that were, on average, smaller than measurements by approximately 40%.</div><div><br></div><div>3) For structures (not susceptible to decay in lateral strength) subjected to sequences of ground motions of similar intensities, the relative increase in drift demands was,</div><div>on average, no more than 20%. Larger increases in drift demands were observed for structures where the first motion (in a pair of repeated motions) was mild enough</div><div>not to cause cracking and/or yielding, and the second motion was preceded by larger intensity motions that did cause cracking and/or yielding.</div><div><br></div><div>4) For test structures with periods longer than 3 seconds, drifts in the nonlinear range of response were generally smaller than linear estimates, and maximum base-shear</div><div>demands were as much as three times those calculated assuming a linear lateral load distribution.</div>

<p>Masonry infills historically have increased in-plane stiffness and reduced drift demands of reinforced concrete frames. An inherent risk remains during intense ground motions that unreinforced masonry infills can develop shear cracks, fail out-of-plane, or lead to the formation of captive-column conditions. This study explored the use of full-bay, plywood panel infills in non-ductile reinforced concrete frames as a novel seismic retrofit. Wood infills were constructed from layers of APA 3/4” Rated Sheathing plywood panels. Infills were tested using two single-bay, single-story concrete frames at 1/3 scale, with initial periods between 0.1 and 0.3 seconds once infilled. External post-tensioning was provided to the columns during all series to prevent column shear failure and doubled as dowel connections between the concrete frame and wood panel infill. Test series were performed on a uniaxial earthquake simulator with the frame bay parallel to the direction of ground motion. Wood infills were approximately 0.36∗𝑏, 0.18∗𝑏, and 0.09∗𝑏 thick, where b is the column width. Multi-layer infills were screw-laminated via a 6” square grid. Infills were tested in previously damaged and nominally pristine frames.</p> <p>During similar ground motions, masonry infills reduced the effective period of the pristine bare frame by approximately 50%. In nominally pristine frames, one-panel plywood infills reduced the bare frame period by a maximum of 50%, and two-panel infills by 60%. One and two-panel wood infills reduced drift demands in comparison to the pristine bare frame by a factor of 1√2∗𝑛 in previously damaged frames and by 12∗𝑛 in nominally pristine frame, where n is the number of panels of plywood across the infill thickness. There was no extra reduction in drift demands resulting from increasing the wood infill thickness beyond two panels. One-panel wood infills failed via out-of-plane buckling causing splitting at a drift demand of approximately 1.5%.</p> <p>The results of this study confirm that wood panel infill retrofits are structurally viable alternatives to stiffen non-ductile reinforced concrete frames. Plywood panel infills reduced drift demands more efficiently per unit thickness and unit weight than masonry infills; the resilience and ease of construction of wood infills suggest expanded use should be explored. Experimental study of full-scale wood infills is needed before this retrofit method could become field deployable.</p>