Addis Ababa Institute of Technology,School of Civil and Environmental Engineering AAiT

Effects of Masonry Infills on Reinforced Concrete Frame Buildings

ADDIS ABABA UNIVERSITY

SCHOOL OF GRADUATE STUDIES

INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY

SCHOOL OF CIVIL AND ENVIROMENTAL ENGINEERING

Effects of Masonry Infills on Reinforced Concrete frame Buildings

A thesis submitted to the School of Graduate Studies of Addis Ababa Institute of

Technology in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the Degree of Master of Science
in Civil Engineering (Structural Engineering)

By

Liyouwork Bekele

Advisor: Adil Zekaria (Dr.–Ing.)

March 7, 2016

Addis Ababa

i
Addis Ababa Institute of Technology,School of Civil and Environmental Engineering AAiT
Effects of Masonry Infills on Reinforced Concrete Frame Buildings

ADDIS ABABA UNIVERSITY

SCHOOL OF GRADUATE STUDIES

INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY

SCHOOL OF CIVIL AND ENVIROMENTAL ENGINEERING

Effects of Masonry Infills on Reinforced Concrete frame Buildings

By

LiyouworkBekele

March 6, 2016

Approved by Board of Examiners

Adil Zekaria (Dr. Ing.) ___________ _________________

Advisor Signature Date

Bedilu Habte (Dr. Ing) _______________ ________________

External Examiner Signature Date

Girma Zerayohannes(Dr. Ing) _______________ _____________

Internal Examiner Signature Date
Dr. Agezew Negusse _______________ ________________
Chairman Signature Date

i
Addis Ababa Institute of Technology,School of Civil and Environmental Engineering AAiT
Effects of Masonry Infills on Reinforced Concrete Frame Buildings

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

This research would not have been successful without the help, support and guidance
rendered by many people who were directly or indirectly involved in this work. I would like
to express my sincere gratitude and appreciation to my thesis advisor Dr. Adil Zekaria for his
invaluable guidance, encouragement and insight provided throughout the research period. I
am sincere thankful to lecturer Mesgun Samuel, in the department of civil and environmental
engineering, for his guidance in development of the model. Thanks are due to Alemayehu
Bekele for helping me during searching the data used in thesis work done.

I would like to express my gratitude to the Addis Ababa University for the scholarship offer
and for selecting me to this study. I am also greatly indebted to Beles Consulting P.L.C for
their support by letting me use office tools unlimitedly.

I am indebted to Mulugeta Abera who reviewed and edited my paper. His comments
improved my work.

I would like to thank my family for their unwavering patience, and understanding and also
for having applauded my success, supported my goals, and accepted my failures, making me
a better person and supporting me continuously. I would like to take this opportunity to
thank my friends Meseret Feleke, Yonas Alemu, Fethanegest Kasaye, and Selamawit Dege
for encouraging me during tough times.

ii
Addis Ababa Institute of Technology,School of Civil and Environmental Engineering AAiT
Effects of Masonry Infills on Reinforced Concrete Frame Buildings

TABLE OF CONTENT
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS..................................................................................ii
TABLE OF CONTENTS ....................................................................................iii
LIST OF TABLES ...........................................................................................viii
LIST OF FIGURES .............................................................................................ix
ABSTRACT .......................................................................................................xii

CHAPTER ONE
1 Introduction …...……………………………………..…………………..1
1.1 Back ground …………………………………….…………….……….1
1.2 Statement of the problem ………………………………………….……1

1.3 Objectives ……………………………….……………….……………..3

1.4 Research methodology ……………………………..……..…………....4
1.4.1 Literature review ………………..……………………………….4
1.4.2 Data collection ……………………….………………………......4
1.4.3 Methodology adopted …………………………….……...............4

1.5 Scope …………………………………………………………................6

1.6 Application of results ……………………….…………….……..……...6
1.7 Organization of thesis ……………………….………………………….7

CHAPTER TWO
2. Literature review…………………………….………………..……..……..8
2.1. General ………… ……………………………………………………...8
2.2. Performance of masonry infill in rc frame structures …………………..9
2.3. Influence of masonry infill on seismic behavior of
frames…………….…………….………………………………………12
2.4. Strength and stiffness of masonry infill…..…………………….………16
2.5.Modeling and analysis of infilled frame structures under seismic
loads………………………………………………………………………….22
2.6.Determination of the equivalent strut width ……………….……………24
2.7. Comparing the strut width determined by different researchers………...27
2.8. Effect of opening …………………...…………………………………...27

iii
Addis Ababa Institute of Technology,School of Civil and Environmental Engineering AAiT
Effects of Masonry Infills on Reinforced Concrete Frame Buildings

2.9. Effect of infill thickness…………….…………………………………28

2.10. Effect of plan irregularity………………………..…………………...28
2.11. Effect of vertical irregularity………………………..……………… .29
2.12. Verification of strut model……………………………………...……30

2.13.Verification of the proposed reduction factor for infills having

openings…………………………………………………………………...33

CHAPTER THREE……………………..…………….…………...……….38
3. Structural modeling……………………...……………………………...38
3.1 Overview…………………..…………………………………………..38

3.2 Building description …………..……………………………………....38

3.3 Structural modelling ……………………………………………….......46

3.3.1 Material properties to be used ………………………..……..46

3.3.2 Load cases used ……………………………………………...47

3.3.3 Structural elements ………………..………………………...47

3.3.4 Modelling infill walls …………………………..…………...48

3.3.5 Modelling of equivalent strut ……………………………….48
3.3.6 Algorithm for generating the equivalent strut model………..49

CHAPTER FOUR……...…………………...…………..…………………...51
4.1 Interpretation of results………………………………………………...51
4.2 Results and discussions…………….…………………..……………....51

4.3. Effect of infill wall panel on RC frame structure……………………...52

4.3.1 Fundamental time period .………………………………...….52
4.3.2 Base shear ……………………...…………………………….58

4.3.3 Story displacement………..…………………………………..62

4.3.5 Story shear …………………………………………..…...…...69
4.3.6 Member forces ……………….……………………….………72

iv
Addis Ababa Institute of Technology,School of Civil and Environmental Engineering AAiT
Effects of Masonry Infills on Reinforced Concrete Frame Buildings

CHAPTER FIVE…………………………………..……..………………….74
5.1 Conclusions and recommendations…………………………………….74
5.1.1 Conclusion……………………….………………………,.....74
5.1.2 Recommendations ……………………………..………….. ..77
References ……………………………………………...……………………..…79
Appendices……………………………………………..………………….……..82
Appendix A verification of strut width…………………………………………..83
Appendix B effective width calculation of diagonal strut……………………….88
Appendix C calculation of fundamental period and base shear.............................91

v
 Addis Ababa Institute of Technology,School of Civil and Environmental Engineering AAiT
Effects of Masonry Infills on Reinforced Concrete Frame Buildings

List of table
Table 2.1. Properties of Material…………………......……………………..……….31

Table. 2.2 Effect of change of parameters on strut-width reduction factor……...…..34

Table 3.1. Member size ……………………..………………………………………40

Table 4.1 Comparison of Fundamental Time Period for different model types.……52

Table.4.2. Comparison of Base Shear for different Models ……………..……….…56

Table 4.3. Comparisons of story displacement for different models …………..…...57

Table.4.5 Comparison of Story Shear for different Models ……………….…….…62

Appendix Table A1. Verification of strut width ……………………......…………..85

Appendix Table B1. Calculation of strut width ………………………...…………..90

Appendix Table C1. Calculation of Fundamental Period …………………..……....92

Appendix Table C2. Calculation of Base Shear……………………………...……..95

vi
 Addis Ababa Institute of Technology,School of Civil and Environmental Engineering AAiT
Effects of Masonry Infills on Reinforced Concrete Frame Buildings

List of Figures
Figure1.1.Building Floor plan ………………………………………..…………........5

Figure 2.1. Floor plan of multistory reinforced concrete frame building with infill of two
boundary frames. [Pauley and Priestley]……………..…………….…………………13

Figure 2.2. Partial masonry infill in concrete frame …………………………………14

Figure.2.3 and 2.4, Equivalent bracing action of masonry infill[Paulay and Priestley] 1
…………………………………………………………………………………...........17
Figure. 2.5, Different failure modes of masonry infilled frames …………………….20
Figure 2.6, The infill panels behavior …………………………………………..........22
Figure 2.7. Geometry of test spacemen ………………………………………………30

Figure.2.8. Test setup for infill RC frame ……………………………………………31

Figure. 2.9. Analytical model for full wall …………………………………………...32

Figure. 2.10. Load Deflection curve for full wall …………………………….............33

Figure.2.11 Verification of the proposed strut-width reduction factor……………......35

Figure.2.12 Comparison of proposed strut width reduction factor ……………...........36

Figure.2.13 Comparison of stiffness reduction obtained by using proposed strut width

reduction factor ……………………..………………………………………………...37

Figure. 3.1 Typical floor plan/ typical floor plan for bare frame………………..........39

Figure. 3.2 Typical floor plan for base structureinfilled frame model…………..........42

Figure. 3.3. Elevation View. a) For base structureinfilled frame b) For soft ground story
frame…………………………………………………………...……………………..43

Figure 3.4. Typical floor plan offrame with half of the wall removed from base
structureinfilled frame…………………………………………………………...…...44
Figure 3.4. Typical floor plan offrame with 75% of the wall removed from base
structureinfilled frame…………………………………………………………..……45

Figure. 3.5 Compression Strut Connection………………………………….……….49

vii
Addis Ababa Institute of Technology,School of Civil and Environmental Engineering AAiT
Effects of Masonry Infills on Reinforced Concrete Frame Buildings

Figure. 4.1A. Fundamental period reduction in % (G+4)..……………………………54

Figure. 4.1B. Fundamental period reduction in % (G+7).……………………………56

Figure. 4.1C. Fundamental period reduction in % (G+10)……………………………57

Figure. 4.2A. Base shear of G+4 building……………………………………………59

Figure. 4.2B. Base shear of G+7 building…………………………………………….60

Figure. 4.2C. Base shear of G+10 building…………………………………………..61

Figure.4.3A. Max story displacement along X-and Y-direction of G+4 buildings....63

Figure.4.3B. Max story displacement along X-and Y-direction of G+7 buildings....66

Figure.4.3C. Max story displacement along X-and Y-direction of G+10 buildings..68

Figure.4.4A. Story Shear for G+4 Building………………………………………………69

Figure.4.4B. Story Shear for G+7 Building………………………………………………70

Figure.4.4C. Story Shear for G+7 Building………………………………………………72

Figure. A1. Verification of tension limit validation………………………………….86

Appendix Figure B 1 Diagonal length and diagonal angle…………………………..90

viii
Addis Ababa Institute of Technology,School of Civil and Environmental Engineering AAiT
Effects of Masonry Infills on Reinforced Concrete Frame Buildings

ABSTRACT

In Ethiopia, most of the reinforced concrete buildings use hollow masonry infill walls

as non-structural partition walls. Since they are used as a non-structural member,

during design stage, their contribution to overall building behavior is not well known.

Observations made after the earthquakes revealed that these non-structural elements had

beneficial effects on the lateral capacity of the building.

In this study, the contribution of the hollow masonry infill walls to the lateral

behavior of reinforced concrete buildings was investigated. For this purpose, G+4, G+7 and

G+10 buildings were chosen as case studies. These buildings are modeled as bare frame, base

infilled frame, Soft ground story frame, frame with halfof the wall reduced from base

infilledframe and frame with 75% of the wall reduced from base infilled frame. The

parameters that were considered are Strut width and arrangement of masonry infill walls

throughout the buildings. To determine the effect of each parameter, fundamental period,

base shear, lateral displacement, story shear and member forces are computed and are

compared for each case.

KEYWORDS:EARTHQUAKE, MASONRY INFILL WALL, STRUT WIDTH

ix
 Addis Ababa Institute of Technology,School of Civil and Environmental Engineering AAiT
Effects of Masonry Infills on Reinforced Concrete Frame Buildings

CHAPTER ONE

1 INTRODUCTION

1.1 Back Ground

The recent trend of building construction in urban and semi-urban area of the world is
reinforced concrete frames. The vertical space created by reinforced concrete (RC)
beams and columns are usually filled in by walls referred to as Masonry infill wall or
panels. The walls are usually of burnt clay bricks or hollow concrete block (HCB) in
cement mortar. These walls are built after the frame is constructed and used as
cladding or as partition. Typically, 10, 15 and 20 cm thick infill are used. Due to
functional demand, openings for doors, windows etc. are rather a norm than an
exception in these walls.

One of the main reasons in using masonry infill is economy and ease of construction,
because it uses locally available material and labor skill. Moreover, it has a good
sound and heat insulation and waterproofing properties, resulting in greater comfort
for the occupants. This type of construction is frequently used in earthquake prone
areas.

1.2 STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM

The present practice of structural analysis is to treat the masonry infill as non-
structural element and the analysis as well as design is carried out by only using the
mass but neglecting the strength and stiffness contribution of infill. Therefore, the
entire lateral load is assumed to be resisted by the frame only. One of the
disadvantages of neglecting the effect of infill is that, the building can have both
horizontal as well as vertical irregularities due to uncertain position of infill. Also, the
infill walls are sometimes rearranged to suit the changing functional needs of

1
Addis Ababa Institute of Technology,School of Civil and Environmental Engineering AAiT
Effects of Masonry Infills on Reinforced Concrete Frame Buildings

occupants. The changes are carried out without considering their adverse effects on
the overall structural behavior. The conventional finite element modeling of RC
structures without considering the effect of infill in the analytical model renders the
structures more flexible than they actually are. Since infills are not considered in
conventional modeling in seismic design, their contributions to the lateral stiffness
and strength may invalidate the analysis and proportioning of structural members for
seismic resistance on the basis of its results. In reality, the additional stiffness
contributed by these secondary components increases the overall stiffness of the
buildings, which eventually leads to shorter time periods, as they are observed during
earthquakes; and hence attracts larger seismic force to the structure. Since early 50’s
there have been numerous experimental as well as analytical researches to understand
the influence of infill on the lateral strength and stiffness of frame structure. Past
earthquakes have shown that buildings with regular masonry infill have a better
response than with the irregular ones. Also, masonry infills have a very high initial
stiffness and low deformability [Moghaddam and Dowling 1987]28thus, making infill
wall a constituent part of a structural system. This changes the lateral load transfer
mechanism of the framed structure form predominant frame action to predominant
truss action [Murthy and Jain 2000]29, which is responsible for reduction in bending
moments and increase in axial forces in the frame members. The presence of infill
also increases damping of the structures due to the propagation of cracks with
increasing lateral drift. However, behavior of masonry infill is difficult to predict
because of significant variations in material properties and failure modes that are
brittle in nature. If not carefully placed, during seismic excitation, the infills also have
some adverse effects. One of the major ill effects is the soft story effect. This is due
to absence of infill wall in a particular story.

The absence of infill in some portion of a building plan will induce torsional moment.
Also, the partially infilled wall, if not properly placed may induce short column effect

2
 Addis Ababa Institute of Technology,School of Civil and Environmental Engineering AAiT
Effects of Masonry Infills on Reinforced Concrete Frame Buildings

thus creating localizedstress concentration. In generally the designer tends to ignore

the stiffness and strength of infill in the design process and treat the infill as non-
structural elements. This is mainly due to lack of generally accepted seismic design
methodology in the Building Codes that incorporates structural effects of infill. In
fact very few codes in the world currently provide specifications for the same. Hence,
there is a clear need to develop a strong design methodology for seismic design of
masonry infill Reinforced Concrete structure.

1.3 OBJECTIVES

Generally, this study aims to investigate the effect of masonry infill wall on a
reinforced concrete moment resisting frame conventionally designed as a bare frame,
using available macro-model proposed by Pauley and Priestley (1992).

The specific objectives of the study are:

1. To study the effects of infilled wall on reinforced concrete frame subjected to

earthquake induced lateral load.

2. To investigate the effects of different schemes for the infilled wall arrangement
on the response of the building.

3. To show the soundness of reduced natural period caused by the addition of infills
given by the code

1.4 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

1.4.1 LITERATURE REVIEW

Journals and articles on the effect of masonry or concrete infill on steel or reinforced
concrete moment resisting frame were reviewed to familiarize with the theoretical

3
 Addis Ababa Institute of Technology,School of Civil and Environmental Engineering AAiT
Effects of Masonry Infills on Reinforced Concrete Frame Buildings

part. In addition; books and relevant design codes were studied. The purpose of
literature review was to gain firsthand knowledge on the methods of studies adopted,
which could be used as a guideline for this study. The review of past studies would
also provide some idea of the modeling techniques and parameters to be used for
different materials like reinforced concrete, hollow concrete and brick masonry.

1.4.2 DATA COLLECTION

The study was done with the prevalent construction materials being used in Ethiopia.
Thus, the required material data necessary to make the analytical model of the hollow
concrete (HCB) masonry infill were collected from the building code of Ethiopia
(EBCS).

1.4.3 METHODOLOGY ADOPTED

As discussed earlier, the present practice of structural analysis is to treat the masonry
infill as non-structural element and the analysis as well as design is carried out by
using only the mass but neglecting the strength and stiffness contribution of infill.
Thus, the structure is modeled as bare frame, and usually considered fixed at base. In
Ethiopia, structure is analyzed for seismic loading as per EBCS: 1995 Seismic Design
of Buildings but in this paper Eurocode: 2004 is adopted. The frame structure has
moment resisting joints. The beams and columns are modeled as a frame element
which has the capability to deform axially, in shear, in bending and in torsion. The
weight of RC slab is distributed as rectangular load to the surrounding beams as per
EBCS 2: 1995. Asemi-rigid joint diaphragm action to resist lateral force is taken into
account.

For the present study, a 5, 8 and 11 story office type buildings with a floor plan as
shown in Figure 1.1 was considered.

4
 Addis Ababa Institute of Technology,School of Civil and Environmental Engineering AAiT
Effects of Masonry Infills on Reinforced Concrete Frame Buildings

Fig 1.1. Building Floor plan

1.5 SCOPE

The thesis work is based on the Eurocode. Hence, the new Ethiopian Building Code
Standard (EBCS) is similar with it. The present study is concerned only with the
macro models of infill panels because these models are convenient for practicing
engineers due to their simplicity.

5
 Addis Ababa Institute of Technology,School of Civil and Environmental Engineering AAiT
Effects of Masonry Infills on Reinforced Concrete Frame Buildings

1. This study only deals with the reinforced concrete moment resisting frame with
unreinforcedhollow concrete block HCB masonry infill wall which is neither integral
nor bonding with the surrounding frame.

2. The study is based on a 5, 8 and 11story office type building frames with typical
floor loading and infill thickness of 20cm and 15cm in cement sand mortar ratio 1:3.

3. Linear staticanalysis is carried out. The comparisons are made forfundamental

period, base shear, story displacement, story shear, and member forces.

4. And this study only deals with the in-plane stiffness of masonry infill

5. All models that are developed to determine the effect of masonry infill
wall on seismic performance of the building were created in commercial
programs ETABS.

1.6 APPLICATION OF RESULTS

This thesis is going to present how amasonry infill affect the lateral load resistance of
reinforced concrete buildings in particular for G+4, G+7 and G+10 buildings.
Furthermore, this thesis will serve as a reference guide for practicing Civil
Engineers and Researchers that practice in the area of study. And will initiate
the designers to consider the effect of masonry infills in designing buildings.
This is useful in the sense that, it will add our knowledge on the effect of
masonry infills in RC buildings in the area covered in this paper.

6
 Addis Ababa Institute of Technology,School of Civil and Environmental Engineering AAiT
Effects of Masonry Infills on Reinforced Concrete Frame Buildings

1.7 ORGANIZATION OF THESIS

This introductory chapter (Chapter 1) gives a brief introduction to the importance of

the seismic evaluation of masonry infilled buildings and the reason why theytreat the
masonry infill as non-structural element and the analysis as well as design is carried
out by using only the mass but neglecting the strength and stiffness contribution of
infill. The objectives, statement of the problem, scope and application of the result of
the proposed research work are identified along with the methodology that is
followed to carry out the work. Chapter 2 provides detailed review ofa literature
survey on the effect of masonry infilled buildings during earthquake, have been
presented. Chapter 3 presents the description of the selected building and the
structural modelling parameters and modelling of infill walls. Chapter 4 presents
results and discussion obtained from linear analyses of the buildings model
considering various cases. Finally, in Chapter 5, the conclusions and
Recommendation are given.

7
 Addis Ababa Institute of Technology,School of Civil and Environmental Engineering AAiT
Effects of Masonry Infills on Reinforced Concrete Frame Buildings

CHAPTER TWO

2. LITERATURE REVIEW

2.1 GENERAL
Reinforced concrete frames with Masonry infills are a popular form of construction
of high-rise buildings in urban and semi urban areas around the world. The term
infilled frame is used to denote a composite structure formed by the combination of a
moment resisting plane frame and infill walls. The masonry can be of brick, concrete
units, or stones. Usually the RC frame is filled with hollow concrete block (HCB) as
non-structural wall for partition of rooms. Social and functional needs for vehicle
parking, shops, reception etc… are compelling to provide an open first story in high
rise building. Parking floor has become an unavoidable feature for most of urban
multistoried buildings. Though multistoried buildings with parking floor (soft story)
are vulnerable to collapse due to earthquake loads, their construction is still
widespread. These buildings are generally designed as framed structures without
regard to structural action of masonry infill walls. They are considered as non-
structural elements. Due to this in seismic action, RC frames purely acts as moment
resisting frames leading to variation in expected structural response. In reality the
presence of infill wall changes the behavior of frame action into truss action thus
changing the lateral load transfer mechanism [Mulgund G. V.1]20.
Various construction forms include from un-mortared stacked stone blocks, where
resistance to lateral forces is provided solely by gravitational load and friction, to
carefully mortared and reinforced masonry walls designed for ductile response under
seismic attack [Mekonnen Degefa]19.

8
 Addis Ababa Institute of Technology,School of Civil and Environmental Engineering AAiT
Effects of Masonry Infills on Reinforced Concrete Frame Buildings

2.2 PERFORMANCE OF MASONRY INFILL IN RC FRAME STRUCTURES

The weakness in structures is exposed by earthquake event. An earthquake force is a very
peculiar forceandbehaves quite differently than other types of loads, such as gravity
and wind loads. It strikes the weakest spot in the whole three dimensional building.
This should be an eye opener for designers and builders. Due to ignorance in design
and poor quality of constructions, results many weaknesses in the structure that cause
serious damages to life and property. Masonry infill are used to fill the gap between
the vertical and horizontal resisting elements of building frames, assuming that these
infill will not take part in resisting any kind of either axial or lateral load. Hence, its
significance in the analysis of frames is generally neglected. In fact, an infill wall
considerably enhances the rigidity and strength of the frame structure. It has been
observed through various researches, that the frame considering no infill has
comparatively lesser stiffness and strength than the infill frame and therefore their
ignorance cause failure of many multi-story buildings when subjected to seismic
loads.
As recent studies have shown a properly designed infilled frames can be superior to a
bare frame in terms of stiffness, strength and energy dissipation. From structural point of
view, the composite action between infill panels and frames give more lateral
resistance and in-plane stiffness. As a result, total and inter story drift is reduced. In
non-linear range, infill acts as a good damper by dissipating energy through cracking.
Subsequent to cracking of infill, the center of stiffness gets shifted towards the stiffer
portion of the building and the eccentricity between the center of stiffness and the
center of mass get increased, thus, torsion dominates the structural behavior of the
building and extra shear stress get induced in frame elements. It is also been observed
that structure below plinth are normally assumed to perform like a soft story with

9
Addis Ababa Institute of Technology,School of Civil and Environmental Engineering AAiT
Effects of Masonry Infills on Reinforced Concrete Frame Buildings

loose soil material filled after excavation. To lay down the column foundation for the
structure the material adjoining the column and footing is excavated and refilled after
completion of foundation work. The frame thus formed above the footing level and
up to the ground level is infilled with loosely filled material and fails to give similar
effect of infill masonry and acts like a soft basement. The removal of in-fill leads to
more ductility demand in the open ground story and structure below plinth. All the
inelasticity gets concentrated in the open ground story and structure below plinth and
it can damage severely [Mohd Danish. et.al ]3.
Past studies also carried out on the behavior of R.C frame with in-fills and the
modeling & analysis of the R.C frame with and without in-fills.

Smith used an elastic theory to propose the effective width of the equivalent strut and
concluded that this width should be a function of the stiffness of the in-fill with
respect to that of bounding frame. By analogy to a beam on elastic foundation, he
defined the dimensionless relative parameters to determinethe degree of frame in-fill
interaction and thereby, the effective width of the strut.

Singh found in his research that in the dynamic analysis of a complete building
system, the inclusion of the effect of in-fill is essential for a realistic prediction of the
behavior; he further concluded that there is very limited literature available on
dynamic response of 3-D in-filled reinforcement concrete frames.

Bell and Davidson found that a review of international research and guidelines
indicate that in-fill panels, where present in a regular arrangement, have a significant
beneficial influence on the behavior of RC buildings. These can give an impression
that in-fill masonry panels have a detrimental influence on the behavior of buildings
due to soft story effects. The reviewed sources indicate that due to stiffness, strength,

10
Addis Ababa Institute of Technology,School of Civil and Environmental Engineering AAiT
Effects of Masonry Infills on Reinforced Concrete Frame Buildings

and damping effects of in-fill panels, deformations are below that required for a soft
story mechanism.
Das and Murty carried out non-linear pushover analysis on five RC frame buildings
with brick masonry in-fills, designed for the same seismic hazard as
perEurocode,Nepal Building Code and Indian and the equivalent braced frame
method. In-fills are found to increase the strength and stiffness of the structure, and
reduce the drift capacity and structural damage. In-fills reduce the overall structure
ductility, but increase the overall strength. Building designed by the equivalent braced
frame method showed better overall performance.
Amato et al.discussed the mechanical behavior of single story-single bay in-filled
framesand generalized analytical proceduresavailable in the literature for the
identification of a pin- jointed strut equivalent to the in-fill to take the influence of
vertical loads into account. Detailed numerical investigation on in-filled meshes has
proved that in the presence of vertical loads it is possible that a strong correlation
between the dimension of the equivalent diagonal strut model and a single parameter,
which depends on the characteristics of the system. A family of curves has obtained
for different values of vertical load.
Baran and Sevi have found through various analytical and experimental studies that
hollow brick in-fills could not only increased both strength and stiffness of RC
frames but also adequately be modeled by diagonal compression struts.
Asteris et al. conducted quasi-static experiments on frames with masonry in-fill
panels with openings that reveal important insights regarding the global as well as the
local response of the tested in-fill frames. In particular, the experimental results
indicate that the failure modes of the in-filled frames classified into distinct modes.
Such a classification of the failure modes (crack patterns) enhances considerably the
understanding of the earthquake resistant behavior of in-filled frames and leads to
improved comprehension of their modeling, analysis and design.

11
 Addis Ababa Institute of Technology,School of Civil and Environmental Engineering AAiT
Effects of Masonry Infills on Reinforced Concrete Frame Buildings

Mohan and Prabha concluded that Equivalent Static Method can be used effectively
forsymmetric buildings up to 35m height. For higher and unsymmetrical buildings,
response spectrum method shall use. For important structures, time history analysis
shall performed as it predicts the structural response more accurately in comparison
with other two methods since it incorporates P-Δ effects and material non-linearity,
which is true in real structures. Therefore, the presence of in-fill influence the
behavior of moment resisting frame and the characteristic configuration of the in-fill
panels can alter the predominant mode of structural action particularly when the
frames subjected to lateral loads [Mohd Danish. et.al]3.

2.3 INFLUENCE OF MASONRY INFILL ON SEISMIC BEHAVIOR OF

FRAMES
It is a common misconception that masonry infill in structural steel or reinforced
concrete frames can only increase the overall lateral load capacity, and therefore must
always be beneficial to seismic performance. In fact there are numerous examples of
earthquake damage, some of which are can be traced to structural modification of the
basic frame by so called non-structural masonry partitions and infill panels. Even if
they are relatively weak, masonry infill can drastically alter the intended structural
response, attracting forces to parts of the structure that have not been designed to
resist them. Two examples are illustrated below to examine this behavior.
Consider the floor plan of a symmetrical multistory reinforced concrete frame
building with masonry infill panels on two boundary walls, as shown in Fig 2.1.

12
Addis Ababa Institute of Technology,School of Civil and Environmental Engineering AAiT
Effects of Masonry Infills on Reinforced Concrete Frame Buildings

Figure 2.1. Floor plan of multistory reinforced concrete frame building with infill of two boundary frames.
[Pauley and Priestley] 1
If the masonry infill is ignored in the design phase, it may be assumed that each
frame in each direction (i.e., frames1, 2, 3 and 4 in the x direction, and frames a, b, c
and d in the y direction) is subjected to very similar seismic lateral forces, because of
the structural symmetry. The true influence of the infill on frames 4 and d will be to
stiffen these frames relative to the other frames. The consequence will be that the
natural period of the structure will decrease, and seismic force will correspondingly
increase. Further, the proportion of the total seismic shear transmitted by the infilled
frames will increase because of the increased stiffness of these frames relative to the
other frames. The structure will also be subjected to seismic torsional response
because of the shift in the center of rigidity. Thus for seismic response along the x
and y axes, respectively, the torsional moments will be proportional to Mtx=Vjey and
Mty=Vjex, respectively, where Vj is the total horizontal story shear and e x and ey are
the eccentricities shown in fig 2.1.
The high shear forces generated in the infilled frames are transmitted primarily by
shear stresses in the panels. Shear failure commonly results, with shedding of
masonry into streets below, or into stairwells, with great hazard to life.

13
Addis Ababa Institute of Technology,School of Civil and Environmental Engineering AAiT
Effects of Masonry Infills on Reinforced Concrete Frame Buildings

A second example is illustrated infig.2.2, which shows masonry infill that extends for
only part of the story height, to allow for windows. Again the infill will stiffen the
frame, reducing the natural period and increasing seismic forces. If the frame is
designed for ductile response to the design-level earthquake, without consideration of
the effect of the infill, plastic hinges might be expected at the top and bottom of
columns, or, preferably, in beams at the column faces. These hinges could develop at
a fraction of the full design-level earthquake. The influence of the infill will be to
inhibit beam hinges and stiffen the center and right column (for the direction of
lateral load shown), causing plastic hinges to form at top of the column and top of the
infill, as shown in fig.2.2. The consequence will be a dramatic increase in column
shears.

Figure 2.2. Partial masonry infill in concrete frame[Pauley and Priestley] 1

The design level of shear force in the column will be
𝑀𝑇 + 𝑀𝐵
𝑉𝑑 = … … … … … … … … . .2.1
𝑙𝑐
Where 𝑙cis the clear story height, and 𝑀Tand 𝑀Bare moments at the top and bottom of
the first-story columns. These moments should be based on capacity design principles
with the base moment MB at flexural over strength and the top moment
𝑀Tcorresponding to flexural over strength of the beam plastic hinges, with dynamic

14
Addis Ababa Institute of Technology,School of Civil and Environmental Engineering AAiT
Effects of Masonry Infills on Reinforced Concrete Frame Buildings

amplification effects taken into account. However, in reality, structure incorporating

partial infill, such as that shown in fig.2.2, is unlikely to have been subjected to the
sophistication of capacity design, and it is more probable that 𝑀T and 𝑀Bwill be
moments directly derived from elastic analysis under the code distribution of lateral
forces.
Regardless of the design philosophy adopted, Eq.2.1 will underestimate the likely
shear force, which, with the notation in fig.2.2 will be

𝑀𝑇 + 𝑀𝑀
𝑉𝑑∗ = … … … … … … … 2.2
𝑙𝑂
Where 𝑙Ois the height of the window opening. Eq. 1.2 corresponds to development of
plastic hinges at the top of the column and at the top of the infill. If the column is not
designed for the higher shear force of Eq. 2.2, shear failure can be expected. It should
be noted that this higher shear force, corresponding to formation of plastic hinges, as
shown, can develop because the original design was based on large ductility capacity.
Hence the higher shear force will be developed, but at lower ductility demands.
When the masonry infill of the type implied in fig.2.1 is to be used, there are two
design alternatives. The designer may effectively isolate the panel from frame
deformations by providing a flexible strip between the frame and the panel, filled
with a highly deformable material such as polystyrene. Alternatively, the designer
may allow the panel and frame to be in full contact, and design both for the seismic
force to which they may be subjected. The first option, of isolation, is not very
effective, as it is neither possible nor desirable to provide flexibility at the base of the
panel. Moreover, it is difficult to provide support against out-of-plane seismic forces.
Isolated panels must be fully reinforced to carry the out-of-plane forces, because
compression membrane action, which can assist in resisting in-plane loads, as will
subsequently be established, is eliminated by the flexibility of the strip between the

15
 Addis Ababa Institute of Technology,School of Civil and Environmental Engineering AAiT
Effects of Masonry Infills on Reinforced Concrete Frame Buildings

frame and the panel. Shear connection between frame and panel through the flexible
layer will need to be designed for flexibility in the plane of the infill panel, while
remaining stiff and strong enough to carry the out-of-plane reactions from inertia
response back into the frame.
The most effective way of providing this behavior is to lay up the infill panel before
the upper beam is poured, separating the top of the panel from the beam with a layer
of flexible material. Shear connection to the beam can be provided by extending the
panel vertical reinforcement into the beam and taping layers of flexible material (e.g.,
polystyrene) to the sides of the reinforcement in the in- plane direction, up to the
beam mid-height. After the beam concrete is placed, the flexible material will allow
relative in-plane movement of panel and frame, while restricting out-of-plane relative
movements [Pauley and Priestley]1.
2.4STRENGTH AND STIFFNESS OF MASONRY INFILL
a. IN-PLANE STIFFNESS: - At low levels of in-plane lateral force, the frame and
infill will act in fully composite fashion, as structural wall with boundary
elements. As lateral deformations increase, the behavior becomes more complex
as a result of the frame attempting to deform in a flexural mode while the panel
attempts to deform in a shear mode, as shown in fig. 2.3, the result is separation
between frame and panel at the corners on the tension diagonal, and the
development of a diagonal compression strut on the compression diagonal.
Contact between frame and panel occurs for a length z, shown in fig. 2.3.
The separation may occur at 50 to 70% of the ideal lateral shear capacity of the
infill for reinforced concrete frames. After separation, the effective width of the
diagonal strut, w, shown in fig.2.3, is less than that of the full panel [Paulay and
Priestley]1.

16
Addis Ababa Institute of Technology,School of Civil and Environmental Engineering AAiT
Effects of Masonry Infills on Reinforced Concrete Frame Buildings

Figure.2.3 and 2.4, Equivalent bracing action of masonry infill[Paulay and Priestley] 1

Natural-period calculations should be based on the structural stiffness after separation

occurs. This may be found by considering the structure as an equivalent diagonally
braced frame, where the diagonal compression strut is connected by pins to the frame
corners. fig.2.4 shows the equivalent system for a two-bay, four-story frame.
Analytical expressions have been developed based on a beam-on-elastic foundations
analogy modified by experimental results which show that the effective width w of
the diagonal strut depends on the relative stiffness of frame and panel, the stress-
strain curves of the materials, and the load level. However, since a high value of w
will result in stiffer structure, and therefore potentially higher seismic response, it is
reasonable to take a conservatively high value of
𝑤 = 0.25𝑑𝑚 2.3
Where, dm is the diagonal length. This agrees reasonably well with published charts,
assuming typical masonry-infill properties and a lateral force level of 50% of the
ultimate capacity of the infilled frame [Paulay and Priestley] 1.

17
Addis Ababa Institute of Technology,School of Civil and Environmental Engineering AAiT
Effects of Masonry Infills on Reinforced Concrete Frame Buildings

b. THE IN-PLANE STRENGTH:- There are several different possible failure

modes for masonry infilled frame buildings:
1. TENSION FAILURE MODE:- For infilled frames of high aspect ratio, the
critical failure mode may be flexural, involving tensile yield of the steel in the
tension column, acting as a flange of the composite wall, and of any vertical
steel in the tension zone of the infill panel. Under this condition the frame is
acting as a cantilever wall, and a reasonably ductile failure mode can be
expected [Paulay and Priestley]1.
2. CORNER CRUSHING MODE (CC MODE):- Represents crushing of the
infill in at least one of its loaded corners, as shown in fig. 2.5a. This mode is
usually associated with infill of weak masonry blocks surrounded by a frame
with weak joints and strong members [Wael W. El-Dakhakhni1,et.al]4.
3. SLIDING SHEAR MODE (SS MODE):-Represents horizontal sliding shear
failure through bed joints of a masonry infill, as shown in fig. 2.5b. Bed-joint
sliding is likely to occur when the bounding frame is strong and flexible (such
as steel frames) [Wael W. El-Dakhakhni1,et.al]. If the mortar beds are
relatively weak compared to the adjacent masonry units (especially bricks), a
plane of weakness forms, usually near the mid-height level of the infill panel.
There is really no limit to the displacement capacity of this behavior mode.
This mode is associated with infill of weak mortar joints and strong frame. If
sliding shear failure of the masonry infill occurs, the equivalent structural
mechanism from the diagonally braced pin-jointed frame of fig.2.5, to the
knee-braced frame shown in fig 2.5c. the support provided by the masonry
panel forces column hinges to form at approximately mid-height and top or
bottom of the columns or may result in column shear failure. Initially, the
entire shear will be carried by the infill panel, but as the sliding shear failure

18
Addis Ababa Institute of Technology,School of Civil and Environmental Engineering AAiT
Effects of Masonry Infills on Reinforced Concrete Frame Buildings

develops, the increased displacement will induce moments and shears in the
columns [Wael W. El-Dakhakhni1,et.al]4.
4. DIAGONAL COMPRESSION MODE (DC MODE):-Represents crushing of
the infill within its central region, as shown in fig. 2.5c. This mode is
associated with a relatively slender infill, where failure results from out-of-
plane buckling instability of the infill[Wael W. El-Dakhakhni1,et.al]4.
5. DIAGONAL CRACKING MODE (DK MODE):-The form of a crack
connects the two loaded corners, as shown in fig. 2.5d. This mode is
associated with weak frame or frame with weak joints and strong members
infilled with a rather strong infill[Wael W. El-Dakhakhni1,et.al]4.
6. FRAME FAILURE MODE (FF MODE):- The form of plastic hinges in the
columns or the beam-column connection, as shown in fig. 2.5e. This mode is
also associated with weak frame or frame with weak joints and strong
members infilled with a rather strong infill [Wael W. El-Dakhakhni1,et.al]4.

19
Addis Ababa Institute of Technology,School of Civil and Environmental Engineering AAiT
Effects of Masonry Infills on Reinforced Concrete Frame Buildings

Figure. 2.5, Different failure modes of masonry infilled frames: a) Corner Crushing mode; b) Sliding Shear
Mode; c) Diagonal Compression Mode; d) Diagonal Cracking Mode; and e) Frame Failure Mode.[Wael W.
El-Dakhakhni1,et.al]4.
It is worth mentioning that only the first two modes, the CC and the SS modes, are of
practical importance since the third mode is very rare to occur and requires a high
slenderness ratio of the infill to result in out-of-plane buckling of the infill under in-
plane loading. This is hardly the case when practical panel dimensions are used, and
the panel thickness is designed to satisfy the acoustic isolation and fire protection
requirements.
The fourth mode should not be considered a failure mode, due to the fact that the wall
still carries more loads after it cracks. The fifth mode, although might be worth
considering in the case of reinforced concrete frames, yet when it comes to steel

20
Addis Ababa Institute of Technology,School of Civil and Environmental Engineering AAiT
Effects of Masonry Infills on Reinforced Concrete Frame Buildings

frames infilled with unreinforced hollow masonry blocks, this mode hardly occurs.
The study conducted herein models the CC mode only, which is the most common
mode of failure. In order to determine the governing failure mode, the capacity of the
infill panels obtained by the proposed method should be compared to the capacity
under SS mode which may be estimated using the method suggested by Paulay and
Priestley.
Subjecting a bare masonry panel to a diagonal loading usually results in a sudden
failure initiated by a stepped crack along the loaded diagonal, dividing the panel into
two separate parts and immediately leading to the collapse of the specimen due to
lack of confinement. Unlike the unconfined panel, as soon as a diagonal crack
develops within an infilled panel (usually at a much lower load and deflection levels
than ultimate) the panel finds itself confined within the surrounding frame and
bearing against it over contact lengths, as shown in fig. 2.6a. The contact lengths
provide enough confinement to prevent failure and allowing the panel to carry more
load until the existing diagonal crack continues to widen and new cracks appear
leading, eventually, to ultimate failure.
To model this behavior it is rational to consider the panel to be composed of two
diagonal regions, as shown in fig. 2.6. One region connects the top beam to the
leeward column and the other connects the windward column to the lower beam. As
reported by many researchers, (Reflak and Fajfar, Saneinejad and Hobbs, Mosalam et
al, and Buonopane and White, the bending moments and shearing forces in the frame
members cannot be replicated using a single diagonal strut (although has been used
frequently) connecting the two loaded corners. Based on the above, it is suggested
that, at least two additional off-diagonal struts located at the points of maximum field
moments in the beams and the columns are required to reproduce these moments as
shown in fig. 2.6b. Furthermore, since the load transfer from the frame members to
the infill depends on the contact length which, in turn, is affected by the stiffness and

21
 Addis Ababa Institute of Technology,School of Civil and Environmental Engineering AAiT
Effects of Masonry Infills on Reinforced Concrete Frame Buildings

the deflected shape of the frame members, the use of a multi-strut model will allow
for the interaction between different panels in multi-story buildings. This is due to the
fact that some beams (and/or columns) will be loaded from the upper and lower
panels (or left and right panels) at different locations within the span (or height),
which will affect their deflected shape and hence the panel’s strains, and
consequently changing the failure load.

Figure 2.6, The infill panels behavior; a) Separation into two diagonal regions; and b) Resulting bending
moment diagrams for a different Bays in multi-story infilled Frame Building. [Wael W. El-
Dakhakhni1,et.al]4.

2.5MODELING AND ANALYSIS OF INFILLED FRAME STRUCTURES

UNDER SEISMIC LOADS
Different types of analytical models based on the physical understanding of the
overall behavior of an infill panels were developed over the years to mimic the
behavior of infilled frames. The available infill analytical models can be broadly
categorized as i) Macro Model and ii) Micro models. The Macro models are a single-
strut model and the three-strut model; the Micro model is the finite element models.
By analyzing the resulting forces in the beam and columns both as values and

22
Addis Ababa Institute of Technology,School of Civil and Environmental Engineering AAiT
Effects of Masonry Infills on Reinforced Concrete Frame Buildings

distribution, it has been observed that the three-strut model can estimate local effects
more precisely due to frame infill interaction [Diana M. Samoila] 24. The single strut
model is the most widely used as it is simple and evidently most suitable for large
structures [Das and Murthy, 2004]27.
The main advantages of macro-modelling are computational simplicity and the use of
structural mechanical properties obtained from masonry tests, since the masonry is a
very heterogeneous material and the distribution of material properties of its
constituent elements is difficult to predict.
Holmes was the first in replacing the infill by an equivalent pin-jointed diagonal strut.
Stafford Smith proposed a theoretical relation for the width of the diagonal strut
based on the relative stiffness of infill and frame. Alternative proposals were given by
Mainstone, Liaw and Kwan, Decanini and Fantin, and more recently by Paulay and
Priestley, Durrani and Luo, Cavaleri and Papia[Diana M. Samoila]24.

In the last decades it has become clear that one single strut is not sufficient to model
the complex behavior of the infilled frame. This is because the local effects resulting
from the interaction of the infill with the surrounding frame are not apparent if only
the two loaded corners of the frame are connected through a single strut. As a result,
bending moments and shear forces in the frame members are not modelled
realistically and the location of potential plastic hinges cannot be adequately
predicted. More complex macro-models were then proposed by many researchers
(Crisafulli and Carr, Chrysostomu, Syrmakezis and Vartsnou, Andreaus) based on
two, three or multiple diagonal struts. Despite of increasing complexity, the main
advantage of these models is the ability to reflect the actions in the frame more
accurately. Micro-modelling is a more complex method based on dividing the
masonry panel and the concrete frame into several elements. This modelling can
provide an accurate computational representation of both material and geometrical
aspects, but is too time-consuming to be used in large and practical-oriented analysis.

23
 Addis Ababa Institute of Technology,School of Civil and Environmental Engineering AAiT
Effects of Masonry Infills on Reinforced Concrete Frame Buildings

From the first approach developed by Mallick and Severn using the finite element
method for the analysis of 2D infilled frames, different alternatives have been
proposed by using a micro-model. Among these, Riddington and Stafford Smith,
Liaw and Kwan, Dhanaskar and Page or Asteris [Diana M. Samoila]24.

Suitability of a model is judged depending on several factors, namely,

1. The time required and the effort involved in modeling,

2. The ability to model lateral stiffness and the strength of infilled frame, and
3. The ability to model failure modes in not only infills but also in frame
members [Diana M. Samoila]24.

2.6DETERMINATION OF THE EQUIVALENT STRUT WIDTH

The width of the equivalent diagonal strut (w) can be found out by using a number of
expressions given by different researcher

1. Holmes (1961)
𝑑𝑧
𝑤= 2.4
3
2. Smith and Carter (1969)

1 1
𝑤 = 𝑜. 58( )−0.445 (𝜆ℎ 𝐻′)0.335𝑑𝑧 ( )0.064 2.5
𝐻 𝐻

4 𝐸 𝑡 𝑠𝑖𝑛2𝜃
𝑚
𝜆ℎ = √ 2. 6
4𝐸𝑏 𝐼𝑠 𝐻

3. Mainstone (1971)

𝑤 = 0.175𝑑𝑧 (𝜆ℎ 𝐻′)−0.4 2. 7

4. Liaw and Kwan (1984)

24
Addis Ababa Institute of Technology,School of Civil and Environmental Engineering AAiT
Effects of Masonry Infills on Reinforced Concrete Frame Buildings

0.95𝐻𝑐𝑜𝑠 𝜃
𝑤= 2.8
√𝜆ℎ 𝐻′
5. Decanini and Fantin (1986)
1. Uncracked Masonry

0.748
𝑤=( + 0.085) 𝑑𝑧 2. 9
𝜆ℎ

2. Cracked Masonry

0.707
𝑤=( + 0.01) 𝑑𝑧 2. 10
𝜆ℎ

6. Paulay and Priestley (1992)

𝑑𝑧
𝑤= 2. 11
4
7. Durrani and Luo (1994)

𝑤 = 𝛾√𝐿′2 + 𝐻 ′2 sin 2𝜃 2.12

Where:

6𝐸𝑏 𝐼𝑔 𝐻 ′
𝑚 = 6 [1 + ] 2.13
𝐸𝑏 𝐼𝑠 𝐿′

𝐻 ′4 𝐸𝑚 𝑡 −0.1
𝛾 = 0.32√sin 2𝜃 [ ] 2.14
𝑚𝐸𝑏 𝐼𝑠 𝐻

8. Cavaleri and Papia (2003)

𝑑𝑧 . 𝑘. 𝑐 1
𝑤= 2. 15
𝑧 (𝜆∗ )𝛽

25
Addis Ababa Institute of Technology,School of Civil and Environmental Engineering AAiT
Effects of Masonry Infills on Reinforced Concrete Frame Buildings

𝐸𝑚 𝑡. 𝐻 ′ 𝐻 ′2 1 𝐴𝑠 𝐿′
𝜆∗ = [ + ] 2.16
𝐸𝑏 𝐴𝑠 𝐿′2 4 𝐴𝑔 𝐻 ′

𝑐 = 0.249 − 0.0116𝛾 + 0.567 𝛾 2 2.17

𝛽 = 0.146 + 0.0073𝛾 + 0.126𝛾 2 2.18

𝐿
𝑧 = 1 + 0.25 ( − 1) 2.19
𝐻

𝐹𝑣 (𝑣𝑒𝑟𝑡𝑖𝑐𝑎𝑙 𝑙𝑜𝑎𝑑)

𝐹𝑣
𝜀𝑣 = 2.20
2𝐴𝑠 𝐸𝑏

𝑘 = 1 + (18𝜆∗ + 200)𝜀𝑣 2.21

𝑑
9. 𝑤 = 10𝑧 2.22

According to FEMA306, 1997 the strut area Ae is given by following expression.

𝐴𝑒 = 𝑊𝑡 2. 23
𝑤 = 0.175(𝜆ℎ)−0.4 𝑑𝑧 2.24

Where: -

𝐷𝑧 = Length of the diagonal strut (The diagonal length of infill panel)

L and L’ are length of the infill and center to center distance between columns
respectively
H and H’ are height of the infill and center to center distance between Beams
respectively

26
 Addis Ababa Institute of Technology,School of Civil and Environmental Engineering AAiT
Effects of Masonry Infills on Reinforced Concrete Frame Buildings

𝐸𝑚 = Modulus of elasticity of the infill material

𝐸𝑏 = Modulus of elasticity of the frame material
𝐼𝑐 = Moment of inertia of column
t = Thickness of infill
θ = Slope of infill diagonal to the horizontal.

2.7COMPARING THE STRUT WIDTH DETERMINED BY DIFFERENT

RESEARCHERS
1. Smith and Carter and Decanini and Fantin equations generate large values for the
diagonal strut width.
2. Mainstone relation is very close to that proposed by the Romanian code, both of
them being at the inferior limit.
3. The other expressions (Holmes, Liaw and Kwan, Paulay and Priestley, Durrani and
Luo, Cavaleri and Papia) are comparable.
4. Paulay and Priestley relation is recommended to be used in design analysis because
it gives an average value and because of its simplicity.

2.8EFFECT OF OPENING

Presence of openings in masonry infill walls changes the actual behavior of RC

frames because of reduction in lateral strength and stiffness. Such infills pose the
hazard of out-of-plane collapse. Hence, it is best to avoid situations that lead to infill
panels of large width or height. Unfortunately, there is little information on the
effects of openings on the strength and stiffness of masonry infill reinforced concrete
frames in seismic codes.
The effect of opening in the infill wall is to reduce the lateral stiffness and strength of
the frame. This can be represented by a diagonal strut of reduced width. The

27
 Addis Ababa Institute of Technology,School of Civil and Environmental Engineering AAiT
Effects of Masonry Infills on Reinforced Concrete Frame Buildings

reduction factor is defined as ratio of reduced strut width to strut-width corresponding

to fully infilled frame[Sachin R Patel, Sumant B patel]22. Using the simplified
equation for the reduction factor 𝜌𝑤 is given as:
𝜌𝑤 = 1 − 2.6𝛼𝑐𝑜 2.25
Where,𝜌𝑤 - is strut width reduction factor
𝛼𝑐𝑜 -is the opening area ratio.
𝐴𝑟𝑒𝑎 𝑜𝑓 𝑜𝑝𝑒𝑛𝑖𝑛𝑔 (𝐴𝑜𝑝 )
𝛼𝑐𝑜 = 2.26
𝐴𝑟𝑒𝑎 𝑜𝑓 𝑖𝑛𝑓𝑖𝑙𝑙 (𝐴𝑖𝑛𝑓𝑖𝑙𝑙 )

2.9EFFECT OF INFILL THICKNESS

The effect of thickness on the fundamental period of vibration is insignificant. The
fundamental period only slightly increases as the infill wall thickness increases, since
the increase in thickness only increases the mass of the structure rather than its
stiffness. Both the roof displacement and the inter-story drift ratio increase with the
increase in thickness and the percentage of increase in roof displacement and inter-
story drift ratio were 4.69% and 4.45% respectively. Thus, it is evident that there is
no improvement in the lateral stiffness of the infill wall by increasing its thickness.
Since the influence of infill thickness on the global responses, particularly the natural
periods, roof displacement and the inter-story drift ratios, were not significant; the
stresses in the infill walls were not affected by varying the thickness [Sachin R Patel,
Sumant B patel]22.
2.10 EFFECT OF PLAN IRREGULARITY
A building may have a symmetrical geometric shape without re-entrant corners or
wings but still be classified as irregular in plan because of distribution of mass (i.e.,
asymmetric placement of masonry infill walls) or vertical, seismic-force-resisting
elements. According to EC8 and EBCS 8, slight plan irregularities may be taken into
account by doubling the accidental eccentricity. In case of severe plan irregularities,

28
 Addis Ababa Institute of Technology,School of Civil and Environmental Engineering AAiT
Effects of Masonry Infills on Reinforced Concrete Frame Buildings

due to excessive unsymmetrical placement of masonry infill walls, three-dimensional

analysis is required considering stiffness distribution related to the uncertain position
of masonry walls.
2.11 EFFECT OF VERTICAL IRREGULARITY
Vertical irregularities are introduced into masonry infill reinforced concrete frames
due to reduction or absence of masonry infill walls in a particular story compared to
adjacent stories, e.g., buildings with parking space in the first story and masonry infill
walls on upper stories. In general, this gives rise to mass, stiffness, and strength
irregularities along the height of buildings. Vertical irregularities in the bottom stories
make the beams and columns of those stories more susceptible to damage or failure.
Open ground story buildings have consistently shown poor performance during past
earthquakes across the world.
According to EC 8 and EBCS 8; 1995, recommends an increase in the resistance of
columns of soft stories by a factorα that is given by:
∆𝑉𝑅𝑊
𝛼 = (1 + )<𝑞 2.27
∑𝑉𝑠𝑑
Where:- 𝑞 is the response reduction factor
∆𝑉𝑅𝑊 Is the total reduction in lateral resistance of masonry infill walls in a
story compared to the story above.
∑𝑉𝑠𝑑 is the sum of seismic shear forces acting on all structural vertical
elements of the story concerned.
The design forces are not required to be increased if the factor 𝛼 is less than 1.1

29
 Addis Ababa Institute of Technology,School of Civil and Environmental Engineering AAiT
Effects of Masonry Infills on Reinforced Concrete Frame Buildings

2.12 VERIFICATION OF STRUT MODEL

Experiments are very important to observe the behavior of complex structures. Many
a times, analytical models have been developed on the basis of experimental results,
and sometimes, experimental studies have been carried out to verify the analytically
developed model. Though, numerous experimental studies have been reported on RC
frames with unreinforced HCB masonry infill, only a few published studies provide
detailed data about the specimens and the experimental results.

EXPERIMENTAL STUDY OF SPECIMEN

Figure 2.7. Geometry of test spacemen [Sumat Shrestha (2005)] 31

Sumat Shrestha (2005)31 prepared 4 models in 1:3 reduced scale single bay single
story model of RC frame with unreinforced full infill panel. The outer dimension
were, 985 mm between column and floor height 1003 mm. Infill panel was built with
75 mm x 35 mm x 10 mm block in 1:4 cement sand mortar. The sizes of both beam
and columns were 75 mm x 75 mm. the specimens were tested under monotonic

30
Addis Ababa Institute of Technology,School of Civil and Environmental Engineering AAiT
Effects of Masonry Infills on Reinforced Concrete Frame Buildings

static loading applied at roof level. The model with test setup for no is shown in fig.
2.8.

Figure.2.8. Test setup for infill RC frame [Sumat Shrestha (2005)] 31

PROPERTIES OF SPECIMEN

For modeling of the specimens, geometric properties and properties of material used
in these specimens are required. The geometry of the test specimen is shown in
fig.2.8, and properties of materials are listed in Table 2.1. During the analytical
analysis, loads on the models are applied in the same way as those were applied on
the specimens in the experimental studies.

Table 2.1. Properties of Material

31
Addis Ababa Institute of Technology,School of Civil and Environmental Engineering AAiT
Effects of Masonry Infills on Reinforced Concrete Frame Buildings

Cross Section center line Comp. Strength Young's Long Reinf.(fy =

Section (mm*mm) dimension (mm) f'c (Mpa) Modulus (Mpa) Poisons' Ratio 248 MPa
Beam 75*75 928 7.93 12500 0.15 4-4.74mm
Column 75*75 910 7.93 12500 0.15 4-4.75mm
Infill 832*853 1300 - 225 0.17 -

ANALYTICAL STUDY OF SPECIMENS

The specimen for infill frame was modeled using equivalent diagonal strut as shown
in fig. 2.9 using three different strut widths as proposed by Holmes, Pauley &
Priestley and FEMA273. The experimental as well as analytical results are shown in
fig 2.10.

Figure. 2.9 Analytical model for full wall[Sumat Shrestha (2005)] 31

As seen from the fig. 2.10, though initial stiffness as predicted by all the analytical
models are less than the experimental values, the overall stiffness from Holmes
model is higher than the experimental value, whereas; FEMA model predicts
considerably lesser value. The Pauley and Priestley model however seems to predict
stiffness which reasonably matched with the experimental one.

32
 Addis Ababa Institute of Technology,School of Civil and Environmental Engineering AAiT
Effects of Masonry Infills on Reinforced Concrete Frame Buildings

Figure.2.10. Load Deflection curve for full wall[Sumat Shrestha (2005)] 31

2.13 VERIFICATION OF THE PROPOSED REDUCTION FACTOR FOR

INFILLS HAVING OPENINGS

In the parametric study, all the parameters except the number of stories and the size
of openings are kept constant for different models. Based on this, a reduction factor
for infilled frames with openings is proposed. To demonstrate the applicability of the
pro-posed reduction factor, some of the parameters of the single-bay single-story
model are changed one at a time while all others are kept constant. In addition, results
of experimental specimens available in the literature are considered to verify the
proposed strut-width reduction factor. Moreover, the proposed strut-width reduction
factor is compared with that proposed by Durrani and Luo (1994), and by Al-Chaar
(2002) [Goutam Mondal and Sudhir K. Jain]30.

The effects of the sizes of beam and column, compressive strength of concrete,
thickness and area of infill panel on strut-width reduction factor are shown in Table
2.2. It is seen that a 37.5% reduction in size of beam results in 8% error in the strut-
width reduction factor. Similarly, 70% reduction in size of column leads to 8% error

33
Addis Ababa Institute of Technology,School of Civil and Environmental Engineering AAiT
Effects of Masonry Infills on Reinforced Concrete Frame Buildings

in reduction factor. A 7% error in reduction factor was observed due to a 20%

increase in the compressive strength of concrete. Table 2.2 also displays that
reduction factor is weakly dependent on thickness and area of infill panel. All these
strut-width reduction factors are also plotted in fig 2.11 along with the proposed strut-
width reduction factor as per Equation 2.28, which shows that there is not much
variation in the reduction factor in relation to the changes made in the parameters
[Goutam Mondal and Sudhir K. Jain]30.

𝜌𝑤 = 1 − 2.6𝛼𝑐𝑜 2.28

Where:- 𝜌𝑤 - Strut − width reduction factor

𝛼𝑐𝑜 -Opening- Area- Ratio

𝐴𝑟𝑒𝑎 𝑜𝑓 𝑜𝑝𝑒𝑛𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝐴𝑜𝑝

𝛼𝑐𝑜 =
𝐴𝑟𝑒𝑎 𝑜𝑓 𝑖𝑛𝑓𝑖𝑙𝑙 𝐴𝑖𝑛𝑓𝑖𝑙𝑙

Table. 2.2 Effect of change of parameters on strut-width reduction factor

Error in reduction Factor (%) for different Opening

size (mm2)
In Parameric
Parameters Study In Verification 1000*1000 1500*1500 2500*1500

Size of beam ((mm2) 250*250 250*250 7.7 8.3 0

Size of column (mm2) 400*400 250*250 8.1 3.2 1.2
fck (Mpa) 25 30 7 4.7 6.9
Thickness of infill (mm) 225 112.5 12 1.7 0

Area of infill panel (mm2) 3000*5000 4000*5000 4.8 9 2

Single equivalent diagonal strut analysis of these three specimens are performed in
SAP 2000 where the infills are modelled as diagonal strut, and the width of struts is
varied to find the strut-width which gives stiffness same as the experimental initial
stiffness value of these specimens. The corresponding strut-width reduction factor for

34
Addis Ababa Institute of Technology,School of Civil and Environmental Engineering AAiT
Effects of Masonry Infills on Reinforced Concrete Frame Buildings

the three specimens are also plotted in fig.2.11 which shows a good match with
proposed strut width reduction factor.

Figure.2.11 Verification of the proposed strut-width reduction factor. [Durrani and Luo (1994)].

Figure.2.12. Comparison of proposed strut width reduction factor with that proposed by [Durrani and Luo (1994)].

35
Addis Ababa Institute of Technology,School of Civil and Environmental Engineering AAiT
Effects of Masonry Infills on Reinforced Concrete Frame Buildings

The proposed strut width reduction factor is also compared with that proposed by
Durrani and Luo (1994). For this comparison, infilled frames of aspect ratios 0.6 to
1.3and central opening of aspect ratios 0.5 to 4.0 are considered. fig. 2.12 shows that
the proposed reduction factor matches well with that proposed by Durrani and Luo
(1994) up to area ratio 0.25 and beyond that Durrani and Luo (1994) give
substantially higher value of reduction factor. The expression developed in the
present study is far simpler than that proposed by Durrani and Luo (1994) and is very
easy to implement in the design office [Goutam Mondal and Sudhir K. Jain]30.

The proposed reduction factor is also compared indirectly with that proposed by Al-
Chaar (2002). The reduction factor proposed by Al-Chaar estimates the in-plane
capacity (strength) of the infilled frame satisfactorily. However, it does not predict the
initial lateral stiffness with sufficient accuracy. The initial lateral stiffness of infilled
frame obtained from Al-Chaar’s experiment is almost three times larger (for aspect
ratio of panel between 0.67 and 1.5) than that estimated from the bilinear pushover
curve of infilled frame obtained by using strut-width proposed by Al-Chaar (2002).
Moreover, reduction factor for strength to account for openings proposed by Al-
Chaar should be applied for eccentric single equivalent strut where strut element is
connected to the columns rather than to the beam-column joints. Therefore, it is not
possible to directly compare the strut width reduction factor. Instead, lateral stiffness
reduction due to presence of openings obtained by using strut width proposed by Al-
Chaar (2002) and that proposed in the present study are compared. For this purpose,
specimen of Choubey and Sinha (1994) with varying opening size is considered. fig.
2.13 shows that Al-Chaar’s reduction factor somewhat overestimates the stiffness
reduction. This difference becomes quite significant beyond the area ratio of 0.25
[Goutam Mondal and Sudhir K. Jain]30.

36
Addis Ababa Institute of Technology,School of Civil and Environmental Engineering AAiT
Effects of Masonry Infills on Reinforced Concrete Frame Buildings

Figure.2.13 Comparison of stiffness reduction obtained by using proposed strut width reduction factor [Al-Chaar (2002)].

37
 Addis Ababa Institute of Technology,School of Civil and Environmental Engineering AAiT
Effects of Masonry Infills on Reinforced Concrete Frame Buildings

CHAPTER THREE

3 STRUCTURAL MODELING

3.1 OVERVIEW
It is very important to develop a computational model on which linearanalysis is
performed. The first part of this chapter presents a summary of various parameters
defining the computational models, the basic assumptions and the geometry of the
selected building considered for this study.
Infill walls are modelled as equivalent diagonal strut elements. The last part of the
chapter deals with the computational model of the equivalent strut.
3.2 BUILDING DESCRIPTION
The buildings areG+4, G+7 and G+10and they are symmetric in plan and in
elevation. It is because, in order to show the effect of infill panels only. The plan
dimension of the buildings are 30m x 30mandthe height of the buildings are 15m,
24m and 33mwith typical story height of 3mand is made of Reinforced Concrete
(RC) Ordinary Moment Resisting Frames (OMRF). The concrete slab is 150mm
thick at each floor level.
Imposed load is taken as 4 𝑘𝑁/𝑚2 for all floors. fig. 3.1 presents typical floor plan
showing different column and beam locations. The cross sections of the structural
members are shown in Table3.1 .

38
Addis Ababa Institute of Technology,School of Civil and Environmental Engineering AAiT
Effects of Masonry Infills on Reinforced Concrete Frame Buildings

Figure. 3.1 Typical floor plan/ typical floor plan for bare frame

The hollow concrete block wall thickness is 200mm and 150 mm.Only the masonry
surrounded by beams and columns in five different arrangements are considered as
infill. Minor details that are less likely to significantly affect the analysis are
deliberately left out from the models. The main purpose is to compare the overall

39
Addis Ababa Institute of Technology,School of Civil and Environmental Engineering AAiT
Effects of Masonry Infills on Reinforced Concrete Frame Buildings

behavior of the structure, but notthe behavior of infill panel or on the behavioral
effect due to minute details.

Table 3.1. Member Size

Column Crossection
G+10 G+7 G+4
Depth width Depth width Depth width

Footing Column 0.9m 0.9m 0.8m 0.8m 0.8m 0.8m

Ground floor column 0.9m 0.9m 0.8m 0.8m 0.8m 0.8m

First floor column 0.9m 0.9m 0.8m 0.8m 0.7m 0.7m

second floor column 0.8m 0.8m 0.7m 0.7m 0.7m 0.7m
Third floor column 0.8m 0.8m 0.7m 0.7m 0.6m 0.6m
Forth floor column 0.8m 0.8m 0.7m 0.7m 0.6m 0.6m
Fivth floor column 0.7m 0.7m 0.6m 0.6m
Sixth floor column 0.7m 0.7m 0.6m 0.6m
Seventh floor column 0.7m 0.7m 0.6m 0.6m

Eighth 0.6m 0.6m

Nineth 0.6m 0.6m

Tenth 0.6m 0.6m

Beam Crossection
Flange
Total Depth Total width Thickness Web Thickness
Grade Beam(Rectangular 0.45 0.25
Floor Beam T-Section 0.4 1.5 0.15 0.3
Floor Beam L-Section 0.4 0.6 0.15 0.3
Top tie Beam T-section 0.35 1.5 0.15 0.2
Top tie Beam L-section 0.35 0.6 0.15 0.2
Strut Crossection
Length Thickeness Width
WS1 (with out opening) 6.708204 0.15 1.68
WS2( with window opening of
1.5m*2m) 6.708204 0.2 0.9521
WS3 (with door opening of
2m*25m) 6.708204 0.15 0.4666
WS4 (with door opening of
1.2m*2.5m) 6.708204 0.15 0.9521
WS5 (with door opening of
1m*2.5m) 6.708204 0.15 1.073

40
 Addis Ababa Institute of Technology,School of Civil and Environmental Engineering AAiT
Effects of Masonry Infills on Reinforced Concrete Frame Buildings

Initial dimensioning of the beams and columns were made on the basis of bare
frame.The same sections were used for the cases of infilled frames analysis with
earthquake load as per Eurocode: 2004 suchthat the structure met the strength and
ductility requirements of the new Ethiopian building code of standard
(EBCS).Further, it was assumed that the infill panels were neither integral nor
bonding with the frame. Five different models with and without infill were developed
to analyze and to investigate the effect of infill wall on seismic response of the typical
structures.

ARRAGEMENT OF INFILL WALL

Four different models which have different wall arrangements are prepared in
addition to that of the bare frame model, its floor plan was as shown in fig.3.1.

1. BASE STRUCTURE OFINFILLED FRAME

As shown in fig. 3.2 infill panels are arranged symmetrically throughout the building
with and without openings. There are windows with the dimension of 1m*2m on
outer periphery of infill panels. Whereas infills on axis C between axis 2 and 5 and
on axis 2 and 5 between axis B and C and D and E and on axis 5 between axis C and
D have doors with dimension of 1.2m*2.5m, 2m*2.5m and 1m*2.5m respectively.
On the other hand infills on axis B and E between axis 3 and 4, on axis C and D
between axis 1 and 2 and 5 and 6, on axis 2 and 5 between axis A and B and E and F
and on axis 3 and 4 between axis B and C and D and E have no opening.

41
Addis Ababa Institute of Technology,School of Civil and Environmental Engineering AAiT
Effects of Masonry Infills on Reinforced Concrete Frame Buildings

Figure. 3.2 Typical floor plan for basestructure of infilled frame model

42
 Addis Ababa Institute of Technology,School of Civil and Environmental Engineering AAiT
Effects of Masonry Infills on Reinforced Concrete Frame Buildings

2. SOFT GROUND STORY FRAME

Soft ground storys are introduced into masonry infilled reinforced concrete frames
due to reduction or absence of masonry infill walls in a particular story compared to
adjacent stories, e.g., buildings with parking space in the first story and masonry infill
walls on upper stories. In this thesis soft ground story due to the absence of infill on
the ground floor has been studied. Modification on basestructure of infilled frame has
been done by removing all the infill panels from the ground floor as shown in fig. 3.3.

a b

Figure. 3.3. Elevation View. a) For base infilled frame b) For soft ground story frame

43
 Addis Ababa Institute of Technology,School of Civil and Environmental Engineering AAiT
Effects of Masonry Infills on Reinforced Concrete Frame Buildings

3. FRAME WITH HALF OF THE WALL REMOVED FROM BASE

STRUCTURE OF INFILLED FRAME
Comparing with the base structure of infilled frame, this one is where half of the
masonry infill panels were removed. In order to maintain comparison with other
frames; the infill arrangement were kept symmetrical. Besides that the opening size
and infill location are similar to the fully infilled frame.The arrangement used in the
analysis is shown in fig. 3.4.

Figure 3.4. Typical floor plan offrame with half wall removed from basestructure infilled frame

44
 Addis Ababa Institute of Technology,School of Civil and Environmental Engineering AAiT
Effects of Masonry Infills on Reinforced Concrete Frame Buildings

4. FRAME WITH 75% OF THE WALL REMOVED FROM BASE STRUCTURE

OF INFILLED FRAME

As shown in fig 3.5 some section of the outer periphery of the building are infilled. In
order to indicate the impact of infill on structural integrity in this case 75% of the
infill were removed from the basestructure ofinfilled frame model. The opening size
and location of the existing infill are similar to base and half infilled frames.Infills
with opening are modeled as discussed in chapter 2 verification section.

45
Addis Ababa Institute of Technology,School of Civil and Environmental Engineering AAiT
Effects of Masonry Infills on Reinforced Concrete Frame Buildings

Figure 3.4. Typical floor plan ofwith 75% of wall removed from baseinfilled frame

46
 Addis Ababa Institute of Technology,School of Civil and Environmental Engineering AAiT
Effects of Masonry Infills on Reinforced Concrete Frame Buildings

3.3 STRUCTURAL MODELLING

Modelling a building involves the modelling and assemblage of its various load-
carrying elements. The model must ideally represent the mass distribution, strength,
stiffness and deformability. Modelling of the material properties and structural
elements used in the present study is discussed below.

3.3.1 MATERIAL PROPERTIES TO BE USED

For this study, the material property for concrete, reinforcing bar and hollow concrete
block (HCB) masonry panels are as follows:

For Reinforcing Bar:

Yield strength of reinforcing bar 𝑓𝑦 = 500𝑀𝑃𝑎 (𝐹𝑒 500)

For Concrete:

Unit weight (weight per unit volume) = 25 𝐾𝑁⁄𝑚3

Characteristic compressive strength, 𝑓𝑐𝑘 = 30/37𝑀𝑃𝑎

Young’s modulus of elasticity, 𝐸𝑐 = 32000𝑀𝑃𝑎

Poisson’s ratio, 𝑣𝑐 = 0for cracked concrete

𝑐 𝐸
Shear Modulus, 𝐺𝑐 = 2(1+𝑣 )
= 16000𝑀𝑝𝑎 3.1
𝑐

For HCB Masonry Panel:

Size of HCB = 15 cmx 20cm x 40cm and 20 cmx 20cm x 40cm

Horizontal mortar thickness = 2cm

Mortar ratio = 1:3

47
 Addis Ababa Institute of Technology,School of Civil and Environmental Engineering AAiT
Effects of Masonry Infills on Reinforced Concrete Frame Buildings

Unit weight (weight per unit volume) = 12 𝐾𝑁⁄𝑚3

Characteristic compressive strength, 𝑓𝑐𝑚 = 3.5𝑀𝑃𝑎

Young’s modulus of elasticity of the masonry, can be calculated by the relation given
by Paulay and Priestley (1992);

𝐸𝑚 = 750√𝑓𝑐𝑚 = 750√3.5 = 1403 𝑀𝑃𝑎 3.2

Poisson’s ratio, 𝑣𝑚 = 0

𝑚 𝐸
Shear Modulus,𝐺𝑐 = 2(1+𝑣 701.5𝑀𝑝𝑎 3.3
𝑚)

3.3.2 LOAD CASES USED:

Dead load: The Unit Weights of Materials used in this study is based on EBCS 1:
1995.

Imposed Load: the imposed load used in this study is based on EBCS 1: 1995

Earthquake Load: Eurocode 8: 2004 Criteria for Earthquake Resistant design of

Structure was used.

3.3.3 STRUCTURAL ELEMENTS

The reference structures studied areG+4, G+7 and G+10 RC frames, it analyzed
according to the Eurocode 8 ductility class M (‘medium’) provisions for bare frames
for a design ground acceleration of 0.1g. The structures has been assessed both as a
bare frame and as an infilled one. The beams and columns are modeled as a frame
element which has the capability to deform axially, in shear, in bending and in
torsion. The beam-column joints are assumed to be rigid. The weight of the slab is
distributed as rectangular load to the surrounding beams as per EBCS 2: 1995. A
semi-rigid joint diaphragm action were assumed, which ensure integral action of all

48
 Addis Ababa Institute of Technology,School of Civil and Environmental Engineering AAiT
Effects of Masonry Infills on Reinforced Concrete Frame Buildings

the vertical andlateral load-resisting elements. A Finite Element software ETABS

2015were used for the modeling.

3.3.4 MODELLING INFILL WALLS

Infill walls are two dimensional elements that can be modelled with orthotropic plate
element for linear analysis of buildings with infill wall. But the nonlinear modelling
of a two dimensional plate element is not understood well. Therefore infill wall has to
be modelled with a one-dimensional line element for nonlinear analysis of the
buildings. Same building model with infill walls modelled as one-dimensional line
element.[Wael W. El-Dakhakhni, et al]4.Also used in the present study for linear
analyses. Infill walls are modelled here as equivalent diagonal strut elements. Section
3.3.5 explains the modelling of infill was as diagonal strut in detail.

3.3.5 MODELLING OF EQUIVALENT STRUT

For an infill wall located in a lateral load-resisting frame, the stiffness and strength
contribution of the infill has to be considered. Non-integral infill walls subjected to
lateral load behave like diagonal struts. Thus an infill wall can be modelled as an
equivalent diagonal compression strut in the building model. Thus in order to have
only the diagonal compression strut, the diagonal tension struts were set to tension
limit zero in four different models. Rigid joints connect the beams and columns, but
pin joints connect the equivalent struts to the beam-to-column junctions as shown in
fig. 3.3. This section explains the procedure based on Paulay and Priestley (1992);) to
calculate the modelling parameters (effective width, elastic modulus and strength) of
an equivalent strut. The length of the strut is given by the diagonal distance (d) of the
panel and its thickness is equal to the thickness of the infill wall. The elastic modulus
of the strut is equated to the elastic modulus of masonry (Em). For the estimation of

49
 Addis Ababa Institute of Technology,School of Civil and Environmental Engineering AAiT
Effects of Masonry Infills on Reinforced Concrete Frame Buildings

width (w) of the strut, a simple expression as given in Eq. 2.16to (Chapter 2) is
adopted.

Figure. 3.5 Compression Strut Connection.

3.3.6 ALGORITHM FOR GENERATING THE EQUIVALENT STRUT MODEL

The algorithm for calculating the strut width as per Paulay and Priestley (1992);) is as
given below and the detail procedure is shown in appendix A.

Step 1. Specify material properties

Step 2. Specify geometric properties

Step 3. Calculate the diagonal length of the infill panel

Step 4. Divide the diagonal length by 4

Step 5. Then multiply the strut width by the reduction factor if the infill has an
opening. Computational model of the building can be analyzed using the obtained
values of w and 𝐸𝑚 for the struts.

50
 Addis Ababa Institute of Technology,School of Civil and Environmental Engineering AAiT
Effects of Masonry Infills on Reinforced Concrete Frame Buildings

CHAPTER FOUR

4.1 INTERPRETATION OF RESULTS

The interpretation of results is based on the global behavior of the structure and not
on the micro level behavior of infill panels. The major behavioral studies considered
are the fundamental period, base shear, story displacement,story shear, and member
forces.

Based on these behaviors, the results of the analysis such as fundamental period, base
shear, story displacement, story shear, and member forces due to the effect of
masonry infill are presented and discussed in the Results and Discussion section.

4.2 RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS

The bare frame and infill frames with different arrangement were studied analytically.
Based on the results obtained from the numerical analysis, the behavior of different
structural systems in terms offundamental period, base shear, story displacement,
story shear, and member forces are compared in the following pages. The results of
analytical studies are presented in thissections. Only the findings of the effects of
infill based on Pauley & Priestley ware studied and compared with bare frame
model.Although from the verification the Pauley & Priestley model with effective
width of one-fourth the diagonal seems most appropriate strut model. Thus, five
different models, a bare frame,base structure infilled frame, soft ground story frame,
frame with half of the walls removed from baseinfilled frame and frame with 75% of
the wall removed from base infilled frame were considered.

The comparison of seismic excitation in terms of fundamental periodbetween bare

frame,basestructure of infilled frame, building with soft ground story, frame with half

51
 Addis Ababa Institute of Technology,School of Civil and Environmental Engineering AAiT
Effects of Masonry Infills on Reinforced Concrete Frame Buildings

of the walls removed from base structure of infilled frame and frame with 75% of the
wall removed from basestructure ofinfilled frame respective are presented. This is
followed by the presentation of comparative study of, base shear and Story
displacement of bare frame and the four infill frame models. Next, the structural
responses of different bare and infill models in terms ofstory shear iscompared.
Lastly, the member forces of structural member due to combined effect of gravity and
seismic loading for both the bare and infill frame are studied and discussed.

4.3. EFFECT OF INFILL WALL PANEL ON RC FRAME STRUCTURE

4.3.1 FUNDAMENTAL TIME PERIOD
In the seismic analysis of a building structure, the fundamental time period is one of
the most important and unique properties, as the base shear, design lateral load, story
shear, story moments, etc. depends on this property.
Almost all building codes impose an upper limit on the natural period determined
from a rational numerical analysis by way of empirical equation and the Ethiopian
Building Code of Standard EBCS 1995 is not an exception to this. But, since the bare
frame models does not takes in to account the stiffness rendered by the infill panel, it
gives significantly longer time period than predicted by the code equations as shown
in Table 4.1, and fig. 4.1and hence smaller lateral forces. However, when the effect
of infill is included, the time periods determined were found usingthe code formulas.
Due to the fact that the fundamental time period of a structure depends not only on
the mass of a structure but also on the stiffness of thestructure. And when the infill is
modeled, the structure becomes much stiffer than the bare frame model.
EC8 and EBCS 8 specifies that these actions should correspond to a period T 1’ equal
to the average of that of the bare frame and the infilled frame. A series of empirical
formulae are included in EC8 Part 1-3 and EBCS 8 section 3.9.4for the calculation of
T1i, the period of the infilled frame. Table 4.1 listsshowsthe periods calculated
according to the code procedures and analytical result. Note that 𝑇1𝑏 refers to the

52
Addis Ababa Institute of Technology,School of Civil and Environmental Engineering AAiT
Effects of Masonry Infills on Reinforced Concrete Frame Buildings

fundamental period of a bare frame, 𝑇1𝑖 to that of an infilled frame, while the code
value:-
𝑇1′ = ((𝑇1𝑏 + 𝑇1𝑖 ))/2 4.1
3⁄
Where:- 𝑇1𝑏 = 0.075𝐻 4 4.2
𝑇1𝑏
𝑇1𝑖 = 4.3
𝑇1𝑏 2 𝐴𝑤 𝐺𝑔 1⁄
[1 + ] 2
16𝐻𝑊

Where:- 𝐴𝑤 -- average horizontal cross sectional area of infill walls per story
in the relevant direction,
𝐺-- shear modulus of infill walls,
𝑔--acceleration of gravity,
H --Height of the building,
W --weight of the building

Table 4.1 Comparison of Fundamental Time Period for different model types

A. Fundamental period of G+4 building

Emperical results Analytical results Period Reduction in % Period Reduction in %

Types of Models H(m) T1'=(T1b+T1i)/2 (T1') for emperical result for Analytical result

Bare Frame 15 0.572 0.82338 0 0

Frame with 75% of
the wall reduced 15 0.476 0.68556 16.70 16.70
Frame with half of
the wall reduced 15 0.429 0.61718 25.03 25.04
Building With Soft
Story 15 0.410 0.58766 28.32 28.63

Base infilled Frame 15 0.395 0.56807 30.85 31.00

53
Addis Ababa Institute of Technology,School of Civil and Environmental Engineering AAiT
Effects of Masonry Infills on Reinforced Concrete Frame Buildings

35
Period Reduction in %
PERIOD REDUCTION IN % 30 for emperical result
Period Reduction in %
25 for Analytical result

20

15

10

0
Bare Frame Frame with 75% Frame with half Building With Base nfilled
of the wall of the wall Soft Story Frame
reduced reduced
TYPES OF MODELS

Figure. 4.1A. Fundamental period reduction in % (G+4).

Introducing infill panels in the RC frame reduces the time period of bare frames and
also enhances the stiffness of the structure. Bare frame idealization leads to
overestimation of natural periods and under estimation of the design lateral forces.
The trend in the analysis for both analytical and empirical taken to be bare, frame
with 75% of wall removed from base structure of infilled frame, frame with half of
wall removed from base structureof infilled frame, soft ground story and
basestructure of infilled frame.

The fundamental natural period of vibration from the empirical expression of the
EBCS 8 1995 is compared with the analytical time period. As shown in table 4.1
analytical time period do not tally with empirical time period (caudal). The
analytical natural period depends on the mass and stiffness, but empirical time
period only depends on the height of the building. Thus, results obtained for
fundamental natural period are shown in Table 4.1,and fig 4.1 indicate that analytical

54
Addis Ababa Institute of Technology,School of Civil and Environmental Engineering AAiT
Effects of Masonry Infills on Reinforced Concrete Frame Buildings

natural period is greater than the natural periods obtained from the empirical
expression of the code in all the corresponding trends. The natural period for
empirical analysis decrease in the trend for G+4, G+7 and G+10, similar sequence is
also observed in the analytical analysis for G+4, G+7 and G+10.

The results on the table and figure 4.1A show the fundamental period of G+4 for
frame with 75% of the wall reduced, half reduced, soft story and base infill in
comparison with the bare frame. For both empirical and analytical analysis the period
reduction increases for the stated sequence. The percentage of period reduction
among the bare frame and respective models in percentages are 16.70%, 25.03%,
28.32%, and 30.85% for empirical and 16.70%, 25.04%, 28.63% and 31% for
analytical respectively. With this empirical and analytical results show similar
reduction for 75% of wall reduced and half reduced infill, whereas there are tangible
difference on soft story and base infill.

B. Fundamental period of G+7 building

Emperical results Analytical results Period Reduction in % Period Reduction in %

Types of Models H(m) T1'=(T1b+T1i)/2 (T1') for emperical result for Analytical result

Bare Frame 24 0.813 1.12226 0 0

Frame with 75% of
the wall reduced 24 0.648 0.99251 20.29 23.78
Frame with half of
the wall reduced 24 0.578 0.79494 28.91 29.20
Building With Soft
Story 24 0.544 0.72761 33.10 35.16

Base infilled Frame 24 0.535 0.69853 34.19 37.75

55
Addis Ababa Institute of Technology,School of Civil and Environmental Engineering AAiT
Effects of Masonry Infills on Reinforced Concrete Frame Buildings

40
Period Reduction in %
PERIOD REDUCTION IN % 35 for emperical result
Period Reduction in %
30
for Analytical result
25

20

15

10

0
Bare Frame Frame with 75% Frame with half Building With Base nfilled
of the wall of the wall Soft Story Frame
reduced reduced
TYPES OF MODELS

Figure. 4.1B. Fundamental period reduction in % (G+7).

For the G+7 building fundamental period reduction has been increased with
percentage of 20.29%, 28.91%, 33.10% and 34.19% for empirical and 23.78%,
29.20%, 35.16% and 37.75% for analytical analysis of sequenced models. Remember
that period reduction has increased with the comparison of bare frame for both results
as it is indicated on table and figure 4.1B.

C. Fundamental period of G+10 building

Emperical results Analytical results Period Reduction in % Period Reduction in %

Types of Models H(m) T1'=(T1b+T1i)/2 (T1') for emperical result for Analytical result

Bare Frame 33 1.033 1.46265 0 0

Frame with 75% of
the wall reduced 33 0.840 1.15647 19.00 20.93
Frame with half of
the wall reduced 33 0.734 1.00871 28.90 31.03
Building With Soft
Story 33 0.687 0.91269 33.50 37.60

Base infilled Frame 33 0.677 0.89776 34.50 38.62

56
Addis Ababa Institute of Technology,School of Civil and Environmental Engineering AAiT
Effects of Masonry Infills on Reinforced Concrete Frame Buildings

45
40
Period Reduction in %
PERIOD REDUCTION IN %
35 for emperical result
30 Period Reduction in %
for Analytical result
25
20
15
10
5
0
Bare Frame Frame with 75% Frame with half Building With Base nfilled
of the wall of the wall Soft Story Frame
reduced reduced
TYPES OF MODELS

Figure. 4.1C. Fundamental period reduction in % (G+10).

As shown in table and figure 4.1C, relate to bare frame G+10 period reduction is also
increases with the same pattern as for G+4 and G+7. Comparing with respective
models the increase percentage period reduction is 19.00%, 28.90%, 33.5% and
34.50% for empirical and 20.93%, 31.03%, 37.60% and 38.62% for analytical results
respectively.As the number of storys increased from fifth story to tenth story, the
influence of the infill panels increased.

Therefore, verification of EBCS 8 section 3.9.4 for themodificationof natural period

caused by addition of infillsgives almost a close result with that of analytical result.
This shows that the empirical formula used for the modification of the fundamental
period can be effectively used in the analysis. The reduction of the fundamental
period usually implies higher base shear as shown in the next section.

57
 Addis Ababa Institute of Technology,School of Civil and Environmental Engineering AAiT
Effects of Masonry Infills on Reinforced Concrete Frame Buildings

Generally, period of the building decreases when the effect of masonry infill wall is
considered. This clearly indicates that the masonry infill panel has structural
implications and should not be ignored in the analysis. And it is known that, when
the period is greater than two seconds a dynamic analysis has to be applied that is
recommended for analysis. Therefore, the presence of infill may also avoid the
requirement of dynamic analysis.

4.3.2 BASE SHEAR

Base shear is the total horizontal seismic shear force at the base of structure. EC8 and
EBCS 8 bases the calculation of seismic actions for infilled frames on the average
periods (𝑇1′ in last columns of Table 4.1).

𝐹𝑏 = 𝑆𝑑 (𝑇1′ ) 𝑊 4.4

Where:-𝐹𝑏 = 𝐵𝑎𝑠𝑒 𝑠ℎ𝑒𝑎𝑟 𝑓𝑜𝑟𝑐𝑒

𝑊 = 𝑇𝑜𝑡𝑎𝑙 𝑊𝑒𝑖𝑔ℎ𝑡 𝑜𝑓 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝐵𝑢𝑖𝑙𝑑𝑖𝑛𝑔

𝑆𝑑 (𝑇1′ ) = 𝐷𝑒𝑠𝑖𝑔𝑛 𝑆𝑝𝑒𝑐𝑡𝑟𝑢𝑚 = 𝛼𝛽ϒ

Table 4.2 and fig 4.2 showsbase shear values of five different models inwhich the base
shear in basestructure of infilled frame is about 43.78%, 47.00% and 44.56%and
43.87%, 49.17% and 47.22% greater for empirical and Analytical resultsrespectively,
while, the bare framehaving less value of base shear for G+4, G+7 and G+10 buildings
respectively. And as it is observed, base shear obtained from empirical result has larger
values than that of analytical result, but when it comes to comparison with bare
frame,percentage increase of analytical results of infilled frames shows slightly larger
base shear than empirical one.

Table. 4.2 Comparison of Base Shear for different Models

58
Addis Ababa Institute of Technology,School of Civil and Environmental Engineering AAiT
Effects of Masonry Infills on Reinforced Concrete Frame Buildings

A. Base shear of G+4 building

Total wight of Sd(T1') using Sd(T1') using Fb = Sd(T1') Fb = Sd(T1')

the building emperical analytical using emperical using analytical
Types of Models W(KN) result result result result
Bare Frame 15235.39 0.078852908 0.059974241 1201.3548 913.7309454
Frame with
75% of the wall 16322.11654 0.090395387 0.068806725 1475.444036 1123.071392
Frame with half
of the wall 18133.3316 0.097874818 0.074448527 1774.796521 1349.999828
Building With
Soft Story 19485.70551 0.1012197 0.07723611 1972.337262 1505.000102
Base nfilled
Frame 20548.28501 0.10398528 0.079225247 2136.719172 1627.942955

2500
Fb = Sd(T1') using emperical
2000 result
Fb = Sd(T1') using analytical
BASE SHEAR IN KN

result
1500

1000

500

0
Bare Frame Frame with 75% of Frame with half of Building With Soft Base nfilled Frame
the wall reduced the wall reduced Story
TYPES OF MODELS

Figure. 4.2A. Base shear of G+4 building

This is because of bare frame is having larger value of fundamental natural time
period as compared to other models due to absence of masonry infill walls. Frame
with 75% of wall removed from basestructure infilled frame has lesser base shear
value than the other infilled frames but, still greater than that of the bare frame and
this is because of having large value of the fundamental natural period compared to

59
Addis Ababa Institute of Technology,School of Civil and Environmental Engineering AAiT
Effects of Masonry Infills on Reinforced Concrete Frame Buildings

the other infilled frames, due to the absence of masonry infills on most part of the
building. Fundamental natural period get increased and therefore base shear get
reduced. Base shear response of models more in magnitude when diagonal wall strut
comes into action.

B. Base shear of G+7 building

Total wight of Sd(T1') using Sd(T1') using Fb = Sd(T1') Fb = Sd(T1')

the building emperical analytical using emperical using analytical
Types of Models W(KN) result result result result
Bare Frame
Frame with 22451.1375 0.060547621 0.047543908 1359.362964 1067.414823
75% of the wall
reduced
Frame with half 24189.90396 0.071776741 0.052133133 1736.272483 1261.095479
of the wall
reduced 26894.652 0.078202226 0.061576391 2103.221648 1656.075603
Building With
Soft Story 29889.19 0.081840037 0.065802289 2446.132421 1966.777106
Base nfilled
Frame 30951.7735 0.082870442 0.067846304 2564.987157 2099.963443

3000
Fb = Sd(T1') using emperical
2500 result
Fb = Sd(T1') using analytical
BASE SHEAR KN

2000 result

1500

1000

500

0
Bare Frame Frame with 75% of Frame with half of Building With Soft Base nfilled Frame
the wall reduced the wall reduced Story
TYPES OF MODELS

Figure. 4.2B. Base shear of G+7 building

60
Addis Ababa Institute of Technology,School of Civil and Environmental Engineering AAiT
Effects of Masonry Infills on Reinforced Concrete Frame Buildings

Since the bare frame models does not takes in to account the stiffness rendered by the
infill panel, it gives significantly longer time period. And hence smaller lateral forces.
This is due to the fact that the fundamental time period of a structure depends not
only on the mass of a structure but also on the stiffness of the structure. And when the
infill is modeled, the structure becomes much stiffer than the bare frame model.

C. Base shear of G+10 building

Total wight of Sd(T1') using Sd(T1') using Fb = Sd(T1') Fb = Sd(T1')

the building emperical analytical using emperical using analytical
Types of Models W(KN) result result result result
Bare
Frame Frame
with 37234.05 0.050592921 0.038977114 1883.779339 1451.275818
75% of the wall
reduced 39624.8538 0.059082046 0.046485148 2341.117445 1841.967178
Frame with half
of the wall
reduced 43343.88214 0.065372177 0.051503916 2833.483935 2232.37965
Building With
Soft Story 47859.84503 0.068698529 0.055516557 3287.900968 2657.013811
Base nfilled
Frame 48922.4245 0.069458195 0.056207569 3398.063287 2749.810564

4000
Fb = Sd(T1') using emperical
3500 result
3000 Fb = Sd(T1') using analytical
BASE SHEAR KN

result
2500

2000

1500

1000

500

0
Bare Frame Frame with 75% of Frame with half of Building With Soft Base nfilled Frame
the wall reduced the wall reduced Story
TYPES OF MODELS

Figure. 4.2C. Base shear of G+10 building

61
 Addis Ababa Institute of Technology,School of Civil and Environmental Engineering AAiT
Effects of Masonry Infills on Reinforced Concrete Frame Buildings

It has been found that calculation of earthquake forces by treating RC frames as

ordinary frames without regards to infill leads to underestimation of base shear. The
configuration of infill and number of stories in the parking frame changes the
behavior of the frame therefore it is essential for the structural systems selected, to be
thoroughly investigated and well understood for catering to soft ground floor.

4.3.3 STORY DISPLACEMENT

As shown in table 4.3, and fig. 4.1, introduction of infill panels in the RC frame
reduces the lateral story displacement considerably.
Table 4.3. Comparisons of story displacement for different models
A. Story displacement of G+4 building

Frame with 75% of Frame with half of

Bare frame the wall reduced the wall reduced Soft ground Story Base infilled frame
Story Elevation X-dir Y- dir X-dir Y- dir X-dir Y- dir X-dir Y- dir X-dir Y- dir
m m m m m m m m m m m
ROOF LEVEL 15 0.02191 0.02296 0.01443 0.01567 0.00797 0.00981 0.00902 0.00901 0.0062 0.00607
FOURTH 12 0.01812 0.01899 0.01237 0.01338 0.00723 0.00885 0.00861 0.00859 0.00579 0.00564
THIRD 9 0.01494 0.01532 0.01038 0.011 0.00625 0.00755 0.00789 0.00795 0.00508 0.00499
SECOND 6 0.01097 0.01132 0.00775 0.00825 0.00491 0.00592 0.00683 0.00705 0.00409 0.00409
FIRST 3 0.00673 0.00693 0.00485 0.00512 0.00345 0.00407 0.00546 0.0057 0.00294 0.00309
GROUND 0 0.00244 0.00251 0.00222 0.00227 0.00166 0.00195 0.00227 0.00237 0.00164 0.00177
Base -3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

62
Addis Ababa Institute of Technology,School of Civil and Environmental Engineering AAiT
Effects of Masonry Infills on Reinforced Concrete Frame Buildings

15

13

11
STORY LEVEL (m)

9
Bare frame
7
Frame with 75% of the wall
5 reduced
Frame with half of the wall
reduced
3 Soft ground Story

1 Base infilled frame

-1 0 0.005 0.01 0.015 0.02 0.025

-3
MAX STORY DISPLACEMENT (X-DIR)

15

13

11

9
STORY LEVEL (m)

Bare frame
7
Frame with 75% of the wall
reduced
5
Frame with half of the wall
reduced
3 Soft ground Story

1 Base infilled frame

-1 0 0.005 0.01 0.015 0.02 0.025

-3
MAX STORY DISPLACEMENT (Y-DIR)
Figure.4.3A. Max story displacement along X-and Y-direction of G+4 buildings

63
Addis Ababa Institute of Technology,School of Civil and Environmental Engineering AAiT
Effects of Masonry Infills on Reinforced Concrete Frame Buildings

Table 4.3 and fig. 4.3 show the comparative study of seismic demand in terms of
lateral story displacement amongst all the four types of infilled model and the bare
frame model of different building types. The lateral displacement obtained from the
bare frame model is the maximum which is about71.7%, 76.94%, and 67.93% greater
from basestructureof infilled frame for G+4, G+7 and G+10 buildings respectively;
While the displacement reduction between the bare frame and the vertically soft
ground story frame is 58.83%, 69.18% and 63.88% .And which is about 63.62%,
65.42% and 52.34% smaller in frame with half of the wall removed than that of the
bare frame and nearly 34.14%, 40.31% and 28.22% smaller in frame with 75% of the
wall removed model for G+4, G+7 and G+10 buildings respectively in the X-
direction and by 73.56%, 78.57%, and 71.55% the displacement of the bare frame
was greater than basestructure of infilled frame; While the displacement reduction
between the bare frame and the soft ground story frame was 60.76%, 71.21% and
67.72% .And which is about 57.27%, 62.16% and 52.03% smaller in frame with half
of the wall removed than that of the bare frame and nearly 31.75%, 40.14% and
32.50% smaller in frame with 75% of the wall removed model for G+4, G+7 and
G+10 buildings respectively in the Y-direction.

B. Story displacement of G+7 building

Frame with 75% of the Frame with half of

Bare frame wall reduced the wall reduced Soft ground Story Base infilled frame
Story Elevation X-Dir Y-Dir X-Dir Y-Dir X-Dir Y-Dir X-Dir Y-Dir X-Dir Y-Dir
m m m m m m m m m m m
ROOF LEVEL 24 0.04393 0.04728 0.02622 0.0283 0.01519 0.01789 0.01354 0.01361 0.01013 0.01013
SEVENRH 21 0.04096 0.04414 0.0247 0.02676 0.01422 0.01683 0.01324 0.01324 0.00983 0.00966
SIXTH 18 0.03539 0.03843 0.0219 0.02388 0.01296 0.01534 0.01259 0.0126 0.00918 0.00904
FIVTH 15 0.03027 0.03183 0.0191 0.02041 0.01151 0.01351 0.01174 0.01176 0.00833 0.00818
FOURTH 12 0.02463 0.0259 0.01591 0.01699 0.00979 0.01148 0.01063 0.01075 0.00723 0.0072
THIRD 9 0.01918 0.01968 0.01267 0.01325 0.008 0.00927 0.00942 0.0096 0.00603 0.00601
SECOND 6 0.01352 0.01397 0.00919 0.00964 0.00606 0.00699 0.00807 0.00835 0.00469 0.0048
FIRST 3 0.00808 0.00833 0.00599 0.00624 0.00415 0.00467 0.0065 0.00667 0.00342 0.00356
GROUND 0 0.00288 0.00296 0.00272 0.00278 0.00194 0.00226 0.00269 0.00275 0.00192 0.00203
Base -3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

64
Addis Ababa Institute of Technology,School of Civil and Environmental Engineering AAiT
Effects of Masonry Infills on Reinforced Concrete Frame Buildings

27

22
STORY LEVEL (m)

17
Bare frame

12 Frame with 75% of the wall

reduced
Frame with half of the wall
7 reduced
Soft ground Story
2
Base infilled frame

0 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05

-3
MAX STORY DISPLACEMENT (X-DIR)

27

22

17
STORY LEVEL (m)

Bare frame
12
Frame with 75% of the wall
reduced
7 Frame with half of the wall
reduced
Soft ground Story
2
Base infilled frame

0 0.005 0.01 0.015 0.02 0.025 0.03 0.035 0.04 0.045 0.05
-3
MAX STORY DISPLACEMENT (Y-DIR)

Figure.4.3B. Max story displacement along X-and Y-direction of G+7 buildings

C. Story displacement of G+10 building

65
Addis Ababa Institute of Technology,School of Civil and Environmental Engineering AAiT
Effects of Masonry Infills on Reinforced Concrete Frame Buildings

Frame with 75% of Frame with half of the

Bare frame the wall reduced wall reduced Soft ground Story Base infilled frame
Story ElevationX-Dir Y-Dir X-Dir Y-Dir X-Dir Y-Dir X-Dir Y-Dir X-Dir Y-Dir
m m m m m m m m m m m
ROOF LEVEL 33 0.039 0.044 0.028 0.02982 0.01859 0.02119 0.01409 0.01426 0.01251 0.0126
TENTH 30 0.038 0.043 0.02691 0.02888 0.01771 0.02034 0.01369 0.01382 0.01211 0.0121
NINETH 27 0.036 0.041 0.02557 0.02754 0.01675 0.01933 0.01322 0.01334 0.01163 0.0116
EIGHTTH 24 0.033 0.038 0.0237 0.0256 0.01553 0.01799 0.01255 0.01266 0.01095 0.011
SEVENRH 21 0.03 0.034 0.02135 0.02308 0.01409 0.01631 0.01168 0.01179 0.01008 0.0101
SIXTH 18 0.026 0.029 0.01876 0.02036 0.01245 0.01446 0.01064 0.01079 0.00903 0.0091
FIVTH 15 0.022 0.025 0.01597 0.01731 0.01072 0.01243 0.00952 0.00966 0.00792 0.0079
FOURTH 12 0.018 0.02 0.013 0.01403 0.00886 0.01021 0.00823 0.0084 0.00664 0.0067
THIRD 9 0.013 0.015 0.00996 0.01065 0.00695 0.00794 0.00689 0.00704 0.00532 0.0054
SECOND 6 0.009 0.01 0.00692 0.0073 0.00499 0.00562 0.00544 0.00559 0.00388 0.004
FIRST 3 0.005 0.005 0.00406 0.00425 0.0031 0.0034 0.00374 0.00388 0.0025 0.0026
GROUND 0 0.002 0.002 0.00149 0.00154 0.0012 0.00131 0.00142 0.00146 0.00106 0.0011
Base -3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

37

32

27
STORY LEVEL (m)

22

17 Bare frame

12 Frame with 75% of the wall

reduced
Frame with half of the wall
7
reduced
Soft ground Story
2

-3 0 0.005 0.01 0.015 0.02 0.025 0.03 0.035 0.04 0.045

MAX STORY DISPLACEMENT (X-DIR)

66
Addis Ababa Institute of Technology,School of Civil and Environmental Engineering AAiT
Effects of Masonry Infills on Reinforced Concrete Frame Buildings

37

32

27
STORY LEVEL (m)

22

Bare frame
17
Frame with 75% of the wall
12 reduced
Frame with half of the wall
7 reduced
Soft ground Story

-3 0 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05

MAX STORY DISPLACEMENT (Y-DIR)

Figure.4.3C. Max story displacement along X-and Y-direction of G+10 buildings

From this observation, it is evident that masonry infills panel reduces the story
displacement of RC moment resisting frame structure. However, frame with 75% of
the wall reduced shows small displacement reduction compared to other infilled
model and this is due to the absence of infills in the internal part and some from
periphery of the building. And also, the absence of infills in a lower story, usually the
bottom and most critical one (soft ground story), actually it has a significant influence
in reducing fundamental period and story displacement. However, it has an adverse
effect on the building, which is, damage is concentrated in the columns of the open
story, at design acceleration levels this concentration is not much higher than in the
bare structure, despite the fact that these columns had not been designed against the
associated soft-story effect according to Sect. 2.9.3.2 of EC8, Part 1-3; only at
excitation intensities much beyond the design level, some of the open-story columns
do approach failure; The higher the strength and stiffness of infills in the upper

67
 Addis Ababa Institute of Technology,School of Civil and Environmental Engineering AAiT
Effects of Masonry Infills on Reinforced Concrete Frame Buildings

storys, the more severe the concentration of deformations and damage in the open
ground story

Thus, the infill panel reduces the seismic demand of a RC moment resisting frame
structure. The lateral story displacement is dramatically reduced due to introduction
of infill. This probably is the cause of building designed in conventional way
behaving near elastically even during strong earthquake.

4.3.4 STORY SHEAR

Since, from the discussion or comparison of fundamental time period and base shear
it is clear that the bare frame model is flexible structure than other models.

Table.4.4 Comparison of Story Shear for different Models

A. Story shear for G+4 building

G+4
Story Shear
Story Elevation Bare Frame with 75% of Frame with half soft ground Base infilled
m Frame the wall reduced of the wall story frame
ROOF LEVEL 15 -342.876 -348.27277 -357.25302 -364.8438 -369.20077
-342.876 -348.27277 -357.25302 -364.8438 -369.20077
FOURTH 12 -698.981 -713.02907 -736.4334 -758.56371 -767.62248
-698.981 -713.02907 -736.4334 -758.56371 -767.62248
THIRD 9 -991.562 -1012.54366 -1047.50666 -1081.2011 -1094.11281
-991.562 -1012.54366 -1047.50666 -1081.2011 -1094.11281
SECOND 6 -1214.9 -1241.08737 -1284.72922 -1327.0625 -1342.91033
-1214.9 -1241.08737 -1284.72922 -1327.0625 -1342.91033
FIRST 3 -1364.96 -1394.62134 -1444.05203 -1484.2801 -1509.95343
-1364.96 -1394.62134 -1444.05203 -1484.2801 -1509.95343
GROUND 0 -1378.95 -1409.43738 -1460.25595 -1498.2005 -1528.01405
-1378.95 -1409.43738 -1460.25595 -1498.2005 -1528.01405
Base -3 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0

68
Addis Ababa Institute of Technology,School of Civil and Environmental Engineering AAiT
Effects of Masonry Infills on Reinforced Concrete Frame Buildings

15
13

Bare Frame 11

STORY LEVEL (m)

9
Frame with 75% of the
wall reduced 7
Frame with half of the wall5
reduced
3
soft ground story
1

-1800 -1600 -1400 -1200 -1000 -800 -600 -400 -200 -1 0

-3
STORY SHEAR (KN)

Figure.4.4A. Story Shear for G+4 Building

B. Story shear for G+7 building

G+7
Story Shear
Story Elevation Frame with Frame with soft ground Base
m Bare Frame 75% of the half of the story infilled
ROOF LEVEL 24 -272.64302 -276.79065 -283.23464 -290.30271 -292.88432
-272.64302 -276.79065 -283.23464 -290.30271 -292.88432
SEVENRH 21 -571.1746 -582.49561 -600.10022 -620.97282 -626.49504
-571.1746 -582.49561 -600.10022 -620.97282 -626.49504
SIXTH 18 -833.06143 -850.65987 -878.0311 -910.9782 -919.07939
-833.06143 -850.65987 -878.0311 -910.9782 -919.07939
FIVTH 15 -1059.5155 -1082.4968 -1118.2425 -1161.526 -1171.8553
-1059.5155 -1082.4968 -1118.2425 -1161.526 -1171.8553
FOURTH 12 -1250.1981 -1277.6671 -1320.3947 -1372.2788 -1384.4823
-1250.1981 -1277.6671 -1320.3947 -1372.2788 -1384.4823
THIRD 9 -1405.2184 -1436.2802 -1484.5973 -1543.3453 -1557.0701
-1405.2184 -1436.2802 -1484.5973 -1543.3453 -1557.0701
SECOND 6 -1523.5518 -1557.3106 -1609.823 -1673.7053 -1688.5893
-1523.5518 -1557.3106 -1609.823 -1673.7053 -1688.5893
FIRST 3 -1603.0608 -1638.6182 -1693.9285 -1757.0631 -1776.8918
-1603.0608 -1638.6182 -1693.9285 -1757.0631 -1776.8918
GROUND 0 -1610.4746 -1646.4682 -1702.4583 -1764.4473 -1786.4433
-1610.4746 -1646.4682 -1702.4583 -1764.4473 -1786.4433
Base -3 0 0 0 0 0

69
Addis Ababa Institute of Technology,School of Civil and Environmental Engineering AAiT
Effects of Masonry Infills on Reinforced Concrete Frame Buildings

27

22

17
Bare Frame

STORY LEVEL (m)

Frame with 75% of the wall
12
reduced
Frame with half of the wall
reduced
soft ground story 7

Base infilled frame

2

-2000 -1800 -1600 -1400 -1200 -1000 -800 -600 -400 -200 0
STORY SHEAR (KN) -3

Figure.4.4B. Story Shear for G+7 Building

70
Addis Ababa Institute of Technology,School of Civil and Environmental Engineering AAiT
Effects of Masonry Infills on Reinforced Concrete Frame Buildings

C. Story shear for G+10 building

G+10
Story Shear
Story Elevation Frame with Frame with soft ground Base infilled
m Bare Frame 75% of the half of the story frame
ROOF LEVEL 33 -220.37334 -223.80964 -229.15298 -235.59663 -237.16384
-220.37334 -223.80964 -229.15298 -235.59663 -237.16384
TENTH 30 -501.70799 -511.39107 -526.45211 -545.41237 -549.0405
-501.70799 -511.39107 -526.45211 -545.41237 -549.0405
NINETH 27 -757.46675 -772.82873 -796.72404 -827.06305 -832.56473
-757.46675 -772.82873 -796.72404 -827.06305 -832.56473
EIGHTTH 24 -987.64964 -1008.12263 -1039.96878 -1080.54866 -1087.73655
-987.64964 -1008.12263 -1039.96878 -1080.54866 -1087.73655
SEVENRH 21 -1192.8651 -1217.88147 -1256.79543 -1306.47481 -1315.16558
-1192.8651 -1217.88147 -1256.79543 -1306.47481 -1315.16558
SIXTH 18 -1374.74306 -1403.73588 -1448.83565 -1506.46383 -1516.48494
-1374.74306 -1403.73588 -1448.83565 -1506.46383 -1516.48494
FIVTH 15 -1532.60553 -1565.0076 -1615.41075 -1679.84091 -1691.01534
-1532.60553 -1565.0076 -1615.41075 -1679.84091 -1691.01534
FOURTH 12 -1666.09308 -1701.33703 -1756.16089 -1826.24828 -1838.39662
-1666.09308 -1701.33703 -1756.16089 -1826.24828 -1838.39662
THIRD 9 -1774.55713 -1812.07529 -1870.43681 -1945.04037 -1957.97893
-1774.55713 -1812.07529 -1870.43681 -1945.04037 -1957.97893
SECOND 6 -1857.2612 -1896.48562 -1957.50124 -2035.48417 -2049.02436
-1857.2612 -1896.48562 -1957.50124 -2035.48417 -2049.02436
FIRST 3 -1913.3007 -1953.66302 -2016.44861 -2093.97089 -2110.62654
-1913.3007 -1953.66302 -2016.44861 -2093.97089 -2110.62654
GROUND 0 -1920.09773 -1960.74139 -2023.96487 -2100.73624 -2118.80009
-1920.09773 -1960.74139 -2023.96487 -2100.73624 -2118.80009
Base -3 0 0 0 0 0

71
 Addis Ababa Institute of Technology,School of Civil and Environmental Engineering AAiT
Effects of Masonry Infills on Reinforced Concrete Frame Buildings

35

30

25

FRAME WITH 75% OF THE

INFILL REMOVED 20

STORY HIGHT (m)

FRAME WITH HALF OF
THE INFILL REMOVED 15
SOFT GROUND STORY
10
BASE INFILLED FRAME

5
BARE FRAME

0
-2500 -2000 -1500 -1000 -500 0
STORY SHEAR (KN)

Figure.4.4C. Story Shear for G+10 Building

The story shear calculated on the basis of bare frame model gave a lesser value than
the other infilled frames; It was observed that the story shear in base infilled Frame is
nearly 7.13% greater compared to bare frame model and was nearly 6.46%, 3.83%
and 1.53 % in soft ground story frame, frame with half of the wall removed and frame
with 75% of the wall removed compared to bare frame.

4.3.5MEMBER FORCES

Next, the effect of infill on the member forces in beams and columns were studied. In
general compared to bare frame model, the infill models predicted higher axial forces
in columns but lower shear forces and bending moments in both beams and columns.
Thus, the effect of infill panel is to change the predominantly a frame action of a
moment resisting frame system towards truss action. Generally, for the bottom floors
where the axial force is large, base structure of infilled frames showed around 30%

72
Addis Ababa Institute of Technology,School of Civil and Environmental Engineering AAiT
Effects of Masonry Infills on Reinforced Concrete Frame Buildings

increase in axial force. The other infill models showed a lesser increase. The effect of
infill on frame is to reduce the shear force and bending moments.

Similarly in the case of beam, the effect of infill is to reduce the shear force as well as
bending moment when subjected to seismic loading. The base structure of infilled
frame predicted about 35 % of the bare frame model whereas; the other infill models
showed a lesser increase.

The Pauley & Priestley model gives the effective width. The larger effective strut
width yield more rigid frame, less time period and thus more lateral force from
earthquake analysis. However, this large force, when applied to structure, still
produce less lateral displacement and member forces since the increased stiffness has
larger effect than corresponding increased forces. So it is not always safe to assume
larger value of strut width. However, as seen from the verification model and the
comparisons of fundamental time period, base shear, lateral displacement and story
shear Pauley & Priestley model is the most realistic one. In general, the effect of infill
panel is to reduce the seismic demand of a building structure in terms of lateral
displacement as well.

As expected, the infill has a better response during earthquake excitation. In the case
of column, bare frame model predicts the maximum moment of about 426.7kN-m at
the bottom floor which is reduced by about 17%, 22%, 27% and 40% kN-m in the
case of infill model in the corresponding trend. However, with the increase in the
story level, the bare frame model predicts gradual decrease in bending moment, so
does the infill model. The percentage reduction in bending moment predicted by infill
model to that by bare frame model reduces gradually to about 35% at the upper
floors. For the top two floors there is almost no reduction in the bending moment.
This is true for all the cases of openings and position of columns in the building. In
the case of both these columns, there is a large reduction in bending moment

73
Addis Ababa Institute of Technology,School of Civil and Environmental Engineering AAiT
Effects of Masonry Infills on Reinforced Concrete Frame Buildings

predicted by the infill model; but the reduction remains almost the same throughout
the floor. Even in these columns, there is no reduction in bending moments at the top
floor. This discussion is true even for the shear force. The pattern of reduction of
shear force in all columns as predicted by infill model to that by the bare frame model
is same as that of bending moment.

Thus, from above discussion, it is quite clear that the effect of infill on frame is to
reduce the shear force and bending moments. In general for all columns, both shear
force and bending moments are reduced. At the lower floors the reduction is more
than 40%, which decrease to about 35% in the case of corner columns but remains
about the same for edge and middle column even at the upper floors. One typical fact
is that at the top most floors the member force does not decrease. This might be the
case of further research to verify the effect of infill on taller structure.

74
 Addis Ababa Institute of Technology,School of Civil and Environmental Engineering AAiT
Effects of Masonry Infills on Reinforced Concrete Frame Buildings

CHAPTER FIVE

5.1 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

5.1.1 Conclusion

The HCBmasonry infill is modeled as a diagonal strut member whose thickness is

same as that of the masonry and the length is equal to the diagonal length between
compression corners of the frame. The effective width of the diagonal strut depends
on diagonal length of the infill. Various researchers had proposed different strut
width, however in the present study the effective width as suggested by Pauley and
Priestleywere considered initially. Since, Pauley &Priestley suggested effective width
seems to agree closer to the experimental case considered in the study, this was used.

This thesis work is towards the understanding of the effect of infill wall. Introducing
infill panels in the RC frame reduces the time period of bare frames and also
enhances the stiffness of the structure. Bare frame idealization leads to overestimation
of natural periods and under estimation of the design lateral forces. The trend in the
analysis taken to be bare frame, frame with 75% of infill wall removed from base
structure, frame with half of infill wall removed from base structure, soft ground
story and base structureof infilled frame.The main conclusions are summarized
below:

1. The results obtained for fundamental natural period indicate that analytical natural
period is greater than the natural periods obtained from the empirical expression of
the code in all the corresponding trends. The natural period for empirical analysis
decrease in the trend for G+4, G+7 and G+10, similar sequence is also observed in
the analytical analysis for G+4, G+7 and G+10.

75
Addis Ababa Institute of Technology,School of Civil and Environmental Engineering AAiT
Effects of Masonry Infills on Reinforced Concrete Frame Buildings

2. The bare frame models does not takes in to account the stiffness rendered by the
infill panel, it gives significantly longer time period. And hence smaller lateral forces.
This is due to the fact that the fundamental time period of a structure depends not
only on the mass of a structure but also on the stiffness of the structure. And when the
infill is modeled, the structure becomes much stiffer than the bare frame model. EC8
and EBCS 8 bases the calculation of seismic actions for infilled frames on the
average periods T1’.

3. It is evident that masonry infills panel reduces the story displacement of RC

moment resisting frame structure. The absence of infills in a lower story, usually the
bottom has a significant influence in reducing fundamental period and story
displacement by forming soft story as it has been observed in number of earthquakes.

4. Verification of EBCS 8 section 3.9.4 for themodificationof natural period caused

by addition of infillsgives almost a close result with that of analytical result. This
shows that the empirical formula used for the modification of the fundamental period
can be effectively used in the analysis. The reduction of the fundamental period
usually implies higher base shear as shown in the next section.

5. The effect of infill wall is to change the predominantly a frame action of a moment
resisting frame structure towards a truss action and changing the lateral load transfer
mechanism. Thus, axial forces in columns are increased in infill frame model
compared to a bare frame model. And it is quite clear that the effect of infill on frame
is to reduce the shear force and bending moments. In general for all columns, both
shear force and bending moments are reduced. At the lower floors the reduction is
more than 40%, which decrease to about 35% in the case of corner columns but
remains about the same for edge and middle column even at the upper floors. One
typical fact is that at the top most floors the member force does not decrease.

76
 Addis Ababa Institute of Technology,School of Civil and Environmental Engineering AAiT
Effects of Masonry Infills on Reinforced Concrete Frame Buildings

5.1.2 Recommendations

1. The additional stiffness contributed by these infill increases the overall

stiffness of the building, which eventually leads to shorter time period. With
further study this may lead to a practical way to determine the fundamental
period of RC frames using rational approaches like modal analysis, and
eliminate the necessity of imposing code limits.
2. Since, codes give an empirical value to compute the natural period which
depends upon height and width only, further study could be done to find the
effect of span length, number of span, stiffness of beam and columns etc.
3. The present study was carried out using linear elastic analysis method for the
seismic analysis. This could be extended to nonlinear static and dynamic
analysis to cater for the structure with horizontal aswell as vertical
irregularity.
4. Further study on partial infill with openings at various locations could lead to
valuable information regarding the practical aspect of design work.
5. The present study was done based on the strut width suggested by Pauley
&Priestley. Many researchers had recommended different strut width to
replace infill panel. The study could be extended to more strut width and
compared with experimental result to find out the most suitable one.
6. The study can be extended to a building frame with greater number of story to
see the effect of infill panels on tall structure during seismic excitation.
7. The macro modeling approach used here takes into account only the
equivalent global behavior of the infill in the analysis. As a result, the
approach doesnot permit study of local effects such as frame-infill interaction
within the individual infilled frame subassemblies. More detailed micro-
modeling approaches need to be used to capture the local conditions within

77
Addis Ababa Institute of Technology,School of Civil and Environmental Engineering AAiT
Effects of Masonry Infills on Reinforced Concrete Frame Buildings

the infill. Thus, further studies should be conducted to develop design

guidelines for engineered infill.

78
 Addis Ababa Institute of Technology,School of Civil and Environmental Engineering AAiT
Effects of Masonry Infills on Reinforced Concrete Frame Buildings

REFERENCES

1. T. Paulay and M.I.N. Priestly, -- Seismic design of reinforced concrete and

masonry Buildings
2. T. Elouali, --Effect of infill masonry panels on the seismic response of frame
buildings.
3. Mohd Danish et.al, --Analysis of Masonry Infilled R.C.Frame with &
without Opening Including Soft Storey by using “Equivalent Diagonal Strut
Method” International Journal of Scientific and Research Publications,
Volume 3, Issue 9, September 2013 ISSN 2250-3153
4. Wael W. El-Dakhakhni, et al, --Strength and stiffness prediction of masonry
infill panels. World Conference on Earthquake Engineering
5. Md Irfanullah1,et al, -- Seismic evaluation of RC framed buildings with
influence of masonry infill panel.International Journal of Research in
Engineering and Technology eISSN: 2319-1163
6. EN 1998-1-1:2004, ―Eurocode 8: Design of structures for earthquake
resistance -Part 1: General rules, seismic actions and rules for buildings.
7. EBCS 8, --Design of structures for earthquake resistance
8. EBCS 1, -- Basis of design and actions on structure
9. EN 1992-1-1:2004, ―Eurocode 2: Design of concrete structures - Part
1-1: General rules and rules for buildings,. .
10. EBCS 2, -- Structural use of concrete
11. Mehmet selim öztürk, -- Effects of masonry infill walls on the
seismiperformance of buildings
12. Goutam Mondal, -- Lateral Stiffness of Masonry Infilled Reinforced
Concrete (RC) Frames with Central Opening
13. Michael N Fardis, -- Design provisions for masonry-infilled RC frames
World Conference on Earthquake Engineering

79
Addis Ababa Institute of Technology,School of Civil and Environmental Engineering AAiT
Effects of Masonry Infills on Reinforced Concrete Frame Buildings

14. Andreas J Kappos and Frederick Ellul, --seismic design and performance
assessment of masonryinfilled r/c frames. World Conference on Earthquake
Engineering
15. Robin Davis, et al --effect of infill stiffness on seismic performance of
multi-story RC framed buildings in India. World Conference on Earthquake
Engineering.
16. Hemant B. Kaushik, et al --A rational approach to analytical modeling of
masonry infills in reinforced concrete frame buildings. World Conference on
Earthquake Engineering
17. FEMA 306. 1998, -- Evaluation of Earthquake Damaged Concrete and
Masonry.
18. Holmes, M. 1961, -- Steel Frames with Brickwork and Concrete Infilling.
Proceedings of Institution. Of Civil Engineers London, Vol 19: 473-478.
19. Mekonnen Degefa, --Response of masonry infilled RC frame under
horizontal seismic force
20. Mulgund G. V, -- Seismic assessment of RC frame buildings with brick
masonry infills.International journal of advanced engineering sciences and
technologies
21. Smith, B.S. and A. Coull. 1991, -- Tall Building Structures: Analysis and
Design.
22. Sachin R Patel,Sumant B patel, Effect of Brick Infill Panel in Design of High
Rise Building.National Conference on Recent Trends in Engineering &
Technology
23. Salah El-Din Fahmy Taher*, et al, --Role of masonry infill in seismic
resistance of rc structure.

80
Addis Ababa Institute of Technology,School of Civil and Environmental Engineering AAiT
Effects of Masonry Infills on Reinforced Concrete Frame Buildings

24. Diana M. Samoilă*1, --Analytical Modelling of Masonry Infills Journal

homepage: http://constructii.utcluj.ro/ActaCivilEngIOSR Journal of
Engineering
25. Neelima Patnala VS, Pradeep Kumar Ramancharla, --Seismic Behaviour of
RC Frame with URM Infill: A Case Study. International Journal of
Education and applied research.
26. Kashif Mahmud et al, --Study the Reinforced Concrete Frame with Brick
Masonry Infill due to Lateral Loads.International Journal of Civil &
Environmental Engineering IJCEE-IJENS Vol:10 No:04
27. Madan, A., A.M. Reinhorn, J.B.Mander and R.E.Valles. 1997. Modeling of
Infill Panels for Structural Analysis. Journal of Structural Engineering,
ASCE, 123 (10): 1295-1302.
28. Moghaddam, H.A. and P.J. Dowling. 1987. The State of the Art in Infilled
Frames. ESEE Research Report No. 87-2, Imperial College of Science and
Technology, Civil Engineering Department, London, U.K
29. Murthy, C.V.R. and S.K. Jain. 2000. Beneficial influence of masonry infills
on seismic performance of RC frame buildings. Proceedings of 12thWorld
Conference on Earthquake Engineering, New Zealand, Paper No. 1790
30. Goutam Mondal and Sudhir K. Jain, M.EERI, Lateral Stiffness of Masonry
InfilledReinforced Concrete (RC) Frameswith Central Opening. Department
of Civil Engineering, Indian Institute of Technology Kanpur, India 208016
31. Sumat Shrestha (2005). Interaction between RC Frames & Brick Masonry
Infill Wall. M.S Thesis, Tribhuvan University, Institute of Engineering,
Pulchowk Campus.

81
Addis Ababa Institute of Technology,School of Civil and Environmental Engineering AAiT
Effects of Masonry Infills on Reinforced Concrete Frame Buildings

APPENDICES

82
Addis Ababa Institute of Technology,School of Civil and Environmental Engineering AAiT
Effects of Masonry Infills on Reinforced Concrete Frame Buildings

Appendix A

Verification of strut width

83
Addis Ababa Institute of Technology,School of Civil and Environmental Engineering AAiT
Effects of Masonry Infills on Reinforced Concrete Frame Buildings

VERIFICATION

This is to verify that, an infill wall can be modelled as an equivalent diagonal

compression strut in the building model. Thus in order to have only the diagonal
compression strut, the diagonal tension struts were set to tension limit zero. The
properties and parameters used in the verified model is the one verified by [Sumat
Shrestha (2005)] 31, discussed in section 2.13 of chapter 2. Which is :-

Cross Section center line Comp. Strength Young's Long Reinf.(fy =

Section (mm*mm) dimension (mm) f' c (Mpa) Modulus (Mpa) Poisons' Ratio 248 MPa
Beam 75*75 928 7.93 12500 0.15 4-4.74mm
Column 75*75 910 7.93 12500 0.15 4-4.75mm
Infill 832*853 1300 - 225 0.17 -

84
Addis Ababa Institute of Technology,School of Civil and Environmental Engineering AAiT
Effects of Masonry Infills on Reinforced Concrete Frame Buildings

Comparison of the output of this study and Sumat Shresta are summarized in
table A1.

Appendix Table A1. Verification of strut width in terms of defelection

Defelection (m)
Defelection (m) FromSumat
From Thesis Shrestha
(A) (B) Ratio(A/B)
0.0123 0.0122 1.0082
0.01165 0.01155 1.0087
0.011 0.0109 1.0092
0.01035 0.01025 1.0098
0.0097 0.0096 1.0104
0.00905 0.00895 1.0112
0.00841 0.00831 1.0120
0.00776 0.00766 1.0131
0.00711 0.00701 1.0143
0.00646 0.00636 1.0157
0.00582 0.00572 1.0175
0.00517 0.00507 1.0197
0.00452 0.00442 1.0226
0.00388 0.00378 1.0265
0.00323 0.00313 1.0319
0.00258 0.00248 1.0403
0.00194 0.00184 1.0543
0.0013 0.0012 1.0833
0.00064 0.00054 1.1852
0 0 0.0000

85
Addis Ababa Institute of Technology,School of Civil and Environmental Engineering AAiT
Effects of Masonry Infills on Reinforced Concrete Frame Buildings

Figure. A1. Verification of tension limit validation

86
Addis Ababa Institute of Technology,School of Civil and Environmental Engineering AAiT
Effects of Masonry Infills on Reinforced Concrete Frame Buildings

As shown in fig. A1 before the diagonal strut assigned to tension limit zero the
diagonal member which goes from left of the frame base to the right of the frame first
story were axially tensioned. But, after it has been assigned to tension limit zero, the
member doesn’t take tension force as shown in fig.

87
Addis Ababa Institute of Technology,School of Civil and Environmental Engineering AAiT
Effects of Masonry Infills on Reinforced Concrete Frame Buildings

Appendix B

Effective width Calculation of diagonal strut

88
 Addis Ababa Institute of Technology,School of Civil and Environmental Engineering AAiT
Effects of Masonry Infills on Reinforced Concrete Frame Buildings

EFFECTIVE WIDTH OF DIAGONAL STRUT

It is usual practice to provide masonry infill in a moment resisting frame as exterior

walls, partitions, and walls around stair, elevator and service shafts and hence treated
as nonstructural elements. But it has been recognized by many studies that it also
serve structurally to brace the frame against horizontal loading. It has been stated that
the use of masonry infill is to brace a frame and combines some of the desirable
structural characteristics of each, while overcoming some of their deficiencies. When
the frame is subjected to lateral loading, the translation of the upper part of the
column in each story and the shortening of the leading diagonal of the frame cause
the column to lean against the wall as well as compress the wall along its diagonal.
This is analogous to a diagonally braced frame. Thus to model an infilled frame, the
masonry panel is replaced by an equivalent diagonal strut whose thickness is same as
that of the masonry panel and the length is the diagonal length of the compression
side of the panel.

Pauley and Priestley (1992) suggested that the effective width shall be one-fourth the
diagonal length which relates the width w of infill to parameter d (length of diagonal
strut) and given by equation (B1).

𝑑
𝑤= 𝐵1
4

And the reduction factor for the infilled frame with opening can be simplified as

𝜌𝑤 = 1 − 2.6𝛼𝑐𝑜 𝐵2

Where:- 𝜌𝑤 - Strut − width reduction factor

𝛼𝑐𝑜 -Opening- Area- Ratio

89
Addis Ababa Institute of Technology,School of Civil and Environmental Engineering AAiT
Effects of Masonry Infills on Reinforced Concrete Frame Buildings

𝐴𝑟𝑒𝑎 𝑜𝑓 𝑜𝑝𝑒𝑛𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝐴𝑜𝑝

𝛼𝑐𝑜 =
𝐴𝑟𝑒𝑎 𝑜𝑓 𝑖𝑛𝑓𝑖𝑙𝑙 𝐴𝑖𝑛𝑓𝑖𝑙𝑙

Thus, the effective width as proposed by Pauley & Priestley can be found by just
knowing the diagonal length whereas for. The effective widths calculated are shown
in Appendix Table B1. Calculation of strut width

Strut Crossection
Length Thickeness Width
WS1 (with out opening) 6.708204 0.15 1.68
WS2( with window opening of
1.5m*2m) 6.708204 0.2 0.9521
WS3 (with door opening of
2m*25m) 6.708204 0.15 0.4666
WS4 (with door opening of
1.2m*2.5m) 6.708204 0.15 0.9521
WS5 (with door opening of
1m*2.5m) 6.708204 0.15 1.073

Appendix Figure B1 Diagonal length and diagonal angle

90
Addis Ababa Institute of Technology,School of Civil and Environmental Engineering AAiT
Effects of Masonry Infills on Reinforced Concrete Frame Buildings

Appendix C

Calculation of fundamental period and Base Shear

91
Addis Ababa Institute of Technology,School of Civil and Environmental Engineering AAiT
Effects of Masonry Infills on Reinforced Concrete Frame Buildings

92
Addis Ababa Institute of Technology,School of Civil and Environmental Engineering AAiT
Effects of Masonry Infills on Reinforced Concrete Frame Buildings

Appendix Table C1. Calculation of Fundamental Period

C1.1

G+4

T1b2*Aw*G*g/16* 1+(T1b2*Aw*G*g/
Types of Models Aw(m2) G(Mpa) g(m/sec 2) H(m) W(KN) T1b (sec) T1b2 T1b2*Aw*G*g 16*H*W H*W 16*H*W) T1i(sec) T1'=(T1b+T1i)/2

Bare Frame 0.000 701.500 9.980 15.000 15235.390 0.572 0.327 0.000 3656493.600 0.000 1.000 0.572 0.572
Frame with 75%
of the wall
reduced 855.000 701.500 9.980 15.000 16322.117 0.572 0.327 1956067.092 3917307.970 0.499 1.499 0.381 0.476
Frame with half
of the wall
reduced 1907.500 701.500 9.980 15.000 18133.332 0.572 0.327 4363974.243 4351999.584 1.003 2.003 0.285 0.429

Building With
Soft Story 2670.000 701.500 9.980 15.000 19485.706 0.572 0.327 6108420.041 4676569.322 1.306 2.306 0.248 0.410

Base infilled
Frame 3472.500 701.500 9.980 15.000 20548.285 0.572 0.327 7944377.751 4931588.402 1.611 2.611 0.219 0.395

93
Addis Ababa Institute of Technology,School of Civil and Environmental Engineering AAiT
Effects of Masonry Infills on Reinforced Concrete Frame Buildings

C1.2

G+7

T1b2*Aw*G*g/1 1+(T1b2*Aw*G*
Types of Models Aw(m2) G(Mpa) g(m/sec 2) H(m) W(KN) T1b (sec) T1b2 T1b2*Aw*G*g 16*H*W 6*H*W g/16*H*W) T1i(sec) T1'=(T1b+T1i)/2

Bare Frame 0.000 701.500 9.980 24.000 22451.138 0.813 0.661 0.000 8621236.800 0.000 1.000 0.813 0.813
Frame with 75%
of the wall
reduced 1368.000 701.500 9.980 24.000 24189.904 0.813 0.661 6334082.321 9288923.121 0.682 1.682 0.484 0.648
Frame with half
of the wall
reduced 3052.000 701.500 9.980 24.000 26894.652 0.813 0.661 14131300.617 10327546.368 1.368 2.368 0.343 0.578

Building With
Soft Story 4861.500 701.500 9.980 24.000 29889.190 0.813 0.661 22509606.143 11477448.960 1.961 2.961 0.275 0.544

Base infilled
Frame 5556.000 701.500 9.980 24.000 30951.774 0.813 0.661 25725264.163 11885481.024 2.164 3.164 0.257 0.535

94
Addis Ababa Institute of Technology,School of Civil and Environmental Engineering AAiT
Effects of Masonry Infills on Reinforced Concrete Frame Buildings

C1.3

G+10

T1b2*Aw*G*g/1 1+(T1b2*Aw*G*
Types of Models Aw(m2) G(Mpa) g(m/sec 2) H(m) W(KN) T1b (sec) T1b2 T1b2*Aw*G*g 16*H*W 6*H*W g/16*H*W) T1i(sec) T1'=(T1b+T1i)/2

Bare Frame 0.000 701.500 9.980 33.000 37234.050 1.033 1.066 0.000 19659578.400 0.000 1.000 1.033 1.033
Frame with 75%
of the wall
reduced 1665.000 701.500 9.980 33.000 39624.854 1.033 1.066 12429850.096 20921922.806 0.594 1.594 0.648 0.840
Frame with half
of the wall
reduced 4196.500 701.500 9.980 33.000 43343.882 1.033 1.066 31328448.006 22885569.770 1.369 2.369 0.436 0.734

Building With
Soft Story 6845.000 701.500 9.980 33.000 47859.845 1.033 1.066 51100494.841 25269998.176 2.022 3.022 0.342 0.687

Base infilled
Frame 7639.500 701.500 9.980 33.000 48922.425 1.033 1.066 57031735.622 25831040.136 2.208 3.208 0.322 0.677

95
Addis Ababa Institute of Technology,School of Civil and Environmental Engineering AAiT
Effects of Masonry Infills on Reinforced Concrete Frame Buildings

Appendix Table B2. Calculation of Base Shear

C2.1

G+4

Total wight of Emperical result Fb = Sd(T1')

Story Hight the building T1'=(T1b+T1i)/ Analytical result T1'^3/4 for T1' ^3/4for ϒ= Yo kD kR Sd(T1')using Sd(T1')using using emperical Fb = Sd(T1') using
Types of Models H(m) W(KN) T1b (sec) 2 (T1') 3//4 Emperical tesult analytical result α S β for Emperical β for Analytical ϒo KD KR KW kw<=0.7 emperical result analytical result result analytical result

Bare Frame 15 15235.39 0.571649342 0.571649 0.823380 0.750000 0.6574 0.8644 0.12 1.20 2.190359 1.665951 0.20 1.50 1.0 1.0 0.30 0.078852908 0.059974241 1201.3548 913.7309454

Frame with 75%

of the wall
reduced 15 16322.11654 0.571649342 0.476458 0.685560 0.750000 0.5735 0.7534 0.12 1.20 2.510983 1.911298 0.20 1.50 1.0 1.0 0.30 0.090395387 0.068806725 1475.444036 1123.071392

Frame with half of

the wall reduced 15 18133.3316 0.571649342 0.428541 0.617180 0.750000 0.5297 0.6963 0.12 1.20 2.718745 2.068015 0.20 1.50 1.0 1.0 0.30 0.097874818 0.074448527 1774.796521 1349.999828

Building With Soft

Story 15 19485.70551 0.571649342 0.409763 0.587660 0.750000 0.5122 0.6712 0.12 1.20 2.811658 2.145448 0.20 1.50 1.0 1.0 0.30 0.1012197 0.07723611 1972.337262 1505.000102

Base infilled
Frame 15 20548.28501 0.571649342 0.395298 0.568070 0.750000 0.4985 0.6543 0.12 1.20 2.888480 2.200701 0.20 1.50 1.0 1.0 0.30 0.10398528 0.079225247 2136.719172 1627.942955

96
Addis Ababa Institute of Technology,School of Civil and Environmental Engineering AAiT
Effects of Masonry Infills on Reinforced Concrete Frame Buildings

C2.2

G+7

Total wight of Emperical result Fb = Sd(T1')

Story Hight the building T1'=(T1b+T1i)/ Analytical result T1'^3/4 for T1' ^3/4for ϒ= Yo kD kR Sd(T1')using Sd(T1')using using emperical Fb = Sd(T1') using
Types of Models H(m) W(KN) T1b (sec) 2 (T1') 3//4 Emperical tesult analytical result α S β for Emperical β for Analytical ϒo KD KR KW kw<=0.7 emperical result analytical result result analytical result

Bare Frame 24 22451.1375 0.813241803 0.813000 1.122260 0.750000 0.8562 1.0904 0.12 1.20 1.681878 1.320664 0.20 1.50 1.0 1.0 0.30 0.060547621 0.047543908 1359.362964 1067.414823

Frame with 75%

of the wall
reduced 24 24189.90396 0.813241803 0.648000 0.992510 0.750000 0.7222 0.9944 0.12 1.20 1.993798 1.448143 0.20 1.50 1.0 1.0 0.30 0.071776741 0.052133133 1736.272483 1261.095479

Frame with half of

the wall reduced 24 26894.652 0.813241803 0.578000 0.794940 0.750000 0.6629 0.8419 0.12 1.20 2.172284 1.710455 0.20 1.50 1.0 1.0 0.30 0.078202226 0.061576391 2103.221648 1656.075603

Building With Soft

Story 24 29889.19 0.813241803 0.544000 0.727610 0.750000 0.6334 0.7878 0.12 1.20 2.273334 1.827841 0.20 1.50 1.0 1.0 0.30 0.081840037 0.065802289 2446.132421 1966.777106

Base infilled
Frame 24 30951.7735 0.813241803 0.535000 0.698530 0.750000 0.6256 0.7641 0.12 1.20 2.301957 1.884620 0.20 1.50 1.0 1.0 0.30 0.082870442 0.067846304 2564.987157 2099.963443

97
Addis Ababa Institute of Technology,School of Civil and Environmental Engineering AAiT
Effects of Masonry Infills on Reinforced Concrete Frame Buildings

C2.3

G+10

Total wight of Emperical result Fb = Sd(T1')

Story Hight the building T1'=(T1b+T1i)/ Analytical result T1'^3/4 for T1' ^3/4for ϒ= Yo kD kR Sd(T1')using Sd(T1')using using emperical Fb = Sd(T1') using
Types of Models H(m) W(KN) T1b (sec) 2 (T1') 3//4 Emperical tesult analytical result α S β for Emperical β for Analytical ϒo KD KR KW kw<=0.7 emperical result analytical result result analytical result

Bare Frame 33 37234.05 1.032634709 1.033000 1.462650 0.750000 1.0246 1.3300 0.12 1.20 1.405359 1.082698 0.20 1.50 1.0 1.0 0.30 0.050592921 0.038977114 1883.779339 1451.275818

Frame with 75%

of the wall
reduced 33 39624.8538 1.032634709 0.840000 1.156470 0.750000 0.8774 1.1152 0.12 1.20 1.641168 1.291254 0.20 1.50 1.0 1.0 0.30 0.059082046 0.046485148 2341.117445 1841.967178

Frame with half of

the wall reduced 33 43343.88214 1.032634709 0.734000 1.008710 0.750000 0.7930 1.0065 0.12 1.20 1.815894 1.430664 0.20 1.50 1.0 1.0 0.30 0.065372177 0.051503916 2833.483935 2232.37965

Building With Soft

Story 33 47859.84503 1.032634709 0.687000 0.912690 0.750000 0.7546 0.9338 0.12 1.20 1.908292 1.542127 0.20 1.50 1.0 1.0 0.30 0.068698529 0.055516557 3287.900968 2657.013811

Base infilled
Frame 33 48922.4245 1.032634709 0.677000 0.897760 0.750000 0.7463 0.9223 0.12 1.20 1.929394 1.561321 0.20 1.50 1.0 1.0 0.30 0.069458195 0.056207569 3398.063287 2749.810564

98