Seah 1998

If
National Library
of Canada
Bibliothque nationale
du Canada
Acquisitions and
Bibliographie Services
Acquisitions et
services bibliqraphiques
395 Wellington Street

OnawaON K1AON4
Canada
395. nre WeHington

Ottawa ON K l A W
Canada
The author has granted a nonexclusive licence allowing the

National Library of Canada to
reproduce, loan, distri%uteor seil
copies of this thesis in microfom,
paper or electronic formats.
L'auteur a accord me licence non

exclusive permettant la
Bibliothque nationale du Canada de
reproduire, prter, distribuer ou
vendre des copies de cette thse sous
la forme de microfiche/film, de
reproduction sur papier ou sur format
lectronique.
The author retains ownership of the

copyright in this thesis. Neither the
thesis nor substantial extracts fkom it
may be printed or otherwise
reproduced without the author's
permission.
L'auteur conserve la proprit du

droit d'auteur qui protge cette thse.
Ni la thse ni des extraits substantiels
de celle-ci ne doivent tre imprims
ou autrement reproduits sans son
autorisation.
Dedication
This dissertation is dedicated to

my parents and my family
Masonry infil1 panels in a steel or concrete frame have beneficial e f l i t s related to

strength, stifniess, and ductility of the resulting composite structure. Existing methods of
analysis, with the primary focus on strength prediction alone, were generally not suitable
for a gtobaf analysis of a general three dimensional h
e containing uinlls. A practical
computer technique wherein each idil1 in a fiame is replaced with an equivalent

compression diagonal has been developed and tested for accuracy and reliability. Load
deformation response characteristics of each infill in a fkme are first deterrnined using a
finite element computer analysis. Results of this analysis are then used to develop the
diagonal load - deformation behaviour of an equivalent diagonal brace which replaces the
corresponding infill panel. In a general analysis of a multi-panel structure, al1 panels are
replaced by this method thus leading to a considerably simplified and economical
technique.
Concurrent with this study, a finite element model suitable for the analysis of
fiames with masonry infills was also developed to generate results required for the
determination of the diagonal load - defoxmation behaviour of equivdent braces used.
The computer model developed herein accounts for crack opening, subsequent closing,
and re-opening in the masonxy panel as well as for contact and separation effects at panel
to fiame interfaces. Non-linear behaviour of fiame members due to the formation of

plastic hinges is also taken into account.
Afier venfjmg the analytical behaviour with experimentd results, the computer
mode1 is used in a parametric study to identify parameten that may significantly affect
the behaviour of Mlled m e s . Technical information resulting fiom this study is used
to developed design guidelines which are illustrateci with appropriately chosen design
examples.
The author wishes to express his sincere gratitude to his thesis supervisor, Dr.
John L. Dawe, for his s u p e ~ s i o n ,encouragement, md generous support during this

snidy. The valuable guidance offered by Dr. Dawe and the efforts he expended in
reviewing the manuscript are greatly appreciated.
Acknowledgement is due to the Atlantic Masonry Research and Advisory Bureau,

Inc. for providing the computing facilities used, The present research is deeply indebted
to
earlier works hat were generously supportai by the Shaw Group (formerly L.E. Shaw
Ltd.) and M. George Forsyth, formerly the executive director of Atlantic Masonry
Association.
The author also wishes to thank members of the Examination Board,

Dr. L. Chang, Dr. R. Prasad, Dr. A. Schnver, and Extemal Examiner Dr. R. M. Bennett
for their valuable contributions.

The author is especially gratefl to his wife, Hwee Miang, for her support and
patience.
Chapter 1
INTRODUCTION
1.1 GENERAL ...........................
.
.
.
.
......................................................................................1
1.2 ANALYSIS AND DESIGN OF BUILDING FRAME W H INFILLS ............................. 2
1.3 BEHAVIOUR OF INFILLED FRAMES..............................................................................
1 -4 FIMTE ELEMENT TECHMQUE ......................................................................................
1-5 OBJECTNES........................................................................................................................
1.6 SCOPE...................................................................................................................................
6
1.7 ORGANIZATION OF THE THESIS ..............................
Chapter 2
...........................................
,..............
LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1 INTRODUCTION...............................................................................................................
..9
2.2 HISTORICAL DEVELOPMENT .......................................................................................
IO
2.3 EARLY RESEARCH A
.THE CONCEPT OF DUGONAL STRUT ........................... 13
2.4 THEORETICAL EVALUATION OF INFLLL FRAME BEHAVIOUR BASED ON
M I L L TO FRAME RELATIVE STIFFNESS ..................................................................
15
2 -4.1 Square Infilled Frames..................................................................................1 5
2.4.2 Rectangular Infilled Frames ......................................................................... 1 8
2.5 EMPIRICAL EVALUATION OF INFILLED FRAME BEHAVIOUR BASED ON
RELATIVE STEFNESS OF FRAME AND IN'FiLL......................................................... 21
2.6 EVALUATION OF INFILLED FRAME BEHAVIOUR BASED ON THEORY OF
ELASTICITY ...................................................................................................................... 24
2.7 EVALUATION OF INFILLED FRAME BEHAVIOUR USING RMTE ELEMENT
METHOD ............................................................................................................................
25
2.8 ANALYSIS OF iNFJLLED FRAME STRUCTURES ....................................................... 29
2.9 PLASTIC THEORY............................................................................................................
31
2.10 EXPERMENTAL EVALUATiON OF VARIOUS PARAMETRIC EFFECTS .............32

2.1 1 RECENT DEVELOPMENT .............................................................................................
34
2.12 SuMAffARY......................................................................................................................
35
Chapter 3
DEVELOPMENT OF ANALYTICAL TECKNIQUE
3.1 INTRODUCTION ...............................................................................................................
37
3.2 MODELLING OF WILLED FRAME BEHAVIOUR ..................................................... 39
3.2.1 General........................................................................................................... 39
3.2.2 The Finite Element Method in Structural Engineering Applications............40
3 .2.3 Methods of Non-Linear Analysis ..................................................................
41
3.2.4 Combined Incremental and Iterative Technique ...............................
.
.
....-..46
3.2.5 Development of Infilled Frame Mode1.......................................................50

3.2.5.1 Frarne Elements .................................................................................. 50
3 .2.5.2 Hinge Elements................................................................................ 5 2
3 .2.5-3 Masonry Panel ............................................................................
54
3.2.5.4 Joint Element .....................

.
............................................................ 58
3 .2.5 -5 interface Element ................................................................................ 64
3.2.5.6 Reinforcement Element ...................................................................... 66

3.2.5.7 inflled Frarne Mode1 .......................................................................... 68
3-3 MATERIAL MODEL ........................................................................................................
-69
3.3.1 General ...........................................................................................................
69
3.3.2 Frame and Hinge Material Mode1 ........................................................
....70
3.3.3 Masonry Material Mode1 ............................................................................... 73

3.3.4 Joint Material Mode1 ...................................................................................
7 8
vii
3.3.5 Interface Material Mode1..........................,

.
............................................... 80
3.3.6 Reinforcement Element ............................................................................... .,81
3.4
ANALYTICAL PROCEDURE...........................................................................................
82
3.5 COMPUTER WLEMENTATiON AND PROGRUdMiNG .......................................... 84

3.6 SUMMARY ........................................................................................................................
Chapter 4
85
ANALYSIS AND COMPARISON WITH TEST RESULTS
4.1 INTRODUCTION...............................................................................................................
86
STEEL FRAMES WITH CONCRETE BLOCK MASONRY INFILL ...........................
87
4.2
4.2.1 Experimental Data ..................................................................................
8 7
4.2.2 Portal Steel Frame With No hfill.........................

.
.
..................................91
4.2.3 Steel Frarnes With Concrete Masonry Panel Infills ......................................94
....................................... 9 4
4.2.3.2 Mortar Packed between Column Flanges and
......................... 106
4.2.3.3 Column - to - Panel Ties ....................... .
.
..................................... 109
4.2.3.4 Gap at Top Bearn - to - Panel Interface ....................................113
4.2.3.5 Bond Break at Frarne - to - infll Interface ....................................... 118
4.2.3.6 Bond Beams at One-third and Two-third Height.............................. 122
4.2.3.7 Joint Reinforcement ..........................................................................125
4.2.3 -8 Reinforced Diagonal ......................................................................... 129
4.2.3.9 Central Door Opening....................................................................... 132
4.2.4 Door Opening Offset Toward Loaded Side ................................................. 135
4.2.5 Door Opening Offset Towards Unloaded Corner....................................... 138
4.2.6 Panel Within Hinged Frames..................................................................
141
4.2.7 Perforated Panel Within a Hinged Frame .................................................... 144
4.2.3.1 Standard Specimens ..........................
......
4.2.8 Interface Gap between Panel M l 1 and the Surrounding Hinged Frame ....146
4.3 RACKING LOAD TEST OF REMFORCED CONCRETE FRAMES WITH BRICK
MASONRY INFTLL....................................................................................................
148
4.3.1 Experimental Data ......................................................................................148

4.3.2 Comparison of Results.................................................................................152
4.4
SUMMARY
......................................................................................................................
155
Chapter 5
PARAMETRIC STUDIES
5.1 INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................
156
5.2 PANEL ASPECT RATIO ................................................................................................. 157
5.3 LOADING CONDITION................................................................................................
5 -4 FRAME TO PANEL BOND .......................................................................................
165
167
5.5 FRAME - TO - PANEL INTERFACE FRICTION........................................................... 171

5.6 GAP BETWEEN PANEL AND FRAME .....................................................................
173
MORTAR JOINT BOND AM3 FRICTION.....................................................................
176
5.7
5.8 FRAME RIGIDITY...........................................................................................................

5.9 PANEL STRENGTH AND
179
STIFFNESS..........................................................................
5.10 EFFECTS OF G R A W LOADING .........................................................................
184
187
5.11 SUMMARY .................................................................................................................
192
Chapter 6 DEVELOPMENT OF A PRACTICAL APPROACH FOR THE

ANALYSIS OF INFILLED FRAME STRUCTURES WITH DESIGN
RECOMMENDATIONS
6.1 GENERAL ......................................................................................................................
193
6.2 DEVELOPMENT OF ANALYTICAL PROCEDWRE ................................................ 194
6.2.1 Single-storey single bay infilled fiame........................................................ 194
................... 201
6.2.2 Single-storey, multi-bay inflled frame ....................................
6.2.3 Muiti-storey, single-bay infilled frame........................................................ 204
6.2.4 Multi-storey Multi-bay infilled m e s..................................................... 208
6.3 COMPARISON WlTH EXPERIhiENTAL DATA ........................................................
6.4 DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS ............................................................................
211
17
6.4.1 Design Procedures ..................................................................................... 2 1 7
6.4.2 General Design Approach.........
220
6.4.3 Design Aids..................................................................................................
221
6.5 SUMMARY .......................................................................................................................
222
Chapter 7
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
.................................................................................................................... 2 2 4
7.2 CONCLUSIONS............................................................................................................... 226
7.3 RECOMMENDATXONS................................................................................................... 228
7.1 SUMMARY
REFERENCES...........................................................................................................................................
APPENDIX A:
APPENDKB:
229
SIMPLIFIED LOAD .DEFORMATION RESPONSE CURIES

FOR DESIGN ..........................................................................................................
239
DESIGNEXAMPLES..............................................................................................
257
Table
2.1
Page
Empirical Approximation of Equivalent Diagonal Stmt Width
( d e r Mainstone. 197 1) ............................... ................................................... -22

Test Specimen Details .Masonry Infilleci Steel Frames
(Dawe and Seah 1989a) ................................................................................. -89

Properties o f Frame Members......................................................................... 93
Properties o f M l 1 Panel (Specirnen WD7) ................................................... -97

Properties of Reinforceci Concrete Frarne ............... .................................... 149
Properties o f Brick Masonry Infil1............................................................. 151

Properties o f Infil1 Panel Ued in Parametric Studies.................................159
Member Cross Section for Specimens S33 1 and S335 (Dukuze 1998) .......213
Figures
Page
Possible Non-standard Tests to Calibrate and Calculate the Failure
B . and (c) y (after Loureno. 1996) .......78

Joint Failure Surface ..................................... ,.... ............................................ -80
Criteria Parameters: (a) a. (b)
Innlled Frame Model for (a) Horizontal Racking Load (b) Diagonal Load.34
Test Setup Oawe and Seah 1989a).............................................
.................. 88
Steel Frame with No M l l : Analytical Mode1................................................92
Load - Deformation Behaviour for Open Steel Frame ...................................92
M l l e d Frame Mode1......................................................................................96
Finite Eiement Models Used to Evaluate Elastic Moduii of Concrete
Block Masonry............................................................................................... -99
Load Defornation Behaviour of Specimm WD7 ......................................101

Deformed Mesh, Cracks, and Failure Pattern for Specimen WD7
First Major crack, (b) Peak load. (c) Post peak.
(d) Experimental crack pattern at peak load .............................................1 0 2
Cornparison of Results for Specimens WB2 and WB3 ................................ 104

Deformed Mesh, Cracks, and Failure Pattern for Specimen WB2:
(a) First Major Crack, (b) Peak Load, (c) Post Peak,
(d) Experimental Pattern at Peak Load .................................................... 105
Colurnn - to - Panel Boundary Conditions ................................................... 107
Cornparison of Results for Specimens WA1. WA2.. WA3. and WB 1......... 107
Deformed Mesh, Cracks. and Failure Pattern for Specimen WA3:
(a)First Major Crack, (b) Peak Load, ( c) Post Peak,
(d) Experimental Crack Pattern at Peak Load .............................................. 108
Cornparison of ResuIts for Specimen WAS ................................................. 110
.
......................... 1 1 0
Cornparison of Results for Specimen WB6 ...................
Figures
Page
Deformed Mesh, Cracks, and FaiIure Pattern for Specimen WAS :
(a) First Major Crack, (b) Peak Load, (c ) Post Peak Load,
(d) Experimental Crack Pattern at Peak Load ...........................................
11 1
Deformed Mesh, Cracks, and Failure Pattem for Specimen WB6:

(a)First Major Crack, (b) Peak L o d , (c ) Post Peak Load,
(d) Experimental Crack Pattern at Peak Load .....................
,
......................112
Cornparison of Results for Specimen WB4. ........................................ 1
14

(a) First Major Crack, (b) Panel Contacting the Top Beam, (c) Peak Load,
(d) Post Peak Load, (e) Experimental Crack Pattern at Peak Load ..............115
Cornparison of Results for Specimeu WB5 .................................................. 116
(a) First Major Crack, (b) Panel Contacting the Top Beam, (c) Peak Load,
(d) Post Peak Load, (e) Expenmental Crack Pattern at Peak Load ..............117
Cornparison of Results for Specimen WC 1.................................................-119
Cornparison of Results for Specirnen WC2 ...............................................119
Deformed Mesh, Cracks, and Failure Pattern for Specimen WC 1:
(a) First Major Crack, (b) Peak Load, (c) Post Peak Load,
(d) Experirnentai Crack Pattern at Peak Load ..............................................120
Deformed Mesh, Cracks, and Failure Pattem for Specimen WC2:
(d) Experimental Crack Pattern at Peak Load ..............................................121
Finite Element Mode1 for Panels with Bond Bearns ....................................122

Cornparison of ResuIts for Specimen WA6.............................
.
..............123
Defonned Mesh, Cracks, and Failure Pattern for Specimen WA6:
(a) First Major Crack, (b) Peak Load, (c) Post Peak Lod,
xiv
Page
Figures
Cornparison of Results for Specimen WC7 ................................................126

Comparison of Results for Specimen WA4.. ................................................126
(d) Experimental Crack Pattern at Peak Load .......................
.....................127
Deformed Mesh, Cracks, and Failure Pattern for Specimen WA4:

(d) Experimental Crack Pattern at Peak Load ..............................................128
Finite Element Model for Specimen WD6 ...................................................129

Cornparison of Results for Specimen WD6.................
.
..............................13O
Crack and Failure Pattern for Specimen WD6: (a) First Major Crack,
(b) Peak Load, (c) Post Peak Load,
(d) Experimental Crack Pattem at Peak Load .............................................. 131

Finite Element Model for Specimens WC3 and WC4..................................133
Comparison of Results for Specimens WC4 and WC5 ................................133
Defonned Mesh, Cracks, and Failure Pattem for Specimen WC4:
..............................................134
Finite Element Model for Specimen WC5 ...................................................135
Comparison of Results for Specimen WC5 .............................................136
(d) Experimental Crack Pattern at Peak Load
Deformed Mesh, Cracks,and Failure Pattem for Specimen WC5:

(d) Experimental Crack Pattem at Peak Load ..............................................137
Finite Element Model for SpecimenWC6 ....................................................138

Comparison of Results for Specimen WC6 ..................................................139
(d) Experimental Crack Pattem at Peak Load ..............................................140
Figures
Page
Cornparison of Results for Specimens WD8. WD9. WD 10. and WD 13 .....142
Defomed Mesh. Cracks. and Failure Pattern for Specirnen WD10:
(a) First Major Crack. (b) Peak Load. (c) Post Peak Load.

Cornparison of Results for Specimen WD 1 2............................................ 144
Deformed Mesh. Cracks. and Failure Pattern for Specimen WD12:
(a) First Major Crack. (b) Peak Load, (c) Post Peak Load,

Comparison of Results for Specimen WD 11 ................... ....................... 1 4 6
Deformed Mesh, Cracks. and Failure Pattern for Specimen WD 12:
(a) First Major Crack, (b) Panel Contacting the Top Bearn. (c) Peak Load.
(d) Post Peak Load. (e) Experimental Crack Pattern at Peak Load ..............147
Racking Load Test Set-up by Dunham (1996)............................................. 149
Cornparison of Results for Specirnen B- 1 by Dunham (1 996)..................... 153
Cornparison of Results for Specimen 1-1 @unham 1996)...........................153
Cornparison of Results for Specimen 1-2 (Dunharn 1996)..........................-154
Cornparison of Results for Specimen 1-5 (Dunham 1996)...........................154
Mode1 Panels used for Parametric Studies ................................................... 158

Effects of Panel Aspect Ratio .............................................
....................1 61
Deformed Mesh for (a) H L = 0.5 (b) H/L = 1.0 and (c) H L = 1.5............ 162
Cornparisons of Load .Deformation Behaviour. H/L = 0.5 .........................163
Cornparisons of Load .Deformation Behaviour. H/L = 1 .0......................... 164
Cornparisons of Load .Deformation Behaviour. WL = 1.5 .........................164
Effects of Loading Conditions - H/L= 0.5 .................................................. 166
Effects of Loading Conditions. HL = 1 .0....................................................166
Effects of Loading Conditions. WL = 1-5 ............................................... 1 67
E&ts
of Frame-to-Panel Bond. H/L = 0.5................................................. -169
Effects of Frame-to-Panel Bond. H/L = 1.0.................................................. 170

xvi
Figures
Page
Effects of Frame-to-Panel Bond. H L = 1.5 .................................................. 170
Effects of Frame-to-Panel Interface Friction, Hn, = 0.5 ..................
.......
172
Effects of Frame-to-Panel Interface Friction, H/L = 1.0 .............................. 172

Effcts of Frame-to-Panel Interface Friction, H/L = 1.5 ..............................173
Effects of Gap Between Panel and Top Beam, WL = 0.5 ............................ 175
Effects of Gap Between Panel and Top Bearn, H/L= 1.0 ............................ 175
Effects of Gap Between Panel and Top Bearn, WL = 1.5 ........................,. 176
Effects of Mortar Joint Bond and Friction, H/L = 0.5 .................................. 178
Effcts of Mortar Joint Bond and Friction, H/L = 1.0 ................................. -178
Effects of Mortar Joint Bond and Friction, H L = 1.5 .................................-179

Effects of Frame Member Stiaess, H/L= 0.5 ............................................ 181
Effects of Frame Member Stifhess, H/L = 1.0 .......................................... 181
Effects of Frame Member Stifhess, H/L = 1.5 ............................................ 182
Column-to-Beam Connections ..................................................................
182
Effects of Frame Comection Rigidity. H L = 0.5 ........................................183

Effects of Frame Comection Rigidity, H/L = 1.0 ...............................
....
183
Effects of Frame Comection Rigidity, H/L = 1.5 .....................................
-184
Effects of M l 1 Strength and Stiffness, WL = 0.5 ........................................185

Effects of Infil1 Strength and Stiffbess, WL = 1.0........................................185
Effects of LnfiH Strength and Stifniess, H L = 1.5 ........................................186
Effects of Gravity Load Acting on Top Beam, HIL = 0.5 ....................

....
186
Effects of Gravity Load Acting on Top Bearn, H/L = 1.O ............................ 189
Effects of Gravity Load Acting on Top Beam, H/L = 1.5 ............................189
Effects of Gravity Load Acting on Columns, WL = 0.5 .............................. 190
Effects of Gravity Load Acting on Columns, H/L = 1.0 ..............................191
Effects of Gravity Load Acting on Columns, H Z = 1 .5 .............................. 191
Figures
Page
Typical-Single Storey. Single-Bay Infilleci Frame .....................................
195
Typical Horizontal Load .Deflection Curve .................................. d

Compression Diagonal Brace Simplified Mode1......................................... 196
Deformation of Equivalent Diagonal Brace .................................................197
Diagonal Load .Deformation Response of Equivalent Diagonal Brace ...... 198
Comparison of Horizontal Load .Deflection Response for
Single.Bay. Single-Storey Frame ............................................................. 1 9 9
Three Dimensional Frame with M l 1 Panels ................................................ 200
..................................-202
Analytical Models - One-Storey, Three-Bay Frarne....................................-203
Horizontal Load - Deflection for One -Storey, Three-Bay Frpne ................204
Single-Storey, Three-Bay Frame ..................
.......
Single-Storey, Three-Bay Frame ................................................................. -205

Analytical Models for Three-Storey, Single-Bay Frarne ..............................206
Horizontal Load - Defection Response for Three.Storey, Single-Bay
Frarne ........................................................................................................... -207
Simplification of a Three Dimensional Multi-Ml11 Structure......................207
Three-Storey,Three-Bay Infilled Frame .....................................................-209
Analytical Models Three-Storey, Three-Bay Frame ........................ ............210
Horizontal Load - Deflection Response for Three-Storey,
Three-Bay Frame .......................................................................................
Three-Storey, Three-Bay Infilled Frame Specimen......................................212
Load Deformation of Compression Diagonals...........................................214
Comparison of Load Deflection Curves at First Floor Level for
Specimen S331 ............................................................................................. 214
Comparison of Load Deflection C w e s at Second Floor Level for
Specimen S33 1 ............................................................................................. 215
xviii
Page
Figures
6.22
Cornparison of Load - Deflection Curves at Third Floor Level for
2 15
Specimen S331 ...............................................................-.-......-....................
6.23
Cornparison of Load - Deflection Curves at First Floor Level for
.
..................................................................2 16
Specimen S335 ..................... .
6.24
Cornparison of Load Deflection Curves at Second Floor Level for

Specimen S335 .............................................................................................
2 16
6.25
Cornparison of Load - Deflection Curves at Third Floor Level for
Specimen S335 ................................................................. ............................2 17

6.26
Typical Simplified Load - Deformation Curve of Panel-Frame System ......2 19
6.27
Typical Simplified Load - Deformation Curves used for Design.................222
The following is a list of notations and symbols used in this thesis. Al1 symbols
and notations used are also defined in the text when they fmt appear.
Sectional area of equivalent diagonal strut, crosssectional area of a fiame member

Nodal displacement vector
Accumulated nodal displacements up to the end of load
increment i
Compression force in equivalent diagonal brace
Direction cosines of a linear elernent with respect to xand y- directions, respectively

Shear bond strength of mortar joint
Diagonal length of infill frame
Modulus of elasticity of fiame members

Elastic constants for an orthotropic material
Modulus of elasticity of infil1
Elastic modulus of masonry normal to bed joint
Elastic modulus of masonry parallel to bed joint
Flexural rigidity of column
Flexural rigidity of a frame member
etc
F, and F2
Control points used to define moment and shear

interaction of a fhme member
Nodal force vector
fb,
Shear bond strength at h e - t o - M l 1 interface
f b t ,
Tensile bond strength at frame-to-infill interface
fc
Ultimate compressive strength of equivalent diagonal

stmt
Uniaxial compressive strengths of masonry in x- and ydirections, respectively

Prism compressive strength of masonry
Masonry compressive strength normal to bed joint
Masonry tensile strength parallel to bed joint
Masonry tensile strength normal to bed joint
Masonry compressive strength parallel to bed joint

Normal uniaxial tensile strengths in x- and y- directions,
respective1y
Shear modulus
Height of infill fiame
Height of infi11
Horizontal racking Ioad
Moment of inertia of colurnn and beam, respectively
Length of fiame member
[KI
Stnicture stifhess matrix

Global stifiess matrx corresponding to geometry and
stress level at beginning of i' load increment
[KI ,,itg=
[KI
.[KI,oint [KI interloce

9
1, 1
[
Element stifniess matrix, expressed in global structural

axes, for a hinge, joint, and interface element,
respective1y
Sub-matrices containing terms of the stiffhess matrix
Stifiesses of normal, tangentid, and rotational spring,

respectively
Mpl 5
vpl and
9
PH
Plastic moment,
respectively
shear, and axial
load capacity,
indices used to d e k e shape of fiame member capacity

interaction diagram
Equivalent nodal force vector required to maintail
equilibriurn with stresses in element at n' iteration
Unbalanced load vector for nh iteration
Thickness of infill
Transformation matrix
Width of equivdent diagonal strut

Width of infill panel
Diagonal width of infiIl
Equivalent diagonal strut widths to evaluate stiffhess,
fmt crack load, and ultimate composite strength of infil1
M e , respectively
xx
Angle of inclination of diagonal stmt to horizontal

Length of bearing of infill on liane member
Failure cnteria parameters for masonry

Length of contact between infil1 and beam and column,
respective1y
Diagonal deformation of equivalent brace
Vector of joint displacements which occur due to
application of ih load increment
Vector of joint loads for iL increment
Deformation limits used to define inelastic capacity of a
fiame member
Maximum total rotation of fiame member at failure

Maximum total axial deformation of M e member at
failure
Maximum total shear deformation of fiame member at
failure
Maximum elastic plus plastic rotation of frame member
Maximum elastic plus plastic axial deformation of h
member
Maximum elastic plus plastic shear deformation of a

fiame member
Accumulated nodal stresses up to the end of load
increment i
Shear stress of an elernent

Angle of inclination of diagonal shut to horizontal
Relative stimiess parameter
Coefficient of friction of mortarjoint
Pi
Coefficient of fiction at Game-to-infill interface
=a
Stress normal to a joint
0,
and a,
Normal stresses in the x- and y- directions, respective1y

Poisson's ratios for masonry
Chapter I
INTRODUCTION
1.1 GENERAL
Steel and reinforced concrete h m e buildings often incorporate masonry wall panel
infills within the h e . niese panels are used primarily as partitions to separate spaces
within the building or as cladding to complete the building envelope. Very little attention is
given to the structural contribution of these panels.
However, the properties and
construction details of these infilled panels can have a significant inuence on the overall
betiaviour of a structure. When a panel is placed withui a hme, a clear design decision
must be made as to whether the panel should participate in resisting gravity and lateral loads
in unison with the fiame. If the panel is non-loadbearing, it should be sufnciently isolated
fiom the surrounding fiame so that the Erame would not corne into contact with the panel at
al1 but at the same tirne, the k
e is relied upon to provide lateral out-of-plane support for
the panel due to lateral load resulting h m wind and earthquake. The panel-to-fiame
comection then must be designed and engineered to provide adequate anchorage of the
panel under out-of-plane lateral loads. On the other band, if the panel is tight in the
surrounding hime such that it interacts structurally, the resulting system is referred to as an
infilled fiame. The behaviour of infiiled &unes consisting of various combinations of

fiame and infill materials has been studied by vaious mearchers throughout the world in
the last five decades (Seah et al. 1997).

The contribution of masonry infilled panels in incxeasing the lateral m e s s and
strength of steel and reidorced concrete fkames has been dmumented in many research
publications (Dawe and Seah 1989a; Mehrabi et al. 1996). A surnmary of al1 such work
completed to date on the behaviour of masonry infilleci h e s is presented in Chapter 2.
Despite the arnount of infoxmation available and the potential economy and efficiency of
infilleci frames, structural designers are still reluctant to consider infills in a h t d
structure as load-resisting elements. This is partly due to a lack of design tools and a
universally acceptable theory for the analysis and design of these systems. Design aids for
masonry infilled steel or reinforced concrete Erame systems are generaiiy not available.
1.2 ANALYSIS AND DESIGN OF BUILDING FRAME WITH INFILLS
Generally, the analysis and design of a building fiame with masonry infilIs involves
an analysis to detemiine the distribution of lateral wind or earthquake forces to the various
h e s of a building.
The general method of load distribution to lateral load-resisting
elements of a building based on the relative rigidities also applies to buildings with infilled
-es
provided tha the increase in stifhess of the fiame as contnbuted by the infii is
considered (Drysdale, Hamid, and Baker 1994). This requires an accurate assessrnent of the
stiffnesses of a infilled Grames within a building. Each inflled farne of a g e n d three
dimensional building must be analyzed and designed under the action of the distributed
force. An understanding of the load - deformation behaviour of infilied fhmes up to

ultimate load is therefore needed.
1.3 BEHAVIOUR OF INRLLED FRAMES

Various expexmental and analytical studies have k e n conducted on individual
infilleci k e s to develop analysis and design procedures.
The complex interaction
mechanimi between the infill and the surrounding structural fiame was identified in earlier
work conducted by Polyakov (1956, 1960).
Due to a multitude of highly variable
parametexs affeting the behaviour of innlied fiames, appmximate analyses are generally
acceptable for this type of structure. Various approximate analytical techniques have been
proposed, the simplest and most highly developed being the concept of equivalent diagonal
struts. This concept was onginally propose-by Polyakov (1956) and subsequently refined
by StaEord-Smith (1962, 1966, 1967% 196%) and Stafford-Smith and Carier (1969). In
this method, the infilled kame sucture is modelied as an equivalent braced h
e system
with a compression diagonal replacing the fiiler panel. The prupertia of the diagonal stmt
are fnctions of the lengh of contact between the infill and the beams and columns of the
bounding h e . Depending on the relative stifiess of the frame and infill, a range of
contact length between one-tenth and one-third the length of the panel may be expected
(Stafford-Smith 1%7b).
The diagonal stmt concept may be used to predict behaviour pnor
to panel cracking but it cannot satisfactorily p d c t non-linear load - deformation behaviour

and ultimate strength of a sttucture. While this approach may be appropriate for building
design based on a working stress metho, it cannot be used for Limit states design, the
principa design philosophy adopted by most building codes today (Nationai Research
Council of Canada 1995).
To overcome this shortcoming, plastic design principles were proposed by Wood
(1978) and Liauw and Kwan (1982) to estimate the ultimate lateral load resistance of
infilled iiames. Like most plastic design methods, the formulation is based on the principle
of virtuai work which, unfortunately, cannot be used to evaluate the sti&ess of a structure.
Thus, a structurai designer cannot use this method to determine stiffriesses required for an
overail building analysis for the distribution of lateral wind or seisrnic forces to the various
load-resisting components of the building.
1.4 EiAIITE ELEMENT TECHNIQUE
The development herein of a finite element cornputer structural analysis is expected

to offer some relief to the shortcomulgs pointed out above. In particular, a non-hear finite
element analysis is used to predict stiffiiess and strength of infilled h e s . Numerous
experimental programs by others have been undertaken on wall samples and provide the
constitutive material properties of masonxy used in the finite elexnent analysis. Heretofon,
existing auaiyses have been -usefiil only for s m d structures. Application of existing
methods for au overail building d y s i s of a structure of average size would be impractical.
The practicai and economical technique developed in this study for global analyses of
general threeaimensional fiames with infiiis provides a resolution to these difculties.
1.5 OBJECTIVES
In Light of the discussims in the preceding sections, the work presented herein was
initiateci to accomplish the following:
1. to provide an indepth review of literature relating to the theoies of infilled
fiames;
2. to establish an analytical technique that can be incorporateci dong with a finite

element analysis to study the structurai behaviour of fiames with masonry panel
idills;
3. to establish the validity of the mode1 by comparing analytical praiictions with

test results reporteci in the Merature; and
4. to develop a practical technique which is universay applicable and the
correspondhg design aids for the analysis and design of fiames with masomy
panel infills.
This research includes a thorough review of the literature on the behaviour of infilleci
h
e systems.
The preponderance of the research hcludes the development and
implementation of a unique analytical model based on a finite element procedure suitable

for the analysis of multi-storey, multi-bay masonry infilled fiames. In particular, the
foliowing unique analytical devices have been developed: (i) a joint element to account
for cracking, s e p d o n , and subsequent possible closing of an existing crack in a masonry
panel; () an interface element to simulate contact and separation between a fiame and a
panel; and (iii) a special element to account for formation of plastic hinges in a h u n e
member. Incorporating these newly developed elements, the analytical model developed
d u k g this research is capable of simulating non-linear behaviour of both a frame and a
panel as well as interaction between the two.

Verincation of the detailed finite element model by comparing analytical results with
test data reported in the literahve also forms part of this study. Test muits for concrete
block masonry infilleci steel fiames and clay brick masonry infillecl reinforcecl concrete
h e s were used to validate the accuracy of the model and the correctness of the cornputer
programme as implemented in this study.
The analytical method as developed and implemented in this study is not Limiteci to
single-storey, single-bay infilled hmes. It has been intentionally developed for use in
the anaiysis of multi-storey, multi-bay systems.
However, such a detailed analysis
applied to buildings with multiple infilis is very costly and thne consuming.
Consequently a reduced mode1 wherein panels are replaced by diagonal springs with
equivalent load deformation responses, was hypothesized and subsequently developed.
In this unique approach, each infill in a fiame is replaced with an equivalent
diagonal spring having a characteristic load deformation reqmnse identical to that of the
infill which it replaces. The load - deformation response of each i d i l may be obtained
fiom physicai testing procedures or it may be generated using the analytical technique
especially deveIoped herein for that purpose.
Finally, this research culminates in the development of design aids suitable for use
by practising engineers involved in the design of masonry idilleci h e s . Two practical
design examples using this method are presented and discussed in Appendix B.
1.7 ORGANIZATION OF THE THESIS

A review of the available literature that relates to the present work is presented in
Chapter 2. Chapter 3 gives detailed discussions of the development of an analytical

mode1 used to evaluate the behaviour of masonry infilled h e s . A discussion on the
computer bplementation of the andytical technique is also presented. The calibration of
the computer programme with experimental results reported by others is presented in
Chapter 4. In Chapter 5 the cornputer programme as implemented in this study is used to
investigate various parameters considered important in the behaviour of masonry infilled
fiame systems. Results of this investigation are used to develop a sirnplified analytical
technique suitable for the study of general threeaimensional fiames with masonry intll.
Detailed discussions of the development and verifications of a practical, simplifiai
approach suitable for analysing large infilleci nanie structures are presented in Chapta 6.
Chapter 7 presents conclusions resulting fiom the present study and recommendations for
future work in this area. Design ai& for a practical range of infill dimensions and fkme
stiffiiesses are presented in Appendix A. Design examples using these ai&, which only
require computing facilities nomally available in an average consulting office such as a
microcornputer and a commercial fame analysis software package are presented in

Appendix B.
Chapter 2
LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1 INTRODUCTION
The beneficiai effect of masonry f i l l e d panels in fiameci structures has been well
documentai in research publications in the last five decades. This topic has been the
subject of separate investigations conducted at various institutions throughout the world.
Generally, masonry f i l i panels provide adequate stifaiess to o t h d s e fiexible firame

systems and in a reciprocal manner, the enclosing fiames contain the bnttle masonry
panels thereby providing necessary ductility. Mer cracking, a masonry infill panel is
capable of sustainhg displacements and load much higher than that which could be
achieved without the h
e @awe and Seah 1989a). Generally, the literature shows a
wide variation of materials, h
e dimensions, and testing procedures used in the study of
masonry innlled h e s . Approaches adopted and assumptions made by various

investigators have also varied widely and as a consequence, there exists a wide spectnim
of analytical techniques for predicting the stifhess and strength of infilled h e s .
This chapter summarizes various experimental and theoretical studies conducted
to date and highlights the main stages of development in the understanding of the
behaviour, as well as in the design and andysis of masonry infilled h e s .
2.2 HISTORICAL DEVELOPMENT
The participation of masonry infiil in resisting lateral load first came to light
shortly d e r the completion of the Empire State Building in New York. During a Storm
with a wind gust exceeding 90 mph, diagonal cracks appeared in a number of masonry
infill partitions on the twenty-ninth and forty-fkst flocm (Rathbun 1938). Separation
cracks between Erame and masonry inflls were also noted. Incidentally, strain gauges
attached to the stanchions of the steel h
e did not register any strains prior to cracking
of the masonry despite the presence of strong wind. This was explaineci by the high
rigidity of the masonry infil1 panel which prevented distortion of the steel h e . When
the panels had been stress& beyond their cracking capacity, there was a marked decrease
in the stifiesses of the infills. Consequently, the s h a i n gauges began to register strains
indicating that the steel &me had begun to participate in resisting the wind load.
Nevertheless, the cracked masonry infills codked within the steel M e continued to
offer strong lateral load resistance (Rathbun 1938).
The ntst published research on infilled h e s subjected to racking load was by

Polyakov (1956). The publication reported on a test program carried out fiom 1948 to
1953 which included testing of small specirnens to evaluate the tensile and shear strength
of masonry used as Uinlls. To detemine the racking strength of infilled frames, Polyakov
performed 65 large-scale tests. Thirty-two tests consisted of square h e s with inside

dimensions of 1200 mm while other test specimens consisted of rectangular h e s with
inside width and height of 3000 mm and 2000 mm, respectively. Parameters investigated
by Polyakov included effects of type of masonry units. mortar mixes, admkhwes.
methods of load application (monotonic or cyclic), and walls with openings. Eight test
speimens contained openings located similar to the type of construction prevalent in
Moscow at that tirne.
Polyakov descnbed three stages of inflled frame behaviour subjected to racking.
Ln the first stage, the masonry infilhg and members of the structurai fiame behaved as a
monolithic unit. This stage mded when separation cracks between the infill and the
frame began to develop. These separation cracks were noted amund the perirneter of the
infiIl-to-he interface except for small regions where compressive stresses were
transmitted from the frame to the inll at two diagondy opposite corners. The second
stage was charactensed by
a shortening of the compression diagonal and lengthmhg of
the tension diagonal. This stage ended with cracking of the masonry innll dong the
compression diagonal. The cracks usually appeared in a step-wise manner through mortar
head joints and bed joints. In the third stage, the structurai assemblage continued to resist
an increasing load in spite of the diagonal crack. Existing diagonal cracks continued to
widen and new cracks appeared. This is considered to be the final stage since the system
has no practical value once large cracks appear.

An attempt by Polyakov to analyse his experimental data based on an assurned
se-
distribution amund the periphery of the infil1 and assuming the infill to behave as
an elastic plate did not produce any conclusive results. Furthemore, the technique was
applicable only for the first stage of infiiled fiame behaviour as describeci earlier.
In a subsequent paper, Polyakov (1960) describecl experiments performed on a

three-bay, three-storey mode1 steel k
e idlled with masomy. The dimensions of the
infills were 1200 mm x 1200 mm. Based on observation of infil1 boundary separation he
suggested that the infilled hune system was equivalent to a braced fiame with a
compression diagonal stmt replacing the filler panel.

In the same period, experimental testing was conducted by Thomas (1953) and
Wood (1958) in the United Kingdom and test results provided ample testimony that a
relatively weak infill can contribute significantly to the stifiess and strength of an
otherwise flexible fiame. In 1955, Whitney, Anderson and Cohen (1955) in the United
States reported work related to the atomic blast resistance of structures. The structurai
systems they investigated included infilled h e s subjected to horizontal racking loads.
They tested single storey, single bay reinforced concrete *es
concrete panels. By treating the columns of the h
infilled with masonry or
e as flanges and the id11 as a web,
standard beam theory was used for strength prediction. The results were inclusive and
the follow-up work conducted by Benjamin and Williams (1958) was specifically aimed
at providing information on the behaviour of one-storey brick and concrete shear panels
infilleci within reinforced concrete or steel fiames.
Recognising the multitude of
parameters that may affect the behaviour of infilled frames and the wide variation in the
properties of both concrete and masonry, they proposed a simple strength of materials
approach based on the contribution of the infil1 panel alone to estimate the stifniess and
strength of infilled frames.
2.3 EARLY RESmRCH AND THE CONCEPT OF DIAGONAL STRUT

Subsequmt to Polyakov's investigations, a great deal of simiiar experimental
work was carried out both in fiill-scale tests and in mode1 tests by Holmes (1961),
Staffbrd-Smith (1962, 1966, 1967% 1967b), M a h o n e (1971), and Liauw and Lee
(1977). Al1 these studies advocate the use of a diagonal stmt approach for predicting the
behaviour of infilled multi-storey h e s subjmed to in-plane lateral loads.
Holmes (1961) proposed a method for predicting the deformations and strength of
an idlled f h n e based on the equivalent diagonal stnt concept.He assumed the diagonal
strut to be of the same thichess and elastic modulus as the f i l 1 with a width equal to
one-third the diagonal length. He also concluded bat, at failure, the lateral deflection of
the resulting infilled frame is smaii compareci with the detllection of the corresponding
bare fi-ame. Also, the frame members remained elastic up to the failure load. By equating
the elastic deformation of the fiame diagonal to the shortenhg of the equivaient diagonal
strut at failure, Holmes derived the horizontal load, H, at failure as:
X E I e, 'd
r
1
+ Af ,Cosa
where 1and T, are the moment of inertia of column and beam of the h e , respectively; E
is the modulus of elasticity of fkme members; eV,is the strain in the infill at failure; h
and d are the height and diagonal length of the infiIl, respectively; a is the angle of
inclination of the diagonal strut to the horizontal; A and f, are, respectively, the
sectional area and ultimate compressive strength of the equivalent diagonal strut. Holmes
showed that a value of td/3, where t and d are the thickness and diagonal length of the
infill, respectively, best represents the value of A for strength prediction. However, the
theoretical predictions of deflection at ultimate load were generally lower than those
measured experimentally. Later, Holmes (1963) proposed semi-empirical methods to
predict the behaviour of infilled frames subjected to lateral and vertical loadings. Tests
on model steel frames with concrete hfliing were described.
Using an approach similar to that used by Holmes, Stafford-Smith (1962) studied

the lateral stiffness of infilled fiames by replacing the infill with an equivalent diagonal
strut. By assuming the entire diagonal load to be applied near the corner of the infill, the
effective width for the equivalent stnit was derived theoretically and checked
experimmtally using diagonally loaded panels. It was determineci that the effective width
of the equivalent stmt varies fhm d/4 for a square panel to dl11 for a panel having a
length to height ratio of 5 to 1. Subsequent tests on model infill frames conducted by
Stafford-Smith revealed that the above assumption is invalid and that the effective width
of infill depends on the length of contact between the infil1 and the m e . The length of
contact was found to be highly dependent on the relative stifniess behiveen the fiame and
the infill.
2.4 THEORETICAL EVALUAtlON OF INnLL FRAME BEHAWOUR BASED
ON INFILL 10 FRAME RELATIVE STIFFNESS
2.4.1 SQUAREINFIUED
FRAMES
Stafford-Smith (1966) conducted an extensive series o f tests on diagonaily loaded
150 mm square mild steel h e s infiUed with micro-concrete. Figure 2.1 illustrates the
forces and stress distribution dong the length of contact between infiil and &une adopted
by Stafford-Smith. By equilibrium and energy considerations of the frame and infill,
StaBord-Smith was able to establish the length of contact between the fiame and infill in
terms of a stiffhess parameter k ,where:
in which E, and t are the elastic modulus and thickness of the infll, respectively. E f I f
and h are, respectively, the column rigidity and length of infill. Either assumption of
triangular or parabolic stress distribution, as shown in Figure 2.1, resulted in prediction of
length of contact in close agreement with experimentally measured values. However, as a
crude approximation, an analogy was drawn between frame mernbers bearing on the infill
and a beam on elastic foundation (Hetenyi 1946). The length of bearing, a, was
Figure 2.1: Diagondly Loaded Infilled Frarne and Interactive Forces (after StaffordSmith 1966)
estirnated by
Equation 2.3 resulted in predictions in close agreement with experimental values. Since
this equation is relatively simple and resulted in an equally acceptable estimate of the
contact length between k
e and infill, it was adopted by Stafford-Smith for used in his
analysis.
Having derived the length of contact, it becarne possible to isolate the fhme h m
the infill and to evaluate the load canied by each component in an infill-fiame system.
Stafford-Smith found that the contribution of the fiame is generally less than 5 per cent of
the infiIl carrying capacity when Ah is more than 3.8. However, for infills of lower
stifiesses with Ah values less than 3.8, the contribution of the h
load rapidly becomes significant.
e to the total diagonal
in the above, Ah is a dirnensionless parameter
expressing the relative stiffness of fiame and infill given by
Having isolated the m
e fiom the S l l , it was also possible to use a finite
difference technique to evaluate stress and strain in the infil1 and to derive a theoretical
effective width of the equivalent diagonal strut. Stafford-Smith found that the theoretical
effective width to be consistently less than experirnentally measured values.
He
attributed this discrepancy to higher strain due to stress concentration and non-linear
load - deformation behaviour of the mortar infill at the loaded corner.
However,
replacing the mortar infill with epoxy-resin, a relatively linear material, gave results
similar to those for mortar inflls. In view of this experimental finding, the author
recommended use of the experimental curve to estimate effective widths.
in relation to this work (Stafford-Smith 1966), two modes of infill failure were
established:
1.
diagonal cracking originating fiom the centre of the panel extending

towards the Ioaded corners; and
2.
compressive failwe of the infil1 at the loaded corners.
By relating the theoretical stresses detennined by methods describeci in the preceding

paragraph and the strength of the infiil materials, Stafford-Smith derived two curves for
estimating the strength of infilled fiames corresponding to these two modes of infill
failwe.
2.4.2 RECTANGULAR
INFILLED
FRAMES
Stafford-Smith (1967a, 196%) and Stafford-Smith and Carter (1969) extended

the work on square infilled M e s to include rectangular panels. Having investigated
various modes of infill and h m e failure, they concluded that the lateral stifhess of an
infilled h
e may be obtained by statically analysing the equivalent pin-jointed M e in
which the i d I l is replaced by an equivalent diagonal stnit. They also found that the
effective width of an infill acting as a diagonal strut was influenced by:

a)
the relative stifiess of the infill and the fiame,
b)
the length-to-height ratio of the infill,
c)
the stress strain relationship of the infill material, and
d)
the magnitude of the diagonal load on the infill.
As a refinement to Holmes' method, they presented a series of charts to determine
the effective width of the equivalent diagonal based on the above parameters. in a
manner similar to that of square infilled fiames, the equivalent stmt width is expressed as
a fiinction of Ah, where
Ln the above equation, h is the height of infil1 and 0 is the angle of inclination of the
diagonal to the horizontal. Since the effective width of the equivalent diagonal strut is
not a constant value but varies with loading and infill properties as described above,
Stafford-Smith and Carter (1969) produced a senes of charts to estimate equivalent sut
width.
In estimating the lateral strength of a inflled fiame, the authors proposeci to

examine al1 possible failure modes of the m
e and infill. Frame failure modes may
include tensile failure of the windward colurnn, shear failure of columns and beams, and
comection failure. If the f'rame has adequate strength, an infill consisting of concrete or
mortar may fail by one or both of the following:

1)
tension cracking along the loaded diagonal;
2)
crushing of infill at the loaded corners.
Generally, the occurrence of tensile cracking does not normally define the ultimate
strength of the system since it is possible to Uicrease the load M e r to produce crushing
failure of infill at the loaded corners.
In the case of masonry infilling, the failure mode of the infill may be one of the
following:
1)
shear cracking along the interface between brick and mort=,
2)
tension cracking through mortar joints and rnasonry units;
3)
local crushing of the masonry units and mortar in the loaded compression
corners.
Modes 2 and 3 above are similar to those which occur in relatively homogeneous
concrete and mortar infills. However, the weak planes between mortar and units inherent
in a rnasonry panel introduce the additional failure Mode 1 above. Based on results of an
earlier work by Carter and Stafford-Smith (1969) on shear strength of masonry panels
under racking loads, the authors produced design charts for masonry infills corresponding
to Mode 1 failure. Design charts corresponding to failure Modes 2 and 3 have iso been
suggested by the authors. In these charts, the failure load in the equivalent diagonal strut
can be obtained and the authors suggested a stmctural analysis of a pin-connected k
to evahate the applied force in the diagonal.
In the same paper, the proposed method was extended to include multi-storey
infilled h e s and was applied to a full-scale structure consisting of a three storey
reinforced concrete fiame with 230 mm thick brick infilfing. A detailed description and
results of the test were given by Ockleston (1955).
The proposed method gave
reasonable prediction of strength and stiffiess of the structure and correctly predicted
faiture modes.
2.5 EMPIRICAL EVALUA TION OF INFILLED FRAME BEHAVIOUR BASED

ON RELATIVE STIFFNESS OF FRAME AND INFiLL
Mainstone (1971) presented results of an extensive series of tests on model tiames

with infills of micro-concrete and model brickwork along with a lesser number o f full
scale tests. He studied al1 variables likely to influence the effectiveness of infill as
bracing and concluded that the range of possible behaviour of an infill h
e is much
wider thari that envisaged by any theoretical analysis that had been ucdertaken. Factors
such as the initial rack of fit between infill and h
e and variation in the elastic
properties and strength of infill can result in a wide variation in behaviour between
nominally identical specimens. Therefore, for design purposes, only a fairly simple
method is justifiable. Mainstone (1971) also adopted the concept of replacing the infil1
with an equivalent pin-jointed diagonal stmt; although he believed the concept cm only
be justified for behaviour prior to first cracking of i d l l . He plotted the aforementioned
test results against the stifniess parameter, Ah, and empirically formulated the uniformly
stressed, equivalent diagonal strut widths w ' ~ w, V e ,and
,
w', to evaiuate the stilniess,
fint crack load, and ultimate composite strength of infll hune, respectively. The results
are summarised in Table 2.1 below.
Table 2.1 : Empirical Approximation of Equivalent Diagonal Stmt Width (after

Mainstone, 197 1)
forU < 5
Brickwork
w'eK
w'
w
'Ct
w'
= 0.175(A
Concrete
w 'eK
= o.lls(n,h)"'
w*
w, *
-
= 0.170(Xhh)Q-'
W *
O.ZS(k h )a-4
w*,
4.875
= 0.84(khh)
w*
w *a
-0.875
= 0.56(Lhh)
w*
for U > 5
in the above equations,
sin29
4EIh h*
where
Young's modulus of infill,

thickness of infill,
EIh
flexural ngidity of column,
/1
height of m e ,
h'
height of infill,
slope of diagonal of infil1 to horizontal.
IV'
diagonal width of infilI.
Having found equivalent widths, the stiffiiess and strength of a . infill M e c m then be
determined by analysing the quivalent, pin-connec ted fiamework. In the same paper,
Mainstone (1971) dso suggested that if the peripheral joints between the infill and fiame
are well filled, the contribution of fiame to the composite elastic stiffhess and strength of
infiIl h
e is negligible and consequently, he suggested neglecting the contribution of
the fiame in the evaluation of stifbess and f'lrst crack load.

Based on the analytical and experimental studies conducted by Kadir (1974),
Hendry (1981) proposed a semi-empiricaI relation for the equivalent width o f the
equivalent diagonal strut, w , as
As shown in Figure 2.2, the above equation assumes an idealised stress distribution over
the width of the loaded corner and the stress is uniform over width,
W .
The length of
contacts a, and a, may be obtained by any one of the rnethods presented previously.
Figure 2.2: Effective Width of Equivalent Diagonal Stmt (afler Hendry 1981)
2.6 EVALUATION OF INFILLED FRAME BEHAVIOUR BASED ON THEORY
OF ELASTICITY
Sachanski (1960) perfomed tests on model and prototype infilled frames. Based
on test results, he proposed an analytical model in which he analysed contact forces
between the fiame and infill by assuming their mutual bond to be replaced by thirty
redundant reactions. The forces were determined by forming and solving the equations
for the compatibility of displacement of frame and infill. He treated the infil1 as an elastic
membrane and stiffhess coefficients of the infil1 were determined by integrating the
stresses determined by using a finite difference technique. Having found the contact
forces, he then proposed a stress fiinction for the stress analysis of the infill.
Liauw (1970) examined the behaviour of infill h e s theoretically and
experimentally. The theoretical approach was based on an undetermined Airy% stress
fnction, expressed in the form of a Fourier series, to determine the stresses and
deformation of the infill and the frame. From the compatibility conditions dong the
interface between the infil1 and the fiame, a set of simultaneous equations is established
fiom which the stress fiinction, which satisfies the boundary conditions, can be
determined.
To study the stress distribution and forces in the M e , experimental
analysis on photo-elastic models was conducted and good correlation between theoretical
and experimental results was reported.
It should be pointed out that the theoretical approach of both Sachanski and Liauw
can only be applied to an integral infil1 frame where separation bebveen infill and Erame
is prevented. Additionally, the infil1 was assurned to be isotropic, homogeneous, and
elastic and these assumptions are not directly applicable for non-homogeneous and
anisotropic masonry infills.
2.7
EVALUA TION OF INFILLED FRAME BEHAVIOUR USING FINITE

ELEMENT METHOD
Karamanski (1967) used the technique of finite elements to solve the problem of
infilled M e s . This gave better results than other methods because it satisfied boundary
conditions exactly. However, he adopted the assumptions that the h
e carries only
axial stresses and is infinitely flexible in the direction perpendicular to the fiame member
axes. This, to some extent, undennineci the advantage of his technique. in addition, his
method cannot allow separation of ion11 and fhme which frther Iimits the validity of his
technique to the analysis of integral infilleci h e s oniy.
Advancement in the finite element technique for structural analysis has prompted
many researchers to use this method to examine the complex behaviour of infilled -es.
Quite notable among these were Mallick and Severn (1967), Riddington and StaffordSmith (1977), King and Pandey (1978), Liauw and Kwan (1982), Rivero (1982), Dawe
and Chardambous (1983), Dhanasekar and Page (1986), and Jamal et al. (1992). Many
difficu!ties that have arisen in this type of analysis have been solved. Among these are
separation between h
e and infill upon loading, interface fiction,
bond strength,
geometry and the effects of any components that tend to tie the frame and infill together.
Mallick and Sevem(1967) introduced an iterative technique whereby the points of
separation between the h
e and idill, as well as the stress distribution along the length
of contact between frame and infill, were obtained as an integral part of the solution. Slip
behveen the frame and infill was also taken into account. Standard beam elements were
used to mode1 the M
e while plane stress rectangular elements were used for the infill.
The contact problem was solved by initially assurning that infill and fhme nodes have the
same displacement. Having deterrnined the nodal displacement, the load along the
periphery of the infill is determined and checked for tension. If a tension force is found,
separation is assumed to have occuned and the correspondhg nodes on the frame and
infill are allowed to move independently in the next iteration. This procedure is repeated
until a predescribed tolerance for convergence is achieved. The effect of slip and
interface friction was considered by introducing shear forces dong the length of contact.
However, the authors ignored the axial deformation of columns in their formuiation.
Bama and Mallick (1977) used finite elements to analyse infill h e s and their
technique was similar to the method proposed by Sachanski (1960) except that a finite
elernent technique was used to detennine stiffness coefficients of the boundary nodes of
infill. Unlike Sachanski, Barua and Mallick allowed for the separation between infill and
fiame and included the effect of slip.
Riddington and Stafford-Smith (1977) conducted an extensive series of plane

stress finite element analyses and showed that critical stresses relating to shear failure and
tension failure occur at the centre of the infill. The interaction between the !%me and
infill was modelled by introducing independent node pairs at the h e - t o - i n f i l l interface.
These node pairs were comected mathematically by a linking matrix introduced directly
in the stiffness matrix. Physicaily, the linking matrix is similar to a rigid link forcing the
nodes on the fkme and infill to undergo the same displacement if they are in contact.
Separation between the two is indicated by the presence of tension force in the link and in
such a case, the link is removed and the structure re-analysed. The mode1 can also
account for non-friction slip at the frame-to-infill boundary by introducing pin-comected
links. Based on results of this work, Stafford-Smith and Riddington (1978) presented
equations suitable for practical design. The applications of these equations in infil1 fiame
design, taking into consideration the relevant allowable stresses given by current codes
and standards, have been illustrateci by Stafford-Smith and Cou11 (1991).
An improvement to the above technique was given by King and Pandey (1978)
where a gap element accounts for the separation and contact and, at the same t h e , also
evaluates the fiiction betsveen the fkame and infill. This work was then expanded by
Liauw and Kwan (1982) to incorporate non-linear stress-strain behaviour of infill and
fiame.
Dawe and Charalambous (1983) presented a novel finite element technique where
standard beam and membrane elements were used to model fiame and innll, respectively.
Static condensation was then used to eliminate the interior degree of fkeedom of infill
leaving oniy the degree of fieedom associated with nodes adjacent to f h n e nodes. The
interface between frame and infill was modeled with rigid links and an iterative solution
technique was adopted. At the end of each iteration, these rigid links were checked and
for a link in tension, a static condensation technique was used to eliminate the stifiess of
this link.
In the studies mentioned above, for practical reasons, simple plane stress macro-
elernents were used to model the ifills.

element that
For masonry in particular, the use of a macro-
provides reasonable constitutive relations for a masonry assemblage
consisting of mortar joints and units can significantly reduce the mesh size of the
resulting finite element model. Concurrent with these studies, the development of a
macro-element for masonry has been a subject of intense research.
Page (1978)
developed a finite element model for brick masonry and his work was subsequently
refined by Dhanasekar et al. (1985) and Dhanasekar and Page (1986). Recently, Khattab
(1993) developed a model suitable for plain and reinfiorced gmuted concrete masonry
block walls. Theoretical evaluation of a rnacro-element model for plain masonry based
on known constitutive properties of the mortar joint and masonry units was reported by
Loureno (1996).
2.8 ANALYSIS OF INFILLED FRAME STRUCTURES

Although commercial finite element software are now readily available, they are
generally not suitable for the analysis of masonry infilled h
e structures which typically
exhibit complex behaviour due to inflll cracking, contact and separation at the h
e and
infill interface, and non-linear behaviour of frame members. Furthemore, the mesh size
required for a full finite element discretization of a general structure would be
impractical. To overcome these shortcomings, simplitied anaiytical models suitable for
the analysis of structures of practical size and proportion have been proposed by others.
Among these are work by Smolira (1973), Liauw (1972),
Liauw and Lee (1977).
Saneinejad and Hobbs (1995), Bennett et ai. (1996), and Madan et al. (1997). However,
al1 the above are based on empirical findings and there are limitations associated with
each.
Smolira (1973) adopted the flexibility method of structural analysis (West 1982)
in which the unknown values are forces consisting of moments and shears in the h
and direct thrust in the infill. in his method, it is assumeci that the fiame and infill are in
contact at diagonally opposite corners. While the flexibility coefficients o f standard
fiame members have been well established, Srnolira derived the flexibility coefficients of
the infiIl using compatibility and equilibrium considerations of the fiame and infill. On
the other hand, Liauw used the stimiess method and an equivalent fiame which assumed
the hune and Uifill are integrally tied together. A strain energy method was used to
establish the stifiess properties of the equivalent fiame members.
Saneinejad and Hobbs (1995) proposed a generalised design method in which the
infills in a multi-storey, multi-bay frame are replaced by pin-jointed equivalent diagonal
struts perfoming as compression brace members. Simplifjing assurnptions were made
regarding the width and distribution of stresses within the equivalent diagonal. Once the
properties of the infills are known, the resulting braced h u n e structure can be analysed
by hand or by computer. Based on the method proposed by Saneinejad and Hobbs
(1995), the width of the equivalent compression diagonal depends on the length of
contact between the panel and infill and is linearly elastic up to failure. Madan et al.
frther extended the work of Saneinejad and Hobbs by including a hysteretic forcedeformation rule for the equivalent diagonal stnit.
However, the length of contact
mentioned above and consequently the width of the equivalent diagonal may not be
constant due to the interaction between frame and infill. The method proposed by
Saneinejad and Hobbs is unable to account for varying strut widths. To overcome this
shortcoming, Bennett et al. (1996) also proposed the use of an equivalent stmt replacing
the infiIl. Unlike Saneinejad and Hobbs (1995), the width of the equivalent stmt as
adopted by Bennett et al. (1996) depends on the load and deformation of the infil1 at
various stages of loading. However, it is uncertain if this method is directly applicable to
infills perforateci with door and window openuigs or inflls with gap at fiame-to-infil1
interfaces.
2.9 PLASTIC THEORY
Wood (1978) presented a paper dealing with plasticity, composite action, and
collapse design of h e s with unreinforced shear panels. He identified four distinct
collapse modes based on observations of full-scale as well as model tests. The first three
modes were predicted by combining standard plastic theory for fi-ames and an idealized
plastic yield cnterion for membranes, which either cmsh at a constant yield stress or
crack at zero tensile stress. The fourth collapse mode involves corner crushing of the
infill and a more elaborate theory is needed to predict the extent of crushing. Wood
investigated each collapse mode and simplified his results into a form suitable for
practical design. He also suggested penalty factors to reduce material strengths based on
results of full-scale and model tests by other researchers.
An extensive study on the behaviour of infilled h e s was conducted by Liaw

and Kwan (1982, l983aJ 983b, 1984a, 1984b). The most notable achievement of their
study is perhaps the development of a plzstic theory which was based on the h d i n g s
fi-om non-linear finite element analysis and experirnental investigations. Their findings
have also been shown to compare favourably with experimental resulu given by many
researchers on srnall-scale mode1 tests. This investigation was later extended by Liauw
and Lo (1988) and Kwan, Lo, and Liauw (1990) to include large scale mode1 tests and
plastic analysis of multi-storey, multi-bay infilleci h e s .
2.10 EXPERIMENTAL EVALUATlON OF VARIOUS PARAMETRIC EFFECTS
With a few exceptions, most experimental work described previously was based
on scaled models. These tests pravided an insight into the behaviour of inflled frame
systems but the unanswered question of scale effect had prevented the widespread
adoption of the assortment of design recornrnendations resulting nom this work. Large
scale tests on steel h e s intilled with concrete masonry infill were conducted by
McBride (1984), Yong(1984), Amos(l985), and Richardson(l986) at the University of
New Brunswic~.Of the parameters investigated by these studies, interface conditions

between panel edges and frame were found to significantly affect the strength and
behaviour of the system. Column-to-panel ties were found to be ineffective in increasing
ultimate strength while initial stifiess was only marginally increased. A 20 mm gap
between the upper edge of the panel and the roof beam was particularly detrimental to the
system in-plane shear capacity. Tests of specimens with panel openings have shown that,
while openings may reduce initial stiffiiess and first crack load, the sarne was not
necessarily tnie for their effets on ultimate strength. Placing reinforced bond beams at
one-third and two-third panel heights was found to bring the major crack load close to the
ultimate, which itself was only marginally increased. Strengthening the compression
diagonals by grouting vertical reinforcing bars of lengths qua1 to the expected
compression diagonal width into the cells of the concrete block panel resulted in only
minor increases in stiffhess and ultimate strength. A summary of the above studies was
presented by Dawe and Seah (1989a). Cornparisons of experimental results of the above
work with design equations based on various works reported so far were presented by
Dawe and Seah (1989b).
Despite the wealth of infoxmation available, most codes and standards do not have
provisions for the design of infilled m e s . This has severely restricted their use as
lateral load resisting elements. It has been more usual when designing an infilled h
structure, to arrange the frame to resist gravity as well as lateral loading and to inciude
the infill on the assurnption that if precautions are taken to avoid load being transferred to
them, they will not participate as part of the load resisting structure. A variety of
construction techniques have resulted fiom this concept, the most notable of which is to
tie the infill to the columns while specimng a gap at the roof beam-to-panel interface to
allow the roof beam to deform fieely without imposing gravity load on the infill. Tests
performed by Riddington (1984) and Richardson(l986) have confimied that such an
approach is not always valid. While the gap results in reduction in stimiess and strength,
the infill still participates in resisting a portion of the applied horizontal load. However,
the efficiency of the infil1 in resisting lateral load is severely affected. As reported by
Dawe and Seah (1989a), a strength reduction of 50% was detennined for some test
specirnens with these dimensions, In order to achieve the benefits of a tight fitting infill
and at the same tirne to avoid excessive gravity load due to creep of the surrounding
h e , Riddington and Bolourchi (1989) suggested the use of a lead sheet at the top bearn
to panel interface. The design of the lead sheet was such that it can accommodate creep
in the frame without over-stressing the infill and at the sarne tirne maintain a tight fit
between the fiame and infill. ExperimentaI results conducted by these authors have
confirmed the eficiency of the use of lead sheets at the interface.
2.7 7 RECENT DEVELOPMENT
In the wake of recent earthquake activity in the United States, research on infilled
fiames has assumeci increased importance. Following the October 1989 Loma Prieta
earthquake, a survey of the earthquake stricken area of downtown Oakland revealed that
most of the city's older unreinforced masonry buildings survived with little damage
(Langenbach 1992). Most of these were buildings which consisted of steel or reinforced
concrete frames with hollow clay tile masonry Mill. Following the earthquake, the city
of Oakland enacted a Damaged Building Repairs Ordinance which prevents building
owners fkom repairing the damage. Any building which has lost over 10% of its preearthquake lateral strength must be upgraded to a slightly modified version of the 1988
Uniform Building Code (UBC 1988). The cost of the upgrade is often enormous.
Additionally, the lack of a universally accepted design procedure for idilled fiame
evaluation has resulted in enormous difficulty in assessing the pre-earthquake strength of
these structures and, if repaired, the capacity of the repaired structures. A special session
on infilled hunes was organiseci for the 1994 ASCE Structures Congres to gather recent
research data on these systems (Flanagan and Bennett 1994; Al-Cham et al. 1994;
Mosalarn et al. 1994; Dawe and Seah, 1994; Shing et al. 1994).
The safety of an Oakridge plant, which was built in the 1940's to house atomic
weapons research and development facilities, was investigated by a senatorial safety
commttee. Buildings in this facility are primarily steel frame with hollow clay tile
infilling. The lack of information on this type of structure has Ied to a senes of tests at
the University of Tennessee. Results of this study are available elsewhere. (Flanagan,
Bennett and Barclay 1992)
2.12 SUMMARY
This chapter sumrnarizes the available experimental and theoretical research

relating to infilled h e s .
Despite the amount of information available, very little
attention is given to the structural contribution of infills in current design practices.

Furthermore, design guidelines for this structural system are non-existence in most
current design codes (Canadian Standards Association 1994a, Masonry Standards Joint
Committee 1995). This may be partly due to the fact that some questions still exist
whether results of these ad hoc researches can be universally adopted for practical infilled
m e s with dimensions, materials, and construction procedures which generally differ
from those used in the research programmes. Additionally, the lack of design aids such
as manuals and soAware will M e r inhibit the use of this stmctural system by design
engineers.
Chapter 3
DEVELOPMENT O F ANALYTICAL TECHNIQUE
3.1 INTRODUCTION
Development of the analytical technique as presented in this chapter is a

prerequisite to the developrnent of a more efficient technique using a reduced model for
the anaiysis of a general three-dimensional multi-storey, multi-bay infilleci fhme. In the
reduced model, each masonry infll in a h e , as shown in Figure 3.1 for example, is
replaced by an equivalent diagonal spring which has a characteristic load - deformation
response identical to the infil1 it replaces. A detailed discussion of this procedure is
presented in Chapter 6. The development and implementation of a detailed analytical
technique, based on a f ~ t element
e
method for the analysis of masonry infilled h e s ,
is presented in this chapter. It is necessary to develop, implemeat, and thoroughly verify
this detailed analytical model so that the load - deformation responses of equivalent
diagonals used in the reduced model described in Chapter 6 c m be generated analytically.

Otherwise, expensive and t h e consuming laboratory testing would be required to obtain
the same result.
Diagonal spring
(compression only)
Figure 3.1 : Diagonal Spring Mode1
Unlike some of the finite element techniques described in Chapter 2, a masonry

infilled panel in this study is treated as a senes of elastic blocks linked together by a
system of springs. The elastic blocks are assumed to be linearly elastic up to the point of
crushing while the springs are introduced to handle failure due to tensile and shear
stresses in mortar joints when their capacities are exceeded.
The technique as
implemented in this study can adequately account for the complex behaviour of masonry
infill due to cracking and contact and separation at fiame to - panel interfaces. A
detailed discussion of this technique is presented in the following sections.
3.2 MODELLING OF INFILLED FRAME BEHAVIOUR

3.2.1 GENERAL
The generation of a load - deformation curve for an equivalent diagonal spring used
to replace an infill involves a suitable finite element technique wherein the following
must be taken into consideration:

Interaction between fiame and infill, including effects of initiai lack of fit,
gaps between h m e and infill, interface bond and firiction, separation and re-
contact at the M e to - infill interface.

Non-linear behaviour of the infill resulting fiom cracking due to shear and
tension, and cmshing of the infil1 materiai possibly under the action of biaxial
compressive stress.
Non-linear behaviour of bounding firame members and the formation of plastic
hinges due to a critical combination of axial load, shear, and moment in a
member section.
The finite element method itself is well established and is described in various
texts (Zienkiewicz and Taylor 1989, 1991; Weaver and Johnston 1983; Bathe 1996). in
this chapter only the main principles are described in order to establish notations and
conventions for discussion in later developments. Relevant studies that have been
reported at length in the fiterature will be bnefly outlined in this chapter.
The tinite element method is a general technique used for solving partial
differential equations where solutions of field variables such as displacements, stresses,
temperatures, fluid velocities and pressure, to mention a few, are being sought. By
appropnately discretizing a region of interest into a finite number of elements, the finite
element method allows the analyst to detennine the values of field variables at a finite
number of points. This technique therefore reduces a system with infinite degrees of
fi-eedom to a system with finite degrees of fkeedorn. In its application as it relates to
stnictural engineering, a structure is subdivided into elements intercomected at nodal

points where displacements are sought. interpolation fiuictions are used to describe the
variation of displacements within each elernent as fimctions of nodal coordinates. The
strains and stresses of each element can then be related to the displacements of the nodes
associated with the element. The assembling of al1 individual elements to form the
overall structure, taking into consideration equilibnum, compatibility, and constitutive
relationship, results in an equation of the f o m
which relates the nodal force vector (F)to the nodal displacement vector (a}, where
[K]is the structure stifkess matrt. The nodal force vector (F],contains al1 direct and
equivalent loads applied to the structure at the nodes. The displacement vector, (a}, is
the solution sought in the finite element formulation. in linear elastic anaiysis where the
nodal loads are directly proportional to the correspondhg nodal displacements, the
siimiess matrix [K]is constant and the solution for (a) in Equation 3.1 can be obtained
by a suitable technique such as Gauss elimination or Cholesky decomposition (Al-Khafaji
and TooIey 1986). Once nodai displacements are hown, a11 intemal forces and stresses
in the structure may be detennined.
3.2.3 METHODS
OF NON-LINEAR
ANALYSIS
There are many situations in which nonlinear behaviour must be considered to
achieve a realistic analysis of a structure. Sources of non-linearity are non-linear stressstrain behaviour of the structural matenal, a significant deformation resulting in
geometric non-linearity, or a change in structural stiffness resuking fiom partial, localized
failure of the structure as loads are being applied. The stifiess matrix ,
[KI,
is not
constant but depends on the applied load and therefore, non-linear solution techniques are
required. The incremental and iterative approaches (Zienkiewicz and Taylor 1991; Bathe
1996) are the two commonly used procedures for the analysis of non-linear structures.
In an incremental approach the load is applied in small incremental steps and the
stif3kess of the structure is assumed to remain constant during the application of each load
increment.
Nodal displacements and element stresses for any load incrernent are
computed using the s t i a e s s of the structure at the beginning of the load increment.
Incremental displacements and stresses are then added to those obtain in al1 previous
incremental steps to obtain the total accumulated values. The structural stiffness is then
re-evaluated based on the state of the structure at the end of each load increment and is
used in the analysis for the next load step. The general form of equations which must be
sofved in an incremental procedure is:

[ K ] ~ ( &=
} ~(AF
i = lJ,3 ...
where [ K ] is
~ a global stimiess matrix corresponding to the geometry and stress level at
,.
the beginning of a load increment, (&] is a vector of joint displacements which occur
due to the application of the current load increment, and (LW} is a vector of joint load
increments. Accumulated displacements and stresses at the end of each load increment
are obtained as:
(al i = ( a }i - l + (hli
(CI
= {aIi-,+
I A
[3 -3(a)l
~ I ~
W(Wl
where {a},. and (a) are the accumulated nodal displacements and stresses up to the end
, are corresponding values at the

of load increment i, respectively, while { a ),.-, and (a}
end of the preceding load increment. A graphical representation of the procedure is

s h o w in Figure 3.2 where it can be seen that the e m r accumulates for each load
increment since the curved load - displacement relationship is actually approximated by a

successive series of straight lines. This enor can be minimized, however, by using
smaller load increments in the analysis.
Displacemen t
Figure 3-2: Incrementd Approach
In an iterative approach, the total load is applied at once. Nodal displacements are
initially computed using a tangent stiffiiess of the undefonned, un-stressed structure.
Having determined an initial set of displacements, the state of the structure can be
evaluated and corresponding stiffness determined. Based on the new stiffiiess, element
stresses and corresponding nodal loads required to maintain equilibrium are computed.
Since the stifiess used to compute element stresses differs fiom the initial stifiess used
to compute displacements, equilibrium will, n general, not be satisfied and therefore
unbalanced loads will exist at the nodes. These unbaianced nodal loads are applied as a
new set of nodal loads with the corresponding change in displacements computed using
the stiffkess comesponding to the new displaced position of the structure. This process is
repeated until the unbalanced loads at the end of any iteration are within an acceptable
tolerance.
Bathe (1996) has presented an accelerating technique based on Newton Raphson
Iteration. As illustrated in Figure 3.3, equilibrium is achieved by successive
approximations of the f o m
is the tangent stiffiess matrix of the structure at the completion of the

in which [K,]
n-t
(n - 1)" iteration,
is the n" correction to be applied to the current nodal
displacement vector, { F ; } is the total externally applied load vector and { q i } n is the
equivalent nodal force vector which is required to maintain equilibrium with the stresses
in the element at the current iteration. As indicated in Equation 3.4, {R,} is the
unbalanced load vector for the current iteration. The displacements at the end of each
iteration are then updated and the process repeated until convergence to a predefined
acceptable tolerance is achieved.
Displacement
Figure 3-3: Iterative Approach (Newton Raphson Technique)
Generally, b o t . the incremental and iterative techniques described above are

suitable and have been proven to perfonn well for structures that exhibit continuous and
monotonically increasing Ioad - displacement behaviour such as that represented by c w e
(a) in Figure 3.4.
in the analysis of masonry infilled fiames, abrupt load drops as
indicated by curve @) of Figure 3.4 may occur when the tensile and shear capacities of
rnortar joints in a portion of the structure are exceeded while the structure as a whole is
still capable of resisting increasing loads. Local crushing of material would also have
similar effects. in order to reproduce this behaviour analytically, a combined incremental
and iterative technique is adopted for this study. A detailed discussion of this technique
is given in Section 3.2.4.
Displacement
Figure 3.4: Continuous and Monotonically Increasing versus Erratic Load

Displacement Curves
3.2.4 COMBINED
~NCREMENTALAND (TERATIVE f ECHNIQUE
In the present study, it is desirable to obtain the entire load - deformation curve of
infiiled fiames loaded to ultimate. Generally, such cuves would include a rising and
falling branch, and a plateau which indicates the plastic strength and ductility of the
structure, if any. For reasons pointed out earlier, this curve may also contain one or more
intermediate load drops associated with some Iocalized failures. To obtain the load
deformation curve of an infilled frame system loaded to failure, a series of successively
increasing loads are applied at a pre-selected node. At each load step, stresses in the
structure are examined and checked for failure using appropriate failure criteria If failure
is detected, the stiffness of the structure is modified to reflect the change caused by the
failure and the analysis is repeated until no new failure is detected. At this stage, the load
is in equilibrium and the deflection of the structure recorded. A larger load is then applied
and the process repeated to obtain the next pair of load deflection coordinates.
When the load reaches its peak value, M e r increase in load cannot be sustained
because the state of equilibrium cannot be reached at a higher load level. In order to
overcome this difficulty so that the descending portion of the curve can be obtained, an
augmented structure as shown in Figure 3.5 is used.
This technique
was originally
proposed by Wright and Gaylord (1968) for stability analysis of unbraced fiames and
subsequently adopted by Sharifi and Popov (1971) for buckling analysis of arches.
Introduction of a non-deteriorating Spring A in the mode1 ensures that equilibrium
positions can be detexmined at higher load levels. This is true even when the infilled
fiame has completely deteriorated.
Figure 3.6 illustrates the combined incremental and iterative technique used
herein. At load step i, a total load representing the accurnulated values of al1 previous
load increments is applied at once to the augmented structure and the nodal displacements
are determined. In the first iteration, the stiflhess matrix corresponding to the undeformed
structure is used. Stresses in the elements of the stnicture are then computed and checked
for failure. If required, the structural stifhess is reevaluated reflecting any failure of
-Racking
load.
Frame/
I1
Spring A
Infill
Figure 3.5: Augrnented Structure
elements and a new set of displacements and stresses computed. This process is repeated
until no M e r change in structural stifiess is encountered. Graphically, this process is
shown as progressing from a to b and eventually to c in Figure 3.6, At point c, the
structure is in equilibrium with the extemally applied load and the force on the i611ed
frame is then computed by taking the difference between the total applied load, F, and
the force in Spnng A, labeled as P, in Figure 3.5. At point c, the stifhess is re-evaluated,
the load is increased by a predetemined increment, and computations for Load Step i+l
are initiated. Using this technique, the entire load - deflection curve can be generated.
It is desirable that the load
- defornation curve of the
augrnented structure be
monotonically increasing and generally that can be obtained by selecting a proper

stiffhess for Spring A.
If the load - deformation curve of the augrnented structure
exhibits a local load drop such as that indicated by AB in Figure 3.6, the equilibrium
48
position for a load slightly above Point A is indicated by Point C on the load
deformation curve for the augmented structure. Therefore, the predicted load drop of the
infill h m e system is, at best, indicated by A, to B,'whereas the actual load &op should
be fiorn Al to B,(Figure 3.6).
Displacement
Figure 3.6: Combined Incremental and Iterative Approach
3.2.5 DEVELOPMENT
OF INFILLED
FRAYE
MOOEL
The development of the infilled Erame computational model may be divided into
two areas for discussion. The first areas deals with the development of a finite element
model dealing wth the mathematical representation of the structural system and problems
associated with it.
The second area deals with the material model development
describing the response of the materials under load and the various associated failure
criteria. The development of the inite eiement model is presented in Sections 3.2.5.1 to
3.2.5.6 while the material model development is covered in Section 3.3 of this chapter.
3.2.5.1 Frame Elements

Standard plane fhme line elements located dong centrelines of members are used
to model beams and columns of an infilled M e system. As shown in Figure 3.7(a), a
typical plane fiame element consists of two three-degree-of-fieedom nodes, one at either
end of the member with coordinate displacements conesponding to moment, shear and
axial load. Standard procedures can be used to evaluate the member stiffiiess matrix of
this element (Weaver and Gere 1980). The stiffiiess matrix of a standard plane M e
element, reproduced herein for clarity and completeness, is shown in Figure 3.7(b). It is
assurned that the h
e element is linearly elastic and that al1 inelastic behaviour is
concentrated at nonlinear hinges inroduced at the ends of the member. As indicated in
Figure 3.7(b), the input required for this element consists of member length, crosssectional dimensions, and modulus of elasticity of materials.
(a) Plane Frame Element
Figure 3.7: Frame Element and Global Force Displacement Relationship

In Figure 3.7, C, and C,, are direction cosines of the frame element shown.
3.2.5.2 Hinge Elements
Hinge elements were purposely developed in this study and are introduced at the
ends of a frame member to account for nonlinear behaviour. These are zero-length
elements consisting of two translational springs and one rotational spring correspondhg
to three degrees of fieedom at each node. As shown in Figure 3.8 for a general case, a
hinge element as developed herein is used to connect two frame elements together or to
connect a frame element to its support. The stifbess matrix of the hinge element shown
in Figure 3.8 in the local, element axis x'-y' is:
!-ksi O I O ik,:
-- -------.----.-.--,.*,-.-.--,--...--.
i O i - k , i O i O I k O, J
-------->---------A
and the matrix required to transform the above to the global stnichiral axes x-y is:
where Cxand C, are direction cosines of the hinge element defined in Figure 3.8. The
transformed stifniess of the hinge element in the global axes is therefore given by:
where k, , k, ,and k, are the stifiesses o f the normal, tangentid, and rotational spring.
Framc
mcmber
?
/,
5A
'6-
cy
Cx
Hinge eiement
Figure 3.8 : Hinge Element
Initially, these are assigned a large arbitrary value to ensure that the two points comected
by the hinge element deform in unison and with no relative displacement or rotation. If
an end force of a h
e member to which a hinge element is attached reaches its peak, a
small nominal value is assigned to the co~espondingvalue of k,,, k, , or k,. For

example, if the plastic moment capacity of the h
e member is reached, k, is assigned a
small value so that the hinge element will allow the h
e to rotate with no increase in
Ioad. A pair of equal but opposite moments is than applied at the two end nodes of the
hinge element to account for the plastic moment sustained by the fiame member.
Similar technique is used to account for shear and axial load failure by reducing the
stiffhess k, and k,, respectively.
3.2.5.3 Masonry Panel

The masonry infilled panel is modelled as an assembly of elastic blocks separated
by joints with limited shear and tensile capacity. This approach was first introduced by
Goodman et al. (1968) for the analysis of jointed rocks and subsequently adopted by Page
(1 979) for modelling brickwork supported on beams. In the present study, the masonry
infill is represented by an assembly of elastic blocks consisting of rectangular plane stress

elements interconnected with joint elements. Basically, the joint elements are linkage
members with infinite stifhess and compression capacity, low tensile strength, and a
shear capacity depending on bond strength and mortar joint fiction.
A detailed
discussion on the development and discussion of a joint element is presented in Subsection 3.2.5.4. of this chapter. It is assumed that each elastic block, modelled with a
plane stress rectangular efement, may consist of severai joints and masonry units and that
al1 cracking in the wall is concentrated along the boundary of the elements where joint
elements are located. This representation allows for the following failure modes typical in
a masonry panel under plane stress:
1.
tensile failure dong bed joints,
2.
t e n d e filure in head joints,
3.
shear failure in bed joints,
4.
t e n d e failure of rnasonry units, and
5.
combinations of one or more of the above.
These failure modes are illustrated in Figure 3.9. In regions where compressive stresses
predominate, crushing of masonry may occur and if significant shear stress aIso exists, a
stepped failure invoIving head and bed joints as shown in Figure 3.10 may also occur.
Appropriate failure criteria are therefore needed to account for the various failure modes
described above. A description of the failure criteria adopted for this study is presented
in Section 3.3 of this chapter.
ZTensile failure - bed joint

failurc - head joint
'3Shear failure - b e d joint
g r e n s i l e failure - unit
(8Tensile
Figure 3.9: Typical Masonry Joint Failure
Figure 3.10: Stepped Failure Involving Head and Bed Joint
The rectangular plane stress element used in this study is described in detail
elsewhere (Weaver and Johnston 1983). As shown in Figure 3.1 1, the element consists of
Figure 3. 1 1 : Rectangular Plane Stress Element

four nodes with two degrees of fieedom per node. It can be shown that the stifiess
matrix of this element is given by (Weaver and Johnston 1983)
sym.
and
a and b are dimensions of the element as shown in Figure 3.1 1, r is its thickness, and
E,,, E,, , E,, and E,, are the elastic constants for an orthotropic matenal. in this
study, it is assumed that masonry is orthotropic in directions normal and parallel to bed
joints.
If failure of a panel element is encountered during analysis, the above elastic
constants are reduced to a small value by a factor k , where 7c is taken as 10" in this
study.
3.2.5.4 Joint Element

The use of joint elements to simulate cracking in masonry is based on the need for
practicality and simplicity. The treatment of cracking as a continuum property within a
finite element is a dificult problem. This treatment is even more difficult when material
like masonxy is being modelled. Masonry typically tends to crack dong its mortar joints
with little damage to the surroundhg brick or concrete block units. These cracks may
close upon M e r loading and the masonry strength is virtually unaffected.

58
The
proposed joint element can be used to mode1 joint separation and closure and also shear
and friction along rnortar joints.
Panel Elcmen t-,
C-
zero
thickness*
Figure 3.12: Joint Element

Figure 3.12 illustrates a typical joint element used to link four surrounding
rectangular wall elements. It consist of four nodes with ten springs and there is no
physical dimension associated with these springs. The purpose of Springs 1 to 8 is to
ensure that nodes of the wall eIements connected by the joint move in unison when load
is applied. An arbitrarily high value is therefore assigned to the stiffhess of these spnngs.
When failure occurs in the f o m of tende cracking or shear along mortar joints, the
stiffness of one or more sprigs may be reduced to zero to reflect the corresponding
failure. Figure 3.13 illustrates the various modes of failure and the corresponding link
stimiess that may be encountered during analysis. Although not absolutely necessary,
Springs 9 and 10 are introduced and assigned a mail nominal, non-zero value to avoid
numerical difficulty during anaiysis when the stifhesses of other links are reduced to
zero.
Tensile failure of
b c d joint
k l , 5 , 9 6 = 0.0
(a)
Shear failure of
bed joint
- oc
kl.2
k
= see Equation 3.19
Tensile failurc of
head joint
k3.1.7.8 = O m o
(b)
Shear failure of
head j o i n t
- a
,
k3.4
k 7 , B = s e e Equation 3.19
Figure 3.13 : Joint Element Failure Modes
Tensile failure of
b e d joint, shear fai1ure
of hcad joint
kL,5 = O
k-I
= see Equation 3 . 1 9
Tensile failure of
head joint. shear failure
of bed joint
k4.8 = O
kg
= see Equation 3.19
(f)
Tensile failure of
head and bed joints
li1.2.3.4 = O
Shear failure of
head and bed joints
= O
= see Equation 3.19
'5.6.7.8
1.2.3.4
Figure 3.1 3(cont'd): Joint Element Failure Modes
Equation 3.9 shows the stifniess matrix of a joint element expressed in a global
axis system. This can be directly assembled into a global structural matrix using standard
techniques,
w here
1
k,, =k3+k5+-k9
2
ka = k , +k, + - k g
2
k,, = - k g
2
k, = O
k,, = O
k , = -- k9
2
k,, = --k,
2
kZ6= -- k9
2
k l d = -- k9
2
kZ7 = O
k I 7 = -k5
kZ8= -ki
k,, = O
The element developed above is suitable only for joints at the interior of a panel. At outer
edges of a panel, a joint eiement must be appropnately modified so that it can be

assembled into the structural stiffiiess as descnbed previously. Figure 3.14 shows how a
joint element c m be modified for this purpose by adopting the node numbenng schemes
shown and assigning zero stifniesses to al1 non-active springs not needed at the boundary.
-Edge
Springs 3 & acti
(4
Springs 1 Bc 5 active
(b)
Figure 3.14: Joint Element at (a) Horizontal Edge and (b) Vertical Edge
63
3.2.5.5 Interface Element
The boundary between a fiame and panel is modelled by interface elements eacli
consisting of a pair of nomal and tangentid springs. These elements are used to match
interface displacements of a firame and infil1 at a finite number of nodes. As shown in
Figure 3.15, an interface element has two nodes with two degrees of fieedom at each
node. One node is attached to a node of the frame element and another is attached to a
node of the panel element. Nodes along the h
e are defined at locations corresponding
to the periphery of the panel and interface elements are then used to connect the h
e to
the infill.
,c%
'/
',,
-Frame
Centreline
,!
-Edge of panel
Figure 3.1 5: Interface Element
As s h o w in Figure 3.15, an interface element has an additional parameter called

offset. For an infill fitted snugly to a h e , the offset is the distance fkom the edge of a
64
e member at which the innll may corne into contact to the centreline of the fiame
member. For problems where initial gaps exist between fkune and innll, the actud gap
size can be included in the finite element mode1 in which the distance between the two
end nodes of the normal spring of the interface element will be the sum of the 'offset' and
the initial gap size.
Generally, the materials on either side of a gap will undergo
deformations under load and the gap size will change and this must be updated at every
step of the computation.
In this study, a normal spring is assumed to have infinite compressive stifhess
and tensile stifiess depending on the adhesive bond between h
e and infill. A high
stifhess value is assigned to the normal spring if the M e is in contact with the infill. If
its tension capacity is exceeded, separation will occur and the stiffhesses of both the
normal and tangential springs are reduced to zero to allow the frame and infill to deform
independently. The stiflhess and strength of a tangential spring depend on the shear bond
and fnction that exist in the interface. The fnction force is determined as the product of
normal compressive force and the coefficient of friction. This permits the wall to slip
when the shear force at an interface exceeds the shear capacity of the hune-to-panel
interface. If the panel is in contact with the fiame and the shear bond of the interface is
not exceeded, a high stimiess value is assigned to the tangential s p ~ g .
The stiffness matrix of the interface elernent s h o w in Figure 3.15, which c m be
directly assembled into the global structural stiffhess matrix, is given in Equation 3.10.
Cx and C, are direction cosines for the interface element (Figure 3.15) and k, and k,
are stiffiiess of the normal and tangential springs, respectively.
3.2.5.6 Reinforcement Element

Reinforcement elements were introduced to evaluate the effect of horizontal joint
reinforcement, horizontal bond beam reinforcement, or vertical reinforcing that may be
incorporated in the grouted cells of a masonry panel. It is assurned that reinforcement is
integrally bonded with a panel during the analysis. Additionally, effects of column to
panel ties, if any, can be investigated using this element.
The stimiess marix of a two node reinforcement element is added directly to the
structural stiffhess. Reinforcement elements are pIaced in exact locations where actual
reinforcing bars or joint reinforcement rnay be located.
Altematively, a smeared
approach may be used where reidorcement elements having averaged, representative
values are placed dong the boundary of waii elements. The stiflhess of a reinforcement
element shown in Figure 3.16 is
In Equation 3.1 1, C, and Cy are direction cosines of the reinforcement element, A is
the actual area or the area averaged over a representaive region of wall. E and L are
the modulus of elasticity of reinforcement and length o f an element, respectively.
Reinforcement
L ~ n l l rlcmcnt'
Figure
Reinforcement Element
3.2.5.7 lnfilled Frame Model

A schematic representation of an infilied h
e model consisting of ail element
types described in the preceding sections is shown in Figure 3.17. The figure shows how
these elements are assernbled to form an overall infilled frame model. Additionally, the
proposed infilled frame model has been superimposed on an actual concrete masonry
infilled steel frame specimen that was tested to its ultimate capacity (Richardson 1986).
As shown in Figure 3.17, the boundary of wall panel elements can be made to coincide
Applicd Laad. F
->
a
,/j
Elemcnt boundaries
coincide w i t h mortar
Joints
.l,..!;;il;i;i
I
I
.
'
Reinforccment elemen i
ai boundary of wall
element ( t y p . )
-1ocaled
Figure 3.17: Infilled Frarne Model
with the location of mortar joints.
Since the joint elements as developed herein are
located at the boundary of Wall panel elements, it is hoped that these elements can
predict shear and t e n d e failure of the actual mortar joints. The proposed interface
elements dong wall-to-frame boundaries are used to model interface separation, slip, and
possible re-contact during the analysis.
3.3.1 GENERAL
Matenal models as descnbed in this section are used to descnbe not only the
stress - strain relations but also load - displacement relationships. The material models are
divided into the following categories for discussion:
1. fiame and hinge material model,
2. masonry material model,

3. joint material model,
4. interface material model, and
5. reinforcing material model.
Besides stress - strain relations, the load and stress level under which matenals fail are
also discussed.
3.3.2 FRAME
AND HINGEMATERIAL
MOOEL
The beams and columns of a f h n e are assumed to have a tri-linear load
deformation behaviour as s h o w in Figure 3.18.
In this figure, the ordinates can
represent moment, shear force, or axial tension, or axial compression while the abscissa is
the corresponding associated defoxmation. Al1 nonlinear behaviour is concentrated in the
hinge elements placed at the ends of a member. R e f d n g to Figure 3.18, 6,, is the
maximum deformation before a member undergoes load reduction below its plastic value
and 6
. is the maximum deformation beyond which a member cannot sustain any load.
The inclusion of a descending portion made this curve suitable for steel and reinforced
, Vpt, and P,, are

concrete members which exhibit a degrading stifiess behaviour. Mp,
the plastic moment, shear, and axial load capacity, respectively. These c m be determined
by actual testing or based on analytical development. In the present study,

recornmendations given by the appropriate Codes (Canadian Standards Association
1994b, 1994c) were used to obtain these values where experimental data were not
available.
Similarly, 6,, and,6
indicate the inelastic capacity of a member which
may be determined from available test data or which may be estimated analytically using
information available in the literature (Beedle 1958; Mattock 1964; Corley 1966; Hsu et
al. 1981).
Figure 3.18: Load Deformation Characteristics of Frame Members
In an infilled h e , the swrounding fiame may be subjected to axial load,

moment and shear sirnultaneou~ly. In order to account for interaction between these
forces, the relationship shown in Figure 3.19 is assumed. In that figure, the moment and
axial load as well as shear and axial load interactions are defined by Equations 3.12 and
3.13, respectivefy, as:
Equation 3 - 1 2
Figure 3.19: Moment, Shear, and Axial Load interaction of Frame Members
In the above, M , Y , and P are the applied moment, shear, and axial load in a member,
respectively, and M p , , Y,, , P,, are the corresponding plastic capacities. The indices,
n,
and n , p , define the shape of the interaction diagram. A value of unity for these
indices will resul t in a linear interaction which is generally a conservative approximation.

Values larger than unity may be used if they can be substantiated by test data or
72
information available in the literature. As can be seen in Figure 3.19, a tri-linear

interaction curve is assumed for moment and shear interaction requiring two control
points f ; and F2 for its definition. This type of interaction is generally true for steel
rnembers of 1-shape cross sections where there is Iittle effect on the moment capacity
due to the presence of shear (Home and Morris 1981). Again, test data or theoretical
documentation may be consulted to obtain values of control points F; and F,.

Numerical values of dl the above parameters are presented and discussed as they appear
in Chapter 4.
3.3.3 MASONRY
MATERIAL
MODEL
The masonry panel mode1 used in the present study is assumed to be
homogeneous d linearly elastic up to failure. Additionally, the material is assumed to

be orthotropic in directions paraIlel and normal to bed joints. The assumption of linear
elastic behaviour is based on expenmental evidence available in the literature (Fattal and
Cattaneo 1976;Drysdale and Hamid 1979; Hendry 1981; Harnid et al. 1987) which
tends to confm that masonry behaves linearly almost up to failure.
As pointed out
in Section 3.2.5.3, four elastic constants E l , , E,, , E , , and E,,
are required for the definition of the stifhess matrix of an orthotmpic masonry panel
element. For an orthotropic material, these constants are hctions of the elastic moduli
and Poisson's ratio as follows.
=G,
C3.1 W ) I
where Ex and E , are Young's modulus parallel and normal to bed joints, respectively,
and u, is the Poisson's ratio defined as the ratio of strain in the y-direction due to strain
in the x direction, andu, has conjugal meaning. G , is the shear modulus. Values of
these parameters may be obtained fkom actual test data, information in the literaiure, or
Code recommendations. For example, in CSA S304.1- Masonry Design for Buildings
(Limit States Design) (Canadian Standards Association 1994b), E , is expressed as a

h c t i o n of the pnsm compressive strength f ,' as follows:
No specific recommendation is given for G, in S304.1 but in the pnor edition of this
code,
S304-M84 (Canadian Standards Association 1984), the following value is
suggested:
Code values for u, and u , are generally unavailable. However, experimental data tends
to show that u
,
varies nom 0.15 to 0.25. The Young's modulus parallel to bed joints
varies with the type of masonry material and construction. For concrete block masonry in
ninning bond, this may be expressed as a hction of E , ( Hamid et al. 1987) as
The elastic constants descnbed above include effects of mortar joints and they
represent averaged wdl properties. This is consistent with the macro-modelling approach
for masonry reported in the literature (Loureno 1996; Khattab 1993) .
The failure criteria for masonry as proposed by Loureno (Loureno 1996;
Loureno and Rots 1997) is adopted in this study. The primary reason for this is that
these criteria can be readily adapted for other masonry materials and construction.
Generally, there is a wide regional variation in the geometry of masonry units,

manu facturing materials used, and construction techniques throughout the world. It is
hoped that the use of these failure cntena will make the proposed analytical technique
readily adaptable by others.
In summary, according to Loureno (1996), masonry in a plane stress condition

may fail if the following cnteria are violated:
In the above, f,represents a tensile type failure where f, and f, are uniaxial tensile
strengths in the x- and y- directions, respectively, and a is a parameter controlling the

shear stress contribution to failure. On the other hand, f,represents a compression type
failure where f,
and f,,,,are
, uniaxial compressive strengths in the x- and y-directions,
respectively. The parameter,
B.
controls the coupling between nomal stresses while
parameter, y , controls the shear stress contribution to failure. These parameters may be
determined experimentally. For example, the set of tests that can be used to detemine
the uniaxial tensile and compressive strengths are summarized in Figure 3.20. The set of
tests, as proposed by Loureno (1996), that rnay be used to determine the failure criteria
parameters a ,
p , and y are shown in Figure 3.21. With these
parameters are as follows (Loureno 1996):
tests, the mode1
I
1
Figure 3.20: Natural Tests to Calibrate the Masonry Material Model: (a) Uniaxial
Tension Parallel to Bed Joints, (b) Uniaxial Tension Normal to Bed Joints,
(c) Uniaxial Compression Parallel to Bed Joints, (d) Uniaxial Compression
Normal to Bed Joints (after Loureno, 1996)
Fi,gure 3.21 : Possible Non-standard Tests to Calibrate and Calculate the Failure Cnteria
Parameters (a) a , (b) , and (c) y ( d e r Loureno, 1996)
3.3.4 JOINTMATERIAL
MODEL
Since the masonry material mode1 descnbed in the preceding section gives
deformation characteristics o f masonry including effects of mortar joints, the proposed
joint element used in this snidy can be assumed to be infinitely rigid up to failure. AAer
failure, only compression stresses may be carrieci across the joint. The transfer of shear
stresses across a failed joint under compression is accounted for by using the following
incremental shear s t i f k s s relationship:
where k;+' is the stimiess of shear springs (Springs 5 to 8 in Figure 3.12) to be used in
the next iteration of computation, p is the coefficient of fiction of a joint and F: is the
force in the corresponding normal spring. A: is the relative shear displacement of nodes
tied by the spring under consideration.
Figure 3.22 is a graphic illustration of the failure criterion of a joint element. This
figure relates the maximum shear stress that may be canied by a joint to a specific normal
stress level. Experimental results for cand p are available for both concrete block and
brick masonry (Drysdaie and Hamid 1980; Pook et al. 1986; Ghazali and Riddington
1988). In the present study, the stresses used for checking joint failure are based on
stresses of masomy panel elements evaluated at the nodes to which the joint element
attached. For a plane stress element, the three stress components O,, a,, and
t
,
is
, can
be evaluated at the nodes of an element using standard procedures. In the above, o, and
c, are stresses normal and parallel to a bed joint, respectively, ands, is the shear stress.
Figure 3.22: Joint Failure Surface
3.3.5 INTERFACE
MATERIAL
MODEL
The main fnction of interface elements is to represent conditions at the interface

of panel and fiame. The behaviour at this interface is probably the most important aspect
in infilled h
e modelling where the frame may separate and then corne into contact
with the panel at various stages of loading. The extent o f contact will invariably
influence the behaviour of both Erame and infill.

An interface element c m therefore be considered as a fnction which masures a
separation and it is in relation to this measure that the material mode1 may be defined.
The stimiess of a noxmai spring is assumed to be inhitely rigid when the gap size is zero
and when separation occurs, its stifniess is reduced to zero. When the gap is closed, the
problem is essentially a surface contact problem and it may be subdivided into three
distinct phases. These may be denoted as stick, slip and gap mode. The stick mode is
when the shear resistance of the interface has not been exceeded and points across the
boundary have the same displacement both normal and tangential to the contact swface.
To ensure that these points will move in unison, high stimiess values are assigned to both
the normal and tangential springs. The slip mode occurs when there is no displacement
normal to the contact swface but the tangential displacement is different. This
corresponds to the stage when the shear resistance of the interface is exceeded. Once an
interface develops a slip mode of failure, fnction forces may be transferred across the
contact surface and the treanent of this fnction is identical to that used for a joint
element (Equation 3.23). In the gap mode, both normal and tangential displacements
across a boundary are independent. In such cases, the stiffiiesses of both the normal and
tangential springs of the interface element are reduced to zero.
3.3.6 REINFORCEMENT
ELEMENT
A typical elastic-perfectly plastic mode1 is assurned for al1 reinforcement
eiements. Since the contribution of reinforcement to the strength of an infilled h
e is
only marginal (Dawe and Seah 1989a), the use of more elaborate models cannot be
justified.
3.4 A NALYTICAL PROCEDURE
Section 3.2 outlined a direct iterative approach that is capable of generating the
entire load - deflection curve of an infilled fiame loaded to failure. Stiffiiess matrices of
various types of elernent used in the mode1 are also given in the same section. These
matrices are expressed with reference to the global structural axes and they can be
assembled according to:
where K; is the stifhess coefficient of the overall stmcture relating the force at node i to
the displacement at node j. ki; is the corresponding elemental stifiess coefficient with
the summation taken for al1 elements associated with nodes i and j. SimiIarly, al1 external
loads can be assembled into a nodal force vector to establish an equation of the form
[ ~ ] ( a= }{ F } , where
[K] is the stimiess rnatrix, {a}is the vector of unknown
deformations, and (F}is the vector of applied loads. At this point, boundary conditions
can be applied and the resulting equation solved using a suitable equation solver. in this
study, the equation solver proposed by Cheng (1989) is adopted. This is an out-of-core
blocked skyline equation solver using the modified Cholesky method. (Bathe 1996). As
pointed out earlier, the iterative technique adopted herein involves a process of
incrementing the extemal loads, conducting failure checks, and modifying the stimiess
matrix as required. As such, the above process is carried out repeatedly until the desired
load - deformation curve is obtained.
To facilitate the extraction of relevant load defonnation data fkom the results of
an analysis, a second spring of arbitrarily high stiffness is added to the augmented
structure of Figure 3.5. Two possible structural configurations resuhing f?om this are
shown in Figures 3.23 (a) and (b). Figure 3.23 (a) is used when load - deformation c w e s
of an infilleci fiame under a horizontal racking load are required while the set-up shown in
Figure 3.23 (b) c m be used for diagonally loaded infilled panels. In Figures 3.23 (a) and
(b), the calculated bad of spring B is the load acting on an infilled fiame during analysis.
When the infilled h
e is completeiy deteriorated, the force in this spring is zero.
This
additional spring is therefore analogous to a load ce11 used in a laboratory load test of
these structures. The load in this spring together with the deflection of node C (Figure
3.23) gives the required coordinates of the load deflection curve sought in this study.
Spring B 1
(Load cell)
Xugmen ted
/' spririg
Figure 3 -23: Xnfilled Frarne Model for (a) Horizontal Racking Load @) Diagonal Load
3.5 COMPUTER IMPLEMENTATION AND PROGRAMMING
A cornputer program called INFRAME32 was developed to implement the

analytical technique described in this chapter. INFRAME32 was coded in C* using an
object orientated programming (OOP)approach and it was compiled to be used on a

micro-cornputer.
The object-oriented programmig technique with its characteristics of
data encapsulation, abstraction, inheritance, and modularity, allows the development of

highly modular, reusable. and easily maintained, complex software systems (Booch,
1991). In the work presented herein for example, advantages offered by OOP are used
extensively to individually develop, implement, and debug each module and finally
combine them to perform the required analysis. Bnefly, the modules consist of classes
dealing with various element types and the equation solver used in this study. A class in
the OOP paradigrn is a collection of objects with cornmon data attributes andor
behaviour functions that manipulate the data. These classes or modules can be readily
adapted to other finite element applications.
The development of an object oriented approach in programming is not new but
its application in engineering software development, the finite element software system in
particular, is a recent development. Discussions on this subject are available in some

recent literature (Yu and Adeli 1993; Gajewski 1994; Ju and Hosain 1993, 1996).
3.6 SUMMARY
This chapter has descnbed in detail a numerical mode1 used to evaluate the
behaviour of masonry i d l l e d h e s .
Included in the discussions are the analytical
procedures and material models for the fiame and infill and the interaction of the two.
Chapter 4
ANALYSIS AND COMPARISON WITH TEST RESULTS
An analytical technique for determining the behaviour of infilled Erame structures

has been presented in Chapter 3 of this thesis. in this chapter the validity of the analytical
technique as developed and implemented is assesseci by comparing test results with
analytical solutions.
Test data used in the calibration of the proposed analytical method include racking
load test results for steel h e s with plain concrete masonry infil1 and racking load test
results for reinforced concrete -es
with unreinforced brick masonry infiIl.
Cornparisons of anaiyticai and experimental results of racking tests of steel and

reinforced concrete -es
without infills were also conducted. in some cases,
complete set of experimental data on al1 materiai properties required for the analytical
technique as developed herein was not available. Reasonable assurnptions of matenal
properties, based upon information available in the literature, were therefore used as
required.
4.2
STEEL FRAMES W T H CONCRET BLOCK MASONRY /NEILL
Analytical results obtained using the technique descnbed in Chapter 3 were

compared with results of twenty-eight full-scale tests of concrete masonry infilleci steel
m e s conducted by McBnde (1984), Yong (1984), Amos (1985) and Richardson
(1986). The experimental programme exarnined a broad spectrum of characteristics in

order to isolate those that may have significant effect on the strength and behaviour of
infilled frame structures. A summary of expenmental findings of the programme was
reported by Dawe and Seah (1989a).
A typical test setup for the testing programme is shown in Figure 4.1. Al1 m e s
were 3600 mm long by 2800 mm high while the infil1 panels consisted of
200x200~400mm concrete blocks placed in running bond within the M
e which was
fabricated using W250x58 coIumns and a W200x46 roof beam. Both moment resistant
M e s and illy articulated hinged frames were included in this investigation.
summary of the salient characteristics of individual specimens is presented in Table 4.1.
Detailed descriptions of the specimens are available elsewhere @awe and Seah 1989a).
Table 4.1 :Test Specimen Details - Masonry Infilled Steel Frames @awe and Seah 1989a)
Construction characteristics
Specimen
Number
Prism
Compressive
Strength
f 'm
W a )
-
- -
Mortar packed between column flanges and panel.
I1
I1
Sarne as WA 1,WA2, and WA3 but excluding joint

reinforcement.
Same as WA 1,WA2,and WA3 but including panel - to column tie system.
Same as WAl,WA2, and WA3 but including bond bearns
at 113 and 2/3 height.
Same as WAl, WA2. and WA3.
Standard specimen'
WAl
WA2
WA3
Same as WB2, and WB3 but with 20 mm a i r s p a c e b e t q w
1 panel and roof beam
Same as WB4 but induding a 50 mm wide x 3.2 mm thick

flat bar column tie system
Same a s WB2, and WB3 but including tie systern
(
1 Same as WB2 and WB3 but with polyethylene membrane
1 between panel and m
1 Same as WC 1 but with very sandy, poor quality mortar

I
A specimen that has a panel with standard horizontal joint reinforcements, no openings,
gaps, or ties, and is mortar fitted to the web of column but is not mortared between
coIumn flanges.
Table 4.1 (Continued)
Construction characteristics
Specimen
Number
Pnsm
Compressive
Strength
f 'm
(MPa)
Standard panel with 0.8 X 2.2m central doonvay opening.

4 bond beam blocks reinforced with two 15 M bars used to
span the opening as lintel
Same as WC3 and WC4 but with opening offset 0.6 mm
from center towards the loaded side
Same as WC3 and WC4 but with opening offset 0.6 mm
fiom center away nom the loaded side
Sarne as WB2 and WB3 but with no joint reinforcement
Same as WC3 and WC4 but with a 20 M reinforcing bar on
both sides of the opening.
Standard panel with reinforced compression diagonal.
Standard specimen ( loaded to complete failure )
Standard panel enclosed in a completely hinged steel
fiame.
1 Same as WD9 and WDlO but with a 20 mm gap between
1 panel and bottom of roof beam.
Same as WD8,WD9, and WDlO but with 0.8 x 2.2 m

central opening. No vertical reinforcement pmvided along
the sides of the opening.
Same as WDlO
The load - deformation behaviour of a steel fiame with no infill was examined by
McBride (1984). Horizontal racking loads were applied incrementally at roof beam levei
and the corresponding load point deflections recorded. The mode1 shown in Figure 4.2
was used to determine the load defonnation behaviour of the steel fiame described
above and a summary of the properties of frame members is presented in Table 4.2.
Properties shown in this table were derived analytically based on information available in
the literature (Canadian Standards Association 1994b). Figure 4.3 shows the comparison
of expenmental and analytical results using the technique proposed herein. Experimental
data for the full range of load - defornation behaviour was not available because testing
was terminated when a lateral deflection of approximately 25 mm was reached. This
testing procedure was adopted to ensure that the fiame remained elastic and re-useable
(McBnde 1984). Based on this testing cnterion,
the corresponding maximum load
recorded was 89 kN.

A plastic analysis (Home and Moms 1981) was conducted for the steel h u n e
shown in Figure 4.2 and a plastic capacity of 121 kN was detexmined. For comparison,
this capacity is shown as a horizontal line in Figure 4.3. Based on the cornparisons
shown in this figure, it is evident that the proposed technique correctly predicts the load -
defonnation charactenstics of the bare steel fiame.
~ugmented
,Spring
!i
.'
haa. F
->Applied
\.,
L~200x46 Beam
1
2800
,f
W250x58 Column
-Hingc
clcment (typ.)
0
6
3
Figure 4.2: Steel Frame with No Infill: Analytical Mode1
Denedion (mm)
Figure 4.3: Load - Defornation Behaviour for Open Steel Frame
Table 4.2: Properties of Frame Members

Properties
Beam
Column
W2Ox46
W250x58
Section
I
Bending axis
-y
-
In Table 4.2, the following symbols are defined as:

cross sectional area
moment of inertia
modulus of elasticity
plastic moment capacity
maximum elastic plus plastic rotation of frame member (see Figure

3.18)
maximum total rotation of member as defineci in Figure 3.18

shear capacity of member
maximum elastic plus plastic shear deformation (see Figure 3.18)
maximum total shear defonnation as defined in Figure 3.18

axial load capacity of member
maximum elastic plus plastic axial deformation (see Figure 3.18)

maximum total axial deformation as defined in Figure 3.18
indices used to define the shape of moment - axial load and moment shear interaction diagrarns, respectively
control points used to define moment shear interactions of h
member
4.2.3.1
Standard Specimens
Refemng to Table 4.1. Specimens WB2, WB3 and WD7 are classifieci as standard
specimens. A standard specimen is one which has a concrete block masonry panel in611
with standard horizontal joint reinforcement, no openings, gaps, or ties, and is mortar-
fitted snugly to the web of the column but is not mortared in between column flanges.
Of the three standard specimens tested, oniy Specimen WD7 was loaded to
complete failure. Figure 4.4 shows a finite element mode1 used to predict the behaviour
of Specimen WD7.
Properties for the surrounding steel hune were identical to that
shown in Table 4.2 and material properties for the concrete block masonry infill,
modelled using the rectangular panel element shown, are summatized in Table 4.3.
In
the table, the strength and elastic properties are functions of the prism compressive
strength based on empirical relationships discussed in Section 3.3.3.
However,
experimental evidence for concrete masonry construction indicates the relationship

shown in Equation 3.15 overestimates the modulus of elasticity of masonry
(Hatzinikolas et al. 1978; Hamid et al. 1987) and a more conservative value is used in
this study:
The expression shown in Table 4.3 relating the prism strength parallel to bed joint to the
prism strength normal to bed joints is based on experimental results reported by Lee et al.
(1985).
It is believed that the modulus of elasticity, E,, parallel to a bed joint is less than
the modulus of elasticity E,normal to bed joint due to orthotropic behaviour which is
typical of concrete block masonry. Sources of orthotropy may be due to the face-shell
mortar bedded construction used and the presence of cross-webs of the masonry units
used. Therefore, it is expected that the degree of orthotropy depends on the geometry of
the masonry units used in construction. In Table 4.2, it is assumed that
Ex = OSE,,
14-21
An analytical study using finite element models shown in Figure 4.5 confirms the validity
of the above relationship. Experimental work conducteci by Hamid et ai. (1987) also
suggest the above relationship for concrete block masonry construction.
Augmented
Ppring
Figure 4.4: Infilled Frame Mode1
Table 4.3: PropeRies of Ml1 Panel (Specimen WD7)

Strength and Elastic Properties
Tensile Strength
L
f,p = 12 MPa
f, = 0.4 MPa
1
Failure Criteria Parameters
Joint Properties
Frame - to -panel interface Properties
for = 0 2 MPa
pi = 0.45
In Table 4.3:
f 'm
fmn * f m y
prism compressive strength of masonry
masonry compressive strength normal to bed joint
pnsm compressive strength parallel to bed joint

elastic modulus of masonry nomal to bed joint
elastic modulus of masonry parallel to bed joint
Poisson's ratios for masonry
shear modulus
m a s o n .tensile strength parallel to bed joint
masonry tensile strength normal to bed joint

failure cnteria parameters for masonry
coefficient of fiction of mortar joint
shear bond strength of mortar joint
tensile bond strength at fiame-t0-~11interface
shear bond strength at Me-to-infill interface
coefficient of Fiction at frame-to-infill interface
The eiastic and strength properties as well as the failure criteria parameters described
above are based on test data reported in the literature (Hagemier et al. 1978; Hamid
1978; Hamid and Drysdale 1981; Pook et al. 1986; Louren~o1996).
description of the parameters used is given in Section 3.3.3 and Section 3.3.4.
A detailed
(a) Load Normal to Bed Joint
(b) Load Parallel to Bed Joint

Figure 4.5: Finite Element Models Used to Evaluate Elastic Moduli of Concrete Block
Masonry
Figure 4.6 is a cornparison of the anaiytical and experhental Ioad

behaviow of Specimen WD7.
- deformation
It is apparent that the analytical technique provides
reasonable predictions of initial stifhess and peak load. However, the post-peak load
ductility is underestimated somewhat. It is also evident that as failure progresses, the
strength of the system gradually reduces to that of an open frame.
Figure 4.7 shows the predicted progressive failure pattern of the frame and panel
for Specimen WD7. As shown, at a load level of approxirnately 50% of peak load, only
the joint elements dong the compressive diagonal band sustain some failure while the
remainder of the panel remains intact. At peak load, joint failure is more extensive and
60% of panel elements are cracked due to shear and tende stresses. The fiame also
develops a plastic hinge at the base of the leeward column. At a deflection of 202 mm,
the panel is severely deteriorated with panel cracking and crushing at the loaded corners
also occurs.
The experimentally recorded crack pattern for this specimen at peak load is shown
in Figure 4.7(d). Although the predicted joint failure is more extensive than experimental
observation, it generally identifies the expected regions of failure.
Deflection (mm)
Figure 4.6: Load - Deformation Behaviour of Specimen WD7
Failed j o i n t
P a n e l crack
P l a s t i c hinge
@ Masonry c r u s h i n p
Figure 4.7: Deformeci Mesh, Cracks, and Failure Pattern for Specimen WD7: (a) First
Major crack, (b) Peak load, (c) Post peak, (d) Experimental crack pattern at
peak load
Analytical results of two other standard specimens, WB2 and WB3, are shown in
Figure 4.8 and good correlation between experimental and predicted behaviour up to the
peak Ioad is again obtained- Cornparison of post-peak load behaviour is not available due
to the lack of experirnentai data The fhme for Specimens WB2 and WB3 was limited to
a maximum deflection of 20 mm at the loaded corner in order to prevent permanent
deformation. At this point, the masonry panels undenvent severe diagonal cracking as
well as cnishing at the loaded corners.
From these laboratory observations, it was
concluded that the ultimate load had been reached at this stage. As indicated in Figure
4.8, the analytical prediction supports this conclusion with the additional ductility
apparently due to the interaction of the fiame and the cracked infill.
The predicted and experimentally recorded crack pattems for Specimen WB2 are
presented in Figure 4.9. Specimens WB2 and WB3 are identical to Specimen WD7
except for a higher masonry prism compressive strength.
A cornparison of
expenmentally recorded crack patterns of Figures 4.7 and 4.9 reveals some differences
between the two and this can be attributed to the random and variable matenal properties
typical of masonry construction. An analytical evaluation of crack and failure patterns is
therefore limited to a general prediction of the regions where joint failure in the f o m of
t e n d e or shear cracking and cracking and crushing failure of a panel is expected to occur.
20
___
80
60
40
_______
--
-C
20
Experurientaf Specimm WB3 (YExgarimentai Speamen WB2 (Y-
40
120
------
100
60
80
1984)
1984)
100
120
Deflection (mm)
Figure 4.8: Cornparison of Results for Specimens WB2 and WB3
Failed joint
'$Panel crack
Plastic hinge
@ Slasonry crushing
Figure 4.9: Deformed Mesh, Cracks, and Failure Pattern for Specimen WB2: (a) First
Major Crack, (b) Peak Load, (c) Post Peak, (d) Experimental Pattern at Peak
Load
4.2.3.2
Mortar Packed between Column Flanges and lnfill

Specimens WAl, WA2, WA3, and WB1 were fabricated with mortar packed
between column flanges and panel as indicated in Figure 4.10 (a). By comparing the area
of contact between the panel and column for this case and that shown in Figure 4.1O(b)
for a standard specimen, it is reasonable to assume that the column - to - panel interface
bond strength would be somewhat higher for Specimens WA1, WA2, WA3, and W B l .
An interface bond strength three times that of a standard specimen is therefore used in the
analytical mode1 for these specimens. Figures 4.10 (c) and (d) show steel flat bar ties
welded to column webs and grouted into cells of the concrete block panel to further
increase the bond at this interface.
This increase in panel-to-frame integrity were also
investigated and this is discussed in Section 4.2.3.3. Material parameters used are similar
to those shown in Table 4.3 unless indicated otherwise. As shown in Figure 4.1 1, a
reasonable correlation between analytical and experimental load - deformation behaviow

confrms the validity of the proposed analytical technique to evaluate effects of interface
conditions. As s h o w in Figure 4.12 , the crack pattern for these specimens is not
sigpificantly different compared to standard specimens.
Mortar packed b e t r e e n
CHU ,and column
,Flet bar Lie
rd
Mortar b e t r e e n faceshell
web
Flat bar tic
Figure 4.10: Column - to - Panel Boundary Conditions
Deflection (mm)
Figure 4.1 1 : Cornparison of Results for Specimens WA 1, WA2, WA3, and WB 1
Failed joint
*+ Panel crack
P l a s t i c hinge
@ Masonry crushing
Figure 4.12: Defonned Mesh, Cracks, and Failure Pattern for Specimen WA3: (a) First
Major Crack, (b) Peak Load, ( c) Post Peak, (d) Expenmental Crack Pattern
at Peak Load
4.2.3.3
- -
Column to Panel Ties

Specimens WA5 and WB6 included a systern of column-to-panel ties. The tie
system consisted of 50 mm wide x 3.2 mm thick L-shape flat bars with one end welded
to the web of the column and the other end grouted into the adjacent cells of the concrete
masonry panel. These bars were spaced at 400 mm vertically on centres and were
modelled by assigning a hi& tensile bond strength of the interface elements attaching the
vertical edges of the panel to the columns. Numerical values of the tensile bond strength
were based on results of tie pull-out tests conducted by Yong (1984). It was assumed
that the flat bar ties contributed only marginally to the shear strengths at the frarne to
panel interface. A shear bond strength twice that used for a standard specimen was
therefore assumed. Material parameters used are similar to those shown in Table 4.3
except for a lower pnsm compressive strength and lower elastic modulus used for the
infill panel elements.
Boundary conditions for Specimens WA5 and WB6 are shown in Figures 4.10 (c)
and 4.10(d), respectively.
A cornparison of experimental and analytical load
deformation behaviour for these two specimens is shown in Figures 4.13 and 4.14. In
each case, the predicted peak load is higher than the corresponding experimental value.
As the slopes of both expenrnental curves were still positive when testing was
terminated, it is unlikely that these specimens had actuaiIy attained the tme peak load.
The predicted crack pattern shown in Figures 4.15 and 4.16 for Specimens WA5
and WB6 revealed some off diagonal cracking at the pre-peak load level but the failure
pattern at peak load is identical to that observeci for standard specimens.
Defieaion (mm)
Figure 4.13: Comparison of Results for Specimen WAS
Figure 4.14: Comparison o f Results for Specimen WB6
Failed joint
*+ Panel crack
Plastic hinge
crushing
% Masonry
Figure 4.15: Deformed Mesh, Cracks, and Failure Pattern for Specimen WAS: (a) First
Major Crack, @) Peak Load, (c ) Post Peak Load, (d) Expenmental Crack
Pattern at Peak Load
$
;'
Failed joint
Panel crack
P l a s t i c hingc
Masonry c r u s h i n g
Major Crack, (b) Peak Load, (c ) Post Peak Load, (d) Experimental Crack
4.2.3.4
- -
Gap at Top Beam to Panel Interface
Specimen WB4 of Table 4.1 included a 25 mm air space between the top of the
panel infill and the bottom of the roof beam. A physical gap in the same location was
included in the analytical mode1 and cornparison of the analytical and experimental load
deformation behaviour is shown in Figure 4.17- It is evident that the analytical results
provide reasonable prediction of behaviour up to a lateral defiection of 20 mm but
experimental data beyond this point is not available. Anaiytical results showed that at a
lateral deflection of 20 mm, the panel withi. the fiame had rotated and the top of the
panel had corne in contact with th<:roof beam. The defonned mesh at this stage is shown
in Figure 4.18 (b). When contact is made, there is an abrupt increase in the stiffness and
the behaviour is somewhat similar to that of a fully confineci infill-fiame system
described previousty. As shown in the analytical load - deflection curve of Figure 4.17,
there is no reduction in peak capacity but the deflection at which the peak load is reached
is higher than that of a standard specimen
Load
- deflection results cornparisons for Specimen WB5, which was similar to
WB4 except for the inclusion of column-to-panel ties, is shown in Figure 4.19. Effects
of ties were modelted using the approach described in Section 4.4.3.
Observations
similar to those described for Specimen WB4 were noted. Additionally, it was f o n d that
the ties increase the ultimate capacity only marginally. Figure 4.20 shows the crack and
failure patterns for this specimen.
Deflection (mm)
Figure 4. L 7:Cornparison of Results for Specimen WB4
*Q\
Failed joint
Plastic hinge
P a n e l crack
$% Masonry crushing
Major Crack, (b) Panel Contacting the Top Beam, ( c ) Peak Load, (d) Post
Peak Load, (e) Experirnental Crack Pattern at Peak Load
Figure 4.19: Comparison of Results for Specimen WB5
Failed joint
Plastic hinge
*+Panel crack
hfaonry crushing
->
'
1
Major Crack, @) Panel Contacting the Top Bearn, ( c) Peak Load, (d) Post
Peak Load, (e) Expenmental Crack Pattern at Peak Load
4.2.3.5
- -
Bond Break at Frame to InfiIl Interface

Specimen WC1 was fabricated with a polyethylene membrane as a bond-breaker
between the fiame and panel. This membrane eliminated interface bond and fiction
which would otherwise be present in standard spaimens (WB2, WB3, and WD7). Zero
interface bond and fiction were therefore used in the anaiyticai mode1 for Specimen
WC 1. Cornparisons shown in Figure 4.21 indicate good correlation between experimental
and analytical results up to a peak load. Again, cornparison of post-peak load behaviour
cannot be made due to a lack of experimental data.

As pointed out in Table 4.1,Specimen WC2 was similar to WC1 except for the
use of a very sandy mortar where 33% more sand was added to a conventional Type S
mortar.
It was reported @awe and
Seah 1989a) that the poor mortar resulted in
sipificant reduction in ultimate load for this specimen.
in the analytical study
conducted for this specirnen, the poor mortar is approximated by using low tensile and
shear bond strength for the joint elements. Cornparison of experimental and analytical
studies presented in Figure 4.22 also reveals a reduction in peak load. The crack and
failure pattern for Specimens WC1 and WC2 are shown in Figures 4.23 and 4.24,
respectively.
Defiection (mm)
Figure 4.2 1: Comparison of Results for Specimen WC 1
Figure 4.22: Comparison of Results for Specimen WC2
Failed joint
Panel crack
P l a s t i c hinge
Hasonry crushing
Figure 4.23: Defomed Mesh, Cracks, and Failure Pattern for Specimen WCl: (a) First
Major Crack, (b) Peak Load, (c) Post Peak Load, (d) Expenmental Crack
Failed joint
crack
*+Panel
Plastic hinge
@ lfasonry crushing
Figure 4.24: Defonned Mesh, Cracks, and Failure Pattern for Specirnen WC2: (a) First
Major Crack, (b) Peak Load, (c) Post Peak Load, (d) Experimental Crack
4.2.3.6 Bond Beams at One-third and Two-third Height

Specimen WA6, which had bond beams incorporated into the panel at one-third
and two-thirds the height, was modelled by inclusion of stiffer bands of panel elements at
the same locations as s h o w in Figure 4.25.
Cornparison of analytical and experimental
load - deflection behaviour shown in Figure 4.26 indicates reasonable correlation up to a
deflection of approximately 20 mm where the corresponding load on the system is

199 kN. Figure 4.27 shows that pnor to peak load, the bond beams appear to divide the
panel into three sub-panels. However at peak load and thereafier, the effect of bond
beams is less apparent and the panel behaved like a standard panel with no bond bearns.
The final failure was precipitated by crushing of the panel elements at loaded corners.
Figure 4.25: Finite Element Mode1 for Panels with Bond Beams
122
50
100
150
Deflection (mm)
Figure 4.26: Cornparison of Results for Specimen WA6
Failed joint
P a n e l crack
= 31 mrn
Plastic hinge
$$$ Masonry c r u s h i n g
Figure 4.27: Deformed Mesh, Cracks, and Failure Pattern for Specimen WA6: (a) First
Major Crack, (b) Peak Luad, (c) Post Peak Load, (d) Experimental Crack
4.2.3.7
Joint Reinforcement
Specimens WC7 and WA4 were fabricated without joint reinforcement. The
tiame - to - panel interface conditions for WC7 were identical to standard specimens as
s h o w in Figure 4.10(a) while Specimen WA4 had boundary conditions similar to that
shown in Figure 4.9(b).
Cornparisons of experimental and analytical results for WC7
and WA4 are shown in Figures 4.28 and 4.29, respectively. As shown, specimen WC7
has a higher peak load compared to Specimen WA4. This may be attributed to the higher
panel strength of WC7. It also appeared that the boundary condition had some effect on
the post-peak behaviour. Figures 4.30 and 4.31 show the crack and failure patterns of
Specimen WC7 and WA4, respectively. There is no significant difference between these
and the failure pattern of standard specimens. The contribution of joint reinforcement to
the strength and behaviour of the overall infilled M
e system is negligible.
20
40
60
80
Deflection (mm)
Figure 4.28: Comparison o f Results for Specimen WC7
20
40
60
80
Deflection (mm)
Figure 4.29: Comparison of Results for Specimen WA4
Failed joint
*+ Panel crack
Plastic hinge
@Masonry c r u s h i n g
Figure 4.30: Deformed Mesh, Cracks, and FaiIure Pattem for Specimen WC7: (a) First
Major Crack, (b) Peak Load, (c) Post Peak Load, (d) Experimentai Crack
.-
(dl
Failed joint
*+ Panel crack
O
PIastic hinge
@$ Yasonry crushing
Figure 4.3 1: Deformed Mesh, Cracks, and Failure Pattern for Specimen WA4: (a) First
4.2.3.8
Reinforced Diagonal
Vertical reinforcing bars of lengths equal to the expected compression diagonal
width were grouted into the panel along the compression diagonal of Specimen WD6.
n i e effect of strengthening was studied analytically using the mode1 shown in Figure
4.32 where a diagonal band of stiffer elernents was used to account for the increase in
stifiess of reinforced cells. As shown in Figure 4.33 for a cornparison of analyticai and
predicted load - deformation behaviour, the reinforced diagonal band resulted only in a
minor increase in peak load. The crack and failure patterns for this specimen shown in
Figure 4.34 revealed that at a load level below the peak load, panel cracking tends to
concentrate at the portion of the panel below the reinforced diagonal. At peak load, it
appears that the extent of panel cracking is less severe compared to standard specimens.
Applicd Load. F
->
,Itiff
band
of panel
elernents
Figure 4.32: Finite Element Mode1 for Specimen WD6
129
Figure 4.33: Cornparison of Results for Specimen WD6 (Reinforced Diagonal)
- Panel
Failed j o i n t
crack
P l a s t i c hinge
@$ Zfasonry crushing
Fi,gure 4.34: Crack and FaiIure Pattern for Specimen WD6: (a) Fint Major Crack, (b)
Peak Load, (c) Post Peak Load, (d) Expenmental Crack Pattern at Peak
Load
4.2.3.9
Central Door Opening

Specimens WC3 and WC4 had a centrally-located 600 mm wide by 1200 mm
high door opening and the mode1 shown in Figure 4.35 was used in the current analytical
study. As shown, the bond beam course located at the top of the opening was modelled
by a stiffer band of panel elements. Cornparison of analytical and expenmental results
presented in Figure 4.36 shows reasonable prediction of stiffiess and peak load of the
infilled fiame system. The deformed mesh shown in Figure 4.37 indicates that the infill,
perforated with the central door opening, tends to act as two sub-panels tied together at
the top by a horizontal wall beam. As shown in Figure 4.37(b), panel cracking and joint
failure occur in both sub-panels adjacent to the opening. Plastic hinges also developed at
the top and bottom of the windward column and also at the base of the leeward column.
The final failure was precipitated by crushing of the panel at the loaded corner (Figure
4.37(c)). The failure of the top wall beam also resulted in the formation of a plastic hinge
at the roof beam near the top Ieeward corner of the door opening.
/
f
Load. F
-Applied
rBond
'
bcam
-
Load
Fra
Figure 4.35: Finite Element Mode1 for Specimens WC3 and WC4
-c-
Experimental Specimen WC4 (Amos 1985)

Expen'mental Specirnen WC3 (Amos 1985) -
Analytical
40
60
--
80
Deflection (mm)
Figure 4.36: Cornparison of Results for Specimens WC4 and WC5
Failed joint
crack
*+P a n e l
P l a s t i c hinge
gbg Panel crushing
Figure 4.37: Defomed Mesh, Cracks, and Failure Pattern for Specimen WC4: (a) First
The behaviour of Specimen WCS, which had an opening offset f?om centre
towards the loaded side, was studied using the mode1 shown in Figure 4.38. Again, a
stiff band of panel elements was used to account for the bond beam course above the
opening. A comparison of results shown in Figure 4.39 indicates reasonable correlation
between experimental and analytical findings. As shown in Figure 4.39, the behaviour of
this specimen was similar to that of Specimen WC3 and W C 4 The division of the infill
into sub-panels due to the presence of the opening is also evident (Figure 4.40).
Augmen ted
;Spring
R e c t a n g u l s r panel elernht
Figure 4.38: Finite Element Mode! for Specimen WC5
1O
20
30
40
Defiection (mm)
Figure 4.39: Cornparison of Results for Specimen WC5
Failed joint
crack
*.$Panel
Plastic hinge
Figure 4.40: Deforrned Mesh, Cracks, and Failure Pattern for Specimen WCS: (a) First
Major Crack, (b) Peak Load, (c) Post Peak Load, (d) Expenmentai Crack
4.2.5
DOOROPENINGOFFSETTOWARDS
UNLOADED
CORNER
Figure 4.41 shows the mode1 for Specimen WC6 which had a 600 mm wide by
1200 mm high door opening offset nom center towards its unloaded side. Cornparison of
analyticai and experimental load
- deflection behaviour presented in Figure 4.43 shows
that analyticai prediction began to deviate significantly fkom experimental observation at

a load of approximately 200 W. An examination of the analytical deformed mesh and
crack and failure pattern of Figure 4.43 for ihis specimen revealed that sliding failure of
the panel along the floor beam had occurred. This is at variance with experimental
observation where the sub-panel adjacent to the Ieeward column is able to develop
diagonal strut action which resulted in higher stiffness and ultimate load.
Applicd Laad. F
->
Augmenlcd
SpringL
',
Figure 4.41 : Finite Element Mode1 for SpecimenWC6
20
40
60
80
100
Deflection (mm)
Figure 4.42: Cornparison of Results for Specimen WC6
120
Failed joint
crack
*+Panel
P l a s t i c hinge
crushing
a Masonry
Figure 4.43: Defomed Mesh, Cracks, and Failure Pattern for Specimen WC6: (a) F k t
4.2.6
PANELWITHINH~NGED
FRAMES
As indicated in Table 4.1, Specimens WD8 to WD13 were enclosed within a
kame with pinned-connections at the four corners to eIiminate the effect of joint rigidity
of the h e . Cornparisons of analytical and experimental load - deformation behaviour

of Specimens WDS, WD9, WDlO, and WD13 are shown in Figure 4.44. It is apparent
that the use of a firlly articulated fiame results in a wide variation in experimental results
of supposedly identical specimens. It was reported by Richardson (1986) that there was
some play in the hinges of these test spechens and this may have contributed to the
variation in test results. The analfical mode1 overestimates both stiffnesses and strengths
of al1 four specimens. Based on results of the analytical study, it is apparent that the use
of a flly articulated frame results in reduction of the ultimate load of approximately
50%. However, the effect on crack and failure patterns is less significant (Figure 4.45).
------
------
-c-
--
Exerirnental:
Specimen W O8 (Richardson 1986)
Specimen W D9 (Richardson 1986)
Specimen WD1O (Richardson 1986)
---
--. . . . -
i
i
20
40
60
80
1O0
120
Deflection (mm)
Figure 4.44: Cornparison of Results for Specimens WD8, WD9, WD 10, and WD 13
Failed j o i n t
*+ P a n e l crack
P l a s t i c hinge
Figure 4.45: Deformed Mesh, Cracks, and Failure Pattern for Specimen WDlO: (a) First
Major Crack, @) Peak Load, (c) Post Peak Load, (d) Experirnental Crack
Specirnen WD12 was sixnilar to Specimms WC3 and WC4 except for the
provision of hinges at the four corners of the surroundhg W e . Comparisons of
anaiytical and experimental load
- deflection behaviour presented in Figure 4.46 shows
that the predicted stitniess is higher. The play in the hinges descnbed previously may
have contributed to the lower stimiess observed experimentally. The crack pattern,
which is similar to that of Specimens WC3 and WC4, indicates severe cracking at the top
corners of the opening (Figure 4.47). Specimen WD12 exhibited about 40 per cent
reduction in maximum test load and 60 per cent reduction in stimiess as compared with
Specimens WC3 and WC4.
Deflection (mm)
Figure 4.46: Cornparison of Results for Specimen WD 12
Failed joint
?+ Panel crack
Plastic hinge
@ Panel crushing
Figure 4.47: Deformed Mesh, Cracks, and Failure Pattern for Specimen WD12: (a) First
4.2.8
INTERFACE GAP BETWEEN PANEL INFIu
AND THE
SURROUNOING
HINGED
Specwen W D l l was fabricated with the provision of a 20 mm airspace at the

panel-to-roof beam interface.
The corresponding load - deflection curves s h o w in
Figure 4.48 show behaviour similar to that of Specimens WB4 and WB5. A major
reduction in stiffiiess occurred at a load of 130 EcN and this is accompanied by a large
increase in lateral deflection. Upon further loading, the stiffhess increased dramatically
and an examination of the defonned mesh and failure pattern s h o m in Figure 4.49
indicates that the panel rotated sufficiently to engage with the roof bearn. The system
then behaved like an ordinary panel without any gap at the panel - to - roof beam
interface leading to an ultimate load of about 300 W.
Deflection (mm)
Figure 4.48: Cornparison of Results for Specimen WD11
Failed j o i n t
Plastic h i n g e
Panel crack
Masonry c r u s h i n p
*+
Figure 4.49: Defonned Mesh, Cracks, and F a i l w Pattern for Specimen WD12:(a) First
Major Crack, (b) Panel Contacting the Top Beam, (c) Peak Load, (d) Post
Peak Load, (e) Experimental Crack Pattern at Peak Load
4.3
RACKING LOAD TEST OF REINFORCED CONCRETE FRAMES WITH

BRICK MASONRY lNnLL
A comparison of analytical and experimental results of concrete block masonry
infilled steel hunes of various parameters presented in Section 4.2 has demonstrated the
validity of the proposed analytical technique for this type of structure. The objective of
this section is to bnefly evaluate the validity of this technique for studying the response
of
reinforced concrete m e s with masonry idil1 under racking loads.
Test data
obtained by Dunham (1996) was used. The experimental program consisted of testing
four one-third scale reinforced concrete infilled -es
subjected to lateral in-plane static
loading. Figure 4.50 shows the testing apparatus used by Dunham. Along with each test
specimen, awiliary tests were conducted to evaluate compressive strength of concrete,
tensile strength of reinforcing bars and compressive strength of mortar used in the
fabrication of infill. Al1 m e s were subjected to a static in-plane horizontal load applied
at the centroid of the top beam using a hydraulic ram as shown. A summary of the sdient
features of Dunham's specimens is presented in Table 4.4. It should be noted that the
moment capacities shown in the table are calculated based on CSA A23.3 (Canadian
Standards Association 1994~)with the exception that material performance factors of
unity were used to allow a more realistic cornparison of calculated values with test
results. Other sectional pmperties required for the analytical mode1 are based on member
Hydraulic 11
ram,
1
~ o a dce11
!l
j
k LVDT
coiumn
Figure 4.50: Racking Load Test Set-up by Dunham (1996)

dimensions shown in the table. Properties of brick masonry infil1 used are surnmarized in
Table 4.5.
Table 4.4: Properties of Reinforced Concrete Frame
Beam
Specimen
, r l O S Bar
t100
Frarne)
-?-
!
k 3 1 TYP
M l 1 dimensions (mm)
Table 4.4 (Continued)

Specimen
Beam
Infill dimensions (mm)
1- 1
900 x 950 x 57
4 0 M Bar
1-2
-170-
4 IOY
-1
LOO
'
1011: Bar
Bar
-20 TYP
1-5
1051 B o r
r l O H Bar
-31
TYP
Note:
Mpl
Moment capacity based on f ', of 20 MPa, f,,o f 400 MPa
E,
17 800 MPa for d l .
Table 4.5: Properties of Brick Masonry Infill

fmn
E,, = E , = 850f', = 17000 MPa
= fmy = f ' m
Tensile Strength
Failure Criteria Parameters
Joint Properties
Figures 4.51 to 4.54 show a cornparison of predicted behaviour with experimental

data for Specimens B-1, 1-1,I-2,and 1-5 (Dunharn 1996), respectively. It is evident fkom
Figure 4.5 1 that the proposed technique correctly predicts the response of the bare portal
fiame without any inflll. As indicated in Figures 4.52 and 4.53, good correlation between
experimentai and predicted behaviour is also obtained for specimen 1-1 and 1-2.
Cornparison of load - deformation behaviour for Specimen 1-5 shown in Figure 4.54
reveals that the proposed technique reasonably predicts the strength and stifkess of the
infilled h
e system up to the first peak load which is labelled A in Figure 4.54.
Thereafler, analytical results indicate gradua1 degradation of stiffness and at a deflection
of approximately 50 mm, the strength of the system has reduced to that of the bare fiame.
In contrast, experimental data for this specimen showed that the system is capable of
resisting increasing load beyond the first peak load noted above. The discrepancy
between analytical and experimental behaviour may be attributed to the variability in the
material properties of the reinforced concrete M e and the infill. For example, due to
strain hardening in the reinforcing steel, the actual moment capacity of kame members
c m be higher than the calculated capacity used in the analytical model. However, it is
difficult to correctly account for such variability in matenai behaviour of the systern in
the analytical model and conservative values obtained based on simplimng assumptions
should be satisfactory for practical applications.
20
40
60
80
Deflection (mm)
Figure 4.51: Comparison of Results for Specimen B-1by Dunham (1996)
Deflection (mm)
Figure 4.52:Comparison ofResults for Specimen I- 1

153
Deflection (mm)
Figure 4.53: Cornparison of Results for Specimen 1-2 (Dunham 1996)
Deflection (mm)
Figure 4.54: Cornparison of Results for Specimen 1-5 (Dunharn 1996)
4.4
SUMMARY
It has been demonstrated that the anaiytical technique proposed in this study can
be used to predict the behaviour of steel fiames with concrete block masonry infill. A
multitude of firame and infill parameters were examined and satisfactory results were
obtained in most cases. The use of the technique for predicting behaviour of relliforced
concrete fiames with unreinforced brick masonry infill was also examined and it was
detemined that the analytical technique is valid for these as we11.
Chapter S
As pointed out previously, test results are available for a Iimited number of infilled
frame specimens subjected to racking load. Although several researchers have attempted
to evaluate the effects of various parameters, the validity of results is doubtfiil due to the
large number of variables and the highly variable matenal properties of masonry Uitills.
For example, it is difficult to keep a parameter such as f,' for the infill constant among
specimens in which other parameters are deiiberately varied to study their effects.
Additionally, the number and variation of dimensions and material properties of
specimens tested to date are not sufficient in themselves to be able to establish general
design guidelines. Furthexmore, the load
- deformation behaviour of masonry infilled
frame systems may be significantly infhenced by certain parameters which have not been
specifically studied in the expenmental program.
An in-depth anaiytical evaluation of parameters is presented in this chapter.
Analytical results in the fonn of load deformation behaviour c w e s are presented and
discussed for a wide variety of infilled m e s of various dimensions, fiame member
stiffnesses, and panel infills of various dimensions and properties. Additionally, the
effects of load application and gr;tvity Ioading similar to that experienced by a typical
infilled panel in a multi-story, multi-bay infilled frame system are evaluated and
discussed. The main purpose of this chapter is to identie and evaluate the effects of
important parameters which significantly affect the behaviour of infilled Erame systems.
Results of these studies were used to establish general design guidelines presented in
Chapter 6 of this thesis.
5.2 PANEL ASPECT RA T l 0

A parametric study was conducted to evaiuate the effect on the behaviour of
infilled M
e systems of the panel aspect ratio, H / L , where H and L are the height and
Iength of infill fiame, respectively. For this purpose, 6 rn wide fiames with heights of
3 m, 6 rn, and 9 m , as shown in Figures 5.1 were used in this study. Properties of frame
members are identicai to those shown in Table 4.2 while the properties of infil1 used in
this study are summarized in Table 5.1. The properties shown in Table 5.1 correspond
cIosely to properties of concrete block masonry construction cornmonly used in Canada.
L = 6 m---(a) H / L = 0.5
L = 6 m -
(b) H/L = 1.0
Figure 5.1 : Mode1 Panels used for Parametric Studies
Table 5. 1: Properties of MI1 Panel Used in Parametric Studies

E , = E, = 700f,'
f,,
= f,, = f', = 15 MPa
Tensile Strength
Failure Critena Parameters
Joint Properties
Results of the analysis summarized in Figure 5.2 indicate that al1 load deflection
curves have monotonically increasing branches up to the f h t peak loads. For the three
cases examined, the b
e separateci
h m the panel at low loads, except for a small
region at the loaded corners. However, it was found that the length of contact rapidly
increases as the fiame and in611 behaviour becomes non-linear. Sometimes, tension or
shear failure of panel joints may result in a drop in stifiess as indicated by point C,in
Figure 5.2. Generally, unlike a non-confineci panel, a drop in stiffiiess resulting from
failure of the panel at early stages of loading does not indicate that the lateral resistance
of the infilled fiame system has been exhausted. The cracked panel which is confined
within the fitirne may re-align itself and establish altemate load paths to resist increasing
loads. The first peak load is at a stage where cmshing failure at one or both loaded
corners is imminent. Typical to panels used in this study, the loaded corner at the
windward column crushes and results in a load drop immediately beyond point P, as
indicated in Figure 5.2. It appears that the load &op is somewhat more pronounced for
panels with higher aspect ratios while a panel with an aspect ratio of 1.0 has a greater
strength and ductility beyond the fkst peak load. A plastic hinge typically forms at the
top loaded corner of the m e . Emtic behaviour beyond first peak load is the result of a
combination of conditions which include cracking in the joints and panel, closing of
previously opened joints, shear failure dong panel joints, closing and re-opening of
panel-to-fiame interface gaps, yielding of fiame members, and localized crushing of the
Deflection (mm)
Figure 5.2: Effects of Panel Aspect Ratio
panel. The deformed mesh immediately following the first peak load is shown in Figure
It is evident fiom Figure 5.2 that local crushing of infill at the loaded corner does
not completely depIete the lateral load resisting capacity of an infilled h e . This is
partly due to an increase in the length of contact between column and panel which results
in additional load resistance. However, the lateral resistance of a h
e diminishes very
rapidly when the panel near the base of the leeward column also crushes. This may lead
to a very rapid deterioration of the infill and the formation of more hinges in the frame.
Plastic
hinge\
Crushed
panel
Crushed
panel
Plastic
Crushed
panel
.
t
'
,
t
'
I
!
Figure 5.3: Deformed Mesh for (a) H L = 0.5 (b) H Z = 1.0 and (c) WL = 1.5
162
For cornparison, load - deflection curves of infilled h e s , as described above,

are shown along with correspondhg cuves of a plain panel and a h
e without infiii in
Figures 5.4 to 5.6. While the open fiames have low stiffness the panels alone are
relatively stiff. However, the panels have low ductility failing at low loads due to tende
cracking of the relatively weak mortar joints. The beneficial effects of enclosing a panel
in a ductile h
e are clearly evident in these figures.
Deflection (mm)
Figure 5.4: Cornparisons of Load - Deformation Behaviour, H Z = 0.5
Defiecion (mm)
Figure 5.5: Comparisons of Load - Deformation Behaviour, H/L= 1 .O
+ lnfilled frarne
-3- Panel only
-m-
Open fmme
Defiedion (mm)
Figure 5.6: Comparisons of Load - Defonnation Behaviour, HIL = 1.5
5.3 LOADING CONDITION
The experimental program describeci in Chapter 4 consisted of a test setup that

exerted a horizontal racking load at the top of the windward column of
a test specimen.
However, in a typical building, Iateral wind and earthquake forces are normaiiy
transferred to the lateral load resisting fiames by means of fioor and roof diaphragms
comected ta floor and roof beams of the system (Lin and Stotesbury 198 1). A pararnetric
study was conducted heren to evaluate the effects of such loading conditions on the
overall behaviour of infilled h e s . Frames similar to those descnbed in Section 5.2

were used for this investigation.
The loading conditions used in this study consist of 1) a horizontal point load
pushing at the top of the windward coIwnn, resulting in compression in the roof beam; 2)
a horizontal point load pulling away fiom the top of the leeward column, resulting in
tension in the roof bearn; and 3) a uniformly distributed horizontal shear acting along the
roof bearn.
Results for these analyses are summarized in Figures 5.7 to 5.9. As shown, it is
evident that the method of loading has no significant effect on the overall behaviour of
the system. This confirms that test data based on a point load applied at the windward
column can be used to simulate actual loading conditions where loads are distributed
along roof beams.
Point load on leemrd ailumn
Oeflection (mm)
Figure 5.7: Effects of Loading Conditions
- H/L = 0.5
--
-- - -
Point load on leeward colum
Deflecon (mm)
Figure 5.8: Effects of Loading Conditions, H L = 1 .O
Deflection (mm)
Figure 5.9: Effects of Loading Conditions, H/L = 1.5
- -
5.4 FRAME TO PANEL BOND
The bond between panel and frame may be compromised as a result of in-situ
shrinkage of mortar and sometimes the masonry units themselves. In other cases,
connecton may be used to ensure the integrity of the panel-to-fiame interface bond.
Based on limited experimental findings, Dawe and Seah (1989a) indicated that flat bar
L-shaped ties welded to columns at altemate joint elevations and grouted into adjacent
cells did not have any beneficial effects on the behaviour of the system. An in-depth
parametric study is conducted herein to M e r examine effects of interface integrity on
the behaviour of infilled h
e systems.
Most comrnercially available masonry connectors are of the multi-component,

adjustable type such that one end of the connector can be pre-attached to the frame at
approximate elevations and the adjustable end of the connector embedded in mortar joints
as masonry work progresses. Generally, such adjustabie ties are capable of resisting
tension forces normal to the fkme - panel interface but cannot resist any shear forces that
may also be present. Custom designed and engineered shear connectors are required if
shear transfer along this interface is critical. Effects of tension and shear bond, evaluated
analyticalIy in this study, are modelled by assigning appropriate values to the strength of
the normal and tangential springs of the interface elements which were descnbed in
Chapter 3.
Figures 5.10 to 5.12 show the load
deflection curves of concrete masonry
infilled steel m e s for three different aspect ratios and interface conditions of : (a)
tension bond between the panel and frame oniy; (b) tension and shear bond between the
panel and frame; and, (c) no tension or shear bond.
Refemng to Figures 5.10 to 5.12, it is evident that tension bond alone has no
significant effect on the overall behaviour of the system. The additional presence of shear
bond increases first peak load only marginally. Additionally, it should be noticed that the
introduction of shear bond tends to induce major cracking in the panel before peak load
(Point A in Figures S. 10 to 5.12) and results in a reduction o f the stifkess o f the system
thereafter. This effect is more pronouncd for panels with aspect ratios o f 1 .O and 1 .S.
Expenmental evidence reported by Dawe and Seah (1989a) also indicates that the
shear bond resuIts in additional cracking and therefore it may not be desirable to have
shear bond.
Deflection (mm)
Figure 5.10: Effects of Frame-to-Panel Bond, H/L= 0.5
Defiection (mm)
Figure 5.1 1 : Effects of Frame-to-Panel Bond, WL = 1.O
20
40
60
80
100
Oeflection (mm)
120
140
160
Figure 5.12: Effects of Frame-to-Panel Bond, WL = 1.5
180
- -
5.5 FRAME TO PANEL INTERFACE FRICTION
The coefficient of niction between a h
e and panel depends on the types of
material and conditions of the interface. For example, S304.1-94 (Canadian Standards
Association 1994a) recommends a value of 0.45 for masonry bearing against steel if the
interface is dry, and if the interface is wet, this value should be reduced to 0.35. The
corresponding values for masonry bearing against concrete in the wet and dry conditions
are 0.60 and 0.70, respectively. Sometimes, it may be difficult to identiQ the service
condition of this interface and a parametnc study was conducted to evaluate effects of
interface fiction. Again the models shown in Figure 5.1 were used.
Results of this study are summarized in Figures 5.13 to 5.15. As shown by the
load - deflection curves in these figures, the value of the niction between the fhme and
the infill appeared to have little impact on the behaviour of the system up to the k t peak
load.
This can be attributed to the sepration between frame and infil1 resulting in
relatively small sliding contact areas between frame and infill as pointed out in Section
5.2. AAer the first peak load, the residual resistance to lateral load appeared generally to
Vary as the coefficient of fiction.
This could be due to an increase in sliding contact area
between fhme and infil1 following the initiai first peak load. It is apparent fiorn these
studies that the coefficient of friction between h
e and infill has more significant
impact on the behaviour of the system at later stages of loading after the on-set of nonlinear behaviour in the h m e and infill.
Deflection (mm)
Figure 5.13: Effects of Frame-to-Panel Interface Friction, H L = 0.5
Deflection (mm)
Figure 5.14: Effects of Frame-to-Panel Interface Friction, H/L = 1 .O
Deflection (mm)
Figure S. 15: Effects of Frarne-to-Panel Interface Friction, H/L = 1.5
5.6 GAP BETWEEN PANEL AND FRAME
In the preceding analyses, it was assumed that the panel was in intimate contact
with the surrounding h e . However, in some constructions a gap between the top of
panel infill and the bottom of the top beam is deliberately introduced to allow the beam to
deflect fieely without inducing any vertical load on the panel below.
Figures 5.16 to 5.18 show the results of a parametric study conducted to evaluate
the effect of introducing a 20 mm air space between panel and M e .
Effets of
interface bond and fiction on this type of construction were aiso examined. Generally,
al1 analytical results show a reduction in the frst peak load due to the presence of a gap
between the infil1 and the underside of a top bearn.
This is in agreement with
experimental findings reporteci by others (Richardson 1986; Riddington 1984). It is also

revealed that, while effects of bond between h u n e and infill are only marginal, the lack
of panel-to-fkne interface connectivity could drastically reduce stifiesses and initial

peak loads. An examination of failure modes, as detemrined analytically, revealed that a
drop in load following the first peak load for specimens with top gap is associated with a
combination of tension and shear failure in the joints of the infiII. As shown in Figure
5.17, for panels with an aspect ratio of 1.0, the introduction of shear and tension bond
between the panel and the column can lead to more cracking in the panel and, in this case,
it also resulted in a slight decrease in initial k t peak load.
Al1 load
- deflection curves of specimens with
bond show a sudden loss in stiffness at a low load.
gaps and no interface fiction or
In al1 cases, the panel is able to
rotate within the frame as an integral unit at low load and the sudden loss in stiffness is
due to the disintegration of the panel caused by failure of bed and head joints. When the
top of the panel rotates sufficiently to corne in contact with the roof beam, an abrupt
increase in stifiess occurs. Thereafter, the system behaves in a manner similar to one
without a gap except that the maximum load attained by the system is lower.
Deflection (mm)
Figure 5.16: Effects of Gap Between Panel and Top Beam, H/L = 0.5
ott
+Top &p, t
b panel-tcdumn interface bord
+TOPgap, with panel-tocolumninterfaoe bond

u no panei-b-cdum
Defiection (mm)
Figure 5.17: Effects of Gap Between Panel and Top Beam, H L = 1.O
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
Deflection (mm)
Figure 5.18: Effects o f Gap Between Panel and Top Beam, HL = 1.5
5.7 MORTAR JOINTBOND AND FRICTION
For masonry panels subjected to shear, different design approaches have been
adopted by various masonry codes. For exarnple, S304.1. 94 (CSA 1994) and BS 5628
(British Standard Institution 1978) adopted a Coulomb type failure cnterion similar to
that shown in Figure 3.20 in Chapter 3. On the other hand, AC1 530-95/ ASCE 595/TMS 402-95 (Masonry Standards Joint Cornmittee, 1995) and Chapter 24 of the
Uniform Building Code (UBC 1994) do not recognize the increase in shear strength due
to compression in mortar joints and the bond strength of masonry alone is relied upon to
resist shear. There are some significant diffetences in the numerical values for the shear
bond and joint fiction in the various codes mentioned above. For example the shear
bond strength can Vary fiom 0.24 MPa, in the Uniform Building Code, to 0.80 MPa, in
CSA 304.1-94. Variations in the value of the coefficient of Wction can range fiom 0.25
in CSA S304.1-94 to 0.65 in BS 5628. Similar variations in experimental results for the
above have also been reported (Drydale, Hamid and Baker 1994; Hendry 1981). These
values reflect the variability of masonry materials and the regional influence of masonry
construction techniques.
A parametric study was conducted as described to evaluate the effects of mortar
joint bond and friction on the behaviour of masonry infilled steel frames. Figures 5.19 to
5.21 summarize the results of this study for masonry panel inflls with aspect ratios of
0.5, 1.0, and 1.5. Generally, it can be seen that the influence of mortar joint bond and
friction increases with H / L ratios. It is also evident that the high initial stiflhess of the
system is rnainly contributed by the bond. The assumption of zero bond strength resulted
in significantly lower initial stiffhesses and peak loads as is particularly evident in Figure
5.21 for panels with an aspect ratio of 1S . Arnong the cases which include bond and
fiction, it appears that the tint peak load increases with bond strength but this effect
diminishes with increasing panel aspect ratios. Increasing the joint fiction has little
impact on the overall behaviow except for a panel with low aspect ratio.
Deflection (mm)
Figure 5.19: Effects o f Mortar Joint Bond and Friction, H/L = 0.5
-c Nobond.fndionu=0.25
- No bond. fridionu = 0.5
+Bond and fridian ( S W . t values)
2
- Bond = 0.8 Mm. u = 0.5
Deflection (mm)
Figure 5.20: Effects o f Mortar Joint Bond and Friction, H/L = 1.0
350
-t S t a n d a r d - m a *
*
Nobond.nohidion
+ No bond. friction u = O
+Nobord.fricoociu=O.S
+ ond and fridiori (S304.1 values)
+ Bond = 0.8 MPa. u = 0.5
20
40
GO
80
100
120
Deflection (mm)
Figure 5.21 : Effects of Mortar Joint Bond and Friction, WL = 1.5
5.8 FRAME RIGIDITY

Several analyses were conducted to evaluate effects of h
e member rigidity. In
this series, standard frame membea are those with properties identical to that shown in
Table 5.1. Specimens identified as strong-column h e s are those having the same
beam as a standard frame with a column stiffness approximately 10 times higher than that
of a standard fiame column. Frames refmed to as strong-bearn h e s are those with
columns identical to standard fiame column but with bearns approximately ten times
more rigid.
Results of analyses as presented in Figures 5.22 to 5.24 show that the effect of
stiffer beams is more pronounced in fhmes with lower H/L ratios. A stronger and
stiffer beam results in higher initial stifniess and peak load. nie effects of beam rigidity,
however, diminish with increasingH/l ratios. It is also noticed that increasing column
rigidity generdly tends to increase initial stifniess and initiai peak load. This effect is
marginal for a panel with aspect ratio of 0.5 while for panels with higher H / L ratios, the
effect of column rigidity is more notable. It is possible that some of the strength and
stifhess increase is purely fiom the fiame members alone and not the infill-fiame system.
In some steel f k n e structures, shear connections are used to connect beams to

columns. Typically, a shear connection acts like a hinge and it cannot transfer moment
fiom the beam to the column and vice versa.
The effects of introducing pinned
connection at the ends of beams were examined anaiytically in this study. Two different
column boundary conditions, as illustrated in Figure 5.25, were examined. As shown,
the condition represented by Figure 5.25(a) corresponds to a kune with shear connection.
In contrast, the condition depicted by Figure 5.25 (b) represent the other extreme where
the beam is infinitely rigid and it prevents any rotation that may occur in the column.
Results of analyses presented in Figure 5.26 to 5.28 show that the introduction of
hinges in the beam results in lower peak load compared to that of a rigidly connected
frame. In contrast, the introduction of rotational restrain as represented by Figure S.ZS(b)
generally results in higher first peak loads while its infiuence on initial stimiess is
negligible. However, for the panel with an aspect ratio of 1.5, the effects of rotational
restraint in columns is less significant.
40
60
Deflection (mm)
Figure 5.22: Effcts of Frame Member Stiftness, H/L = 0.5
Deflection (mm)
Figure
Effects of Frame Member Stifhess, Hn,= 1.O
20
60
Deflection (mm)
40
80
. i
100
120
Figure 5.24: Effects of Frame Member Stiflhess, H/L = 1.5
(a) Pinned Column-to-bcam
Connection
( b ) Infinitely Rigid Beam
Figure 5.25: Column-to-Beam Connections
Deflection (mm)
Figure 5.26: Effects of Frarne Comection Rigidity, H L = 0.5
20
40
60
Defiection (mm)
80
Figure 5.27: Effects of Frame Connection Rigidity, H Z = 1.O
Deflection (mm)
Figure 5 -28: Effects of Frame Connection Rigidity, H/L
= 1.5
5.9 PANEL STRENGTH A ND STIFFNESS
Figures 5.29 to 5.3 1 show results of a parametric study conducted to evaluate the
effects of strength and stifiess of infill. It is assumed that the elastic modulus o f the
infill is directly proportional to the pnsm compression strength as shown in TabIe 5.1. In
this study, prism compressive strengths of 10, 15 and 20 MPa were used. The fiame
members used are identical to those described in Table 4.2
40
60
80
Deflection (mm)
Figure 5.29: Effects of Infill Strength and Stifkess, H Z = 0.5
Deflection (mm)
Figure 5.30: Effects of InfiIl Strength and Stiffness, WL = 1.0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
Deflection (mm)
Figure 5.3 1: Effects of Infill Strength and Stifiess, H/L= 1.5
Figures 5.29 to 5.3 1 generally show that the stifihess and peak load of an infil1
fiame increase with stifniess and strength of the in6ll. This trend is clearly evident in
Figures 5.30 and 5.3 1 for panels with aspect ratios of 1.O and 1.5, respectively. However,
the load deflection curves shown in Figure 5.29 for panels with an aspect ratio of 0.5
reveal a complex interaction between Erame and infill. As indicated, the stiffiess of the
systern increases marginally with infill stiffness and strength but the peak load attained
by a panel with an f,' value of 15 MPa is somewhat lower than that attained by the
panel with an f,' value of 10 MPa. It was determined that this is due to the interaction
of the panel and the column of the M e . In this case, the length of column bearing on
the infill at the peak load for the panel with an f,' value of 10 MPa is greater than the
corresponding length for a higher strength panel. This results in lower stresses in the
cntically loaded infill corner. For the panel with f,' of 15 MPa,
even though its
strength is higher, the stress due to load is dso high due to the smaller contact between
panel and h e . This stress concentration causes the panel to cmsh at the loaded comer
on the windward side resulting in the drop in load shown in Figure 5.29.
5.10 EFFECTS OF GRAVITY LOADING
In a multi-story infitled k e , the beams would at least support the dead weight
of the panel above it. The load on a beam may be M e r increased if roof or floor joists
were also supported by it. A parametric analysis was conducted to study the effects of
uniformly distributed gravity load acting on a beam supported by the panel infill.
Uniformly distributed loads resulting in total gravity loads equd to 5%, 25% and 50% of
total column capacity were used in this study.
Results of analyses, as presented in Figures 5.32 to 5.34, indicate an increase in
strength and stifhess due to gravity loading acting on the top beams. This can be
attributed to an increase in mortar jouit shear strength due to a higher level of

compressive stress normal to bed joints caused by the applied gravity loads. The
beneficial contribution of gravity load reaches an optimum value when a M e r increase
in gmvity load results in lower lateral resistance due to compressive crushing failure at
the loaded corner of the uifill. This is evident in Figures 5.32 to 5.34 where increasing the
total load gravit. load nom 25% to 50% of column capacity results in a &op in lateral
resistance.
Deflection (mm)
Figure 5.32: Effects of Gravity Load Acting on Top Beam, WL = 0.5
Note: P = Colurm capaciy
20
60
Deflection (mm)
40
80
Figure 5.33: Effects of Gravity Load Acting on Top Beam, WL = 1.O
40
60
Deflection (mm)
Figure 5.34: Effects of Gravity Load Acting on Top Beam, HL = 1.5
The effects of gravity load acting on the columns of the system alone were also
investigated and it was determined that the effects of p v i t y loads acting on the columns
alone is less signifiant than gravity loading uniformly distributed along the top beam
(see Figures 5.35 to 5.37).
hcreasing the gravity Ioad action on columns can at times
lead to stress concentrations at the loaded corners leading to localized crushing failure at
low load. For example, the &op in load from "a" to "b" shown in Figure 5.37 is caused
by crushing of infill located at the top windward corner resulting fiom lateral load and the
high column load applied at that corner.
-----
- -
'Y
---
- -'
- - - - - - -Note: P = Cdumn capacity

r
Oeflection (mm)
Figure 5.35: Eff'ts of Gravity Load Acting on Columns, H L = 0.5
- - - - - - - - - - ,-
Note: P = Wumi capacity
Deflection (mm)
Figure 5.36:Effects of Gravity Load Acting on Columns, WL = 1.O
20
40
60
Deflection (mm)
80
Figure 5.37: Effects of Gravity Load Acting on Columns, HL = 1-5
An in-depth parametric study has been conducted to determine parameters that

may have significant impact on the behaviour of inflled h
e systems.
It was
determined that there exists a cornplex, and somewhat random, interaction between the
fiame and the infill. The complexity is frther rnagnified by the multitude of parameters
affecting the behaviour of infilled fkmes.
From the results of this study, it
was
confirmed that the following parameters need to be included in the development of
general design guidelines:

1.
infil1 dimensions and tiame aspect ratio,
2.
mortarjoint bond and fiction,
3.
infil1 strengh and stiflhess,
4.
5.
rigidity of colwnn bases and beam - to - column connections,
6.
gravity loading acting on beam and columns, and
7.
gaps between fiame and infill.
e member strength and stiffiiess,
It was also detennined that the provision of ties to increase tension and shear bond
at the i n f i l l - t o - h e interface would not significantly improve the behaviour of the
system. This is therefore omitted fiom the above list.
Chapter 6
DEVELOPMENT OF A PRACTICAL APPROACH FOR THE ANALYSIS OF
INFILLCD FRAME STRUCTURES WITH DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS
6.7 GENERAL
The analyticai mode1 described previously provides a powerfl means for

evaluating the complex behaviour of masonry infilled &es.
However, the computing
resources required for conducting such analyses are not universdly available. Designers
generally require sirnpler methods that can be processed with commonly available
computing facilities. This chapter describes the development and validation of a practical
approach for the analysis of fiames with masonry infilis subjected to lateral loadings.
The method developed herein represents a compromise that reduces computing resource
requirements and yet is able to reasonably approximate the response of infilled fiame
structures subjected to lateral loads. The essence of this procedure consists of replacing
each infill panel with a pair of diagonal springs where the assigned ioad
- deformation
characteristics of these springs are such that the overall lateral load response of the
equivalent infilled fhme system can be replicated. It should be noted that oniy the spring
in compression is effective. The method can be used for the analysis and design of
general, three-dimensional fiames with masonry infilling.
6.2 DEVELOPMENT OF ANALYTICAL PROCEDURE
6.2.1 SINGLE-STOREY
SINGLE-8AY INflLLED FRAME
Figure 6.1 shows a typical single-storey, single-bay infilled frame subjected to

horizontal racking load applied at roof level. A typicd load - defonnation curve of the
system is shown in Figure 6.2. As pointed out in the previous chapter, the hi& strength
and stifiess of the system as shown in Figure 6.2 is primarily due to the presence of the
infill confined within the fiame. Alternatively, a compression brace as shown in Figure
6.3, may be introduced in the fhme to achieve the same effect. For the diagonal brace
mode1 of Figure 6.3 to replicate the entire load - deformation behaviour of the actual
structure, the load defoxmation characteristics of the diagonal brace must be related to
the load deformation curve for the actual infilled frame shown in Figure 6.2. Refenng
to Figure 6.4, this relationship can be established as follows:
where, Cd is the compression force in the diagonal brace and A, is the corresponding
diagonal defonnation. H, Ah , and A, are the horizontal racking load, and horizontal
and vertical displacements at the loaded corner of the infilled fiame, respectively. 8 is
the angle of inclination of the fi-aIne diagonal measwd as shown in Figure 6.4. Using
Equations 6.1 and 6.2, the entire load defornation curve of the required diagonal brace
can be generated. For example, the load - deformation cuve of the equivalent diagonal
brace for the system shown in Figures 6.1 and 6.2 is generated and presented in Figure
6.5. It should be pointed out that the Cd versus Ad cuve gives the relationship of the
equivalent diagonal force and deformation of the infilled h
e system and therefore
includes the rigidity of the surrounding fiame. Hhges were introduced to eliminate the
lateral resistance of rame of the compression diagonal brace mode1 shown in Figure 6.3.
Figure 6.1: Typical Single-Storey, Single-Bay Infilled Frame
Deilection. A (mm)
Figure 6.2: Typical Horizontal Load Deflection Curve
Figure 6.3: Compression Diagonal Brace Simplified Mode1
Figure 6.4: Deformation of Equivalent Diagonal Brace
Figure 6.5: Diagonal Load - Deformation Response of Equivalent Diagonal Brace

A general three-dimensional fiame program called EPIFRAME was developed for
the analysis of building frames with idlls based on the principles developed above.
Figure 6.6 shows the results of analysis of the single-storey, single-bay infilled h
shown in Figure 6.1 using EPIFRAME. The load - deformation curve of the equivalent
diagonal is based on that shown in Figure 6.5. For cornparison, the load
- defonnation
reIationship of the actuaI innlled fiame obtained analytically (Figure 6.2) is reproduced
and included in Figure 6.6, It is evident that the simplifiecf diagonal compression brace
mode1 is able to replicate identically the analytical behaviour of the actual structure.
Generally, in the analysis of a complex structure, an elaborate and time consuming finite
element analysis is required to generate the load deformation curve of each diagonal
brace used. However, as illustrateci in Figure 6.7(a),
for a general three-dimensional
fiame where identical panels with masonry inlling are used to provide laterai resistance,
only one such cuve needs to be generated for each identical panel. For example, Panels
I l and I2 of Figure 6.7 (a) have identical dimensions and infil1 and therefore only one
analysis is required to obtain the load
- defoxmation characteristics of the equivalent
diagonal, dl shown in Figure 6.7@) for panels I l and 12. Similarly, only one analysis is
required to obtain the curve for diagonal d2. Replacing infills with equivalent diagonal
braces pennits an efficient and cost-effective evaluation of the contribution of the infills
in a building.
Denectiori (mm)
Figure 6.6: Horizontal Load Deflection Rcsponse for Single-Bay, Single-Storey Frarne
Masonry
Infill
Single Storey Frame with Infills
( b ) Diagonal Compression Brace Mode1
Figure 6.7: Three-dimensionai Frarne with Infill Panels
The technique described in the previous section was extended for the analysis of a
single-storey, multi-bay infilled hune system. Figure 6.8 shows a typical single-storey,
three-bay infilled h m e system under horizontal racking load applied at roof level. It can
be seen that the unloaded comer of a panel is adjacent to the loaded comer of an adjacent
panel. Typically, as indicated in earlier chapters, contact between firame and infil1 is
maintained only over a small region near the loaded corners. It is therefore reasonable to
assume that Panels A, B and C in Figure 6.8 behave in a manner similar to that in an
individual single-storey, single-bay h m e and under this assumption, they contribute

equally to the load resistance of the overall hime system. In this example, panels A, B,
and C have identical dimensions and panel infills of identical properties.
They c m
therefore be replaced by diagonals having identical load - defomation responses.
Figure 6.9(a) shows the cornputer-generated defonned mesh of a detailed finite

element model used to evaluate the behaviour of a single-storey, three-bay h
e as
shown in Figure 6.8. As shown by the defonned mesh, interaction of the panel and frame
results in contact and separation between frame and infill at the loaded and un-loaded
corners, respectively. A simplified diagonal spring model of the same structure is shown
in Figure 6.9(b). A graphical cornparison of horizontal load
- deflection responses as
presented in Figure 6.10 clearly indicates that the simplified model reasonably predicts
the strength and stiffhess of the single-storey, multi-bay fiame up to the peak lcad. The
post peak strength as determineci by the diagonal brace mode1 is somewhat higher
compared with results of the nnite element model. However, in normal design practices,
the prime objective is to ensure that the peak load is not exceeded and therefore, the
discrepancy in the pst-peak region is not a serious set-back to the simpIified diagonal
brace model. Additiondly, it is felt that the advantages of economy of time and cost
afforded by the simplified model surpass any slight disadvantage of pst-peak
discrepancies.
Separation
Frame in
- contact w i t h
I infill
1
L = Loadcd corner
U = L'nioaded c o r n e r
Figure 6.8: Single-Storey, Three-Bay Frarne
( a ) Deformed Mesh of Finite Element Mode1
-Compression
! diagonal
Tension diagonal
(inactive)
( b ) Compression Brace Sirnplified Mode1
Figure 6.9: Analytical Models for One-Storey, Three-Bay Frame
100
Zoo
DeCkction (mm)
Figure 6.10: Horizontal Load - Deflection for One-Storey, Three-Bay Frame
6.2.3 MULTI-S~REY,
SINGLE-BAY INFILLED FRAME
Figure 6.1 1 shows a three-storey, single-bay fhme under lateral loading. in a
manner similar to a single-storey, single-bay system, each panel separates fiom the b
at low load while contact between fkme and panel infill is maintained at a small region at
the loaded corners.
Again, since the loaded comer of one panel is adjacent to the
unloaded corner of an adjoining panel, any interaction of adjacent panels is minimal and
therefore neglected. Diagonal springs that are generated on the b a i s of the behaviour of
a single-storey, single-bay system, are used to replace the panel infills
Figure 6.12 (a) shows the cornputer-generated defonned mesh of a finite element
model used to study the lateral load response of the three-storey, single-bay h e . In
this example, al1 panels have identical dimensions and propedes and are therefore
replaced by diagonals having the sarne diagonal load- deformation response
characteristics. The resulting diagonal brace model is shown in Figure 6.12 (b). The
load - deflection response curves shown in Figure 6.13 indicate satisfactory correlation
between the two models. The simplified diagonal model can be readily extended for the
analysis of a more complex structure such as that shown in Figure 6.14 using computing
resources nomally available in a typical consulting office.
Frame in
contact with
infill
L = Loaded corner
= Unloaded corner
Figure 6.1 1: Single-Storey, Three-Bay Frame
(a) F i n i t e Element Model
Compression
diagonal
''
"\
x\
;
1
11
\ ;
>/
1'
\'
,/
/ \ \
?azz
( b ) Compression Brace Simplified Mode1
Figure 6.12: Analytical Models for Three-Storey, Single-Bay Frarne
50
100
(50
200
2Y)
Delkc(iorr (mm)
Figure 6.13: Horizontal Load Defection Response for Three-Storey, Single-Bay Frame
/! ,;' ':-- ..!

.'
l
~iapnal
brace to
replace
infiil
Figure 6.14: Simplification of a Three-dimensionai Multi-Infil1 Structure

207
The simplified technique developed herein was M e r extended to nclude the

analysis of a multi-storey, multi-bay infiiled fiame. Figure 6.15 shows a three-storey,
three-bay frame used to validate the viability of this technique. A detailed finite element
mode1 as shown in Figure 6.16(a) was first used to evaluate the load - defonnation
behaviour of the firame. Assuming that the interaction of each panel within its confining
fhme is not affected by the presence of adjacent panels, load defonnation responses
were generated on the basis of the assumption that the behaviour of single storey, single
bay infilleci fiames could be used to replace the panel infills. The resulting simplified
model is shown in Figure 6.16(b). Figure 6.18 shows the load - deflection responses at
the upperrnost loaded corner obtained using the detai1ed finite element model and the
simplified model. Very close correlation of the load

models is obtained up to a load of 400 W.
- deflection curves for the two
Immediately beyond this load, the finite
element mode1 indicates a sudden loss in stifhess due to cracking of infill.
The
corresponding deformed mesh of the rnodel at this stage is shown in Figure 6.16(a). The
diagonal spring model indicates a similar loss in stifiess but at a slightly higher load
level. This discrepancy can be attributed to the fact that, due to limitations imposecl by
computing resources available, a finite element model with a coarser mesh was used to
model the entire three-storey, three-bay fiame while the diagonal spring was obtained for
a single infill panel using a model with a finer mesh size. Stresses obtained using a
coarser mesh are generally more conservative and therefore it resulted in lower cracking
loads.
Frame in
Separauon
contact rilh
inri11
,
7
Figure 6.15 : Three-Storey, Three-Bay Innlled Frarne
(a) Finite Element Model
;
Y
?'
/,-
m diagonal
-ive)
Compression
diagonal
\
fi
( b ) C o m p r e s s i o n Bracc Sirnplified Model
Figure 6.16: Analytical Models: Three-Storey, ThreeBay Frarne
50
100
De-
150
200
250
(mm)
Figure 6.17: Horizontal Load - Defiection Response for Tbree-Storey, Three-Bay Frame
6.3 COMPARISON W T H EXPERIMENTAL DA TA

Racking tests petformeci on two one-third scale three-storey, three-bay reinforced
concrete hunes with brick maonry infii were conducted by Dukuze (1995, 1998).
Simplified analytical models,
described in this chapter,
were used to predict the
behaviour of test specmens S331 and S335. Overall dimensions of a typical test
specimen and the shear ioads applied at the third, second, and first storey levels in the
ratio of ,!(
:,!(
are shown in Figure 6.18. The cross-sectional dimensions of fhme
members are s h o w in Table 6.1.
Figure 6.19 shows the load defocmation characteristics of the diagonal sprhg used
to replace the infills in Specirnens S331 and S335. Finite element models similar to those
described in Section 4.3 were used to generate these curves. In Figures 6.20 to 6.25, the
predicted load defornation behaviour of specirnens S331 and S335 are compared with
experimental results reported by Dukuze (1998).
As evident in these figures, the
proposed model closely predicts the ultirnate load of Specimen S331. The predicted
initial stiffhess, however, is greater than that obtahed experimentally. The lower stiffness
obtained experimentally can be partly attributed to the fact that the test specimen was
subjected to repeated loading in initial attempts to perfom the test (Dukuze 1995). In
some
panels cracking had occurred prior to the h a 1 test. The proposed model &es
reasonable predictions of the initiai stimiess and ultimate load of Specimen S335.
Figure 6.18: Three-Storey, Three-Bay Infilleci Frame Specimen
Table 6.1:Member Cross Section for Specimens S33 1 and S335 (Dukuze 1998)
Beam
-1 O M B a r
. 7 3 1 TYP
,-10M B a r
1
)Oh! B a r
InfiIl dimensions
Figure 6.19: Load - Deformation Curves of Compression Diagonals Equivalent to Ml1
O1 (mm)
Figure 6.20: Cornparison of Load Deflection Curves at First Floor Level for Specimen
S331
10
20
40
!i
70
02 (mm)
Figure 6.2 1 : Cornparison of Load Deflection Curves at Second Floor Level for
Specimen S33 1
D3 (mm)
Figure 6.22: Cornparison of Load - Defiection C w e s at Third Floor Level for Specimm
533 1
D l (mm)
Figure 6.23: Comparison of Load - Defiection C w e s at First Floor Level for Specimen
S335
02 (mm)
Figure 6.24: Comparison of Load - Deflection Curves at Second Floor Level for
Specimen S335
Figure 6.25: Comparison of Load - Deflection Curves at Third Floor Level for Specimen
S335
6.4 DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS
It is evident fkom eadier discussions that replacing an infil1 with an equivalent

diagonal spring is a viable rneans for performing a sirnplified but accurate analysis of
general, three-dimensional infilled fiame structures.
Since detailed finite element
analyses are required to generate load - defonnation charactenstics of equivalent diagonal

spnngs representing panel infills, the cost effectiveness of this method is even more
significant when there are many identical infills in a structure. In this context, identical
infills are panel inflls of identical matenal properties enclosed within fiames of similar
stifniesses and strengths. This technique can also be readily extended to include infills
perforated with door or window openlligs by induding the opening in the finite element
mode1 used to generate the correspondhg load
- deformation cuve of the equivalent
diagonal spring.
Results of parametric studies conducted in Chapter 5 reveal that the behaviow of
infilled h e s in general is complex and dependent on a multitude of parameters. The
variable nature of the panel infill f i d e r contributes to the complexity of predicting the
behaviour of frames infilled with masonry. It is difficult to express mathematically the
behaviour of infilled h e s in terms of a few known parameters and it is apparent that
the finite element technique as developed in this study is required to detennine the load
deformation curves of equivalent diagonals. One analysis only is required for each type
of infill in a structure to determine the load - deformation curves of equivalent
replacement diagonais. A general three dimeasional thme analysis, using the program
EPIFRAME as developed heren, or a commercial package with sirnilar capability, is then
conducted to evaluate the lateral load response of the overall structure. The analyses and
cornparisons with test results as presented in this thesis demonstrated that this method is
valid.
By exarnining results of the large number of analyses presented in Chapters 4 and
5, it has become apparent that a complex load
- deformation curve for a typical infilled
panel may be conservatively simplified to one similar to that shown in Figure 6.26. As
shown, the c u v e can be defined by the six control points O, a, b, c, d, and e. Portion O-a
of the simplified curve cornesponds to the behaviow pnor to the first major crack of a
panel. The abrupt jump in deflection represented by portion a-b is the result of a major
crack occwring in the panel. As evident from results presented in Chapter 5, the load deflection curves of some infilIed h m e systems may not necessarily exhibit these
characteristics. In such cases, the failure pattern of the panel would have to be exarnined
to determine the stage at which major cracking had occurred Point c corresponds to the
peak load of the system at which crushing failure of the infil1 at the loaded corners is
imminent. Portion d-e shows the residual strength of the system and it may be usefl for
evaluating the ductility of a structure and to study its behaviour where redundant load-
paths exist whereby failure of one panel may not necessarily lead to the collapse of the
entire structure. In facf the technique developed herein is useful in evaluating the effect
of removal of one or more panels during renovation of a building, for example.
0. ,
Deflection, A
Figure 6.26: Typical Simplifieci Load Deformation Curve of Panel-Frame System

219
In accordance with the lmit states design philosophy, the design procedures may
be summarized as follows:
1. Detennination of load - defonnation curves for ail dissimilar infills in the
structure and repiacement of ifills with conesponding equivalent diagonals.
2. Analysis of equivalent structure at service load level. Checking of al1 forces

in equivalent diagonals to ensure these do not exceed the serviceability major
cracking load limits @oint 'a' in Figure 6.26).
3. AnaIysis of the structure subjected to factored loads to ensure that the force in
each diagonal is less than the peak load @oint 'c' in Figure 6.26) reduced by
an appropriate performance reduction factor.
When masonry is used as
infilling material, it is recommended that the performance factor,
a,
= 0.55
as recommended by CSA S34.1-94 (Canadian Standards Association 1994a),

be used.
4. Check of axial loads in al1 columns to ensure that the tension or compressiod
forces in these members are within acceptable lirnits. Moment and shear are
not available since hinges were deliberately introduced at corners to eliminate
the lateral resistance of h n e s with panel infills. By using the analytical
mode1 developed in this study to determine the load defonnation curves of

the equivalent replacement diagonals used, the strength and stiflhess of the
fianie are automatically included in the analysis. Failure of the h e , if it
occurs,
would be reflected in the resulting load - deformation curve.
Consequently, satis-g
the condition in step 3 above would hdicate
satisfactory performance of the overall system.
6.4.3 DESIGN
AIDS
Based on the mode1 developed in this study, h i t e element analyses of infilied

frarnes were conducted for a practical range of panel dimensions and material properties
combined with commonly used steel fiame members. Results of these analyses were
examined and simplified curves similar to that shown in Figure 6.26 were developed for
practical design purposes. For simplicity, these curves may be M e r simplified to that
shown in Figure 6.27. It was also detexmined that in some cases, cracking in the panel
would precipitate ultimate falure of a system. In these cases, the simplified c u v e would
be defined by the tri-linear curve O-a-c-d shown in Figure 6.27. It is recommended that
the performance factor, 0, = 0.55 be applied to the ordinate of Point a design. A
collection of these curves, rearranged in the format of diagonal compression, C d , versus

diagonal deformation, A d , is presented in Appendix A. It is believed that these c w e s
can provide a practical means for engineering consultants to design and to evaluate lateral
resistance of infilled fhme structures using cornmonly available computing resources.
Sarnple designs of a single storey industrial building and a multi-storey building are
presented in Appendix B. These examples are introduced to illustrate basic design
procedures using these curves. It should be reiterated that the technique presented herein
is also useful for evaluating the effects of removal of selected panels in a building during
renovation, for example.
Figure 6.27: Typical Simplifieci Load - Deformation Curves used for Design
6.5 SUMMARY
The diagonal spnng replacement mode1 provides a relatively simple and
economical means of predicting the behaviour of a general M e structure containing
masonry panel inflls. Since the load - deformation response of an equivalent diagonal
can be generated analytically, this technique can be readily extended to include infilled
panels with door and window openings. It can also be used for panels where an isolation
gap exists between the panel and the underside of the roof beam. Generally, the extent of
the advantage of this technique is proportional to the number of identical infilled panels
in the structure as a more elaborate, time-consuming finite element analysis is required to
determine the load defonnation behaviow of each of the dissirnilar panels.

Cornparisons of analytical resdts show that the diagonal spnng mode1 can be used for
multi-storey and multi-bay fiames. The agreement of andytical results with test data
m e r validates the procedures presented in this chapter. The simplified technique as
developed in this study ais0 affords an economical procedure for muitiple load cases even
for buildings ~ 4 t hal1 dissimilar panels.
Conservative, simplified curves of equivalent springs representing a wide range of
infill dimensions, matenal properties, and fiame member sizes were also generated and
are presented in Appendix A. These are intended as design aids that can be readily
applied in a typical consulting office.
Chapter 7
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
7.1 SUMMARY
The primary objective of this study was to investigate by analytical modelling the
behaviour of frames with masonry infills and to develop suitable design aids for the design
and analysis of infilled frame structures.
This study inciudes the development of an
analytical model based on a h i t e element technique for the stiidy of infilled -es
subjected to lateral, in-plane loads. The model considers boundary contact and separation
between fiame and infdl, non-linear behaviour of the infill resulting h m cracking of
masonry joints due to shear and tension, crushng of the infill matenal, and non-linear
behaviour of the W e . The validity of the model was verified by cornparison with test
results reportai in the literature by others. A parametric study was conducted to identify
factors that may have significant effects on the behaviour of infilled m
e systems.
The detailed finite element model, developed specially in this study to generate the
equivalent Ioad - deformation response curve of a panel, can be extended to include multistorey, multi-bay systems. However, such a !%ite element analysis is time consuming and
it imposes a high demand on computing resource requirements. Consequently, it is not a
practical tool for design purposes. A practical technique that can be readily adopted by
practising designers for the analysis of buildings with multiple in6lls was therefore
developed. The basis of this technique consists of replacing each structural infil1 in a fhme
with a compression diagonal spring where the load - defonnation rpsponses of the diagonal
spring can replicate the lateral load -deformation response of the infilleci h
e it
represents. Therefore, the load - defornation response of an equivalent diagonal is based on

results of a more elaborate finite elernent analysis. The validity of this technique as it
relates to the analysis of a general rnulti-storey, multi-bay intilled M e was established by
cornparison with analytical results using the finite element technique developed in this
study. Cornparison with experimental results reporteci by others M e r demonstrated the

validity and economy of the proposeci diagonal spring - infill replacement technique.
Results of parametric studies conducted in this study revealed that the complex
behaviour of a masonry infilled h
e can be attributed to the large number of, and
sometimes highly variable, parameters affecting its load - deformation response

characteristics.
It is difficult to fomulate a mathematical expression describing the
behaviour of an infilled fiame in ternis of oniy a few known parameters. However, an

examination of results of the large number of analyses conducted in this study revealed that
the complete load
- defonnation response up to ultimate failure of an infil1 frame may be
conservatively described by a tri-linear or a quad-linear curve.
These can be readily
expressed as the diagonal load - deformation behaviour of the equivalent diagonal which
c m be
used by designers to evaluate the lateral load defonnation response of a structure
using the diagonal spring - UifiU replacement technique described above. A collection of
these curves for a range of infil1 material properties, dimensions, and m e properties were
produced and are presented in Appendix A.

Practical design examples illustrating the use of the above simplified design aids are
presented in Appendix B. These examples clearly demonstrate that masanry panel infills,
which would normally be regardai as non-structural, can be easily utilized to provide
adequate resistance to lateral loads for a typical one-storey and a typical three-storey office
building.
As shown by these examples, the computational effort is minimal and the
cornputer sofhvare and hardware required are generally available in most structurai
enmgineeringconsulting offices.
7.2 CONCLUSIONS
The following conclusions are based on the results of this study:

1.
The analytical technique based on a finite element method as developed in

this research can adequately predict the behavior of masomy infilled h
systems. It accounts for non-linear panel behaviour due to tension and

shear cracking in the joints and also crushing faiIure of the infill. Nonlinear behaviour of the tiame due to plastic hinging is also included in the
model.
2.
The cracking mechanism, which allows the masonry panel to become

discontinuous and the subsequent closing of cracks due to changes in
stresses within the panel, as loads are being applied, is indispensable in
modelling masonry infills.
This is accomplished by rnodelling the
masonry as an array of elastic biocks inter-comected by the joint elements

developed in this study.
3.
Cornparisons of analytical results with available experimental data

reported by others indicate satisfactory performance of the analytical
mode1 for evaluating the effects of various parameters affecting the
behaviour of uifilled ames.
4.
For a general three-dimensional fkame with infills, hl1 discretization

through the h i t e element technique is impractical. Instead, a practical,
simplified technique was developed and proven to perform satisfactorily.
The basis of this technique consists of replacing each infill in the structure
with an equivalent diagonal spring.
The Ioad - deformation response
characteristics of the equivalent spring can be determined analytically or

through testing procedures. It was determined that the diagonal spring
infil1 replacement technique can replicate identically the analytical

behaviour of a single storey building with infilled frames. This technique
is generally conservative for multi-storey ,multi-bay systems.
5.
Generally, an elaborate and thne consumuig analysis based on finite

element discretization is required to generate the load - deformation
response c w e of each equivalent diagonal used in the proposed
diagonal spring - infill replacement technique. Altematively, conservative
and simplified load - defonnation response curves that are applicable for a
wider range of infill dimensions, properties, and firame charactenstics rnay
be used. A senes of simplified design load -deformation response curves
were generated based on the mode1 developed in this study. These curves
provide the necessary information for design including deflection at the
major cracking and peak loads. This pennits the inclusion of both the
serviceability and ultimate limit states design criteria for infilled fkme
structures.
RECOMMENDATIONS
The following related areas are recomrnended for future developments:
1.
The cornputer programmes, INFRAME32 used for the generation of load

response curves of equivalent diagonals and EPIFRAME used for the
global analysis of structures containing infilled h e s , may be integrated
to produce user-fnendly software for analysis and design.
2.
Simplified load-response Cumes, sirnilar to those presented in Appendix

A, may be produced for infills containing window and door openings.
REFERENCES
Al-Charr, G., Angel, R,and Abrams D. P., 1994. Dpamic testing of unreinforced brick
rnasonry inflls. Proceedings, Structures Congress W ,
Amencan Society of Civil
Engineers, pp. 79 1-796.
Al-Khafaji, A. W., and Tooley, J. R., 1986. Numencal methods in engineering practice.
Holt, Rinehart and Winston, Inc, Toronto.
Amos, K. A., 1985. The shear strength of masonry infilleci steel fiames. M.Sc. thesis.
Department of Civil Engineering, University of New Bninswick, Fredericton,
N.B.
Barau, H. K., and Mallick, S. K., 1977. Behaviour of rnortar infilled steel fiames under
lateral load. Building and Environment, Pergamon Press, UK. Vol 12, pp. 263272.
Bathe, K. J., 1996. Finite element procedures. Prentice-Hall, inc. Englewood Cliffs, New
Jersey.
Beedle, L. S., 1958. Plastic design of steel M e s , John Wiley & Sons, h c . New York,
406 pages.
Benjamin, J. R., and Williams, H. A., 1958. The behaviour of one-storey brick shear
walls. ASCE Journal of the Structural Division, Vol. 84, No. ST4, Paper 1723.
Bennett, R. M., Flanagan, R D., Adham, S., Fischer, W. L., and Tenbus, M. A., 1996.
Evaluation and analysis of the performance of masonry infills during the
Northridge earthquake. Report submitted to the National Science Foundation
Grant No. CMS-94 16262, Lockheed Martin Energy Systems, Inc., Oak Ridge,
Tennessee.
Booch, G., 1991. Object-oriented design with applications. The BenjWCumrnings
Publisbing Co., nc., Redwood City, California
British Standards Institution, 1978(Connmied 1985). Code of practice for structural use
of masonry, Part 1: unreinforced masonry: BSS628. BSI, London.
Carter, C., and StatTord-Smith, B., 1969. Structural behaviour of masonry infillai m e s
. .
subjected to racking loads. Designine.- E
C
m
n
edited by Dr. F. Johnson, Gulf Publishing Company, Houston,
pp. 226-233.
m,
Canadian Standards Association, 1984. CSA S304M84: Masonry design and

construction for buildings. CSA, Rexdale, Ontario.
Canadian Standards Association, 1994a. CSA S304.1-94: Masonry design and
construction for buildings - Limit states design. CS& Rexdale, Ontario.
Canadian Standards Association, 1994b. CSA S16.1-94: Limit states design of steel
stnictures. CSA, Rexdale, Ontario.
Canadian Standards Association. 1994~.CSA A23.3-94: Design of concrete structures.

CSA, Rexdale, Ontario.
Cheng, T. M.. 1989. An efficient and flexible out-of-core equation solver.
Microcornputers in Civil Engineering. Vol. 4, No. 4, pp. 297 - 306.
Corley, W. G., 1966. Rotation Capacity of reinforced concrete bearns. ASCE Journal of
the Structural Division, Vol. 92, No. ST4, pp. 121-140.
Dawe, J. L., and Charalambous, P. D.,
1983. Finite elernent analysis for w a l l - h e

interaction. Proceedings, Eight International Loadbearing Bnckwork Symposium,
British Ceramic Society, Stoke-on-Trent. UK.
Dawe, J. L., and Seah, C. K., 1989a. Behaviour of masonry infilled steel frames.
Canadian Journal of Civil E n g i n e e ~ gVol.
,
16, No. 6. pp. 865-876
Dawe, J. L., and Seah, C . K., 1989b. Analysis of concrete masonry infilled steel frames
subjected to in-plane loads. Proceedings, 5. Canadian Masonry Symposium.
University of British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada pp 329-340.
Dawe, J. L.. and Seah, C. K., 1994. Behaviour of concrete masonry infilled steel fiame
structures. Proceeings of the Eleventh Conference-Analysis and Computation,
American Society of Civil Engineers. pp. 67-76.
Dhanasekar, M., and Page, A. W., 1986. The influence of brick masonry infill properties
on the behaviour of infilled fiames. Proceedings of the Institution of Civil
Engineers, Part 2, Vol. 81, pp. 593-605.
Dhanasekar, M., Page, A. W., and Kleeman, P. W., 1985. The failure of brick masonry
under biaxial stresses. Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers, Part 2,
Vol. 79, pp. 295-3 13.
Drysdale, R. G., and Hamid,A. A., 1979. Behaviour of concrete masonry under axial
compression, AC1 Journal. Vol. 76, No. 6. pp. 702-722.
Drysdale, R. G., and Hamid, A- A., 1980. Concrete masonry under combined shear and
compression along the mortar joints. AC1 Journal. Vol. 77, No. 5. pp. 314-320.
Drysdale, R. G., Hamid, A. A., and Baker, L. R., 1994. Masonry structures - Behaviour
and design. Prentice-Hd, Inc. Englewood CLiffs, New Jersey.
Dukuze, A., and Dawe, J. L., 1995. In-plane behaviour of three-storey, three-bay RC
fiames with URM panels, Proceedings, 4"' Australasian Masonry Conference, pp.
208-2 17.
Dukuze, A., 1998. Behaviow of reinforced concrete h e s infilled with unreinforced
brick masonry (URM) panels. PhD Thesis (in preparation), Department of Civil
Engineering, University of New Brunswick, Canada.
Dunham, L., 1996. Behaviour of reinforced concrete h e s infilled by masonry. Senior
Report, Department of Civil Engineering, University of New Brunswick, Canada.
Fattal, S. G., and Cattaneo, L. E., 1976. Structural performance of masonry walls under
compression and flexure, National Bureau of Standards, Building Science Senes
73. National Bureau of Standards, Washington D.C. 57 pp.
Flanagan, R. D., and Bennett, R. M., 1994. Uniform lateral load capacity of infilled
fi-ames. Proceedings, Structures Congress XII, Amencan Society of Civil
Engineers, pp. 785-790.
Flanagan, R. D., Bennett, R. M., and Barclay, G. A., 1992. Experimental testing of
hollow clay tile infilled -es.
Proceedings, 6th. Canadian Masonry
Symposium, Saskatoon, Saskatchewan. pp. 633-644.
Gajewski, R. R., 1994. An object oriented approach to finite element programming.
, - s
Object
Edited by B.H.V. Topping and M. Papadrakakis,

Edinburgh, Scotland. pp. 107-113.
Civil-Comp Press Ltd.
Ghazali, M. Z., and Riddington, J. R., 1988. Simple test method for masonry shear
strength. Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers, Part 2, Vol. 85: 567 574.
23 1
Goodman, R E., Taylor, R L., and Brekke, T. L,, 1968. A mode1 for the mechanics of
jointed rock. ASCE Journal of Soi1 Mechanics and Foundations Division. Vol.
94, No. SM3, pp. 637 659.
Hagemier, G. A., Nunn, R. O., and Arya, S. K. 1978. Behaviour of concrete masonry
under biaxial stresses, Proceedings, First North American Masonry Conference,
University of Colorado, Boulder, August 1978, Paper 1.
Hamid, A. A. 1978. Behaviour characteristics of Concrete Masonry. Ph.D. Thesis,
McMaster University, Hamilton, Canada, September 1978, 445 pages.
Hamid, A. A. and Drysdale, R G., 1981. Proposeci failure criteria for concrete block
masonry under biaxial stress, ASCE Journal of Structural Division, Vol. 107, No.
ST8,pp. 1675-1687.
Hamid, A. A., Zab, G., and El Nawawy, O., 1987. Modulus of elasticity of concrete
masonry, Fourth North American Masonry Conference. University of California
at Los Angeles, Paper 7.
Hatzinikolas, M. A., Longworth, J., and Warwaruk, J., 1978. Concrete masonry walls.
Report No.70, Department of Civil Engineering, University of Alberta,
Edmonton.
Hendry, A., 1981. Structural bnckwork, Macmillan, London.
Hetenyi, M., 1946. Bearns on elastic foundations. Vol XVI. University of Michigan
Studies, Scientific Series.
Holmes, M., 1961. Steel frames with bnckwork and concrete infilling, Proceedings of the
Institution of Civil Engineers, Vol. 19, pp. 473-478.
Holmes, M., 1963. Combineci loading on inflled M e s . Proceedings of the Institution
of Civil Engineers, Vol. 25, pp. 31-38.
Horne, M. R., and Moms, L. J., 1981. Plastic design of low-rise fiarnes. Granada
Publishing Ltd. London.
Hsu, C. T., Mirza, M. S., and Sea, C. S., 1981. Nonlinear analysis of reinforced concrete
h e s . Computer and Stnictures. Vol. 13, pp. 223-227.
Jamal, B. D., Bennett, R. M., and Flanagan, R. D., 1992. Numerical analysis for in-plane
behaviow of infilled frames. Proceediings, 6th. Canadian Masonry Symposium,
Saskatoon, Saskatchewan. pp. 633-644.
Ju, J., and Hosain, M. U., 1993. Developrnent of a set of object classes for finite element
analysis programmiog ushg C*. Proceedings of the Canadian Society of Civil
Engineering Annual Conference, Fredericton, June 8- 11, Vol. N59-68.
Ju, J. and Hosain, M. U., 1996. Development of a set of graphic objects for finite element
analysis programming using C*. Proceedings of the Canadian Society of Civil
Engineering l0 Structural Specialty Conference, Edmonton, Alberta, May 29
June 1. (Addendum).
Kadir, M. R. A., 1974. The structural behaviour of rnasonry infXled panels in framed
stnictures, Ph.D. Thesis, Department of Civil Engineering, University of
Edinburgh.
Kamanski, T., 1967, Calculating infilled fiames by the method of &te element, Ta11
Buildings, Pergamon Press, Oxford, pp. 455463
Khattab, M., 1993. Ln-plane behaviour of grouted concrete masonry under biaxial state of
stress. Ph.D. thesis, Department of Civil Engineering, McMaster University,
Hamihon, Ontario.
King, G. J. W., and Pandey, P. C., 1978. The analysis of infilled &ames using finite
elements. Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers, Part 2, Vol. 65, pp.
749-760.
Kwan, K. H., Lo, C. Q., and Liauw, T. C., 1990. Large -scale mode1 tests and plastic
analysis of multibay ifilled Erames. Proceedings of the Institution of Civil

Engineers, Part 2, Vol. 89, pp. 261-277.
Langenbach, R, 1992. Earthquakes: A new look at cracked masonry. Civil Engineering,
Vol. 62, NO.11 pp. 56-58
Lee, R., Longworth, J., and Warwanik, J., 1985. Concrete masonry prism response due to
load parallel to bed joints, Proceedings, Thkd North Amencan Masonry
Conference, University of Texas at Arlington, Paper 26.
Liauw, T.C., 1970. Elastic behaviour of infilleci h e s . Proceedings of the Institution

of Civil Engineers, Vol. 46, pp.343-348.
Liauw, T. C., 1972- An approximate method of analysis for infilled frames with or
without openings. Building Science, Vol 7. Pp. 233-238.
Liauw, T. C., and Kwan,K. H., 1982. Non-linear analysis of multi-storey infilled fiames.
Pmceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers, Part 2, Vol. 73, pp. 441454.
Liauw, T. C., and Kwan, K. H., 1983a. Plastic theory of non-integral inflled kames.
Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers, Part 2, Vol. 75, pp. 379-396.
Liauw, T. C.,and Kwan, K. H., 1983b. Plastic theory of infilled fiames with finite
interface shear strength. Proceedings of the institution of Civil Engineers, Part 2,
Vol. 75, pp. 707-723.
Liauw, T. C., and Kwan, K. H., 1984a Discussion on plastic theory of non-integral
infilled fiames. Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers. Part 2, Vol. 77,
pp. 279-286.
Liauw, T. C., and Kwan, K. H., 1984b. Plastic design of infilleci hunes. Proceedings of
the Institution of Civil Engineers. Part 2, Vol. 77, pp. 367-377.
Liauw, T. C., and Lee, S. W., 1977, On the behaviour and the analysis of multi-storey
infilled hunes subjected to lateral loading. Proceedings of the Institution of Civil
Engineers. Part 2, Vol 63,641-657.
Liauw, T. C., and Lo, C.Q., 1988, On multi-bay infilled fiames. Proceedings of the
Institution of Civil Engineers. Part 2, Vol 85,469-483.
Lin T. Y., and Stotesbury, S. D., 1981, Structurai concepts and systems for architects and
engineers, John Wiley and Sons, Toronto, 507 pages.
Loureno, P. B., 1996. Computational strategies for masonry structures, Delft University
Press, Thesis, Delft University of Technology, The Netherlands.
Loureno, P. B., and Rots, J. G., 1997. A solution for the macro-modelling of masonry
structures. 11' International BncWBlock Masonry Conference. Tongji University,
Shanghai, China. pp. 1239- 1249.
Madan, A., Reinhorn, A. M., Mander, J. B., and Valles, R.E. 1997. Modeling of masonry
infili panels for structural analysis. ASCE Journal of Structural Division, Vol.
123, No. STlO, pp. 1295-1302.
Mainstone, R. J., 1971, On the stiffhess and strengths of infilled M e s , Proceedings of
the Institution of Civil Engineers, Supplement IV,pp 57-90.
Mallick, D. V., and Severn, R. T., 1967, The behaviour of infilled fiames under static
loading. Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers,Vol. 38, pp 639-656
Masonry Standards Joint Cornmittee. 1995. Building code requements for masonry
structures (AC1 530-99ASCE 5-95/TMS 402-95). American Concrete Institute.
Detroit, Michigau, USA.
Mattock, A. H., 1964. Rotational capacity of hinging region in reinforced concrete beams,
Proceedings, International Symposium. Flexural Mechanics and Reinforced
Concrete, Miami, Flonda ASCE-AC1 Special Publication SP-12, pp. 143-182.
McBride, R. T., 1984. The behaviour of masonry infilled steel h e s subjected to
racking, M.Sc. thesis, Department of Civil Engineering, University of New
Brunswick, Fredericton, NB.
Mehrabi, A. B., Shing, P. B., Schuller, M., and Noland, J., 1996. Experimental
evaluation of masonry-infilled RC hunes. ASCE Journal of Structural Division,
Vol. 122, No. ST3, pp. 228-237.
Mosalam, K., Gergely, P., and White, R. N., 1994. Performance and analysis of -es
with "URM'' infills. Proceedings of the Eleventh Conference-Analysis and
Computation, Arnerican Society of Civil Engineers. pp. 57-66.
National Research Council of Canada, 1995. National Building Code of Canada 1995,
National Research Council of Canada, Ottawa.
Ockleston, A. J., 1955. Load tests on a three storey reinforced concrete building in
Johannesburg. The Structural Engineer, Vol. 33, pp. 304-322.
Page, A. W., 1978. Finite element mode1 for masonxy. ASCE Journal of Structural
Division, Vol. 104, No. ST8, pp 1267-1285.
Page, A. W., 1979. A non-2inear analysis of the composite action of masonry walls on
beams. Proceedings of the institution of Civil Engineers, Part 2. Vol. 67. pp 93110.
Polyakov, S. V., 1956. Masonry in h m e d buildings (Godsudarstvenoe Isdatel' stvo

Literatury Po Stroidal stwi Architecture. Moscow, 1956). Translated by G. L.
Cairns in 1963. National Lending Library for Science and Technology, Boston
Spa, Yorkshire, U.K.
Polyakov, S. V., 1960. On the interaction between masonry filler walls and enclosing
fiame when loaded in the plane of the wall. Earthquake Engineering. Earthquake
Engineering Research institute, San Francisco, CA, pp. 36-42
Pook, L. L., Stylianou, M. A., and Dawe, J. L., 1986. Experimentai investigation of the
influence of compression on the shear strength of masonry joints. Proceedings of
the 4' Canadian Masonry Symposium. University of New Brunswick,
Fredericton, Canada pp. 1053-1062.
Rathbun, J. C., 1938., Wind forces on a ta11 building. Proceedings, American Society of
Civil Engineers, Vol 64. pp. 1335 - 1375.
Richardson, J., 1986., The behaviour of masonry infilled steel frames. MSc. thesis,
Department of Civil Engineering, University of New Brunswick, Fredericton, NB.
Riddington, J. R 1984., The influence of initial gaps on innlled frame behaviourProceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers, Part 2, Vol. 77, pp. 295-3 10.
Riddington, J. R., and Bolourchi M., 1989. Use of lead to reduce vertical load transfer in
infilled frame structures. Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers, Part 2,
Vol. 87, pp. 627-640.
Riddington, J. R., and Staord-Smith, B., 1977. Analysis of infllled Erames subjected to
racking with design recommendations. The Structural Engineer, Vol. 55, No. 6,
pp 263-268.
Rivero, C. D., 1982.. An analytical study of the interaction of fiames and infill masonry
walls. Ph.D. thesis, Civil Engineering, University of Illinois at UrbanaChampain, Illinois.
Sachanski, S., 1960. Analysis of the earthquake resistance of fiame buildings taking into
consideration the carrying capacity of the filling masonry. Proceedings of the
Second World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Vol. 3, Tokyo, pp. 21272141.
Samarasinghe, W., and Hendry, A. W., 1981. A finite element mode1 for in-plane
behaviour of brickwork. Proceedings, the institution of Civil Engineers, Part 2,
Vol. 71, pp. 171-178.
Saneinejad A., and Hobbs, B., 1995. Inelastic design of infilled m e s . ASCE Journal
of Stmctml Division, Vol. 121, No. ST4, pp. 634-650.
Seah, C. K., Liu, Y., and Dawe, J.L., 1997. Behaviour of masonry infilled walls,
Proceedings, 11" International Brick/Block Masonry Conference, Tongji
University, Shanghai, China, October 1997, pp. 940-948
Sharifi, P., and Popov, E. P., 1971. Nonlinear buckling analysis of sandwich arches.
ASCE Journal of Engineering Mechanics Division. Vol. 97, No. EM5.pp. 1397 1413.
Shing, P. B., Mebrabi, A. B., Schuller, M. and Noland, J. L., 1994. Experimental
evaluation and f i t e element analysis of masonry infilled r/c fiames. Proceedings
of the Eleventh Conference-Anaiysis and Cornputation, American Society of Civil
Engineers. pp. 84-93.
Srnolira, M., 1973. Analysis of infilled shear walis. Proceedings of the Institution of
Civil Engineers, Part 2, Vo1.55, pp. 895-912.
Stafford-Smith, B., 1962. Lateral stiffiiess of infilled -es.
Structural Division, Vol. 88, No. ST6,pp. 183-199.
ASCE Journal of
Stafford-Smith, B., 1966. Behaviour of square i d l l e d M e s , ASCE Journal of the

Structural Division, Vol. 92, No. STI, pp. 381-403.
. .
m,
Stafford-Smith, B., 1967a The composite behaviour of infilled fiames.

edited by A Coull and B. Stafford Smith, Pergamon Press, London. pp. 481-493.
Stafford-Smith, B., 1967b. Methods of predicting the lateral stiflhess and strength of
multi-storey infilled kames. Building Science, Vol. 2, pp. 247-257.
Stafford-Smith, B., and Carter, C., 1969. A method of analysis for infilled fiames.
Proceedings, the Institution of Civil Engineers, Vol. 44, pp. 3 1-48.
Stafford-Smith, B., and Coull, A., 1991. TaII building structures - Analysis and Design.
John Wiley and Sons Inc., A Wiley-Interscience Publication, Vol. 91, pp. 168.
Stafford-Smith, B., and Riddington, 3. R., 1978. The design of masonry infilled steel
frames for bracing stnictures. The Structural Engineer, No. 1, Vol. 56B,pp. 1-7.
Thomas, F. G., 1953. The strength of brickwork. The Structural Engineer, Part 2, Vol. 36,
pp. 35-41.
Uni form Building Code., 1988, international Conference of Building Officials, Whittier,
California.
Uniform Building Code., 1994, International Conference of Building Officiais, Whittier,
California.
Weaver, W., and Gere, J. M., 1980. Matrix analysis of n;imed structures (2* edition).
D. Van Nostrand, New York.
237
Weaver, W. and Johnston, P. R., 1983. Finite element for structural analysis. PrenticeHall, h c . Englewwd Cliffk, New Jersey.
West, H. H., 1980. Analysis of structures. John Wiley & Sons. New York.
Whitney, C. S., Anderson, B. G., and Cohen, E., 1955. Design of blast resistant
construction for atomic explosion. Journal of the American Concrete Institute.
Vol 5 1, pp. 655-673.
Wood, R. H., 1958. The stability of taIl buildings. Proceedings of the Institution of Civil
Engineers, Vol. 11, pp. 69- 102.
Wood, R. H., 1978. Plasticity, Composite Action and Collapse Design of Unreinforcd
Shear Wall Panels in Frames, Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers,
Part 2, Vol. 65, pp. 381-41 1.
Wright, E. W., and Gaylord, E. H., 1968. Analysis of unbraced multistory steel rigid
m e s . ASCE Journal of Structural Division, Vol. 94, No. ST5, pp. 1143-1163.
Yong, T. C., 1984. Shear strength of masonry panels in steel fiames. M-Sc. thesis,
Department of Civil Engineering, University of New Brunswick, Canada.
Yu, G., and Adeli, H., 1993. Object-oriented finite element analysis usng EER model.
ASCE Journal of Structural Engineering , Vol. 1 19, No. ST9,pp. 2763-278 1.
Zienkiewicz, O. C., and Taylor, R. L., 1989. The finite element method - Volume
1:Basic formulation and linear problems. McGraw -Hill Book Company (UK)
Limited. London.
Zienkiewicz, O. C., and Taylor, R. L., 1991. The h i t e element method - Volume
2:Solids and fluid mechanics, dynamics and non-linearity. McGraw -Hill Book
Company (UK) Limited. London.
Appendix A
SIMPLIFIED LOAD - DEFORMAIION RESPONSE CURVES FOR DESIGN
A. 1 lNTRODUCTlON
A collection of simplified load defonnation response curves suitable for design
p urposes wvas developed using the technique developed herein. These curves are similar
to that described in Section 6.5, are generally consemative, and are applicable to firames
with concrete rnasonry panel uifill. Curves for infills with lengths ranging h m 3.5m to
1l m and heights between 3 and 6m were generated. Combined with the above, were
frames with a wide range of stiffoesses and strengths. Both moment-resisting and hinged
m e s are considered. Al1 curves are based o n unreinforceci concrete maslinry panel
infill fabricated h m 200 mm thick nominal units with a unit strength of 15 MPa These
curves may be conservatively used for the analysis of k e s with reinforcd panel infills.
Applicable conversion factors for panels fabricated fkom masonry units of different
nominal dimensions are also given.
A.2 METHODOLOGY
Finite element analyses of idlled fiames with a wide range of panel dimensions
and m
e sizes were conducted. Results of these anaiyses are simplified into curves
fitting the descriptions presented in Section 6.4.2. For example, as shown in Figure A. 1,
C l is the diagonal compression, C d , versus the diagonal deformation, A d , determined
analytically for a typical infilled fiame. As shown, the corresponding simplified load
deformation response can be adequately deined by the quad-Iinear cuve O-a-b-c-ci.

Therefore, points a, b, c, and d can be used as control points to establish the required
simplified design load
- deformation response curve.
The coordinates of these control
points are given in Tables A.l to A.12 for a wide range of infil1 dimensions and fiame
propeties.
Figure A. 1: Generation of Simplified Load - Deformation Response Curve
A.3 DESIGN TABLES
A summary of control point coordinates rquired to d e h e the load - deformaion
response curves suitable for design purposes is presented in Tables A. 1 to A. 12. In these
tables, the enclosing fiame must satisQ the minimum requirements shown in Table A. 13.
As pointed out previously, these curves are based on infrlls fabricated fiom 200 mm
concrete masonry units and correction factors for converting values in these tables to
infills fabricated tkm other units are given in Table A.14.
Separate analyses were
conducted to ensure that the values in Tables A. 1 to A. 12 are generally conservative for
the range of parameters specified.
In most design practices, linear elastic analyses are generally conducted to

determine member forces in a structure. To this end, the design curves above may be
further simplified. As shown in Figure A.2, which is a larger scale representation of a
section of the curve in Figure A.1,
K,
and KUL values are secant stifkesses of
equivalent diagonals and are also included in Table A.1 to A.12. Generally, KsL and
Ku c m be used in a general structural analysis program to evaluate the s e ~ c e a b i i i t y

and ultimate limit states of a building, respectively. In cases where only KsL values are
given, serviceability failure, such as cracking in the panel, generally precipitates ultimate
failure of a system. In such cases, KSLshould also be used to determine ultimate limit
states of a structure.
10
Ad
(mm)
Figure A.2: Secant Stifbesses for Se~ceabiiityand Ultimate L e t States Analysis
Table A. 1: Defiaition of Shpiified Design C w e s : Ml1 Width = 3.5 to 5.0 m.

Height = 3.0 to 4.0 m
13.5 m Ipanel wuth. wi < 5.0 m
1
3.0 m IPanel height. hi I4.0 m
4
la
1b
(mm)
7
7-
Stiess
Coordinates of Controi Point*

b
c
Frame'
Cd
(m)
245
200
Cd
4,
(mm)
(kN)
(mm)
30
350
50
21
Cd
d3
4,
KSL
K m
Cd
(kN) (kN/mm) (kN/mm]

11.7
35.0
100, 130
60
O
28.6
(kN) (mm)
150
50
Notes:
1.
SeeTableA.13.
2.
Based on i n f i fabrcatcd fiom 200 mm CMU. Multiply the ordinates Cdby the correction factors of
Table A.14 for infills of other nominal dimensions.
3.
Deflection limits are conscrvatively set at 100 mm for moment resisting frames and 60 mm for hhged
frames.
Table A.2: Dennition of Simplifieci Design Curves: Ml1 Width = 3.5 to 5.0 m,
-
--
3.5 m L Panel width, wi < 5.0 m

P
4.0 m c Panel height.
Framel
hi I
5.0 m
Coordinates of Contrd Points
b
c
Stiffness
d3
KWL
KSL
Cd
4,
Cd
Cd
4,
4,
Cd
(mm) (kN) (mm) (kN) (mm) (kN) (mm) (kN) (kWmm) (kiVmm)
17.8
8
18
320
240
30 150 100 100
30.O
57
24
O
8
60
28.8
230
-
4,
la
1b
Notes:
1.
SeeTableA.13.
2.
Based on infills fabricated from 200 mm CM'.Multiply the ordinates Cdby the correction factors of
Table A. 14 for infills of other nominal dimensions.
3.
Deflection Iimits arc coaservatively set at 100 mm for moment rcsisting h
fiames.
s and 60 mm for hinged
Table A.3: Definition of Simplified Design Cuves: Infil1 Width = 3.5 to 5.0 m,
13.5 rn I Panel widtti. wi < 5.0 rn
Notes:
1.
See Table A. 13.
2.
Based on infiils fabncatcd h m 200 mm CMU. Multiply the ordinates Cdby the correction factors of
Table A. 14 for i n f i of other nominai dimensions.

3.
Defiection limits are conservatively set at 100 mm for moment rcsisting h e s and 60 mm for b g e d
fiames.
Table A.4: Dennition of Sirnplified Design Curves: Infll Width = 5.0 to 7.0 m,
--
15.0 m S Panel width. wi < 7.0 m

3.0 m l Panel height hi I 4.0 m
Frame'
la
1b
Coordinates of Conbol Point*

b
c
Sfness
d3
KSL
KUL
4
Cd
Cd
4
a, Cd
Cd
4,
(mm) (kN) (mm) (kN) (mm) (kN) (mm) (kN) (kN/mm) (kNlmm)
250
120
15.6
18 280
8
50
200
100
31.3
7
O
200
21
50
28.6
60
No tes:
2.
Based on infills fabricated fiom 200 mm CMU. Mulbply the ordinates Cdby the correction factors of
Table A. 14 for infiils of 0 t h nominal dimensions.
3.
Deflection Iimits are conse~ativelyset at 100 mm for moment rcsisting frames and 60 mm for hinged
frames.
Table AS: Defuiition of Simplified Design Curves: Ml1 Width = 5.0 to 7.0 m,
Heinht = 4.0 to 5.0 m
15.0 m IPanel width. wic 7.0 m
I
-
14.0 m < Panel height.

L
Frame'
(mm)
la
1b
8
8
hi I 5.0 m
Coordinates of Cmtrd Point3
b
c
Ca
(kN)
260
250
&
(mm)
16
Ca
(kN)
330
4
(mm)
45
24
Cd
(W)
200
62
Stiess
d3
4
(mm)
100
60
Ksr
KVL
C d
(MU)
90
O
(kNlmm) (kNlmm)
20.6
32.5
31.3
Notes:
1.
SeeTabIeA.13.
2.
Based on infrlls fabricated h m 200 mm CMU. Multipty the ordinates Cdby the correction factors of
3.
Deflection lmts arc conxrvativcly set at 100 mm for moment rcsisting fiames and 60 mm for hingcd
Tabie A.6: Definition of Simplifie-dDesign Curves: Ml1 Width = 5.0 to 7.0 m,

5.0 m < Panel height.
Frame'
4,
la
.1b
Coordinates of Corrtroi Point3

1
b
c
'
hi I6.0 m
Cd
4l
(mm) (kN) (mm)

7
15
270
7 . 260.
4,
Cd
Cd
Sffness
d3
4,
KSL
KUL
Cd
(kN) (mm) (W) (mm) (W) (kNlmm) (kNfmm)

350
30
21.
250
65.
100
60.
70
O.
38.6
37.1.
23.3
Notes:
1.
See Table A, 13.
2.
Based on infdls fabncated fiorn 200 mm CMU. Multiply the ordinates Cdby the correction factors of
Table A. 14 for infiils of other nominal dimensions.
3.
Deflection lirnits are conservatively set at 100 mm for moment resising h c s and 60 mm for hinged
fiames.
Table A.7: Definition of Simplified Design Curves: I d i i Width = 7.0 to 9.0 rn,
17.0 m 5 Panel width. wi c 9.0 m

3.0 m l Panel height.
hi 5 4.0 m
Coordinates of Contrd Points2
Frarnel
la
1b
'
4
Ca
ad
(mm) (W) (mm)
300
6
5
220
Cd
(W)
Stiffness
d3
Ksr
KUL
4
Ca
4
Cd
(mm) (kN) (mm) (kN) (kN/mm) (kN/mm)
100
15
250
100
50.0
44.0
O
55
60
15-
Notes:
1.
See Table A. 13.
2.
Based on infdls fabricatcd h m 200 mm CM'.Multiply the ordinates Cdby the correction factors of
Table A. 14 for infiiis of other nominal dimensions.
3.
Deflection Limits are conscrvatively set at 100 mm for moment rcsisting fiames and 60 mm for binged
frames.
Table A.8: Definition of Simplified Design Curves: Infill Width = 7.0 to 9.0 m,
7.0 m IPanel width, wi < 9.0 m
4.0 m < Panet height,
Frame'
'
Coordinates of Cocitrd points2

c
b
Cd
4
(mm) (kN) (mm)
315
6
61 275
4,
la
1b
hi I 5.0 m
Cd
(kN)
4,
Cd
d3
,
L(d
Sffness
KSL
KUL
Cd
(mm) (kN) (mm) (kN) (kN1mm) (kNlmm)

52.5
190
100
25
80
45.8
18
68
60
O
Notes:
1.
See TabIe A. 13.
2.
Based on infiils fabricated fiom 200 mm CMU. Multiply the ordinates Cdby the correction factors of
Table A. 14 for ifdIs of othcr nominal dimensions.
3.
Deflection LUnits arc conservatively set at 100 mm for moment resisting fiames and 60 mm for hinged
fhnes.
Table A.9: Denition of Simpiified Design Cumes: Ml1 Width = 7.0 to 9.0 m,
Heipht = 5.0 to 6.0 m
17.0 m 5 Panel width. wi < 9.0 m
-
-- - --
-- -
5.0 m < Panel height, hi I6.0 m

Coordinates of ConW Points2
Frarnel
b
c
a
I
Lb
(mm)
la
1b
6
5
Cd
(W)
330
250
41
(mm)
Sffness
d3
KSL
KUL
Ca
41
Ca
(kN) (mm) (W) (mm) (kN) (kNlmm) (kwmm)
55.0
20
65
150
100
50.0
15
O
62
60
Cd
41
Notes:
1.
See Table A.13.
2.
Based on infills fabricated fiom 200 mm CMU. Multiply the ordinates Cdby the correction factors of
3. Defiection limits are conservatively set at 100 mm for moment rcsisMg frames and 60 mm for higed
Table A. 10: Definition of Simpiified Design Curves: Infill Width = 9.0 to 11.O m,
H e i h t = 3.0 to 4.0 m
9.0 m IPanel width, wi c 11.O m
3.0 m IPanel height.
Framel
la
1b
Coordinates of Controi Point8b

c
4,
hi I4.0 rn
Cd
bd
(mm) (kN) (mm)

300
6
5
260
Cd
(kN)
I
Stiffness
d3
,
KSL
Ku.
4,
4,
Cd
Ce
(mm) (kN) (mm) (kN) (kwmrn) (kN1mm)
25
110
50.0
100
1
60
15
O
52.065'
Notes:
1.
See Table A. 13.
2.
Based on inflils fabricatcd fiom 200 mm CMU. Multiply the ordinates Cdby the correction factors of
Table A. 14 for S i s of other nominal dimensions.

3.
Deflection limits are conservatively set at 100 mm for moment resisting frames and 60 mm for hinged
frames.
Table A. 11:Definition of Simplified Design Cumes: Ml1 Width = 9.0 to 11.0 m

< panel widtt~.wi c 11.O m

3.0 m <Panel height, 4 1 4.0 m
19.0 rn
la
Coordinates of Controi Poine

b
c
Frame'
4
Ca
4
(mm) (kN) (mm)
6
325
'1b
265
Ca
(kN)
Stihess
q
'
c
,4
KSL
KUL
Cd
(mm) (kN) (mm) (kN) (kN/mrn) (kN/mm)

2 5 180
100
70
54.2
15
661
60
!ZlO
Notes:
1.
See Table A. 13.
2.
Based on infills fabricated fiom 200 mm CMU. Multiply the ordinates Cd by the correction factors of
Table A. 14 for infils of 0th nominal dimensions.

3.
Deflection limits are conscrvatively set at 100 mm for moment rcsisting fiames and 60 mm for hinged
fiames.
Table A. 12: Dennition of Simplifieci Design Curves: Infill Width = 9.0 to 11.O m
15.0 m < Panel height,
-
Frame'
la
1b
hi I6.0 m
Coordinates of Contrd Poing

c
b
Cd
4,
(mm) (kN) (mm)
5
320
6
280
Cd
(kN)
4
(mm)
25
18
Cd
(Ml)
130
70
Stiffness
d3
4
(mm)
100
60
KSL
KUL
Cd
(kN) (kN/mrn) (kN/mm)

60
64.0
O
46.7
Notes:
1.
See Table A. 13.
2.
Based on uifills fabricated fiom 200 mm CMU. Multiply the ordinates Cdby the correction factors of
Table A. 14 for infiils of other nominal dimensions.
3.
Deflection iimits are conservativcly set at 100 mm for moment rcsisting fiames and 60 mm for hinged
fiames.
Table A. 13: Frarne Properties Minimum Requirements

Member Properties
Beam
Cdumn
Stiffness
Frame
Strenathl
Stiffness
Strenath'
N-mm2
la
1b
5.0
2a
2b
5-01
3a
5-01
3b
N-md
kN-m kN
kN
N
kN-m
30
750
4.01.0
150
5.0
60
Pin corinected h m e , same frame properties as above
kN
500
1.01
301 7501 1501
15.01
60.01 4501 25001
Pin connecteci fiame, same frame properties as above
kN
120
700
a
1.O1
301 7501 1501
60.01
400.01 20001 80001 2000
Pin connectecl frame. same frame properties as a b v e
20.01
5-01
4-01
601
W.Ol SoOl 40001 6501
Pin connected frame, same frame properties as above
5001
120
20.01
50.01 Sool 4000) 6501

15.01
60.01 4501 25001
Pin connected frame, sarne frame properties as above
700
6a
6b
20.01
50.01 SOoj 40001 6501

60.01
400.01 20001 80001 2000
7a
7b
40.01
80.01 8OOl 60001 1ooOl

5.01
4.01
601
Pin connected frame, same fiame properes as above
5001
120
40.01
80.01 8001 60001 1OOOl

15.01
60.01 4501 25001
Pin connected frame, same frame properes as above
700
40.01
80.01 8001 60001 10001

60-01
400.01 20001 80001 2000
4a
4b
L
5a
5b
9a
9b
Notes:
1.
M,, P,, and V,,are the plastic moment, axial, and shear capacity of a h m e member,
respectively.
Table A. 14: Unit Size Correction Factors

Nominal Unit Size
Correction Factor
(mm)
'Xc,
150
0.80
APPENDIX B
DESIGN EXAMPLES
B. 1 INTRODUCTION
Design examples are presented in this section to illustrate general design
procedures for fiames with masonry panel inflls. The design of a single storey building
and a lateral load-resisting h
e within a three storey office building are used for this
purpose. In these examples, it is assumed that the steel h e s alone are adequately
designed for gravity loads and that infilis are depended upon to resist lateral loads.
Detailed discussions of the design of h m e s for gravity loads are omitted since this is not
within the scope of this thesis. However, the step-by-step procedures for evaluating the
capacity of infilled frames for lateral load resistance are illustrated using the design tables
of Appendix A.
6.2 LA TERAL LOAD DESIGN OF A SINGLE STOREY BUILDING

The example building is a single storey office building which consists of a
ground floor on grade, a firameci roof, and a mechanical penthouse located at the centre of
the roof. A typical floor plan of the building is shown in Figure B.1. The colurnns and
257
beams for the building, designed on the basis of gravity load requirements,
are
surnmarized in Figures B.2 and B.3, respectively. Figure B.4 shows the location of nonperforated infills that are used to provide lateral load resistance for the building. Although
panel i d l l s perforated with door and window openings can be included using the
technique developed in this study, they are neglected in this example. The omission of
perforated infills is generalty consewative except in cases where the location of the
perforated infills can result in undesirable force distribution and higher torsion in the
building. The design guides of Appendix A were used to evaluate the equivalent diagonal
stifhesses of the infills and a sample calculation is illustrated in Figure B.5. A summary
of the stiffnesses of the equivalent diagonal braces and the corresponding areas is
presented in Table B. 1.
Figure B.6 shows the computer model used to evaluate the response of the
building under lateral loads. A surnmary of design loadings is presented in Table B.2.
As shown in Figure B.6, the main structural fiaming was modelled using standard b
member elements. Equivalent diagonal braces with properties shown in Table B.1 were
used to replace infills identified in Figure B.4 to provide lateral load resistance. Also
shown in the model is the mechanical penthouse framing. The building utilizes a
0.76mm metal roof deck to create a stnicturd diaphragm. The diaphragm is modeled
using triangular and rectaugular plane stress membrane elements with two degrees of
fieedom at each node. A 0.8m.m thick membrane element was added to the model to
account for additional stiffness due to the corrugated deck profile and the effects of
attached non-structural elements such as rigid insulation and sheathing. A membrane

shear modulus of 15.4 GPa was used for this building. Al1 membrane elements used in
the model are attached to the beam elements of the hune. A rigid diaphragm is used to
model the 150 mm thick concrete floor of the penthouse.

Lateral loads used in this example are based on the total base shear calculated in
accordance with Part 4 of the National Building Code of Canada. -4s indicated in Table
B. 1, a total base shear of 660 icN was detennined for this building. This total base shear
was distributed to each node in proportion to the mass due to the dead weight of materials
and 25% of roof snow load tributary to the node. A commercially available software'
package for linear elastic analysis is used. Output corn this analysis consisted of axial
loads, shear and bending moments of M
e members, and column reactions. For the
purpose of this study, axial loads of the equivalent diagonal brace were examined and
compared with the capacity given in Appendix A. Since the equivalent diagonals can
only resist compression forces, al1 braces that are in tension were removed and the
analysis repeated. It should be pointed out that EPIFRAME developed in this study and
any commercial packages capable of non-linear analysis can automate this iterative
process. Results of analyses of lateral forces acting in the east
- West and north-south
directions are summarized in Tables B.3 and B.4,respectively. As shown in these tables,
the infills can provide adequate resistance as required of the building.
'
ALGOR, Finite Elcmcnt Analysis and Evcnt Simulation Software, Pittsburg, PA.
Wcb site:
Figure B.1: Floor Plan
Exterior wall
HSS 127x12 7 ~ 4 . 8 Column

( C n l c s s n o t e d othemisc)
HSS 203~203~6.4
HSS 203~203~6.4
Figure B.2: Column Layout
Figwe B.3: Beam Schedule
Il
-
to 122:
190 m m COXCRETE
MASOXRY PANEL
ISFiLL (XOS-PERFORATED)
Figure B.4: Layout of Structural Infills
( AE), = 2280 x 200000

=
4.56 x 10'
( E I ) , = 5 . 6 0 106
~ ~200000
= 1.12~
1 0 ' ~~
- m r n ~
KuL = KSL = 44.0 kN / mm (Table A7, Type 1a Frame
- Appendix A)
Therefore:
- 44.0 x 1o3(8824) (Assume E = 200000 MPa)
A, -
200000
Figure B.5: Evaluation of Equivalent Brace Area
Table B.1: Equivalent Brace Area
lnfill
"O-
Equivalent Brace
Properties
ld
Equivalent Brace
Properties
Columns: HSS102x102x4.8
Beams: W460x46 ( F l a t roof)
lW5Os 18 (Others)
Braces: HSS 6 3 ~ 6 3 ~ 4 . 3 5
Figure B.6: Computer Mode1
Table B.2: Design Loads - Surnmary

Load Type
Location
Load
Specified Dead Loads

MainRoof
Penthouse Roof
Penthouse Floor
Specified Live Loads
Main Roof
Penthouse Roof
Penthouse Floor
Snow
Main Roof
General
Dri fting/Sliding
GridM&P
Grid 5
Grid7
Penthouse Roof
Flat
Sloped
Earthquake: Base Shear
Wind: Max. Base Shear
0.50 kPa
0.50 Wa
7.20 kPa
2.00 kPa
6.90 kPa max.
8.10 kPa max.

6.10 kPa max.
2.00 kPa
1.40 kPa
660 kN
234 kN
Table B.3:
Equivalent Brace Forces Due to Lateral Load Acting in East

Directions
Force
Infill No.
Cd(Peak)' Resistance2
kN
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
Notes:
10.1
0.2
6.0
1.5
5.6
4.1
1.7
3.7
3.6
82.1
97.2
81.2
60.7~~
54.2
65.7
74.8
73.0
72.7
35.4
43.2
42.4
56.6
kN
Yo
kN
220
200
200
200
200
220
220
220
220.
200
200
200
200
200
200
200
200
200
200
200
200
200
Reserve
Strength
121
110
110
110
110
121
121
121
121
110
110
110
110
110
110
110
110
110
110
110
110
110
1. From design tables of Appendix A

2. Resistance = O, x Cd (Peak), a, = 055
91.6
99.8
94.6
98.7
94.9
96.6
98.6
97.0
97.0
25.3
11.7
26.2
44.9
50.8
40.3
32 .O
33.6
33.9
67.8
60.7
61.5
48.5
West
Table B.4: Equivalent Brace Forces Due to Lateral Load Acting in the North - South
Directions
lnfill NO.
Force
1 Cd(Peak)'
] Resistance21 Reserve
Strength
kN
Il
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
110
I l1
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
Notes:
82.6
65.6
58.8
62.7
52.3
120.6
1 19.3
118.2
121.0
O
1.3
1.9
2.1
1.7
O
0.5
0.7
O
kN
Y0
kN
220
200
200,
200
200
220
220
220
220
200
200
200
200
200
200
200
200
200
121
110
110
110
110.
121
121
121
121
110
110
110
110
110
110
110
110
110

2. Resistance = a, x Cd (Peak), a
, = 055
31.7
40.3
46.6
43 .O
52.4
0.3
1-4
2.3
0.0
100.0
98.9
98.3
98.1
98.4
100.0
99.6
99.3
100.0
6.3 LATERAL LOAD DESIGN OF A THREE STOREY OFFICE BUILDING

Figure B.7 shows a typical floor plan of a three-storey office building. In this
exarnple, the concrete masonry panel infills s h o w are used to resist lateral loads in the
no&-south direction. The design dead weights for the floor and roof are 4.5 kPa and 1.O
kPa respectively. The design snow load on the roof is 2.7 kPa.
Figure B.8 shows the distribution of lateral forces due to earthquake loading of a
typical infilled frame of the building.
The procedures as outlined in the National
Building Code of Canada are used. The beam and column sizes indicated in Figure B.8
are based on gravity load requirements.
Simple shear connections were used for al1
beam-to-colurnn connections and the infills are used to provide resistance to the lateral
forces shown. Based on results of this study, each infill was replaced by an equivalent
compression diagonal as indicated in Figwe B.9. Using procedures similar to that shown
in Figure B.5, it was established that the stiffiless of these equivalent braces is 52 k N / m
(Table A.10, Type 2a m e ) and the corresponding equivalent cross-sectional area is
2560 mm'.
Table B.5 summarizes the results of analysis for the h
e shown in Figure
B.9. It is evident that the infills can provide adequate lateral resistance to the building.
Figure B.7: Typical Floor Plan of a Three-Storey Office Building
Figure B.8: Lateral Load Distribution for a Typical Frarne wih Mlls
LISE B
Figure B.9: Equivdent Braced Frame
Table B.5: Equivalent Brace Forces on a Three-Storey Frame

lnfill NO.
II
12
13
Notes:
Force
Cd(Peak)' Resistance2 Reserve

Strength
kN
kN
kN
%
260
115
143
18.9
89
260
37.8
143
32
260
77.6
143

2. Resistance = O, x Cd (Peak), a, = OS5

Seah 1998

Caricato da

Informazioni sul documento

Copyright

Formati disponibili

Condividi questo documento

Condividi o incorpora il documento

Opzioni di condivisione

Hai trovato utile questo documento?

Questo contenuto è inappropriato?

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Seah 1998

Caricato da

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

If

395 Wellington Street

395. nre WeHington

The author has granted a nonexclusive licence allowing the

L'auteur a accord me licence non

The author retains ownership of the

L'auteur conserve la proprit du

This dissertation is dedicated to

Masonry infil1 panels in a steel or concrete frame have beneficial e f l i t s related to

e containing uinlls. A practical

computer technique wherein each idil1 in a fiame is replaced with an equivalent

to fiame interfaces. Non-linear behaviour of fiame members due to the formation of

John L. Dawe, for his s u p e ~ s i o n ,encouragement, md generous support during this

reviewing the manuscript are greatly appreciated.

Acknowledgement is due to the Atlantic Masonry Research and Advisory Bureau,

The author also wishes to thank members of the Examination Board,

for their valuable contributions.

1.1 GENERAL ...........................

1.2 ANALYSIS AND DESIGN OF BUILDING FRAME W H INFILLS ............................. 2

1.3 BEHAVIOUR OF INFILLED FRAMES..............................................................................

1 -4 FIMTE ELEMENT TECHMQUE ......................................................................................

1.7 ORGANIZATION OF THE THESIS ..............................

2.2 HISTORICAL DEVELOPMENT .......................................................................................

2.3 EARLY RESEARCH A

.THE CONCEPT OF DUGONAL STRUT ........................... 13

2.4 THEORETICAL EVALUATION OF INFLLL FRAME BEHAVIOUR BASED ON

M I L L TO FRAME RELATIVE STIFFNESS ..................................................................

2 -4.1 Square Infilled Frames..................................................................................1 5

2.4.2 Rectangular Infilled Frames ......................................................................... 1 8

2.5 EMPIRICAL EVALUATION OF INFILLED FRAME BEHAVIOUR BASED ON

RELATIVE STEFNESS OF FRAME AND IN'FiLL......................................................... 21

2.6 EVALUATION OF INFILLED FRAME BEHAVIOUR BASED ON THEORY OF

2.8 ANALYSIS OF iNFJLLED FRAME STRUCTURES ....................................................... 29

2.9 PLASTIC THEORY............................................................................................................

2.10 EXPERMENTAL EVALUATiON OF VARIOUS PARAMETRIC EFFECTS .............32

DEVELOPMENT OF ANALYTICAL TECKNIQUE

3.1 INTRODUCTION ...............................................................................................................

3.2 MODELLING OF WILLED FRAME BEHAVIOUR ..................................................... 39

3.2.5 Development of Infilled Frame Mode1.......................................................50

3.2.5.4 Joint Element .....................

3.2.5.6 Reinforcement Element ...................................................................... 66

3.3.1 General ...........................................................................................................

3.3.2 Frame and Hinge Material Mode1 ........................................................

3.3.3 Masonry Material Mode1 ............................................................................... 73

3.3.5 Interface Material Mode1..........................,

3.5 COMPUTER WLEMENTATiON AND PROGRUdMiNG .......................................... 84

ANALYSIS AND COMPARISON WITH TEST RESULTS

STEEL FRAMES WITH CONCRETE BLOCK MASONRY INFILL ...........................

4.2.1 Experimental Data ..................................................................................

4.2.2 Portal Steel Frame With No hfill.........................

4.3.1 Experimental Data ......................................................................................148

5.1 INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................

5.2 PANEL ASPECT RATIO ................................................................................................. 157

5.3 LOADING CONDITION................................................................................................

5 -4 FRAME TO PANEL BOND .......................................................................................

5.5 FRAME - TO - PANEL INTERFACE FRICTION........................................................... 171

MORTAR JOINT BOND AM3 FRICTION.....................................................................

5.8 FRAME RIGIDITY...........................................................................................................

5.10 EFFECTS OF G R A W LOADING .........................................................................

5.11 SUMMARY .................................................................................................................

Chapter 6 DEVELOPMENT OF A PRACTICAL APPROACH FOR THE

6.2 DEVELOPMENT OF ANALYTICAL PROCEDWRE ................................................ 194

6.2.1 Single-storey single bay infilled fiame........................................................ 194

6.4.1 Design Procedures ..................................................................................... 2 1 7