Towards the modelling of RC frame with masonry panels.

Influence of numerical models on the general behaviour.

Daniel Stoica Associate Professor, PhD, Technical University of Civil Engineering, Faculty of Civil,
Industrial and Agricultural Buildings, e-mail: stoica@utcb.ro
Esa Kujansuu - Senior Lecturer Tampere University of Applied Sciences (TAMK) ICT Engineering
e-mail: esa.kujansuu@tamk.fi
Ion Mierlus-Mazilu Associate Professor, PhD, Technical University of Civil Engineering, Faculty of Civil,
Industrial and Agricultural Buildings, e-mail: mmi@utcb.ro
Abstract: In Romania, a significant part of the existing multi-storey buildings have their structure
consisting mainly of reinforced concrete frames with masonry infill. Their vast majority were
built in 1935-1980 and during this period seismic design was poor. According to nowadays
seismic design codes these buildings do not meet the minimum requirements. In practice,
masonry infill is not considered a structural element, so it is not taken into account when
designing reinforced concrete moment resisting frames. Actual studies of seismic performance of
masonry infilled reinforced concrete frames have concluded that the masonry infill has significant
effects regarding resistance and lateral stiffness of the system.

Keywords: masonry, infill, panels, gap

1. Introduction

The experimental studies attest that the infill masonry panel increase the initial stiffness of the
RC frames and after their cracking is observed a sudden stiffness degradation. However, the
stiffness of the RC frame and masonry framed panel, remains higher than simple RC frame,
even after the failure of the masonry infill panel.
The masonry infill panel acts as a structural member strength to the lateral actions and
contributes to the overall strength of the RC.

Fig. 2 - P- curve capacity of the in plain RC frame

Fig. 1 - Load-displacement hysteretic curve
and RC frame with masonry infilled panel

2. Study cases

This study aims variation efforts and displacements of RC frame elements with different
configurations and modeling of masonry infilled panels, considering linear and nonlinear
analysis models.
The concept masonry infilled panel modeling with an equivalent diagonal was first introduced
by Polyakov (1960). Diagonal cracks were used to develop the model. In his work, he noted
that the transfer of efforts between the RC elements and masonry infilled panel is made only in
the compressed corners at the frame-panel interface.
The design code P100-1/2013 defines the diagonal width as w = dz/10.
The formulas for the proposed calculation equivalent diagonal width by different researchers
are:

Fig. 3 - Formulas for calculating the diagonal width

3. Parametric studies

The object of the study is the modeling and parametric study for sectional efforts,
displacements, modal responses for a 2D RC frame system from a 5 levels residential buildings,
with different configurations of masonry infilled panels, placed in Bucharest. The framework
has three spans of 4 m and the level height is 3 m. According to the performance requirements
from P100-1/2013 seismic design code the building is in 3rd class 3 of importance.
 Fig. 4 The building layout

Fig. 5 Frame elevation Fig. 6 Central span masonry infilled panels

Fig. 7 Lateral span masonry infilled panels Fig. 8 All span masonry infilled panels
The interface between the RC frame elements and masonry infilled panel was simulated using
the GAP link element type. The GAP's rigidity was determined according to the authors
Doudoumis and Mitsopoulou - in 1995, they proposed the following relationship calculation:
Kgap = 0.0378 * K + 347; Ki = Eit, where:
Kgap - gap stiffness
Ki - masonry infilled panel stiffness
Ei - the elastic modulus of masonry infilled panel
t the infilled panel thickness
The models considered Kgap = 50000 kN/m
The technical literature recommends for simplify and rapidity of computation the modeling of
masonry infill panels with equivalent diagonal brickwork. One single diagonal is able to
represent the global influence of masonry infill panel.

Fig. 9 - Effective diagonal equivalent width

The numerical models were considered the diagonals, with the following widths:
4.41
- Holmes diagonal type 1961: w = 3
= 3
= 1.47m
4.41
- Paulay and Priestley diagonal type - 1992: w = 4
= 4
= 1.1m
4.41
- P100/1-2013 diagonal type: w = = 10
= 0.44m 10
- Mainstone diagonal type - 1971: w = 0.175 * dz * (h * H)-0.4 = 0.47m
It is noted that the proposed diagonal width of Mainstone is the closest value to the
recommended value by the design code P100/1-2013.
The alternative modeling with equivalent SHELL masonry diagonals was made to see the
influence of the contact length of the infilled panel on the status of efforts to RC elements of
the framework.
Conventionally we have chosen contact lengths of RC elements with infilled panel elements as:
x = 2 m and y = 1.2 m.
The Classic model

Fig. 10 1st model T=0.296 sec Fig. 11 2nd model T=0.235 sec Fig. 12 3rd model T=0.145 sec
The model with GAP link elements the basic model
Fig. 13 1st model T=0.547 sec Fig. 14 2nd model T=0.704 sec Fig. 15 3rd model T=0.517 sec
HOLMES diagonal type

Fig. 16 1st model T=0.607 sec Fig. 17 2nd model T=0.755 sec Fig. 18 3rd model T=0.579 sec
PAULAY and PRIESTLEY diagonal type

Fig. 19 1st model T=0.607 sec Fig. 20 2nd model T=0.790 sec Fig. 21 3rd model T=0.650 sec
P100/1-2013 diagonal type

Fig. 22 1st model T=0.729 sec Fig. 23 2nd model T=0.961 sec Fig. 24 3rd model T=0.898 sec
 MAINSTONE diagonal type

Fig. 25 1st model T=0.718 sec Fig. 26 2nd model T=0.945 sec Fig. 27 3rd model T=0.846 sec
The SHELL diagonal type models

Fig. 28 1st model T=0.866 sec Fig. 29 2nd model T=1.360 sec Fig. 30 3rd model T=1.330 sec

1st model comparisons

SHELL diagonal 267.76 SHELL diagonal

11528.8
Mainstone diagonal Mainstone diagonal

P100/1-2013 diagonal P100/1-2013 diagonal

1 1 Pauley and Priestley diagonal

Pauley and Priestley diagonal

Holmes diagonal Holmes diagonal

Gap model
Gap model

Classic model
Classic model
0 5000 10000 15000 0 200 400 600

Fig. 31 - Base overturning moments [kNm] Fig. 32 - Base shear force [kN]

SHELL diagonal SHELL diagonal

0.0051
Mainstone diagonal Mainstone diagonal

P100/1-2013 diagonal P100/1-2013 diagonal

Paulay and Priestley diagonal

1 Paulay and Priestley diagonal
1

Holmes diagonal Holmes diagonal

Gap model Gap model

Classic model Classic model

0 0.01 0.02 0.03

0 0.002 0.004 0.006

Fig. 33 1st level absolute displacement [m] Fig. 34 5th level absolute displacement [m]
 Fundamental period of vibration comparisons [sec]

SHELL diagonal SHELL diagonal SHELL diagonal

Mainstone Mainstone Mainstone

diagonal diagonal diagonal

P100/1-2013 P100/1-2013 P100/1-2013

diagonal diagonal diagonal

1 Paulay and 1 Paulay and 1 Paulay and

Priestley diagonal Priestley diagonal Priestley diagonal

Holmes diagonal Holmes diagonal Holmes diagonal

Gap model Gap model Gap model

Classic model Classic model Classic model

0 0.5 1 0 1 2 0 1 2

Fig. 35 - 1st Model Fig. 36 2nd Model Fig. 37 3rd Model

Push-over Force-Displacements Diagrams
7000
20000 40000
Classic model Classic model Classic model
6000 18000
35000
16000
Gap model Gap model Gap model
5000 30000
14000

Holmes diagonal 12000 Holmes diagonal

25000 Holmes diagonal
4000

10000 20000
3000 Paulay and Paulay and Paulay and
Priestley 8000 Priestley Priestley
diagonal diagonal 15000 diagonal

2000 6000
P100/1-2013 P100/1-2013 P100/1-2013
diagonal diagonal
10000 diagonal
4000
1000 5000
Mainstone 2000 Mainstone Mainstone
diagonal diagonal diagonal
0 0
0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0 0.05 0.1 0.15
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2

Fig. 38 - 1 Model st
Fig. 39 2 Modelnd
Fig. 40 3 Model rd

4. Conclusions

4.1. From the static linear studies

Considering GAP link element modeling type as the most accurate modeling, we reached the
following conclusions:
In terms of absolute levels displacements and design efforts:
- Classical modeling provides bare results and it is not recommended for structural
analysis;
- The equivalent "SHELL" diagonal method gives disproportionate results, with higher
values and not recommended for structural analysis;
- All the diagonal models offer equivalent coverage and acceptable results in term of
efforts to determine the design of beams;
- Nearest values are provided for models with diagonals proposed by Holmes and Paulay
and Priestley.
- Diagonals models proposed in P100/1-2013 and Mainstone are acceptable and provides
valuable and comprehensive responses.
In terms of the overturning moment based on:
- Classical modeling provides bare results and it is not recommended for structural
analysis;
- The equivalent "SHELL" diagonal method gives disproportionate results, with higher
values and not recommended for structural analysis;
- Overturning moments values based on the equivalent diagonal modeling coverings and
are comparable to the results provided by modeling GAP-type items, the differences are
very small.
- All diagonal models provide more or less the same overturning moment values.
In terms of shear force based on:
- GAP type modeling elements provides the lowest values of shear at the base, while
models with equivalent diagonal provides higher base shear force values.
- All diagonal models provide more or less the same shear force values.
In terms of modes of vibration:
- Classical modeling provides bare results and it is not recommended for structural
analysis;
- The equivalent "SHELL" diagonal method gives disproportionate results, with higher
values and not recommended for structural analysis;
- The vibration period values from all the diagonal modeling are equivalent and
comparable with the results provided by GAP-type modeling, the differences are very
small.
- Nearest values are provided for models with diagonals proposed by Holmes and Paulay
and Priestley.
- Diagonals models proposed in P100/1-2013 and Mainstone are acceptable and provides
valuable and comprehensive responses.

4.2. From the static nonlinear studies

Considering GAP link element modeling type as the most accurate modeling, we reached the
following conclusions:
In terms of absolute levels displacements and design efforts:
- Beam design efforts values are almost the same in all cases, with very small
differences
- The columns in the GAP elements modeling, in the vicinity of masonry infill panels
has the greater effort values. For all the other columns the efforts values are
approximately equal in all types of modeling.
In terms of the displacements requirements from pushover curve:
- Classical modeling does not provide acceptable results.
- The most acceptable models in comparison with the GAP models are supplied with
diagonals proposed in P100/1-2013 and Mainstone. Diagonals models proposed by
Holmes and Paulay and Priestley offers higher values.

References
Daniel Stoica - Constructii civile. Probleme si solutii moderne Editura Matrix 2014
Normativul P100/1-2013
Normativul CR6-2013
Normativul CR0-2012
FEMA 356 code
Effect of URM infills on seismic performance of RC frame buildings - Yogendra Singh i Dipankar Das
Seismic performance of masonry infilled RC frames - Luis DECANINI i Fabrizio MOLLAIOLI
Linear static analysis of masonry infilled RC frame with & without opening, including open ground storey - P.B
Kulkarni i Pooja Raut
Analytical modelling of infilled frame structures A general review Francisco CRISAFULLI, A.J. CARR,
R.PARK
Modelling and Analysis of Infilled Frame Structures under Seismic Loads - J. Dorji, D.P. Thambiratnam
MASONRY INFILLED REINFORCED CONCRETE FRAMES WITH OPENINGS - Panagiotis G. Asteris,
Christis Z. Chrysostomou, Eleni Smyrou
Analysis of Masonry Infilled R.C.Frame with&without Opening Including Soft Storey by using Equivalent
Diagonal Strut Method - Nikhil Agrawal, Pooja Raut
Modelling of masonry infill panels for structural analysis A. Madan, ASCE, J.B. Mander
Seismic Analysis of Masonry-Infilled Reinforced Concrete Frames Armin B. Meharbi, P. Benson Shing
Analysis of Masonry Infilled RC Frame Structures under Lateral Loading M. Barnaure, D. Stoica