See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/270275264

Seismic evaluation of RC moment-resisting frames with masonry infill walls

Conference Paper · January 2014

CITATION READS
1 793

2 authors:

Fadi Oudah Raafat El-Hacha

Dalhousie University The University of Calgary
37 PUBLICATIONS   212 CITATIONS    125 PUBLICATIONS   1,197 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

The application of Fe-SMA in rehabilitation of RC beams View project

Shear performance of hybrid UHPC-GFRP sections View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Fadi Oudah on 25 April 2016.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Wroc aw, Poland, 2014

SEISMIC EVALUATION OF RC MOMENT-RESISTING FRAMES WITH

MASONRY INFILL WALLS
Fadi OUDAH Raafat EL-HACHA
PhD Candidate Associate Professor
University of Calgary, Canada University of Calgary, Canada
fsoudah@ucalgary.ca relhacha@ucalgary.ca

Summary
Masonry infill walls are usually treated as non-structural elements in the design of moment-
resisting frames. However, the dynamic characteristics of Reinforced Concrete (RC) buildings are
highly influenced by the presence of masonry infill walls, and hence, the seismic performance can
be significantly affected. The seismic performance of masonry infilled moderately ductile moment-
resisting RC frames is examined in this study using the capacity spectrum method. The nonlinear
analysis was conducted on three building configurations; bare, fully-infilled, and partially-infilled
frames. The masonry infill walls were modelled using the equivalent diagonal compression strut
method. The width of the diagonal compression strut was calculated using three models available
in the literature. It was found that the inclusion of the masonry infill walls increases the strength
and the stiffness significantly. The stiff response of the fully-infilled frames might be dangerous
since the performance point (the point at which the capacity of the building and the earthquake
demand curves intersect) is located beyond the point at which the maximum base shear is
attained.
Keywords: Infill walls, ductile, moment-resisting frames, response and/or capacity spectrum,
seismic performance.

1. INTRODUCTION
Brick and concrete block masonry units are commonly used to construct the interior and exterior
walls in Reinforced Concrete (RC) moment resisting frames. These masonry infill walls are often
treated as non-structural members, and hence, their contribution in the lateral load resisting
systems is ignored as recommended by the current design codes. The reasons behind ignoring
the contribution of masonry infill walls in the design codes of RC structures can be summarised in
the following two points: (1) experimental testing and finite element studies showed that the
inclusion of masonry infill walls will always enhance the performance of the RC moment resisting
frames [1,2,3] and (2) the interaction between the infill wall and the concrete frame is of a complex
nature. The enhanced performance mentioned in the first point refers to the increase in the lateral
stiffness of the masonry infilled RC frames (about 5% to 10% as compared with bare RC frame
[4]). This, in turns, implies that ignoring the contribution of the masonry infill walls will always be on
the conservative side in terms of strength and stiffness. However, it is very important to be able to
distinguish between the local and the global behaviour when discussing the effect of masonry infill
walls on the behaviour of RC moment resisting frames. The local behaviour refers to the
behaviour of the individual components of the masonry infilled RC frame while the global
behaviour refers to the overall response of the structure. The conclusions reached with regard to
the enhancement in the behaviour of masonry infilled RC frames were based on studies that
examined the local behaviour of masonry infilled RC frames. Global wise, the decrease in the
natural period leads to attracting higher seismic forces, and hence, the structure should be
designed to accommodate these high lateral forces while sustaining a ductile failure mechanism.

1
 Wroc aw, Poland, 2014

Therefore, further research is needed to examine the effect of masonry infill walls on the global
response of RC moment resisting frames.
The global response of masonry infilled RC moment resisting frames is examined numerically in
this research using the Capacity Spectrum Method (CSM). This method assesses the progression
of plastic hinges in the structure and it is used to determine the adequacy of the structure in
sustaining earthquake excitations. The lateral load resisting mechanism of masonry infilled RC
frames is first presented followed by a discussion of the suitable masonry modelling techniques.
Finally, the methodology and the results of the numerical simulation are presented.

2. MECHANISM AND BEHAVIOUR

The mechanism of load transfer in masonry infilled RC frames is complicated. At relatively low
lateral loading, the interaction between the masonry wall and the RC frame can be assumed to
have a complete composite action (Figure 1 (a)). Basic structural techniques can be used at this
stage to predict the structural behaviour of the system. With the increase in the lateral loading, the
complexity of the lateral loading resisting mechanism increases since the RC frame tries to resist
the load in a flexural action while the masonry wall resists the load in a shear action [1]. As a result
of these two combined actions, the masonry wall starts to separate from the RC frame at locations
where tensile stress are expected to develop and will pound against the RC frame at the locations
where compressive stresses are expected to initiate (approximately 50% to 70% of the in-plane
shear capacity [5]). Consequently, a diagonal compression strut develops as shown in Figure 1
(b).
Several attempts were made to develop analytical models that describe the contribution of the
masonry infill walls in the lateral loading resisting mechanisms. The current models can be
grouped into two major categories; micro-models and macro-models. The former ones are
characterised by their complexity since they include great details about the material properties and
the interaction between the masonry wall and the RC frames. Most of these models are developed
and analysed using the finite element method. Results obtained from these models are very
accurate. However, their high level of sophistication hinders their use in the design process of RC
frames. The latter ones are characterized by their simplicity since they are developed to predict
the overall behaviour and do not account for the interaction between the walls and the frames.
They are based on idealizing the behaviour of the infill walls into a truss system as shown in
Figure 1 (c). In these models, the diagonal compression concrete strut is idealized as diagonal
member that is activated when subjected to compression forces.

(a) Composite behaviour (b) Separation and brace action (c) Modelling approach
Figure 1. Lateral load resisting mechanism of masonry infilled RC frame.

2
 Wroc aw, Poland, 2014

3. CAPACITY SPECTRUM METHOD

The CSM is a practical and a reasonably accoutre method for assessing the performance of
buildings subjected to seismic excitations [6]. The method involves the application of two steps. In
the first step, the gravity loads (dead and live loads) are applied onto the structures while the
second step involves performing a pushover analysis in which the structure is subjected to a
lateral displacement applied at the roof level. The capacity of the structure determined from the
second step is converted from the force-displacement domain to the spectral acceleration-spectral
displacement domain. The transformation process involves the determination of the dynamic
characteristics of the structure, the modal participation factors, and the mass coefficients for the
first natural mode. The elastic response of the structure is assumed at 5% damping and it is
modified to simulate the effect of the nonlinear behaviour in cracking the concrete structure, and
hence, increasing the damping ratio. Despite the simplified relationship assumed between the
damping and the inelasticity in this method, it was shown to provide adequate results [7].

3.1 Description of RC Buildings

Eight storey moment resisting RC building located in Vancouver is considered in this study. The
building is designed as a moderately ductile moment resisting frame in accordance with CSA
A23.1-04 [8]. The typical floor plan and the typical storey height are 20 × 20 m2 and 3.7 m,
respectively. Only the interior 2-D frame shown in Figure 2 (a) is considered. The dimensions of
the columns and the beams are 0.47 × 0.47 m2 and 0.25 × 0.40 m2, respectively. The amounts of
the longitudinal steel reinforcements in the beams and the columns are shown on the elevation
view in Figure 2 (b). The concrete compressive strength and the modulus of elasticity are 30 MPa
and 24821 MPa, respectively. The yield stress of the steel reinforcement is 400 MPa.

(a) Plane view (b) Elevation view and steel amounts (cm2)
Figure 2. Eight storey building details.

3
 Wroc aw, Poland, 2014

Three building configurations were considered as shown in Figure3; bare frame (BF), fully-infilled
frame (FF), and partially-infilled frame (PF). The BF represents a moment-resisting frame with no
walls while the FF represents a moment-resisting frame in which all the openings are infilled with
masonry walls. The PF is similar to the FF with the exception that the openings at the first storey
do not contain masonry walls. The PF configuration intends to examine the effect of having a
parking garage at the ground level. The masonry infill walls are constructed using one mythe 200
fully grouted hollow concrete blocks. The compressive strength of the masonry units is 20 MPa.
Type S mortar is used to bond the units together. It is noted that the design and the analysis of the
buildings were conducted using finite element software ETABs.

(a) Bare frame (BF) (b) Fully-infilled frame (FF) (c) Partially-infilled frame (PF)
Figure 3. Configurations of the eight storey building.

3.2 Modelling Methodology

The masonry infill walls are modelled using the equivalent compression strut approach which
assumes that the failure mode of the panel is diagonal compression failure. The force-
displacement relationship of the diagonal compression implemented in this study is shown in
Figure 4 [9]. The equation developed by Zarnic and Gostic [10] and modified by Dolsek and Fajfar
[11] is adopted in this study to calculate the maximum force of the equivalent compression strut,
F u:

Li t f tp 2
Fu = 0.818 (1 + C1 + 1) (1)
C1
Li
C1 = 1.925
Hi
where, Li is the length of the infill wall, t the width of the masonry wall, ftp is the cracking stress of
the masonry wall, and Hi the height of the infill wall.

4
 Wroc aw, Poland, 2014

Fu

Force
Fcr

Fp

∆cr ∆u ∆p
Displacement

Figure 4. Constitutive model of the equivalent diagonal compression strut.

The ratio of Fu to the cracking force of the equivalent compression strut, Fcr, is taken as 0.55
[9,11]. The displacement at ultimate, ∆u, and at the post-cracking strength, ∆p, are 0.25% drift and
1.25% drift [9], respectively. Three models are considered for determining the width of the
equivalent compression strut:
Model 1 [12]:
−0.4
w = 0.175(λH i ) d (2)

⎛ E t sin 2θ ⎞
λ = 4 ⎜⎜ i ⎟⎟
⎝ 4 Ec I c H i ⎠
Model 2 [5]:

d
w= (3)
4
Model 3 [13]:

0.95 H c cos θ
w= (4)
λH i
⎛ E t sin 2θ ⎞
λ = 4 ⎜⎜ i ⎟⎟
⎝ 4 Ec I c H i ⎠
where w is the width of the diagonal compression strut, Ei the modulus of elasticity of the infill
wall, θ the angle between the equivalent compression strut and the beam, Ec the modulus of
elasticity of the column, Ic the moment of inertia of the column, and d is the length of the
equivalent compression strut.
The Fu is 880 kN calculated using Equation 1. The calculated widths of the diagonal compression
strut are 0.56 m, 1.40 m and 1.53 m using Model 1, Model 2, and Model 3, respectively. It is noted
that the calculated width of the equivalent compression strut and the thickness of the wall are used
to compute the equivalent area of the circular brace that is used to model the infill wall in the finite
element software ETABs.

5
 Wroc aw, Poland, 2014

3.3 Analysis and Discussion

The spectral acceleration, Sa, versus the spectral displacement, Sd, curves are shown in Figure 5.
The solid lines indicate the capacity curves while the dashed lines indicate the demand curves.
The capacity curves of the FF buildings increase in a linear manner until the rapid formation of
plastic hinges at the first storey level causes a sudden drop in the base shear capacity. The first
plastic hinges of the fully-infilled frames initiate at the diagonal compression struts at the first
storey while the first plastic hinges of the partially-infilled frames develop at the columns of the first
storey due to the large curvature demands as a result of the soft storey effect.
1.2 1.2
Capacity-Model 1 Capacity-Model 1
1 Capacity-Model 2 Capacity-Model 2
1
Spectral acceleration, Sa (g)

Spectral acceleration, Sa (g)

Capacity-Model 3 Capacity-Model 3
Demand-Model 1 Demand-Model 1
0.8 0.8
Demand-Model 2 Demand-Model 2
Demand-Model 3 Demand-Model 3
0.6 0.6
Capacity-BF Capacity-BF
Demand-BF Demand-BF
0.4 0.4

0.2 0.2

0 0
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350
Spectral displacement, Sd (mm) Spectral displacement, Sd (mm)

(a) Comparison of FF with BF configuration (b) Comparison of PF with BF configuration

Figure 5. The spectral acceleration-spectral displacement plots.
The intersection of the capacity spectrum with the demand spectrum represents the performance
point which indicates the deformation, base shear, and ductility that the structure should be
designed to sustain when subjected to earthquake excitation. The Sa at the performance point of
the FF configuration (Model 1) is one indicating that the building is going to behave in an elastic
manner when subjected to earthquake. A very interesting observation is that the performance
points of the FF buildings are located after the sudden drop of the capacity curve which indicates
that the building may not be able to sustain the required base shear and roof displacement when
subjected to severe earthquake.
The effective ductility, µeff, of the BF and the PF can be determined by dividing Sd at the
performance point by the Sd the yielding point. The µeff of the PF configuration using Model 1,
Model 2, and Model 3 is 1.14, 1.54, and 1.55, respectively, while the µeff of the BF configuration is
0.79. The µeff of the FF configuration cannot be calculated due to the absence of a yielding
plateau. The µeff of the PF buildings is lower than the ductility determined at the ultimate level
which indicates that the structure would withstand the applied earthquake. However, it is noted
that the performance points of the PF buildings are located near the ultimate capacity of the
buildings, and hence, the design of the buildings should be made such that to either reduce µeff or
increase the ductility at the ultimate base shear.
The base shear forces and the roof displacement at the performance points of FF and PF
configurations are normalized to the corresponding ones in the BF configuration as illustrated in
Figure 6. The normalized base shear forces of the PF configuration are almost identical for the
three models (average of 4.7) while a considerable variation is observed in the FF configuration
(average of 11.8). The average normalized displacements for the PF and the FF configurations
are 0.38 and 0.15, respectively. It is seen, therefore, that masonry infill walls increase the strength

6
 Wroc aw, Poland, 2014

and the stiffness of the structure significantly, which in turn, reduces the ductility capacity of the
structure. This action is more severe in the case of the FF configuration as compared with the PF
configuration.
16 0.5
FF-configuration FF-configuration
PF-configuration PF-configuration
0.4

Normalized displacement
12
Normalized base shear
0.3

0.2

4
0.1

0 0
10.004
1 2 2
0.0092 3 3
0.0122 10.004
1 2
0.0092 3
0.0122
Model No. Model No.

(a) Normalized base shear (b) Normalized roof displacement

Figure 6. The normalized trends of the FF and PF configurations for the three models.

4. CONCLUSIONS
The effect of the masonry infill walls on the seismic behaviour of moment-resisting frames was
evaluated in this study using the Capacity Spectrum Method. The masonry infill walls were
modelled using the equivalent diagonal compression strut method in which the thickness of the
strut was calculated using three different models available in the literature. Following are the main
conclusions drawn from this study:
- The inclusion of masonry infill walls in the structural analysis of moment resisting RC
frames increases the strength and the stiffness of the structure significantly
- Fully infilled buildings experience a sudden drop in capacity upon the formation of the
first few plastic hinges in the compression strut while partially infilled buildings exhibit a
yielding plateau similar to that of the bare frame but with higher stiffness.
- The earthquake ductility demand in the fully infilled walls is higher than that at the
maximum base shear. Therefore, the structure is not capable of withstanding the
induced earthquake motion
- The earthquake ductility demand in the partially infilled buildings is lower than that at the
maximum base shear. Therefore, the structure is expected to withstand the earthquake
excitation.

5. REFERENCES
[1] MURTY C., and JAIN S., Beneficial Influence of Masonry Infill Walls on Seismic
Performance of RC Frame Buildings, Proceedings of the 12th World Conference on
Earthquake Engineering, Auckland, N.Z., January 30-Februray 4 2000, Paper No.1790.
[2] GAREVSKI M., HRISTOVSKI V., TALAGANOV K., and STOJMANOVSKA M.
Experimental Investigations of 1/3-Scale R/C Frame with Infill Walls Building Structures,
Proceedings of the 13th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Vancouver, B.C.,

7
 Wroc aw, Poland, 2014

Canada, August 1-6 2004, Paper No. 772.

[3] CORTE G., FIORINO L., and MAZZOLANI F. Lateral-Loading Tests on a Real RC building
Including Masonry Infill Panels with and without FRP Strengthening, Journal of Materials in
Civil Engineering, Vol. 20, No. 6, 2008, pp. 419-431.
[4] KOSE M. Parameters Affecting the Fundamental Period of RC Buildings with Infill Walls,
Engineering Structures, Vol. 31, No. 1, 2009, pp. 93-102.
[5] PAULAY T., and PRIESTLEY M, Seismic Design of Reinforced Concrete and Masonry
Buildings, John Wiley & Sons, New York, 1992, 744 pp.
[6] FREEMAN S. Review of the Development of the Capacity Spectrum Method, ISET Journal
of Earthquake Technology, Vol. 41, No. 1, 2004, pp. 1-13.
[7] FAJFAR P. Capacity Spectrum Method Based on Inelastic Demand Spectra, Earthquake
Engineering and Structural Dynamics, Vol. 28, No. 9, 1999, pp. 979-993.
[8] CSA A23.1-04. Concrete materials and methods of concrete construction / Methods of test
and standard practices for concrete, CSA International, Toronto.
[9] SATTAR S., and LIEL A. Seismic Performance of Reinforced Concrete Frame Structures
with and without Masonry Infill Walls, Proceedings of the 9th U.S. National and 10th
Canadian Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Toronto, Canada, July 25-29 2010, 10
pp.
[10] ZARNIC R., and GOSTIC S, Masonry Infilled Frames as an Effective Structural Sub-
Assemblage, In: Fajfar, Krawinkler, Ed. Seismic Design Methodologies for the Next
Generation of Codes. Rotterdam: Balkema, 1997, 335-346.
[11] DOLSEK M., and FAJFAR P. The Effect of Masonry Infills on the Seismic Response of a
Four Storey Reinforced Concrete Frame – A Deterministic Assessment, Engineering
Structures, Vol. 30, No. 7, 2008, pp. 1991-2001.
[12] MAINSTONE R. On the Stiffness and Strengths of Infilled Frames, Proceedings of the
Institution of Civil Engineers, London, UK, Supplement IV, 57-90 1971 (Paper No. 7360S).
[13] LIAUW T-C., and KWAN K-H. Nonlinear Behavior of non-Integral Infilled Frames,
Computer Structures, Vol. 18, No. 3, 1984, pp. 551-560.

View publication stats