Nonlinear Seismic Response of RC Structures With Soft Stories

NONLINEAR SEISMIC RESPONSE OF
RC STRUCTURES WITH SOFT STORIES
FALL 2011
MAIN UDDIN
REGISTRATION NO: 08105046
Department of Civil Engineering

University of Asia Pacific
MAIN UDDIN
REGISTRATION NO: 08105046
DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL ENGINEERING

UNIVERSITY OF ASIA PACIFIC
DHAKA
FALL 2011
A Thesis submitted by
MAIN UDDIN
In partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of

Bachelor of Science in Civil Engineering
Department of Civil Engineering

University of Asia Pacific
Dhaka 1209, Bangladesh
FALL 2011
II
UNIVERSITY OF ASIA PACIFIC
DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL ENGINEERING
CERTIFICATE OF APPROVAL
We hereby recommend that the thesis presented by MAIN UDDIN entitled NONLINEAR
SEISMIC RESPONSE OF RC STRUCTURES WITH SOFT STORIES be accepted as fulfilling
this part of the requirements for the degree of Bachelor of Science in Civil Engineering.
Supervising Committee
Chairman
Dr. Iftekhar Anam
(Supervisor)
Associate Professor
Department of CE, UAP
Member Emtazul Haque

(External) Assistant Professor
Member
(Ex-officio) Dr. M. R. Kabir
Professor and Head
III
DEDICATION
Dedicated
To
My Parents, Brothers
and
Teachers
IV
ABSTRACT
This work presents a study on the effect of ‘soft stories’ on the nonlinear seismic behavior of
Reinforced Concrete frame structures, with the objective to better study the effect of brick masonry
infills in the earthquake response of low and medium-high RC buildings. Lateral stiffness of infill
walls is calculated using the ‘Equivalent Diagonal Strut’ model. Simple 6-, 12- and 24-storied RC
building frames are designed for vertical loads only, incorporating the seismic detailing provisions for
major and moderate earthquakes. Moment-curvature relationships of representative column and beam
sections are derived numerically and nonlinear dynamic analyses of the frames are performed when
subjected to the El Centro ground motion. The lateral deflections of the stories as well as the
maximum curvatures induced in representative columns of the building frames are calculated
including infill (fully or partially, except at the ground and first stories) and without infill.
The relative floor deflections demonstrate the significance of masonry infills. Whereas the ‘No infill’
option may also result in large relative deflections (as found in conventional structural analyses), the
‘Full infill’ option may reduce the relative deflections significantly, but the ‘Partial Infill’ option
increases the relative deflections drastically. Curvatures also increase severely for frames with ‘Partial
infills’. Numeical results show that although the beams are still able to withstand these large
curvatures comfortably, the columns, particularly the more heavily loaded columns of the taller (12-
and 24-storied) buildings, do not survive such curvature demands even with major seismic detailing.
V
TABLE OF CONTENTS
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION 1
1.1 Basic Concepts 1
1.2 Masonry Infills in Earthquake 1
1.3 Context of Present Study 3
1.4 Literature Review 4
1.5 Objectives of the Study 6
1.6 Organization of the Text 6
CHAPTER 2: SEISMIC BEHAVIOR OF INFILLED FRAME 8

2.1 Introduction 8
2.2 Soft Story 8
2.3 Short Column Effect 13
2.4 Seismic Design and Detailing 14
CHAPTER 3: THEORETICAL MODELS OF MASONERY INFILLS 19

3.1 Introduction 19
3.2 Analytical Models of Masonry Infills 19
3.2.1 Smith & Carter’s Method 19
3.2.2 Smith & Coull’s Method 20
3.2.3 Plasticity Model 22
3.2.4 Coupled Boundary Element Method 23
3.2.5 FEMA 273 Method 24
3.2.6 Equivalent Strut Method 24
3.3 Modeling of Masonry Infill 25
3.3.1 Choice of Model 25
3.3.2 Equivalent Stiffness of Infill 26
VI
CHAPTER 4: NUMERICAL RESULTS 31
4.1 Introduction 31
4.2 Structural Models 31
4.3 Material Properties 33
4.4 Cross-section of Structural Elements 33
4.4.1 Cross-section of Columns 34
4.4.2 Cross-section of Beams 35
4.4.3 Moment-Curvature Relationships 35
4.5 Results from Nonlinear Dynamic Analysis 41
4.5.1 Earthquake Ground Motion 41
4.5.2 Relative Floor Deflections 41
4.5.3 Member Curvatures 45
CHAPTER 5: CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 48

5.1 Introduction 48
5.2 Conclusions 48
5.3 Recommendations for Future Work 48
REFERENCES 50
VII
LIST OF TABLES
Table 2.1: Seismic Detailing for Materials 15
Table 2.2: Seismic Detailing for Flexural Members (High Risk Zone) 16
Table 2.3: Seismic Detailing for Axial Members (High Risk Zone) 17
Table 2.4: Seismic Detailing for Frame Joints (High Risk Zone) 18
Table 2.5: Seismic Detailing for Flexural Members (Moderate Risk Zone) 18
Table 2.6: Seismic Detailing for Axial Members (Moderate Risk Zone) 18
Table 4.1: Material Properties 33
Table 4.2: Stiffness of Infill Walls 40
VIII
LIST OF FIGURES
Fig. 2.1: Soft Ground Story Failure in (a) San Fernando, and (b) San Francisco, USA 10
Fig. 2.2: Soft Story in (a) Boumerdes, Algeria (2003), (b) Shake Table test (Roy 2007) 10
Fig. 2.3: Soft Ground Story Failures in (a)~(b) Haiti, (c)~(f) Japan, (g)~(h) Taiwan 11
Fig. 2.4: Soft Ground Story Failures in (a)~(b) India, (c)~(f) USA, (g)~(h) Turkey 12
Fig. 2.5: Illustration of Short Column Effects in various earthquakes 13
Fig. 3.1: Proposed composite yield criterion with iso-shear stress lines 23
Fig. 3.2: Masonry infill frame sub assemblage in masonry infill panel frame structures 25
Fig. 3.3: Masonry infill panel in frame structures 25
Fig. 3.4: Constitutive model for infill panel 25
Fig. 3.5: Strength envelope for masonry infill panel 25
Fig. 3.6: Frame forces equilibrium 27
Fig. 4.1: Building Lay-out Plan 32
Fig. 4.2: Short Direction of (a) 3-Storied (b) 6-Storied (c) 12-Storied (d) 24-Storied Building 32
Fig. 4.3: Column Sections (C1, C2, C3) for different buildings 34
Fig. 4.4: Beams (B8, B9, B10) in long direction and (B5 and B12) in short direction 35
Fig. 4.5: (a): Moment-Curvature Relationship of Column (C1) 36
(b): Moment-Curvature Relationship of Column (C2) 37
(c): Moment-Curvature Relationship of Column (C3) 38
Fig. 4.6: Moment-Curvature Relationship of Beams in both long direction (B8, B9, B10) 39
And short direction (B5, B12)
Fig. 4.7: Layout showing Infill Walls 40
Fig. 4.8: El Centro Ground Acceleration (a) Time series, (b) Amplitude Spectrum 41
Fig. 4.9: Relative Floor Deflections of Buildings without Infill 42
Fig. 4.10: Relative Floor Deflections of Buildings with Partial Infill 43
Fig. 4.11: Relative Floor Deflections of Buildings with Full Infill 44
Fig. 4.12: Curvature-Time relationship of 1st Floor Column C3 and Beam B5 (No Infill) 45
IX
Fig. 4.13: Curvature-Time relationship of 1st Floor Column C3 and Beam B5 (Partial Infill) 46
Fig. 4.14 Curvature-Time relationship of 1st Floor Column C3 and Beam B5 (Full Infill) 47
X
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
1.1 Basic Concepts:

Reinforced concrete frame structure is quite common in civil engineering field due to the ease of
construction and design. Frames are often constructed with masonry infill as partition wall, or for
architectural or aesthetic reasons. They are normally considered as ‘non-structural elements’; i.e.,
their presence or influence is ignored by engineers in structural analysis, as well as in most of the
current seismic codes also.
The infilled frame consists of a steel or reinforced concrete column-and-girder frame with infill of
brick works or concrete block work. In addition to functioning as partitions, exterior walls and walls
around stair, elevator and service shafts, the infill may also serve structurally to brace the frame
against horizontal loading. The frame is designed for gravity loading only and in the absence of an
accepted design method, the infill is presumed to contribute sufficiently to the lateral strength of the
structure to withstand the horizontal loading. The simplicity of construction and expertise in building
this type of structure have made the infilled frame one of the most economical structural forms for tall
buildings.
Generally the lateral deflection of a frame under lateral load is calculated by taking the stiffness of
columns and beams into consideration. But the stiffness of infill is almost never considered in these
calculations. The stiffness of the frame increases in the presence of infill, which reduces the lateral
deflection due to quasi-static loads. Thus the deflections and internal forces for frames with infill are
less than for frames without infill. This leads to reduced internal force and reinforcing steel
requirements in columns for high-rise building considering infill when subjected to quasi-static loads.
The P- effect in a fully restrained multistory frame can also be a major design factor. The more
flexible the frames, the greater are the secondary bending moments due to P- effect. Therefore with
the current trend towards taller and more flexible frames, the influence of infilling walls is much more
significant today than in the past, they provide lateral stiffness and minimize the P- effect.
1.2 Masonry Infills in Earthquake:

As mentioned, the performance of the structure can be greatly improved by the increase of strength
arising from the masonry infills. On the other hand, the increase in strength and initial stiffness of the
structure may result in an adverse increase of the inertia force, which may cause significant structural
damage or even collapse. The damage of the structure may be reduced by dissipating a considerable
portion of the input energy in the masonry infills or in the interface between the infills and frame. But,
if the configuration of the infills is irregular, they can induce significant local damages to the
structural elements.
The infills tend to interact with the frame when the structures are subjected to lateral loads like
earthquake. Ground shaking produced by an earthquake searches for any structural vulnerability.
These vulnerabilities are usually created by sharp changes in stiffness, strength and ductility, lack of
shear walls in the first story, and the effects of these vulnerabilities are accentuated by poor
distribution of masses. As a result, among the most vulnerable structural types are the multistoried
commercial and residential buildings built by reinforced concrete with little or no lateral resistance of
the first story. These buildings are called ‘Piloti’ or ‘soft’ first story buildings.
Generally, soft stories have less stiffness than the upper stories. Together with a lack of ductile
capacity in the reinforced concrete columns, beams, and joints, these soft stories can cause many
brittle failures during an earthquake ground motion. The 1978 Miyagi-ken Oki Earthquake caused
brittle and severe damage of the columns of the first floors of RC buildings, which had shear walls
except in the first floors. This type of damage was more noticed in the 1995 Kobe Earthquake. Based
on this fact, a design procedure that does not allow column side-sway mechanism (soft first story
collapse) was recommended in the Japanese Seismic Design Guidelines.
Soft first story might be permissible even in Piloti buildings if the maximum response deformation
angle of the first story can be kept to the level of the maximum response deformation angle supposed
in sidesway mechanism (total collapse) buildings. And since soft first story buildings have fewer or
no shear walls to absorb the energy generated by an earthquake than those total collapse buildings,
thus in order to hold the maximum response deformation angle of soft first story buildings to the same
level as that of total collapse buildings (and maintain the total energy constant), the horizontal load
carrying capacity required in the soft first story buildings must be increased in comparison with total
collapse buildings.
Infills are often discontinued midway through a column height to provide openings. This causes a
‘short-column effect’ for the unsupported portion of the column, which has also been a major cause of
structural distress during earthquakes. A similar situation may arise when mezzanine floors are
provided between regular floors.
The present code of practice does not include provision of taking into consideration the effect of infill
in structural design. It can be expected that if the effect of infill is taken into account, the design of
resulting structural elements can be significantly different.
2
In countries with stringently applied codes of practice, the absence of a well recognized method of
design for infilled frames has restricted their use for bracing. When designing an infilled frame
structure, it has been more usual in such countries to arrange for the frame to carry the total vertical
and horizontal loading. The infills have been included on the assumptions that, with precautions taken
to avoid load being transferred to them, they do not participate as part of the primary structure. It is
evident from the frequently observed diagonal cracking of such infill walls that the approach is not
always valid. The walls do sometimes attract significant bracing loads and, in so doing, modify the
structure’s mode of behavior and internal forces in the frame (axial force, shear force, bending
moment etc). In such cases it would have been better to design the walls for the lateral loads, and the
frame to allow for its modified mode of behavior.
Certain reservations arise in the use of infilled frames for bracing a structure. For example, it is
possible that as part of a renovation project, partition walls are removed with the result that the
structure becomes inadequately braced. Precautions against this, either by including a generously
excessive number of bracing walls, or by somehow identifying the vital bracing walls, should be
considered as part of the design.
The seismic performance of infilled frames is summarized as follows

* The most important parameter affecting the seismic performance of infilled frames is the strength
of the infill. Less important parameters include infill ductility, residual strength, and the slope of
the descending branch of the backbone curve. Infilling increases seismic force demand (due to
increased stiffness), but this demand may be offset by increased strength and ductility of frames.
* Because infills are generally stiffer than the frame, they can reduce some actions in frame
members and can also reduce lateral drifts.
* Infills can significantly change the response of a frame; they can change the distribution of
damage; and their effects should be considered in design. Weak story mechanisms are possible
even in uniformly infilled frames, and open ground story frames tend to produce ground-story
mechanisms.
* Short-column effects are created by discontinuing the infill walls midway through the columns so
that the unsupported portion of the column may be required to withstand much greater shear force
and bending moment than expected.
* Torsional asymmetry may be introduced to the building when solid infills are used on one side of
the building, keeping the other side open.
1.3 Context of Present Study:

As mentioned, the stiffness of the frame increases in the presence of infill, which also increases the
natural frequency of the structure to a level much greater than for frames without infill. However, the
3
unreinforced masonry is very weak in tension and may crack at very small tensions. The present code
of practice does not include provision of taking into consideration the effect of infill, which may result
in significantly different structural response during earthquakes.
It is therefore necessary to understand the characteristics of brick masonry infills to better understand
the structural behavior of the frame itself. With this objective, the present investigation is performed
to study the effect of brick masonry infills in the earthquake response of low and medium-high RC
buildings, which constitute a major portion of structural constructions in Bangladesh.
1.4 Literature Review:

Smith & Carter (1969) proposed a theoretical relation for the width of the diagonal strut linked to
infill-frame stiffness parameter. The theory of plasticity is adopted to describe the inelastic behavior,
utilizing modern algorithmic concepts, including an implicit Euler backward return mapping scheme,
a local Newton-Raphson method and a consistent tangential stiffness matrix. The stiffness of the
structural system is determined with variations in geometrical and mechanical characteristics. The
analysis is carried out by utilizing the Boundary Element Method, where the frame is divided into
finite elements, so as to transform the mutual interactions of the two subsystems into stresses
distributed along the boundary for the infill and into nodal actions for the frame. They examined
multi-story infilled frames for the case of lateral loading. In the light of experimental results, authors
proposed design graphs and design method based on an equivalent strut concept. First, they focused
on the composite behavior of infilled frame and failure modes. Then, the factors that affect the
effective width of diagonal compression strut were determined. Finally, with known factors and
behavior, the design curves to estimate equivalent strut width, cracking and crushing strength of infill
panel were presented.
Smith & Coull (1991) presented a design method for infilled frame based on diagonally braced frame
criteria. The developed method considered three possible modes of failure of infill: shear along the
masonry, diagonal cracking through masonry and crushing of a corner of infill. They assumed
effective width of diagonal compression strut as equal to one-tenth of the diagonal length of the infill
panel. At the initial design stage, frame must be designed on the basis of the gravity loading.
Paulay & Priestley (1992) proposed a theory about the seismic behavior of masonry infilled frame and
a design method for infilled frames. Authors said that although masonry infill may increase the
overall lateral load capacity, it can result in altering structural response and attracting forces to
different or undesired part of structure with asymmetric arrangement. This means that masonry infill
may cause structural deficiencies and behave differently with respect to lateral load level. At low
levels, both concrete frame and infill act in a fully composite manner.
4
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) prepared FEMA 273 (1997), the NEHRP
Guidelines for the Seismic Rehabilitation of Buildings, to guide design professionals, for the seismic
rehabilitation of buildings. Design professionals can use this document for design and analysis of
seismic rehabilitation project. However, this document is not a code. In this document, analysis
procedures, material properties and design criteria for concrete, steel, masonry and lightweight
materials are given in separate chapters. In the chapter devoted to concrete, there are general
provisions about infilled concrete frames. According to these provisions, concrete frames with infill
walls must be constructed in such a way that the infill and frame interact when subjected to design
loads. Material properties, Young’s modulus and stiffness parameter of masonry, which is used as
infill, are explained in detail.
An extensive review of research on infilled frames through the mid 1980’s was reported by
Moghaddam & Dowling (1987). Holmes (1961) proposed replacing the infill by an equivalent pin-
jointed diagonal strut of the same material with a width one-third of the in fill’s diagonal length.
Research works were also carried out by Parducci (1980), Mainstone (1971), Moghaddam (1987),
Dason (1972) to study on the influence of stiffness from the infill walls by considering a gap at the
interface between the frame and the wall. Experimental and Finite Element investigation were carried
out for an infilled frame by Thomas (1950), Ockleston (1955), Benjamin (1958), Sobith (1988),
Dukuze (2000), Anil (2006). Considering various parameters, strength and stiffness of assemblage,
lateral stiffness of retrofitted RC frame was investigated by Erdem in 2006.
It is widely known and reported that infill walls in reinforced concrete frame buildings cause
‘increase’ in lateral stiffness, strength, and energy dissipation capacity (Mander et al. 1993, Mosalam
et al. 1997, Crisafulli 1997, Lee & Woo 2002, Magenes & Pampanin 2004, Dolsek & Fajfar 2008).
Whether this behavior is favorable or not, the infill walls are usually the first elements to be damaged
in seismic events. There have been many researches that focused on strengthening of RC infilled
frames (e.g., Akin 2009, Akguzel 2003).
Although the work on the in-plane behavior of infills is comparatively new in Bangladesh (e.g.,
Hossain 1997, Azam & Amanat 2003, Anam & Azam 2006, Roy 2007), it has been extensively
studied over the last several decades (e.g., works by Fiorato et al. 1970, Smith & Coull 1991, Islam
1994, Mosalam et al. 1997, Madan et al. 1997, Papia 1998, Asteris 2003, Docanini 2004) in attempts
to develop a rational approach for design of such frames.
5
In this work, nonlinear dynamic analyses are performed for the frames replacing the brickwalls by an
‘Equivalent Diagonal Strut’ proposed by Saneinejad & Hobbs (1995) and modified by Madan et al.
(1997).
1.5 Objectives of the Study:

With the objective to better study the effect of brick masonry infill in the earthquake response of low
and medium-high RC buildings, this work aims to carry out the following studies in particular.
* Analyze and design simple 6-, 12- and 24-storied RC building frames (of similar plans) for
vertical loads only using the structural analysis software ETABS.
* Use the seismic detailing provisions for major and moderate earthquakes to modify the structural
designs carried out before.
* Calculation of lateral stiffness of infill walls using the ‘Equivalent Diagonal Strut’ proposed by
Saneinejad & Hobbs (1995) and modified by Madan et al. (1997).
* Numerical derivation of the moment-curvature relationships of representative beam and column
sections.
* Performing nonlinear dynamic analysis of the frames (designed and detailed as mentioned before)
when subjected to the El Centro ground motion. The lateral deflections of the stories as well as
the maximum curvatures induced in representative columns of the building frames are to be
calculated including infill and without infill.
1.6 Organization of the Text:

This thesis contains the following five chapters:
Chapter 1 discusses the basic concepts, seismic behavior of masonry infills, purpose or context of the
study, literature review, objectives of the present work and about the contents of the thesis.
Chapter 2 consists of the seismic behavior of masonry infills for structural frame, including the soft-
story effect, short column effect, as well as seismic design and detailing.
Chapter 3 provides a brief description of the theoretical backgrounds including the theoretical models
of infill; e.g., Smith and Carter’s method, Smith and Coull’s method, plasticity model, Coupled
Boundary Element Method, FEMA273 method, Equivalent Strut Method (Hobbs & Saneinejad
model) and outlines the steps in the determination of equivalent strut stiffness.
Chapter 4 presents the structural models, material properties, design earthquake and results from
calculation of infill stiffness, results from nonlinear dynamic analysis of 6-, 12- and 24-storied RC
frames with and without infills as well as forming soft-stories with partial infills, when subjected to
6
ground motion due to the El Centro earthquake. All the frames are designed for vertical loads only
with and without seismic detailing.
Chapter 5 finally shows the conclusions and recommendations for further research.
7
CHAPTER 2
SEISMIC BEHAVIOR OF INFILLED FRAMES
2.1 Introduction:
In recent seismic events, many of the structures didn’t collapse, but suffered unexpectedly extensive
damage at columns, beams, beam-column joints, and infill walls due to the interaction with infills.
However, the failure of ‘nonstructural’ infill walls may very well be a significant threat for human life
both inside and outside of the building as they are usually the first elements to experience damage
even under moderate seismic events, which are usually considered less important during the design
process. However, due to their brittle behavior, the infill walls can modify the behavior of the
structure as a whole, drastically altering the expected behavior by the designer and enabling
undesirable failure modes.
For that reason, two design alternatives have been suggested by Paula and Priestly (1992). These
alternatives have been included in NZS 4230:2004:
a) When infill panels are constructed without full separation from the frame, the composite action
must be considered in analysis and designed accordingly.
b) It should be noted that even where sufficient separation is provided at top and ends of a panel, the
panel will still tend to stiffen the supporting beam considerably, concentrating frame potential
plastic hinge regions in short hinge lengths at each end, or forcing migration of hinges into
columns, with a breakdown of the weak-beam, strong-column concept.
2.2 Soft Story:

Reinforced concrete (RC) frame buildings constructed in the recent times (e.g., most apartment
building built in recent years) have open ground stories for purpose of car parking; i.e., column in
ground story have no partition walls (of either masonry or RC) between them. Such buildings are
often called open ground soft story building.
The most frequent failure mode of reinforced concrete buildings is the so-called “soft story”
mechanism. In many buildings architectural considerations requires an open ground story called Soft
Story for commercial purpose or for the use of car parking where the ground story does not have any
partition walls (of either masonry or RC) between them. Another typical case arises when the ground
story is made taller than the adjacent upper story, which also causes a soft-story formation due to
drastic change in the stiffness between adjacent stories. Such a building with only columns in the
ground story and both partition walls and columns in the upper stories, has a relatively
8
(a) Flexible ground story; i.e., the relative horizontal displacement in the ground story is much larger
than that of the stories above,
(b) Weak ground story; i.e., the total horizontal earthquake force carrying capacity in the ground
story is significantly smaller than what each of the stories above it can carry. Thus, the open
ground story may also be a weak story. Soft or weak story usually exists at the ground story level,
but it could be at any other story level too.
The presence of walls in upper stories makes them much stiffer than the open ground story. Thus, the
upper stories move almost together as a single block and most of the horizontal displacement of the
building occurs in the soft ground story itself. If the columns are weak (do not have the required
strength to resist these high stresses) or if they do not have adequate ductility, they may be severely
damaged, which may even lead to collapse of the building. Moreover, stiff masonry walls are usually
neglected in structural analysis and only bare frames are considered in design calculations. Therefore,
structures with soft ground stories are poorly designed and also unsuitable for earthquake resistance.
Soft first story buildings are one of the most vulnerable structural types during severe earthquakes.
Such structures, notably RC buildings are required in overpopulated areas.
Such open ground story buildings have consistently performed poorly during past earthquakes across
the world and a significant number have collapsed. A well-known example of a building with a soft
story is the Olive View Hospital building [Fig.2.1]. This was a six-storied building RC building with
its soft story partially underground. He lateral force-resisting system included large walls in the upper
four stories which did not extended down to lower two stories.
These discontinuous shear walls created a large discontinuity in strength and stiffness at second-floor
level. During the 1971 San Fernando earthquake, the upper four stories of the building escaped with
minor damage, with the damage decreasing toward the top. Most of the damage was concentrated in
the partially underground story and the first above ground story with permanent drift in the latter story
exceeding 30 in. this large drift impose very severe deformation and ductility demand on the first
columns. As a result, the tied column failed in a brittle manner, however, completed only a few
months prior to earthquake, was damaged so in Fig.
Kobe earthquake, which is considered to be one of the most devastating and costly natural disasters in
recent history, in terms of the buildings destroyed, the number of people killed and injured, and the
damage extended to a wide range of structural types. It was found that many buildings that were
constructed with open retail space or parking on the first floor collapsed. The collapse of the soft first
story structure was attributed to inadequate transverse reinforcement in terms of its amount and
9
detailing, more flexible and/or weaker story and to relatively smaller amount of shear walls to allow
for the access to the open space than the ones above. Hence, the Building Standard Law Enforcement
Order of Japan, revised after the Kobe earthquake, adopted stricter guidelines for the construction of
soft first story buildings.
The collapse of more than a hundred RC frame buildings with open ground stories at Ahmedabad
(about 200 km away from epicenter) during the Bhuj earthquake has emphasized that such building
are extremely vulnerable under earthquake shaking (Murthy 2004). After the collapse of several soft-
storied RC frame buildings in 2001 Bhuj earthquake, the Indian Seismic Code IS: 1893, Part 1 (2002)
has included special design provisions related to soft story buildings. Another option in improving the
seismic response of such buildings is to implement the earthquake detailing which mainly improve the
nonlinear behavior (i.e., the ductility) of the building. The present work investigates the legitimacy of
this approach. Although works on the behavior of soft storied structures are quite common in recent
times in Bangladesh (e.g., Mondal 2008, Haque & Amanat 2010) as well as in UAP (e.g., Roy 2007),
the effect of seismic detailing has not been studied.
Fig. 2.1: Soft Ground Story Failure in (a) San Fernando, and (b) San Francisco, USA
Fig. 2.2: Soft Story in (a) Boumerdes, Algeria (2003), (b) Shake Table test (Roy 2007)
10
Fig. 2.3: Soft Ground Story Failures in (a)~(b) Haiti, (c)~(f) Japan, (g)~(h) Taiwan
11
Fig. 2.4: Soft Ground Story Failures in (a)~(b) India, (c)~(f) USA, (g)~(h) Turkey
12
2.3 Short Column Effect:
RC frame building that have columns of different heights within one story, suffer more damage in the
shorter columns as compared to taller columns in the same story (Murthy 2004). Poor behavior of
short colunns is due to the fact that in n earthquake, a tall column and a short column of same cross-
section move horizontally by same amount. However, the short columns being stiffer, it attracts large
earthquake force (the force is inversely proportional to the cube of column length). If a short column
is not adequately designed for such a large force, it can suffer significant damage during an
earthquake. This behavior is called the Short Column Effect. The damage in these short column is
often in the form of X-shaped cracking, this type of damage of columns is due to shear failure.
Fig. 2.5: Illustration of Short Column Effects in various earthquakes

13
Many situations with short column effect arise in building. For example, when a building is rested on
sloped ground, during the earthquake shaking all columns move horizontally by the same amount
along with the floor slab at a particular level. If short and tall columns exist with the same story level,
then the short columns attract several times large earthquake force and suffer more damaged as
compared to taller ones. The short column effect also occurs in columns that support mezzanine floors
or slabs that are added in between two regular floors.
There is another special situation in buildings when short-column effect occurs. Consider a wall
(Masonry or RC) of partial height built to fit a window over the remaining height. The adjacent
columns behave as a short column due to presence of this wall. In many cases, other columns in the
same story are of regular height, as there is no wall adjoining them. When the floor slab moves
horizontally during the earthquake, the upper ends of these columns undergo the same the same
displacement (Fig. 2.5). However, the stiff walls restrict horizontal movement of the lower portion of
a short column and it deforms by the full amount over the short height adjacent to the window
opening. On the other hand, regular columns deforms over the full height. Since the effective height
over which a short column can freely bend is small, it offers more resistance to horizontal motion and
thereby attracts large forces as compared to the regular column and sustains more damage. Fig. 2.5
shows X-cracking in a column adjacent to the walls of partial height.
In new buildings, short column effect should be avoided if possible during architectural design stage
itself. When it is not possible to avoid short columns, this effect must be addressed in structural
design. The special confining reinforcement (i.e., closely spaced closed ties) must extended beyond
the short column into the columns vertically above and below by a certain distance. The effectiveness
of this approach is observed in this study. On the other hand, different retrofit solution can be
employed to avoid damage in future earthquake in existing building with short column.
2.4 Seismic Design and Detailing:

Seismic Detailing included in building codes specify certain requirements for materials, structural
members and joints to be implemented during structural design for making the structures earthquake
resistant. The primary objective of detailing is to make the structures ductile enough to absorb enough
energy during earthquake and also to ensure a ductile mode of failure. The Bangladesh National
Building Code (BNBC 1993) also has some specifications for RC structures as outlined in PART 6,
Chapter 8 (Article 8.3). Tables 2.1~4 summarize the seismic detailing specifications for RC structures
for regions of high seismic risk (e.g., Zone 3 with Z = 0.25 for Bangladesh).
Table 2.1 shows the specifications for structural materials; i.e., concrete and steel. Accordingly, the
structural concrete should not be too weak as to have low tensile strength that would initiate brittle
14
failures and have low ultimate curvature, shear strength and bond strength. Very high strength
reinforcing steels are also not recommended because of their low ductility.
Table 2.1: Seismic Detailing for Materials
Specification Possible Explanation

fc  20 MPa ( 3 ksi) for Weak concretes have low shear and bond strengths and
Concrete
3-storied or taller buildings cannot take full advantage of subsequent design provisions
fy  415 MPa ( 60 ksi), Lower strength steels have (a) a long yield region, (b) greater
Steel
preferably  250 MPa ( ductility, (c) greater fult/fy ratio

36 ksi)
Table 2.2 shows the detailing requirements for flexural members; i.e., whose factored axial stress is
less than 0.1fc. The requirements include specifications for size (for convenient rod placement and to
protect against shear failure), shape (to ensure lateral stability and enough concrete clearance), and
longitudinal reinforcements (to ensure steel yielding before concrete crushing and ability to resist
reversible loads). The details of seismic resistant design include the longitudinal reinforcements on
both sides of the section to ensure protection against reversible loads as well as to provide ductility
and lateral confinements to increase ultimate strain of concrete and increase ductility of the section.
Most of these are particularly pointed out to emphasize the importance of ductile failure and necessity
of compression reinforcement; e.g., for the number of reinforcing bars (to support stirrups), minimum
and maximum values of the steel ratio (to ensure ductile failure of the section), area of reinforcements
(to protect against reversible loads) and anchor length to ensure ductile failure of the member.
Specifications for transverse/web reinforcements in particular, codify the maximum permissible
spacing of lateral reinforcements. The possible explanation of this specification is to ensure adequate
resistance to shear force, adequate confinement to improve the ductility of concrete and to prevent
buckling of reinforcing bars (which would be another possible reason for sudden failure).
Table 2.3 shows similar detailing requirements for axial members; i.e., whose factored axial stress is
greater than 0.1fc. These requirements include specifications for size (to protect against buckling and
ensure sufficient concreting and clear cover), shape (to protect against lateral instability and torsion),
longitudinal and transverse reinforcements. The longitudinal steel ratio should be large enough to be
effective but not too large to make the column sections too congested and make concreting too
difficult or not leaving enough concrete clear cover for its protection against corrosion.
Moreover, some other detailing specifications are to ensure the ductile behavior of the whole structure
itself, rather than the individual members. For example, the conditions mentioned in previous articles;
i.e., Weak Beam Strong Column, ductile flexural failure before shear failure, special confinements at
15
sudden change of stiffness (to offset negative impacts of soft story and short column effect) ensure
that the structure behaves in a ductile manner. In most cases, they confine the concrete within the
maximum shear zone to increase its ductility, although the Weak Beam Strong Column condition may
require larger column sections and/or more longitudinal reinforcements.
Table 2.2: Seismic Detailing for Flexural Members (High Risk Zone)

b/d  0.3 To ensure lateral stability and improve torsional resistance
b  8 To (a) decrease geometric error, (b) facilitate rod placement
Size
d  Lc/4 Behavior and design of deeper members are significantly

different
Ns(top) and Ns(bottom)  2 Construction requirement
  0.1fc/fy (fc, fy in ksi) at To avoid brittle failure upon cracking
both top and bottom
  0.025 at top or bottom To (a) cause steel yielding before concrete crushing and
(b) avoid steel congestion
As(bottom)  0.5As(top) at joint To ensure (a) adequate ductility, (b) minimum reinforcement for
Longitudinal Reinforcement
and As(bottom)/(top)  0.25As(top) moment reversal

(max) at any section
Both top and bottom bars at To ensure (a) adequate bar anchorage, (b) joint ductility
an external joint must be
anchored  Ld +10db from
inner face of column with
90 bends
Lap splices are allowed for Closely spaced stirrups are necessary within lap lengths because
 50% of bars, only where of the possibility of loss of concrete cover
stirrups are provided @
d/4 or 4 c/c
Lap splice lengths  Ld and Lap splices are not reliable under cyclic loading into the inelastic
are not allowed within range
distance of 2d from joints or
near possible plastic hinges
Web reinforcements must To provide lateral support and ensure strength development of
consist of closed vertical longitudinal bars
stirrups with 135 hooks
and 10dt ( 3) extensions
Web Reinforcement
Design shear force is the It is desirable that the beams should yield in flexure before
maximum of (a) shear force failure in shear
from analysis, (b) shear
force due to vertical loads
plus as required for flexural
yielding of joints
Spacing of hoops within 2d To (a) provide resistance to shear, (b) confine concrete to
(beginning at  2) at either improve ductility, (c) prevent buckling of longitudinal
end of a beam must be  compression bars
d/4, 8db; elsewhere St  d/2
16
Table 2.3: Seismic Detailing for Axial Members (High Risk Zone)

bc /hc  0.4 To ensure lateral stability and improve torsional
resistance
Size
bc  12 To avoid (a) slender columns,

(b) column failure before beams
Lap splices are allowed only for Closely spaced stirrups are necessary within lap
Longitudinal Reinforcement
 50% of bars, only where lengths because of the possibility of loss of concrete
stirrups are provided @  bc/4 or cover
4
Lap splice lengths  Ld and only Lap splices are not reliable under cyclic loading into
allowed in the center half of the inelastic range
columns
0.01  g  0.06 To (a) ensure effectiveness and (b) avoid congestion of
longitudinal bars
Mc,ult  1.2 Mb,ult To obtain ‘strong column weak beam condition’ to
at joint avoid column failure before beams
Transverse reinforcement must To provide lateral support and ensure strength
consist of closed spirals or development of longitudinal bars
rectangular/ circular hoops with
135 hooks with 10dt ( 3)
extensions
Parallel legs of rectangular To provide lateral support and ensure strength
hoops must be spaced @  12 development of longitudinal bars
c/c
Spacing of hoops within L0 ( To (a) provide resistance to shear, (b) confine concrete
dc, hc/6, 18) at each end of to improve ductility, (c) prevent buckling of
column must be longitudinal compression bars
 bc/4, 4; else St  bc/2
Transverse Reinforcement
Design shear force is the It is desirable that the columns should yield in flexure
maximum of (a) shear force before failure in shear
from analysis, (b) shear force
required for flexural yielding of
joints
Special confining reinforcement To provide resistance to the very high axial loads and
(i.e., St  bc/4, 4) should extend flexural demands at the base
at least 12 into any footing
Special confining reinforcement Discontinued stiff members (e.g., shear walls, masonry
(i.e., St  bc/4, 4) should be walls, bracings, mezzanine floors) may develop
provided over the entire height significant forces and considerable inelastic response
of columns supporting
discontinued stiff members and
extend Ld into the member
For special confinement, area of To ensure load carrying capacity upto concrete
circular spirals spalling, taking into consideration the greater
 0.11 Std (fc/fy)(Ag/Ac1), effectiveness of circular spirals compared to
of rectangular hoops rectangular hoops.
 0.3 Std (fc/fy)(Ag/Ac1) It also ensures toughness and ductility of columns
17
Table 2.4: Seismic Detailing for Frame Joints (High Risk Zone)

Special confining reinforcement To provide resistance to the shear force transmitted
Reinforcement
(i.e., St  bc/4, 4) should extend by framing members and improve the bond
Transverse
through the joint between steel and concrete within the joint
St  bc/2, 6 through joint with Some confinement is provided by the beams
beams of width b  0.75bc on all framing into the vertical faces of the joint
vertical faces
Table 2.5: Seismic Detailing for Flexural Members (Moderate Risk Zone)

As(bottom)  0.33As(top) at joint and To ensure (a) adequate ductility,
Reinforcement
As(bottom)/(top)  0.2As(top) (max) at any (b) minimum reinforcement for moment reversal
Longitudinal
section
Design shear force is the It is desirable that the beams should yield in flexure
Transverse Reinforcement
maximum of (a) shear force from before failure in shear

analysis, (b) shear force due to
vertical loads plus as required for
flexural yielding of joints
considering nominal moment
instead of “probable moment”.
Spacing of hoops within 2d To (a) provide resistance to shear, (b) confine
(beginning at  2) at either end concrete to improve ductility, (c) prevent buckling
of a beam must be  d/4, 8db, of longitudinal compression bars
24dst, 12”;elsewhere St  d/2
Table 2.6: Seismic Detailing for Axial Members (Moderate Risk Zone)
Mc,ult  1.2 Mb,ult To obtain ‘strong column weak beam condition’ to

Reinforcement
Longitudinal
at joint avoid column failure before beams
Design shear force is the maximum It is desirable that the columns should yield in
of (a) shear force from analysis, flexure before failure in shear
Reinforcement
(b) shear force required for flexural

Transverse
yielding of joints
Spacing (S0) of hoops within L0 ( To (a) provide resistance to shear, (b) confine
dc, hc/6, 18) at each end of column concrete to improve ductility, (c) prevent buckling
must be  8db, 24dst, ½ bc or hc, of longitudinal compression bars
12; else St  2S0
18
CHAPTER 3
THEORETICAL MODELS OF MASONRY INFILLS
3.1 Introduction:
The significance of infilling walls in determining the actual strength and stiffness of framed buildings
subjected to lateral force has long been recognized. Despite rather intensive investigations during the
last four decades, the inclusion of infilling walls as structural elements is not common, because of the
design complexity and lack of suitable theory. Because of the complexity of the problem and absence
of a realistic, yet simple analytical model, the combination of masonry infill panels is often neglected
in the nonlinear analysis of building structures. During the same period the analysis and design of
multistory frames have developed rapidly. According to the latest development, the P-∆ effect in a
fully restrained multistory frame is a major design factor. The more flexible the frames, the greater the
secondary bending moments become. Therefore the influence of infilling walls is much more
significant today than in the past, they provide lateral stiffness and minimize the P-∆ effect.
The stiffness contribution by brickwork or concrete panels in reinforced concrete or steel frames can
prove to be decisive in relation to structural safety. Neglecting the presence of such systems in the
calculation of structures subjected to horizontal loads leads to an evaluation of stresses in the frames
which is often far from the real situation and may compromise safety. In fact, on account of the high
degree of stiffness, panels not placed symmetrically in the plan produce very dangerous unforeseen
torsional effects. This chapter presents several theoretical models developed to incorporate the effects
of masonry infills in the structural analysis of RC frames.
3.2 Analytical Models of Masonry Infills:

3.2.1 Smith & Carter’s Method
Determination of equivalent strut width gives a chance to estimate the behavior of infilled frame.
With known value of equivalent width, the strength and the stiffness of frame with infill wall may be
included in the lateral load resistance of the structure.
More than one parameter affects the equivalent strut width. First one is geometric property of infill.
Panel proportion and panel height are important parameters. The failure mode changes according to
surrounding frame stiffness in addition to separate properties, relative properties of frame and infill
take important role on equivalent strut width. Furthermore, diagonal stiffness and strength of an infill
panel directly depend on its contact length with surrounding frame.
19
The contact length, , can be related with the relative stiffness of the infill to frame. The approximate
equation is given by
 hcol =  /(2hcol) …………………………..(3.1)
where hcol = Height of the column,  = Contact length. In Eq. 3.10, hcol is a non-dimensional
parameter expressing the relative stiffness of the frame to the infill. is an empirical parameter and
given as
 = 4{E inf (tinf /hinf) Sin (2)/(4EcolIcol) …………..………………...(3.2)
where E inf = Young’s modulus of infill, t inf = Thickness of infill panel, h inf = Height of infill panel
E col = Young’s modulus of the column, I col = Moment of inertia of the column
 = Slope of the infill diagonal to the horizontal.
As shown in Eq. 3.1, instead of frame stiffness (beam and column) this empirical parameter is related
with only the column stiffness. Experiments show that variation in beam stiffness has negligible effect
on the behavior of the structure. Whatever the beam stiffness is, beam contact length is always
approximately half of its span.
Modulus of Elasticity of concrete and masonry is not constant but decreases with increasing stress.
Thus, the diagonal stiffness of the infill is reduced significantly. When the infilled frame is pushed in
horizontal direction, a significant variation in the stress takes place along the compression diagonal.
Stresses at corner are extremely higher than those at the center in the compression diagonal strut. To
determine the equivalent strut width, the strains must be computed using the appropriate value of the
tangent modulus of elasticity for a particular stress.
3.2.2 Smith & Coull’s Method

The method presented here was developed by Smith & Coull (1985), which draws from a
combination of test observations and the results of analyses. It may be classified as an elastic
approach except for the criterion used to predict the infill crushing, for which a plastic type of failure
of the masonry infill is assumed.
Infill Stress related to Shear Failure

Shear failure of the infill is related to the combination of shear and normal stresses induced at points
in the infill when the frame bears on it as the structure is subjected to the external lateral shear. An
extensive series of plane-stress membrane finite-element analysis has shown that the critical value of
this combination of stresses occurs at the center of the infill and that they can be expressed
empirically by
20
1.43Q
Shear stress, τ xy  …………………………(3.3)
Lt
Vertical compressive stress,
(0.8h / l  0.2)Q
 xy  ………………………….(3.4)
Lt
where Q is the horizontal shear load applied by the frame to the infill of length L, height h, l = center-
to-center length of column and thickness t.
Infill Stress related to Diagonal Tensile Shear Failure

Similarly, diagonal cracking of the infill is related to the maximum value of diagonal tensile stress in
the infill. This also occurs at the center of the infill and, based on the results of the analyses, may be
expressed empirically as
0.58Q
Diagonal tensile stress,  d  ………………………….(3.5)
Lt
These stresses are governed mainly by the proportions of the infill. They are influenced very little by
the stiffness properties of the frame because they occur at the center of the infill, away from the region
of contact with the frame.
Infill Stress related to Compressive Failure of the Corners

Tests on model infilled frames have shown that the length of bearing of each height-height column
against its adjacent infill is governed by the flexural stiffness of the column relative to the in plane
bearing stiffness of the infill The stiffer the column, the longer the length of hearing and the lower the
compressive stresses at the interface. Tests to failure have borne out the deduction that stiffer the
column, the higher the strength of the infill against compressive failure. They have also shown that
crushing failure of the infill occurs over a length approximately equal to the length of bearing of the
column against the infill.
As a crude approximation, an analogy may be drawn with the theory for a beam on an elastic
foundation, from which it has been proposed that the length of column bearing a may be estimated by

 ………………………….(3.1)
2
Em t
where   4 ………………………….(3.6)
4EIh
in which Em is the elastic modulus of the masonry and EI is the flexural rigidity of the column. The
parameter λ expresses the bearing stiffness of the infill relative to the flexural rigidity of the column;
i.e., the stiffer the column, the smaller the value of λ and the longer the length of bearing.
21
If it is assumed that when the corner of the infill crushes, the masonry bearing against the column
within the length  is at the masonry ultimate compressive stress fm, then the corresponding ultimate
horizontal shear Q'c on the infill is given by
Qc   f m  t ………………………….(3.7)
 4 EIh
Qc   f m t 4 ………………………….(3.8)
2 Em t
Considering now the allowable horizontal shear Qc on the infill, and assuming a value for E/Em of 30
in the case of a steel frame and 3 in the case of a reinforced concrete frame, the allowable horizontal
shear on a steel framed infill corresponding to a compressive failure is given by
Qc  5.2 f m 4 Iht 3 ………………………….(3.9)
and for a reinforced concrete framed infill
Qc  2.9 f m 4 Iht 3 ………………………...(3.10)
in which fm is the allowable compressive stress of the masonry.
These semi-empirical formulae indicate the significant parameters that influence the horizontal shear
strength of an infill when it is governed by a compressive failure of one of its corners. The masonry
compressive strength and the wall thickness have the most direct influence on the infill strength, while
the column inertia and infill height exert control in proportion to their fourth roots. The infill strengths
indicated by Eqs. (3.9) and (3.10) are very approximate. Experimental evidence has shown them to
overestimate the real values; therefore, they should be modified before being used in the design
procedure.
3.2.2 Plasticity Model

The theory of plasticity, which is adopted by Lourenco et al. (1997) to describe the inelastic behavior,
utilizes modern algorithmic concepts, including an implicit Euler backward return mapping scheme, a
local Newton-Raphson and a consistent tangential stiffness matrix. The model is capable of predicting
independent responses along the material axes. It features a tensile fracture energy and a compressive
fracture energy, which are different for each material axis.
A large number of anisotropic materials exist in engineering such, as masonry, plastics, wood and
most composites. The framework of plasticity theory is general enough to apply to both isotropic and
anisotropic behavior. Indeed, the past decade has witnessed numerous publications on sound
numerical implementations of isotropic plasticity models. Nevertheless, it appears that, while some
22
anisotropic plasticity models have been proposed from purely theoretical and experimental
standpoints, only a few numerical implementations and calculations have actually been carried out.
examples include the work of Borst and Feenstra and Schellekens and de Borst who fully treated the
implementation of elastic-perfectly-plastic Hill and Hoffman criteria, respectively. More recently,
linear tensorial hardening has been incorporated in the Hill criterion. It is not surprising that only a
few anisotropic models have been implemented and tested successfully. An accurate analysis of
anisotropic materials requires a description for all stress states. The yield criterion combines the
advantages of modem plasticity concepts with a powerful representation of anisotropic material
behavior, which includes different hardening or softening behavior along each material axis.
Fig. 3.1: Proposed composite yield criterion with iso-shear stress lines.
In order to model orthotropic material behavior, a hill-type criterion for compression and Rankine-
type criterion for tension is proposed in this model, the internal damage due to these failure
mechanisms is represented with two internal parameters, one for damage in tension and one for
damage in compression. The Fig. 3.1 shows the proposed composite yield criterion with iso-shear
lines.
3.2.3 Coupled Boundary Element Method

The behavior of infilled frames subjected to horizontal loads was analyzed by an iterative numerical
procedure by Papia (1998). The analysis is carried out utilizing the boundary element method (BEM)
for the infill and opportunely dividing the frame into finite elements, so as to transform the mutual
interactions of the two subsystems into stresses distributed along the boundary for the infill and into
nodal actions for the frame. This makes it possible to take into account the separation arising between
the two substructures when mutual tensile stresses are involved.
At first, infill without openings is considered, using BEM with constant elements for two-dimensional
problems in elasticity. Then the results are compared with those obtained using the simplified
equivalent pin-jointed strut model, which is very common in the literature. Subsequently, using an
analogous procedure panels with openings or doors and windows are considered, which cause a loss
23
of stiffness. The behavior of brickwork or concrete panels in infilled frames subjected to horizontal
actions has been analyzed by several researchers, mostly experimentally working on the evaluation of
stiffness and analysis of modes of failure and the dissipation capacity of the structural system under
monotonic and cyclic loads.
3.2.5 FEMA 273 Method

The procedure given in this section is applicable to any type of masonry infill; i.e., existing masonry
infill, enhanced panel for seismic rehabilitation and new panel added to an existing frame. All types of
masonry infill panels shall be considered as primary elements of lateral force resisting system.
Stiffness contribution of unreinforced masonry infill shall be represented as an equivalent
compression strut. The strut has the same thickness and modulus of elasticity as the infill panel it
represents. And the equivalent width, a, can be determined by
a = 0.175 (hcol)0.4 rinf ………………………….(3.11)
 = 4{E inf (tinf /hinf) Sin (2)/(4 EfrIcol) ………………………….(3.12)
where hcol = Column height between centerlines of beam, h inf = Height of infill panel
E fr = Expected modulus of elasticity of frame material
E inf = Expected modulus of elasticity of infill materials
Icol = Moment of inertia of column, r inf = Diagonal length of infill panel
t inf = Thickness of infill panel and equivalent strut
= Angle whose tangent is the infill height-to-length aspect ratio, in radians.
3.2.6 Equivalent Strut Method

Saneinejad & Hobbs (1995) developed a method based on the equivalent diagonal strut approach for
the analysis and design of steel and concrete frames with concrete or masonry infill walls subjected to
in-plane forces. The proposed analytical development assumes that the contribution of the masonry
infill panel shown in Fig. 3.2 to the response of the infilled frame can be modeled by “replacing the
panel” by a system of two diagonal masonry compression struts shown in Fig. 3.3.
The stress-strain relationship for masonry in compression shown in Fig. 3.4 is used to determine the
strength envelope of the equivalent strut, can be idealized by a polynomial function. Since the tensile
strength of masonry is negligible, the individual masonry struts are considered to be ineffective in
tension. However, the combination of both diagonal struts provides a lateral load resisting mechanism
for the opposite lateral directions of loading.
The lateral force-deformation relationship for the structural masonry infill panel is assumed to be a
24
smooth curve bounded by a bilinear strength envelope with an initial elastic stiffness until the yield
force Vy there on a post yield degraded stillness until the maximum force Vm is reached shown in Fig.
3.5. The corresponding lateral displacement values are as uy and um respectively. The analytical
formulations for the strength envelope parameters were developed on the basis of the available
‘Equivalent Strut Model’ for infilled frames.
Fig. 3.2: Masonry infill frame sub assemblage Fig. 3.3: Masonry infill panel in frame
in masonry infill panel frame structures structures
Fig. 3.4: Constitutive model for infill panel Fig. 3.5: Strength envelope for masonry infill panel
3.3 Modeling of Masonry Infill:

3.3.1 Choice of Model
In the previous articles several computational models are described which can be used to model and
analyze infills. Of the models first one is described in sections 3.2.1 and 3.2.2 are approximate
methods primarily intended for preliminary design purpose through manual calculation. The next two
models are based on continuum plasticity approach in which infill is modeled as an assemblage of
several plane stress elements interacting with frame elements via special interface element. The
material properties for the plane stress elements are plasticity or damage model approach. Such
25
modeling is suitable for a detailed and micro level study of the infill panels where stress, strain,
damage, cracks and failure etc at various locations of the infill are of primary importance. Such model
requires a considerable amount of computational effort due to their highly nonlinear iterative solution
procedure. Such modeling is not suitable for investigating overall structural behavior of building
where infill is only a structural component.
In such a situation the equivalent strut model proposed by Saneinejad and Hobbs (1995) is a relatively
recent model capable of representing the behavior of infill satisfactorily. The model is based on an
equivalent diagonal strut and uses a time-rate dependent constitutive model which can be used for a
static nonlinear analysis as well as time-history analysis. The same model with hysteretic formulation
has been successfully used by Manders et al.(1997) for static monotonic analysis, quasi-static cyclic
analysis. They have successfully verified the model by simulating experimental behavior of tested
masonry infill frame sub assemblage. The equivalent diagonal strut model considers entire infill
panel as a single unit and takes in to account only the equivalent global behavior. As a result the
approach does not permit study of local effects such as frame-in fill interaction within the individual
infilled frame subassemblage. More detailed micro modeling approaches such as the plasticity
approach and the boundary element approach need to be used to capture the spatial and temporal
variations of local conditions within the infill. However the equivalent strut model allows for adequate
evaluation of the nonlinear force deformation response of the structure and individual components
under lateral load. The computed force-deformation response may be used to asses the overall
structure damage and its distribution to a sufficient degree of accuracy. Thus, the proposed macro
model is better suited for representing the behavior of infills in non-linear time-history analysis of
large or complex structures with multiple components particularly in cases where the focus is on
evaluating the inelastic structural response. In this thesis, the equivalent strut modeling, therefore, is
chosen for modeling and studying the behavior of plane frames.
3.3.2 Equivalent Stiffness of Infill

The calculation of infill stiffness by the equivalent strut model proposed by Saneinejad (1995) and
later modified by Madan et al. (1997) is demonstrated here .The mathematical derivation of the
equivalent strut model begins with an idealized free body diagram of an infill panel and the
surrounding frame as shown in Fig. 3.6.
r = h/l< 1 ……………………...(3.13)
where, r = aspect ratio of the frame, h = center-to-center height of beam, l = center-to-center length of
column.
r' =h'/l' ………………………(3.14)
26
where, h'= height of infill, 1'= length of infill.
h
  tan 1   ……………………...(3.15)
l
 h 
   tan 1   ……………………...(3.16)
 l 
where,
θ = inclination of diagonal strut.
The effective compressive strength of infill, fc can be calculated by,

fc =.6φfm'
where, φ is a constant and its value is 0.65.
fm' = compressive strength of masonry.
Fig. 3.6: Frame forces equilibrium
The nominal values of the contact normal stresses in the rectangular stress blocks shown in Fig. 3.6
can be written in terms of σbo and σco .
The contact normal stresses in column can be determined by the following formula.
fc
σco = 1 3  2 r 4 ………………...(3.17)
27
where,
fc = effective compressive strength of infill.
μ = coefficient of friction of the frame or infill interface.
r = aspect ratio of the frame.
The contact normal stresses in beam σbo can be determined by,
σbo
 fc
……………………...(3.18)
13  2
The length of proposed rectangular stress block Fig. 3.6 may not exceed 0.4 times the corresponding
infill dimensions; i.e.,
αch  0.4h' and αbl  0 .4l' ……………………...(3.19)
where, α = normalized length of contact and subscripts c and h designate column and beam
respectively.
The normalized length of contract for column αc can be determined by the following formula:
αch  2M pj  2 M pc ……………………...(3.20)
 co t
The normalized length of contract for beam αb can be determined by the following formula:
2M pj  2 M pb
αbl  ……………………...(3.21)
 bot
where, Mpj = the beam, the column, and their connection plastic resisting moment or joint plastic
resisting moment.
Mpc = plastic resisting moment for column.
Mpb = plastic resisting moment for beam.
β0 = nominal or rather upper-bound value of the reduction factor, β = 0.2.
t = thickness of the masonry infill.
σco= the contact normal stress in column
σbo = the contact normal stress in beam.
The failure of infill in the loaded corners does not necessarily occur at the beam and column interfaces
simultaneously. It depends upon the contact normal stress area in beam and column. The contact
normal stress area in beam and column can be determined by the following formula .
Ac  r 2 co c 1   c  r  ……………………...(3.22)
Ab   bo b 1   b  r  ……………………...(3.23)
28
where, Ac = The contact normal stress area in column, Ab = The contact normal stress area in beam
r = aspect ratio of the frame.
The real normal contact stress generated from the nominal contact stresses following the condition
given below :
If Ac > Ab
Ac
σc = σc0 and σb = σb0 ……….……………...(3.24)
Ab
If Ac<Ab ,
Ac
σb = σb0  and σc = σc0 ……………………...(3.25)
Ab
where,
σc= the real normal contact stress in column
σb= the real normal contact stress in beam.
The nominal contact shear stresses in beam and column can be calculated as follows :
τc  r  c and τb   b
2
………………....……..(3.26)
where, τc = nominal contact shear stresses in column

τb= nominal contact shear stresses in beam
The effective length of equivalent diagonal strut, Ld can be determined as follows,
Ld  1   c  h'2 l '2
2
…….…………....……..(3.27)
The actual compressive strength of masonry depends on the direction of stresses and it can be
calculated as follows:
  Ld  2 
f a  f c 1     ……………....……..(3.28)
  40t  
where, Ld not greater than 40t and fc is the effective compressive strength of infill.
The cross-section area of the diagonal strut for the effective compressive strength of infill fc is as
follows,
1   c  c th  c   btl  b th '
fa
fc fc fc
Ad   .5 ………….....……..(3.29)
cos cos
The maximum lateral force Vm and corresponding maximum lateral force um in the infill masonry
29
panel are as follows,
  vtl' .83tl '
Vm (Vm )  Ad f m ' cos   …….…….....……..(3.30)
(1  .45 tan ) cos cos
and
   m ' Ld
u m (u m )  ……...…….....……..(3.31)
cos 
Finally the initial stiffness Ko of the infill masonry panel can be estimated using the following
proposed formula:
2Vm
Ko  ……...…….....……..(3.32)
um
30
CHAPTER 4
NUMERICAL RESULTS
4.1 Introduction:
This chapter contains the implementation of the theoretical background described in Chapter 2 and
seismic behavior of infill structural frame in Chapter 3. It describes the four structural models
analyzed here for vertical load as well as the material properties of concrete and steel, results from
vertical load analysis structural design by Ultimate Strength Design (USD). Moreover it shows the
implementation of seismic detailing provision outlined in BNBC’93, moment-curvature relationship
of beam and column sections obtained using USD in without seismic detailing, moderate seismic
detailing and major seismic detailing, stiffness of infill for four different type of structure, column
curvature-time, beam curvature-time, deflection-time and relative deflection-time relationship for full
infill, partial infill and without infill.
Numerical results are the most important part of this chapter and are obtained from the computer
implementation of numerical schemes. The software ETABS is used for the vertical load analysis.
The beam and column sections are then designed by USD. The seismic detailing is done using
provisions outlined in BNBC’93. Stiffness of infill is calculated by Hobbs and Saneinejad (1995)
method. After fulfilling the seismic detaining and infill stiffness requirement the beam, column and
infill are used to get the moment-curvature relationship, column curvature-time, beam curvature-time,
deflection-time and relative deflection-time relationship for beam, column and infill using a computer
program written in FORTRAN.
4.2 Structural Models:

Four structural models, which have been used, are shown here with their structural layout as well as
side elevation of two-dimensional models in the short direction. The structural models are buildings of
3-, 6-, 12- and 24-stories. All are of the same structural layout plan. Each structure is analyzed using
the same load and material properties.
The vertical load analysis is performed by the software ETABS. All the properties were stated in the
software including the beam sections, column sections supports, load etc. the program was run and
analysis report was obtained.
Fig. 4.1 shows the layout plan and Fig. 4.2(a)~4.2(d) shows the side elevations of the four buildings.
Only two frames of the building (comprising of beams B5, B8, B9, B10 B12 and columns C1, C2,
C3) are chosen for the seismic detailing.
31
B15 C2 B16 C2 B17
C1 C1
B11 B12 B13 B14
B8 B9 B10 2@15
C2 C3 C3 C2
B4 B5 B6 B7
C1 B1 C2 B2 C2 B3 C1
3@15
Fig. 4.1: Building Lay-out Plan
24@10
12@10
6@10
3@10
(a) (b) (c) (d)
Fig. 4.2: Short Direction of (a) 3-Storied (b) 6-Storied (c) 12-Storied (d) 24-Storied Building
32
4.3 Material Properties:
The properties of concrete and steel are presented here as the material properties play a vital role in
the structural behavior. In fact the ductility of concrete is increased by implementing the seismic
detailing provisions is the principle cause of the improved structural behavior during earthquake.
The material properties of the structure are shown in Table 4.1 below, including the strength, stiffness
and ductility characteristic of concrete and steel; i.e., their modulus of elasticity, ultimate strength and
strain. The ultimate strain is obtained for unconfined and confined concrete without and with
moderate and major seismic detailing.
Table 4.1: Material Properties

Material Parameters Values
Modulus of Elasticity 3000 ksi
Ultimate strength & strain 3.0 ksi, 0.002
Unconfined strain 0.0045
Concrete
Confined strain (Not detailed) 0.00653~0.009
Confined strain (Moderate detailed) 0.0093~0.017
Confined strain (Major detailed) 0.0133~0.0538
Modulus of elasticity 29000 ksi
Steel Ultimate strength 60 ksi
Ultimate strain 0.20
Modulus of Elasticity 2000 ksi

Brick
Compressive strain 0.00225
4.4 Cross-section of Structural Elements:

As mentioned, the frames are analyzed and designed (by the Ultimate Strength Design method) for
the vertical loads only by the structural analysis software ETABS. The columns and beam sections
obtained with steel reinforcements are shown in Fig. 4.3 and 4.4 respectively.
33
4.4.1 Cross-section of Columns
3-Storied Building
C1 C2 C3
1010 (4-#5) 1212 (4-#6) 1515 (4-#7)
6-Storied Building
C1 C2
1010 (4-#6) 1212 (4-#8, 4-#6) C3
16″× 16″ (4-#9, 8-#7)
12-Storied Building
C1
1212 (4-#8, 4-#6) C2 C3
16″× 16″ (12-#8) 22″× 22″ (12-#9, 8-#8)
24-Storied Building
C1 C3
18″× 18″ 30″× 30″
(8-#9, 4-#7) C2 (32-#9, 8-#8)
23″× 23″
(8-#9, 16-#7)
Fig. 4.3: Column Sections (C1, C2, C3) for different buildings
34
4.4.2 Cross-section of Beams
3 and 6-Storied Building
5 5
10 10
12 12
At the face of joint

At mid-span
12- and 24-Storied Building
5 5
10 10
12 12
At the face of joint At mid-span

All bars are #5
Fig. 4.4: Beams (B8, B9, B10) in long direction and (B5 and B12) in short direction
4.4.3 Moment-Curvature Relationships

The moment-curvature (M-) relationships of beam and column sections are derived numerically and
plotted in Figs. 4.5~4.6, with Fig. 4.5(a), (b), (c) showing results for the column sections and Fig. 4.6
for the beam sections. The plots include results for sections without seismic detailing and with seismic
detailing (for moderate and major earthquake risk zones).
The beneficial effect of seismic detailing for the column sections is observed from the Figs.
4.5(a)~4.5(c). While the sections without seismic detailing fail quite rapidly after spalling of the
concrete cover, confinement ensures that the columns do not fail right away due to improved ductility.
It is also noticed that the ultimate curvatures depend on the amount of seismic detailing, but the
ductility of larger column sections (taller buildings) is much less than the smaller column sections
(i.e., shorter buildings), even after seismic detailing. The improvement of ultimate moment capacity is
not much significant after seismic detailing, as were observed by Awal (2010). However, Fig. 4.6
shows that the ductility of beam sections does not improve after seismic detailing.
35
Moment-Curvature Relationship of Columns
No Mod Maj. No Mod Maj.
45 60
30 40
Moment (k-ft)
Moment (k-ft)
15 20
0 0
-0.4 -0.2 0 0.2 0.4 -0.2 -0.1 0 0.1 0.2
-15 -20
-30 -40
-45 -60
Curvature (rad/ft) Curvature (rad/ft)
3-Storey 6-Storey
120 450
80 300
Moment (k-ft)
Moment (k-ft)
40 150
0 0
-0.16 -0.08 0 0.08 0.16 -0.04 -0.02 0 0.02 0.04
-40 -150
-80 -300
-120 -450
12-Storey 24-Storey
Fig. 4.5(a): Moment-Curvature Relationship of Column (C1)
36
90 120
60 80
Moment (k-ft)
Moment (k-ft)
30 40
0 0
-0.2 -0.1 0 0.1 0.2 -0.12 -0.06 0 0.06 0.12
-30 -40
-60 -80
-90 -120
3-Storey 6-Storey
300 1050
200 700
Moment (k-ft)
Moment (k-ft)
100 350
0 0
-0.06 -0.03 0 0.03 0.06 -0.03 -0.015 0 0.015 0.03
-100 -350
-200 -700
-300 -1050
12-Storey 24-Storey
Fig. 4.5(b): Moment-Curvature Relationship of Column (C2)
37
240 300
160 200
Moment (k-ft)
80
Moment (k-ft)
100
0 0
-0.1 -0.05 0 0.05 0.1 -0.06 -0.03 0 0.03 0.06
-80 -100
-160 -200
-240 -300
3-Storey 6-Storey
900 2400
600 1600
Moment (k-ft)
300
Moment (k-ft)
800
0 0
-0.04 -0.02 0 0.02 0.04 -0.02 -0.01 0 0.01 0.02
-300 -800
-600 -1600
-900 -2400
12-Storey 24-Storey
Fig. 4.5(c): Moment-Curvature Relationship of Column (C3)
38
Moment-Curvature Relationship of Beams
At Support Face At mid-span
No Mod. & Maj. No Mod. & Maj.
60 75
40
50
20
Moment (k-ft)
Moment (k-ft)
0 25
-0.06 -0.04 -0.02 0 0.02 0.04 0.06
-20
0
-40 -0.06 -0.04 -0.02 0 0.02 0.04 0.06
-25
-60
-80 -50
No Mod. & Maj. No Mod. & Maj.
60 75
40
50
Moment (k-ft)
20
Moment (k-ft)
25
0
-0.06 -0.04 -0.02 0 0.02 0.04 0.06
-20 0
-40 -0.06 -0.04 -0.02 0 0.02 0.04 0.06
-25
-60
-80 -50
Fig. 4.6: Moment-Curvature Relationship of Beams in both long direction (B8, B9, B10) and short
direction (B5, B12)
39
Stiffness Calculation of Infill Walls
W1 W2 W1
C1 C2 C2 C1
W1 W3 W3 W1
C3 C3
C2 C2
W3 W4 W3 2@15´
W1 W3 W3 W1
C2 C2 C1
C1
W1 W2 W1
3@15´
Fig. 4.7: Layout showing Infill Walls
Table 4.1: Stiffness of Infill Walls

Stiffness (103 Kip/ft)
Stories Wall ID
Thickness = 10 Thickness = 5
W1 11.50
3 W2 11.53
W3 11.51 4.55
W4 11.49 5.00
W1 11.54
6 W2 11.53
W3 11.50 4.70
W4 11.49 5.29
W1 11.50
12 W2 11.47
W3 11.43 5.72
W4 11.39 5.69
W1 11.41
24 W2 11.37
W3 11.32 5.66
W4 11.26 5.63
40
4.5 Results from Nonlinear Dynamic Analysis:
4.5.1 Earthquake Ground Motion
Fig. 4.8(a) shows the temporal variation of ground accelerations recorded during the El Centro
earthquake (1940) at a particular station, while Fig. 4.8(b) shows the amplitude spectrum of the
recorded data. This data, the most widely used earthquake record used worldwide, is used for the
dynamic analysis of flat slab structures in this work also.
10 1
1.0
Ground Acceleration (ft/sec^2)
7.5
Ground Acceleration
Amplitude (ft/sec^2)
0.8
0.8
5
2.5 0.6
0.6
0 0.4
0.4
-2.5 0 10 20 30 40
0.2
-5 0.2
-7.5 0.0
0
-10
00 11 22 33 44 55
Time (sec)
Freq(cycle/sec)
Freq (cycle/sec)
Fig.Fig. 22.2: El Centro2 Ground Acceleration
3.3(a) Fig. 3.3(b): El Centro2 Ground
Fig. 22.7: El Centro Ground Acceleration
Fig. 4.8: El Centro Ground Acceleration (a) Time series, Acceleration
(b) Amplitude Spectrum
Spectrum
Spectrum
The structures are analyzed numerically for the El Centro ground motion (mentioned above) using
nonlinear dynamic analysis without masonry infill (i.e., bare frames) and with partial infill (i.e., no
infill at 1st floor or below grade beams) as well as full infills (i.e., infills at each floor). Two aspects of
the numerical results are considered significant; i.e., the floor defelctions as well as the members
curvatures.
4.5.2 Relative Floor Deflections

The relative floor deflections are considered more important here because of the direct relation with
the member curvatures are internal forces. The results, presented in Figs. 4.9~11, demonstrate the
significance of masonry infills by concentrating the structural stiffness and thereby inducing
significant deflections in the softer adjacent stories. This is demonstrated more profoundly in Fig.
4.10, which shows results with partial infills. Whereas the ‘No infill’ option (Fig. 4.9) may also result
in large relative deflections (as found in conventional structural analyses), the ‘Full infill’ option (Fig.
4.11) may reduce the relative deflections significantly, but the ‘Partial Infill’ option increases the
relative deflections drastically.
41
F0 F1 FTop F0 F1 FTop
4 5
Relative Floor Deflection (in)

4
2 3
1 2
0 1
-1 0 10 20 30 40
0
-2 -1 0 10 20 30 40
-3
-2
Time (sec) Time (sec)
3-Storied 6-Storied
1.2 0.8
0.9
0.6
0.6 0.4
0.3 0.2
0.0 0.0
0 10 20 30 40 0 10 20 30 40
-0.3 -0.2
-0.6 -0.4
-0.9 -0.6
12-Storied 24-Storied
Fig. 4.9: Relative Floor Deflections of Buildings without Infill
42
20 24

15 18
10 12
5 6
0 0
-5 0 10 20 30 40
-6
0 10 20 30 40
-10 -12
-15 -18
3-Storied 6-Storied
30 24
20 18
10 12
0 6
0 10 20 30 40
-10 0
0 10 20 30 40
-20 -6
Fig. 4.10: Relative Floor Deflections of Buildings with Partial Infill
43
0.6 0.6

0.4
0.3
0.2
0.0
0 10 20 30 40 0.0
-0.3 0 10 20 30 40
-0.2
-0.6 -0.4
3-Storied 6-Storied
0.6 0.4
0.2
0.3
0.0
0.0 0 10 20 30 40
0 10 20 30 40 -0.2
-0.3
-0.4
-0.6 -0.6
Fig. 4.11: Relative Floor Deflections of Buildings with Full Infill
44
4.5.3 Member Curvatures
The curvatures induced in the central columns (C3) and first floor central beams (B5) are shown in
Figs. 4.12~4.14 for frames without infill, with partial infill and full infill. As in the case with relative
floor deflections, the curvatures also increase drastically for frames with partial infills (i.e., without
the bottom floors and below grade beams) as shown in Fig. 4.13 (compared to Figs. 4.12 and 4.14).
No Infill
Colm Beam Colm Beam
0.015 0.020
0.010 0.015
Curvature (rad/ft)
Curvature (rad/ft)
0.005 0.010
0.000 0.005
0 10 20 30 40
-0.005 0.000
0 10 20 30 40
-0.010 -0.005
3-Storied 6-Storied
Colm Beam Colm Beam
0.003 0.002
0.002
0.001
Curvature (rad/ft)
Curvature (rad/ft)
0.001
0.000
0.000 0 10 20 30 40
0 10 20 30 40
-0.001
-0.001
-0.002 -0.002
Fig. 4.12: Curvature-Time relationship of 1st Floor Column C3 and Beam B5 (No Infill)
45
Although the beams are able to withstand these large curvatures comfortably (as shown by the beam
Moment-curvature graphs of Fig. 4.6) and the relatively lightly loaded columns (of 3- and 6-storied
buildings) may barely survive with major seismic detiling, the more heavily loaded columns of the
taller (12- and 24-storied) buildings will definitely not survive such curvatures demands even with
major seismic detailing, as shown in comparison of Fig. 4.13 with Fig. 4.5(c).
Partial Infill
Colm Beam Colm Beam
0.06 0.09
0.03 0.06
Curvature (rad/ft)
Curvature (rad/ft)
0.03
0.00
0 10 20 30 40 0.00
-0.03 0 10 20 30 40
-0.03
-0.06 -0.06
3-Storied 6-Storied
Colm Beam Colm Beam
0.09 0.08
0.06 0.06
Curvature (rad/ft)
Curvature (rad/ft)
0.03 0.04
0.00 0.02
0 10 20 30 40
-0.03 0.00
0 10 20 30 40
-0.06 -0.02
Fig. 4.13: Curvature-Time relationship of 1st Floor Column C3 and Beam B5 (Partial Infill)
46
Full Infill
Colm Beam Colm Beam
0.04 0.008
Curvature (rad/ft)
Curvature (rad/ft)
0.02 0.000
0 10 20 30 40
0.00 -0.008
0 10 20 30 40
-0.02 -0.016
3-Storied 6-Storied
Colm Beam Colm Beam
0.0006 0.0004
0.0003 0.0002
Curvature (rad/ft)
Curvature (rad/ft)
0.0000 0.0000
0 10 20 30 40 0 10 20 30 40
-0.0003 -0.0002
-0.0006 -0.0004
Fig. 4.14: Curvature-Time relationship of 1st Floor Column C3 and Beam B5 (Full Infill)
47
CHAPTER 5
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
5.1 Introduction:
This thesis work aimed to study the effect of Soft Stories created by the presence or absence of
masonry infills in Reinforced Concrete (RC) buildings. Buildings of four different heights (3-, 6-, 12-
and 24-storied) were analyzed and designed (by the USD method) using the software ETABS for
vertical loads only and by nonlinear structural dynamics for El Centro earthquake ground motions.
This chapter discusses the significant conclusions from this thesis, and also recommends possible
future research works in this area.
5.2 Conclusions:
The main conclusions of this topic can be summarized as
* The stiffness of Brick infill calculated for 10 and 5 thick walls shows that all walls have almost
same stiffness for 10 and 5 respectively. But stiffness of 5 walls, which is almost half the
stiffness of 10 walls, is neglected in the analysis of RC frame structures.
* The relative floor deflections demonstrate the significance of masonry infills. Whereas the ‘No
infill’ option may also result in large relative deflections (as found in conventional structural
analyses), the ‘Full infill’ option may reduce the relative deflections significantly, but the ‘Partial
Infill’ option increases the relative deflections drastically.
* As in the case with relative floor deflections, the curvatures also increase drastically for frames
with ‘Partial infills’. Although the beams are still able to withstand these large curvatures
comfortably, the relatively lightly loaded columns may barely survive with major seismic detiling,
while the more heavily loaded columns of the taller (12- and 24-storied) buildings will definitely
not survive such curvature demands even with major seismic detailing.
5.3 Recommendation for Further Works:

This work may be extended in future to include
* Nonlinear dynamic analysis of buildings subjected to more earthquake vibrations, preferably ones
within Bangladesh.
* Study the Short-Column Effect, another significant effect of infills on the seismic behavior of
beam-column frames
* Physical model to be built to develop this study from theoretical to practical stage.
48
* Investigate the prospect of the Working Stress Design (WSD) method and possible retrofit options
for soft-storied buildings.
49
REFERENCES:
Anam, I. and Azam, H.M.U. (2006). “Seismic behavior of nonlinear RC frames with masonry infills.”
10th East Asia Pacific Conf. on Str. Engg. and Const., Bangkok, Thailand, Vol. 3, pp. 393-398.
Anam, I. and Shoma, Z. N. (2002). “Nonlinear properties of Reinforced Concrete structures.” Proc.
2nd Canadian Conf. on Nonlinear Solid Mech., Vancouver, Canada, Vol. 2, pp. 657-666.
Applied Technology Council (1997). “NEHRP Guidelines for the Seismic Rehabilitation of
Buildings” (ATC 33), Federal Emergency Management Agency Report FEMA 273, Washington
USA.
Asteris, P.G. (2003). “Lateral stiffness of brick masonry infilled plane frames”. ASCE J. Str. Engg.;
Vol. 129, pp. 1313-1323.
Awal, A. (2010). “Seismic resistance of RC frames designed for vertical loads”. B. Sc. Engg. Thesis,
Dept. of Civil Engg., UAP.
Azam, H.M.U. (2003). “Effect of infill as a structural component on the column design of multi-
storied building and comparison with present practice of design”. B. Sc. Engg. Thesis, Dept. of
Civil Engg., BUET.
Azam, H.M.U. and Amanat, K.M. (2005). “Effect of infill as a structural component on the column
design of multi-storied building”. UAP J. of CEE.; Vol. 1, pp. 12-17.
Bangladesh National Building Code (1993), BNBC-93, Dhaka, Bangladesh.
Decanini, L. (2004). “Seismic performance on masonry infilled RC frames”. 13th World Conf. on
Earthq. Engg., Vancouver, Canada.
Engelkirk, R.E. and Hart, G.C. (1984). “Earthquake design of concrete masonry buildings”. Vol. 2,
Prentice-Hall Inc., USA.
Fiorato, A.E., Sozen, M.A. and Gamble, W.L. (1970). “An investigation of the investigation of
reinforced concrete frames with masonry walls”. Civil Engg. Studies, Str. Res. Series No. 370,
Univ. of Illinois, Urbana, Illinois, USA.
Haque, S., and Amanat, K.M. (2010). “Seismic performance of columns of reinforced concrete soft-
storey buildings”. Proc. 3rd Bangladesh Earthq. Symp., Dhaka, Bangladesh.
Hossain, M. (1997). “Non-linear Finite Element analysis of wall-beam structures”. Ph.D. Thesis,
Dept. of Civil Engg., BUET.
Islam, S. (1994). “Seismic retrofit of two historic steel buildings with URM infill walls”. Proc. 5th US
Natl. Conf. on Earthq. Engg., Chicago, Illinois.
Islam, S. (2006). “Earthquake resistant design and retrofit of buildings: Lessons from the front lines”.
Proc. 1st Bangladesh Earthq. Symp., Dhaka, Bangladesh.
Lourenco, P. B., Brost, R. D. and Rots, J. G. “A Plane Stress Softening Plasticity Model For
Orthotropic Materials”, International Journal For Numerical Methods In Engineering, Vol. 40,
4033-4057 (1997).
50
Madan, A., Reinhorn, A.M., Mander, J.B. and Valles, R.E (1997). “Modeling of masonry infill panels
for structural analysis”. ASCE J. Str. Engg.; Vol. 123, pp. 1295-1302.
Mondal, S.S. (2008). “Improved Systems for Seismic Design of Buildings with Soft Ground Storey”.
M. Sc. Engg. Thesis, Dept. of Civil Engg., BUET.
Mosalam, K.M., White, R.N. and Gergely, P. (1997). “Static response of infilled frames using quasi-
static experimentation”. ASCE J. Str. Engg.; Vol. 123, pp. 1462-1469.
Omote, Y., Mayes, R., Chen, S.J. and Clough, R.W. (1977). “A literature survey of transverse
strength of masonry walls.” Vol. 2, UCB/EERC-77/07, The Univ. of Cal. at Berkeley.
Papia, M. (1998). “Analysis of infilled frames using a coupled Finite Element and Boundary Element
solution scheme”. Intl. J. Num. Meth. Engg.; Vol. 26, pp. 731-742.
Paulay, T. and Priestley, M.J.N. (1992). Seismic Design of Reinforced Concrete and Masonry
Buildings, John Wiley & Sons, Inc., USA.
Roy, H. (2007). “Numerical and experimental study of structures with soft stories”. B. Sc. Engg.
Thesis, Dept. of Civil Engg., UAP.
Saneinejad, A. and Hobbs, B (1995). “Inelastic design of infilled frames”. ASCE J. Str. Engg.; Vol.
121, pp. 634-643.
Scarlat, A.S. (1997). “Design of soft stories-A simplified approach”. Earthquake Spectra; Vol. 13, pp.
305-315.
Smith, B.S. and Coull, A. (1991). “Infilled-frame structures”. Tall Building Structures Analysis and
Design, John Wiley & Sons Inc., 1991, pp. 168-174.
Smith, B.S. and Carter, C. (1969). “A Method of Analysis for Infilled Frames”, Proc. ICE, Vol. 44,
pp.31-48.
51

Nonlinear Seismic Response of RC Structures With Soft Stories

Caricato da

Informazioni sul documento

Titolo originale

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

Nonlinear Seismic Response of RC Structures With Soft Stories

Caricato da

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

NONLINEAR SEISMIC RESPONSE OF

RC STRUCTURES WITH SOFT STORIES

Department of Civil Engineering

DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL ENGINEERING

In partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of

Department of Civil Engineering

Member Emtazul Haque

CHAPTER 2: SEISMIC BEHAVIOR OF INFILLED FRAME 8

CHAPTER 3: THEORETICAL MODELS OF MASONERY INFILLS 19

CHAPTER 5: CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 48

Table 2.1: Seismic Detailing for Materials 15

Table 4.1: Material Properties 33

Table 4.2: Stiffness of Infill Walls 40

Fig. 2.5: Illustration of Short Column Effects in various earthquakes 13

Fig. 3.3: Masonry infill panel in frame structures 25

Fig. 3.4: Constitutive model for infill panel 25

Fig. 3.5: Strength envelope for masonry infill panel 25

Fig. 3.6: Frame forces equilibrium 27

Fig. 4.1: Building Lay-out Plan 32

Fig. 4.5: (a): Moment-Curvature Relationship of Column (C1) 36

(b): Moment-Curvature Relationship of Column (C2) 37

(c): Moment-Curvature Relationship of Column (C3) 38

Fig. 4.9: Relative Floor Deflections of Buildings without Infill 42

Fig. 4.10: Relative Floor Deflections of Buildings with Partial Infill 43

Fig. 4.11: Relative Floor Deflections of Buildings with Full Infill 44

1.1 Basic Concepts:

1.2 Masonry Infills in Earthquake:

The seismic performance of infilled frames is summarized as follows

1.3 Context of Present Study:

1.4 Literature Review:

1.5 Objectives of the Study:

1.6 Organization of the Text:

2.2 Soft Story:

Fig. 2.5: Illustration of Short Column Effects in various earthquakes

2.4 Seismic Design and Detailing:

Table 2.1: Seismic Detailing for Materials

Specification Possible Explanation

preferably  250 MPa ( ductility, (c) greater fult/fy ratio

Specification Possible Explanation

d  Lc/4 Behavior and design of deeper members are significantly

and As(bottom)/(top)  0.25As(top) moment reversal

Specification Possible Explanation

bc  12 To avoid (a) slender columns,

Specification Possible Explanation

Specification Possible Explanation

maximum of (a) shear force from before failure in shear

Specification Possible Explanation

Mc,ult  1.2 Mb,ult To obtain ‘strong column weak beam condition’ to

at joint avoid column failure before beams

(b) shear force required for flexural

3.2 Analytical Models of Masonry Infills:

 hcol =  /(2hcol) …………………………..(3.1)

 = 4{E inf (tinf /hinf) Sin (2)/(4EcolIcol) …………..………………...(3.2)

3.2.2 Smith & Coull’s Method

Infill Stress related to Shear Failure

Infill Stress related to Diagonal Tensile Shear Failure

Infill Stress related to Compressive Failure of the Corners

Qc  5.2 f m 4 Iht 3 ………………………….(3.9)

and for a reinforced concrete framed infill

Qc  2.9 f m 4 Iht 3 ………………………...(3.10)

in which fm is the allowable compressive stress of the masonry.

3.2.2 Plasticity Model

3.2.3 Coupled Boundary Element Method