Assessment of Equivalent Diagonal Strut

XVIII ЮБИЛЕЙНА МЕЖДУНАРОДНА НАУЧНА КОНФЕРЕНЦИЯ ПО
СТРОИТЕЛСТВО И АРХИТЕКТУРА ВСУ’2018

XVIII ANNIVERSARY INTERNATIONAL SCIENTIFIC CONFERENCE BY
CONSTRUCTION AND ARCHITECTURE VSU'2018
ASSESSMENT OF EQUIVALENT DIAGONAL STRUT WIDTH IN STRUT

ANALYSIS MODELS OF INFILLED RC FRAMES
Velian Petkov1
1Mechanics and Mathematics Department University of Structural Engineering &
Architecture VSU “Lyuben Karavelov” Sofia
Abstract:
The report presents a short comparison of different linear and nonlinear analysis
models of masonry-infilled RC frames. It includes results of FEM analysis of typical
infilled RC frames, modelled with the different presented techniques. The main stress
is on the assessment of the diagonal strut models application and diagonal strut
width assumption in simplified analysis models of Infilled RC frames.
Key words: Masonry infilled RC frames, macromodels, micromodels, diagonal strut
models, strut width, stiffness.
1. Introduction
Masonry has been one of the basic construction materials for thousands of years. It is
relatively strong, with good thermal and acoustic characteristics, easy and relatively cheap
to construct. On the other side though, since it is a composite material, made of two
different and brittle on their own materials, masonry is brittle and anisotropic material. In
order to enhance masonry characteristics and to meet the trend for taller buildings, since
ancient times, construction specialists have utilized different techniques in order to
improve the overall performance of masonry walls. In modern times masonry has seen
wide use in combination with steel and RC frames as either integral or non-integral
masonry infilled RC (referred as MIRC frames in the paper below). In integral frames
concrete is usually cast after construction of the panel and the concrete masonry-contact is
firm. In non-integral frames, the masonry is built after casting of the panel and there is a
gap between the two.
There are two main distinctive approaches for modelling and analysis of MIRC
frames – micromodels and macromodels. The former allows for much greater precision,
but require powerful hardware and lot of data input. The later of the two has seen a wider
application in practice mainly due to it being less demanding in both hand calculations and
software applications. The main characteristic of the macromodels is the area of the
equivalent-strut or “the width of the strut”.
2. Strength and Stiffness of the Masonry Infill Panel

Although masonry and later masonry infilled RC frames have seen wide application
for a very long period, there are wide discrepancies in the analysis approaches for such
structures. It is even hard to find definitive values for strength and E modulus, which apply
1
Eng. Velian P. Petkov, Phd Student, 1373 Sofia, Suhodolska Str.175, Univ. Str. Eng. and Arch
to a continent, not to mention universally. Certainly, there are some code prescriptions, but
those values’ main purpose is to assure conservative design.
2.1. Failure modes and strength of masonry infilled frames

When defining strength, the first question is which strength – compressive, shear,
tension or at what direction to the bed joints. In the name of simplicity one can argue that
the correct definition should be resistance of the frame to vertical and horizontal loads,
because the failure mechanisms are rather complex and rather different in their nature.
They depend on the direction of load resultants, the ratio of the vertical and horizontal
loads, the type of blocks, the type and thickness of mortar joints, rigidity, reinforcement
ratio and reinforcement detailing of the frames; and last, but by far not least important –
quality of craftsmanship. In addition under intense loading (mainly seismic), the state of
brittle structures changes rapidly, therefore one need to define as well – masonry cracking
strength, maximum strength, ultimate strength, residual strength etc.
In general, there is a common understanding that shear failure in the infill panel can
occur as a result of the following mechanisms - shear friction, diagonal tension and
compressive failure. Crissafuli points out that the last one is not of practical importance
[7]. It should be noted as well that the infill can fail due to corner crushing although this is
more common for flexible infilled steel frames. In the current report, the strength of the
masonry infill is defined as the smaller of the values obtained from eq.(2.1) and eq.(2.2)
multiplied by the area of the strut and this value corresponds to the maximum strength.
(2.1) ;
(2.2) ;
More information on formulas (2.1) and (2.2) is present in [7].
2.2. Stress-strain relationship

Masonry infills are highly nonlinear composites. Because of that it is correct to
define different E-modulus for different states. The initial linear response under
monotonically increasing lateral load is usually up to 50-60% of the maximum stress. In
that region the E-modulus is equal to the initial elastic one. After that point the panel
separates from the frame, cracking of the panel is initiated - the rigidity of the frame
seriously degrades, Therefore the E modulus decreases. Eventually the stress/strain
relationship reaches a peak and a downturn trend is started. In the overall performance of
the infilled frame any of the before mentioned segments of the stress-strain relationship
can be interrupted by a brittle failure of the frame due to local effects or can be seriously
altered by change in frame strength.
For the purpose of the paper four stresses are defined – stress of cracking (assumed
to be equal to 60% of the maximum stress), maximum stress (940 MPa), ultimate stress
(equal to 90% of maximum stress) and residual stress (20% of maximum stress).
Corresponding strains are defined as well – 0.001, 0.005, 0.1 for cracking, maximum and
ultimate strain. Those values cannot be regarded as generally applicable and are not
intended to be.
The shear modulus sees a variation as well – according to the European and local
codes it is 40% of the E-modulus, but in literature there is a wide variety of the values
3. Macromodels
It has been observed in series of studies that infilled frames have two distinctive
phases depending on the magnitude of horizontal loads in comparison to the ultimate one.
In the initial elastic phase, the frame acts as a fully restrained at one end, free at the other
one beam. In other words - works as a shear wall. The macromodel might be either a wall
made of shell elements with thickness and length approximated for one of the materials or
the same applied to a beam element [7]..
In the second phase, when the separation of the frame and cracking of the infill has
started, a truss mechanism is observed. A concentration of compressive stresses on the
diagonal connecting the point of load implication and the opposite lower corner are usually
approximated as a compressive diagonal or the equivalent strut analogy.
3.1. Single Strut models

The single-strut anology for modelling masonry infills was proposed originally by
Polyakov (1956) - Fig. 1 a). Later the model was adopted by others and further developed
for nonlinear analysis. It is suitable for every day design purposes and approximation of
the stiffness of the infilled frames. The obvious shortcomings from the use of the simple
single strut model is the poor approximation of the masonry infill effect on the RC frame.
In order to address those, different variations of the single strut were proposed. Such a
model can be found in [1], by Tomazevic and Zarnic (Fig. 1 b)). In FEMA [2] two
eccentric to the diagonal strut alignments are proposed for both column and beam local
effects. The arrangements are on Fig. 1 c) and Fig. 1 d) [3], [6]. These models alow for
conservative design of RC members in shear. It should be noted that in practice it is mostly
failures in the columns that have been observed both in eartquakes and laboratory tests.
a) b)
c) d)
Fig. 1. Single-strut models: а) Polyakov and others; b) Tomazevic and Zarnic; c) FEMA
356 model for columns local effects d) FEMA 356 model for beam local effects
3.2. Multi-Strut Models

The original single strut analogy had evolved in 2, 3 and more struts per direction
models. The main purpose was better reflection of local effects on frame members. It can
be argued that the original single-strut model can easily underestimate shear effects on
members and doesn’t fully represent the masonry shear failure effects on columns as
whole. In addition to that concentrating the whole effect of masonry on a single member or
two as with Fig. 1 b)-d) can lead to certain overestimation of the local effects. For that
purpose, numerous simple or more complex models were proposed in literature. Such one
is the one on Fig. 2 a) by El-Dakhakhni et. al [4] although it was originally proposed for
infilled steel frames.
A/4
A/2
A/2
A/2
A/4
a) b)
A/4
a
A/2
A/4
c) d)
.0.2F
A/4
0.4F
A/2
A/4 0.4F
e) f)
g)
Fig. 2. Multi-strut models: а) 3-strut model by El-Dakhakhni et. al; b) 2-strut model by
Crisafulli; c) 2-strut model from [8]; d) 3-strut model by Crisafulli; e) another 3-strut
model based on contact lengths; f) possible arrangement for members shear design;
g) Crissafulli and Carr model (2007) [10]
Another development of the strut model is on Fig 2 b) and 2 c). The strut force is
shared equally between the two struts. Crisafulli [7], and in [8] have proposed similar
models in their studies.
Model with 3 parallel struts is on Fig 2 d)-f). All multi-strut models link the position
of strut end points to approximations of the masonry/concrete members’ contact zones and
therefore to strut width and crack position. The last one is based on proposed arrangement
for column shear design [9]. Simple multi-strut models do allow for relatively easy design
of members and more or less allows for better representation of the interaction panel-frame
members than single strut models.
There are more complex multi-strut models, which are able to predict even better the
performance of MIRC frames. Such a model was originally presented by Crissafuli in [9]
and later developed by Crissafuli and Chaar, Smirou et al and implemented in SeismoSoft
SeismoStruct nonlinear analysis software [10].
4. Width of the Strut
4.1. General Assumptions

The main characteristic of the equivalent diagonal strut in any type of model or
analysis is its area, but since the depth is usually assumed to be equal to the width of the
panel, the only unknown is the width. For clarity, in the current report the area of the strut
is regarded as the active area of all struts if more than one. It should be noted that in modal
analysis for example the correct way to add struts is to define them in the two opposite
diagonal directions with area equal to half of that for single one. When compression only
elements are used in nonlinear analysis, the set of struts is with the total area in each
direction.
4.2. Strut Width Parameter

The strut width parameter has seen a long debate with numerous proposals for its
calculations. Below is a review, which includes just a fraction of the numerous formulas or
values that can be traced in literature on the subject. Polyakov (please see below in table 1)
was the first to propose an equation for the calculation of the width as a fived fraction of
the diagonal length. Smith followed with his own equation and after that in his later work
related the width to the relative panel to frame stiffness “ ”.
(4.2.1) [5], [7], [12], where
(4.2.2)  = tan −1 (hw / l ')
Table 1. Formulas for Width Calculation

Author Formula Source Notes
Polyakov w 1
= [12]; [14]
(1960) d 3
w
Smith (1962) = 0,10  0, 25 [12]
d
Smith [14]
Smith and
[14]
Carter (1969)
Mainstone w
= 0,16h −0,3 [7], [12]
(1971) d
Mainstone and w [2], [6],[7], In FEMA 274 and
= 0,175h −0,4
Weeks (1971) d [7], [12] 306
w 0,95.sin 2 [12]
Liauw and =
Kwan (1984), d 2 h
[7], [14]
Decanini and For uncracked
Fantin (1987) masonry
[7], [14]
Decanini and For cracked
Fantin (1987) masonry
Dawe and [14]

Seah (1989)
S Bazan and [7]
Meli (1980)
[7], [14],
Pristley (1992)
[17]
Drysdale [14], [16]
(1999)
– Life Safety
Fardis (2009) – Immediate Occupancy [15]
Performance
The formulas above give generally results for the strut width within the range of 10
to 33 % of its length. The variety of results is striking, but one should note that those are
values for different arrangements, materials and states of the masonry panel and the frame.
5. Analysis and Results
5.1. Model Definition
The hypothetical studied frame is integral (no gap at initial state), made from
concrete C16/20, the reinforcement is similar to the old Bulgarian AIII grade – 8 d14 bars
per column in total (3 per side), beam reinforcement is 2x3d16. The masonry/grout is with
compressive strengths 10/5 MPa respectably (10 mm bed joints). The axial length of the
frame is 4 meters, height 2x3 m. The nonlinear characteristics of the struts are modelled
through deformation controlled axial hinge with stress-strain relationship from the text
above. Brittle shear hinges are introduced at the intersection of columns with struts. For
some of the appropriate strut models, the shear reinforcement in columns is reduced in
accordance with 1950s and 1960s common local detailing. The reason was to enhance the
effect of that common practice. In addition to shear hinges in columns there are P-M
parametric column hinges. At the end of the beams concrete flexural hinges are added.
Rigid column to beam connections are allowed for. The analysis is performed with
SAP2000 and SeismoStruct Seismosoft FEM nonlinear software packages.
For the purpose of the analysis the diagonal strut width is fixed to 25% of the length
of the diagonal. It should be noted though that in some cases the specific strut
arrangements were originally proposed with values of the strut width, which might be
different.
Dead and Live loading is calculated on the base of half of 3.5 meters long bay. The
structure is checked for in plane gravity loads and 10% of gravity load as horizontal force.
Pushover analysis was performed on all models. The distribution of the horizontal loads
was assumed triangular although usually the expected failure mechanism in infilled
masonry frames is weak first floor.
5.2. Results
For the current paper models from the type on figures 1 a), 1 b), 2 b), 2 d) and 3 are
considered. Also for comparison a bare frame model is analysed. The graphical
representations of the results are below
a) b)
c) d)
e) f)
Fig. 3. Pushover Curves: а) bare frame; b) single strut frame; c) single strut Tomazevic and
Zarnic frame model; d) 2-strut model e) 3-strut model f)SeismoStruct model
a) b) c)
d) e) f)
Fig. 4. Deformed Shape/Failure mechanisms: а) bare frame model; b) single strut frame
model; c) single strut Tomazevic and Zarnic frame model; d) 2-strut frame model; e) 3-
strut frame model f)SeismoStruct model
a) b) c)
Fig. 5. Moment Diagrams: а) Micromodel; b) single strut frame model; c) 3-strut model;
5.3. Comments and Conclusions
The results regarding maximum strength of the bare and infilled frames are in line
with analytical and test results published in literature. The original single strut model is
appropriate for general assumption of forces and stiffness, but underestimates the local
effects on RC members. Tomazevic and Zarnic frame model pushover curve shows brittle
shear of the column (fig 3 c) and 4 c)). It is obvious that similar models allow for safe
design of the columns against shear. In author’s personal opinion, the contact zone can
vary and it might be beneficial to check the whole length of the columns for the additional
shear force. In that sense the FEMA model might be even more appropriate. All strut
models, except the one with brittle shear failure, show much higher maximum strengths
and much less deformation at peak force than bare frame model. Strut models do allow for
the weak first floor collapse mechanism.
On Fig. 5a) is a result of the analysis of micromodel with nonlinear „link“ elements
between masonry panel and frame. Since the panel is modelled with linear planar elements,
it is appropriate for representing the behavior of the infilled frame up to cracking of the
panel. Nevertheless, it is used to underline the beneficial effect of multiple struts on the
correct representation of moments etc.
Based on the report it can be concluded that the equivalent strut analogy is a
powerful tool for analysis of infilled frames. Complex models do allow for better
representation of the effects, but simple models are still applicable in every day design
process. The strut width calculation is a complex task – in author’s opinion for design
purposes higher values can be used for calculation of seismic forces, maximum panel
forces and local negative effects on members. As a second stage the designer can use the
calculated seismic forces for design and checking of the members with lower value of the
strut width. Although this procedure seems overconservative, craftsmanship factor alone
might lead to great variations in panels mechanical properties and therefore create
additional negative effects from irregularities. The stages might be combined in interactive
procedure as well. It is important to be noted that even in nonintegral frames with some
gaps and appropriate design for all loads been carried by the RC elements, the effect of
masonry might need to be taken into account. The additional stiffness might increase the
stiffness and therefore the seismic load and irregularities may lead to overload of specific
elements.
REFERENCES
[1] Zarnic R., M. Tomazevic. Study of the Behaviour of Masonry Infilled Reinforced
Concrete Frames Subjected to Seismic Loading, Proceedings of the 7th International
Brick Conference, Melbourne Australia, 1985, 1315-1326.
[2] FEMA-356.: Prestandard and Commentary for the Seismic Rehabilitation of
Buildings American Society of Civil Engineers (2000).
[3] Chronopoulos M, P. Chronopoulos. Recent Greek Provisions For Rc Structures
with Urm Infills, The Open Construction and Building Technology Journal, 2012,
6, (Suppl 1-M7) 92-112
[4] El-Dakhakhni Wael W., M. Elgaaly, A.A. Hamid. Three Strut Model for Concrete
Masonry-Infilled Steel Frames, Journal of Structural Engineering, February 2003.
[5] Carter C., B.S. Smith, Structural Behavior of Masonry Infilled Frames Subject to
Racking Loads, Designing Engineering and Constructing with Masonry
Products,Gulf Publishing Company, Houston, 1969, 227-233.
[6] Al-Chaar, G., Evaluating Strength and Stiffness of Unreinforced Masonry Infill
Structures, US Army Corps of Engineers Engineer Research and Development
Center, 2002.
[7] Crisafulli F. Seismic behaviour of Reinforced Concrete Structures with Masonry
Infill, Doctoral Thesis, New Zealand: University of Canterbury,
http://ir.canterbury.ac.nz/handle/10092/1221,1997.
[8] Reinhorn A.M., A. Madan, R.E. Valles, Y. Reichmann and J.B. Mandler.
Modeling of Masonry Infill Panels for Structural Analysis, Technical Report
NCEER-95-0018, December 8, 1995
[9] Chrysostomou C.Z., Effects of Degrading Infill Walls on the Nonlinear Seismic
Response of Twodimensional Steel Frames, Dissertation Cornel University,
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/35449982_Effects_of_degrading_infill_w
alls_on_the_nonlinear_seismic_response_of_two-dimensional_steel_frames 1991
[10] Smyrou, E., Blandon, C., Antoniou, S., Pinho, R., Crissafulli, F.,
Implementation and Verification of a Masonry panel Model for Nonlinear Dynamic
Analysis of Infilled RC Frames, Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering, EAEE,
Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2011
[11] Asteris, P. G., Lateral Stiffness of Brick Masonry Infilled Plane Frames,
Journal of Structural Engineering, АSCE / August, 2003.
[12] Asteris, P. G., Antoniou, S. T., Sophianopoulos, D. S. and Chrysostomou,
C. Z.,(2011), Mathematical Macromodeling of Infilled Frames: State of the Art,
Journal of Structural Engineering, АSCE December, 2011
[13] Baran, M. and Sevil, T., Analytical and Experimental Studies on Infilled
RC frames, International Journal of the Physical Sciences Vol. 5(13), pp.1981-
1998, 18 October, 2010
[14] Mihaleva, D. M., Study on the Seismic Behavior of Framed Masonry,
Autoabstract of Phd thesis, VFU "Chernorizets Hrabar",(in Bulgarian) 2011.
[15] Fardis, Michael N.,(2009), “Seismic Design, Assessment and Retrofitting of
Concrete Buildings based on EN-Eurocode 8”, Springer Science + Business Media
B.V.2009
[16] Drysdale, R. G., A. A. Hamid, L. R. Baker, Masonry Structures – Behavior
and Design. 2.ed. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice Hall, 1999. 888 p.
[17] Paulay, T. & Priestley, M.J.N. “Seismic Design of Reinforced Concrete and
Masonry Buildings”, John Wiley & Sons, New York, United States 1992

Assessment of Equivalent Diagonal Strut

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Assessment of Equivalent Diagonal Strut

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

XVIII ЮБИЛЕЙНА МЕЖДУНАРОДНА НАУЧНА КОНФЕРЕНЦИЯ ПО

СТРОИТЕЛСТВО И АРХИТЕКТУРА ВСУ’2018

ASSESSMENT OF EQUIVALENT DIAGONAL STRUT WIDTH IN STRUT

2. Strength and Stiffness of the Masonry Infill Panel

2.1. Failure modes and strength of masonry infilled frames

More information on formulas (2.1) and (2.2) is present in [7].

2.2. Stress-strain relationship

3.1. Single Strut models

3.2. Multi-Strut Models

g) Crissafulli and Carr model (2007) [10]

4. Width of the Strut

4.1. General Assumptions

4.2. Strut Width Parameter

(4.2.1) [5], [7], [12], where

(4.2.2)  = tan −1 (hw / l ')

Table 1. Formulas for Width Calculation

Dawe and [14]

5. Analysis and Results

5.1. Model Definition

5.3. Comments and Conclusions

You might also like