Available online at www.sciencedirect.

com

ScienceDirect
Procedia Engineering 173 (2017) 1784 – 1791

11th International Symposium on Plasticity and Impact Mechanics, Implast 2016

A comparative study of seismic performance of RC frames with

masonry infills
Romanbabu M. Oinama , Ruban Sugumara , Dipti Ranjan Sahoob,∗
a Research Scholar, Department of Civil Engineering, Indian Institute of Technology Delhi, New Delhi-110016, India
b Assistant Professor, Department of Civil Engineering, Indian Institute of Technology Delhi, New Delhi-110016, India

Abstract
In this study, three geometrically similar frames, having different configurations of masonry infills, has been investigated. The
frames have been modelled in OpenSees simulation platform, utilising material and section properties available in its library. This
paper mainly focusses on studying the effect of masonry infills in the RC frames and its hysteretic response during an earthquake
event, where it is expected to go into the non-linear range. Static non-linear cyclic pushover analysis has been carried out to predict
the seismic performance of the study frames. A detailed discussion on the modelling, hysteretic response, lateral strength and
ductility of the RC frames with masonry infills has been presented.

©c 2017
2016TheTheAuthors.
Authors. Published
Published by Elsevier
by Elsevier Ltd.B.V.
This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license
Peer-review under responsibility of the organizing committee of Implast 2016.
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
Peer-review under responsibility of the organizing committee of Implast 2016
Keywords: Cyclic loading, Masonry, Reinforced concrete, Pinching, Non-linear static pushover

Nomenclature

f pc Maximum compressive strength

ε sc0 Strain at maximum compressive strength
f pcu Crushing strength
ε scu Strain at crushing strength
λ Ratio of unloading slope to initial slope
ft Tensile strength of concrete
Ets Tension softening stiffness

1. Introduction

Generally, masonry wall in a reinforced concrete (RC) frame is used as partition. The in-plane strength and stiff-
ness of these infill walls are completely ignored during the analysis and design of RC frames. Past studies [1–4] have

∗ Corresponding author. Tel.: +91-11-2659-1203; Fax: +91-11-2658-1117.

E-mail address: drsahoo@civil.iitd.ac.in

1877-7058 © 2017 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
Peer-review under responsibility of the organizing committee of Implast 2016
doi:10.1016/j.proeng.2016.12.220
 Romanbabu M. Oinam et al. / Procedia Engineering 173 (2017) 1784 – 1791 1785

shown that these characteristics of the infill walls have a significant influence on the global behaviour of the struc-
ture subjected to seismic loads. It is known that masonry structures are vulnerable to both in-plane and out-of-plane
movements under the action of lateral loads [5–8]. This may incur adverse effects on structural response during an
earthquake. Vertical and plan irregularities caused due to the uneven distribution of masonry infills in a RC structure
induces undesirable soft-story failure or short column effect [9–11].

In this paper, a numerical model has been developed to study the in-plane behaviour of masonry infill, using non-
linear cyclic pushover analysis, in OpenSees [12] software. To analyse the contribution of masonry infill and its effect
on the response of the structure, full scale frames having three different configurations, i.e., bare frame, fully infilled
frame and frame with open ground story have been considered. The schema of these frames are shown in Fig. 1.

(a) (b) (c)

Fig. 1. Study frames (a) Bare frame, (b) Fully-infilled frame and (c) Open ground-story frame

2. Background of Masonry Infill Modelling

Several models have been developed in the literature to simulate the behaviour of masonry infill panels. These
models can be divided into two categories: (i) micro-models and (ii) macro-models. Micro-models are finite ele-
ment models, in which masonry panels are divided into numerous numbers of elements and localised failure mode is
considered. Macro-models are simplified models based on the characteristic strength of the masonry infill. In these
models, masonry infill panels are replaced by equivalent strut members along the loading direction. This study em-
ploys macro-model to model the masonry infill panel.

2.1. Micro-modelling

Masonry infill panels are composed of mortar and brick. Mortar plays an important role in micro-modelling.
The strength of mortar is lesser compared to the strngth of the brick, hence mortar joints are the weakest plane in
a masonry infill panel. Due to this reason, mortar joint is considered as a discrete element in micro modelling [3].
Micro-models can be broadly divided into two groups, namely (a) simplified and (b) detailed. In simplified models, the
expanded units are represented by continuum elements, while the unit mortar and mortar joints interface is lumped in
discontinuum elements. In case of detailed micro-models, units and mortar in the joints are represented as continuum
elements, while unit mortar interface is represented by discontinum elements. Both the models are shown in Fig. 2.
Among these two approaches of micro modelling, the latter one (i.e., detailed micro model) is more accurate.

2.2. Macro-modelling

Unlike micro-models, macro-models can be of multiple types based on their applicability. Each type of model has
its own advantages such as simplicity, accuracy, etc. macro-models represent the strength and stiffness of masonry
1786 Romanbabu M. Oinam et al. / Procedia Engineering 173 (2017) 1784 – 1791

Interface Element Brick Element Mortar Element Brick Element

tb+tm Interface
Element

(a) (b)
Fig. 2. Micro-modelling of infill walls (a) Simplified and (b) Detailed [3]

infills as compression (strut) elements. While the equivalent single strut model is often used because of its simplicity,
multiple number of struts are also used in the modelling to predict the response more accurately, at the expense of
complexity involved in the modelling [2]. Some popular macro-models are shown in Fig. 3.

V V V V

Fig. 3. Different macro-models used for masonry infills [2]

Polyakov [13] reported one of the first analytical study on masonry infill panel based on elastic theory. He recom-
mended that masonry infill panel can be modelled as an equivalent diagonal strut member. Using this idea, Holmes
[14] proposed that the width of equivalent diagonal strut member should be 1 /3 rd the length of infill panel. Later, Smith
[15] introduced some other parameters based on his experimental study to model masonry infill. Mainstone [16] had
performed series of experiments and proposed methods for calculating the effective diagonal strut width. Nonlinear
behaviour of masonry infill walls under dynamic loading was first considered by Klinger and Bertero [17]. Te-Chang
and Kwok [18] proposed a mathematical model to compute strut width as a function of other geometrical parameters
of the panel. Zarnic and Tomazevic [19] proposed a model for strength and stiffness, based on their experimental
results. Similarly, Saneinejad and Hobbs [20] proposed a numerical model, which takes into account the strength and
stiffness degradation. Flanagan and Bennett [21] modelled the corner crushing of infill panel, and Dolsek and Fazfar
[10] proposed an empirical model to compute the ultimate shear strength of infill panel, and further extended their
work to predict the tri-linear response of a single strut with elastic hardening and post capping branch. Crisafuulli [2]
used the multiple strut models to analyse the influence of number of struts on the overall performance. Smyrou [2]
recommended the use of double strut model for more accuracy and less complication. Recently, Furtado [9] updated
the simplified macro-models, in which equivalent bi-diagonal compression strut members are fixed at four corners
of the infill panel and one central element is connected to all strut members. This model is recommended for use in
masonry panels under cyclic loading. However, for simplicity, equivalent single strut model has been used for the
modelling masonry panels in this study.

3. Details of Study Frame

3.1. Description of Study Frame

A single-bay double-storey RC frame representing an interior frame of a prototype structure has been chosen as the
study frame. Overall height and width of the test frame is taken as 6600 mm and 6000 mm respectively. Cross section
of the all the columns is 400×400 mm, whereas the cross section of beams is 450×400 mm. Detailing was carried out
 Romanbabu M. Oinam et al. / Procedia Engineering 173 (2017) 1784 – 1791 1787

as per the guidelines of Indian standard IS-456 [22]. Clear cover to the main reinforcement bars in column and beam
are provided as 40 mm and 25 mm respectively. The percentage of steel reinforcement required in column section is
2.5%, while the percentage of steel reinforcement in beam section are 0.85% and 0.93% in tension and compression
respectively. 8 mm diameter reinforcement was used as column stirrups at constant spacing of 250 mm c/c. The
detailing of reinforcements in the frame is shown in Fig. 4.

Fig. 4. Detailing of study frame

3.2. Modelling in OpenSees

3.2.1. Frame Model

Before model the frame, the experimental result reported by Krawinkler [23] has been validated using OpenSees
[12]. In that experiment, a cantilever beam was tested under cyclic load. The cantilever beam has been modelled using
the material and geometric properties from the experiment. Results are closely matching each other. After validating
the experimental result, the study frames has been modelled. OpenSees was developed by Mckenna and his team [12]
in University of Berkeley California. All the study frames were modelled in OpenSees using available material and
section properties in its libraries. While modelling concrete member, uniaxial material called Concrete02 was used.
The speciality of Concrete02 is that it considers the tensile strength of concrete. The compressive strength of concrete
is taken as 25 MPa and the tensile strength is taken as 12% of the compressive strength. Fig. 5(a) shows the stress
strain model of Concrete02. The non-linear monotonic behaviour of concrete beam and column elements has been
idealised using a multi-linear curve, defined by seven parameters in Fig. 5(a), representing (a) f pc , (b) ε sc0 , (c) f pcu ,
(d) ε scu , (e) λ, (f) ft and (g) Ets . Similarly, reinforcement in beam and column elements has been modelled using
pinching4 uniaxial material. Concrete section has inherent property called pinching; due to which a concrete member
dissipates less energy in the non-linear range. Pinching4 is the most suitable material in the OpenSees library to
model the pinching behaviour of concrete section. Fig. 5(b) shows the load deformation curve of pinching4 material.
The speciality of pinching4 material is that it considers material degradation (stiffness). The cyclic strength-stiffness
degradation occurs in three ways, namely (a) unloading stiffness degradation, (b) reloading stiffness degradation and
(c) strength degradation. Beam column section was modelled using fiber sections and to predict the inelastic behaviour
of concrete accurately, “Force-Based Beam-Column Elements (nonlinearBeamCoumn)” was used.

3.2.2. Masonry Model

In this study, to simplify the modelling of the structure in OpenSeees, single strut model has been used to model
masonry panel, though it is the oldest macro model and does not give much accurate response. Fig. 6 shows single
strut model with modelling parameters. While modelling, width of the strut is taken as 1 /3 rd of the diagonal strut.
Both sides of the strut are connected to the beam column joints using a pin. Non-linear static cyclic pushover analysis
has been carried out, hence diagonal struts along two opposite directions are used.
1788 Romanbabu M. Oinam et al. / Procedia Engineering 173 (2017) 1784 – 1791

(a) (b)
Fig. 5. Stress Strain Curve of (a) Concrete02 and (b) Pinching4

V
z dm
R w
h hm
AcIc

Lm
L

Fig. 6. Single strut model [24]

3.3. Non-Linear Static Cyclic Pushover Analysis

Predefined cyclic displacement sequence recommended by ACI Committee 374.1-05 [25] has been used to conduct
the cyclic pushover analysis of the RC structure. Fig. 7 shows the cyclic displacement recommended by ACI. This
displacement history consists of drift cycles of 0.20%, 0.35%, 0.50%, 0.75%, 1.10%, 1.40%, 1.75%, 2.20%, 2.75%,
3.50% and 4.50%. Story drift (or drift ratio) may be defined as the ratio of the roof displacement to height of the story
measured from the bottom level of column to the centre line of top beam. Each displacement cycle is repeated three
times for any drift ratio and then, followed by a single drift cycle of a smaller magnitude.

300
4 250
Lateral Displacement (mm)

3 200
2 150
Story Drift (%)

100
1 50
0 0
-1 -50
-100
-2 -150
-3 -200
-4 -250
-300
Cycles

Fig. 7. Cyclic displacement history

 Romanbabu M. Oinam et al. / Procedia Engineering 173 (2017) 1784 – 1791 1789

3.4. Result and Discussion

In this study, the following parameters are investigated for all the frames: (i) Overall behaviour, (ii) Hysteretic
response and (iii) Hinge formation. Brief explanation of these parameters are given in the following sections

3.4.1. Overall behavior

All the frames have different overall modes of failure. In case of bare frame, load degradation has started after
2.75% drift while in infill frame and open ground story frame degradation has started after 3.5% drift level. The
modal analysis shows that all the three frames have nearly fundamental time periods. Table 1 shows the fundamental
time periods of all the frames.

Table 1. Fundamental time periods of study frames.

Specimen Time Period (sec)

Bare frame 0.321

Infill frame 0.234
Open ground frame 0.262

3.4.2. Hysteresis
Fig. 8 shows the lateral load vs. displacement (hysteresis) response of all specimens and the comparison of their
backbone. The yield value of bare frame, infill frame and open ground frames are 0.75% (49.5 mm). The maximum
load value resisted by the infill frame has been observed at 3.5% drift as 408.7 kN and -608.5 kN in pull and push
direction respectively.

Story Drift (%) Story Drift (%)

-4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4
400 400
300 Bare frame 300 Infill frame
200 200
Lateral Strength (kN)

Lateral Strength (kN)

100 100
0 0
-100 -100
-200 -200
-300 -300
-400 -400
-500 -500
-600 -600
-300 -225 -150 -75 0 75 150 225 300 -300 -225 -150 -75 0 75 150 225 300
Lateral Displacement (mm) Lateral Displacement (mm)

(a) (b)
Story Drift (%) Story Drift (%)
-4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4
400 400 Bare frame
300 Open Ground 300 Infill frame
frame Open Ground
200 200
Lateral Strength (kN)

frame
Lateral Strength (kN)

100 100
0 0
-100 -100
-200 -200
-300 -300
-400 -400
-500 -500
-600 -600
-300 -225 -150 -75 0 75 150 225 300 -300 -225 -150 -75 0 75 150 225 300
Lateral Displacement (mm) Lateral Displacment (mm)

(c) (d)
Fig. 8. (a-c) Hysteresis response of study frames and (d) backbone curve

The bare frame and Open ground story frame showed maximum lateral load resistance at 2.75% drift level. The
load resisted by the bare frame is 282.6 kN and -330.5 kN in pull and push direction respectively. The open ground
1790 Romanbabu M. Oinam et al. / Procedia Engineering 173 (2017) 1784 – 1791

frame resisted 281.9 kN and -329.5 kN in pull and push direction respectively. Due to masonry infill wall there is a
significant increase in strength on infill frame compared to bare frame. The percentage of strength increased in pull
and push direction is 136.4% and 234.7% respectively. In case of open ground story frame, though there is not much
increase in strength in the non-linear range, the strength has increased (54.0%) in the linear range, when compared to
the bare frame. Due to soft story mechanism, the maximum displacement demand is concentrated in the ground story
beam level. Because of this reason, open ground story frame has not gained much strength in the non-linear range.

3.4.3. Damage Condition

Fig. 9 shows the rotation (R) values of various elements corresponding to roof drift (D) levels. From these values,
it is inferred that the rotation of fully infill frame is much lesser than that of the bare frame, which may be attribute
to the extra stiffness contributed by masonry infill. However, in case of Open ground frame, rotation has increased
tremendously,. when compared to both bare frame and fully infill frame. This may be due to sudden change in stiffness
and mass. Hence, soft story mechanism has appeared due to such condition and the load carrying capacity of the open
ground frame does not increase much due to early failure of ground storey columns.

(a) (b) (c)

Fig. 9. Ground column rotation of damaged frames (a) Bare frame, (b) Fully-infilled frame and (c) Open ground-story frame

4. Conclusion

It has been observed that the lateral strength of the infill frame is significantly higher compared to bare frame and
open ground frame. All the frames started yielding from 0.75% drift level. The bare frame and open ground frame
started showing load degradation after 2.75% drift level, while fully infilled frame started degrading after 3.5% drift
level. Overall performance of fully infilled frame is far better than that of the bare frame and open ground frame.

References

[1] A. Madan, A. K. Hashmi, Analytical Prediction of the Seismic Performance of Masonry Infilled Reinforced Concrete Frames Subjected to
Near-Field Earthquakes, J. Struct. Eng. 134 (2008) 1569–1581.
[2] E. Smyrou, C. Blandon, S. Antoniou, R. Pinho, F. Crisafulli, Implementation and verification of a masonry panel model for nonlinear dynamic
analysis of infilled RC frames, Bull. Earthq. Eng. 9 (2011) 1519–1534.
[3] P. G. Asteris, D. M. Cotsovos, C. Z. Chrysostomou, A. Mohebkhah, G. K. Al-Chaar, Mathematical micromodeling of infilled frames: State of
the art, Eng. Struct. 56 (2013) 1905–1921.
[4] S. Günay, M. Korolyk, D. Mar, K. Mosalam, J. Rodgers, Infill walls as a spine to enhance the seismic performance of non-ductile reinforced
concrete frames, J. Struct. Eng. (2009) 1093–1104.
[5] X. Romão, a. a. Costa, E. Paupério, H. Rodrigues, R. Vicente, H. Varum, A. Costa, Field observations and interpretation of the structural
performance of constructions after the 11 May 2011 Lorca earthquake, Eng. Fail. Anal. 34 (2013) 670–692.
[6] V. Gattulli, E. Antonacci, F. Vestroni, Field observations and failure analysis of the Basilica S. Maria di Collemaggio after the 2009 L’Aquila
earthquake, Eng. Fail. Anal. 34 (2013) 715–734.
[7] G. Brandonisio, G. Lucibello, E. Mele, A. D. Luca, Damage and performance evaluation of masonry churches in the 2009 L’Aquila earthquake,
Eng. Fail. Anal. 34 (2013) 693–714.
 Romanbabu M. Oinam et al. / Procedia Engineering 173 (2017) 1784 – 1791 1791

[8] J. F. Hall, W. T. Holmes, Northridge earthquake of January 17, 1994: reconnaissance report, Volume 2, Earthq. Spectra 11 (1996).
[9] A. Furtado, H. Rodrigues, A. Arêde, Modelling of masonry infill walls participation in the seismic behaviour of RC buildings using OpenSees,
Int. J. Adv. Struct. Eng. (2015).
[10] M. Dolšek, P. Fajfar, Mathematical modelling of an infilled RC frame structure based on the results of pseudo-dynamic tests, Earthq. Eng.
Struct. Dyn. 31 (2002) 1215–1230.
[11] H. Burton, F. Gregory Deierlein, Simulation of Seismic Collapse in Nonductile Reinforced Concrete Frame Buildings with Masonry Infills, J.
Struct. Eng. 140 (2013) 1–10.
[12] F. Mckenna, G. Fenves, M. Scott, B. Jeremic, Open System for Earthquake Engineering (OpenSees), Berkley CA (2000).
[13] S. V. Polyakov, On the interaction between masonry filler walls and enclosing frame when loaded in the plane of a wall, Transl. Earthq. Eng.
(1960) 36–42.
[14] M. Holmes, Steel frames with brickwork and concrete infilling, in: ICE, 4, 1961, pp. 473 – 478.
[15] B. S. Smith, Lateral stiffness of infilled frames, J. Struct. Div. 88 (1962) 183–199.
[16] R. Mainstone, On the stiffness and strengths of infilled frames, in: ICE, 1971, p. 230.
[17] R. E. Klingner, V. V. Bertero, Earthquake Resistance of Infilled Frames, J. Struct. Div. 104 (1978) 973–989.
[18] L. Te-Chang, K. Kwok-Hung, Nonlinear behaviour of non-integral infilled frames, Comput. Struct. 18 (1984) 551–560.
[19] R. Zarnic, M. Tomazevic, An experimentally obtained method for evaluation of the behaviour of masonry infilled rcframes, in: Ninth World
Conf. Earthq. Eng., Tokyo-Kyoto, Japan, 1988, pp. 163–168.
[20] A. Saneinejad, B. Hobbs, Inelastic design of infilled frames, J. Struct. Eng. 121 (1995) 634–650.
[21] R. D. Flanagan, R. M. Bennett, Arching of Masonry Infilled Frames: Comparison of Analytical Methods, Pract. Period. Struct. Des. Constr. 4
(1999) 105–110.
[22] IS-456, Plain and Reinforced Concrete Code of Practice, Indian Stand. (2000).
[23] H. Krawinkler, E. Popov, Hysteretic Behavior of Reinforced Concrete Rectangular and T-Beams, in: 8th World Conf. Earthq. Eng., 1979.
[24] D. R. Teruna, T. A. Majid, B. Budiono, The Use of Steel Damper for Enhancing the Seismic Performance of R / C Frame with Soft First Story,
J. Civ. Eng. Res. 4 (2014) 191–202.
[25] ACI, Committee, 374.1-05, Acceptance Criteria for Moment Frames based on Structural Testing and Commentary- An ACI Standard, Am.
Concr. Institute, Farmingt. Hills, Michigan (2006).