\

NUMERICAL STUDY OF REINFORCED CONCRETE

FRAME-INFILL WALL INTERACTION

A Thesis
by
Anjuman Shahriar
Student No. 100104334

MASTER OF SCIENCE IN ENGINEERING (CIVIL & STRUCTURAL)

-- ._. '",..--.

1111111111111111111111111111111111
#99602#

2004

•••••
 NUMERICAL STUDY OF REINFORCED CONCRETE
FRAME-INFILL WALL INTERACTION

M. Sc. Thesis by

Anjuman Shahriar
Student No. 100104334

A Master of Science (M.Sc.) Thesis approved as to the style and content for the partial
fulfillment of the requirement of the degree of Master of Science in Engineering (Civil
& Structural) on 25th July 2004.

Dr. Munaz Ahmed Noor

Assistant Professor
Dept. of Civil Engineering
BUET, Dhaka-IOOO.

Dr. Sk. Sekender Ali Me~CiO)

Professor and Head
Department of Civil Engineering
BUET, Dhaka-IOOO.

Dr. Tahsin Reza Hossain Member

Associate Professor /",A"I '" ~
Department of Civil Engineering
BUET, Dhaka-IOOO.

Q- .
3
~ReaZAhmed Member (External)
Associate Professor
Department of Mechanical Engineering
BUET, Dhaka-IOOO.

11
 DEDICATIONS

To My Family Members

1lI

,'.
 DECLARATION

It is hereby declared that except for the contents where specific reference have been
made to the work of others, the studies contained in this thesis is the result of
investigation carried out by the author. No part of this thesis has been submitted to any
other University or other educational establishment for a Degree, Diploma or other
qualification (except for publication).

Signature of the Candidate

(Anjuman Shahriar)

IV
 ACKNOWLEDGMENT

Thanks to Almighty Allah for His graciousness, unlimited kindness and with the
blessings of Whom the good deeds are fulfilled.

The author wishes to express his deepest gratitude to his supervisor Dr. Munaz Ahmed
Noor, for his continuous guidance, invaluable suggestions, affectionate
encouragement, generous help and unfailing enthusiasm at every stage of this study.
His active interest in this topic and valuable advice was the source of author's
inspiration.

The author IS also grateful to M. Shahria Alam, Lecturer, Department of Civil

Engineering, for his help and valuable suggestions regarding this work. The author is
also grateful to her colleagues for active co-operation.

The author also wishes to express her appreciation to her friends abroad for supporting
her with valuable journal papers and information and also for their encouragement.

A very special debt of deep gratitude is offered to her parents, brothers and her
husband, who are always a constant source of inspiration throughout her life.

v
 ABSTRACT

The frame- infill systems, an economic means to enclose and partition space, are used
throughout the world for architectural needs or aesthetic reasons. However, 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 numerical analysis
of building structures. When subjected to strong lateral load, infill panels tend to
interact with the bounding frame and may induce a load resistance mechanism that is
not accounted for in the design. This may lead to substantial inaccuracy in predicting
the lateral stiffuess and strength of the structure. The finite element (FE) technique has
been effectively used to analyze the behavior of masonry infilled Reinforced Concrete
(RC) frames.

The finite element analysis procedure used in this study has been able to investigate
the effect of incorporation of masonry infill panels with or without opening in the bare
RC frame and to simulate test result of infilled RC frames which verify the
effectiveness of such FE modeling. From extensive numerical analysis and parametric
study, it has been found that the infilled panel increases the lateral stiffuess of an RC
frame by a substantial amount and the contribution of infill to the total stiffuess of
infilled frame changes with the presence of door or window opening in the masonry
infill panel. Investigations have also been done for various support conditions and it
has been observed that support condition has considerable effect on the stiffuess ofthe
structures.

The finite element analysis methodology has been proven to be an effective tool to
reasonably investigate the behavior of structural components. However sometimes
numerical analysis has been found to be time consuming and complicated. To
overcome these problems attempts have been made in this study to develop simplified
equation to find out the stiffuess of masonry in filled RC frame and finally verification
of the developed equations have been performed with the existing experimental result.
This approach can now be effectively used to determine the stiffness of bare frame,
masonry infilled RC frame with or without door and window opening.

VI
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

Acknowledgement v

Abstract VI

Contents Vll

List of Tables x

List of Figures XI

List of Notations XIV

List of Abbreviations XVI

Chapter 1 INTRODUCTION
1.1 General 1

1.2 Objectives of the Present Study 2

1.3 Scope and Methodology ofthe Study 2

1.4 Organization of the Study 3

Chapter 2 LETERATURE REVIEW

2.1 General 5

2.2 Characteristics of Infilled Frames 5

2.3 Works on Infilled Frames 8

2.4 Available Computational Model 9

2.4.1 Approximate Method 9

2.4.2 Equivalent Diagonal Strut Approach 12

2.4.3 Continuum Approach 19

2.4.4 Plasticity Model 23

2.4.5 Coupled Boundary Element Method 24

2.5 Characteristics oflnfilled Frames with Openings 25

2.6 Concluding Remarks 28
Chapter 3 MODELING AND VERIFICATION
3.1 General 29
3.2 Properties of the Elements Used 29
3.2.1 Beam and Columns 29
3.2.2 Infill Masonry Wall 30

Vll
3.3 Model Geometry 30
3.3.1 Comparison of Equivalent Strut Model and Continuum Model 31
3.3.2 Comparison of2D Model and 3D Model 33
3.4 Determination of Mesh Density 35
3.4.1 Deflection by Virtual Work Method 37
3.4.2 Moment and Deflection using BEAM4 37
3.4.3 Moment and Deflection using SOLID45 (without infill) 37
3.5 Selection of Mesh Density for Portal Frame 38
3.5.1 Deflection 38
3.5.2 Bending Stress 39
3.6 Selection of Mesh Density for Infill Wall 45
3.6.1 Deflection 46
3.6.2 Principal Stresses for Infill Wall 46
3.7 Verification of SOLID45 with BEAM4 48
3.7.1 Bending Moment using BEAM4 Element 48
3.7.2 Bending Moment using SOLID45 Element 49
3.8 Concluding Remarks 54
Chapter 4 FORMULATION OF STIFFNESS EQUATION
4.1 General 55
4.2 Analysis and Verification 55
4.2.1 Bare Frame 55
4.2.2 Infill Wall 58
4.2.3 Infilled Frame 59
4.3 Formulation of Stiffuess Equation 62
4.3.1 Bare Frame 62
4.3.2 Infill Wall Without Opening 69
4.3.3 Infill Wall With Opening 73
4.3.4 Infilled Frame 86
4.4 Verification of Stiffuess Equation 89
4.5 Stress Pattern 90
4.6 Concluding Remarks 91

Vlll
Chapter 5 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
5.1 Conclusions 92

5.2 Recommendations for Future Study 93

REFERENCES 94
APPENDlX-A
APPENDlX-B
APPENDlX-C
APPENDlX-D

IX
 LIST OF TABLES

Table 4.1 Deflection at node A (as shown in Figure 3.9) in frame 56

under different lateral loads
Table 4.2 Deflection node A (as shown in Figure 3.16) in infill wall 59
under different lateral loads
Table 4.3 Deflection at node A (as shown in Figure 3.9) in infilled 60
frame under different lateral loads
Table 4.4 Comparison of stiffness of frame and infilled frame obtained 89
from various method

x
 LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 2.1 Interactive behavior of frame and infill 6

Figure 2.2 Analogous braced frame 6

Figure 2.3 Modes of infill failure 7

Figure 2.4 Modes of frame failure 7

Figure 2.5 (a)The Diagonal Compression Strut of Masonry Infill 13

(b)Material Modeling of Masonry infill as Diagonal Strut 13

Figure 2.6 Masonry infill frame sub-assemblage in masonry infill panel 17

frame structures.
Figure 2.7 Masonry infill panel in frame structure 17

Figure 2.8 Constitutive model for masonry infill panel by Madan et al. 18
(1997)
Figure 2.9 Strength envelope for masonry infill panel by Madan et al. 18
(1997)
Figure 2.10 The infilled frame model proposed by EI-Dakhakhni (2000) 19
Figure 2.11 The infilled Frame Model proposed by Seah (1998) 22

Figure 2.12 Load Deflection Behavior of a Specimen Modeled by Seah 23

(1998)
Figure 2.13 Proposed composite yield criterion with iso-shear stress 24
lines.
Figure 3.1 (a) Equivalent strut model 32
(b) Continuum Model 32

Figure 3.2 Typical deflected shape of (a) equivalent strut model 32

(b) Continuum model 32
Figure 3.3 Lateral load-lateral displacement curves for infilled frame 33
model by equivalent strut model and continuum model
Figure 3.4 Isometric view of (a) 2D model 33
(b) 3D model 33
Figure 3.5 Lateral load-lateral displacement curves for infilled frame 34
model using 2D element and 3D element
Figure 3.6 Stiffuess of infilled frame model using 2D element and 3D 34
, element for different frame aspect ratio
Figure 3.7 Portal modeled using BEAM4 element 36
Figure 3.8 Isometric view of 3D Portal Modeled using SOLID45 36
element
Figure 3.9 Up right corner of the portal modeled using modeled using 37
SOLID45 showing the position of corresponding node
Figure 3.10 Deflection of frame and number of element 39

Xl
Figure 3.11 Bending stress at 1370mm from the left column centre line 40
Figure 3.12 Bending stress at 4115 mm from the left column centre line 41
Figure 3.13 Bending stress ofleft column at 1143 mm from the column 42
base
Figure 3.14 Bending stress ofleft column at 2743 mm from the column 43
base
Figure 3.15 Variation of bending stress for different element number 44

Figure 3.16 Isometric view ofInfill wall modeled using SOLID45 45

Figure 3.17 Deflection of infill wall and number of element 46

Figure 3.18 Locations in infill wall where principal stresses are taken 47
Figure 3.19 Principal Stress along x axis at location one and number of 47
element
Figure 3.20 Bending moment diagram of portal using BEAM4 (kN-m) 48

Figure 3.21 Bending Stress diagrams at different sections of beam 50

Figure 3.22 Bending Stress diagrams at different sections of column 51

Figure 3.23 Bending moment diagram of portal using SOLID45 (kN-m) 53

Figure 3.24 Comparison of moment diagrams obtained using BEAM4 53

and SOLID45 (kN-m)
Figure 4.1 Deflection at node A of frame (as shown in Figure 3.9) 56
under different lateral loads
Figure 4.2 Typical deflected shape of frame modeled using SOLID45 57
(a) Fixed support and (b) flexible support
Figure 4.3 Lateral load-lateral displacement curves for bare frame 58
model by Mehrabi et al. (1996) and numerical model using
SOLID45 element
Figure 4.4 Deflection at node A of infill wall (as shown in Figure 3.16) 59
under different lateral loads
Figure 4.5 Typical deflected shape of infilled frame modeled using 60
SOLID45 (a) Fixed support and (b) flexible support
Figure 4.6 Deflection at node A of in filled frame (as shown in Figure 61
3.9) under different lateral loads
Figure 4.7 Lateral load-lateral displacement curves for infilled frame 62
model by Mehrabi et al. (1996) and numerical model using
SOLID45 element
Figure 4.8 Two-dimensional view of frame subjected to lateral loading 63

Figure 4.9 Variation of frame stiffuess with beam length and beam 64
depth
Figure 4.10 Variation offrame stiffuess with column length and column 65
width
Figure 4.11 Variation offrame stiffuess with changing column height 66
for different frame aspect ratio

xu
Figure 4.12 Variation of frame stiffness with changing beam length for 66
different frame aspect ratio
Figure 4.13 Comparison of stiffness of bare frame as derived from 67
equation (4.3) and obtained from numerical analysis
Figure 4.14 Comparison of stiffness of bare frame having fixed and 68
flexible support at the base
Figure 4.15 Stiffness reduction factor for frame with flexible support at 68
the base
Figure 4.16 Comparison of deflection for different lateral loads for 69
frame with and without infill and infill alone
Figure 4.17 Contribution of lnfill to the total stiffness 70

Figure 4.18 Infill wall subj ected to lateral loading 71

(a) Fixed support and (b) flexible support
Figure 4.19 Stiffness of infill for different height of infill 71

Figure 4.20 Comparison of stiffness of infill wall from numerical 72

analysis and from equation (4.6)
Figure 4.21 Isometric view of infill wall with window opening 73

Figure 4.22 Variation of stiffness for infill with window for different 74
width of window
Figure 4.23 Variation of stiffness for infill with window for varying 74
height of window
Figure 4.24 Variation of stiffness of infill with window opening for 75
different aspect ratio
Figure 4.25 Stiffness of infill wall with presence of window opening for 76
fixed support
Figure 4.26 Stiffness reduction factor of infill wall with window opening 76
for fixed support
Figure 4.27 Isometric view of masonry with window opening for 77
flexible base
Figure 4.28 Stiffness of infill wall with window opening for flexible 77
support
Figure 4.29 Stiffuess reduction factor of infill wall with window opening 78
for flexible support
Figure 4.30 Presence of door in the infill panel of infilled frame 79
(a) Fixed support and (b) flexible support
Figure 4.31 Variation of stiffness of infill with door for different width 79
of door
Figure 4.32 Variation of stiffness of infill with door opening for 80
different height of door
Figure 4.33 Variation of stiffness of infill with door opening for 81
different aspect ratio
Figure 4.34 Stiffness of infill wall with presence of door opening for 81
fixed support
Figure 4.35 Stiffness reduction factor of infill wall with door opening for 82
fixed support

Xlll
Figure 4.36 Comparison of stiffness reduction factor for infill with door 83
and window opening
Figure 4.37 Stiffness of infill wall with presence of door opening for 84
flexible support
Figure 4.38 Stiffness reduction factor of infill wall with door opening for 84
flexible support
Figure 4.39 Isometric view of infill Wall with door opening 85
(a) Fixed support and (b) flexible support
Figure 4.40 Comparison of stiffness of infill with door by equation (4.3) 86
and by numerical analysis using SOLID45
Figure 4.41 Stiffness of infilled frame, infill and frame for 3048 mm 87
column height.
Figure 4.42 Typical deflected shape with principal stress contour 90
diagram of the infill wall without opening, (a) fixed support
and (b) flexible support
Figure 4.43 Typical deflected shape with principal stress contour 90
diagram of the infill wall with door opening, (a) fixed
support and (b) flexible support
Figure 4.44 Typical deflected shape with principal stress contour 90
diagram of the infill wall with window opening, (a) fixed
support and (b) flexible support

XIV
 LIST OF NOTATIONS

P=Lateralload
{K}=Stiffness matrix
U=Displacement matrix
al = ratio of moment of inertia to height ofleft column = lalLa

bl = ratio of moment of inertia to length ofbeam= Ib/Lb

cl = ratio of moment of inertia to length of right column= Ie/Lc

Ia=Moment of inertia ofleft column
h=Moment of inertia of beam
Ic=Moment of inertia of right column
La=length ofleft column
Lb=length of beam
Lc=length of right column
Em= Modulus of elasticity of mortar
Ec= Modulus of elasticity of concrete
G= Shear modulus of elasticity
Gm= Shear modulus of elasticity of mortar

Gc= Shear modulus of elasticity of concrete

f m= compressive strength of mortar
fc= compressive strength of concrete
b=Width of infill
L=Height of infill
w=Thickness of infill
B=Center to center distance of two columns
H=Height of in filled frame from column base to beam center
DlFDoor height
D,.=Door width
W,.=Width of window
WlFheight of window
L1 m=Flexural deformation
xv
Lfs=Shear deformation
Lfr=Total deformation
v=Poisson's ratio
vm= Poisson's ratio of concrete
Vc= Poisson's ratio of concrete
BD=Beam depth
Lb=Beam length
Cw=Column width
Lc=Column length

XVI
 LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

BEM= boundary element method

FE=finite element
RC= reinforced concrete
URM= unreinforced masonry

XVll
 Chapter 1
INTRODUCTION

1.1 GENERAL

Infilled frame is a composite structure formed by the combination of a moment

resisting frame and infill walls. The infill walls can be made of masonry or concrete.
Masonry infill walls have been used all over the world in reinforced concrete (Re)
frame structures as exterior and interior partition walls for a long time. Although in .'
traditional design the infills are not regarded as structural elements, these have a direct
influence on structural characteristics such as stiffuess and energy dissipation capacity
unless adequate gaps lead to complete separation of the infills and the surrounding
reinforced concrete (Re) frame. Because of the complexity of the problem and
absence of a realistic, yet simple analytical model, their interaction with the bounding
frame is often ignored in the analysis of building structures. There had been a number
of evidences of the contribution of masonry infill in resisting lateral loads during
earthquakes, strong wind and tornadoes in the past. This proves the high rigidity of
infill panels and explains the fact that presence of masonry infills confined within the
frames provides strong lateral load resistance. Ever since these experiences,
researchers throughout the world have been conducting successive investigations in
determining the behavior of infilled frames. Various approaches have already been
adopted starting from simple strength of materials approach, through trials to match
experimental results using simple models. Methods, based on the theory of elasticity,
equilibrium and energy approach, plastic analysis and finally finite element (FE)
analysis have also been used.

Although traditional empirical methods remam adequate for ordinary design and
analysis of reinforced concrete members, the wide dissemination of computers and the
development of the finite element packages have provided means for analysis of much
more complex systems in a much more realistic way. The main obstacle to finite
element analysis of reinforced concrete structure is the difficulty in characterizing the
material properties. Much effort has been spent in search of a realistic model to
predict the behavior of reinforced concrete structures. Due to the complexity of the

1
composite nature of the material, proper modeling of such structure is a challenging
task as well as a unique and complete constitutive model for reinforced concrete is
still lacking. In experimental investigation, sometimes it is not possible to consider all
the parameters, which may be possible by finite element simulation. In experimental
research it often requires many models for investigation, which is time consuming,
labor intensive, and may require huge materials for model preparation. If a good
finite element model can be established, it would help the researchers to consider all
the required parameters without any need for actual experiment. It is, then, possible to
carry out detail parametric study using this finite element model, which can reduce
huge experimental works. Hence, development of a proper computational model is
quite necessary to predict the performance of infilled frame structure and thereby
helps in achieving an optimum and effective solution in this regard.

1.2 OBJECTIVES OF THE PRESENT STUDY

The objectives of the research are as follows:

a) To study the elastic behavior of masonry in filled reinforced concrete frame

under lateral load.
b) To identify the amount of contribution of the masonry infill in the infill frames
in increasing the stiffuess of the frame.
c) To compare the existing experimental result with the predicted structural
performance of the computational models.
d) To study the structural performance of unreinforced masonry infills
considering the openings such as presence of doors and windows.
e) To develop simplified equation to find out the stiffuess of infilled frame
without numerical analysis.

1.3 SCOPE AND METHODOLOGY OF THE STUDY

Masonry is a two-phase material with regular distribution of mortar joint and brick. In
conventional numerical analysis of frame-infill systems, the masonry infill is usually
modeled using either an equivalent strut model or continuum model. The former
method is simple and computationally attractive but is theoretically weak. Identifying

2
the equivalent nonlinear stiffness of the infill masonry using diagonal struts is not
straightforward, especially when there exist some openings, such as doors or
windows, in the wall. It is also not possible to predict the damaged area of masonry
either. The latter method based on continuum modeling may provide an accurate
computational representation of both material and geometry aspects if the material
properties and the sources of nonlinearity of the masonry are carefully homogenized.
The finite element method can be a powerful analytical tool for evaluating the
behavior of structures under different load and design conditions. It is particularly
useful for the analysis of infilled structures, whose behavior depends upon a large
number of parameters. A finite element package (ANSYS 5.6) has been used for the
study. In the study finite element model has been adapted that can properly simulate
the behavior of RC frames with masonry infill. Optimum number of elements has
been selected and a comparison has been made with existing numericaVexperimental
results to check the sensitivity and verify the results of finite element package.

1.4 ORGANIZATION OF THE STUDY

This study is organized according to the stages followed for the development of the
numerical investigation. Thus, Chapter I introduces a general statement of the
problem and the objectives of this research. Chapter 2 reviews the available literature
discussing various studies conducted on infilled frames. This chapter also includes a
literature survey on the different techniques used for analyzing RC infilled frame
structures including the presence of opening in the infill panel. Chapter 3 describes
the development of the finite element model of the bare frame, infill panel and the
masonry infilled frame. Material properties and real constants and description of
modeling the geometry and its geometric properties used for the development of
numerical model are also presented here. Finally verification of the numerical model
using SOLID45 element with Beam4 is presented in this chapter by comparing the
bending moment diagrams. Chapter 4 presents the results obtained from the analysis
of the finite element models showing the load-deflection relationship of the RC frame
with infill panel and verification has been done with existing experiment data. Based
on the study stiffness equations have been developed for infilled frame considering
solid infill wall as well as infill wall with window and door opening considering fixed
support and flexible support. Finally, verification of the developed equations have

3
been done by comparing the stiffness of frame and infilled frame usmg derived
equation with the existing experimental data and with that obtained from the
numerical model adopted for present study. Chapter 5 draws conclusion of the current
work and discusses recommendations for future work in the area of infilled frame.

4
 Chapter 2
LITERATURE REVIEW

2.1 GENERAL

A large number of buildings are constructed with masonry infills for architectural
needs or aesthetic reasons. However, when subjected to a strong lateral load, infill
panels tend to interact with the bounding frame and these have a direct influence on
structural characteristics such as stiffuess and energy dissipation capacity, The effect
of masonry infill panels in changing the stiffuess, ultimate capacity and failure mode
of framed structures has been one of the most interesting research topics in the last
few decades. To study the performance of masonry-infilled RC frames under different
design conditions and to develop a rational approach for design of such structures,
comprehensive experimental and analytical investigations have been conducted by a
number of researchers throughout the world.

2.2 CHARACTERISTICS OF INFILLED FRAMES

The behavior of masonry infilled frames has been extensively studied in the last four
decades in attempts to develop a rational approach for design of such frames. The use
of a masonry infill to brace a frame combines some of the desirable structural
characteristics of each, while overcoming some of their deficiencies. The high in-
plane rigidity of the masonry wall significantly stiffens the otherwise relatively
flexible frame, while the ductile frame contains the brittle masonry, after cracking, up
to loads and displacements much larger than it could achieve without the frame. The
result is, therefore a relatively stiff and tough bracing system.

The wall braces the frame partly by its in-plane shear resistance and partly by its
behavior as a diagonal bracing strut in the frame. Figure 2.1 shows such modes of
behavior. When the frame is subjected to horizontal loading, it deforms with double-
curvature bending of the columns and beams.

5
 -
Shear dcformalion
of in fills

Frnme hearing
on in fill

Figure 2.1 Interactive behavior of frame and infill

•

The translation of the upper part of the column in each story and the shortening of the
leading diagonal of the frame cause the column to lean against the wall as well as to
compress the wall along its diagonal. It is roughly analogous to a diagonally braced
frame shown in Figure 2.2.

-.
WiJll.lwar~
columns in
Leeward columns
in compression

tension Equivalent
diagonal strut

Figure 2.2 Analogous braced frame

The potential modes of failure of the wall as shown in Figure 2.3 and Figure 2.4 arises
as a result of its interaction with the frame are given below:
i. Tension failure of the tension column due to overturning moments.
ii. Flexure or shear failure of the columns.
iii. Compression failure of the diagonal strut.

6
 iv. Diagonal tension cracking of the panel and
v. Sliding shear failure ofthe masomy along horizontal mortar beds.

Lcngth of D iagona I'cracking

bearing

Shear cracking
h

Figure 2.3 Modes of infill failure

Diagonal crackin Shear cracking

Shear crackin

Figure 2.4 Modes offrame failure

The "perpendicular" tensile stresses are caused by the divergence of the compressive
stress trajectories on opposite sides of the leading diagonal as they approach the
middle region of the infil!. The diagonal cracking is initiated at and spreads from the
middle of the infill, where the tensile stresses are a maximum, tending to stop near the
compression comer, where the tension is suppressed.

7
The nature of the forces in the frame can be understood by referring to the analogous
braced frame shown in Figure 2.2. The windward column or the column facing
earthquake load first, is in tension and the leeward column or the other side of the
building facing earthquake load last, is in compression. Since the infill bears on the
frame not as a concentrated force exactly at the comers, but over short lengths of the
beam and column adjacent to each compression comer, the frame members are
subjected also to transverse shear and a small amount of bending. Consequently, the
frame members or their connections are liable to fail by axial force or shear, and
especially by tension at the base of the windward column shown in Figure 2.4.

2.3 WORKS ON INFILLED FRAMES

The behavior of infilled frames under lateral loads has been investigated by a number
of researchers. Holmes (1961), Stafford Smith (1962, 1966, 1969), Mainstone and
Weeks (1970), McBride (1984), Yong (1984), Amos (1986), and Richardson (1986)
conducted experimental and analytical investigations on the lateral stiffness and
strength of steel frames infilled with mortar and concrete panels. Dawe and Seah
(1989), Flanagan et al. (1999), and Mander et al. (1993) studied the behavior of
masonry infill steel frames under in plane and out of plane loads. Dhanasekar and
Page (1986) developed finite element models of masonry infilled steel frames.
Saneinejad and Hobbs (1995) developed equivalent diagonal strut method to predict
the strength and stiffness of infilled steel frames as well as infill diagonal cracking
load.

The behavior of masonry infilled RC frames, which is generally more complicated

than that of infilled steel frames, has been examined by Fiorato et al. (1970), Kahn
and Hanson (1979), Zarnic and Tomazevic (1990), Murty et al. (2000) and recently by
Ghosh and Amde (2002), AI-Chaar (2002) and others. Both experimental and
analytical studies have been carried out by Mehrabi et al. (1994, 1996, 1997) to
investigate the performance of masonry infilled RC frames under in-plane lateral
loadings under different design conditions. Based on tests and nonlinear finite element
analyses, a unified plastic analysis for infilled frames with three types of interface
conditions was proposed by Liauw and Kwan (1985). Unreinforced masonry walls
used as infill panels in RC frames are vulnerable elements of buildings when

8
subjected to earthquake loading and this has been studied either experimentally or
analytically by Klingner and Bertero (1978), Bertero and Brokken (1983), Zarnic
(1990), Mosalam et al. (1997), Kappos et al. (1998, 2002) and others. Manos et al.
(2000) experimentally investigated the influence of masonry infills on the earthquake
response of multi-story RC frames. Dey (2000) and later Waset (2002) worked on
sway characteristics of masonry infilled RC building frames under lateral load. The
study of Dymiotis et al. (200l) focused on the seismic reliability and probabilistic
assessment of RC frames infilled with unreinforced masonry walls. Effect of
randomly distributed infills on the vibration characteristics of reinforced concrete
frames was investigated by Haque (2002).

2.4 AVAILABLE COMPUTATIONAL MODEL

The computational modeling of infilled frames has been described in this part. The
effect of masonry infilled panels in changing the behavior of RC frame has long been
an interesting topic to the researchers for the last few decades. The contribution of the
masonry .panel confined within RC frame in the stiffuess and ultimate load carrying
capacity (in-plane) has been investigated by various researchers and numerous
computational models have been established in this regard. This part states the
numerous computational models that are available on infill panels.

Modeling of RC structures as well as infill panels is based mainly on finite element

methods and sophisticated material models. The modeling of infill panel with
reinforced concrete frame can be broadly categorized into two approaches: a)
equivalent diagonal strut approach and b) continuum approach.

2.4.1 Approximate Method

A concept of the behavior of infilled frames has been developed from approximate
analyses by Smith and Coull (1985). An understanding of infilled-frame behavior is
far from complete and further research needs to be done, especially with full-scale
tests. Consequently, opinions about the approach to the design of infilled frames
differ, especially as to whether it should be elastically or plastically based. The
method presented here draws from a combination of test observations and the results

9
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.

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
occur at the center of the infill and that they can be expressed empirically by,
1.43Q
Shear stress, Txy =-- (2.1)
Lt
Vertical compressive stress,
(O.8h/I-.2)Q
(J' =~---~ (2.2)
xy Lt

Where Q is the horizontal shear load applied by the frame to the infill of length L,
height h, and thickness t. 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

Diagonal tensile stress, cr = O.58Q (2.3)

d Lt
These stresses are governed mainly by the proportions of the infill. They are little
influenced 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.

Tests on model infilled frames have shown that the length of bearing of each story-
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 shown in Figure 2.3. 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

10
be estimated by,
r
a=- (2.4)
2,1,

I
where, A = 4 _m_ (2.5)
~ 4EIh
in which Em is the elastic modulus of the masonry and El is the flexural rigidity of the
column. The parameter A expresses the bearing stiffuess of the infill relative to the
flexural rigidity of the column: the stiffer the column, the smaller the value of A and
the longer the length of bearing.

If it is assumed that when the comer of the infill crushes, the masonry bearing against
the column within the length a is at the masonry ultimate compressive stress 1m then
the corresponding ultimate horizontal shear Q'e on the infill is given by-
(2.6)

Q '= r 'I II ~4EIh (2.7)

, Jm 2 E I
m

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

Q, = 5.2/J/IhI3 (2.8)

and for a reinforced concrete framed infill

Q, = 2.91m V Ihl' (2.9)

in whichf,,, is the allowable compressive stress of masonry.

These semi-empirical formulas 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 comers. The masonry compressive strength and the wall thickness have the
most direct influence on the infill strength. While the column inertia and infill height
exerts control in proportion to their fourth roots. The infill strengths indicated by
Equation (2.8) and (2.9) are very approximate. Experimental evidence has shown
them to overestimate the real values; therefore, they will be modified before being
used in the design procedure.

11
2.4.2 Equivalent Diagonal Strut Approach

The first published research on modeling of infill panel as an equivalent diagonal strut
was by Holmes (1961). He proposed a method for predicting the deformations and
strength of infilled frames based on the equivalent diagonal strut concept. He assumed
that the infill wall acts as a diagonal compression strut, as shown in Figure 2.5(a), of
the same thickness and elastic modulus as the infill with a width equal to one-third the
diagonal length. He also concluded that, at the infill failure, the lateral deflection of
the infilled frame is small compared to the deflection of the corresponding bare frame.
Also, the frame members remained elastic up to the failure load. By equating the
elastic deformation of the frame diagonal to the shortening of the equivalent diagonal
strut at failure, Holmes derived an equation to determine the ultimate lateral load
carrying capacity as shown in Equation (2.10).

H= (2.10)

Here, H is the horizontal load at failure, ! is the moment of inertia of the column of
the frame, !,is the moment of inertia of the beam of the frame, E is the modulus of
elasticity of frame members, e, is the uniaxial compressive strain of the infill material
at failure, h is the height of the infill, d is the diagonal length of the infill, () is the
angle of inclination of the diagonal strut to the horizontal, A is the sectional area of
the equivalent diagonal strut and fc is the ultimate compressive strength of the
equivalent diagonal strut. Holmes showed that a value of td/3, where t and d are the
thickness and diagonal length of the infill, respectively, best represents the value of A
for strength prediction. However, the analytical predictions of deflection at ultimate
load were generally lower than those measured experimentally. Later, Holmes (1963),
based on test results of model steel frames with concrete infills, proposed semi-
empirical methods to predict the behavior of infilled frames subjected to lateral and
vertical loadings.

Stafford Smith (1962) conducted a series of tests on laterally loaded square mild steel
frame models infilled with micro-concrete. Monitoring the model deformations during

12 .,
the tests showed that the frame separated from the infill over three quarters of the
length of each frame member. These observations led to the conclusion that, the wall
could be replaced by an equivalent diagonal strut connecting the loaded comers. The
load-deformation relation recorded showed a high increase in stiffness of the infilled
frame compared to the bare frame. Another series of tests were conducted on
unframed mortar walls loaded diagonally and measuring the strains along the loaded
diagonal. In order to find a theoretical method to predict the experimental results, a
stress function was solved for a number of nodes on the wall using the finite
difference method and the theoretical results were in good agreement with the
experimental observations. The theoretical results were translated into what was
termed an effective width of the wall, which is the width of an equally stiff uniform
strut whose length is equal to the diagonal ofthe wall and whose thickness is the same
as the wall. It was determined that the effective width of the equivalent strut was
dependent only on the wall's aspect ratio.

..•..
,

"".~'"/
>'~'.,.....
j " .

(a) ! \

Figure 2.5(a) The Diagonal Compression Strut of Masonry Infill

(b) Material Modeling of Masonry infill as Diagonal Strut

Further tests revealed that the above assumption, which was made, based on loading
unframed walls, is invalid. The effective width of infill was found to depend on the
length of contact between the infill and the frame, which itself was found to be highly
dependent on the relative stiffness between the frame and the infill. In 1966 Stafford
Smith conducted a series of tests on diagonally loaded small-scale square mild steel
frames infilled with micro-concrete. Using equilibrium and energy considerations of

13
the frame and infill, Stafford Smith was able to establish the length of contact,
ah, between the frame column and the infill; a is given in Equation (2.11) in terms of
A, where ,1,h is a dimensionless parameter expressing the relative stiffuess of the frame
and the infill given in Equation (2.12).

I1
a=- (2.11)
2A

114

Ah = h Emt (2.12)
( )
4E1h

Here, Emis the elastic modulus of the infill, t is thickness of the infill, E1 is the column
rigidity and h is the height of the infil!. After deriving the length of contact, it became
possible to isolate the frame from the infill in order to evaluate the load carried by
each component of the infilled frame system. Stafford Smith used a finite difference
technique to evaluate stress and strain in the infill and to derive a theoretical effective
width of the equivalent diagonal strut. Stafford Smith found the theoretical effective
width to be consistently less than the experimentally measured values. He attributed
this discrepancy to higher strain due to stress concentration and nonlinear load-
deformation behavior of the mortar infill at the loaded comer. In view of this finding,
he recommended the use of experimental curves to estimate the effective width.
Stafford Smith and Carter (1969) extended the work on square infilled frames to
include rectangular walls. In a manner similar to that of the square infilled frames, the
equivalent strut width is expressed as a function of Ah, where the equation is as given
below.
E )1/4
,1,h =h ( ~sin2e (2.13)
4E1h

In the above equation, e is the angle of inclination of the diagonal to the horizontal
member. They concluded that the lateral stiffuess of an infilled frame might be
obtained by statically analyzing the equivalent pin-jointed frame in which the infill is
replaced by an equivalent diagonal strut. They also found that the effective width of
an infill acting as a diagonal strut was influenced by many factors. Some of the most
influencing factors were the relative stiffuess of the infill and the frame, the aspect
ratio of the wall, the stress strain relationship of the infill material and the magnitude
of the diagonal load on the infill. Provided that the frame members possess adequate

14
strength, the authors suggested that an infill consisting of concrete or mortar may fail
by either tension cracking along the loaded diagonal and/or crushing of the infill at the
loaded comers. In addition to the above modes of failure, a masonry infill may also
fail by a third mode, namely, the shear cracking along the interface between brick and
mortar. They also concluded that column stiffness can influence the stiffness and
strength of the infill rather than the beam stiffness, which have been shown to have
little effect, and that whatever the beam stiffness is, the length of beam in contact is
always roughly half the span. Experimental results also showed that the bending
moments in an infilled frame relative to the same non- filled frame subjected to
similar forces are greatly reduced. They suggested design charts corresponding to the
mentioned three failure modes, from these charts; the failure load in the equivalent
diagonal strut can be obtained.

Mainstone (1971) presented results of series of tests on model frames with infills of
micro-concrete and model brickwork along with a less number of full-scale tests. He
found that factors such as the initial lack of fit between the infill and the frame and
variation in the elastic properties and strength of the infill can result in a wide
variation in behavior even between nominally identical specimens. Mainstone also
adopted the concept of replacing the infill with an equivalent pin-jointed diagonal
strut; although he believed the concept can only be justified for behavior prior to first
cracking of the infil\. He plotted the aforementioned test results against the stiffness
parameter, ;th, and empirically formulated three equivalent diagonal strut widths to
evaluate the stiffness, first crack load, and ultimate composite strength of the infilled
frame.
Based on the analytical and experimental studies conducted by Kadir (1974), Hendry
(1981) proposed a semi-empirical relation for the equivalent width of the diagonal
strut as,
(2.14)

where, w is the effective width of the infill wall, a, is the contact length between the
beam of the frame and the infill wall, ah is the contact length between the column of
the frame and the infill wall The above equation assumes that the contact stress has a
triangular distribution, and idealizes it into a uniform distribution of half the
maximum value of the triangular one. The contact lengths were obtained using

15
Stafford Smith method after modifying Equation (2.13) to suit the beam also and
using Equation (2.11) to obtain the column as well as the beam contact lengths.

Paulay and Priestley (1992) suggested treating the infill walls as diagonal bracing
members connected by pins to the frame members. They also suggested calculating
the stiffuess of the structure and hence its natural period based on considering the
effective strut width to be one quarter the wall diagonal.

Saneinejad and Hobbs (1995) proposed a method of analyzing masonry infilled steel
frames subjected to in-plane loading. The method utilized the data generated from
previous experiments as well as the results of a series of non-linear FE analyses. The
proposed method accounts for both the elastic and the plastic behavior of infilled
frames and predicts the strength and stiffuess of the infilled frames. The method also
accounted for various parameters like different wall aspect ratios and different beam-
to-column stiffuess and strength. The method was based on using equilibrium and
elasticity equations to generate various parameters governing the behavior of the
infilled frame system like the contact stresses and lengths along with the initial
stiffuess of the infilled frame as well as the secant stiffuess at failure. The authors also
assumed that at failure, full plastification occurs at the loaded comers of the frame as
well as the part of the infill in contact with the frame. The authors suggested that the
resistance to lateral loads was offered by three components. These components are the
force induced due to shear stresses on the beam-wall interface, the force generated by
the normal stresses on the column-wall interface and finally the force developed in the
steel frame itself as a result of its own stiffuess to horizontal loads. Having derived the
ultimate load, the area of the diagonal strut was easily derived. The collapse load and
the initial stiffuess as predicted by the proposed method was compared to tests
conducted by others and was found to give satisfactory results.

Madan et al. (1997) further extended the work of Saneinejad and Hobbs (1995) by
including a smooth hysteretic model for the equivalent diagonal strut. The proposed
analytical development assumes that the contribution of masonry in fill panel as shown
in Figure 2.6 to the response of the infilled frame can be modeled by replacing the
panel by a system of two diagonal masonry compression struts as shown in Figure
2.7. The stress strain relationship for masonry in compression as shown in Figure 2.8

16
is used to determine the strength envelope of the equivalent strut. The individual
masonry struts are considered ineffective in tension. But the combination of both
diagonal struts provide 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 smooth curve bounded by a bilinear strength
envelope with an initial elastic stiffuess until the yield force Vy and there on a
degraded stiffuess until the maximum force Vrn is reached shown in Figure 2.9. The
corresponding lateral displacement values are denoted as uy and Urn respectively.

,
.J ~I ~I_~~_~I ~I L
~-----------------_.------,
, : ,
M omcl)Y'" : :
frame : :
,, ''
,, ':
Masonry I :

infill punel : :
,, ''
, :
-.----------.----_.-------<
II
\( I'
1
i(

Figure 2.6 Masonry infill frame sub-assemblage in masonry

infill panel frame structures

Figure 2.7 Masonry infill panel in frame structure

17
 f' m

E
r '"
Em -Esec

Compression

Tension ,'. Masonry strain (E",)

Figure 2.8 Constitutive model for masonry infill

panel by Madan et aL (1997)

Vm --------------

v,
v, --

. • u

---------------
v.
Y
m nlf
11 Ir

Figure 2.9 Strength envelope for masonry infill

panel by Madan et aL (1997)

Flanagan et aL (1999) reported the results of a number of full. scale clay infilled steel
frames tested under in-plane loading. A piecewise linear equivalent diagonal strut was
used to model the infill. The behavior of the structural clay tile infills was correlated
with the absolute story drift rather than the non-dimensional story drift. The area of
the strut, A, was given by Equation (2.15).

TIt
A= (2.15)
CACosB

where, t, A and B are defined in Equation. (2.13) and C is an empirical constant

depending on the in-plane drift displacement.

18
El-Dakhakhni (2000), El-Dakhakhni et a\. (2001) suggested a modeling technique for
concrete masonry infilled steel frames, as shown in Figure 2.10. The technique is
based on replacing the infill wall by one diagonal and two off-diagonal struts. It is
based on making use of the orthotropic behavior of the masonry wall as well as some
experimental observation, and analytical simplifications, in order to simplify the
nonlinear modeling of these structures.

beam-column join

column beam

Figure 2.10 The infilled frame model proposed by El-Dakhakhni (2000)

2.4.3 Continuum Approach

In the period of very early ages of studying infill panels, experimental work was
conducted by Thomas (1953) and Wood (1958) in the United Kingdom and test
results provided ample testimony that a relatively weak infill can contribute
significantly to the stiffuess and strength of an otherwise flexible frame. Sachanski
(1960) performed tests on model and prototype infilled frames. Based on his test
results, he proposed an analytical model in which he analyzed contact forces between
the frame and the infill by assuming their mutual bond to be replaced by thirty
redundant reactions. The forces were determined by forming and solving the
equations for the compatibility of displacements of the frame and the infill. He treated
the infill as an elastic membrane and stiffuess coefficients of the infill were
determined by integrating the stresses determined by using a finite difference
technique. Having found the contact forces, he then proposed a stress function for the
stress analysis of the infil\. It should be pointed out that the theoretical approach of
Sachanski can only be applied to an integral infill frame where separation between the
infill and the frame is prevented. Additionally, the infill was assumed to be isotropic,

19
homogeneous, and elastic and these assumptions are not applicable for the non-
homogeneous and anisotropic masonry infills.

Riddington and Stafford Smith (1977) conducted an extensive series of plane stress
finite element analyses oflaterally loaded infilled frames. The interaction between the
frame and the infill was modeled by introducing a linking matrix, representing the
contact interface, connecting each two adjacent nodes in the frame and the infill wall.
This forced the nodes on the frame and infill to undergo the same displacement if they
are in contact. When sliding occurs between the two nodes due to the presence of
tension force in the interface, the linking matrix forced the two nodes to have the
equal displacement only perpendicular to the interface. They gave empirical equations
based on the conducted stress analyses in order to estimate shear stress, diagonal
tension and vertical compression at the center of the wall.

Mallick and Severn (1967) introduced an iterative technique whereby the points of
separation between the frame and the infill, as well as the stress distribution along the
length of contact between the frame and the infill, were obtained as an integral part of
the solution. Slip between the frame and the infill was also taken into account.
Standard beam elements were used to model the frame while plane stress rectangular
elements were used for the infill. The contact problem was solved by initially
assuming that the infill and frame nodes have the same displacement. Having
determined the nodal displacement, the load along the periphery of the infill is
determined and checked for tension. If a tension force is found, separation is assumed
to have occurred and the corresponding nodes on the frame and infill are allowed to
move independently in the next iteration. This procedure is repeated until a pre-
described tolerance for convergence is achieved. The effect of slip and interface
friction was considered by introducing shear forces along the length of contact. The
authors ignored the axial deformations of the columns in their formulation. Barna and
Mallick (1977) used FE to analyze infilled frames and their technique was similar to
the method proposed by Sachanski (1960) except that a finite element technique was
used to determine stiffness coefficients of the boundary nodes of the infill. Unlike
Sachanski; Barau and Mallick allowed for the separation between the infill and frame
and included the effect of slip.

20
Liauw and Kwan (1983, 1985) developed a plastic theory of non-integral (without
shear connectors) infilled frames in which the stress redistribution towards collapse
was taken into account and the friction is neglected for strength reserve. The theory
was based on the findings from non-linear finite element analysis and experimental
investigation. The results from the theory have been shown to compare favorably with
the experimental results given by many researchers on small-scale model tests. Series
of equations defining the ultimate load capacity as governed by various modes of
failure was suggested by Liauw and Kwan. The parameters involved in these
equations were the beam and column strength, the aspect ratio of the wall as well as
its mechanical properties. Liauw and Lo (1988) conducted a series of tests on a
number of small-scale models of micro concrete infilled steel frames. The frame
members were hot-rolled mild steel solid rectangular bars. FE analysis was used to
model the test specimens, taking into account the nonlinearity of material, cracking in
the wall and separation-friction-slip at the interface between the wall and the frame. In
order to simulate the frame-wall interface, each pair of adjacent nodes in the frame
and wall elements were connected by an interface element.

Dawe and Charalambous (1983) presented a finite element technique where standard
beam and membrane elements were used to model the frame and the infill wall,
respectively. Static condensation was then used to eliminate the interior degrees of
freedom of the infill leaving only the degrees of freedom associated with nodes
adjacent to the frame nodes. The interface between the frame an~ the infill was
modeled with rigid links and an iterative solution technique was adopted. At the end
of each iteration, these rigid links were checked, and for a link in!ension, a static
condensation technique was used to eliminate the stiffness of this link.

Mehrabi and Shing (1997) developed a cohesive dilatants interface model to simulate
the behavior of mortar joints between masonry units as well as the behavior of frame
to panel interface, and a smeared crack finite element formulation has been used to.
model concrete in the RC frame and masonry units in the infill panels. These models
have been implemented in simulating the failure mechanisms exhibited by infilled
frames including the crushing and cracking of the concrete frames and masonry
panels, and the sliding and separation of the mortar joints.

21
Seah (1998) suggested an analytical technique, in which the steel frame was modeled
using elastic beam-column elements connected with nonlinear rotational, shear, and
normal springs. The masonry wall was represented by a series of elastic plane stress
elements connected together by a series of springs representing the mortar joints as
shown in Figure 2.11. The suggested analytical technique gave very good results up to
failure as shown in Figure 2.12, when it was used to model the specimens of the
aforementioned testing program conducted in the University of New Brunswick. The
model was sophisticated enough to account for the variation in contact lengths and the
failure of mortar joints due to shear, tension or compression.

Ida ••••• .., pa.tI_ ,,10••••• Dl.

!IelImm'; ~1'\Ul<111l1eil'
Q~iD<;iaC' with lllgrlU
""'''

la!D~fdenrnt

Inl.rrt'trge FDmnnn'

e1nforcemcnt eleme~t
~lJB.ted Ll boundary of wAll
element (typ,)

Fig. 2.11 The infilled frame model proposed by Seah (1998)

Ghosh and Amde (2002) verified the design of in filled frames to resist lateral loads on
buildings in terms of their failure modes, failure loads and initial stiffuess using
procedures proposed by Riddington (1984) and Pook and Dawe (1986). This
verification is made by comparing the results of the analytical procedures of the
previous authors with those of a new finite element model for installed frames, which
are verified using experimental results. A non-associated interface model has been
formulated to model the interface between frame and infill and the mortar joints
surrounding the blocks of masonry using the available test data on masonry joints.
The failure criteria for masonry include the von Mises criterion for the plane stress
condition for uncracked masonry and a smeared crack model. The finite element
model provided more insights into the failure mechanisms of the infilled frames.

22
 600
o 50 100 150 200 250
I I I

I r r I I
500 __ I-. L-. j -!-. -l.. _
I r I i I
400 __ L - L L -l .l _
I : r I I
I r I I I
z 300
6 --[----;.- --1--- r---T----
-0
r r I i
'"o
..J
200 --.'--_.[-'---\'-
~--T----r----
r I ' :
100 .....-.. -.-.-;I-'!II~~~.U'
I~ 'I~~~~:-=-:
__ ---J_~_=->

• __ Experimenlal- Specimen WD7 (Richardson 1986)

----...- Analy1ical
o __ Frame with no infill

o 50 100 150 200 250

Deflection (mm)

Figure 2.12 Load deflection behavior of a specimen

modeled by Seah (1998)

2.4.4 Plasticity Model

The theory of plasticity, which is adopted by Lourenco et al. (1997) describes the
inelastic behavior, utilizes modem 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 tensile fracture energy and compressive fracture
energy, which are different for each material axis.

A large number of anisotropic materials exist in engmeenng 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 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 tensional hardening has been
incorporated in the Hill criterion. It is not surprising that only a few anisotropic

23
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. In order to model orthotropic material behavior, we
purpose a hill-type criterion for compression and Rankine-type criterion for tension,
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
Figure 2.13 shows the proposed composite yield criterion with iso-shear lines.

Figure 2.13 Proposed composite yield criterion with iso-shear stress lines

2.4.5 Coupled Boundary Element Method (Papia, M. 1988)

The behavior of infilled frames subjected to horizontal loads is analyzed by an

iterative numerical procedure. The stiffness contribution by brickwork or concrete
panels in reinforced concrete or steel frames can prove to be decisive in relation to
structure 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 in foreseen torsional effects. 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.

24
At first, infiJl 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, usmg an analogous procedure panels with opemngs or doors and

windows are considered, which cause a loss of stiffness. The behavior of brickwork or
concrete panels in infiJled frames subjected to horizontal actions has been analyzed by
several researchers, mostly experimentaJly working in the foJlowing main fields:
i. Evaluation of stiffness and analysis of modes of failure.
ii. Dissipation capacity of the structural system under monotonic
and cyclic loads.

2.5 CHARACTERISTICS OF INFILLED FRAMES WITH OPENINGS

Although infill walls usually have oversized openings like doors and windows, recent
research work have focused mainly on the simple case of infill waJl without openings.
Research of the infill waJl with openings is mostly analytical and limited, and bears
no comparison due to the different materials used and the different types of openings.
It is worth noticing that the contribution of the infill wall to the frame lateral stiffness
is greatly reduced when the structure is subjected under reversed cyclic loading, as in
real structures under earthquake conditions. The relevant experimental findings
(Vintzeleou and Tassios 1989) showed a considerable reduction in the response of
infilled frames under reversed cyclic loading.

The effect of opemngs on the lateral stillness of infilled frames has been
experimentally investigated by several researchers. Benjamin and Williams (1958)
measured a 50 percent reduction of the ultimate strength in infilled frames having an
opening at the center of the infill with dimensions proportional to the infill
dimensions by a ratio of one third.

As mentioned in Mallick and Garg (1971), Coull's seminal 1966 work tested a few
infilled frames having central openings with and without reinforcement around the
openings. He observed that these openings reduce the stiffness and strength of infilled

25
frames by about 60-70 percent and by 45 percent respectively, as compared to a solid
infill panel. The failures occurred due to crushing of one of the loaded comers of the
infill. Considerable cracking of the infills had occurred before the failure. He
predicted theoretically the values of lateral stiffness based on the theories of Holmes
(1961) and Smith (1962), but the values differed from the experimental results by as
much as 300 percent.

Mallick and Garg (1971) investigated the effect of opening positions on the behavior
of infilled frames with or without shear connectors. They found that an opening at
either end of the loaded diagonal of an infilled frame without connectors reduces its
lateral strength about 75 percent and its lateral stiffness about 85-90 percent as
compared to that of a similar infilled frame with solid panel (without opening). For
infilled frames with shear connectors, the presence of an opening on either end of the
loaded diagonal reduces its stillness by 60-70 percent as compared to that of similar
infilled frame with a solid panel. For both types of frames the loss of strength and
stiffness due to a centrally loaded square opening having side dimensions one fifth
those of the panel is about 50-25 percent compared to similar frames without
opemngs.

Liauw and Lee (1977) and Liauw (1979) report on the results of monotonic tests on
four-story single-bay steel frames infilled with reinforced micro-concrete walls. One
of the parameters investigated was the dimensions of openings located at mid-span of
infill. The authors state that a change in the mode of failure was observed in the case
where there were openings in the infills. In particular, according to the writers, in
infill panels with openings, initial cracks appeared on the lowest windward side wall.
As the load was increased, cracks spread to the first story windward side wall and
appeared on the leeward side wall as well on the ground story lintel beam. At higher
load, the spread of cracks followed a similar pattern, indicating the transfer of
compression from one side to the other through the lintel beams on the upper stories.
At the ultimate stage, the two diagonal cracks in the lowest infills divided the infills
into three separate parts and compression failure occurred at the bottom level of the
lintel beam and the bottom comer of the windward side wall. On the other hand, when
the panels are solid, failure takes place in the infill and it is either a diagonal
compression or a shear failure. According to the writers the results could be

26
summarized as follows: (a) the openings in the infills produce large reductions in the
strength and the stiffness of infilled frames; and (b) when the opening extends above
the compression diagonal, then the infill is under bending, shear and compression, and
the action of the infill is different in nature from the action of a diagonal strut.

Utku (1980) investigated the effect of openings parameters (such as aspect ratio,
position,. and area) on the stiffness and strength of one-story walls with single
,

openings under earthquake loads. The walls were analyzed as plane stress problems
assuming linearly elastic isotropic material and small deformations. Considering the
largest magnification factor in the wall as the maximum magnification factor, the
variation of this factor with the opening parameters was investigated and presented.
According to this analytical research work, the followings were observed: (a) the
maximum stress magnification factor increases as the opening percentage increases;
(b) the maximum stress magnification factor increases as the opening moves upward;
and (c) the maximum stress magnification factor increases as the aspect ratio of the
opening changes from 1/1 to 2/1.

A representative analytical work on the influence of the openings to the elastic

stiffness of infill walls has been presented by Giannakas et al. (1987). They use the
finite element method to model the infill walls, assuming that the masonry is a
material homogeneous, elastic, and isotropic. They model the surrounding frame by
means of suitable boundary condition and investigate the effect of openings
parameters (such as position and area) on the elastic stiffness of infill panels.
According to the authors, the openings reduce the stiffness of infilled frames by about
70~80 percent for an opening percentage of 20-30 percent. The interesting thing is that
they observe that the effect of the opening position on the infill panel is insignificant.

A new finite element technique for the analysis of brickwork infilled plane frames
under lateral loads has been presented by Asteris (2003). The influence of masonry
infill panel opening in the reduction of the infilled frames stiffness has been also
investigated by means of this technique. He has carried out a parametric study using
as parameters the position and the percentage of masonry infill opening for the case of
a one story single bay infilled frame. Asteris has concluded that the increase in the
opening percentage leads to a decrease on the lateral stiffness of infilled frames. This

27
decrease can reach 87 percent for a bare frame (l00 percent opening). For openings
exceeding 50 percent, the stiffuess factor remains practically constant. In his work he
has considered mainly three positions of openings in the infill: (a) opening at the
outside and down left of the compression diagonal; (b) opening upon the compression
diagonal and (c) opening outside and upright of the compression diagonal. The overall
action between the frame and the infill is adversely affected as the opening position is
moved towards the compression diagonal. The investigation has been extended up to
the case of multistory, fully or partially infilled frames. In particular, the redistribution
of action effects of infilled frames under lateral loads has also been studied. He has
shown that the redistribution of shear force is critically influenced by the presence and
continuity of infill panels. The presence of infills leads, in general, to decreased shear
forces on the frame columns. However, in the case of an infilled frame with a soft
ground story, the shear forces acting on columns are considerably higher than those
obtained from the analysis of the bare frame.

2.6 CONCLUDING REMARKS

This chapter summarizes the theoretical and experimental research work conducted in
the area of infilled frames. It is well and widely recognized nowadays that masonry
infill walls used for cladding and/or partition in buildings, significantly alter their
seismic response, and their effect in changing the stiffuess, the ultimate lateral load
capacity as well as the ductility supply of the building system should be accounted for
in the analysis and design.

Due to the complexity of the contact problem between frame and infill, the
sophisticated composite action of them, and the incomplete understanding of the infill
role, as well as the numerous uncertainties involved in modeling the effect of infills;
design aids such as manuals and software as well as related code provisions hardly
include any detailed guidance to take into account the effect of the infills. On the
other hand, the contribution of the infill is taken into consideration in the case of
structural evaluation or retrofitting, where the overlooked infills are considered to be
of most importance and actually the first line of defense.

28
 Chapter 3
MODELING AND VERIFICATION

3.1 GENERAL

This chapter describes the finite element meshing of reinforced concrete frame and
infill panel. Selection of element type and dimension of modeling frames including
beam, column and infill panel has also been described. To model the portal and its
infill SOLID45, a solid element with eight nodes, as described in Appendix A (article
A.l), has been used. This structural model using solid element has been verified with
the structure modeled using BEAM4, as described in Appendix A (article A.2), by
comparing the moment diagrams.

3.2 PROPERTIES OF THE ELEMENTS USED

In modeling the frame same material properties and geometrical properties have been
used for beam and columns, whereas material properties are different for infill wall.

3.2.1 Beam and Columns

The following material properties and geometrical properties have used for beam and
columns.

Material Properties: The following properties of normal weight concrete are

assigned (BNBC, 1993).

• Density, We = 23kN/m3.
• Compressive strength,fc' = 28 MPa.
+ Young's modulus of elasticity, Ee = 24862 MPa
• Poisson's ratio, Ve = 0.15
• Shear modulus of elasticity, G e = 10810 MPa
Geometrical Properties: The beam and column with the following section properties
are used.

• Section dimension 381mmx457mm

+ Moment of inertia =303034xl04 mm4

29
3.2.2 InCiIl Masonry Wall

The following material properties and geometrical properties have been used for infill
masonry wall.

Material Properties: The following properties of normal masonry wall have been
assigned (BNBC, 1993).

• Density, Wrn = 19 kN/m3.

• Compressive strength,! rn = 28 MPa.
• Young's modulus of elasticity, Ern =7500 MPa.
• Poisson's ratio, Vrn = 0.25
•. Shear modulus of elasticity, Gm = 3000 MPa.

Geometrical Properties: Thickness of the infill masonry wall = 127 mm

3.3 MODEL GEOMETRY

The ultimate purpose of a finite element analysis is to re-create mathematically the

behavior of an actual engineering system. In other words, the analysis must be an
accurate mathematical model of a physical prototype. In the broadest sense, this
model comprises all the nodes, elements, material properties, geometrical properties,
boundary conditions, and other features that are used to represent the physical system
and creating a finite element model requires more time than any other part of the
analysis.

The geometry can be modeled in ANSYS program by either graphical user interface
(GUI) or COMMAND method. The GUI method gives users easy, interactive access
to program functions, commands, documentation, and reference material. An intuitive
menu system helps users navigate through the ANSYS program. The GUI provides an
interface between the user and the ANSYS program, which commands drive
internally. The GUI consists of windows, menus, dialog boxes, and other components
that let users enter input data and execute ANSYS functions simply by picking
buttons with a mouse or typing in responses to prompts or a combination of both. On
the other hand, commands are the instructions that direct the ANSYS program.
ANSYS has more than 800 commands, each designed for a specific functions. Most
commands are associated with specific (one or more) processors, and work only with

30
that processor or those processors. In this research work the portal with different infill
conditions ismodeled by COMMAND method.

In ANSYS terminology, the term model generation usually means generating the
nodes and elements that represent the spatial volume and connectivity of the actual
system. Thus, model generation means the process of defining the geometric
configuration of the model's nodes and elements. The ANSYS program offers users
the following approaches to model generation:

• Creating a solid model within ANSYS.

• Using direct generation.

• Importing a model created in a computer-aided design (CAD) system.

In this research work mainly solid model generation is used except in the case of
modeling of portal using BEAM4 element where direct generation method is used.
With solid modeling, the geometric boundaries of the model is to be described,
controls over the size and desired shape of the elements are to be established, and then
the ANSYS program is instructed to generate all the nodes and elements
automatically. By contrast, with the direct generation method the location of every
node and the size, shape, and connectivity of every element are determined prior to
defining these entities in the ANSYS model.

3.3.1 Comparison of equivalent strut model and continuum model

In conventional numerical analysis of frame-infill systems, the masonry infill is

usually modeled using either an equivalent strut model or continuum model. Figure
3.I(a) shows the equivalent strut model which has been developed replacing the infill
by an equivalent pin-jointed diagonal strut of the same material of infill with a width
one third of the infill's diagonal length as proposed by Holmes (1961). So the area of
the diagonal strut becomes as follows.
d (3.1 )
AStrut = wx-
. 3

Where, w=thickness of infill wall,

d=length of diagonal strut.

31
Figure 3.1(b) represents the continuum model. The assembly of commands for
equivalent strut model and continuum model are given in the Appendix B (article B.l
and article B.2). Figure 3.2 shows their typical deflected shape. It has been observed
from the Figure 3.3 that variation of lateral stiffuess from these two models is
insignificant.

Equivalent strut model is simple and computationally attractive but is theoretically

weak. It is not possible to identify the equivalent stiffuess of the infill masonry using
diagonal struts directly, especially when there exist some openings, such as doors or
windows, in the wall. It is also not possible to predict the damaged area of masonry
either. On the other hand, continuum modeling may provide an accurate
computational representation of both material and geometry aspects if the material
properties are carefully homogenized. For this reason continuum model approach has
been chosen to develop model for the present study.

(a) (b)
Figure 3.1 (a) Equivalent strut model
(b) Continuum Model

Figure 3.2 Typical deflected shape of (a) equivalent strut model,

(b) Continuum model

32
 600000
-.- Continuum approach
-.- Equivalent strut method
480000

~
"g 360000
..s
e
~ 240000
....l

120000

o
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0

Displacement (mm)

Figure 3.3 Lateral load-lateral displacement curves for infilled

frame model by equivalent strut model and continuum model

3.3.2 Comparison of 2D model and 3D model

Figure 3.4(a) shows the 2D model of infilled frame using 2D structural solid, as
described in Appendix A (article A.3) and Figure 3.4(b) shows the 3D model of
infilled frame which has been modeled using 3D structural solid, as described in
Appendix A (article A.I).

(a)

Figure 3.4 Isometric view of (a) 2D model

(b) 3D model

33
From Figure 6.5 and Figure 3.6 it can be observed that 2D solution gives stiffer
solution for iJfilled frame. The variation of stiffuess obtained from the analysis using
2D structural lolid and 3D structural solid is very little. Still then 3D structural solid
has been chos6n to develop the present model because in case of 2D model it is not
possible to prbdict the variation of stress pattern as well as other parameters at the
frame and maJonry wall interface.

I
600000
-.-2Dmodel
-.o\.-3Dmodel

~:r:
.£
""@ J
3 2 0000

Joooo

o
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0

Displacement (mm)

Figure 3.5 Lateral load-lateral displacement curves for infilled frame model
using 2D element and 3D element

1000000.,_-----------------------,

-.-2Dmodel
800000
-e-3Dmodel

~e
•
S 600000
~I
-.e

~.
b
~ ~I

~.
a'5 400000- ~~.
<E
";;
iZi
200000
•
a+--,-,~-,,-~...,,r_~
...•
,-~.,_~-,..,~-r-,~--r~-,-~--j
0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2.0 2.2

Frame aspect ratio (b/L)

Figure 3.6 Stiffuess of infilled frame model using 2D element and 3D

element for different frame aspect ratio

34
3.4 DETERMINATION OF MESH DENSITY

Analysis of a structure using ANSYS based upon finite element idealization, the
structure being analyzed must be approximated as an assembly of discrete regions
(called elements) connected at a finite number of points (called nodes). So the simple
structure (the portal) is divided into thousands of elements and this process is called
meshing. Mesh density is one of principal criteria to control the accuracy of finite
element analysis. Mesh density should be very high to achieve a satisfactory degree of
accuracy.

Mesh density is extremely important in any analysis. If the mesh is too coarse, the
results can contain serious errors. High degree of accuracy requires high mesh
density. High mesh density means large number of elements and nodes and thus
increases number of unknowns. It requires a powerful computer and solving time
increases manifold. It also consumes many times to solve. So researchers have to
satisfy with some acceptable error. The error can be found out with respect to
conventional method. There are many approaches to select mesh density and
corresponding error. Easiest of them is to compare the outputs such as deflections,
stresses, moments etc. with that obtained from conventional method. Here the
comparison of bending stresses and deflections have been applied to determine the
appropriate mesh density and corresponding error.

(i) Deflections have been obtained by the following three methods:

• virtual work method,
• using BEAM4
• using SOLID45(without infill)

(ii) Moments have been obtained by the following three methods:

• flexibility and moment distribution method,
• using BEAM4
• using SOLID45 (without infill)

Bending stresses have been determined using the corresponding moments. Then the
corresponding bending stresses and deflections are compared as stated above.

35
 1~(-----5490mm ------;><)1
Load ---..

T
3430mm

Figure 3.7 Portal modeled using BEAM4 element

457mm

Load
5030mm
457mm

381mm

3200mm

Figure 3.8 Isometric view of 3D Portal modeled using SOLID45 element

The detail of the portal has been illustrated in Figure 3.7 and Figure 3.8. Stress
concentration occurs at the comers. Therefore, to get the accuracy element density has
been increased at these zones which gradually reduce to the centre of the beam and
column as shown in Figure 3.7.

36
3.4.1 Deflection by virtual work method

At the outset the portal has been analyzed by flexibility and moment distribution
method and then deflection is obtained by virtual work method. Virtual work method
is one of the most popular methods to find the deflection of a frame. Deflection at the
top right comer of the portal under 4450 kN load (as shown in Figure 3.7) has been
obtained as 163.5 mm.

3.4.2 Moment and Deflection using BEAM4

BEAM4 is a uniaxial 3-D elastic beam element with tension, compression, torsion,
and bending capabilities. The element has six degrees of freedom at each node:
translations in the nodal x, y, and z directions and rotations about the nodal x, y, and z
axes. Stress stiffening and large deflection capabilities are included. A consistent
tangent stiffness matrix option is available for use in large deflection (finite rotation)
analyses. Solving the portal by ANSYS software the deflection of the corresponding
point (node) has been obtained as l60.7mm and the absolute maximum deflection as
163.5 mm.

3.4.3 Moment and Deflection using SOLID45 (without infill)

SOLID45 is a 3-D solid. It is used for three-dimensional modeling of solid structures.

The element is defined by eight nodes having three degrees of freedom at each node:
translations in the nodal x, y and z directions. The element has plasticity, creep,
swelling, stress stiffening, large deflection and large strain capabilities. A reduced
integration option with hourglass control is available.

For different element number the deflection at the node A of the beam column joint
(as shown in Figure 3.9) has been obtained and a curve has been plotted in Figure
3.10. Deflections corresponding to different element number has been presented in
Appendix C.

37
 457m --)_/

if
T
457mm

228.5m
':if.
J-
Figure 3.9 Up right comer of the portal modeled using SOLID45 showing
the position of node A.

3.5 SELECTION OF MESH DENSITY FOR PORTAL FRAME

Mesh density for portal frame has been determined by comparing the deflections at
corresponding nodes and by comparing bending stresses at different locations of the
portal frame.

3.5.1 Deflection

Deflection of the node A (as shown in Figure 3.9) of the portal modeled with
SOLID45 (without infill) has been plotted against different number of elements
together with the deflections obtained by virtual work method and using BEAM4 in
Figure 3.10. Detailed calculations of deflections have been presented in Appendix C.
There is an insignificant difference (1. 7 percent) between the deflections obtained by
virtual work method and from using BEAM4 which is negligible. The deflection
against number of element curve obtained from using SOLID45 without infill is found
to be parabolic. In Figure 3.10, it has been seen that at higher value of number of
element the curve become closer to the lines obtained from the deflection by virtual
work method and using BEAM4. But the rate of reaching the lines is descending
gradually and it is obvious from the figure that the curve would never reach the lines.

The mesh density corresponding to number of element of 11520 (shaded in the Table
C.1, Appendix C) for portal without infill has been selected. The point is shown using
arrow ~ ) marked on the curve in the Figure 3.10. The corresponding deflection is

38
 t
156.97 mm and the error is found to be 4 percent with respect to deflection by virtual
work method and 2.3 percent with respect to deflection using BEAM4.

3.5.2 Bending Stress

For different sizes of element number bending stress at different section of beam and
columns are obtained and curves are plotted. Bending stresses at top and bottom fiber
of the corresponding section of the portal modeled with SOLID45 (without infill) is
plotted against number of element together with the bending stresses obtained by
using BEAM4 in Figure 3.11 to Figure 3.14. The bending stress against number of
element curves obtained by using SOLID45 without infill are found to be parabolic
and show the almost same trend as that of deflection. In all the figures it has been seen
that at higher number of element the curve become closer to the lines obtained from
the bending stress derived from the analysis of portal using BEAM4. But the rate of
reaching the lines is descending gradually. Moreover from Figure 3.15, it has been
observed that as the number of element increases the bending stress approaches to the
value obtained from the analysis of portal using BEAM4 element. Thus, the mesh
density corresponding to number of element of 11520 for portal without infill which
has already been selected considering deflection can satisfactorily be selected for
bending stress.

170
___ SOLID45
--BEAM4
--&---.- Virtual work. method
165
•• •• •• •• •• •• ••
Is • • • • • • •
.£ 160
'l)
<H
'l)
~
155

150
o 5000 10000 15000 20000 25000
Number ofElemenl

Figure 3.10 Deflection at node A of frame as a function of number of element

39
 -115 ••
_ ...••
>---<.0---.------<0.>-----<.0---------.

-110
~
'"
0..
::E
~
w
w
0) -105
~
iZl
OJ)

~ --SOLID45
"
0)
o:l -100
------
BEAM4

-95
o 5000 10000 15000 20000 25000
No of Elements
(a) Variation of bending stress at the top fibre of Beam

115
.-.-.--. • • •
•
~

~
~
w
w
110

105
I~ ---------.

/
w
OJ)

:a"
"
0)
o:l 100 -.-SOLID45
• -.-BEAM4

95
0 5000 10000 15000 20000 25000
No of Element

(b) Variation of bending stress at the bottom fibre of Beam

Figure 3.11 Bending stress at 1370mm from the left column centre line

40
 96
98

~
100
'" 102
~
<J>
<J>
104
'"
):l
106
CfJ
00 ------ SOLID45
108 ---BEAM4
~
"
'"
CO
110
112
114
0 5000 10000 15000 20000 25000
No of Elemenls
(a) Variation of bending stress at the top fibre of beam

-114
-112 e~e-e~~e e e e
-----0 °
-110
~
'"
~
6<J>
<J>

'"
):l
<J>
-108
-106
-104 /
/
00

" -102
'f3
co"
'" -100 -o-SOLID45
-98 -e-BEAM4
°
-96
0 5000 10000 15000 20000 25000
No ofElemenl
(b) Variation of bending stress at the bottom fibre of beam

Figure 3.12 Bending stress at 4115 mm from the left column centre line

41
 160
.-.-. • • • •
152
-.-SOLID45
~ -.-BEAM4
'" ----------. •
~
~
~
~
~
144

/~.-
00 136

/
~
""
Cl1
128

•
120
0 5000 10000 15000 20000 25000

No of Elements

(a) Variation of bending stress at the right fibre ofleft column

-120

-125

---SOLID45
~ -130
------ BEAM4
""6
~ -135
~

""S
(/]

00
-140

"0
-145
""
Cl1

-150

-155

-160
0 5000 10000 15000 20000 25000

No of Elements

(b) Variation of bending stress at the left fibre ofleft column

Figure 3.13 Bending stress ofleft column at 1143 rom from the column base

42
 120.0

.~.
-.-SOLID45
.____ -e- BEAM4
117.5
~
" ~.------- •
~ •

n
~
~
~ 115.0
"~
)j

bJl

~
""
roo 112.5
e-e-e--e e e

110.0 ,- ,
a 5000 10000 15000 20000 25000
No of Element
(a) Variation of bending stress at the right fibre ofleft column

-120

-118
-.-SOLJD45
--
~
-e-BEAM4
"
~
~ -116
~

n
~
-"
h

<Zl
bJl -114
"
'6
~
roo
-112

-11 0 +---~--,-
,-~---r-,-i-~---,---~---,--~----1
o 5000 10000 15000 20000 25000
No of Elements

(b) Variation of bending stress at the left fibre ofleft column

Figure 3.14 Bending stress ofleft column at 2743 mrn from the column base

43
 _____ Element no 1160
160 _____ Element no 2856

~ Element no 4420
120
----.- Element no 7248
---+ Element no 11520
~ 80 -+- Element no 15696
oj
~ -l< Element no 21528
::E
~ 40 ~BEAM4
en
en
Q)
i:l
en -25 -20 -IS -10 -S 10 IS 20 25
OIl
.s
"Cl

"
Q)
CO

-160

Distance from Center line (mm)

(a) Bending stress ofleft column at 1143 mm from the colunm base

25
-.- Element no 1160
-e- Element no 2856
20 -A- Element no 4420
-'Y- Element no 7248

IQ)
IS

10
-. -- Element no 11520
-+- Element no 15696
~ XElement no 21528
-1IE-BEAM4
~
u
S -120 -90 -60 .30 60 90 120

£Q)
-5

-10
~
.;!l

1
Cl -15

-20

_25

Bending Stress (MPa)

(b) Bending stress at 1370 mm from the left colunm centre line

Figure 3.15 Variation of bending stress for different element number

44
3.6 SELECTION OF MESH DENSITY FOR INFILL WALL

The assembly of commands to model the infil1 using SOLID45 element is stated in
Appendix B (article B.5). Mesh density for infill wall has been determined by
comparing the deflections at node A and by comparing principal stresses at different
locations of the infil1 wall.

3.6.1 Deflection

Deflection at node A (as shown in Figure 3.16) of infill wall modeled using SOLID45
has been plotted against different number of elements in Figure 3.17. This curve has
been found parabolic and its slope diminishes as the number of element increases
which is expected. At number of element of 6912 shown by arrow (t) marked in
Figure 3.17 the slope of the curve is nearly zero. This indicates the accuracy of the
analysis of infill using the selected mesh density.

Figure 3.161sometric view of in fill wall modeled using SOLID45

45
 9.30

_____ Deflection of infill wall using SOLID45

9.29

i
~
9.28

g
.",<..>
"
<H
9.27
"
Ci

9.26

9.25
2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000

Number of Elements

Figure 3.17 Deflection at node A of infill wall as a number of element

3.6.2 Principal Stresses for Infill Wall

Similar to portal frame principal stresses at different section of in fill wall (as shown in
Figure 3.18) have been obtained and curves have been plotted by varying the number
of elements in the same FE model. Using SOLID45 elements for infill wall the
principal stress and number of element curves have been found to be parabolic and
show almost the same trend as that of deflection. Figure 3.19 shows the variation of
principal stress along x axis at location one and the number of elements in FE model.
The principal stress at a particular location of the masonry wall gradually increases as
the number of elements of a model increases and the slope of the curve also decreases
with the higher element numbers. Principal stresses along y and z axis also follow the
same trends which have been shown in the Appendix C (article C.2). Principal
stresses at other locations have also been presented in Appendix C (article C.2).
Moreover from Figure 3.19 it has been observed that as the number of element
increases the variation of principal stress reduces. Thus, the mesh density
corresponding to number of element of 6912 for infill wall which has already been
selected considering deflection can satisfactorily be selected for principal stress.

46
 11.50
•
11.45

~
'"
""~
11.40

'-'
'"'" 1\.35
~
VJ
OJ
0.

'"
c::
'I:
1\.30

"" 1\.25

•
I
1\.20
1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 10000
No of element
(a) Variation of Principal Stress along x axis

Figure 3.19 Principal stress along x axis at location one and number of element

47
3.7 VERIFICATION OF SOLID45 WITH BEAM4

For the analysis of a frame structure using ANSYS software BEAM4 is a suitable
element. But infill cannot be included if a portal is modeled using BEAM4 element. A
solid element such as SOLID45 has to be used to model the infill. To cope with infill
the portal has to be modeled also with same solid element. SOLID45 has been used
here to model the portal. The required mesh density has been obtained in article 3.5
and 3.6. BEAM4 is a standard and conventional element to model portal frame but
SOLID45 is not such one. So SOLID45 element can be verified with BEAM4 element
for modeling a portal. Verification is done by comparing the bending moments under
4450 kN load applied as shown in Figure 3.7.

3.7.1 Bending Moment using BEAM4 Element

The assembly of commands to model the portal without infill using BEAM4 is stated
in Appendix B (article B.3). Solving the portal by ANSYS software bending stresses
at different sections have been obtained. The corresponding bending moment diagram
is shown in Figure 3.20.

3119.12
2017.01

12.85
3119.12 2993.39

.1490.27 2487.82
.2297.49
.2993.39 1476.68

465.54

.1219.67

.4253.12
.4590.15

Figure 3.20 Bending moment diagram of portal using BEAM4 (kN-m)

48
3.7.2 Bending Moment using SOLID45 Element

The assembly of commands to model the portal without infill using SOLID45 is stated
in Appendix B (article B.4). Solving the portal by ANSYS software stresses at
different sections have been obtained. From the stresses the moments at different
sections have been calculated. The stress at neutral axis has been taken as axial stress
as the result of axial force, which is found by the analysis of portal using BEAM4.
This stress has been subtracted from all stresses to get the bending stress from which
bending moment is obtained by the equation M = O"xIly.Stress diagrams at different
sections of beam and columns have been drawn in Figure 3.21 (for beam) and in
Figure 3.22 (for column) and the bending moment diagram is shown in Figure 3.23.
The stresses at other sections of the portal has been presented in Appendix C (article
C.3 (for beam) and article C.4 (for column)).

The bending stress diagram for beam at beam-column joint (as shown in Figure
3.2l(a)) has been found to be critical and irregular shaped. This may be due to the
local affect of load and may be because of contribution of column at the joint. The
other diagrams for different sections of beam have been found to be as usual (as
shown in Figure 3.2l(b) and 3.2l(c)). Bending stress diagram for the bottom section
of the column as shown in Figure 3.22(a) has been found to be nearly a straight line
but steeper at the out most fiber, which is due to the stress concentration of the local
area. This is an important phenomenon which is generally ignored in conventional
design approach. Other bending stress diagrams are found to be linear (as shown in
Figure 3.22(b) and 3.22 (c)) except that for the sections at and near the beam-column
joint (as shown in Figure 3.22(e) and 3.22(f)) and near the point of contra flexure (as
shown in Figure 3.22(d)). The bending stress diagram at beam-column joint (Figure
3.22(e) and 3.22(f)) is found to be flatter instead of being steepest. This may be due to
the contribution of beam at the joint. So the beam column joint can be considered as
safer than other parts of the structure.

49
 230
184
138
92
46

-85.00 -6375 -42.50 -21.25 . 0 21.25 42.50 63.75 85.00

-92
-138
-184
-230

Bending Stress (MPa)

(a) Bending stress at left column-beam joint

230
184
138
92
46

-111.99 -74.66 -37.33 -4g 0 37.33 74.66 111.99

-92
-138
-184
-230
Bending Stress (MPa)

(b) Bending stress at 1370 mm from left column-beam joint

230
184
138
92
6

-0.849 -0.566 -0.283 -4% 00 0.283 0.566 0.849

-92
-138
-184
-230

Bending Stress (MPa)

(c) Bending stress at 2743 mm from left column-beam joint

Figure 3.21 Bending Stress diagrams at different sections of beam

50
 384.99

~
I'l. 256.66
::;s ~
'-'
128.33
'"'"
"
l:J
en
Oll 230 184 138 92 46 -46 -92 -138 -184 -230
.S
11 -128.33
o:l"
-256.66

-384.99

Distance from center line (mm)

(a) at bottom Ofcolumn

315

~ 210
I'l.
::;s
'-' 105
'"'"
"
l:J
en
Oll230 184 138 92 46 -46 -92 -138 -184 .230

"
'8 -[05

o:l"
"
-210
I

-3 I5

Distance from center line (mm)

(b) at 152 mm above bottom of column

144.99

~ 96.66
I'l.
::;s
'-'
Ul
48.33
'":J
l"
en
Oll 230 184 138 92 46 -46 -92 -138 -184 .230

"
'8 -48.33

o:l"
" -9666

-144.99

Distance from center line (mm)

(c) at 1143 above bottom of column

Figure 3.22 Bending Stress diagrams at different sections of column

51
 6

-46 -92 -138 -184 "23C

-2

-4

-6
Distance from center line (mm)
(d) at 2050 mm above bottom of column

274.98

';;;' 183.32
""::E
~
00
00
91.66
"
i:J
C/l

if 230 184 138 92 4, -46 -92 -138 -184 -230

] -91.66
i:ll
-183.32

-274.98

Distance from center line (mm)

(e) at 3200 mm above bottom of column

75

';;;' 50

~
~
00 25
00

~
C/l
gp 230 184 138 92 46 -46 -92 -138 -184 -230

] -25
i:ll
-50

-75

Distance from center line (mm)

(f) at 3430 mm above bottom of column

Figure 3.22 Bending Stress diagrams at different sections of column (continued)

52
 2980.02
1981.28
-----------'1481 .90
3098 64 -16.22
3053.63

2560.48

-1514.33
-2318.88
-3012.45

94.76

-4167.25 -4014.79

-4505.2 -4343.55

Figure 3.23 Bending moment diagram of portal using SOLID45 (kN-m)

427
". )24

'"
270

-.- Bending Moment using SOLlD45

--- _A_"." Bending Moment using BEAM4

"'

Figure 3.24 Comparison of moment diagrams obtained using BEAM4 and SOLID45
(kN-m)

53
3.8 CONCLUDING REMARKS

A companson of moment diagrams obtained usmg BEAM4 and SOLID45 is

illustrated in Figure 3.24. From the figure it is observed that the moment diagram of
columns of the portal modeled with SOLID45 is just shifted to the right of that
obtained from using BEAM4 and bending moment diagram of beam is also changed
correspondingly. In this case the error from SOLID45 with respect to BEAM4 is
calculated to be 4.5 percent which is close to that obtained from comparing deflection
and the error is acceptable. So SOLID45 can be used for further study.

54
 Chapter 4
FORMULATION OF STIFFNESS EQUATION

4.1 GENERAL

Numerous experimental and analytical investigations on infilled structures have been

conducted over the past fifty years and important advances have been made for both steel
and RC frames infilled with masonry. Researchers have proved that in filled frames
subjected to in plane lateral loading demonstrate substantial strength and stiffness as well
as enhanced energy dissipation. A portal can be analyzed in a number of ways. In the
conventional methods the effect of infill is not considered. The extra stiffness gained by
the portal due to presence of infill masonry wall is significant and important. Infill
masonry wall has considerable contribution to the portal in resisting lateral load such as
wind load and earthquake load. In this chapter numerical modeling is verified for bare RC
frame and also for the RC infilled frame. The results obtained from the numerical
methods, using ANSYS package, are presented here and compared with the experimental
result available. This comparison will serve as verification for the validity of the adopted
FE methodology. But all these analyses are time consuming. To overcome this problem
attempts have also been taken in this chapter to develop a simplified equation to find out
the stiffness of infilled frame. The stiffness derived by using the developed equation has
also been verified with the existing numerical and experimental data.

4.2 ANALYSIS AND VERIFICATION

This section deals with the analysis of bare frame, infill wall and masonry infilled RC
frame and finally verification has been done by comparing the results obtained from the
adopted FE model with the experimental model ofMehrabi et al. (1996).

4.2.1 Bare Frame

The portal frame is analyzed considering both fixed and flexible support under different
loads applied as shown in Figure 3.8 and the deflection at node A as shown in Figure 3.9

55
is obtained and tabulated in Table 4.1. The load-deflection curves are plotted for both
support condition in Figure 4.1 which are found to be straight line as expected and the
slope are calculated to be 9428 N/mm and 2451 N/mm which are the stiffuess of the
portal frame for fixed support and flexible support respectively. And the typical deflected
shapes of the bare frame are also shown in Figure 4.2.

Table 4.1 Deflection at node A (as shown in Figure 3.9) in frame under different lateral
loads
Load (N) 5000 25000 50000 75000 100000
Deflection(mm), for 10.61
0.53 2.65 5.30 7.90
fixed support
Deflection(mm), for 40.82
2.04 10.20 20.41 30.61
flexible support

120000,--------------------------,

100000
-

80000

60000

n
40000

-e- Flexible support

, T ,
o 7 14 21 28 35 42

Deflection (mm)

Figure 4.1 Deflection at node A of bare frame (as shown in Figure

3.9) under different latera1loads

56
 (b)
(a)

Figure 4.2 Typical deflected shape of frame modeled using SOLID45

(a) Fixed support and (b) flexible support

In order to investigate the behavior of masonry infilled frame, first of all it is important to
verify the adopted FE analysis methodology without masonry infill. Although there are a
number of research works on the performance of RC frames, most of the published works
are deficient in one or other data relating to the properties of materials used in the
investigation and also the reinforcement arrangements. This has seriously restricted the
experimental data available for use in verifying the numerical method. Based on the
availability of basic data for the analysis of the bare RC frame the works ofMehrabi et al.
(1996) have been found to be very extensive and have been selected for comparison with
the finite element method.

The experimental study carried out by Mehrabi et al. varies in the configuration of the RC
frames in the reinforcement arrangement and material properties. Two types of frames
were considered with respect to lateral loadings. The frames were designed in accordance
with the provisions of ACI 318-89 (1989). The test specimens were chosen to be half-
scale frame models and twelve single bay and two two-bay specimens were tested. For
the purpose of this present topic only bare frame specimen has been taken into
consideration. The bare frame is a weak frame as described by specimen one, which was
subjected to a monotonically increasing lateral load. To examine the capability of the
adopted FE model and for simulating the behavior of the bare-frame test specimen one,
the same material properties have been used as described in Appendix D (article D.l) and
the model has been subjected to lateral loading.

57
Figure 4.3 represents the comparison oflateral stiffuess of bare frame model considering
fixed and flexible support condition with that of the experimental model used by Mehrabi
et al. (1996) .

40000

30000
i.
II
20000

10000
1/
'/ -.- Flexible support

!
-e- Fixedsupport
-A- Experimental Results by Mehrabi et a1.(1996)

o
o 3 6 9 12 15

Displacement (mm)

Fig. 4.3. Lateral load-lateral displacement curves for bare frame model by Mehrabi et al.
(1996) and numerical models using SOLID45 element

The initial stiffuess obtained from the experimental response conducted by Mehrabi et al.
(1996) has been found to be 7007 N/mm whereas initial stiffuess obtained from present
numerical analysis has been found to be 9428.5 N/mm for fixed support and 2451 N/mm
for flexible support.

4.2.2 Infill Wall

The infill panel has been analyzed considering both fixed and flexible support and the
deflection at node A as shown in Figure 3.16 is obtained and tabulated in Table 4.2. The
load-deflection curves are plotted in Figure 4.4 which are found to be straight line as
expected and the slopes are calculated to be 363183 N/mm and 332798 N/mm which are
the stiffness ofthe infill wall for fixed support and flexible support respectively.

58
Table 4.2 Deflection at node A (as shown in Figure 3.16) in infill wall under different
lateral loads
Load (N) 5000 25000 50000 75000 100000
Deflection(mm), for fixed 0.275
0.013 0.069 0.138 0.206
support
Deflection(mm), for 0.285
0.014 0.071 0.143 0.214
flexible support

120000

100000

~ 80000
6-
"0

..s'" 60000

" •...
O"J -.- Fixed support
....l 40000
-e- Flexible support
20000

0
0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 0.30 0.35

Deflection (mm)

Figure 4.4 Deflection at node A of in fill (as shown in Figure 3.16)

under different lateral loads

In this case no verification has been done because of unavailability of any experimental
data conducted on masomy infill panel alone.

4.2.3 Infilled Frame

The same portal frame has also been analyzed considering both fixed and flexible support
with infill wall without opening and the deflection at node A as shown in Figure 3.9 has
been tabulated in Table 4.3. In case of infill wall, flexible support has been modeled
introducing a beam under the infill. The stiffuess of the beam has been kept same as the
top beam of the bare frame. Figure 4.5 represents the typical deflected shape of infilled

59
frames for fixed support and flexible support. The load-deflection curves are plotted in
Figure 4.6 which are found to be straight line as expected and the slopes are calculated to
be 584587 N/mm and 504276 N/mm which are the stiffuess of the infilled frame for fixed
support and flexible support respectively.

Table 4.3 Deflection at node A (as shown in Figure 3.9) in in filled frame under different
lateral loads
Load (N) 5000 25000 50000 75000 100000
Deflection(mm), for
0.008 0.04 0.09 0.13 0.17
fixed support
Deflection(mm), for
0.010 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20
flexible support

(a) (b)

Figure 4.5 Typical deflected shape of infilled frame modeled using SOLID45
(a) Fixed support and (b) flexible support

After verifying the RC bare-frame in the previous section, this section deals with the
verification of infilled frame model with the experimental results. Extensive experimental
and analytical studies have been carried out by Mehrabi et al. (1996 and 1997) to
investigate the performance of masonry infilled RC frames under in-plane lateral
loadings. Several infilled frame specimens were tested in his research. Among the various
specimens, specimen no. 9 has been selected to simulate its behavior with the adopted FE
model. The geometry and design ofRC frame for specimen no. 9 is a weak frame infilled

60
with strong infill panel composed of solid bricks. The material properties for the RC
frame and masonry units have been presented in Appendix D (article D.2).

120000

~
6
100000 -

80000
/1
.",
..s'" 60000 -
~

-'"'"
•...
'"
....l 40000 -
~ -.- Fixed support
/ -e- Flexible support
20000

~
0 , T
0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20

Deflection (mm)

Figure 4.6 Deflection at node A of infilled frame (as shown in Figure 3.9)
under different lateral loads

The initial stiffuess obtained from the experimental response conducted by Mehrabi et al.
(1996) has been found to be 527000 N/mm whereas initial stiffuess obtained from
present numerical analysis has been found to be 584587 N/mm for fixed support and
504276 N/mm for flexible support. From Figure 4.7 it can be observed that the stiffuess

obtained from the experimental results conducted by Mehrabi lies between the analysis of
infilled frame considering fixed and flexible support.

In the numerical analysis concrete and masonry have been considered as a homogeneous
elastic material whereas practically concrete is a highly brittle and heterogonous material.
Inelastic response of masonry along with its complexities of crack initiation and
trajectory under load makes itself complex to simulate the exact behavior of masonry
infilled RC frame. These might be the reasons behind the variation between the numerical
and experimental result.

61
 120000

100000 ~.
£
~ 80000
-g

?
~~
..s
60000

'"
•...
Q)
1;;
....l
40000
/- Fixed support
~ -e- Flexible support
20000
-A.-",,- Experimental Results by Mehrabi et al.(1996)

0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25

Displacement (mm)

Figure 4.7 Lateral load-lateral displacement curves for infilled frame model by
Mehrabi et al. (1996) and numerical model using SOLID45 element

4.3 FORMULATION OF STIFFNESS EQUATION

The FE analysis methodology has been proven to be an effective tool to reasonably

investigate the behavior of structural components. However sometimes numerical
analysis has been found to be time consuming and complicated and experimental analysis
requires huge amount of monetary involvement and manpower. To overcome these
problems, attempts have also been taken in this section to develop simplified equation
based .on finite element analysis to find out the stiffness of infilled frame considering
fixed supports at the base of the structure. Equations considering flexible support at the
base of the infilled frame have also been proposed in the present study.

4.3.1 Bare Frame

To develop a simplified stiffness equation for the infill frame several attempts have been
made. Finally the equation has been derived from the basic stiffness matrix of the frame

62
considering three degree of freedom and fixed-fixed boundary condition as shown in
Figure 4.8.

U,
Uj

Figure 4.8 Two-dimensional view of frame subjected to lateral loading

The equilibrium equation ofthe frame can be written as (4.1)

{P}={K}[U}

or {K}= [U ]-1 [p]

Where, {P}=force matrix

{K}= stiffuess matrix
{U}=displacement matrix
It can be expressed as

4EI
a 4EIb 2EIb 6EI,
--+--
La Lb Lb
2EIb 4EIb
--+--
4EI, L;
6EI
--'
[U]U 1

Lb Lb L, L' ,
6EI, 6EI, 12EI a+ '12EI
__ __ , U,
L', L2, L'a L',

After simplification the equation becomes

l l
1~~' [(b' +e/Xa' +4bl)-b"]+ 12~' [(al +bIXe' +4bl)-b"]+ 36a b e'
K= ' L, LaL, *E (4.2)
4(a' +b' Xb + e/)- b"
l

Where, Ia=Moment of inertia ofleft column (mm4)

Ib=Moment of inertia of beam (mm4)
Ic=Moment of inertia of right column (mm4)

63
 La=length ofleft column (mm)
Lb=length of beam (mm)
Le=length of right column (mm)
3
al = ratio of moment of inertia to height of left column = lalLa (mm )

3
hi = ratio of moment of inertia to length ofbeam= hlLb (mm )

3
cl = ratio of moment of inertia to length of right column= IelLe (mm )

E= Modulus of Elasticity (MPa)

To investigate the behavior of bare frame in the lateral stiffuess, stiffuess has been
obtained by varying the dimensions of beam and columns. A curve of stiffuess against
inertia/length (IlL) ratio for the frame modeled with SOLID45 element has been plotted
in Figure 4.9. From this curve it has been observed that as the beam depth increases
keeping all other parameters constant the stiffuess of the frame increases. This curve has
been found parabolic and its slope diminishes as the depth of beam increases. For a
certain higher value of IlL ratio of beam, the stiffuess of the frame becomes almost
constant. Beyond this point the change in stiffness can be neglected. Again when the
length of the beam is changed keeping all other parameters constant, the curve of stiffuess
against inertia/length ratio lies on the same curve. It has been also found that as the length
of beam increases stiffuess of the system decreases.

45000

I
40000

S~ 35000
'"
.•..
""'0
~
~ 30000
<U -.- Depth of beam constant
,E
-e- Lh increases, depth = 457 mm
~
25000
I
•
A-,"", Lb increases, depth = 915 mm

20000
2980000 5960000 8940000 11920000 14900000

Inertia/length ratio (mm')

Figure 4.9 Variation offrame stiffuess with beam length and depth

64
Figure 4.10 illustrates that when the inertia of the column increases keeping the height of
column constant, the stiffness of the frame increases remarkably. On the other hand,
when the inertia of column has been remained unchanged and the length has been
increased, the stiffness of the frame falls down drastically. The trend of this change in
stiffness as shown in Figure 4.10 is almost vertically downward. A series of parallel
curves can be drawn for columns with a fixed moment of inertia but with increasing or
decreasing length. These individual curves with different column inertia shifts rightward
as inertia of column increases. So, observing these two types of curve it can be inferred
that it is possible to get different IlL ratio of column for a single stiffness value.

Figure 4.11 has been plotted showing the variation of stiffness with respect to frame
aspect ratio (BIH). If the inertia of beam and columns are kept constant, it has been
observed that the stiffness of the RC frame greatly increases almost in a parabolic manner
with the decrease in column height. If the same curve (frame stiffness for different frame
aspect ratio, BIH ratio) has been plotted with increasing length of beam keeping moment
of inertia of column and beam constant, the stiffness of frame decreases parabolically
with increasing beam length/column height ratio as shown in Figure 4.12. From these two
figures it can be concluded that beam length has less effect on frame stiffness than
column height.

80000

W~Column
, Width
70000
~ Lc=Column Height
] 60000
6Q) 50000
~
~ 40000
4-<
0

'"'"
.,
Q) 30000
sE ------ W.. changes, Lc constant
.
4-<
--L ,variable with W~381
, mm
20000
'" -A- L ,variable with W,=457 mm
10000 --.-.--- L ,variable with W,=533 mm

2000000 4000000 6000000 8000000

Inertia/length ratio (mm')

Figure 4.10 Variation of frame stiffness with column length and width
65
 160000

140000

Le changes

I
120000

100000
"
a 80000
"
<.I::
'-0 60000
'"'"
"
<E 40000
'-
'C
en
20000

a
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0

Frame aspect ratio (B/H)

Figure 4.11 Variation of frame stiffness with changing column

height for different frame aspect ratio

10000

9000
~
]
e. 8000

"
~ 7000
<.I::
'-0
'"'" 6000
<E" Lb changes
'-
'C
en
5000

4000
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0

Frame aspect ratio (B/H)

Figure 4.12 Variation offrame stiffness with changing beam

length for different frame aspect ratio

66
From the parametric study it has been observed that both the column has exactly same
effect on the stiffness of frame, so the equation (4.2) can be expressed as follows

2~~'[(a'+b'Xa' +4b')-b'2]+ 36~:2b'

(4.3)
K= a a *E
4(a' +b')' _b,2

It has been observed that variation of stiffness of bare frame calculated from equation
(4.3) is very negligible to that obtained from numerical analysis as shown in Figure 4.13.

65000
-.- Equation 4.3
-e-SOLJD45
~

I"S
oj
60000

55000
<l::
'-0
~
~
50000
,B"
'-
t5
45000

0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2.0 2.2

Frame aspect Ratio (B/H)

Figure 4.13 Comparison of stiffness of bare frame as derived from equation (4.3)
and obtained from numerical analysis

Figure 4.14 shows the variation of stiffness of frame having fixed and flexible support at
the base. From the figure it can be observed that frame stiffness reduces when there exists
flexible support at the base. Figure 4.15 shows the reduction factor for stiffness of frame
with flexible support. So the stiffness equation of frame with flexible support becomes

2~~'[(a'+b' Xa' + 4b' )_b'2]+ 36~:2b'

K = a
l2
a * E*O.3e-O.1a
(4.4)
4(a' + b )'
l
_ b
Where, a ~ Frame aspect ratio, (B/H).

67
 60000 e~

I ~.------.
e~
e _
48000
- ....
-------e •
0)

J
4-<
o
36000 - -.- Flexible support
en
-e- Fixed support
en
0)

@ 24000
.-=
CZl
.--.-.-----.
12000 - -.-.
1-~-r-~,-~-r-~.-~-.-
,~-.-
,~-.-
,~-.-
,~-.-
,~-.-
,~-1
on 02 OA O~ 0.8 1.0 1.2 IA 1.6 1.8 2n 2.2

Frame aspect ratio (B/H)

Figure 4.14 Comparison of stiffness of bare frame having fixed and flexible
support at the base.

0.28

0.27
•...
-0
u
<Zl
.::: 0.26
.g
.",;":l
0)
~ 0.25

0.24

0.0 0.2 OA 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 IA 1.6 1.8 2.0 2.2

Frame aspect ratio (B/H)

Figure 4.15 Stiffness reduction factor for frame with flexible support at the base

68
4.3.2 Jntill Wall without Opening

i
Before deriving the stiffuess equations for infill wall attempts have been taken to
,
investigate the behavior of infill waJl with and withbut opening. The behavior of the infill
i

wall is not similar when it is analyzed with and without frame. When infill panel without
opening has been analyzed alone then the stiffuess bf the infilled panel has been found to
be 363183 Nlmm but when the infill wall is confided within frame then the stiffuess has
been found to be 584587 N/mm. From Figure 14.16, it has been observed that the
contribution of beam and column to the stiffuess oflinfiJled frame is only two percent and
the remaining 98 percent is gained from infill. Moreover from numerical analysis, it has
been observed that the contribution of infill to the stiffuess of infilled frame varies with
the dimension of infill as shown in Figure 4.17.

120000..,--------------+-------------,

96000
//
Z
//
~ 72000
-
'0
'"0
....l
///
<ii...
E
j
48000
-
/1/'_______:Frame with infill

-.-,Only infi11
24000
-

// -4..- 'Framewithout in fill

o i----~-r_~--,.--r---,,-~-~,r-
,~--._,-r___"r-~--l
.2 0 2 4 .6 8 10 12

Deflecion (mm)

Figure 4.16 Comparison of deflection for different lateral loads

for frame with and without infiJl and infill alone

For infill waJl shear deformation is also considered in addition to flexural and axial
deformation. So the total deformation on the infill becomes
(4.5)

69
Where, b.m= flexural deformation
b.s=shear deformation
Considering infill wall as vertical cantilever as shown III Figure 4.18, the stiffness
equation of the infill wall becomes

K - 3EI _ E (%y * w (4.6)

- L' [I + 0.6(1 + v )(~i)'] 4 L 1+ 0.6(1 + v)(j-j)'
Detailed calculation of this equation has been illustrated in Appendix D (article D.3).
Stiffness of infill has been found out for different width and height of infill by using
numerical analysis and it has been observed that for a given b/L ratio stiffness of the infill
wall varies a little as shown in Figure 4.19.

100

'"'" 95
IE'"
.'"'"
-"
.~
0 90

::l 85
.0
'5 I---b _

"
CJl
0

-"
U 80
~.- L~ 3048 mm

'u
" -e- L~ 3658 mm
•... 75
- ••- L~4573 mm
"-''" -"'- L~ 6097 mm
70

0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2.0 2.2

Infill aspect ratio (b/L)

Figure 4.17 Contribution of infill to the total stiffness

But it has also been found that the stiffness from numerical analysis considering both
fixed and flexible support and from the equation (4.6) varies for a given b/L ratio. The
comparison between these three values is shown in Figure 4.20.

70
 (a)
(b)

Figure 4.18. Infill wall subjected to lateral loading

(a) Fixed support and (b) flexible support

800000.

640000 -L=3048mm
-e-L=3658mm
~
-"'-L=4573 mm
~ 480000
--.- L=6097
mm
~
'"
.s1G 320000

-
~
(/)

160000

o
0.4 0.6 08 1~ 12 1.4 1.6 1.8 2.0 2.2

Infill aspect ratio (b/L)

Figure 4.19 Stiffuess of infill for different height of infill

71
 1600000

-.- Flexible sopport •••

/
-.- Equation 4.6
1200000 -
- .•.- Fixed Support
~

!
///
800000
en
en
"
.s
";:: ~
~
tZl
400000
/
/ ./.------
~.~-------
.k~.~
~I~.
..--~.:::::::=----
0 I I I I , I I

0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2.0 2.2
Infill aspect ratio (b/L)

Figure 4.20 Comparison of stiffuess of infill wall from numerical analysis and
from equation (4.6)

Comparing these three values, a relation has been developed between the numerical
values and those of calculated values.
Knuma'ca/=j(b/L)* K (4.7)

Where,f(b/L)= Function of b/L

From the data shown in Figure 4.20, it has been found that

4 [
j(b/L)=-*149000b/L ()-065 (
. +89400(1+v)b/L' )135] ,forfixedsupport, (4.8a)
Ew

j(b/L) = ~ * [176000(b/ L t85 + 105600(1 + v)(b/ L t' ],for flexible support, (4.8b)
Ew

So the equation of infill wall becomes

for fixed support,

k;'fill =~x[149000(b/
Ew
Lr065 + 89400(1 +v)(b/ L)I35]X E (b~)3
4 IL
* w %
1+0.6(1+v)(b L)2
(4.9a)

72
for flexible support,

eJ"fill
=~x[149000(b/
Ew
Lro6' + 89400(1 +v)(b/ L)I35]x E (bl)'
4 ILl
* w
+ 0.6(1 + v)('1r)'
(4.9b)

The stiffuess of infill wall obtained by using these formulas varies within five percent
from that of obtained by numerical analysis which is within acceptable range. So, it can
be said that if the width and the height of infill wall is known then by using the equation
(4.9), one can directly find out the stiffuess of the infill wall without opening.

4.3.3 Jnlill Wall with Opening

Opening in infill in the form of door or window is a common case in all types of
buildings. It is worth mentioning that the contribution of infill wall to the frame lateral
stiffuess reduces when door or window is present in the infill panel. When the same
infilled frame has been analyzed with the presence of window or door opening then the
lateral stiffuess of the frame system reduces. Figure 4.21 shows presence of opening in
the form of window in the infill wall.

Figure 4.21 Isometric view of masonry infill with window opening for fixed support

From the study of infill wall with window it has been seen from Figure 4.22 that for a
given aspect ratio as the width of the window increases, the stiffuess of the infill
decreases. It has also been observed from the figure that for a fixed width of window
stiffness of infill panel increases as the aspect ratio increases. Similarly, when the height

73
of window increases keeping the aspect ratio constant the stiffness of the infill wall with
window also decreases which is shown in Figure 4.23. For a fixed height of window,
stiffness of infi1l decreases with increasing aspect ratio.

-.- W",=914 mm
~ 500000
-e- W,.,=1219 mm
0
"0 - .•..-Ww=1524mm
.S -'Y- Ww=1829 mm
~ 400000
-5 --+- Ww=2134 mm
.~
;a
.S
4-<
0
00
00
I 300000

200000
,E'"
~
CIl
100000

o
0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 \.4 1.6 1.8 2.0

Aspect ratio

Fig 4.22 Variation of stiffness for infill with window for different width of window

500000

400000

300000

200000

100000

o , , ,
0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2.0

Aspect ratio

Figure 4.23 Variation of stiffness for infill with window for varying height of window

74
Figure 4.24 shows the variation of stiffuess of infill wall with window for different aspect
ratio for varying height and width of window. An important observation of the figure is
that stiffuess of infill wall decreases with increase in window width and window height.

-.- WH=914 mm
500000
-e- W H=1219mm
-A- WH=1524nun
-'Y- ~1=1829mm
400000
~ -.- Ww=914 mm
.~ -+- Ww=1219mm

! 13000oo
-x-_. Wa;::1524mm
-:lIE-Ww=1829mm
---Ww=2134mm
~
b
'i'i
200000.
o

100000.
~
C/)

O.
l-r--~--,-r--~-,-~,--,,-~--,,-~--,-~-l
0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6 2.0 2.4
Aspectratio

Figure 4.24 Variation of stiffuess of infill with window opening for different
aspect ratio

For any given aspect ratio it has been observed that window opening reduces the stiffuess
of the infill wall as shown in Figure 4.25 and it has been observed that in case of infill
having fixed base, variation of stiffuess for different aspect ratio is very negligible upto
15 percent of window opening and after this stiffuess shows marked variation. So it can
be concluded that upto 15 percent of window opening stiffuess of infill is almost same
irrespective of width and height of window. The reduction factor of the stiffuess of infill
with percent of window opening shows the trend as shown in Figure 4.26 and also can be
expressed as the following equation.
Reduction factor= e -004". for opening< 15 percent (4.IOa)
-O.04tfi
(4.l0b)
Reduction factor= 1.22 eA012 for opening> 15 percent

Where r/J =Percent opening in the form of window and A=aspect ratio.

75
So the equation of the infill with window becomes
(4.11a)
K Infill_ window = e -0.04. XK Infill' "lOr openIng
. < 15 percen t

-O.04Vi (4.11b)
K !,jiil_ wi,d,w = 1.12 e,1,0 12 X K !,jiil ' for opening> 15 percent

800000

700000 _______Aspect ratio=0.5

~ q
0
.", ____- Aspect ra60=0.75
.S
~
600000
\ ----&---- Aspect ratio=1.0
-T-- Aspect ratio=t.5

1S 500000
---+""- Aspect ratio=2.0

iB -.E 400000
.S b
'H
0 300000
'"'"
"
If'p 200000
~~~
~~
'" 100000 '''.,
"'~
'¥""
.....
----...

0 20 40 60 80 100
Percent opening

Figure 4.25 Stiffness of in fill wall with presence of window opening for fixed support

1.2

•...
1.0
,q\ ______ Aspect ratio=O.5

-
0
u
cS 0.8
---e-
-A-
Aspect ratio=O.75
Aspect ratio=1.0

"
0
.;:::
0.6
'\,\, --.- Aspect ratio=1.5
• - Aspect ratio=2.0
u ,
.",;:l
"
•...
0.4
'"'"
If'p" 0.2
'"
0.0

-0.2
0 20 40 60 80 100
Percent opening

Figure 4.26 Stiffness reduction factor of infill wall with window opening for fixed support

76
Figure 4.27 shows the isometric view of infill wall with window opening for flexible
base and Figure 4.28 shows the reduction of infill stiffuess with window opening. Figure
4.29 represents the stiffness reduction factor for infill with flexible support and these
curves follow the same trend as that of the curves as shown in Figure 4.26.

Figure 4.27 Isometric view of masonry with window opening for flexible base

500000 III
~ ,
0
"0 ,.
'h.,

.s 400000
~ -..-.- Aspect ratio=O.5
;9
.~ ~
-<a.s ~ 300000
\\ ,
_
-A,-
----y---
Aspect ratio=O.75
Aspect ratio=1.0
Aspect ratio= 1.5
----+- Aspect ratio=2.0

4-; ~
0 200000
'"'"
<I)

:5
.., 100000
C/l

0 20 40 60 80 100
Percent opening

Figure 4.28 Stiffuess of infill wall with window opening for flexible support

77
 1.2

1.0 "
"\
_ Aspect ratio"'O.5
•...
-0
u
<i:l 0.8
\.~
~,
\.
--'.-

~
Aspect ratio=O.75
-----.t..- Aspect
ratio=l.O
Aspect ratio=1.5
-+--
"
0
..0
u 0.6 "\
Aspect ratio=2.0

::l
."•...
" 0.4
'"'"
@"
..0 0.2
Ul

0.0

-0.2
0 20 40 60 80 100

Percent opening

Figure 4.29 Stiffuess reduction factor of infill wall with window opening for flexible support

The reduction factor of the stiffuess of infill for flexible support with percent of window
opening can be expressed as the following equation.
Reduction factor= e -0.0"., for opening< 15 percent (4.l2a)
e -0,0441,6 (4. 12b)
Reduction factor= 1.14 AD!' for opening >15 percent

Where 9=Percent opening in the form of window and ;\,=aspect ratio.

So the equation of the infill with window becomes

K Infill_ K"Infill ' lOropenIng

. < 15 percent (4. 13 a)
window = e -0.044. X

-O.044,p
(4.13b)
K1ofill_wiodow = 1.14 eAO.l4 xK1ofi1l' for opening >15 percent

Again behavior of infill wall with door opening has been investigated before attempts
have been taken to derive stiffuess equation for infill wall with door opening as shown in
Figure 4.30.

78
 (a) (b)
Figure 4.30 Presence of door in the infill panel of infilled frame
(a) Fixed support and (b) flexible support

From parametric study it has been observed that as the width of door increases for a given
aspect ratio, the stiffness of the infill decreases as shown in Figure 4.31. It has also been
observed from the figure that for a fixed width of door stiffness of infill panel increases
as the aspect ratio increases. Similarly, when the height of door increases keeping the
aspect ratio constant the stiffness of the infill wall with door also decreases which is
shown in Figure 4.32. For a fixed height of door, stiffness of infill decreases with
increasing aspect ratio.

600000
a.S
~
'-0 8
'"'" ..e 400000
~"b
'-
~
200000

o
0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6

Aspect Ratio

Figure 4.31 Variation of stiffness of infill with door opening for different width of door
79
 500000 -.-DII=1524 mm
-e-DH=1829mm
.--A- D,,=2134 mm
400000 - .•. - DJl""2438 mm
::::
t;:1
.S
'H 8'300000
0
.g
'"'" bZOOOOO
0.>
@
'';:;
rfJ

100000

0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6

Aspect Ratio

Figure 4.32 Variation of stiffness of infill with door opening for different height of door

Figure 4.33 shows the variation of stiffness of infill wall with door for different aspect
ratio for varying height and width of door. So it can be concluded that stiffness of infill
wall with door opening decreases with the increase in door width as well as with the
increase in door height.

It has been observed that door opening reduces the stiffness of the infill wall as shown in
Figure 4.34 and it has been observed that in case of infill for fixed base, variation of
stiffness for different aspect ratio is very negligible upto 15 percent of door opening and
after this stiffness shows marked variation. So it can be concluded that upto 15 percent of
door opening stiffness of infill is almost same irrespective of width and height of door.
The reduction factor of the stiffness of in fill with percent of door opening shows the trend
as shown in Figure 4.35.

80
 800000

700000
k
0
0 600000
." --a-- Dw= 914 mm
______D = 1219 mm

1
-<a.S ~
500000
w
-----&- Dw= 1524 mm
-.-Dw= 1829mm

'-0
'"'"
J
~
400000

300000
,,-+- Dw=
-+-DH=
)( Dl{=
2134 rum
1524mm
1829 mm
-----)IE--D flo=. 2134 mm
is" 200000 --D,t'" 2438mm
.'"
Ul
100000
--~-~ ><

0
0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6 2.0

Aspect Ratio

Figure 4.33 Variation of stiffuess of infill with door opening for different aspect ratio

800000

700000 ___ Aspect ratio=O.5

k
0 -e- Aspect ratio=O.75
0 600000
." --6.- Aspect ratio=l.O
;€ ~ Aspect ratio""I.5

-
500000
~~ -"""'.'"-"Aspect ratio=2.0
<a Ss 400000
.S ~
'-0 b 300000
'"
00

is."," 200000
en
100000

o 20 40 60 80 100

Percent opening

Figure 4.34 Stiffuess of infill wall with presence of door opening for fixed support

81
 1.2

1.0 {~. ____ Aspect ratio""O.5

•... '-.1.
- 0
u
..s 0.8
~.
___
-A-
~
Aspect ratio=O.75
Aspect ratio=l.O
Aspect ratio=:1.5
"0
'.0 -----..- Aspect ratio=2.0
u 0.6
;oj
'0
~
'"'"
0.4 ""i.
<I)
<S ~>
'"'.0 0.2 '"
Y.,
'" ..•.
0.0

-0.2
a 20 40 60 80 100

Percent opening

Figure 4.35 Stiffness reduction factor for infill wall with door opening for fixed support

Figure 4.36 illustrates the comparison of reduction of stiffness of infill wall with presence
of door and window for same percent of opening. From this figure it has been observed
that stiffness reduces more for door opening than for window opening. So percent
opening is not only one factor to affect the stiffness of infilled frame rather type of
opening is also an important factor. Therefore stiffness reduction factor for infill wall
with door is different than that of infill with window. From the study it has been found
that reduction factor for infill with fixed base having door can be expressed by the
following equation.

Reduction factor= e -.003. , for opening< 15 percent (4.l4a)

-O.03~

Reduction factor=l.08 eA.0!5 ' for opening> 15 percent (4.14b)

Where IjJ =Percent opening in the form of door and A=aspect ratio.

So the equation of the infill with door becomes

K - -0.03. X K for opening< 15 percent (4.l5a)
lnfill _ door - e lnjill

82
 for opening> 15 percent (4.15b)
K lnfill _ door =

1.0

-.- opening in the form of window

-I-<
0
u
<::l
<::
0
0.8

0.6
-e- opening in the form of door

..;:;
u
::l
"d
0.4
"
I-<

'"'"
"
<S
4-< 0.2
..;:;
[/J

0.0

o 20 40 60 80 100

Percent of opening

Figure 4.36 Comparison of stiffuess reduction factor for infill with door and window opening

Figure 4.3 7 shows the variation of infill stiffuess with door opening considering flexible
support at the base. Figure 4.38 represents the corresponding stiffuess reduction factor for
infill wall that can be expressed as follows.

(4.16a)
Reduction factor= e -0.0380 , for opening< 15 percent
-0.D381ll

Reduction factor= 1.11 e,.1,0" ' for opening> 15 percent (4.16b)

Where if> =Percent opening in the form of door and A=aspect ratio.

So the equation of the infill with door becomes

K - -0.0380 X K for opening< 15 percent (4.17a)
lnfill_door - e lnfill

-O.0381ll
(4.17b)
Klnfill_dooc = 1.11 e ,.1,0.11 X K1nfill ' for opening> 15 percent

83
 500000
_ Aspect ratio=O.5
ti -.- Aspect ratio=o().75
.g 400000 -",-A,",-, Aspect ratio= 1.0
----T- Aspect ratio= 1.5

~ ----+-- Aspect ratio=2.0

;:as 300000
.5 S
~ ~ 200000
V>

tE_" 100000
en

-10 o 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110

Percent opening

Figure 4.37 Stiffness of infill wall with presence of door opening for flexible support

1.2

1.0 _ Aspect ratio=O.5

•... -'.- Aspect ratio=O.75
B Q -A- Aspect ratio=1.0
~ 0.8 -T- Aspect ratio=1.5

.~ "
Q 0.6
- '."""'"Aspect ratio=2.0

;:l
'"0
•...
"
V> 0.4

.,
V>

..E"
.
""' 0.2
en

0.0

-0.2
0 20 40 60 80 100

Percent opening

Figure 4.38 Stiffness reduction factor for infill wall with door opening for flexible support

84
 In this study attempt has also been taken to find out stiffuess equation of infill wall with
door opening considering both fixed and flexible support by using equation (4.3) as infill
wall with door opening behaves approximately as bare frame as shown in Figure 4.39.

La

~Dw~

(a) (b)

Figure 4.39 Isometric view of infill wall with door opening

(a) Fixed support and (b) flexible support

It has been observed from both numerical analysis for the infill with door and analytical
calculation using frame stiffuess equation (equation 4.3) that stiffuess of the system
decreases with increase in opening for both fixed support and flexible support. But there
is slight difference between analytical results and numerical analysis as shown in Figure
4.40. For this reason, the calculated value has been multiplied by a factor '1', which is a
function of percent of opening. From the relation of stiffuess found out from numerical
analysis and from analytical equation (equation (4.3)), the equation of 'I' factor has been
derived, which is shown in equation (4.18).

'I' (percent of opening)= 0.65 X~Oll , for fixed support (4.18a)

'I' (percent of opening)= 0.22 x ~035 , for flexible support (4.18b)

Where ~ =percent of opening. So the equation of infill with door can be expressed as

follows.

85
 24~1 [(al +blXal +4bl)-bl']+ 36a:'bl
For fixed support, K = 0.65 x r. ll
La La *E (4.19a)
4(al +bl)' -bl'

¥[(al +bIXa' +4bl)-b/2]+ 36~:'bl

For flexible support, K = 0.22 x ,p0.35 a () a *E (4.19b)
4 al +b' ' -bl'

The percentage of error between the stiffness from numerical analysis and that of using
equation (4.19) is very insignificant and lies between one percent to two percent.

400000

-.- Equation (4.3)

-.- Fixed Support
300000
...•• Hinge support

200000

100000

o 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80

Percent of opening

Figure 4.40 Comparison of stiffness of infill with door by equation (4.3) and by
numerical analysis using SOLID45

4.3.4 INFILLED FRAME

Once the stiffness of the frame and the infill wall has been known then one can find out
the stiffness of the system by using the following formula.
(4.20)
K Total = K Frame + K Injill
(4.21)
or K Tolal = K Frame + J1K;njill

86
Figure 4.41 shows the various of stiffuess of infilled frame, bare frame and infill wall for
a given column height. Several curves have also been presented in Appendix D (article
D.4) for another column height.

_______Infilled frame
__________
Frame alone
880000

-& Infill wall alone

660000

/
440000

220000
.:,,.../
/ For Column Height 3084 mm

o
-- .
.----~~-~.
A." ,--------
.-~~/----
• • •
0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2.0 2.2

Frame aspect ratio (B/H)

Figure 4.41 Stiffuess of infilled frame, infill and frame for 3048 mm column height

From extensive numerical analysis and parametric study, it has been found that

K Infill = 3 ---I ll fi fi d
K;'fi4-' (4.22a)
or Ixe support
a.

(4.22b)
K infill = 2 .2 ~,
K;'fill fior fl eXl"ble support
a.
So the total stiffuess becomes
(4.23a)
_ K;,y;1I fi
KYoto' - KFmm, + 3---,
a. 4-' for Ixed support

K Total K;'fill fior fl ex!"ble support

= K Frame + 2 .2 ~, (4.23b)
a.
Where, a~B/Hratio,
B=center to center distance of two columns and
H=Co1umn height up to beam center

87
When the infilled frame contains window opening then the total stiffuess can be obtained
by using the equation (4,25) and (4.26) for fixed support and flexible support
respectively.

(4.24)
K Total = K Frame + Kinf ill_ window

For fixed support,

K1Mill fi (4.25a)
K Total:::: K Frame + 3e. -004. .
--I 4-' or openlng<
15 percent
a'
-0.04;
(4.25b)
KTo,"1 =KFmm, + 3.36 Ie, AD I' K;nr,u, opening> 15 percent
a x. "

For flexible support,

(4.26a)
K Total
- K
- Frame + 3e -0.04'. --1.,-,
K;njill fior openlng<
' 15 percent
a
-0.04;
(4.26b)
KTolol = KFmm, + 3.42 Ie, 014 K;n111' opening> 15 percent
a xA' "
When the infilled frame contains door opening then the total stiffuess can be by using the
equation (4.28) and (4.29) for fixed support and flexible support respectively,

KYoto! =KFrame + Kinfill_door (4.27)

For fixed support,

(4.28a)
K Total -- K Frome
3 -0.03. K;njill
+ e
'
-1-4- openlng<
15
percent
a'
-0.03;

KTolol =KFmm, + 3.24 a Ie. x.AOl5 K;olll'

/'
for opening >15 percent (4.28b)

For flexible support,

-- K (4.29a)
K To/al Frame + 3e -0.D38. --I
K;njill '
,- openlng<
15 percent
a'
-0.038;

KTolol = KFmm, + 3.33 a~4xAo.II K;njill' for opening >15 percent (4.29b)

Stiffuess of infilled frame with door opening can also be obtained by the equation (4.30)
and (4.31) for fixed support and flexible support respectively.

88
For fixed support,
l
24~1 [k +/Xal +4bl)-bl']+ 36a:'b
(4.30)
",,0.11 La La
K Total = K Frame +.0 65 X IF X ()2
4 al +bl _bl
2 *E

For flexible support,

I r, ] I' I
24~ l(al +c/Xal +4bl)-bl' + 36a, b (4.31 )

K Total -K +.
022 ",,0.35 La La *E
4 al +bl _bl
- Frame X!p X ()"

4.4 VERIFICATION OF STIFFNESS EQUATION

After developing stiffuess equation in the previous section, verification of the equations
have been performed with the existing experimental and numerical results. Stiffuess of
bare frame and infilled frame as obtained by using developed formula have been
compared with the stiffuess obtained from the experimental response conducted by
Mehrabi et al. (1996) and also with the numerical model developed for present study. The
comparative results have been presented in Table 4.4.

Table 4.4 Comparison of stiffness of frame and infilled frame obtained from various
method
Stiffuess of infilled frame
(N/mm
Experimental Results by Mehrabi et 527000
al. 1996
Model Developed for present study 9428.5 584587
considering fixed su port.
From proposed equation (for fixed 9233.5 602381
su ort
Model Developed for present study 2451 504276
considerin flexible su ort.
From proposed equation (for 2401 517460
flexible su ort)

So the error in stiffuess by using the proposed equation is within tolerable limit.

89
4.5 STRESS PATTERN

Masonry infilled RC frame with and without openings has been analyzed for fixed
support condition and as well as for flexible support condition and stress patterns have
been observed for both cases which are presented in Figure 4.42 to 4.44.

! .,...' &1;.••
••••
:'-'f~

(a) (b)

Figure 4.42 Typical deflected shape with principal stress contour diagram of the
infill wall without opening, (a) fixed support and (b) flexible support

r
I
I

(a) (b)

Figure 4.43 Typical deflected shape with principal stress contour diagram of the
infill wall with door opening, (a) fixed support and (b) flexible support

(a) (b)

Figure 4.44 Typical deflected shape with principal stress contour diagram of the
infill wall with window opening, (a) fixed support and (b) flexible support

90
An important observation of the figures is that stress patterns for infill wall without
opening are different for that of with opening. From figure 4.43 and 4.44, it has also been
observed that stress patterns vary for window opening and door opening and stress
concentration occurs at point A and D as shown in both figures. So opening in the infill
wall is an important factor that affects the stress patterns.

4.6 CONCLUDING REMARKS

The adopted FE analysis methodology predicts the lateral stiffuess of the bare frame,
infill wall and masonry infilled RC frame to an acceptable degree of accuracy. The
technique accounts for the linear behavior that occurs in both the reinforced concrete
frame and in the masonry wall. In this chapter a portal with infill is analysed under
varying lateral loads to find out the stiffuess of bare frame and the contribution of infill
wall to the overall stiffuess of the infilled frame. It is observed that incorporation of infill
panel in the bare RC frame greatly increases the lateral stiffness and reduces the lateral
deflection of the frames. Contribution of infill to the stiffuess of frame structure is
significant and may be as high as 95 percent and therefore should be considered. From
numerical studies it has been observed that the contribution of infill wall to the total
stiffuess of the infilled frame varies with the dimension of infill. But for a fixed infill
aspect ratio, variation of infill stiffuess is insignificant irrespective of the dimension of
infill wall. Again stiffuess of infill wall decreases with increase in door or window
opening and stiffuess reduces more for door opening than window opening. Often it is
very cumbersome and expensive to find out the stiffuess of infilled frame by
experimental analysis and numerical analysis requires lots of valuable time of the
engineers. To overcome this problem, stiffuess equations have been derived in this
chapter based on finite element analysis which has also been verified with existing
experimental and numerical data. It has been found that these equations enables to find
out the lateral stiffuess of infilled frame with and with out door and window opening to
an acceptable degree of accuracy.

91
 Chapter 5
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

5.1 CONCLUSIONS

Masonry infill walls in frame structures have long been known to affect strength,
stiffuess and post-peak behavior of the infilled frame structures. The interaction
between the wall and the frame under lateral loads dramatically changes the overall
characteristics of the composite structure and hence its response to seismic loads
creates a major source of hazard during seismic events. The study conducted herein
focuses on the effect of infill wall in the overall stiffuess of masonry-infilled
reinforced concrete frames subjected to in-plane lateral loads. Extensive numerical
analysis and parametric study has been done to investigate the behavior of different
parameters. This work also investigates the effect of openings considering its various
dimensions and positions within the frame structure. Finally, an attempt has been
made to provide some stiffuess equations in order to facilitate the design of URM
walls with and without openings so as to ascertain the structural performance of these
widely used building systems.

The following conclusions may be drawn from the current investigation:

I. Instead of BEAM4 it is possible to adopt a comprehensive FE model using

SOLID45 with sufficient accuracy to analyze frame. Infill panels can also be
modeled with this element.
2. The macro-models adopted in this study contain all the variables possible
considering various dimensions, which may be used effectively in
investigating various effects of different parameters.
3. The numerical model may be used to find out the stiffuess of the masonry
infilled RC frame system
4. The numerical model may also be used to estimate the contribution of
masonry infill panels in the total stiffuess of the masonry infilled RC frame
system. From the study it has been observed that contribution of infill to the
stiffuess of frame structure is significant and this contribution varies with the

92
 dimension of infill. But for a fixed infill aspect ratio, variation of infill
stiffness is insignificant irrespective of the dimension of in fill wall.
5. The numerical model may be used to determine the effect of opening such as
door and window to the total stiffness. Stiffness of infill wall decreases with
increase in door or window opening and it has been observed that stiffness
reduces more for door opening than window opening.
6. Simplified equations have been developed for both fixed and flexible support
condition which may be used to find out the stiffness of the masonry infilled
RC frame. The developed equations are valid for all elastic material.

5.2 RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FUTURE STUDY

The numerical modeling of the effect of infilled frames using SOLID45 element is far
from complete. The following recommendations for future work may be suggested:

I. Linear analysis of the portal has been performed in this study, but in actual
case the properties of the material would be nonlinear. So, nonlinear analysis
can be done to get more appropriate results.
2. Instead of masonry wall other types of infill can be used in analyzing the
frame.
3. In the present study investigations have been performed considering doors
and windows at the center of the infill wall. Further investigation can be
performed placing doors and windows at other locations.
4. Further study can be performed to find out the stress resultants and deflection
pattern with the variation of percentage of opening in i~fill wall.
5. In the present study investigations have been done for fixed support and
flexible supports at the base. Further study can be performed considering
various combination of support conditions.
6. Further study can be performed to find out more simplified equation that can
be used for multi bay and/or multi-story infilled frames.
7. Effect of dynamic loading on the behavior of masonry-infilled RC frames
may be investigated.

93
 REFERENCES

AI-Chaar, G., Issa, M., and Sweeney, S. "Behavior of Masonry-Infilled Nonductile

Reinforced Concrete Frames". J. Struct. Engg., Vol. 128, No.8, 2002, pp. 1055-1063.

ANSYS, ANSYS 5.6 Manual Set (1999), ANSYS Inc., Southpointe, 275 Technology
Drive, Canonsburg, PA 15317, USA.

Asteris, P. G. "Analysis of masonry infilled frames usmg a finite element

techniques", J.Struct. Eng., 2003, in press.

Barau, H. K., and Mallick, S. K. "Behavior of Mortar Infilled Steel Frames Under
Lateral Load" Building and Environment, Pergamon Press, UK. Vol 12, 1977, pp.
263-272.

Bertero, V. V., and Brokken, S. "Infills in Seismic Resistant Building". J. Struct .

. Engg., ASCE, Vol. 109, No.6, 1983, 1337-1361.

Dhanasekar, M., and Page, A. W. "Influence of brick masonry infill properties on

the behavior of infill frames." Proc., Instn of Civ. Engrs., U.K., Part 2, 81(Dec.),
1986, pp.593-605.

Dawe, J. L., and Chara1ambous, P. D. "Finite Element Analysis for Wall-Frame

Interaction" Proceedings, Eight International Loadbearing Brickwork Symposium,
1983. British Ceramic Society, Stoke-on-Trent. UK.

Dawe, J. L., and Seah, C. K. "Behavior of Masonry Infilled Steel Frames" Canadian
Journal of Civil Engineering, Vol. 16, No.6, 1989, pp. 865-876.

Dey, P. K. "Sway characteristics of RC frame under lateral load in presence of brick

masonry". B.Sc. thesis, 2000, Dept. of Civil Engg., BUET.

94
Dhanasekar, M., and Page, A. W. "The Influence of Brick Masonry Infill Properties
on the Behavior of lnfilled Frames" Proc., lnt. Conf. of Civil Engrs., u.K., Part 2,
81(Dec.), 1986, pp. 593-605.

Dymiotis, c., Kappos, A. J., and Chryssanthopoulos, M. K. "Seismic Reliability of

Masonry-Infilled RC frames". Journal of Structural Engineering, Vol. 127, NO.3,
2001, pp. 296-305.

EI-Dakhakhni, W. W., Elgaaly, M., and Hamid, A. A. "Finite Element Modeling of

Concrete Masonry-Infilled Steel Frame," 9th Canadian Masonry Symposium, 2001,
The University of New Brunswick, Canada.

Eldakhakhni, W. W. "Non-Linear Finite Element Modeling of Concrete Masonry-

lnfilled Steel Frame," M.Sc. thesis, 2000, Civil and Architectural Engineering
Department, Drexel University, Philadelphia.

Fiorato, A. E., Sozen, M.A., and Gamble, W. L. "An investigation of the interaction
of reinforced concrete frames with masonry filler walls" Civil Eng. Studies, Structural
Research Series Rep. No. 370, 1970, Univ. of Illinois, Urbana, III.

Flanagan, R. D., Bennett, R. M., and Barclay, G. A. "In-plane Behavior of

Structural Clay Tile lnfilled Frames", Journal of Structural Engineering, ASCE, Vol.
125, No.6, 1999, pp. 590-599.

Ghosh, A. K., Amde, A. M. "Finite Element Analysis of Infilled Frames", Journal of

Structural Engineering, Vo. 128, NO.7, 2002, pp. 88-889.

Ghosh, A. K., Made, A. M., and Colville, J. "A new dilatant interface model."
Proc., 13th ASCE Engineering Mechanics Conf., 1999, New York.

Haque, M. E. "Effect of randomly distributed infills on the vibration characteristics

of reinforced concrete frames". M.Sc. thesis, 2002, Dept. of Civil Engineering,
BUET.

95
Giannakas, A., Patronis, D., and Fardis, M. "The influence of the position and size
th
of openings to the elastic rigidity of infill walls." Proc. 8 Hellenic Concrete
Conference, Xanthi, Kavala, Greece, 49-56.

Holmes, M. "Steel Frames with Brickwork and Concrete Infilling" Proceedings of the
Institution of Civil Engineers, Vol. 19, 1961, pp. 473-478.

Holmes, M. "Combined Loading on Infilled Frames" Proceedings of the Institution of

Civil Engineers, Vol. 25,1963, pp. 31-38.

Kahn, L. F., and Hanson, R. D. "Infilled walls for earthquake strengthening."

Journal of Structural Engineering, ASCE, Vol. 105, No.2, 1979, pp. 283-296.

Kappos, A. J., Stylianidis, KC., and Michailidis, C. N. "Analytical Models of

Brick Masonry Infilled RIC Frames under Lateral Loading", Journal of Earthquake
Engineering, Vol. 2, No.1, 1998b, pp. 59-87.

Kappos, A. J., Penelis, G. G., and Drakopoulos, C. G. " Evaluation of Simplified

Models for Lateral Load Analysis of Unreinforced Masonry Buildings", Journal of
Structural Engineering, Vol. 128, NO.7, 2002, pp. 890-897.

Klinger, R. E. and Bertero, V.V. "In filled frames in earthquake-resistant

construction." Rep. EERC 76-82, 1976, Univ. of California, Berkeley, Calif.

Klingner, R. E., and Bertero, V. V. "Earthquake Resistance of Infilled Frames."

Journal of Structural Engineering, ASCE, Vol. 104, No.6, 1978.

Liauw, T. C., and Kwan, K H. "Plastic theory of non-integral infilled frames."

Proc. Inst. Civ. Eng., 75, 1983, pp. 379-396.

Liauw, T. C. and Kwan, K H. Unified plastic analysis for infilled frames. J. Struct.
Engg., ASCE, Vol. 120, NO.9, 1985, pp. 1861-1876.

96
Liauw, T.e., and Lo, e.Q. "Multibay infilled frames without shear connectors." ACI
Struct. J., July-August, 1988, pp. 423-428.

Liauw, T.e. "Tests on multistory infilled frames subject to dynamic lateral loading",
J. Am. Concr. Inst., 76(4),1979, pp. 551-560.

Liauw, T.e. and Lee, S. W. "On the behaviour and analysis of multi-story infilled
frames subjected to lateral loading", Proc., Inst. Civ. Eng., Struct. Build., 63, 1977,
pp.641-656.

Madan, A., Reinhorn, A. M., Mander, J. B., and Valles, R. E. "Modeling of

Masonry Infill Panels for Structural Analysis." ASCE Journal of Structural Division,
Vol. 123, No. STlO, 1997, pp. 1295-1302.

Mallick, D. V., and Garg, R. P. "Effect of openings on the lateral stiffness of infilled
frames". Proc., Inst. Civ. Eng., Struct. Build., 49, 1971, pp. 193-209.

Mallick, D. V., and Severn, R. T. "The Behavior of Infilled Frames under Static
Loading." Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers, 1967, Vol. 38, pp. 639-
656.

Mander, J. B., Nair, B., Wojtkowski, K., and Ma, J. "Experimental study on the
seismic performance of brick-infilled steel frames with and without retrofit". Tech.
Rep. NCEER-93-0001, Nat. Ctr. for Earthquake Engrg. Res., 1993, State univ. of
New York, Buffalo, N.Y.

Mainstone, R. J. "On the Stiffness and Strengths of Infilled Frames." Proceedings of

the Institution of Civil Engineers, Supplement IV, 1971, pp 57-90.

Mainstone, R. J., and Weeks, G. A. "The Influence of Bounding Frame on the

Racking Stiffness and Strength of Brick Walls." Proceedings of the 2nd Int. Brick
Masonry Conf., 1970, Stoke-on-Trent, England, pp. 165-171.

97
Manos, C. J., Thanmpta, J., and Bilal, Y. "Influence of Masonry Infills on the
Earthquake Response of Multi-Story RC Structures" Proceedings of the 12th World
Conference on Earthquake Engineering, 2000, #112 on CD-ROM, New Zealand.

Manos, G. c., Triamataki, M., and Yasin, B. "Experimental and numerical

simulationof the influence of masonry infills on the seismic response of reinforced
concrete frame structures". Proc., 10th Eur. Conf. on Earthquake Engrg., Vol. 2,
Balkema, Retterdam, The Netherlands, 1995, pp. 1513-1518.

McBride, R. T. "The Behavior of Masonry Infilled Steel Frames Subjected to

Racking", M.Sc. thesis, 1984, Dept. of Civil Engineering, University of New
Brunswick, Fredericton, NB, Canada.

Mehrabi, A. B., Shing, P. B. "Finite Element Modeling of Masonry-Infilled RC

Frames". ASCE Journal of Structural Division, 1997, Vo1.123, No. ST05, pp. 604-
613.

Mehrabi, A. B., Shing, P. B., Schuller, M., and Noland, J. "Experimental

Evaluation of Masonry-Infilled RC Frames." Journal of Structural Engineering,
ASCE, Vol. 122, No.3, 1996, pp. 228-237.

Mehrabi, A. B., Shing, P. B., Schuller, M., and Noland, J. "Performance of

Masonry-Infilled RC Frames under In-plane Lateral Loads." Report CU/SR-94-6,
1994, Dept. ofCiv., Envir., and Arch. Engg., Univ. of Colorado, Boulder, Colorado.

Mosalam, K. M., Ayala, G., White, R. N., and Roth, C. "Seismic Reliability of
LRC Frames with and without Masonry Infill Walls." Journal of Earthquake
Engineering, Vol. I, NO.4, 1997, pp. 693-720.

Murty, C. R. V. and Jain, S.K. "Beneficial Influence of Masonry Infill Walls on

Seismic Performance of Reinforced Concrete Frame Buildings", Proceedings of the
12'h World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, 2000, #1790 on CD-ROM, New
Zealand.

98
Paulay, T. and Priestley, M. J. N. "Seismic Design of Reinforced Concrete and
Masonry Buildings." John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 1992, New York, NY, USA.

Po ok, L. L., and Dawe, J. L. "Effects on Interface Conditions Between a Masonry

Shear Panel and Surrounding Steel Frame." Proc., 4th Canadian Masonry Symposium,
1986, Univ. of New Brunswick Press, Frederiction, N.B., Canada, pp. 910-921.

Richardson, J. "The Behavior of Masonry Infilled Steel Frames." M.Sc. thesis, 1986,
Dept. of Civil Engineering, University of New Brunswick, Fredericton, NB, Canada.

Riddington, J. R. "The Influence of Initial Gaps on Infilled Frame Behavior."

Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers, 1984, London, England.

Riddington, J. R., and Smith, B. S. "Analysis of Infilled Frames Subjected to

Racking with Design Recommendations." The Structural Engineer, Vol. 55, No.6,
1977, pp. 263-268.

Sachanski, S. "Analysis of the Earthquake Resistance of Frame Buildings Taking into

Consideration the Carrying Capacity of the Filling Masonry" Proceedings of the
Second World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Vol. 3, Tokyo, 1960, pp.
2127-2141.

Saneinejad A., and Hobbs, B. "Inelastic Design of Infilled Frames." Journal of

Structural Division, ASCE, Vol. 121, No. ST4, 1995, pp. 634-650.

Schmidt, T. "An approach of modeling masonry infilled frames by F.E. method and a
modified equivalent strut method". Darm-stadt Concrete, Annu. J. on Concrete and
Concrete Struct., 1989, pp. 185-194.

Seah, C. K. "A Universal Approach for the Analysis and Design of Masonry Infilled
Frame Structures." Ph.D. thesis, 1998. The University of New Brunswick, Canada.

Smith, B. S. "Lateral Stiffuess of Infilled Frames." ASCE Journal of Structural

Division, Vol. 88, No. ST6, 1962, pp. 183-199.

99
Smith, B. S. "Behavior of Square Infilled Frames." ASCE Journal of the Structural
Division, Vol. 92, No. STl, 1966, pp. 381-403.

Smith, B. S., and Carter, C. "A Method of Analysis for Infilled Frames."
Proceedings of the Inst. of Civil Engineers, 1969, Vol. 44, pp. 31-48.

Waset, A. "Sway characteristics of brick infilled reinforced concrete building frame

under lateral load." M.Engg. thesis, 2002, Dept. of Civil Engineering, BUET.

Thomas, F. G. "The Strength of Brickwork." The Structural Engineer, Part 2, Vol.

36,1953, pp. 35-41.

Utku, B. "Stress magnifications in walls with openings", Proc., 7'h World Conf. on
Earthquake Engineering, Vol. 4, Istanbul, Turkey, 1980, pp. 217-224.

Vintzeleou, E., and Tassios, T. P. "Seismic behaviour and design of infilled R.C.
frames", Proc., J. European Earthquake Eng., 2, 1989, pp. 22-28.

Wood, R. H. "The Stability of Tall Buildings." Proceedings ofthe Institution of Civil

Engineers, 1958, Vol. 11, pp. 69-102.

Yong, T. C. "Shear Strength of Masonry Panels in Steel Frames." M.Sc. thesis, 1984,
Department of Civil Engineering, University of New Brunswick, Canada.

Zarnic, R. "Masonry-in filled Reinforced Concrete Frames as Subassemblies of

Earthquake-Resistant Buildings." Earthquake Damage Evaluation and Vulnerability
Analysis of Building Structures, A. Koridze, ed., 1990, OMEGA Scientific,
Wallingford, axon, U.K., 79-100.

Zarnic, R. and Tomazevic, M. "Behavior of repaired masonry infilled RC frames."

Rep. To U.S.-Yugoslav Joint Board of Scientific and Tech. Cooperation, Inst. For
Testing and Res. In Mat. And Struct., 1990, Ljubljana, Yugoslavia.

100
 APPENDIX A

A.I 80LID45 Element Description

SOLID4S is 3-D Structural Solid and used for the three-dimensional modeling of solid structures. The
element is defined by eight nodes having three degrees of freedom at each node: translations in the
nodal X, y, and z directions.
The element has plasticity, creep, swelling, stress stiffening, large deflection, and large strain
capabilities. A reduced integration option with hourglass control is available.

p o
j M~O?
\\ N

I ~, - Kj.
,
'>.,]
J
M (I\i sm opt; on)
I
CD I
E1~m~ntCoordinan
9;st>m (,hown for
'i
A7,~- -- M)lP?
I _

-
/
KEYOI'!(4)=l) / , K

,;-:
;~'\
Z /.~ / K,L
~
J
J (T etr.lI1.draJ Opt; on -
.; SJrfact coordinatt system not recommended)

Figure A.!. 801.1045 3-D Structural Solid

Input Data

The geometry, node locations, and the coordinate system for this element are shown in SOLfD45. The
element is defined by eight nodes and the orthotropic material properties. Orthotropic material
directions correspond to the element coordinate directions.

Element loads are described in Node and Element Loads. Pressures may be input as surface loads on
the clement faces as shown by the circled numbers on SOLlD45. Positive pressures act into the
clement. Temperatures and fluences may be input as element body loads at the nodes. The node I
temperature T(I) defaults to TUNIF. If all other temperatures arc unspecified, they default to T(I). For
any other input temperature pattern, unspecified temperatures default to TUNIF. Similar defaults
occurs for fluence except that zero is used instead of TUN IF.

KEYOPT(I) is used to include or suppress the extra displacement shapes. KEYOPT(S) and
KEYOPT( 6) provide various element printout options.

This element also supports uniform reduced (1 point) integration with hourglass control when
KEYOPT(2) = 1. Using uniform reduced integration provides the following advantages when running a
nonlinear analysis:

• Less CPU time is required for element stiffness formation and stress/strain calculations to
achieve a comparable accuracy to the FULL integration option.

• The length of the clement histoSry saved record (.ESA V and .OSA V) is about l/7th as much
as when the full integration (2 X 2 X 2) is used for the same number of elements.

• Nonlinear convergence characteristic of the option is generally far superior to the default full
integration with extra displacement shape; that is, KEYOPT(1) = 0, KEYOPT(2) ~ o.

A- 1
 • The analysis will not suffer from volumetric locking which can be caused by plasticity or
other incompressible material properties.

An analysis using uniform reduced integration can have the following disadvantages:

• The analysis is not as accurate as the full integration method, which is apparent in the linear
analysis for the same mesh.

• The analysis cannot capture the bending behavior with a single layer of elements, for example,
in the case of a fixed-end cantilever with a lateral point load, modeled by one layer of
elements laterally. Instead, four elements are usually recommended.

When the uniform reduced integration option is used (KEYOPT(2) ~ I--this option is the same as
SOLID 185 with KEYOPT(2) ~ I), you can check thc accuracy of the solution by comparing the total
energy (SENE label in ET ABLE) and the artificial energy (AENE label in ETABLE) introduced by
hourglass control. If the ratio of:

artificial energy < 5%

total energy
the solution is generally acceptable. If the ratio exceeds 5%, refine the mesh. The total energy and
artificial energy can also be monitored by using the OUTPR, VENG command in the solution phase.
KEYOPT(9)=1 is used to read initial stress data from a user subroutine. For details about these user
subroutines, see the ANSYS Guide to User Programmable Features.

A summary of the element input is given in Input Summary. A general description of element input is
given in Element Input.

Table A.I SOLID45 Input Summary

Element Name SOLlD45

Nodes I, J, K, L, M, N, 0, P
Degrees of UX, UY, UZ
Freedom
Real Constants Hourglass control factor needed only when KEYOPT(2) ~ l.

Note--The valid value for this real constant is any positive number; default = 1.0.
We recommend that you use a value between 1 and 10.

Material EX, EY, EZ, (PRXY, PRYZ, PRXZ or NUXY, NUYZ, NUXZ), ALPX, ALPY,
Properties ALPZ, DENS, GXY, GYZ, GXZ, DAMP

Surface Loads Pressures -

face I (J-I-L-K), face 2 (I-J-N-M), face 3 (J-K-O-N),
face 4 (K-L-P-O), face 5 (L-I-M-P), face 6 (M-N-O-P)
Body Loads Temperatures - T(I), T(J), T(K), T(L), T(M), T(N), T(O), T(P)

Fluences - FL(I), FL(J). FL(K), FL(L), FL(M), FL(N), FL(O), FL(P)

Special Plasticity, Creep, Swelling, Stress stiffening, Large deflection, Large strain, Birth
Features and death, Adaptive descent
KEYOPT(l) o - Include extra displacement shapes
1 -Suppress extra displacement shapes
KEYOPT(2) 0- Full integration with or without extra displacement shapes, depending on the
setting ofKEYOPT(I)
1 - Uniform reduced integration with hourglass control; suppress extra displacement
shapes (KEYOPT( I) is automatically set to I).
KEYOPT(4) o - Element coordinate system is parallel to the global coordinate system
1 - Element coordinate system is based on the clement I-J side

A-2
KEYOPT(5) o - Basic element solution
1 - Repeat basic solution for all integration points
2 - Nodal Stress Solution
KEYOPT(6) o - Basic element solution
1 - Surface solution for face l-J-N-M also
2 - Surface solution for face I-J-N-M and face K-L-P-O (Surface solution available
for linear materials only)
3 -Nonlinear solution at each integration point also
4 -Surface solution for faces with nonzero pressure
KEYOPT(9) o - No user subroutine to provide initial stress (default)
1 -Read initial stress data from user subroutine USTRESS (see the ANSYS Guide to
User Programmable Features for user written subroutines)

Output Data

The solution output associated with the element is in two forms:

• nodal displacements included in thc overall nodal solution

• additional element output as shown in Element OUtpllt Definitions

Several items are illustrated in Stress output. The element stress directions are parallel to the element
coordinate system. The surface stress outputs are in the surface coordinate systems and are available for
any face (KEYOPT(6». The coordinate systems for faces IJNM and KLPO are shown in SOLID45.
The other surface coordinate systems follow similar orientations as indicated by the pressure face node
description. Surface stress printout is valid only if the conditions described in Element Solution are met.
A general description of solution output is given in Solution Output.
p

3ress directions shown

are for KEYOrr(4)=o
M
I
/
L.I..
~,- ~
/
/
./SX K
/

Figure A.2 SOLID45 Stress Output

When KEYOPT(2) ~ I (the element is using uniform reduced integration), all the outputs for the
element integration points are output in the same style as the full integration outputs. The number of
points for full integration is used for consistency of output within the same element type.

The Element Output Definitions table uses the following notation:

A colon (:) in the Name column indicates the item can be accessed by the Component Name method
[ETABLE, ESOL]. The 0 column indicates the availability of the items in the file Jobname.OUT.
The R column indicates the availability of the itcms in the results file.

In eithcr the 0 or R columns, Y indicates that thc item is always available, a number refers to a table
footnote that describes when the item is conditionally available, and a -- indicales that the item is not
available.

A-3
2. Face printout (ifKEYOPT(6) is 1,2, or 4)

3. Available only at centorid as a 'Gel item

A-4
TableA.3 SOLID45 Miscellaneous Element Output

1. Output at each of eight integration points, if the element has a nonlinear material and
KEYOPT(6) = 3

2. Output at each integration point. if KEYOPT( 5) ~ I

3. Output at each node, ifKEYOPT(5) =2

Assumptions and Restrictions

Zero volume elements are not allowed. Elements may be numbered eitber as shown in SOLlD45 or
may have the planes IJKL and MNOP interchanged. Also, the element may not be twisted such that the
element has two separate volumes. This occurs most frequently when the elements are not numbered
'properly.

All elements must have eight nodes. A prism-shaped element may be formed by defining duplicate K
and L and duplicate a and P node numbers. A tetrahedron shape is also available. The extra shapes are
automatically deleted for tetrahedron elements.

Product Restrictions

When used in the prodnct(s) listed below, the stated prodnct-specific restrictions apply to this element
in addition to the general assumptions and restrictions given in the previous section.

ANSYS/Professional.

• The DAMP material property is not allowed.

• Fluence body loads are not applicable.

• The only special feature allowed is stress stiffening.

• KEYOPT( 6) ~ 3 is not applicable.

A.2 BEAM4 Element Description

BEAM4 is a uniaxial 3-D clastic beam element with tension, compression, torsion, and bending
capabilities. The element has six degrees of freedom at each node: translations in the nodal x, y. and z
directions and rotations about the nodal x, y, and z axes. Stress stiffening and large deflection
capabilities are included. A consistent tangent stiffness matrix option is available for use in large
deflection (finite rotation) analyses.

Input Data

The geometry, node locations, and coordinate systems for this element are shown in BEAM4. The
element is defined by two or three nodes, the cross-sectional area, two area moments of inertia (IZZ
and IYY), two thicknesses (TKY and TKZ), an angle of orientation (8) about the element x-axis, the

A-5
torsional moment of inertia (IXX), and the material properties. IfIXX is not specified or is equal to 0.0,
it is assumed equal to the polar moment of inertia (IYY +lZZ). IXX should be positive and is usually
less than the polar moment of inertia. The clement torsional stiffness decreases with decreasing values
ofIXX. An added mass per unit length may be input with the ADDMAS value.

The element x-axis is oriented from node I toward node J. For the two-node option, the default (8 ~ 0°)
orientation of the element y-axis is automatically calculated to be parallel to the global X-V plane.
Several orientations are shown in Figure C.1 For the case where the element is parallel to the global Z
axis (or within a 0.01 percent slope of it), the element y axis is oriented parallel to the global Y axis (as
shown in Figure C.I). For user control of the clement orientation about the clement x-axis, use the 8
angle (THETA) or the third node option. lfboth are defined, the third node option takes precedence.
The third node (K), if used, defines a plane (with I and J) containing the element x and z axes (as
shown). If this element is used in a large deflection analysis, it should be noted that the location of the
third node (K), or the angle (THETA), is used only to initially orient the element.

Z K (optiona I)
(If node K is om itted and 6 = 0°,
the element y axis is parallel to
J
I~ the global X-V plane.)

I
y

IZI
G)
T4,T8
f1,TS

z
0
TKZ J y IVY

X
L @

T2,T6
1- TKV -I n,T7
Figure A.3 BEAM4 - 3-D Elastic Beam

The initial strain in the element (ISTRN) is given by OIL, where °

is the difference between the
element length, L, (as defined by the I and J node locations) and the zero strain length. The shear
deflection constants (SHEARZ and SHEARY) are used only if shear deflection is to be included. A
zero value of SHEAR_may be used to neglect shear deflection in a particular direction.

KEYOPT(2) is used to activate the consistent tangent stiffness matrix (i.e., a matrix composed of the
main tangent stiffness matrix plus the consistent stress stiffness matrix) in large deflection analyses
[NLGEOM,ON]. one can often obtain more rapid convergence in a geometrically nonlinear analysis,
such as a nonlinear buckling or postbuckling analysis, by activating this option. However, one should
not use this option if one are using the element to simulate a rigid link or a group of coupled nodes. The

A-6
resulting abrupt changes in stiffness within the structure make the consistent tangent stiffness matrix
unsuitable for such applications.

KEYOPT(7) is used to compute an unsymmetric gyroscopic damping matrix (often used for
rotordynamic analyses). The rotational frequency is input with the SPIN real constant (radians/time,
positive in the positive element x direction). The element must be symmetric with this option (e.g.,
IYY~IZZ and SHEARY~SHEARZ).

Pressures may be input as surface loads on the element faces as shown by the circled numbers on
Beam4. Positive normal pressures act into the element. Lateral pressures are input as a force per uni(
length. End "pressures" are input as a force. KEYOPT(IO) allows tapered lateral pressures to be offse!
from the nodes. Temperatures may be input as clement body loads at the eight Hcorner" locations
shown in BEAM4. The first corner temperature Tl defaults to TUNIF. If all other temperatures are
unspecified, they default to Tl. If only Tl and T2 are input, T3 defaults to T2 and T4 defaults to Tl. If
only Tl and T4 are input, T2 defaults to Tl and T3 defaults to T4. In both cases, T5 through T8 default
to Tl through T4. For any other input pattern, unspecified temperatures default to TUNIF.

KEYOPT(9), used to request output at intermediate locations, is not valid if

• stress stiffening is turned on [SSTIF,ON]

• more than one component of angular velocity is applied [OMEGA]

• any angular velocities or accelerations are applied with the CGOMGA, DOMEGA, or
DCGOMG commands.

Table A.4 BEAM4 Input Summary

Element Name BEAM4

Nodes I, J, K (K orientation node is optional)

Degrees of UX,UY, UZ, ROTX, ROTY, ROTZ

Freedom
Real AREA, IZZ, IYY, TKZ, TKY, THETA, ISTRN, lXX, SHEARZ, SHEARY, SPIN,
Constants ADDMAS
Material EX, ALPX, DENS, GXY, DAMP
Properties
Surface Loads Pressures -
face 1 (I-J) (-Z normal direction),
face 2 (I-J) (-Y normal direction),

face 3 (I-J) (+X tangential direction),

face 4 (I) (+X axial direction),

face 5 (1) (-X axial direction)

(use negative value for opposite loading)
Body Loads Temperatures - Tl, T2, T3, T4, T5, T6, T7, T8
Special Stress stiffening, Large deflection, Birth and death
Features
KEYOPT(2) 0- Use only the main tangent stiffness matrix when NLGEOM is ON. (Stress
stiffening effects used in linear buckling or other linear prestressed analyses must be
activated separately with PSTRES,ON.)
1 - Use the consistent tangent stiffness matrix (i.e., a matrix composed of the main
tangent stiffness matrix plus the consistent stress stiffness matrix) when NLGEOM
is ON. (SSTIF,ON will be ignored for this element when KEYOPT(2)~1 is
activated.) Note that if SOLCONTROL is ON and NLGEOM is ON, KEYOPT(2)
is automatically set to I; i.e, the consistent tangent will be used.
KEYOPT(6) 0- No printout ofmembcf forces Ofmoments

A-7
 1 - Print out member forces and moments in the element coordinate system
KEYOPT(7) o - No gyroscopic damping matrix
1 _ Compute gyroscopic damping matrix. Real constant SPIN must be greater than
zero. IYY must equal IZZ.
KEYOPT(9) Used to control additional output between ends I and J
N _ Output at N intermediate locations (N~ 0, 1,3,5,7,9)
KEYOPT(IO) Used only for tapered surface loads with the SFBEAM command.
o . Offset for load placement is in terms of length units
1 - Offset is in terms of a length ratio (0.0 to 1.0)
Note--SHEARZ goes with IZZ, if SHEARZ ~ 0, there is no shear deflection in the element Y
directionS HEAR Y goes with IYY, if SHEAR Y ~ 0, there is no shear deflection in the element Z
direction

Output Data

The solution output associated with the element is in two forms:

• nodal displacements included -in the overall nodal solution

• additional element output as shown in 3-D BEAM4 Element Output Definitions.

Several items are illustrated in Stress Output.

The maximum stress is computed as the direct stress plus the absolute values of both bending stresses.
The minimum stress is the direct stress minus the absolute value of both bending stresses. A general
description of solution output is given in Solution Ou/put. See the ANSYS Basic Analvsis Procedures
Guide for ways to view results.

r) - I- SBZT
r -SDIR

J
7'
• J •
-'"

j 7 LSD"
Figure A.4 3-D BEAM4 Stress Output
- I-SBYB

The Element Output Definitions table uses the following notation:

A colon (:) in the Name column indicates the item can be accessed by the Component Name method
[ETABLE, ESOL]. The 0 column indicates the availability of the items in the file Jobname.OUT.
The R column indicates the availability of the items in the results file.

In either the 0 or R columns, Y indicates that the item is always available, a number refers to a table
footnote that describes when the item is conditionally available, and a -- indicates that the item is not
available.

A-8
Table A.S 3-D BEAM4 Element Output Definitions
Name Definition 0 R
EL ''Element numb';r . ;lY ,Y
NODES- - -~"E1ement ~~de nu;;;b-'~(i a,;d J) . --- iY iY
MAT-- - --Material ~~~be; fc,;ih~ ek~ent ,- -- ----~fY- - 'LY
;::..;.._ __ ...
_ _ "_ -- -l~ --."".- .
lVOLV: ,Element volume IY
~CI ye, ZC -
;TEMP
..L_o~;ti~~where r.=sults-;~c~ep?rtcd
,Temperatures at integration points Tl,T2,T3,T4,T5,T6,n,T8 tY
--=:~~-.-'.~~~~'
=-~-_~"-I
IY
rpRE;-Pr~ssure PJ;;t ~~d~~ I,J; OFFSTl at I,J; P2aii,J; OFI'ST2 at\, ~ - _.:
! I,J; P3 at I,J; OFFST3 at I,J; P4 at I; P5 at J I "1
,SDI R Axial dire~t st;ess -f, ;'/-- -
SByT.---."Be;;ding stress on th~ ~~ent +y side ofth~ b;.;m '~---fL-
SBYB •.. - Be~di;;g str;s; on the eiem~nt .Y side of the beam -1 Q - -,
SBZT •. -- Bending-str~s o~ th';;lement +Z side ofth~ be';;;; '1{ --'.J1 --,
~SBZB- :~d~~S~~S~ o~the clen;;"! -Z side ~fthe4be-~~ ---- ~rJ-- "rj---I
;SMAX
~M!!'!....
.EPELDIR
Maximum stress (direct stress + bending stress)
:Mi;;;';:;~;;"str';ss(direct stress - bending str~ss2 ---
'Axial clastic strain at the end
-
11
. -~rl_1,. --~-~
11
11
==1
)1.. ~,Il - ~.I
~P!'l:BYT:B';n~i?g-;'la0e straG o?the element +Y s~deof the bea;"'_
~PE.!:-BY~ _~.Bendi~g.:!astie:t~ain ~n the c1ement.Y side of the beagr_
EPELBZT Bending elastic strain on the element +Z side of the beam
--!- -- .~~
'1 ,1
I
~EPELBZB- • 'B~;,ding ela;tie strain'on the element -Z side -;'f the bea.;',_.. 7. -'1.-
r-~----~"""--
EPTHDIR
---"' -
Axial thermal strain at the end
~----~--
, ,
EPliiBYT -'Bendi~g therm;lst;a;;;"';;n lh;e!ement +Y sid-;;ofth'e-b-e-a-m-";'l iL
EPiHBYB-~Bending~(~r~'il;-on'th;; element.Y sid~ of the beam ''L"' -IT--
'EPTHBZT "B;nding the;;;'al st;ain on the clement +Z side of the ~am ''/ -" 'T, - ~,
EPTHBZ~ __ ,~B~ndi~gtherma);i~';;n on th;;'lement -Z sid;;-;;[the bea6 .- ~. - =-il __
~~A~!::-. _ Initial axial strain in the clement 1 }. _I
'MFOR(X Y Z) ,Member forces in the clement coordinate system X, Y, Z 12
" directions

'MMOM(X Y Z)~Me'mber-;:;;;;;;'e~t;intl;e el~ment eo~;di~t;;-;ystem X, Y, zi2

- tV
'
j '

~ _~ ~?lreChOns - IY _ __

I. The item repeats for end I, intermediate locations (sec KEYOPT(9)), and end J.

2. IfKEYOPT(6)=1.

3. Available only at centroid as a *Gt:T item.

Assumptions and Restrictions

The beam must not have a zero length or area. The moments of inertia, however, may be zero if large
deflections arc not used. The beam can have any cross-sectional shape for which the moments of inertia
can be computed. The stresses, however, will be determined as if the distance between the neutral axis
and the extreme fiber is one.halfofthe corresponding thickness. The element thicknesses arc used only
in the bending and thermal stress calculations. The applied thermal gradients arc assumed to be linear
across the thickness in both directions and along the length of the clement.

If you use the consistent tangent stiffness matrix (KEYOPT(2)=I), take care to usc realistic (i.e., "to
scale") clement real constants. This precaution is necessary because the consistent stress.stiffening
matrix is based on the calculated stresses in the clcmcnt--if you usc artificially large or small cross-
sectional properties, the calculated stresses will become inaccurate, and the stress-stiffening matrix will
suffer corresponding inaccuracies. (Certain components of the stress-stiffening matrix could even

A.9
overshoot to infinity.) Similar difficulties could arise if unrealistic real constants are used in a linear
prestressed or linear buckling analysis [PSTRES,ON].

Eigenvalues calculated in a gyroscopic modal analysis can be very sensitive to changes in the initial
shift value, leading to potential error in either the real or imaginary (or both) parts of the eigenvalues.

Product Restrictions

When used in the product(s) listed below, the stated product-specific restrictions apply to this element
in addition to the general assumptions and restrictions given in the previous section.

ANSYS/Professional.

• The SPIN real constant (RII) is not available. Input Rll as a blank.

• The DAMP material property is not allowed.

• KEYOPT(2) can only be set to 0 (default).

• KEYOPT(7) can only be set to 0 (default).

• The only special features allowed are stress stiffening and large deflections.

A.3 PLANE42 Element Description

PLANE42 is a 2-D structural solid and used for 2-D modeling of solid structures. The element can be
used either as a plane element (plane stress or plane strain) or as an axisymmetric element. The element
is defined by four nodes having two degrees of freedom at each node: translations in the nodal x and y
directions. The element has plasticity, creep, swelling, stress stiffening, large deflection, and large
strain capabilities.

An option is available to suppress the extra displacement shapes. See Section 14.42 of the ANSYS
Theory Reference for more details about this element. Sec PLANE82 for a multi-node version of this
element. See PLANE25 for an axisymmetric version that accepts nonaxisymmetric loading.
Q)
K

y
:orMal)
1 I l (Tn angul ar Opti on - not recomm~ndt:d)

L }{ (or R>dial) (1)

Figure A.S. PLANE42 2-D Structural Solid

Input Data

The geometry, node locations, and the coordinate system for this element are shown in PLANE42. The
element input data includes four nodes, a thickness (for the plane stress option only) and the orthotropic
material properties. Orthotropic material directions correspond to the element coordinate directions.
Pressures may be input as surface loads on the element faces as shown by the circled numbers on
PLANE42. Positive pressures act into the element. Temperatures and fluences may be input as element
body loads at the nodes. The node I temperature T(1) defaults to TUNIF. If all other temperatures are

A-JO
unspecified, they default to T(I). For any other input pattern, unspecified temperatures default to
TUNIF. Similar defaults occurs for fluence except that zero is used instead of TUN IF.

The nodal forces, if any, should be input per unit of depth for a plane analysis (except for
KEYOPT(3)~3) and on a full 3600 basis for an axisymmetric analysis. KEYOPT(2) is used to include
or suppress the extra displacement shapes.

KEYOPT(5) and KEYOPT(6) provide various element printout options KEYOPT(9)=1 is used to read
initial stress data from a user subroutine. For details about these user subroutines, see the ANSYS Guide
to User Programmable Features.

Table A.6 PLANE42 Input Summary

Element Name PLANE42

Nodes I, J, K, L
Degrees of UX, UY
Freedom
Real Constants None, ifKEYOPT (3) ~ 0, 1,2

Thickness, if KEYOPT (3) ~ 3

Material EX, EY, EZ, (PRXY, PRYZ, PRXZ or NUXY, NUYZ, NUXZ), ALPX,
Properties ALPY,ALPZ, DENS, GXY, DAMP
Surface Loads Pressures - face I (J-I), face 2 (K-J), face 3 (L-K), face 4 (I-L)

Body Loads Temperatures - T(I), T(J), T(K), T(L)

Fluenees - FL(I), FL(J), FL(K), FL(L)

Special Plasticity, Creep, Swelling, Stress stiffening, Large deflection, Large strain, Birth
Features and death, Adaptive descent
KEYOPT(l) o - Element coordinate system is parallel to the global coordinate system
1 - Element coordinate system is based on the element I-} side
KEYOPT(2) o - Include extra displacement shapes
1 - Suppress extra displacement shapes
KEYOPT(3) o - Plane stress
1 -Axisymmetric
2 -Plane strain (Z strain = 0.0)
3 -Plane stress with thickness input
KEYOPT(5) o - Basic element solution
1 -Repeat basic solution for all integration points
2 -Nodal Stress Solution
KEYOPT(6) 0- Basic element solution
1 - Surface solution for face I-J also.
2 _ Surface solution for both faces I-J and K-L also. (Surface solution available for
linear materials only)
3 - Nonlinear solution at each integration point also.
4 -Surface solution for faces with nonzero pressure
KEYOPT(9) 0- No user subroutine to provide initial stress (default)
1 -Read initial stress data from user subroutine USTRESS (see the ANSYS Guide to
User Programmable Features for user written subroutines)

Output Data

The solution output associated with the element is in two forms:

• nodal displacements included in the overall nodal solution

• additional element output as shown in Element Output Definitions

A-ll
 Several items are illustrated in Stress output.

The element stress directions are parallel to the element coordinate system. Surface stresses are
. available on any face. Surface stresses on face 11, for example, are defined parallel and perpendicular to
the IJ line and along the Z axis for a plane analysis or in the hoop direction for an axisymmetric
analysis. A general description of solution output is given in Solution Output. See the ANSYS Basic
Analvsis Procedures Guide for ways to view results.

S'l 3nss directions sl10wn are for

L
KEYOPT(1) =0

sx
Y
:0' A><i~) I

L X(o,Radi~)
J

Figure A.6. PLANE42 Stress Output

The Element Output Definitions table uses the following notation:

A colon (:J in the Name column indicates the item can be accessed by the Component Name method
[ETABLE. ESOL]. The 0 column indicates the availability of the items in the file Jobname.OUT.
The R column indicates the availability of the items in the results file.

In either the 0 or R columns, Y indicates that the item is always available, a number refers to a table
footnote that describes when the item is conditionally available, and a -- indicates that the item is not
available.

A-12
 2. Face printout (ifKEYOPT(6) is 1,2, or 4)

3. Available only at centroid as a *GET item.

2. Output at each integration point, ifKEYOPT(5)~1

Output at each node, ifKEYOPT(5)~2

A-13
Assumptions and Restrictions

The area of the element must be non-zero. The element must lie in a global X-Y plane as shown in
PLANE42 and the Y-axis must be the axis of symmetry for axisymmetric analyses. An axisymmetric
structure should be modeled in the +X quadrants.

A triangular element may be formed by defining duplicate K and L node numbers (see Triangle. Prism
and Tetrahedral Elements). The extra shapes are automatically deleted for triangular elements so that a
constant strain element results. Surface stress printout is valid only if the conditions described in
Element Solution are met.

Product Restrictions

When used in the product(s) listed below, the stated product-specific restrictions apply to this element
in addition to the general assumptions and restrictions given in the previous section.

ANSYS/Professiona1.

• The DAMP material property is not allowed.

• Fluence body loads are not applicable.

• The only special feature allowed is stress stiffening.

• KEYOPT(6)=3 is not applicable.

A-14
 APPENDIXB

B.l The assembly of commands to model the infillcd

frame using equivalent strut model approach
ET,!,BEAM3
Iprep7
t"' ••.••• Ana!ysis Using Solid45 element without infill FINAL !ET,2,COMBINI4
(21.01.04,11.41 PM) ••••••••
ET,2,LlNK!

!"' •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••
!•••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••
•••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••
'PARAMETER USED !REAL
!•••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 1••••••••• ***••••••••• **** •• *****.* ••************
•••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••
R,!,ARA,IZ,BDY ! Base Beam thickness ,COLUMN
fc==4000 !psi (fe' of concrete) AND BEAM
fm=1450 !psi (fe' of masonry)
NUc=O.15 ! paissian's ratio of cone. R,2,ARA~STRT ! FOR STRUT
NUm=O.25 ! paissian's ratio of masonry. !R,2,K

!••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••
Cdens=150/(12**3) ! #/io"3 (density arcone.)
Mdens==120/(12"3) ! #/io"3 (density of masonry)
••• * •••••••••• *•••••••••••••••••••
! DEFINING MATERIAL PROPERTY
!••••••••••••••• *••••• *••••••••••••• *•••••• **••••
H=12 ! ft (colm height) f/fdistance ; independent
13==18 ! fl (beam length) e/c distance ; in~ependent
*•••••••••• *••• * ••••••••••••••••••
WWZ=5 ! in (wall thickness) ; independent
CTX=181 in (colm thickness along span length) MP.DENS,I,Cdens
independent MP,EX,!,EXc
CTZ=15 ! in (colm thinckness perp to span length) even
multiple ofWWVNDlVWZ MP ,DENS.2,Mdens
BDY=18 ! in (beam depth) MP ,EX,2,EXm
BTZ=CTZ ! in (beam width)
!•••••••••• *•••••••• *••• ** ••••• *•••• **•• *•••••• *.
WLX=B.12-CTX ! Colm-Colm clear distance OR ****** ••••••••• **.* ••*•••*.*** •••
Wall length !SOLID MODELING FOR FRAMES
WHY=H.12-BDY ! Calm clear height Wall !•••••••**** •••••••••• ***** •••••••• ***••••••••• *.
Height
•••••••••• **•• **.*.*.* ••••• *•••••

NTHBM~6 'EXTENTION OF BEAM N,I

IS IfNTH OH THE BEAM WIDTH N,2,O,WHY
N,J,B'!2,WHY
EXBM~BDY N,4,B.12.0
EXCL~BDY 'HEIGHT OF COLUMN
EXTENTION TYPE, I
MAT,I
!PL~IOOOOOO !# REAL,!

EXc=57000.SQRT(fc) !psi ( Modulus of Elasticity of Cone.) E,!,2

Gc=EXc/(2.(1 +NUc)) !psi (Shearing Modulus of Elasticity E,2,J
of Cone.) E,J,4

EXm=750.fm !psi (Modulus of Elasticity of masonry.) TYPE,2

Gm=EXm/(2.(I+NUm)) !psi (Shearing Modulus of MAT,2
Elasticity of masonry) REAL,2

IZ=CTZ.I3DY •• 3/12 E,2,4

ARA=BDY.CTZ
ALLSEL
DIAG~(SQR T(B'S'!44+ WHY' WHY)
ARA~STRT~DlAG'WWZJJ (HOLMES (196!)
K~(ARA'EXm)/DlAG ISOLU

1 •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• NSEL,S,LOC,Y,O,O
••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••
'DEFINING ELEMENT TYPE AND REAL CONSTANT D,ALL,ALL
!••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••
••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••

B-1
 1 ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••
8.2 The assembly of commands to model the infilled
frame using continuum model approach ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••
1 DEFINING MATERIAL PROPERTY
1 ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••
/prep7
!••••• Analysis Using Solid45 clement without inl1l1 FINAL ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••
(21.01.04,11.41 PM) ••••••••
MP,DENS, I ,Cdens
MP,EX,I,EXc
!•••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• MP,NUXY,l,NUc
••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• MP,GXY,I,Gc
!PARAMETER USED
!•••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• MP,DENS,2,Cdens
••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• MP,EX,2,EXc
MP,NUXY,2,NUc
fc=4000 !psi (fe' of cone rete) MP,GXY,2,Gc
fm=1450 !psi (fe' ofmasanry)
NUc=0.15 ! paission's ratio of cone. MP,DENS,3,Mdens
NUm=O.25 1poission's ratio of masonry. MP,EX,3,EXm
MP,NUXY,3,NUm
Cdens=150/(I2**3) ! #/in"3 (density of cone.) MP,GXY,3,Gm
Mdens=120/(12"3) ! #/in"3 (density of masonry)
!••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••
H=12! ft (calm height) f/fdistance ; indepcndent •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••
B=18 ! ft ( beam length) cle distance ; independent 'SOLID MODELING FOR FRAMES
WWZ=5 ! in (wall thickness) ; independent !••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••
CTX=18 ! in (calm thickness along span length) •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••
independent K,I
CTZ=15! in (calm thinckness perp to span length) even K,2,CTX,O
multiple of WWVNDIVWZ K,3,CTX,WHY
BDY=18! in (beam depth) K,4,O,WHY
DTZ=CTZ ! in (beam width)
A,I,2,3,4
WLX=S.12-CTX! Calm-Calm clear distance OR
Wall length K,3,CTX,WHY
WHY=H.12-BDY ! Calm clear height Wall K,4,O,WHY
Height K,5,0,WHY+BDY
K,6,CTX,WHY+BDY
NTHBM~6 !EXTENTION OF BEAM
IS I!NTH OH THE BEAM WIDTH A,4,3,6,5

EXBM~BDY K,3,CTX,WHY
EXCL~BDY !HEIGHT OF COLUMN K,6,CTX,WHY+BDY
EXTENTION K,IO,B.12,WHY
K,II,B.12,WHY+BDY
'PL~IOOOOOO !#
A,3,IO,11,6
EXc=57000.SQRT(fc) !psi ( Modulus of Elasticity of Cone.)
Gc=EXe/(2.(I+NUe» !psi (Shearing Modulus afElasticity K,IO,B.12,WHY
of Cone.) K,7,B.12,O
K,8,O.12+CTX,O
EXm=750.fm !psi ( Modulus of Elasticity of masonry.) K,9,S.12+CTX,WHY
Gm=EXm/(2.(1 +NUm» !psi (Shearing Modulus of
Elasticity of masonry) A,IO,7,8,9
!••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••
••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••
!DEFINING ELEMENT TYPE AND REAL CONSTANT K,IO,Il'I2,WHY
!•••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• K,9,S.12+CTX,WHY
•••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• K,12,Il'12+CTX,WHY+BDY
ET,I,PLANE42",3 ! COLUMN K,11,S.12,WHY+BDY

ET,2,PLANE42",3 !BEAM A,IO,9,I2,II

ET,3,PLANE42",3
K,2,CTX,O
!••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• K,7,S.12,O
1REAL K,IO,S.12,WHY
!•••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• K,3,CTX,WHY

R,I,ctz ! Base Beam thickness ,COLUMN AND BEAM A,2,7,IO,3

R,2, WWZ ! IN FILL thickness

B-2
 /SOLU
LSEL,S,LENGTH"CTX
NSEL,S,LOC,Y,O,O
CTXDlV"6
LESIZE,ALL",CTXDIV D,ALL,all

LSEL,S,LENGTH"WHY n.3 The assembly of commands to model the Jlortal using

IlEAM4
WHYDIV"20
! -------_ •• _-----------_._---_.-------------------------------------.----
LESIZE,ALL",WHYDIV
! Author:
LSEL,S,LENGTH ••BDY !Anjuman. Shahriar
!Lecturer
BDYDIV"6 ! Dept. of Civil Engineering
LESIZE,ALL ••,BDYDIV !BUET, Dhaka-IOOOO.
!-----_ •• _.-.------------------_.------------------.----------------------
LSEL,S,LENGTH ••WLX 1 I\s a part of the thesis work "Numerical Modeling of
!Masonry Infi11RC Frame" has been done
WLXDlV=36 ! for the partial fulfillment of M.Sc. in Civil Engineering
LESIZE,ALL ••,WLXDIV (Structural).
!•••••••••••••••••••••••• *••••••••••• ***.*•••••••
MSHAPE,O,3D !""ANALYSIS OF PORTAL USING BEAM4
MSHKEY,I !ELEMENT WITHOUT INFILL" ••
/prep7
1 •• *.*•••••••••••••••••••••••••• *.*••••••••••••••
ASEL,S,LOC,X,O,CTX
ASEL,R,LOC,Y,O,WHY ! •••" ••• PARAMETER
USED •••• * ••••••• * ••••••••••
!*••••••••••••••••••••••• *••• *•••••••••••••••••••
TYPE,I
MAT,I FC=4000 1psi (fc of concrete)
REAL, I NUC"O. I !POISSON'S RATIO
AMESH,ALL CDENS"150/(12"J) '#/IW3 (DENSITY OF
CEONCRETE)
ASEL,S,LOC,X,S*12,S*12+CTX H=12 ! HEIGHT IN FT
ASEL,R,LOC,Y,O,WHY B=18 ! SPAN LENGTH IN FT
!WWZ=5 1 WALL THICKNESS IN INCH
TYPE, I CTX"18! COLUMN THICKNESS ALONG SPAN
MAT,I LENGTH IN INCH
REAL,I CTZ"15 ! COLUMN THICKNESS PERPENDICULAR TO
AMESH,ALL SPAN LENGTH IN INCH
BTY"18 'IN (BEAM DEPTH)
ASEL,S,LOC,X,O,CTX +B'12 BTZ"CTZ ' (BEAM WIDTH)
ASEL,R,LOC, Y ,WHY, WHY +BDY I'L"IOOOOOO
TYPE,2
!••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• * ••••••••••••••••
!••••••• CALCULA nON ••••••••••••••••••••••.•••••
MAT,2
!••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••
REAL,I
AMESH,ALL EXC"57000'SQRT(FC) 'PSI (ELASTIC MODULI OF
CONCRETE)
ASEL,S,LOC,X,CTX,B*12 GC"EXC/(2'(I+NUC)) 'PSI (SHEAR MODULI OF
ASEL,R,LOC,Y,O,WHY CONCRETE)
AREAC=CTX.CTZ
TYPE,3 IZZC=CTZ.(CTX •• 3)/I2
MAT,] IYYC=CTX.(CTZ •• 3)/I 2
REAL,2 IXXC"IYYC+IZZC
AMESH,ALL CH=H.12-BTY/2
AREAB=BTY.BTZ
ALLSEL,ALL IZZB"BTZ'(BTY"J)112
IYYB"BTY'(BTZ"3)/12
NUMMRG,ELEM IXXB"IZZB+IYYB
1 •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 1
NUMMRG,NODE
NUMCMP,ELEM DEFINING ELEMENT TYPE, REAL CONSTANT AND
NUMCMP,NODE MATERIAL PROPERTY
!••••••••••••••••••••••••••• *.* ••••••••••• * ••••••
!•••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• ET,I,BEAM4
••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••
!SUPPORT R,2,AREAC, IZZC, IYYC,CTZ,CTX
1 •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• !RMORE,IXXC
••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••
R,4,AREAB,IZZB,IYYB,BTZ,BTY
/SOLU 'RMORE,IXXB

B-3
MP,DENS,2,CDENS
MP,EX,2,EXC /SOLU
MP,GXY,2,GC NSEL,S,LOC,Y,O
D,ALL,ALL
MP,DENS,3,CDENS
!••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••
MP,EX,3,EXC
MP,GXY,3,GC ! LOADS
!••••••••••••••••••••• *••••••••••••••••••••••••••
MP,DENS,4,CDENS
MP,EX,4,EXC ALLSEL
MP,GXY,4,GC !ACEL,O,l,O
NSEL,S,LOC,X,O
!••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• *.*** •••••••• NSEL,R,LOC,Y,CH
! NODE & ELEMENT GENERATION FOR COLUMN
•••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• * F,ALL,FX,PL
ALLSEL
ANTYPE,ST ATIC

N
N,N_CLMAX"CH B.4 The assembly of commands to model the portal
FILL,I,N_CLMAX without infill using SOLID45

NSEL,ALL ! ~~~MM_. ~~MMM •• _. .MMMM.M. ~_.MMMM

NGEN,2,N_ CLMAX,ALL",B'12
! Author:
TYPE,I !Anjuman. Shahriar
REAL,2 !Lecturer
MAT,2 ! Dept. ofeivil Engincering
!SUET, Dhaka-IOOOO.
! .M •• _. ._M_ •• M_M. ~M.M

E,I,2
EGEN,N_CLMAX-I,I,ALL ! As a part of the thesis work "Numerical Modeling of
!Masonry Infill RC Frame" has been done
ESEL,S,MAT,,2 ! for the partial fulfillment of M.Sc. in Civil Engineering
EGEN,2,N_CLMAX,ALL",1 !(Struetural).
!••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••
!••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••
ALLSEL
!••••• Analysis of PORTAL Using Solid45 element without
!•• *••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• !infill
! NODE & ELEMENT GENERA nON FOR BEAM Iprep7
••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 1 ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••

'GET,NMAXI,NODE,O,NUM,MAX !PARAMETER USED

!••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••
Nb~NMAXI+1

fe=4000 !psi (fe' of concrete)

fm=1450 !psi (fe' of masonry)
N,Nb"CH NUe=O.15 ! poission's ratio of cone.
N,N_BMAX+Nb-l,B.12,CH NUm=0.25 1poission's ratio of masonry.

FILL,Nb.N_BMAX+Nb~l Cdens=150/(12 •• 3) ! #lin 3 (density of cone.)

Mdens=120/(12 •• 3) ! #lin 3 (density of masonry)
TYPE,I
REAL,4 1-1=12 ! fl ( calm height) flf distance ; independent
MAT,4 8=18 1ft ( beam length) c/c distance ; independent
WWZ=5 ! in (wall thickness) ; independent
E,Nb,Nb+1 CTX=18 ! in (calm thickness along span length)
ESEL,S,MAT,,4 independent
EGEN,N BMAX-I,I,ALL CTZ=15 ! in (colm thinckness perp to span length) even
!•••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• !multiple of WWZlNDIVWZ
! MERGE BDY=18! in (beam depth)
!•••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• BTZ=CTZ ! in (beam width)
ALLSEL
NUMMRG,NODE WLX=B*12-CTX ! Calm-Calm clear distance OR
NUMMRG,ELEM Wall length
NUMCMP,NODE WHY=H* 12-BDY ! Calm clear height Wall Height
NUMCMP,ELEM
EXc~57000'SQRT(fc) !psi ( Modulus of Elasticity
of Cone.)
SUPPORT Gc=EXc/(2*(1 +NUc» !psi (Shearing Modulus of
!•••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• Elasticity of Cone.)

B-4
 XC=O
EXm=750*fm !psi (Modulus of Elasticity YC=WHY
of masonry.) 8LC4,XC, YC,CTX,8 DY ,CTZ
Gm=EXm/(2*(I+NUm») !psi (Shearing Modulus of 'SOLID MODEl LNG OF RIGHT COLUMN
Elasticity of masonry)
VSEL,S,VOLU"ALL
SPAN=CTX+WLX
1**** ••••••••••••• *****************.**"'''''''*'''''' •• *'''''' VGEN,2,ALL",SPAN
'DEFINING ELEMENT TYPE AND REAL CONSTANT
1"'•• **"'****"''''****''''''''''''*.**'''**''''''''''''**'''''''''**''''''•• '''''''''''''''''' 'SOLID MODELING OF 8EAM
ET,I,SOLlD45
ET,2,SOLlD45 XC=CTX
ET,3,SOLlD45 YC=WHY
BLC4,XC, YC,LNG,8DY ,BTZ
r"''''''''''''''''******"'''''''***''''''''''''**'''''''''****"''''*'''*"'''''''''''''''' •• '''***
! DEFINING MATERIAL PROPERTY XC=CTX+LNG
!"'** "'**"''''''''''''''''*'''* ***"''''* **"'''''''''' *"''''''''''''' "'*"'''''''''' *"'* "''''* "''''* YC=WHY
MP ,DENS, 1,Cdens BLC4,XC, YC,LNG,8DY ,BTZ
M P,EX, 1,EXc
MP,NUXY,I,NUc XC=CTX+2"'LNG
MP,GXY,l,Gc YC=WHY
BLC4,XC, YC,LNG,BDY ,BTZ
MP ,DENS,2,Cdens
MP,EX,2,EXc XC=(CTX+3'LNG)
MP,NUXY,2,NUc YC=WHY
MP,GXY,2,Gc BLC4,XC,YC,(WLX -6' LNG),BDY ,8TZ

MP,DENS,3,Mdens VSEL,S,LOC,X,CTX,(CTX + 3 'LNG)

MP,EX,3,EXm SPAN=(WLX-3'LNG)
MP,NUXY,3,NUm VGEN,2,ALL",SPAN
MP,GXY,3,Gm
ALLSEL
!"'**"'*****"'''''''*'''* **"'''''''''' "''''''''''** **"''''**'''''''''*** ***"''''''''''''''''
r"''''''' *** "''''''''''''''''"'*"'''''''* "'''''''*''''''*'''*'''''''''''' **"''''*''''''''''''''''''*'''''' ***
!SOLID MODELING FOR FRAMES
!"'*"'*"''''*** "''''''''''''''''''''''**"'''''''''''''*''''''''''''* *"''''''''''''' *"''''''''''''''''''''''*"'* !SELECTING THE LINES AND DIVIDING THEN FOR
!MESHING PURPOSE
!"'*."'''''''''''''''''''*. * "''''* "'''''''** "'''''''***'''**'''''''''***'''''''''***''''''''''''''''''
LNG=15
!NOTE, C4,C3,C2,CI, AND BI,82,83 DlV SHOULD BE
'SOLID MODELING OF LEFT COLUMN EVEN

XC=O LSEL,R,LOC,X,CTX+ 3"'LNG+O.l ,8'" 12~3"'LNG~O.1

YC=O 8H4D1V=36
BLC4,XC, YC,CTX,LNG,CTZ LESIZE,ALL,,,BH4DIV

XC=O BH4=(WLX-6'LNG)/BH4DIV
YC=LNG
BLC4,XC, YC,CTX,LNG,CTZ LSEL,S,LOC,Z,O,O
LSEL,A,LOC,Z,CTZ,CTZ
XC=O LSEL,r,LOC,Y ,3*LNG+O.l ,WHY -3*LNG-O.l
YC=2"'LNG
BLC4,XC,YC,CTX,LNG,CTZ CV4DIV=12
LESIZE,ALL",CV4DIV
XC=O
YC=3*LNG CV4=(WHY -6'LNG)/CV4DIV
8 LC4,XC, YC,CrX,(WHY -6' LNG),CTZ
LSEL,S,LOC,Z,O,O
XC=O LSEL,A,LOC,Z,CTZ,CTZ
YC=WHY-3'LNG LS EL, U,LOC, Y,0,3 'LNG-O.I
8LC4,XC,YC,CTX,LNG,CTZ LSEL,U,LOC,Y ,3'LNG+0.1 ,WHY-3'LNG-0.I
LSEL,U,LOC,Y,WHY -3'LNG+0.I ,WHY+BDY
XC=O
YC=WHY-2'LNG C4DIV=CTXlCV4
BLC4,XC, YC,CTX,LNG,CTZ LESIZE,ALL",C4DIV

XC=O LSEL,S,LOC,Z,O,O
YC=WHY-LNG LSEL,A,LOC,Z,CTZ,CrZ
BLC4,XC, YC,CTX,LNG,CTZ LS EL,U,LOC, Y ,0,2 'LNG-O.I
LSEL,U,LOC,Y,2'LNG+0.I ,WHY -2'LNG-0.1
!SOLID MODELING OF COLUMN 8EAM JUNCTION LSEL,U,LOC,Y, WHY -2"'LNG+O.1 ,WHY+BDY

B-5
C3D1V~C4D1V+2 B2DIV""I.S"'B4DIV+ 1
LESIZE,ALL",C3DIV LESIZE,ALL",B2DIV

LSEL,S,LOC,Z,O,O LSEL,S,LOC,Z,O,O
LSEL,A,LOC,Z,CTZ,CTZ LSEL,A,LOC,Z,CTZ,CTZ
LSEL,U,LOC,Y,O,LNG-O.l LSEL,U,LOC,Y,a,WHY
LSEL,U,LOC,Y ,LNG+O.!, WHY -LNG-D.l LSEL,U,LOC,Y,WHY+BDY
LSEL,U,LOC, Y, WHY -LNG+O.l, WHY +BDV
LSEL,R,LOC,X,a, B'12+CTX
C2DIV=I.S"'C4DIV+ I LSEL,U,LOC,X,CTX+O.l, B'12-o.1
LES1ZE,ALL",C2D1V
B 1DIV=2"'B4DIV
LSEL,S,LOC,Z,O,O LES1ZE,ALL,,,B I DlV
LSEL,A,LOC,Z,CTZ,CTZ
LSEL,U,LOC,Y,a.5,WHY -a. 1 LSEL,S,LOC,Z,O
LSEL,A,LOC,Z,CTZ
LSEL,U,LOC,Y,WHY+O.l ,WHY+BDY -0.1
LSEL,U,LOC,X,CTX,B'"12 LSEL,S,LOc,Z,a
LSEL,A,LOC,Z,CTZ
CI D1V=2*C4D1V
LES1ZE,ALL,,,Cl DIV LS EL,R,LOC,X,CTX + 2.LNG+O.l,S.12-2.LNG-O.l
LSEL,U,LOC,X,CTX +3 .LNG,B. 12-3.LNG
LSEL,S,LOC,Y,2"'LNG+O.l,J*LNG-D.l
LSEL,A,LOC, Y. WHY -3 "'LNG+O.l, WHY -2 "'LNG-D. I B1BDlV~4
LESIZE,ALL,,,BH3D1V
CV3D1V~4
LES1ZE,ALL",CV3D1V LSEL,S,LOC,Z,a
LSEL,A,LOC,Z,CTZ
LSEL,S,LOC,Y,LNG+a.l,2'LNG-a.l
LSEL,A,LOC,Y,WHY -2'LNG+a.l,WHY -LNG-a. 1 LSEL,R,LOC,X,CTX +LNG+O.l,B '12-LNG-o.l
LSEL,U,LOC,X,CTX + 2 .LNG,S.12-2. LNG
'CV2D1V~4
CV2D1V=1.S"'CV3D1V BH2D1V~I.5'BH3DIV
LESIZE,ALL",CV2D1V LESIZE,ALL",BH2D1V

LSEL,S,LOC,Y ,0.1 ,LNG-D.l LSEL,S,LOC,Z,a

LSEL,A,LOC, Y,WHY-LNG+a.I,WHY -a. I LSEL,A,LOC,Z,CTZ

!CYIDlV:=4
CYI DIV=2*CV3D1V
LESIZE,ALL",CVI DIV
LSEL,S,LOC,Z,a,a
LSEL,A,LOC,Z,CTZ,CTZ
LSEL,U,LOC,Y,a,WHY
LSEL,U,LOC,Y,WHY+BDY
LSEL,R,LOC,X,CTX+J*LNG,
LSEL,R,LOC,X,CTx+a.l,B'12-a.1
LS EL,U,LOC,X,CTX +LNG,B'12-LNG
BHl DlV"2'BH3DIV
LESIZE,ALL",BHI DlV
LSEL,S,LENGTH"CTZ
CTZDIV~6
B"'12-]"'LNG LESIZE,ALL",CTZDlV

B4D1V~6 ALLSEL
LES1ZE,ALL",B4D1V !LPLOT

!•••••••••••••• M ESHINO •••••••••••••••••••••••••

LSEL,S,LOC,Z,O,a
LSEL,A,LOC,Z,CTZ,CTZ MSHAPE,a,3D
LSEL,U,LOC,Y,a,WHY MSHKEY,I
!••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••
LSEL,U,LOC,Y,WHY+BDY
VSEL,S,LOC,X,a,CTX
LSEL,R,LOC,X,CTX+2'LNG, B'12-2'LNG VSEL,R,LOC,Y,a,WHY
LSEL,U,LOC,X,CTX+2"'LNG+O.!, B"'12-2"'LNG-D.1
VS EL,A,LOC,X,B'12,(B'12+CTX)
B3DIV~B4D1V+2 VSEL,R,LOC,Y,a,WHY
LESIZE,ALL",B3D1V
TYPE, I
LSEL,S,LOC,Z,a,a MAT,I
LSEL,A,LOC,Z,CTZ,CTZ VMESH,ALL
LSEL,U,LOC,Y,a,WHY
LSEL,U,LOC,Y,WHY+BDY ALLSEL,ALL

LSEL,R,LOC,X,CTX+LNG, B.12~LNG VSEL,S,LOC,X,a,(B'12+CTX)

LSEL,U,LOC,X,CTX+LNG+O.l, B"'l2-LNG-D,1 VSEL,R,LOC, Y ,WHY, WHY +BDY

B-6
 fm=1450 lpsi (fe' of masonry)
TYPE,2 NUc=O.15 1paissian's ratio of eonc.
MAT,2 NUm=O.25 ! poission's ratio of masonry.
VMESH,ALL
Cdens= I50/(1 2*"'3) ! #/in"3 (density of cone.)
ALLSEL,ALL Mdens=120/(12 •• 3) ! #/in"3 (density of masonry)

NUMMRG,ELEM H= 12 ! ft ( calm height) I'll' distance ; independent

NUMMRG,NODE B=18 ! ft ( beam length) C/C distance ; independent
NUMCMP,ELEM WWZ=5 ! in (wall thickness) ; independent
NUMCMP,NODE CTX=18! in (calm thickness along span length)
independent
1 ••••••• *"' ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• *. CTZ=15 t in (calm thinckness perp to span length) even
1*••••• "'••••••••••••• SUPPORT •• "''''••••••••••••••• multiple of WWZlNDlVWZ
!•••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• BDY=18 ! in (beam depth)
BTZ=CTZ 1 in (beam width)
/SOLU
WLX=S.12-CTX t Colm-Colm clear distance OR
NSEL,S,LOC,Y,O,O Wall length
D,ALL,ALL WHV=H.12-BDY t Calm clear height Wall
Height
!••••• "'••••• "'••••••• "'•• LOADS ••••••••••• "'."' ••••
ALLSEL EXc=57000'SQRT(fc) !psi ( Modulus of Elasticity
!ACEL,I,O,I of Cone.)
Gc=EXc/(2'(1 +NUc)) !psi (Shearing Modulus of
Elasticity of Cane.)
PL=IOOOOO !#
EXm=750.fm !psi (Modulus of Elasticity
X=O of masonry.)
YI=WHY Gm=EXm/(2.(I+NUm)) tpsi (Shearing Modulus of
Y2=WHY+BDY Elasticity of masonry)
21=0
t ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••
Z2=CT2
!DEFINING ELEMENT TYPE AND REAL CONSTANT
!••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••
NSEL,S,LOC,X,X
NSEL,R,LOC,Y,YI,Y2 ET,l,SOLlD45
NSEL,R,LOC,2,21,22 ET,2,SOLlD45
ET,3,SOLlD45
Disl=PU«CTZDIV+ I )'(B I DIV+ I»
F,ALL,FX,Dis\
ALLSEL ! DEFINING MATERIAL PROPERTY
t ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••
ANTYPE,STATIC
SOLVE MP,DENS,l,Cdens
MP,EX,l,EXc
MP,NUXY,l,NUc
8.5 The assembly of commands to rnodellhe inlill panel MP,GXY,l,Gc
without opening using SOLID45
MP,DENS,2,Cdens
1 -------.--------------------------------------------.------------------- MP,EX,2,EXc
! Author: MP,NUXY,2,NUc
!Anjuman. Shahriar MP,GXY,2,Gc
!Lecturer
r Dept. of Civil Engineering MP,DENS,3,Mdens
!SUET, Dhaka-10000. MP,EX,3,EXm
1----------------------------------------------------------.---~-.-------- MP,NUXY,3,NUm
, MP,GXY,J,Gm
! As a part of the thesis work "Numerical Modeling of
!••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••
!Masonry Infill RC Frame" has been done
! for the partial fulfillment of M.Sc. in Civil Engineering !SELECTING ASPECT RATIO AND GAP BETWEEN
!(Structural). !INFILL AND FRAME AND
!•••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• ! 'SELECTING WHETHER INFILL IS FLASH WITH THE
••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• !FRAM E OR CENTERED
!••••• Analysis ofiNFILL PANEL without opening using !IF CENTERED THEN PUT CENTRE=I
!••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••
!Solid45 clemenl
/prep7
ASI'CTR=l !ASPECT RATIO lNF1LL
!PARAMETER USED HEIGHT/HEIGIH OF COLUMN
!•••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• GAP=O.O
HEIGHT~ (WHY -2'GAP)' ASPCTR
fc=4000 !psi (fc' of concrete)

8-7
CENTRE=I XC62=CTX+LNG

YC61=;YC52
!SOLID MODELING OF INFILL YC62=YC61 +LNG
!•• *** ••• **** ••• ** •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••
BLOCK,XC61 ,XC62,YC61 ,YC62,ZCI ,ZC2
LNG=15
!8LOCK 7
'IF,CENTRE,EQ,I,THEN
XC71= (CTX+GAP)
ZCI=CTZJ2-WWZ/2 XCn=CTX+LNG
ZC2=CTZ/2+WWZ/2
YC71=YC62
"'ELSE YCn=WHY-GAP

ZCI=O BLOCK,XC71 ,XCn,YC71 ,YCn,ZCl ,ZC2

ZC2=WWZ
!BLOCK 8
*ENDIF
XC81= XC12
!BLOCK 1 XC82=XC81+LNG

XCI 1= (CTX+GAP) YC81=GAP

XCI2=CTX+LNG YC82=LNG

YCII=GAP BLOCK,XC81 ,XC82,YC81 ,YC82,ZCI ,ZC2

YCI2=LNG
!BLOCK 9
BLOCK,XC1l,XCI2,YCII,YCI2,ZCI,ZC2
XC91= XC12
!BLOCK2 XC92=XC91+LNG

XC21 = (CTX +GAP) YC91=YCI2

XC22=CTX+LNG YC92=YC21+LNG

YC21=YCI2 BLOCK,XC91 ,XC92,YC91 ,YC92,ZCl ,ZC2

YC22=YC21+LNG
!BLOCK 10
BLOCK,XC21 ,XC22,YC21 ,YC22,ZCI ,ZC2
!BLOCK 3 XCIOI= XCI2
XCI02=XC101+LNG
XCJ1= (CTX+GAP)
XCJ2=CTX+LNG YCI01=YC22
YC102=YC31+LNG
YCJI=YC22
YCJ2=YCJ 1+LNG BLOCK,XCI 01 ,XC102,YCI 01 ,YCI 02,ZCl ,ZC2

BLOCK,XCJ 1,XC32,YCJ 1,YC32,ZC I ,ZC2 !BLOCK 11

!BLOCK 4 XClll= XCI2

XCl12=XCl11+LNG
XC41 = (CTX +GAP)
XC42=CTX+LNG YCIII=YC32
YCI12=YCIII+(WHY-6'LNG)
YC41=YC32
YC42=YC41 +(WHY -6'LNG) IlLOCK,XC111,XCI12,YCIII,YCI12,ZCI,ZC2

BLOCK,XC41 ,XC42,YC41 ,YC42,ZCl ,ZC2 'BLOCK 12

'BLOCK 5 XC121= XCI2

XCI22=XCI21+LNG
XC51= (CTX+GAP)
XC52=CTX+LNG YC121=YC42
YC51=YC42 YCI22=YCI21+LNG
YC52=YC51+LNG
BLOCK,XC51 ,XC52,YC51 ,YC52,ZCI ,ZC2 BLOCK,XC 121,XC 122, YC 121, YC 122,ZCl ,ZC2

!BLOCK6 'BLOCK 13

XC61= (CTX+GAP) XC131= XCI2

B- 8
 XC132=XCI31+LNG
YC131=YC52
YCI32=YC61+LNG
BLOCK,XCI 3 I ,XCI 32,YCI 3 I ,YCI 32,ZCI ,ZC2
!BLOCK 14
XC141= XCI2
XCI42=XCI41+LNG
YC141=YC62
YCI42:=WHY-GAP
BLOCK,XCI41 ,XCI42,YCI41
!BLOCK 15 TO 21
VSEL,S,LOC,X,XC 141,XC142
VSEL,R,LOC,Y,YCI81,YCI42
SPANX=LNG
VGEN,2,ALL",SPANX
!BLOCK 29 TO 42
VSEL,S,LOC,X,XCI41,XCI42+LNG
VSEL,R,LOC,Y,YCI81 ,YC 142
SPANX=WLX-4*LNG
VGEN,2,ALL,,,SPANX
!BLOCK 42 to 49
VSEL,S,LOC,X,XCII,XCI2
VSEL,R,LOC,Y,YCII,YC72
SPANX=WLX-LNG-GAP
VGEN,2,ALL",SPANX
!BLOCK 22
XC221=CTX+3*LNG
XC222=S"'12.3*LNG
YC22I=YCII
YC222=YCI2
[lLOCK,XC221 ,XC222,YC22I
XC231=CTX+3'LNG
XC232=S*12.3*LNG
YC231=YC21
YC232=YC22
[lLOCK,XC23 I ,XC232,YC23 I ,YC232,ZCI ,ZC2
!BLOCK 24
XC241=CTX+3"'LNG
XC242=S*12.3*LNG
YC241=YC31
YC242=YC32
BLOCK,XC241 ,XC242,YC24I ,YC242,ZCI ,ZC2
!BLOCK 25
XC251=CTX+3*LNG
XC252=B"'12-3*LNG
YC251=YC41
YC252=YC42
BLOCK,XC25I ,XC252,YC25I ,YC252,ZCI ,ZC2
!BLOCK 26,27
VSEL,S,LOC,X,XC22I,XC222
VSEL,R,LOC,Y ,yel3! ,YC242
SPANY=WHY--4*LNG
VGEN,2,ALL,,,,SPANY
,YCI42,ZCl,ZC2
'BLOCK 28
VSEL,S,LOC,X,XC22I,XC222
VSEL,R,LOC,Y, YC221 ,YC222
SPANY=WHY-LNG-GAP
VGEN,2,ALL""SPANY
ALLSEL
!•••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• !
SELECTING THE LINES AND DIVIDING THEN FOR
MESHING PURPOSE
LSEL,S,LENGTH" WWZ
WWZDV=2
LESIZE,ALL",WWZDV
LSEL,S,LOC,X,CTX+ 3'LNG+O.I ,B'12-3'LNG-O.I
BH4DV=36
LES IZE,A LL",B H4 DV
LSEL,S,LOC,Z,ZCI,ZCI
LSEL,A,LOC,Z,ZC2,ZC2
LSEL,t,LOC,Y ,J*LNG+O,l, WHY -3*LNG-O.!
CV4DV=12
LES IZE,A LL",CV 4DV
LSEL,S,LOC,Y,2*LNG+O.l,3*LNG-O.l
LSEL,A,LOC, Y ,WHY -3.LNG+O.l ,WHY -2*LNG.O,I
,YC222,ZCI ,ZC2
CV3DV=4
LESIZE,ALL",CVJDV
LSEL,S,LOC, Y ,LNG+O.I ,2' LNG-O.I
LSEL,A,LOC,Y,WHY -2'LNG+O.I ,WHY -LNG-O.I
lCV2DIV=4
CV2DV=I.5'CVJDV
LESIZE,ALL",CV2DV
LSEL,S,LOC,Y ,GAP+O.! ,LNG-Q.I
LSEL,A,LOC, Y, WHY -LNG+O.I, WHY -GAP-O.I
!CVIDIV=4
CYIDV=2*CV3DV
LESIZE,ALL",CVI DV
LSEL,S,LOC,Z,ZCI
LSEL,A,LOC,Z,ZC2
B-9
 LSEL,R,LOC,X,CTX+2"LNG+O.l,S"12-2"LNG-O.l SOLVE
LSEL,U,LOC,X,CTX + 3 "LNG,S "12-3"LNG
8.6 The assembly of commands to model the infilled
BH3DV=4 frame without opening using SOLID45
LESIZE,ALL",BHJDV
! ------------------------------------------------------------------------
LSEL,S,LOC,Z,ZCl ! Author:
LSEL,A,LOC,Z,ZC2 !Anjuman. Shahriar
!Lecturer, Dept. of Civil Engineering
LSEL,R,LOC,X,CTX +LNG+O.I ,B '12.LNG.0.I !BUET, Dhaka-lOOOO.
LSEL,U,LOC,X,CTX + 2 "LNG,S"12-2 "LNG !-------------------------------------------------------------------------
! As a part of the thesis work "Numerical Modeling of
SH2DV=1.S.BH3DV !Masonry Infill RC Frame" has been done
LESIZE,ALL,,,BH2DV ! for the partial fulfillment of M.Sc. in Civil Engineering
!(Structural).
LSEL,S,LOC,Z,ZCI !"' .• "'.oil'" "''''''''''•••• '''''''''.• "'''''''.•• '''''''''.''''''•••• '''''''''••• ''''''''''''''''''•••
LSEL,A,LOC,Z,ZC2 !••••• Analysis of PORTAL Using Solid4S element with
!infill
. LSEL,R,LOC,X,CTX+O.I ,B'12.0.1 Iprep7
LSEL,U,LOC,X,CTX +LNG,B '12.LNG

BHI DV=2'BH3DV !PARAMETER USED

1"'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''*''''''''''''*'''''''''.''''''''' .•• ''''''''' •• ''''''''''''.'''''' •••••.•
LESIZE,ALL",BH 1DV

ALLSEL fc=4000 !psi (fe' ofconcrcte)

fm=1450 !psi (fc' of masonry)
!"''''''''''.'''''''''.''''''.''''''''''''''' .•"'."MESH ING""'." "'''''''''''''''''''''''''"'oil. "'''' NUc=O.lS ! poission's ratio of cone.
MSHAPE,O,3D NUm=O.2S' poission's ratio of masonry.
MSHKEY,I
Cdens=150/(12"''''3) 1#/in"3 (density of conc.)
VSEL,S,LOC,X,CTX,B'12 Mdens=120/(l2 •• 3) 1#/in"3 (density of masonry)
VSEL,R,LOC,Y,O,WHY
1-1=12! ft (colm height) f/f distance ; independent
TYPE,3 S=18 ! ft (beam length) clc distance ; independent
MAT,3 WWZ=5 ! in (wall thickness) ; independent
VMESH,ALL. CTX=18! in (calm thickness along span length)
independent
ALLSEL,ALL CTZ=15 ! in (colm lhinckness perp to span length) even
multiple of WWZlNDlVWZ
NUMMRG,ELEM BOY= 18 ! in (beam dcpth)
NUMMRG,NODE I3TZ=CTZ 1 in (beam width)
NUMCMP,ELEM WLX=B*12-CTX ! Colm-Colm clear distance OR
NUMCMP,NODE Walllcngth
Wl-lY=J-1.12-IlDY ! Colm clear height Wall
!SUPPORT Height
!"'''''''''''''''''''''''''.''' •• ''''''.'''''''''''''''''''''''' "'''''''. "'''''''.''' •••• '''''' oil"''''.''' oil"'''''''

{SOLU EXc=57000"'SQRT(fc) !psi (Modulus of Elasticity

of Cone.)
NSEL,S,LOC,Y,O,O Gc=EXc/(2"'( I+NUc» !psi (Shearing Modulus of
D,ALL,ALL Elasticity of Cone.)
!"''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''. "'.•• "''''.•.•LOADS "''''.•'''• "'''''''''' '"•.• "''''''''''''''''''''''''' .•
ALLSEL EXm=7S0"'fm !psi ( Modulus of Elasticity
!ACEL,I,O,I of masonry.)
Gm=EXm/(2"'(1 +NUm» lpsi (Shearing Modulus of
PL=IOOOOOO!# Elasticity of masonry)

X=CTX+gap !••• "''''''''''''''''.'''.'''''''''.''''''''' •• '''''''''•• '''.'''. "'''''''••• '''''''''.•.•.•••• '''.'''

YI=WHY.LNG !DEFINING ELEMENT TYPE AND REAL CONSTANT
Y2=WHY !".'" "''''''''''''''''••• "''''''''''•• '''.'''.''''''.'''.'''''''''. "'•••.• "''''''''''''''''••••••
ZI=ZCI ET,1,SOLlD45
Z2=ZC2 ET,2.S0LlD4S
ET,3,SOLlD45
NSEL,S,LOC,X,X
NSEL,R,LOC,Y,YI,Y2
NSEL,R,LOC,Z,ZI,Z2

D;sl=PU«WWZDV+ 1)'(CVI DV+ I))

DEFINING MATERIAL
,.• "'''' "''''''''''''''''

MP,DENS,I,Cdens
''''''
PROPERTY
'''''''''.'''''' '''''' ''''''''' "' .
F,ALL,FX,D;sl MP,EX,I,EXc
ALLSEL MI',NUXY,l,NUc
ANTYPE,STATIC MP,GXY,I,Gc

B-IO
',.'.
:~<.
 BLC4,XC, YC,LNG,BDY ,BTZ
MP ,DENS,2,Cdens
MP ,EX,2,EXc XC~(CTX+J'LNG)
MP,NUXY,2,NUc YC~WHY
MP,GXY,2,Gc BLC4,XC, YC,(WLX-6'LNG),BDY ,BTZ

MP,DENS,3,Mdens VS EL,S,LOC,X,CTX,(CTX + 3 'LNG)

MP,EX,J,EXm SPAN~(WLX-J'LNG)
MP,NUXY,J,NUm VGEN,2,ALL",SPAN
MP,GXY,J,Gm
ALLSEL

!SOLID MODELING FOR FRAMES !************************************************

!SELECTING THE LINES AND DIVIDING THEN FOR
MESHING PURPOSE
!************************************************

!SOLID MODELING OF LEFT COLUMN LSEL,R,LOC,X,CTX+ 3*LNG+O.l,B* 12-3*LNG-O.1

BH4DIV~J6
xc~a LESIZE,ALL",BH4DIV
yc~a
BLC4,XC, YC,CTX,LNG,CTZ BH4~(WLX-6'LNG)lBH4DIV

xc~a LSEL,S,LOC,Z,a,a
YC~LNG LSEL,A,LOC,Z,CTZ,CTZ
B LC4,XC,YC,CTX,LNG,CTZ LSEL,r,LOC,Y,J'LNG+a. I ,WHY -J'LNG-a. I

xc~a CV4DIV~12
YC=2*LNG LESIZE,ALL",CV4DIV
BLC4,XC, YC,CTX,LNG,CTZ
CV 4~(WHY -6'LNG)/CV 4DIV
xc~a
YC=3*LNG LSEL,S,LOC,Z,O,a
BLC4,XC, YC,CTX,(WHY -6'LNG),CTZ LSEL,A,LOC,Z,CTZ,CTZ
LSEL,U,LOC, Y ,a,J 'LNG-a. I
xc~a LSEL,U,LOC,Y,3*LNG+0.1 ,WHY -3*LNG-0.l
YC=WHY-3*LNG LSEL,U,LOC,Y,WHY -J'LNG+O. I ,WHY+BDY
BLC4,XC, YC,CTX,LNG,CTZ
C4DIV~CTX/CV4
xc~a LESIZE,ALL,,,C4DIV
YC~WHY-2'LNG
BLC4,XC,YC,CTX,LNG,CTZ LSEL,S,LOC,Z,a,a
LSEL,A,LOC,Z,CTZ,CTZ
xc~a LSEL,U ,LOC, Y ,a,2 'LNG-a. I
YC~WHY-LNG LSEL,U,LOC,Y ,2*LNG+0.l ,WHY -2*LNG-0.1
BLC4,XC, YC,CTX,LNG,CTZ LSEL,U,LOC,Y ,WHY -2*LNG+0.I,WHY+BDY

!SOLID MODELING OF COLUMN BEAM JUNCTION C3D1V=C4DIV+2

LESIZE,ALL",C3DIV
xc~a
YC~WHY LSEL,S,LOC,Z,a,a
BLC4,XC,YC,CTX,BDY,CTZ LSEL,A,LOC,Z,crz,CTZ
'SOLID MODEl LNG OF RIGHT COLUMN LSEL,U,LOC,Y,a,LNG-a. I
LSEL,U,LOC,Y,LNG+O. I, WHY -LNG-a. I
VSEL,S,VOLU"ALL LSEL,U,LOC, Y, WHY -LNG+a. I, WHY +BDY
SPAN~CTX+WLX
VGEN,2,ALL",SPAN C2DIV= 1.5*C4DIV+ I
LESIZE,ALL",C2DIV
'SOLID MODELING OF BEAM
LSEL,S,LOC,Z,O,a
XC~CTX LSEL,A,LOC,Z,CTZ,CTZ
YC~WHY LSEL,U, LOC, Y ,a.5, WHY -a. I
BLC4,XC, YC,LNG,BDY ,BTZ
LSEL,U,LOC,Y,WHY+0.1 ,WI-IY+BDY -0.1
XC=CTX+LNG LSEL,U, LOC ,X,CTX,B* 12
YC~WHY
BLC4,XC, YC,LNG,BDY ,BTZ Cl DIV=2*C4D1V
LESIZE,ALL,,,CI DIV
XC=CTX+2*LNG
YC~WHY LSEL,S,LOC,Y ,2*LNG+O.l ,3*LNG-O.1

B-II
LSEL,A,LOC,Y ,WHY -3.LNG+0.\,WHY -2.LNG-0.\
LSEL,S,LOC,Z,O
CV3D1V=4 LSEL,A,LOC,Z,CTZ
LESIZE,ALL",CV3DIV
LSEL,R,LOC,X,CTX+LNG+O.I,B'12-LNG-O.1
LSEL,S,LOC,Y,LNG+O.I ,2'LNG-O. I LSEL,U,LOC,X,Crx + 2.LNG,B.12-2. LNG
LSEL,A,LOC,Y,WHY -2'LNG+O.1 ,WHY -LNG-O.I
BH2DlV=I.S.I3H3D1V
!CV2D1V=4 LESIZE,ALL",BH2DIV
CV2DIV=l.S'CV3D1V
LESIZE,ALL",CV2DIV LSEL,S,LOC,Z,O
LSEL,A,LOC,Z,CTZ
LSEL,S,LOC,Y,O.I,LNG-O.I
LSEL,A,LOC,Y,WHY -LNG+0.1,WHY -0.1 LSEL,R,LOC,X,CTX+O.! ,S.12-0.\
LSEL,U ,LOC,X,CTX + LNG,S.12-LNG
!CYIDlV=4
CVl DlY=2.CV3DIY BH! DlY=2.BJ-I3D1V
LES IZE,A LL",CV I DlV LESIZE,ALL,,,BHl DIY

LSEL,S,LOC,Z,O,O LSEL,S,LENGTH"CTZ
LSEL,A,LOC,Z,CTZ,CTZ
LSEL,U,LOC,Y,O,WHY CTZDIV=6
LSEL,U,LOC,Y,WHY+BDY LESIZE,ALL,,,CTZDIV

LSEL,R,LOC,X,CTX+3.LNG, S.!2-3.LNG ALLSEL

B4D1V=6
LESIZE,ALL,,,B4D1V
LSEL,S,LOC,Z,O,O
LSEL,A,LOC,Z,CTZ,CTZ
LSEL,U,LOC,Y,O,WHY
LSEL,U,LOC,Y,WHY+BDY
LSEL,R,LOC,X,CTX+2.LNG, S.12-2.LNG
LSEL,U,LOC,X,CTX+2.LNG+0.!,
B3DIV=B4D1V+2
LESIZE,ALL,,,B3D1V
!LPlOT
!••••••••••••• *••••••••••••• **** •••••••••••••••••
!SELECTING ASPECT RATIO AND GAP BETWEEN
!INFILL AND FRAME AND
'SELECTING WHETHER INFILL IS FLASH WITH THE
!FRAME OR CENTERED
!IF CENTERED THEN PUT CENTRE=!
!••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••
S.12-2.LNG-0.! ASPCTR=I !ASPECT RATIO IN FILL HEIGHT/HEIGHT
!OFCOLUMN
GAP=O.O
HEIGHT= (WHY-2'GAP)'ASPCTR

LSEL,S,LOC,Z,O,O CENTRE=I
LSEL,A,LOC,Z,CTZ,CTZ
!•••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• r
LSEL,U,LOC,Y,O,WHY
LSEL,U,LOC,Y,WHY+BDY SOLID MODELING OF INFILL
1 ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••
LSEL,R,LOC,X,CTX+LNG, B'12-LNG
LSEL,U,LOC,X,CTX+LNG+O.!, B.!2-LNG-0.l

B2DlV=1.S.B4DlY+ 1
LESIZE,ALL",B2D1V 'IF,CENTRE,EQ, I ,THEN

LSEL,S,LOC,Z,O,O ZCI=CTZ/2-WWZ/2
LSEL,A,LOC,Z,CTZ,CTZ ZC2=CTZ/2+ WWZ/2
LSEL,U,LOC,Y,O,WHY
LSEL,U,LOC,Y,WHY+BDY *ELSE

LSEL,R,LOC,X,O, B'12+CTX ZCI=O

LSEL,U,LOC,X,CTX+O.I,8'12-o.1 ZC2=WWZ

B! DlV=2.B4D1V .ENDIF
LESIZE,ALL",B I DlV
LSEL,S,LOC,Z,O 'BLOCK I
LSEL,A,LOC,Z,CTZ
XCII= (CTX+GAP)
LSEL,S,LOC,Z,O XC!2=CTX+LNG
LSEL,A,LOC,Z,CTZ
LSEL,R,LOC,X,CTX+2"'LNG+0.1,S.!2-2.LNG-0.1 YCII=GAP
LSEL,U,LOC,X,CTX +3.LNG,B .12-3.LNG YCI2=LNG

BH3DIV=4 BLOCK,XCII,XCI2,YCII,YCI2,ZCI,ZC2
LESIZE,ALL",BH3DIV

8-12
!BLOCK2
XC91" XCI2
XC2l" (CTX+GAP) XC92=XC91+LNG
XC22"CTX+LNG
YC91"YCl2
YC2l"YC12 YC92=YC21 +LNG
YC22"YC2l+LNG
BLOCK,XC91 ,XC92,YC91 ,YC92,ZCI ,ZC2
BLOCK,XC21 ,XC22, YC21, YC22,ZC I ,ZC2
'BLOCK 1 !BLOCK 10

XC1I" (CTX+GAP) XCIOI" XCI2

XCl2"CTX+LNG XCI02"XCIOI+LNG

YC1I"YC22 YCIOI"YC22
YC12"YC1 I+LNG YCI02"YC1I+LNG

BLOCK,XCl I ,XC12,YC1 I ,YC12,ZCI ,ZC2 BLOCK,XC I01 ,XCI02,YCI 01 ,YCI 02,ZCI ,ZC2

!BLOCK 4 !BLOCK II

XC41" (CTX+GAP) XCIII" XCI2

XC42"CTX+LNG XCI 12=XCI I I+LNG

YC41"YC12 YCIII"YC12
YC42"YC41 +(WHY -6'LNG) YCI12"YCIII+(WHY-6'LNG)

BLOCK,XC41 ,XC42,YC41 ,YC42,ZCI ,ZC2 BLOCK,XCII I,XCI12,YCIII,YCI12,ZCI,ZC2

!BLOCK 5 'BLOCK 12

XC51" (CTX+GAP) XC121" XCI2

XC52"CTX+LNG XC 122"XCl2l +LNG

YC51"YC42 YC121"YC42
YC52=YC51+LNG YCI22=YC121+LNG

BLOCK,XC5l ,XC52,YC51 ,YC52,ZCI ,ZC2 BLOCK,XC 121 ,XCI22,YCI21 ,YCI22,ZCI ,ZC2

!BLOCK 6 !BLOCK 13

XC61" (CTX+GAP) XCI1I" XCI2

XC62"CTX+LNG XCIl2"XCI1I+LNG

YC61"YC52 YClll"YC52
YC62"YC61+LNG YCIl2"YC61+LNG

BLOCK,XC61 ,XC62,YC61 ,YC62,ZCI ,ZC2 BLOCK,XC 11 I ,XCI 12,YCll I ,YCI 12,ZCI ,ZC2

!BLOCK 7 !BLOCK 14

XC71" (CTX+GAP)
XC72~TX+LNG XC141" XCI2
XC142=XCI41+LNG
YC71"YC62
YC72"WHY -GAP YC141"YC62
YC 142"WHY -GAP
BLOCK,XC71 ,XC72,YC71 ,YCn,ZCI ,ZC2
BLOCK,XCI41 ,XCI42,YCI41 ,YCI42,ZCI ,ZC2
!BLOCK S
!BLOCK 15 TO 21
XCSI" XC 12
XCS2"XCSI+LNG VSEL,S,LOC,X,XC141,XCI42
VSEL,R,LOC,Y,YC1SI,YCI42
YCSI"GAP
YCS2"LNG SPANX=LNG
VGEN,2,ALL",SPANX
BLOCK,XCSI ,XCS2,YCSI ,YCS2,ZCI ,ZC2
!BLOCK 29 TO 42
!BLOCK 9

B-13
VSEL.S.LOC.X.XCI41.XCI42+LNG !SELECTING THE LINES AND DIVIDING THEN FOR
VSEL,R,LOC,Y ,ye 181 ,ye 142 !MESHING PURPOSE
!•••••••••••• ** ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••
SPANX=WLXA*LNG
VGEN.2.ALL ••,SPANX LSEL.S.LENGTH ••WWZ

WWZDV~2
!BLOCK 42 to 49 LESIZE.ALL •••WWZDV

VSEL.S.LOC.X.XCll.XC12 LSEL,S,LOC,X,CTX+ 3*LNG+O.l ,S*12-3*LNG-O.!

VSEL.R.LOC,Y.YCI1.YC72 BH4DV~36
LES1ZE,ALL •••BH4DV
SPANX=WLX-LNG-GAP
VGEN,2,ALL •••SPANX LSEL.S,LOC.Z.ZC1,ZCI
LSEL,A.LOC.Z.ZC2,ZC2
!BLOCK 22 LSEL,r,LOC,Y ,3*LNG+O.! ,WHY -3.LNG-O.l

XC221=CTX+3*LNG CV4DY""12
XC222=B*12-3*LNG LES1ZE.ALL •••CV4DV

YC221~YCII LSEL,S,LOC,Y,2*LNG+O.l,3*LNG-O.1
YC222~YC12 LSEL,A,LOC, Y, WHY.3 "'LNG+O.l, WHY -2'" LNG-O.I

BLOCK,XC221.XC222.YC22I.YC222,ZC1,ZC2 CV3DV~4
LES1ZE.ALL •••CV3DV
XC231~CTX+3'LNG
XC232=B*12-3*LNG LSEL.S.LOC.Y.LNG+O.l,2'LNG-O.l
LS EL.A.LOC. Y. WHY -2' LNG+O.l. WHY -LNG-O.I
YC231~YC21
YC232~YC22 !CV2DIV=4
CV2DV=I.5*CV3DV
BLOCK.XC231.XC232. YC231. YC232,ZC I ,ZC2 LESIZE,ALL",CV2DV

!BLOCK 24 LSEL.S.LOC,Y.GAP+O.l.LNG-O.l
LSEL.A.LOC. Y. WHY -LNG+O.l, WHY -GAP-O.I
XC241=CTX+3*LNG
XC242~B'12-3'LNG 'CVID1V~4
CV1DV~2'CV3DV
YC241~YC31 LESIZE,ALL ••,CV IOV
YC242~YC32
LSEL,S,LOC.Z.ZCl
BLOCK.XC241 ,XC242.YC241 ,YC242.ZCI.ZC2 LSEL,A,LOC,Z.ZC2
lBLOCK25
LSEL,R,LOC,X,CTX+l+LNG+0.l,B"'12-2"'LNG-0.\
XC251:::CTX+3*LNG LS EL,U,LOC,X,CTX + 3 "'LNG,B '"12-3 "'LNG
XC252=B*12-3"'LNG
BH3DV~4
YC251~YC41 LES1ZE.ALL",BH3DV
YC252~YC42
LSEL,S,LOC.Z.ZC I
BLOCK,XC25I ,XC252,YC251 ,YC252.ZC I.ZC2 LSEL,A.LOC,Z,ZC2

!BLOCK 26.27 LSEL.R,LOC,X.CTX +LNG+O.l ,B'12-LNG-O.l

LSEL,U, LOC,X,CTX + 2"'LNG,B '"12-2 "'LNG
VSEL.S.LOC,X.XC22I ,XC222
VSEL,R.LOC. Y.YC231. YC242 lllJ2DV~I.5'BH3DV
LESIZE,ALL •••BH2DV
SPANY~WHY-4'LNG
VGEN.2.ALL ••••SPANY LSEL,S,LOC.Z.ZC I
!BLOCK 28 LSEL,A.LOC,Z.ZC2

VSEL,S.LOC,X.XC221.XC222 LSEL,R,LOC,X,CTX+0.I,B"'12-0.1
VSEL,R,LOC,Y ,yel2! ,YC222 LS EL,U,LOC,X ,CTX +LNG,B'" 12~LNG

SPANY~WHY -LNG-GAP I3H I DV=2"'BH3DV

VGEN,2,ALL ••••SPANY LESIZE,ALL",BHI DV

ALLSEL ALLSEL

!'" "'''' "''''''''''''''''''''''''' "''''''''''''''''''''''MESHING"'''''''''' "''''''''''..•.''''''''''''''''''''''''..•...•.

B-14
 8.7 The assembly of commands to model the infillcd
frame with WINDOW opening using SOLID45
MSHAPE,O,JD
MSHKEY,I
! ----_.--------_.-------------------_.-------------------_.--------------

VSEL,S,LOC,X,O,CTX ! Author:

VSEL,R,LOC,Y,O,WHY !Anjuman. Shahriar

!Lecturer
VSEL,A,LOC,X,B* 12,(B"'12+CTX) ! Dept. of Civil Engineering
VSEL,R,LOC,Y,O,WHY !SUET, Dhaka-lOOOO.
!----_.----------------------------_ ••--------_.----------_.----------_.--
! As a part of the thesis work "Numerical Modeling of
TYPE,I
!Masonry Intill RC Frame" has been done
MAT,I
! for the partial fullillment of M.Sc. in Civil Engineering
VMESH,ALL
!(Structural).
!************************************************
ALLSEL,ALL
*********************************
!*****Analysis of PORTAL frame Using Solid45 element
VSEL,S,LOC,X,O,(B'12+CTX)
VSEL,R,LOC, Y, WHY ,WHY +BDY !with WINDOW opening
Jprep7
TYPE,2
MAT,2
VMESH,ALL !PARAMETER USED
!************************************************
ALLSEL,ALL
fe==4000 !psi (fe' of concrete)
VSEL,S,LOC,X,CTX,B'12 fm==1450 !psi (fe' of masonry)
VSEL,R,LOC,Y,O,WHY NUc==O.15 ! paission's ratio oreone.
NUm=O.25 ! poission's ratio of masonry.
TYPE,J
Cdens=150J(12**3) ! #/in"3 (density of cone.)
MAT,J
Mdens=120J(12**3) ! #Jin"3 (density of masonry)
VMESH,ALL

H=12! ft (calm height) flfdistance ; independent

ALLSEL,ALL
B= I 8 ! ft ( beam length) elc distance ; independent
WWZ=5 ! in (wall thickness) ; independent
NUMMRG,ELEM
NUMMRG,NODE CTX=18 ! in (colm thickness along span length)
NUMCMP,ELEM independent
C1'Z=15 ! in (colm thinckncss perp to span length) even
NUMCMP,NODE
! *.•.
* ••••••••••••••••• SUPPORT ••••• "'•••••••••••••• !multiple ofWWZJNDIVWZ
BDY=18! in (beam depth)
ISOLU B1'Z=C1'Z ! in (beam width)
WLX=B*12.CTX ! Calm-Calm clear distance OR Wall
NSEL,S,LOC,Y,O,O length
WHY=H* 12-BDY ! Calm clear height Wall Height
D,ALL,ALL

!* ••••••••••••••••••••• LOADS •••••••••••• "'•••••• ,.. EXc=57000'SQRT(fc) !psi ( Modulus of Elasticity

ALLSEL of Cone.)
Gc=EXc/(2'( I+NUc») !psi (Shearing Modulus of
!ACEL,l,O,1
ElasticityafConc.)

1# EXm==750*fm !psi ( Modulus of Elasticity

of masonry.)
Gm=EXm/(2*(I+NUm)) !psi (Shearing Modulus of
X=O
YI=WHY Elasticity of masonry)
Y2=wHY+BDY
!**************************.***.* •• ************ ••
ZI=O
'DEFINING ELEMENT TYPE AND REAL CONSTANT
Z2=CTZ
!***********.******.*.****** ••• ****.**** ••••• *•• *
NSEL,S,LOC,X,X ET,I,SOLlD45
NSEL,R,LOC,Y,YI,Y2 ET,2,SOLlD45
NSEL,R,LOC,Z,Zl,Z2 ET,J,SOLlD45

!.******.* •• **** •• ****************** •• ** ••• ******

Disl=PU«CTZDlV+ I)'(B I DlV+ I)
••• ** •• ********* ••• ****
F,ALL,FX,Dis\
! DEFINING MATERIAL PROPERTY
ALLSEL
!***.*****.****** •• ***.********.** ••• ***.*.*** •••
ANTYPE,ST A TIC
*•••• *.*.******* •••••••
SOLVE
MP ,DENS,l ,Cdens
MP,EX,I,EXc
MP,NUXY,l,NUc

B-15
MP,GXY,I,Gc
YCl1=GAP
MP,DENS,2,Cdens YCI2=(WHY-WH)/2
MP,EX,2,EXc
MP,NUXY,2,NUc BLOCK,XC51,XC52,YCII,YCI2,ZCI,ZC2
MP,GXY,2,Gc
XC51=B*12
MP,DENS,3,Mdens XC52=B.12+CTX
MP,EX,J,EXm
MP,NUXY,J,NUm YC21=(WHY-WH)/2
MP,GXY,J,Gm YC22=(WHY+WH)/2
BLOCK,XC51 ,XC52,YC21 ,YC22,ZCI ,ZC2

1SELECTlNG width and height of door XC51=B*12

!SELECTING WHETHER INFILL IS FLASH WITH THE XC52=B.12+CTX
1FRAME OR CENTERED
!IF CENTERED THEN PUT CENTRE=1 YCJI=(WHY+WH)/2
1 •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• YCJ2=WHY
••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• • BLOCK,XC51 ,XC52,YCJ I ,YCJ2,ZCI ,ZC2

ASPRT=2 XC51=B*12
OPEN=60 XC52=B.12+CTX
AREA=(WLX'WHY)'(OPEN/IOO)
WH=SQRT(AREAlASPRT) !WINDOW WIDTH IN YC41=WHY
INCHES YC42=WHY+BDY
WW=ASPRT'WH !WINDOW HEIGHT IN INCHES BLOCK,XC51 ,XC52,YC41 ,YC42,ZCI ,ZC2

GAP=O.O XC21=CTX+GAP
XC22=CTX +GAP+(WLX- WW)/2
CENTRE=I
!.* •••••••••• **••••••••••••••• * •••••••••••••••••• YC41=WHY
••••••••••••••• * ••••••••••••••••••• YC42=WHY+BDY
!SOLID MODELING OF INFILL WITH FRAME
! •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• BLOCK,XC21 ,XC22,YC41 ,YC42,ZCI ,ZC2
•••••••••••••••••••• * •• *.* •• ** •••••
ZCI=O XC31 =CTX+GAP+(WLX-WW)/2
ZC2=CTZ XC32=CTX +GAP+(WLX + WW)/2
YC41=WHY
XCI 1=0 YC42=WHY+BDY
XCI2=CTX
BLOCK,XC31 ,XC32,YC41 ,YC42,ZCI ,ZC2
YCII=GAP
YCI2=(WHY-WH)/2 XC41 =CTX +GAP+(WLX + WW)/2
XC42=S.12-GAP
BLOCK,XCII,XCI2,YCII,YCI2,ZCI,ZC2 YC41=WHY
YC42=WHY+BDY
XCII=O
XCI2=CTX BLOCK,XC41 ,XC42,YC41 ,YC42,ZCI ,ZC2

YC21=(WHY-WH)/2 1••• *** •••••• *.** ••• *.* •• *.** •• ** •• *.**** ••• **.**
YC22=(WHY+WH)/2 !SOLID MODELING OF INFILL WITH DOOR
BLOCK,XCII,XCI2,YC21,YC22,ZCI,ZC2 !•••• ** ••• ** •••• *.** •• ***** •••••• ****.****.*.*.**

XCI 1=0 'IF,CENTRE,EQ, I ,THEN

XCI2=CTX
YC3I=(WHY+WH)/2 ZCI=CTZJ2-WWlJ2
YCJ2=WHY ZC2=CT7J2+WWlJ2
BLOCK,XCII ,XCI2,YCJ I ,YCJ2,ZCI,ZC2
*ELSE
XCI 1=0
XCI2=CTX ZCI=O
YC41=WHY ZC2=WWZ
YC42=WHY+BDY
BLOCK,XCII,XCI2,YC41 ,YC42,ZCI ,ZC2 .ENDIF

ZCI=O XCII=CTX+GAP
ZC2=CTZ XC 12=CTX+GAP+(WLX-WW)/2

XC51=B'12 YCII=GAP
XC52=B'12+CTX YCI2=(WHY-WH)/2

B-16
BLOCK,XCII,XCI2,YCII,YCI2,ZCI,ZC2 CTXDV~NINT(CTX/3)
LESIZE,ALL,,,CTXDV

XC21 ~CTX +GAP+(WLX- WW)/2 LSEL,S,LENGTH" WH

XC22~CTX +GAP+(WLX + WW)/2
WHDV=nint(wh/J)
YCII~GAP LESIZE,ALL",WHDV
YCI2~(WHY-WH)/2
BLOCK,XC2I ,XC22, YCI I, YC 12,ZC I ,ZC2 LSEL,S,LENGTH,,(WHY - WH)/2

XC31 ~CTX+GAP+(WLX+WW)/2 HTDV~ninl«WHY -WH)/6)

XC32~B'12-GAP

YCII~GAP LESIZE,ALL",HTDV
YCI2~(WHY-WH)/2
BLOCK,XC3I,XC32,YCII,YCI2,ZC1,ZC2 LSEL,S,LENGTH"WW

XC41:::CTX+GAP WWDV=nint(WW/3)
XC42~CTX +GAP+(WLX- WW)/2 LESIZE,ALL",WWDV

YC21 ~(WHY -WH)/2 LSEL,S,LENGTH,,(WLX -WW)12

YC22~(WHY+WH)/2
BLOCK,XC41 ,XC42,YC21 ,YC22,ZCI,ZC2 WWI DV~ninl«WLX- WW)/6)
LESIZE,ALL",WWIDV
XC51~CTX+GAP+(WLX+WW)/2
!••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••
XCS2~B'12-GAP
YC21~(WHY-WH)/2 !M ESH INO'" •••••••••••••
!••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••
YC22~(WHY+WH)/2
BLOCK,XCSI ,XC52,YC2I,YC22,ZCI ,ZC2
XC61~CTX+GAP MSHAPE,O,3D
XC62~CTX +GAP+(WLX- WW)12 MSHKEY,I

YC61~(WHY+WH)/2
YC62~WHY VSEL,S,LOC,X,CTX,B*12
BLOCK,XC61 ,XC62,YC6I, YC62,ZC I ,ZC2 VSEL,R,LOC,Y,O,WHY

XC71 ~CTX +GAP+(WLX- WW)/2 TYPE,3

XC72~CTX +GAP+(WLX + WW)/2 MAT,3
VMESH,ALL
YC71~(WHY+WH)/2
YC72~WHY lALLSEL,ALL
BLOCK,XC71 ,XC72,YC7I,YC72,ZCI ,ZC2

XC81 ~TX +GAP+(WLX + WW)/2

XC82~B'12-GAP VSEL,S,LOC,X,O,CTX
VSEL,R,LOC,Y,O,WHY
YC81~(WHY+WH)/2
YC82~WHY VSEL,A,LOC,X,B*12,(B* 12+CTX)
BLOCK,XC81 ,XC82,YC81 ,YC82,ZCI,ZC2 VSEL,R,LOC,Y,O,WHY

!•••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• TYPE,I
!SELECTING THE LINES AND DIVIDING THEN FOR MAT,I
MESHING PURPOSE VMESH,ALL
!••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••
LSEL,S,LENGTH"WWZ ALLSEL,ALL

WWZDY~2 VSEL,S,LOC,X,O,(B'12+CTX)
. LESIZE,ALL",WWZDV VSEL,R,LOC, Y, WH Y, WHY +DDY

LSEL,S,LENGTH"CTZ TYPE,2
CTZDV~6 MAT,2
LESIZE,ALL",CTZDV VMESH,ALL

LSEL,S,LENGTH"BDY ALLSEL,ALL

BDYDV~NINT(BDY/3) NUMMRG,ELEM
LESIZE,ALL",BDYDV NUMMRG,NODE
NUMCMP ,ELEM
LSEL,S,LENGTH"CTX NUMCMP,NODE

B-17
 BDY=18 ! in (beam depth)
!SUPPORT BTZ=CTZ ! in (beam width)
!•••••••••••••• ****.* •• **.**************.********
ISOLU WLX=B.12-crx ! Calm-Calm clear distance OR
Wall1ength
NSEL,S,LOC,Y,O,O WI-IY=H*12-BDY ! Colm clear height Wall
D,ALL,ALL Height

!*.***** ••••••• *** LOADS* **** •• ****. ****** •••••• * EXc"57000'SQRT(fc) !psi ( Modulus of Elasticity
of Cone.)
ALLSEL Gc=EXc/(2*(1 +NUc) !psi (Shearing Modulus of
!ACEL,I,O,1 Elasticity of Cone.)

PL" I00000 !# EXm=750*fm !psi ( Modulus of Elasticity

of masonry.)
X"O Gm=EXmJ(2.(I+NUm) !psi (Shearing Modulus of
Yl=WHY Elasticity of masonry)
Y2=WHY+BDY
ZI"O
!.*** •••••••• * ••• ***** •••••••• ** •• **** •••••••••••
Z2"CTZ
!DEFINING ELEMENT TYPE AND REAL CONSTANT
!*•••••••••••••• *•• *** •••••••••• *** ••••••••••••••
NSEL,S,LOC,X,X
NSEL,R,LOC,Y,YI,Y2 ET, I ,SOLlD45
NSEL,R,LOC,Z,ZI,Z2 ET,2,SOLlD45
ET,3,SOLlD45
Disl"PU«CTZDV+ I )'(BDYDV+]))
!*••••••••••• *** ••••••• **.** •• ** •••••••••••••••••
F,ALL,FX,Disl
ALLSEL ! DEFINING MATERIAL PROPERTY
ANTYPE,STATIC
!•••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• ** ••••••••••
SOLVE MP,DENS,I,Cdens
MP,EX,I,EXc
MP,NUXY,I,NUc
B.8 The assembly of commands to model the infilled MP,GXY,I,Gc
frame with DOOR opening using SOLlD45
MP,DENS,2,Cdens
1 ••••• ------------------- •••••• -.------------------ ••••••• --------------- MP,EX,2,EXc
! Author: MP,NUXY,2,NUc
!Anjuman. Shahriar MP,GXY,2,Gc
!Lecturer
! Dept. ofCiv!1 Engineering MP,DENS,3,Mdens
!BUET, Dhaka-IOOOO. MP,EX,3,EXm
!---_••••.•••••.•_----------------_ ••••••_._._-.---------------_._ •••.•••. MP,NUXY,3,NUm
! As a part of the thesis work "Numerical Modeling of MP,GXY,3,Gm
Masonry Infill RC Frame" has been done
! for the partial fulfillment of M.Sc. in Civil Engineering
!••••••••••••••••••• * ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••
(Structural). !SELECTING width and height of door
!.* •••••••••• ******.**.** ••• *** •• *** •••• *** •••••• !SELECTING WHETHER INFILL IS FLASH WITH THE
1.****Analysis of PORTAL with door opening using FRAME OR CENTERED
So1id45 clement !IF CENTERED THEN PUT CENTRE=1
/prep7
!••••••••••••••• ** •••• * ••••••••••••••••••• *••••••
!** •••••• *•••••• ***** ••••••• *••• ** ••••••••••••••• ASPRT"2
lPARAMETER USED OPEN"60
!•••••• *•• ** •••••••• *•••• ** •••••••••••••••• *** •• * AREA"(WLX'WHY)'(OPEN/IOO)
DH"SQRT(AREA/ASPRT) ! DOOR HEIGHT IN INCHES
fc=4000 !psi (fe' of concrete) DW"ASI'RT'WH !DOOR WIDTH IN INCHES
fm=1450 !psi (fe'ofmasonry)
NUc=0.15! poission's ratio of cone. GAP"O.O
NUm=0.25 ! poission's ratio of masonry.
CENTRE"]
Cdens=150/(12**3) ! #/in"3 (density of cone.)
Mdens=120/(12**3) ! #/in"3 (density of masonry)
!•••••••••••••••••••••• *•• ** •••••••••••••••••• *••
!SOUD MODELING OF INFILL WITH FRAME
H=12 ! ft (calm hcight) fJfdistanee ; independent
!•••••••••••••••• *••••••• *••••••••• * •• *•• *•••••••
8=18! ft (beam length) cle distanec ; indcpcndent ZCI"O
WWZ=5 ! in (wall thickness) ; independcnt ZC2"CTZ
CTX=18! in (eolm thickness along span length)
independent XCII"O
CTZ=15 ! in (calm thinckness perp to span length) even XCI2"CTX
multiple ofWWztNDIVWZ

B-18
YCII=GAP ZCI=O
YCI2=DH ZC2=WWZ

BLOCK,XCII,XCI2,YCII,YCI2,ZCI,ZC2 *ENDIF

XC21":oB*12 XCll=CTX+GAP
XC22=B'12+CTX XC Il=CTX+GAP+(WLX-DW)12

YCII=GAP YCII=GAP
YCI2=DH YCIl=DH
BLOCK,XCII,XCIl,YCII,YCIl,ZCI,ZC2
BLOCK,XC21,XC22,YCII,YCI2,ZCI,ZC2 XClI =CTX+(WLX+DW)ll
XC22=B*12

XCI 1=0 YCII=GAP

XC 12=CTX YCI2=DH
IJLOCK,XC21 ,XC22,YCII ,YCIl,ZCI ,ZCl
YC21=DH
YC22=WHY XC31=CTX+GAP
BLOCK,XCII ,XCI2,YC21 ,YC22,ZCI,ZC2 XC32=CTX +GAP+(WLX-DW)ll

XC21=S*12 YClI=DH
XC22=B*12+CTX YC22=WHY
BLOCK,XC31 ,XC3l,YC21 ,YC2l,ZCI ,ZCl
YC21=DH
YC22=WHY XC41 =CTX+GAP+(WLX-DW)/l
BLOCK,XC21 ,XC22, YClI, YC2l,ZC I ,ZCl XC42=CTX+(WLX+DW)12
YClI=DH
XCII=O YCl2=WHY
XCI2=CTX BLOCK,XC41 ,XC4l,YC21 ,YCll,ZCI ,ZCl
YCJI=WHY
YCJl=WHY+BDY XC51=CTX+(WLX+DW)12
BLOCK,XCII ,XCIl,YCJI,YC3l,ZCI ,ZC2 XC52=B*12

XC21=B*12 YC21=DH
XC22=B*12+CTX YCl2=WHY
YCJI=WHY BLOCK,XC51 ,XC52,YCll, YCll,ZCI ,ZCl
YC3l=WHY+BDY
! ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••
BLOCK,XClI ,XC22,YC31 ,YC3l,ZCI ,ZCl
!SELECTING THE LINES AND DIVIDING THEN FDR
XC31=CTX MESHING PURPOSE
! ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••
XCJl=CTX+(WLX-DW)12
YCJI=WHY
YC32=WHY+BDY LSEL,S,LENGTH"CTZ
BLOCK,XCJ I ,XCJl,YCJ I ,YCJl,ZC I ,ZC2 CTZDV=6
LESIZE,ALL,,,CTZDV
XC41=CTX+(WLX-DW)12
XC42=CTX+(WLX+DW)12 LSEL,S,LENGTH"CTX
CTXDV=6
YCJI=WHY LESIZE,ALL,,,CTXDV
YCJl=WHY+BDY
BLOCK,XC41 ,XC4l,YC31, YC3l,ZCI ,ZC2 LSEL,S,LENGTH"WWZ
WWZDV=l
XC51=CTX+(WLX+DW)ll LESIZE,ALL,,,WWZDV
XC52=B*j2
YC31=WHY LSEL,S,LENGTlI"DH
YC32=WHY+BDY DHDV=ninl(dhI3)
BLOCK,XC51 ,XC52,YC31 ,YCJ2,ZCI ,ZCl LESIZE,ALL,,,DHDV

1 •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• LSEL,S,LENGTH,,(WHY -DH)

!SOLID MODELING OF INFILL WITH DOOR IHDV=nint«why-dh)/3 )
1 •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• LESIZE,ALL",HTDV

*IF,CENTRE,EQ,I,THEN LSEL,S,LENGTH"DW
DWDV=nint(dw/3)
ZCI=CTZJl-WWZJ2 LESIZE,ALL,,,DWDV
ZCl=CTZJ2+WWZJ2
LSEL,S,LENGTH,,(WLX-DW)12
DWI DV=ninl«wlx-dw)16)
LESIZE,ALL",DWI DV

B-19
 Disl=PU«CTZDV+ 1)*(BDYDV+ 1»)
F,ALL,rX,Disl
LSEL,S,LENGTH"BDY ALLSEL
BDYDV=nint(BDY/3) ANTYPE,ST ATIC
LESIZE,ALL",BDYDV SOLVE

1M ESH ING"'''''''.''' •••••• "''''.

!••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••

MSHAPE,0,3D
MSHKEY,l

VSEL,S,LOC,X,CTX,B *12
VSEL,R,LOC,Y,O,WHY

TYPE,3
MAT,3
VMESH,ALL

VSEL,S,LOC,X,O,CTX
VSEL,R,LOC,Y,O,WHY

VSEL,A,LOC,X,S*12,(B *12+CTX)
VSEL,R,LOC,Y,O,WHY

TYPE, I
MAT,l
VMESH,ALL

ALLSEL,ALL

VSEL,S,LOC,X,0,(B'12+CTX)
VSEL,R,LOC, Y ,WHY ,WHY +BDY

TYPE,2
MAT,2
VMESH,ALL

ALLSEL,ALL

NUMMRG,ELEM
NUMMRG,NODE
NUMCMP,ELEM
NUMCMP,NODE

!••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••
!SUPPORT
!••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••

/SOLU

NSEL,S,LOC,Y,O,O
D,ALL,ALL

1••••••••••••• "'•••••••• LOADS ••••••••••••••••••••

ALLSEL
!ACEL, 1,0,1

PL:IOOOOOO!#

X=CTX+gap
YI:WHY.LNG
Y2:WHY
Z\:ZCI
Z2:ZC2

NSEL,S,LOC,X,X
NSEL,R,LOC,Y,YI,Y2
NSEL,R,LOC,Z,ZI,Z2

B-20
 APPENDIXC

C.I Deflection Data and Number of Element

C-l
C.2 Principal Stress at Diffirent Locations of Jnlill Wall

11.50

--------------- •._-------.
11.45

~
11.40
~
~
'"'" IUS
~ x
<Zl
11.30

'"g
,9-
Il.2S
'I::
"" •
/
11.20
3000 4000 5000 6000 7000
1000 2000
No of element

(a) Variation of Principal Stress along x axis

-0.002

-0.004
~.,~,.
~ -o,DGe
~
-O.OOB

.0.010

.0.012

-0.014

2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000

1000
No ofclemcnt

(b) Variation of Principal Stress along yaxis

.1.02

.1.04
~
-1.06
------------.,--------,.
~
~ •
'"'"
"
tl
<Zl
-1.06

'"
.9-
u
,8
.1.10

-1.12
I
""
-1.14
3000 4000 5000 6000 7000
1000 2000

No of Element

(c) Variation of Principal Stress along z axis

Figure C.l Principal Stress at location 1

C-2
 6.40
0
\0
';?
c.
::E
~
6.35
~
~
~
C/l 0-
-;; -0
.e- 6.30 0
<..>

.""
0..

6.25
1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000

No of element

(a) Variation of principal stress along x axis

~o_.o~.o

-;; 0.0018

~ o
~ 0.0000
~ x
a
C/l

'0
-0.0018

.2
0.. -0.0036

.0.0054
1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000

No of element

(b) Variation of principal stress along yaxis

-11.10
';?
~
~
~
~
-10.95
0
~

I
C/l
-;;
c. -10.80
'0

.""
0.. 0
-10,65

1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000

No of Element

(c) Variation of principal stress along z axis

Figure C.2 Principal Stress at location 2

C-3
 2.20
________ .0

~ 2.19
o
----------0
0.
6
~ 2.18
~
~
<J)

OJ 2.17
0
.9-
u /
..::" 2.16
0

""
2.15
1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000

No of element

(a) Variation of principal stress along x axis

'2" -0.0045

~
x
j -0.0030

OJ
9-
.@ -0.0015

"" o

1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000

No of element
(b) Variation of principal stress along y axis

.8.10

.8.05
~
~
~

~
~
~
.8.00

-7.95
\
o

<J)

OJ
.9- -7.90
u
..::" -7.85 0-------
"" -------0---------.0
-7.80
1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000

No of Elemenl

(c) Variation of principal stress alongz axis

Figure C.3 Principal Stress at location 3

C-4
 3.380

3,375 ~. ---------.

3.370
,..,.
~.
3.365

3.360
2000 3000 4000 5000 '000 7000
1000

No of element
(a) Variation of principal stress along x axis

0.0015

~
'" 0,0010
-.--------,.
~
~
~
1i
VJ
0,0005

-;;;
.9<
u 0,0000
c
;E
-0.0005
• 3000 4000 '000 '000 7000
1000 2000

No of clemen!
(b) Variation of principal stress along y axis

-12.80

-12.75
~
'"0-
::E -12.70
~
~
~
1i -12.65

VJ
-;;; • x
.9<
u
c
.t::
-12.6U

_12.55
I
•
"-
-12.50
1000 2000 JUOO 4000 5<100 '000 7000

No of Element
(c) Variation of principal stress along z axis

Figure C.4 Principal Stress at location 4

C-5
 7.35

-;, 7.30
.----------.--------.
~
~ 7.25
g
en
-,;
0-
'r;
7.20 /
•
"
'C
•
"-

7.15
2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000
1000
No or clement

(a) Variation of principal stress along x axis

0.012 \
0.010
x

""
~ 0.008

~
~ 0.006
".e-~
J: 0.004

0.002

3000 4000 5000 6000 7000

1000 2000

No ofc1emcnt

(b) Variation of principal stress along y axis

-15.00

_14.95

.-----
_.--------,.
~ -14.90

~
~
"~
.e- . _14.85

J:
-14.80 •
/
•
. ]4.15
]000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000

No of Element

(c) Variation of principal stress along z axis

Figure C.S Principal Stresses at location S

C-6
 '"

"
-21.25 o. 0 21.25 42.50 63.75 85,00
-85.00 .63.75 -42.50

-DB

.184

.230

Bending Stress (Mpa)

(a) at left column-beam joint

230

".
138

"
40

106.66 159.99
.159,99 .106,66 .H.B o 0 53.33
.40

."
-136

.184

-230

Bending Stress (MPa)

(b) at 914 mm from left column-beam joint

no

'"
""
"
E
o
"
<l: 74,66 111.99
v .][1.99 _74.66 .J7.]J o 0 )7,)]

o
:ii "
t;
6
."
.lJS

.184

-vo
Bending Stress (Mpa)

(c) at 1370 mm from left column-beam joint

Figure e.G Bending Stress diagrams at different sections of beam (continued)

C-7
 230

18.

13.

n
46

-0.849 -0.566 -0.283 O. 00 0.283 0.566 0.84

~6

-92

-138

_184

-230

Bending Slress (Mpa)

(d) at 2743 mm from left column-beam joint

230

18.

138

-Ill -n n 74 III

-n

-us
.184

-230

Bending Stress (MPa)

(e) at 4118 cm from left column-beam joint

230

184

E 13.
5 n
'"
u

"
,g
~
u
46

C -180 -120 -60 60 120 180

£'!
.~ -46

Cl

-184

Bending Stress (Mpa)

(f) at 4851 mm from left column-beam joint

Fil!ure C.G Bendinl! Stress dial!rams at different sections of beam (continued)

C-8
 ..
'"
,
'"
"
",
-84.99 -56.66 .28.33 O. 0 28.33 56.66 84.99
.<0

"
-13B

-IB4

-2.10

Bending Stress (Mpa)

(g) at right column-beam joint

Figure e.G Bending Stress diagrams at different sections of beam

C-9
C.4 Bending Stress Data for Column

384.99

256.66

128.33
~
Vl

1:' 92 _46 -92 -138 .184 -230

""
.~
.- 230 184
"5
-12lUJ
'"
-256.66

-384.99 ~

Distance from ell (mm)

(a) at bottom of column

31S

210

>05

g
Vl
gp 230 IS' 92 46 -46 -92 .138 _184 .230

] -lOS

'"
-210

-315

Distance from e/l (mm)

(b) at 152 mm above bottom of column

144.99

9666

';' 48,~J

~
1) -46 .230
b 230 184 92 46
Vl

""C -48.33

-144,99

Distance from ell (mm)

(c) at 1143 above bottom of column

Figure C.7 Bending Stress diagrams at different sections of column (continued)

C-IO
Figure C.7 Bending Stress diagrams at different sections of column (continued)

C-ll
 120

60

184 136 92 46 -46 -92 -138 -184 -230

-60

-120

Distance from ell (mm)

(g) at 2743 mm above bottom of column

183.34

"'6"
m
91.67

~
'" 230 164 136 92 46 -46 -92 -138 -184 .230

"'"
'6
"
v -91.67

'" -183.34

Distance from ell (mm)

(h) at 3200 mm above bottom of column

25

50

25

-'6 _184 -230

'" 138 92 46 -92 -138

-25

-50

-25

Dislance from ell (mm)

(i) at 3430 mm above bottom of column

Figure C. 7 Bending Stress diagrams at different sections of column

C-12
 APPENDIXD

D.1 Material properties used by Mehrabi et aI. (1996) for bare frame

Table D.l: Average Strengths of Concrete Materials for bare-frame, specimen no. 1
by Mehrabi et al (1996). (lMPa = 0145 ksi)
21930
Secant Modulus (MPa)
30.9
Compressive Strength (MPa)
0.0018
Strain at peak stress
6.8
Modulus of Rupture (MPa)
3.3
Tensile Strength (split cylinder tests) (MPa)

D.2 Material properties used by Mehrabi et al. (1996) for in filled frame

Table D.2 Average Strengths of Concrete Materials and Masonry units for infilled
frame, soecimen no. 9 by Mehrabi et a1. (1996). (lMPa = 0.145 ksi)
1. Frame Concrete
Secant Modulus (MPa) 17240
Compressive Strength (MPa) 26.8
Strain at peak stress (mm/mm) 0.0027
Modulus of Rupture (MPa) 4.9
Tensile Strength (split cylinder tests) (MPa) 2.77
2. Three Course Masonry Prisms
Secant Modulus (MPa) 8240
Compressive Strength (MPa) 14.21
Strain at peak stress 0.0026
3. Compressive Strength of Masonry units (MPa) 15.6
4. Compressive Strength of Mortar Cylinders (MPa) 12.5

D-l
D.3 Determination of stiffness equation for in fill wall

For infill wall shear deformation is also considered in addition to flexural and axial
deformation. So the total deformation on the infill becomes
~r~m+~s
Where, ~m= flexural deformation
~s=shear deformation
Considering infill wall as vertical cantilever as shown in Figure 4.15, total deflection
of the infill wall becomes

~ _PI} + PL
'3EI t'GA
PL' PL
=-+1.2.-
3EI GA

= PL' [I + 3EI (1.2. PL)]

3EI PL' GA
wb'
PL' 3.6E- 1
=-[1+ 12_)]
3EI L2' Gwb
wb'
PL' 3.6E- I
=--'[1+ 12_)]
3E wb' L2' Gwb
12
b ,
4P 3.6E(-) 1
----[1+ L
E
Ew(~)' 12
L 2(1 + v)

4P bl'
- bl [I + 0.6(1 + v)(/L) ]
EW(IL)'

So the stiffness equation of the infll wall becomes

k- 3EI =E(;Yr)'* w
L'[I +0.6(1 +v)(;Yr)'] 4 L I+O.6(1+v)(~)'

D-2
D.4 Various of stiffness of in filled frame, bare frame and iufill wall for a given
column height.

_______Stiffness of infilled frame

880000 _ .• - Stiffness of frame alone
A Stiffness of infill wall alone

660000
/

440000
.It>./

A ' , .
For Column Height 3658 mm
220000
.•..............

o
ll=-~:.::-_---.-----.----.----. •
0-4 0_6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1-4 1.6 1.8 2.0 2.2

B/H Ratio

Figure D.l Stiffness of in filled frame, infill and frame for 3658 mm column height

_____ Stiffness of infillcd frame

880000 ___ Stiffness of frame alone
." A- Stiffness of in fill wall alone

660000 /

440000

220000 For Column Height 4573 mm

o
0/- ...•
.•. • • ., ..
• •
0-4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1-4 1.6 1.8 2.0 2.2

B/H Ratio

Figure D.Z. Stiffness of infilled frame, infill and frame for 4573 mm column height
 ________
Stiffness of infilled frame
880000 ...----e- Stiffness of frame alone
_..i,- Stiffness of in fill wall alone

660000

I 440000
.,JII.'"

A"""/"//

For Column Height 6097 rnm

220000
Ai' ,"

.,11.., •

o • • • • • •
0.4 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2.2

B/H Ratio

Figure D.3 Stiffness of infilled frame, infill and frame for 6097 mm column height

D-4