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

net/publication/282817728

Prototype and Scaled Computational Model Behavior for RC Frame with Masonry
Infill Walls

Article · January 2011

CITATIONS READS

0 1,187

2 authors:

Hamid Reza Khoshnoud Abdul Marsono

Islamic Azad University Universiti Teknologi Malaysia
9 PUBLICATIONS   42 CITATIONS    78 PUBLICATIONS   657 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

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

Quality in Constructions View project

Evaluation of the Building sector - Improvement of the existing building- Life cycle assessment. View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Hamid Reza Khoshnoud on 13 October 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Prototype and Scaled Computational Model Behavior for RC
Frame with Masonry Infill Walls

H. R. Khoshnoud1 and A. K. Marsono2

1
PhD candidate, Faculty of Civil Engineering, University of Technology of Malaysia,
81310 Johor, hrkhoshnoud@yahoo.com
2
Associate professor, PhD, Faculty of Civil Engineering, University of Technology of
Malaysia, 81310 Johor, akadir@utm.my

ABSTRACT
One of the most practical structural systems all around the world is reinforcement concrete
frame building with masonry infill walls. The popularity of employment of this system
regarding massive building distraction during past earthquakes proves the necessity of
research on different aspects of this system. The structural role of infill walls and their
interaction with RC frames is a classical problem. Mostly, masonry infill walls operate like
diagonal compression struts which assist the lateral resisting system of building. Generally
due to the financial and practical restrictions, small scale tests have been performed in order
to realize the structural behavior of masonry infill walls. Consequently scaled
computational models should be employed for scaled models.
The aim of this paper is to verify the effects of scaled computational models in
comparison to prototype models on the analyzed results. A set of 3D and 2D finite element
models of bare and with masonry infills have been conducted to investigate the nonlinear
seismic response under gravity and lateral loads. To define models, four finite element
models have been carried out in ABAQUS for 3D and SAP2000 for 2D FEM respectively
for full and 1:4 scale models of bare and infill frames. Nonlinear behavior of concrete and
steel as well as infill walls is defined in the models. The concentrated plastic hinges in
beams and columns are used for considering inelastic response of members in 2D FEM
models. The pushover analysis has been performed to investigate the pushover curves,
stress-strain relation and plastic point zones formation for all 3D FEM models. Moreover,
the pushover curves are considered in 2D FEM models as well as target displacements and
seismic performance of frames. The results show appropriate compatibility of scaled and
prototype models outcomes.

Keywords: Masonry infill wall, Pushover analysis, RC frame, Scaled computational

model

1. INTRODUCTION
In most cases the small scale models have been carried out to realize
masonry infill wall interaction with structural frames, because testing
prototype masonry structures is both costly and challenging to undertake in
a controlled laboratory environment. For example applying 10 KN gravity
load on a forth scale model is equal to 160 KN in full scale model which
shows the significant effects of scale in testing. There are several researches
on consideration of the effects of scaling on results of masonry wall frame
[Hughes 2000, Mohammed (2005, 2011)]. On the other hand any laboratory
test needs a computational model to verify the behavior of real structure.
The computational model can be defined with a set of 3D finite elements for
structural members or with a set of 2D finite elements which consider the
structural members generally with one element. The 3D FEM models needs
more computation efforts and are more accurate in comparison to 2D FEM
models which typically are suitable for modeling of whole structure. In this
study the effect of full and 1:4 scale computational models is compared. It is
assumed the material properties like elastic modules are similar for full and
1:4 scale models.
In the most cases the effects of masonry infill walls have been not
considered in the structural models and treated as nonstructural members
[Khoshnoud (2011)]. The experience resulted from previous earthquake
shows that infill walls have significant effect on seismic response of
building and even may cause collapse of building. Typically, based on
macro model approach, masonry infill walls in RC frame building operate
like diagonal compression struts which they participate in lateral resisting
system. Consequently they increase the strength and stiffness of structure.

2. Pushover Analysis
One of the most popular static nonlinear procedures is pushover analysis
which included in several seismic codes like Eurocode8 [CEN (2004, 2005)],
ATC40 [ATC, (1996)], FEMA356 [ASCE (2000)]. The Pushover analysis is a
series of incremental linear analyzes that in each step, a portion of lateral
load is applied to the structure [Marsono (2010)]. For monitoring the material
nonlinear behavior of elements especially for yielding and post-yielding
behavior, plastic hinges or plastic zones can be defined in two near ends of
beams or columns or any other locations of elements in which a plastic area
may be formed. In each series of linear analysis, the response of system will
be determined regarding the assumption that the stiffness of the structure is
constant. According to the results of each the iteration, the yielding of each
element is checked based on predefined criteria. If yielding is occurred the
stiffness of structure is modified, lateral load is proportionally increased and
another static analysis is performed. This process will continue until lateral
roof displacement of building reaches to a predefined target displacement or
a mechanism is formed. The result generally is presented in the form of base
shear verses top story displacement. The above procedure currently is used
in most seismic codes.

3. Description of Models
For evaluation of aforementioned procedures, two series one story concrete
moment resisting frame with and without masonry infill walls, have been
analyzed and designed with the spans of 4m and the height of 3m for full
scale model and spans of 1m and the height of 0.75m for 1:4 scale model,
based on equivalent static analysis according to Iranian code of practice
[BHRC (2007)] and ACI 2005 for concrete design figures 1 and 2. The
member sections of frames are presented in Table 1.
 Figure 1. 1:4 scale model for bare frame

Figure 2. 1:4 scale model for masonry infill frame

Table 1. Specification of members for full and 1:4 scale models

The total of gravity load is 10KN/m, 160KN/m including weight of

members for 1:4 and full scale models. The gravity load has been applied on
full and 1:4 scale of 3D models as a pressure with amount of 0.1515MPa on
top of beam for gravity load. The lateral load applied to upper left of frame
as a pressure load (Figure 3). It is assumed that buildings are located in high
level seismic zone with a design base acceleration 0.3g and soil profile type
 Figure 3. Apply gravity and lateral load as pressure loads on models.

Figure 4. The macro model design results of forth scale bare frame.

IV (soft deposits and high moisture All frames have intermediate R.C. MRF
system with behavior factor, R=7 and importance factor I=1.0. The cracked
moment of inertia has been considered 0.35Ig and 0.7Ig for beams and
columns respectively to calculate the design drift for macro models. Figure
4 shows the macro model design results of forth scale bare frame. For both
micro and macro models nonlinear properties is defined. The Park [Mander
(1984)] steel model is used for stress strain relation with the yield and
ultimate stress of main bars fy=400 and fu=520MPa. The yield strain, Strain
at onset of strain hardening and ultimate strain are 0.0019, 0.015 and 0.09
respectively. The Mander [Mander (1984)] concrete model is used for stress
strain relation with specified concrete compressive strength f’c=24MPa. It is
assumed that strain at unconfined compressive strength and ultimate
unconfined strain capacity is 0.002 and 0.005 respectively. Figure 5 shows
stress-strain relation for steel and concrete material. The fundamental period
 a b
Figure 5. Stress-Strain relation Model for a) steel and b) concrete.

of vibration of all Frame is calculated based on dynamic analysis instead of

using empirical formula (T=0.07H0.75,T=0.05H0.75). For macro models, a
concentrated uncoupled moment hinges (M3) and a concentrated coupled P-M3
hinges are used for modeling of plastic zone of beams and columns respectively. In
the analyses, the masonry infill walls are modeled by two compression diagonal
struts, thus a concentrated axial force hinges (P) is used for modeling of plastic
zone of infill walls. To perform nonlinear static analysis, the SAP2000 NL version
[CSI (2009)] was employed. For micro models, a 3 dimensional finite element
mesh is employed for geometric modeling of concrete members as well as
infill walls for the ABAQUS/Standard analysis [ABAQUS (2006)]. A 4 node
linear tetrahedron element, C3D4 and a 2 node linear 3D truss element,
T3D2 are used for solid members and steel bars respectively. Figure 6
shows the 3D meshing for ABAQUS models.

(a) (b)
Figure 6. 3D FE meshing for (a) bare frame (b) masonry infill frame

4. Pushover Analyses of Frames

According to previous sections a series of pushover analysis is performed
for all models. The lateral load is shown by pressure with regards to this fact
that the amount of pressure is same for 1:4 and full scale models and just the
area of applied load is different. These zones are a rectangle of 10x6Cm for
1:4 and 40x24Cm for full scale models. Figure 7 shows the deformation of
full scale of infill frame at finale stage of analysis. As it shows the infill
 Table 2. Bare frame 1:4 scale
P F U1 Strain of bars
MPa KN Cm 1 2 3 4
0.5 3 0.0416 0.0000228 0.000041 0.00015 0.00011
1.5 9 0.151 0.000215 0.000379 0.000537 0.000455
3.0 18 0.3893 0.000676 0.0011 0.001246 0.001198
4.0 24 0.5972 0.001158 0.00167 0.001686 0.001747
4.2 25.2 0.646 0.001278 0.00179 0.00177 0.00189
4.3 25.8 0.6825 0.00137 0.00189 0.00183 0.00219
4.4 26.4 0.766 0.001567 0.0026 0.002 0.00292
4.45 26.7 0.8299 0.00243 0.00318 0.00215 0.00352

Table 3. Bare frame full scale

P F U1 Strain of bars
MPa KN Cm 1 2 3 4
1.5 144 0.576 0.00367 0.0001206 0.000358 0.000416
3.0 288 1.513 0.001075 0.00063 0.0011 0.0011
4.0 384 2.366 0.00163 0.00109 0.00164 0.00163
4.2 403.2 2.562 0.00175 0.00119 0.0018 0.0017
4.3 412.8 2.663 0.0018 0.00124 0.00184 0.00179
4.4 422.4 2.856 0.0021 0.00132 0.00196 0.00205
4.5 432 3.18 0.00278 0.00147 0.0022 0.0026
4.6 441.6 3.737 0.00397 0.00196 0.00266 0.00367
4.65 446.4 4.14 0.0048 0.0024 0.0031 0.0044

Table 4. Infill frame 1:4 scale

P F U1 Strain of bars
MPa KN Cm 1 2 3 4
0.5 3 0.00905 0.00000586 0.0000324 0.0000186 0.0000123
1.5 9 0.0251 0.0000499 0.0001 0.0000461 0.000047
3.0 18 0.103 0.000219 0.000321 0.000243 0.00028
4.0 24 0.2266 0.000579 0.0006 0.000629 0.00066
5.0 30 0.4056 0.001084 0.001069 0.0010806 0.00122
6.0 36 0.6378 0.00163 0.001716 0.001539 0.001857
6.1 36.6 0.6378 0.001667 0.00175 0.001605 0.00188
6.3 38.43 0.6985 0.0018 0.0019397 0.00172 0.00228
6.5 39.65 0.7928 0.002018 0.0022 0.00187 0.00323

Table 5. Infill frame full scale

P F U1 Strain of bars
MPa KN Cm 1 2 3 4
0.5 48 0.03468 0.00000609 0.0000183 0.00001366 0.0000012
1.5 144 0.1022 0.000049 0.000066 0.000044 0.000049
3.0 288 0.4063 0.000228 0.00033 0.00027 0.000278
4.0 384 0.9309 0.0006 0.000768 0.000725 0.00068
5.0 480 1.627 0.00109 0.0013 0.00114 0.00117
6.0 576 2.513 0.001629 0.00219 0.001569 0.00173
6.1 585.6 2.651 0.001686 0.00235 0.001614 0.001796
6.2 595.2 2.779 0.00174 0.0025 0.00166 0.00191
6.3 604.8 2.975 0.00183 0.002807 0.00187 0.002315
 a) 1:4 Scale Model b) Full Scale Model
Figure 7. The deformation of 1:4 and full scale of infill frame at finale stage of analysis.

walls are under compression stress along one diagonal and are under
tensional stress on other diagonal. In fact the infill walls operate like
compression strut and have a structural role in the system. The separation of
infill wall from the frame shows the accuracy of results for interaction
between infill and frame in both forth and full scale models. The results of
nonlinear analysis are shown in Tables 2 to 5 for all models. In the first to
third column of tables lateral pressure, equivalent forces and lateral top
displacement of frames is presented. In column forth to seventh the strain of
bars for points of 1 to 4 is shown. These points are two ends of members
which have highly potential for plastic zone formation. In Figure 8 the stress
strain of bar at point 4 for forth and full scale infill frame models is
presented. From this figure and the results of Tables 4 and 5, it can be seen
the same behavior of yielding for this bar at the same stage of lateral force.

Figure 8. Stress – Strain of rebar at point 4 for 1:4 and full scale infill frame models

Figure 9 shows final stage of plastic zone formation for bare and infill
frames for forth and full scale models. Almost all forth and full scale models
have the ability of predict the plastic zone same together except the full
scale of infill model which can not predict plastic zone for point 1.
According to table 5 in full scale infill frame the amount of strain for bar at
locate 1 in lateral pressure 6.3MPa is 0.00183 which is very close to strain
of 0.0018 for to same locate and same lateral pressure of forth scale model
in table 4. As the full scale model are not able to reach to a pressure more
than of 6.3Mpa because of numerical instability therefore this model is not
able to find plastic zone at point 1. This numerical instability raise from the
automation mesh generation by ABAQUS which may be eliminated by
modeling in manual mesh generation in a real modeling.

1:4 Scale Model Full Scale Model

(a) (b)

(c) (d)
Figure 9. Final Plastic zone formation for bare frames (a,b) and infill frames (c,d)

(a) (b)
Figure 10. Pushover curves for (a) bare frame (b) masonry infill frame

Figure 10 shows the pushover curves for full and 1:4 scale models for bare
and infill frame. As it shows the behavior of forth and full scale models for
both bare and infill models are very similar. For drawing pushover curves
 lateral displacements of 1:4 scale models are multiplied by scale of 4. Figure
11 shows the pushover curve and plastic hinges formation for 1:4 scale
model of bare frame. According to final stage of results for 2D FEM models
in bottom part of columns and two ends of beam the plastic hinges will
formed which is predicted by 3D FEM model as well.

(a) (b)
Figure 11. Pushover curves (a) and plastic hinge formation for 1:4 scale models of bare
frame for 2D FEM model

5. Conclusion
This paper has evaluated the effects of scale in computational Model
behavior for RC frame with masonry infill walls. In order to achieve this
goal two sets of RC frame with and without infill walls in full and 1:4 scale
are modeled and a series of nonlinear static analysis have been performed.
The consideration of results draws the following conclusions:
(I.) According to analytical solution the results of full and 1:4 scale
models must have the same profile, but computational models are
based on numeric solution like Finite Element methods which are
sensitive to a series of variables like mesh pattern and size, kind and
specification of elements, numerical instabilities and so on.
(II.) The general behavior of 1:4 and full scale computational models are
similar for both bare and infill frame. The 1:4 scale models are able to
predict the interaction between infills wall and RC frame such as
separation of masonry infill walls from the RC frame as one diagonal
and compression interaction in another diagonal of infill as it occurs
well in the full scale models.
(III.) The results of nonlinear analysis, especially pushover curves show
excellent match of full and 1:4 scale models especially in elastic
response and good match after yielding of bars. One of the main
reasons for this similarity behavior rises from taking the similarity of
material properties for full and 1:4 scales models. Also in most cases
the material properties have no significant differences for full and 1:4
 scale models but in practical tests the material properties should based
on actual material tests.
(IV.) The 1:4 scale models in both bare and infill frame are able to predict
of yielding of bars and plastic zone. There is an exception to realize
plastic zone in full scale model of infill frame which can be from the
differences of mesh size and pattern of this model. As in this study the
auto mesh generation option is used the size and pattern of mesh is
mostly selected by program which can be different with other models.
The manual mesh generation can be a solution for this problem
although it is a time consume with proportional scaling processes.

6. References
ABAQUS (2006). ABAQUS manual, Version 6.6, Pawtucket, R.I.
American Society of Civil Engineering (ASCE)(2000), “Pre-standard and
commentary for seismic rehabilitation of buildings,”FEMA356,
Washington D.C , 2000.
Applied technology council (ATC), (1996). “Seismic evaluation and retrofit of
concrete buildings.” Rep. No. ATC40, Volume 1 and 2, Redwood City,
California.
Building and housing research center (BHRC 2007) Iranian Code of practice for
seismic resistant design of buildings,(Standard No. 2800), 3rd edition.
CEN (2004,5). European Standard EN 1998-1-2004, 1998-3-2005. Eurocode 8:
Design of structures for earthquake resistance - Part 1:General rules,
seismic actions and rules for buildings, Part 3: Assessment and retrofitting
of buildings Bruxelles, Belgium.
CSI analysis reference manual (2009), SAP2000, Ver. 14, integrated finite
element analysis and design of structures. Berkeley (CA, USA), Computers
and Structures ING;.
Hughes TG, Kitching N (2000) Small scale testing of masonry. Proceedings of
the12th international brick block masonry conference. Madrid, Spain.
Khoshnoud H. R. and A. K. Marsono A. K. (2011)“Evaluation of seismic
behavior of masonry infills in RC frame by pushover analysis”, in
proceeding of Sixth International Conference of Seismology and
Earthquake Engineering 16-18 May 2011 Tehran, Iran.
Mander J.B., MJN Priestley, and Park R. (1984). “Theoretical stress-strain model
for confined concrete” journal of structural engineering. ASCE, 114(3),
1804-1826.
Marsono A.K. and Khoshnoud H.R.(2010), “Evaluating equivalent static analysis
of Iranian code with nonlinear static pushover analysis”, In Proceedings of
the First Makassar International Conference on Civil Engineering
(MICCE2010), Makassar, Indonesia. ISBN 978-602-95227-0-9.
Mohammed A, Hughes TG (2005) Comparison of prototype and 1/6th model
scale behavior under compressive loading. 10th Canadian masonry
symposium. Banff, Canada.
Mohammed A, Hughes TG (2011) “Prototype and model masonry behavior
under different loading conditions” Materials and Structures, RILEM.

View publication stats