FINAL YEAR PROJECT

SEISMIC ANALYSIS OF RCC BUILDING WITH AND

WITHOUT MASONRY INFILL WALL

DISSERTATION
Submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirement of

B.TECH PROGRAMME IN CIVIL ENGINEERING

by:

PREET SOPARIWALA (14BCL113)

MITUL VALA (14BCL117)
PAWAN VARU (14BCL118)
PARSHWA SHAH (14BCL126)

Under the Guidance of

Dr. Tejas Thaker

Department Of Civil Engineering, School Of Technology, PDPU

SCHOOL OF TECHNOLOGY
PANDIT DEENDAYAL PETROLEUM UNIVERSITY
GANDHINAGAR – 382007, GUJARAT -INDIA
MAY -2018
 APPROVAL SHEET

This Seminar report entitled “SEISMIC ANALYSIS OF RCC BUILDING

WITH AND WITHOUT MASONARY INFILL WALL” by Preet Sopariwala,
Mitul Vala, Pawan Varu and Parshwa Shah is recommended for the degree of
B.TECH in Civil Engineering.

Examiners

______________________

______________________

______________________

Supervisors

______________________

______________________

______________________

Chairman

______________________

Date: 23/05/2018
Place: Pandit Deendayal Petroleum University, Gandhinaga

ii
 STUDENT DECLARATION

We PREET SOPARIWALA, MITUL VALA, PAWAN VARU, PARSHWA

SHAH hereby declare that this written submission represents my ideas in my
own words and where others’ idea or words have been included, We have
adequately cited and referenced the original sources. We also declare that we
have adhered to all principles of academic honestly and integrity and have not
misrepresented or fabricated or falsified any idea / data / fact / source in my
submission. We understand that any violation of the above will be cause for
disciplinary action by the PANDIT DEENDAYAL PETROLEUM
UNIVERSITY and can also evoke penal action from the sources which have
thus not been properly cited or from whim proper permission has not been
taken when needed.

________________
Preet Sopariwala
(14BCL113)
________________
Mitul Vala
(14BCL117)

_________________
Pawan Varu
(14BCL118)

________________
Parshwa shah
(14BCL126)

Date: 23- 5 -2018

iii
 PANDIT DEENDAYAL PETROLEUM UNIVERSITY,
GANDHINAGAR

CIVIL ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT

(2018)

CERTIFICATE

Date:-

This is to certify that the Seminar report entitled “SEISMIC ANALYSIS OF RCC
BUILDING WITH AND WITHOUT MASONRY INFILL WALL” has been
carried out successfully by PREET SOPARIWALA, MITUL VALA, PAWAN VARU,
PARSHWA SHAH under my guidance in partial fulfillment of the degree of Bachelors
of CIVIL ENGINEERING (8th Semester) of PANDIT DEENDAYAL PETROLEUM
UNIVERSITY, GANDHINAGAR during the academic year 2018.

Guide Head of the Department

Dr. Tejas Thakar

Assistant Professor

iv
 PREFACE

The thesis is made as a completion of the Bachelor of Technology in Civil Engineering.

The dissertation was carried out in order to achieve successful completion of Final Year

Project. The constant growth in the sector of Earthquake Engineering drove us to work

in the region of modeling an Earthquake resistance building. This case study deals on

study of building oscillation during certain earthquake loading, using strut to decrease

the story drift of the building.

v
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

We would like to express our gratitude to all those who gave us the possibility to have

this project. We want to thank the Department of Civil Engineering and Environmental

Engineering of “PANDIT DEENDAYAL PETROLEUM UNIVERSITY” for giving us

such a golden opportunity to commence this project in the first instance. We have

furthermore to thank the Professors” Dr. Tejas Thaker” who encouraged us to go ahead

with our project and for their stimulating support.

Our colleagues from the Civil Engineering Department supported us in our project

work. We want to thank them for all their help, support, interest and valuable hints.

Especially we are obliged to our project and co-project guides who looked closely at the

final version of the report for English style and grammar, correcting both and offering

suggestions for improvement.

Especially, we would like to give our special thanks to our parents whose patient love

enabled us to start this work. And at last but not the least we would like to thank God

for the successful beginning of our project.

vi
 ABSTRACT

Infilled frame structures are commonly used in buildings. Masonry infilled RC frames

are the most common type of structures used for multistoried constructions in the

developing countries, even in those located in seismically active regions. Window and

door openings are inevitable parts of infill walls for functional reasons. Contain

provisions for the calculation of stiffness of solid infilled frames mainly by modeling

infill as a “diagonal strut.” However, such provisions are not provided for infilled

frames with openings. Present study is an attempt to access the performance of RCC

frame with infills panels. In this paper actual building such as college building (G+7) is

considered by modeling of frame and Infills. Modelling of infills is done as per actual

size of openings with the help of equivalent diagonal strut method for the various model

such as bare frame, infill frame and infill frame with centre and corner opening.

vii
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

Approval Sheet iii

Student Declaration iv

Preface v

Acknowledgement vi

Abstract vii

Table of Contents viii

List of Tables xi

List of Figure xii

List of Graphs xiii

Chapter No. Page No.

Chapter:-1 Introduction

1.1 Introduction 1

1.2 Need to study 6

1.3 Objective 7

1.4 Scope 8

Chapter:-2 Literature Review 9

2.1 Literature review of Research Papers and its Summary 10

Chapter:-3 Various failure modes 18

viii
 3.1 Basic type of failure 19

3.2 Modeling 21

3.2.1 Modeling in SAP2000 22

3.2.1.1 Building details are as follows 22

3.2.1.2 Load Patterns 24

3.2.1.3 Load combination 24

3.3 Determination of the equivalent strut width 25

3.3.1 Pauley & Priestley 25

3.3.2 Holmes 26

3.3.3 Mainstone 26

3.3.4 Liaw & Kwan 26

3.3.5 Romanian Code 26

3.3.6 Drysdale, Hamid & Baker 26

3.4 Determination of ratio of column/beam contact length 26

Chapter- 4 Analysis Results 27

4.1 Analysis before Incorporating struts as infills 29

4.1.1 Shear Forces 29

4.1.2 Axial Forces 32

4.1.3 Bending Moment 35

4.1.4 Earthquake Forces 37

4.1.5 Inter storey drift of the building 38

4.2 Analysis after incorporating struts as infills 40

ix
 4.2.1 Shear forces 41

4.2.2 Axial Forces 43

4.2.3 Bending Moment 45

4.2.4 Inter storey drift of the building 48

4.2.4.1 Comparison of the inter storey drift

for various methods 48

4.2.4.2 Comparison of inter stoery drift between

Mainstone and Bare frame 50

4.2.5 Time period of the frame (with strut) 52

4.2.6 Stiffness of the frame (with strut) 54

Chapter-5 Results and conclusion 55

Reference 56

x
 List of Tables

Table No. 4.1 Displacement versus height of the building 39

Table No.4.2 Comparison of shear force before and after incorporating
infills 42
Table No.4.3Comparison of Axial force before and after incorporating
infills 44
Table No. 4.4 Comparison of bending moment before and after
Incorporating infills 47
Table No. 4.5 Displacement versus floor levels (EQx) 48
Table No. 4.6 Displacement versus floor level (EQy) 49
Table No. 4.7 Values for displacement versus floor height(x-direction) 50
Table No. 4.8 Values for displacement versus floor height (y-direction) 51
Table No. 4.9 Time period using different formulas 52
Table No. 4.10 Stiffness of the frame using different formulas
(x-direction) 54
Table No. 4.11 Stiffness of the frame using different formulas
(y- direction) 55

xi
 List of Figures
Figure 3.1 Different failure modes of masonry infilled frame 10

Figure 3.2 Plan layout of 7 storey building 23

Figure 3.3 Section layout of 7 storey building 23

Figure 3.4 Various load patterns in SAP2000 24

Figure 3.5 Different load combination as per IS 1893:2002 25

Figure 4.1 Sectional modeling of 7 storey building inSAP2000 29

Figure 4.2 Shear force obtained (Dead load) in SAP2000 30

Figure 4.3 Shear force obtained (Live load) in SAP2000 31

Figure 4.4 Shear force diagram obtained 1.2(DL+LL+EQx) in SAP2000 32

Figure 4.5 Axial force diagram obtained (Dead load) in SAP2000 33

Figure 4.6 Axial force diagram obtained (Live load) in SAP2000 34

Figure 4.7 Axial force diagram obtained 1.2(DL+IL+EQx) in SAP2000 34

Figure 4.8 Bending Moment diagram obtained (Dead load) in SAP2000 36

Figure 4.9 Bending Moment diagram obtained (live load) in SAP2000 36

Figure 4.10 Bending Moment diagram obtained 1.2(DL+IL+EQx) in

SAP2000 37

Figure 4.11 Total earthquake lateral load obtained in SAP2000 37

Figure 4.12 Total earthquake Vertical load obtained in SAP2000 38

Figure 4.13 Total earthquake load obtained with 1.2(DL+IL+EQx) load

combination in SAP2000 38

Figure 4.14 Sectional layout of 7 storey building in SAP2000 40

Figure 4.15 Sectional modeling of 7 storey building in SAP2000 with

masonry infills using three struts 41

xii
Figure 4.16Shear force diagram obtained before incorporating struts as infills

in 1.2(DL+IL+EQx) 42

Figure 4.17 Axial force diagram obtained before incorporating struts as infills

in 1.2(DL+IL+EQx) 44

Figure 4.18Bending moment diagram obtained before incorporating struts as

Infills in 1.2(DL+IL+EQx) 46

xiii
 List of Graphs

Graph no.4.1 Graph showing inter story drift (displacement vs storey) 39

Graph no.4.2 Comparison of Shear force before and after incorporating
Infills 43
Graph no.4.3 Comparison of Axial force before and after incorporating
Infills 45
Graph no.4.4 Comparison of Bending moment before and after
incorporating infills 47
Graph no.4.5 Comparison of displacement after incorporating infills (EQx) 49
Graph no.4.6 Comparison of displacement after incorporating infills (EQy) 49
Graph no.4.7 Comparision of inter-storey drift between Mainstone and
Base Frame (EQx) 51
Graph no.4.8 Comparision of inter-storey drift between Mainstone and
Base Frame (EQy) 51
Graph no.4.9 Time period of the frame (with strut) in x-direction 53
Graph no.4.10 Time period of the frame (with strut) in y-direction 53
Graph no.4.11 Stiffness of the frame using different formulas (x-direction) 55
Graph no.4.12 Stiffness of the frame using different formulas (y-direction) 55

xiv
 CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION
1.1 INTRODUCTION

Over the past century millions of lives have been lost by the annihilation of

earthquake. There is no possible way for humans to predict the earthquake so the

best we can do is to evaluate the risk of earthquake by assuming its possible

magnitude in a region. Magnitude is the measurement of amount of the energy

released during an earthquake. It is expressed in Richter scale. On an average about

10,000 people lose their life due to the havoc of earthquake. Yet the most famous

earthquake, The 1906 San Francisco Earthquake caused extensive damage.

According to an estimate from National geophysical data centre, Significant

Earthquake Database is a global listing of over 5,700 earthquakes from 2150 BC to

the present. A significant earthquake is classified as one that meets at least one of

the following criteria: caused deaths, caused moderate damage (approximately $1

million or more), magnitude 7.5 or greater, Modified Mercalli Intensity (MMI) X or

greater.

The construction of reinforced concrete buildings with unreinforced infill is

common practice even in seismically active country such as India. All buildings

constructed prior 1990 were constructed without seismic provisions while those

constructed after this period adopted seismic codes of neighbouring country, India.

However, the codes have limited information on the design of infilled structures

besides having differences in architectural requirements which may compound the

1
structural problems. Although the influence of infill on the reinforced concrete

framed structures is known, the present seismic codes do not consider it due to the

lack of sufficient information.

Masonry infills, which generally have high stiffness and strength, play a crucial role

in lateral load response of reinforced concrete (RC) frame buildings.

Geographically, there is a large variation in material properties of masonry.

Moreover, masonry behaves in a highly nonlinear manner. Therefore, a generalized

yet rational model is required for masonry infills that can efficiently incorporate its

linear and nonlinear material properties and common failure modes in RC members

and masonry infills under the action of lateral forces. Interestingly, national codes of

most of the countries do not specify modeling procedures for such structural

systems.

The reinforced concrete frame structure with masonry is the most common type of

construction technology practised in India. Infill materials such as solid clay brick

masonry, solid or hollow concrete block masonry, adobe and stone masonry are

available. The brick masonry is the most preferred infill material in reinforced

concrete buildings because of its advantage such as durability, thermal insulation,

cost and simple construction technique. The use of adobe infill wall is rare but it has

been used in some buildings. There have been some incidences where infill walls

developed cracks after the earthquakes, especially office and residential buildings.

2
 Moreover, the current code is silent on the use of infill material and thus the choice

of infill material is random as it is believed to be a non-structural component.

The current study aims to present a simple method of predicting the stiffness as well

as the ultimate load capacity of concrete masonry-infilled steel frames (CMISF).

The method is easy enough to be included in the design or the analysis of such

systems using the available resources in typical design offices. The technique can be

used to produce design aids and to develop a conceptual approach for the analysis

and design of such composite systems.

The existing seismic code (IS1893, 2002) considers the effect of infill in terms of

the fundamental period of vibration, which does not consider the extent of infill

usage. While most of the seismic codes disregard the influence of infill walls, some

of the codes do consider infill walls. Moreover, past research work has shown that

there is a considerable improvement in the lateral load resisting system by adding

the walls. The most likely reason why the influence of infill walls is ignored in

seismic design standards is due to their complicated failure mode. Infill walls fail in

a brittle manner, while the reinforced concrete can sustain lateral loads over large

post-yield deformation.

What is Masonry Infill?

The infill wall is the supported wall that closes the perimeter of a building constructed

with a three-dimensional framework structure (generally made of steel or reinforced

3
concrete). Therefore, the structural frame ensures the bearing function, whereas the

infill wall serves to separate inner and outer space, filling up the boxes of the outer

frames. The infill wall has the unique static function to bear its own weight. The infill

wall is an external vertical opaque type of closure. With respect to other categories of

wall, the infill wall differs from the partition that serves to separate two interior spaces,

yet also non-load bearing, and from the load bearing wall. The latter performs the same

functions of the infill wall, hygro-thermically and acoustically, but performs static

functions too.

The use of masonry infill walls, and to some extent veneer walls, especially

in reinforced concrete frame structures, is common in many countries. In fact, the use of

masonry infill walls offers an economical and durable solution. They are easy to build,

attractive for architecture and has a very efficient cost-performance.

Infill strength.

There are many different types of infill materials available in the construction industry,

and burnt clay bricks and hollow concrete block are commonly used. In general, infill

walls are treated as non-structural components of the building and selection of material

is mainly dependent on the cost and availability. On the other hand, the performance

based design concept assumes the infill wall to fail before the frame members.

Therefore, the intended performance of the buildings with high strength infill wall under

a given seismic activity is uncertain. There are many instances where cracks in infill

walls occurred during moderate earthquakes. However, some buildings suffer from

4
minor cracks within the infill walls even under moderate earthquakes. Thus, it is

imperative to know the minimum strength of such infill.

Fundamental period (T)

In general engineering practice, empirical Equations are used to estimate the period of

structures since the modelling of infill walls is complicated and costly. However, it is

important to consider the infill walls in order to increase the accuracy of the results.

Generally it can be seen that the period decreases with the increase in Ei . However, at

the lower range of the Young’s modulus of infill material, the period increases due to

the influence of mass of the infill being higher than stiffness of infill at lower values of

Ei . This indicates that in general, the increase in stiffness due to increased value of Ei

of infill influences the dynamic behaviour, as expected.

Interstory drift ratio

Drift is defined as the lateral displacement. Storey drift is the drift of one level of a

multistorey building relative to the level below. Interstory drift is the difference between

the roof and floor displacements of any given story as the building sways during the

earthquake, normalized by the story height

PGA

5
Peak ground acceleration (PGA) is equal to the maximum ground acceleration that

occurred during earthquake shaking at a location. PGA is equal to the amplitude of the

largest absolute acceleration recorded on an accelerogram at a site during a particular

earthquake.

Openings

Generally almost all buildings have openings in different forms such as windows,

ventilators and doors to provide comfortable living. These features of the building

cannot be considered in structural modelling by a diagonal strut method developed for

global structural behavioural studies. Thus, most of the previous research was carried

out for the fully infilled frames.

Since this parameter is an inevitable part of the building structure, its influence on the

seismic resistance is presented in this Section. The opening size, in this work, is

expressed as a percentage of the the infill wall area and assumed to be at the centre of

the walls.

1.2 NEED TO STUDY

1. In high rise buildings, the ordinarily occurring vertical loads, dead or live, do not

pose much of a problem, but the lateral loads due to wind or earthquake tremors are

a matter of great concern and need special consideration in the design of buildings.

These lateral forces can produce the critical stress in a structure, set up undesirable

6
 vibrations and in addition, cause lateral sway of the structure which can reach a

stage of discomfort to the occupants.

2. Infills are adequately separated from the RC frame such that they do not

interfere with the frame under lateral deformations. The entire lateral force

on the building is carried by the bare RC frame alone.

1.3 OBJECTIVES

1) The objective of the carried out work is to justify the use of three struts

instead of a bare frame based on the observed bending moments in the frame

members, which cannot be generated using a bare frame.

2) To do the comparative study of different frames using different widths of the

struts, which can be obtained by different expressions developed by various

researchers.

3) To obtain the relationship between the displacements of the building at

various floor levels (Inter-Storey Drift Relationship) of the building without

using strut (i.e. bare frame) and building using struts (i.e. three strut model).

4) To obtain the stiffness relationships of the frame using different widths of the

strut obtained from various formulas.

5) To obtain the time period of the frame by using various formulas for the

width of the strut using modelling in SAP-2000.

7
1.4 SCOPE

The Indian Seismic Standard (IS 1893: 2002) which is currently being used for the

analysis and design of new buildings in India does not make any specific reference

to in-fill walls. However, cracks on the infill wall do appear even under mild

earthquakes and thus there is a need to know the strength limit of infill material

under the action of credible earthquakes. Besides, some buildings are given higher

importance factor even though the use of infill material is the same irrespective of

how important the structure is. Thus, there is no information on the strength of infill

wall for all categories of structures at different performance levels. Moreover, there

are many buildings which were not designed for seismic resistance. Although such

buildings would not fulfil the requirements of the modern seismic codes, it is

important to address the seismic resistance level of these buildings and to know the

future course of action from the disaster management point of view.

8
 CHAPTER -2

LITERATURE REVIEW

9
2.1 Literature review of Research Papers and its Summary

Wael et al. has suggested that Masonry infill panels in framed structures have been long known
to affect strength, stiffness and ductility of the composite structure. In seismic areas, ignoring the
composite action is not always on the safe side, since the interaction between the panel and the
frame under lateral loads dramatically changes the stiffness and the dynamic characteristics of
the composite structure and hence its response to seismic loads. This study presents a simple
method of estimating the stiffness and the lateral load capacity of concrete masonry-infilled steel
frames failing in corner crushing mode, as well as the internal forces in the steel frame members.
In this method, each masonry panel is replaced by three struts with force deformation
characteristics based on the orthotropic behavior of the masonry infill panels. The method can be
easily computerized and included in non-linear analysis and design of three-dimensional infilled
frame structures.

Diana M. Samoila et al. has said that The presence of infill walls in reinforced concrete
structures can decisively influence the structure behaviour to seismic loads. There might be a
positive effect - an increase of the overall stiffness and strength, but a negative effect can also
appear due to effort concentration in frame members. The analytical models for masonry infill
are the macro-modelling - equivalent strut method and the micro-modelling - finite element
method. The study focuses on determining the width of compressed strut by means of different
equations available in literature, but recommends the use of Paulay and Priestley relation. The
infill influence on frame members is studied on several models, as the singlestrut model, the
three-strut model and finite element models. By analyzing the resulting forces in the beam and
columns both as values and distribution, it has been observed that the three-strut model can
estimate local effects more precisely due to frame infill interaction.

C V R Murty and Sudhir K Jain. has aimed that Masonry infills in reinforced concrete
buildings cause several undesirable effects under seismic loading: short-column effect, soft-
storey effect, torsion, and out-of-plane collapse. Hence, seismic codes tend to discourage such

10
constructions in high seismic regions. However, in several moderate earthquakes, such buildings
have shown excellent performance even though many such buildings were not designed and
detailed for earthquake forces. This paper presents some experimental results on cyclic tests of
RC frames with masonry infills. It is seen that the masonry infills contribute significant lateral
stiffness, strength, overall ductility and energy dissipation capacity. With suitable arrangements
to provide reinforcement in the masonry that is well anchored into the frame columns, it should
be possible to also improve the out-of-plane response of such infills. Considering that such
masonry infill RC frames are the most common type of structures used for multistorey
constructions in the developing countries, there is need to develop robust seismic design
procedures for such buildings..

Ped S. P. has described that - The effect of masonry infill panel on the response of RC frames
subjected to seismic action is widely recognized and has been subject of numerous experimental
investigations, while several attempts to model it analytically have been reported. In analytically
analysis infill walls are modeled as equivalent strut approach there are various formulae derived
by research scholars and scientist for width of strut and modelling. Infill behaves like
compression strut between column and beam and compression forces are transferred from one
node to another. In this study the effect of masonry walls on high rise building is studied. Linear
dynamic analysis on high rise building with different arrangement is carried out. For the analysis
G+9 R.C.C. framed building is modeled. Earthquake time history is applied to the models. The
width of strut is calculated by using equivalent strut method. Various cases of analysis are taken.
All analysis is carried out by software ETABS. Base shear, storey displacement, story drift is
calculated and compared for all models. The results show that infill walls reduce displacements,
time period and increases base shear. So it is essential to consider the effect of masonry infill for
the seismic evaluation of moment resisting reinforced concrete frame.

Mohammad H. Jinya and V. R. Patel has said that In reinforced concrete frame building,
masonry wall are generally used in as infills and specified by architects as partitions in such a
way that they do not contribute to the vertical gravity load-bearing capacity of the structure.
Infill walls protect the inside of the buildings from the environment hazards and create

11
separation insides. In addition to this infills have a considerable strength and stiffness and they
have significant effect on the seismic response of the structural systems. Mostly two common
structural damages observed caused by masonry infill walls in earthquakes i.e soft stories and
short columns. In office or residential building outer side central opening are used. In this case
central opening are provided in periphery wall with different percentage i.e. 15% and 25% and
brick compressive strength are used as per IS : 1905-1987 i.e. 5.0 and 12.5 N/mm2 and Brick
Masonry strength is 0.50 and 1.06N/mm2 . In ETABS software G+9 R.C.C framed building
models has been prepared, Seismic coefficient method(SCM) and time-history(TH) has been
performed for analysis as per IS 1893:2002. Story displacement, base shear, story drift, axial
force with and without soft story considering effect of infill walls with different percentage of
opening are the parameters considered in this study. For Macro model, Equivalent diagonal strut
(EDS) method is used to find out width of strut using FEMA approach method. The results of
bare frame, soft story and infill wall panel are discussed and conclusions are made in this
studies.

Jigme Dorji said that the influence of infill on the structural performance is significant. The
structural responses such as fundamental period, roof displacement, inter-storey drift ratio,
stresses in infill wall and structural member forces of beams and column generally reduce, with
incorporation of infill wall. The structures designed and constructed with or without seismic
provision perform in a similar manner if the infills of high strength are used.

Micro- Model Based Research

A Finite Element (FE) method is a process of discritizing the structural components into a
smaller sizes, maintaining the constitutive laws of material, boundary conditions, in order to
improve the accuracy of results. However, this method is mostly limited to small structures as it
requires high computation equipments besides taking comparatively longer time. Relevant
research on infilled frame that were done in past few decades were reviewed and presented in
this section.

12
Achyutha, jagadish et al (1985) investigated the elastic behaviour of a single storey infilled
frame which had opening. The interface conditions such as slip, separation and frictional loss at
the contact surface were considered using the link element. They were achieved by adjusting the
axial, shear and tension force in the link element. The opening was modelled by assigning very
low values of infill thickness and Young’s modulus of elasticity of infill but high value of
Poison’s ratio. It was reported that the lateral stiffness of the structure decreases with the
increase in opening size. The principal stresses were maximum at the corners of opening and the
compression ends when full contact was the condition which further increased by allowing
separation at the interface. However, the author stated that the equivalent diagonal strut
mechanism may not be applicable for structures which have openings.

The behaviour of infilled frame under an in-plane load was studied by Dhanasekar and Page
(1986). The results from biaxial tests on half scale solid brick masonry were used to develop a
material model for brick and the mortar joints which were then used to construct non-linear
finite element model. The results were that that the Young’s modulus of elasticity of the infill
has a significant influence on the behaviour of the infilled frame. However, the influence of
Poison’s ratio was fond insignificant on the behaviour of structure. It was also reported that the
infill wall failed due to shearing along the diagonal length of the wall and hence the influence of
compressive strength of infill material was not observed. The bond strength and tensile strength
of infill masonry were found to influence the behaviour and ultimate capacity of the infilled
frame.
The FE model with and without a perfect contact between the infill wall and the reinforced
concrete frame was studied by Combescure and Pegon et al (1995) on a single bay single storey
structure. It was reported, under unilateral contact condition (frictionless), the forces between the
frame and fill panel are transferred through a compression corners at the ends of diagonal strut.
However, there is no transfer of shear force from infill to frame. When a perfect contact
condition was considered at the interface, shear force transfer between the two

Haddad (1991) studied the application of a finite element method to assess the effects cracking
and separation between the frame and infill of an infilled frame structure. The model considered
the crack size and location, relative stiffness and contact length. It has been found that the

13
bending and deflection decreases with the increase in infill frame relative stiffness. Bending
moment further increased with the crack depth. The moment at the un-cracked section increased
when the crack size on other end was increasing. The magnitude and location of principal
compressive and tensile stresses were affected by crack size, contact length and infill frame
relative stiffness. However, the author recommended the good use of material and construction
techniques to reduce damages due to separation and cracking.

Similar research on the infilled structures, using FE technique, were carried out by (Morbiducci,
2003; Saneinejad, 1990; Seah, 1998; Lourenco, 1996; Singh, 1998). However, most of them had
investigated on a single storey models under in-plane static loads.

Macro Model Based Research

The main disadvantage of performing finite element analysis for the global structural response
study is due to computation cost and the nature of complexity in model generation. Thus, to
simplify the model generation, macro-model method has been developed based on the
experimental and finite element analysis results, wherein, diagonal struts are used to represent
the infill.

The concept of equivalent diagonal strut method was initially introduced by Polyakov (1960)
while investigating a three storey infilled structure. The cracks along the diagonal length of
panel gave an insight of the strut behaviour of an infill panel. The report stated that the stress
from peripheral frame members to the infill was transferred only through the compression
corners of the frame-infill interface.

Benjamin and Williams (1958) investigated three different models, in which a masonry wall,
masonry wall encased with the reinforced concrete frame and the masonry wall with steel
frames. All these models were tested under an in-plane load. The test revealed the importance of
aspect ratio which influences the ultimate capacity of the infilled frames. It was also reported
that masonry has significant role in contributing lateral strength to the frame, however the size of
masonry element did not affected the result. The importance of concrete cross-sections and steel

14
reinforcement was realised. Since it was the beginning of the research in this field, dynamic
loads were not considered and the thus results were conventional.

Holmes (1961) proposed the width of equivalent strut to be one third of the diagonal length from
his experimental study on a single storey single bay infilled structure under an in-plane loads.
Smith (1962) conducted a study on a infilled structure experimentally on a small scale specimen.
The specimen had steel frame and concrete mortar as infill. The in-plane load was applied at the
top corner of the infilled specimen and was observed a compression region within the infill
panel which made the frame stiff and thus the concept of Diagonal strut method was evolved. It
was also reported that longer the contact length between the infill panel and the frame, wider the
width of strut.

Smith (1966) proposed a formula to calculate the width of strut based on the relative stiffness of
the fame and infill wall. The suggested formula was investigated by performing numerous tests
on different specimens. The theoretical relation of the width of strut proposed by Stafford Smith
is shown below.

α l =p/2[4*Ef*Ic*H/Em*t*sin Φ]^(1/4)

Where;
α l = length of contact between column and infill, mm.
H = Height of the infill wall, mm.
L = length of the infill wall, mm.
Ic = Second moment of inertia of column section, mm4 .
Ib = Second moment of inertia of beam section, mm4 .
α h = length of contact between beam and infill, mm.
Em = Young’s modulus of elasticity of infill masonry, MPa.
E f = Young’s modulus of frame element, MPa.
Φ = strut angle with respect to horizontal axis, degree.
t = thickness of the infill, mm.

15
 Em = Ωf m

f -compressive strength of masonry

The value of a constant Ω equals to 750 for concrete block and 500 for clay brick (Pauley,
1992). Hence the width (w) of a strut element is;

w=1/2[α h^2+ α l^2]^(1/2)

Similar studies were performed by Mainstone (1971), however claimed that it is different to
previous works by not considering the aspect ratio and covering the whole range of behaviours
shown by infill in tall structures. The behaviour of infilled structure was distinguished into two
and the first one being stressing the infill wall thoroughly assuming a perfect fit between the
infill and frames. The second behaviour assumed that the infill and the frames contact only at the
compressive corners, in which crushing of infill take place. It was also reported that the corner
crushing and the cracking along the diagonal length of the infill would take place depending on
the relative strength infill wall and the frame. Thus it was summarised that the relative - 23 -
stiffness of the infill and frame was the important parameter of the infilled structure. The report
also includes the usefulness of the Equivalent strut method to estimate the stiffness, strength and
the ultimate strength of the system.

The effects of the location of opening on the lateral stiffness of infilled frame was studied by
Mallick and Garg (, 1971) and had recommended possible locations for door and window. The
study was conducted on a model with and without shear connectors. It was reported that the
structure with shear connector but having opening at either ends reduces the stiffness by 85 to
90% of the fully infilled model. On the other hand, the stiffness was reduced by 60 to 70% for
the model without shear connector. Also, it was reported that the stiffness reduces by 25 to 50%
when the opening is placed at the centre of the infill wall. Thus, the suggested position for the
door is at the centre of the lower half of the infill wall while the window can be placed at the
middle height of the infill wall at either side. However, such requirement is stringent and not
practical for general residential structures and thus reinforcement of infill wall come into picture

16
Since the opening of the infill cannot be considered using the above formula, there are reports in
which more numbers of struts can be used to accommodate the effect of opening. Asteris (2003)
developed a coefficient to reduce the width of strut element for the infill panel which has
opening. Puglisi and Uzcategui (2008) proposed a plastic concentrator to be used with the
diagonal strut element, which does the same function as the hinges in beam and column of the
reinforced concrete frames. The advantage of using the method is to simulate the inelastic
behaviour of the infilled frame, especially in terms of stiffness degradation and low cycle
fatigue.

Although the diagonal strut model have gained popularity in modelling and analysis of infilled
structures, it is only suitable for the study of global structural responses However, the FE
technique is the most preferred method for most of the researchers as it allows to understand
both local and global responses.

17
 Chapter-3

VARIOUS FAILURE MODE IN A STRUCTURE

18
3.1 BASIC TYPES OF FAILURES

Based on the knowledge gained from both analytical and experimental studies during the last

five decades, different failure modes of masonry infilled frames can be categorized into five

distinct modes, namely:

1. Corner crushing mode (CC mode), represents crushing of the infill in at least one of its

loaded corners, as shown in Fig. 1-a. This mode is usually associated with infill of weak

masonry blocks surrounded by a frame with weak joints and strong members.

2. Sliding shear mode (SS mode), represents horizontal sliding shear failure through bed

joints of a masonry infill, as shown in Fig. 1-b. This mode is associated with infill of

weak mortar joints and strong frame.

3. Diagonal compression mode (DC mode), represents crushing of the infill within its

central region, as shown in Fig. 1-c. This mode is associated with a relatively slender

infill, where failure results from out-of-plane buckling instability of the infill.

4. Diagonal cracking mode (DK mode), in the form of a crack connecting the two loaded

corners, as shown in Fig. 1-d. This mode is associated with weak frame or frame with

weak joints and strong members infilled with a rather strong infill.

5. Frame failure mode (FF mode), in the form of plastic hinges in the columns or the beam-

column connection, as shown in Fig. 1-e. This mode is also associated with weak frame

or frame with weak joints and strong members infilled with a rather strong infill.

It is worth mentioning that only the first two modes, the CC and the SS modes, are of

practical importance since the third mode is very rare to occur and requires a high slenderness

ratio of the infill to result in out-of-plane buckling of the infill under in-plane loading.

19
 Fig. 3.1 Different Failure Modes of Masonry Infilled Frames:

a) Corner Crushing Mode; b) Sliding Shear Mode; c) Diagonal Compression Mode

d) Diagonal Cracking Mode; and e) Frame Failure Mode

Suitability of a model is judged depending on several factors, namely, the time required and

the effort involved in modeling, the ability to model lateral stiffness and the strength of

infilled frame, and the ability to model failure modes in not only infills but also in frame

members. The infilled frame is considered in the comparative study.

However, to simulate the structural behaviour of infilled frames, two methods have been

developed such as Micro model and Macro model.

20
  The Micro model methods are a Finite Element Method (FEM) where the frames

elements, masonry work, contact surface, slipping and separation are modelled to

achieve the results. This method seems to be generating the better results but it has not

gained popularity due to its cumbersome nature of analysis and computation cost.

 The Macro models which is also called a Simplified model or Equivalent diagonal

strut method was developed to study the global response of the infilled frames. This

method uses one or more struts to represent the infill wall. The drawback of it is to the

lack of its capability to consider the opening precisely as found in the infill wall.

3.2 MODELLING

During modeling, the frame is assumed to be fixed at the bottom, and the columns and beams

of the frame are modeled using two-nodded frame or beam elements. Masonry infill walls are

modeled as:

 equivalent diagonal struts (one strut and three struts) using two nodded beam

elements;

 Finite elements (using shell elements).

3.2.1 Modeling in SAP2000

By using SAP 2000, a 6-storey building is modelled which has the following specifications:

3.2.1.1 Building details are as follows:

1. Grade of concrete used is M 20 and grade of steel used is Fe 415.

2. Floor to floor height is 3.1 m

21
3. Plinth height above GL is 0.55 m.

4. Depth of Foundation is 0.65 m below GL

5. Parapet height is 1.5 m.

6. Slab Thickness is 150 mm.

7. Wall thickness is 300mm.

8. Dia. of columns is 450 mm.

9. Live load on floor is 3 kN/m2and Live load on roof is 1.5 kN/m2.

10. Floor finishes is 1 kN/m2and roof treatment is 1.5 kN/m2

11. Site located in Seismic Zone III.

12. Building is resting on medium soil.

13. Take Importance Factor as 1.

14. Building frame type is Special Moment Resting Frame (SMRF).

15. Density of concrete is 25 kN/m3andDensity of masonry wall is 20 kN/m3.

450

22
 Fig. 3.2 Plan layout of 6 storey building

1.2

Fig. 3.3 Sectional layout of 6 storey Building

3.2.1.2 Load Patterns

The loads used in this problem consist of Dead, Dead Wall, Dead Slab, Dead FF (Floor

finish), Dead RT (Roof treatment), Live and Live Roof loads acting in the gravity direction.

Fig.3.4 Various load patterns in SAP 2000.

23
 3.2.1.3 Load Combinations

As per IS 1893 (Part 1): 2002 Clause no. 6.3.1.2, the following load cases have to be

considered for analysis:

1. 1.5 (DL + LL)

2. 1.2(DL + LL ± EQX)

3. 1.2( DL+ LL ± EQY)

4. 1.5(DL ± EQX)

5. 1.5(DL ± EQY)

6. 0.9DL ± 1.5 EQX

7. 0.9DL ± 1.5 EQY

Fig. 3.5 Different load combinations as per IS 1893: 2002

3.3 DETERMINATION OF THE EQUIVALENT STRUT WIDTH

24
The width of the equivalent diagonal strut (w) can be found out by using a number of

expressions given by different researchers.

3.3.1 Pauley& Priestley

3.3.2 Holmes

3.3.3 Mainstone

3.3.4 Liaw & Kwan

25
 3.3.5 Romanian Code (P100/1-2006)

3.3.6 Drysdale, Hamid & Baker (1994)

3.4 Determination of ratio of column/beam contact length

The ratio of the column/beam contact length to the height of the column/beam can be easily

calculated by using the following formula:

26
 CHAPTER 4

ANALYSIS RESULTS

27
4.1 ANALYSIS BEFORE INCORPORATING STRUTS AS INFILLS (BARE FRAME)

At the very first stage, the model of the 6 storey building is prepared using SAP 2000 version

14.0. Taking rectangular concrete beam and circular concrete column the modelling was done

and taken into analysis.

Fig. 4.1 Sectional modelling of 7-storey building in SAP 2000

4.1.1 Shear Forces

In the analysis of the building the shear forces were obtained for dead, live and a combination

1.2(DL+IL+EQ) of loads.

In the analysis for shear force diagram for dead load, the shear force was found to be similar

at each storey as size of all the members is uniform throughout the building.

28
 Fig.4.2 Shear force obtained (Dead Load) in SAP 2000

In the analysis for shear force diagram for live load, the shear force was found to be similar at

all the intermediate stories as size of all the members is uniform throughout the building and

live load is only applied only to the stories on which the diagram can be seen.

Fig. 4.3 Shear force obtained (Live Load) in SAP 2000

29
In the analysis for shear force diagram for Load combination of 1.2(DL+IL+EQ-X), the shear

force was found to be increasing from top of building to the bottom as the EQ force is acting

on the building which is transferred from top of the building to its base.

Fig. 4.4 Shear force Diagram obtained 1.2(DL+IL+EQ-X) in SAP 2000

4.1.2 Axial Forces

In the analysis of the building the axial forces were obtained for dead, live and a

combination 1.2(DL+IL+EQ) of loads.

In the analysis for axial force diagram for dead load, it was found to be increasing as we

move from top to bottom of the building as the size of all the members is uniform throughout

the building and the load is bee transferred from the roof to the foundation.

30
 Fig. 4.5 Axial force Diagram obtained (Dead Load) in SAP 2000

In the analysis for axial force diagram for live load, it was found to be increasing as we move

from top to bottom of the building excluding the roof as we don’t consider live load acting on

the roof and as the size of all the members is uniform throughout the building and the load is

been transferred from the roof to the foundation.

Fig. 4.6 Axial force Diagram obtained (Live Load) in SAP 2000

31
 Fig. 4.7 Axial force Diagram obtained 1.2(DL+IL+EQ-X) in SAP 2000

4.1.3 Bending Moment

For the dead load the pattern of the bending moment can be seen similar as the dimensions of

the building is kept uniform throughout so the total bending moment effect is uniform for

each member.

Similarly in the live load the bending moment obtained is similar on the members on whom

the live load has been applied (members except beams and columns of the ground and the

roof floors).

When the combination of load is applied on the building the bending is higher on the

members on which all the forces are acting, i.e. the intermediate members of the building.

The roof of the building can be identified with the least bending moment as the effect of the

earthquake force is found minimum on the top floor of the building and the superimposed

32
live load is also not applied on the same floor level. Whereas on the base of the building the

bending moment due to the combination is also very less as the live load is absent but is

significantly higher than the roof as the earthquake force shows max bending moment at the

base of the building.

Fig. 4.8 Bending Moment Diagram obtained (Dead Load) in SAP 2000

33
 Fig. 4.9 Bending Moment Diagram obtained (Live Load) in SAP 2000

Fig. 4.10 Bending Moment Diagram obtained 1.2(DL+IL+EQ-X) in SAP 2000

4.1.4 Earthquake Forces

Fig. 4.11 Total earthquake lateral load obtained in SAP 2000

34
 Fig. 4.12 Total Earthquake Vertical Load obtained in SAP 2000

Fig. 4.13Total earthquake load obtained with 1.2(DL+IL+EQ-X) load

combination in SAP 2000

4.1.5 Inter Storey Drift of the Building

As the height of the building increases i.e. as we move to the top floors of the building, the

absolute displacement of the nodes of the building increases due to the disturbance caused by

the effect of the lateral loads in horizontal direction.

35
 Table 4.1 Displacement versus Height of the building
Storey Displacement(mm)

0 0.5696

1 5.5897

2 11.0846

3 15.904

4 19.7317

5 22.36

6 23.7107

25

20

15

DISPLACEMENT

10

0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
STOREY

Graph 4.1 Graph showing inter-storey drift (Displacement (mm) vs. Storey)

36
4.2 ANALYSIS AFTER INCORPORATING STRUTS AS INFILLS

At the very first stage, the model of the 6storey building is prepared using SAP 2000 version

14.0. Taking rectangular concrete beam and circular concrete columns, the modelling was

done and taken into analysis.

Fig.4.14 Sectional modelling of 6-storey building in SAP 2000

37
Fig.4.15 Sectional modeling of 6-storey building in SAP 2000 with masonry infills using
three struts

4.2.1 Shear Forces

In the analysis of the building the shear forces were obtained for a combination

1.2(DL+IL+EQ) of load.

By comparing shear force diagrams obtained before incorporating struts and after

incorporating struts as infills, the shear force was found to be higher in model without struts

than model with struts.

In the analysis for shear force diagram for live load and dead load, the shear force was found

to be similar throughout the building and for load combination 1.2(DL+IL+EQ), it is found to

be increasing from top to bottom.

38
Fig. 4.16Shear force Diagram obtained before incorporating struts as infills in
1.2(DL+IL+EQ-X)

Table 4.2 Comparison of Shear force before and after incorporating infills.
FLOOR
SHEAR FORCE
LEVEL

WITHOUT WITH STRUT

STRUT (KN) (KN)

0 67.358 56.453

1 106.394 76.68

2 102.868 72.642

3 97.185 70.052

4 90.365 67.391

5 81.775 63.85

6 57.584 50.014

39
 FLOOR VS SHEAR FORCE
SHEAR FORCE WITHOUT STRUT (KN) SHEAR FORCE WITH STRUT (KN)

106.394
102.868
97.185
90.365
81.775
76.68
72.642 70.052
67.358 67.391
63.85
56.453 57.584
50.014

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Graph4.2 Comparison of Shear force before and after incorporating infills.

4.2.2 Axial Forces

In the analysis of the building the axial forces were obtained for a combination

1.2(DL+IL+EQ) of load.

In the analysis for axial force diagram for dead load, it was found to be increasing as we

move from top to bottom of the building. And for live load, it was found to be increasing as

we move from top to bottom of the building excluding the roof.

On comparison of the building before and after incorporating struts as infills, axial force is

reduced at nodes after incorporating infills.

40
Fig. 4.17Axial force Diagram obtained after incorporating struts as infills in
1.2(DL+IL+EQ-X)

Table 4.3 Comparison of Axial force before and after incorporating infills.
FLOOR
AXIAL FORCE
LEVEL

WITHOUT WITH

STRUT(KN) STRUT(KN)

0 956.082 1067.842

1 857.932 939.482

2 702.897 778.982

3 546.834 611.522

4 393.358 443.496

5 244.449 277.553

6 101.642 116.537

41
 FLOOR VS AXIAL FORCE
AXIAL FORCE WITHOUT STRUT (KN) AXIAL FORCE WITH STRUT (KN)

1067.842
956.082 939.482
857.932
778.982
702.897
611.522
546.834
443.496
393.358
277.553
244.449

116.537
101.642

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Graph 4.3 Comparison of Axial force before and after incorporating infills.

4.2.3 Bending Moment:

For the dead load the pattern of the bending moment can be seen similar as the dimensions of

the building is kept uniform throughout so the total bending moment effect is uniform for

each member.

Similarly, in the live load the bending moment obtained is similar on the members on which

the live load has been applied (members except beams and columns of the ground and the

roof floors).

When the combination of load is applied on the building the bending is higher on the

members on which all the forces are acting, i.e. the intermediate members of the building.

The roof of the building can be identified with the least bending moment as the effect of the

earthquake force is found minimum on the top floor of the building and the superimposed

live load is also not applied on the same floor level. Whereas on the base of the building the

42
bending moment due to the combination is also very less as the live load is absent but is

significantly higher than the roof as the earthquake force shows max bending moment at the

base of the building.

On comparison of the building before and after incorporating struts as infills for load

combination of 1.2(DL+IL+EQ), bending moment is found to be lower after incorporating

struts.

Fig.
4.18Bending Moment Diagram obtained after incorporating struts as infills in
1.2(DL+IL+EQ-X)

43
Table 4.4 Comparison of Bending moment before and after incorporating infills.
FLOOR LEVEL BENDING MOMENT

WITHOUT WITH

STRUT(KN-m) STRUT(KN-m)

0 87.4208 54.368

1 143.4282 72.41

2 141.3378 68.42

3 130.4382 65.41

4 115.3776 62.406

5 96.4641 58.901

6 54.4992 45.4

FLOOR VS BENDING MOMENT

BENDING MOMENT WITHOUT STRUT (KN-m)
BENDING MOMENT WITH STRUT (KN-m)

143.4282 141.3378
130.4382
115.3776
96.4641
87.4208
72.41 68.42 65.41 62.406
54.368 58.901 54.4992
45.4

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Graph 4.4 Comparison of Bending Moment before and after incorporating infills.

44
 4.2.4 Inter Storey Drift of the Building

4.2.4.1 Comparison of inter-storey drift for various methods

The drift in the building is incorporated by modeling and analysis the structure in SAP 2000.

As the height of the building increases i.e. as we move to the top floors of the building, the

absolute displacement of the nodes of the building increases due to the disturbance caused by

the effect of the lateral loads in horizontal direction.

In comparison of both the models, the lateral displacement of the nodes of the building

without struts is higher than building with struts.

Table 4.5 Displacement versus floor level (EQ-X)

Floor Height 0 1.2 4.3 7.4 10.5 13.6 16.7 19.8
PAULEY & PRISTLEY 0 0.2368 0.5217 0.7898 1.047 1.2772 1.4665 1.6042
HOLMES 0 0.2319 0.4484 0.6752 0.8875 1.0816 1.2461 1.3718
MAINSTONE 0 0.2585 0.8191 1.3352 1.8077 2.2075 2.5105 2.6995
LIAW & KWAN 0 0.2383 0.5441 0.8304 1.1035 1.3459 1.5434 1.6846
RAOMANIAN CODE 0 0.2592 0.8302 1.3559 1.8376 2.2431 2.5506 2.7416
DRYSDALE, HAMID &
0 0.2373 0.5274 0.7994 1.0594 1.2912 1.4808 1.6176
BAKER
BARE FRAME 0 0.5696 5.5897 11.0846 15.904 19.7317 22.36 23.7107

A graph comparing displacement of nodes before and after incorporating infills is shown

below:

45
 Interstorey Drift (X-Dir.)
25

20
PAULEY & PRISTLEY
Storey Height

15 HOLMES

10 MAINSTONE
LIAW & KWAN
5
RAOMANIAN CODE
0 DRYSDALE, HAMID & BAKER
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3
Drift

Graph 4.5 Comparison of Displacement after incorporating infills

(EQ-X)

Table 4.6 Displacement versus floor level (EQ-Y)

FLOOR HEIGHT 0 1.2 4.3 7.4 10.5 13.6 16.7 19.8
PAULEY & PRISTLEY 0 0.2059 0.6664 1.1781 1.7133 2.3333 2.7036 3.0964
HOLMES 0 0.2026 0.5829 1.0208 1.4905 1.9573 2.3905 2.765
MAINSTONE 0 0.226 1.0492 1.9023 2.735 3.4917 4.122 4.5881
LIAW & KWAN 0 0.2059 0.6654 1.1784 1.7156 2.2377 2.7102 3.1053
RAOMANIAN CODE 0 0.2285 1.0957 1.9913 2.8609 3.6456 4.2962 4.7708
DRYSDALE, HAMID &
0
BAKER 0.2026 0.6037 1.06 1.5462 2.027 2.4704 2.8505

46
 Interstorey Drift (Y-Dir.)
25

20
PAULEY & PRISTLEY
Storey Height

15 HOLMES
MAINSTONE
10
LIAW & KWAN
5 RAOMANIAN CODE
DRYSDALE, HAMID & BAKER
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
Drift

Graph 4.6 Comparison of Displacement after incorporating infills

(EQ-Y)

4.2.4.2 Comparison of inter-storey drift between Mainstone and Bare Frame

The method developed by Mainstone is used here as it gives the best results in comparison to

the manual results obtained from the formulas given by the IS Codes.

Table 4.7 Values for Displacement versus Floor Height (X-Direction)

FLOOR HEIGHT 0 1.2 4.3 7.4 10.5 13.6 16.7 19.8
MAINSTONE 0 0.2585 0.8191 1.3352 1.8077 2.2075 2.5105 2.6995
BARE FRAME 0 0.5696 5.5897 11.0846 15.904 19.7317 22.36 23.7107

47
 Interstorey Drift (X-Dir.)
25

Storey Height 20

15

10 MAINSTONE
BARE FRAME
5

0
-5 0 5 10 15 20 25
Drift

Graph 4.7 Comparison of inter-storey drift between Mainstone and Bare Frame (EQ-X)

Table 4.8 Values for Displacement versus Floor Height (Y-Direction)

FLOOR HEIGHT 0 1.2 4.3 7.4 10.5 13.6 16.7 19.8
MAINSTONE 0 0.226 1.0492 1.9023 2.735 3.4917 4.122 4.5881
BARE FRAME 0 0.3696 3.8284 7.5062 10.7729 13.4402 15.3564 16.4282

Interstorey Drift (Y-Dir.)

25

20
Storey Height

15

10 MAINSTONE
BARE FRAME
5

0
-5 0 5 10 15 20
Drift

Graph 4.8 Comparison of inter-storey drift between Mainstone and Bare Frame (EQ-Y)

48
 4.2.5 TIME PERIOD OF THE FRAME (WITH STRUT)

The approximate fundamental translational natural period Ta of vibration, in seconds, shall be

estimated by:

(a) moment-resisting frame building without brick infill panels:

(b) all other buildings, including moment-resisting frame buildings with masonry infill wall

panels

Where,

Table 4.9 Time period using different formulas

DRYSDALE,
PAULEY & LIAW & RAOMANIAN BARE IS
HOLMES MAINSTONE HAMID &
PRISTLEY KWAN CODE FRAME CODE
BAKER

X
0.30136 0.27884 0.39133 0.30898 0.39904 0.30285 0.70398 0.46
DIRECTION

Y
0.42478 0.39855 0.52506 0.4253 0.53598 0.40614 0.70398 0.634
DIRECTION

49
 X DIRECTION
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1 X DIRECTION
0

Graph 4.9 Time Period of The Frame (With Strut) in X-direction

Y DIRECTION
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1 Y DIRECTION
0

Graph 4.10 Time Period of The Frame (With Strut) in Y-direction

50
 4.2.6 STIFFNESS OF THE FRAME (WITH STRUT)

The bending stiffness is the resistance of a member against bending deformation. It is a

function of elastic modulus, the area moment of inertia of the beam cross-section about the

axis of interest, length of the beam and beam boundary condition.

Here, the stiffness of the frame is calculated using the formula:

Where,

Table 4.10 Stiffness of the frame using different formulas (X- dir.)

PAULEY & LIAW & RAOMANIAN DRYSDALE, BARE

HOLMES MAINSTONE
PRISTLEY KWAN CODE HAMID & BAKER FRAME

Δ 1.6042 1.3718 2.6995 1.6846 2.7416 1.6176 23.7107

K
(KN/mm)
368.4079 430.8208 218.9294 350.8251 215.5675 365.3560 24.9254

51
 K (KN/mm)
500
450
400
350
300
STIFFNESS (K) 250
200
150
100 K (KN/mm)
50
0

Graph 4.11 Stiffness of the frame using different formulas (X- dir.)

Table 4.11 Stiffness of the frame using different formulas (Y- dir.)

PAULEY & PRISTLEY HOLMES MAINSTONE LIAW & KWAN RAOMANIAN CODE DRYSDALE, HAMID & BAKER

Δ 3.0964 2.765 4.5881 3.1053 4.7708 2.8505

K (KN/mm) 164.6977 184.437 111.1505 164.2256 106.894 178.9054

52
 K (KN/mm)
200
180
160
140
120
STIFFNESS (K) 100
80
60
40
20 K (KN/mm)
0

Graph 4.12 Stiffness of the frame using different formulas (Y- dir.)

53
 CHAPTER 5

RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS

54
RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS

1. Through the results obtained throughout the course of study it can be easily seen that the

effect of the earthquake forces are severe and less effective for the buildings with the

three strut then using the normal bare frame.

2. As the width of the strut obtained from the various theories was tested for different

parameters it can easily be identified that the Mainstone’s method is approximately

similar to the results obtained by the manual calculations IS 1893: 2002

3. By looking at the graphs of inter-storey drifts it can be seen that the displacement of the

building according to various floor levels is lesser in the case where three struts are used

as compared to the bare frame.

4. As per the calculations it is seen that the results obtained from Mainstone’s is

approximately similar to what we get through the manual calculation using IS 1893: 2002

5. With the results from the calculations it can be concluded that stiffness which is required

to attain according to the codal provisions falls very tentative to the Mainstone’s results.

55
REFRENCES

 El-Dakhakhni, W.W., Elgaaly, M. and Hamid, A.A., 2003. Three-strut model for

concrete masonry-infilled steel frames. Journal of Structural Engineering, 129(2),

pp.177-185.

 Samoilă, D.M., 2012. Analytical modelling of masonry infills. Moment, 1000, p.2.

 Murty, C.V.R. and Jain, S.K., 2000,January. Beneficial influence of masonry infill

walls on seismic performance of RC frame buildings. In 12th world conference on

earthquake engineering.

 Wakchaure, M.R. and Ped, S.P., 2012. Earthquake analysis of high rise building

with and without in filled walls. International Journal of Engineering and

Innovative Technology (IJEIT) Volume, 2.

 Jinya, M.H. and Patel, V.R., 2014. Analysis of RC frame with and without

masonry infill wall with different stiffness with outer central

opening. International Journal of Research in Engineering and Technology, 3(6),

pp.76-83.

56