J. Inst. Eng. India Ser.

A (May–July 2013) 94(2):99–108

DOI 10.1007/s40030-013-0042-y

ORIGINAL CONTRIBUTION

Equivalent Strut Method for the Modelling of Masonry Infill

Walls in the Nonlinear Static Analysis of Buildings
A. Adukadukam • A. K. Sengupta

Received: 1 June 2012 / Accepted: 10 October 2013 / Published online: 30 October 2013
 The Institution of Engineers (India) 2013

Abstract In the seismic analysis of a framed building Keywords Equivalent strut  Infill wall 
with masonry infill walls, it is necessary to model the effect Masonry wall  Nonlinear static analysis 
of the walls on the lateral stiffness, strength and ductility of Pushover analysis  Seismic analysis
the building. The equivalent strut method is convenient for
modelling the walls in a large building. However, an List of symbols
appropriate axial load versus deformation relationship for B Breadth of section
the strut is required in a nonlinear static method of seismic D Depth of section
analysis, such as the pushover analysis. The present study d Length of the equivalent strut, equal to the
proposes a nonlinear axial hinge property for the strut, with diagonal length of the infilled panel
suitable performance levels. First, the equivalent strut fa Allowable compressive strength along the diagonal
method and the suitability of two approaches available in of a wall based on slenderness ratio
=
the literature for modelling the properties of the struts, are fbs Design bond shear strength between masonry units
briefly discussed. Next, the nonlinear axial load versus and mortar
deformation relationship is developed based on experi- h Height of centre-line of beam from top of footing
mental data compiled from the literature. The parabolic– h/ Clear height of the wall
plastic relationship is idealized as a tri-linear axial hinge l Centre-line to centre-line width of bay
property, so that it can be incorporated in commercial l/ Clear length of the wall
software for undertaking pushover analysis. Next, the use R Axial load in the equivalent strut
of the hinge property is demonstrated in the pushover Rc Load in the equivalent strut at local crushing of the
analyses of two framed reinforced concrete buildings. The corners of the infill wall
pushover curves based on the proposed hinge property Rs Load in the equivalent strut at shear cracking of the
shows improved modelling of the inelastic drifts of the infill wall
buildings. Although the modelling of a wall using a single Rdc Load in the equivalent strut at diagonal
strut has limitations, the proposed methodology is practical compression failure of the infill wall
for a pushover analysis of a building. Ru Ultimate strength of the equivalent strut
t Thickness of wall
ac Coefficient measuring the length of the wall in
contact with the column
d Axial deformation of the equivalent strut
A. Adukadukam
School of Mechanical and Building Sciences, Vellore Institute of e Axial strain in the equivalent strut
Technology, Vellore, India e0 Strain in the equivalent strut when the
strength is attained (R/Ru attains the
A. K. Sengupta (&)
value of 1) = 0.0025
Department of Civil Engineering, Indian Institute of Technology
Madras, Chennai 600036, India eu Strain in the equivalent strut till the strength is
e-mail: amlan@iitm.ac.in retained = 0.004

123
100
e 1, e 2 Strain in the equivalent strut at the diagonal
compression failure of a slender infill wall
/ Diameter of bars
l Coefficient of internal friction between masonry
units and mortar
h Angle of inclination of diagonal of the panel, with
respect to horizontal
heff Angle of inclination of strut considering the length
of wall in contact with the column
rc Average normal stress on wall in contact with
column
sb Average shear stress on wall in contact with beam
Introduction
In a framed multi-storeyed building, the exterior enclosing
walls and interior partition walls are considered to be infill
walls if they are placed within the panels of the frames.
Traditionally, in a structural analysis of the building, the
infill walls are treated as a non-structural architectural
component of the building. They are not explicitly mod-
elled in a computational analysis. For heavy masonry
walls, their weight is assigned on the supporting beams.
However, if there is no gap or negligible gap between the
walls and the bounding frame members, the walls tend to
have a substantial influence on the structural behaviour of
the building during an earthquake. The modelling of infill
walls becomes imperative in the seismic analysis of a
framed building, for the following reasons. First, the walls
increase the lateral stiffness of the building, leading to
larger lateral loads. Second, irregular placement of the
walls can generate plan or vertical irregularity. The shift in
the centre of stiffness for a floor or presence of open
ground storey, and the possibility of brittle shear failure of
columns next to a partial height wall remain undetected if
the effect of the walls is not modelled. Third, the
strengthening of an open ground storey by providing infill
walls cannot be justified by analysis unless the effect of the
walls is modelled.
Accurate numerical modelling of the nonlinear behav-
iour of masonry infilled frames under in-plane lateral loads,
by the finite element method is difficult. The modelling
involves consideration of the individual masonry units,
mortar in the bed joints and the frame–wall interface, and
their appropriate constitutive models [10]. Developing such
a computational model is intensive and time consuming for
the analysis of multi-storeyed buildings with multiple walls
in each storey. Hence, researchers have investigated alter-
nate macro-scale modelling of the walls, based on the
concept of equivalent struts which simulates the composite
behaviour of an infilled frame. The modelling of the
123
J. Inst. Eng. India Ser. A (May–July 2013) 94(2):99–108
member-level non-linear behaviours of the frame members
and the struts can be assembled to get the global non-linear
response of a building under lateral forces, using the static
pushover analysis or dynamic time history analysis. The
results can further be used in a performance based analysis
of a building, which quantifies damage in terms of per-
formance levels, under a certain level of seismic hazard.
Since the present study investigated the modelling of the
infill walls as equivalent struts in the pushover analysis of a
building, the equivalent strut method is briefly described.
Equivalent Strut Method
Under the action of in-plane lateral load, an infilled frame
behaves like a solid cantilever with an initial bond at the
frame–wall interface [11]. An infill wall which is not
physically connected to the bounding members by shear
keys or dowels, is classified as non-intergral. For such a
wall, after the bond is broken, there is separation between
the frame and the wall, at the diagonally opposite corners
of the panel that are under tension. Compressive load is
transferred to the wall near the other corners which are
under compression, through certain lengths of contact with
the bounding frame members. The wall then behaves like a
strut under compression.
Holmes [6] proposed replacing the wall by an equivalent
pin-jointed strut along the diagonal under compression,
made up of the same material as that of the wall. The
thickness of the strut is same as that of the wall, but the
width is equal to one-third of the length of the diagonal of
the infill. This is a minimalistic model, suitable for the
analysis of buildings with several infill walls in the storeys.
A theoretical relationship between the width of the strut
and a relative stiffness parameter of the frame—wall sys-
tem has been provided by the researchers [15]. The width
of the strut was given in the form of charts for different
loads on the strut, and the aspect ratio of the infilled panel.
An alternate equivalent strut model based on a plastic
analysis was developed earlier [8]. An equivalent strut
method was proposed based on the ultimate load (UL) that
can be carried by the wall [12]. The aspect ratio of the
infilled panel, interface stresses due to the frame–wall
interaction, and the flexural capacities of the bounding
beams and columns are accounted for in this method.
The failure of an infill wall in a frame under in-plane
lateral load can be categorized into the following three
modes. The corresponding compressive loads in the
equivalent strut are denoted in the brackets.
• Local crushing (Rc) of the infill at one of the loaded
corners.
J. Inst. Eng. India Ser. A (May–July 2013) 94(2):99–108
• Shear cracking (Rs) along the bed joints of the masonry
units.
• Diagonal compression failure (Rdc) due to instability of
a slender infill wall.
The diagonal tensile cracking need not be considered as a
failure mode, as higher load can be applied beyond tensile
cracking.
The expressions for the three failure loads are provided
as given below [12]:
ð1  ac Þac thrc þ ab tlsb
Rc ¼ ð1Þ
cos h
= to the strut width and strength, the axial load versus
fbs tl=
Rs ¼ ð2Þ
ð1  l tan heff Þ cos h
0:5htfa
Rdc ¼ ð3Þ
cos h
The symbols used in the expressions are explained
under List of symbols. The lowest of Rc, Rs and Rdc is the
strength (Ru) of the equivalent strut. The failure of a wall
primarily due to out-of-plane bending is not an effect of
the in-plane lateral load. The width of the strut is
calculated from Ru based on a design compressive
strength for the masonry. A secant modulus of elasticity
is considered for the strut.
Investigation of Equivalent Strut Methods
Essentially there are two approaches in modelling the
properties of the equivalent strut for an infill wall. The
approach as proposed is the basis for a conventional linear
analysis of a frame under lateral load, and has been adopted
in this work [5, 15]. In this paper, this approach is referred
to as the elastic analysis (EA) approach. The width of a
strut is calculated based on the overall lateral stiffness of
the infilled frame. On the other hand, the approach as
proposed [12] is based on the governing failure load. It is
applicable beyond the linear elastic range of the wall. In
this paper, this approach is referred to as the UL approach.
The procedure for calculating the width of a strut implicitly
considers the yielding of the bounding columns or beams
near the joints.
A comparative study of both the approaches in deter-
mining the properties of the equivalent strut, and the
applicability of the two approaches in linear and nonlinear
analyses of a framed building, were reported by the
researchers [14]. The EA approach is simpler in calcula-
tion. A higher strut width gives higher stiffness for a strut
and hence, higher lateral load (base shear) for a building.
Since the EA approach gives higher strut width, it is con-
servative in estimating the base shear. In a linear seismic
101
analysis of a framed building with infill walls by the
equivalent static method (static analysis) or the response
spectrum method (dynamic analysis), modelling of the
walls by the simpler EA approach is adequate. In these
analyses, the member forces are of primary interest. But in
a pushover analysis (nonlinear static analysis) of a build-
ing, the UL approach is preferred. Here, the ultimate lateral
strength and the inelastic drift of the building under
increasing lateral load are of primary interest. Since the UL
approach gives a lower strut width and hence lower stiff-
ness for a strut, it provides a more realistic estimate of the
inelastic drift. However in a pushover analysis, in addition
deformation behaviour of a strut is also required.
The modelling of an infill wall by a single strut has
limitations. First, it is not suitable when there is a central
opening in the wall. An alternate is to use multi-strut
model. Of course for a large opening as is common with
windows, the strut effect of the wall is negligible, due to
the drastic reduction in diagonal stiffness. Hence, the strut
need not be modelled. Second, the procedure cannot
explicitly model the yielding of the columns or beams at
the portions in contact with the wall [3]. It has been
observed that a model consisting of three struts parallel to
the diagonal of the wall under compression, is effective in
capturing the flexural behaviour of the bounding frame
members. However, the three struts model needs additional
effort in developing the computational model for a large
building. Hence, in the present study a single strut model
was adopted, that is expected to be appealing to the prac-
ticing professionals to get the overall behaviour of a
building under a pushover analysis.
Modelling of Axial Load against Deformation
Behaviour
The axial load versus deformation behaviour of an equiv-
alent strut can be considered to be linear for convenience
Ru B, C
Axial load
D E
0.2Ru
A
δu Axial deformation
Fig. 1 Linear axial load against deformation curve for an equivalent
strut
123
102 J. Inst. Eng. India Ser. A (May–July 2013) 94(2):99–108

Fig. 2 Typical specimen and l

the corresponding model
δ
Jack H

h R

(a) Test specimen (b) Computational model

Table 1 Properties of the frame members in the test specimens

Reference l, m h, m Section dimensions (B 9 D), mm 9 mm Reinforcement details (/), mm Concrete
cube strength,
Beam Column Beam Column MPa
Top Bottom

Achintya et al. [1] 1.45 1.15 135 9 250 135 9 250 2–20 2–20 4–20 15.00
Achyutha et al. [2] 1.38 0.75 100 9 125 100 9 125 2–8 2–8 6–8 58.60
Mehrabi et al. [9] 2.31 1.52 160 9 230 180 9 180 2–16 2–16 8–12 26.80

Table 2 Properties of infill

Reference t, mm l/ , m h/, m Compressive strength Bond shear
walls in the test specimens =
of masonry, MPa strength ðfbs Þ, MPa

Achintya et al. [1] 115 1.20 1.00 7.50 0.24

Achyutha et al. [2] 60 1.25 0.63 14.00 1.20
Mehrabi et al. [9] 100 2.13 1.42 15.00 0.48

(Fig. 1), under the presumption that the masonry units and
mortar are quasi-brittle in nature, and the infill walls are
secondary members in a frame. However, the behaviour of
an infill wall under diagonal compression is nonlinear due
to the formation and development of multiple types of
cracks. In the present study, emphasis was placed in
modelling the non-linear behaviour of an equivalent strut.
The nonlinear behaviour can be incorporated in the com-
putational model by assigning an axial ‘plastic hinge’ at the
middle of the strut, with appropriate axial load versus
deformation curve for the hinge. The curve is referred to as
the hinge property. Although the approach is based on
lumped plasticity, the non-linear deformation is calculated
over the length of the strut. In a performance based ana-
lysis, the performance levels such as immediate occupancy
(IO), life safety (LS) and collapse prevention (CP) need to
be defined for the hinge property, to monitor the state of
damage in the strut.
In the present study, an axial load (R) versus deforma-
tion (d) relationship was developed for the equivalent strut,
based on the analyses of published results of monotonic
lateral load versus drift tests of single-bay single-storey
infilled reinforced concrete (RC) frame specimens [1, 2, 9].
For calculating the values of R, the test for each specimen
was simulated by a computational model using the program
SAP 2000 NL [13] (Fig. 2). Each of the beam and columns
was modelled by a frame element, with non-linear flexural
hinge property near the joints, calculated based on the
section dimensions and the reinforcement (Table 1). The
columns were considered to be fixed at the foundations. For
a strut, the UL approach was used to calculate its width
from the properties given in Table 2. The thickness of the
strut was kept same as that of the wall. At each step for the
applied load H, the value of R in the strut was noted from
the analysis of the model. The corresponding value of d
was calculated as the diagonal component of the recorded
drift.
To get a common trend in the R versus d variations in a
single plot for all the analysed specimens, the individual
values of R and d were normalised with respect to the cor-
responding calculated maximum load (Ru) and diagonal
length (d), respectively. The normalised axial load (R/Ru)

123
J. Inst. Eng. India Ser. A (May–July 2013) 94(2):99–108 103

1.2 Original curve

R Linear approximation
1.0
Assumed curve beyond CP
0.8 Ru C CP
B LS D
R/Ru

0.6 Achintya et al., 1991 IO

0.4 Achyutha et al., 1994

Mehrabi et al., 1996
0.2 0.2Ru
Proposed curve A
0.0 0 0.5 u
0 0
0.000 0.001 0.002 ε0 0.003 0.004 0.005 (0.00125) (0.0025) (0.004)
ε
Fig. 4 Linear approximation of axial load against deformation curve
Fig. 3 Nonlinear axial load against deformation curve for an
equivalent strut
tangential slope of the parabolic curve reduces to half the
initial value. The LS performance level was selected at
versus deformation (d/d) data points are shown in Fig. 3. The e = e0 = 0.0025, the strain corresponding to the attaining
normalised deformation (d/d) is denoted as axial strain (e). of maximum load in the strut. The CP performance level
Using the above data points, a curve similar to that for was selected at e = eu = 0.004, beyond which the load
concrete under flexural compression was fitted. The curve carrying capacity of the strut is uncertain and is expected to
is parabolic till R/Ru attains unity at the strain e0 = 0.0026. drop. In the present study it was not attempted to trace the
For convenience, in the proposed equation the strain was post-ultimate descending branch of the axial load versus
taken as 0.0025, for normal strength masonry units. After deformation behaviour of the equivalent strut. A drop in
this R/Ru is equated to unity till eu = 0.004. strength was assumed at e = 0.004, representing the failure
The proposed equations for the axial load versus of the infill wall. A residual strength of 20 % of the peak
deformation curve (Fig. 3) are given as follows. For e \ e0, strength was assumed based on conventional practice, to
"     # avoid any numerical instability in the computation for
e e 2
R ¼ Ru 2  ð4aÞ pushover analysis due to zero post-peak stiffness value for
e0 e0 a member. The specific equations of the piece-wise linear
curve can be derived from the coordinates of the kinks in
For e0 \ e B eu,
the curve, as follows.
R ¼ Ru ð4bÞ
For e B 0.5e0,
The above equations are valid when the strength is  
3 e
governed by shear cracking or corner crushing failure modes. R ¼ Ru ð5aÞ
2 e0
In such a case Ru is the lower of Rc and Rs. These are the
modes of material failure. When the failure is by diagonal
compression, a sudden drop in the curve is expected to occur The slope of the curve represents the secant-stiffness of the
due to instability of the slender infill wall. This is a rare original curve up to the IO performance level.
failure mode which is limited to only slender walls. For 0.5e0 \ e B e0,
 
Ru e
R¼ 1þ ð5bÞ
2 e0
Simplified Relationships with Performance Levels

For a pushover analysis of a building, instead of using the The slope of the curve represents the secant-stiffness of the
nonlinear axial load versus deformation relationship, a original curve between the IO and LS performance levels.
simplified piece-wise linear relationship is proposed for the For e0 \ e B eu,
hinge property of the equivalent strut. This simplification is
R ¼ Ru ð5cÞ
necessary for the input of a hinge property in a computa-
tional model. For e [ eu,
Figure 4 shows the tri-linear (up to the ultimate state)
R ¼ 0:2Ru ð5dÞ
axial load versus deformation curve. The three perfor-
mance levels were decided in conjunction with the FEMA
356 recommendations. The IO performance level was Instead of a discrete jump in strength at the ultimate, a
selected at e = 0.5 e0 = 0.00125, the strain at which the gradual reduction can also be adopted. The above hinge

123
104 J. Inst. Eng. India Ser. A (May–July 2013) 94(2):99–108

R
compression failure. All the performance levels IO, LS
and CP are defined at the same point corresponding to
C D
Ru B the failure load Rdc. The following equations represent
Diagonal compression failure the hinge property for the equivalent strut.
Rdc IO, LS, CP For e B e1,
 
e
R ¼ Rdc ð6aÞ
0.2Rdc A e1
0 1 0.5 0 0 u

(a) Rdc within AB For e [ e1,

R ¼ 0:2Rdc ð6bÞ
R
C D  
Rdc Rdc
B IO LS, CP Here, e1 ¼ 23 R u e0 .

Diagonal compression failure Case 2: 0.75Ru \ Rdc \ Ru

If Rdc is between 0.75Ru and Ru, there will be a drop in
0.2Rdc the load carrying capacity in the second linear region
A
(BC). The dotted line in Fig. 5b shows the drop due to
0 0.5 0 2 0 u
diagonal compression failure. The IO performance level
(b) Rdc within BC is defined at 0.5e0 as before. The LS and CP performance
levels are defined at the same point corresponding to the
Fig. 5 Axial hinge property for equivalent strut under diagonal failure load Rdc. The following equations represent the
compression failure, a Rdc within AB, b Rdc within BC
hinge property for the equivalent strut.
For e B 0.5e0,
property is applicable when the failure is governed by  
3 e
corner crushing or shear cracking. In the case of diagonal R ¼ Ru ð7aÞ
2 e0
compression failure, since Rdc is lower than Ru (lower of Rc
and Rs), a drop in the curve is modelled when the axial load
reaches Rdc, before attaining the strength governed by Rc or For 0.5e0 \ e B e2,
Rs . Ru  Rdc
R ¼ Rdc  ðe2  eÞ ð7bÞ
There can be two cases based on the value of Rdc e0  e2
compared to the load at IO performance level, which is
0.75 Ru
For e B e2,
Case 1: Rdc B 0.75Ru
R ¼ 0:2Rdc ð7cÞ
If Rdc is less than 0.75Ru, there will be a drop in the load
carrying capacity in the first linear region (AB). The  
dotted line in Fig. 5a shows the drop due to diagonal Here, e2 ¼ 2 RRdcu  1 e0 .

Fig. 6 Typical plan and 6m 6m 6m 6m

elevation of Building I

6m 3.6m

3.6m
6m

3.6m

6m 3.6m

(a) Floor plan (b) Frame elevation

123
J. Inst. Eng. India Ser. A (May–July 2013) 94(2):99–108
(a) Using linear hinge property
IO LS CP
(b) Using proposed hinge property
Fig. 7 Formation of hinges in a typical frame of Building I
Case Studies
Two multi-storeyed RC framed buildings were analysed to
study the effect of the proposed hinge property for an
equivalent strut. One is a model regular building that was
designed for seismic loads (Building I). The other one is an
existing irregular building that was not designed to resist
earthquake forces (Building II). For each building, a
computational model was developed using frame elements
for the beams and columns, and strut elements for the infill
walls. The diaphragm action of the slabs was modelled by
assigning horizontal rigid diaphragm constraints. For a
frame element, a tri-linear flexural hinge property near the
joint was idealised from the moment versus curvature
curve for the corresponding section of the member, and an
estimate of the length of plastic hinge for calculating
rotation. The moment versus curvature curve was devel-
oped based on nonlinear mechanics of RC, satisfying the
principles of equilibrium of forces at the section, compat-
ibility of strains of concrete and the reinforcing bars, and
105
6000
Base shear, kN
4000
Based on linear hinge property
Based on proposed hinge property
2000
0
0.00 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.10 0.12 0.14
Roof displacement m
Fig. 8 Pushover curve along X-direction (Building I)
the constitutive relationships of the two materials. A bi-
linear shear hinge property was idealised based on the
initial shear stiffness and ultimate shear strength. For a
strut element, two alternatives of the axial hinge property
were used. First, a conventional linear hinge property was
used, as per the EA approach (Fig. 1). Here, all the three
performance levels were considered at the peak of the
curve. Next, the proposed (Eqs. 5–7) tri-linear hinge
property was used. The pushover curves using the two
types of hinge properties were compared to observe the
effect of modelling the hinge property of a strut on the
overall behaviour of the building.
In each pushover analysis of a computational model,
initially the gravity loads were applied in a force controlled
manner. Next, the lateral loads were applied in a dis-
placement controlled manner. The distribution of the lat-
eral force along the height of the building was calculated as
per a parabolic relationship [7]. A brief description of the
buildings and the corresponding results are presented.
Building I
Figure 6 shows the typical floor plan and frame elevation
of the four storeyed building, using line diagram for each
frame member. The concrete slab is 120 mm thick at every
floor. Beams in all the floors are identical (230 mm
width 9 500 mm depth). The size of the corner columns is
400 9 350 mm2. All the other interior columns are
350 9 350 mm2. A raft foundation was assumed at the
base of the columns. All the frames are filled with masonry
walls. The wall thicknesses are 230 and 120 mm for the
exterior and interior walls, respectively. The compressive
strength of concrete and the yield stress for the reinforcing
steel were considered to be 20 and 415 MPa, respectively.
The compressive strength of the masonry units (burnt clay
bricks) was taken as 3 MPa.
In the pushover analysis using linear hinge properties for
the struts, it was found that the formation of the hinges in
the struts leads to the termination of the pushover analysis.
123
106
Fig. 9 Typical plan and
elevation of Building II
A A
Stair case
19.56 m
(a) Floor plan
Figure 7a shows the formation of hinges in a typical inte-
rior frame, using linear hinge properties for the struts. No
hinge has formed in the beams or columns. This result is
not desirable, because in a pushover analysis the objective
is to study the behaviour of the building with the sequential
formation of hinges in the frame members, even beyond
the failure of the struts.
Figure 7b shows the formations of hinges in the same
frame using the proposed hinge properties. The formation
of hinges in the struts was followed by the formation of
hinges in the frame members. This is realistic and meets
the objective of the pushover analysis. Figure 8 compares
the pushover curves using the two types of hinge properties
for the struts. The pushover curve based on linear hinge
property shows lower inelastic drift compared to that based
on the proposed hinge property. The curve based on the
proposed hinge property reflects the effect of the modelled
nonlinearity in the equivalent struts, and provides better
estimate of the deformation demand in each frame member
as per the state of hinge formed in it. Also, the inelastic
drift of the building leads to an appreciable lateral drift
(P - D) effect.
Building II
Figure 9 shows a typical floor plan and sectional elevation
of an existing five-storeyed residential building. In the
absence of infill walls to accommodate parking of vehicles,
the ground storey is a soft and weak storey, generating a
vertical irregularity in the building. As per the construction
drawings, the concrete slab is 120 mm thick at every floor.
Since there were large cut-outs near the centre of the slab
123
J. Inst. Eng. India Ser. A (May–July 2013) 94(2):99–108
3m
Lift core 25.86 3m
3m
3m
3m
(b) Sectional elevation along A-A
of each level, to accomodate the lift core and the staircase,
two different diaphragm constraints were assigned at each
level. The dimensions of the beams and columns vary as
per the location. The columns are supported on isolated
footings. Some of the frame panels are infilled with con-
crete hollow block masonry units. Only the walls without
substantial openings were considered in the computational
model. The compressive strength of concrete and the yield
stress for the reinforcing steel were considered to be 25 and
415 MPa, respectively. The compressive strength of the
masonry units was taken as 1.65 MPa.
Similar to that in Building I, a pushover analysis using
linear hinge properties for the struts, got abruptly termi-
nated. The soft-storey behaviour was not reflected in the
analysis (Fig. 10a). However, when the analysis was
repeated using the proposed hinge properties, even after the
formation of hinges in the struts, there was formation of
hinges in the columns which revealed the soft-storey
behaviour of the building (Fig. 10b). Figure 11 compares
the pushover curves using the two types of hinge properties
for the struts.
The analysis results can be further studied in terms of
the performances of the buildings and the frame members.
Davis et al. [4] used the proposed hinge property for the
struts to analyse the performances of several open ground
storey buildings.
Conclusion
In a pushover analysis of a framed building, for modelling
the infill walls by equivalent struts, it is necessary to assign
J. Inst. Eng. India Ser. A (May–July 2013) 94(2):99–108 107

an appropriate axial load versus deformation hinge prop-

erty to each strut. If a linear elastic relationship is used,
then the formation of hinges in the struts may lead to ter-
mination of the pushover analysis. This will not reflect an
appropriate nonlinear behaviour of the building. On the
contrary, when a nonlinear (simplified as piece-wise linear)
relationship is used, the formation of hinges in the struts is
followed by the formation of hinges in the frame members.
This is realistic and meets the objective of the pushover
analysis. Also, the pushover curve shows higher inelastic
drift due to the modelled nonlinearity in the equivalent
strut. Hence, it is recommended to use the proposed axial
load versus deformation hinge property for the equivalent
struts to model the effect of infill walls without openings.
The proposed hinge property can also be used as the
(a) Using linear hinge property backbone curve for modelling the hysteretic behaviour of
an equivalent strut in a nonlinear time history analysis of a
IO LS CP
building. Further refinement is possible for the descending
branch of the hinge property, based on deformation con-
trolled tests.

References

1. Achintya, P. Dayaratnam, S.K. Jain, Behaviour of brick infilled

RC frame under lateral load. Indian Concr. J. 65(9), 453–457
(1991)
2. H. Achyutha, S.S. Injaganeri, S. Satyanarayanan, C.S. Krishna-
moorthy, Inelastic behaviour of brick infilled reinforced concrete
frames. J. Struct. Eng. 21(2), 107–115 (1994)
3. P.G. Asteris, S.T. Antoniou, D.S. Sophianopoulos, C.Z. Chryso-
stomou, Mathematical macromodeling of infilled frames: state of
the art. J. Struct. Eng. 137(12), 1508–1517 (2011)
4. Davis, R., Menon, D. and Prasad, A. M., 2008, Evaluation of
magnification factors for open ground storey buildings using
nonlinear analyses, Proceedings, 14th World Conference on
Earthquake Engineering, Beijing, P. R. China, October 12–18
5. FEMA 356, 2000, Prestandard and Commentary for the Seismic
Rehabilitation of Buildings, Federal Emergency Management
(b) Using proposed hinge property Agency, USA
6. M. Holmes, Steel frames with brick and concrete infilling. Proc.
Fig. 10 Formation of hinges in the frame along A–A of Building II Inst Civil Eng. 19(4), 473–478 (1961)
7. IS 1893: 2002, Indian standard criteria for earthquake resistant
design of structures, Part—1. General provisions and buildings,
Bureau of Indian Standards, New Delhi
2000
8. T.C. Liauw, K.H. Kwan, Unified plastic analysis for infilled
frames. J. Struct Eng. 111(7), 427–1448 (1985)
9. A.B. Mehrabi, P.B. Shing, M.P. Schuller, J.L. Noland, Experi-
Base shear, kN

1500
mental evaluation of masonry-infilled RC frames. J. Struct. Eng.
122(3), 228–237 (1996)
1000 10. A.B. Mehrabi, P.B. Shing, Finite element modeling of masonry-
Based on linear strut hinge property
Based on proposed strut hinge property infilled RC frames. J. Struct. Eng. 123(5), 604–613 (1997)
500 11. Polyakov, S. V., 1963, Masonry in framed buildings, Gods-
udarstvenoe Isdatel’ stvo Literatury Po Stroidal stvui Architec-
ture, Moscow, Translated by G. L. Cairns, National Lending
0 Library for Science and Technology, U. K
0.00 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 12. A. Saneinejad, B. Hobbs, Inelastic design of infilled frames.
Roof displacement m J. Struct. Eng. 121(4), 634–650 (1995)
13. SAP, NL (Computers and structures incorporated, Berkeley,
Fig. 11 Pushover curve along X-direction (Building II) 2000)

123
108 J. Inst. Eng. India Ser. A (May–July 2013) 94(2):99–108

14. A.K. Sengupta, A. Asokan, Modelling of infill walls for nonlinear 15. B.S. Smith, C. Carter, A method of analysis for infilled frames.
static analysis of buildings subjected to seismic loads. Indian Proc. Inst. Civil Eng. 44(1), 31–48 (1969)
Concr. J. 82(2), 19–28 (2008)

123