Available online at www.sciencedirect.

com

ScienceDirect
Materials Today: Proceedings 5 (2018) 8986–8995 www.materialstoday.com/proceedings

ICRAMC_2017

Study the effect of elastic materials as interface medium used in

infilled frames
Muthu Kumar.S*, Satyanarayanan.K.S
Department of Civil Engineering, SRM University, Kattankulathur, Chennai, Postcode: 6030 203, TN, India.

Abstract

The reinforced concrete (RC) Structural frames with masonry infill walls are widely used in buildings. The elastic connection
between infill walls and RC frames is recommended in order to reduce the unfavorable interaction between them.
In this study, two-bay and three-storeyed RC bare structural frame, RC infill frame with Cement mortar of rigid interface and RC
infill frame with different interface having various flexible elastic combinations are analyzed. The influence of constructional
details of infill walls on the seismic behavior of RC Structural frames is analyzed. Literature survey carried out in this area
indicates that not much work has been done in studying the influence of interface material's elastic properties on the behavior of
structural infilled frame. This study becomes now all the more significant as the recent trend is to use insulation material instead
of common rigid elastic cement mortar at the interface.
The objective of this research work is to study the influence of different interface materials with elastic property on the behavior
of structural infilled frames. The scope of the work covers the elastic behavior of reinforced concrete frame with brick masonry
infill with three different elastic interface materials, namely the commonly used cement mortar, cork and Rubber Foam.
The objective is achieved by both numerical and experimental studies. It is found that with the addition of masonry infill wall
rigidly connected to the frame, the lateral strength, and the stiffness of the bare RC frame increase significantly. Compared with
the infill wall with rigid elastic connection, the strength, the stiffness and the energy-dissipation capacity contributed by the infill
wall with flexible elastic connection drop significantly, but the displacement of the structures rises up.

© 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Selection and/or Peer-review under responsibility of International Conference On Recent Advances In Material Chemistry.

Keywords:Infill; Structural RC Frame; Elastic materials; Cork; Foam; Stiffness.

* Corresponding author. Tel.: +91-9787753763.

E-mail address:muthukumar.se@ktr.srmuniv.ac.in

2214-7853© 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Selection and/or Peer-review under responsibility of International Conference On Recent Advances In Material Chemistry.
 Muthu Kumar / Materials Today: Proceedings 5 (2018) 8986–8995 8987

1. Introduction

Masonry infilled reinforced concrete (RC) frames are very commonly seen in most of the part of the world.
Primary reasons for the same are easily available construction materials, good insulation properties of masonry walls
against heat and electricity, and the traditional practices in some cases. Performance of infilled RC frames is
excellent as far as transferring the gravity load is concerned. Since they are normally considered as non-structural
components, their presence is often ignored by engineers. However, under the lateral loads, caused by earthquakes
or winds, the response of such structures may be quite unpredictable, owing mainly to the brittle nature of infill
walls. Past earthquakes have demonstrated the vulnerability of infilled RC frames such as short-column effect, soft-
storey effect, torsion and out-of-plane collapse. It is evident that the presence of infill walls can significantly enhance
the lateral stiffness and strength of RC frames and result in a good energy dissipation capacity of the structure [1].
These are some of the beneficial effects of using Infilled frames. Inclusion of masonry infill in a RC frame
structure increases the strength and stiffness of structure [1] and hence significantly affects the dynamic
characteristics. Inclusion of masonry infill increases the strength as well as strength demand on a system [7].
However, in general, if response is to remain elastic the increase in supplied strength is more than the increase in
strength demand.
In addition, it reduces the deformation demand for a structure in the case of elastic response. Experimental study
suggests that overall response of the infilled frame is governed by frame rather than infills as they separate from
each other quite early in the response [6]. However, infills dissipate significant amount of energy imparted by the
earthquake and contribution of infills in energy dissipation increases with the intensity of ground motion up to a
certain limit. This causes a reduction in base shear, especially for multi bay multi storey frames [5]. Infills may
cause a devastating effect if their arrangement results in a soft storey, especially in the ground floor [7]. In addition,
interaction between frame and infill may result in shear failure in frame members depending on the relative strength
of frame and infill.
The following potentially negative effects of infill walls on the failure mode of RC frame structures should be
considered: torsional effects induced by irregular arrangement in plane, soft-story effects induced by irregularities in
elevation, and concentration of forces in elements of the frame due to the connection with the infill wall. The Failure
modes which may occur in infill frames is shown in Fig. 1.

Fig. 1 Strut model analogy of in-filled frames - The Corner Crushing (CC) mode & Diagonal Compression (DC) mode

1.1. Details of Frame used

The bare frame is two bay, three storeyed RC structure as shown in Fig. 2 (a). RC Bare frame having 6 panels
with filler material is called infill frame as shown in Fig. 2 (b). The RC frame properties are similar to bare frame.
8988 Muthu Kumar/ Materials Today: Proceedings 5 (2018) 8986–8995

Masonry Infill of 75 mm thickness is used as filler material. The conventional Cement mortar is used as Interface
material and other cork and foam Rubber as new interface materials used. The interface material of 5mm thickness
is used around the softie of RC panels.

Second
5 6

First
3 4

Ground
1 2

a b

Fig. 2 Details of 2 Bay 3 Storied R.C (a) Bare Frame (b) Infilled Frame

2. Preliminary numerical investigations

2.1 Models used

In the study the preliminary analysis is carried out for infilled frame with the matrix choosing different interface
materials in 6 infill panels. To compare that the Bare Frame analysis also carried out. The list off basis model details
are given in Table 1.

Table 1 Description and Designation of models

Model
Case No. Model Description
Designation
A0 BF Bare Frame without infilling of Reinforced Concrete frame
A1 IFCM Infilled Frame with Cement Mortar Interface at all stories
A16* IFWRC Infilled Frame with Wooden Cork Interface at Ground storey, Rubber interface at First Storey and Cement
Mortar Interface at Second Storey. (* ref: Table 3)

2.2 Details of frame models

Finite element analysis can also be used to model the behavior numerically. Finite element analysis, as used in
structural engineering, determines the overall behavior of a structure by dividing it into a number of simple
elements, each of which has well-defined mechanical and physical properties where listed in Table 2. Hence for
simplified modelling, finite element based software is used. SAP2000 (Structural Analysis Package) is a FEM based
analysis software package which is used for modelling and analysing the Frames. The different combination cases
were generated are listed in Table 3.
 Muthu Kumar / Materials Today: Proceedings 5 (2018) 8986–8995 8989

Table 2 Material Properties of Infilled Frame

Compressive Strength
Name of materials Modulus of Elasticity (kN/mm2) Poisson’s Ratio Density (kN/m3)
(N/mm2)

Concrete 24.45 0.15 5.18 29.194

Reinforcement 200 0.2 6 360.75

Infill (Brick Masonry) 1.02 0.15 9.55 4.556

Interface (Cement Mortar) 9.527 0.15 0.57 11.343
Interface (Cork) 0.02 0.097 0.765 0.25
Interface
0.012 0.499 0.8 --
(Foam Rubber)

Table 3 cases of interfaces combination of Infilled Frame

Ground Storey Second Storey

Name of Cases First Storey Panels 3,4
Panels 1,2 Panels 5,6

A1 M M M
A2 R R R
A3 C C C
A4 M M R
A5 M M C
A6 R R M
A7 R R C
A8 C C M
A9 C C R
A10 M R R
A11 C R R
A12 R C C
A13 M C C
A14 C M M
A15 R M M
A16 M R C
A17 R C M
A18 C M R
A19 M C R
A20 C R M
A21 R M C
Note: Interfaces Materials : Cement Mortar – M , Cork – C , Foam Rubber -R
8990 Muthu Kumar/ Materials Today: Proceedings 5 (2018) 8986–8995

2.3 Modelling of bare frame

The beams and columns are assigned as line elements. The base beam column joints are assigned with fixed
restraints for the foundation level. The BF is two bay, three storeyed RC frame. The model created is a scaled model
of an actual prototype building scaled to a factor of 1:6. The reinforcement details are inputted appropriately in
frame properties for beams and columns. The .3D .Bare Frame .modelled in sap is shown in Fig. 2 (a).

2.4 Modelling of infill frame

The Infill Frame is modelled in the FEM based software by discretizing the area element for the three storeys
with 2 panels each. The interface of an area element is also discretizied which 5mm around the brick masonry IF.
The brick masonry and the BF RC frame has to be connected with link elements with a stiffness value of 100 N/m
based on the convergence. In this case springs with a are used for effective transfer of stresses from frame to the IF.
Without the links the frame and the interface, the IF combination is unique and doesn’t act as a single unit. The
models are discretized to understand the behavior of the frame with more clarity. This discretization is done in other
FEM based software packages by meshing. The 3d IF frame and Infill Frame with interface modelled in sap is
shown in Fig. 3.

Fig. 3 Infill (A1) Frame model

2.5 Linear analysis

The linear static analysis is carried out for different cases. Point load is applied at the top left Joint. Then the
frame is analysed for static linear analysis. The applied load is noted with top storey drift and load vs deflection
graph is plotted to get the stiffness which is the slope of the curve. The load is increased at a particular factor and the
corresponding deformation is noted for the infill frames.

 From the linear analysis it is deduced that the stiffness of the Reinforced Concrete frame increases with the
introduction of Infill where represented in the Table 4.
 Muthu Kumar / Materials Today: Proceedings 5 (2018) 8986–8995 8991

Table 4 IF Frame Stiffness with interfaces combination cases

Comparison wrt. ‘A1’
Name of Cases Stiffness kN/mm
Decrement Ratio Increment Ratio

A1 28.24 1.000 0.0%

A2 7.824 0.277 72.3%
A3 8.396 0.297 70.3%
A4 18.587 0.658 34.2%
A5 19.083 0.676 32.4%
A6 10.266 0.363 63.7%
A7 7.974 0.282 71.8%
A8 10.845 0.384 61.6%
A9 8.237 0.292 70.8%
A10 12.15 0.430 57.0%
A11 8.051 0.285 71.5%
A12 8.163 0.289 71.1%
A13 12.789 0.453 54.7%
A14 15.128 0.536 46.4%
A15 14.598 0.517 48.3%
A16 12.484 0.442 55.8%
A17 10.471 0.371 62.9%
A18 11.848 0.419 58.1%
A19 12.437 0.440 56.0%
A20 10.537 0.373 62.7%
A21 11.709 0.415 58.5%

 The structural stiffness is noted and plotted for all cases as shown in Fig. 4. From the study stiffness
behaviour of IF Frame can be altered by interface medium.

Fig. 4 Decremental stiffness comparison wrt. A1 case

8992 Muthu Kumar/ Materials Today: Proceedings 5 (2018) 8986–8995

 Based on the decremental ratio the cases A1, A16 (Average cases) and Bare frame (A0) are studied further
by Experimental approach.

3. Experimental programme

The procedure for casting of Two-bay. Three-storeyed, one – sixth scale RC frames (A0, A1, A16). The frames
are casted and prepared for testing as per the standards as referred in [3].

3.1 Loading arrangement and devices

Hydraulic Push Pull Jack which can be operated with a pumping unit of capacity 200kN is attached with a
universal load cell of capacity 100kN which is connected to a Load indicator. The loading cell is connected to a
Hinge type end to effectively transfer the load instead of converting into moment to the specimen. The test setup for
bare frame is shown in Fig. 5.

Fig. 5 Experimental testing Setup

LVDT of 100mm push pull capacity connected to displacement indicators of 100mm capacity is fitted along
three storeys to calculate the deformations. The testing procedure is followed as cyclic manner as described. The
lateral force at Top storey level as similarly of Numerical study. The full cyclic force is applied with incremental
ratio which shown in Fig. 6. The corresponding storey deformations are recorded. The similar procedure is executed
for the 3 cases of frames.
 Muthu Kumar / Materials Today: Proceedings 5 (2018) 8986–8995 8993

Fig. 6 Cyclic loading pattern

4. Experimental result of frames

4.1 Ultimate load and Failure mode

The Ultimate Failure occurs at 32kN, 40kN and 60kN for A0, A1 and A16 frames respectively. This ultimate
failure crack patterns are shown in Fig. 7.

RC Frame

Cement Mortar Interface CM Interface

RC Frame

Rubber Inter

Infill with bricks Infill

Wooden
cork
Interface

Fig. 7 ultimate failure crack pattern of Frame specimens

4.2. Storey Drift profile of specimens

The specimens undergo lateral force the structure behaviour can be study through their storey drift. The different
stages of storey drift at each storey of each specimen profiles are shown in Fig. 8.
8994 Muthu Kumar/ Materials Today: Proceedings 5 (2018) 8986–8995

Fig. 8 Storey Drift profiles of Specimens

4.3 Comparison of Numerical stiffness of specimens

The Numerical stiffness curve plotted for A0, A1and A16 frame specimens is shown in Fig. 10.

Fig. 10 Numerical stiffness profiles of specimens

 Muthu Kumar / Materials Today: Proceedings 5 (2018) 8986–8995 8995

4.4 Comparison of Experimental stiffness of specimens

The Experimental stiffness curve plotted for A0, A1and A16 frame specimens is shown in Fig. 11.

Fig. 11 Experimental stiffness profiles of specimens

5. Conclusions

In case of (A16) frame Initial crack occurs at 16 kN as similar as Bare frame. The interface bonding crack occurs at
ground and first storeys. This shows interfaces are active at initial stage itself. There is no diagonal crack form for
A16 at ground and first storey but in case of A1 frame it appears at earlier stages. Which shows the interface
medium is effectively transferring the load from RC frame to Infill. The load carrying capacity of infill getting
increases due to Interface medium. The Bare Frame fails at an ultimate load of 32 kN while the A1 Frame fails at an
ultimate load of 60 kN and A16 Frame fails at an ultimate load of 40 kN. The storey drifts of A1 frame getting
increases while in A16 frame. The result which closer to the A0 frame. From the stiffness graph achieved from
experimental and numerical for A0, A1 & A16 cases. The stiffness of infilled A1 frame can be reduced by 40% with
the combination of interface materials like A16 frame. The reduction of stiffness is proved by numerical and
experimental approaches. The paper evident the interface materials of elastic properties can alter the structural frame
stiffness.

References

[1] Bryan Stafford Smith, Methods for Predicting the Lateral Stiffness and Strength of Multi-Storey Infilled Frames. Building Sciences 2, 1,
(1967) 247-257.
[2] Muthu Kumar S, Thirumurngan V, Satyanarayanan K S, The Stiffness Behaviour of Infilled Frames on the Influence of Different Infill and
Interface Materials under Static Loading. Disaster Advances 9, 5, (2016) 13-17.
[3] Muthu Kumar S, Joson Western J, Satyanarayanan K S, Analytial Study on Non Linear Performance of RC Two Bay Three Storeyed
Frames with Infill. Asian Journal of Civil Engineering 18, 1, (2017) 133-149.
[4] Muthu Kumar S, Saranya G, Lakshmipathy M, Satyanarayanan K S, Modeling and Study of Behaviour of Infilled Frames with Different
Interface Materials under Static Loading. Indian Journal of Science and Technology 9, 23, (2016) 1-6.
[5] Satyanarayanan K S, Lakshmipathy M, Conceptualisation studies on the development of adaptive interface in infilled frames. International
Journal of Applied Engineering Research 4, 1, (2009) 1579-1589.
[6] Riddington J R, The influence of initial gaps on infilled frame behaviour. Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers 77, 22, (1984)
295-310.
[7] Selvakoodalingam B, Perumal Pillai E B, Govindan P, Effect of Ground-floor Opening for Parking Lot in Multistorey Brick Infilled R C
Frame. Journal of the Institution of Engineers India Civil Engineering Division 77, 5, (1996) 47-52.