Infills in Opensees
Infills in Opensees
Infills in Opensees
DOI 10.1007/s40091-015-0086-5
ORIGINAL RESEARCH
Received: 18 July 2014 / Accepted: 30 March 2015 / Published online: 15 April 2015
The Author(s) 2015. This article is published with open access at Springerlink.com
123
118 Int J Adv Struct Eng (2015) 7:117127
Fig. 1 a Infill walls collapse (Romao et al. 2013), b soft-storey mechanism (Costa et al. 2010) and c out-of-plane and in-plane damage
mechanisms in exterior masonry walls (Romao et al. 2013)
123
Int J Adv Struct Eng (2015) 7:117127 119
panel nonlinear material properties. Lofti and Shing studied proposed methods for calculating the effective diagonal
in 1991 the efficiency of homogenous smeared-crack strut width based on experimental tests.
models to capture the response of reinforced masonry wall, Klingler and Bertero (1978) considered the nonlinear
and they showed that the smeared-crack model can accu- behaviour of the masonry infill wall when submitted to
rately capture the flexural failure of the reinforced masonry dynamic loadings, and Liauw and Kwan (1984) developed
wall (Lofti and Shing 1991). Mehrabi and Shing (1997) a semiempirical equation to compute the strut width as a
proposed a simplified micro-modelling model that function of other geometrical parameters of the panel.
simulated the cracking, crushing and sliding of masonry Zarnic and Tomazevic (1988) proposed a macro-model that
panel for cyclic and monotonic response. Lourenco and takes into account the strength and stiffness of the infills.
Rots (1997) developed in 1997 an elasto-plastic constitu- Saneinejad and Hobbs (1995) tried to predict their non-
tive model for interface element which shows the ability to linear behaviour through a numerical model that represents
capture the peak load and post-peak behaviour of the infill the stiffness and strength degradation of one infill panel.
panel when compared to experimental results. Zarnic and Gostic (1997b) proposed an empirical equation,
Oliveira and Lourenco (2004) developed a constitutive which was later modified by Dolsek and Fajfar (2002) to
model based on the earlier interface element to simulate the compute the shear ultimate strength of the masonry infill
cyclic behaviour of the interface element recurring to wall. Dolsek and Fajfar (2002) also defined a tri-linear
8-node continuum plane stress element to model the ma- response of the single-strut model, including an elastic,
sonry units. Most recently, Stavridis and Shing (2010) and hardening and post-capping branch. Flanagan and Bennet
Koutromanos et al. (2011) proposed different micro-mod- (1999) focused on the modelling of the corner crushing
elling approaches, and another couple of micro-modelling strength and stiffness of the infills.
approaches can be found at Asteris et al. (2013). Later, through the obtained results it becomes clear that
using only one single strut was insufficient to model the
Macro-modelling entire behaviour of the infill panel. The shear forces and the
bending moment in the frame members cannot be
The masonry infill walls can be analysed through simpli- adequately given using one single strut connected to the
fied macro-models that use different strategies, ranging two loaded corners. Different complex macro-models were
from very simple models such as the equivalent strut model proposed based on the number of diagonal struts which has
to much more complex models like the double- and triple- the main advantage of representing the real behaviour of
strut model as illustrated in Fig. 3ac, respectively the infill panel when submitted to seismic actions.
(Crisafulli 1997a). Syrmakesis and Vratsanou (1986) changed this strut
Polyakov (1960) suggested the possibility of considering model to a five-diagonal strut model that can model the
the effect of modelling the infills as equivalent to one di- global forcedisplacement response but otherwise is not
agonal strut, which was later modified by Holmes (1961) able to capture the interaction between infill panel and the
that replaced the infill panel with an equivalent pin-jointed surrounding frame. Schmidt (1989) proposed a double strut
diagonal strut made of the same material and having the that takes into account with the frameinfill interaction and
same thickness of the masonry infill wall. Later, Smith also the strength and stiffness of the panel. Chrystomou
(1962) based on the experimental tests found the need of (1991) increases the number of struts in order to represent
introducing new required parameters to modelling the in- the infill panel response with three parallel struts in which
fills. Mainstone and Weeks (1970) and Mainstone (1974) direction.
123
120 Int J Adv Struct Eng (2015) 7:117127
Crisafully (1997a) investigated the influence of different behaviour in the other direction. Therefore, the proposed
multi-strut models on the structural response of masonry model represents more accurately the global response and
infill walls, focusing in particular on the interaction with energy dissipation during structural response.
surrounding frames and the stiffness of the structure.
Crisafulli (Smyrou et al. 2011) adopted a double-strut
model approach that is accurate enough and less compli- Proposed procedure for masonry infill wall
cated than other models. modelling in OpenSees
El-Dakhakhni et al. (2003) developed a model with
three non-parallel struts to reproduce the proper moment The macro-model proposed here to be used in the computer
diagram of the columns in an infilled due to the interaction program OpenSees (Mckenna et al. 2000) is based on the
between infill and the surrounding frame and also to Rodrigues et al. (2010) proposal model which is an im-
adequately capture the corner crushing failure mechanism. provement of the commonly used equivalent bi-diagonal
Crisafulli and Carr (2007) proposed a new macro-model strut model, as said before. This simplified macro-model
as a four-node panel, which is connected to the frame at the does not take into account the short-column effects. For
beamcolumn joints and is composed of two parallel struts infilled frames where the short-column effect can be in-
and a shear spring in each direction, takes into account the duced, multiple-strut model strategy should be adopted.
compressive and shear behaviour of the infill panel. In this model (Rodrigues et al. 2010), each infill panel is
Recently, Rodrigues et al. (Rodrigues 2005) proposed a defined by considering four support strut elements, with
simplified macro-model which is an upgrading of the rigid in-plane behaviour, and a central element, where the
equivalent bi-diagonal compression strut model (as shown in-plane nonlinear hysteretic behaviour is concentrated, as
in Fig. 4), commonly used to simulate the nonlinear be- illustrated in Fig. 5a, b. The forces developed in the central
haviour of infill masonry panels subjected to cyclic loads element are purely of tensile or compressive nature when
and validate with experimental results obtained. Each submitted to in-plane solicitations. The idealization of the
masonry panel is structurally defined by four support strut central element nonlinear monotonic behaviour was char-
elements with rigid behaviour and one central strut ele- acterized by a multi-linear curve, defined by eight pa-
ment, where the nonlinear hysteretic behaviour is concen- rameters (Fig. 5c), representing: (a) cracking (cracking
trated (Fig. 4). This particular macro-model considers how force Fc and cracking dc); (b) yielding (yielding force Fy
the in-plane damage in one direction affects the infills and yielding displacement dy); (c) maximum strength,
corresponding to the beginning of crushing (Fmax and
corresponding displacement dmax); (d) residual strength
(Fu) and corresponding displacement (du). The hysteretic
rules calibrated for infills models are controlled by three
additional parameters such: stiffness degradationa,
pinching effectb and strength degradationc.
The proposed macro-model for masonry infill walls was
implemented in OpenSees (Mckenna et al. 2000) with the
association of the available OpenSees materials, sections
and elements commands. The infill model is composed of
four elastic beam columns for the diagonal elements and
one nonlinear beam column for the central element. The
Fig. 4 Rodrigues et al.s simplified macro-model (Rodrigues 2005) Pinching 4 uniaxial material model (Fig. 6) was used to
Force (kN)
Diagonal strut
Fmax
Fy
non-linear
Fc
element
Fu
dc dy dFmax du Inter-Storey
drift (%)
123
Int J Adv Struct Eng (2015) 7:117127 121
represent the hysteretic rule and was calibrated with ex- masonry crack stress obtained based on experimental tests;
perimental characteristics of the infills. the t, Lin and h0 are the thickness, length and height of the
This uniaxial material is adopted to represents a pin- panel, respectively.
ched load-deformation response which exhibits degrada- q
Lin t ftp
tion under cyclic loading. The strength and stiffness cyclic Fmax 0:818 1 CI2 1 1
CI
degradation occur in three ways: unloading stiffness
degradation, reloading stiffness degradation and strength Lin
CI 1:925 2
degradation. h0
The parameters required to define this uniaxial material The ratio of cracking and maximum strength (Fy/Fcr) is
hysteric behaviour can be obtained following different adopted as 0.55 following Dolsek and Fajfar (2008) rec-
authors and international codes recommendations. Previous ommendations and the experimental tests performed by
tests performed by different authors showed that the first Manzouri (1995).
crack appears to drift values between 0.05 and 0.15 % of The post-peak strength degradation is based on Dolsek
drift (dc), and the respective cracking force (Fc) can be and Fajfar (2008) that estimate the displacement at residual
determined through the relationship between dc and Em, strength (du) is five times of the displacement of maximum
which is the elasticity modulus of the infill panel. stress. The value of the residual strength is about 20 % of
Manzouri (1995) and Shing et al. (2009) found that the the maximum strength (Fu).
maximum strength (Fcr) occurs at approximately 0.25 % of
drift (dcr). The maximum strength can be calculated
through Eq. (1) proposed by Zarnic and Gornic (1997a) and Calibration of the proposed model
later modified by Dolsek and Fajfar (2008) where ftp is the
The proposed macro-model presented here to represent the
masonry infill walls in OpenSees (Mckenna et al. 2000)
was calibrated the results of a cyclic in-plane test per-
formed by Pires (1990). The infilled RC is a single bay,
scaled 2:3 with hollow clay bricks. The geometric char-
acteristics of the frame, the cross section dimensions and
the reinforcement detailing of the columns and beam are
presented in Fig. 7.
The axial load was applied on the top of the columns to
simulate the dead load, and imposed cyclic horizontal
displacements were applied. The mechanical properties of
each material are determined experimentally and are pre-
sented in Table 1. Additional information about the mate-
Fig. 6 Pinching 4 uniaxial materialgeneric hysteretic behaviour in rial properties and the materials experimental tests can be
OpenSees (Mckenna et al. 2000) found in Pires (1990)
(a) (b)
Fig. 7 Single-storey single-bay infilled masonry RC frame: a frame geometry. b Cross section dimensions and detailing of RC elements
123
122 Int J Adv Struct Eng (2015) 7:117127
Fig. 8 a Hysteretic behaviour of the masonry infill wall, b base sheartop displacement, c shear-drift envelope and d energy dissipated results of
experimental test and the numerical model
The RC frame was modelled using beam with hinges which are based on recommendations from past re-
elements. The properties of the models (RC frame and infill searchers, experimental tests and are in accordance with
panel) were calibrated with test results from material spe- the FEMA 356 (2000) recommendations, and the hysteretic
cimens (Table 1). curve of the central element is illustrated in Fig. 8a. The
The reference parameters adopted for the central ele- numerical model results were calibrated with the ex-
ment followed the proposed values by Zarnic and Gostic perimental results in terms of shear-top displacement
(1997c) and later modified by Dolsek and Fajfar (2008) (Fig. 8b), shear-drift envelopes (Fig. 8c) and energy
123
Int J Adv Struct Eng (2015) 7:117127 123
Fig. 10 a Bare frame (BF) model, b full infill (INF) model and c soft-storey (SS) model
123
124 Int J Adv Struct Eng (2015) 7:117127
123
Int J Adv Struct Eng (2015) 7:117127 125
2000-year RP 1
(m/s2)
0
-1 0 15
-2
-3
-4
123
126 Int J Adv Struct Eng (2015) 7:117127
submitted to cyclic in-plane loads performed by Pires. The Asteris P, Tzamtzis A (2003) On the use of a regular yield surface for
numerical results show a good agreement in terms of shear- the analysis of unreinforced masonry walls. Electron J Struct
Eng 3:2342
top displacement and energy dissipation. The results show Carvalho E, Coelho E (1984) Analise Ssmica de estruturas de
that this modelling strategy adopted in OpenSees can be edifcios segundo a nova regulamentacao - Analise Estrutural de
useful for anyone since the definition of the parameters that um conjunto de 22 edifcios, vol II. Lisboa, Portugal
are necessary to define the infill wall is suggested by dif- Chrystomou C (1991) Effects of degrading infill walls on the
nonlinear seismic response two-dimensional steel frames. Cornel
ferent authors and international codes recommendations, University, Ithaca
which according to the calibration results represents the Costa AA, Ferreira M, Oliveira C (2010) O grande sismo de Sichuan:
experimental infills behaviour with a good accuracy. impactos e licoes para o futuro. Paper presented at the Ssmica
Finally, two RC buildings with masonry infill walls and 2010 - 88 Congresso de Sismologia e Engenharia Ssmica,
Aveiro
different number of storeys were subjected to nonlinear Crisafulli F (1997a) Seismic behavior of reinforced concrete struc-
dynamic analysis for three different situations: bare frame, tures with masonry infills. University of Canterbury, Canterbury
full infill and soft storey. It was observed that the infills Crisafulli F (1997b) Seismic behaviour of reinforced concrete
increased the initial stiffness and maximum strength and structures with masonry infills. University of Canterburry,
Canterbury
that the maximum drift in the buildings occurs always in Crisafulli F, Carr A (2007) Porposed macro-model for the analysis of
the model without infills at the ground floor. infilled frame structures. Bull N Z Soc Earthq Eng 40:6977
Davis R, Krishnan P, Menon D, Prasad A (2004) Effect of infill
Acknowledgments This research was developed under financial stiffness on seismic performance of multi-storey RC framed
support provided by FCTFundacao para a Ciencia e Tecnologia, buildings in India. Paper presented at the 13th world conference
Portugal, namely through the research project PTDC/ECM/122347/ on earthquake engineering, Vancouver, BC, Canada
2010RetroInfDeveloping Innovative Solutions for Seismic Ret- Dhanasekhar M, Page A (1986) The influence of brick masonry infill
rofitting of Masonry Infill Walls. properties on the behavior of infilled frames. In: ICE,
pp 593605
Open Access This article is distributed under the terms of the Dolsek M, Fajfar P (2001) Soft Storey effects in uniformly infilled
Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http:// reinforced concrete frames. J Earthq Eng 5:112
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted Dolsek M, Fajfar P (2002) Mathematical modeling of an infilled RC
use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give frame structure based on the results of pseudo-dynamic tests.
appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 31:12151230
link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were Dolsek M, Fajfar P (2008) The effect of masonry infills on seismic
made. response of a four storey reinforced concrete framea
probabilistic assessment. Eng Struct 30:19912001
El-Dakhakhni WW, Elgaaly M, Hamid AA (2003) Three-strut model
References for concrete masonry-infilled steel frames. J Struct Eng
129:177185
Asteris P, Cotsovos D (2012) Numerical investigation of the effects of FEMA356 (2000) Prestandard and commentary for the seismic
infill walls on the structural response of RC frames. Open Constr rehabilitation of buildings. Federal Emergency Management
Build Technol J 6:164181 Agency, Washington, DC
Asteris P, Cotsovos D, Chrysostomou C, Mohebkhah A, Al-Chaar G Flanagan R, Bennet R (1999) Arching of masonry infilled frame:
(2013) Mathematical micromodelling of infilled frames: state of comparison of analytical methods. Pract Period Struct Des
the art. Eng Struct 56:19051921 Constr 4:105110
123
Int J Adv Struct Eng (2015) 7:117127 127
Furtado A (2013) Avaliacao de solucoes de reforco para edificios com Pires F (1990) Influencia das paredes de alvenaria no comportamento
r/c vazado. Universidade de Aveiro de estruturas de betao armado sujeitas a acoes horizontais. LNEC
Furtado A, Rodrigues H, Varum H, Costa A (2014) Assessment and Polyakov S (1960) On the interaction between masonry filler walls
strengthening strategies of existing RC buildings with potential and enclosing frame when loading in the plane of the wall.
soft-storey response. In: 9th international masonry conference Transl Earthq Eng E2:3642
(IMC), Portugal Rodrigues H (2005) Desenvolvimento e calibracao de modelos
Holmes M (1961) Steel frames with brickwork and concrete filling. numericos para a analise ssmica de edifcios. Universidade do
Proc Inst Civ Eng 2 Res Theory 19:473478 Porto
Kakaletsis D, Karayannis C (2008) Influence of masonry strenght and Rodrigues H, Varum H, Costa A (2010) Simplified macro-model for
openings on infilled R/C frames under cycling loading. J Earthq infill masonry panels. J Earthq Eng 14:390416
Eng 12:197221 Romao X, Costa AA, Pauperio E, Rodrigues H, Vicente R, Varum H,
Klingler R, Bertero V (1978) Earthquake resistance of infilled frames. Costa A (2013) Field observations and interpretation of the
J Struct Div 104:973989 structural performance of constructions after the 11 May 2011
Koutromanos I, Stravidris A, Shing P, Quenneville J (2011) Lorca earthquake. Eng Fail Anal 34:670692
Numerical modelling of masonry-infilled RC frames subjected Saneinejad A, Hobbs B (1995) Inelastic design of infilled frames.
to seismic loads. Comput Struct 89:10261037 J Struct Eng 121:634650
Liauw T, Kwan K (1984) Nonlinear behavior of non-integral infilled Schmidt T (1989) An approach of modelling masonry infilled frames
frames. Comput Struct 18:551560 by the f.e. method and a modified equivalent strut model. Annu J
Lofti H, Shing P (1991) An appraisal of smeared crack models for Concr Concr Struct 4:171180
masonry shear wall analysis. Comput Struct 41:413425 Shing P et al. (2009) Seismic performance of non-ductile RC frames
Lourenco P (2002) Computations on historic masonry structures. Prog with brick infill. Paper presented at the improving the seismic
Struct Eng Mater 4:301319 performance of existing buildings and other structures, ATC/S
Lourenco P, Rots J (1997) Multisurface interface model for analysis EI
of masonry structures. J Eng Mech 123:660668 Smith S (1962) Lateral stiffness of infilled frames. J Struct Div
Mainstone RJ (1974) Supplementary note on the stiffness and strength 88:183199
of infilled frames. Building Research Station, UK, CP 13/74 Smyrou E, Blandon C, Antoniou S, Pinho R, Crisafulli F (2011)
Mainstone J, Weeks G (1970) The influence of bounding frame on the Implementation and verification of a masonry panel model for
racking stiffness and strength of brick walls. In: 2nd international nonlinear dynamic analysis of infilled RC frames. Bull Earthq
brick masonry conference, Watford Eng 9:15191534
Mallick D, Seven R (1968) Dynamic characteristics of infilled frames. Stravidris A, Shing P (2010) Finite-element modelling of nonlinear
ICE Proc 39(2):261287 behavior of masonry infilled RC frames. J Struct Eng
Mander J, Priestleyand M, Parks R (1988) Theoretical stressstrain 136:285296
model for confined concrete. J Struct Eng 114:18041826 Syrmakesis C, Vratsanou V (1986) Influence of infill walls to RC
Manfredi G, Ricci P, Verderame G (2012) Influence of infill panels frames response. In: 8th European conference on earthquake
and their distribution on seismic behavior of existing reinforced engineering, Istanbul, Turkey, pp 4753
concrete buildings. Open Constr Build Technol J 6:236253 Varum H (2003a) Seismic assessment, strengthening and repair of
Manzouri T (1995) Nonlinear finite element analysis and experimen- existing buildings. Universidade de Aveiro
tal evaluation of retrofitting techniques for unreinforced masonry Varum H (2003b) Seismic assessment, strengthening and repair of
structures. University of Colorado-Boulder, Boulder existing buildings. Universidade de Aveiro
Mckenna F, Fenves G, Scott M, Jeremic B (2000) Open system for Zarnic R, Gostic S (1997a) Masonry infilled frames as an effective
earthquake engineering simulation (OpenSees). Berkley, CA structural sub-assemblage. In: Fajfar P, Krawinkler H (eds)
Mehrabi A, Shing P (1997) Finite-element modelling of masonry- Seismic design methodologies for the next generation of codes.
infilled RC frames. J Struct Eng 123:604613 pp 335346
Menegotto M, Pinto P (1973) Method of analysis for cyclically loaded Zarnic R, Gostic S (1997b) Masonry infilled frames as an effective
reinforced concrete plane frames including changes in geometry structural sub-assemblage. In: International workshop, Bled,
and non-elastic behaviour of elements under combined normal Slovenia
force and bending. Lisbon, Portugal Zarnic R, Gostc S (1997c) Masonry infilled frames as an effective
Mosalam K, Ayala G, White R, Roth C (1997) Seismic fragility of structural sub-assemblage. Paper presented at the seismic design
LRC frames with and without masonry infill walls. J Earthq Eng methodologies for the next generation of codes, Rotterdam,
1:693720 Balkema
Oliveira D, Lourenco P (2004) Implementation and validation of a Zarnic R, Tomazevic M (1988) An experimentally obtained method
constitutive model for the cyclic behaviour of interface elements. for evaluation of the behavior of masonry infilled RC frames. In:
Comput Struct 82:14511461 9th world conference on earthquake engineering, pp 163168
123