1.

0 INTRODUCTION
1.1 Background

Recently, the hazards associated with earthquake are a major concern for mankind. The built
environment which consists of buildings and other engineering structures are constantly under
risk due to strong ground shaking in seismically active regions. Therefore, frequent researches
had been carried out at present to minimize the loss of lives and to curtail the economic losses
after earthquakes. Our country, Nepal is seismically vulnerable region, as it lies in subduction
zone of Indo Australian and Eurasian plate. Such areas are always prone to frequent ground
shaking with moderate to strong intensity. Therefore, in order to reduce the damage to the
built environment numerous researched and study are still needed. The buildings are the prime
structures that get damaged by earthquake leading to huge loss in term of human lives and
property. The urbanization has result the rapid increase in infrastructure construction and in
order to accommodate various functional needs construction of irregular configurations of infill
buildings in urban areas of our country are in vogue. There is need to assess the seismic
performance of such buildings so as to ensure safety of lives and infrastructure.
In urban and semi-urban areas of Nepal, most common type of construction is moment
resisting reinforced concrete (RC) frame structure with unreinforced masonry infills (URM)
serving as partition or exterior walls. The masonry infills (MI) contribute significantly to both the
lateral strength and stiffness of the frame structures. However, in current practice of structural
design and analysis of RC frames, the masonry infills are treated as non-structural elements and
therefore are neglected in designs.

Masonry infills confined by reinforced concrete RC frames play a vital role in resisting the
lateral seismic loads on the buildings. It has been shown experimentally that masonry infill (MI)
walls have a very high initial lateral stiffness and strength and hence low deformability. Thus
introduction of masonry infills (MI) in RC frames changes the lateral-load transfer mechanism
of the structure from predominant frame action to predominant truss action (Murty and Jain

1
2000) as shown in figure 1.0. The mechanism is responsible for reduction in bending moments
and increase in axial forces in the frame members. Moreover, masonry infills (MI) have higher
energy dissipation capacity that contribute to improved seismic resistance (Agrawal and
Shrikhande, 2010) , masonry infilled reinforced concrete frames are a common structural
system for buildings.
Performance of buildings in past earthquakes (e.g. 1985 Mexico City Earthquake, 1995 Kobe
Earthquake, 2001 Bhuj Earthquake) clearly illustrate the significance of presence of infill walls.
Well configured infill RC frame buildings with uniform strength and stiffness owing to regular
and symmetric distribution of infills both in plan and elevation poses better performances
during earthquakes by providing lateral resistance and preventing collapse of relatively flexible
and weal RC structures with varying strength and stiffness owing to irregular infill walls
distribution wither in plan and elevation performed poorly in recent earthquakes inducing
several failure mechanisms like torsion, short columns, P-Δ effects, open/soft/weak sttorey,
etc. Therefore, masonry infills (MI) impose both positive and negative effect on the global
behavior of the buildings depending on its configuration and, therefore, should be addressed
appropriately (Murty and Jain 2000).
When infills are non-uniformly placed in plan or in elevation of the building, a hybrid structural
load transfer mechanism with both frame action and truss action may develop. In such
structures, there is a large concentration of ductility demand in a few members of the
structure. For instance, the soft-storey effect (when a storey has no or relatively lesser infills
than the adjacent storeys), the short-column effect (when infills are raised only up to a partial
height of the columns), and plan-torsion effect (when infills are unsymmetrically located in
plan), cause excessive ductility demands on frame columns and significantly alter the collapse
mechanism. Another serious concern with such buildings is the out-of-plane collapse of the
infills which can be life threatening. Even when the infills are structurally separated from the
RC frame, the separation may not be adequate to prevent the frame from coming in contact
with the infills after some lateral displacement; the compression struts may be formed and the
stiffness of the building may increase. Infills possess large lateral stiffness and hence draw a
significant share of the lateral force. When infills are strong, strength contributed by the infills

2
may be comparable to the strength of the bare frame itself. The mode of failure of an infilled
building depends on the relative strengths of frame and infill. And, its ductility depends on the
(a) infill properties, (b) relative strengths of frame and infill, (c) ductile detailing of the frame
when plastic hinging in the frame controls the failure, (d) reinforcement in the infill when
cracking in infills controls the failure, and (e) distribution of infills in plan and elevation of the
building

Figure 1.0 : Change in the lateral load transfer mechanism due to masonry infill walls
(Murty and Jain 2000)

1.2 Rationale of the study:

The main concern in current practice of structural design masonry infilled RC framed structure
is treating the infilled wall (usually brick masonry) as a non-structural element and ignoring
their effect in analysis. The buildings are modeled and designed as a bare frame and only self
-weight of infilled walls are considered in analysis as shown in figure 1.1. This leads to
negligence of the stiffening effect of infilled walls in seismic performance of the structures.
When considering the contribution of infill walls modeling of walls plays an important role.
Since brick infill walls possess heterogeneous characteristics, and behave non-linearly, it is
difficult to include their contribution in the numerical analysis and design of buildings. Brick

3
masonry infill in cement mortar exhibits nonlinear load- deformation behavior as they include
both material as well as geometrical non-linearity. Consequently, infill walls demonstrate
marked brittle behavior under lateral loading on reaching ultimate load resulting in the global
degradation of global stiffness of infilled frame. Moreover, irregular configurations of infill walls
in RC framed structure give rise to vertical irregularities such as “Open/ soft first storey” in
which an abrupt reduction in the stiffness of storey is caused due to absence of infills in the
ground storey.

In a bare frame, inelastic effects in RC frame members and joints cause energy dissipation,
while in an infilled frame; inelastic effects in infills also contribute to it. Thus, energy dissipation
in an infilled frame is higher than that in the bare frame. If both frame and infill are detailed to
be ductile, then stiffness degradation and strength deterioration under cyclic loading are
nominal. However, if inelastic effects are brittle in nature (e.g., cracking of infill, bond slip
failure in frame, or shear failure in frame members), the drop in strength and stiffness under
repeated loading may be large. When physical gaps exist between the frame and the infills, or
when sliding takes place in infills along mortar beds, the hysteresis loops demonstrate
increased pinching.

Figure 1.1: Idealization of structural system in different stages

4
 Masonry infills are used for functional or aesthetic reasons, rather than as structural
elements. Their presence is generally ignored by the designers and no consideration is given
to their own seismic safety or their effect on the performance of the structure. Although,
these are considered as non- structural elements, they interact with the frame when the
buildings are subjected to lateral loads. The masonry infills act as diagonal struts between the
frame joints. This diagonal strut results in considerable increase in stiffness and strength of
the frame. The increased stiffness, in turn, attracts increased inertia force during earthquake.
Due to this frame–infill interaction, the failure modes of the global structure may get
changed. Four types of failure modes have been identified (Pauley and Priestley, 1992) in case
of infilled frame buildings: (1) Tension failure of the tension side column resulting from the
applied overturning moments in infilled frames with high aspect ratio, (2) Sliding shear failure
of the masonry along horizontal mortar bed joint causing shear hinges in the columns due to
short column effect, (3) Compression failure of the diagonal strut, and (4) Diagonal tensile
cracking of the panel. During earthquake, the infill itself, is subjected to in-plane, as well as,
out-of-plane forces. In in-plane action, it may fail in any of the last three modes, described
above. In case of slender infills, the failure may also occur due to buckling. In out-of-plane
action, the infill fails in bending tension in case of panels with high h/t ratio, while an arching
mechanism is developed, in case of panels with relatively low h/t ratio (FEMA 356). Generally,
the infills first crack due to in-plane action and then fail, with or without arching action, due
to out-of-plane forces. The overall phenomenon is quite complex to be handled in totality. In
the present study, the in-plane strength of infills and their effect on seismic behaviour of RC
frame buildings have been studied.

In bare frame analysis, the entire load is assumed to be taken by the moment resisting bare
frame. But in reality, the presence of infilled masonry walls changes the load transfer
mechanism in truss action. The lateral loads will be transferred to the surrounding infilled
frames through the compression diagonal of infill panels until complete diagonal cracking after
which only the surrounding frame members contribute ti the overall stiffness and strength of
the structure. However, in open/ soft first storey, due to the absence of masonry infill panels in

5
first storey, the truss load transfer action causes stress concentration in the first storey. Also,
the upper storey being stiff undergoes less inter-storey drift while the displacement will be
concentrated at the first storey during seismic events i.e. high inter-storey drift in the first
storey. The increased flexibility of first soft storey results in extreme lateral deflections which in
turn leads to forces concentration at the 2 nd storey connections followed by large plastic
deformations thus causing significant P-Δ effect. Moreover, due to dissipation of energy by the
column of first storey, the plastic hinges are formed at the top end of column (Agrawal and
Shrikhande, 2010). This transfers the soft storey into a mechanism. Different failures are much
clearer from in figure 1.2 to figures 1.6.

Figure 1.2 Hybrid Mechanism is common in open ground story RC buildings

(Source: Murty 2005).

6
 Figure 1.3 Captive columns are common in RC buildings whenpartial height walls adjoin
columns and the walls are treated as nonstructural elements (source: Murty 2005).

Figure 1.4. A building with ground floor open on one-side twists during earthquake shaking
(source: Murty 2005)

7
Figure 1.5. Pounding can occur in adjacent buildings located very close to
each other due to earthquake-induced shaking (source: Murty 2005).

Figure 1.6. Photos regarding various modes of failures

8
1.3 Objective

1.3.1 Overall objective

The objective of this study is to study the linear and non-linear behavior of masonry infill walls
on RC frames structure.

1.3.2 Specific Objective

Some specified Objectives includes:

 To study effect of infill wall on lateral resistance capacity of building

 To assess displacement demand and capacity change due to infill wall
 To assess seismic performance of Buildings with and without masonry infill

1.4 Scope and Limitation of Study

The current research is entirely focused on the behavior of masonry infilled on R.C.C Frame. The
buildings that were constructed for residential purpose in past but has currently been used in
commercial purpose are also covered by the case study. It is basically intended to access the
performance of building having irregular configurations of masonry infill. The strengthening
schemes are suggested so that the alternatives are simple and technically feasible and are not
opposed by owners based on economical ground (based on the judgment of researcher).
Researcher has suggested for the strengthening scheme but details of this are not carried out
here. The inclusion of openings of wall has not been accessed. .

1.5 Methodology

In order to fulfill the objectives of this study, the following methods are adopted.
The methodology adopted is as follows:

a. Various literatures related on this topic were studied and reviewed

9
b. Data collections were done. Data collection includes the collection of drawings, codes
etc
c. Representative building idealized as 2D and 3D model has been taken regarding bare
frame as reference model (neglecting the effect of infill wall and considering only its self
-weight) and others case models as Fully Infilled Frame( considering the effect of infill masonry
wall and its stiffness on RC buildings).
d. Apart from case models, Partially Infilling RCC frame (having different infill wall
configurations were also studied). The infilled frame modeled by appropriate equivalent strut
models determining its effective width and relative stiffness according to suitable literature.
Finite element program (SAP 2000 v.14
) has been used for modeling of the building.
e. The model has been analyzed for as built condition and with designed sections through
linear analysis for cases bare frame and full infilled frame.
f. Non-linear pushover analysis of bare frame, fully infilled frames, perimeter infilled
frames, inner core infilled frames and open ground storey has been done in order to view the
failure pattern of RC members and Capacity spectrum method (CSM) is performed to access the
capacity (in terms of displacement and strength) and seismic demands of the building models.
g. Since the capacity of open ground storey could not meet the seismic Demand, the
building strengthening schemes has been proposed by Column Strengthening or Partially
Infilling Ground Storey.
h. Based on results of analysis, the conclusion and recommendations are made.

1.6 Implications of Research

After successful completion of the study it is expected that a general trend of bare frame
analysis and design will be revised by architect, engineers and designers. It is expected that the
study will change the conventional structural design practice as a bare frame model and will be
a useful tool in exploring retrofitting options for residential buildings having masonry infills.

10
11
1.7 Organization of Thesis

The entire works have been divided and presented in following chapters.
Chapter 1 includes introduction to the research. Needs and objectives along with methodology,
implication and limitations are also given in this chapter.
Chapter 2 provides review of relevant literature. The literature reviews are mainly related to
study of masonry infill behavior and modeling, soft storey behavior,pushover analysis and some
codal provisions.
Chapter 3 is associated with the study of macro modeling of masonry infill that has been carried
out in past researches including some typical failure pattern of infill walls.
Chapter 4 outlines about the different analytical approaches carried out in this research such as
seismic coefficient method and capacity spectrum method.
Chapter 5 presents the details of the building surveyed along with finite element modeling for
analysis.
Chapter 6 provides information on property of materials along with model proposed for
masonry and the details of plastic hinge model adopted for current research is presented and
discussed.
Chapter 7 outlines the result of linear and nonlinear analysis of buildings. Comparisons have
also been based on performance of individual model.
Chapter 8 ends with the conclusion and recommendation of research.

12
2.0 LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1 General

Extensive literature review had been made to understand the problem related to the topic,
which were helpful in understanding analytical modeling of masonry infills , effects of masonry
infills on RCC frames, nonlinear static push over analysis. In order to achieve the objectives of
the study, the whole literatures surveyed had been summarized and classified into the
following broad areas.

2.2 Literatures review related to Masonry Infill Behavior and its Modeling

Polyakov (1956) published the first research paper on infilled RC frames subjected to cracking
load. He performed a number of large scale tests including square and rectangular frames in
order to determine the cracking strength of infilled frames. Based on the tests, he found that
firstly, the masonry infill and the frame member behaved monolithically until separation cracks
developed about the perimeter of the infill-frame interface except at two opposite compression
diagonal corners. Next, under sequential in-plane loading, the compression diagonal shortened
and the tension diagonal lengthened through mortar bed and bed joints until the masonry
cracks developed along the compression diagonal finally leading to its ultimate collapse as the
diagonal cracks widened. Based on these observations, he proposed the concept of equivalent
diagonal strut in which infilled frame behaved as a diagonally braced frame with infill walls
replaced by compressed strut.
Smith (1962) conducted a series of tests on literally loaded square mild steel frame models
infilled with micro concrete. The infill behaved as diagonal strut and frame separated over three
quarters of length of each frame member remaining in contact only at only corners of
compression diagonal. In series of experiments, he studied seven sets of diagonally loaded
infilled frames and two sets of laterally loaded bare frames. The overall lateral stiffness of
infilled frames was found to be higher with lesser displacements as compared to bare frames.
These experiments showed that frame remains in contact with infill only over a part of frame
member length called the contact length. He proposed the equivalent diagonal strut method in

13
which the effected width of wall was taken as the equivalent width of diagonal strut whose
length was equal to the diagonal wall and thickness same as that of wall.
Smith and Carter (1969) extended the research and investigated that the column stiffness
influences the overall stiffness and strength of infilled frame rather than that of beam. The
equivalent width of strut was found to depend upon the contact area between the infill and the
frame, which itself contributes to the relative stiffness between the frame and the infill.
They introduced the non-dimensional term λһҺ for expressing the relative stiffness of the infill
to the frame. The contact length between the column and wall (αһ) was used to express the
width of equivalent strut (w) which itself is a function of λһ is as:
Where
αh = π/2 λһ (2.1)

(2.2)
Where,
Em = the modulus of elasticity of the infill material, N/mm2
Ec = the modulus of elasticity of the frame material, N/mm2
Ig= the moment of intertia of column, mm4
t= the thickness of the infill, mm
hm= clear height of infill, mm
Lm= length of infill, mm
θ = tan-1(hm / lm ) is the slope of infill diagonal to the horizontal

This approach was used subsequently and using these expressions, the effective width of
equivalent diagonal strut “w” was proposed by Hendry (1990) accounting for relative stiffness
of column wall as well as beam-wall interface. The contact length between the column and wall
(αһ) and the beam and wall (α1) were to express the width of equivalent strut (w) which itself a
function of λһ and λ1 is as:
w = √ α12 + αh2 (2.3)

where, αh = π/2 λһ and α1 = π/ λ1 (2.4)

14
λl l = l*4√{(Eit sin 2θ)/(4 EfIchm)} & λhh = h 4√{(Eit sin 2θ)/(4 EfIchm)} (2.5)
θ = tan-1(hm / lm )
Ei is the modulus of elasticity of the infill; t the thickness of the infill wall, E f is the modulus of
elasticity of the frame, Ib the second moment of inertia of the beam, H m and Lm length of the
infill respectively. Buonopane and White (1999) suggested that the strut width proposed largely
overestimates the measured stiffness of infilled frame.
Mainstone (1971) based on his experimental results, developed an empirical relation for the
width of diagonal strut based on relative stiffness of infills to frame
For λh less than 5,
W/ld= 0.175(λ hcol)-0.4ld(2.6)
Where ld is the diagonal length of strut and hcol is the Column height between Centre line of
beams, mm
Similarly, Liauw and Kwan (1984) proposed width of diagonal strut as
W= (0.95hwcos θ)/√ (λkh) (2.7)
Fema 306 (1998) also proposes the effective width of diagonal strut as
A=equivalent strut width=0.175(λ h)-0.4ld (2.8)
Where,

(2.9)
And the cross sectional area of struts was calculated by considering the sectional properties of
the adjoining column members. The strut area was given As by the following equation
As=at (2.10)
where, “a "is the effective width of diagonal strut and t the thickness of masonry infill panels as
seen in Figure 2.0.
Buonopane and White(1999) concluded that the strut width calculated by this method is
significantly less than that calculated by other equations and underestimate the measured
stiffness of infilled frame.

15
 Figure 2.0.Model represented by equivalent strut (FEMA 356, 2000)

Holmes (1961) proposed the simplest equivalent strut model by replacing the infill panels with
a single pin jointed diagonal strut with its effective width taken as one-third of the diagonal
length of infill.
Stafford-Smith and Carter (1969) based on their experiments, proposed he equivalent width of
strut to lie between 1/4th and 1/11th the diagonal length, depending upon the aspect ratio ie
span to height ratio of frame.
Pauley and Priestley (1992) proposed a conservative value for effective width of strut. A higher
value of width as higher value of width will attract more seismic force resulting in a stiffer
structure. The width of equivalent strut was expressed as one-fourth of the diagonal strength of
infills i.e.
W=ld/4 (2.11)
Buonopane and White (1999) through experiments proposed the strut width as 1/4 th to 1/16th
the diagonal length of infill. Therefore, they suggested that the strut width proposed by Pauley

16
and Priestley (1992) provides a reasonable overestimation of the measured stiffness as
compared to others.
2.3 Literatures review related behavior and effect of masonry infill walls on RCC
frames
Kaushiket al. (2008) evaluated a rational approach for analytical modeling of masonry infills in
RC frame buildings. In order to capture linear and non linear material properties of masonry, a
rational analytical model is that could incorporate common failure modes in masonry infilled RC
structures. For comparative study, they used six models for analytical models masonry infills.
Experimental results were used for determining nonlinear material properties of masonry. The
analysis carried out was linear and nonlinear static analysis and the case studied was single-
storey, single-bay masonry infilled RC frame. The six models used were bare frame, equivalent
diagonal single strut model and 3-strut model, and finite element modeling techniques. By
linear and non-linear analyses, the 3-strut model was found to estimate force resultants in RC
members with sufficient accuracy as compared to 1 strut model. 3-strut model was found to
model local failures in the frame members in addition to the compressive failure of struts
wereas 1-strut model was found to estimate only the global behavior ie initial and ultimate
failure load only. It was also observed that the single strut model could be effectively used in
cases were masonry infill walls are discontinued in the first-storey to generate parking space(for
example, soft or open storey buildings).

Kaushik et al. (2009) evaluated effectiveness of various strengthening schemes for improving
the performance of masonry infilled RC frame structure with open first storey. The analysis
carried out was nonlinear pushover analysis for a typical four storey RC frame considering
models as bare frame (BF), open 1 st –storey frame(OFS) and frame strengthening options(SS)
which were fully infilled frame(SS1), national code prescribed method(SS2) i.e. column and
beam designed for 2.5 times lateral strength, column designed for higher (ie MF 2.5) strength
(SS3) and proposed improvements over code prescribes methods (SS4)in which dependable
strength of infill and available lateral strength of open 1 st storey was taken ti determine
multiplication factor. The national code schemes (SS2) were found to be inefficient in improving

17
ductility and although lateral strength of modified scheme SS4 were less than SS4, ductility of
frame used in SS4 was higher than SS2.
Valmundson and James (1997) presented paper on seismic response of building frames with
vertical irregularities regarding mass, stiffness and strength variations. The structures studied
are 2D frames with 5, 10 and 20 stories and irregularities were introduced by making the
variation in mass, stiffness and strength distributions. The methods of analysis used were ELF
(Equivalent lateral force) method and time history (TH). The response of frames were obtained
through ELF methods and compared with TH. Six fundamental time period were considered.
The variation in floor mass ratios ranging from and 1 stsoft storey stiffness and strength ratio
were introduces and the seismic response was obtained for different design ductility levels. The
conclusions were derived regarding the effects of the irregularities on shear forces and
maximum ductility demands. It was observed that the mass and stiffness criteria of UBC
resulted in moderate increase in response quantities in irregular building as compared to
regular ones. However, the strength criteria resulted in large increase in response quantities.
The result showed that 30% reduction of the stiffness, while keeping the strength constant,
increased the 1st story drift by 20-40% and reduced the ductility demand by 20% depending
upon the design ductility. The ductility demand though reduced was not significant.

Menon (2008) evaluated the magnification factor for Open ground (soft) storey using Response
spectrum analysis (RSA) and non-linear dynamic analysis. The case studied are 2D 4 and 7 1 st
storey building with various infill arrangement in terms of opening and properties. The infill wall
models used were Smith and carter (1961) and Crisafulli (2000) for linear and nonlinear
analysis. The analysis approach is considered the effect of masonry infill wall stiffness on the
building and determining the magnification factor (Mf) by comparing the results (in terms of
base shear and moment) with bare frame model through linear and non-linear dynamic
procedures. The results showed that MF based on linear dynamic analysis (RSA) is in range of
1.04 – 1.13 for 4 storey and 1.11 – 2.39 for 7-storey. The MF increased with the height of
building due to higher shift in time period. Also, the increase in openings and decrease in infill
walls thickness cause reduction in MF.

18
Inel and Ozmen (2008) investigated the soft storey behavior due to increased storey height,
absence of infills at ground storey and existence of both cases using nonlinear static and
dynamic time history analysis for mid-rise RC buildings. The samples taken were 4 and 7 storey.
Displacements capacities at immediate occupancy (IO), life safety (LS) and collapse prevention
(CP) performance levels and story drift demands of the regular and soft story models were
determined. Soft storey behavior is evaluated in terms of displacement capacities, drift
demands and structural behavior. As observed in this study, some of the conclusions drawn
were (a) the increase in the confinement level increases the displacement capacities, (b) the
effect of infills are significant in low rise buildings with weaker members, (c) the lateral strength
of building increases and ductility decreases when the stiffness of the infill walls is considered,
(d) the main reason for a collapse is found to be weak columns and strong beams, (e) the soft
storey irregularity formed by the absence of infills at the ground storey is found to be more
dangerous than the stiffness based one, (f) soft storey due to both increased height and
absence of infill wall at ground storey was the most detrimental case in view of drift capacities
and demands
Das and Murty(2004) compared design methodologies given in various national codes and a
simplified design methods was proposed using the equivalent braced frame method. A 10-
storey RC frame was analyzed with different arrangements and quality of brick masonry infill
panels with an open first storey and open intermediate bay the hysteretic behavior of infill was
modeled using results of previous study (Kappos et al. 1998). The building designs by equivalent
braced frame method were observed to have the highest ductility and drift capacities. The well
configuration of masonry infill (fully infilled or regularly arranged openings) showed good
performance. Infill wall were observed to provide the main energy dissipation mechanism in
structure subjected to design earthquake provided soft/weak storey are avoided.

Davis et al. (2004) investigated the effect of infill stiffness on stiffness of seismic performance of
multi-storey RC framed buildings in India. Two typical existing buildings having plan and vertical
irregularity (soft storey) and located in moderate seismic zones were analyzed. The analyses
performed were static analysis, response spectrum analyses and non-linear pushover analysis.

19
It was observed that the seismic demand at the soft storey level is significantly large when infill
stiffness is considered, with larger base shear and larger displacements. This effect however, is
not found to be significant in the symmetric building (without soft storey). Also, the bending
moments in the ground floor columns increase (more than two fold), and the mode of failure is
by soft storey mechanism (formation of hinges in ground floor columns).

Jain et al. (1997) studied the seismic performance of RC infilled buildings with soft first storey.
The 9 models of storey frames were and analysis done were linear elastic analysis (equivalent
static analysis and multi-model dynamic analysis). The soil flexibility was considered and
introduced as linear winkler spring under the footing. The results driven were the drift and
strength demands in the first storey were very high for buildings with soft ground storey. The
preventive measures suggested were (a) provision of stiffer column in the ground floor such
that the stiffness of ground storey is at least half of first floor and (b) provision of concrete
service core in order to reduce the drift as well as strength demands on the ground soft storey.
It was also found the soil flexibility increases the drifts and strength demands in the first floor
columns.

Sattar and B. Liel (2009) investigated the seismic performance of RC infilled buildings taking 4
and 8 storey frames and used dynamic analysis of nonlinear simulation models to obtain
probabilistic predictions of the risk of structural collapse. The evaluation was based on
structures with design and detailing characteristics representative of pre-1975 California
construction. This research evaluated the effect of the presence and configuration of masonry
infill walls on seismic collapse risk. The considered were bare, partially-infilled and fully-infilled
frames. The conclusions driven were the fully-infilled frame has the lowest collapse risk and the
bare frame was found to be the most vulnerable to earthquake-induced collapse.

Danesh and Behrang (2004) studied the effect of infill walls on dynamic behavior of concrete
structures. The infill walls configuration taken were bare, open ground and fully infilled frames
four, eight and twelve storey and analyzed by non-linear Time History under three ground

20
motions. The result derived were increase in base shears which is more sensitive in low
buildings and decrease on inters storey drifts in fully infilled frame. When subjected to high
ground motions, under inelastic behavior the more interaction between infill walls and frames
were observed to cause the changes in the location of plastic hinges and damage contributions
especially in higher storey levels showing positive effect of fully infilled frame on preventing
damages concentration on top storey. In case of open ground storey, the change in the lateral
stiffness was seen to cause higher displacement and damages concentration in this storey.

2.4 Literature Reviews related to Pushover analysis

A. K. Chopra (2001) extracted an improved Direct Displacement-Based Design Procedure for

Performance-Based seismic design of structures. Direct displacement-based design requires a
simplified procedure to estimate the seismic deformation of an inelastic SDF system,
representing the first (elastic) mode of vibration of the structure. This step is usually
accomplished by analysis of an “equivalent” linear system using elastic design spectra. In their
work, an equally simple procedure is developed that is based on the well-known concepts of
inelastic design spectra. This procedure provides: (1) accurate values of displacement and
ductility demands, and (2) a structural design that satisfies the design criteria for allowable
plastic rotation. In contrast, the existing procedure using elastic design spectra for equivalent
linear systems is shown to underestimate significantly the displacement and ductility demands.

A. Shuraim et al., (2007) summarized the nonlinear static analytical procedure (Pushover) as
introduced by ATC-40 has been utilized for the evaluation of existing design of a new reinforced
concrete frame, in order to examine its applicability. Potential structural deficiencies in RC
frame, when subjected to a moderate seismic loading, were estimated by the code seismic-
resistant design and pushover approaches. In the first method the design was evaluated by
redesigning under one selected seismic combination in order to show which members would
require additional reinforcement. It was shown that most columns required significant
additional reinforcement, indicating their vulnerability if subjected to seismic forces. On the
other hand, the nonlinear pushover procedure shows that the frame is capable of withstanding

21
the presumed seismic force with some significant yielding at all beams and one column.
Vulnerability locations from the two procedures are significantly different. The paper has
discussed the reasons behind the apparent discrepancy which is mainly due to the default
assumptions of the method as implemented by the software versus the code assumptions
regarding reduction factors and maximum permissible limits. In new building design, the code
always maintains certain factor of safety that comes from load factors, materials reduction
factors, and ignoring some post yielding characteristics (hardening). In the modeling
assumptions of ATC-40, reduction factor is assumed to be one, and hardening is to be taken
into consideration. Hence, the paper suggests that engineering judgment should be exercised
prudently when using the pushover analysis and that engineer should follow the code limits
when designing new buildings and impose certain reductions and limits in case of existing
buildings depending on their conditions. In short software should not substitute for code
provisions and engineering judgment.

A. Whittaker , Y. N. Huang et al (2007) summarize the next (second) generation tools and
procedures for performance-based earthquake engineering in the United States, Figure 2.1. The
methodology, which is described in detail in the draft Guidelines for the Seismic Performance
Assessment of Buildings, builds on the first generation deterministic procedures, which were
developed in the ATC-33 project in the mid 1990s and in ASCE Standard: ASCE/SEI 41-06 Seismic
Rehabilitation of Existing Buildings.

22
Dhileep. M et al., (2011) explained the practical difficulties associated with the non linear direct
numerical integration of the equations of motion leads to the use of non linear static pushover
analysis of structures. Pushover analysis is getting popular due to its simplicity. High frequency
modes and non linear effects may play an important role in stiff and irregular structures. The
contribution of higher modes in pushover analysis is not fully developed. The behavior of high
frequency model responses in non linear seismic analysis of structures is not known. In this
paper an attempt is made to study the behavior of high frequency model responses in non
linear seismic analysis of structures. Non linear static pushover analysis used as an
approximation to non linear time history analysis is becoming a standard tool among the
engineers, researches and professionals worldwide. High frequency modes may contribute
significantly in the seismic analysis of irregular and stiff structures. In order to take the
contribution of higher modes structural engineers may include high frequency modes in the
non linear static pushover analysis. The behavior of high frequency modes in non linear static
pushover analysis of irregular structures is studied. At high frequencies, the responses of non
linear dynamic analysis converge to the non linear static pushover analysis. Therefore non
linear response of high frequency modes can be evaluated using a non linear static push over
analysis with an implemental force pattern given by their modal mass contribution times zero
period acceleration. The higher modes with rigid content as a major contributing factor exhibit
a better accuracy in non linear pushover analysis of structures when compared to the damped
periodic modes.

Konuralp Girgin et al., (2007) explained that structural frames are often filled with infilled walls
serving as partitions. Although the infills usually are not considered in the structural analysis
and design, their influence on the seismic behaviour of the infilled frame structures is
considerable. In this study, a parametric study of certain infilled frames, using the strut model
to capture the global effects of the infills was carried out. Three concrete planar frames of five-
stories and three-bays are considered which have been designed in accordance with Turkish
Codes. Pushover analysis is adopted for the evaluation of the seismic response of the frames.
Each frame is subjected to four different loading cases. The results of the cases are briefly
presented and compared. The effect of infill walls on seismic behavior of two sample frames

23
with different infill arrangements was investigated. The results yield that, it is essential to
consider the effect of masonry infills for the seismic evaluation of moment-resisting RC frames,
especially for the prediction of its ultimate state, infills having no irregularity in elevation have
beneficial effect on buildings and infills appear to have a significant effect on the reduction of
global lateral displacements.

2.5 Codal provisions for masonry infilled RC Frame

2.5.1 Empirical Formulae for Natural period:
Since the masonry infilled frame increases both the mass lateral stiffness of the buildings, the
fundamental natural periods of these masonry infilled frames are lower than that of bare
frames. In order to specified formulae for masonry infilled RC frames. Codes like IS 1893-2002
and NBC 105-1994 have given following empirical formula for calculating the natural period of
masonry infilled RC building:
Ta = 0.075h0.75 for RC frame building
Ta =0.09h/√D for Masonry in filled
Where h is the height of the building and d the base dimension of building in m at the plinth
level along the considered direction of the lateral force.

Eurocode 8
Eurocode 8 (EC 8) considers brick masonry infilled RC frames as ‘dual’ system, which are
classified into three ductility classes, namely, high, medium and low. The effect of infills is
neglected for low ductility class. When asymmetrical arrangements of the infills causes severe
irregularities in plan, three dimensional models are recommended for analysis. When the
irregularity is not severe in plan, the accidental eccentricity, eli, is increase by a factor of 2,
where, eli= +/_ 0.05bi and bi is the floor dimension perpendicular to the considered direction of
seismic action.

24
Nepal building code 201
One particular section of Nepal National building Code 201 (INBC 201) provides mandatory
rules of thumb, which are meant only for ordinary buildings up to three storeys in the lowest
seismic zone of Nepal. In higher seismic regions, adopting these thumbs rules is expected to
improve their performances. As per these rules, the building is designed to resist seismic forces
action. The design base shear for is calculated for the fundamental natural period of the bare
structure and distributed over the height of building.
Indian seismic code
The Indian seismic code recommends linear elastic analysis of the bare structure excluding the
effect of the brick infills. The approxiamate fundamental natural period of vibration, T,
(Iseconmds) of an RC moment- resisting frame (MRF) building with brick infll panels is to be
estimated by the empirical expression
Ta =0.09h/√D

25
3.0 MACRO MODELING OF MASONRY INFILLS: PAST RESEARCH
3.1 Stiffness Properties of diagonal Strut models for infill walls
The equivalent diagonal strut models are used for macro modeling of masonry infills. In this
method the analysis is carried out by simulating the action of infills similar to that of diagonal
struts bracing the frame. The infills are replaced by an equivalent strut of length d and width W.
the analytical models can be broadly classified into two:

i. Single strut model and

ii. Multiple strut models
i) Single strut models:

As discussed earlier, Researchers have given various expressions for estimation the equivalent
compression strut width and the stiffness of infilled frame which are summarized below:

1
W = = ld (3.0) Holmes (1961)
3
1 1
W= to l Stafford-Smith and Carter, (1969)
4 11 d
1
w = ld Pauley and Priestley, (1992)
4
w = 0.175 (λhh)-0.4 ld Mainstone, (1971) and FEMA 306, 1998
w = 0.95hmcosθ/(λhh)0.5 (3.1)
Liauw and Kwan (1984)

Where λh Is the non-dimensional parameter for representing the relative Stiffness of the
frame to the infill and is given by
Em tsin 2θ 1/4
λh = [ ] (3.2)
4 E c I g hm

Em = The modulus of elasticity of masonry infill, N/mm2

Ec = The modulus of elasticity of RC frame, . N/mm2
Ig = The moment of inertia of column, mm4

26
t= The thickness of infill, mm
hm = The clear height of infill , mm
h = The column height between c/c of beams, mm
lm = The lengths of infill ,mm
θ = tan-1(hm/lm) is the slope of the infill diagonal to the horizontal
ld = The diagonal length of masonry wall
λ = The relative stiffness of frame to infill
αm = The contact length

ii) Multi-strut models

A single diagonal strut is directly connected between joints of frame along the diagonals with
the bending moments being released at both ends. Therefore, researchers have argued that a
single strut model could not appropriately represent the interaction of infill with the bounding
frame i.e. adjoining beam and column. Therefore, in order to get a more realistic model, multi
strut models were proposed by Saneinajad and Hobbs(1995), Crisafulli (2000), chrysostomou et
al. (1992) for dynamic analysis of infilled frame as illustrated in figure 3.1. in multi strut models,
the off diagonal struts are connected to the columns and beams in relation to the contact legths
of infill to beam and column given as
Em tsin 2θ 1/4
αh = π/2λh and λ h = [ ] (3.3)
4 E c I g hm
The width of strut in Crisafully et al. (2000) three struts model is taken such that the x-section of
middle strut is twice the other two diagonal struts and the total x sectional area is taken equal
to that obtained by above described single strut, the off-diagonal struts are located at a
distance equal to half the contact length z (ieα h) on either side.

3.2 Strength and Deformation of masonry Infilled RC frame

3.2.1 Failure Modes of Masonry Infilled frames:

27
The bare frame and infilled frame behave differently as the infill walls being stiffer alter the in-
plane lateral stiffness and strength in the infilled frame. In a brick masonry infilled frame, under
small deformations the stiffness and overall behavior are easily.

a) Shear failure:

The shear failure is the most common mode of failure brick infill masonry. This type of failure
may be observed with cracking along the mortar joints in stepped cracks or in horizontal
cracking depending on shear strength of the mortar joint, the tensile strength of the masonry
units and the relative values of the shear and normal stress.
The maximum shear strength resisted by the infill panel is
τ 0 t lm
Vf = where, (3.4)
(1−μtanθ )

τ 0=cohesive capacity of the mortar beds=0.04 f ' m (Paulay and Priestly 1992)
μ=sliding friction coefficient along the bed joint=0.45
θ=angle subtended by diagonal strut to horizontal plane

b) Compression failure (diagonal cracking/diagonal tension):

When the tensile strains exceed the cracking strain of the infill material followed by large
diagonal compression stress, diagonal cracking occurs parallel to the diagonal compression of
the infill. Here, the ultimate lateral capacity of the frame is governed by the compressive
strength of the masonry strut. Pauley and Priestley (1992) gave the following expression for the

compressive strength as, V c=¿ 2 α ¿t f ' m secθ

h
(3.5) where,
3

α h defines the vertical length between panel and column, as

π 4 E c I g hm 1/4
αh = [ ] (3.6)
2 Em tsin 2θ

According to FEMA 306-1998, the compressive strength is given by

Vc =at f ' m cosθ
90 (3.7)

28
f ' m =expected strength of masonry in the horizontal direction, which may be set at 50% of the
90

expected stacked prism strength i.e. f ' m = f ' m / 2

90 (3.8)
a = equivalent strut width = 0.175(( λ h h )-0.4 I d (3.9)
Em tsin 2θ 1/4
λh = [ ] where , (3.10)
4 E c I g hm
E m=modulus of elasticity of infill masonry
E m =550 (FEMA 356:2000) =750 (Pauley and Priestley, 1992)
t=thickness of infill masonry
E c=modulus of elasticity of concrete=5000
I g=Moment of inertia of column
h m =height of infill masonry
l m =length of infill masonry
l d =diagonal length of equivalent strut
θ= tan−1 ¿ ) angle whose tangent is the infill height to length aspect ratio
λ=coefficient used to determine equivalent width of infill strut
The compression strength of the masonry prism( f ' m), as illustrated in figure 3.3 and
recommended by Pauley and Priestley (1992) is
f ' cb '
∗f tb +α f ' j j
Uu (3.11) where, α = (3.12)
f ' m= ' 4.1 h
f tb +α f ' cb
f ' cb=compressive strength of hand molded burnt clay brick
f ' j =Compressive strength of cement mortar

f 'tb =tensile strength of brick=0.1 f cb(Pauley and Priestley 1992)

U u =stress non-uniformity coefficient=1.5 (Pauley and Priestley 1992)
j=mortar thickness
h=height of brick unit

c) Corner Compression(Corner Crushing):

29
This type of failure can be observed when high stress concentration occurs at each corner of
the compression diagonal. It is located over a relatively small region, when the frame members
are stiff whereas in weaker frames, the corner crushing is over more extensive area.

d) Flexural failure:

Flexural failure may occur due to the development of plastic moment hinges at the top and
bottom of columns. This failure is predominated by flexural effect of the frame in which the
columns of the frame are very weak. The flexural cracks can open in the tensile side of the
panel due to the low tensile strength of the masonry and is given by

4 Mu
F= (3.13)
h
M u is the plastic moment capacity of column section

3.2.2 Strength and Deformation Properties of Diagonal strut

The strength-Deformation Properties of masonry infills at different stages of failures given by:
Reinhorn et al (1995), based on experimental and analytical studies, developed a hysteresis
model to describe the lateral strength-deformation relationship of masonry infills Figure 3.0.
The maximum lateral load required for complete crushing of infills and its maximum
deformation is expressed as:

(3.14)

(3.15)

' −1
α h'
θ tan ¿ ¿ c ]
= 1- ) (3.16)
l
Where,
θ '=inclination angle of masonry diagonal strut at shear failure
θ= tan−1 ¿ )

30
 t=the thickness or out of plane dimension of infill
f ' m=masonry prism strength
um =compressive strain at ultimate stress
τ 0=shear strength or cohesive capacity of the mortar beds

Figure 3.0 Equvalent Strut Models and Strenght Envelope curve for masonry infill
(Reinhorn et al., 1995)

Saneinejad and Hobbs (1995) derived the area Ad , the length l d of equivalent diagonal strut, the
initial stiffness of the infill panels ( K o ), lateral yield force (V y ) and yield displacement (u y ) as:

K 0= 2 K sec

(3.17)

α =0.1 assumed
(3.18)

31
u y =¿) (3.19)

Based on these expressions, the idealized axial force deformation curve as shown in figure 3.5,
for infill panel is given by Das (2000) by determining yield force,( P y ), the maximum force( Pm), in
the axial direction and the corresponding displacements, V y and V m as:
Vm
Pm = (3.20)
cosθ
V m =U m cosθ (3.21)
Vy
P y= (3.22)
cosθ
V y =U y cosθ (3.23)

Dolsek and Fajfar (2008) proposed following equations for determining the maximum strength
of the infill:
f tp l
F max=0.818l ¿ t C 1=1.925 ¿ (3.24)
C1¿ ¿ h'
Where l ¿ is the length of infill, f tp the cracking stress of masonry.
The initial stiffness of the masonry infill panel, K e is taken as twice the stiffness obtained from
the equivalent strut width i.e.
Em wt 2
K e = 2( )cos θ (3.25)
Ld
Where Ld is the length of diagonal strut
Each strut is assigned a force displacement relationship representing initial stiffness, peak
strength and post-peak (residual) strength of masonry to predict wall failure. After cracks
formation, the stiffness of panel reduced to α h K e

32
 F cr
The ratio of cracking to maximum strength is is taken as 0.55. The residual strength
F max
assumed is F r=0.2 F max . The deformations at maximum and zero wall strength are taken as
δ cap = 0.25% drifts and δ c =5δ cap the strength envelop is graphically presented in figure 3.0
FEMA 306, 1998 identifies four possible failure modes as sliding-shear failure, compression
failure, diagonal tension cracking and general shear failure as summarized below:

i) Sliding shear failure:

The Mohr-Columb failure criteria are used to calculate the initial sliding shear capacity of the
infill:
V ' slide = (τ 0+σ ytan∅) Linf t inf = μN (3.26)
Where σ y is the vertical stress of masonry infill panel, ∅ the angle of sliding friction,
Linf The length of panel, τ 0 the cohesive capacity of mortar beds taken as
τ 0=f me /20 90 (3.27)
Where f me /20 is the expected strength of masonry which may be set as 50% of expected
90

stacked prism strength i.e.

f me /20 = f ' me/2
90 (3.28)
μis the coefficient of sliding friction and N is the vertical load on masonry panel.

ii) Compression failure:

For the compression failure of equivalent diagonal strut, the lateral strength of the diagonal
strut is calculated as
V c = atf ' m 90 cosθ (3.29) where,
f ' m 90 f ' m/2
¿ (3.30)
a = equivalent strut width = 0.175(( λ h h )-0.4 I d (3.31)
Em tsin 2θ 1/4
λh = [ ] (3.32)
4 E c I g hm

33
iii) Diagonal tension cracking:
Using the recommendation of Saneinejad and Hobbs (1995), the cracking shear in the infill is
given by:
2 √ 2 σ cr t inf
V cr = Linf h inf (3.33)
( + )
hinf Linf
In the absence of test results, the cracking stress capacity σ cr can be taken as
σ cr = 20√ f ' me

iv) General shear failure of panel:

Based on the recommendation of FEMA 273, the initial and final contributions of shear carried
by the infills are defined as:
V mi = A vh20√ f ' me (3.34)
V mf = 0.3 V mi (3.35)
A vh = L¿ t ¿ (3.36)

V mi,V mf are the available initial and final shear capacity and A vh the net horizontal shear area of
the infill panel.

3.3 Calculation of Storey Stiffness for Different Building Models

For stiffness calculation, the lower bound value of equivalent diagonal strut is used ie the width
proposed by Mainstone (1971) and FEMA 306, 1998 is used where
W = 0.175(( λ h h )-0.4 I d
The story lateral shear stiffness of infilled frame is given by
ncol
E col , j I nstrut
E s ,m A
K i = ∑ 12 +∑
col , j
cos 2 θ m
s ,m

j=1 Lcol , j m=1 L d ,m

34
35
4.0 ANALYTICAL METHOD
4.1 General
For Performance Evaluation of a structure, Linear and Non-linear analysis has been carried out
as:

i) Seismic Coefficient (linear static) analysis

ii) Non-linear static pushover analysis

4.2 Seismic Coefficient (Static) Method of Analysis:

In Seismic coefficient method, the total weight of the structure is multiplied by a coefficient,
known as the seismic coefficient, to obtain the total base shear of the structure that is
distributed as a set of lateral forces along the height of the structure. The distribution of lateral
forces bears a resemblance with that of the fundamental mode of the structure in RSA. The
seismic co-efficient method of analysis considers only the contribution of the fundamental
mode of vibration of the structure in an approximate way. Distribution is obtained by an
empirical formula that varies from code to code.
IS 1893: 2002
Base shear VB is given by
VB = Ah * W (4.0) where,
ZI Sa ƒ’ cb(ƒ ’ tb+α ƒ’ j)
Ah = (4.1)
2 Rg U u(ƒ ’ tb+α ƒ’ cb)
Ah = Design horizontal acceleration spectrum value, using the fundamental natural period T,
direction of vibration
Z=Seismic zone factor
I= Importance factor, depending upon the functional use of the structures
R= Response reduction factor, depending on the perceived seismic damage performance of the
structure, characterized by ductile or brittle deformations.
Sa /g=average response acceleration coefficient
W= Seismic weight of the building

36
The value of Sa /g depends upon the time period of the structure and the type of the soil at the
site.
The approximate fundamental natural time period of vibration, T a is given by
Ta = 0.075h0.75 (4.2) for RC frame building

0.09 h
Ta = (4.3) for Masonry in filled frames
√d
The design seismic base shear calculated above is vertically distributed as per following
expressions:
2
W i hi
Qi=V B N
(4.4)
∑ W j h 2j
j=1
Qi = Design lateral force at floor i,
W i = Seismic weight of floor i,
h j = Height of floor i measured from base, and
N= Number of storeys in the building i.e. the number of levels at which the masses are located.

4.3 Non-linear Static Pushover analysis (CAPACITY SPECTRUM METHOD)

4.3.1 General
Pushover Analysis option will allow engineers to perform pushover analysis as per FEMA -356
and ATC-40. Pushover analysis is a static, nonlinear procedure using simplified nonlinear
technique to estimate seismic structural deformations. It is an incremental static analysis
used to determine the force-displacement relationship, or the capacity curve, for a structure
or structural element. The analysis involves applying horizontal loads, in a prescribed
pattern, to the structure incrementally, i.e. pushing the structure and plotting the total applied
shear force and associated lateral displacement at each increment, until the structure or
collapse condition. (Sermin, 2005)
Pushover analysis is a technique by which a computer model of the building is subjected to a
lateral load of a certain shape (i.e., inverted triangular or uniform). The intensity of the lateral
load is slowly increased and the sequence of cracks, yielding, plastic hinge formation, and

37
failure of various structural components is recorded. Pushover analysis can provide a
significant insight into the weak links in seismic performance of a structure. A series of
iterations are usually required during which, the structural deficiencies observed in one
iteration, are rectified and followed by another. This iterative analysis and design process
continues until the design satisfies a pre-established performance criterion. The performance
criterion for pushover analysis is generally established as the desired state of the building given
roof-top or spectral displacement amplitude.
The Non-linear Static Pushover analysis involves application of lateral loads on the building at
the floor levels and pushing structures laterally in one direction until a pre-specified lateral
force or displacement is reached. Accordingly, pushover analysis may be force-controlled of
displacement controlled. In the present study, SAP 2000 14 was used for displacement-
controlled pushover analyses.
The Capacity Spectrum Method (CSM), a performance based seismic analysis technique is the
non-linear static analysis procedure which represents the variation of base shear with the
lateral displacement of the building at roof. Therefore, a pushover curve provides a
representation of both the displacement and the force capacity of a building in terms of roof
drift and base shear, respectively hat represent the structural performance of a building. In
other word, by converting the base shear and floor displacements from non-linear pushover to
equivalent spectral acceleration and displacement for equivalent single degree of freedom
system(SDOF) and superimposing an earthquake demand and determining the point where
these two curves break through is called performance point. Hence, at the performance point,
capacity is equal to demand means maximum response (displacement) of the structure to meet
the demand which also implies damage state of the structure.
Displacement controlled pushover analysis of the 3-D building is performed in the present study
using SAP 2000. The pushover analysis is prescribed to be generally valid for buildings with
fundamental periods of vibration up to about 1 sec. the first mode shape is obtained for the
free vibration for the free vibration analysis of building models. The first mode pushover force
f 1i at floor ' I' is calculated as:
f 1i =λ φ1 i wi (4.5)

38
Where φ 1i is the mode shape coefficient in mode 1 at floor i, w i the seismic weight of floor I and
' λ 'a scalar multiplier depending on the pushover displacement. A target displacement of 0.04 H
is specified as the limit for the roof displacement where H is the total height of the building.
The pushover curve ie base shear verses roof displacement is transformed to capacity spectrum
curve simply by normalizing with the first mode shape i.e. by translating base shear and roof
displacement into spectral acceleration, Sa and spectral displacement, Sd respectively obtained
as follows:
V
S=
( W ) (4.6)
a
α1

Sd = ∆ roof (4.7)
P F1 ∅roof ,1

∑ ( wi ¿ ∅ i 1)/ g
i=1
Pf 1= N
¿ (4.8)
2
∑ ( wi ¿∅ i 1)/ g ¿
i=1

α 1=¿ ¿ (4.9)
Where,
Pf 1= modal participation factor of the 1st natural mode
α 1 = modal mass coefficient of 1st mode
wi
= mass of building at level i
g
∅ i 1= mode shape coefficient of mode 1 at level i
N= the uppermost level in the structure
V= base shear from pushover analysis.
W = seismic load (dead load + part live loads)
Such a format is conventionally referred to as the acceleration-displacement response
spectrum or (ADRS) format and is shown in figure 4.0. The ATC-40 methodology involves a
simple conceptual procedure wherein the reformatted capacity curve is compared to the
seismic demand curve, which is also expressed in a similar format. The preferred method of

39
choice in ATC-40 to establish system capacity is the nonlinear static or pushover procedure in
which a mathematical model of the structure is subjected to a lateral force incrementally or
iteratively till a capacity curve is obtained. The objective is CSM is to determine the
“performance” point of the structure that identifies the demand corresponding to the hazard at
the site specified in terms of response spectrum.

40
Figure 4.0 Capacity and Spectral Curve in ADRS format (ATC 40)

41
4.3.2 Modeling of frame members for Pushover Analysis
For pushover analysis, geometry of all other members needs to be modeled. The material
properties such as compressive strength, poison’s ratio and shear strength of materials need to
be defined.
4.3.2.1 Plastic Hinge properties of RC members
Beam and column elements are modeled as non-linear frame elements with lumped plasticity
by defining plastic hinges at both ends of beams and columns. SAP2000 implements the plastic
hinge properties described in FEMA-356 (or ATC-40) (FEMA, 2000; ATC-40, 1996). As shown in
figure 4.1., five points labeled A,B,C,D and E define force0deformation behavior of a plastic
hinge. Default plastic hinge properties based on FEMA-356 guidelines were adopted for the
present study. Modified Kent and Park model for unconfined and confined concrete and typical
steel stress-strain model with strain hardening (Mander, 1984) for steel are implemented in
moment-curvature analysis. The point B and C on Figure 4.2 are related to yield and ultimate
curvatures. For RC members, flexural hinge properties are defined in terms of Moment-
Rotation (M-θ) and axial force-moment interaction relation (P-M) for columns and Moment-
curvature (M-φ) relation for beams. The plastic hinges proposed by Park and Paulay, 1975;
Priestley et al, 1996 is given by
Lp = 0.08L +0.022 fy db ≥ 0.044 fy db (4.12)
Where Lp is the plastic hinge length, L the distance from the critical section of the plastic hinge
to the point of contra flexure, d b is the diameter of longitudinal reinforcement and f y the yield
stress.

42
 Figure
4.1 Moment rotation diagram for hinge (ATC 40, 1996)
4.3.2.2 Plastic Hinge Properties of masonry Infills
Non-linear stress-strain curves of masonry were used to assign as hinge properties to the
masonry infills represented by equivalent diagonal strut models. The stress-strain curves were
obtained by comprehensive experiment works carried out by Kaushik et al. (2006) which vary
according to the grades of cement mortar used. The tests were carried out as per the relevant
ASTM Standards. Stress- strain curves for masonry prisms were obtained by averaging the test
data from seven specimens of each combination of bricks and mortar (total 84 specimens). The
average stress-strain curves for masonry prisms obtained for the three grades of mortar are
shown in Figure 4.3. The idealized comprehensive stress-strain curves of masonry (Kaushik et
al., 2006) assigned to the hinges in equivalent diagonal struts is shown in Figure 4.2 and
corresponding stress-strain values given in Table 4.0. Here, for the present study, the
comprehensive stress-strain curves corresponding to weak masonry i.e. Cement: Sand :: 1: 6 is
used.
Masonry infills were modeled as equivalent diagonal struts. These struts are modeled as
compression only elements, therefore, only axial hinges are assume to be developed in
masonry. Plastic hinges in these struts assigned, to be developed at the center of struts along
the length and the plastic hinge length was considered to be three-fourth of the strut length.

43
Figure 4.2 Idealised stress strain curve for masonry infill used in analysis
(Kaushik et al. 2006)

44
Table 4.0 Stress strain data for masonry prism (Kaushik et al. 2006)

Stress in Weal grade (1:6) Strong grade (1:3)

terms of f’m
Stress (MPA) Strain Stress(MPA) Strain

0 0 0 0 0

0.33 f’m 1.4 0.0009 2.48 0.0005

0.75 f’m 3.1 0.0021 5.63 0.0014

0.9 f’m 3.7 0.0029 6.75 0.002

f’m 4.1 0.0036 7.5 0.0025

0.5 f’m 2.6 0.0059 3.75 0.0045

0.1 f’m - - 1.5 0.0053

45
Figure 4.3 Stress strain curve for masonry prism (Kaushik et al. 2006)

46
5.0 BUILDING DETAILS
5.1 General
The contribution of masonry infills on the strength and stiffness of RC framed buildings is
generally ignored in design. The masonry infills are treated as non-structural elements in RC
framed buildings even with presence of masonry infilled walls, are analyzed as bare frames.
Due to growing commercialization, masonry infilled RCC frames are usually constructed with
ununiform distribution of masonry i.e. without placing masonry at the outer perimeter or at the
inner cores or open ground storey i.e. without placing masonry walls in the ground storey
except on the upper floors. These types of masonry infilled buildings give rise to vertical
irregularities. For the case study, a building structure as shown in figure 5.0 is taken. The length
of the building is 18m and breadth is 9m resulting into the plinth area of 162sq.m. The building
is of four storied masonry infilled RC framed structure with storey height of 3.2m. The typical
floor plan of building is shown in figure 5.0.

Figure 5.0. Typical Plan of Model

47
5.2 Finite Element Modeling and Loading
Finite Element Method based Program SAP2000 v.14.0 is used for analysis and modeling of the
building under case study. The 4 storey RC building is assumed to be located on medium soil
site in seismic zone V and have 2 and 3 bays on X and Y direction respectively. The building is
founded on isolated footings and the columns are assumed fixed at the base of footing. The
soil structure interaction is not considered in the present study. The response reduction factor
taken is as 5. The live loads are applied as per IS : 875 (part II)-1987 according to which the
considered live loads are 2 kN/m 2 at all floor levels and 1.5 kN/m 2 at roof. Live loads being less
than 3 kN/m2 , only 25% of these live loads are considered for seismic weight calculation for
earthquake loads as per IS 1893 2002. The floor finishing load of 1 kN/m 2 and partition load of 1
kN/m2 are assumed on floors. The self weight of materials (brick masonry, plain and RC
concrete) are taken as per IS: 875 (part I) – 1987. The material properties are assigned as per IS:
456 2000. The grades of concrete and steel used in the study are M20 and Fe 415 respectively.
The Self weight of 230mm thick burnt clay brick masonry infills (18 kN/m 3 ) is included for
seismic weight calculation and distributed uniformly over the beams. Wall load (kN/m ) = 18 *
3.2* .23 = 13.248 kN/m . Allowing load reduction due to opening, the wall load per m run is
taken as 10.1 kN/m for 230mm thick external wall and 2.65 kN/m for the parapet walls at the
roof. The triangular and trapezoidal areal loads from 125mm thick (5” thick) floor slabs as well
as respective live loads are assigned to the beams as distributed frame loads with the joints
considered as rigid floor diaphragms. The lateral loads are assigned as per IS 1893-2002.

48
Figure 5.1. Typical View of Model

49
5.3 Frame Section Properties
Beam Elements, column elements and masonry infills are used as frame elements for modeling
of buildings. The masonry infills are modeled as struts model (Pauley and Priestly, 1992)
Size of Column: 300 mm X 300 mm (12” x 12”)
Size of Beam: 450 mm X 300 mm (18” X 12”)
5.4 Site Seismicity Characteristics
Seismicity is taken from ATC 40; Seismicity characteristics for the site are based on the seismic
zone, the proximity of the site to active seismic sources, and site soil profile characteristics,
similarly we evaluated seismicity characteristics i.e. C aand C vvalues for designed earthquake
for Kathmandu valley for zone V and medium soil characteristics.
For Response Spectrum defined in IS 1893-2002
For design Earthquake (DBE)
C a=0.18 and C v =0.3
For Maximum Considered Earthquake (MCE)
C a=0.36 and C v =0.6

50
6.0 PROPOSED ANALYTICAL MODELLING AND ANALYSIS OF MASONRY INFILLED
FRAMES
6.1 Engineering material Properties
a) Concrete:

 Characteristics compressive strength (fck) = 25 MPa

 Poissons Ration (ϑ) = 0.15
 Unit weight if concrete (γ) = 25 kN/m3
 Modulus of Elasticity (Ec) = 5000√ fck = 25000 MPa
 Shear Modulus of Concrete is, G = Ec/2(1+ ϑ) = 9721 MPa
 Unconfined concrete compressive strain at the maximum compressive stress = 0.002

b) Reinforcing Steel

 Modulus of Elasticity (Es) =2 X 105 MPa

 Specified minimum yield strength (fy) = 415 MPa
 Ultimate tensile strength (fu) = 650 MPa
 Ultimate tensile strain = 0.090
 Poissons ratio (ϑ) = 0.3
 Mass Density = 7850 kg /m3

c) Masonry Infills

 Clay burnt brick, Class A, confined unreinforced masonry

 Size of the bricks: 230mm X 110mm X 55mm
 Thickness of mortar = 10mm
 Mortar ratio = 1:6
 Poissons ratio (ϑ) = 0.2
 Compressive strength of brick, f’m is

51
 ƒ’ cb(ƒ ’ tb +α ƒ’ j) j
f’m = where α = (6.0)
U u(ƒ ’ tb +α ƒ’ cb) 4.1 h

 Modulus of Elasticity of masonry (Em) = 550 ƒ’m (FEMA 356: 2000)

f’cb = compressive strength of hand molded burnt clay brick = 7.5 kN/m 2 (Class A) (NBC
2001)
ƒ’j = Compressive strength of cement mortar in 1:6 = 3.0 N/mm 2 (NBC 109)
ƒ’tb = tensile strength of brick = 0.1 ƒcb (Paulay and Priestley 1992) = 0.75 N/mm 2
Uu = stress non-uniformity coefficient = 1.5 (Paulay and Priestley, 1992)
j = mortar thickness = 10 mm
h = height of brick unit = 55 mm
Therefore, ƒ’m = 7.5 N/mm2 (MPa) and
Em = 4125 N/mm2 (MPa)
Where ƒ’m is the compressive strength of masonry in Mpa. In the present study, strong masonry
with ƒ’m as 7.5 Mpa is used therefore the modulus of elasticity comes out to be 4125 Mpa.

For weak masonry (1:6), the compressive strength of masonry prism determined by Pauley and
Pristley (1992) expression comes out to be same as that of compressive strength from stress-
strain curves obtained by comprehensive experiment works carried out by Kaushik et al. (2006)
in which ƒ’m = 4.1 mm2 for weak masonry (1:6) and Em = 550 ƒ’m

Proposed Models for Masonry Infills

The masonry infills are modeled both as:

a) Single strut model

Here, for modeling of masonry infills as equivalent diagonal struts, the width of compressive
struts proposed by Pauley and Priestley, (1992) is used which is equal to one-fourth the
diagonal length of infill i.e.
w= ¼ ld where ld is the diagonal length of the masonry wall
Thickness of Strut was taken as the actual thickness of masonry wall (220 mm)

52
 figure 6.0 Single Strut model (Paulay and Priestley, 1992)
The width given by researchers is given in table 6.0 and required properties of RC members and
Masonry Infills is given in table 6.1.
Table 6.0 Width of diagonal strut (Single) given in literatures

Researchers Expression Width (mm)

Holmes (1961) W = 1/3 ld 1840

Stafford-Smith and Carter, (1969) W= 1/4 to 1/11 ld 1300- 472

Pauley and Priestley, (1992) w = 1/4 ld 1380

Mainstone, (1971) and FEMA 306, 1998 w = 0.175 (λhh)-0.4 ld 490

Liauw and Kwan (1984) w= 1080

0.95hmcosθ/(λhh)0.5

Table 6.1 Properties of RC members and masonry infills

53
Grade of concrete M20

Grade of Reinforcing Steel FE 415

Unit weight of concrete (γ) (kN/m3) 25

Poisson’s Ratio (ϑ) 0.15

Modulus of Elasticity Ec (MPa) 25000

Shear Modulus G= Ec/2(1+ ϑ) (MPa) 9721

Column Size (m) 0.3 x 0.3

Beam Size (m) 0.3 x 0.45

Unit weight (γ) kN/m3 18

Poisson’s Ratio (ϑ) 0.2

Prism strength f’m (MPa) (1:6) 7.5

Modulus of Elasticity Em (MPa) 4125

Wall thickness t (m) 0.23

Diagonal length of masonry wall ld (m) 5520 4386

Width of diagonal Strut ws (m) 1380 1096

54
6.3 Plastic Hinge Properties of Masonry Infills
The simplified stress-strain curves of masonry obtained by Kaushik et al. (2006) is used and
assigned as hinge properties to the diagonal strut models. Here, the strong masonry of mortar
grade 1:6 and the compressive strength, f’m = 7.5 MPa, is used for the study. The stress strain
diagram and corresponding input in SAP is shown in figure 6.2 and figure 6.3 respectively.

Figure 6.1 Simplified Stress strain curve for Plastic hinge of masonry infill (Kaushik, 2006)

Table 6.2 Nonlinear Static Procedure—Simplified Force-Deflection Relations for URM In-Plane
Walls and Piers (FEMA 356)

55
6.4 Analysis of Representative Building Models
6.4.0 General
For evaluation of capacity of existing building, both linear Static and non-linear pushover
analysis are carried out. The frame is analyzed for various load combinations as per IS 1893-
2002. Thereafter, to check the adequacy of existing reinforcement detailing and capacity of
structural components of existing building, the analyzed frame is designed for the critical load
case using IS 456-2000 and IS 1893-2002.
6.4.1 Load Combinations
The load combinations used for seismic coefficient method (Static analysis) are:
According to IS 1893:2002, the load combination are
1.5 (DL + LL)
1.2 (DL + LL ± EQx)
1.2 (DL + LL ± EQy)
1.5 (DL ± EQx)
1.5 (DL ± EQy)
0.9 DL ± 1.5 EQx
0.9 DL ± 1.5 EQy
This results into 13 load combinations
6.4.2 Analysis of Existing Building Models
Both linear static and non-linear pushover analysis are carried out for existing building.
6.4.2.1 Linear static analysis of existing building models
Linear static analysis of existing building for models Bare Frame (BF) and Fully Infilled (FF) are
carried out.
Existing Column size = 0. 3 m X 0. 3 m
Existing Beam Size = 0.3 m X 0.45 m
For the static analysis, calculation of Lateral Design Base shear V b and its vertical distribution are
shown in Table 6.3 and 6.4.
Table 6.3 Base shear calculation (Existing Building)

56
 Base shear, VB = ZISa/2Rg *W
Z = 0.36 (Zone factor for zone V)
I = 1.0 (Importance factor for residential building)
R = 5.0 (Response reduction factor for RC frame)
For medium soil sites, Spectral acceleration given in IS 1893-2002 for 5% damping is,
1 + 15T 0.00 ≤ T ≤ 0.10
Sa/g = 2.50 0.10 ≤ T ≤ 0.55
1.36 / T 0.55 ≤ T ≤4.00
For Masonry Infilled RC frame,
Natural Period, T = 0.09H/√d
H = 12.8 m (Total Height)
d = 18 m (in X direction) d = 9 m (in Y direction)
Therefore, Tx = 0.271 sec and Ty = 0.384 sec
Sa/g = 2.50
W= seismic weight of the building = 2828.58 KN
Design Base shear, Vb = 403.33 KN

6.4.2.2 Non-linear Static Pushover Analysis of Existing building

For existing building, only Pushover analysis of Bare Frame (BF) and Fully Infilled Frame (FF) are
performed in order to assess the capacity of existing building and to evaluate their performance
whether the building is capable of resisting the Seismic Demands both Design Basis Earthquake
(DBE) and Maximum Considered Earthquake (MCE).
The existing building models Bare Frame (BF) could survive only the Design Basis Earthquake
(DBE) for Ca = 0.18 and Cv = 0.3 but could not resist the Maximum Considered Earthquake

57
(MCE) for Ca = 0.36 and Cv = 0.6. Therefore the performance levels of existing building in bare
frame analysis (BF) is beyond permissible limits in terms of Lateral Strength and Drift limits. The
fully infilled (FF) is observed to be capable of resisting both Design Basis (DBE) and Maximum
Considered Earthquake (MCE).

6.4.3 Analysis of Designed Building Models

From both linear static and non-linear pushover analysis, since the existing building is found to
be inadequate in terms of capacity evaluation (capacity spectrum method, CSM) and
reinforcement detailing and size of frame members (from static analysis) as discussed in section
6.4.2.2, therefore, the existing building is re-designed.

6.4.3.1 Linear Static Analysis of Designed Building Models

The existing building is re-designed using limit state method according to prevailing practice
with critical load combination prescribed in the code IS 456-2000 and IS 1893-2002. The
designed x-section of beams and columns are
Designed Column size = 0.325 m X 0.325 m
Beam size = 0.3 m X 0.45 m
For Static analysis, calculation of lateral Design Base shear V b and its vertical distribution is
shown in Table 6.4 and 6.5.
Table 6.4 Base shear calculation (Designed Buiding)

Base shear, VB = ZISa/2Rg *W

Z = 0.36 (Zone factor for zone V)
I = 1.0 (Importance factor for residential building)
R = 5.0 (Response reduction factor for RC frame)
For medium soil sites, Spectral acceleration given in IS 1893-2002 for 5% damping is,
1 + 1.5T 0.00 ≤ T ≤ 0.10
Sa/g = 2.50 0.10 ≤ T ≤ 0.55

58
 1.36 / T 0.55 ≤ T ≤4.00
For Masonry Infilled RC frame,
Natural Period, T = 0.09H/√d
H = 12.8 m (Total Height)
d = 18 m (in X direction) d = 9 m (in Y direction)
Therefore, Tx = 0.271 sec and Ty = 0.384 sec
Sa/g = 2.50
W= seismic weight of the building = 2853.58 KN
Design Base shear, Vb = 408.23 KN

59
Table 6.5 Seismic weight and lateral seismic force in various stories (Designed Building)

      IS 1893:1992

Lateral Seismic
Storey Height
    Storey Weight Weight

Storey hi (m) Load Wi (KN) Qi (KN)

EQx
Or
Roof 12.8 EQy 605.71 195.49

EQx
Or
Storey 3 9.6 EQy 749.29 136.03

EQx
Or
Storey 2 6.4 EQy 749.29 61.6

EQx
Or
Storey 1 3.2 EQy 749.29 15.1

∑     2853.58 408.23

The models analyzed are Bare Frame (BF), Open Ground Storey (OGS) and Fully Infiiled (FF). The
reinforcing details of designed beams and columns are shown for the load cases 1.5 (DL ± EQy)

60
as shown in table 6.6 are found to give maximum force resultants (Bending moments, axial and
shear force) in RC frame members.

61
Table 6.6 Maximum resultant force on Ground storey columns (Designed Bare Frame)

Maximum force resultants of 1st storey Columns in Bare Frame

Column Axial ShearForce Bending Longitudinal Shear

no. Force Moment Reinforcement Reinforcement

(KN) (KN) (KN/m)

Column 0.325 X 0.325 Load Combination: 1.5 (DL ± EQx), 1.5(DL± EQy)
m

50 491.116 41.64 68 8-16φ 10φ@100mm

54 657.034 45.82 76 4-20 φ +4-16 φ 10φ@100mm

107 646.221 48.3 81 4-20 φ +4-16 φ 10φ@100mm

139 656.038 46.6 76 4-20 φ +4-16 φ 10φ@100mm

143 500.515 42.4 69 8-16φ 10φ@100mm

187 650.043 43.6 72 4-20 φ +4-16 φ 10φ@100mm

191 765.239 46.8 74 8-20φ 10φ@100mm

195 770.188 47.2 76 8-20φ 10φ@100mm

199 774.168 47.26 74.37 8-20φ 10φ@100mm

203 657.2 44.4 72 4-20 φ +4-16 φ 10φ@100mm

62
 167 650.043 43.8 72 4-20 φ +4-16 φ 10φ@100mm

171 765.239 47.3 74 8-20φ 10φ@100mm

175 770.188 47.25 74.37 8-20φ 10φ@100mm

179 774.168 48.2 75 8-20φ 10φ@100mm

183 657.2 46.4 72 4-20 φ +4-16 φ 10φ@100mm

147 465.801 45.6 68 8-16φ 10φ@100mm

151 652.901 45.8 76 4-20 φ +4-16 φ 10φ@100mm

155 644.636 48.5 81 4-20 φ +4-16 φ 10φ@100mm

159 646.636 48.5 76 4-20 φ +4-16 φ 10φ@100mm

163 480.675 46.7 69 8-16φ 10φ@100mm

6.4.3.2 Non-linear Static Pushover Analysis of Designed Building Models

Pushover analysis of the models Bare Frame (BF) and Fully Infilled (FF) of designed building are
performed in both X and Y directions to compare their capacity curves.
The capacity of all three designed models Bare Frame (BF) and Fully Infilled (FF) are observed to
meet the seismic demands for Design Basis Earthquake (DBE) for Ca= 0.18 and Cv=0.3. Also,
both Bare Frame (BF) and fully infilled (FF) are found capable of resisting Maximum Considered
Earthquake (MCE) for Ca= 0.36 and Cv= 0.6. However, Designed Open Ground Storey (OGS) is
found incapable of fulfilling the performance limits of Collapse prevention targeted for
Maximum Considered Earthquake (MCE). Therefore, in order to enhance the seismic

63
performance of Open Ground Storey (OGS) to fulfill the performance levels for targeted seismic
demands, some strengthening schemes needed to be applied.

6.4.3.3 Proposed Designed Strengthened Building Models (The strengthening of

building is not included in this study)
In order to reduce the effect of first soft storey (open ground system), two approaches are
proposed here in the 1st storey:

a) Code specified column strengthening schemes (by increasing column size in Ground
Storey)
b) Partially Infilled 1st storey (Infill walls layout change in Ground Storey)

Code specified column strengthening schemes (by increasing column size in Ground storey)
There are column strengthening schemes for open ground storey (OGS) buildings. Indian
seismic code (IS 1893-2002) recommends the members of soft storey to be designed for 2.5
times the design seismic forces of that of bare frame. Whereas Euro code-8, 2003 also have
given expressions for the strength increasing factors and recommends the behavior factor q=
1.5 to 4.88 depending upon the building systems, ductility classes, and plan regularity in the
building. However, Euro code-8 only recommends the increasing the lateral resistance 1 st storey
columns. Here the 1st storey columns of OGS buildings are re-designed for higher seismic forces
whereas beams are designed for regular design seismic forces in accordance to provision in IS
1893-2002 (modified) and Euro-8, 2003.
Based on these IS 1893-2002 and Euro guidelines, two column strengthening schemes has been
analyzed by increasing the size and reinforcement details of only 1 st storey columns
Partially Infilled Ground Storey (Infills walls layout change)
Since the masonry infills increased the strength and stiffness of building, as observed earlier in
fully framed model, the performance of partially masonry infilled building (ground floor
partially infilled) is evaluated by partially adding infill panels in 1 st storey. As the amount and
location of infills is observed to cause variation in the overall strength and stiffness of building,
here, two types of infill walls layout arrangement are done.

64
 a. Perimeter Infilled Ground Storey (PF_1) :

Here, the infill wall panels are arranged along the entire perimeter of only ground storey of
open ground storey model whereas the upper floors fully infilled as in other models

b. Inner core infilled Ground Storey (PF_2)

Here, the infill wall panels are added and arranged along the inner central core of only ground
storey of open ground storey model such that the tensional effect is minimized whereas the
upper floors are fully infilled as in other models.

6.4.4 Linear and Non-linear Static Pushover Analysis of Building Models with
different infill configurations
Pushover analysis of the models Perimeter Infilled Frame (PF) and Inner Core Infilled Frame (IF)
of designed building are performed in both X and Y directions to compare their capacity curves.
The capacity of all the are observed to meet the seismic demands for Design Basis Earthquake
(DBE) for Ca= 0.18 and Cv=0.3. Also, both Perimeter Infilled Frame (PF) and Inner Core Infilled
Frame (IF) are found capable of resisting Maximum Considered Earthquake (MCE) for Ca= 0.36
and Cv= 0.6.

65
6.4.5. Representative Building Models
The models taken for study are Shown in Figure 6.2

i) Bare Frame (BF)

ii) Open Ground Storey (OGS)
iii) Fully Masonry Infilled Frame (FF)
iv) Perimeter Infilled Frame (PF)
v) Inner Core Infilled Frame (IF)

Figure 6.2 Models taken for study

i) Bare Frame (BF): Building modeled as bare frame. Only self weight of infill is
considered in the analysis. The stiffness and strength of infills are not considered.

66
 ii) Open Ground Storey (OGS): Building having infill walls only on the upper floors with
the absence of infill walls on the ground storey for parking, shopping etc purpose.
The thickness of masonry infills considered is 230 mm. Self weight of infills are
considered in all the floors whereas stiffness and strength of infill walls is considered
only on the upper floors.
iii) Fully Masonry Infilled Frame (FF): Building having infill walls (230 mm thick full
wall) on all the floors including the ground storey. Self weight, stiffness and strength
of infill walls are considered in all the stories.
iv) Perimeter Infilled Frame (PF): Building having infill walls (230 mm thick full wall) on
all the floor perimeter only including the ground storey. Self weight, stiffness and
strength of infill walls are considered in the perimeter of all the stories.
v) Inner Core Infilled Frame (IF): Building having infill walls (230 mm thick full wall) on
all the floor inner core only including the ground storey. Self weight, stiffness and
strength of infill walls are considered in the inner core of all the stories.

Seismic Performance Evaluation

FEMA 356 defines a wide range of structural performance requirements for the specific limit
state. Limits are given for many types of structures including concrete frames, steel moment
frames, unreinforced infilled masonry walls etc. The global drift limit for concrete frame and
unreinforced infilled masonry associated with three performance levels are provided below in
table 6.7

67
Table 6.7 Structural performance level (ATC 40, 1996)

Elements Type Structural Performance Level

Collapse prevention S-5 Life safety S-3 Immediate

occupancy S-1

Concrete Primary Extensive cracking and hinge Extensive Minor hairline

frames formation in ductile elements. damage to cracking. Limited
Limited cracking and/or splice beams. Spalling yielding possible
failure in some non ductile of cover and at a few
columns. Severe damage in short shear cracking locations. No
columns (<1/8” width) for crushing (strains
ductile columns. below 0.003)
Minor spalling in
non ductile
columns. Joint
cracks<1/8”
wide.

second Extensive spalling in columns Extensive Minor spalling in

ary (limited shortening) and beams. cracking and a few places in
Severe joint damage. Some hinge formation ductile columns
reinforcing buckled. in ductile and beams.
elements. Flexural cracking
Limited cracking in beams and
and/or splice columns. Shear
failure in some cracking in
non ductile joints<1/16”

68
 columns. Severe width.
damage in short
columns.

Unreinfor Primary Extensive cracking and crushing; Extensive Mino<1/8”

ced portions of face course shed. cracking and width) cracking
masonry some crushing of masonry infills
infill walls but wall remains and veneers.
in place. No Minor spalling in
falling units. veneers at a few
Extensive corner openings.
crushing and
spalling of
veneers at
corners of
openings.

second Extensive crushing and shattering; Same as primary Same as primary

ary some walls dislodge

Drift2 0.6% transient or permanent 0.5% transient; 0.1% transient;

0.3% permanent negligible
permanent

The performance objectives targeted for the study are life safety performance level at Design
Basis Earthquake (DBE) and Collapse Prevention Performance level at Maximum Considered
Earthquake (MCE) as given in table 6.8
Table 6.8 Structural performance objective (ATC 40, 1996)

69
70
7.0 RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS

7.1 General
Both Linear (Seismic Coefficient method) and Non-Linear (Pushover) static analysis of existing
and designed building models are carried out. In Non-Linear static Pushover analysis, the
performance evaluation of both existing as well as designed building models is done through
Capacity Spectrum Method (CSM) by establishing Performance Objectives of life safety for
Design Basis Earthquake (DBE) and Collapse Prevention for Maximum Considered Earthquake
(MCE).

7.2 Linear Analysis of building models

The results from both linear static and non-linear pushover analysis, since the existing building
is found to be inadequate in terms of capacity evaluation (capacity spectrum method, CSM) and
reinforcement detailing and size of frame members (from static analysis) as discussed in section
6.4.3.1, 6.4.3.2 and 6.4.4, therefore, the existing building is re-designed. The results after
redesign are discussed.

7.2.1 Natural Periods

The Bare Frame (BF) has the longest natural period of vibration of about 1.55 sec whereas the
fully infilled has the shortest period of about 0.54 sec respectively. The analytical (SAP 2000)
and codal (IS 1893-2002) natural periods are shown in Table 7.0 It is observed that the
analytical natural periods from FEM (SAP 2000) varies with that obtained from codal provisions
(1893-2002).
It is observed from Table 7.0 that the analytical natural period do not tally with the natural
periods obtained from the empirical expression of the code. Introduction of infill panels in the
RC frame reduces the time period of bare frames and also enhances the stiffness of the
structure. Bare frame idealization leads to overestimation of natural periods and under
estimation of the design lateral forces. It has been found that in Fully infill configuration there
was 38% reduction in time period compared to the bare frame.

71
Buildings with shorter fundamental periods attract higher seismic forces as the code-based
design spectrum exhibits higher accelerations at shorter periods. Longer fundamental periods
are indicative of buildings that are more susceptible to dynamic amplification effects from
sustained wind gusts and result in higher design forces.
Table 7.0: Natural time period of 3D building models

Natural Time Period

(Sec)
3D Frame
Configuration
Longitudinal Transverse

Code Analysis Code Analysis

Bare Frame (BF) 0.27 1.12 0.38 1.05

Fully Infilled Frame

(FF) 0.27 0.42 0.38 0.39

Open Ground Storey

(OGS) 0.27 0.74 0.38 0.72

72
 TIME PERIOD Vs MODE 3D
1.2

0.8
TIME PERIOD

Bare Frame (BF)

0.6 Fully Infilled Frame (FF)
Open Ground Storey (OGS)

0.4

0.2

0
1 2 3 4

Figure 7.0 Natural Time Period

7.2.2 Storey Stiffness and Stiffness Ratio

The initial storey stiffness of 1 st floor in Open Ground Storey (OGS) of existing building is found
to be only 11% of that of upper floors indicating massive variation is there in Bare (BF) and Fully
Infilled Frame (FF) as given in table 7.1. For open ground storey (OGS) model, the initial storey
stiffness ration of 1st and upper floor is found to be only 0.3 which indicated the 1 st storey
stiffness to be about 30% of 2 nd storey whereas no any stiffness irregularities are observed in
Bare (BF) and Fully Infilled Frame(FF).

73
Table 7.1 Stiffness Calculation for building models

Longitudinal Transverse

Storey Stiffness Stiffness Storey Stiffness Stiffness

Frame Type
(KN/mm) S-Ratio (KN/mm) S-Ratio

First (K1) Second (K2) K1/K2 First (K1) Second (K2) K1/K2

Bare Frame 1396.18 1396.18 1 1396.18 1396.18 1

Fully Infill
Frame 4161.29 4161.29 1 4288.71 4288.71 1

Open
Ground
Storey 1396.18 4161.29 0.33 1396.18 4288.71 0.32

7.2.3 Lateral displacement and drift ratio (%)

Although the Bare Frame (BF) is observed to undergo maximum lateral displacement at each
level, displacement pattern is almost uniform with less variation in its inter-storey Drift ratio(%)
whereas in Open Ground Storey (OGS), though the ground storey displacement is almost same
as that of bare frame, the 1 st storey being open and hence ductile, exhibited largest inter-
storey Drift demand of 0.19% and the stiffer upper floors undergo least inter- storey Drift of
only 0.076%, 0.052% and 0.028% due to the presence of masonry infills only in the upper floors.
Obviously, the Fully Infilled Frame (FF) being the stiffest is found to exhibit least lateral
deformation (1.68 mm in 1 st floor) and inter-storey drift (0.053%) among all the models which is
about 5 times smaller than that of Open Ground Storey. The displacement profile and drift ratio
is shown in table 7.2 and figures 7.1 and 7.2 respectively.
74
75
Table 7.2 Displacement Profile and Drift ratio

Displacement (mm) Drift (mm) % Drift

Frame Type Floor
X Y X Y X Y

0 0 0 0 0 0 0

1 4.5 4.27 4.5 4.27 0.141 0.133

Bare Frame 2 9.5 9.3 5 5.03 0.156 0.157

3 12.82 12.77 3.32 3.47 0.104 0.108

4 14.79 14.76 1.97 1.99 0.062 0.062

0 0 0 0 0 0 0

1 1.5 1 1.5 1 0.047 0.031

Fully Infill
2 3.1 1.94 1.6 0.94 0.050 0.029
Frame

3 4.02 2.56 0.92 0.62 0.029 0.019

4 4.6 2.8 0.58 0.24 0.018 0.007

Open 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ground
Storey 1 6.11 5.72 6.11 5.72 0.191 0.179

Frame
2 8.54 7.72 2.43 2 0.076 0.063

76
 3 10.19 8.94 1.65 1.22 0.052 0.038

4 11.09 9.52 0.9 0.58 0.028 0.018

STOREY Vs DISPLACEMENT X-DIRECTION

4.5
4
3.5
3
Bare Frame
2.5
STOREY

2 Fully Infilll Frame

1.5
Open Ground Storey
1
0.5
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16
DISPLACEMENT

Figure 7.1 Displacement Profile of Building

77
 STOREY Vs DISPLACEMENT Y-DIRECTION
4.5
4
3.5
3
Bare Frame
2.5
STOREY

2 Fully Infilll Frame

1.5
Open Ground Storey
1
0.5
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16
DISPLACEMENT

Figure 7.2 Displacement Profile of Building (y-Direction)

STOREY DRIFT (X-Direction)

4.5

3.5

3
Bare Frame
2.5
STOREY

2 Fully Infilll Frame

1.5 Open Ground Storey

1

0.5

0
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25
% DRIFT

Figure 7.3 Inter Story % drift of model (X-Direction)

78
 STOREY DRIFT (Y-Direction)

4.5
4
3.5
3
Bare Frame
2.5
STOREY

Fully Infilll Frame

2
1.5 Open Ground Storey
1
0.5
0
0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1 0.12 0.14 0.16 0.18 0.2
% DRIFT

Figure 7.4 Inter Story % drift of model (Y-Direction)

7.3 Non-Linear Static (Pushover) Analysis of Existing building models
Pushover analysis of Bare Frame (BF), Open Ground Storey (OGS) and Fully Infilled Frame (FF)
are carried out along X- direction for existing building. The BF and OGS models of existing
building could not survive the Maximum Earthquake (Ca=0.36 and Cv=0.6). For Design Basis
Earthquake (Ca=0.18 and Cv=0.3), both Bare Frame (BF) and Fully–Infilled (FF) meet the
performance level. However, Open Ground Storey (OGS) even fails to meet the targeted
performance level i.e. the capacity spectrum (Pushover curve in ADRS format) could not meet
the seismic demands for design earthquake. The characteristic of pushover curves of existing
models is given in annex.

7.3.1 Non-Linear Static (Pushover) Analysis of Designed building models

Pushover analysis of designed Bare Frame(BF), Open Ground Storey (OGS) and Fully Infilled
frame(FF) are carried out along both X and Y directions. Here, since the building along X-

79
direction is discussed. The characteristics of pushover curves of designed models along both X
and Y directions are given in annex.

7.3.2 Pushover Curve of Designed building models

For seismic evaluation, capacity curve is obtained by non-linear pushover analysis. The capacity
curves of all designed models Bare Frame (BF), Open Ground Storey (OGS) and fully Infilled
Frame (FF) are shown in figure 7.5

Pushover Curve
2500

2000
Base Shear KN

1500
Bare Frame
Fully Infill
1000

500

0
0.00E+00 2.00E-02 4.00E-02 6.00E-02 8.00E-02 1.00E-01 1.20E-01
Displacement m

Figure 7.5 Pushover Curve

7.3.3 Initial Stiffness

The initial stiffness of the Bare Frame (BF), Open Ground Storey (OGS) and Fully Infilled Frame
(FF) are observed to be 3850 KN/m, 47825 KN/m and 68967.81 KN/m respectively. In the Fully
Infilled Frame (FF), the strength and stiffness of masonry infills in all the stories are considered
whereas in Open Ground Storey (OGS), only the strength and stiffness of masonry infills in the
upper floors are considered and in Bare Frame (BF), only the self weight of infills are

80
considered. Therefore, the Fully Infilled Frame (FF), being the stiffest, exhibited highest initial
stiffness than Bare Frame (BF), Open Ground Storey (OGS).

7.3.4 Lateral Yield Strength and Yield Roof Displacement:

The Bare Frame (BF) and Open Ground Storey (OGS) showed elastic behavior up to 436.969 KN
base shear and 369.85 KN base shear respectively and their corresponding yield roof
displacements are observed to be 17.5 mm(0.54% drift) and 2.07 mm (0.064% drift). However,
owing to high stiffness, the lateral yield strength of Fully Infilled (FF) is observed to be highest
about 1454.26 KN base shear which is about 4 times larger than others at lateral displacement
of only 10mm(0.32% drift).. Since the yield strengths of both frame(Bare and Open Ground
Storey) are found to be nearly equal, it is observed that for same base shear, the Bare Frame
undergo higher displacement than Open Ground Storey (OGS). The lateral roof displacement
patterns of all models are also evident from the linear static analysis of existing building models
as in figure 7.1 and 7.2.

7.3.5 Performance Points

In performance evaluation of existing building models, when subjected to Maximum
Considered Earthquake (MCE) for collapse prevention, the capacity of both Bare Frame (BF) is
found to be unable to meet the seismic demands whereas the Fully Infilled Frame (FF) is found
to meet the reduced response spectrum at the performance point corresponding
Thereafter, when models are evaluated for Design Earthquake (DBE) for life safety performance
criteria, the performance point of Bare Frame (BF) and Fully Infilled Frame(FF) are obtained at
14% seismic weight and 32% seismic weight respectively . The Fully Infilled (FF) is observed to
meet the performance level within elastic state at 5% damping whereas Open Ground Storey
(OGS) could not fulfill the seismic demand even for Design Earthquake (DBE). The capacity
spectrum curve for existing building models are shown in figures 7.6 (DBE), 7.7 (MCE)

81
 Figure 7.6.1 Bare Frame (BF) DBE

Figure 7.6.2 Fully Infill Frame (FF) DBE

82
Figure 7.6.3 Open Ground Storey (OGS) DBE

83
Figure 7.7 Open Ground Storey (OGS) MCE

84
7.3.6 Plastic Hinge Formations and Failure Patterns:
A study of yield pattern of the various buildings has been made to understand the inelastic
behavior of the buildings under monotonically applied incremental static loads in different
directions. It has been observed that in case of uniformly infilled frame buildings, hinges form
firstly in infills and then in frame elements (Figs. 6 and 7). As explained above, due to strut
action of infills, high axial forces get generated in columns of uniformly infilled frame buildings
and as a result, columns fail earlier than those of bare frame buildings. At collapse level, hinges
form in ground storey columns, also, depicting weak storey phenomenon. However, this
phenomenon has been observed in case of frames with low aspect ratio, as this was observed
only in case of four storey building. Drift demand gets substantially reduced due to
incorporation of infills in bare frame buildings. It has also been observed that drift predominant
portions along the height of the bare frame buildings get shifted downwards due to inclusion of
infills.

85
Figure 7.8.1 Plastic hinge Formations on Model

86
 Figure 7.8.2 Plastic hinge Formation on Model

7.3.7 Axial Force , Shear Force and Bending Moment Distribution

The effect of infills on the distribution of column axial forces and bending moments has also
been studied. Figs. 2 and 3 show the typical variation of axial force along the height of columns
CL and CR, respectively, under combined gravity and earthquake load. CL represents the
column on the tension corner of the building when the earthquake loads are applied along
positive X and Y directions. Similarly, CR represents the column on compression end. It can be
observed from the Figs. that axial force due to earthquake gets increased and bending moment
gets reduced in the columns in infilled frame buildings for a particular level of earthquake. The
column axial forces in infilled frame, due to earthquake forces, are large enough to cause net
tension in columns on tension side and the failure of columns may occur due to tension.

87
Similarly, on compression side, the column axial load increases, considerably, due to presence
of infills. This increase in axial load may result in failure of columns at a lower moment and it
considerably reduces the ductility of columns. This may also result in yielding of columns prior
to yielding of beams
Maximum Resultant Forces (Bending Moment, Axial and Shear Force) in Columns
The axial force demand in columns of Open Ground Storey (OGS) as in figure 7.9 is found to be
higher (714 KN) than the other two models with the Fully Infilled Frame (FF) showing the least
axial force of about 500.52KN whereas in upper storeys, all the three models have similar
demand.
The bending moment and shear force demands for 1st storey columns in Fully Infilled Frame(FF)
as in figure 7.11 are found to be extremely lower only about 9-10% of that of Bare Frame(BF)
and Open Ground Storey(OGS). Also, due to the uniform stiffness distribution in all storeys , no
any variation of these forces is observed in upper storeys of fully infilled. However, due to
severe stiffness irregularity in Open Ground Storey (OGS), the force demands, and both shear
force and bending moment, are significantly reduced in the upper storey columns to about 9%-
16% of the 1st storey columns because of the presence of masonry infills only in the upper
floors. Therefore, large concentration of lateral strength demands is observed in the 1 st storey
columns of Open Ground Storey (OGS).
The maximum resultant forces (Bending moment, Axial and Shear Force) of 1 st storey and upper
storey of designed building models are shown in annex.

88
Axial Force Ground Storey Column and Upper Column
800

700

600
Axial Force KN

500

400

300

200

100

0
1 2 3

Figure 7.9.1 Comparison of Maximum Force resultants in columns for 1.5 ( DL + EQ)

Moment Comparision Ground Storey Column and Upper

Column
60

50

40
Moment KNm

30

20

10

0
1 2 3

Figure 7.9.2 Comparison of Maximum Force resultants in columns for 1.5 ( DL + EQ)

89
 Shear Force Ground Storey Column and Upper Column
90

80

70

60
Shear Force KN

50

40

30

20

10

0
1 2 3

Figure 7.9.3 Comparison of Maximum Force resultants in columns for 1.5 ( DL + EQ)

Note:
1 represents Bare Frame
2 represent Infill Frame
3 represent Open Ground Frame

7.4 Linear Analysis of Building Models with Different wall configuration

The results from linear static analysis (Seismic Coefficient Method) of different wall
configurations are discussed:

7.4.1 Natural Periods

It is observed from Table that the analytical natural period do not tally with the natural periods
obtained from the empirical expression of the code. Introduction of infill panels in the RC frame
reduces the time period of bare frames and also enhances the stiffness of the structure. Bare
frame idealization leads to overestimation of natural periods and under estimation of the

90
design lateral forces. It has been found that in Fully infill configuration there was 38% reduction
in time period compared to the bare frame. And in all other models 35 % reduction in natural
period was observed compared to bare frame model
Table 7.3: Natural time period of 3D building models

Natural Time Period

(Sec)
3D Frame
Configuration
Longitudinal Transverse

Code Analysis Code Analysis

Bare Frame (BF) 0.27 1.12 0.38 1.05

Fully Infilled Frame

(FF) 0.27 0.42 0.38 0.39

Perimeter Infilled
Frame (PF) 0.27 0.38 0.38 0.36

Inner Core Infilled

Frame (IF) 0.27 0.39 0.38 0.36

Open Ground Storey

(OGS) 0.27 0.74 0.38 0.72

91
7.4.2 Lateral Displacement and Drift Ratio (%)
In Open Ground Storey (OGS), although the 1st storey displacement is marginally smaller to that
of Bare Frame, the 1st storey having absence of masonry infills exhibited largest inter-storey
Drift demand and the stiffer upper floors undergo least inter- storey. Although the Bare Frame
(BF) is observed to have maximum displacement at each level, displacement pattern is almost
uniform with less variation in its inter-storey Drift ratio (%). It is interesting to note the Fully
Infilled Frame (FF) being the stiffest showed the least lateral deformation and inter-storey drift
among all the models .All the other model either perimeter infilled frame (PF) or inner core
infilled frame (IF). The displacement profile and drift ratio along both X and Y-directions are
shown in table 7.6 and figures 7.10 and 7.11 respectively.
Table 7.4 Displacement Profile and Drift ratio

Displacement (mm) Drift (mm) % Drift

Frame Type Floor

X Y X Y X Y

0 0 0 0 0 0 0

1 4.5 4.27 4.5 4.27 0.141 0.133

Bare Frame 2 9.5 9.3 5 5.03 0.156 0.157

3 12.82 12.77 3.32 3.47 0.104 0.108

4 14.79 14.76 1.97 1.99 0.062 0.062

Fully Infill 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Frame
1 1.68 1 1.68 1 0.053 0.031

92
 2 3.3 1.94 1.62 0.94 0.051 0.029

3 4.44 2.56 1.14 0.62 0.036 0.019

4 4.98 2.8 0.54 0.24 0.017 0.007

0 0 0 0 0 0 0

1 6.11 5.72 6.11 5.72 0.191 0.179

Open
Ground
2 8.54 7.72 2.43 2 0.076 0.063
Storey
Frame
3 10.19 8.94 1.65 1.22 0.052 0.038

4 11.09 9.52 0.9 0.58 0.028 0.018

0 0 0 0 0 0 0

1 4.09 2.93 4.09 2.93 0.128 0.092

Perimeter
2 8.25 5.85 4.16 2.92 0.130 0.091
Infill Frame

3 11.42 7.99 3.17 2.14 0.099 0.067

4 13.15 9.04 1.73 1.05 0.054 0.033

Inner Core 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Infill Frame
1 1.68 1 1.68 1 0.053 0.031

2 3.3 1.93 1.62 0.93 0.051 0.029

93
 3 4.43 2.54 1.13 0.61 0.035 0.019

4 4.98 2.8 0.55 0.26 0.017 0.008

STOREY Vs DISPLACEMENT X-DIRECTION

4.5
4
3.5
3 Bare Frame
2.5 Fully Infilll Frame
STOREY

2 Open Ground Storey

1.5 Perimeter Infill Frame

1 Inner Core Infill Frame

0.5
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16
DISPLACEMENT

Figure 7.10.1 Displacement Profile of Building (X-Direction)

94
 STOREY Vs DISPLACEMENT Y-DIRECTION
4.5
4
3.5
3 Bare Frame
2.5 Fully Infilll Frame
STOREY

2 Open Ground Storey

1.5 Perimeter Infill Frame

1 Inner Core Infill Frame

0.5
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16
DISPLACEMENT

Figure 7.10.2 Displacement Profile of Building (Y-Direction)

STOREY DRIFT (X-Direction)

4.5
4
3.5
3 Bare Frame
Fully Infilll Frame
2.5
STOREY

Open Ground Storey

2 Perimeter Infill Frame
1.5 Inner Core Infilled
Frame
1
0.5
0
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25
DRIFT %

95
 Figure 7.11.1 Inter Story % drift of model (X-Direction)

STOREY DRIFT (Y-Direction)

4.5
4
3.5
3 Bare Frame
Fully Infilll Frame
2.5
STOREY

Open Ground Storey

2 Perimeter Infill Frame
1.5 Inner Core Infilled
Frame
1
0.5
0
0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1 0.12 0.14 0.16 0.18 0.2
% DRIFT

Figure 7.11.2 Inter Story % drift of model (Y-Direction)

7.5 Non-Linear Static (Pushover) Analysis of Different building models
Pushover analysis of designed Bare Frame(BF), Open Ground Storey (OGS) and Fully Infilled
frame(FF) are carried out along both X and Y directions. Here, since the building along X-
direction is discussed. The characteristics of pushover curves of designed models along both X
and Y directions are given in annex.

7.5.1 Pushover Curve

For seismic evaluation, capacity curve is obtained by non-linear pushover analysis. The capacity
curves of all designed models Bare Frame (BF), Open Ground Storey (OGS) and fully Infilled
Frame (FF) are shown in figures 7.12, 7.14, 7.13. As the Inner Core filled (IF) figure 7.16 also
owe high stiffness, the result is similar to that of Fully Infilled (FF)

96
 Bare Frame
2000
1800
1600
Base Shear (KN) 1400
1200
1000 Bare Frame
800
600
400
200
0
0.00E+00 5.00E-02 1.00E-01 1.50E-01 2.00E-01
Roof Displacement

Figure 7.12 Push over Curve (BF)

Fully Infilled Frame

2500

2000
Base Shear KN

1500

1000

500

0
0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1 0.12
Roof Displacement (m)

Figure 7.13 Push over Curve (FF)

97
 Open Ground Storey
2500

2000
Base Shear (KN)

1500

1000

500

0
0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1 0.12 0.14
Roof Displacement (m)

Figure 7.14 Push over Curve (OGS)

Perimeter Infilled Frame

2000
1800
1600
Base Shear (KN)

1400
1200
1000
800
600
400
200
0
0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1 0.12
Roof Displacement (m)

Figure 7.15 Push over Curve (PF)

98
 Inner Core Infilled Frame (IF)
2500

2000
Base Shear (KN)

1500

1000

500

0
0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1 0.12
Roof Displacement (m)

Figure 7.16 Push over Curve (IF)

99
7.5.2 Ultimate Lateral Strength and Deformation:
The ultimate lateral strength of Bare Frame (BF) and Open Ground Storey (OGS) are observed
to be 840 KN (21% seismic weight) and 1067KN(28% seismic weight) respectively. Due to high
stiffness, Fully Infilled(FF) exhibited highest ultimate strength of 4525KN(117% seismic weight)
which is about 4 and 5 times larger than Open Ground Storey(OGS) and Bare Frame(BF)
respectively. After this, the failures of 1 st storey infills took place and the drastic reduction in the
lateral strength is observed in Fully Infilled (FF). Therefore, because of brittle nature of masonry
infills, the ultimate roof displacement in Fully Infilled (FF) is observed to be 27mm(0.24% drift)
which is found to be only one-sixth of bare frame(BF) whereas Bare Frame (BF) and Open
Ground Storey (OGS) being ductile undergo larger displacements of 160mm(1.4% drift) and
45mm(0.4% drift) respectively.

7.5.3 Performance Points

For Maximum considered Earthquake, the capacity spectrum curve of both Bare Frame (BF) and
Fully Infilled Frame (FF) intersected the seismic demand curve at the performance point
whereas Open Ground Storey (OGS) is observed to be incapable of meeting seismic demands
for Maximum Considered Earthquake (MCE).
Thereafter, for Design Earthquake (DBE), the performance point of Bare Frame (BF), Open
Ground Storey (OGS) and Fully Infilled Frame (FF) are obtained at less,medium and high seismic
weight respectively
The Fully Infilled (FF) is observed to remain in elastic state of 5% damping at both performance
level of collapse prevention under Maximum Considered EARTHQUAKE (MCE) and life safety
under Design Earthquake (DBE).

100
Figure 7.17.1 Inner Core Filled (IF) MCE

101
Figure 7.17.2 Perimeter Filled (PF) MCE

102
Figure 7.17.3 Inner Core Filled (IF) DBE

103
Figure 7.17.4 Perimeter Filled (PF) DBE

104
8.0 CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS
8.1 General
The main concern in current practice of structural design of masonry infilled RC framed
structure is RC framed buildings, though masonry infilled, are designed and analyzed as bare
frames without considering the contribution of masonry infills on the lateral strength and
stiffness of buildings. In fact, the configuration of masonry infills in RC frames imposed
significant effects on the global seismic performance of the structures depending on its location
and presence both in plan and elevation. Due to growing commercialization, masonry infilled
RC frames are usually constructed with irregular wall configuration. The bare frame idealization
is not able to capture the performance of vertical irregularities characterized by the
concentration of failure on the 1st storey columns under lower deformation.
Both non-linear (Push over analysis) and linear static analysis are performed on the basis of
which following conclusions are drawn.

8.2 Conclusions
1. The bare frame (BF), being the most ductile has the longest natural period of vibration and is
followed by Open Ground Storey (OGS) whereas the fully infilled frame (FF), being the stiffest
model has the shortest natural period .All the other models Perimeter infilled (PF) and inner
core infilled (IF) also being the stiffest has shorter natural period as compared to bare frame.
2. The open ground storey (OGS) exhibited the worst seismic performance undergoing the
largest inter- storey drift and lateral force demands in the 1 st storey with respect to upper floors
whereas the Fully Infilled Frame (FF) showed the best performance undergoing least inter-
storey drift and lateral force demands. All the other models Perimeter infilled (PF) and inner
core infilled (IF) also showed lower inter-storey drift and lateral force demands.
3. The bare frame (BF), being the most ductile is found to have the lowest initial stiffness
whereas the fully infilled frame(FF), being the stiffest, exhibited the highest initial stiffness. The
initial stiffness of Open ground Storey (OGS) is found to be one fourth of the fully infilled FF.

105
4. The fully infilled frame (FF), is observed to be elastic up to high base shear and therefore
exhibited highest lateral yield strength whereas the Open Ground storey (OGS) and bare frame
exhibited highest lateral yield strength whereas the Open Ground Storey (OGS) and bare frame
exhibited non- linearly in low base shear at about one-fourth to one-fifth of that of fully infilled
(FF) and therefore showed least yield strength.
5. The ultimate lateral strength of bare frame (BF) is found to be the lowest and that of fully-
infilled (FF) the highest among all models. However, the bare frame undergoes maximum
deformation and fully infilled(FF) showed the lowest deformability, which after gaining the
ultimate strength exhibited brittle failure pattern. Although the lateral strength of open ground
storey (OGS) model is about 25% more than that of model BF, the ultimate deformation is
found to be much lesser of bare frame.
7. In bare frame, the non-linearity is found to be concentrated firstly on 1 st floor beams and
then columns. The plastic hinges are observed to be distributed uniformly over the entire frame
and failure took place by shear and flexural failure of beam and column whereas in open storey,
due to high stiffness of infilled upper floors, the plastic hinges are found to be concentrated
only on the open 1st storey columns thereby leading to flexural failure. In fully infilled, the
plastic hinges are observed to be formed firstly on the ground storey masonry infills causing the
ultimate failure and thereafter, the non-linearity is observed on 2 nd floor infills and 1st storey
columns.

106
REFRENCES

Applied technology council, ATC 40,(1996) “ Seismic evaluation and retrofit of concrete
buildings”, Volume 1-2, California.

Agrawal , P and Shrikhande, M(2010), “ Earthquake resistant design of structures”, PHI learning
Pvt. Ltd. , New Delhi.

Crisafulli, F.J. Carr, A.J and Park, R. (2000),” Analytical modeling of infilled frame structures”-a
General review”, -A bulletin of the new Zealand society for Earthquake Engineering Vol. 33,
No. 1 ,Pp 30-47.

Das. D and Murty C.V.R,(2004a), “Brick masonry infills in seismic design of RC framed buildings,
part 1-cost implications”, The Indian concrete journal, vol 78., no.7, The Associated Cement
Companies, India Pp. 39-44.

Das. D and Murty C.V.R, (2004b), “Brick masonry infills in seismic design of RC framed buildings,
part 1-behaviour”, The Indian concrete journal, vol 78., no.7, the Associated Cement
Companies, India Pp. 31-38.

Davis, R., Menon, D and Prasad, A.M,(2008), “Evaluation of magnification factors for open
ground storey buildings using nonlinear analysis”, The 14 th World Conference On
Earthquake Engineering , Beijing , china.

Dolsek, M and Fajfar, P, (2004) “Inelastic Spectra for infilled reinforced concrete frames”,
Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics, Vol 33 John Wiley and Sons Ltd, Pp 1395
to 1416.

Eggert, V. Valmundsoon and Nau, James M. 2002, “Seismic response of building with vertically
irregularity”, ASCE, journal of structural engineering Vol.123.

107
Fakhredin Danesh and Vahid. Behrang, (2004) “The influence of masonry infill walls on dymanic
behavior of concrete structures”, the 13 th world conference on Earthquake Engineering,
Vaucouver, B.C., Canada.

FEMA, (1997) “NEHRP guidelines for the seismic rehabilitation of buildings”, (FEMA 273),
Federal Emergency Management Agency, Washington DC, USA.

FEMA (1999),” Evaluation of earthquake damaged concrete and masonry wall buildings, basic
procedures manual” (FEMA 306), Federal Emergency Management Agency, Washington
DC, USA.

FEMA,(2000),“Pre standard and commentary for seismic rehabilitation of buildings”,(FEMA

356), Federal Emergency Management Agency, Washington.

Indian standard code of practice for plain and reinforced concrete (fourth revision), IS
456:2000, bureau of Indian standards, New Delhi.

Indian standard criteria for earthquake resistant design of structures, IS 1893 (Part I): 2002,
General provisions and buildings (fifth revision), Bureau of Indian standards, New Delhi.

Jaswant, N. Arlekar, Jain, S.K. and Murty C.V.R, (1997) “ Seismic response of RC frame buildings
with soft first storey” Proceedings of the CBRI golden Jubilee conference on natural
hazards in Urban Habitat, New Delhi.

Kaushik, H.B.(2006) “Evaluations of strengthening options for masonry infilled RC frames with
open first storey”, Phd thesis(2006), Department Of Civil Engineering, Indian Institute Of
Engineering Kanpur, Kanpur, Indian.

Kaushik, H.B, Rai, D.C. and Jain, S.K.(2009) “Effectiveness of some strengthening options for
Masonry-Infilled RC Frames With Open First Storey” Journal Of Structural Engineering, Vol
135,Pp 925-937.

108
Kaushik, H.b, Rai, D.c and Jain, S.K,(2008), “ a rational approach to analytical modeling masonry
infills in reinforced concrete frame buildings” the 14 th World conference on earthquake
engineering , Beijing ,china.

Kaushik, H.B, Rai, D.C and jain, S.K, 2006, “Code approach to seismic design of masonry-infilled
reinforced concrete frame: A state –of- the art- review”, Earthquake Spectra, Vol 22, no.4,
page 961-983.

Kumar santosh, (2002) “a study on Modeling of unreinforced masonry infilled RC frames for
seismic response”, MSC thesis report, Indian Institute of Engineering Kanpur, India.

Liauw, T.C., and Kwan, K.H., (1982), “Nonlinear Analysis of Multi-Storey Infilled Frames”,
Proceeding of the institute of civil engineers, part 2, Vol. 73, Pp.441-454.

Madan, A,Reinhorn, A.M,, Mandar, J.B and Valles, R.E,(1997), “Modeling Of Masonry Infill
Panels For Structural Analysis”, Journal Of Structural Division, ASCE, Vol.114,No.8,Pp. 1827-
1849.

Mainstone, R.J., 1971,”On the stiffness and strengths of Infilled frames”, Proceedings of the civil
engineers, UK, supplementary Volume (IV), Pp.57-90.

Mehmet, Inel and Ozmen, H.B(2008),”Effect of infill walls on Soft storey behavior in mid rise RC
buildings”, the 14th world conference on earthquake engineering, Beijing, china.

Murty, C.V.R. and Jain, S.K.,(2000),”Beneficial Influence Of Masonry Infills on Seismic

Performance Of RC Buildings, Proceeding of the twelfth world conference on earthquake
engineering, New Zealand, 2000, paper no 1790.

NBC-109,(1994), Nepal National Building Code for Masonry Unreinforced, Ministry of Physical
Planning and Works, Department of Urban Development and Building Construction,
Kathmandu, Nepal.

109
NBC-201,(1994), Nepal National Building Code for Mandatory Rule of Thumbs Reinforcement
Concrete Buildings with Masonry infill, in Nepal, Ministry of Physical Planning and Works,
Department of Urban Development and Building Construction, Kathmandu, Nepal.

NBC-205,(1994), Nepal National Building Code for Seismic Design of Buildings, in Nepal,
Ministry of Physical Planning and Works, Department of Urban Development and
Building Construction, Kathmandu, Nepal.

Pauley, T and Priestley M.J.N, (1992),” Seismic design of reinforced concrete and masonry
buildings”, wiley-interscience, New York.

Pradhan, P.L.(2009), “Composite Actions of brick infill wall in RC frame under in plane lateral
load, Phd Thesis(2009), Department of Civil Engineering , Pulchowk Campus, Tribhuvan
University, Kathmandu , Nepal.

Saneinejad, A and Hobbs, B, (1995), “inelastic design of Infilled frames”, ASCE Journal of
Structural Division, Vol 121,Pp 634-650.

Siamak, S and Abbie, B.L,(2008) “Seismic performance of reinforced concrete frame Structures
with and without masonry infill walls” The 14 th World conference on earthquake
engineering, Beijing, China.

Stafford- Smith and Carter, (1969), “a method of analysis of infilled frames”, Proceeding of the
institution of civil engineers, UK, vol.44, Pp.31-48.

Stafford- Smith and Carter, (1969), “Lateral stiffness of infilled frames”, journal of Structural
Division”, ASCE , Vol. 88, No. 6, Pp 183-199.

Tuladhar Prakirana, (2008), “Seismic Design of the Masonry Infill RC Frame Buildings with First
Soft Storey”, MSC Thesis, Building Research Institute, National Graduate Institute for
Policy Study, Japan.

110
111
ANNEXES

112