TRIBHUVAN UNIVERSITY

INSTITUTE OF ENGINEERING
PULCHOWK CAMPUS

Short Course
On
Non--linear Seismic Analysis
Non y & Strengthening
g g of Buildings
g

MODELING OF INFILL FRAME STRUCTURES

Dr. Prajwal Lal Pradhan

Associate Professor
M.sc. Structural Engineering Program
Civil Engineering Department
IOE,, Pulchowk Campus
p

June 22, 2009

1
Damages in Columns due to Partial Infill Wall

Bhuj and Gujrat earthquake -2001

South-east Asia and tsunami (Kuala

Atico earthquake in Peru - 2001 Tripa Hotel at Banda Aceh) 2004

2
3
4
5
6
7
8
 Lateral Deformation
Hh 3 kHh
d= + Deformation of a fixed ended wall
subjected to lateral loading
12 EI w GAw
Where,
d = the displacement of the
wall,
h = the height of the wall,
3
Iw =
tl
12
= the moment of inertia of the wall's cross-section,
Aw = t.l
t l = the
th area off the
th wall's
ll' horizontal
h i t l cross-section
ti
k = 1.2 = the shear coefficient for rectangular cross-section.
Effective stiffness of a masonry- wall:
GAw
Ke =
⎧⎪ G ⎛ h ⎞ ⎫⎪
2

1.2h⎨1 + α ' ⎜ ⎟ ⎬
⎪⎩ E ⎝ l ⎠ ⎪⎭
Where,
Where
α' =coefficient determining the position of the bending moment's inflection point along the
height of the wall. α' = 0.83 in the case of a fixed -ended and α’ = 3.33 in the case of a
9
cantilever wall.
 • In the case of bilinear idealization, stiffness K is determined from:
de
K= Ke
d
• The shape of stiffness degradation as a function of lateral displacements in a
non-dimensional form is quite similar for all types of masonry walls

• The stiffness K can be calculated directly as a function of normalized lateral

displacements d/dmax:
β
⎛ d ⎞
K = αK e ⎜⎜ ⎟
where ⎝ d max ⎠
• α and β are the stiffness degradation parameters, which depend on lateral load history
and compression stresses due to vertical loading, acting on the wall.
• If there is a lack of experimental
p data,, α = 0.3 and β = -0.85 can be taken into account for
the case of normal compression stresses, not exceeding 20% of masonry's compressive
strength, and cyclic lateral loads.

10
 MASONRY INFILLED REINFORCED CONCRETE FRAMES
• Masonry infill walls or panels have significant influence on stiffness and strength
of the building as a whole
• The complex
comple interaction bet between
een infill and ssurrounding
rro nding str
structural
ct ral frame was
as
identified in earlier studies conducted during 1950s and 1960s
• The influence of infill depends on the connection between the infill and the
frame
– Confined Masonry Infill
– Unconfined Masonry Infill
– Reinforced Masonry Infill with or without Shear Connector
– Unreinforced Masonry Infill
• The filler walls are often rigidly connected to the frame to impede the
deformation of the structure. In such a case, interaction forces develop in the
contact zone
• Basically, there are two approaches to control the seismic behavior of a
reinforced concrete frame structure with the masonryy infill:
– Masonry infill is constructed as a secondary, non-structural part of the main structural
system.
– Masonry infill is constructed as a resisting part of the structural system
• In general masonry walls are constructed only after the completion of the frame
members,
b masonry filler
fill walls
ll are nott designed
d i d ffor vertical
ti l loads
l d

11
INFILL is a Part of Continued Research

• Behavioral Study y from 1940~1950

• Model Analysis from 1950~1970
• Lateral Load from 1970~1980
• Cyclic test from 1980~1995
• Full Scale Test from 1995~2002
• Non-structural In-fill from 2002~…
12
 Behavioral Study
Researcher Area Identification What is Not Covered ?

Polyakov Steel infill frames Cracking of the mortar Interaction

1948 under monotonic along the compressive Bond characteristics
loading diagonal
Benjamin & RC in-fills (scale: 1/8 Ductility due to steel Effect of opening
Williams to 3/8) under
1950 monotonic loading g
Holmes Steel infill frames Lateral capacity as a Effect due to vertical loading
1961 under monotonic function of geometry and
load (RC & brick) compressive strength

13
 M d l Analysis
Model A l i
Researcher Area Identification Not Covered

Smidth Optimum lateral load Bonding & interfacing

Failure loads
1968 carrying capacity models

Smidth & Multiple strut modeling

modeling,
Carter Equivalent strut model Equivalent strut approach partial wall and wall with
1969 opening

Effectt off openings

Eff i and
d Opening at middle third of
Mallik & Garg the panel helps in transfer
shear connectors Partially in-fill wall
1971 of gravity loads by arch
action

Riddington Interaction between substantial strength even Finite element modeling

frames & wall (Finite after separation (good and lose of contact after
1974 difference method) initial fit) separation

14
 Lateral Load
Researcher Job Description Identification Not Covered

Liauw Dynamic lateral load Diagonal compression- Load carrying capacity of

1979 no connector otherwise frame
shear failure
Bending failure- with
opening otherwise shear
failure
Thiruvengadam FEM in equivalent Natural frequencies of in- Interfacing between frame
1985 strut (multiple) fill frames & wall, and size of the
model

Dawe & Seah p

Experimental Analytical
y response
p - not Real behavior of wall with
1989 dynamic test done satisfactory for predicting or without opening
(SDOF) the dynamic response
Etc. … …

15
 Proper Model is Always Expensive!!

*Wall-frame and wall-

element interactions not
completely covered

Strut
*Wall-frame and wall- Model
element interactions not
Brick Masonry completely covered
*B
*Boundary
d condition
diti nott
Infilled RC Frame accurate
*Requires large
computational effort

Shell
16
Model
 Improper models can invite unexpected damages!!
Concrete Frame
Mr Mr
Actual
Column
L0 Moments

Mm
Lc

Assumed
Column
MB M
Moments
Masonry In-fill
17
Responses of different models for same system may differ!!!

Bare Frame (adopted) Frame with strut Spandrel Wall

Solid Wall Wall with opening 18

 Brick
Local Model Harisiddhi Chinese Normal
230x110x55 75x35x25 55x45x45 230x110x55 230x110x55
Ultimate Strength (MPa) 10.2 16.8 15.5 12.3 9.8

Crushing Strength (MPa) 7.5 7.8 13.7 14.4 7.7

Yielding Strength (MPa) 1.3 3.7 6.4 2.55 1.37

Modulus of Elasticity 2672 5388 6105 2730 4127

(MPa)
Yield Strain 0.0005
0 0005 0.00138
0 00 38 0.001181
0 00 8 0.000838
0 000838 0.000265
0 000 65

Ultimate Strain 0.0074 0.00585 0.005635 0.022239 0.004052

19
 Mortar
1:3 1:4 1:6
50x50x50 50x50x50 50x50x50
Ultimate Strength (MPa) 11.3 5.4 4.3

Crushing Strength (MPa) 9.6 4.6 3.5

Yielding Strength (MPa) 1.7 0.8 0.6

Modulus of Elasticity (MPa) 9696 3612 2223

Yield Strain 0.000331 0.000216 0.000226

Ultimate Strain 0.004386 0.002884 0.003140

Crushing Strain 0.005824 0.003764 0.003862

20
 Masonry
Wallet Size ((mm)) 235x235x345
35 35 3 5

Ultimate Strength (MPa) 3.8

Crushing Strength (MPa) 2.9

Yielding Strength (MPa) 0.4

Modulus of Elasticity (MPa) 3886

Yield Strain 0.0002

Ultimate Strain 0.0027

T
Tensile
il Strength
St th (MPa)
(MP ) 18
1.8
21
 PLP Fit Non Linear Model
σ σ
σu 4 (σ − σ y )( ε u − ε )
σcr E =
u

σy (ε u − ε y ) 2

ε Ε
εy εu εcr e Ε
cr Ε0 2
c ⎛ εu − ε ⎞
r σu −σ σ = σ u − ⎜⎜ ⎟
(σ u − σ y )
Between σy to σu ε = ε u − ( ε u − ε y ) ⎝ εu − ε y ⎠
(σ u − σ y )

σu −σ
Between σu to σcr ε = ε u + ( ε u − ε y )
(σ u − σ y )
4(σ u − σ y )(ε u − ε cr )
E cr =
σ u (1 − α )
(ε u − ε y ) 2
ε cr = ε u + ( ε u − ε y )
(σ u − σ y ) 22
23
 SEISMIC BEHAVIOUR AND MECHANISMS
• In the case where a flexible reinforced concrete structure is connected with rigid
filler walls, the dynamic properties of the building change. Short periods of
vibration in many cases result in increased seismic actions
actions.

• If masonry filler walls are damaged before the development of high shear forces,
which might possibly damage the main structural system

• Interaction forces, which develop at the contacts between the masonry infill and
reinforced concrete elements of the main system, cause unexpected behavior of
the structure

• As the lateral deformations increase, the relatively weak masonry infill is no

longer capable of carrying the increased lateral load.

• In the case where the resistance capacity off the in-filled

f frame
f section, acting
monolithically, exceeds the combined resistance capacity of the masonry infill
and the frame, acting separately, resistance degradation takes place.

• Basically, the failure mechanism is of shear type and depends on the masonry
filler wall to reinforced concrete frame rigidity ratio, the quality of materials, and
contact between the filler wall and reinforced concrete frame.
24
 Typical failure mechanisms of masonry infill frames

25
 Typical
yp failure modes of masonry
y walls,, subjected
j to in-plane
p seismic load

(a) infill frame under lateral load (b) shear slip (bed joint sliding) (c) Crack propagation (d) Diagonal tension
(diagonal crack) (e) Corner compression (corner crushing) (f) Cracks in frame member
26
 MASONRY WALL STRUCTURES
• Highly vulnerable to damage occurring due to an earthquake ground motion.
• First Point:
– Distribution of masonry masses and consequently, the distribution of inertia forces along the
height of the structure
structure.
– Floor level masses are relatively small, which is opposed to the other type of structures like RCC
and steel, where masses can generally be considered lumped at the floor levels, while masses of
vertical elements can generally be ignored.

• S
Second
dPPoint
i t
– Low stress capacity of masonry structures, due to its low shear and tensile strengths, as well as
its brittle mode of failure.
– Although in the design for vertical loads compressive strength is the predomi-nant factor, for the
earthquake resistant design tensile and shear strengths govern the behavior of a masonry
structure.
t t
– Masonry stress capacity is generally expressed through the stress capacity of units (blocks) and
mortar.

• Third point
p
– The type and quality of connections among various bearing ele-ments of the structure.
– The geometric characteristics of the walls play an important role in the masonry structure's
response (type and extent of failures).
– Bending failure could be observed for high values of the height to length ratio (hw/lw>2), while for
low values of the ratio hw/lw< 1)) shear failure appears.
pp
– For the case of low friction coefficient values, sliding of the wall may be observed.

27
 Horizontal
i l an vertical
i l mechanisms
h i of tensile
il strengthh

Failure mechanisms for different wall geometries

28
 METHODS OF ANALYSIS
• The selection criteria are based on three factors, which are to be simulated
properly in the analysis:
– the type
yp of the external actions
– the material behavior
– the type of the structural model

• Depending on the type of the external actions the analysis procedure could be
– Static
• Regular structures with limited height
– Dynamic
• irregular
g structural configuration
g in p
plan and/or in height
g
• Modes of vibration and the natural periods

• Non-linear analysis method is more applicable

• For un-reinforced
un reinforced masonry which exhibits a brittle behavior
behavior, non-linear
non linear analysis
does not always lead to reliable results due to the uncertainties in the material
response. The use of elastic analysis is then preferable.

• For masonry structures constructed in seismic areas a three -dimensional

dimensional
analysis is preferred.

29
 MASONRY COMPUTATIONAL MODELS
• A proper computational model

• The model has to provide satisfactory mathematical

simulation of the real structure response on three levels
– Structure
– Actions
– Materials
ate a s

• Due to lot of uncertainties, model for a masonry structure is

very difficult.

• Parametric studies give a solution for a successful

confrontation to the difficulties.
30
 MODULUS OF ELASTICITY,, POISSON RATIO and
SHEAR MODULUS
Modulus of elasticity Ew:
Ew=a.fwc
• If not evaluated through experimental tests, then
– Ew= 1000fwc,
– This value can be taken into account for the limit state analysis.
– If the serviceability limit state is investi-gated then a reduction factor of 0
0.6
6 must be applied to the
above value
• Hendry:
– For the tangential modulus of elasticity
Ew = 2fwc/εu, where εu=0.0025 -0.0035

– For the section modulus of elasticity

Ew= (400 to 1000)fwc Shear Modulus

• CIB: Ew = 1000 fwc

ν = 0.15 Ew
Gw =
• Mauerwerk: Ew = (500 to 8000)fwc
ν = 0.10 – 0.20
2.(1 +ν )
• Chuxian: Ew = 115(fwc)3/2 OR Gw = 0.40Ew
31
 COMPRESSIVE - TENSILE STRENGTH
• EC6: Where,
0.65
f wc ,k = Kf bc . f mc
0.25 •
•
K depends on the selected type of blocks
fbc is the mean compressive strength of the blocks
• fmc is the mean compressive strength of the
mortar, calculated according to the tensile
strength of mortar fmt,k

• Tassios-Chronopoulos:

⎡⎛ 2 ⎞ ⎤ 2
f wc = ξ ⎢⎜ f bc − α ⎟ + β f mc ⎥ f wt = f mt
⎣⎝ 3 ⎠ ⎦ 3

Where,
α is a factor describing the influence of the blocks' shape and the type of the construction
β is a factor describing the kind of the masonry (stone or brick)
ξ is a factor describing the bed joint width and the volume of the included mortar

32
 Broker f wc = 0.7 f bc .3 f mc
Brenner f wc = 1.4 2.5 f bc .4 f mc
Kirtching f wc = 1.59.0.205. f mc + 0.189 f bc
Hendry f wc = f bc f wc = 3 f mc f wc = 4 f mc
Mann
f wc = 0.83. f bc0.66 . f mc0.18
f bc f bc . f wc f mc
Tassios f wc = b
+ − + 1.4
6 4 20

f wc = (1 − 0.8.3 α ). f bc If fbc < fmc

f wc = (1 − 0.8.3 α ). f mc + 0.4.( f bc − f mc ) If fbc >fmc

Wh the
Where h factor
f α is
i a shape
h factor
f

33