ABSTRACT

AN ASSESSMENT OF THE STRUT MODELS FOR SEISMIC

ANALYSIS OF INFILLED FRAMES

Boljevic, Bojan
M.Sc., Department of Civil Engineering
Supervisor: Prof. Dr. Haluk Sucuoglu
April 2015, 104 pages
Presence of infill walls in reinforced concrete frames greatly affects the behavior of such
structural systems under lateral loading. Even though it is widely recognized and accepted
that influence of infill walls on structure behavior should not be ignored, still codes are
not providing engineers with recommendation on including this non-structural elements
in regular engineering design. It is known that infill walls have beneficial contribution to
structure as they decrease displacement and ductility demand and increase energy
dissipation. However, their unpredictable nature also can have detrimental effects on
structure, causing sudden transfer of shear forces to adjacent columns. This is the reason
why developing a model for infill wall is so challenging, thus opposing codes from giving
provisions on their modeling.
In this study, two reinforced concrete frame specimens were tested in the Structural
Laboratory of the Civil Engineering Department of the Middle East Technical University.
Specimens were designed and constructed to be code conforming, satisfying provisions
of Turkish Earthquake Code 2007. Specimens were three-bay, three-story frames where
one of them had middle bay infilled with unreinforced masonry walls. Specimens were
pseudo-dynamically tested and sequentially subjected to three ground motions in order to
observe differences in behavior of bare and infill test frame. Based on differences
observed between two specimens, hysteretic behavior of infill wall has been obtained.
Infill wall behavior has been used in development of equivalent diagonal strut model
which was implemented in analytical model of the infilled frame. Analytical modeling
and simulation were conducted using OpenSees software where time history analysis has
been carried out. Analytical global response results of infilled frame are recorded and
compared with experimental data for purpose of validation of infill wall model.
Moreover, simple method for calculating additional shear force transmitted from infill
wall to boundary columns has been employed and results were compared with
experimental observations.
iii

From the comparison of experimental behavior of bare and infilled frames it was observed
that presence of infill walls significantly altered global response of infilled frame. Infilled
frame experienced much lower lateral displacements compared to bare frame, while
storey shears were higher in case of infilled frame.
When analytical results of infilled frame are compared with experimental results it was
observed that matching of results was satisfying up to some level. It was shown that
diagonal strut model, though simple to employ, was unable to simulate behavior of infill
wall for every ground motion with the same level of precision. Additional shear force,
obtained by employing a simple method, created shear demand on boundary columns
which is larger than their shear capacity. This was matching very well with the
experimental observation of damage and failure model of boundary columns.
Keywords: Pseudo-dynamic testing, Analytical modeling, Unreinforced masonry infill
wall, Equivalent diagonal strut model

iv

To my family

ACNOWLEDGMENTS

My postgraduate studies and this research would not have been possible without the
unconditional support of my family. I would like to show my deepest gratitude for the
effort they made to make fulfillment of my goals possible. Mother, father and two sisters
will always represent the source of my motivation and hope. I am also thankful to
members of my wider family to whom I feel great attachment and who were always there
for me.
Special thanks goes to Prof. Dr. Haluk Sucuoglu who patiently guided me through my
research and helped me with encouragement and thoughtful advices. It was my pleasure
to have opportunity to work and learn from great academic and professional. Also thanks
to all the professors from University of Montenegro, from whom I learned and was
inspired by.
I have great respect for all interesting people I met during my postgraduate studies. These
smart young people, from all around the world, will be engraved in my memory forever.
Thank you guys for the endless conversation and fun we had. I owe a big thanks to my
lifelong friends form Montenegro, who shaped me through my life and with whom I have
shared great experiences. I am also thankful to laboratory stuff for giving me necessary
assistance whenever I needed it.

vi

TABLE OF CONTEXT

ABSTRACT .................................................................................................................... iii

ACNOWLEDGMENTS .................................................................................................. vi
TABLE OF CONTEXT ................................................................................................. vii
LIST OF FIGURES ......................................................................................................... ix
LIST OF TABLES ......................................................................................................... xii
CHAPTERS
1.

2.

INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................. 1
1.1.

General ...................................................................................................................... 1

1.2.

Problem statement ..................................................................................................... 2

1.3.

Literature review ....................................................................................................... 3

1.3.1.

General consideration ........................................................................................ 3

1.3.2.

Experimental studies on concrete frames with infill walls ................................ 4

1.3.3.

Analytical modeling of frames with infill walls .............................................. 11

1.3.4.

Seismic code provisions on frames with infill walls ....................................... 24

1.4.

Effects of infill walls on the seismic behavior of infilled frames ............................ 26

1.5.

Objective and scope................................................................................................. 27

EXPERIMENTAL TESTING ............................................................................. 29

2.1.

General .................................................................................................................... 29

2.2.

Test Specimens ........................................................................................................ 31

2.3.

Pseudo Dynamic Testing ......................................................................................... 39

2.4.

Specimen #1 (bare frame) ....................................................................................... 44

2.5.

Specimen #2 (URM infilled frame) ......................................................................... 49

2.6.

Comparison of experimental results ........................................................................ 54

2.6.1.

Roof displacement and base shear comparison ............................................... 54

2.6.2.

Storey drift ratio comparison ........................................................................... 55

2.6.3.

Member end rotation comparisons .................................................................. 56

2.7.

Experimental tests on masonry specimens .............................................................. 57

2.7.1.

Prism test ......................................................................................................... 57

2.7.2.

Diagonal compression test............................................................................... 59

vii

3.

ANALYTICAL MODELING ............................................................................. 61

3.1.

General .................................................................................................................... 61

3.2.

Analytical model of Specimen #1 ........................................................................... 61

3.3.

Analytical model of Specimen #2 ........................................................................... 64

3.3.1.

First analytical model of infill wall - Model 1 ................................................ 65

3.3.1.1. Verification of analytical model of Specimen #1.................................... 65

3.3.1.2. Shear carried by the infill walls .............................................................. 68
3.3.1.3. Hysteretic behavior of the first storey infill wall .................................... 72
3.3.1.4. Properties and material model of equivalent diagonal strut .................... 74
3.3.1.5. Comparison of developed material model (Model 1) with the tests
results on masonry specimens ................................................................................. 78
3.3.2.

Second analytical model of Infill Wall - Model 2........................................... 80

3.3.2.1. Diagonal strut properties and material model ......................................... 80

3.3.2.2. Comparison of developed material model (Model 2) and tests results on
masonry specimens ................................................................................................. 85

4.

ASSESSMENT OF STRUT MODELS ............................................................... 87

4.1.

General .................................................................................................................... 87

4.2. Comparison of experimental and analytical results of Specimen #2, when infill wall
Model 1 is employed ........................................................................................................... 87
4.2.1.

Comparison of experimental and analytical global response of Specimen #2 87

4.2.2.
Comparison of analytical and experimental hysteretic behavior of the first
storey infill wall .............................................................................................................. 90
4.3. Comparison of experimental and analytical results of Specimen #2, when infill wall
Model 2 is employed ........................................................................................................... 93

5.

4.4.

Experimental behavior of infill wall ....................................................................... 96

4.5.

Recommendation for design of adjacent columns .................................................. 98

CONCLUSIONS................................................................................................ 100

REFERENCES ............................................................................................................. 102

viii

LIST OF FIGURES

FIGURES
Figure 1.1: Mechanical behavior of strut model #1 ....................................................... 14
Figure 1.2: Mechanical behavior of strut model #2 ....................................................... 14
Figure 1.3: Mechanical behavior of strut model #3 ....................................................... 15
Figure 1.4: Constitutive model for masonry................................................................... 17
Figure 2.1: Elevation view of the prototype frame with the selected frame (dimensions
in cm) .............................................................................................................................. 30
Figure 2.2: scaled test frame ....................................................................................... 31
Figure 2.3: Columns and beams section details ............................................................. 32
Figure 2.4: Layout of the reinforced concrete foundation blocks .................................. 33
Figure 2.5: Foundation concreting ................................................................................. 33
Figure 2.6: Steel framework for different frame elements ............................................. 34
Figure 2.7: Axial stress-strain relationship of tested steeel bars .................................... 35
Figure 2.8: URM infill wall of Specimen #2 .................................................................. 37
Figure 2.9: Layout of Specimen #1 with placed load ..................................................... 38
Figure 2.10: Layout of Specimen #2 with placed load ................................................... 38
Figure 2.11: Scheme of Pseudo Dynamic Testing system ............................................. 40
Figure 2.12: Hydraulic jack system ................................................................................ 41
Figure 2.13: Ground motion records with corresponding response spectra ................... 41
Figure 2.14: Data acquisition system ............................................................................. 42
Figure 2.15: Disposition of LVDTs .............................................................................. 43
Figure 2.16: Roof displacement vs. time for the D1 ground motion .............................. 44
Figure 2.17: Roof displacement vs. time with damage observation pictures for the D2
ground motion ................................................................................................................ 45
Figure 2.18: Roof displacement vs. time with damage observation pictures for the D3
ground motion ................................................................................................................ 46
Figure 2.19: Interstorey drift ratios vs. time and roof displacement vs. base shear for D1,
D2 and D3 ground motions ............................................................................................ 47
ix

Figure 2.20: Roof displacement vs. time for the D1 ground motion .............................. 49
Figure 2.21: Roof displacement vs. time with damage observation pictures for the D2
ground motion ................................................................................................................. 50
Figure 2.22: Roof displacement vs. time with damage observation pictures for the D3
ground motion ................................................................................................................. 51
Figure 2.23: Storey drift ratios vs. time and roof displacement vs. base shear for D1, D2
and D3 ground motions ................................................................................................... 52
Figure 2.24: Maximum roof displacement vs. maximum base shear for D1, D2 and D3
ground motion ................................................................................................................. 55
Figure 2.25: Pictures of masonry prism specimens ........................................................ 57
Figure 2.26: Axial stress-strain relationship for masonry test specimens ...................... 58
Figure 2.27: Pictures of masonry panel specimen .......................................................... 59
Figure 2.28: Shear stress-strain relationship for the masonry test specimen .................. 60
Figure 3.1: Scheme of nonlinear beam-column element ................................................ 61
Figure 3.2: Section fibre models ..................................................................................... 62
Figure 3.3: Hysteretic behavior of concrete .................................................................... 63
Figure 3.4: Hysteretic behavior of reinforcing steel ....................................................... 63
Figure 3.5: Elevation view of analytical model for Specimen #1................................... 64
Figure 3.6: Elevation view of analytical model for Specimen #2................................... 64
Figure 3.7: Comparison of interstorey drifts (Specimen #1) .......................................... 66
Figure 3.8: Comparison of storey shears (Specimen #1) ................................................ 67
Figure 3.9: Application of experimental displacement history of Specimen #2 to the
analytical model of Specimen #1 .................................................................................... 69
Figure 3.10: Comparison of experimental storey shears of Specimen #2 and analytical
storey shears of Specimen #1 .......................................................................................... 70
Figure 3.11: Shear carried by the infill walls .................................................................. 71
Figure 3.12: Hysteretic behavior of 1st Storey Infill Wall .............................................. 73
Figure 3.13: Schematic presentation of equivalent diagonal strut model ....................... 74
Figure 3.14: Equivalent strut envelope models representing the infill wall hysteretic
behavior (Model 1) ......................................................................................................... 75
Figure 3.15: Axial force-displacement envelope of diagonal strut (Model 1) ................ 76
Figure 3.16: Shear and axial stress-strain envelopes of diagonal strut (Model 1) .......... 77
Figure 3.17: Hysteretic behavior of analytical model of infill wall (Model 1)............... 78
x

Figure 3.18: Comparison of material properties of analytical model (Model 1) and

masonry tests results ....................................................................................................... 79
Figure 3.19: Axial and horizontal force-displacement envelopes of diagonal strut
(Model 2) ........................................................................................................................ 82
Figure 3.20: Shear and axial stress-strain envelopes of diagonal strut (Model 2).......... 83
Figure 3.21: Hysteretic behavior of analytical model of infill wall (Model 2) .............. 85
Figure 3.22: Comparison of Model 1 and Model 2 ........................................................ 85
Figure 3.23: Comparison of material properties of analytical model (Model 2) with
masonry test results ........................................................................................................ 86
Figure 4.1: Experimental and analytical storey drift comparison .................................. 88
Figure 4.2: Experimental and analytical storey shear comparison ................................. 89
Figure 4.3: Experimental and analytical hysteretic behavior of the first storey infill
(Model 1) ........................................................................................................................ 91
Figure 4.4: Comparison of first storey experimental and analytical behavior of infill
wall (Model 1) ................................................................................................................ 92
Figure 4.5: Experimental and analytical storey drift comparison .................................. 94
Figure 4.6: Experimental and analytical storey shear comparison ................................. 95
Figure 4.7: Free body diagram of adjacent column ........................................................ 98

xi

LIST OF TABLES

TABLES
Table 2.1: Reinforcement details .................................................................................... 36
Table 2.2: Results of tests conducted on concrete cylinder 15/30 .................................. 36
Table 2.3: Results of tests on mortar/plaster specimens ................................................. 37
Table 2.4: Ground motion properties .............................................................................. 41
Table 2.5: Member end rotation demands ...................................................................... 48
Table 2.6: Members end rotation demands ..................................................................... 53
Table 2.7: Maximum interstorey drift ratios [%] ............................................................ 56
Table 2.8: Average member end rotations at storey level [%] ....................................... 56
Table 3.1: Parameters of diagonal strut .......................................................................... 76
Table 3.2: Infill wall, column and diagonal strut properties ........................................... 84
Table 4.1: Peak responses for first storey infill wall and corresponding column
responses ......................................................................................................................... 96
Table 4.2: Shear demand on adjacent column in case of abrupt failure of infill wall
during D3 ground motion................................................................................................ 97
Table 4.3: Values of parameters used in calculation of shear resistance of columns ..... 97
Table 4.4: Values of parameters used in calculating shear demand on adjacent column
......................................................................................................................................... 99

xii

CHAPTER 1

1. INTRODUCTION
1.1.

General

In countries with regions of high seismicity, one of the most commonly used structural
systems is reinforced concrete (RC) frames. Unreinforced masonry infill walls (URM)
are the inevitable non-structural elements in RC frames, used for space partitioning. URM
walls are employed as the exterior and interior walls of the building structure and they
are considered as architectural elements.
In practice, structural engineers neglect the presence of URM walls in design, and take
into account only the weight of wall panels acting on the structural system. Some seismic
codes point on irregularities and deficiencies which could be caused by infill walls but
majority of codes neglect contribution of URM walls to structure lateral resistance,
considering them as secondary elements. This is mostly due to the fact that behavior of
masonry walls during earthquake is not easily predictable and depends on so many
factors. It is not simple to adopt realistic, yet simple, analytical modeling approaches to
simulate behavior of infill walls subjected to lateral loading. However, since separation
between infill walls and frames is usually not provided in construction, walls and frames
interact during earthquakes and provide lateral resistance as a coupled system. Many
experimental studies were conducted on infilled frames in order to determine the effects
of infill walls on frame performance. Results of the experiments conducted on infilled
frames are usually compared with the results obtained from the same experiments
conducted on the bare frames. Those experiments have shown that presence of infill
walls lead to significant increase in strength and stiffness, compared to bare frames. They
also significantly affect overall ductility and energy dissipation capacity of the system. It
is obvious that presence of infill walls changes the dynamical properties, in a way of
shortening natural period of the structure, yet they are neglected in design. This
negligence may lead to inappropriate design, due to the fact that lateral stiffness of the
1

system is increased, which causes larger lateral forces on the system and decreases
displacement demand. Infill walls are brittle elements and at high lateral displacement
they are prone to brittle failure which causes sudden transfer of forces to the frame
members. Moreover, infill walls resist lateral forces by developing a diagonal
compressive strut action which exerts additional forces to boundary columns at the
location of contact. This means that boundary columns are exposed to additional forces
which are not taken in account during design process. These additional forces can trigger
shear failure in boundary columns. Undesirable effects on frame members caused by infill
walls are even more critical when frames are deficient, which is a quite common practice
in developing countries. This brings forth the need of including infill walls in the design
of structure in order to reduce the possibility of unpredicted seismic behavior and
structure performance.
1.2.

Problem statement

Considering all the experiments in which the seismic behavior of infilled frames were
investigated with reference to bare frames, it is irrefutable that infill walls have great
influence on the behavior of structure. Hence, if infill walls are not isolated from the
frames by separation joints, their contact and action with boundary frame is inevitable.
This requires including infill walls in the analytical models in order to simulate realistic
performances of the structure. Still, in practice, there is a lack of simple but workable
models which would simulate performance of the infill walls without complicating the
design analysis.
When it comes to the design of new structures, URM infill walls are considered as nonstructural elements according to all seismic design codes (TEC 2007, Eurocode 8, ASCE
7). Treated as so, they are not included in the analysis design which contradicts results
obtained from the experiments. Chapter 7 of TEC 2007, which is on assessment, also
does not take into account presence of the infill walls while evaluating existing structures.
In the Linear Assessment Procedure, after linear analysis, demands and capacities are
calculated and members are classified as brittle or ductile. For brittle members,
assessment is done based on shear force while ductile members are assessed based on
flexural forces. Nonlinear Assessment Procedure is based on deformation capacities of
2

members, which consider rotation of plastic hinges at the member ends. As previously
mentioned, additional shear forces which are transferred from the infill walls to frame
members, are not taken into account in neither of these assessment procedures. This
brings up the questions how reliable these procedures are in evaluating performance of
the existing structure with infilled frames. However, TEC 2007 has recognized the
importance of including infill walls in retrofit design when the infill walls are strengthen
by using steel or fiber reinforcement. Therefore, in Annex 7F, modeling techniques of
retrofitted walls are proposed.
With significant importance of infill walls on the seismic response of infilled frames,
there is a need for defining the mechanical properties of infill walls, in all assessment
codes, for a realistic prediction of the response of infilled frames under seismic effects.
1.3.

Literature review

1.3.1. General consideration

The effect of URM infill walls on the stiffness, ultimate capacity, and failure modes of
framed structures has been one of the most interesting research topics in the past six
decades. Many experiments, where infilled frames have been exposed to lateral loads,
were conducted in order to get an insight of the way frames and infill walls interact. Based
on those experiments, scientists usually came up with similar conclusions. The consensus
is that inevitable interaction of infill walls and frames is changing the behavior of
structure and that their negligence in usual engineering practice is not justified. This
interaction is of great importance when the structure is exposed to earthquakes, when its
response should correspond to the engineers predictions and simulation. The question is
how big mistake engineers commit by leaving infill walls out of the model, and are they
on the safe side by doing that.
There are two ways of approaching to this problem, one of them is modeling the infill
walls with diagonal strut members and another is using finite elements models. The first
approach is simple and can be used in regular engineering practice, while the second
approach is more complex and is mostly used for better understanding of the topic. If
accuracy is the goal, micro models are used, while macro models are used for achieving
3

simplicity and practicability.

The main problem of modeling infill walls is finding

balance between simplicity and accuracy. Developing and adopting a simple strut model,
which is accurate enough, would be a great step forward in engineering modeling
practice. In further sections, experimental and analytical research studies conducted by
several researchers will be presented.
1.3.2. Experimental studies on concrete frames with infill walls
Experimental studies on infilled frames are usually consisted of full scale or scaled model
specimens of infilled frames, subjected to lateral loads. During the experiments, specific
parameters are monitored and further discussed in order to determine the influence of
infill walls on frames behavior. Different researchers evaluated the influence of different
parameters on infilled frame behavior. Their conclusions provided more knowledge and
better understanding of infilled frame behavior, and pointed on the importance of
considering infill walls not just as non-structural elements, but as structural elements that
have influence on global and local structural behavior.
Benjamin and Williams (1958)
Benjamin and Williams tested large scale and scaled model brick walls without bounding
frames, and with reinforced concrete or structural steel enclosing frames. In their paper
they presented results of an investigation on the effectiveness of unreinforced brick
masonry walls to resist shear forces applied in the plane of the wall. They also paid
attention on the variation of results due to model usage and workmanship. Their basic
conclusions were;

Brick masonry walls can be studied by means of models because errors caused by
model scaling are not significant compared to variation resulting from
workmanship.

From the experimental results it has been concluded that masonry wall panels
have significant strengths when properly confined by a frame and that without
such a frame their strength value is very limited.

Polyakov (1960)

Polyakov carried out experiments on a frame-wall having nine panels filled with brick
masonry. The test structure, made of welded rolled steel sections, represented a three
storey frame with three panels wide. Additionally, single panel sample was used as a
calibrating standard for the nine panel frame. The purpose of the investigation was to
examine the concept of complete interaction between frame and filler wall. An answer
was required to the question whether it was possible to consider the filler wall in each
panel as diagonal bracing, or whether the filler wall and the frame should be regarded as
one homogeneous mass of masonry covering all nine panels, reinforced by columns and
the girders of the frame. The basic conclusions were;

Deformations along the compression diagonal are concentrated at its ends,

whereas the tension along the diagonal of the filler wall diminished towards the
ends of the diagonal.

The deformations of the tension diagonals of the infill walls are several times
smaller than those of the compression diagonals.

In view of this it may be concluded that a frame with masonry infill walls behaves
as a braced system. On the other hand, the formulation of a design procedure based
on the assumption of a unified behavior of frame and wall as a solid reinforced
body does not appear to be justified.

Smith and Carter (1969)

Smith and Carter examined the behavior of multi-storey infilled frames under lateral
loading. The typical behavior of an infilled frame subjected to a racking load is studied.
Basic findings are listed below.

The experiments have shown that composite behavior of an infilled frame gives a
lateral stiffness and strength which depends not only on the separate properties of
the frame and infill, but also on their relative stiffness.

The important member, influencing the stiffness and strength of the infill, is the
column. Variations in beam stiffness have shown to have little effect on the
behavior of structure.

Collapse of an infilled frame may occur through failure of either the frame or the
infill. Possible failure modes of the frame can result from tension in the windward
columns or shear in the columns, beams or their connections. If, however, the
frame is adequately strong, collapse will eventually occur by the failure of infill.

Two modes of infill failure are possible for concrete infill panels: tensile cracking
failure along the loaded diagonal and a compressive failure generated from one of
the loading corners.

Fiorato, Sozen and Gamble (1970)

Experimental program included tests of 26 structural models of reinforced concrete
frames with masonry filler walls. Also one additional frame was tested with no filler
walls. All test structures were subjected to lateral loading. To simulate gravity loading,
the columns in nine of the specimens were also subjected to constant vertical load. Eight
one-story one-bay, thirteen five-story one-bay and six two-story three-bay frames were
tested. The controlled variables included in the experimental program were:
- Height or number of stories
- Width or number of bays
- Amount, quality, and arrangement of the frame reinforcement
- Magnitude of vertical load applied to the columns
- Size, shape and location of wall openings
Following conclusions have been reached after conducting the experiment:

Reinforced concrete frames with filler walls subjected to lateral loads do not
behave as bare frames at any loading stage. The frame is not remobilized with its
original load-deformation properties after cracking of the filler wall, unless an
extraordinary amount of transverse reinforcement is used in the columns.

The critical stage in the response of the frame-wall system is development of a

shear crack, which ideally forms along a single joint, separating the wall into two
parts. The load at which the shear crack forms depends on the quality of masonry
and the proportion of the wall.

Openings in the wall resulted in a more flexible system with a lower strength.
However, the capacity of the structure was not reduced in proportion to the
reduction in cross-sectional area of the wall.

Transverse reinforcement in the columns of the frame would increase the ductility
and in some cases the strength of the system.

Mainstone (1971)
Mainstone conducted nearly all his tests on scaled models, but he used two full scale
tests as a control. Four types of specimens were tested, with the intention of exploring
different limits of the types of boundary restraint that would act on an infill in practice:
- Unframed walls.
- Walls surrounded by stiff I section members linked at the corners by knife-edged
articulations (referred to as stiffened linkage A).
- Infilled frames with the frames fabricated from light and heavy square section mild steel
bars with full penetration welds at the corners (referred to as normal frames B and C).
- Infilled frames with the frames cut and machined from mild steel plate to combine the
stiff edge restrains of the stiffened linkages A with the corner details of the lighter normal
frames B (referred to as stiffened frame D).
All unframed walls and all those surrounded by the stiffened linkages were necessarily
single panels. The tests with the frames B, C and D included some two-bay single-storey
specimens and those with frames B and C some two-bay two-storey specimens in addition
to the single panels. Both walls and infills were made from either micro-concrete or model
brickwork.

It was observed that unframed walls failed suddenly, either by a single diagonal
crack or by crashing in one of the loaded corners, becoming incapable of taking
any further load.

Surrounding the wall by a stiffened linkage usually (but not always) led to the
initial occurrence of a diagonal crack also in the micro-concrete walls. Though
incapable by itself, of taking any load, the linkages prevented the complete break-

up of the wall and permitted the load to be increased until a final crashing
occurred.

Separation of the infill from the frame in the unloaded corners was a characteristic
of the earlier stages of loading in these tests, showing that the infill was acting
much as a diagonal strut, but it was never possible by simple observation to see
with certainty how far the separation extended.

The test results confirmed that the range of possible behavior of an infilled frame
is much wider than that envisaged by any theoretical analysis yet undertaken.

Klinger and Bertero (1978)

In this research, one-third scale model structural sub-assemblages of a bare frame and
three infilled frames were subjected to axial loads plus quasi-static cycles of reversed
shear and overturning moments, simulating the principal effects of gravity loads and
earthquake-like excitations on the prototype structure. It has been found that,

Infill frames, which are properly designed and constructed, have several
advantages over comparable bare frames, particularly if they are subjected to
strong ground motions. Owing to the increased stiffness by 500 % and maximum
lateral strength provided by infills, behavior is greatly improved.

The increase of energy absorption and dissipation capacities, achieved by the

addition of engineered infills, is so large that it far exceeds the detrimental effects
of possible increases in inertial forces due to increased stiffness and decrease in
period.

For severe ground motions demanding elastic base shear in excess of that
corresponding to the bare frame rigid-plastic collapse load, the stiffness provided
by infills significantly reduces the influence of P- effects on seismic response.

While bare frame dissipates energy primarily through large inelastic rotations at
hinge regions near beam-column connections, infilled frame dissipates energy
through hysteretic behavior (friction across panel cracks, accompanied by gradual
degradation of the panels initially high stiffness and strength) which reduces the
danger of incremental collapse.

Liauw and Kwan (1984)

Liauw and Kwan investigated the characteristics of infilled frames with different interface
conditions. Experiments are conducted on three types of infilled frames: A-models
(infilled frames with no connection provided between frame and infill), B-models
(connectors were provided along the infill/beam interface and vertical slits were provided
at the infill/column interface), C-models (connectors were provided along the infill/frame
interface to improve structural interaction).

It has been shown that C-models generally had higher stiffness and strength and
they maintained their strength up to very large deflection leading to tremendous
energy absorption before failure.

The mode of failure of A-models depends on the panel proportions and the relative
strengths of the columns, the beams and infills. Still, failure modes of non-integral
infilled frames corresponded to the ones of integrated infilled frames.

B-models, semi-integrated infill frames, acted merely as shear panels and nearly
all the lateral shear is taken by connectors of the infill/beam interface. Therefore,
the collapse strength of semi-integrated infilled frames depends upon the strength
of the interface connection in the first place or the strength of non-integral infilled
frame, whichever is larger.

Zarnic and Tomazevic (1984)

In this experiment, the behavior of three reinforced concrete frames, infilled with
different types of masonry filler-walls, has been studied. Their behavior has been
compared with the behavior of reinforced concrete bare frame. The following test
specimens, using scale models, have been constructed:
- Reinforced concrete frame without infill.
- Reinforced concrete frame with unreinforced masonry filler wall.
- Reinforced concrete frame with horizontally reinforced masonry filler-wall.
- Reinforced concrete frame with horizontally reinforced masonry filler-wall, connected
to frame.
Specimens were tested in a specially designed testing frame which gave the possibility to
load the specimens with constant vertical loading, acting on the columns, and
9

simultaneously, with horizontal cyclic loading, acting on the beam. After analyzing the
test results, following conclusions have been made.

The type of infill had no effect on the strength and deformability of the infilled
frame system. Practically no difference has been observed between the behavior
of frames with unreinforced and horizontally reinforced filler-wall, whereas an
increase of 15 % in lateral resistance has been observed when testing the frame
with horizontally reinforced filler-wall, connected to the frame.

The infill increased the initial lateral stiffness of the frame by twenty times.

The lateral resistance of the infilled frame system has been attained at
significantly smaller storey drift angle than that of the frame with no infill. At the
displacement level where the column reinforcement only started to yield, severe
strength degradation of the infilled frame system has already been observed.

Mehrabi, Shing, Schuller and Noland (1994)

For the purpose of this study, six-story three-bay, reinforced concrete moment-resisting
frames with middle bay infills have been selected as prototypes. For the purpose of the
parametric study, two types of frames were designed, weak frame (which do not meet
current seismic resistance standards) and strong frame (which was designed for a set of
equivalent static forces stipulated for Seismic Zone 4). Additionally twelve single-bay
scale model specimens, with different types of infill panels, were chosen to represent the
interior bay at the bottom story of the prototype frame. Two two-bay specimens were
intended to study the influence of the adjacent infill walls. After lateral load testing, the
following observations were obtained.

Strong panels provide a better energy dissipation capability and are more
effective in enchasing the load resistance of a frame than weak panels. This
improvement is more significant for strong frames than for weak frames.

In the case of the weak frame infilled with a strong panel, the interaction
between the infill and the frame resulted in brittle failure of the columns.
However, in spite of shear failure, an infilled frame can sustain a lateral load
that is much higher than that of the bare frame up to a drift limit of 2 %.
10

Furthermore, the results of this study indicated that shear failure of the columns
can be prevented if they are provided with adequate shear reinforcement.

In the case of the strong frame and a strong panel, the lateral strength was
governed by the crushing of the infill.

Kakaletsis and Karayannis (2008)

The experimental program consisted of seven tests of single-story one-bay scale
specimens of reinforced concrete frames with infills of clay brick and vitrified ceramic
brick. The program included the lateral load testing of a bare frame, frame specimens
with solid weak and solid strong infills, frame specimens with concentric window
opening, and frame specimens with concentric door opening with weak and strong infills.

The experimental results indicated that the presence of infills even in the cases
with openings can significantly improve the performance of R/C frames. Shear
failure of R/C columns was excluded and infills restrained the beams from
bending, excluding the development of plastic hinges in the beams.

Furthermore, specimens with strong infills exhibit a better performance than those
with weak infills in terms of the observed load resistance, stiffness, ductility, and
energy dissipation capacity. They also exhibited a better distribution of cracking
than the one of the weak infills, and thereby developing a more effective
mechanism for energy dissipation.

The use of the infills with improved compressive strength but almost identical
shear strength decreases the influence of the openings in terms of resistance,
stiffness, ductility and energy dissipation capacity.

1.3.3. Analytical modeling of frames with infill walls

In order to include the infill walls in structural models, they should be appropriately
modeled. Modeling of infill walls is a very complicated task since their behavior is
influenced by many factors, thus very hard to simulate. So many different techniques of
modeling have been presented in last 60 years, and every one of them has its limitations.
These limitations are related to complexity of the model, inability of model to represent
all effects infills cause on frame, modeling of material characteristics and many others. A
11

proposed model should be able to fairly enough represent interaction of infill wall and
surrounding frame, and at the same time be convenient for modeling the behavior of large
structures. Final goal of all researches, carried out in this field, is to develop a model
which can be widely used and recognized by structural engineers. Different types of
analytical investigation of infilled frames, which include both micro and macro modeling
approach, are presented herein.
Holmes (1961)
Holmes carried out several full size tests to determine the behavior of infilled steel frames
subjected to racking or shear loading. In additional he has carried out similar tests using
small-scale specimens. In his paper he suggested a procedure for calculating the ultimate
(racking) load and side-sway deflection of a steel frame with brickwork or concrete
infilling. He modeled infill walls with an equivalent diagonal strut with thickness of the
infill wall and width of one third of the diagonal length.

Maximum variation of the theoretical and experimental failing loads was 14 %

with the majority of values below that.

The theoretical deflection at the ultimate load was generally much lower than the
corresponding experimental deflection, although, where values are available, it
has been seen that the theoretical deflection at ultimate loads corresponded to the
measured deflection at some point between 90 % and 100 % of the ultimate load.

Due to the results of the study it is concluded that there is little justification for
proposing anything but the simplest method of analysis.

Smith and Carter (1969)

While conducting experiments on multi-story infilled frames, Smith and Carter developed
a design method based on an equivalent strut concept for predicting the lateral stiffness
of the composite frame. Results from the analysis are compared with the experimental
results and the following conclusions were made.

12

For the typical case of a non-linear material, the equivalent strut width is not a
constant value but varies with the applied loading and the relative properties of
the frame and infill.

The effective width of the diagonal strut is influenced by the following factors:
- The relative stiffness of the column and the infill,
-The length/height properties of the infill
-The stress/strain relationship of the infill material
-The value of the diagonal load acting on the infill.

It has been shown that the diagonal stiffness and strength of an infill panel depend
not only on its dimensions and physical properties but also on its length of contact
with the surrounding frame. This length of contact, , is given by equation:

=
(1.1)
2
In which h is the height of the column and h is a non-dimensional parameter
expressing the relative stiffness of the frame with respect to the infill, where
4 2

=
4

(1.2)

In which EI, t and h are Youngs modulus, thickness and height of infill
respectively; E and I are the Youngs modulus and second moment of area of the
column, and is the slope of the infill diagonal to the horizontal. The relative
stiffness parameter h provides a key to the estimation of an infilled frame
behavior and it therefore assumes a prominent role in the development and
presentation of the methods for predicting its stiffness and strength.

A good estimate for the lateral stiffness may be obtained from statically analyzing
the equivalent pin-jointed frame in which infills are replaced by equivalent
diagonal struts.

Klinger and Bertero (1978)

The principal objective of this study was to develop a physically reasonable mathematical
model capable of predicting the essential aspects of experimentally observed infilled
13

frame behavior. For that purpose a simplified equivalent strut concept has been used,
where infill wall was modeled with a pair of diagonal struts which were designed to
exhibit strength, stiffness and deterioration characteristics similar to those observed in the
experiments. Three different equivalent strut models were developed during the
investigation noted as strut model #1, strut model #2, and strut model #3, where each
successive model involved a slight increase in complexity. Models are shown in Figure
1.1, Figure 1.2 and Figure 1.3 respectively.

Figure 1.1: Mechanical behavior of strut model #1

Figure 1.2: Mechanical behavior of strut model #2

14

Figure 1.3: Mechanical behavior of strut model #3

Comparison with the experimental results showed that strut models produced an
excellent representation of the experimentally observed initial stiffness and
strength.

The slight increase in the complexity of the models gave results more closely
approximating those obtained experimentally. This improvement was mostly
related to better approximation of degrading behavior of the infill.

When used with a moderrn, general purpose nonlinear analysis program, these
models predict theoretical behavior agreeing very well with observed
experimental results, in all response stages.

Rivero and Walker (1982)

Rivero and Walker presented a finite element nonlinear dynamic model to study the
behavior of frames infilled by masonry walls. The nonlinearities of the model include the
interaction between the frame and the wall, cracking and failure of the wall, the bracing
effects that the wall has on the frame, discontinuities between the frame and wall, and
inelastic behavior of the frame.
The boundary between the frame and wall was modeled by two types of elements, called
the gap elements and joint elements. The gap elements modeled the space between
the frame and wall and joint elements modeled the boundary between the frame and wall
where continuity was initially assumed. The uncracked wall itself was represented as an
15

assemblage of triangular elements. A joint element was placed at the edge of each wall
element to approximately represent the cracking in the masonry wall. Columns and beams
were represented by line elements placed along the center line of the members. Masses
for the model could be specified for each degree of freedom and all dynamic loads were
induced by boundary acceleration. The wall model was assumed to be homogeneous,
isotropic, and linearly elastic up to failure. The model has been used for studying a three
story one bay frame, with masonry infill walls.

The proposed model seemed to be able to represent the different modes of

behavior observed experimentally.

The crack mechanism and gap size proved to be indispensable in modeling the
frame-infill-wall system and as such have a strong influence on its behavior.

The fundamental frequency of the bare frame is not an adequate measure of the
frequency or behavior of the infilled frame.

Reinhorn, Madan, Velles, Reichman and Mander (1995)

In this research, contribution of infill panels to the response of infilled frame was modeled
by replacing the panel by a simple system of two diagonal masonry compression struts.
The stress-strain relationship for masonry in compression is idealized as a polynomial
function [Mander et.al (1988)] until the peak stress is reached for a given strain. For
higher strains, the stress is assumed to drop with increasing strain to a small fraction of
the peak value where it remains almost constant. Since the tensile strength of masonry is
negligible, the individual masonry struts are considered to be ineffective in tension. The
lateral force-deformation relationship for the structural masonry infill panel is a smooth
curve bounded by a bilinear strength envelope with an initial elastic stiffness until the
yield force and there on a post-yield degraded stiffness until the maximum force. A
smooth hysteretic model is proposed for structural masonry panel, Figure 1.4. The model
takes into account hysteretic characteristics of the structural masonry element subjected

16

to repeated loading reversals such as stiffness degradation, strength deterioration and

pinching.

Figure 1.4: Constitutive model for masonry

In order to obtain the experimental data, three story one bay steel frame with masonry
infill was subjected to a cyclic lateral load. Force-displacement results of the experimental
and analytical analysis were compared and the following conclusions have been made.

Equivalent strut approach allows for adequate evaluation of the non-linear forcedeformation response of the structure and individual components under seismic
loading.

The computed force-deformation response may be used to assess overall structure

damage and its distribution to a sufficient degree of accuracy.

Thus, the proposed macro model approach is better suited for representing the
behavior of infills in the time-history analysis of large or complex structures with
multiple components, particularly in cases where the focus is on evaluating the
structural response.

Mehrabi, Shing, Schuller and Noland (1994)

17

In this study, a finite element method has been developed for evaluating the behavior of
structure under different load and design conditions. Reinforced concrete frame and
masonry units were modeled with smeared crack elements. Two interface elements have
been developed in this study. One is to simulate the behavior of the interfaces between
the frame and the infill as well as the behavior of the mortar joints within an infill. In
addition to the separation and sliding modes of failure, this model is capable of simulating
the nonlinear compression behavior, reversible shear dilatancy, and compaction of
interfaces. The other element is to model the bond-slip behavior between the concrete and
reinforcing bars. This model has been evaluated with experimental results of the five
specimens which were tested in this study. Results of the finite element analysis have
demonstrated the applicability of the proposed models for simulating the behavior of
infilled frames:

It has been observed that bond-slip elements are important for capturing the
behavior of bare frame while the influence of these elements on the behavior of
the infilled frame is insignificant.

The interface elements successfully capture the separation of the frame-to-panel

interfaces and crack propagation along mortar joints.

The failure modes obtained with the finite element models were similar to the
actual failure mechanism of the specimen.

The numerical results were also in good agreement with the load-displacement
curves obtained from the experiments.

Combescure and Pegon (2000)

In order to quantify the effects of the infill panels on the global behavior of the building
structure, a series of one-bay reinforced concrete frames without and with masonry panels
has been tested under cyclic loading. Associated to this experimental program, two
modeling approaches have been studied, local and global modeling approach.
In the local modeling approach, 2D Timoshenko beam elements supporting a fibre type
model have been used for the frame. Each column has been discretized by 10 elements
with 6 concrete fibre and 2 or 3 steel fibres, each fibre having two Gauss point. A
plasticity-based model with two yield surfaces and softening behavior in compression
18

and traction has been developed for the masonry panel. Contact modeling has been done
with the plasticity-type joint model where a Coulomb yield surface is used.
In the global approach model, every column is discretized with one linear Bernoulli beam
element with a reduced elastic stiffness (two thirds of the elastic stiffness) placed between
two Timoshenko elements supporting the non-linear fibre model. A constant length equal
to the column width has been considered for the plastic hinges. Infill wall has been
modeled with two diagonal struts. The results of the refined modeling have been used to
determine the initial and cracked stiffness and the strength of diagonal.
After analysis of the results obtained from the experiments and the analytical models,
following conclusions have been made:

The non-linear finite element model allows to understand the failure pattern under
monotonic and cyclic loading, to estimate the forces created by the infill panel in
the surrounding frame and to identify the properties of the global model of infill.

The correlation between numerical and experimental results is good for the
refined models and the global models if the phenomena of strength degradation
under cyclic loading taken in account.

Dolsek and Fajfar (2002)

Dolsek and Fajfar presented a technique of mathematical modeling based on a three
storey reinforced concrete frame building with the infill in the bottom two stories, which
was pseudo-dynamically tested. A relatively simple mathematical model has been
employed. All beams and columns were modeled by perfectly elastic, massless beam
elements with two non-linear rotational springs at each of the two ends. In addition to
these elements, simple rotational connection elements were placed between the beams
and joints in order to model the slippage of steel bars in the joints. The infill panels were
modeled by equivalent diagonal struts, which carry loads only in compression. The
starting point for modeling was a strut model which was developed in a previous study.
The results of pseudo-dynamic test were used for determination and validation of this
model. Force-displacement envelopes for diagonals were determined from the
comparison of the experimental results of the infilled structure and the bare frame
19

structure. After obtaining force-displacement relationship of diagonal struts from their

difference at similar displacements, three hysteretic behavior models were used in
displacement controlled analysis. The model which gave results which were in best
correlation with test results has been used. After determining the infill model, dynamic
analysis has been conducted.

Results showed that the global non-linear seismic response of reinforced concrete
frames with masonry infills can be adequately simulated by a relatively simple
mathematical model, which combines beam elements with concentrated
plasticity, simple connection elements, and equivalent struts representing infill
walls.

The major problem is the determination of the characteristics of the equivalent

struts representing the infill walls. A low level of damage due to a past earthquake
can influence the response considerably.

Model which simulates well both the displacements and the shear forces requires
appropriate modeling of both the force displacement relationship and the
hysteretic rules of the diagonals representing the infills.

El-Dakhakhni, Elgaaly and Hamid (2003)

This research presents analytical solution of using three struts model for representing
infill panel. Results were compared with the results of experiments on five masonryinfilled steel frame (CMISF) specimens. Four specimens were identical single panel
CMISFs with different masonry strengths and the fifth one was a scale, two-baysingle-story CMISF with semi rigid connection.
The development of the infilled frame analytical model has been divided into two parts.
The first part dealt with geometrical representation of the structural systems components
and the second part was dealing with the material modeling. Simplified stress-strain and
load-deformation relation were used for the steel and the masonry materials.

Comparison of experimental and analytical models shown that proposed

analytical technique predicted the lateral stiffness up to a failure, and the ultimate
load capacity of concrete masonry-infilled steel frame to an acceptable degree of
accuracy.
20

The use of three struts instead of the single one happen to be justified based on
the observed bending moments in the frame members, which cannot be generated
using one strut.

Furthermore, the three struts do not fail simultaneously, which is the case in actual
infill panels, since the crushing starts at the corners and propagate in the corner
region, leading to failure of the panel.

Asteris (2008)
In order to overcome the problem of ever-changing contact conditions between the brick
masonry infill and the surrounding frame, Asteris proposed a new finite element
technique for the modeling of infilled frames. The basis characteristic of the analysis is
that the frame/infill contact length and the contact stresses are estimated as an integral
part of the solution, and are not assumed in an ad-hoc way. For the analysis, a four node
isoparametric rectangular finite element model with eight degrees of freedom has been
used. The major assumption of modeling the masonry behavior under plane stress is that
the material is homogeneous and anisotropic. Especially, the material shows a different
modulus of elasticity in x and y directions. The infill finite element models are initially
considered to be linked to the surrounding frame finite element models only at two corner
points, at the end of the compressed diagonal of the infill.
The behavior of single story single bay masonry infilled frame has been investigated and
based on the investigation, the following conclusions were made:

The proposed analytical method calculates the infill/frame contact lengths as an

integral part of the solution and not assumed in ad-hoc way. Especially this
technique calculates the infill/frame contact lengths for the case of unidirectional
lateral loading and elastic response of the infill.

Authors argued that the knowledge of the elastic response of composite structure
will be very critical for a thorough understanding of its response under reversed
cyclic loading. For that reason, the research described here concentrates on the
elastic domain of the analysis.

21

The proposed technique is easier and more practical to apply, and requires less
computational time than micro-modeling techniques based on discretizing the
infill panel as a series of plane stress elements interconnected by a series of
springs or contact elements.

Celarec and Dolsek (2012)

For the purpose of probabilistic seismic performance assessment, Celarec and Dolsek
investigated the effects of masonry infills on the shear demand and failure of columns for
the case when reinforced concrete frames with such infills are modeled by means of
simplified nonlinear models that are not capable of the direct simulation of these effects.
They developed a simple model where columns and beams are modeled by onecomponent lumped plasticity elements, consisting of an elastic beam-column element and
two inelastic rotational hinges at the ends, and masonry infill is modeled by means of two
compression diagonal struts. For the columns and beams, the rotational plastic hinges
represent the only source of nonlinearity.
The advantage of this model is its simplicity, but it is unable to simulate local effects,
such as moment and shear forces, on the column exerted by infill wall. For this reason,
component failure, which is not simulated in the model, is detected by post-processing
the analysis results, using limit-state checks of the components. The disadvantage of such
an approach is that it neglects the redundancy and force redistribution leading to a
progressive collapse of the structure. It is therefore suggested that model adaptation based
on post-processing of analysis results be used, and that the analysis be repeated until all
the considered failure modes have been approximately simulated using the simplified
nonlinear model. For the purpose of this study, a four story and a seven story building
were modeled. Pushover Analysis PA (where shear failure of columns is neglected), and
Iterative Pushover Procedure IPP (where shear failure is taken in account) had been
carried out.

Results indicated that the consideration of the shear failure of columns had
significant impact on the seismic performance assessment of the examined
buildings. Consideration of the shear failure of columns caused a significant
reduction in the limit-state peak ground acceleration.
22

Consequently, the Mean Annual Frequency of limit-state exceedance was about

three to eight times larger than that estimated for the case when shear failure of
the columns was neglected.

It was shown that the proposed procedure can be used for the seismic performance
assessment of large buildings, which are sensitive to the shear collapse of
columns. However, the procedure is approximate because it involves several
limitations and simplifications, which may have significant impact on the
reliability of the results.

Sucuolu and Siddiqui (2014)

Sucuolu and Siddiqui tested two concrete frames by employing PsD testing procedure.
Specimens were scaled 3-storey, 3-bay specimens where one was bare and another had
middle bay infilled with AAC blocs. Objective was to determine the effects of AAC infills
on the seismic performance of reinforced concrete frames and developing an AAC strut
model. For purpose of determining mechanical properties of AAC infill wall, prism
specimens were subjected to compression tests. Frame specimens were analytically
modeled in OpenSees software. AAC infill panel was modeled with two compressiononly diagonal struts, connected concentrically at the beam-column joints. Width of
equivalent strut has been estimated by provisions of ASCE-41/06 and its mechanical
properties were developed from compression tests data.
From the comparison of experimental results of bare and infilled frame and from the
assessment of analytical models of frames, following conclusions were made:

During PsD testing AAC panels in the test frame exhibited diagonal cracking and
corner crushing at the drift ratios of 0.5 and 0.8%, respectively. Panels maintained
their integrity with the frame until a drift ratio of 2%, with moderate damage.

AAC panels in the test specimen did not reduce or modify the deformability of
RC frames significantly (period, interstorey, storey shear).

Concentric equivalent strut model is simple, but it needs further refinement

especially in considering the confinement effects by the enclosing frame on the
stress-strain properties.

23

Shear transferred from the AAC panel to boundary columns is much less
compared to clay brick infills, but it has to be accounted in design.

1.3.4. Seismic code provisions on frames with infill walls

In Chapter 6 of ASCE 41-06 (Seismic Rehabilitation of Existing Buildings), engineering
procedure for estimating the seismic performance of lateral-force-resisting concrete
components and elements is described. In that chapter, assessment of concrete moment
frames is presented, where concrete frames with infill walls are separately considered.
Provided by ASCE 41-06, concrete frame with infill wall can be modeled by using a
linear elastic model if the infill does not crack when subjected to lateral load. If infill does
not crack under lateral load, modeling the assemblage of the frame and infill as a
homogeneous medium shall be permitted. If cracking of the infill is expected when
subjected to lateral load, infilled frame should be modeled as a diagonally braced system.
Columns should be modeled as vertical cords, the beams as horizontal ties, and the infill
walls as an equivalent compression struts.
For the purpose of Linear Static and Dynamic Analysis, beams and columns may be
modeled considering axial tension and compression flexibilities only. When conducting
Nonlinear Static Procedure, beams and columns may be modeled by using truss elements
where the model shall be capable of representing inelastic response along the component
lengths. For the Nonlinear Dynamic Analysis, the complete hysteresis behavior of each
component shall be modeled using properties verified by tests, and unloading and loading
properties shall represent significant stiffness and strength degradation characteristics.
All component actions shall be classified as either deformation-controlled or force
controlled. In primary components, deformation-controlled actions shall be restricted to
flexural and axial actions in beams, slabs and columns, and lateral deformations in
masonry infill panels. In secondary components, deformation controlled actions shall be
restricted to those actions identified for the isolated frame and for the masonry infill.

24

After analysis, design actions shall be compared with design strengths to determine which
components developed their design strengths. The components which have design actions
lower than design strengths may be assumed to satisfy the performance criteria.
Otherwise, further evaluation shall be done for determining performance acceptability.
Concrete frames with masonry infill that do not meet the acceptance criteria for the
selected Rehabilitation Objective shall be rehabilitated.

In Eurocode 8 (Design of structure for Earthquake Resistance), consideration of concrete

frames with infill walls, as a separate structural system type, is not presented. However,
in Section 5.9, local effects due to masonry or concrete infill are discussed, and
recommendations are provided.
Eurocode 8 recognizes the vulnerability of the infill walls of the ground floors, and their
influence on adjacent columns. The entire length of the columns of the ground floor
should be considered as the critical length and confined accordingly, if a more precise
method is not used.
The length of column over which the diagonal strut force is applied, should be verified in
shear for the smaller of the following values: 1) the horizontal component of the strut
force of the infill, assumed to be equal to the horizontal shear strength of the panel, as
estimated on the basis of the shear strength of bed joints; or 2) the shear force computed
in accordance with capacity design rule, assuming that the overstrength flexural capacity
of the column develops at the two ends of contact length.
The contact length should be assumed to be equal to the full vertical width of the diagonal
strut of the infill. Unless a more accurate estimation is made, taking into account the
elastic properties and the geometry of the infill and the column, the strut width may be
assumed to be a fixed fraction of the length of the panel diagonal.
Turkish Earthquake Code (2007) does not consider infill walls as structural elements, so
their influence on structure is neglected in models. However, in Annex 7F, where
strengthening methods of infill walls are described, modeling procedure of strengthened
infill walls is presented.

25

Since influence of strengthened walls on structure behavior is recognized, techniques for

their modeling are proposed. It is noted that the rigidity and strength features of the
specified, strengthened, infill walls shall be incorporated into the structural model.
Therefore, it is suggested to model infill walls as equivalent diagonal strut components,
which preserve compression force in the direction of earthquake action.
1.4.

Effects of infill walls on the seismic behavior of infilled frames

Presence of infill walls significantly increases lateral strength of the structure, which
largely overdo the additional strength demand caused by increased stiffness. There is also
increase in overall ductility and energy dissipation. Bending moments in the frame
members are reduced, as well as the shear forces. These beneficial effects drastically
reduce deformation and ductility demands on RC frame members. This explains great
performance of some buildings exposed to moderate earthquakes, even though no
attention was given to the seismic design of those buildings. However, brittle and not
easily predictable nature of infill walls behavior can cause short-column effect, softstorey effect, torsion and out of plane collapse. Moreover, brittle failure of shear walls
can cause sudden transfer of shear forces to the columns, which may have fatal effects on
structure. Since columns are considered as the key structural elements, thorough attention
should be given to their proper design.
In general, it can be concluded that composite action of frame and infill walls combines
desirable and attenuates undesirable effects of both systems. However, composite
behavior of this system is influenced by many factors such as panel strength, column
strength, aspect ratio of frame, vertical load, horizontal load history and workmanship.
All these influential parameters tend to make the prediction of the behavior of infilled
frames complicated and yet not well understood. Even after so many experiments
conducted, varying all the influence parameters and investigating their contribution on
the behavior of infilled frames, treating them as a structural elements is still not a widely
used practice.
Including infill panels in regular design practice would introduce us with unwanted
complicities and complexities of the structural model, but it is of great importance when
considering lateral load, as well as gravity load. By ignoring this phenomena, there is a
26

significant risk of unanticipated behavior of the structure, which is wholly unacceptable

and inadequate in structural design. That is why the expected seismic response of infilled
frames must be treated differently from the bare frames.
1.5.

Objective and scope

In this study, two scale frame specimens were tested with Pseudo-Dynamic Testing
procedure. Test specimens were 3-bay, 3-storey reinforced concrete frames, where one
of them had middle bay filled with unreinforced masonry wall, while other was bare
frame. Conducted experiments were part of the project funded by The Scientific and
Technological Research Council of Turkey (TBITAK).
Bare frame (Specimen #1) and infilled frame (Specimen #2) were designed and
constructed to be code conforming, following provisions of Turkish Earthquake Code
(2007). Specimens were subjected to identical ground motion cycles and their responses,
both global and local, were recorded during the experiment. In order to obtain mechanical
properties of infill wall of Specimen #2, test have been conducted on masonry specimens.
Analytical models of specimens were made in OpenSees software. Infill wall has been
with simple, equivalent diagonal strut model.
In Chapter 2, construction of specimens, instrumentation and experimental testing
procedure is described. Testing results of specimens are presented and compared. Also,
results from masonry testing are presented.
Numerical modeling of specimens is described in Chapter 3. Two numerical, equivalent
diagonal strut, models of infill wall are developed and presented. Mechanical
characteristics of infill wall models were compared with results obtained from masonry
testing.
Finally, assessment of diagonal strut models, by comparison of experimental and
numerical results of Specimen #2, is presented in Chapter 4. Storey drifts and shears
comparisons are shown and validity of equivalent strut models is discussed. Also simple
method for calculating additional shear force on boundary columns is introduced in this
chapter.

27

Conclusions, based on the observations made during this research, are pointed out in the
Chapter 5.

28

CHAPTER 2

2. EXPERIMENTAL TESTING
2.1.

General

A need for better understanding of the interaction between infill walls and concrete
frames place a demand for large number of experimental tests, on both bare and infilled
concrete frames. Since this phenomena is quite delicate, large experimental data and a
wealth of results need to be collected and processed with a goal of finding solutions for
the modeling techniques of infilled concrete frames.
In this experiment, two scale 3-bay, 3-storey concrete frame specimens were tested
with Pseudo Dynamic testing method. One is a bare frame (Specimen #1) and another is
a URM infilled frame (Specimen #2). Both of specimens have identical dimensions and
section properties. Frames are code conforming where structural design satisfies
requirements of the Turkish Earthquake Code (2007) and the Turkish Concrete Code
(2000), where capacity design principles are implemented in reinforced concrete design.
Frames are selected from the 3-story reinforced concrete prototype building whose design
is performed for seismic zone 1 (EPA = 0.4g) and soft soil conditions. Plan of prototype
building with selected frame is shown in Figure 2.1.
Experimental testing was also performed on masonry specimens. Two masonry prism
specimens were subjected to axial compression test and one masonry panel was subjected
to diagonal compression test. All experimental testing has been carried out in the
Structures Laboratory of Civil Engineering Department of the Middle East Technical
University.

29

Figure 2.1: Elevation view of the prototype frame with the selected frame

30

2.2.

Test Specimens

Reinforced concrete test specimens are obtained by scaling of the members and
sections dimensions of the prototype frame. Member and section dimensions and
reinforcement diameters are reduced to half by using the principle of equal stress. With
respect to scaling factor, the displacement of the scaled specimen are half of the
displacement of the prototype frame, whereas interstorey drifts will be the same when
frames are subjected to the identic ground excitations. Elevation view of scaled specimens
is shown in Figure 2.2. As it was mentioned before, both specimens have identical
dimensions and section properties. Columns have rectangular cross-section, while beams
have T cross-section in order to closely represent real behavior and to accommodate dead
load, Figure 2.3.

Figure 2.2: scaled test frame

31

a/ support region

b/ span region

Beam section details for the scaled test frame

a/ support region

b/ span region

Column section details for scaled frame

Figure 2.3: Columns and beams section details
Foundation of the test frame has been achieved through three reinforced concrete
foundation blocks. Longitudinal reinforcement 16 is used and concrete of quality C35.
One foundation block was used for two inner columns and other two are used to
accommodate outer columns. Dimensions of the foundation blocks are, from left to right
respectively: 25x150x150 cm, 470x150x375 cm, 250x175x150 cm, Figure 2.4.
On top of the foundation blocks, four steel plates are installed, one for each column. Steel
plates are anchored with steel bolts and have dimensions 40x350x350 mm for outer
columns and 40x600x600 for inner columns, Figure 2.5.

32

Figure 2.4: Layout of the reinforced concrete foundation blocks

Figure 2.5: Foundation concreting

Formwork of frames was consisted of reusable steel molds made from 3mm steel plates.
Molds are assembled together and bolted on site. Framework is first done for the first
floor and then, when the concrete gained adequate strength, the process was continued
for the next floor. Molds used for columns were fixed with previously installed bolts,
which are anchored in concrete foundation blocks through the steel plates. This type of
framework brought simplicity and effectiveness in frame casting and shorten the time of
their construction. Details are presented in Figure 2.6.

33

a/ External

b/ Internal

columns

columns

c/ Beams

d/ Joint regions

Figure 2.6: Steel framework for different frame elements

Reinforcement of columns was welded to the steel plates at the bottom and then guided
throughout the structure. Both specimens have same disposition of reinforcement with
identically reinforced elements with only one difference concerning distance between
stirrups in span regions of columns. Specimen #2 has smaller distance between stirrups
in span regions of columns and additionally seismic cross-ties are used. Reinforcement
details are shown in Table 2.1Table 2.1: Reinforcement details. Six specimens of
longitudinal reinforcement, with diameter 10 mm, were tested and axial stress-strain plots
are shown in Figure 2.7.

34

800000

700000

700000

Axial Stress [kPa]

Axial Stress [kPa]

800000
600000
500000
400000

300000
200000
100000

600000
500000
400000

300000
200000
100000

0
0

0.05

0.1

0.15

0.2

0.25

0.05

800000

800000

700000

700000

600000
500000
400000
300000
200000
100000

0.2

0.25

0.2

0.25

600000
500000
400000
300000
200000
100000

0
0

0.05

0.1

0.15

0.2

0.25

Axial Strain

0.05

0.1

0.15

Axial Strain mm/mm

800000

800000

700000

700000

Axial Stress [kPa]

Axial Stress [kPa]

0.15

Axial Strain

Axial Stress [kPa]

Axial Stess [kPa]

Axial Strain

0.1

600000
500000
400000
300000
200000
100000

600000
500000
400000
300000
200000
100000

0
0

0.05

0.1

0.15

0.2

0.25

Axial Strain

0.05

0.1

0.15

Axial Strain

Figure 2.7: Axial stress-strain relationship of tested steeel bars

35

0.2

0.25

Table 2.1: Reinforcement details

Columns
Longitudinal
reinforcement
Support
Span region
region
810

810

Beams
Longitudinal reinforcement
Support region

Slab
Longitudinal
reinforcement

Span region

Lower Upper Lower Upper

end
end
end
end
38
68
38
38
Stirrups

Stirrups
Support
Span region Support region
region
Specimen
#1:
4/100
4/50
[mm]
4/40 [mm]
[mm]
Specimen
#2:
4/75 [mm]

Span region

4/50 [mm]

4/80 [mm]

Concrete mixtures used for frame casting were prepared in the laboratory. Concreting has
been done separately for each floor, in the time interval of approximately five days
between each concrete work. For each floor several concrete cylindrical specimens, with
height of 30 cm and diameter of 15 cm, were taken and tested in laboratory. Results of
tests for both test frames are presented in Table 2.2.
Table 2.2: Results of tests conducted on concrete cylinder 15/30

First floor
Second floor
Third floor

First floor
Second floor
Third floor

Specimen #1 (bare frame)

Number of tests
Average strength [MPa]
6
22.02
Number of tests
Average strength [MPa]
11
30.49
Number of tests
Average strength [MPa]
7
38.82
Specimen #2 (URM infilled frame)
Number of tests
Average strength [MPa]
5
22.61
Number of tests
Average strength [MPa]
5
17.56
Number of tests
Average strength [MPa]
3
18.09
36

The main difference between two specimens is, as mentioned before, existence of URM
infill wall in middle bay of Specimen #2. URM wall is consisted of bricks with
dimensions 95x100x190 mm. Mortar thickness between them is approximately 10 mm.
Brick wall is covered with 10 mm thick plaster on both sides. Infill wall is shown in Figure
2.8: URM infill wall of Specimen #2Figure 2.8. Mortar and plaster were tested in the same

manner as concrete mixture, again separately for each floor, and results are shown in
Table 2.3.
Table 2.3: Results of tests on mortar/plaster specimens
Number of tests
2
Number of tests
2
Number of tests
2

First floor
Second floor
Third floor

Average strength [MPa]

4.68
Average strength [MPa]
4.12
Average strength [MPa]
3.69

Figure 2.8: URM infill wall of Specimen #2

For simulating dead load acting on the structure, two types of steel plates are used with
dimensions 100X500x500 mm and 100x200x500 mm. Plates are placed on the T-beams
and distributed in a way to represents dead load in the most realistic way. In case of
Specimen #1 plates were placed along the whole length of the beams while existence of
URM infill wall of Specimen #2 didnt allow placement of plates along the middle span
beams in first and second floor. However, the plates originally intended for middle span
beams were distributed to the other beams in the most appropriate way. Schemes of
Specmen #1 and Specimen #2, with simulated dead load are presented in Figure 2.9 and
Figure 2.10, respectively.
37

Figure 2.9: Layout of Specimen #1 with placed load

Figure 2.10: Layout of Specimen #2 with placed load

38

2.3.

Pseudo Dynamic Testing

Implementation of capacity design for earthquake resistant structures created a demand

for a large experimental data on structural behavior under large inelastic displacements
and horizontal forces. Also, there is an imperative for experiments to be carried out by
applying actual earthquake records as input excitations. For this purpose, the most
realistic testing technique to be used in experiments would be the shake table testing
technique. Since this method is highly expensive, scientists came up with the idea of
Pseudo Dynamic Testing, which is widely used and considered as an efficient alternative
to the shake table testing. Because of all advantages it has, Pseudo Dynamic Testing
technique was used in these experiments.
Pseudo Dynamic Testing is a hybrid, computer controlled testing technique which is
carried out in a series of steps. First, structure to be tested has to be modeled as an
idealized system with finite numbers of degrees of freedom which are controlled by
hydraulic actuators. Next, the mass matrix and damping matrix should be analytically
developed and equation of motion (2.1) should be solved numerically for each step.
+ + = ()

(2.1)

Where represents mass matrix of the system, is damping matrix, is restoring force
vector and () is external excitation vector. In each step, computed displacement is
quasi-statically applied to the tested structure and restoring forces are measured. Then,
values of are used for computing displacement for next step.
Our specimens were 3-floor, 3-bay frames, which have been idealized as three degree of
freedom systems. Acceleration ground record was used as an external excitation, and
experiment was carried out in pseudo-time. This imply that equation (2.2) has been solved
numerically in each step of experimental procedure.
+ + =

(2.2)

Where is identity matrix and is ground acceleration value for particular time step.
Pseudo Dynamic testing technique is schematically presented in Figure 2.11.

39

 ()

()

+ + =

Figure 2.11: Scheme of Pseudo Dynamic Testing system

Displacements were applied in a slow manner using three hydraulic jacks which are
controlled by computer system. Advantage of applying displacement in pseudo-time is
capability of stopping experiment at any time for observation of damage and imposed
demand on the structure. In Figure 2.12, pictures of frame specimen, with system of
hydraulic jacks installed, is presented.
Earthquake records which were used in experimental procedure are comprised of three
synthetic ground motions which are scaled and generated to match the site specific spectra
of region. Properties of the generated ground motions are shown in the Table 2.4.
Test specimens were sequentially subjected to three generated ground motions. Ground
motion records with the corresponding response spectra are shown in Figure 2.13.

40

Figure 2.12: Hydraulic jack system

Table 2.4: Ground motion properties
Ground motion record
D1
D2
D3
0.75

Soil type
Z1
Z1
Z3

Generated ground motion records

0.5

Ground acc. [g]

Probability of exceedance in 50
years
50 %
10 %
10 %

0.25
0
-0.25 0

16

24

-0.5
D1

-0.75

D2

D3

Time [sec]

Ground acc. [g]

Response spectra
1.5
D1

D2

D3

1
0.5
0
0

0.5

Time1[sec]

1.5

Figure 2.13: Ground motion records with corresponding response spectra

41

Floor displacements and horizontal forces in both experiments were measured by pseudodynamic testing system and additionally by separate data acquisition system which was
comprised of load cells and displacement meters placed at each floor. Other than global
response of the system, local responses, rotations and curvatures, were measured. This
has been done by placing LVDTs at the beam-column joints of first and second floor and
bottom of the first floor columns. LVDTs or Linear Variable Displacement Transformers
are type of electrical transformers which are used for measuring linear displacements.
Disposition of data acquisition system is presented in Figure 2.14.

Figure 2.14: Data acquisition system

LVDTs were placed in pairs, parallel to each other, which allows determining section
rotation by measuring difference in strains between two instruments. In beam-column
joints of first and second floor, LVDTs were placed on both sides of the frame specimens
and average strain is used for calculating rotations. At the bottom of the first floor external
columns instruments were placed on the both sides of column. In case of internal columns
this was not suitable, because of existence of infill wall, so LVDTs were placed in
alternative way. In the case of Specimen #2, which has middle bay filled with URM wall,
LVDTs were placed at each floor, in two diagonal directions on infill wall surface.
Details are presented in Figure 2.15.
42

a/ External beam-column joint

b/ Internal beam-column joint

c/ External column

d/ Internal column
Figure 2.15: Disposition of LVDTs

43

2.4.

Specimen #1 (bare frame)

During D1 ground motion, maximum measured roof displacement was approximately 11

mm and maximum interstorey drift ratio of 0.31% was measured at the second floor. Roof
displacement for D1 ground motion is given in Figure 2.16. Maximum recorded base
shear was around 40 kN.

Roof Displacement [m]

Roof Displacement vs. Time

0.012
0.01
0.008
0.006
0.004
0.002
0
-0.002 0
-0.004
-0.006
-0.008

Time [sec]

Figure 2.16: Roof displacement vs. time for the D1 ground motion
D2 ground motion has induced maximum roof displacement of 54 mm with maximum
base shear of 110 kN. Again, maximum interstorey drift ratio was measured at the second
floor and its value is 1.57%. During this ground motion flexural cracks were observed in
the columns, together with oblique shear cracks in beam-column joints. From the analysis
of cracks width and their propagation, it can be concluded that the structure is in a limited
state of damage. Roof displacements for D2 ground motion with damage observation
pictures are presented in Figure 2.17.
Roof displacement has significantly increased during the D3 ground motion with
maximum value of 105 mm while maximum recorded base shear value was 155 kN.
Maximum interstorey drift ratio was measured at the first floor and was 3.15%. Clearly
observed open cracks indicate that yielding of the members has happened. Roof
displacement for D3 ground motion and pictures of observed damage are shown in Figure
2.18.

44

Interstorey drift ratios, together with roof displacement vs. base shear plots, for D1, D2
and D3 ground motions are presented in Figure 2.19.
Roof Displacement vs. Time

Roof Displacement [m]

0.06

0.04

0.02
0
8

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

-0.02
-0.04
-0.06

B
Time [sec]

A/ Flexular cracks at

B/ Oblique shear cracks in beam-

C/ Column flexular

first storey column

column joints

cracks

Figure 2.17: Roof displacement vs. time with damage observation pictures for the
D2 ground motion
.

45

Roof Displacement [m]

Roof Displacement vs. Time

0.12
0.1
0.08
0.06
0.04
0.02
0
-0.02 16
-0.04
-0.06
-0.08

17

A/ Flexular cracks at first

storey column

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

C
Time [sec]

B/ Oblique shear
cracks in beamcolumn joints

C/ Flexular cracks at first

storey column

Figure 2.18: Roof displacement vs. time with damage observation pictures for the
D3 ground motion

46

Storey Drift Ratio [%]

1st Storey Drift Ratio vs. Time

2
0
0

-4

24

16

24

16

24

Time [sec]

4
Storey Drift Ratio [%]

16

-2

2nd Storey Drift Ratio vs. Time

2
0
0

-2
-4

Time [sec]

Storey Drift Ratio [%]

3rd Storey Drift Ratio vs. Time

2
0
-2

-4

Time [sec]

Roof Displacement vs. Base Shear

200

Base Shear[kN]

150

-0.08

100
50
0
-0.06

-0.04

-0.02

-50

0.02

0.04

0.06

0.08

0.1

0.12

-100
-150

-200

Roof Displacement[m]

Figure 2.19: Interstorey drift ratios vs. time and roof displacement vs. base shear
for D1, D2 and D3 ground motions

47

Maximum member end rotation demands for three ground motions are presented in Table
2.5. During D1 ground motion member end rotations of columns were approximately
around 0.1% while end rotations of beams where somewhat smaller. D2 motion increased
member end rotation demand to be around 0.5% for both columns and beams. Member
end rotations demands for D3 ground motion increased significantly with average values
of 1.35 % for columns and 0.8 % for beams.
Table 2.5: Member end rotation demands
Member end rotation demands (%)
1st Storey Columns
Member

101

102

103

104

End

Bottom

Top

Bottom

Top

Bottom

Top

Bottom

Top

D1

0.104

0.069

0.084

0.151

0.174

0.098

0.160

0.087

D2

0.451

0.305

0.402

0.560

0.601

0.579

0.618

0.414

D3

2.268

0.602

1.816

1.559

2.791

1.523

2.833

1.104

nd

2 Storey Columns
Member

201

202

203

204

End

Bottom

Top

Bottom

Top

Bottom

Top

Bottom

Top

D1

0.036

0.084

0.138

0.126

0.072

0.151

0.084

0.099

D2

0.328

0.447

0.597

0.757

0.377

0.729

0.543

0.463

D3

0.496

0.911

0.781

1.515

0.548

1.412

0.618

0.907

st

1 Storey Beams
Member

111

112

113

End

D1

0.058

0.100

0.148

0.105

0.062

0.127

D2

0.408

0.386

0.495

0.650

0.592

0.394

D3

1.141

0.891

2.134

0.640

1.000

1.520

nd

2 Storey Beams
Member

211

212

213

End

D1

0.068

0.066

0.102

0.057

0.030

0.074

D2

0.340

0.290

0.528

0.459

0.155

0.413

D3

0.560

0.297

0.667

0.493

0.235

0.589

48

2.5.

Specimen #2 (URM infilled frame)

Same as for the Specimen #1, damage was not observed during ground motion D1.
Displacements stayed at low level, with maximum roof displacement 3 mm and
maximum base shear 70 kN. Maximum interstorey drift of 0.1% was measured at the
second floor. Figure 2.20 shows roof displacements for D1 ground motion.
Roof Displacement vs. Time

Roof Displacement [m]

0.004
0.003
0.002
0.001
0
-0.001

-0.002
-0.003
-0.004

Time [sec]

Figure 2.20: Roof displacement vs. time for the D1 ground motion
During D2 ground motion, maximum roof displacement was 23 mm, with maximum base
shear 184 kN. Maximum interstorey drift ratio was recorded at the first floor where it
reached 0.66%. Even at the low displacement levels, first cracks appeared at the interface
between infill wall and columns. Inclined cracks are formed together with horizontal
shear crack at the mid-height of infill wall. As the consequence of interaction of infill
wall and boundary columns, inclined shear cracks were formed in columns. Roof
displacement for D2 ground motion and damage observation pictures can be seen in
Figure 2.21.
When D3 ground motion was applied, maximum measured roof displacement was
approximately 46 mm, while the maximum recorded base shear was 200 kN. Maximum
interstorey drift was 1.9% and was measured at the first floor. Specimen suffered serious
damage during this ground motion. Cracks formed during D2 ground motion were now
enlarged and caused crushing of first floor infill wall. Diagonal cracks at interface and
minor diagonal crushing were also observed at the second floor infill wall. Boundary
49

column inclined cracks also widened and caused excessive deformation in columns. Roof
displacement for D3 motion and pictures of damage are shown in Figure 2.22.
Roof Displacement vs. Time
0.025

Roof Displacement [m]

0.02
0.015
0.01
0.005
0
-0.005 8

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

-0.01
-0.015

-0.02

Time [sec]

A/ Inclined, horizontal and interface cracks of first

B/ Shear cracks at first

storey infill wall

storey columns

Figure 2.21: Roof displacement vs. time with damage observation pictures for the
D2 ground motion

50

Roof Displacement [m]

Roof Displacement vs. Time

4.00E-02
3.00E-02
2.00E-02
1.00E-02
0.00E+00
-1.00E-02 16
-2.00E-02
-3.00E-02
-4.00E-02
-5.00E-02
-6.00E-02

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

A
Time [sec]

A/ Minor crushing, diagonal and interface cracks

B/ Crushing of first storey infill

of second storey infill wall

wall

Figure 2.22: Roof displacement vs. time with damage observation pictures for the
D3 ground motion

Interstorey drift ratios, together with roof displacement vs. base shear plots, for D1, D2
and D3 ground motions are presented in Figure 2.23.

51

Storey Drift Ratio [%]

1st Storey Drift Ratio vs. Time

1
0
0

16

24

16

24

16

24

-1
-2

Time [sec]

Storey Drift Ratio [%]

2nd Storey Drift Ratio vs. Time

1
0
0

-1
-2

Time [sec]

Storey Drift Ratio [%]

3rd Storey Drift Ratio vs. Time

0
0

-1
-2

Time [sec]

Roof Displacement vs. Base Shear

200

Base Shear [kN]

150

-0.06

100
50
-0.05

-0.04

-0.03

-0.02

0
-0.01 -50 0

0.01

0.02

0.03

0.04

-100
-150
-200
-250

Roof displacement [m]

Figure 2.23: Storey drift ratios vs. time and roof displacement vs. base shear for
D1, D2 and D3 ground motions

52

In Table 2.6, maximum member end rotation demands are presented. During D1 ground
motion member end rotations varied around average value of 0.05 %. Average value of
members end rotation for D2 motion was around 0.2 %. While for ground motions D1
and D2 average member end rotations for beams and columns were approximately the
same, for D3 ground motion they were different. Columns average member end rotation
was around 0.65 % and for beams 0.35 %.
Table 2.6: Members end rotation demands
Member end rotation demands (%)
1st Storey Columns
Member

101

102

103

104

End

Bottom

Top

Bottom

Top

End

Bottom

Top

Bottom

D1

0.073

0.073

0.055

0.066

D1

0.073

0.073

0.055

D2

0.430

0.210

0.512

0.195

D2

0.430

0.210

0.512

D3

1.312

0.667

0.960

1.386

D3

1.312

0.667

0.960

nd

2 Storey Columns
Member

201

202

203

204

End

Bottom

Top

Bottom

Top

Bottom

Top

Bottom

Top

D1

0.044

0.077

0.078

0.059

0.044

0.090

0.045

0.035

D2

0.050

0.171

0.143

0.139

0.113

0.167

0.063

0.196

D3

0.071

0.314

0.213

0.452

0.210

0.348

0.196

0.306

1st Storey Beams

Member

111

112

113

End

D1

0.192

0.045

0.061

0.045

0.085

0.057

D2

0.315

0.180

0.203

0.493

0.308

0.234

D3

0.525

0.398

0.414

0.541

0.387

0.663

nd

2 Storey Beams
Member

211

212

213

End

D1

0.098

0.056

0.019

0.016

0.017

0.066

D2

0.078

0.177

0.133

0.241

0.171

0.164

D3

0.188

0.142

0.416

0.384

0.142

0.211

53

2.6.

Comparison of experimental results

Both test specimens were subjected to the same experimental procedure and their
responses were measured with the same disposition of measuring instruments, which
makes comparison of structural responses transparent. Comparison of both global and
local responses will be briefly presented.
2.6.1. Roof displacement and base shear comparison
During D1 ground motion, Specimen #1 had significantly larger roof displacement, 11
mm comparing to 3 mm. For the D2 ground motion this difference was reduced and
Specimen #1 had maximum roof displacement 54 mm, while Specimen #2 had 23 mm.
Ratio of the maximum roof displacements remained similar during the D3 ground motion,
when it had values of 105 mm and 46 mm, for Specimen #1 and Specimen #2
respectively.
It can be noticed that ratio of maximum roof displacements was the highest for D1 ground
motion, which can be assumed to be consequence of high initial stiffness of the, yet uncracked, URM infill wall.
During D1 ground motion maximum measured base shears were 40 kN for Specimen #1
and 70 kN for Specimen #2. D2 ground motion induced 110 kN maximum base shear in
case of Specimen #1 and 184 kN in case of Specimen #2. Difference between maximum
values of base shears were reduced for D3 ground motion, where they were 155 kN and
200 kN for Specimen #1 and Specimen #2 respectively.
Diminution of difference between maximum base shear values of two test specimens
during D3 ground motion is related to severe cracking of infill wall. From the damage
observation pictures it is clear that infill wall of the first floor suffered major damage
which had reduction of the base shear as a consequence.
Maximum Roof displacement vs. Maximum Base shear plot for both specimens is shown
in the Figure 2.24.

54

Maximum Roof Displacement vs. Maximum Base Shear

Roof Displacement [mm]

120

D3

100

80
60

D2

40
20

D1

D2

D1

0
0

D3

50

100

150

200

250

Base Shear [kN]

Specimen #1

Specimen #2

Figure 2.24: Maximum roof displacement vs. maximum base shear for D1, D2
and D3 ground motion

2.6.2. Storey drift ratio comparison

Difference in maximum storey drift ratios between bare and infilled frame was also
significant. During each ground motion, storey drift ratios were significantly higher in
case of Specimen #1. Maximum storey drifts are presented in Table 2.7. During D1
ground motion, both specimens experienced maximum storey drift ratio at the second
floor. For D2 ground motion Specimen #2 developed maximum storey drift ratio at first
floor while Specimen #1 still had highest storey drift ratio at second floor. Development
of maximum storey drift at first floor, in case of Specimen #2, can be connected to
cracking of the first floor infill wall. This reduced its stiffness and caused bigger
horizontal displacement to be developed at the first floor. During D3 ground motion both
specimens experienced maximum storey drift ratio at the first floor. It is important to
notice that, in case of Specimen #2, storey drift ratio of the first floor is significantly
higher than that one of the second and third floor. This was due to the fact that first storey
infill wall started crushing and caused concentration of deformation at the first floor. This
distribution of storey drift ratios along the height of the structure is known as the soft
storey phenomena.
55

Table 2.7: Maximum interstorey drift ratios [%]

Ground motion

Storey

Specimen #1

Specimen #2

1st
2nd
3rd
1st
2nd
3rd
1st
2nd
3rd

0.27
0.31
0.19
1.30
1.57
1.10
3.15
2.71
1.22

0.06
0.10
0.07
0.66
0.51
0.34
1.9
0.89
0.52

D1

D2

D3

2.6.3. Member end rotation comparisons

Comparison of columns and beams average storey member end rotation was made for
first and second storeys. Comparison details are presented in Table 2.8. For each ground
motion difference in average member end rotation at storey level was more or less similar,
with slightly higher difference at the first storey compared to the second.
Table 2.8: Average member end rotations at storey level [%]
Ground motion

Storey
1st

D1
2nd
1st
D2
2nd
1st
D3
2nd

Members

Specimen #1

Specimen #2

Columns
Beams
Columns
Beams
Columns
Beams
Columns
Beams
Columns
Beams
Columns
Beams

0.115
0.100
0.098
0.066
0.491
0.487
0.530
0.364
1.812
1.221
0.898
0.473

0.054
0.803
0.059
0.045
0.277
0.288
0.130
0.160
1.038
0.488
0.263
0.247

56

2.7.

Experimental tests on masonry specimens

Masonry test specimens were prepared and tested in the same laboratory where testing of
frame specimens has been done. Masonry specimens were constructed using same bricks
used for infill wall of Specimen #2. Two experiments have been carried out, Prism test
and Diagonal Compression test. In Prism test two specimens were tested while in
Diagonal Compression test one specimen was tested. Results of the experiments will be
presented for both procedures separately. Specimens were built and tested in compliance
with the ASTM standard issued under designation C1314 12.
2.7.1. Prism test
Prism test has been conducted on two identical specimens, composed of three bricks and
mortar layer, with10 mm thickness in between. Height of specimens was 310 mm, with
185 mm width and thickness 100 mm. Pictures of specimens prepared for testing are
shown in Figure 2.25. During the test, force was applied with hydraulic jack and vertical
shortening was measured with the dial-gage which was fixed on one side of the specimen.
Length of the dial-gage was 210 mm.

Figure 2.25: Pictures of masonry prism specimens

When testing was finished, applied force and vertical shortening are used as input data in
calculating vertical stress-strain relationship (ASTM C1314-12).
Axial stress:

Axial strain:
=

(2.3)

57

(2.4)

Elasticity modulus:

(2.5)

where is the applied force and is the cross-sectional are of specimens. is vertical
shortening and is length of dial gage. Stress-stain relationships for specimens are
shown in Figure 2.26.
Axial Stress vs. Strain of Test Specimen 1
Axial Stress [MPa]

3.5
3
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
0
0

0.0002

0.0004

0.0006

0.0008

0.001

Axial Strain

Axial strength
3.4 MPa

Strain at axial strength

0.00075

Elasticity modulus
4533 MPa

Axial Stress vs. Strain of Test Specimen 2

Axial Stress [MPa]

3.5
3
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
0
0

0.0001 0.0002 0.0003 0.0004 0.0005 0.0006 0.0007 0.0008 0.0009

Axial Strain

Axial strength
3.0 MPa

Strain at axial strength

0.00080

Elasticity modulus
3750 MPa

Figure 2.26: Axial stress-strain relationship for masonry test specimens

58

2.7.2. Diagonal compression test

Diagonal compression test was carried out for determining the shear strength of masonry
infill wall. Test was conducted on plastered specimens with width 620 mm, height 610
mm and thickness 120 mm. Two dial-gages, with length 510 mm, were fixed on test
specimens, one in vertical and another in horizontal direction. Pictures of specimen ready
for testing are shown in Figure 2.27.

Figure 2.27: Pictures of masonry panel specimen

Applied force and displacement measured in dial-gages are used as input parameters in
determining shear stress-strain relationship of test specimen (ASTM E519/E519M-10).
Shear stress:
=

0.707

(2.6)

is the applied force and is net area of the specimen which was calculated as follows.
= (

+
)
2

(2.7)

where w and h are width and height of the specimen respectively, t is thickness and n is
percent of the gross area of the unit that is solid, expressed as a decimal number.
Shear strain:
=

(2.8)
59

where V and H are measured displacements of vertical and horizontal dial-gage

respectively and is the vertical gage length.
Shear modulus:
=

(2.9)

Shear stress-strain relationship of test specimen is presented in Figure 2.28.

Shear Stress vs. Strain of test specimen

1

Shear Stress [MPa]

0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
0

0.0001

0.0002

0.0003

0.0004

0.0005

0.0006

0.0007

0.0008

Strain

Shear strength

Strain at shear strength

Shear modulus

0.9 MPa

0.0007

1285 MPa

Figure 2.28: Shear stress-strain relationship for the masonry test specimen

60

CHAPTER 3

3. ANALYTICAL MODELING
3.1.

General

Time history analysis of test specimens has been carried out in the Open System for
Earthquake Engineering Simulation (OpenSees) platform. Overview of analytical models
of both specimens is presented in this chapter, with emphasis on infill wall analytical
model of Specimen #2. Two infill wall analytical models were developed, noted as Model
1 and Model 2.
3.2.

Analytical model of Specimen #1

Concrete foundation blocks were not modeled but the whole structure is considered to be
fixed at the ground level where all degrees of freedom are restrained.
Columns and beams were modeled as force-based nonlinear elements with distributed
plasticity. Every beam and column element has five Gauss-Lobotto integration points,
Figure 3.1.
element node
integration points

stress-strain relationship
element node

Figure 3.1: Scheme of nonlinear beam-column element

61

Columns and beams sections are represented with fiber models where section is divided
into finite number of quadrilateral discrete fibers with corresponding uniaxial stress-strain
material relationship. This allows us to model separately unconfined concrete, confined
concrete and reinforcement material properties. Columns and beams fiber cross-sections
are shown in Figure 3.2.

a/ Column section fibre model

b/ Beam section fibre model

Figure 3.2: Section fibre models

Concrete was defined by using the uniaxial Concrete01 material model from OpenSees
material library. This is Kent-Scott-Park (1971) material model which is characterized by
degrading linear unloading/reloading stiffness and zero tensile stress. Uniaxial hysteretic
behavior of concrete material is presented in Figure 3.3. Concrete core was modeled with
confined concrete properties, while concrete cover was modeled using unconfined
concrete properties. This way of concrete modeling takes into account increased
compressive strength and strain of concrete due to the confinement. Since tests on
cylindrical specimens were available for every storey separately, concrete model had
different properties at each storey consequently.
Reinforcement was modeled with the uniaxial Hysteretic material from OpenSees library.
Steel material properties were obtained from tests conducted on steel specimens. Uniaxial
hysteretic behavior of steel is shown in Figure 3.4.

62

Stress

Hysteretic behavior of concrete material model

Strain

Figure 3.3: Hysteretic behavior of concrete

Stress

Hysteretic behavior of reinforcing steel material model

Strain

Figure 3.4: Hysteretic behavior of reinforcing steel

Total dead load was uniformly distributed along the length of beams. Mass was assigned
to each node and it consisted of corresponding mass of beams total dead load and columns
self-weight. Elevation view of analytical model is shown in Figure 3.5.
Ground motion acceleration records D1, D2 and D3 are applied as a uniform excitation
to the analytical model whose damping was set to 2.5 %.

63

Figure 3.5: Elevation view of analytical model for Specimen #1

3.3.

Analytical model of Specimen #2

Since analytical model of Specimen #2 frame structure was built in exactly the same
manner as the analytical model of Specimen #1, overview of the procedure will not be
repeated here. Difference between two specimens is in existence of infill wall in case of
Specimen #2, where its model will be described in this section.
Infill wall of Specimen #2 is modeled with two equivalent, compression only, diagonal
struts. Two analytical models of infill walls were developed by two different methods.
Details of bots methods will be presented separately. Elevation view of analytical model
is presented in Figure 3.6.

Figure 3.6: Elevation view of analytical model for Specimen #2

64

3.3.1.

First analytical model of infill wall - Model 1

This method, first introduced by Dolsek and Fajfar (2002a), uses PSD testing results of
Specimen #2 as an asset for developing the force-displacement envelopes of equivalent
diagonal struts. When analytical model of Specimen #1 was constructed and time history
analysis was carried out, analytical results were compared with the experimental results
for the verification of analytical model. After model verification, experimental
displacement time history of Specimen #2 (infilled frame) was applied in a static manner
to the verified analytical model of Specimen #1 (bare frame). Then the analytical storey
shear force history of Specimen #1 was recorded and compared to the experimental storey
shear force history of Specimen #2. Difference between the analytical storey shear force
history of Specimen #1, when subjected to the experimental displacement history of
Specimen #2, and experimental storey shear force history of Specimen #2 is considered
to be the storey shear carried by the infill wall. Once storey shear carried by the first
storey infill wall was determined, it was plotted against experimental first storey drift
history of Specimen #2 for obtaining hysteretic behavior of first storey infill wall.
Hysteretic behavior of first storey infill wall was then employed for development of strut
model force-displacement relationship.

3.3.1.1.

Verification of analytical model of Specimen #1

The procedure for developing the equivalent diagonal strut properties first requires the
verification of analytical model of Specimen #1. For this purpose, analytical results are
compared with experimental results and differences between them are discussed.
Comparison for each storey has been presented for D1, D2 and D3 ground motions.
Comparison of experimental and analytical storey drifts and story shears is presented in
Figure 3.7 and Figure 3.8 respectively.

65

0.05

1st Storey Drift

0.04
0.03

Drift [m]

0.02
0.01
0
-0.01 0

16

24

16

24

16

24

-0.02

-0.03
-0.04

Experimental data

-0.05

Analytical data

Time [sec]

0.05

2nd Storey Drift

0.04
0.03

Drift [m]

0.02
0.01

0
-0.01 0

-0.02
-0.03
-0.04

Experimental data

Analytical data

-0.05

Time [sec]

0.05

3rd Storey Drift

0.04
0.03

Drift [m]

0.02
0.01
0
-0.01 0

-0.02

-0.03
-0.04
-0.05

Experimental data

Analytical data

Time [sec]

Figure 3.7: Comparison of interstorey drifts (Specimen #1)

66

160

1st Storey Shear

120

Shear [kN]

80
40
0
-40

16

24

16

24

16

24

-80
-120
Experimental data

-160

Analytical data

Time [sec]

160

2nd Storey Shear

120

Shear [kN]

80
40
0
-40

-80
-120
Experimental data

-160

Analytical data

Time [sec]

160

3rd Storey Shear

120

Shear [kN]

80
40
0
-40

-80
-120
-160

Experimental data

Analytical data

Time [sec]

Figure 3.8: Comparison of storey shears (Specimen #1)

67

During D1 ground motion drifts were overestimated by numerical analysis, while they
were underestimated under D2 and D3 ground motions. Difference in maximum recorded
drifts during D1 motion were 24%, 19% and 48% for the first, second and third storey
respectively. Under D2 ground motion this difference decreased significantly and it was
6%, 7% and 8% while during D3 ground motion storey drifts were underestimated by
numerical analysis and differences were 16%, 16% and 10%.
Shears at the first, second and third storey were overestimated under D1 ground motion
and difference between maximum recorded storey shears were 32%, 9% and 22%
respectively. During D2 ground motion this difference reduced to 12%, 5% and 7% until
again increased under D3 ground motion to 31%, 20% and 12% where analytical results
tend to underestimate storey shears.
It can be seen that differences in maximum measured storey drifts and shears between
analytical and experimental results are the largest under D1 ground motion. This is not of
great importance since low displacements and shears structure experienced during this
ground motion are not relevant for this study. During D2 ground motion we have very
small differences between analytical and experimental results while D3 ground motion
brings differences relatively larger. Analytical underestimation of drifts and shears during
D3 ground motion can be explained by models inability to simulate, already cracked
reinforced concrete structure, subjected to high intensity ground excitation. Taken into
account that column-beam joints are not separately modeled and that slippage of
reinforcement is not taken into account, and based on fact that the results were matching
very good during D2 ground motion, it was concluded that verification of analytical
model of Specimen #1 was done successfully.

3.3.1.2.

Shear carried by the infill walls

Since the analytical model of Specimen #1 was verified, it has been subjected to the
experimental displacement history of Specimen #2, Figure 3.9. Displacements were
applied in a static fashion and at each time step storey shears are measured. Comparison
of analytical storey shear force history of Specimen #1, when subjected to the
experimental displacement history of Specimen #2, and experimental storey shear force
history of Specimen #2 is shown in Figure 3.10: Comparison of experimental storey
shears of Specimen #2 and analytical storey shears of Specimen #1

68

It can be noted that difference between shears is significant as a consequence of lower

stiffness of Specimen #1, due to the nonexistence of infill wall.

3,

2,

1,

Figure 3.9: Application of experimental displacement history of Specimen #2 to the

analytical model of Specimen #1
Difference in maximum measured value of storey shear during D1 ground motion reached
almost 70% for each storey. High difference in storey shears points to large difference in
stiffness of bare and infilled frame, which is caused by high initial stiffness of the infill
wall, thus causing much stiffer behavior of infilled frame specimen. During D2 ground
motion difference in maximum recorded storey shears are different for each storey. In
case of first storey, difference between maximum recorded storey shears was 57% while
for second and third storey difference was 75% and 51% respectively. Under D3 ground
motion, difference for first storey further decreased to 32 % while for second and third
storey it didnt change much and it was 68% and 52% respectively.

69

200

1st Storey Shear

150

Shear [kN]

100
50
0
-50

16

24

16

24

16

24

-100
-150
Experimental data

-200

Analytical data

Time [sec]

200

2nd Storey Shear

150

Shear [kN]

100
50
0

-50

-100
-150
Experimental data

-200

Analytical data

Time [sec]

200

3rd Storey Shear

150

Shear [kN]

100
50
0
-50

-100
-150
-200

Experimental data

Analytical data

Time [sec]

Figure 3.10: Comparison of experimental storey shears of Specimen #2 and

analytical storey shears of Specimen #1

70

200

Shear carried by 1st Storey infill wall

150

Shear [kN]

100
50
0
-50

16

24

16

24

16

24

-100
-150

Time [sec]

200

Shear carried by 2nd Storey infill wall

150

Shear [kN]

100
50
0
-50

-100
-150

Time [sec]

200

Shear carried by 3rd Storey infill wall

150

Shear [kN]

100
50
0
-50

-100
-150

Time [sec]

Figure 3.11: Shear carried by the infill walls

71

Monitoring the change in difference between maximum measured storey shears, clear
pattern can be seen in case of the first storey where difference linearly decreases as the
ground motions are applied. This is not the case with the second and third stories where
differences in maximum storey shears do not follow the same pattern, but we have
difference in storey shears oscillating around, lets say a constant value. This can be
explained by the state of damage of infill walls at different stories as the ground motions
are applied. Reason why, in case of first storey, difference in storey shears decrease is
due to the damage of first storey infill wall which causes reduction of stiffness that finally
leads to lower first storey shear resistance of the infilled frame. As the damage of second
and third storey infill wall is at a much lower level comparing to the first storey, their
stiffness is preserved and storey shears are not decreasing in the same fashion,. This
causes the difference in maximum measured storey shears not to decrease significantly
as the ground motions are applied, but to stay at the, more or less same level. This can be
seen from Figure 3.11, where difference in recorded storey shears, considered to be shear
carried by the infill walls, is presented separately for the first, second and third stories.
3.3.1.3.

Hysteretic behavior of the first storey infill wall

Final products of the conducted procedure, as it was presented in previous section, is the
storey shear carried by the infill walls. Since first storey infill wall experienced the most
damage and reduction of its stiffness, which could have been clearly seen from the
presented results, its behavior will be further used for developing the analytical model of
infill wall. Shear force history of first storey infill wall was plotted against experimental
first storey drift of Specimen #2, as presented in Figure 3.12. Hysteretic behavior of the
first storey infill wall is presented for each ground motion. For the clarity, hysteretic
behavior of the first storey infill wall was presented for sequential time intervals which
are of importance. Time intervals were as follows, from 2-5 seconds for D1 ground
motion, 10-13 seconds for D2 ground motion and 18-21 seconds for D3 ground motions.

72

120
80

Shear [kN]

40
0
-40
-80
-120
-0.02

1st Storey Shear vs. 1st Storey Drift (2-5 sec)

-0.01

0.01

0.02

0.03

Drift [m]
120

80

Shear [kN]

40
0
-40
-80
-120
-0.02

1st Storey Shear vs. 1st Storey Drift (10-13 sec)

-0.01

0.01

0.02

0.03

Drift [m]
120
80

Shear [kN]

40
0
-40
-80
-120
-0.02

1st Storey Shear vs. 1st Storey Drift (18-20 sec)

-0.01

0.01

0.02

0.03

Drift [m]

Figure 3.12: Hysteretic behavior of 1st Storey Infill Wall

From the hysteretic behavior of infill wall it is visible that during D1 ground motion
horizontal displacements were relatively low. Infill wall has high initial stiffness in the
uncracked state and inducing low horizontal displacements on it showed relatively stiff
behavior of this composite non-structural element. During the D2 ground motion
displacements were gradually increasing, which caused increase in shears. This was
73

followed by decrease of infill wall stiffness. Decrease of stiffness was a result of damage
which infill wall suffered as it experienced larger lateral displacement. During the D3
ground motion, displacements continued to increase but this was not followed by increase
in shear resistances because infill wall lost majority of its stiffness. Greatly reduced
stiffness of infill wall and its non-ability to withhold induced horizontal displacements
created hysteretic behavior which is characterized by large displacements and low shear
values.
Hysteretic behavior of the first storey infill wall, for D2 ground motion (2-5 and 10-13
seconds), was used for developing the equivalent diagonal strut properties. This hysteretic
behavior shows that, up to a certain horizontal displacement value, stiffness is relatively
high and it gradually starts to decrease as the horizontal displacements increase. Presented
hysteretic behavior shows significant pinching (sliding) effect which is expected from a
composite member with heterogeneous characteristics, as the masonry infill wall.

3.3.1.4.

Properties and material model of equivalent diagonal strut

Analytical model of infill wall consists of two equivalent diagonal struts connecting
beam-column joints. This simple macro model of infill wall which will be incorporated
into the analytical model of Specimen #2 is shown in Figure 3.13.

Figure 3.13: Schematic

presentation of equivalent diagonal strut model

74

Material model of diagonal struts has been developed to closely match the horizontal
force-displacement slope from the hysteretic behavior of the infill wall, as it can be seen
in Figure 3.14.
Horizontal Force vs. Horizontal Displacement
160
0.0037, 105

120

Force [kN]

Strut 1

0.00032, 50

80

0.018, 0

40

Strut 2
-40
-0.018, 0

-0.00032, -50

-80

-0.0037, -105

-120
-0.02

-0.01

0.01

0.02

Displacement [m]
Hysteretic bahavior of Infill Wall

Material evelope models of diagonal strut

Figure 3.14: Equivalent strut envelope models representing the infill wall
hysteretic behavior (Model 1)
From the developed material envelope it can be observed that, up to the half of peak
lateral force, stiffness is relatively high and after that point it decreases. After strength
reaches its peak value, force linearly decreases to zero value. This is similar to the
envelope properties of unconfined concrete in compression.
When horizontal force-displacement envelope was developed, axial force-displacement
enveloped was derived from it.
( ) =

( )

(3.1)

(3.2)

75

where and are axial and horizontal force of diagonal strut respectively and
and are axial and horizontal displacement of diagonal strut. is inclination
angle of diagonal strut. Axial force-displacement envelope of diagonal strut is presented
in Figure 3.15.
Axial Force vs. Axial Displacement
160
140

0.0028, 138

Force [kN]

120
100
80
60

0.00024, 66
0.0137, 0

40
20
0
0

0.002

0.004

0.006

0.008

0.01

0.012

0.014

Displacement [m]

Figure 3.15: Axial force-displacement envelope of diagonal strut (Model 1)

Cross-sectional area of diagonal strut was obtained by equaling axial strength of diagonal
strut with strength of masonry prism specimens, measured in compression tests.
,

(3.3)

where , is diagonal strut axial force resistance, is cross-sectional area of

diagonal strut and is strength of masonry prism specimens, measured in compression
tests. is strut width while is strut thickness and it is equal to infill wall
thickness. Calculated width of diagonal strut is 45 cm, around 20% of its length. Values
of parameters are presented in Table 3.1.
Table 3.1: Parameters of diagonal strut
, [kN]

[MPa]

[2 ]

[m]

[m]

138

3.2

0.04275

0.095

0.45

76

From the axial and horizontal force-displacement envelopes, axial and shear stress-strain
envelopes were obtained and presented in Figure 3.16.
Shear Stress vs. Shear Strain
0.8
0.0025, 0.71

Stress [MPa]

0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3

0.00021, 0.34

0.0078, 0

0.2

0.1
0

0.002

0.004

0.006

0.008

Strain

Axial Stress vs. Axial Strain

3.5

0.0012, 3.23

Stress [MPa]

3
2.5
2
1.5

0.00011, 1.54
0.0059, 0

1
0.5
0
0

0.001

0.002

0.003

0.004

0.005

0.006

Strain

Figure 3.16: Shear and axial stress-strain envelopes of diagonal strut (Model 1)
( ) =

(3.4)

( ) =

( )

(3.5)

( )

(3.6)

(3.7)
77

where ( ), , ( ) and are shear stress, shear strain, axial stress and axial strain
respectively. and are length and thickness of infill wall respectively and
is length of diagonal strut. Length of infill wall is 1.55 m and length of diagonal strut is
2.3 m.
Equivalent diagonal struts were modeled with uniaxial Hysteretic Material from the
OpeenSees material library. This material has been chosen because it can simulate the
pinching effect by changing the pinching parameters offered in material command.
Hysteretic behavior of analytical model of infill wall, is presented in Figure 3.17.
Hysteretic behavior of analytical model of infill wall

Axial Stress

Strut 1

Strut 2

Axial Strain

Figure 3.17: Hysteretic behavior of analytical model of infill wall (Model 1)

3.3.1.5.
Comparison of developed material model (Model 1) with the tests
results on masonry specimens
Material properties of the developed diagonal strut model were compared with the test
results carried out on masonry specimens in order to present the level of similarity
between these two data. Results are presented in Figure 3.18.

78

Stress [MPa]

Shear Stress vs. Shear Strain

1
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0

OpenSees material
model
0.0025, 0.71

Diagonal tension test

data

0.00021, 0.34
0.0078, 0

0.002

0.004

0.006

0.008

Strain

Axial Stress vs. Axial Strain

3.5

Stress [kPa]

OpenSees materal
model

0.0012, 3.23

3
2.5

Prism test 1 data

2
0.00011, 1.54

1.5

Prism test 2 data

1
0.5
0

0.001

0.002

0.003

0.004

0.005

0.0059, 0
0.006

Strain

Figure 3.18: Comparison of material properties of analytical model (Model 1) and

masonry tests results
It can be seen that initial shear stiffness of developed material model is matching with the
test data, up to approximately half of the shear strength, but after that point it reduces
significantly. Developed material model reaches lower shear strength, around 80% of the
shear strength measured in masonry specimen testing. Differences in stiffness and shear
strengths between developed material model and test results can be explained by the fact
that test was conducted in static way, with the slow application of force, which showed
higher stiffness and finally strength of tested masonry specimen. On the other hand,
material model was developed from hysteretic behavior of infill wall, which was
subjected to cyclic behavior, thus showing lower values of shear stiffness and strength.
Further, the stress state of the infill wall is quite different from that of the tested masonry
79

panel. Axial strength of diagonal strut is calibrated, by choosing appropriate cross-section

area, to be approximately the same as strength of tested prism specimens by choosing
appropriate cross-section area. However difference in stiffness can be observed between
two slopes. In case of tested specimens, slope progress linearly up to reaching of axial
strength while, in case of analytical material model, slope changes its steepness at the
approximately half of the axial strength.

3.3.2. Second analytical model of Infill Wall - Model 2

Turkish Earthquake Code 2007 recognizes infill walls as structural members only when
they are strengthened with special mixture matted steel-reinforced plaster or with fiber
polymers. Therefore Code provides modeling principles in order to define the rigidity and
strength features of infill walls. Equivalent diagonal strut, which receive compression
forces in the direction along which the earthquake is applied, is used to represent the infill
wall. Procedure for developing infill wall model, when special mixture of matted steelreinforced plaster is used, is presented in Information Annex 7F.2 and it will be used here
in developing equivalent diagonal strut properties.

3.3.2.1.

Diagonal strut properties and material model

The thickness of the equivalent diagonal strut is equal to the total thickness of the infill
wall and the width is calculated by equation (3.8).
= 0.175 ( )0.4

(3.8)

Width of the diagonal strut [mm]

Diagonal length of infill wall [mm]

Length of the column [mm]

Coefficient of equivalent diagonal strut

Coefficient of equivalent diagonal strut is calculated by equation (3.9).
1

2 4
=[
]
4

(3.9)
80

 Elasticity modulus of infill wall

Elasticity modulus of frame concrete

Moment of inertia of column

Thickness of the infill wall Thickness of the infill wall

Angle between diagonal strut and horizontal surface

Axial rigidity of the diagonal strut is calculated by Equation (3.10)

=

(3.10)

In section 7F.2.2, of Turkish Earthquake Code (2007), material qualifications are

presented and recommended values for are given.
Manufactured hollow brick: = 1000
Solid brick: = 1000
Aerated concrete block: = 1000
Nevertheless, value obtained from tests on masonry specimens will be used in spite of
this. However, value obtained from tests, , , will be reduced 50%.
= 0.5 , = 2000 ;
After cross-section area of diagonal strut was calculated, axial strength was determined.
This was done by equaling maximum axial strength of masonry prism specimens with
maximum axial strength of diagonal strut in order to obtain peak force carried by diagonal
strut.
=

(3.11)

(3.12)

From the obtained axial force-displacements envelope, horizontal force-displacement

envelope was obtained. Both force-displacement envelopes are presented In Figure 3.19.
=

(3.13)

81

(3.13)

where , , and are axial force, axial displacement, horizontal force

and horizontal displacement of the diagonal strut at the envelope peak. is crosssectional area of diagonal strut, is strength of masonry prism specimens and is
inclination angle of diagonal strut.
Axial Force vs. Axial Displacement
100
0.0024, 81

Force [kN]

80
60
40

0.0027, 8
20

0.0030, 8

0
0

0.001

0.002

0.003

0.004

Displacement [m]

Horizontal Force vs. Horizontal Displacement

100

Force [kN]

80

0.0032, 61.8

60
40
20

0.0036, 6.1

0.004, 6.1

0.003

0.004

0
0

0.001

0.002

Displacement [m]

Figure 3.19: Axial and horizontal force-displacement envelopes of diagonal strut

(Model 2)

From the axial and horizontal force-displacement envelopes, axial and shear stress-strain
envelopes were obtained and presented in Figure 3.20. Hysteretic behavior of analytical
model of infill wall is presented in Figure 3.21.
82

Stress [MPa]

Shear Stress vs. Shear Strain

0.45
0.4
0.35
0.3
0.25
0.2
0.15
0.1
0.05
0

0.0021, 0.42

0.0024, 0.04

0.0005

0.001

0.0015

0.002

0.0027, 0.04

0.0025

0.003

Strain

Axial Stress vs. Axial Strain

3.5
0.0011, 3.21

Stress [MPa]

2.5
2
1.5
1

0.0012, 0.32

0.0013, 0.32

0.5
0
0

0.0005

0.001

0.0015

Strain

Figure 3.20: Shear and axial stress-strain envelopes of diagonal strut (Model 2)
( ) =
=

(3.14)

( ) =
=

( )

(3.15)

( )

(3.16)

(3.17)

where ( ), , ( ) and are shear stress, shear strain, axial stress and axial strain
respectively. is cross-sectional area of diagonal strut. Values of parameters used in

83

formulas are given in Table 3.2. Comparison of Model 1 and Model 2 is shown in Figure
3.22.
Table 3.2: Infill wall, column and diagonal strut properties
Infill wall properties

[mm]

[mm]

[mm]

[MPa]

[MPa]

[mm]

[]

95

2304

1412

2000

3.2

1550

40.6

Column properties

[mm]

[MPa]

[mm4]

1500

27000

100000000

Diagonal strut properties, model #2

[mm]

[kN/m]

[m2]

0.00187

267

21994

0.0253

[kN]

[m]

[kN]

[m]

81

0.0032

61.8

0.0048

84

Axial Stress

Hysteretic behavior of Diagonal Strut

Axial Strain

Figure 3.21: Hysteretic behavior of analytical model of infill wall (Model 2)

Axial Stress vs. Axial Strain

3.5
Model 1

Stress [MPa]

Model 2

2.5
2
1.5

1
0.5
0
0

0.001

0.002

0.003

0.004

0.005

0.006

Strain

Figure 3.22: Comparison of Model 1 and Model 2

3.3.2.2.
Comparison of developed material model (Model 2) and tests results
on masonry specimens
From comparison, presented in Figure 3.23 it can be seen that this analytical model
significantly differs from the testing results when it comes to shear stress-strain envelope.
Shear strength is underestimated by a factor of two while shear strain is three times larger.
Axial strength of analytical model is set up to be equal to strength of prism specimens, as
85

explained in previous section, so axial stress-strain envelopes are matching very well.
However, analytical model slightly underestimates axial stiffness.

Stress [MPa]

Shear Stress vs. Shear Strain

1
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0

OpenSees material
model
Diagonal tension test
data
0.0021, 0.42
0.0024, 0.04
0

0.001

0.0027, 0.04

0.002

0.003

0.004

Strain

Axial Stress vs. Axial Strain

4
0.0011, 3.21

Stress [MPa]

3.5
3

OpenSees materal
model
Prism test 1 data

2.5
2

Prism test 2 data

1.5

0.0012, 0.32

0.0013, 0.32

0.5
0
0

0.0005

0.001

0.0015

0.002

Strain

Figure 3.23: Comparison of material properties of analytical model (Model 2) with

masonry test results

86

CHAPTER 4

4. ASSESSMENT OF STRUT MODELS

4.1.

General

Two simple equivalent diagonal strut models have been developed in order to analytically
simulate infill wall and provide us with more understanding about strut model behavior
under earthquake loading. Equivalent strut models were separately incorporated in the
analytical model of Specimen #2, which was subjected to time history analysis in
OpenSees. Analytical response of Specimen #2 was recorded and results were compared
with the experimental results, obtained from PSD testing. In this chapter, analytical
results of Specimen #2, obtained by employing each of the two equivalent strut models,
will be compared and discussed.

4.2.

Comparison of experimental and analytical results of Specimen #2, when

infill wall Model 1 is employed

Analytical infill wall Model 1 was developed by using procedure presented in Section
3.2.1. Material properties of the model were developed using experimentally obtained
hysteretic behavior of first storey infill wall, which is presented in section 3.2.1.3. Besides
the analytical and experimental global response comparison for Specimen #2, analytical
and experimental hysteretic behaviors of the first storey infill walls are compared, since
strut model has been constructed in a way to closely represent behavior of first storey
infill wall.
4.2.1. Comparison of experimental and analytical global response of Specimen #2
Comparison of experimental and analytical drifts and shears, for each storey, is
presented in Figure 4.1 and Figure 4.2 respectively.

87

0.03

1st Storey Drift

0.02

Drift [m]

0.01
0
0

16

24

16

24

16

24

-0.01
-0.02
Experimental data

Analytical data

-0.03

Time [sec]

0.03

2nd Storey Drift

0.02

Drift [m]

0.01
0
0

-0.01
-0.02
Experimental data

-0.03

Analytical data

Time [sec]

0.03

3rd Storey Drift

0.02

Drift [m]

0.01
0
0

-0.01
-0.02

-0.03

Experimental data

Analytical data

Time [sec]

Figure 4.1: Experimental and analytical storey drift comparison

(Specimen #2 Model 1)

88

Shear [kN]
Shear [kN]
Shear [kN]

240
200 1st Storey Shear
160
120
80
40
0
-40 0
8
-80
-120
-160
-200
Experimental data
-240

240
200 2nd Storey Shear
160
120
80
40
0
8
-40 0
-80
-120
-160
-200
Experimental data
-240

240
200 3rd Storey Shear
160
120
80
40
0
8
-40 0
-80
-120
-160
-200
Experimental data
-240

16

24

16

24

16

24

Analytical data

Time [sec]

Analytical data

Time [sec]

Analytical data

Time [sec]

Figure 4.2: Experimental and analytical storey shear comparison

(Specimen #2 - Model 1)

During D1 ground motion numerical analysis overestimated maximum drift at each

storey. Differences for first, second and third storey were 28%, 20% and 17%
89

respectively. During D2 ground motion, differences in maximum recorded drift for first
storey was just 8% while for second and third storey 25% and 28% respectively. In case
of first and third storey, analytical maximum drift was underestimated while it was
overestimated for second storey. During D3 ground motion recorded analytical maximum
drift was underestimated for first storey, overestimated for second storey, while for third
storey it matched with experimental one. Differences for first and second storey were
25% and 26%.
Storey shear comparison showed better matching of analytical and experimental results.
During D1 ground motion maximum analytical second storey shear matched maximum
experimental storey shear, while differences for first and third storey were 13% in both
cases. Good matching was also observed during D2 ground motion where differences for
first, second and third storeys were 11%, 22% and 10% respectively. During D3 ground
motion these differences were 10%, 12 % and 11%.
From the presented results it can be concluded that storey shear comparison showed better
matching of analytical and experimental results than storey drift comparison. From
observation of storey drift and shear history comparison, it can be noticed that best overall
matching of analytical and experimental results was achieved for first storey. This can be
related to the fact that strut model properties were developed from hysteretic behavior of
first storey infill wall.

4.2.2. Comparison of analytical and experimental hysteretic behavior of the first

storey infill wall
From the comparison of analytical and experimental global response of the Specimen #2,
it was observed that best overall matching of response was achieved for the first storey.
Hysteretic behavior of analytically modeled first storey infill wall was recorded during
time history OpenSees analysis and results are compared with the experimental hysteretic
behavior of first storey infill wall. Results, presented in Figure 4.3, were recorded during
D2 ground motion, in a time period from ten to thirteen seconds. Experimental hysteretic
behavior, which is used here for comparison, is the same hysteretic behavior on the basis
of which the strut model has been developed.
90

120

1st Storey Shear vs. 1st Storey Drift (10-13 sec) - PSD

Shear [kPa]

80
40
0
Prior to strong motion

-40

Strong motion

-80

Post strong motion

-120
-0.012

-0.008

-0.004

0.004

0.008

0.012

Drift [m]

a/ Experimental hysteretic behavior of infill wall

1st Storey Shear vs. 1st Storey Drift (10-13 sec) - PSD
120

Shear [kPa]

80
40
0
Prior to strong motion

-40

Strong motion

-80
-120
-0.012

Post strong motion

-0.008

-0.004

Drift [m]

0.004

0.008

0.012

b/ Analyticalhysteretic behavior of infill wall

Figure 4.3: Experimental and analytical hysteretic behavior of the first storey infill
(Model 1)
Observed results showed that very good matching of analytical and experimental results.
In Figure 4.4, hysteretic behavior is further divided into three parts, prior, during and post
strong excitation of D2 ground motion. Separately, comparison of these three hysteretic
behaviors, shows us more clearly the matching achieved between analytical and
experimental results.

91

1st Storey Shear vs 1st Storey Drift - Prior to strong

motion (10-10.7 sec)

120

Shear [kPa]

80
40

0
-40
Experimental data

-80
-120
-0.012

Analytical data
-0.008

-0.004

Drift [m]

0.004

0.008

0.012

1st Storey Shear vs. 1st Storey Drift - Strong motion

(10.7-11.2 sec)

120

Shear [kPa]

80
40
0
-40
Experimental data

-80
-120
-0.012

120

Analytical data
-0.008

-0.004

Drift [m]

0.004

0.008

0.012

1st Storey Shear vs. 1st Storey Drift - Post strong motion
(11.2-13 sec)

Shear [kPa]

80
40
0
-40
Experimental data

-80
-120
-0.012

Analytical data
-0.008

-0.004

Drift [m]

0.004

0.008

0.012

Figure 4.4: Comparison of first storey experimental and analytical behavior of

infill wall (Model 1)

Hysteretic behavior prior to strong excitations was characterized by high stiffness of infill
wall and showed relatively good matching of results. It can be seen that maximum
recorded drift and shear were overestimated by analysis, with difference of 20% for drift
and 12% for shear. During strong excitation, analysis results even better matched
92

experimental results, with difference in maximum recorded drift 11% while maximum
recorded shear only differed 4%. After strong excitation infill wall stiffness decreased
and hysteretic behavior slope was very close to horizontal. Here, analytical maximum
drift and shear were overestimated by 25% and 51% respectively.
It can be concluded that the developed simple strut model satisfied its goal to match the
experimental hysteretic behavior of the first storey infill wall, thus validating the
procedure by which properties of diagonal strut were developed.

4.3.

Comparison of experimental and analytical results of Specimen #2, when

infill wall Model 2 is employed

Comparison of experimental and analytical drift and shear history is presented in Error!
Reference source not found.Figure 4.5 and Figure 4.6 respectively. Storey drifts were
significantly overestimated by numerical analysis. During D1 ground motion recorded
differences for first, second and third storey were 65%, 56% and 55%. During D2 ground
motion differences were similar 62%, 67% and 48%. During D3 ground motion
differences maintained the same level as for previous two ground motions with values
64%, 63% and 42%.
Differences in maximum recorded storey shear during D1 ground motion were 5%, 6%
and 4% for first, second and third storey respectively. Numerical analysis overestimated
storey shear at first and third storey while underestimated it at second storey. Analytical
results during D2 and D3 ground motion underestimated storey shears recorded during
experimental testing. Under D2 ground motion differences were 35%, 43% and 17%.
Highest differences in maximum storey shear were observed during D3 ground motion
and they were 52%, 49% and 66%.
It can be seen again that better matching of results is observed in case of storey shears
compared to storey drifts. However, analytical results showed poor matching in both
storey shear and storey drift comparison, failing to successfully simulate the behavior of
Specimen #2.

93

0.03

1st Storey Drift

0.02

Drift [m]

0.01
0
0

16

24

16

24

16

24

-0.01
-0.02
Experimental data

-0.03

Analytical data

Time [sec]

0.03

2nd Storey Drift

0.02

Drift [m]

0.01
0
0

-0.01
-0.02
Experimental data

-0.03

Analytical data

Time [sec]

0.03

3rd Storey Drift

0.02

Drift [m]

0.01
0
0

-0.01
-0.02
-0.03

Experimental data

Analytical data

Time [sec]

Figure 4.5: Experimental and analytical storey drift comparison

(Specimen #2 - Model 2)

94

Shear [kN]
Shear [kN]
Shear [kN]

240
200 1st Storey Shear
160
120
80
40
0
-40 0
8
-80
-120
-160
-200
Experimental data
-240

240
200 2nd Storey Shear
160
120
80
40
0
-40 0
8
-80
-120
-160
-200
Experimental data
-240

240
200 3rd Storey Shear
160
120
80
40
0
-40 0
8
-80
-120
-160
-200
Experimental data
-240

16

24

16

24

16

24

Analytical data

Time [sec]

Analytical data

Time [sec]

Analytical data

Time [sec]

Figure 4.6: Experimental and analytical storey shear comparison

(Specimen#2 Model 2)

95

4.4.

Experimental behavior of infill wall

In order to have more insight on behavior of the infill wall during earthquake loading, it
is necessary to observe patterns in its cyclic behavior. In Section 3.3.3, experimental
behavior of the first storey infill wall was obtained and used for determining the level of
interaction between the infill wall and the adjacent frame structure. Peak responses of
the first storey infill wall and corresponding column responses were observed during D2
and D3 ground motion. Results are presented in Table 4.1.

Table 4.1: Peak responses for first storey infill wall and corresponding column
responses
Ground motion
Time [seconds]
Storey drift ratio [%]
Shear force carried by infill wall [kN]
Shear force carried by columns [kN]

10.9
0.34
110
73

D2
11.0
2.0
80
47

11.2
0.34
60
34

18.6
0.6
55
112

D3
18.9 19.1
1.9 1.15
75
50
121 130

19.3
1.51
45
135

It can be noticed that the full shear strength of the infill wall was achieved during D2
ground motion, at the shear strain which is almost 5 times the shear strain at which infill
wall crushed in masonry test. This increased ductility of infill wall is due to the
confinement which is provided from the framing structure. From the damage observation
pictures in Figure 2.21 it can be seen that after D2 ground motion, just cracking of the
infill wall took place, without serious damage.
After maximum shear strength was reached during D2 ground motion, infill wall was not
able to attract same amount of shear force under D3 ground motion. At the much higher
storey drift ratios, infill wall was carrying approximately half of the force it carried during
D2 ground motion.
If it is assumed that, during D3 ground motion, at any of the presented peak responses,
abrupt failure of the infill wall happens, additional shear force transferred to the adjacent
column can be determined. Assume that every column carries one fourth of the total shear
force carried by columns and that half of the shear force, carried by the infill wall, is
transferred to one of the adjacent columns while half of it is captured by beam. Adding
96

shear force transferred from the infill wall to shear force which is already carried by
adjacent column, its shear demand can be calculated. Results are presented in Table 4.2.
Table 4.2: Shear demand on adjacent column in case of abrupt failure of infill wall
during D3 ground motion
Ground motion
Time [seconds]
Shear force carried by each column [kN]
Additional shear force transferred from infill wall to
column [kN]
Shear force demand on adjacent columns [kN]

D3
18.6 18.9 19.1 19.3
28 30.25 32.5 33.75
27.5

37.5

25

22.5

55.5 67.75 57.5 56.25

It can be seen that, abrupt failure of the infill wall at any peak point, would induce shear
demand on adjacent column which is higher than shear resistance of the columns, = 55
kN. Shear resistance was computed using provisions of Turkish Standard TS500. Values
used in calculations are given in Table 4.3.
= +

(4.1)

= 0.52 (1 + )

(4.2)

(4.3)

, Concrete and transverse reinforcement contribution to shear capacity respectively

, Web width and effective depth of concrete section respectively
, Characteristic tension concrete strength and characteristic yield strength of
transverse reinforcement respectively
, Section area and area of transverse reinforcement respectively
Normal force acting on member
Spacing between transverse reinforcement
Coefficient which depends on intensity and direction of normal force
Table 4.3: Values of parameters used in calculation of shear resistance of columns
[]

[]

[ 2 ]

[2 ]

[ ]

[kN]

150

180

30000

25.13

50

80

[ ]

[ ]

[ ]

[ ]

[ ]

0.07

2.26

240

18

37

55

97

4.5.

Recommendation for design of adjacent columns

Behavior of infill wall is very unpredictable and depends on many factors which are
sometimes not easy to control and measure. Engineering practice demands simple, usable
solution to include detrimental effects of infill walls on adjacent frame. Optimized and
simple solution is not achievable in case of the infill wall, because of all its characteristics.
On the other side, more optimized but complicated solution is not what engineers are
striving for. This leaves us with third solution, simple and conservative approach which
can be easily implemented in everyday engineering practice.

Figure 4.7: Free body diagram of adjacent column

Free body diagram of column which is bounding infill wall is shown in Figure 4.7.
Shear demand can be expressed as:
=

+ (1
)

(4.4)

, Maximum moments that can be developed at the top and bottom of the
adjacent column
Clear height of the adjacent column
The contact length over which additional shear is transferred from the infill wall to
the adjacent column
Distributed shear load which is transferred from the infill wall to the adjacent
column
Assume that columns are reaching maximum end moments at the same time infill wall is
reaching its capacity. Next, assume that half of the infill wall capacity, transferred from
1
infill wall to adjacent frame, will go to column 2 .
98

(4.5)

(4.6)

Compressive capacity of infill wall

Angle between infill wall diagonal and horizontal
Width of equivalent diagonal compression strut, 20% of infill wall diagonal
length
Thickness of infill wall
Compressive strength of infill wall, obtained from masonry testing
Width of diagonal strut is taken as a 20 % portion of infill wall diagonal length. Diagonal
strut with this width is used for development of infill wall Model 1. Taken into account
that full diagonal crack can only develope at the height below the beam which is half of
the column depth, it can be assumed that full diagonal crack will develop at the height
/2 below the beam. Since 2 , shear demand formulation becomes simpler.
=

+ 1
+

(4.7)

Table 4.4: Values of parameters used in calculating shear demand on adjacent

column
[mm]

[mm]

[MPa]

[N]

[rad]

450

95

3.2

136.8

0.708

[kN]

[kNm]

[mm]

[kN]

21

32

1412

63.5

Values used in calculation are given in Table 4.4. Result shows that demand on the
adjacent column has similar values to the demands obtained from observing experimental
behavior of infill wall under D3 ground motion, Section 4.4. Obtained shear demand of
the adjacent columns is higher than its shear capacity which explains shear failure of
adjacent columns during experimental testing.

99

CHAPTER 5

5. CONCLUSIONS

Assessment of simple strut models for seismic analysis of infilled frames has been subject
of investigation in this study. Two frame specimens, bare and infilled, were constructed
and subjected to PSD testing in order to determine influence of infill wall to seismic
response of the frames. Specimens were 3-bay, 3-story frames designed to satisfy
provisions of Turkish Earthquake Code (2007). Infilled frame had middle bay filled with
the unreinforced masonry wall. During PSD testing global and local responses of
specimens were measured and compared so difference can be observed and discussed.
Numerical analysis has been done in OpenSees software. Infill wall has been modeled
with two equivalent diagonal struts. Properties of diagonal struts have been developed in
two ways, by using experimental behavior of first storey infill wall and by using
provisions of Turkish Earthquake Code (2007). Afterwards analytical results of infilled
frame were compared with experimental.
From the study, following conclusions can be derived:

Presence of infill wall greatly alters the behavior of the frame. It changes its
stiffness, strength, ductility and energy dissipation. Additionally, significant
amount of shear force is transferred from the infill wall to the adjacent frame
columns. This additional force caused shear failure of the infilled frame boundary
columns which was not observed for the same columns of bare frame.

Another effect of infill wall to response of frame is alternation of storey drift

distribution along height. In case of the bare frame, interstory drifts were almost
uniformly distributed among storeys. On the other hand, infilled frame
experienced much higher drift values for the first storey comparing to second and
third. Under large lateral displacements, first storey experienced two times larger
drift than second storey. Such a high difference in storey drifts was caused by
100

crushing of first storey infill wall which induced much larger lateral displacements
and deformation concentration at the first storey. This is so called soft storey
phenomena and is highly undesirable.

Assessment of diagonal strut numerical models showed that employment of

simple strategy cannot provide high precision. However, when strut model was
developed according to experimental hysteretic behavior of infill wall, numerical
results showed very good matching with experimental at the moderate levels of
lateral displacements.

Simple method for calculating additional shear demand induced by presence of

infill wall has given results which correlate very well with the observed damage
and failure mode of boundary columns. This implies that boundary columns must
be designed by taking into account additional shear force transferred from the
infill wall.

101

REFERENCES

American Society for Testing and Materials, ASTM C1314-12. Standard Test Method
for Compressive Strength of Masonry Prisms
American Society for Testing and Materials, ASTM E519/E519M-10. Standard Test
Method for Diagonal Tension (Shear) in Masonry Assemblages
American Society of Civil Engineers, 2006. Seismic Rehabilitation of Existing
Buildings, ASCE/SEI 41-06, Reston, Virginia
A.E. Fiorato, M.A Sozen, W.L. Gamble, (1970), An investigation of the interaction of
reinforced concrete frames with masonry filler walls, University of Illinois, Urbana,
Illinois
A.M Reinhorn, A. Madan, R.E. Valles, Y. Reichmann, J.B. Mender, (1995), Modeling
of masonry infill panels for structural analysis, Technical Report NCEER-95-0018,
Buffalo, NY
A. Stavridis, (2009), Analytical and experimental study of seismic performance of
reinforced concrete frames infilled with masonry walls, PHD Dissertation, University
of California, San Diego.
B. Staford Smith, C. Carter, (1969) A method of analysis for infilled frames.
Proceedings of Institution of Civil Engineers, No. 7218, 31-48.
C.E Rivero, W. H. Walker, (1982), An analytical study of the interaction of frames and
infill masonry walls, Civil Engineering Studies SRS-502, 591-598
D. Combescure, P. Pegon, (2000), Application of the local to global approach to the
study of infilled frame structures under seismic loading, Proceedings of the 12th World
Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Paper No. 505, Auckland, New Zealand.
D.J. Kakaletsis, C.G. Karayannis, (2008), Influence of masonry strength and openings
on infilled RC frames under cyclic loading, Journal of Earthquake Engineering,
12:197-221.
D. Celarec, M. Dolsek, (2012), Practice-oriented probabilistic seismic performance
assessment of infilled frames with consideration of shear failure of columns,
Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics, 42:1339-1360.

EN 1998-1 (2004), Eurocode 8: Design of structures for earthquake resistance Part 1:

General rules, seismic actions and rules for buildings.
102

H. Sucuoglu, U. A. Siddiqui (2014) Pseudo-Dynamic Testing and analytical modeling

of AAC infilled RC frames, Journal of Earthquake Engineering 18:8, 1281-1301.
I. Koutromanos, (2011), Numerical analysis of masonry-infilled reinforced concrete
frames subjected to seismic loads and experimental evaluation of retrofit techniques,
PHD Dissertation, University of California, San Diego.
Jack R. Banjamin, A.M. ASCE1 and Harry A. Williams, M. ASCE2, (1958) The
Behavior of One-Story Brick Shear Walls, Journal of the STRUCTURAL DIVISION
Proceedings of the American Society of Civil Engineers, Proc ASCE, ST-4: 17231730
Khalid Mahmoud Aly Mosalam, (1996), Experimental and computational strategies
for the seismic behavior evaluation of frames with infill walls, PHD Dissertation,
Faculty of the Graduate School of Cornell University.
Malcolm Holmes, (1961) Steel frames with brickwork and concrete infilling, Reader
in Civil Engineering, Institute of Technology, Paper No. 6501, Bradfrord.
M. Baran, T. Sevil, (2010), Analytical and experimental studies on infilled RC
frames, International Journal of the Physical Sciences Vol. 5(13), pp. 1981-1998.
M. Dolsek, P. Fajfar, (2002), Mathematical modeling of an infilled RC frame structure
based on the results of pseudo-dynamic tests, Earthquake Engineering and Structural
Dynamics, 31:1215-1230.
P.G. Asteris, (2008), Finite element micro-modeling of infilled frames, Electronic
Journal of Structural Engineering.
R.E Klinger, V.V. Bertero, (1976), Infilled frame in earthquake-resistance
construction, Earthquake Engineering Research Center, University of California,
Berkley, California
R. J. Mainstone, (1971), On the stiffness and strengths of infilled frames,
Proceedings of Institution of Civil Engineers, No. 7360, 57-90.
R. Zarnic, M. Tomazevic, (1984), Study of the behavior of masonry infilled reinforced
concrete frames subjected to seismic loading-Part 1, Institute for Testing and Research
in Materials and Structures, Ljubljana.
S. V. Polyakov, (1960) On the interaction between masonry filler walls and enclosing
frame when loaded in the plane of the wall, Translation in Earthquake Engineering,
Earthquake Engineering Research Institute, San Francisco, 36-42.

Turkish Earthquake Code (2007) Specification for buildings Constructed in Disaster

Areas, Ministry of Public Work and Settlement, Ankara, Turkey

103

T.C. Liauw, K.H. Kwan, (1984), New development in research of infilled frames,
Proc. 8th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, San Francisco, 4, 623-630.
W.W. El-Dakhakhni, S.M.ASCE1, M. Elgaaly, F.ASCE2, A.A. Hamid3, (2003) Threestrut model for concrete masonrt-infilled steel frames, Journal of Structural
Engineering, 129:177-185.

104