A Macro-Element Model For Masonry-Infilled Structural Frames

Structures and Buildings
Volume 169 Issue SB2

A macro-element model for
masonry-infilled structural frames
Dinh, Bui and Nguyen
Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers

Structures and Buildings 169 February 2016 Issue SB2
Pages 108120 http://dx.doi.org/10.1680/jstbu.15.00040
Paper 1500040
Received 23/03/2015
Accepted 13/07/2015
Published online 25/09/2015
Keywords: buildings, structures & design
ICE Publishing: All rights reserved

masonry-infilled structural
frames
1
&
Quoc Khanh Le Dinh MSc
3
&
Yen Van Nguyen PhD
PhD student, Department of Civil Engineering, University of

Technology, Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam
Assistant Professor, Department of Civil Engineering,

University of Technology, Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam
2
&
Thanh Cong Bui PhD
Assistant Professor, Department of Civil Engineering,

University of Technology, Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam
This paper presents a macro-element model using an equivalent multi-strut approach to analyse the non-linear response
of structural frames infilled with masonry. The usability, advantages and deficiencies of this model are assessed based
on experiment results as well as comparisons with previous equivalent mono-strut models. The formulas used to convert
the infilled masonry into a multi-strut model are based on an analysis of the beams on a Winkler elastic foundation, in
which the beams and columns are represented as beams and the masonry infill is the elastic foundation. The analytical
results for the equivalent multi-strut model show that the non-linear behaviour of the infilled frames corresponds closely
to experimental results using reinforced concrete frames and autoclaved aerated concrete block masonry, and is found
to be more suitable for some problems than previous equivalent mono-strut models.
Notation
Ef
Ew
fAAC
f c
fc,m
fm
fu
fy
h
h
i
Jb
Jc
j
k0
ki
l
l
lc
P
Pcr
108
Youngs modulus of frame concrete

Youngs modulus of infilled masonry
unit strength of the autoclaved aerated concrete
(AAC) masonry
compressive strength of the concrete
compressive strength of the mortar
prism strength of AAC masonry
ultimate strength of reinforcing bars
yield strength of reinforcing bars
centre-line height of infilled frame
height of infilled masonry in frame
number of secondary struts in x-direction
moment of inertia of beams
moment of inertia of columns
number of secondary struts in y-direction
Winkler bedding coefficient of infilled masonry
lateral stiffness for order i
centre-line width of infilled frame
length of infilled masonry in frame
length of equivalent diagonal strut
lateral force acting at frame joints
critical compression load
Pcr,f
Pcr,m
Pmax
t
We
Wef,mlt
Wm
Wmlt
h
l
1.
lateral cracking load of frames

lateral cracking load of infilled masonry
maximum lateral load of infilled frames
thickness of infilled masonry
width of equivalent diagonal strut at both ends of
infilled masonry in mono-strut model
effective width of equivalent diagonal strut in
multi-strut model
width of equivalent diagonal strut at middle
segment of infilled masonry in mono-strut model
width of equivalent diagonal strut in multi-strut
model
contact length between column and infilled masonry
contact length between beam and infilled masonry
angle between diagonal line of infilled masonry and
horizontal line
force transfer angle of the infilled masonry
Introduction
Infilled frames (IFs) are a hybrid structure with two major components: surrounding frames and infilled masonry (IM). The
IM is fixed to the surrounding frames by starter bars to
Downloaded by [ UNIVERSITY OF MORATUWA] on [14/11/16]. Copyright ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.


prevent it from moving out of the in-plane working area.

Except for a few particular types, most starter bars do not significantly affect the behaviour of the IFs (Kwan and Liauw,
1984) and are usually neglected in analyses. Several researchers,
such as Holmes (1961), Smith and Carter (1969), Mainstone
(1971), Kwan and Liauw (1984), Paulay and Priestley (1991),
Kappos et al. (1998) and Dinh et al. (2013), have suggested
constructing so-called simplified strut models by converting the
IM into an equivalent mono-strut with hinged ends (Figure 1).
10
2
15
27
39
52
64
76
88
101
113
125
138
150
The finite-element method (FEM) can be used to solve such

problems by discretising the member into units, in which the
IM is assumed to be a homogeneous and isotropic material
modelled by shell elements. The uniaxial elements represent
the frame, and the contact elements represent the interaction
between the IM and the surrounding frame. This approach is
similar to that of Mallick and Severn (1967), Alpa and
Monetto (1994), Mehrabi and Shing (1997), Asteris (2003) and
Stavridis and Shing (2010). More detailed approaches include
those employed by Lotfi and Shing (1994), Lourenco and Rots
(1997), Bati et al. (1999) and Zucchini and Lourenco (2002),
in which a refined discretisation of bricks (units), bedding
mortar ( joint), heading mortar ( joint) and the interfaces
between the IM and the surrounding frames (non-linear link
elements) were proposed. In principle, such approaches would
allow for modelling and analysis of any IFs (Figure 2), but in
practice, the application of these models is significantly limited
due to the intensive computational effort required.
In some technical design cases, reduced computation times are
desired. Moreover, the IM often has less strength than the surrounding frames, and the IM mechanical properties are influenced by numerous parameters, such as the thickness and bond
quality of the bedding mortar, the tightness between the IM
and the surrounding frames, the quality of the blocks, the
workmanship and numerous construction processes. Thus,
there is a need for a simple approach to IF behaviour analysis
that provides a reasonable compromise between accuracy and
simplified computation for implementation. Replacing the IM
I
Pi+1
Pi
l'
l
Figure 1. Equivalent mono-strut model
h'
Figure 2. Analysis results based on FEM
with a simplified equivalent strut (mono-strut) converts the previously described complex problem with numerous parameters
into a simple problem, simplifying the actual design by making
several acceptable allowances. However, simplified strut models
are only appropriate for analysing the behaviour of IFs in the
elastic range, whereas non-linear trends govern nearly the
entire behaviour process. The experiments of Mainstone (1971),
Smith and Carter (1969), Anil and Altin (2007), Imran and
Aryanto (2009) and Baran and Sevil (2010) demonstrated that
the IM first cracks at the corners and that the most important
behaviour of IFs is non-linear. To model this non-linear behaviour, Chrysostomou et al. (2002) proposed modelling the IM as
six parallel inclined struts. In this case, three parallel struts represent each diagonal direction, and the position of the offdiagonal struts is associated with the position of the formation
of a concentrated plastic hinge in a beam or column. This
model was improved upon by El-Dakhakhni et al. (2003),
where the IM was replaced by one diagonal and two inclined
(off-diagonal) struts. Recently, Ibarra et al. (2005) proposed
a bilinear model, which was further developed by Rodrigues
et al. (2010) as a multi-linear model, which was a large
improvement over the simplified equivalent strut models.
In construction, a gap always exists at the interface between the
IM and the upper beam of the surrounding frames due to a
lack of space for manipulation. This gap leads to a poor fit at
the interface between the IM and the upper beam (Figure 3);
this is called a non-integral IF to distinguish it from integral
IFs. The behaviour of non-integral IFs, including this gap, has
not yet been fully investigated. This paper proposes a macroelement model using an innovative equivalent multi-strut placement of the IM to analyse the non-linear behaviour of these
IFs. The reliability of this method was verified experimentally
using large samples, consisting of reinforced concrete (RC)
frames and IM of autoclaved aerated concrete (AAC) blocks.
2.
Computational model
2.1 An equivalent mono-strut model

Consider a one-storey, one-span RC frame under lateral
loading at the node, as shown in Figure 4(a). Disregarding the
109


longitudinal strain of beam BC, the frame can be discretised

into the three members AB, BC and CD, with their respective
internal forces, as shown in Figure 4(b). Assuming that the
moment distribution in the frame with the IM in the elastic
range corresponds to the moment distribution in the frame
without the IM, the problem of the IF can be converted into
individual problems. The beam on the elastic foundation,
where the elastic foundation is the IM, is shown in Figure 5.
The differential equation for the elastic curvature of a beam on
an elastic foundation is
yIV x 4m4 yx 0
1:
in which
(a)
r
4 tk0
m
4EJ
2:
Here, t is the thickness of the IM, k0 is the Winkler bedding

coefficient of the IM, E is the elastic modulus of the concrete
and J is the moment of inertia of the column or the beam of
the RC frame.
(b)
Figure 3. Gap between the upper beam and the IM (non-integral

IFs): (a) infilled masonry by AAC blocks; (b) infilled masonry by clay
bricks
Based on experimental results (Anil and Altin, 2007; Baran

and Sevil, 2010; Imran and Aryanto, 2009; Mainstone, 1971;
Smith and Carter, 1969) and the FEM analysis (Figure 2),
column CD tends to be separated from the IM; thus, its
impact on IF behaviour is negligible and can be ignored.
Moreover, the longitudinal strain of columns AB and BC
can be disregarded, that is, Q = 0 and Q1 = 0. Thus, this
study is limited to an RC frame with a small flexural
stiffness in the beam and column to ensure that the beam
length and column height satisfy the following conditions
Q
B
C
M0
M0
EJc
M0
P/2
P/2
Q
M0
C
Q
EJb
h EJb
A
l
(a)
(b)
Figure 4. (a) One-storey, one-span frame model; (b) discretisation

model of the frame
110


According to the theory for a beam on an elastic foundation

(Arthur and Richard, 2003), column AB can be considered
infinite at end A, and beam BC can be considered infinite at
end C. The impact of column CD on the IF behaviour is negligible because the moment at C tends to separate the CD
column from the IM. The computational scheme of column
AB and beam BC can thus be simplified as shown in Figure 6.
Q
C
M1
M0
Q1
The general root of Equation 1 is

Q1
M0
P/2
P/2
M1
4:
yx C1 emx cos mx C2 emx sin mx

C3 emx cos mx C4 emx sin mx
The coefficients C1, C2, C3 and C4 are determined from the

boundary conditions as follows.
&
Boundary conditions for column AB
(
5:
Figure 5. Discretisation of the IF for the beams on an elastic
foundation
3:
with
s
tk0
4
;
ml
4EJb
y0
x 0;
Q
P
; M M0
2
The boundary conditions in Equation 5 can be substituted

into Equation 4 to determine the coefficients C1, C2, C3 and
C4; the root of Equation 4 then determines the contact length
between the column and the IM using h
(Arthur and Richard, 2003)

8
3
>
< lml
4
>
: hmh 3
4
x h;
s
tk0
4
mh
4EJc
6:
1

C
C
B
C
4
h arccos@ qA arccos
m
h
mh C32 C42
where Jc and Jb are the moments of inertia of the column and

the beam of the RC frame, respectively.
l
M0
P/2
B
M0
h
h
(a)
(b)
Figure 6. Simplified computational schemes for the frames:

(a) column AB; (b) beam BC
111


where
&
13:
1
C q
2
f2lJc 6hJb =3mh h2 Jb 1g 1
7:
Boundary conditions for beam BC

8:
x l; y 0
x 0; Q 0; M M0
Similarly, the contact length l between the beam and the IM

is determined by
9:
0785
ml
Denoting as the force transfer angle of the material of

the IM (AAC blocks), the IM is converted into an innovative
equivalent mono-strut with three segments, as shown in
Figure 7.
The width of each segment is established by the relation
between the factors h and l and the geometric parameters of
the IF presented by Equations 1013.
10:
We h cos l sin
11:
h l 0 l h 0
, We p
l 0 2 h0 2
Wm We
2.2 An equivalent multi-strut model

Several recent tests on large-scale samples, such as the tests
reported by Imran and Aryanto (2009) and Baran and Sevil
(2010), have shown that the initial stiffness of IFs does not
suddenly decrease as cracks form in the IM; instead, it continues to maintain until failure. As the first cracks appear in
the IM prior to failure, the lateral load increases by more than
four-fold, indicating that the post-elastic behaviour governs
most of the IFs behaviour. Therefore, to simulate this inelastic
behaviour, an equivalent multi-strut model using a non-linear
static analysis (pushover) with concentrated plastic hinges was
employed in this paper. The characteristics of the concentrated
plastic hinges conform to FEMA 356-2000 (FEMA, 2000):
the column hinges due to compression force and moment
(P M ), the beam hinges due to moment (M ) and the diagonal strut hinges due to axial compression force (P).
In the equivalent multi-strut model proposed in this paper,
several struts replace the IM. Each strut is representative of a
compression strip of IM (Figure 8). The compression force is
expected to be distributed among the struts instead of acting
on a single strut, as in the simplified diagonal strut model.
These struts maintain the stiffness of the IFs after a strut fails.
2.3 Equivalent width of the multi-strut model
The widths of the compression strips, which are represented by
struts in the equivalent multi-strut model, are determined by
the average width of the end and middle sections of the threesegment diagonal strut introduced in Section 2.1
and
12:
h l 0 l h0
, Wm p
l 0 2 h0 2
ph0 l 0
1
h
l
tg l 0 2 h0 2
3
h0
l0
1 h0 h
1 l 0 l
tg
tg
3 sin
3 cos
14:
Wmlt 05We Wm
Pi
l'
l
Figure 7. Innovative equivalent mono-strut model
112
h'
l
Pi +1


l
Beam
Beam
Pi + 1
Pi + 1
h
Primary strip
Equivalent strut
Column Column
Secondary strip
Corner strip
Pi
Pi
Figure 8. Equivalent multi-strut model
The locations of the secondary struts are determined by

8
< X i Wmlt
i
sin
:
Xi , l
15:
and
8
< Yj j Wmlt
cos
:
Yj , h
Euler formula
Pcr
16:
where i represents the number of secondary struts in the

x-direction and j represents the number of secondary struts in
the y-direction. The strut located on the diagonal line of the
frame is referred to as the primary strut, and the remaining
struts are referred to as the secondary struts (Figure 9).
For a non-integral IF (Figure 3), the gap was modelled by
non-linear gap elements (Figure 10(a)) corresponding to each
strut of the equivalent multi-strut model (Figure 10(b)).
2.4 Influence of the slenderness ratio

The slenderness ratio of the equivalent strut outside the plane
of the frame is significantly less than the slenderness ratio in
the plane; thus, the critical loading can be determined by the
2 Ew J
ld2
Referring to MSJC (2008), the ultimate compression load on

the masonry cannot exceed 025fm, which ensures that the
masonry is in the elastic range. To account for the slenderness
ratio in the analysis, the width of the equivalent strut must
satisfy the following equation, which is referred to as the effective width, Wef
2 Ew Wmlt t3
025Sfm 025tWef;mlt fm
12l 2 h2
17:
18:
, Wef;mlt
2 Ew t 2
Wmlt Wmlt
3fm l 2 h2
Ai
Aj
xn
(a)
x1
y1
ym
Gap element
Pi + 1
Secondary strut
Column
ml
t
Equivalent strut
Primary strut
Pi
(b)
Figure 9. Location of the struts in the multi-strut model
Figure 10. (a) Non-linear gap element; (b) analysis model of the
non-integral IFs
113


where
For all the tests, the concrete grade was B30, and the
mean compressive strength of the three concrete samples at
an age of R28 days was f c = 3508 MPa (norm C39/C39
M-04). The 10-mm (12-mm)-dia. longitudinal reinforcing bars
exhibit a yield and ultimate tensile strength of fy = 489 MPa
(454 MPa) and fu = 586 MPa (623 MPa), respectively, and the
4-mm-dia. stirrup reinforcing bars exhibit corresponding
values of fy = 285 MPa and fu = 333 MPa, respectively (norm
A307-97).
19:
2 Ew t2
3fm l 2 h2
Here, Pcr is the critical compression force; Ew is the Youngs

modulus of the AAC masonry; ld is the diagonal length of the
IM; S is the cross-sectional area of the equivalent strut; fm is
the prism strength of the AAC masonry; t is the thickness of
the masonry; l is the span of the frame; h is the height of the
frame; Wef is the effective width of the equivalent strut; is
the out-of-plane influence factor; and Wmlt is the width of the
compression strip in the equivalent multi-strut model.
3.
The AAC blocks in the test were fabricated with dimensions of

200 600 100 mm3 and the following parameters: average
weight of 75 kN/m3, unit compressive strength of fAAC =
35 MPa (norm C67-94; C140-96), prism compression strength
of fm = 315 MPa, elastic modulus of Em = 579 MPa
(norm C1314-95), Winkler bedding coefficient of k0 = 195
106 kN/m3 and force transfer angle of = 22. The AAC
blocks were plastered using the appropriate mortar with an
average plastering course thickness of 3 mm and a compression
strength of fc,m = 119 MPa (norm C109/C109 M-99).
Experimental programme
The testing model is a one-storey, one-span RC frame infilled

with AAC blocks at a ratio of . The RC frame has dimensions of h l = 165 265 m (Figure 11); the cross-sectional
area of the frame column is 120 150 mm2, and the frame
beam is 120 200 mm2. The grades of the longitudinal reinforcing bars and stirrup are SD390 and SD295, respectively. In
this paper, test samples were used to evaluate the multielement model. Three IFs were studied: (a) integral IF K1,
(b) non-integral IF (with a gap width of 20 mm) K1a and (c)
bare frame K2.
200 150
Six strain gauges (SG1SG6) were placed on the IM surface to

measure the strain in the two diagonal directions. Two strain
gauges (SG7, SG8) were placed at the upper and lower ends
of the column at the side of the actuator, and two linear variable differential transformers (LVDTs) were installed at each
2500
150 200
300
200
120
200
412 (4/75)
150
120
410 (4/50)
250
1440
120
300
3
250
412 (4/75)
Figure 11. RC frame test samples
114


column base to monitor the strain of the fixed supports during

testing (Figure 12).
The experimental results show that the initial K1 stiffness of

1208 kN/mm was greater than that of K1a (996 kN/mm) by a
factor of 121, causing a tight fit at the interface between the IM
and the surrounding frame and leading to early cracking of the
IM for K1 due to its poor strength. The load intensity at the IM
cracking for the K1 specimen, Pcr,m,k1 = 3995 kN, was smaller
than that of the K1a specimen, Pcr,m,k1a = 4020 kN, whereas the
lateral load-bearing capacity of K1, Pmax,k1 = 9038 kN, was
greater than that of K1a, Pmax,K1a = 7464 kN, by a factor of 121.
The ultimate loads of both K1 and K1a were greater than that of
K2 (bare frame) by 34-fold and 281-fold, respectively. These
results indicate that the gap significantly reduced the IF lateral
load-bearing capacity; however, the IM with a gap was still significantly affected by the IF response (non-integral IF).
The cyclic load used during testing follows ACI 374.2R-13

(ACI, 2013); each displacement component was operated
twice per cycle (Figure 13), and prior to testing, the actuator
jack was pressed 05 mm to eliminate joint clearances during
erection.
4.
Analysis of the test results
The behaviours of the infilled RC frames K1, K1a and K2 are

presented in Table 1 and Figure 14.
Loading block
SG8
SG1
SG4
SG2SG5
LVDT1
SG7
SG3
SG6
LVDT2
Figure 12. Placement of the measurement instruments:

arrangement of the SGs and LVDTs
4
3
Storey drift: %
2
1
0
1
10
15
20
25
30
2
3
4
Figure 13. Loading procedure
Model
K1
K1a
K2
Drift at IM
cracking: %
3995
4020
023
037
The ratios between the load intensity at the IM and the surrounding frame cracking for the ultimate load (Pmax) were
44% and 83%, respectively, for K1 and 54% and 74%, respectively, for K1a. The load level from zero to the crack load of the
IM (Pcr,m) corresponding to the loadlateral displacement
relation was somewhat linear; the load level from the crack
load of the IM (Pcr,m) to the crack load of the surrounding
frame cracking (Pcr,f ) displayed a transfer line followed by a
curve. Based on this relation, the behaviour of the IFs can be
considered to be elastic before IM cracking, near inelastic
before the cracking of the surrounding frame and inelastic
after the cracking of both the IM and the surrounding frame.
The IM crack patterns of both K1 and K1a in the experiment
exhibited crushing at the corners (Figure 15), which likely
resulted in an AAC local strength that was significantly lower
than its prism strength.
Cycle number
IM cracking
load: kN
Because the lateral stiffness of K1 was greater than that of K1a

(12-fold), the corresponding drift at the IM cracking of K1
(023%) was smaller than that of K1a (037%) by a factor of
161, whereas the drift at the frame cracking of K1 (072%) was
smaller than that of K1a (078%) by a factor of only 108.
Moreover, the drift at the ultimate loading of K1 (196%) was
greater than that of K1a (191%) by a factor of only 103,
showing that the gap significantly affected the absorbability
and energy dissipation of the IM but had less of an impact on
those of the IF.
Frame
cracking
load: kN
Drift at
frame
cracking: %
Max. lateral
load: kN
Drift
at max.
load: %
Initial
stiffness:
kN/mm
751
555
142
072
078
064
9038
7464
2659
196
191
27
1208
996
243
IM failure
mechanism
Partial crushing
Partial crushing
Table 1. Summary of behaviours of tested frames
115


120
100
80
60
Lateral force: kN
40
20
60
-40
-20
0
-20
0
20
40
60
-40
-60
80
100
120
Horizontal displacement: mm
(a)
(a)
120
100
80
Lateral force: kN
60
40
20
0
60
40
20
20
20
40
60
40
60
80
100
120
Horizontal displacement: mm
(b)
Figure 14. Forcelateral displacement diagrams for the tested

frames: (a) K1 (integral IF): (b) K1a (non-integral IF)
The strain values measured by the strain gauges on the IM of

the test frames indicate that shrinkage strain (compression)
occurs towards the positive diagonal (connected from the force
application point to the opposite corner) and that extensional
strain (tension) occurs towards the negative diagonal
(Figure 16(a)). These strain diagrams indicate that the IM behaviour corresponds to the innovative equivalent mono-strut
shape proposed in this paper, which has a small cross-section
at the two ends and is larger in the middle (Figure 16(b)) .
(b)
Figure 15. Crack patterns in the experiment: (a) K1 (integral IF);

(b) K1a (non-integral IF)
IM is divided into three strips, each of which is replaced by one

equivalent strut. The software SAP 2000 V15 (CSI, 2012) was
used to simulate the behaviour of the IF using non-linear static
analysis (pushover), and the results are shown in Figure 17.
Comparison and interpretation of the

analysis and experimental results
Figure 17 shows the results of the pushover analysis from step

6 for a total of 14 steps. These results indicate that the primary
strut experiences a significant force and is destroyed, whereas
the secondary strut appeared simultaneously in the hinges
at state IO (immediate occupancy) and those at state LS (life
safety) in the column. After this stage, the lateral force
decreases until the frame fails (Figure 17(a)). This behaviour
agrees well with the experimental results.
The size parameters and material mechanical properties of the

experimental frames employed to determine the width of the
equivalent compression strip by way of Equations 11, 13, 14,
18 and 19 are listed in Table 2. With an effective width of
Wef,mlt,K1 = 068 m for K1 and Wef,mlt,K1a = 062 m for K1a, the
The stiffness values of the tested IF K1 from the pushover

analysis for the equivalent multi-strut model and those from
the experiment are similar prior to the IM cracking onset, with
a corresponding load of Pcr,m,K1 = 3995 kN. This range
5.
116


represents linear elastic behaviour. The stiffness value is slightly

greater than that determined experimentally in the near-inelastic
range and is slightly smaller than that in the inelastic range.
The analysis results for the equivalent mono-strut models proposed by Dinh et al. (2013), Smith and Carter (1969) and
Mainstone (1971) reveal that the IF stiffness calculated using
these models, which suddenly decreases at the ultimate load,
does not agree with the experimental results (Figure 18).
et al. (1969) and Mainstone (1971) were smaller than the

experimental values by factors of 1072%, 1133% and 2781%,
respectively. These results clearly reflect the deficiency of the
equivalent mono-strut models in simulating the non-linear
response and estimating the ultimate load of the IF.
The ultimate load in the equivalent multi-strut model of K1,

where Pmax,K1 = 9043 kN, was very similar to the experimental
value (9038 kN), whereas the ultimate loads in the equivalent
mono-strut models proposed by Dinh et al. (2013), Smith
SG4
SG1
SG2 SG5
The IM crack load value of K1 for the equivalent multi-strut

model (4169 kN) was greater than the experimental value
(3995 kN) by a factor of 417%, and the frame crack value
(7257 kN) was smaller than the experimental value (7510 kN)
by a factor of 349%. These results show that the equivalent
multi-strut model accurately estimated the peak values of the
IF behaviour ranges. The experimental IM crack value of K1
was smaller than the analytical value primarily owing to the
partial response at the IM corners, which was not included in
the analysis. In the analysis, the stiffness used was greater than
the experimental stiffness, resulting in a smaller frame crack
value. The greater stiffness in the equivalent multi-strut model
also caused the peak drift values in the analysis to be smaller
than the experimental values for the IM cracking (017% as
opposed to 023%), frame cracking (035% as opposed to
072%) and ultimate load (172% as opposed to 196%).
SG9
SG6
For the non-integral IF, that is, K1a, each single strut of the
equivalent multi-strut model was added to the non-linear gap
element to simulate the gap between the IM and the upper
beam. The analysis results shown in Figure 19 demonstrate
that the elastic behaviour range was well aligned, the nearinelastic behaviour range was somewhat well aligned, and the
inelastic behaviour range was approximately aligned with the
test results. The peak values corresponding to the behaviour
ranges between the experiment and the analysis for the IM
cracking (3324 kN as opposed to 4020 kN; error of 209%),
frame cracking (5743 kN as opposed to 5550 kN; error of
336%), and ultimate load (6841 kN as opposed to 7468 kN;
error of 91%) are acceptable. Compared with the analytical
results for K1, the IM crack value of K1a was greater than that
of K1 because its stiffness (996 kN/mm) was less than that of
K1 (1208 kN/mm), leading to frame crack damage and
causing the critical value to appear early in K1a.
SG3
(a)
ld /
ld /
3
ld
ld /
W
e
(b)
Figure 16. Strain in the diagonal directions of the IM in frames

K1 and K1a: (a) strain diagram; (b) innovative equivalent monostrut model
Model
l: m
h: m
ml: m1
mh: m1
K1
K1a
265
265
1665
1665
2054
0
2549
2549
lml 3=4
hmh 3=4
Ok
Ok
Much like K1, because the K1a stiffness used in the analysis
was greater than the experimental value, the analytically
obtained drift corresponding to the behaviour ranges was
smaller for the IM cracking (017% as opposed to 037%),
frame cracking (048% as opposed to 078%) and ultimate load
(163% as opposed to 191%).
h: m
l: m
We: m
W m: m
Wef,mlt: m
1168
1168
0382
0
0483
0483
058
056
078
069
068
062
Table 2. Parameters of equivalent multi-strut model
117


(a)
CP
LS
IO
z
B
x
(b)
Figure 17. SAP 2000 analysis results for the pushover of K1:
(a) base reaction top displacement curve; (b) hinges in the
equivalent multi-strut model
6.
Conclusion
In this paper, experimental and analytical studies of RC IFs

with AAC blocks were performed using a macro-element
model with an equivalent multi-strut approach. The results
lead to the following conclusions.
The analysis in which the equivalent multi-strut model
replaced the IM with various interfaces provided results that
correspond well with the experimental results in three behaviour ranges: a linear elasticity range (no cracking in the IM or
surrounding frame), an intermediary or near-inelastic range
(cracking in the IM but not in the surrounding frame) and a
non-linear or inelastic range (cracking in both the IM frame
118
and the surrounding frame). This simplified method not only

saves computational time, effort and resources but can also
estimate the peak values in the behaviour ranges and determine the ultimate load for both integral and non-integral IFs.
Although the results in the non-linear ranges of this model
(after IM cracking) do not match the experimental values perfectly, the results generally correspond well in the elastic behaviour range, somewhat well in the intermediary behaviour range
and qualitatively in the inelastic behaviour range.
In engineering problems, the peak values in the behaviour
ranges (IM cracking, frame cracking and ultimate load) are
often used in the design. Thus, it is significant that the


100
90
Pcr,m = 3995 kN
Lateral force: kN
80
Pcr,f = 751 kN
70
K1
60
50
Multi-strut
K2
40
Dinh et al. (2013)
30
Mainstone (1971)
Smith and Carter (1969)
20
10
0
0
05
10
15
20
25
30
35
Storey drift: %
Figure 18. Experimental force-lateral displacement curve for K1

and previously reported analytical curves
Pcr,f = 5550 kN
Pcr,m = 4020 kN
Lateral force: kN
100
K1a
90
K2
80
Multi-strut
70
60
50
This paper has proposed an updated model for RC IFs and a

valid experimental programme for analysing these frames. The
model considers the effects of the non-linearity of the frame
with the presence of IM, and this paper clearly presents the
calculations required to extend the approach to real-world civil
engineering applications.
Acknowledgements
40
This paper is part of a report on this research topic financed

by HCMC University of Technology (science research theme
no. TNCS-2013-KTXD-04). The tests in this study were conducted at the Back Khoa Structural Engineering Laboratory
(BKSEL).
30
20
10
0
0
05
10
15 20 25
Storey drift: %
30
35
REFERENCES
ACI (American Concrete Institute) (2013) Guide for Testing
Figure 19. Experimental force-lateral displacement curve and

analytical curve for K1a
equivalent multi-strut model provides more accurate estimates

than the equivalent mono-strut model. Moreover, the multistrut model with only uniaxial members is suitable for dynamic
analyses that require estimations of the bearing capacity of IFs
for seismic effects and is more convenient than the microelement model while presenting an acceptable level of error.
The limitations of the formulas in the equivalent multi-strut
model (Equation 3) reflect the stiffness correlation between the
surrounding frame and the IM and require that the section
of columns and beams not be excessive. As verified by the
author, typical buildings with several storeys nearly satisfy this
condition.
Reinforced Concrete Structure Elements Under Slowly

Applied Simulated Seismic Loads. ACI, Farmington Hills,
MI, USA, ACI 374.2R-13.
Alpa G and Monetto I (1994) Microstructural model for dry
block masonry walls with in-plane loading. Journal of the
Mechanics and Physics of Solids 47(7): 11591175.
Anil O and Altin S (2007) An experimental study on reinforced
concrete partially infilled frames. Journal of Structural
Engineering 29(3): 449460.
Arthur PB and Richard JS (2003) Beams on elastic foundations.
In Advanced Mechanics of Materials. John Wiley and Sons,
Inc., Ch. 10, p. 362.
Asteris PG (2003) Analysis of masonry infilled frames using a
finite element technique. Journal of Structural Engineering
129(8): 10711079.
Baran M and Sevil T (2010) Analytical and experimental studies
on infilled RC frame. International Journal of the Physical
Sciences 5(13): 19811998.
119


Bati SB, Ranocchiai G and Rovero L (1999) Suitability
Kwan KH and Liauw TC (1984) Non-linear analysis of integral
of micromechanical model for elastic analysis of

masonry. Journal of Structural Engineering 125(8):
922929.
Chrysostomou CZ, Gergely P and Abel JF (2002) A six-strut
model for non-linear dynamic analysis of steel infilled
frames. International Journal of Structural Stability and
Dynamics 2(3): 335353.
CSI (2012) SAP2000: Integrated Software for Structural
Analysis and Design. Computers and Structures, Inc.,
Berkeley, CA, USA, Analysis Reference Manual.
Dinh LKQ, Bui CT and Nguyen VY (2013) An approximate
method of determining the equivalent diagonal strut
stiffness of the completely infilled masonry in plane
reinforced concrete frames. International Review of Civil
El-Dakhakhni WW, Elgaaly M and Hamid AA (2003) Three-strut
model for concrete masonry infilled frames. Journal of
Structural Engineering 129(2): 177185.
FEMA (Federal Emergency Management Agency) (2000)
FEMA-356: Pre-standard and commentary for seismic
rehabilitation of buildings. FEMA, Washington, DC,
USA.
Holmes M (1961) Steel frames with brickwork and concrete
infilling. Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers
19(4): 473478.
Ibarra LF, Medina RA and Krawinkler H (2005) Hysteretic
models that incorporate strength and stiffness
deterioration. Earthquake Engineering and Structural
Dynamics 34(12): 14891511.
Imran I and Aryanto A (2009) Behavior of reinforced
concrete frame in-filled with lightweight materials
under seismic loads. Civil Engineering Dimension 11(2):
6977.
Kappos AJ, Stylianidis KC and Michailidis CN (1998) Analytical
models for brick masonry infilled R/C frames under
lateral loading. Journal of Earthquake Engineering 2(1):
5988.
infilled frames. Journal of Structural Engineering 6(3):

223231.
Lotfi HR and Shing PB (1994) Interface model applied to
fracture of masonry structures. ASCE Journal of Structural
Lourenco PB and Rots JG (1997) A multi-surface interface
model for the analysis masonry structure. Journal of
Structural Engineering ASCE 123(7): 660668.
Mainstone RJ (1971) On the stiffnesses and strengths of infilled
frames. Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers
9(2): 5790.
Mallick DV and Severn RT (1967) The behavior of infilled
frames under static loading. Proceedings of the Institution
of Civil Engineers 38(4): 639656.
Mehrabi AB and Shing PB (1997) Finite element modleing of
masonry-infilled RC frames. Journal of Structural
MSJC (Masonry Standards Joint Committee) (2008) Building
Code Requirements and Specification for Masonry
Structures (TMS 402/ACI 530/ASCE 5 and TMS 602/ACI
530.1/ASCE 6) and Commentaries. The Masonry Society,
Longmont, CO, USA.
Paulay T and Priestley MJN (1991) Seismic Design of Reinforced
Concrete and Masonry Buildings. John Wiley & Sons, Inc.,
New York, NY, USA.
Rodrigues H, Varum H and Costa A (2010) Simplified macro
model for infill masonry panels. Journal of Earthquake
Smith BS and Carter CA (1969) Method of analysis for infilled
frames. Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers
44(4): 3148.
Stavridis A and Shing PB (2010) Finite-element modeling of
non-linear behavior of masonry-infilled RC frames. Journal
of Structural Engineering ASCE 115(9): 22042225.
Zucchini A and Lourenco PB (2002) A micro-mechanical model
for the homogenisation of masonry. International Journal
of Solid Structures 39(2): 32333255.
WHAT DO YOU THINK?
To discuss this paper, please email up to 500 words to the

editor at journals@ice.org.uk. Your contribution will be
forwarded to the author(s) for a reply and, if considered
appropriate by the editorial panel, will be published as
discussion in a future issue of the journal.
Proceedings journals rely entirely on contributions sent in
by civil engineering professionals, academics and students. Papers should be 20005000 words long (briefing
papers should be 10002000 words long), with adequate
illustrations and references. You can submit your paper
online via www.icevirtuallibrary.com/content/journals,
where you will also find detailed author guidelines.
120

A Macro-Element Model For Masonry-Infilled Structural Frames

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Originaltitel

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

A Macro-Element Model For Masonry-Infilled Structural Frames

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Structures and Buildings

Volume 169 Issue SB2

Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers