See

discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/308888147

Efficiency of the Numerical Models on

Determination of Behavior of Brick Infilled RC
Frames

Conference Paper · September 2016

CITATIONS READS

0 148

3 authors:

Mehmet Ömer Timurağaoğlu Adem Doğangün

Uludag University Uludag University
7 PUBLICATIONS 0 CITATIONS 91 PUBLICATIONS 651 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Ramazan LİVAOĞLU
Uludag University
98 PUBLICATIONS 534 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Mehmet Ömer Timurağaoğlu on 05 October 2016.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Efficiency of the Numerical Models on Determination of Behavior
of Brick Infilled RC Frames

M. Ö. Timurağaoğlu1, A. Doğangün2, R. Livaoğlu3

1
Department of Civil Engineering, Uludağ University, Bursa, Turkey, omertao@uludag.edu.tr
2
Department of Civil Engineering, Uludağ University, Bursa, Turkey, ademdgangun@gmail.com
3
Department of Civil Engineering, Uludağ University, Bursa, Turkey, rliva@uludag.edu.tr

Abstract
Infill walls are used as an economical material for a long time in structural application. The performance
evaluation of infilled reinforced concrete (RC) frames has been, however, a significant challenge for engineers.
Since infill walls consist of different materials such as mortar and brick having different mechanical properties,
determining especially the seismic behavior of infilled RC frames becomes more difficult. The aim of this study
is to investigate the behavior of infill walls on RC frames both experimentally and numerically. For this purpose,
a one-story, one-bay and 1/1 scaled RC frame infilled with brick units is produced and tested in laboratory under
lateral reversal loads. Furthermore, this experimental test is modeled by using finite element method and
analyzed under lateral loads. As a consequence, the results of the finite element analysis were evaluated of
whether the numeric model is capable of estimating the global behavior of infilled RC frame obtained from
experimental test or not. To model the infilled RC frames, a finite element program ABAQUS is used. Finally,
data obtained from the nonlinear finite element analysis is compared with the experimental results. It is seen that
nonlinear finite element analysis results are in good agreement with the experimental results.

Keywords: Finite element method, Nonlinear analysis, Infill wall, RC frame, Equivalent strut.

1 Introduction
Masonry infill wall in reinforced concrete (RC) frame structures have drawn significant attention in all over the
world since the last six decades due to sustainability, applicability, attainability and simplicity. Infill walls are
usually used in structures for creating living spaces and isolation. Infill walls are accepted as non-structural
elements and their structural properties are ignored in the analysis but included as dead load in calculations.
However, many studies in literature have shown that infill walls have a significant influence on the stiffness,
strength and lateral load capacity of structures. Thus, the necessity to design the structure considering
aforementioned effect especially with regard to earthquake behavior is clear. Additionally, since infill walls are

1
ACE2016

comprised of different materials such as units and mortar which have different material properties, it becomes
harder to interpret the behavior of infilled RC frame structures under lateral cyclic loadings. On the other hand,
including infill walls as dead load in calculation will change the mass of the structure, hence the period and
stiffness of the structure will increase. Accordingly, the global behavior of the system, under seismic loads, will
be different. Consequently, setting infill walls unsymmetrically in plan could arise variation between center of
mass and rigidity of structure and thus result in torsional moment in structure (Bayülke, 2003).

Since the first attempt to study the influence of infill walls on the RC frames, extensive experimental (Polyakov
1960, Smith 1962, 1966, Fiorato et al. 1970, Mainstone 1971, Zarnic and Tomazevic 1988, Mehrabi et al. 1996)
and analytical (Liauw and Kwan 1984, 1985, Saneinejad and Hoops 1995, Mehrabi and Shing 1997, Asteris
1996, 2003, El-Dakhakhni et al. 2003) studies have been performed. According to results of these studies
different analytical approaches are proposed to idealize the behavior. The most significant and representative one
is the equivalent compressive strut model in which the wall is replaced with different number of struts in each
direction.

In engineering area, finite element modelling of structures has brought significant advances. Finite element
method (FEM) is a numerical solution method which seeking for approximate solution of different engineering
problems. It is practical especially for infilled frame structures whose behavior depend on several parameters.
Many investigators have used finite element method to understand the behavior of infilled RC frame systems
under seismic loading. Mehrabi and Shing (1997) have used a smeared-crack model to represent the behavior of
concrete in the RC frames and masonry units. Ghosh and Amde (2002), to model the interface between the frame
and infill and mortar joints surrounding the blocks of masonry, have formulated a non-associated interface model
using available test data on masonry joints. Al-Chaar et al. (2008) have used a cohesive interface model to
simulate the behavior of mortar joints between masonry units and the behavior of frame-panel interface and a
smeared crack finite element formulation to model concrete in RC frames and masonry units. Stavridis and
Shing (2010) combined discrete and smeared crack modeling approaches to overcome the inadequacy of
smeared crack elements in simulating the brittle shear behavior of RC members and mixed-mode fracture of
masonry mortar joints. Köse (2009), based on the results obtained from 189 computational models, found that
number of floors is the primary parameter affecting the fundamental period of the structure while shear walls is
the second most important parameter. Kuang and Yuen (2013) proposed a discrete method of analysis with the
damage-based cohesive crack modelling technique for numerical simulations of masonry infilled RC frame
failure. Asteris et al. (2013) presented a state-of-the-art of mathematical micro-modelling of infilled frames
pointing out the advantages and disadvantages of each micro-modelling.

In the present study, the dynamic behavior of hollow brick infilled RC frame under seismic action is investigated
numerically by modeling three dimensional (3D) frame and wall members. Frame is modeled considering three
different material models available in literature. The wall-frame interaction is modeled using surface based
cohesive behavior. At the end of this work, the numerical results obtained from the nonlinear finite element
analysis (FEA) are compared with those of experimental. In particular, the study focuses on the modeling of
infilled RC frames with FEM. The analysis results show that FEA results agree well with experimental test data
considering all mathematical material models. Furthermore, it is found out that FEM is an effective method to
analyze infilled RC frames under lateral loading when the model is adequately constituted.

2 Test Program
In this study, a bare frame and a brick infilled RC frame specimens are analyzed. A one-storey one-bay RC
frame was selected as a prototype structure. The height/length (h/l) ratio for infill wall was selected to be 1/1.25.
Infill walls are constructed as hollow brick infill wall. The frames were designed in accordance with the
provisions of Turkish Earthquake Code (TEC’07). The test specimens were chosen to be 1/1 scale. The design
details for the frame specimens are shown in Figure 1. The columns and beam were selected to be 0.2x0.25 m
and 0.25x0.2 m, respectively. For the base of the frame, 4x0.6x0.4 m dimensions were selected. The base is
fixed to the ground with shear connectors. The loads are applied to the system by increasing the amplitude in
each cycle as shown in Figure 2. A minimum reinforcement of 6ϕ14 is used for columns while a reinforcement
of 3ϕ12 for bottom and 2ϕ12 for top of beam is selected as shown in Figure 1. Confinement reinforcement,
which is required by TEC’07, is used both along the columns and beam. The details of confinement in columns
and beam is shown in Figure 1. The compressive strength and elasticity modulus of concrete are defined as 25
MPa and 28000 MPa, respectively while these values are taken as 4.1 MPa and 1000 MPa, respectively, for
brick infill wall.

2
 M. Ö. Timurağaoğlu, R. Livaoğlu, A. Doğangün

“Dimensions are in cm”

30
25 6ϕ14
250
25
20 5ϕ12
25

95 10 7,5
ϕ8 50
20
20

10

265
5 50
50

Shear connector
40

40

Figure 1. Dimensions and reinforcement details of the test specimens

100
80
60
Displacement (mm)

40
20
0
‐20
‐40
‐60
‐80
‐100
time (s)

Figure 2. Displacement amplitudes used in laboratory and FEA tests

4 Finite Element Modeling of Infilled RC Frames

In order to represent the behaviour of infilled RC frames, two different elements; frame and infill wall and an
interaction between infill wall and surrounding frame, should be defined in FEA. Reinforced concrete is defined
as a homogeneous material in the finite element analysis (FEA). Three different stress-strain characteristics are
used to understand the effectiveness of material models: Popovics (1973), Saenz (1964) and Thompson and Park
models. Detailed explanation of these mathematical material models of confined concrete can be obtained in
literature and also in mentioned papers.

In the present study, infill walls accepted as a homogeneous material and the unit and mortar effects are
neglected in the analysis. Concrete Damage Plasticity material model, available in finite element program
(Abaqus 2013), is used to represent the behaviour of infill wall. For the stress-strain behaviour of infill wall in
order to use in nonlinear FEA, a material model used to model masonry bridges by Tao et al. (2012) is used.

3
ACE2016

These material model is suggested by Saenz (1964) for stress-strain curve of plain concrete. The uniaxial
compression strength in this model is defined as:

E0c
c  2 (1)
E       
1   0 p  2  c    c 
       
 p  p   p 
where σc ve εc is compressive stress and strain, respectively. σp ve εp is maximum stress and corresponding
strain. E0 is the elasticity modulus of infill wall. Since masonry infill walls behave very brittle under tension, it
is hard to test nonlinear behaviour under tension effects. Tension stress, as commonly accepted in literature,
considered as %10 of compressive stress of infill wall in the analysis.

On the other hand, an interaction between infill wall and frame should be considered to take into account the
effect of infill wall on the behaviour. The interaction between masonry infill wall and surrounding frame can be
modeled in FEA as spring elements (Moss and Carr 1971) or interface elements (Mobekhah et al. 2008, Stavridis
and Shing 2010). Using an element representing the behaviour between wall and frame is important to obtain an
accurate result. Surface based cohesive behaviour model is used in the analysis. These model is defined as
surface interaction feature and is used to model the traction-separation behaviour happening in the interface.
Traction separation criterion used in FEA considers linear elastic behaviour and this behaviour is expressed as:

 tn   K nn K sn K tn    n 
   
t   t s    K ns K ss K ns    s   K  (2)
 
t   K K tt    t 
 t   nt K st

The nominal traction stress vector, t, consists of three components (two components in two-dimensional
problems): tn, ts and (in three-dimensional problems) tt, which represent the normal (along the local 3-direction in
three dimensions and along the local 2-direction in two dimensions) and the two shear tractions (along the local
1- and 2-directions in three dimensions and along the local 1-direction in two dimensions), respectively. The
corresponding separations are denoted by δn, δs and δt (Abaqus 2013).

4 Results of Nonlinear Analysis

Nonlinear behaviour of brick infilled RC frame under lateral loading is investigated using FEM in this study.
Having experimental results brought huge simplicity to calibrate the numerical model since there are many
parameters affecting the structural response of infilled frame such as mechanical properties of masonry units,
mortar and frame, dimension of masonry unit and frame etc. For this reason, it is rather difficult to represent the
behaviour of masonry wall including all these variables.

In this study, one bay, one storey bare and brick infilled RC frame is tested experimentally under lateral cyclic
loading. After experimental tests, both frames are modeled numerically using finite element technique which
brought significant improvements in engineering area. In models, frame and wall are modeled as 3D solid
homogeneous materials for simplicity. Interaction between wall and surrounding frame represented with surface-
based cohesive behaviour.

Force-displacement results obtained from FEA of brick infilled RC frame system is compared with experimental
results in Figure 3. It is obvious that experimental and numerical results are well-suited until reaching load
bearing capacity of the system considering three concrete material models. After this point, experimental test
gets into a softening regime. Besides, Saenz model is failed because of a sudden decrease in stress in softening
regime of stress-strain curve. On the other hand, Popovics and Thompson-Park models differ from each other
and experimental results after lateral load bearing capacity, although results of Popovics model is closer to the
experimental results. It should be noted that the initial stiffness of infilled frame is achieved well with all
mathematical models of concrete. Representing wall-frame interaction with surface based cohesive behaviour
seems to be a useful choice since it is known that contact length between wall and frame identifies the influence
of infill wall on the frame.

4
 M. Ö. Timurağaoğlu, R. Livaoğlu, A. Doğangün

300

250

Base shear (kN)

200

150

100
Experimental (Arslan 2013)
Thompson-Park
50
Popovics
Saenz
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
Displacement (mm)

Figure 3. Comparison of experimental and analysis results of brick infilled RC frame

The failure types occurring in infilled RC frame structures can be obtained in details from literature. Failures in
frames generally occur as plastic hinges in columns and column-beam joints. These types of failure happen in
weak frame with strong infill walls. The failure types observed in frames from the experimental and finite
element analysis results for brick infilled RC frame are shown in Figure 4. In experimental test of brick infilled
RC frame, the wall is fallen down. It is obviously seen from the figure that plastic hinges (FF mode) formed in
beam-column joints in experimental test are also formed in the nonlinear FEA of infilled RC frame.

Figure 4. Comparison of experimental and FEA failure types

Although infill walls are considered as non-structural elements in the analysis, the contribution of walls to the
strength and stiffness of the frame is undeniable. In order to investigate this contribution, bare and infilled frame
for brick infilled RC frame is modeled and analyzed under lateral load using nonlinear FEM. The FEA results of
bare and brick infilled RC frame are normalized using Popovics concrete model as shown in Figure 5. The
behaviour of infilled RC frame clearly differs from bare frame. The contribution of brick infill wall to the frame
considering strength, stiffness and load carrying capacity is significant. Bare frame cannot resist to lateral loads
and this results in displacement of the frame. However, when frame is supported with infill wall, the frame
withstands to lateral loads together with wall and contributes to the stiffness, strength and load bearing capacity
of the system due to the interaction occurring between infill wall and surrounding frame. It is obvious that lateral
load resisting mechanism of infilled RC frame is totally different from that of bare frame. Bare frame, under
lateral loadings, acts as a moment resisting frame while infilled frame, in contrast, behaves like a braced frame in
which loads are resisted by a truss mechanism. It is believed that wall acts as an equivalent compression strut
when infilled frame is under lateral loading. This phenomenon is out of the aim of this paper. Detailed
explanation of strut mechanism can be provided in literature.

5
ACE2016

2,5

Normalized lateral load

1,5

0,5
Infilled frame
Bare frame
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
Displacement (mm)
Figure 5. Comparison of bare and brick infilled RC frames using

5 Conclusion
In the present study, the nonlinear behaviour of brick infilled RC frame is studied by using FEM with available
experimental test data. In analysis, both frame and infill wall is modeled as 3D solid and homogeneous members.
The goal was to investigate of whether finite element modeling is capable of estimating laboratory test results or
not. The captured conclusions are summarized below:

 Although infilled RC frames have a complex behaviour because wall, mortar and frame have different material
properties with different geometries, nonlinear finite element analysis results is compatible with the
experimental test results. Initial stiffness of system is captured in all mathematical model analysis.
 It is understood that stress-strain behaviour of concrete can change the behaviour of infilled RC frames while
the results of three different concrete material models, used in analysis, give approximate results until load
carrying capacity of the system. After this point, the results change significantly.
 Finite element method (FEM) is a powerful way of understanding the behaviour of infilled RC frame. It has
become a more effective method with recent developments. Surface based cohesive behaviour is capable of
representing the behaviour between infill wall and surrounding frame adequately.
 Results obtained from finite element analysis have indicated that models are not only capable of lateral load
carrying capacity of infilled frame, but also provide detailed information about failure mechanism and cracking
of frame specimen.
 The laboratory tests and numerical studies have shown that infill walls enhance the strength, stiffness and
lateral load carrying capacity of frames.

References
Abaqus (2013). ABAQUS Documentation, Dassault Systèmes, Providence, RI, USA.
Al-Chaar, G., Mehrabi, A.B. and Manzouri, T. (2008). Finite element interface modeling and experimental
verification of masonry-infilled R/C frames. The masonry society journal, 26(1), 47-65.
Arslan, M.E. 2013. Deprem kumaşıyla güçlendirilen çevrimsel yük etkisindeki dolgu duvarlı betonarme
çerçevelerin davranışlarının deneysel ve teorik olarak incelenmesi. Doktora tezi, Karadeniz Teknik
Üniversitesi, Trabzon (In Turkish).
Asteris, P.G. (1996). A method for the modelling of infilled frames (Method of contact points). 11th World
Conference on Earthquake Engineering, 1996, Mexico.
Asteris, P.G. (2003). Lateral stiffness of brick masonry infilled plane frames. ASCE Journal of Structural
Engineering, 129(8), 1071-1079.
Asteris, P.G., Kakaletsis, D.J., Chrysostomou, C.Z. and Smyrou, E.E. (2011). Failure modes of infilled frames.
Electronic Journal of Structural Engineering, 11(1), 11-20.
Asteris, P. G., Cotsovos, D. M., Chrysostomou, C. Z., Mohebkhah, A., & Al-Chaar, G. K. (2013). Mathematical
micromodeling of infilled frames: state of the art. Engineering Structures, 56, 1905-1921.

6
 M. Ö. Timurağaoğlu, R. Livaoğlu, A. Doğangün

Bayülke, N. (2003). Betonarme yapının dolgu duvarı. Türkiye mühendislik haberleri, sayı: 426, 85-98.
El-Dakhakhni, W.W, Elgaaly, M. and Hamid, A.A. (2003). Three strut model for concrete masonry-infilled steel
frames. ASCE, Journal of Structural Engineering, 129(2), 177-185.
Fiorato, A.E., Sözen, M.A. and Gamble, W.L. (1970). An investigation of the interaction of reinforced concrete
frames with masonry filler walls. Report No. UILU-ENG 70-100, Dept. of Civ. Eng., University of Illinois at
Urbana-Champaign.
Ghosh, A. K., & Amde, A. M. (2002). Finite element analysis of infilled frames. Journal of Structural
Engineering, 128(7), 881-889.
Köse, M. M. 2009. Parameters affecting the fundamental period of RC buildings with infill walls. Engineering
Structures, 31(1), 93-102.
Kuang, J.S., and Yuen, Y.P. (2013). Simulations of masonry-infilled reinforced concrete frame failure.
Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers-Engineering and Computational Mechanics, 166(4), 179-
193.
Liauw T.C. and Kwan K.H. (1984). Nonlinear behaviour of non-integral infilled frames. Computers and
Structures, 18(3), 551-560.
Mainstone, R.J. (1971). On the stiffnesses and strengths of infilled frames. Proceedings of Institution of Civil
Engineers, 1971, Supplement (IV), 57-90.
Mehrabi, A.B. and Shing, P.B. (1997). Finite element modelling of masonry infilled reinforced concrete frames.
ASCE Journal of Structural Engineering, 123(5), 604-613.
Mehrabi, A. B., Shing, P. B., Schuller, M., and Noland, J. (1996). Experimental evaluation of masonry-infilled
RC frames. Journal of Structural Engineering, 122(3), 228–237.
Mohebkhah, A., Tasnimi, A.A., and Moghadam, H.A.(2008). Nonlinear analysis of masonry-infilled steel frames
with openings using discrete element method. Journal of Construction Steel Research, 64(12), 1463-1472.
Moss, P. J. and Carr, A. J. (1971). Aspects of the analysis of frame-panel interaction. Bulletin of the New
Zealand, National Society of Earthquake Engineering, 4(1), 126-144.
Mosalam, K.M., White, R.N., and Gergely, P. (1997). Static response of infilled frames using quasi-static
experimentation. Journal of Structural Engineering, ASCE, 123, 11, 1462-1469.
Polyakov, S. V. (1960). On the interaction between masonry filler walls and enclosing frame when loading in the
plane of the wall. Translation in earthquake engineering, Earthquake Engineering Research Institute (EERI),
San Francisco.
Popovics, S. (1973). A numerical approach to the complete stress-strain curve of concrete. Cement and Concrete
Research, 3(5), 583-599.
Saenz, LP (1964). Discussion of Equation for the stress-strain curve of concrete” by Desayi P, Krishnan S. ACI
Journal; 61:1229–1235.
Saneinejad, A. and Hoobs, B. (1995). Inelastic design of infilled frames. Proceedings of the American Society of
Civil Engineering, Journal of Structural Engineering, 1995, 121(4).
Stavridis, A. ve Shing, P.B. 2010. Finite-element modeling of nonlinear behavior of masonry-infilled RC frames.
Journal of structural Engineering, 136(3), 285-296.
Smith, B. S. (1962). Lateral stiffness of infilled frames. Proceedings of the American Society of Civil
Engineering, Journal of Structural Division, 1962, 88(6).
Smith, B. S. (1966). Behavior of square infilled frames. Proceedings of the American Society of Civil
Engineering, Journal of Structural Division, 1966, 92(1).
Tao, Y., Chen, J.F., Stratford, T.J., and Ooi, J.Y. 2012. Numerical modelling of a large scale model masonry
arch bridge. Paper presented at structural faults and repair, Edinburgh, United Kingdom.
Zarnic, R. and Tomazevic, M. (1988). An experimentally obtained method for evaluation of the behavior of
masonry infilled RC frames. Proceedings of 9th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, 1988,
Tokyo, Japan.

View publication stats