TRIBHUVAN UNIVERSITY

INSTITUTE OF ENGINEERING
PULCHOWK CAMPUS
DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL ENGINEERING
MSc. in Structural Engineering

Seismic Performance Assessment of High-Rise

Buildings with Effect of Masonry Infill

Presented By: Supervised By

Niranjan Shrestha (066/MSS/107)
Dr. Hari Ram Parajuli

Date:April,2012
INTRODUCTION:
Construction of high rise building of Ten to Twenty floors has lifted up
few years back in Kathmandu

In design practice masonry infills are considered non structural.

Behavior of infilled frame is different from bare frame.

Maharjan (2010) studied on Seismic Performance Assessment on High

Rise Building
.
OBJECTIVES:
To assess performance of high rise building constructed at Kathmandu
considering the effect of masonry infill

To study the critical failure mechanism of structure.

To evaluate Response Reduction Factor.

METHODOLOGY:
Analytical study of various modeling technique of masonry infill.

Collection of structural drawing of high rise buildings that are approved

for construction

Selection of typical types of models from for the further study.

Analytical modeling of selected buildings with & without consideration

of masonry infill for pushover analysis.

Interpretation of the result obtained

Conclusion and recommendation on the basis of obtained result.

REVIEW ON MODELING TECHNIQUE OF INFILL WALL
Modeling of Masonry infill:
Past researches have shown that masonry infill effect largely on the overall strength &
stiffness of infilled frame.
Modeling technique for masonry infill can be categorize as: Micro & Macro modeling.

Micro Modeling:
Mallick and Sevem (1967) were the first to use this approach. Infill wall is represented
by linear elastic rectangular finite elements with 2 dof per node.

Macro Modeling: It is a simplified method .Polyakov (1956) was the first to use this
method.
Transfer of lateral load takes place through truss action in the infill and this approach
lead to the development of equivalent diagonal strut method.

Researchers have used both single strut and multi strut model.

Single Strut model: Holmes (1961) suggested the width of pin jointed strut as 1/3 of
strut length, Stafford-Smith & Carter 1969, proposed the width varies from 1/4 to 1/11
of diagonal length, Pauley & Prestely,1992, suggested width as of strut length,
Buonopane & White,1999 suggested that width varies from to 1/6 of strut length.
 Modified strut models Crisafulli (1997)

Multi strut model: In single strut model, strut is directly connected to joints and
moments are released to prevent transfer of BM through strut. But in reality
there is a contact length between wall and frame, which has given rise to the
concept of multi strut model.

Crisafulli (1997) adopted the same approach. His study showed single strut
under estimate BM, whereas 3 strut model shows better matching value with
FEM model.
MODEL SELECTION
Description Floors Basement Aspect ratio
MODEL-1 18 2 1.17
MODEL-2(A) 13 1 1.02
MODEL-3 18 2 1.25
MODEL-4 13 2 2.01
MODEL-5(B) 13 1 2.25

MODEL-2 (A) MODEL-5 (B)

 ANALYTICAL MODELING OF MASONRY INFILL

Selection of appropriate method is based on factors like complexity, time

required and past experience.
Six models were chosen for Linear analysis for comparative study.
To gain further confidence, pushover analysis of bare frame,1 strut & 3 strut
were performed.

Single strut Two strut

Bare frame

Three strut Full shell Partial Shell model

 Description of Model
The plane frame ,fixed at the base, RC frame members with two noded frame
element with 3 degree of freedom effective at each node was taken for study.

In Equivalent diagonal method masonry wall was modeled as two noded beam
element with two degree of freedom at each node i.e. translation along two dirn
For Present Study model proposed by Paulay & Priestley[1992] is used.
i.e bw = dw /4
In FEM masonry was modeled as shell element

In case of 2 strut model width of struts were taken as 1/8 of diagonal length & in
case of 3 strut model width of diagonal strut was taken as 1/8 of diagonal length
& that of off diagonal strut were taken as 1/2 diagonal strut .

In 2 strut model off- diagonal strut was connected to frame member at one third
distance of vertical length of contact z.

Out of the three struts, in 3 strut modeling , off-diagonal struts were

connected to the frame at a distance of half of vertical length of contact, z .
The value of z is calculated as proposed by [Stafford-Smith & Carter 1969]
z =/2 (mm)
=

As specified by FEMA 273 (7.3.2.2) , modulus of elasticity of masonry was

taken as: Em=550fm

Where, fm=compressive prism strength of Masonry in Mpa.

For our study, fm value was taken equal to 4.1 Mpa ( For 1:6 mortar ratio,
Hemant B. Kaushik,2006 ). Em = 2255 Mpa

For Pushover Analysis, for column default (P-M-M) ,for beam (M3) hinge at
I and J end and for masonry ,non linear compressive stress - strain curve
(H.B Kaushik) was assigned as hinge properties at the middle length of strut.

Strut were modeled as compression only element i.e only axial hinges was
assigned.
 Result of Linear Static Analysis
Linear Static analysis of Six models were carried out for independent DL & Lateral Load in
SAP 2000.
on the application of lateral load reduction of BM in frame members were most noticeable.
AF, SF,BM increase consistently in column when 1 strut,2 strut & 3 strut model were
compared.
Forces in column obtained using 3 strut model were found more closer with that obtained
using partial shell model.
Result of Non Linear Static Analysis
Initial stiffness of infilled frame was found very high than in bare frame, because most
of initial base shear was resisted by strut.
1 strut model carries large amount of axial force & therefore abrupt reduction in lateral
strength was found when strut fails.
After failure of strut, behavior of model becomes similar to bare frame
This behavior is very far from realistic performance as infill does not fail at once.
In 3 strut model, strut failed gradually and therefore high reduction of lateral strength is
not seen at once.
This appears more realistic than that the single strut model.
Moreover use of 3 strut model has been verified by H.B Kaushik by analytical study
and by Alessandro Vittorio Bergami (2007), through both analytical and experimental
study.
Idealized stress strain curve for masonry(H.B
Kaushik)

Pushover curve for bare frame and strut model

Deformed Shape Of 3 strut Model

Modeling of Selected Buildings
Bare frame and 3 strut model of two selected buildings were prepared in SAP
2000 considering the effect of opening.
Presence of Opening in wall causes the reduction of strength and resistance.
Equation proposed by Bertoldi et. Al.(1994) was used for the opening
reduction factor
.
ac =0.78e-0.322lnAa + 0.93e-0.762lnAc<= 1

Typical Frame Showing

Bare frame model A & B
Strut model A
Typical Frame Showing Py (Model A)
Strut model B Px (Model A)

Px (Model B) Px (Model B)
Discussion
Base shear capacity of model A for a typical displacement was found to be
enhanced by 21% along X & by 61 % along y .

Base shear capacity of model B for a typical displacement was found to be

enhanced by 68% along x &34%along y direction.

The maximum earthquake performance level as specified by IS Code was found

to meet in both bare frame and strut model of both buildings.

In bare frame pushover analysis of both models, the first plastic hinge was
found to develop in beam and gradually the formations of hinges were seen in
columns. Initially, the concentrations of hinges were found high at the lower
storey and gradually the non- linearity was found to be well distributed along
the height of frame.

Also in Strut model, the formation of hinges start from beam and gradually the
formation of hinges were found in column and compression struts. Concentration
of beam column as well as masonry wall hinges were found very high in the
lower and mid floor whereas no hinge formation was observed at upper floor.
In both of the strut model, the comparative study of hinge formation shows
that at the normal hinge formation level of beam- column hinge ,excessive
failure of struts were observed. This indicates that the masonry infill wall
undergoes excessive crack at the normal hinge formation level of beam
column hinge.

Moreover, the failures of infill were concentrated at low and mid floor whereas
the failures of wall panel at the upper floor were not observed.

Response Reduction Factor

Bilinear representation of Push Over curve of bare frame model A

 Calculation of Response Reduction Factor
Model-A
Bare Frame
Description Strut Model
model
Yield Base Shear, Vy (KN) 9380.0 12300.0
Yield Displacement, y (mm) 131.4 141.0
Maximum Displacement, max (mm) 350.4 245.0
Design Base Shear, Vd (KN) 3638.0 3638.0
Displacement Ductility Factor, 2.7 1.7
Over Strength Factor, d 2.6 3.4
Force Reduction Factor, R 6.9 5.9
Model-B
Bare Frame
Description Strut Model
model
Yield Base Shear, Vy (KN) 5994.0 9800.0
Yield Displacement, y (mm) 107.2 95.0 = max / y
Maximum Displacement, max (mm) 327.0 150.0
Design Base Shear, Vd (KN) 2172.0 2172.0 d = Vy / Vd
Displacement Ductility Factor, 3.1 1.6
Over Strength Factor, d 2.8 4.5 R = x d
Force Reduction Factor, R 8.4 7.1
Conclusion
Comparison of the pushover curve of bare frame and strut model shows that the
base shear capacity of the building considerably increase with the consideration
of masonry infill. This strongly suggests the consideration of wall in analysis.
The buildings were found to meet the max. earthquake performance level
as specified by IS Code in the both bare frame and strut model
Comparison of failure mechanism in all the models shows that the initiation of
failure starts from the bottom level and gradually moves to the mid floor. This
strongly recommends the enhancement of flexural capacity at the base of
bottom storey column for the better failure mechanism and performance
enhancement of structure.
Collapse level hinge formation was found in the masonry struts before the
formation of collapse level hinges in the RC members. This indicates that the
cracking of wall panel is very excessive (non structural damage) when it is
attached to the frame .Consideration of this non structural damage may be the
matter of further research.
With the introduction of strut, the ductility displacement factor seems to be
decrease whereas the over strength factor (strength capacity) seems increased
In overall R value seems reduced in strut model than that of bare frame, but the
difference is very much small.