Seismic Vulnerability Assessment of Bare and Masonry Infilled Reinforced Concrete Frame Structures (Raza, Et Al. 2015)

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CIVIL AND STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING
Volume 5, No 4, 2015
Copyright by the authors - Licensee IPA- Under Creative Commons license 3.0
Research article
ISSN 0976 4399
Seismic vulnerability assessment of bare and masonry infilled reinforced

concrete frame structures
Saim Raza1, M. Khubaib Ilyas Khan2
Department of Civil Engineering, National University of Sciences and Technology (NUST),
44000, Islamabad, Pakistan
saimraza92@yahoo.com
doi: 10.6088/ijcser.2014050036
ABSTRACT
Construction of masonry infilled RC frames is common practice in many countries. Infills
contribute to the performance of structures which is generally neglected in analysis and
design by considering it as non-structural element. The purpose of this study is to evaluate
band compare the seismic vulnerability of bare and masonry infilled RC frames. Different
types of infill materials have been considered in this study. These infill materials include
brick masonry, solid concrete block masonry and hollow concrete block masonry.
Experimental testing has been performed to determine the compressive strength of the
masonry infill. Three, five, seven and nine story, RC frames designed under gravity loads
have been considered in this study. Seismic Vulnerability assessment is conducted to evaluate
the seismic hazards corresponding to various levels of damage in the building. Perform-3D
has been used as an analytical tool for this purpose. Cyclic pushover analysis followed by the
capacity spectrum method and seismic vulnerability assessment framework proposed by
(Kyriakides, 2007) have been used to derive the vulnerability curves for bare and masonry
infilled RC frames. The vulnerability curves show an improvement in overall performance of
RC frames with the inclusion of infill panel.
Keywords: Bare RC frames, Masonry infilled RC frames, Brick masonry, solid concrete
block masonry, hollow concrete block masonry, Capacity spectrum method, seismic
vulnerability curves.
1. Introduction
The multistory buildings construction is associated with infilled frames. In developing
countries like Pakistan masonry is used as infill wall because in comparison to other
construction materials it is easy to make, locally available and cheaper. The most commonly
used masonry infills are burnt clay brick masonry, Hollow and solid concrete blocks masonry.
The infill wall serves both as partitioning wall and also contributes to the performance of
reinforced concrete frame structures. Past researches have shown that presence of infills have
altered the global response of structures significantly under seismic loading (Degefa, 2005).
However infill walls are regarded as non-structural component although they contribute to the
structural performance and behavior during an earthquake. They contribute to the lateral
stiffness of the structure and significantly increase the lateral strength. Nevertheless exact
behavior of the infilled structures is unknown due to the complex and unpredictable behavior
of the masonry infill under lateral loading. Thus building codes do not provide clear
guidelines to include the effects of infill walls in design which cannot be ignored as they alter
the overall performance of structures. This study aims at determining the extent of
vulnerability of reinforced concrete frame structures to earthquake damages, with and without
inclusion of infill walls.
Received on September, 2014 Published on May, 2015
392
Seismic Vulnerability Assessment of Bare and Masonry Infilled Reinforced Concrete Frame Structures
Saim Raza and M. Khubaib Ilyas Khan
Figure 1: Damage to masonry infilled reinforced concrete frame during earthquake

1.1 Previous Research
Analytical and experimental studies on seismic response of infilled frames started from mid1950.Various research studies have concluded that some of structural responses such as roof
displacement, fundamental period, inter storey drift ratio and beam and column member
forces usually reduce and base shear increases with the inclusion of infill wall in analyses.
One of the pioneer researchers in this field Polyakov, (1958) suggested that infill panel can be
considered equivalent to diagonal bracing. (Holmes, 1961) practically overtook this
suggestion and replaced the infill panel by an equivalent pin-jointed diagonal strut which had
the properties of infill panel i.e. same thickness as infill panel and a width equal to one-third
of diagonal length of infill. Polyakov was the first to describe the action of infill as an
equivalent diagonal strut. Mainstone, (1971) developed eight equations for equivalent strut,
four equations for strut width and four for strength equations. These equations were based on
three full scale tests on brick infill and twenty one small scale model brick and micro
concrete tests. Dhanasekar, (1986) studied the behaviour of infilled frame under an in-plane
load. The results from biaxial tests on half scale solid brick masonry was used to develop a
material model for brick and the mortar joints which were then used to construct non-linear
Finite Element Model. The results showed that the Youngs modulus of elasticity of the infill
has a significant influence on the behaviour of the infilled frame. However, the influence of
Poisons ratio was fond insignificant on the behaviour of structure. It was also reported
that the infill wall failed due to shearing along the diagonal length of the wall and hence
the influence of the compressive strength of infill material was not observed. Valiasis et al.,
(1989) conducted tests on concrete frames infilled with masonry walls. The infill wall was
not connected to surrounding frame. The experimental results revealed that infill wall
increased building strength by 50%. Moreover experiment disclosed that additional strength
disappeared at small lateral loads. El-Dakhakhni et al., (2006) concluded that it is not always
safe to ignore the frame-infill interaction in seismic areas, since infill walls can significantly
increase the lateral stiffness by its diagonal action. Thus seismic demand of structure changes
due to reduction in natural period of the composite structure. Kaushik, (2008) conducted a
comparative study of the seismic codes, especially design of infilled frame structures. The
study revealed that the most of modern seismic codes lack the important information required
for the design of such buildings. Kircher et al., (2006) suggested that concrete frames,
including those with and without infill, represent one of the three major sources of seismic
risk in the earthquake prone zone (the other two sources being URM bearing wall buildings
and soft-story wood-frame structures) because approximately 80% of the cost of
damages to structures from earthquakes is due to damages of the infill walls and the
consequent damages of doors, windows, electrical and hydraulic installations.
International Journal of Civil and Structural Engineering
Volume 5 Issue 4, 2015
393
Kyriakides, 2007) used analytical procedures to develop the seismic vulnerability curves of
buildings in order to investigate their behavior when exposed to earthquakes. He concluded
that although empirical assessment curves are easy to derive but they cannot describe
unusual buildings, also the expert Judgment method is not trustworthy due to the inherent
uncertainties in the building performance. Analytical procedures are most suitable when
past records of building damage are not available; working in detail and near to exact
information is required. However, the models obtained from analytical methods are to be
verified by empirical models.
2. Methodology
Capacity Spectrum Method as described in (ATC-40, 1996) is used for the seismic
vulnerability assessment of structures. Non-linear Static cyclic pushover analysis has been
performed on all proposed structures. Perform-3D has been used as analytical tool due to
availability of inbuilt diagonal strut module for infill panel modeling and also its ability to
conduct non-linear analysis. The detailed methodology is explained in flow chart below.
Figure 2: Seismic Vulnerability Assessment (Flow Chart)

394
3. Experimental testing
As mentioned earlier burnt clay brick masonry, solid concrete block masonry and hollow
concrete block masonry is being considered in this study. The results of compressive strength
test of these masonry materials are shown below
Table 1: Compressive strength of brick masonry prisms
Sr. No.
1
2
3
Average
Crushing Load (Kips)

Solid Block
Hollow Block
37.52
35.62
30.62
31.92
34.85
45.41
34.33
37.65
Compressive Strength (KSI)

Solid Block
Hollow Block
0.41
0.39
0.33
0.35
0.38
0.49
0.37
0.41
Table 2: Compressive strength of Concrete Hollow and Solid block masonry prisms
Sr. No.
1
2
3
Average
Crushing Load
(Kips)
23.16
28.78
25.85
25.93
(a)
Compressive
Strength (KSI)
0.61
0.77
0.70
0.69
(b)
Figure 3: (a) Compression testing assembly for concrete block masonry (b) Cracked Sample
after testing
3.1 Design of proposed building in SAP2000
In this research the influence of the infill panel in infilled concrete frame structures with
varying number of storeys while keeping number of bays same is studied. All structures are
hypothetical regular moment resisting frame structures. Soil Structure Interaction is ignored
and a raft foundation is considered representing fix supports at the base of structure in
models.

395
Table 3: Geometric parameters of buildings

Bay Size
First Storey Height
Typical Storey Height
Roof Slab Thickness
Typical floor Slab Thickness
20 ft.
13 ft.
12 ft.
5 inch.
6 inch.
Table 4: Material used for buildings design

Concrete
fc=3000 psi
Steel (Reinforcement) ASTM A615 Grade 60 (Fy =60 Ksi)

All the buildings are considered as office buildings and are designed in SAP2000
under gravity loading, with live loads being taken from (Uniform building code, 1997). All
the buildings have same number of bays in two directions i.e. 3 bays x 3 bays and number of
storeys change as 3, 5, 7 and 9 storeys. Typical plan is shown below:
Figure 4: Typical plan of buildings

3.2 Structural Modeling in perform-3D
For non-linear analysis and seismic vulnerability assessment of RC frame structures, 2D
models of RC frames are exported from SAP2000 to Perform-3D. To make the frames
behave as 2D, restraints are applied at all nodes. All nodes except the foundation nodes are
free to translate in H1 or X and V or Y direction and free to rotate in H2 or Z direction. The
foundation nodes have fixed supports. For modeling beams and columns of RC frames,
FEMA beam concrete type and FEMA column concrete type are used. F-D relationships,
Deformation Capacities and strength loss parameters are inputted using the guidelines of
(FEMA356, 2000). However in order to determine inelastic strength properties of RC beam
and columns an analytical tool XTRACT has been used. Elastic perfectly plastic (EPP)
behavior for F-D relationships of FEMA concrete beams and FEMA concrete column is used.

396
Figure 5: Basic F-D relationships for RC Beam type Components (Perform-3D)

3.3 Modeling of infill panel
Figure 6: Infill panel diagonal strut model

Infill panel element of Perform-3D has been used to model masonry infill. Each infill panel
element consists of one infill panel component. The diagonal strut model consists of two
struts, each of which resists compression force only. The actions and deformations are the
compression forces and compression deformations of the struts, as shown in figure (Perform3D User guide, 2006). In this study Compression failure mode has been considered for
determination of strength of infilled frames. For compression failure of the equivalent
diagonal strut, a modified version of the method suggested by (Stafford-Smith and Carter,
1967) can be adopted (FEMA 306, 1996). The shear force (horizontal component of the
diagonal strut capacity) is calculated as:
VC =atinf fm90cos
Where:
a= Equivalent strut width

tinf = Infill thickness
fm90 = Expected strength of masonry in the horizontal direction,
which may be set at 50% of the expected stacked prism
strength fm.

397
Figure 7: F-D relationship for Infill panel strut model

3.4 Analysis and results
For this study a displacement controlled cyclic pushover analysis was performed in
Perform3D. In perform-3D, it is easy to visualize the cyclic and hysteric behavior of the
structure and investigate the post peak behavior with the effects of strength and stiffness
degradation. So after the modeling was completed cyclic pushover analysis was performed on
bare and infilled RC frame structures. For this purpose gravity and fifty pushover load cases
were defined in analysis phase in Perform3D. For pushover analysis triangular distribution as
given in (Uniform building code, 1997) was used. In each step the maximum drift was
increased by 0.002 than the preceding step starting from 0.002 in first step in H1 direction (In
plane loading). Each next step pushes the structure in opposite direction than the previous
step and uses the stiffness at the end of previous pushover load case. In analysis drifts keep
on increasing until either the structure fails or maximum allowable push in Perform3D is
reached i.e. 10%. After the completion of analysis we can see the hysteresis loop between
base shear and roof displacement. Using this hysteresis we can get the capacity or backbone
curve which is used to develop the vulnerability curves. Hysteresis loops for 3 bay 3 storey
and 3 bay 9 storey bare and brick infilled RC frames are shown in below figure 8. It can be
clearly seen from hysteresis plot that with the inclusion of infill panel base shear has
increased and roof drift is reduced indicating an increase in strength and lateral stiffness of
structure with inclusion of masonry infill. After the formation of hysteresis loops for all the
structures considered in the study, capacity spectrum method mentioned in (ATC-40, 1996)
was used to get the performance point of the structures which is actually the intersection
point of capacity spectrum and response spectrum. These performance points are then used to
determine the hazard level of the structure by determining the PGA at each performance point
(Kyriakides, 2007). Finally a plot between peak ground acceleration (PGA) and damage
index (DI) is made which is the vulnerability curve.

398
Figure 8: Hysteresis loops for 3 bay 3 storey (3B3S) and 3 bay 9 storey (3B9S) bare and
brick infilled (BI) RC frames
Figure 9: Vulnerability Curve for Bare and Infilled RC Frame

3.5 Seismic Vulnerability Curves
The results of seismic vulnerability assessment in the form of vulnerability curves for three,
five, seven and nine storey bare and masonry infilled RC frames are shown in above figure 9.
399
Each graph presents vulnerability curve for bare RC frame, burnt clay brick infilled (BI) RC
frame, Solid concrete block infilled (SB) RC frame and Hollow concrete block infilled (HB)
RC frame. It can be seen from the vulnerability curves of all frames that brick infilled RC
frame offers most resistance then comes hollow block infilled RC frame followed by solid
block infilled RC frame and finally bare frame has least seismic resistance.
4. Discussion
It can be clearly seen from the results of seismic vulnerability assessment i.e. seismic
vulnerability curves that brick infilled frames offer greatest resistance to earthquakes of all
the models considered in this study. Brick infill has better earthquake performance because of
its higher compressive strength and less weight as compared to solid and hollow concrete
block infill. Similarly hollow concrete block has better earthquake resistance than solid block
because it is lighter as compared to solid concrete block while bare frame has least
earthquake resistance because of its lesser lateral stiffness. A comparison of seismic
resistance of bare and infilled RC frames is presented below in the form of bar charts for
three, five, seven and nine storey RC frames. Here the PGA at 100% damage of bare frame is
compared with the PGA at 100% damage of burnt clay brick infilled, solid concrete block
infilled and hollow concrete block infilled frames respectively.
(a) 3 bay 3 storey
(c) 3 bay 7 storey
(b) 3 bay 5 storey
(d) 3 bay 9 storey
Figure 10: PGA comparison at 100% damage of Bare and Infilled concrete Frames (a) 3 bay
3 storey (b) 3 bay 5 storey (c) 3 bay 7 storey (d) 3 bay 9 storey
A close look at this comparison suggests that as the number of storeys are increasing the
effect of infill is reduced as the PGA increase for three bay three storey brick infilled frame is
38% as compared to three bay three story bare frame while PGA increase for three bay nine
storey brick infilled frame is just 12.5% as compared to three bay nine story bare frame
400
indicating that influence of infill is more significant in the frames with lower number of
storeys. Following figure shows the percentage increase in PGA at 100% damage of five,
seven and nine storey brick infilled RC frame structures as compared to the three storey brick
infilled RC frame which complements the result described above.
Figure 11: Comparison of PGA at 100% damage of Brick Infilled Concrete frames with
variation of number of storeys
5. Conclusion
Following conclusions can be drawn from the results of Seismic Vulnerability Assessment:
1. Infilled RC frames can resist more PGA at 100 % damage thus are less vulnerable to
earthquake damages as compared to bare RC frames.
2. It can be concluded from the vulnerability curves of storey analysis that low story RC
bare frames such as three and five story collapse suddenly while the failure of higher
story RC bare frames such as seven and nine storey is more gradual.
3. It is also observed that with the inclusion of infill panel the collapse of RC frames has
become more gradual.
4. For all structures considered in this study it has been observed that brick infilled
frames are most resistant to earthquakes, then comes the hollow concrete block
infilled frames and last are solid concrete block infilled RC frames.
5. It has been noticed that the effect of infill walls is more significant in low storey
frames and as the height of structure increases the effect of infill wall reduces.
Acknowledgement
The authors acknowledge NUST Institute of Civil Engineering for providing all the lab
facilities and support for this research.

401
6. References
1. Mekonnen Degefa., (2005), Response of Masonry Infilled RC Frame under
Horizontal Seismic Force, Master thesis, Addis Ababa University
2. Polyakov, S.V., (1960), On the interaction between masonry filler walls and enclosing
frame when loaded in the plane of the wall, in Earthquake Engineering, Earthquake
Engineering Research Institute, San Francisco, pp. 36-42.
3. Holmes M., (1961), Steel frames with brickwork and concrete infilling. Proceedings
of the Institution of Civil Engineers, 19(4), pp 473-478
4. Mainstone, R. J., (1971), On the Stiffness and Strength of infilled frames
5. Dhanasekar, M. and Page, A. W., (1986). "The Influence of Brick Masonry Infill
Properties on the Behavior of Infilled Frames" Proceedings of the Institution of Civil
Engineer, 81(4), pp 593-605
6. Valiasis, T., Stylianidis, K., (1989), Masonry infilled R/C frames under horizontal
loading Experimental results, European Earthquake Engineering, 3, pp 10-20
7. El-Dakhakhni W., (2000), Experimental and analytical seismic evaluation of
concrete masonry infilled steel frames retrofitted using GFRP laminates.
Electronics Theses DSpace at Drexter University Libraries
8. Kaushik HB, Rai D, Jain SK., (2008), A Rational Approach to Analytical
Modeling of Masonry Infills in Reinforced Concrete Frame Buildings.
Proceedings of the 14thWorld Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Beijing, China
9. Kircher, C.A., R.V. Whitman, and W.T Holmes., (2006), HAZUS Earthquake Loss
Estimation Methods, Natural Hazards Review, pp 45-59
10. Kyriakides N., (2007), Vulnerability of RC buildings and risk assessment for Cyprus,
PhD Thesis, Department of Civil and Structural Engineering, University of Sheffield,
UK.
11. ATC-40., (1996), Seismic evaluation and retrofit of concrete buildings, Volume-1,
California, Redwood City.
12. FEMA 356., (2000), Prestandard and commentary for the seismic rehabilitation of
buildings, Federal Emergency Management Agency, Washington, D.C., 2000.
13. PERFORM 3D., (2006), Nonlinear Analysis and Performance Assessment for 3D
Structures, user guide, Computers and structures Inc., Berkeley, California, 2006.
14. Stafford Smith, B., (1967), Methods for predicting the lateral stiffness and strength of
multi storey infilled frames, Building Science, 2(3), pp. 247-257
15. FEMA 306, (1998), Evaluation of Earthquake Damaged Concrete and Masonry wall
buildings, Federal Emergency Management Agency, Washington, D.C., 2000
16. Uniform building code., (1997), Volume 2, International code council
402

Seismic Vulnerability Assessment of Bare and Masonry Infilled Reinforced Concrete Frame Structures (Raza, Et Al. 2015)

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Seismic Vulnerability Assessment of Bare and Masonry Infilled Reinforced Concrete Frame Structures (Raza, Et Al. 2015)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CIVIL AND STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING

ISSN 0976 4399

Seismic vulnerability assessment of bare and masonry infilled reinforced

Received on September, 2014 Published on May, 2015

Figure 1: Damage to masonry infilled reinforced concrete frame during earthquake

Figure 2: Seismic Vulnerability Assessment (Flow Chart)

International Journal of Civil and Structural Engineering

Crushing Load (Kips)

Compressive Strength (KSI)

International Journal of Civil and Structural Engineering

Table 3: Geometric parameters of buildings

Table 4: Material used for buildings design

Steel (Reinforcement) ASTM A615 Grade 60 (Fy =60 Ksi)

Figure 4: Typical plan of buildings

International Journal of Civil and Structural Engineering

Figure 5: Basic F-D relationships for RC Beam type Components (Perform-3D)

Figure 6: Infill panel diagonal strut model

a= Equivalent strut width

International Journal of Civil and Structural Engineering

Figure 7: F-D relationship for Infill panel strut model

International Journal of Civil and Structural Engineering

Figure 9: Vulnerability Curve for Bare and Infilled RC Frame

(a) 3 bay 3 storey

(c) 3 bay 7 storey

(b) 3 bay 5 storey

(d) 3 bay 9 storey

International Journal of Civil and Structural Engineering

You might also like