1

CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION

1.1 GENERAL

Infill walls have attracted the attention of many researchers since the
early 1950s, and much work has been undertaken to study their behaviour and
interaction with the surrounding frames. In addition, efforts have been made to
utilize infill walls as a means of producing economic designs by reducing the sizes of
the members of the bounding frames. Infills are commonly used in buildings for
architectural reasons. Reinforced concrete (RC) frame buildings with masonry infill
walls have been widely constructed for commercial, industrial and multi storey
residential uses in seismic regions. Masonry infill typically consists of bricks or
concrete blocks constructed between beams and columns of a reinforced concrete
frame. The masonry infill panels are generally not considered in the design process
and treated as architectural (non-structural) components. The presence of masonry
infill walls has a significant impact on the seismic response of a reinforced concrete
frame building, increasing structural strength and stiffness (relative to a bare frame).
Properly designed infill can increase the overall strength, lateral resistance and
energy dissipation of the structure. An infill wall reduces the lateral deflections and
bending moments in the frame, thereby decreasing the probability of collapse. The
structural contribution of infill wall results into stiffer structure thereby reducing the
storey drifts (lateral displacement at floor level). This improved performance makes
the structural design more realistic to consider infill walls as a structural element in
the earthquake resistant design of structures. The multi storeyed frame with infill is
shown in Figure1.1
 2

Figure 1.1 Multi storeyed frame with infill

1.2 INFILLED FRAME

Definition:- Infilled frames are a complete structure formed through the complete
interactive behaviour of the infill with the bounding frame members under inplane
lateral loads.A typical infilled frame is shown in Figure1.2.

Figure 1.2 Typical InfilledFrame

 3

1.3 BEHAVIOUR

When the infilled frame is subjected to horizontal load, the infill and the
frame separate over the region where tension occurs and remain in contact where
compression occurs.Slip occurs in the compression region. Considering slip and
separation, infilled frame is simplified to be equivalent to that of a pin-jointed frame
wherein the bounding frame acts as tie and strut members and the infill acts like an
inclined diagonal strut member. The effect of this interaction reduces the lateral
displacement of the frame and improves its lateral strength. The bending moment is
reduced, hence the design becomes economical through the axial force is applied.
The behaviour is shown in Figure1.3.

Figure 1.3 Behaviour of Infilled Frame

It is very important to identify the modes of failure or other detrimental effects which
need to be controlled or avoided. The most important are:-
 4

I. Shear cracking of the masonry: Cracking in the masonry panel due to shear
stresses is a very common type of failure observed in infilled frame buildings
affected by earthquakes. This type of failure is mainly controlled by the shear
strength of the mortar joints, the tensile strength of the masonry units and the
relative values of the shear and normal stress. Depending on these
parameters, the combination of shear stresses with vertical axial stresses can
produce either cracks crossing the masonry units or debonding along the
mortar joints (also termed as shear friction failure). In the latter case, the
cracks usually develop following a stepped pattern along the diagonal
direction. Shear cracking does not necessarily represent a failure condition
provided that the cracked panel is restrained by the surrounding frame and the
shear distortion is controlled. The formation of diagonal cracks is regarded
only as a serviceability limit state.

II. Elongation of the reinforced concrete members: The longitudinal bars of

reinforced concrete members can yield in tension with significant ductility.
However, this is not convenient in infilled frame structures because the
excessive elongation of the frame members reduces the beneficial effect of
the frame, which restrains the shear distortion of the masonry wall.
Consequently, the columns and beams of the surrounding frame should be
designed to resist the tensile axial forces resulting from seismic actions
without yielding of the reinforcement.

III. Beam-column joint failure: High normal and tangential stresses develop
along the contact lengths in the zones near to the loaded corners, resulting in
large shear forces and bending moments. The stress state induced in these
beam-column joints may cause the formation of wide diagonal cracks running
across the joint from the interior to the exterior corner. Minor attention has
been given to this mode of failure, even though it has been observed in
different investigations. The failure of the beam-column joint causes
 5

unfavourable effects in the behaviour of infilled frames, because the lateral

forces cannot be transferred from the floor beam to the columns and the
masonry panel. Furthermore, the formation of diagonal cracks causes the
opening of the joint. Therefore, the contact length at the loaded corners and
the width of the equivalent strut decrease, resulting in an increase of the
stresses in the masonry panel.

IV. Shear failure of the columns: The columns can fail due to the shear forces
resulting from the interaction with the infill panel. The maximum shear forces
occur along the contact length, near the loaded corners. Sliding shear failure
is a particular case which can occur at the top of the columns, close to the
beam face, as a result of the unfavourable combination of shear and tensile
axial forces.

1.4 NEED OF THE STUDY

Infilled frame structures are commonly used in buildings, even in those

located in seismically active regions. Present codes unfortunately, do not have
adequate guidance for treating the modelling, analysis and design of infilled frame
structures. So it is necessary to develop an appropriate technique for modelling the
infill frame interface and then uses it to study the seismic response of infilled frame
structures.
 6

CHAPTER 2

LITERATURE REVIEW

2.1 GENERAL

A brief review of the available literature pertaining to the investigations

on infilled frames subjected to static loading is presented in this chapter. Many
investigators have carried out extensive investigation to quantify the effect of
parameters on the behaviour of infilled frames so as to evolve a design code of
practice.

2.2 LITERATURE STUDY

Liauwet al(1984): have made study on static and cyclic behaviours of multi
storey infilled frames with different interface condition. The static and cyclic
behaviours of non-integral, partially integral and integral infilled frames have
been studied. The study has shown that the provision of connectors greatly
improves the structural behaviour of infilled frames. They also found out that
the integral infilled frames are superior, they are stiffer and stronger and also
are more ductile.

Maurizio papia and Gaetano russo(1988):have made study on behaviour of

infilled frame with openings stiffened by surrounding frames. Here a method
for evaluating the stiffness to horizontal forces of two dimensional bracing
systems is presented. Panel’s stiffened by surrounding frames along the
boundary of the opening.
 7

Sobaih andAbdin(1988): have conducted seismic analysis of infilled

reinforced concrete frame. The conclusion of their report was In general, infill
panels increase the stiffness of the structure and the stresses on columns but
decreases the lateral displacements of the frame. It has been also found that
present code formula over estimates the shear forces along the height of the
frame since it does not consider the effect of infill panels.

Marjani and Ersoy(2002): have studied behaviour of brick infilled reinforced

concrete frames under reversed cyclic loading. They found out that hollow clay
tile infill increases both strength and stiffness significantly, plastering both
sides of the infill improves the behaviour of the infilled frame considerably,
plaster also improved the ductility significantly.

Asteriset al(2003): have made studies related to the state of art of the
numerical models for the analysis of brickwork infilled plane frames subjected
to lateral actions is reviewed. Anumber of distinct approaches in the field of the
analysis of infilled frames since the mid 1950’s have yielded several analytical
models. It has been stressed, in these analytical works, how difficult and
generally unreliable the numerical of infilled frame is, due to the very large
number of parameters to be taken into account and the magnitude of the
uncertainties associated with most of them. For a better understanding of the
approach and capabilities of each model, an attempt has been made to classify
them into macro and micro models based on their complexity, the detail by
which they model an infill wall and the information they provide to the analyst
about the behaviour of a structure.

Anil and Altin (2006): have made an experimental study on reinforced

concrete partially infilled frames. They found out that strengthening of
reinforced concrete frames with partially reinforced concrete infill increased
the strength and stiffness of the bare frame substantially. Also Aspect ratio of
infill seems to influence story drift ratio of the specimens.
 8

Sruthiet al(2007): has reported that the composite action between the
bounding frame and the filler walls has been proved to influence the behaviour
of the bounding frame alone. The resultant system of the frame and infill wall
interaction increases the lateral strength and stiffness of the frame. Studies on
infilled frames have concentrated on mortar at interface. The previous
researchers have established that ‘Lead’ can be used at interface to reduce
prestrain in infill due to shrinkage and elastic shortening of the frame members.
In this paper, details of analytical and experimental investigations on Three
storeyed One sixth model of infilled frames is presented. Three types of (i)
finite element modelling of interface and (ii) three different types of interface
materials namely, Conventional Cement Mortar, Lead sheet and Cork sheet are
included. Finite element analysis using Beam elements for the frame members,
Link elements as rectangular interface element and Four nodded plane stress
element for the infill have been considered. Failure criteria based on principal
stress theory and principal strain theory for modelling the interface separation
is adopted. The lateral stiffness, stress patterns and interface stress distribution
are obtained and compared. It is concluded that Cork as an interface material
can be considered as an alternative to Lead which involves health hazard
during usage.

Satyanarayananet al(2009): have conducted the conceptualisation studies on

the development of adaptive interface in infilled frames. They found that with
the increase in the interface pressure in the pneumatic pressure interface
infilled frame the stiffness of the frame is being increased for the same
horizontal and other loading condition and with the same size of the frame
member.

Tasnimi and Mohebkhah(2009): have made investigation on the behaviour of

brick infilled steel frames with openings, experimental and analytical
approaches. The cracking patterns were studied experimentally for the lateral
loading on the infill containing the openings such as ow and doors.
 9

Mahmud, Islam and Md. Al-Amin(2010): have one the studied the
Reinforced Concrete Frame with Brick Masonry Infill due to Lateral Loads.
The results they have discussed were effect no. of bay, no. of stories, effect of
various spans of bay (in both parallel and perpendicular to lateral loads), effect
of geometrical properties of beam column and infill.

2.3 OBJECTIVE

To investigate the behaviour of infilled frame with conventional (cement

mortar) interface

2.4 SCOPE OF WORK

To study the behaviour of infilled frame by using the conventional

interface, through analytical studies on seven storeyed reinforced cement concrete
frame. This includes

(i) Bare frame

(ii) Infilled frame with cement mortar and brick masonry wall.

(iii) The software used for analysis is ANSYS 14.5

(iv) The elements used for modelling the seven storeyed frame are SOLID185 for
concrete and brick infill, BEAM188 for reinforcement, SHELL63 for interface
between the cement mortar and brick infill.

(v) The model analysed is an one – fourth scale model of seven storeyed bare and
infilled frames tested by Thirumurugan in Structural Engineering Laboratory

(vi) The following load patterns are considered for analysing the bare and infilled
frame on 3rd, 5th and 7th floors are;

(i) Pattern 1:- Unit load application.

(ii) Pattern 2:- Load application of 10N, 20N, 30N and 40N.
 10

(iii) Pattern 3:- Load application of linearly varying from top to bottom 60N,
40N, 20N.

(iv) Pattern 4:-Load application of linearly varying from top to bottom 20N,
40N, 60N.

2.5 NEED FOR PRESENT WORK

From the literature review it is found that only limited work has been done in the
area of interface characteristics of infilled frame. The present investigation tries to
add more information in this area through analytical investigation
 11

CHAPTER 3

METHODS AND MATERIALS

3.1GENERAL

The methodology of investigating the study on the behavior of infilled

frames with conventional (cement mortar) interface is presented in this chapter along
with the comparison of it between the bare frame and then the infilled frame.

3.2 METHODOLOGY

The methodology is shown in Figure3.1

Defining of the frame.

Modelling of the frames.

Discretization of the frame models for detailed analysis.

Properties of the materials obtained from standard tests are used.

Infill as well as interface properties are assigned.

Support conditions as well as loads are assigned to the structure.

Analysis of the frame and collecting experimental results for bare frame
and infilled frame.

Comparing the Results.

Conclusion and recommendation for the further studies.

Figure 3.1 Methodology

 12

3.3 SOFTWARE USED

The analytical investigation of all models is carried out by using a

standard software package ANSYS 14.5

3.4 MATERIAL PROPERTIES

For the modeling and the analysis of the frame member, the
corresponding material properties should be used so that the frame modeled in the
software package resembles the exact material that has been intended to use. The
material properties of the materials of the frame member, the infill and the interface
that has been used in the thesis are given hereby.

3.4.1 Materials used for frame member and infill

1. The properties of the frame member and the infill materials that is used for
the analysis of the frame is given in Table 3.1.These values are adopted from
already published work (Satyanarayanan et al 2009)

Table 3.1 Properties of frame member and infill used for analysis [5]

Properties Frame member Brick masonry Infill

Compressive strength
20 1.37
(N/mm2)

Modulus of elasticity
2.236x104 0.1020x104
(N/mm2)

Poisson’s ratio 0.15 0.15

Coefficient of thermal
1.00*10-6 1.00*10-6
expansion (/C)
 13

3.4.2 Materials used for the interface material

The properties of the interface materials that are used for the analysis of
the frame is given in Table 3.2 as reported in already published literature
(satyanarayanan et al 2009)

Table 3.2 Properties of the interface material used for analysis

Properties Cement mortar interface

Compressive strength
4.7
(N/mm2)

Modulus of elasticity
1000
(N/mm2)

Poisson’s ratio 0.15

Coefficient of thermal
1.00*10-6
expansion (/C)

3.5 MODELING USING ANSYS

ANSYS is engineering simulation software. Non - Linear finite element

analysis has been carried out using ANSYS software. Here in the project the RC
members of the frame have been modelled with SOLID185 element, the infill was
modelled with SOLID185 element, the reinforcing bars have been modelled with
BEAM188 and the connection between the RC element and infill was made with
SHELL63 element available in the elements library of the ANSYS software.

3.5.1 SOLID185

SOLID185 is used for 3-D modelling of solid structures. It is defined by

eight nodes having three degrees of freedom at each node: translations in the nodal x,
y, and z directions. The element has plasticity, hyper elasticity, stress stiffening,
creep, large deflection, and large strain capabilities. It also has mixed formulation
capability for simulating deformations of nearly incompressible elastoplastic
 14

materials, and fully incompressible hyper elastic materials. The geometry, node
locations, and the coordinate system for this element are shown in Figure3.2.

Figure 3.2 SOLID 185 element

3.5.2 BEAM 188

BEAM188 is suitable for analyzing slender to moderately stubby/thick

beam structures. The element is based on Timoshenko beam theory which includes
shear-deformation effects. The element provides options for unrestrained warping
and restrained warping of cross-sections. The element is a linear, quadratic, or cubic
two-node beam element in 3-D. BEAM188 has six or seven degrees of freedom at
each node. These include translations in the x, y, and z directions and rotations about
the x, y, and z directions. A seventh degree of freedom (warping magnitude) is
optional. This element is well-suited for linear, large rotation, and/or large strain
nonlinear applications. The geometry, node locations, and the coordinate system for
this element are shown in Figure3.3.
 15

Figure 3.3 BEAM188 element

3.5.3 SHELL 63

SHELL63 has both bending and membrane capabilities. Both in-plane

and normal loads are permitted. The element has six degrees of freedom at each
node: translations in the nodal x, y, and z directions and rotations about the nodal x,
y, and z-axes. Stress stiffening and large deflection capabilities are included. A
consistent tangent stiffness matrix option is available for use in large deflection
(finite rotation) analyses. The geometry, node locations, and the coordinate system
for this element are shown in Figure3.4.

Figure3.4 SHELL63 element

 16

CHAPTER 4

ANALYTICAL INVESTIGATION

4.1 GENERAL

Finite Element Analysis (FEM) is a computer based method of

simulating analysing the behaviour of engineering structures and components under a
variety of conditions. This is an advanced engineering tool that is used in design. The
technique is based on the premise that an approximate solution to any complex
engineering problem can be reached by subdividing the structure into smaller more
manageable (finite) elements. FEM is a technique for predicting the response of
structures and materials to environmental factors such as forces, heat and vibration.
FEM helps in producing stiffness and strength visualizations. It also helps to
minimize material weight and its cost of the structures. FEM allows for detailed
visualization and indicates the distribution of stresses and strains inside the body of a
structure. FEM allows entire designs to be constructed, refined and optimized before
the design is manufactured. The process starts with the creation of a geometric
model. Then, the model is subdivided (meshed) into small pieces (elements) of
simple shapes connected at specific node points. In this manner, the stress strain
relationships are more easily approximated. Finally, the element behaviour and the
boundary conditions are applied to each element. FEM software computerizes the
process and makes it possible to solve complex calculations in a matter of minutes.
FEM software can provide the engineer with deep insights to the behaviour of
objects.

Advantages of FEA

i. The physical properties, which are intractable and complex for any closed
bound solution, can be analyzed by this method.
 17

ii. It can take care of any boundary conditions.

iii. Material anisotropy and non-homogeneity can be catered without much

difficulty.

iv. It can take care of any type of loading conditions.

v. This method is superior to other approximate methods like Galerkine and

Rayleigh-Ritz methods.

vi. In this method approximations are confined to small sub domains.

vii. In this method, the admissible functions are valid over the simple domain and
have nothing to do with boundary, however simple or complex it may be.

viii. Enable to computer programming.

Disadvantages of FEA

Computational time involved in the solution of the problem is high.

4.2 DETAILS OF FRAME

The frame member infill interaction is established to increase the lateral

stiffness and strength of infilled frame. To quantify the effect of infilling on the
frame it is proposed to carry out an analytical investigation by using ANSYS 14.5
software as outlined in this chapter. The Table 4.1 shows the details of seven storey
single bay frame.The Figure4.1 shows the plan and elevation of seven storey single
bay frame .The Figure4.2 shows the reinforcement details of seven storey single bay
frame used for analysis.The details of 7 storey single bay frame are presented in
Table 4.1.
 18

Table 4.1 Details of 7 storey single bay frame.

Sl.no Particulars Values

1 Ground level storey height 675

(mm)

2 Other floors (mm) 600

3 Bay width (mm) 1000

4 No. of stories (no) 7

5 No of bays (no) 1

6 Beam dimension (mm) 100X150

7 Column dimension (mm) 100X200

Figure 4.1Plan and elevation of seven storied single bay frame

 19

Figure 4.2 Reinforcement details of the seven storied single bay frame

4.3 LOADING CONDITION

Static analysis is performed using the software.

4.3.1 Bare frame

(i). The load considered for the frame is only horizontal load.

(ii). Self weight and all other loads are neglected, and comparisons are made
for the horizontal loads only.

(iii). The following load patterns are considered for analysing the bare and
infilled frame on 3rd, 5th and 7th floors are;

Pattern 1:- Unit load application.

Pattern 2:- Load application of;

 20

(i). 10N

(ii). 20N

(iii). 30N

(iv). 40N.

Pattern 3:- Load application of linearly varying from top to bottom

60N, 40N, 20N.

Pattern 4:-Load application of linearly varying from top to bottom

20N, 40N, 60N.

4.3.2 Infilled frame

(i). The load considered for the frame is only horizontal load.
(ii). Self weight and all other loads are neglected, and comparisons are made
for the horizontal loads only.
(iii). The following load patterns are considered for analysing the bare and
infilled frame on 3rd, 5th and 7th floors are;

Pattern 5:- Unit load application.

Pattern 6:- Load application of ;

(i). 10N
(ii). 20N
(iii). 30N
(iv). 40N.

Pattern 7:- Load application of linearly varying from top to bottom

60N, 40N, 20N.

Pattern 8:-Load application of linearly varying from top to bottom

20N, 40N, 60N.

 21

CHAPTER 5

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

5.1 RESULTS OF BARE FRAME

This chapter deals with the analysis and the results obtained from the
bare frame model with reinforcement, infilled frame for the seven storey frame.

5.1.1 Pattern 1:- Unit Load Application

This analysis deals with the results obtained from the bare frame model
for the seven storey frame. From the obtained results, it is observed that maximum
deflection occurs at the top of the frame with a magnitude of 5.75x10-4mm. Stiffness
of the frame is 5217.39N/mm. Figures5.1, 5.2 and 5.3 shows the meshing, deflection
and principal stress variations of bare frame respectively.

Figure5.1 Bare frame showing meshing

 22

The deflected shape of the bare frame is shown in the Figure 5.2.

Figure5.2 Bare frame showing the maximum displacement

The principal stress of the bare frame is shown in the Figure 5.3.

Figure5.3 Bare frameshowing the principal stress variation

From the obtained results it is observed that the maximum displacement

occurs at the top of the frame with a magnitude of 5.752 x 10-4 mm.
 23

Stiffness of the frame [K] = load / deflection

= 3/5.752 x 10-4

= 5217.39 N/mm

5.1.2 Pattern 2:- (i) Load application of 10N

The deflected shape of the bare frame with 10N load is shown in the
Figure5.4.

Figure 5.4 Deflected shape of bare frame with 10N

Bare frame is applied with pattern 2 of loads on 3rd, 5th and 7th floor
respectively and during analysis only horizontal loads are considered. Load vs
displacement graph for pattern 2 is obtained as shown in Figure 5.5.
 24

45
40 230.19
35
Load (N) 30 172.55
25
20 115.1
15
10 57.55
5
5.75
0
0 50 100 150 200 250
Displacement (10-4 mm)

Figure 5.5 Load vs deflection graph of pattern 2 on bare frame on 3rd, 5th and 7th
floor.

The principal stress of the bare frame with 10N load is shown in the Figure
5.6.

Figure 5.6 The principal stress variation of the bare frame with 10N load
 25

Load vs principal stress graph for pattern 2 is obtained as shown in

Figure 5.7.

45
40 0.060966
35
30 0.045725
Load (N)

25
20 0.030483
15
10 0.015242
5
0.001552
0
0 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.06 0.07
Stress (MPa)

Figure 5.7 Load vs principal stress graph of pattern 2 for bare frameon 3rd, 5th
and 7th floor.

5.1.3 Pattern 3:- Load application of linearly varying from top to bottom 60N,
40N, 20N.

Load is applied as linearly varying load descending from top to bottom

on bare frame of different set of load values are applied.Figure5.8 and Figure 5.9
shows deflected shape and principal stress variation of analysis in which 60N at 7th
floor, 40N at 5th floor and 20N at 3rd floor.
 26

The deflected shape of analysis in which 60N at 7th floor, 40N at 5th floor and 20N at
3rd floor is shown in Figure 5.8

Figure 5.8 Deflected shape of analysis

The stress variation of analysis in which 60N at 7th floor, 40N at 5th floor and 20N at
3rd floor is shown in Figure 5.9.

Figure 5.9 Principal stress variation of analysis

 27

5.1.4 Pattern 4:- Load application of linearly varying from top to bottom 20N,
40N, 60N.

Load is applied as linearly varying load ascending from top to bottom on

bare frame of different set of load values are applied. Figure5.10 and Figure 5.11
shows deflected shape and principal stress variation of analysis in which 20N at 7th
floor, 40N at 5th floor and 60N at 3rd floor.

The deflected shape of analysis in which 20N at 7th floor, 40N at 5th floor
and 60N at 3rd floor is shown in Figure 5.10

Figure 5.10 Deflected shape of analysis

 28

The stress variation of analysis in which 20N at 7th floor, 40N at 5th floor and 60N at
3rd floor is shown in Figure 5.11.

Figure 5.11 Principal stress variation of analysis

5.2 RESULTS OF INFILLED FRAME

5.2.1 Pattern 5 Unit Load Application in Infilled Frame

This analysis deals with the results obtained from the Infilled frame
model for the seven storey frame. From the obtained results, it is observed that
maximum deflection occurs at the top of the frame with a magnitude of 2.96x 10-4
mm. Stiffness of the frame is 10135.14 N/mm. Figure5.12, and 5.13 shows the
deflection and maximum principal stress variations of Infilled frame respectively.
 29

The deflected shape of the infilled frame is shown in the Figure 5.12.

Figure 5.12 Displacement of the infilled frame

The maximum principal stress of the Infilled frame is shown in the Figure 5.13

Figure5.13 Principal stress variation of the infilled frame

 30

From the obtained results it is observed that the maximum displacement

occurs at the top of the frame with a magnitude of 2.96 x 10-4 mm.

Stiffness of the frame [K] = load / deflection

= 3/2.96 x 10-4

= 10135.14 N/mm

5.2.2 Pattern 6:- (i) Load application of 10N

The deflected shape of the infill frame with 10N load is shown in the Figure 5.14

Figure 5.14 Deflected shape of Infilledframe with 10N

Infilled frame is applied with pattern 6 of loads on 3rd, 5th and 7th floor respectively
and during analysis only horizontal loads are considered. Load vs deflection graph
for pattern 6 is obtained as shown in Figure 5.15
 31

The Load vs displacement graph of Infilled frame is shown in the Figure 5.15

45
40 118.11
35
30 88.31
Load (N)

25
20 59.21
15
10 29.6
5
0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140
Displacement (10-4 mm)

Figure 5.15 Load vs deflection graph of pattern 6 on Infilled frame with 10N,
20N, 30N and 40N on 3rd, 5th and 7th floor.

The maximum principal stress of the Infilled frame is shown in the Figure 5.16

Figure 5.16 Infilled frame showing the principal stress variation

 32

Load vs principal stress graph for pattern 6 is obtained as shown in Figure 5.17.

45
40 0.025639
35
30 0.019229
Load (N)

25
20 0.01282
15
10 0.00641
5
0
0 0.005 0.01 0.015 0.02 0.025 0.03
Principal stress (Mpa)

Figure 5.17 Load vs principal stress graph of pattern 6 on Infilled frame with
10N, 20N, 30N and 40N on 3rd, 5th and 7th floor.

5.2.3 Pattern 7: Load application of linearly varying from top to bottom 60N,
40N, 20N.

Load is applied as linearly varying load descending from top to bottom on

bare frame of different set of load values are applied.Figure5.18 and Figure 5.19
shows deflected shape and principal stress variation of analysis in which 60N at 7th
floor, 40N at 5th floor and 20N at 3rd floor.
 33

The deflected shape of analysis in which 60N at 7th floor, 40N at 5th floor and 20N at
3rd floor is shown in Figure5.18

Figure 5.18 Deflected shape of analysis

The stress variation of analysis in which 60N at 7th floor, 40N at 5th floor and 20N at
3rd floor is shown in Figure5.19

Figure 5.19 Principal stress variation of analysis

 34

5.2.4 Pattern 8:- Load application of linearly varying from top to bottom 20N,
40N, 60N.

Load is applied as linearly varying load ascending from top to bottom on

infilled frame of different set of load values are applied. Figure5.20 and Figure 5.21
shows deflected shape and principal stress variation of analysis in which 20N at 7th
floor, 40N at 5th floor and 60N at 3rd floor.

The deflected shape of analysis in which 20N at 7th floor, 40N at 5th floor
and 60N at 3rd floor is shown in Figure 5.20

Figure 5.20 Deflected shape of analysis

 35

The stress variation of analysis in which 20N at 7th floor, 40N at 5th floor and 60N at
3rd floor is shown in Figure 5.21

Figure 5.21 Principal stress variation of analysis

5.3 COMPARISON WITH EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS

The experimental result of bare and infilled frame tested by Thirumurugan at

Structural Engineering Laboratory of SRM University are compared with the
analytical stiffness values obtained from this investigation as shown in Table 5.1

Table 5.1 Comparison of stiffness from analysis and experimental .

Stiffness (N/mm)
Frame
Analytical Experimental

Bare 5217 4820

Infilled 10135 8760

 36

CHAPTER 6

CONCLUSIONS

6.1 CONCLUSION

The analysis of the bare frame, infilled frame with cement mortar
interface were carried out with same support condition and the loading condition.
The analysis was done by using ANSYS 14.5 and the results of analysis are found
out, and stiffness is compared.

(i). In comparison to the bare frame the stiffness of the infilled frame is 1.96
times higher.
(ii). The results of the study demonstrate that masonry infill highly increases the
stiffness and strength of a structure for seismic action as well as action.

6.2 SCOPE FOR FURTHER STUDY

(i). For the future works, different innovations can be done by changing
the types of interface like pneumatic, sandwich wall panels.

(ii). Method of analysis can be changed as dynamic analysis and the

results can be compared.
 37

REFERENCES

Liauw and Kwan (1984)Static and cyclic behaviours of multi storey infilled
frames with different interface condition’, Journal of sound and vibration (1985)
99(2), 275- 283’.

Mauriziopapia and Gaetano russo (1988)‘Behaviour of infilled frame with

openings stiffened by surrounding frame,’ 9th world conference on earthquake
engineering, Vol.7, pp: 457-462.

Sobaih and Abdin(1988)‘Seismic analysis of infilled reinforced concrete frame’,

Computers and structures Vol.30, No.3, pp.457-464.

Marjani and Ersoy (2002)‘Behaviour of Brick Infilled Reinforced Concrete

Frames Under Reversed Cyclic Loading’, ECAS2002 International Symposium
on structural and earthquake engineering, October 14 2002, Middlde east
technical university, Ankara, Turkey.

Asteris (2003)‘Lateral stiffness of brick masonry infilled plane frame’, journal of

Structural Engineering, ASCE, Aug,pp 1071-1079.

Anil and Altin (2006)‘An experimental study on reinforced concrete partially

infilled frames’, Engineering Structures 29(2007) 449-460.

Satyanarayanan et al (2009) ‘Conceptualisation studies on the development of

adaptive interface in infilled frames’, IJAER, ISSN 0973-4562 Vol 4 Number 8
2009, pp 1579-1589.

Tasnimi and Mohebkhah (2009) ‘Investigation on the behaviour of brick

infilled steel frames with openings, experimental and analytical approaches’,
Engineering Structures 33(2011) 968-980.
 38

Mahmud, Islam and Md. Al-Amin (2010)‘Study the Reinforced Concrete

Frame with Brick Masonry Infill due to lateral loads’, International journal of
Civil & Engineering IJCEE-IJENS Vol: 10 No: 04.