Thesis-Seismic Performance Assessment of High Rise Buildings With The Effect of Masonry Infill

TRIBHUVAN UNIVERSITY
INSTITUTE OF ENGINEERING
PULCHOWK CAMPUS
Thesis No: 066/MSS/107
SEISMIC PERFORMANCE ASSESSMENT OF HIGH RISE BUILDINGS
WITH THE EFFECT OF MASONRY INFILL
BY
NIRANJAN SHRESTHA
A THESIS SUBMITTED TO
THE DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL ENGINEERING
IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENT FOR THE
DEGREE OF MASTER OF SCIENCE IN STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING
DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL ENGINEERING
LALITPUR, NEPAL
APRIL, 2012
1
COPYRIGHT
The author has agreed that the library, Department of Civil Engineering, Institute of
Engineering, Pulchowk Campus may make this thesis freely available for the
inspection. Moreover, the author has agreed that the permission for extensive copying
of the thesis for scholarly purpose may be granted by the professor who supervised
the thesis work recorded herein or in his absence by the head of the department or
concerning M.Sc. program coordinator or the dean of the institute of engineering. It is
understood that the recognition will be given to the author of this thesis and to the
Department of Civil Engineering, Institute of Engineering, and Pulchowk Campus in
any use of material in this thesis. Copying or publication or other use of the thesis for
financial gain without approval of the Department of Civil Engineering, Pulchowk
Campus and the authors written permission is prohibited.
Request for permission to copy or to take any other use of the material in this thesis in
whole or part should be addressed to:
.
Head of Department
(Department of Civil Engineering)
Institute of Engineering
Pulchowk, Campus
Lalitpur, Nepal
2
2
TRIBHUVAN UNIVERSITY
INSTITUTE OF ENGINEERING
DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL ENGINEERING
M.Sc. PROGRAM IN STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING
The undersigned certify that they have read, and recommended to the Institute of
Engineering for acceptance, a thesis entitled Seismic Performance Assessment of
High Rise Buildings with the Effect of Masonry Infill, submitted by Niranjan
Shrestha (066/MSS/F/107) in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of
Master of Science in Structural Engineering.
.......................
Supervisor, Dr. Hari Ram Parajuli
Department of Civil Engineering
Pulchowk Campus, Institute of Engineering
Tribhuvan University, Lalitpur, Nepal
.........................
External Examiner,
...........................
Committee Chairperson, Prof. Dr. Prem Nath Maskey
Department of Civil Engineering
Pulchowk Campus, Institute of Engineering
Tribhuvan University, Lalitpur, Nepal
APPROVAL PAGE
Date:
3
3
ABSTRACT
The construction of reinforced concrete buildings from ten to twenty floors in

Kathmandu valley has lifted up few years back due to the high cost of land and other
increasing living facilities in vertical living. In almost all such buildings masonry
infill constitute a large part especially as creating partition; however, the design
practice ignores the effect of this stiff masonry infill. So, the performance of such
buildings considering the effect of infill wall should be known. The effects of infill
panels on the response of R.C frames subjected to seismic action are widely
recognized and numerous experimental investigations as well as several analytical
models have been developed on this subject. This study focused on the use of multi
strut model for the infill wall. In order to know the performance of building, drawings
were collected from DUDBC, Kathmandu, which were approved for the construction.
Two building models were prepared, one with the aspect ratio of 1.02 (lowest among
the collected drawing) and the next with aspect ratio of 2.25 (highest among the
collected drawing) in SAP 2000 for the non-linear static pushover analysis. The infill
wall were modeled as a equivalent diagonal struts (3 compression struts) considering
the effect of opening. Comparison of the result of analysis obtained showed that the
base shear capacity increase sufficiently with the introduction of struts and the
excessive crack were found in wall panel before the collapse level hinge formation in
RC members, which questions on the consideration of non-structural damage in
designing of the buildings. Also, the force reduction factor was calculated which
showed that with the introduction of strut, ductility factor decreases whereas over
strength factor increases and finally the force reduction factor is slightly reduced in
strut model than that in the bare frame model.
4
4
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
I offer my sincerest gratitude to my supervisor, Dr. Hari Ram Parajuli, who was
abundantly helpful and offered invaluable assistance, support and guidance whilst
allowing me the room to work in my own way. I attribute the level of my Masters
degree to his encouragement and effort and without him this thesis, too, would not
have been completed or written. Also, I would like to acknowledge the help of Er.
Suroj Paudel, engineer of Department of Urban Development and Building
Construction (DUDBC), Nepal.
Deepest gratitude are also due to all the teachers of IOE without whose knowledge
and assistance this study would not have been successful.
Special thanks also to all my graduate friends for sharing the literature and invaluable
assistance, without whom this thesis would not come to this form.
Niranjan Shrestha
066/MSS/F/107
5
5
TABLE OF CONTENTS
APPROVAL PAGE .................................................................................................................3
ABSTRACT ..............................................................................................................................4
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT .......................................................................................................5
1. Introduction ...........................................................................................................13
1.1 General ......................................................................................................................13
1.2 Need of Study ............................................................................................................13
1.3 Objective ...................................................................................................................13
1.4 Methodology .............................................................................................................14
1.5 Outlines of Chapters ..................................................................................................14
2. LITERATURE REVIEW .....................................................................................15
2.1 Performance-Based Design .......................................................................................15
2.2 Structural Analysis ....................................................................................................16
a. Linear Procedures ................................................................................................................. 16
b. Nonlinear Procedures ............................................................................................................ 17
c. Nonlinear Static Pushover Analysis ...................................................................................... 17
2.3 Review on the past research on Masonry In filled Frames ....................................19
a. Micro-Models ....................................................................................................................... 19
b. Macro-Models ....................................................................................................................... 20
2.4 Stiffness of Infilled Frame.........................................................................................25
2.5 Force Reduction Factor .............................................................................................26
3. DATA COLLECTION..........................................................................................29
3.1 Column Sections .......................................................................................................29
3.2 Beam sections:...........................................................................................................38
3.3 Slab thickness: ...........................................................................................................39
3.4 Materials: ...................................................................................................................39
3.5 Selection of Model: ...................................................................................................42
4. ANALYTICAL MODELLING OF INFILLED RC FRAME ..........................43
4.1 General ......................................................................................................................43
4.2 Properties of RC and Masonry component for Linear analysis ................................43
4.3 Model Description for Comparative Study ...............................................................45
4.4 Result of Linear Static Analysis ................................................................................47
4.5 Properties of RC and Masonry component for Pushover analysis ............................48
4.6 Result of Pushover analysis ......................................................................................50
4.7 Conclusions ...............................................................................................................52
6
6
5. ANALYTICAL MODELLING OF STRUCTURES .........................................53
5.1 Parameters For Performance Evaluation ...................................................................53
5.2 Structural Modeling Parameters ................................................................................55
a Linear Elastic Model Properties............................................................................................ 55
b Parameters for Pushover analysis ......................................................................................... 55
c Opening Reduction factor For Equivalent Struts .................................................................. 56
6. RESULTS AND DISSCUSION ............................................................................58
6.1 Result of Pushover analysis ......................................................................................58
a Base Shear............................................................................................................................. 58
b Performance Point ................................................................................................................. 58
c Failure Mechanism................................................................................................................ 58
6.2 Response Reduction Factor .......................................................................................65
7. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION...................................................67
7.1 General ......................................................................................................................67
7.2 Conclusion and Recommendation .............................................................................67
7.3 Recommendation For Future Extension ....................................................................68
REFERENCES .......................................................................................................................69
APPENDIX .............................................................................................................................71
7
7
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 2.1: Pushover curve of a structure .................................................................... 18
Figure 2.2 Deformation under later load (Paulay and Priestley 1992) ........................ 21
Figure 2.3: Modified strut models Crisafulli (1997) .................................................... 24
Figure 2.4: Self consisting of frame and infill ............................................................. 25
Figure 2.5: Relationship between force reduction factor (R), over strength factor (d),
ductility reduction factor (R) and displacement ductility factor () [Mwafy and
Elnashai (2002)] ........................................................................................................... 28
Figure 3.1 Shape and reinforcement of columns of structure-1................................... 30
Figure 3.4 Shape and reinforcement of columns of structure-4 ............................................... 31
Figure 3.6 Percentage of longitudinal reinforcements in columns of structure-1........ 33
Figure 3.9 Percentage of longitudinal reinforcements in columns of structure-4...... 314
Figure 3.10 Percentage of longitudinal reinforcements in columns of structure-5...... 35
Figure 3.11 Area of stirrups at end-span of column of Structure-1 ............................. 35
Figure 3.12 Area of stirrups at mid-Span of col. of Structure-1 .................................. 35
Figure 3.13 Area of stirrups at end-span of col. of Structure-2 ................................... 36
Figure 3.14 Area of stirrups at mid-span of col. of Structure-2 ................................... 36
Figure 3.15 Area of stirrups at end-span of col. of Structure-3 ................................... 36
Figure 3.16 Area of stirrups at mid-span of col. of Structure-3 ................................... 36
Figure 3.17 Area of stirrups at end-span of columns of structure-4 ............................ 37
Figure 3.18 Area of stirrups at mid-span of columns of structure-4 ............................ 37
Figure 3.19 Area of stirrups at end-span of columns of structure-5 ............................ 38
Figure 3.20 Area of stirrups at mid span of columns of structure-5 ............................ 38
Figure 3.21 Plan of structure-1 .................................................................................... 39
Figure 3.22 Plan of structure-2 40
Figure 4.1: Model 1 .................................................................................................. 46
Figure 4.2: Model 2 ................................................................................................ 476
Figure 4.3: Model 3 .................................................................................................. 47
8
8
Figure 4.4: Model 4 .................................................................................................. 47
Figure 4.5: Model 5 .................................................................................................. 47
Figure 4.6: Model 6 .................................................................................................. 47
Figure 4.7 Effect of lateral load on connection between wall and frame .................... 48
Figure 5.1 Plan of Model-A ....................................................................................... 573
Figure 5.2 Plan of Model-B ....................................................................................... 575
Figure 5.3 Model A ...................................................................................................... 57
Figure 5.4 Model B ...................................................................................................... 57
Figure 6.1 Frame showing hinge formation of bare frame (a)& Strut model (b) for
Model A ....................................................................................................................... 59
Figure 6.2 Frame showing hinge formation of bare frame (a)& Strut model (b) for
Model B ....................................................................................................................... 59
Figure 6.3. Pushover Curve along X (model A) .......................................................... 61
Figure 6.4. Pushover Curve along Y (model A) .......................................................... 62
Figure 6.5. Pushover Curve along X (model B) ........................................................ 632
Figure 6.6. Pushover Curve along Y (model B) .......................................................... 63
Figure 6.7.Capacity Demand Curve along X for Bare Frame (model A) .................... 63
Figure 6.8.Capacity Demand Curve along X for Strut (model A) ............................... 64
Figure 6.9.Capacity Demand Curve along Y for Bare Frame (model A) .................... 64
Figure 6.10.Bilinear Representation of pushover curve of bare frame as given by SAP.
(model A) ..................................................................................................................... 65
9
9
LIST OF TABLES
Table 4.1 Properties of RC Members ......................................................................................45
Table 4.2 Properties Of Masonry Infill ....................................................................................46
Table 4.3.Forces In Frame Members .......................................................................................49
Table 5.1 Ca (Effective peak accleration of the ground) and Cv (5% damped response
of a 1 second system) values (Higher seismic zone and the soft soil type) ............54
Table 5.2 Global Performance Assessment Criteria ................................................................54
Table 5.3 Dual Level Performance Objective as given by ATC 40 (1996) .............................54
Table 6.1 Enhancement of Base Shear For Model-A ..............................................................60
Table 6.2 Enhancement of Base Shear For Model-B ..............................................................61
Table 6.3 Calculation of Response Reduction Factor ..............................................................66
10
10
LIST OF SYMBOLS AND ABBREVATIONS
: Relative Stiffness between the RC frame and the Wall
: Angle between diagonal strut and Beam
d: Over Strength Factor
max: Maximum Displacement
y: Yield Displacement
ac: Opening Reduction Coefficient
bw: Width of Strut
Ca: Effective peak acceleration of the ground
CP: Collase Prevention
Cv: 5% damped response of a 1 second system
DCR: Demand Capacity Ratio
DE: Design Earthquake
DOF: Degree of Freedom
Ec: Elastic Modulus of Column
Em : Elastic Modulus of the Masonry
EQ: Earthquake Load
FEMA: Federal Emergency Management Agency
hw: Height of Infill
Ic: MOI of Column
IO: Immediate Occupancy
LS: Life Safety
ME: Maximum Earthquake
NDP: Non-Linear Dynamic Procedure
OP: Operational
R: Response Reduction Factor
Rx: Damping Factor.

11
11
R,: Ductility Reduction Factor
Sa: Spectral Acceleration
Sd: Spectral Displacement
SE: Serviceability Earthquake
tw: Thickness of Infill
Vd: Design Base Shear
Vy: Yield Base Shear
Z: Contact length
12
12
1. Introduction
1.1 General
Reinforced concrete buildings with masonry infill walls have become very
common in Kathmandu due to the availability and economy of the materials used to
construct these buildings. Rapid urbanization and economic growth has limited the
open spaces available for the new construction. So, the construction of high rise
buildings/apartments/commercials towers from ten to twenty floors in Kathmandu
valley has lifted up few years back due to high cost of land and other increasing living
facilities in vertical living such as security, water supply, electricity, sense of
community living etc. which are achieved at lower cost in vertical living.
However, in the design practice, stiff masonry infill are generally treated as
non- structural components and therefore are not considered in the analysis and design
of such buildings. In reality masonry infill tend to significantly increase the lateral
stiffness and lateral strength of RC frame buildings. Therefore, behavior of masonry
infilled frame is significantly different from that of bare frame. This fact emphases on
the necessity of considering masonry infill in analysis and design of buildings.
Dharma Ratna Maharjan [2010] studied about the seismic performance of

High rise building, but his study does not include the effect of masonry infill.
1.2 Need of Study

Initially masonry infill was considered nothing other than creating partition.
But in reality the overall strength and stiffness of infilled frame largely depend on the
infill. Moreover, in design practice for simplicity the masonry infill is ignored. Unless
& until the stiff masonry is considered, the real performance of structure cannot be
assessed. So, this type of structure needs to be assessed for earthquake scenario.
1.3 Objective
1. To assess seismic performance of high rise Buildings considering the effect of
infill wall, constructed at Kathmandu valley.
2. To study the failure mechanism.
13
13
3. To evaluate the response reduction factors.
4. To study the effect of infill wall in the performance of buildings.
1.4 Methodology
1. Data collection regarding various types of high rise buildings.
2. Selection of typical types of buildings.
3. Study of various modelling technique for masonry infill and selection of

appropriate technique based on the analytical study.
4. Analytical modelling of the selected buildings with and without considering

masonry infill for static non-linear analysis.
5. Studying the performance, failure mechanism and calculating response reduction

factor of the building in both bare frame and strut model
6. Conclusion and recommendation on the basis of obtained results.
1.5 Outlines of Chapters

This report is organized as follows:
Chapter 1: The introduction in first chapter presents a brief background, scope,

purpose, methodology and need of study.
Chapter 2: The Second chapter provide relevant literature reviews. The literature
review presented are mainly related to previous work relevant to this study
Chapter 3: The third chapter includes the description of data collected to be used for
the present study. It includes mainly the description of structural parts.
Chapter 4: The fourth chapter presents the analytical modeling techniques of the
masonry infilled frame. And selection of appropriate type of modeling technique.
Chapter 5: The fifth chapter deals with the parameters for the modeling of structures.
Chapter 6: The sixth chapter presents Result, conclusion and recommendation based
on the study.
14
14
2. LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1 Performance-Based Design

Performance-based design increasingly is being used as an approach to the
design of tall buildings. Performance-based design provides the structural engineer
with the opportunity to understand the response of a particular building relative to
site-specific conditions. A design can be optimized, resulting in more efficient and
reliable buildings. With no specific limitations on building form, framing systems, or
construction materials, greater design freedom is afforded.
According to A Consensus Document - CTBUH Seismic Working Group,

Deformation is a critical parameter in performance based seismic design because
performance is characterized by the level of damage, and damage is related to the
degree of deformation in components and systems. For primary structural elements
damage is related to the degree of inelastic deformation experienced. This is related to
their strength, and adequate strength must be provided to prevent excessive inelastic
deformation. Further, structural elements that have no deformation capacity beyond
yield (attainment of maximum strength) are not permitted to experience inelastic
deformation and so force-based checking should be used for these elements. Whilst
the same principles apply to the inertial effects on non-structural elements and
systems, they also experience deformations generated by the primary structure.
Performance here is governed by the total deformation of the structure to which they
are attached and the deformation capacity of their connections.
Performance-based methods require the designer to assess how a building will

likely perform under earthquake shaking and their correct use will help to identify
unsafe designs. At the same time this approach enables arbitrary restrictions to be
lifted and provides scope for the development of safer and more cost-effective
structural solutions. Building codes in the United States such as the Uniform Building
Code (ICBO, 1997) and International Building Code (ICC, 2006) and other national
codes based on these documents permit performance-based design. Much of the
framework for performance-based design in the USA can be traced to Vision 2000
(SEAOC, 1995), ATC 40 (ATC, 1996) and FEMA 356 (FEMA, 2000). A
performance based philosophy has been explicitly required by regulatory authorities
15
15
in Japan for buildings exceeding 60m since 1981. In China, height limits on tall
buildings are set out in the Chinese code for seismic design of buildings GB50011-
2001 and depend on the seismic zone, the structural material and the structural
systems adopted.
To evaluate the seismic performance and enhancement of existing buildings,

Performance based approach is preferred. T. A. Nelson, and E. M. Hines, studied the
Performance of a 9-Story Low-Ductility Moment Resisting Frame Under Moderate
Seismic Demands .They investigated the collapse performance of a 9-story low-
ductility moment resisting frame based on drifts obtained from a non-linear dynamic
model subjected to a suite of 14 sites specific ground motions for Boston,
Massachusetts. Ying Zhou and Xilin Lu(2006) conducted nonlinear time-history
analysis of an irregular high-rise building with two large openings (20m by 20m) in
elevation under multi-earthquake input.
2.2 Structural Analysis

FEMA 356 (ASCE 2000) gives four different analysis procedures for a
performance-based evaluation of a structure:
1. Linear Procedure: a) Linear Static Procedure
b) Linear Dynamic procedure
2. Non linear Procedure: a) Non- Linear Static Procedure
b) Non- Linear Dynamic Procedure
a. Linear Procedures
The linear analysis procedures provided in FEMA 356 consist of linear static
and linear dynamic analysis. The linear analysis procedures maintain the traditional
use of a linear stress-strain relationship, but incorporate adjustments to overall
building deformations and material acceptance criteria to permit better consideration
of the probable nonlinear characteristics of seismic response. In linear static or
dynamic procedures, used for seismic evaluation, the design seismic forces, the
distribution of applied loads over the height of the buildings, and the corresponding
displacements are determined using a linear elastic analysis. The results of the linear
procedures can be very inaccurate when applied to buildings with highly irregular
structural systems, unless the building is capable of responding to the design
16
16
earthquake(s) in a nearly elastic manner. Therefore, linear procedures may not be used
for irregular structures unless the earthquake demands on the building comply with
the demand capacity ratio (DCR) provided in the FEMA 356 guidelines.
b. Nonlinear Procedures
Nonlinear procedures consist of nonlinear static and nonlinear dynamic
analyses. The nonlinear static procedure shall be permitted for structures in which
higher mode effects are not significant, as defined by FEMA356. A nonlinear static
analysis, also known as a push-over analysis, is a static non-linear analysis under
permanent vertical loads and gradually increasing lateral loads. This consists of
laterally pushing the structure in one direction with a certain lateral force or
displacement distribution until a specified drift is attained. This procedure has gained
popularity in recent years as a relatively simple way to evaluate the design of a
structure and predict the sequence of damage in the inelastic range of behaviour. Both
ATC-40 (ATC 1996) and FEMA 273 (FEMA 1997a) adopted an approach for
performance evaluation based on nonlinear static analysis.
The non-linear dynamic procedure shall be permitted for all structures. An

analysis performed using the NDP shall be reviewed and approved by an independent
third-party engineer with experience in seismic design and nonlinear procedures. The
nonlinear dynamic procedure (non-linear time history analysis) provides an estimate
of the dynamic response of the structure when subjected to certain ground motion
demands. The results computed by the nonlinear dynamic procedure are highly
affected by the characteristics of individual ground motions. Therefore, analysis
should be carried out with more than one ground motion record. This also holds good
for the linear dynamic analysis. FEMA 356 provides guidelines regarding the required
number of ground motions that should be used for dynamic analysis.
c. Nonlinear Static Pushover Analysis
The NonLinear Static Procedure or Pushover Analysis is defined in the

Federal Emergency Management Agency document 273 (FEMA 273) [6] as a non
linear static approximation of the response a structure will undergo when subjected to
dynamic earthquake loading. The static approximation consists of applying a vertical
distribution of lateral loads to a model which captures the material nonlinearity of
17
17
an existing or previously designed structure, and monotonically increasing those
loads until the peak response of the structure is obtained on a base shear vs. roof
displacement plot as shown in Figure 2.1
Figure 2.1 : Pushover curve of a structure
The desired condition of the structure after a range of ground shakings, or Building
Performance Level, is decided upon by the owner, architect, and structural engineer.
The Building Performance Level is a function of the post event conditions of the
structural and nonstructural components of the structure. Some common Building
Performance Levels are Operational (OP) Immediate Occupancy (IO), Life Safety
(LS), and Collapse Prevention (CP). Based on the desired Building Performance
Level, the Response Spectrum for the design earthquake may be determined. The
Response Spectrum gives the maximum acceleration, or Spectral Response
Acceleration, a structure is likely to experience under the design ground shaking
given the structures fundamental period of vibration, T. This relation is shown
qualitatively in Figure 2.2.
From the Response Spectrum and Base Shear vs. Roof Displacement plot, the
Target Displacement, t, may be determined. The Target Displacement represents the
maximum displacement the structure will undergo during the design event. One can
then find the maximum expected deformations within each element of the structure at
the Target Displacement and redesign them accordingly.
18
18
2.3 Review on the past research on Masonry In filled Frames
Masonry is one of the most widely used construction material in the world. It
has been used as infill wall in RC frame buildings and initially, was considered
nothing other than creating the partitions. Latter on it was observed that the overall
strength and stiffness of infilled frame largely depends on the infill, if the frame is not
isolated from masonry infill. It has been observed in the past, that design of buildings
is done without taking into account the effect of the infill, mainly because of lack of
research and experimental work. The general idea behind ignoring infill panel during
analysis was its highly non-linear nature. The most important factors contributing to
the nonlinear behavior of infilled frames arise from material nonlinearity, which
required complex computational techniques for design. Recent studies have shown
that behavior of RC frames filled with masonry infill panel can significantly increase
the stiffness, strength and energy dissipation characteristics of framed structures. In
order to fully understand the behavior of infill panel and its mode of failure, several
analytical models have been proposed by researchers around the world. Experimental
work indicated that when an infilled frame is subjected to lateral loads, transfer of
load takes place through a truss action in the infill and this lead to development of
equivalent diagonal strut models in which infill are replaced by single or multiple
compression struts along the loaded diagonal. Several Finite Element models were
also proposed by various researches based on experimental results and finite element
studies. These models can be classified into two main groups, namely micro-models
(local) and macro-models (simplified).
a. Micro-Models
These models are represented by using Finite Element method. Mallick and
Severn [1967] were the first one to use this approach. Infill panel was represented by
linear elastic rectangular finite elements with 2 dof per node. It was assumed that the
slip would occur along the structural interface between frame and infill remaining in
contact so that there would be limiting or no friction at the separated interface. The
stiffness values obtained were found to be close matching with the experimental
values. Riddington and smith [1977] modeled the infill panel by a four noded
rectangular element with 2 dof per node and linearly varying displacement function
19
19
along the boundaries. The interface model of Riddington and smith were refined by
Liauwan and Kwan [1982] and the use of different element for infill and frame was
proposed. The infilled frame was modeled using panel element, frame element and
interface elements.
Riddington[1984] investigated the effect of initial gap between infill panels

and frame members in a parametric study with the help of full scale test and FEM
analysis. Ghosh & Amde [2002] propose a FEM model in which interface between
frame infill and mortar joints was modeled using a non-associated interface model
developed using available test data available on masonry joints. Asteris [2003]
develop a finite element technique to model the behavior of infilled frames under
lateral loads, named method of control points, as the infill frame contact length and
contact stresses were not assumed but obtained as a integral part of solution. The
benefit of using finite element approach is to study in detail all possible modes of
failure but its use is limited due to the greater computational effort and time required
in analysis & modeling.
b. Macro-Models
In order to overcome the complexity and computational requirement using
micro-models, research has been done to simplify the modeling of infill panel with a
single element. The main idea has been to study the global effects of infill panel on
structures under lateral loads. Since first attempts from Polyakov (1956), analytical
and experimental tests have shown that a diagonal strut with appropriate mechanical
properties can provide a solution to the problem. Several authors have modified the
characteristics of single strut model with multi strut configurations to better
understand the effect of micro-cracking in the corner of the infill panel due to tensile
stresses and higher shear strength of the infill panel relative to the frame. A brief
review of the expressions developed because of this experimental work is presented
below.
i. Single strut model:
Based on elastic studies Polyakov (1956) conducted one of the first analytical
studies on infilled frames. He considered the effect of infill in each panel as
equivalent to diagonal bracing. In 1961, Holmes took the idea and suggested that infill
panel can be replaced by an equivalent pin-jointed diagonal strut. He proposed that
20
20
the diagonal strut to have the same material and thickness as the infill panel. The
width of strut was taken equal to one third of the strut length as
bw = dw/3
Figure 2.2 Deformation under later load (Paulay and Priestley 1992)
Based on experimental observations, the effective width of equivalent

compressive strut was proposed to be varying from one-fourth to one eleventh of
diagonal length [Stafford-Smith & Carter 1969] .A series of test on square steel
infilled frames were performed and it was observed that contact length between the
wall and frame is related to the width of the strut. From the experimental result he
proposed the following relation for finding the contact length (z in mm) between the
wall and infill frame as
z =/2
Em t w sin(2 )
= 4
4 Ec I c hw
where represents the relative stiffness between the RC frame and the wall (mm -1).
Em is the elastic modulus of the masonry, the angle of the diagonal strut with the
beams, Ec and Ic represents elastic modulus and moment of inertia of concrete column
respectively, hw and tw represents height and thickness of infill wall respectively.
21
21
Using above expression for vertical contact length and similar expression for
horizontal contact length (zl ), Hendry[1998] proposed the following equation for the
calculation of effective width of diagonal strut.
1 2
z zl
2
bw=
2
where, zl = /l
Em t w sin(2 )
4
l =
4 Ec I b l w
Em is the elastic modulus of the masonry, Ec represents elastic modulus of concrete, Ib

,the moment of inertia of beam, lw and tw represents length and thickness of infill
wall respectively. Buonopane and white [1999] suggested that equation proposed by
Hendry [1998] largely overestimates the measured stiffness of infilled frame.
Paulay & Priestley [1992] took a conservatively high value for the width of
equivalent strut. According to them, a high value of bw will result in a stiffer structure.
The relation given by them is as follows:
bw = dw /4
Through experimental testing, Buonopane and white [1999] verify that

expression proposed by Paulay & Priestley[1992] largely overestimates the stiffness
of measured stiffness as compared to other equations. Buonopane and white [1999]
proposed to use one fourth to one sixth of diagonal length of infill as a width of strut.
Mainstone (1971) conducted tests on small scale specimens (h = 406mm)

diagonally loaded in compression and proposed the following expression:
bw = 0.16h0.3 dw
Klingner and Berter (1978) based on scale test done by Mainstone (1971) proposed
the following equation:
bw = 0.175(.h )-0.4 dw
Liauw and Kwan (1984) found the following relation from previous experimental
data:
22
22
0.95hm cos
bw =
.h
ii. Multi-Strut model:

Equivalent diagonal strut. as discussed previously for macro-modeling of
infilled frames, is directly connected between the joints of frame along loaded
diagonals and bending moments are released at both ends so as to prevent the transfer
of bending moment through strut. But in reality, there is always a contact between the
frame and infill. This concept gives rise to philosophy of multi strut model. Crisafulli
(1997) adopted the same approach, considering a multi-strut formulation as shown in
the Figure 2.4
An initial study was carried out to see the structure. The main focus was on
stiffness of the structure and in the actions induced in the surrounding frame.
Numerical results obtained from three strut models were compared with a
finite element micro-model formulation. The area of the equivalent strut was kept
constant and
static lateral load was applied assuming linear elastic behavior. Nonlinear effects were
considered for finite element model to represent the separation of panel frame
interface. Results from the test shows that, stiffness
23
23
Figure 2.3: Modified strut models Crisafulli (1997)
of the infilled frame is similar in cases considered, slightly decrease for two and three
strut model, however there was significant change in stiffness for three strut model
depending on the contact distance hz, which is function of contact length z. It was
also observed from the results that single strut model under-estimated the bending
moment, two strut model showed much larger values while three strut model
constituted better approximation with the finite element model. It was concluded from
the results, although single strut model represent good estimation of stiffness of the
infilled frame and axial forces by lateral forces, a more refined model is required
which could give realistic values for bending moment and shear force in frames.
Cavaleri et. al [2004], experimentally showed that the length of contact is the most
important parameter affecting the lateral response of infilled frame. Thiruvengadam
[1985],proposed a multi strut model for carrying out dynamic analysis of infilled
frame, where the contact lengths are determined using the equation 2.1 and 2.2
Chrysostomou et al.[1992] proposed a six compression only diagonal strut model. Out
of six three struts were provided along one diagonal for loading along that direction
and the remaining three were provided along opposite diagonal. Multi-Strut modeling
was found to be more realistic by several other researchers in the past because of
aforementioned reasons.[El-Dakhakhni et al.,2003,Sanlinajad & Hobbs
1995,Mosalam et al. 1997d,Buonopane & White 1999,Crisasfulli et al. 2000,Alcham
2002]
24
24
2.4 Stiffness of Infilled Frame
According Alessandro Vittorio Bergami (2007), In an elastic range, and
therefore in absence of cracks in the wall and detachment from the framing structure
that contains it, it is possible to presume that the reaction of the infilled frame is that
of a composed shelf consisting of the wall and the columns that confine it.
Figure 2.2: Self consisting of frame and infill
Considering the above, the stiffness of infilled frame KT can be relate to the frame and
infill as
Where, K f c = flexural stiffness of R.C. columns adopting the elastic modulus Ec

and a full section without cracks Ac
Kfw= flexural stiffness of the infill panel adopting the elastic modulus in a vertical
direction Ewv, and thickness tw
From previous reports, the following relationship is achieved
25
25
Where I* is the fictitious inertia valid in the initial phase without any cracks. As far as
shear stiffness is concerned, reference can only be made to the contribution provided
by the infill:
Therefore the total stiffness of the composed shelf is
He also performed both the analytical and experimental study on the masonry infilled
frame and found that three strut model is the best suited modeling technique than the
single strut model.
2.5 Force Reduction Factor

Response reduction factor, depending on the perceived seismic damage
performance of the structure, characterized by ductile or brittle deformations. This
characteristic represents the structures ductility, damping as well as the past seismic
performance of structure with various structural framing systems. In actual, the need
for incorporation of factor R in base shear formula is an attempt to consider the
structures inelastic characteristics in linear analysis method since it is undesirable as
well as uneconomical that a structure will be designed on the basis that it will remain
in elastic range for all major earthquakes. A limited inelastic yielding must be allowed
to the structure by considering that its vertical load carrying capacity and endangering
life safety should not be impairing. The inelastic characteristics include (i) inelastic
deformation and its changing pattern as yielding progresses, (ii) the damping
characteristics of the yielding elements, and (iii) the variation in stiffness and period
of the structure as yielding progresses. In this way, the base shear equation produces
force levels that are probably more nearly representative of those occurring in an
actual structure. It is achieved by applying those base shears for linear design that are
reduced by a factor 1/R from those that would be obtained from fully elastic response.
26
26
Experiments and performance of structure during earthquake have shown that the
structure designed for those reduced force level perform adequately, if properly
detailed. The value of R increases with the increase of structural ductility and its
energy dissipation capacity and degree of redundancy. The factor R is assigned to
different types of building structures generally on the basis of empirical or semi-
empirical judgment, experience with building performance in past earthquakes, on
analytical and experimental studies and on calibration with force levels in codes.
As stated by Mwafy and Elnashai (2002) the force reduction factor accounts for the
inherent ductility, over strength and damping of structures. Early definitions of the
force reduction factor proposed in the mid-1980s suggested sub-dividing R into the
three components mentioned above. Thus,
R= R* d* Rx
where R, is the ductility reduction factor, d is the over strength factor and Rx is the
damping factor. The effect of damping is generally included in the ductility reduction
factor (R). The Rx factor considered in above Eq. was included only to account for
response reduction provided by supplemental viscous damping devices [ATC-19,
19951, hence it could be excluded from above equation. Another term was introduced
by ATC-34 [I9951 to account for redundancy (RR). This factor is intended to quantify
the improved reliability of seismic framing systems that use multiple line of vertical
seismic framing in each principle direction of a building. The R factor is therefore
given by:
R= R* d* RR
Moreover, the over strength and redundancy are considered as one component, as has
been adopted by many investigators including some of the ATC researchers [e.g.
Freeman, 1990]. This is because the over strength parameter implicitly accounts for
redundancy through redistribution of actions; which leads to higher over strength. The
force reduction factor can be therefore defined as the product of the ductility
reduction factor (R) and the over strength factor (d), as shown in Figure. 3.4. Thus,
R= R* d
A proper calibration of the R factor can be undertaken by evaluating the two

components contributing to it. These can be obtained from the force-displacement
27
27
relationship of the structure, which can be determined either experimentally or
analytically.
Figure 2.5: Relationship between force reduction factor (R), over strength factor (d),
ductility reduction factor (R) and displacement ductility factor () [Mwafy and
Elnashai (2002)]
For structures that exhibit a period > 0.5 s, the ductility reduction factor (R) may be
taken equal to the displacement ductility factor (). The latter approximation follows
assumption, which is applicable to a wide range of structures and adopted in many
seismic design codes, the maximum displacements are considered comparable for
elastic and elasto-plastic systems. Multiplying the ductility factor () and the over
strength factor (d) results in the force reduction factor (R).
28
28
3. DATA COLLECTION
For the above said works drawings and designs were collected from
Kathmandu Division office of Department of Urban Development and Building
Construction. From the collected drawings, following important data were taken and
presented below:
From ten collected drawings, after studying, five drawings were selected for
further study. It was found that three were regular in plan, and two were irregular in
plan. Among the five buildings, one structure is with 18 floors including two
basement and its aspect ratio is 1.17 (structure-1), one structure with 13 floors
including one basement, with aspect ratio 1.02 (structure-2), one structure with 18
floors including two basement floors, with aspect ratio 1.25 (structure-3), one with 13
floors including two basement floors, with aspect ratio 2.01 (structure-4), and
structure with 13 floors including one basement floor, with aspect ratio 2.25
(structure-5)
3.1 Column Sections

The size of column varies from one structure to another. In structure-1, the
columns found were of square and rectangular shape of size 1-4x1-4,1-4x2-
0,1-4x2-6,1-0x2-0,1-0x2-6.The size of particular column is constant up
to ground floor. From first floor size changes. In structure-2, the used column are of
square ,rectangular shape of size 2-0x2-0,3-0x1-6.In structure-3, the used
column are of square, rectangular and circular cross-section of size 1-6x1-6, 1-
2x3-4, 1-8x1-8, 2-0x2-0, 2-0 ,2-2x2-2,1-2x7-,6. In structure-4,
the used column sizes are L-shape of 0-9x2-0+0-9x2-0, 0-9x3-0, 0-
9x20, 0-9x3-0+0-9x1-9 L-shaped, 0-9x2-0, 1-6x2-0, 1-6x2-6,
0-9x2-6+0-9x1-3 T-shaped, 1-0x3-0 and 0-9x1-6+0-9x2-6 L-
shaped. In Structure-5, columns used were of rectangular shape of size 1-0x2-
6,1-0x1-6,0-9x2-6.
Reinforcement
Reinforcements used in the structures are categorized in two groups. The

reinforcements used along the length of the frame element are grouped into
29
29
longitudinal reinforcements and the reinforcements used across the length of the
frame members are grouped into shear reinforcements.
a. Longitudinal reinforcements:
The longitudinal reinforcements provided in columns are found varied from structure
to structure. In structure-1,size of columns ranges from 160000 mm2 to 422500 mm2
and the maximum longitudinal reinforcement provided at bottom floors range from
1.57% to 4.93% and minimum after curtailment to the top floors range from 1.52% to
2.44%. In structure-2, the column size is found to be from
Figure 3.1 Shape and reinforcement of columns of structure-1
30
30
405000 mm2 to 360000 mm2, the maximum longitudinal reinforcement provided at
bottom floors ranges from 4.26% to 4.37% and the minimum reinforcement provided
to top floors ranges from 1.09% to 1.21%.In structure-3, size of columns ranges from
202500 mm2 to 812901.6 mm2 and the maximum longitudinal reinforcement provided
at bottom floors range from 0.89% to 3.77% and minimum after curtailment to the top
floors range from 0.89% to 1.39%. In structure-4, size of columns ranges from
122500 mm2 to 375500 mm2 and the maximum longitudinal reinforcement provided
at bottom floors range from 3.21% to 5.36% and minimum after curtailment to the top
floors range from 1.46% to 2.73%. In structure-5, the column size is found to be
225000 mm2 to 135000 mm2, the maximum longitudinal reinforcement provided at
bottom floors ranges from 3.32% to 5.69% and the minimum reinforcement provided
to top floors ranges from 1.07% to 1.92%.
31
31
b. Shear Reinforcements:
Stirrups used in columns for the structures ranges from 8mm to 12 mm in
diameter. Reinforcement area provided for shear is maximum at top and bottom of
column and minimum at middle part. The details of shear reinforcement provided
(area per running meter) for the structures are presented in the form of bar diagram.
32
32
Longitudinal Column Reinforcement
Figure 3.6 Percentage of longitudinal reinforcements in columns of structure-1
33
33
34
34
Figure 3.11 Area of stirrups at end span of Figure 3.12 Area of stirrups at mid
column of Structure-1 Span of col. Of Structure-1
35
35
Figure 3.13 Area of stirrups at end span Figure 3.14 Area of stirrups at mid span
of columns of structure-2 of column of structure-2
Figure 3.15 Area of stirrups at end span of Figure 3.16 Area of stirrups at mid
of column of structure-3 of column of structure-3
36
36
Figure 3.17 Area of stirrups at end-span of columns of structure-4
Figure 3.18 Area of stirrups at mid-span of columns of structure-4
37
37
Figure 3.19 Area of stirrups at end Figure 3.20 Area of stirrups at mid span
Span of col.of structure-5 Span of col. of structure -5
3.2 Beam sections:

The span and sections of beams used varies from structure to structure. In
structure-1, beam span varies from 11-0 (3.36 m) to 22-10 (6.96 m) and section of
beams varies from 0-9x 1-2 (0.23x 0.35 mm) to 1-0x 1-10 (0.3x 055 mm). 8
mm dia two legged shear stirrups is provided for beams.2-12 dia face bar is also
provided. In structure-2, beam span varies from 13-0 (3.96 m) to 23-0 (7.01 m)
and the section varies from 1-0x 2-7 (0.3x 0.775 mm) to 1-0x 1-8 (0.3x 0.5
mm). 8 mm dia two legged shear stirrups provided is for beams. In structure-3, the
span of beams varies from 8-4 (2.54 m) to 27-7 (8.41 m) and the sections of beam
ranges from 0-9x 1-2 (0.23 x 0.35 mm) to 1-0 x 1-8 (0.3 x 0.5 mm). The shear
stirrups provided for beams are two legged 10 mm dia. In structure-4, the span of
beam varies from 6-4.5 (1.943 m) to 21-1 (6.426 m) and section of beams ranges
from 0-9x1-8 (0.23x0.50 mm) to 0-9x2-0 (0.23xo.60 mm). The shear stirrups
provided were varied from 10 dia two legged to 8 dia two legged. In structure-5, the
span of beams varies from 5-0 (1.525 m) to 23-10 (7.264 m) and the sections of
beam ranges from 0-9x 1-10 (0.23 x 0.55 mm) to 0-9 x 2-0 (0.23 x 0.60 mm).
The shear stirrups provided for beams ranges from 8mm dia to 10 mm dia two legged
38
38
3.3 Slab thickness:
In almost all structures the basement and ground floors are used for parking
and the slab thickness varies from 0-10 (250.0 mm) to 0-7.5 (190.5 mm). In other
slabs which are used for residential and official purpose have slab thickness from 0-
4.5 (114.5 mm) to 0-6 (152.4 mm).
3.4 Materials:
Concrete used by all buildings are of grade M20 for beams and slab. For column
members in structure-1, M40 grade of concrete is used. In structure-2, structure-4 and
structure-5 M30 concrete has been used, whereas in structure-3, M35 and M25 has
been used. For staircase and shear walls M20 grade of concrete are used and the
reinforcements provided are Fe 500 and Fe415.
Figure 3.21 Plan of structure-1
39
39
40
40
41
41
3.5 Selection of Model:
After the detail study of the drawing collected, two types of simple models were
formed. They are as follows:
i. Buildings with lowest aspect ratio (i.e. dimensions along X-direction and Y-
direction are equal in plan).
ii. Buildings with highest aspect ratio (i.e. dimension in one direction X-direction
or Y-direction is much more greater than other).
From five buildings, it is seen that for lowest aspect ratio (aspect ratio=1),
structure-2 (model-A), for highest aspect ratio (aspect ratio=2.25) structure-5
(model-B), were selected for further analysis and study of performance of the
structures. Both of these buildings are identical in vertical direction, i.e. both are
of same 13 storey.
42
42
4. ANALYTICAL MODELLING OF INFILLED RC FRAME
4.1 General
The mathematical modeling of RC frame is well established in literature.
Analytical modeling of infill wall on the response of RC frames subjected to seismic
action is widely recognized and has been subject of numerous experimental
investigations, while several attempts to model it analytically have been reported. But
still, as modeling of RC frame, modeling of infill in RC frame is not well established
in literature. Scarcity of material properties of masonry, especially stress-strain curves
required in non-linear analysis and the complexity related to handling it is the main
reason behind it. Various methods for modeling of masonry wall i.e. macro modeling
and micro modeling have been proposed in literature. Although, micro modeling,
models represented by finite element method, is best suited and appropriate method of
modeling masonry infill, it require more computing power and time than that required
by macro modeling i.e., equivalent diagonal strut method, which has been found to be
sufficiently accurate in not only estimating the initial stiffness, but also lateral
strength of masonry infilled RC frame building [Polyakov 1956, Holmes 1961,
Stafford-Smith & Carter 1969, Paulay & Priestley 1992].
Before choosing the best suitable modeling option for masonry infill,
depending upon factors like complexity, time required, past research, comparative
study of various option is required. For this purpose, a single bay single storey RC
frame loaded with dead load and lateral load at top was considered.
4.2 Properties of RC and Masonry component for Linear analysis

The plane frame was considered fixed at the base. The RC frame members were
modeled as two noded frame element with 3 degree of freedom effective at each node
i.e. two translation along two direction and one rotation about the axis perpendicular
to plane of frame. Centerline modeling of frame elements was adopted and the beam
column joint was considered partially rigid. This was achieved by defining the end
offsets in beam column joint with the value of rigid zone factor 0.5.Detail properties
of frame element is given in table below.
For this comparative study, masonry infill was modeled as:
43
43
I. Equivalent diagonal strut
II. Finite Element method
In Equivalent diagonal method of modeling, masonry wall was modeled as

two noded beam element such that the transfer of bending moment from RC frame
elements to masonry is prevented. This was achieved by assigning moment releases at
both end of strut. So, in the present study the struts have only two degree of freedom
at each node i.e. translation along two direction. In case of
finite element method, masonry was modeled as shell element with membrane action
and bending action ignored. 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).Other properties are tabulated below.
Em = 2255 Mpa
As discussed earlier various researchers have proposed various expression for

the width of diagonal strut. In case of single strut model, width of strut was taken
equal to one fourth of diagonal length as proposed by Paulay & Priestley[1992]
bw = dw /4
In case of 2 strut model width of struts were taken as one eight of diagonal
length and In case of 3 strut model width of diagonal struts was taken as one eight of
diagonal length and that of off diagonal strut were taken as half of diagonal strut
such that the total width of strut remained the same as in the case of single strut
model. Another important parameter for multi- strut modeling is the location of off-
diagonal struts. In 2 strut model off- diagonal strut was connected to column at one
third distance of vertical length of contact z between infill and column. Out of the
three struts, in 3 strut modeling, off-diagonal struts were connected to the column at a
distance of half of vertical length of contact, z between infill and column. The value
of z is calculated as proposed by [Stafford-Smith & Carter 1969]
44
44
z =/2 (mm)
Em t w sin(2 )
4
=
4 Ec I c hw
where represents the relative stiffness between the RC frame and the wall (mm -1).
Em is the elastic modulus of the masonry, the angle of the diagonal strut with the
beams, Ec and Ic represents elastic modulus and moment of inertia of concrete column
respectively, hw and tw represents height and thickness of infill wall respectively.
Similarly, the off- diagonal struts were connected to the beam at one third the
horizontal length of contact between beam and infill for 2 strut modeling whereas half
the horizontal length of contact for 3 strut modeling. Horizontal length of contact is
generally equal to the half of beam length, and it has been reported that the analysis
results are independent of the stiffness of the beam [Paulay & Priestley
1992].Therefore, for the purpose of present study, horizontal length of contact was
considered same as that of vertical length of contact.
Table 4.1 Properties of RC Members

Concrete M25 (fck=25 Mpa)
Steel Reinforcement Fe 415 (fy=415)
Unit Weight 25KN/m3
Poissons ratio 0.15
Modulus of Elasticity of
25000 Mpa [5000(fck)1/2],IS456:2000
concrete
Size of Column 300x300 mm
Size of Beam 300x450 mm
4.3 Model Description for Comparative Study

Five different models were used to compare the effect of infill in masonry
infilled frame as described below.
Model 1: Bare Frame
Model 2: Single strut model along loaded diagonal
Model 3: Double strut model along loaded diagonal
45
45
Model 4: Three strut model along loaded diagonal
Model 5: Full Shell model along loaded diagonal
Model 6: Partial Shell model along loaded diagonal
Table 4.2 Properties of Masonry Infill

Unit Weight 18 KN/m3
Poissons ratio 0.1
Diagonal length of wall Dw=5.66 m
Thickness of wall 0.23 m
Modulus of Elasticity of
550fm =550x4.1=2250 Mpa
masonry
Vertical length of contact, z 1.274 m
For single strut model
5.66/4=1.42 m
Width of strut,bw
For 2 strut model
Width of both strut 0.71m
For 3 strut model
0.71m
Diagonal strut width
Off-diagonal strut width 0.35m
Figure 4.1: Model 1 Figure 4.2: Model 2
46
46
4.4 Result of Linear Static Analysis

The Results of Linear Static analysis performed for the two load cases namely
dead load (DL) and lateral load (EQ) are tabulated below. It was observed that forces
in RC members reduced considerably when stiffness of infill was considered, because
most of the lateral forces were then transferred to the wall as axial forces. Among
other forces, reduction of bending moment was most noticeable when stiffness of
infill was considered in analysis.
As we increase the lateral force, area of wall in contact with RC frame reduces
because of separation of wall from RC frame near the tension-diagonal
joints(fig4.7).In other words, effective lateral stiffness of wall, and therefore the
effective width of equivalent diagonal strut goes on reducing with the increase in
lateral forces) [Hemant B.Kaushik,2006]. This effect is similar to the creation of short
columns in RC members due to the varying unsupported length of column under
lateral load [Guevara and Garcia 2005].So the single strut model and the full shell
model does not capture the real behavior of masonry infilled RC frame as both of
47
47
these models consider same stiffness of wall irrespective of the extent of lateral force.
In reality with the increase in lateral forces effective lateral stiffness of infill wall
reduces, which is more accurately represented by multi strut models.
.
Figure 4.7 Effect of lateral load on connection between wall and frame
A consistent increase in axial force, shear force and bending moment was
observed when 3- strut model was used as compared to single and double strut model.
This was due to the partial contact between the RC frame and relatively stiffer
masonry infill. Forces in Column obtained using 3 struts model were found to be
matching more closely with that obtained using partial shell models. Hence the 3 strut
model appears to be more accurately representing the behavior of masonry infill under
lateral forces.
Similarly, slight increase in axial force was observed in beam in case of 3 strut
model as compared to the single and double strut model. In contrary, slight reduction
was observed in shear force and bending moment in beam when 3 strut model was
used as compared to single and double strut model. However, the forces obtained
using 3 strut model were also found to be more closely matching with that obtained
using the partial shell models. This further supports the case of using a 3 strut model
for masonry infill rather than using the single strut model. Further to gain confidence
on 3 strut model, non-linear pushover analysis will be performed on the bare frame
and strut models.
4.5 Properties of RC and Masonry component for Pushover analysis

Static pushover analysis is powerful tool to predict the lateral load response of
48
48
Table 4.3.Forces In Frame Members
Forces in Column
Load case: Dead
Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4 Model 6
Model 5
Models Bare Single Double Three Partial
Shell
Frame strut strut strut Shell
Axial Col.1 25 24.92 25.15 26.1 18.23 20.79

Forces(KN) Col.2 25 24.92 24.89 26.61 18.23 20.04
Shear Force Col.1 4.39 4.52 4.19 8.05 1.78 1.49

(KN) Col.2 4.39 4.27 4.36 7.49 1.78 5.38
Bending Col.1 9.3 9.48 9.46 9.82 1.11 2.45
Moment
(KNm) Col.2 9.3 9.12 9.22 8.37 1.11 6.42
Load case: EQ
Model 5
Shell
Axial Col.1 16.83 29.06 32.99 34.96 25.65 33.7

Forces(KN) Col.2 16.83 1.67 3.45 9.56 23.62 25.51
Shear Force Col.1 25.06 2.51 7.01 11.89 4.68 14.9

(KN) Col.2 24.94 2.5 6.42 13.99 4.8 16.01
Bending Col.1 42.42 4.3 6.59 7.19 1.65 6.31
Moment
(KNm) Col.2 42.19 4.27 5.43 9.26 1.14 4.25
Forces in Beam
Load case: Dead

Model 5
Shell
Axial Force(KN) 4.39 4.27 4.36 7.49 6.22 4.13
Shear Force(KN) 23.5 23.52 23.61 22.62 5.48 22.09

Bending
20.96 20.96 20.79 19.89 1.47 12.72
Moment(KNMm)
Load case: EQ
Model 5
Shell
Axial Force(KN) 24.94 2.5 3.39 13.99 40.26 39.5
Shear Force(KN) 16.83 1.67 3.45 9.56 2.06 7.3

Bending
39.64 3.91 10.74 8.43 2.25 6.94
Moment(KNMm)
49
49
structures. Output of pushover analysis can be conveniently plotted as a relationship
between lateral shear at the base of structures and corresponding displacement at any
point on the structure, called Pushover curves, for several lateral displacement
increments until target displacement is reached or structure becomes unstable because
of failure of critical elements.
Non-linear material properties are required for the pushover analysis. In SAP
2000, nonlinearity in members is not distributed along their whole length, instead,
lumped plasticity is modelled at desired location on the member.
All the beam column joints in frame were assumed 50% rigid and non-linear
column (P-M2-M3) hinge were assigned at both I and J end of column, from FEMA
356, table 6-8. Similarly, nonlinear beam hinge (M3) was assigned at both end of
beam, from FEMA 356, table 6-7.
Masonry infill were modeled as equivalent diagonal compression struts .Since,
the struts were modeled as compression only member, only axial hinges were
assumed to develop in struts. Length of plastic hinge in strut was assumed to be equal
to half of diagonal length of strut (H.B Kaushik, D.C Rai, S.K Jain). Non-linear
compressive stress- strain curves of masonry (H.B Kaushik, 2006) (Figure.4.8) are
assigned as hinge properties to equivalent diagonal struts used to model masonry infill.
4.6 Result of Pushover analysis

The Result of Linear analysis showed that 3 strut modeling for masonry infill
was more accurate and realistic in describing the elastic behavior of infilled frame. To
understand the non-linear behavior of struts, pushover analysis of bare frame,1-strut,
and 3- strut model were carried out and result were compared. The result of pushover
analysis is presented below in Figure 4.9 as a graph between roof displacement and
base shear normalized with respect to the single strut model.. Initial stiffness of
infilled frame was found to be very high in comparison to that exhibit by bare frame.
Most of the initial base shear was resisted by masonry infill, therefore, lateral strength
of models with infill was found to be much higher than that of the bare frame. The 1
strut model carries large amount of axial force, and therefore abrupt reduction in
lateral strength of frame was found when strut fails. After failure of single strut,
behavior of the model becomes similar to the bare frame. This behavior of single strut
model is far from the realistic performance of infilled frames in which full infill do
not fail at once. The lateral strength of three strut model was found to be 7.5% less
50
50
than single strut model. In 3 strut model, presence of off diagonal struts
Figure 4.8 Idealised Stress-Strain Curve For Masonry (1:6 c/s ratio)
Figure 4.9 Pushover curves of Bare frame and strut models
51
51
created short column effects in the frame and high shear forces developed in columns
of infilled frame. Firstly only an off diagonal strut failed, and therefore the lateral
strength of the frame did not reduce drastically. The remaining two struts continued to
resist considerable amount of lateral forces even after failure of one off diagonal strut.
Finally, the frame in which 3 strut model was used failed. Hence the use of strut
model appears to be more realistic and rational choice because of presence of off
diagonal struts, which distribute the stiffness of infill to larger area, and therefore
enforce gradual failure of infill walls in the frame.
4.7 Conclusions
Result of linear static analysis and the pushover analysis indicated that the
strut model is more appropriate than finite element model because of its simplicity
and among strut models, 3 strut model is more appropriate than other strut models,
because under lateral load when strut action develops, a finite area of infill is
physically connected to the beams and columns. This finite area is responsible for the
local failures in beam and columns, and the 3 strut model was found to be estimating
force resultants in frame members more accurately and realistically and also found to
effectively predicting the local failure in the frame.3 strut model was also favored by
researchers like Gergely et al. 1994, Crisafulli et al. 2000,EI Dakhakhni et al.
2003.Moreover FEMA 356 also recommends the use of compression struts eccentric
from the beam column joint. Therefore the 3 strut model app ears to be a better choice
than the other models.
52
52
5. ANALYTICAL MODELLING OF STRUCTURES
For the purpose of performance assessment of high rise buildings, the two
models were selected model-A with aspect ratio of 1.02 (Lowest among the collected
Buildings) and the model-B with aspect ratio of 2.25 (Highest among collected
buildings). Both the selected models are of same 13 storeys. Non-linear static analysis
of selected models were performed in SAP2000V.14 to compare the performance of
buildings.
Figure 5.1 Plan of model-A
5.1 Parameters For Performance Evaluation

Evaluation of performance and failure mechanism was carried out with non-
linear static pushover analysis. Parameter set of non-linear pushover analysis are
given in Table 5.1 below.
53
53
Table 5.1 Ca (Effective peak acceleration of the ground) and Cv (5% damped
response of a 1 second system) values (Higher seismic zone and the soft soil type)
IS Code ATC-40
Parameters
Design EQ Max. EQ Design EQ Max. EQ
Ca 0.18 0.36 0.36 0.45
Cv 0.3 0.6 0.96 1.2
FEMA 356 suggests two approaches for seismic evaluation i.e Global- level and
member level using three performance levels (Immediate Occupancy, Life Safety and
Collapse Prevention). For global level evaluation, the maximum inter storey drifts for
each floor level were determined based on non-linear static analysis.
Table 5.2 Global Performance Assessment Criteria

Performance Criteria(Drift Limit
FEMA 356(ASCE 2000) IS 1893:2002 & IS 13920:1993
Post EQ damage States
Essential
Immediate Occupancy-1% -
Facilities
Low probability
Life Safety -2% Serviceability limit -0.4%
of threats to life
Stability under
Collapse Prevention -4% No collapse (Ductile detailling)
gravity load
Table 5.3 Dual Level Performance Objective as given by ATC 40 (1996)
Building Performance levels
Operational Immediate Life Collapse

Seismic Event
Occupancy Safety Prevention
Serviceability EQ (SE)
Design EQ (DE)
Maximum EQ (ME)
54
54
5.2 Structural Modeling Parameters
a Linear Elastic Model Properties

For the linear elastic modelling of the structures, dimensions were taken as
shown in the Figure 5.1 and Figure.5.2. Materials properties for the modelling of the
buildings
Figure 5.2 Plan of model-B
were taken as described in the chapter 3. All the RC member sizes and reinforcements
were taken according to the actual design. And load in the model were given
according to IS475.
b Parameters for Pushover analysis

For the pushover analysis, non-linear material properties are required in addition
to the elastic material properties. In SAP 2000, nonlinearity in members is not
distributed along their whole length, instead, lumped plasticity is modelled at desired
location on the member. New analysis case for pushover analysis is created in SAP, in
which nonlinear pushover analysis was done using nonlinear dead load, to find out the
initial hinge formation in columns, beam and masonry struts, displacement control
55
55
multi-step pushover analysis with hinge unload method called Restart Using Secant
Stiffness, in separate models by applying unit acceleration in both directions.
Hinge properties For RC members
All the beam column joints in frame were assumed 50% rigid and this was
attained by the modelling technique already explained in section 4.2. Non-linear
column (P-M-M) hinge were assigned at both I and J end of column, from Default
FEMA 356, table 6-8, available in SAP 2000 V.14. Similarly, nonlinear beam hinge
(M3) were assigned at both end of beam, from Default FEMA 356, table 6-7,available
in SAP 2000 V.14.The basement wall was modeled as a shell element. Since the
failure mechanism of basement wall is not a subject of our concern in this study,
hinges were not assigned on it.
Hinge properties For Equivalent Struts.
Masonry infill were modeled as equivalent diagonal strut (3 compression
struts) considering the effect of openings. Since, the struts were modeled as
compression only member, only axial hinges were assumed to develop at the middle
length of struts. Length of plastic hinge in strut was assumed to be equal to half of
diagonal length of strut (H.B Kaushik, D.C Rai, S.K Jain). Non-linear compressive
stress-strain curves of masonry as shown in Figure.4.8 (H.B Kaushik, 2006) are
assigned as hinge properties to equivalent diagonal struts to model masonry infill.
c Opening Reduction factor For Equivalent Struts

Masonry infill were modeled as three compression struts, already described in
chapter 4. Experimental tests have shown that presence of openings significantly
change the behavior of infilled frames by reduction of strength and resistance. Due to
the variability in location and size of openings, exact prediction of strength and
stiffness of infilled frame is difficult. Mosalam and Ayala observed that Infilled
frames with openings show more ductile behavior and less strength than solid infill.
Berloldi el al. proposed a set of expressions for calculation of reduction coefficient,
ac .The expressions are given below:
ac =0.78e-0.322lnAa + 0.93e-0.762lnAc<= 1
In the above expression.
Aa\%\ = Ratio of opening area/ infill area and
56
56
Ac\%\ = Ratio of opening length/ infill length
Actual width of strut were calculated by multiplying the reduction factor with
that calculated from the method described in chapter4.
Figure 5.3 Model A
Figure 5.4 Model B
57
57
6. RESULTS AND DISSCUSION
Two selected buildings were modeled in SAP 2000, considering and without
considering the effect of masonry infill. In order to evaluate the performance of
buildings, pushover analysis of both bare frame and strut model were performed,
assigning the nonlinear column hinge (P-M-M), beam hinge (M) and masonry hinge
(p). The results obtained from the analysis are presented below.
6.1 Result of Pushover analysis

a Base Shear
Pushover analysis shows that the base shear capacity of building increase with
the introduction of masonry infill panel in the form of three compression struts,
which is very much matching with the experimental values. The base shear capacity
of model A for a typical displacement was found to be enhanced by 21% along X
direction and by 61 % along y direction. Similarly base shear capacity of model B for
a typical displacement was found to be enhanced by 68% along x direction and
34%along y direction. Comparison of the base shear has been tabulated below for
both the models.
b Performance Point
The maximum earthquake performance level as specified by IS Code was
found to meet in both bare frame and strut model of both buildings.
c Failure Mechanism
In bare frame model, the stiffness and strength of masonry infill walls were
not considered, however, its weight was included. 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.
58
58
In strut model, the stiffness and strength of infill were considered in all storey
in the form of three compression struts. Similar to the bare frame model, the
formation of hinges start from beam and gradually the formation of hinges were found
(a) (b)
Figure 6.1 Frame showing hinge formation of bare frame (a)& Strut model (b)
for Model A
(a) (b)
Figure 6.2 Frame showing hinge formation of bare frame (a)& Strut model (b)
for Model B
59
59
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
compression 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.
Table 6.3 Enhancement of Base Shear For Model-A

MODEL-A
Base shear(KN)
Enhancement
Direction Displacement(mm) Strut
Bare Frame Model in Base Shear
Model
10 661 800 21%
40 2999 3400 13%
80 5847 7000 20%
Along Px 120 8084 10000 24%
160 9635 12200 27%
200 10677 13100 23%
240 10881 13400 23%
10 711 1193 68%
40 2338 4664 99%
80 4678 9274 98%
Along Py
120 6661 12691 91%
160 7627 14047 84%
200 8288 13342 61%
60
60
Table 6.4 Enhancement of Base Shear For Model-B
MODEL-B
Base shear(KN)
Enhancement
Direction Displacement(mm) Bare Frame Strut in Base Shear
model Model
10 711 1600 125%
40 2593 5600 116%
80 4627 9600 107%
Along Px
120 5797 10400 79%
160 6560 11000 68%
200 6965 11000 58%
50 3611 4800 33%
100 6661 9200 38%
150 7931 10600 34%
Along Py 200 8644 11400 32%
250 8949 12000 34%
300 9356 12400 33%
350 9610 12150 26%
Figure 6.3 Pushover Curve along X (model A)
61
61
Figure 6.4 Pushover Curve along Y (model A)
Figure 6.5 Pushover Curve along X (model B)
62
62
Figure 6.6 Pushover Curve along Y (model B)
Figure 6.7 Capacity Demand Curve along X for Bare Frame (model A)
63
63
Figure 6.8 Capacity Demand Curve along X for Strut (model A)
Figure 6.9 Capacity Demand Curve along Y for Bare Frame (model A)
64
64
6.2 Response Reduction Factor
Base Shear
Roof Displacement
Figure 6.10 Bilinear Representation of pushover curve of bare frame as given by

SAP. (model A)
Figure 6.8 shows the pushover curve for the bare frame model A Obtained
from nonlinear static analysis. Now for the estimation of reduction of spectral
demand bilinear representation of the capacity spectrum is drawn as shown in
fig.6.13.The bilinear curve is drawn by equating the area of curve that lies inside and
outside the straight line. For the instance, the bilinear curve has been taken as given
by SAP for bare frame model A. Here in the bilinear representation the yield strength
(Vy) of the building is found to be 9380, yield displacement (y) and maximum
displacement capacity (max) of the building are found as 131.4 and 350.4. For the
design force (Vd), the linear analysis of the building was done under the load
combination as given by IS code for the design of buildings and was found to be
3638. Using the fore mentioned formula, ductility reduction factor () was found to
be 2.7 and over strength factor was found to be 2.6. Thus the force reduction factor
for the bare frame model A was determined as 6.9.
Using the above mentioned procedure ductility factor, Over strength factor
and finally force reduction factor were found for other buildings which are tabulated
65
65
below.
Table 6.3 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
Maximum Displacement, max (mm) 327.0 150.0
Design Base Shear, Vd (KN) 2172.0 2172.0
Displacement Ductility Factor, 3.1 1.6
Over Strength Factor, d 2.8 4.5
Force Reduction Factor, R 8.4 7.1
66
66
7. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION
7.1 General
For the purpose of performance assessment of high rise buildings, the two
models were selected model-A with aspect ratio of 1.02 (Lowest among the collected
Buildings) and the model-B with aspect ratio of 2.25 (Highest among collected
buildings). Non-linear static analysis of selected models was performed in
SAP2000V.14 to compare the performance of buildings.
7.2 Conclusion and Recommendation

1. The comparison of the pushover curve of bare frame model and strut model
obtained from the static non-linear pushover analysis shows that the base shear
capacity of the building considerably increase with the consideration of effect
of masonry infill. This strongly suggests the consideration of wall in the
analysis.
2. The buildings were found to be meeting the maximum earthquake

performance level as specified by IS Code in the both bare frame and strut
model.
3. The comparison of failure mechanism in all the models shows that the
initiation of the 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.
4. Collapse level hinge formation was found in the masonry struts before the
formation 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.
5. With the introduction of strut, the ductility displacement factor seems to be

decrease whereas the over strength factor (strength capacity) seems increased.
6. In overall R value seems reduced in strut model than that of bare frame, but
the difference is very much small.
67
67
7.3 Recommendation For Future Extension
1. As various current researches have shown the direct impact of the monolithic
slab on beam flexural capacity enhancement, the present research could be
extended with the consideration of the same.
2. Models used do not consider soil-structure interactions. The performance of

structure with soil interaction could be carried out.
3. In the current study, only the non-linear static analysis was performed. The
study can be extended through the dynamic analysis.
4. The work in this thesis is limited to the RC buildings only. This can be done
for the steel frame also.
5. Vertically irregular building has not studied in this recent study.
68
68
REFERENCES
1. A Consensus Document - CTBUH Seismic Working Group (2008),

Recommendations for seismic Design of High-rise Buildings
2. Abhilash R. Biju V. Rahul Leslie , Effect of Lateral Load Patterns in Pushover

Analysis
3. ATC (1996), Seismic Evaluation and Retrofit of Concrete Buildings (ATC-40),

prepared by Applied Technology Council, Redwood City, California.
4. Bergami Alessandro Vittorio (2007),Implementation And Experimental

Verification of Models for Non-Linear Analysis of Masonry Infilled R.C. Frame,
A thesis Submitted to Universita degli studi ROMA TRE.
5. CSI (2005), CSI Analysis Reference Manual for SAP 2000, ETABS, and SAFE,
Computers and Structures Inc. Berkley, California, USA.
6. Crisafulli Francisco, Analysis of Infilled Frame Structures. A Seminar on Earthen

and Masonry Structures, Universidade do Minho
7. FEMA (1997a), NEHRP Guidelines for the Seismic Rehabilitation of Buildings

(FEMA 273), prepared by the Building Seismic Safety Council for the Federal
Emergency Management Agency, Washington, D.C.
8. Final Report, Colorado Advance Software Institute, Nonlinear Pushover Analysis

of Reinforced Concrete Structures.
9. Hassan Ali (2009), Half Scale Three-Storey Infilled RC Building: A comparison of

Experimental and Numerical Models, A Dissertation Submitted to ROSE
SCHOOL.
10. Habibullah, Ashraf and Pyle Stephen (1998) , Practical Three

Dimensional .Nonlinear Static Pushover Analysis, Published in Structure
Magazine,
11. Kaushik Hemant B. (2006), Evaluation of Strengthening Options for Masonry

Infilled RC Frames With Open First Storey.
12. Mwafy, A.M. and Elnashai, A.S. (2002), CALIBRATION OF FORCE

REDUCTION FACTORS OF RC BUILDINGS, Journal of Earthquake
Engineering, 6:2, 239-273
69
69
13. Maharajan, Dharma Ratna (2010) Seismic Performance Assessment of High rise
Buildings, A thesis submitted to IOE, Tribhuvan University.
14. .Nepal National Building Code NBC 105:1994, Seismic Design of Buildings in
Nepal, Department of Urban Development and Building Construction,
Kathmandu, Nepal.
15. Nelson T. A. and Hines E. M., Performance of a 9-Story Low-Ductility Moment

Resisting Frame Under Moderate Seismic Demands
16. Smyrou Eleni (2006), Implementation and Verification of Masonry Panel model
for Nonlinear Dynamic Analysis of Infilled RC Frame., A Dissertation submitted
to ROSE SCHOOL
17. SEAOC (1995), Vision 2000 a Framework for Performance-Based Engineering,

Structural Engineers Association of California, Sacramento, California.
18. Ying Zhou and Xilin Lu (2006) Seismic Performance Evaluation of an Irregular
High Rise Building , 4th International Conference on Earthquake Engineering
,Taipei, Taiwan
70
70
APPENDIX
Column Longitudinal Reinforcement for structure-1
Type of Size of column Area of Area of
Floor % steel
column b d Column steel
basement-2 400 400 160000.00 2513.27 1.57
C1 B-1 400 400 160000.00 2513.27 1.57
GF 400 400 160000.00 2513.27 1.57
basement-2 400 600 240000.00 9852.03 4.11
B-1 400 600 240000.00 9852.03 4.11
GF 400 600 240000.00 9852.03 4.11
1 400 600 240000.00 9852.03 4.11
2 400 600 240000.00 9852.03 4.11
3 300 600 180000.00 7746.38 4.30
4 300 600 180000.00 7746.38 4.30
5 300 600 180000.00 7746.38 4.30
6 300 600 180000.00 7746.38 4.30
C2 7 300 600 180000.00 7746.38 4.30
8 300 600 180000.00 6872.23 3.82
9 300 600 180000.00 6872.23 3.82
10 300 600 180000.00 6872.23 3.82
11 300 600 180000.00 6872.23 3.82
12 300 600 180000.00 6872.23 3.82
13 300 600 180000.00 4398.23 2.44
14 300 600 180000.00 4398.23 2.44
15 300 600 180000.00 4398.23 2.44
16 300 600 180000.00 4398.23 2.44
basement-2 400 750 300000.00 11083.54 3.69
B-1 400 750 300000.00 11083.54 3.69
GF 400 750 300000.00 11083.54 3.69
1 300 750 225000.00 8853.01 3.93
2 300 750 225000.00 8853.01 3.93
3 300 750 225000.00 8853.01 3.93
4 300 750 225000.00 8853.01 3.93
5 300 750 225000.00 8853.01 3.93
6 300 750 225000.00 7853.98 3.49
C3 7 300 750 225000.00 7853.98 3.49
8 300 750 225000.00 7853.98 3.49
9 300 750 225000.00 7853.98 3.49
10 300 750 225000.00 7853.98 3.49
11 300 750 225000.00 6440.26 2.86
12 300 750 225000.00 6440.26 2.86
13 300 750 225000.00 6440.26 2.86
14 300 750 225000.00 6440.26 2.86
15 300 750 225000.00 6440.26 2.86
16 300 750 225000.00 6440.26 2.86
71
71
Type of Size of column Area of Area of %
Floor
column b d Column steel steel
basement 450 900 405000.00 4908.74 1.21
GF 450 900 405000.00 4908.74 1.21
1 450 900 405000.00 4908.74 1.21
2 450 900 405000.00 4908.74 1.21
3 450 900 405000.00 4908.74 1.21
4 450 900 405000.00 4908.74 1.21
5 450 900 405000.00 4908.74 1.21
C0
6 450 900 405000.00 4908.74 1.21
7 450 900 405000.00 4908.74 1.21
8 450 900 405000.00 4908.74 1.21
9 450 900 405000.00 4908.74 1.21
10 450 900 405000.00 4908.74 1.21
11 450 900 405000.00 4908.74 1.21
12 450 900 405000.00 4908.74 1.21
basement 600 600 360000.00 5680.00 1.58
GF 600 600 360000.00 12315.04 3.42
1 600 600 360000.00 9817.48 2.73
2 600 600 360000.00 7853.98 2.18
3 600 600 360000.00 6440.26 1.79
4 600 600 360000.00 3926.99 1.09
5 600 600 360000.00 3926.99 1.09
C1
6 600 600 360000.00 3926.99 1.09
7 600 600 360000.00 3926.99 1.09
8 600 600 360000.00 3926.99 1.09
9 600 600 360000.00 3926.99 1.09
10 600 600 360000.00 3926.99 1.09
11 600 600 360000.00 3926.99 1.09
12 600 600 360000.00 3926.99 1.09
basement 450 900 405000.00 4498.76 1.11
GF 450 900 405000.00 6157.52 1.52
1 450 900 405000.00 4908.74 1.21
2 450 900 405000.00 4908.74 1.21
3 450 900 405000.00 4908.74 1.21
4 450 900 405000.00 4908.74 1.21
5 450 900 405000.00 4908.74 1.21
C2
6 450 900 405000.00 4908.74 1.21
7 450 900 405000.00 4908.74 1.21
8 450 900 405000.00 4908.74 1.21
9 450 900 405000.00 4908.74 1.21
10 450 900 405000.00 4908.74 1.21
11 450 900 405000.00 4908.74 1.21
12 450 900 405000.00 4908.74 1.21
72
72
Floor % steel
basement-2 450 450 202500.00 2060.88 1.02
C1
B-1 450 450 202500.00 2060.88 1.02
basement-2 350 1000 350000.00 6232.92 1.78
B-1 350 1000 350000.00 6232.92 1.78
C2 GF 350 1000 350000.00 6232.92 1.78
1 350 1000 350000.00 6232.92 1.78
2 350 1000 350000.00 6232.92 1.78
basement-2 500 500 250000.00 2513.27 1.01
B-1 500 500 250000.00 2513.27 1.01
C3 GF 500 500 250000.00 2513.27 1.01
1 500 500 250000.00 2513.27 1.01
2 500 500 250000.00 2513.27 1.01
basement-2 500 500 250000.00 2513.27 1.01
C3'
B-1 500 500 250000.00 2513.27 1.01
basement-2 500 500 250000.00 2767.74 1.11
B-1 500 500 250000.00 2767.74 1.11
C4 GF 500 500 250000.00 2767.74 1.11
1 500 500 250000.00 2767.74 1.11
2 500 500 250000.00 2767.74 1.11
basement-2 600 600 360000.00 3719.65 1.03
B-1 600 600 360000.00 3719.65 1.03
C5 GF 600 600 360000.00 3719.65 1.03
1 600 600 360000.00 3719.65 1.03
2 600 600 360000.00 3719.65 1.03
basement-2 600 600 360000.00 3220.13 0.89
B-1 600 600 360000.00 3220.13 0.89
C6 GF 600 600 360000.00 3220.13 0.89
1 600 600 360000.00 3220.13 0.89
2 600 600 360000.00 3220.13 0.89
basement-2 600 600 360000.00 3220.13 0.89
C6'
B-1 600 600 360000.00 3220.13 0.89
basement-2 600 282743.34 6390.00 2.26
B-1 600 282743.34 6390.00 2.26
C7 GF 600 282743.34 6390.00 2.26
1 600 282743.34 6390.00 2.26
2 600 282743.34 6390.00 2.26
basement-2 600 282743.34 4976.28 1.76
B-1 600 282743.34 4976.28 1.76
C8 GF 600 282743.34 4976.28 1.76
1 600 282743.34 4976.28 1.76
2 600 282743.34 4976.28 1.76
73
73
size of
Type of area of area of
floor column % steel
column column steel
b d
basement-2 600 230 276000.00 9817.48 3.56
B-1 600 230 276000.00 9817.48 3.56
GF 600 230 276000.00 9817.48 3.56
1 600 230 276000.00 9817.48 3.56
2 600 230 276000.00 6283.19 2.28
3 600 230 276000.00 6283.19 2.28
4 600 230 276000.00 6283.19 2.28
C1
5 600 230 276000.00 6283.19 2.28
6 600 230 276000.00 4021.24 1.46
7 600 230 276000.00 4021.24 1.46
8 600 230 276000.00 4021.24 1.46
9 600 230 276000.00 4021.24 1.46
10 600 230 276000.00 4021.24 1.46
11 600 230 276000.00 4021.24 1.46
basement-2 230 900 207000.00 8835.73 4.27
B-1 230 900 207000.00 8835.73 4.27
GF 230 900 207000.00 8835.73 4.27
1 230 900 207000.00 8835.73 4.27
2 230 900 207000.00 5654.87 2.73
3 230 900 207000.00 5654.87 2.73
4 230 900 207000.00 5654.87 2.73
C2
5 230 900 207000.00 5654.87 2.73
6 230 900 207000.00 3216.99 1.55
7 230 900 207000.00 3216.99 1.55
8 230 900 207000.00 3216.99 1.55
9 230 900 207000.00 3216.99 1.55
10 230 900 207000.00 3216.99 1.55
11 230 900 207000.00 3216.99 1.55
basement-2 230 750 172500.00 5890.49 3.41
B-1 230 750 172500.00 5890.49 3.41
GF 230 750 172500.00 5890.49 3.41
1 230 750 172500.00 5890.49 3.41
2 230 750 172500.00 5890.49 3.41
3 230 750 172500.00 5890.49 3.41
4 230 750 172500.00 3769.91 2.19
C3
5 230 750 172500.00 3769.91 2.19
6 230 750 172500.00 3216.99 1.86
7 230 750 172500.00 3216.99 1.86
8 230 750 172500.00 3216.99 1.86
9 230 750 172500.00 3216.99 1.86
10 230 750 172500.00 3216.99 1.86
11 230 750 172500.00 3216.99 1.86
74
74
Floor % steel
basement 300 750 225000.00 10799.22 4.80
GF 300 750 225000.00 10799.22 4.80
1 300 750 225000.00 9110.62 4.05
2 300 750 225000.00 9110.62 4.05
3 300 750 225000.00 7853.98 3.49
4 300 750 225000.00 7853.98 3.49
C0
5 300 750 225000.00 7147.12 3.18
6 300 750 225000.00 7147.12 3.18
7 300 750 225000.00 4476.77 1.99
8 300 750 225000.00 4476.77 1.99
9 300 750 225000.00 4476.77 1.99
10 300 750 225000.00 3769.91 1.68
basement 300 750 225000.00 9817.48 4.36
GF 300 750 225000.00 9817.48 4.36
1 300 750 225000.00 7853.98 3.49
2 300 750 225000.00 7853.98 3.49
3 300 750 225000.00 5890.49 2.62
4 300 750 225000.00 5890.49 2.62
C1
5 300 750 225000.00 4476.77 1.99
6 300 750 225000.00 4476.77 1.99
7 300 750 225000.00 3769.91 1.68
8 300 750 225000.00 3769.91 1.68
9 300 750 225000.00 3769.91 1.68
10 300 750 225000.00 2865.13 1.27
basement 300 750 225000.00 7853.98 3.49
GF 300 750 225000.00 7853.98 3.49
1 300 750 225000.00 7147.12 3.18
2 300 750 225000.00 7147.12 3.18
3 300 750 225000.00 5183.63 2.30
4 300 750 225000.00 5183.63 2.30
C2
5 300 750 225000.00 3769.91 1.68
6 300 750 225000.00 3769.91 1.68
7 300 750 225000.00 2865.13 1.27
8 300 750 225000.00 2865.13 1.27
9 300 750 225000.00 2865.13 1.27
10 300 750 225000.00 2865.13 1.27
basement 300 750 225000.00 5026.55 2.23
GF 300 750 225000.00 5026.55 2.23
1 300 750 225000.00 3317.52 1.47
2 300 750 225000.00 3317.52 1.47
C3 3 300 750 225000.00 2865.13 1.27
4 300 750 225000.00 2865.13 1.27
5 300 750 225000.00 2412.74 1.07
6 300 750 225000.00 2412.74 1.07
7 300 750 225000.00 2412.74 1.07
75
75
Calculation Of strut Width for model B
width width
infill infill Ac reduction of of off-
Grid span Aa %
length height % factor diagonal diagonal
strut strut
Floor:FF
Grid 1-1
C-D 4116 3.741 2.45 62.84 64.2 0.24 127 64
Grid 2-2
B-C 4873 4.723 2.45 27.22 44.5 0.32 200 100
Grid 3-3
B-C 4873 4.498 2.45 31.12 31.1 0.33 195 98
C-D 4116 520 260
grid 4-4
A-B 1800 341 171
B-C 4873 4.498 2.45 31.12 31.1 0.33 195 98
Grid 5-5
A-B 2922 2.547 2.45 26.92 31.4 0.34 138 69
B-C 4873 4.498 2.45 31.12 31.1 0.33 195 98
C-D 5715 692 346
Grid 6-6
A-B 2922 409 205
C-D 5715 692 346
Grid 7-7
C-D 5715 5.565 2.45 12.32 14.4 0.47 349 174
76
76
Calculation Of strut Width for model A
infi width width

infill openin A A
ll Reductio Remark of of off-
Grid span lengt g a c
hei n factor s diagona diagona
h height % %
ght l strut l strut
Floor: GF
Grid 1-1
D-E 7163 878 439
Grid 2-2
A-B 4000 528 264
B-C 7048 873 437
C-D 2744 424 212
D-E
E-F 7430 909 455
F-G 4000 528 264
Grid 3-3
A-B 4000 513 256
B-C 7048 830 415
C-D 2744 388 194
D-E
E-F
F-G
grid 4-4
A-B 4000 513 256
B-C 7048 830 415
C-D 2744 388 194
D-E 7163 6.263 2.5 24 24 0.362 OK 305 152
E-F
F-G
77
77
Figure 1.Capacity Demand Curve along Y for Strut Model (model A)
Figure 2 Capacity Demand Curve along X for Bare Frame (model B)
78
78
Figure 3. Capacity Demand Curve along X for Strut (model B)
Figure 4.Capacity Demand Curve along Y for Bare Frame (model B)
79
79
Figure 5.Capacity Demand Curve along Y for Strut Model (model B)
Figure 5.Bilinear curve for bare frame Model (model A)
80
80
Figure 5.Bilinear curve for bare frame Model (model B)
Figure 5.Bilinear curve for strut Model (model B)
81
81

Thesis-Seismic Performance Assessment of High Rise Buildings With The Effect of Masonry Infill

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

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

Thesis-Seismic Performance Assessment of High Rise Buildings With The Effect of Masonry Infill

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

TRIBHUVAN UNIVERSITY

Thesis No: 066/MSS/107

SEISMIC PERFORMANCE ASSESSMENT OF HIGH RISE BUILDINGS

WITH THE EFFECT OF MASONRY INFILL

THE DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL ENGINEERING

IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENT FOR THE

DEGREE OF MASTER OF SCIENCE IN STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING

DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL ENGINEERING

The construction of reinforced concrete buildings from ten to twenty floors in

d: Over Strength Factor

max: Maximum Displacement

ac: Opening Reduction Coefficient

bw: Width of Strut

Ca: Effective peak acceleration of the ground

CP: Collase Prevention

Cv: 5% damped response of a 1 second system

DCR: Demand Capacity Ratio

DE: Design Earthquake

DOF: Degree of Freedom

Ec: Elastic Modulus of Column

Em : Elastic Modulus of the Masonry

EQ: Earthquake Load

FEMA: Federal Emergency Management Agency

hw: Height of Infill

Ic: MOI of Column

IO: Immediate Occupancy

LS: Life Safety

ME: Maximum Earthquake

NDP: Non-Linear Dynamic Procedure

R: Response Reduction Factor

Rx: Damping Factor.

Sa: Spectral Acceleration

Sd: Spectral Displacement

SE: Serviceability Earthquake

tw: Thickness of Infill

Vd: Design Base Shear

Vy: Yield Base Shear

Dharma Ratna Maharjan [2010] studied about the seismic performance of

1.2 Need of Study

2. To study the failure mechanism.

4. To study the effect of infill wall in the performance of buildings.

2. Selection of typical types of buildings.

3. Study of various modelling technique for masonry infill and selection of

4. Analytical modelling of the selected buildings with and without considering

5. Studying the performance, failure mechanism and calculating response reduction

6. Conclusion and recommendation on the basis of obtained results.

1.5 Outlines of Chapters

Chapter 1: The introduction in first chapter presents a brief background, scope,

2.1 Performance-Based Design

According to A Consensus Document - CTBUH Seismic Working Group,

Performance-based methods require the designer to assess how a building will

To evaluate the seismic performance and enhancement of existing buildings,

2.2 Structural Analysis

1. Linear Procedure: a) Linear Static Procedure

b) Linear Dynamic procedure

2. Non linear Procedure: a) Non- Linear Static Procedure

b) Non- Linear Dynamic Procedure

The non-linear dynamic procedure shall be permitted for all structures. An

c. Nonlinear Static Pushover Analysis

The NonLinear Static Procedure or Pushover Analysis is defined in the

Figure 2.1 : Pushover curve of a structure

Riddington[1984] investigated the effect of initial gap between infill panels

i. Single strut model: