Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Technical Proceedings ISSN 1656-7757, September 28-30, 2011 Makati City, Philippines
ABSTRACT:This paper shows the in-plane effects of CHB walls in the seismic performance of
low-rise reinforced concrete frames. The construction of low-rise reinforced concrete (RC)
buildings with infilling CHB wall is a common practice in the Philippines. Conventional
analysis of these frames treats the CHB walls as non-structural elements. However, the inherent
in-plane strength and stiffness of CHB walls allows them to interact with compositing frames
during seismic activity. These conditions deviates from the expected response of buildings
analyzed as bare reinforced concrete frame. In order to account for these effects, the CHB walls
were modeled as equivalent pin-jointed compression struts at two opposite ends of the
compositing frame forming a cross-bracing-like system. Hence, the primary objective of the
study is to investigate the influence of these CHB walls during seismic activity once considered
in the frame analysis. The study was divided into two stages: the first stage is the experimental
investigation of the mechanical properties of CHB masonry and the second stage is analytical
modeling of frames taking into account the presence of CHB infill. Load-bearing and non-load
bearing CHB prisms with four types of mortar mixture proportion were tested to determine the
local CHB infill properties based on ASTM procedures.The determined properties of CHB
masonry were used to model the infill strut using the FEMA 356 procedures. A non-linear
pushover analysis using SAP2000 was conducted in a bare frame model and sixteen frames with
different CHBinfill properties. It was found that CHB walls can significantly influence the in-
plane seismic performance of a low-rise RC frames by increasing both the strength and stiffness
of the frame byas much as 26.5% and 12.7% respectively.
1. INTRODUCTION
Reinforced concrete (RC) moment resisting frame is a common type of structural system
used in low-rise buildings in the Philippines. Concrete Hollow Block (CHB) walls are usually
provided within these frames which are commonly considered as non-structural elements.
However, in actual construction practice, these CHB walls were integrated through the infilling
frame because of the presence of reinforcing dowels which connect the CHB wall to the frame.
Under lateral loads, the frame tends to separate from the infill wall near windward lower and
leeward upper corners. This causes a compressive contact stresses which is developed between
the frame and the infillat the other diagonally opposite corners. The high in-plane rigidity of the
masonry wall provides additional stiffness to the frame. Additional stiffness reduces the natural
period of vibration which in turn leads to increase in accelerations and inertia forces(Charleston
101
50th ASEP Anniversary International Convention & Exposition, “Safer, Smarter & Greener”
Technical Proceedings ISSN 1656-7757, September 28-30, 2011 Makati City, Philippines
2008); such actionschange the structure’s mode of behavior and the forcesin the frame. The
neglect of infills in seismic design can be attributed to the common misconception that masonry
infill in frames can only increase the overall lateral load capacity;hence, beneficial to seismic
performance (Paulay and Priestly 1992). However, serious structural damages as recorded in the
1990 Luzon earthquake were traced to the modification of the structural frame due to the
presence of infilled CHB walls. The exclusion of CHB walls in the analysis of these buildings
has resulted in unintended soft storey failures and induced torsional eccentricities.
On the other hand, several researchers over the years have proven the significant positive
impact of masonry infilled walls in the seismic performance of RC frames. The observed
behavior of infilling walls clearly illustrates their significant structuralimplications such as an
increase in structural stiffness and strength relative to RC bare frames (Mondal et al. 2008).
Asteris (1996) have concluded that properly designed infills can considerably reduce the
probability of collapsed, even in cases of defective frames. Bertero and Brokken (1983) quoted
that an infill that is properly designed and connected to the frameoffers conceptual and practical
advantages, particularly if thebasic structural system is a moment resisting frame. The
introduction of the compression strut theory paved way for the designers and researchers to
investigate the effects of masonry walls in the performance of concrete frames. The compression
strut theory was based on experimental observations; i.e., when frame is acted by in-plane forces,
the frame tends to separate from the infill near windward lower and leeward upper corners of the
infill panels.This action caused a compressive contact stresses developed between the frame and
the infill at the other diagonally opposite corners. The equivalent compression strut concept was
further evaluated by Holmes (1961) in which, he developed a pin-jointed diagonal strut having
the same material and thickness of the infill and with a width equal to one-third of the infill
diagonal length. Similarly, Smith (1967) has introduced a relationship between the width of the
diagonal strut and an infill-frame stiffness parameter (ߣ ).
102
50th ASEP Anniversary International Convention & Exposition, “Safer, Smarter & Greener”
Technical Proceedings ISSN 1656-7757, September 28-30, 2011 Makati City, Philippines
initiated; that is, to determine the properties of local CHB masonry, and to adopt these properties
in the investigation on the influence of CHB walls modeled as compression infill strut in the
seismic performance of low-rise RC frames.
2. METHODOLOGY
The methodology on the investigation of the influence of CHB walls in the seismic performance
of low-rise RC frames is described in detail on the subsequent sections.
103
50th ASEP Anniversary International Convention & Exposition, “Safer, Smarter & Greener”
Technical Proceedings ISSN 1656-7757, September 28-30, 2011 Makati City, Philippines
All prism specimens were tested at an age of 28 days. The testing was conducted at the UTM
Center of Mapua Institute of Technology. Speed of loading was maintained at 15mm/min.
Modulus of elasticity was determined using the secant modulus method in which the slope of the
line for the modulus of elasticity is taken from 0.05݂′݉ to a point on the curve at 0.33݂′݉,
where ݂’݉ is the ultimate compressive strength
The building model considered is an office three-storey reinforced concrete building with
typical floor plan and elevation are shown in Figures2a and 2b, respectively. The lateral resisting
elements were located along the perimeter of the frame both on the N-S and E-W direction.
(a) (b)
CHB masonry walls enclosed the perimeter of the building. The building is located in a
seismic zone four region. Column sections are 500x500 mm, typical floor beams sections are 500
x 300 mm and roof beam sections are 400 by 250 mm. Concrete compressive strength ݂‘ܿ is
taken as 21.0 MPa and yield strength of reinforcing steel strength is taken a 276 MPa.
A two dimensional frame modeling and analysis was conducted for the frame along grid
A using the commercial software SAP2000. Flexural rigidity for columns and beams were
modeled considering the cracked section properties taken as 0.7EcIg for columns and 0.5 EcIgfor
beams (FEMA 356 2000). Design loads were referred from the minimum design load tables of
NSCP C101-01.Imposed loads for the 2nd and 3rd floor level were computed as 13.8 KN/m, and
2.4 KN/m for roof beam levels. Lateral loads were computed using the Equivalent Lateral Force
104
50th ASEP Anniversary International Convention & Exposition, “Safer, Smarter & Greener”
Technical Proceedings ISSN 1656-7757, September 28-30, 2011 Makati City, Philippines
Procedures by NSCP C101-01.Lateral load distribution was analyzed considering the effect of
accidental torsion. Column nodal loads,shown in Table 1, were distributed in proportion to their
location along grid A. Torsional analysis was conducted by moving the center of mass of the
structure by 5% of the least horizontal dimension of the structure. From the analysis, a factor of
1.027 was derived and added to the computed direct story shears. Nonlinear hinges were
modeled using the FEMA 356 default hinges properties. For beams, M3 plastic hinges were
applied at member endpoints or on their dissipative zones whereas, bi-axial (PM3) hinges were
applied at column end joints.
The CHB masonry walls were modeled as a pin-jointed strut in which resistance was
limited to compression forces only. The stiffness contribution of CHB masonry infills is
represented by equivalent compression strut connecting windward upper and leeward lower
corners of the infilled frame. The Applied Technology Council (ATC 40 1999),and the Pre-
standard and Commentary for the Seismic Rehabilitation of Buildings (FEMA 356 2000) have
recommended similar modeling procedures in order to incorporate the effects of masonry infill in
the behavior of the building frames. According to this standard and pre-standard documents, the
elastic in-plane stiffness of masonry panels can be represented by an equivalent diagonal
compression strut of a width, ܽ, as given in Equations (1) and (1a).
ቂ ସ ቃ
ౣ ୲ ୱ୧୬ ଶ ర
λଵ = (1a)
୍ౙౢ ୦
where;
105
50th ASEP Anniversary International Convention & Exposition, “Safer, Smarter & Greener”
Technical Proceedings ISSN 1656-7757, September 28-30, 2011 Makati City, Philippines
ߠ= angle whose tangent is the infill height to length aspect ratio (radians); and
ߣଵ = coefficient used to determine equivalent width of the infill strut
The width “ܽ“is related to the stiffness parameter (ߣଵ ) as described in equation 2-1a. The
equivalent diagonal strut shall have the same thickness and modulus of elasticity as that of the
CHB infill that it represents. The infill struts were placed concentrically across the diagonal of
the frame. Structural performance level for the masonry infill was monitored using the FEMA
356 (2000) drift criteria given as 0.2% for Immediate Occupancy, 0.6% for Life Safety and 1.5%
for Collapsed Prevention. The compression struts were modeled as axial elements with non-
linear axial hinges applied on endpoints of the strut member.
Twenty-four CHB units were tested under compression to compare reported compressive
strengths of CHB units to the actual experimental values. The relative percentage difference
(RPD), shown in Table 2,between the reported and actual compressive strength were reported to
be as high as 288% for the non-load bearing CHB units and as high as 147% difference for load
bearing CHB units. As shown in Table 2 the non-load bearing units have higher RPDs compared
to the load bearing CHB units. This shows that the properties of non-load bearing CHB units are
highly variable compared to the load-bearing CHB units. The higher values of compressive
strength of non-load bearing CHB units may be affected by the unreported age of the units.
Hence, such factors must be addressed in further studies.
The results of the compression test of the 2-inch cube mortar were tabulated in Table 3. Type M
mortar has the highest recorded compressive strength while the lowest compressive strength was
recorded for Type O mortar. The compressive strength of the Type M mortar is significantly
higher by approximately 320% than that of a Type S mortar. While the relative percent
difference of the strength between the other mortar types ranged from 109% to 120%.
Figure 3 shows the generated mean stress-strain diagram from compression testing of twelve
types of CHB Prism. It can be seen that the maximum compressive strength was attained by
prism type 4S-M or the prism with 4-inch load bearing CHB unit with Type M mortar while the
lowest stress level was recorded for prism type 4T-S. The differences among specimens could
be observed at strain levels between 0.01 to 0.02.
106
50th ASEP Anniversary International Convention & Exposition, “Safer, Smarter & Greener”
Technical Proceedings ISSN 1656-7757, September 28-30, 2011 Makati City, Philippines
Mixture CompressiveStength
Mortar Type Cement-to-water Ratio
Proportion (Mpa)
M 1:3 1.05 11.52
S 1:4.5 0.65 2.75
N 1:6 0.46 2.61
O 1:9 0.32 1.25
For the 6-inch CHB prism, 6S-M and 6T-M have higher stress levels corresponding to 0.01 to
0.02 levels of strain while 6T-O has the lowest recorded stress level. For the 4-inch CHB units,
4S-M has the highest stress level while the lowest stress level was reported for 4T-S. The
variability of the compressive strength results was evaluated by computing the standard error of
all the stress means. It can be seen in Figure 4, that among all the specimens, 6T-M has the most
variable stress level, followed by 4T-S for strain levels 0.01 to 0.02. . In general, a more
variable stress level was observed in non-load bearing CHB units. This is consistent with the
observed disparity in the compressive strength of non-load bearing CHB units as discussed
above.
107
50th ASEP Anniversary International Convention & Exposition, “Safer, Smarter & Greener”
Technical Proceedings ISSN 1656-7757, September 28-30, 2011 Makati City, Philippines
From the determined experimental values of compressive strength and modulus of elasticity of
CHB masonry, a relationship between the constant “a” (reciprocal of modulus of elasticity) and
compressive strength of CHB prism is shown in Figure 5.
108
50th ASEP Anniversary International Convention & Exposition, “Safer, Smarter & Greener”
Technical Proceedings ISSN 1656-7757, September 28-30, 2011 Makati City, Philippines
Figure 6shows the Pushover Capacity Curve (PCC) of RC bare frame model and sixteen
frame models with different infill properties. The figure illustrates the significant influence of
infill which increased both strength and stiffness of the frame analyzed as bare frame model. By
considering the presence of infill in the analysis, the strength of bare frame was increased by as
much as 26.5% while the stiffness of a bare frame was increased by 12.7%. The highest base
shear was recorded for frame with 4T-S infill.This infill may be considered as a relatively weak
infill with a lowest recorded modulus of elasticity of 221 MPa. Albeit, the frame with 4T-S has
resulted in a higher strength and stiffness, it did not show a good performance as localized
sudden failure was observed in modeled infill struts.
Figure 7 shows the hinges formation in bare frame, frame with relatively weak infill
(Em<510 MPa) and frame with relatively strong infill (with 710 MPa ≤ Em ≥ 510 MPa). The
graphical formation of hinges shows the weak points’ location and potential failure modes that
the structure would experience in case of a seismic activity. Significant pushover steps were
selected in order to show the global performance of each frame type. The bare frame model
(Figure 7) has achieved the desired beam mechanism behavior at the initial step of pushover.
However, it was also observed that there is formation of collapsed hinges in roof beams, second
floor beams and on groundfloor columns. Sudden formation of collapsed hinges was observed in
infill struts of frame with weak infill properties. These sudden formations of collapsed hinges
have caused a sudden reduction in stiffness which led in soft storey mechanism. On the other
hand, the formation of hinges in frames with relatively strong infill (Infill with > Em ≥ 510 MPa)
shows a better performance. Gradual formation of hinges was observed in the infill struts and
beam members. Also, there are no formation of collapsed hinges observed in beams and
columns. This is in addition with the sustained beam mechanism (strong column-weak beam)
behavior of the frame as illustrated in Figure 7.
109
50th ASEP Anniversary International Convention & Exposition, “Safer, Smarter & Greener”
Technical Proceedings ISSN 1656-7757, September 28-30, 2011 Makati City, Philippines
110
50th ASEP Anniversary International Convention & Exposition, “Safer, Smarter & Greener”
Technical Proceedings ISSN 1656-7757, September 28-30, 2011 Makati City, Philippines
4. CONCLUSIONS
Based on the results of this analytical and experimental study, the following conclusions were
drawn;
• The consideration of CHB walls in the analysis of low-rise RC frames has significantly
influenced the behavior of the frame under seismic loading. The results from the analytical
investigation shows that considering the effects of CHB walls in the seismic performance of
low-rise RC frame can increase the over-all strength and stiffness of the frame by as much as
26.5% and 12.7%, respectively. However, it was observed that the ductility of the frame was
considerably reduced except for frames with relatively weak infill properties.
• The over-all performance of the structure was investigated through formation of plastic
hinges and it was observed that frames with relatively strong infill behave more suitable as a
gradual formation of hinges was observed with no formation of collapsed hinges. On the
contrary, a sudden formation of collapsed hinges was observed in the frame with relatively
weak infill.
• The reported compressive strength of CHB units may not represent the true properties of the
CHB units. The non-load bearing CHB units show a higher RPD values indicating a higher
variability in their properties. This is consistent with the observed behavior of prism
constructed with non-load bearing CHB units which has the highest variable stress level.
• The relationship between the compressive strength of CHB masonry and modulus of
elasticity can be expressed in terms of a polynomial expression. This demonstrates that there
is a non-linear relationship between compressive strength and the elastic modulus of
masonry. The derived equation do not show a good agreement with the code-based empirical
equation for masonry compressive strength of modulus of elasticity and is attributed to the
relatively weaker units used in the study.
REFERENCES
Bertero, V.V., and Brokken, S. (1983) Infills in seismic resistant buildings. ASCE Journal of the
Structural Division, ASCE, Vol. 109, ST6, 1337 - 1361.
Federal Emergency Management Agency 356 (2000) Prestandard and Commentary for the Seismic
Rehabilitation of Buildings. Second Edition, Federal Emergency Management Agency, Washignton
D.C.
Holmes, M. (1961) Steel frames with Brickwork and Concrete Infilling. Proceedings, The Institution
of Civil Engineers, Vol. 19: 473 -478.
111
50th ASEP Anniversary International Convention & Exposition, “Safer, Smarter & Greener”
Technical Proceedings ISSN 1656-7757, September 28-30, 2011 Makati City, Philippines
Mondal G. and Jain S. K. (2008) Lateral Stiffness of Masonry Infilled Reinforced Concrete (RC)
Frames with Central Opening. Earthquake Spectra, Earthquake Engineering Research Institute, Vol. 24,
701–723
Paulay, T and Priestley,M.J.N (1992) Seismic Design of Reinforced Concrete and Masonry Buildings.
John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Smith, B.S. (1967) Methods for Predicting the Lateral Stiffness and Strength of Multistorey Infilled
Frames. Building Science, Vol. 2: 247 -257.
Engr. Edgardo S.Cruz, is a cum laude graduate of BSCE from the University of Santo Tomas in 1997. He
ranked 14thPlace in the November 1997 Licensure Examination for Civil Engineers. He finished his MS
degree major in Structural Engineering at the University of the Philippines Diliman in 2006. Currently, he
is a permanent full time faculty member at the School of Civil, Environmental and Geological
Engineering at Mapua Institute of Technology. He is also the currentfaculty research associate of the
Sustainable Development Research Office(SDRO) and Coordinator for Community Extension of the
Institute. He can be contacted at engredgar2k@gmail.com.
Dr. Delia B. Senoro, has been a practicing civil engineer for more than 2 decades and a doctor in
environmental engineering,acquired the graduate study degrees from the University of the Philippines,
Diliman in collaboration with Chia Nan University in Tainan, Taiwan. Currently, she is the Program
Coordinator for Environmental Engineering (undergraduate and graduate studies), a Professor and In-
charge of the Sustainable Development Research Office (SDRO) of the School of Civil, Environmental
and Geological Engineering, Mapua Institute of Technology. She is the Philippine representative for
Swedish International Development Cooperation Agency (SIDA) International Training Program (ITP)
on Strategies for Chemical Management (SCM) and Education for Sustainable Development (ESD) for
2011. She is also the Philippine representative for the Asian Network of Environment Research and
Energy (ANERGY) starting 2011. She can be contacted through dbsenoro@mapua.edu.ph.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The author’s would like to express their sincerest gratitude to the Engineering Research and
Development for Technology (ERDT), Department of Science of Technology (DOST),
Philippines for funding this study.
112