Page | 1

CHAPTER-1
INTRODUCTION










Page | 2

1.1 General
The failures of mostly non-engineered buildings are mainly due to
absence of connection between infill wall and confining frames, insufficient
detailing and capacity of columns, large distance between columns and poor
quality of workmanship. Recently the uses of unreinforced masonry in RC
frames are used as an infill for the construction in India for generally all kind
of buildings. Because they are easy to construct, hence used as a basic
material for construction. And also they have to enhance the lateral stiffness
and adding to the lateral load carrying capacity of the structure.
While designing a tall building we are generally consider the weight of
infill and ignore the effects of infill on frames. But fact is that the infill reduces
the ductility of the R.C. frame and hence increases stiffness. For
determination of the stability of a frame of lateral forces the use of high
strength material and the combined action between the frame and the infill is
very important factor for us.
For in plane loading the frame members and the infill interact to
improve a collective resistance to the load. The frame is relatively flexible
whereas a panel loaded in its plane is rigid and brittle failure occurs due to
even a small displacement by cracking and subsequent disintegration. Under
favourable conditions the infill may fail explosively.
The Indian Standard code I.S. 1893 (Part 1): 2002 takes into account
the effect of infill on RC frame by increasing performance factor K of the
building. However the code is silent about the effect of structural geometry
and lateral deflection of the frame.
Figure 1.1 and 1.2 show a typical Infilled wall construction of a building
respectively. In this Figure Infilled wall transmit the gravity load down to the
foundation. The wall act as a bracing panels, which resist horizontal
earthquake loads. The confining elements provide restraint to masonry infill
walls and protect to the major earthquakes.
Page | 3


Fig. 1.1 A typical infilled wall building (Ref. Svetlana Brzev, 2007)

Fig. 1.2 Infill wall construction in Slovenia (Svetlana Brzev, 2007)
Page | 4

1.2 Objective
a) For literature survey to study the influence of infill on the behaviour
of Reinforced Concrete frames.
b) To compare story drift of frames as per I.S. code using STAAD Pro.
c) To analyse the infilled frames and their diagonal strut model for base
shear as per I.S. code.
d) To study of the infill with respect to the storey shear by equivalent
diagonal strut methods.
1.3 Literature Review
1.3.1 General
Most of the research work done to find the effect of masonry infill on
reinforced concrete. Since it has been proved through various researches
and experiments that the infills change the overall behaviour of the building
and can attract forces for by which the structure is not designed. Then
various methods of analysis and design are developed by researchers since
1940s. World map of seismic zone is shown in Figure 1.3.

Fig. 1.3 World map of seismic zone (Ref. Svetlana Brzev, 2007)
Page | 5

Earlier, it was assumed that masonry infill in structural steel or
reinforced concrete frames, it can only increase the overall lateral load
capacity and therefore must continuously be valuable to seismic
performance. This concept was proved wrong when various examples of
earthquake damage were introduced due to the structural modification of the
basic frame by masonry partition and infill panels. It was proved that even if
they are comparatively weak, the masonry infill can significantly alter the
planned structural response and can attract some forces to the parts of
structure for which it has not been designed.


Fig. 1.4 Behaviour of Infilled frames (Patel 2006)
It was found that, for the dynamic response, the masonry infill wall
fillings the space between frame members not only tend to increase the
stiffness but also may completely adjust the mode of response of the frame,
changing it to a shear walls and as an effect changing the whole structure
and the resulting the distribution of forces between the different frames
constituents. Figure 1.4 shows the behaviour of Infilled frames.
Page | 6

The studies of the masonry infill on the Reinforced Concrete frame can
be divided into two categories.
a) Analytical studies
b) Experimental studies

1.3.1.1 Analytical Studies
In 1967, Mallick and Severn developed a technique for determining the
lateral stiffness of the infilled frames. They presented a method which makes
use of the concept of finite element and is thereby able to find out the point
separation among the frame and the infill, as well as the stress distribution in
the contact intervals, as an integral part of the solution. In this method also
used slip between frame and the infill. A stiffness matrix for an element of the
infill in the state of plane-stress is obtained on the basis of assumed stress
distribution, together with consisted load matrixes for the kinds of loads
experienced by an infilled frame. The method deals with rectangular, as well
as square, laterally loaded infilled frames.
Smith and Carter (1969) observed the behaviour of multi-storey infilled
frames for the case of lateral loading. It shows that the effect of the infilling of
the frame, relative to the same non-infilled frame subjected to similar forces
is to reduce substantially the bending moments in the member. On the basis
of results, Smith established the design based on equivalent diagonal strut
concept and assumed all the joints of the frame as pin jointed.
Liaw and Kwan (1984) developed a method of plastic design for both
integral and non-integral infilled frames. They proposed a unified plastic
theory for both the frames on the basis of non-linear behaviour of infill
frames. They also took into account the formation of plastic hinge in the
frame, shearing of interface connection and cracking and crushing of the
infilled panel. They developed the plastic method of design and construct
design charts for rapid computation. In 1990, they introduced a paper in
Page | 7

which six large scale models of 2 bays, multi-storeyed frames of steel work
frame and concrete infill construction were tested. This experiment set to be
a milestone for development of a general plastic theory for multi-bay infilled
frames. They introduced the plastic method for rapid computation of design
and prepared design charts.
Achyunta et al. (1994) established a procedure for the inelastic analysis
of infilled panels using the equivalent concept of diagonal strut and piecewise
linear finite element analysis. While they tested in laboratory found that w/d
ratio varying and equal to a constant value of 0.2 compare will within the
experimental results.
Asteris (2002) presented a paper for the analysis of brickwork infilled
plane with a new finite element method for lateral force. In this study he
considered the infilled finite element model. In this model the two corners
were linked at the end of the compressed diagonal of infilled. He tested for
the acceptance of the derived deformation mesh. For the purpose of study he
took one-storey one-bay infilled frame for seismic analysis. The section of the
frame was constructed with reinforced concrete 30/40 cm for both beams and
columns. He studied a computer program for a 2-D linear elastic analysis
under static load of the infilld plan frames.
Patel (2012) studied an existing RC frame building four storeys with
open ground floor with the help of the software SAP2000NL. For the study he
considered a two type of models with and without infill wall. He assumed that
the infills behave as diagonal strut. The dimensioning of infill wall was done
with the help of the method given by Smith and Carter (1969). He performed
a pushover analysis.
Sabri et al. (2013) studied a pushover analysis with the help of ZeusNL
software by using infill as equivalent diagonal strut. When subjected to
equivalent static load, with the help of obtained result they showed that infill
wall has considerable effect on the lateral stiffness and resistance of
reinforced concrete. Also they found that infill enhances seismic
Page | 8

performance. They used three type of model for analysis of building frame
bare frame, partially infilled and completely infilled. According to him infill has
always beneficial to us in comparison to other models.
Riveo et al. presented a nonlinear dynamic model of infilled frame for the
study of the interaction between wall and frame. In this they studied the
nonlinearities of the model i.e. the interaction between wall and frame, the
discontinuities between frame and wall, frame inelastic behaviour, failure and
cracking of wall and bracing effect of wall on the frame. They studied on
three-storey, one bay frame infill with walls. The model was analysed using a
computer program AWALL. In this analysis, finite element method was
considered.
1.3.1.2 Experimental Studies
Kashif et al. (2010) studied that the seismic behaviour of RC frames with
brick masonry infill for various parametric changes to observe their influence
in deformation pattern of the frame. They also found that the effect of soft
storey on frame structure due to horizontal loading. For this study a linear
finite element analysis had been performed with the help of ANSYS software
package or predicting the inelastic behaviour of RC high rise frame with brick
masonry infill. The objective of their study was to find out the effect of
horizontal loading on reinforced concrete frame with masonry infill for with
and without soft storey effect. In this study for different properties of beams
and columns the comparisons of a 10 storey 3 bay building had used.
Zhang et al. (2011) present advantage and disadvantage using three
mechanical models of infill walls in a RC frame. They studied on three
analytical models of the infill walls and some conclusions were obtained that
RC frame carries more inertia force it is due to increase in the stiffness to the
RC frame. For nonlinear dynamic analysis of reinforced concrete frame of
with and without infill walls they are using CANNY software. They showed
that the failure modes are like as the failure pattern of seismic. That proved
that the change failures of the frame are mainly due the presence of infill
Page | 9

walls. Hence, infill walls are considered in the seismic design of the multi-
storeyed RC frame.
Ahmed et al. (2013) contributes on the basis of effect of cyclic load an
experimental study for the behaviour and ductility of H.S.R.C (High Strength
Reinforced Concrete) frames with infill wall. On the basis of results obtained
they showed that the lateral load resistance for infilled frame was greater
than bare frame and also the ductility was less than bare frame.
Hirde and Bhoite (2013) studied a nonlinear analysis on 8 storey RC
moment resisting frame of three models by using SAP 2000 software
package. Model A is bare frame, model B is infill excluding ground story so
as to make it as soft story and model C is masonry infill throughout the height
of the building. The pushover analysis is carried out for the analysis. They
showed that the performance level of the bare frame and open ground soft
story roof displacement for bare frame is greater than frame with masonry
infill and open ground soft story. They also showed that the performance is
modified after modelling of infill walls with comparison to bare frame. In the
case of masonry infill the plastic deformation is within limit of columns and
beams of masonry infill. They showed that the masonry infilled add significant
lateral stiffness, overall ductility, strength and energy dissipation capability.
Adukadukam and Sengupta (2013) studied on seismic analysis of a
framed building with infill walls on frame models. They showed that the
equivalent strut method is suitable for modelling the walls in a large building.
They developed the nonlinear axial load versus deformation relationship on
the basis of experimental data. Also the parabolic-plastic relationship is
idealised as a tri-linear axial hinge property was developed using commercial
software SAP 2000 NL for the pushover analysis of two framed reinforced
concrete buildings.

Page | 10

Many researchers proved that the presence of infill wall influence the
behaviour of seismic load of structure. Analytically the model of infill frame
are divided into two parts
a) Macro Modelling and
b) Micro Modelling
The macro model deals with equivalent diagonal strut method while,
micro model deals with finite element method. The effect of infill on frame are
studied on several models, as a single strut model three strut model and
finite element model. Many researchers presented the equivalent diagonal
strut model which is given in Figure 1.5.

Fig. 1.5 Equivalent strut width (Samoila 2012)


Page | 11

1.4 Indian code Recommendations
I.S. 1893 (Part 1): 2002 Criteria for earthquake resistant design of
structures includes the effect of infill by increasing the performance factor K
which actually increases the base shear of the structure. This characteristic is
being studied in this thesis.

1.5 Overview of the Dissertation
Chapter 1 is Introduction and Literature Review of the work which give
the definition of Infill wall and the brief summary of the available literature on
various methods of design and experiments on Infill frame.
Chapter 2 is Analysis of the work which gives the brief summary about
the proposed work
Chapter 3 lateral load analysis of Infilled frame discuss the methods
given in IS 1893 (Part 1) 2002, modelling of infilled frame as diagonal strut
frame strength of infill material.
Chapter 4 numerical study and discussion frames of different storey
solved for base shear by Seismic coefficient method. The deflections of the
entire frame were studied and the strength of infill is worked out.
Chapter 5 gives the conclusions.
Annexure A shows the seismic zone map of India.
Annexure B discusses the concepts used by STAAD Pro to analysis of
the frames.



Page | 12








CHAPTER 2
METHODOLOGY










Page | 13

2.1 General
The methodology adopted was to determine the response of multi-
storeyed buildings under the action of seismic loads. The methodology
adopted is listed below:
1) A five storey frame building was adopted for investigate the response
under seismic action.
2) The frame buildings was analysed first without the consideration of
effect of infill i.e. bare frame. the effect of infill systems were
considered as
a) soft storey frame i.e. partially infilled frame
b) Uniformly infilled frame.
3) For modelling and analysis STAAD Pro. Software was used. The
buildings were modelled as 3-D frame skeleton.
4) The response quantities lateral displacement, axial force and storey
drift were obtained from the analysis for the bare frame and infilled
frames systems.
5) Based on the comparison of the response quantities, the
effectiveness of a bracing system was assessed.
2.2 Design of Infilled Frame System
The type of structural system chosen for this investigation was the
common type of bare frame (Fig. 2.1), soft storey frame (Fig. 2.2) and
uniformly infilled (Fig. 2.3) frame systems.
It was also decided that we should study the behaviour of diagonal
tensions and compressions separately. The effect of infill was considered for
exterior walls of reinforced concrete bare frame.
Page | 14


Fig. 2.1 Bare frame Fig. 2.2 Soft Storey frame
Page | 15


Fig. 2.3 Uniformly infilled Frame
2.3 Problem Statement
For seismic analysis of reinforced concrete buildings with different types
of frame system, the methodology considered in this dissertation was to
compare the seismic performance of buildings in terms of lateral
displacement, storey drift and axial force.

Various constants and dimensions are listed below as follows:
Type of structure: - Multi-storey rigid jointed frame (special RC moment
resisting frame)
Seismic Zone: - IV (Table 2, IS 1893 (Part 1): 2002)
Page | 16

Number of stories: - Five (G+4)
Material Properties
Modulus of Elasticity of concrete (E
c
) = 130 kN/m
2

Modulus of Elasticity of infill (E
i
) = 6.310
6
kN/m
2

Size of Column = 350 mm 350 mm
Size of beam = 350 mm 350 mm
Floor height = 3 m
Specific Weight of Concrete = 25 kN/m
2
Specific Weight of Infill = 19 kN/m
2

Thickness of Infill wall = 230 mm
Second Moment Of Inertia = 3.5710
-3
mm
4


Seismic Properties
Importance factor (I) = 1
Earthquake Zone = IV
Earthquake Zone factor = 0.24
Damping Ratio = 5%




Page | 17









CHAPTER-3
MODELLING OF INFILLED FRAMES










Page | 18

3.1 General
Masonry infills are used as interior dividing wall and as exterior walls to
form a part of the building in multi-storey buildings. In general practice of
India, while analysing the building frame we ignore that the strength and
stiffness of infill. But in actual, infill walls increase extensively to the strength
and stiffness of the structures and hence their negligence cause failure of
masonry as well as multi storey building.
The failure is basically due to stiffening effect of infill panels which is
cause of
a) unequal distribution of lateral forces in the different frames and
overstressing of some of the buildings frames,
b) soft storey or weak storey, and
c) short columns effect
3.2 Classification of Infill wall
FEMA 306 (1998) and Eurocode 6 (1996) define the classification of
Infill Masonry Wall. Eurocode 6 classified masonry infill wall into three groups
like Unreinforced Masonry, Confined Masonry and Reinforced Masonry.
FEMA 306 also classifies these into three categories like Reinforced
Masonry, Unreinforced Masonry and Infilled Masonry. From both there are
difference between confined masonry and infilled wall which in terms of
approaches of construction and lateral resistance mechanism.
The variations of stiffness and strength are dependent on the
mechanical properties of the material used for the infill e.g. masonry concrete
blocks reinforced concrete etc. the extension of the infill in the frame has also
affect the interaction between the frame and the infill wall.


Page | 19

3.2.1 Types of Infill Wall
In this dissertation three types of frame structure are considered for the
analysis by STAAD Pro. software in seismic zone IV from IS code 1893(Part-
1): 2002.
a) Bare frame
b) Soft storey frame
c) Uniformly Infilled frame
Fig. 3.1 shows the three dimensional view of bare frame, Fig. 3.2 shows
for soft storey frame and Fig. 3.3 shows for uniformly distributed frame
respectively.



Fig.3.1 3-D rendering view of Bare frame Fig.3.2 3-D rendering view of
Partially Infilled frame

Page | 20


Fig. 3.3 3-D Rendering view of Uniformly Infilled frame

3.3 Modelling of Infill wall
Most of the research work had done to find the effect of masonry infill
on reinforced concrete frames was for static loading. The investigators have
applied cyclic static loading to produce the effect of earthquake or wind
forces. The literature survey also relates the most of the new researches are
based on diagonal strut method. In FEMA 356 (2000) presented a method, in
which, this is based on nonlinear finite element analysis of a composite frame
with infill walls. The equivalent diagonal strut has same thickness and
modulus of elasticity as the infill wall which is shown in Fig. 3.4. For finding
the width of equivalent diagonal strut the expression given in FEMA 356
clause 7.5.2.1 (equation 7-14) has been used.


Page | 21

The equivalent width of diagonal compression strut a is

a = 0.175 (
1
h
col
)
-0.4
r
inf
(2.1)

Where,

1
= [(E
me
t
inf
sin2) / 4 E
fe
I
col
h
inf
]

. (2.2)
h
co l
= Column height between storey, in m.
h
inf
= Height of infill panel, in m.
E
fe
= Modulus of elasticity of frame, in kN/m
2
.
E
me
= modulus of elasticity of infill material, in kN/m
2
.
I
col
= Moment of inertia of column, in m
4
.
L
inf
= Length of infill panels, in m.
r
inf
= Diagonal length of infill section, in m.
t
inf
= Thickness of infill panel and equivalent diagonal strut, in m.
= Angle whose tangent is the infill height-to-length aspect ratio,
in radians.

1
= Coefficient which are used to determine equivalent width of infill
strut
Page | 22


Fig.3.4 Compression Strut Analogy-Concentric Struts (FEMA 356)
3.4 Indian Code Recommendations for infilled Frame
Indian standard code IS 1893 (Part-1): 2002,Criteria for earthquake
resistant design of structures studies the structure by two different methods.
First is Seismic Coefficient Method and other is Response Spectrum Method.
In both the methods, it describes the effect of infill through performance
factor. This performance factor (K) is increased for infilled frames which
directly increase the base shear of the structure, which in turns means that
the structure is inviting more earthquake forces for infilled frames.
The main objective of performance based seismic design was to avoid
total disastrous loss and it is to resist the structural damages caused. For this
purpose equivalent lateral force method is used to calculate real strength of
the structure.
For new ordinary structure following are the two-level performance are
a) Under DBE, damage must be restricted to slight structural damage
in order to enable immediate occupancy after DBE.
Page | 23

b) Under MCE, damage must be limited to moderate structural
damage in order to ensure life safety after MCE.

Fig. 3.5 shows the plan of the frame considering for analysis. Fig. 3.6
shows the elevation of the uniformly infilled frame, Fig 3.7 shows the
elevation of soft storey frame respectively.



Fig. 3.5 Plan of the G+4 building
Page | 24


Fig. 3.6 Elevation of G+4 Uniformly Infilled frame building


Fig. 3.7 Elevation of Soft Storey Infilled frame
Page | 25

3.5.1 Strength of Infill Frame
The presence of infill is the cause of (i) unequal lateral forces in the
different frames of a building; (ii) vertical irregularities in strength and
stiffness; (iii) horizontal irregularities; (iv) the effect of short column in infilled
frame and (v) failure of masonry infills-out-of-plane and in-plane failures.
The brick infill may be fail by
1) Sliding shear failure of the masonry along horizontal mortar
arrangements.
2) Cracking alongside the compressive diagonal and then by crushing
near one of the loaded corner or by crushing only.
3.5.2 Seismic Analysis of Infilled Frames
While using IS code 1893 (Part 1): 2002 we find the member forces in
structure for seismic loading. For designing a structure seismic coefficient is
very important factor and it is reliant on various variables factors and hence
for each case of designing it is very difficult to determine the exact value of
seismic coefficient. The I.S. code has divided country into only four zones
while earlier revision divided into five divisions. The value of seismic zone
factor has been modified; hence these reflect more realistic values of
Maximum Considered Earthquake (MCE) and for each case the service life
of structure in seismic zone. Designers expect more earthquake shocks of
less or more intensity in future. The seismic zoning map of India is given in
Figure A.1
3.5 Load Combination
The structure has been analysed for different load combinations
including the entire previous load in proper ratio as per I.S.1893 (Part 1):
2002 (clause 6.3.1.2) for limit state design of concrete buildings.

Page | 26








CHAPTER-4
NUMERICAL STUDY









Page | 27

4.1 General
In the present work, a five storey Reinforced concrete frame building
situated in seismic zone IV, is taken for study purpose. The plan area of the
building is 99 m. It consists of 3 bays@ 3 m in each in Z-direction. Height of
the building is 15 m, 5 bays@3 m. Building is symmetrical about both the
axes. The building consists of special moment resisting frame. The plan and
elevation of the building are shown in Fig. 3.4 and Fig. 3.5 respectively. For
analysis work, it was assumed that the effect of soil interaction was
neglected. The columns were assumed to be fixed at ground level.
With the help of I.S. 1893 (Part 1): 2002 method and by diagonal strut
method three structure of G+4 building of different type of frames has been
considered. Frame first is simply bare frame, second is open ground storey
i.e. soft storey and last one is uniformly distributed infill throughout the frame.
We study the effect of infill on building frame by these and compare between
them. Then these cases with simple infill and equivalent diagonal strut
method were solved with the help of Seismic Coefficient Method.
4.2 Important Definitions
I.S. code 1893 (Part 1):- 2002 (Fifth Revision) states some important
terms which are:-
a) Critical Damping: - The damping further than which the free vibration
motion will not be oscillatory.

b) Damping: - It is defined as the capability of the structure to disintegrate
the energy of the earthquake ground shaking. It is due to effect of
imperfect elasticity of material, internal friction, sliding, slipping, etc. In
reducing the amplitude of vibration. It is generally expressed as a
percentage of critical damping.

Page | 28

c) Importance Factor (I): - It is a factor used to determine the design
seismic force which depends on the functional use of the structure,
characterised by dangerous concerns of its failure, economic
importance, its post-earthquake functional need, or historic value.

d) Response reduction factor (R):- It is the factor by which the actual
base shears forces that would be generated if the structure were to
remain elastic during its response to the Design Basis Earthquake
(DBE) shaking, shall be reduced to obtain the design lateral force.

e) Ductility: - It is defined as the capacity of the building materials,
structure or its members to absorb energy for large inelastic
deformations without significant loss of strength and hence also
stiffness. It is one of the most important factor which affect the
earthquake.

f) Design Basis Earthquake (DBE): - During design life of building frame
structure earthquake occurs at least one time.

g) Maximum Considered Earthquake (MCE):- The most severe
earthquake effects considered by this standard.

h) Natural Period (T):- Natural period is time period of undamped free
vibration of the structure.

i) Seismic Weight (W):- Seismic Weight is the sum of total dead load
and appropriate amount of considered imposed load.

j) Zone Factor (Z):- It is a factor to find the design spectrum for structure
which depends on the witnessed maximum seismic risk considered by
Maximum Considered Earthquake (MCE) in the earthquake zone. The
Page | 29

basic zone factors involved for the evaluation of effective peak ground
acceleration.

k) Storey Drift: - Storey drift is the relative displacement of one level with
respect to the other level above or below of frame building.

l) Design seismic base shear (V
B
):- It is the total design lateral force at
the base of a structure.
From Figure A.1, the basic zone factor (Z) of different zone has been
given as in table 4.1
Table 4.1: Seismic zone factor of India

4.3 Equivalent Lateral Force Methods
The total design lateral load or design base shear alongside any
principal direction shall be determined by the expression
V
B
= A
h
W .... (4.1)
where,
A
h
= Design horizontal Acceleration seismic coefficient for
a structure.
W = Seismic weight of building.
Zone Zone Intensity Seismic Intensity
II 0.10 Low
III 0.16 Moderate
IV 0.24 Severe
V 0.36 Very Severe
Page | 30

The value of A
h
shall be determined from the expression given as
A
h
= (

) (

) (

) .... (4.2)

where,
Z = zone factor given in table 1
I = Importance factor,
R = Response reduction factor
S
a
/g = Average response acceleration coefficient for rock
and soil site from IS 1893(Part 1): 2002

For medium soil sites,
S
a
/g = 1+15T, 0.00 < T < 0.10 ........ (4.3)
= 2.50 0.10 < T < 0.55
= 1.36/T 0.55 < T < 4.

According to I.S. 1893 (Part 1): 2002 the distribution of lateral load along
height of the building as per the expression

Q
i
= W
i
h
i
2
/

I
h
i
2
.....(4.4)
where,
Q
i
= Design lateral force at i
th
floor
W
i
= Seismic weight of floor i
h
i
= Height of the floor I measured from base, and
Page | 31

n = Number of stories in the building
The I.S. code recommends that T maybe determined as follows for
multi-storied buildings.
For a moment resisting frame building without brick infill panels Natural
Period (T) can be calculated by the following expression
T = 0.075 h
0.75
for RC frame building. ........ (4.5(a))
= 0.085 h
0.75
for steel frame building. .... (4.5(b))
where,
h = height of the building, in m.
For all other buildings, including moment-resisting frame buildings with
brick infill panels
T = 0.09h/d .... (4.6)

where,
h = height of building, in m.
d = base dimension of the building along the direction of
lateral load at the plinth level, in m.
4.4 Load Calculation
As per IS: 875, the following loads are considered for the analysis of
the building frame.
4.4.1 Self-Weight of the Building Frame
The self-weight of the frame is taken as one which is acting in minus
Y-direction.

Page | 32

4.4.2 Slab Weight
The weight of the slab which is acting as dead load is calculated.
Load due to slab = slab thickness unit weight of reinforced cement concrete
Load due to slab = 0.150(slab thickness) 25(unit weight of RCC)
= 3.75 kN/m
2

4.5 Dead Load Considerations
The dead loads which are considered to be acting on the frame

1. Floor finishes = 1 kN/m
2

2. Unknown panels = 0.5 kN/m
2


4.5.1 Total dead load due to slab
The total dead load is the sum of the different dead loads acting on the
frame.
Total dead load = self-weight of the building frame + slab weight + dead load
considerations.
Total dead load = 3.75+1.5
=5.25kN/m
2
4.5.2 Dead load due to Infill wall
Uniformly distributed load on beams to 230 mm wall
= (height of the wall) (wall thickness) (unit weight of the masonry)
= (3-0.3) (0.23) (19)
= 11.8kN/m
4.5.3 Dead load due to parapet wall
UDL from parapet wall of 115 mm thick and 0.9 m height
= 0.1150.919
=1.97kN/m


Page | 33

4.6 Live Load
Live load is considered as per I.S. code I.S.:875(Part II)-1983 for a
residential building is taking as 3 kN/m
2
.
4.7 Seismic load
4.7.1 Design Lateral Forces
For the determination of lateral force in the code are based on the
approximation effects, yielding can be accounted for linear analysis of the
building considering the design spectrum.
The design horizontal seismic coefficient (A
h
) for structure will be
determined as per I.S. 1893(Part 1):2002, by the expression
A
h
= (Z/2) (I/R) (S
a
/g)

4.7.2 Seismic Weight
The seismic weight of each floor is its full dead load. While computing
the seismic weight of each floor, the weight of columns and walls in a storey
shall be equally distributed to the floors above and below the storey. The
seismic weight of all building is the sum of the seismic weight of all the floors.
4.7.3 Seismic Weight Calculation
Seismic weight due to beam = 0.35 0.35 3 25 24 = 220.5 kN
total weight due to slab = 0.150 9 9 25 = 303.75 kN
total seismic weight of column = 9 4 0.23 3 19 = kN
live load = 9 9 0.75 3 = 182.25 kN


Page | 34

Total seismic weight of frame calculated from STAAD Pro. V8i package
= 6512.67 kN
4.8 Calculation of Base Shear
The total design lateral load or design base shear along any principal
direction is,
V
B
= A
h
W
Time period T is
T = 0.09 h / d

= 0.09 15 / 9
1/2

= 0.45
hence, S
a
/ g = 2.379 [from, Code IS 1893(Part 1): 2002]
A
h
=024 / 2 1 / 5 2.5
= 0.0571
Base shear V
B
= 0.06 6512.67
= 371.860 kN in each direction
Table 4.2: Base shear calculation for different type of frames
Frame Seismic weight
(kN)
A
h
V
B
(kN)
Bare frame 6512.67 0.0571 371.860
Soft storey frame 6987.22 0.0571 398.956
Uniformly infilled
frame
7105.85 0.0571 405.730
Page | 35

From table 4.2, it was observed that for different load condition of
frame structure the base shear of Uniformly Infilled frame (V
B
= 405.730 kN)
is more than that of other type of frame structures.
4.8.1 Calculation of Storey Shear
Vertical storey shear distribution for the whole building can be
determined using the following expression
Q
i
=V
B
[W
i
h
i
2
/

i
h
i
2
]
Due to symmetry lateral force in z-dir. is same as that of x-direction. The
designed lateral force at different storey level is calculated for bare frame
structure.
Table 4.3: - Design lateral forces at each floor for Bare Frame.

Floor level

Height
(m)
Seismic forces
Lateral force(kN) Storey shear(kN)
F
x
F
z
F
x
F
z

5 15 165.733 165.733 165.733 165.733
4 12 109.934 109.934 275.667 275.667
3 9 61.838 61.838 337.505 337.505
2 6 27.484 27.484 364.989 364.989
1 3 6.871 6.871 371.86 371.86



Page | 36

4.9 Calculation of Equivalent Diagonal Strut
From equation 3.1, equivalent width of diagonal strut is
a = 0.175 (
1
h
col
)
-0.4
r
inf
Where,
h
col
= Column height between storey, in m = 3 m
h
inf
= Height of infill panel, in m = 3.0-0.35 = 2.65
E
fe
= modulus of elasticity of frame, kN/m
2
= 3.2 10
7
kN/m
2

E
me
= modulus of elasticity of infill material, kN/m
2
= 6.3 10
6
kN/m
2

I
col
= Moment of inertia of column, in m
4
= 1.387 10
-4
m
4

L
inf
= Length of infill panels, m
r
inf
= Diagonal length of infill panel, m = (3
2
+ 3
2
) = 4.24m
t
inf
= Thickness of infill panel and equivalent strut, m.
= Angle whose tangent is the infill height-to-length aspect ratio,
= 45= /4

1
= Coefficient used to determine equivalent width of infill strut

1
= ((E
me
t
inf
sin2) / 4E
fe
I
col
h
inf
)
1/4

= [(6.310
6
0.23sin (/2)) / (43.210
7
10
3
1.38710
-3
3.65)]
1/4
= 1.329
a= 0.175 (1.3293)
-0.4
4.24
= 0.43 m

Page | 37

Hence,
Cross-section of equivalent diagonal strut
= 0.43m0.23m
Hence, for analysis the cross-sectional dimension of equivalent
diagonal strut has been used as 0.43m0.23m.
STAAD Pro. is used to calculate the displacement, storey drift, base
shear, lateral load for preparing charts and tables for x-direction of loading.
After calculating from STAAD-Pro V8i, we have
Table 4.4: Joint Displacement (mm) at floor level of G+4 building for seismic zone IV
for x-direction

FLOOR
LEVEL

FLOOR
HEIGHT
(m)
FRAME
BARE
FRAME
(mm)
SOFT
STOREY
(mm)
UNIFORMLLY
INFILLED
(mm)
1 3
4.782
3.411 1.23
2 6
11.517
7.365 2.853
3 9
17.948
11.055 4.416
4 12
23.239
13.908 5.736
5 15
26.589
15.891 6.693

Lateral displacement vs. storey level of different frames in G+4
building. From Table 4.4 the maximum displacement of bare frame is 26.589
mm, soft storey frame is 15.891 mm and uniformly infilled frame is 6.693 mm.
the result shows that the minimum displacement in uniformly distributed
frame with compare with other types of frames.
Page | 38




Fig.4.1: Graph between joint displacement and floor level for Bare Frame, Soft
Storey and Uniformly Infilled Frame.
Fig. 4.2 shows the isometric view of displacement of bare frame, Fig.
4.3 soft storey frame and Fig. 4.4 uniformly infilled frame respectively.
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
F
l
o
o
r

l
e
v
e
l

Joint Displacement (mm)
Graph between Joint Displacement and Floor level
BARE FRAME
SOFT STOREY
UNIFIRMLY INFILLED
Page | 39


Fig.4.2 Isometric view of displacement of bare frame

Fig. 4.3 Isometric view of displacement of soft storey frame
Page | 40


Fig.4.4 Isometric view of displacement of uniformly infilled frame
Table 4.5: Lateral Load (kN) of G+4 Building for Seismic Zone IV

FLOOR
LEVEL

FLOOR
HEIGHT
(m)
FRAME
BARE
FRAME
(kN)
SOFT
STOREY
(kN)
UNIFORMLLY
INFILLED
(kN)
1 3 5.371 6.959 7.396
2 6
21.486 28.312 29.582
3 9
48.343 60.421 66.56
4 12
85.943 109.246 118.329
5 15
128.26 160.542 170.28

Page | 41



Fig. 4.5 Graph between Lateral Loads vs. Floor Level for Bare frame, Soft storey
frame and Uniformly Infilled frame

Table 4.6: Storeys Drift of G+4 Building for Seismic Zone IV

FLOOR
LEVEL

FLOOR
HEIGHT
(m)
FRAME
BARE FRAME SOFT
STOREY
UNIFORMLLY
INFILLED
1 3
0.0016 0.0014 0.0004
2 6
0.0025 0.0013 0.0005
3 9
0.0021 0.0012 0.0005
4 12
0.0018 0.0010 0.0004
5 15
0.0012 0.0007 0.0003
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
0 50 100 150 200
F
L
O
O
R

L
E
V
E
L

LATERAL LOAD (kN)
LATERAL LOAD vs FLOOR LEVEL
BARE FRAME
SOFT STOREY
UNIFIRMLY INFILLED
Page | 42



Fig. 4.6 Graph between storeys drifts and floor level for Bare frame, soft storey
frame and uniformly infilled frame
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
0 0.0005 0.001 0.0015 0.002 0.0025 0.003
F
L
O
O
R

L
E
V
E
L

STOREY DRIFT
STOREY DRIFT vs FLOOR LEVEL
BARE FRAME
SOFT STOREY
UNIFIRMLY INFILLED
Page | 43








CHAPTER-5
RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS









Page | 44

5.1 General
In this dissertation the seismic analysis of different frames in
reinforced concrete buildings was worked out with the help of STAAD Pro.
software in seismic zone IV. The result was considered in terms of lateral
displacement, storey drift, and axial force. The result was compared with
different types of frames and observed that the uniformly infilled frame was
the most efficient and effective in reducing the seismic demands of lateral
displacement, storey drift.

5.2 Lateral displacement
From Table: - 4.4, the results are compared between the bare frame
and various types of RC frames. It is observed that the maximum
displacement of bare frame is more than the soft storey or uniformly infilled
frame.
While comparison between different types of RC frame, it is find out the
Uniformly Infilled Confined masonry frame reduce more lateral displacement.

5.3 Storey drift
From Fig. 4.6, it is observed that the storey drift of bare frame is more
as compared to Infilled Frame. While comparing the different types of frame
systems, it is found that infilled frame systems reduce more storey drifts with
respect to other types of frame systems.

5.4 Comparison of Results for Displacement
The maximum lateral displacements are obtained in X direction with the
help of STAAD Pro.V8i Software Package. The results show that Uniformly
Infilled Frame reduced more lateral displacement with comparison to other
type of frame. The variation of maximum displacement and percentage
reduction of different type of model are presented in table 5.1

Page | 45

Table 5.1 Comparison between frames for % reduction of displacement
No of Storeys Bare frame Uniformly infilled
frame
% reduction
5 26.589

6.693

74.82%

5.4.1 The maximum displacements (mm) in X-direction of different
Frames
The Uniformly Infilled Frame Model reduces the maximum percentage
reduction (71%). So, Uniformly Infilled frame Model is very effective with
comparison to bare frame and soft storey frame.





Page | 46











Page | 47

6.1 Conclusion
Following conclusion is made from the present study of analysis results
under consideration of earthquake effect:-
1) Because of the increase in stiffness, the equivalent model frame of
uniformly infilled frame shows lesser displacement in comparison to
soft storey frame of building.
2) Joint displacements are very much reduced in diagonal strut model of
uniformly infilled frame as compared to both bare frame and soft
storey frame, because increase in stiffness of the modelled frame.
3) For five storey building frame, the base shear is almost same for
bare frame and uniformly infilled frame and soft storey frame model.
4) The values of axial loads to cause crushing of infill and the axial load
to cause shear failure. For the present study the frames are strong
enough to carry the loads.
5) All the values are satisfying the inter storey drift criteria, which is
prescribed by IS 1893 (Part 1): 2002, that the maximum horizontal
relative displacement due to Earthquakes forces should not exceed
0.004 times the difference in level between the forces.
6.2 Future Recommendations
Within limited scope of the present work, the broad conclusions drawn
from its work have been reported. However, further study can be undertaken
in the following areas:-
1) In the present study, the equivalent lateral force method had been
carried out for five storey frame buildings. This study can further be
extended for tall buildings.
2) In the present study, analysis is done with the help of STAAD Pro
software. Work can be done to optimize the sizes of various frame
elements.
3) A comparative study can be done to see the effect of infill wall on
performance based seismic design.
Page | 48

ANNEXTURE A
Fig. A.1 India seismic zone map (source, IS 1893 (Part 1): 2002)
Page | 49

ANNEXTURE B
ABOUT STAAD Pro
The Equivalent Force analysis is done with the help of Computer
Software (STAAD Pro V8i Package). This software system is based on
stiffness matrix analysis. The analysis of the structure requires the solution of
large number of linear algebraic system. The problem can be handled in a
systematic way in matrix notation. The structure is idealised into a skeletal
system which retains the properties of the original structure. The stiffness
matrix of the structure as a whole is assembled from the stiffness of the
individual members. The resulting equation can then be solved for either
force or displacement components in dynamic analysis.
The stiffness matrix method of analysis is the one in which
compatibility of displacement is assumed and the equilibrium equations at the
modes are formulated in terms of the nodal displacement components. The
method proceeds from part to whole i.e. member stiffness matrix are
generated and contribute to the assembly of the overall stiffness matrix are
generated and contributed to the assembly of the overall stiffness of the
structure. The stiffness matrix of a rigid frame member arbitrarily oriented in
2D plane with three degrees of the freedom at each end can be derived by
imposing a unit displacement along each degree of freedom and computing
the induced forces corresponding to all other degree of freedom.
The arbitrarily orientation of rigid frame meeting at a node makes it
difficult to set up equilibrium equations at nodes in terms of nodal
displacement. For this transformation force components from member or
local coordinates system to the global co-ordinate system is achieved by
originally derived in local coordinate system and this needs to be modified so
to represent the stiffness matrix in global co-ordinate system.

Page | 50

REFERENCES
1. Achyuntha et al., (1994). Inelastic behaviour Of Brick infilled
reinforced Concrete frames. J. Of Struct. Engg. 21, July, pp. 107-115.
2. Agarwal, P. and Shrikhande, M. (2006), Earthquake Resistant Design
of Structures, PHI Learning Ltd, New Delhi, pp.100-156.
3. Asteris, P. G. (2002), A New Method of Analysis for masonry Infilled
frames. SEWC 2002, Yokohama, Japan. pp. 1-8.
4. Attajkani, S., Khamlichi, A., and Jabbouri, A. (2013). Modelling the
Effect of Infill Walls on Seismic Performance of Reinforced Concrete
Buildings. IJJERA ISSN: 2248-9622 Vol. 3, Issue 1, January-
February 2013, pp.1178-1183.
5. Bezev, S. (2007), Earthquake Resistant Confined Masonry
Construction. NICEE IIT-K.
6. Diana, M. S, (2012), Analytical Modelling of Masonry Infills. Acta
Technica Napocensis: Civil Engineering & Architecture Vol. 55 No. 2
(2012) 127-136.
7. European committee of standardization (CEN) (1996) Design of
Masonry Structure Part 1-1. General rules for Buildings Reinforcement
and unreinforced Masonry .ENN 1996 1-1 Euro Code 6, U. K.
8. FEMA 356 (1998). Evaluation of earthquake Damage Concrete and
Masonry wall Buildings Basic Procedure Manual ", Federal
Emergency Management Agency Washington D.C
9. Hirde, S., Bhoite, D. (2013). Effect of Modelling of Infill Walls on
Performance of Multistory RC Building. IJCIET, Volume 4, Issue 4,
July-August (2013). pp. 243-250.
10. IS 875:1960, Code of Practice for Structural Safety of Building:
Loading Standards. Bureau of Indian Standards, New Delhi.
11. IS 1893(Part 1): 2002, Criteria of Earthquake Resistant Design of
Structures. Bureau of Indian Standards, New Delhi.
12. Liauw and Kwan (1984). Plastic Design of Infilled Frames. Proc.,
Insti. Of Civil Engg., Part-II, Sept., pp. 367-377
Page | 51

13. Mahmud, K., Islam, R., Al-Amin (2012). Study the Reinforced
Concrete Frame with Brick masonry Infill due to Lateral Loads.
IJCEE-IJENS Vol: 10 No: 04, pp.35-40.
14. Patel, S. (2012), Earthquake Resistant Design of Low-rise Open
Ground Storey Framed Building. M.Tech thesis (Major report), NIT
Rourkela.
15. Rivero, C. E., Walker, W. H., An Analytical Study of the Interaction of
Frames and Infill masonry Walls. Civil Engineering Studies, Structural
Research Series, no. 502, Urbana, Illinois, Sept. 1982.
16. Singh, S. K. (2000), Effect Of brick Masonry Infill on Seismic
behaviour Of R.C. frames. M.E. (Major Report), D.C.E. Delhi
17. Smith, B. Stafford (1966). Behaviour of Square Infilled Frames. J. Of
Struct. Div. ASCE, 92(1), Feb, pp. 381-403
18. Cuiqiang, Z., Ying, Z., Deyuan, Z. and Xilin, L. (2011). Study on the
Effect of Infill walls on the Seismic Performance of a Reinforced
Concrete Frame. Earthq Eng & Eng Vib (2011) 10: 507-517.