Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 9

CE625 - Term Project

Effects of Masonry infill wall on Seismic Design of Reinforced Concrete Frames

Submitted by: Chinta Chetan (Y9103014) Raghav Sharma (Y9103044) Nirav Thakkar (Y9103059)

CE625 Masonry Structures Dr. Durgesh C. Rai Department of Civil Engineering IIT Kanpur

Abstract
Primarily, masonry provides means of economics, accessibility, aesthetics and functionality. Often masonry is used for infill walls in framed structures. Masonry infill (MI) wall stiffens the reinforced concrete (RC) frames, reduces the natural period and increases the seismic forces. Being stiffer component (as compared to RC frame), MI walls resists most of the lateral force coming on the building and there by reduces the residual lateral force to be resisted by RC frame. Due to brittle failure and significant variations in material properties, it is difficult to predict the behaviour of MI walls under various loading conditions. Because of this, many national codes treat the MI walls as non-structural elements in RC frames. However, presence of MI walls in RC frames may have significant positive and/or negative impacts on global and local response of structure. Considering that, such MI-RC frames are the most common type of structures used for multi-storey constructions in the developing countries, there is need to develop robust seismic design procedures for such buildings. MI walls contribute to high initial stiffness of the MI-RC frames, thus reduces lateral deformation of the building. Symmetrical layout and regular distribution of MI walls along height of MI walls significantly improves the performance of MI-RC frames under lateral loads. It imparts ductility and dissipates energy through friction. Reinforced MI walls prevent out-of-plane collapse of cracked MI walls and increase ductility of the MI-RC frames by allowing large deformations without collapse. Due to high stiffness of MI-RC frames, natural period of the building decreases, thus increasing seismic demand of the building. MI walls may get cracked under high in-plane forces, thus increasing the seismic forces to be resisted by RC frame members. Due to inplane cracks, MI walls are susceptible to out-of-plane collapse, thus may cause danger to life. Unsymmetrical layout and irregular distribution of MI walls along the height of the building may result in poor performance of the building under severe ground motion. The RC frame members may be subjected to higher shear forces due to torsion, soft storey effect and short column effect. The analysis of such irregular MI-RC frames becomes extremely difficult. Openings provided in MI walls due to door and windows may reduce its in-plane strength and stiffness.

Effects of Masonry infill wall on Seismic Design of Reinforced Concrete Frames

Page 2 of 9

Introduction
Masonry is one of the oldest types of construction materials currently in use around the globe. This material has been used for centuries, by various cultures, in typical constructions. Construction of masonry is cheaper because it uses locally available material and labour skills. It has good sound and heat insulation and waterproofing properties, resulting in greater occupant comforts and economy. Masonry has many uses in the construction industry. Often it is used for infill walls in frame structures. In most of the cases, MI is not considered as a part of the lateral force resisting system. For this reason MI panels are considered as simply an environmental divider that forms the envelope of a building. Moreover, since MI walls are not included in conventional structural modelling and analysis for the purposes of seismic design, their contribution to the lateral stiffness and strength, if significant, may invalidate the analysis. As a result, two opposite schools of thought have emerged: according to the first, MI walls introduce a significant source of uncertainty in the seismic response, negate the efforts of the designer to control the seismic response and performance of the structure, and overall have more negative effects than positive. Accordingly, MI walls, if present at all, shall be engineered to be a non-structural member through proper isolation from the surrounding structural members. The other school of thought supports, on the contrary, that because of economic considerations and of the unpredictability of the peak seismic demands on our structures, the engineer should take profit from every element, structural or non-structural, that can contribute to earthquake resistance. Accordingly, he should make every effort to maximize the role of MI walls as a second line of defence against the seismic action and to minimize their potential detrimental effects, global or local, through proper selection of their layout and quality control during construction. Seismic design codes usually adopt the first point of view, penalizing MI-RC frames in comparison to bare ones. Contrary to popular assumptions made in the design and analysis of frame structures, the presence of MI walls influences the behaviour of structures during large ground motions. Introduction of MI walls in RC frames changes the lateral-load transfer mechanism of the structure from predominant frame action to predominant truss action (Figure 1), as seen in literature, which is responsible for reduction in bending moments and increase in axial forces in the frame members. This report aims at reviewing the influence of MI walls on the structural performance of a RC frame to assess structural damage, if subjected to a ground motion. The report also defines the properties of MI walls such as stiffness, ductility, effects of openings and energy dissipation; which can influence the behaviour of RC frame during ground motion.

Effects of Masonry infill wall on Seismic Design of Reinforced Concrete Frames

Page 3 of 9

Figure 1: Influence of masonry infill wall in reinforced concrete frames

Literature Review
Method of analysis Structures with simple and regular geometry, performs well during earthquake and unsymmetrical placement of MI walls may introduce irregularities. Codes suggest static analysis for regular short buildings located in regions of low seismicity. However, dynamic analysis is recommended, in which all the mass and stiffness imparting elements shall be adequately modelled. Most codes emphasis on use of maximum design forces obtained from static and dynamic analysis. This ensures design of buildings for unreasonably low forces that may result from various uncertainties involved in dynamic analysis. Some codes recognise this fact and suggest analysis of structure as a pin jointed truss with MI walls as diagonal struts. The seismic design of MI-RC frames is handled in different ways across the world. Some of the prevalent design practices are: 1. MI walls and RC frames are constructed such that only RC frame resist lateral loads. This can be achieved by separating MI walls from RC frames. 2. The most adopted design practice in the developing countries is to consider MI walls as non-structural elements even though it is structurally connected to RC frames. 3. MI walls are structurally connected to RC frames and their in-plane stiffness is also considered during the analysis of the structure. Natural Period Natural period of the structure depends on mass and lateral stiffness of the structure. Presence of non-isolated MI walls increases both, mass and lateral stiffness of the structure. But influence to lateral stiffness is much significant than mass. Hence, generally, the natural period of the MI-RC frames is lower than the bare ones. Because of this, MI-RC frames are subjected to high seismic forces as compared to bare ones. Presence of MI walls in first storey greatly influence the natural period. The MI walls at higher lever simply add to the total mass of the structure and its contribution to lateral stiffness is considerably smaller. Codes specify empirical formula for calculation of fundamental natural period of the structure. Few codes recommend use of Rayleigh formula for better estimation of fundamental natural period of the MI-RC frames. However, these codes put upper limit on natural period obtained from Rayleigh method by specifying empirical formula for the same to safeguard against unreasonably low seismic forces.
Effects of Masonry infill wall on Seismic Design of Reinforced Concrete Frames

Page 4 of 9

Lateral Load sharing between MI walls and RC frame The lateral load is shared by MI walls and RC frame members in proportion to their relative stiffness at all storey levels. MI walls, being stiffer component, attract most of the lateral forces, but fail prematurely because of the brittle behaviour. In such cases, RC frame members shall have sufficient backup strength to prevent collapse of the structure. Most codes suggest that RC frame members shall be designed to resist at-least 25-65% of the total lateral forces in addition to gravity loads. MI walls may carry at the most 20% of the total gravity loads. Plan Irregularities Primarily, location of MI walls are finalised by keeping functionality of the building in mind rather than overall structure behaviour. Due to this, symmetrical placement of MI walls becomes difficult. Asymmetrical placement of MI walls introduces plan irregularities into the structure and the structure is subjected to additional shear forces due to torsion. The effect of eccentricity is greater under dynamic condition than that is calculated for static conditions. To safeguard the building against unreasonably high shear forces, few codes kept upper limit on the eccentricity. This eccentricity varies from 5% to 30% of the total dimension of structure along that direction.
Figure 2: Effect of Plan Irregularities

Vertical Irregularities Vertical irregularities are introduced in a structure due to absence or reduction of MI walls in particular storey w.r.t. adjacent stories. Simplest example can be taken as the structure with parking space at first storey (i.e. absence of MI walls at first storey) and MI walls on upper stories. In general, this gives rise to mass, stiffness and strength irregularities along height of the building. This phenomenon of vertical irregularities create soft storey in the structure. The RC frame members of the soft storey and that of the adjacent stories are subjected to higher seismic forces during ground shaking. Hence, RC frame members shall be designed for higher seismic forces (generally 1.5-4.5 times). When MI walls are not provided along full height of the column, it increases the shear forces in column due to "Short Column" effect. Adequate confinement in the form of shear reinforcements shall be provided along full height of column to resist the additional shear forces that the columns of soft storey will be subjected.

Effects of Masonry infill wall on Seismic Design of Reinforced Concrete Frames

Page 5 of 9

Ductility and Energy dissipation The yield displacement of MI-RC frames is much smaller than that of the bare frame, and hence, these frames have a considerable larger ductility. Ductility of MI-RC frame depends on the (a) infill properties, (b) relative strengths of frame and infill, (c) ductile detailing of the frame when plastic hinging in the frame Figure 3: Effect of Vertical Irregularities controls the failure, (d) reinforcement in the infill when cracking in MI walls controls the failure, (e) distribution of MI walls in plan and elevation of the building. Presence of reinforcement in MI walls increases ductility significantly. In a bare frame, inelastic effects in RC frame members and joints cause energy dissipation, while in an MI-RC frame; inelastic effects in MI walls also contribute to it. Thus, energy dissipation in an MI-RC frame is higher than that in the bare frame. If both RC frame and MI walls are detailed to be ductile, then stiffness degradation and strength deterioration under cyclic loading are nominal. However, if inelastic effects are brittle in nature (e.g., cracking of infill, bond slip failure in frame, or shear failure in frame members), the drop in strength and stiffness under repeated loading may be large. Lateral Displacement and Inter-storey Drift Distribution of MI walls along the height of the building determines the lateral deformation pattern. Lateral deformation will be concentrated at the bottom storey when more MI walls are present at upper stories as compared to lower stories. On the other hand, if more MI walls are at bottom storey, lateral deformation will be less and evenly distributed along the height of the buildings. MI walls, being brittle element, are more susceptible to inter-storey drift. Lateral deformations and inter-storey drift will also depend upon the ductility and damping of buildings. Strength of Masonry When MI walls are strong, strength contributed by it may be comparable to the strength of the bare frame itself. Strength of MI wall does not have any direct implications on the ultimate strength of ductile RC frames; however, in some cases, failure modes of MI control the failure modes of non-ductile RC frames. Failure mode of MI depends upon relative strength of MI in different actions, like compression, shear, etc. For example, if RC columns are not sufficiently confined with shear reinforcement, then shear-sliding failure mode of MI wall along a bed joint may trigger shear failure of columns. Shear strength of MI wall is affected by the type of mortar used. The lateral stiffness is directly proportional to the masonry compressive strength. The lateral stiffness greatly decreases once the MI wall cracks.

Effects of Masonry infill wall on Seismic Design of Reinforced Concrete Frames

Page 6 of 9

Another serious concern with MI-RC frame buildings is the out-of-plane collapse of the MI walls which can be life threatening. Out-of-plane strength greatly depends on the slenderness ratio. Because of the high initial stiffness of MI walls, they are subjected to high in-plane shear forces during earthquakes. During the in plane or out of plane ground motions, the MI walls are susceptible for collapse in the out of plane direction as they may get separated from the RC frames due to weak connection between them. Such out-of-plane collapses are not common for walls of low slenderness ratio and when MI walls are sufficiently confined in an RC frame. Some codes have prescribed upper limit on slenderness ratio (i.e. height to thickness ratio) and lower limit on thickness of MI walls, if considered as structural element. MI-RC frame may also fail due to failure of RC frame members. Opening in MI walls Door and window openings in MI walls are provided because of functional and ventilation requirements of buildings. Presence of openings in MI changes the actual behaviour of RC frames because of reduction in lateral strength and stiffness. It is preferable to provide RC beams and columns around large openings to balance the reduction in strength of MI walls. However, such members shall be designed considering the short column effect. Stiffness of MI Walls Stiffness of MI walls is imparted to MI-RC frames for MI walls which are structurally connected to RC frame members. Being stiffer component than RC frame, MI walls impart high initial stiffness to MI-RC frames. Those MI-RC frames are stiffer which has regular distribution of MI walls than irregular distribution. MI walls can be modelled as equivalent diagonal struts. The method for calculating properties of diagonal struts (i.e. cross sectional dimension and elasticity) is given in literatures. Influence of reinforcement in MI walls The reinforcement in the MI walls does not contribute significantly towards stiffness and strength; in fact, it may lead to reduction in stiffness and strength due to increased mortar thickness in the layers containing the reinforcement. However, the reinforcement helps in improving the post-cracking behaviour of the masonry and in preventing out-of-plane collapse. It should be possible to develop suitable detailing schemes for anchoring masonry reinforcement into the frames. In such situations, the MI walls could be relied upon to ensure good seismic performance.

Figure 4: RC band around opening

Effects of Masonry infill wall on Seismic Design of Reinforced Concrete Frames

Page 7 of 9

Summary and Conclusions


MI walls impart significant lateral strength and stiffness to RC frames under later loads through diaphragm action. MI-RC frames are less deformable and substantially stronger than identical bare frames. If MI walls are provided in a regular fashion in RC frames, increased stiffness and strength may protect MI-RC frame from damage associated with excessive lateral drift or inadequate strength. MI walls may attract significantly greater forces due to its higher stiffness and that may lead to premature failure of infill and/or whole structure. Therefore, designers must consider the effects of MI walls in design of RC frames. Most of the codes agree that MI-RC frame buildings require special treatment, and they specify clauses on several important issues related to such buildings. However, the codes differ greatly in specifications of the individual clauses. Regular MI-RC frames may be analysed by simplified static method prescribed in various codes. However, three-dimensional dynamic analysis may be carried out for irregular MI-RC frames. The natural period of the structure reduces drastically due to stiffness provided by the MI walls to RC frames. Thus, increasing seismic demand of the MI-RC frames. Being stiffer component, MI walls attract significant portion of lateral force subjected to MI-RC frame. MI walls may fail when peak load reaches its strength. Strength and stiffness degradation is much faster due to brittle failure of MI walls. Hence, RC frame should have sufficient backup strength to resist the lateral forces when MI walls fail. MI walls may impart irregularities in the building when not placed symmetrically and/or reduction or absence of MI walls in a particular storey. The building is subjected to additional shear forces due to torsion, soft storey effect and short column effect. Ductility and energy dissipation capacity of the MI-RC frame is much higher than that of bare frame. Presence of regular MI walls (symmetrical in plan and uniform distribution along height) significantly reduce lateral displacement and inter-storey drift of the building. However, irregular MI walls affect the structure adversely by formation of soft storey, short column, etc. In-plane strength and stiffness of the MI walls is much higher as compared to RC frame members. Strength of MI walls does not have direct impact on the overall strength of the ductile building. Due to high initial stiffness, MI walls attract high lateral force and get cracked along loaded diagonal due to its brittle nature. Due to strength and stiffness degradation of MI walls, it changes behaviour of MI-RC frames under lateral loads. Also, there is a possibility of out-of-plane collapse of cracked MI walls when subjected to ground motion along that direction. Out-of-plane collapse strength of MI walls depends on its slenderness ration. Provision of reinforcement in MI walls may increase ductility of the structure. It may also prevent out-of-plane collapse of the MI walls.

Effects of Masonry infill wall on Seismic Design of Reinforced Concrete Frames

Page 8 of 9

Acknowledgement
Following literature is used exhaustively in preparation of this report. Kaushik H.B., Rai D.C. and Jain S.K. (2006) "Code Approaches to Seismic Design of Masonry-Infilled Reinforced Concrete Frames: A State-of-the-Art Review", J. Earthquake Spectra, 22 (4), 961983. Murty C.V.R., and Jain S.K. (2000) "Beneficial influence of masonry infills on seismic performance of RC frame buildings", Proceedings, 12th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, New Zealand, Paper No. 1790. Das D. and Murty C.V.R. (2004) "Brick masonry infills in seismic design of RC frame buildings: Part 2 - Behaviour", J. The Indian Concrete Journal, August 2004, 3138. Fardis M.N. and Panagiotakos T.B. (1997) "Seismic design and response of bare and masonry-infilled reinforced concrete buildings, Part II: Infilled structures", J. Earthquake Eng. 1 (3), 475503. Angel R., Abrams D., Shapiro D., Uzarski J. and Webster M. (1994) "Behaviour of Reinforced Concrete Frames with Masonry Infills", Technical Report UILU-ENG-942005, Department of Civil Engineering, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, IL.

Effects of Masonry infill wall on Seismic Design of Reinforced Concrete Frames

Page 9 of 9