International Journal of the Physical Sciences Vol. 6(4), pp.

698-706, 18 February, 2011

Available online at http://www.academicjournals.org/IJPS
DOI: 10.5897/IJPS10.569
ISSN 1992 - 1950 2011 Academic Journals

Full Length Research Paper

Optimization of the configuration of infill walls in order

to increase seismic resistance of building structures
D. Gney* and A. O. Kuruu
Yildiz Technical University, Faculty of Architecture, Structural System Division, Istanbul, Turkey.
Accepted 18 February, 2011

The behavior of empty frames and infilled frames is very different. The infill walls are considered as
non-structural elements and are ignored in the analysis; these elements tend to interact with the frame
in case of lateral load effect. The aim of this paper is to indicate the contribution of infill walls in the
earthquake resistant building design. Three different type of configuration of infill walls are applied in
the numerical models. Consequently, according to the number and position of infill walls in the
numerical analysis the behavior of the structure subjected to the lateral loads is changed.
Key words: Infill walls, seismic, response, optimization, structure, design.
INTRODUCTION
The need for including infill panels in the analysis of RC
frames has been recognized for a long time. The
behavior of empty frames and infilled frames is very
different. The contribution of masonry infills to the global
capacity of the structure constitutes the structural
strength to the 80% and stiffness to the 85%. The main
reason of their beneficial behavior is that the amount of
increase in earthquake inertia force appears to be
relatively small, comparatively with the increase in the
strength of masonry infills (Lee et al., 2002).
Widely used masonry infill elements in the reinforced
concrete frame building design are adobe blocks, hallow
bricks, solid bricks, clay bricks, aerated concrete blocks,
briquette blocks etc.
Although there is no general acceptance of the
contribution of infill walls in the earthquake resistant
design, many researches point out that negative effects
are often associated with irregularities in the distribution
of infills in plan and/or in the evaluation. The main
problem in the design process is mostly that masonry
infills have as-built properties and it is almost impossible
to take into account reliably (Fardis et al., 1999).
Due to the design and methodological complexity
incorporation of infill walls in the numerical analysis as

*Corresponding author. E-mail: dguney@gmail.com.

structural elements is not common. Nevertheless, infill

walls increase lateral stiffness and minimize P- effect
(Saneinnejad and Hobbs, 1995). The main problem of
analyzing the infill frame reinforced concrete buildings is
that mostly it is impossible to estimate reliably as built
properties in the design procedure. Standardization of
masonry units and mortar is not enough for
characterization of the inelastic cyclic behavior of
masonry infills (Rutenberg et al., 1989). A simple
modification of the diagonal strut model is proposed in
order to include some couplin between the two bars. The
coupling is done by the introduction of a concept that the
authors have called ``plastic concentrator''. A plastic
concentrator can be compared with a plastic hinge in the
sense that both may be imagined as zero length inelastic
springs (Puglisi et al., 2009). Another concept is the
applied element method (AEM) can track the structural
collapse behavior during early stages of loading and can
account for nonlinear behavior of structures including
element separation (Meguro and Tagel-Din, 2002). A
comprehensive overview of the analytical modelling
techniques of infilled frame structures was prepared by
Moghaddam and Dowling (1987) and, more recently, by
Crisafulli et al. (2000). The most commonly used
technique to model infill panels is that of single or multiple
compressive equivalent diagonal struts (Tsai and Huang,
2010).
This study focuses on the contribution of infill masonry

Gney and Kuruscu

699

Figure 1. The architectural floor plan drawing of analyzed structure.

walls in the dynamic response of the structures subjected

to the lateral loads. The aim of this paper is to investigate
the effect of infill walls to the overall behavior of the
structure by setting on the infill walls in different direction
and position in the same building plan. Five different
configurations of structural plan with and without infill
walls are analyzed and the results are compared.
The earthquake response of the structure is variable
depending on the position, location and configuration of
the infill walls.

directions. Dimensions of the shear walls are; 2.80 0.25

m in X direction and 4.00 0.25 m in Y direction. Figure 1
shows architectural plan of the analyzed structure in this
study. This plan typology is widely used as dwellings in
Turkey.
Hollow clay bricks with 0.190.190.135 m dimensions
are used as infill walls that are commonly used in Turkey.
Horizontal and vertical joint of clay bricks is made by 1
cm thickness mortar. In the numeric model, it is assumed
that the model is fixed to the ground. The thickness of the
infill walls in the facades is taken as 0.20 m and interior
infill walls are taken as 0.10 m.

DEVELOPED STRUCTURAL MODEL

A large proportion of residential and commercial buildings
in Turkey are constructed in reinforced concrete (RC)
with masonry infill and most of this construction is made
up of cast-in-situ RC beam-column frames with hollow
brick infill panels and partition walls that are rarely
provided with any structural connection to the frame. The
performance of RC frames during past earthquakes in
Turkey has been particularly poor and common
deficiencies in the design have been frequently observed.
In this study, five storey reinforced concrete frames
building with 3.00 m storey height is analyzed by FEM
software (CSI, SAP2000 V-14, 2009). The material
properties used in the numeric model are; C28 concrete
and S420 steel. Young modulus of concrete is 24855
MPa. The floor area of the building is 784 m2. Dimensions
of the structural elements are: columns 0.400.40 m and
beams 0.250.60 m. Reinforced shear walls are located
at the center of the structural plan both in X and Y

Design principles of numerical analysis

Non-linear structural analysis approach is using for
determining the earthquake response of the structural
system with different configuration of infilled walls. SAP
2000, structural analysis software is used for analyzing
(CSI, SAP2000 V-14, 2009). Damage mechanics is a
very convenient framework for the modeling of the
behavior of infill panels. Cracking is a very important
phenomenon in this case, as important as the inelastic
deformations, thus damage mechanics provides the tools
for a more physically founded description.
In this study, non-linear structural analysis approach is
used for determining the earthquake response of the
building. Non-linear dynamic time history is done by using
earthquake records of 1940El Centro, California (N-S)
ground motions. Five different configurations of structural
models with and without infill walls were analyzed and
results were compared.

700

Int. J. Phys. Sci.

0.400
0.300

ag (m/s2)

0.200
0.100
0.000
-0.100
-0.200
-0.300
-0.400

Figure 2. The N-S component of El Centro earthquake (1940).

The dynamic response of the system to base

acceleration agx(t) in the x-direction, agy(t) in the ydirection are described in the Equation 1.
In this paper, proportional damping is considered where
the damping matrix is a linear combination of the mass
and stiffness matrices are described in the Equation
2 and are proportionality constants.i and j are taken
as first and second mode frequencies as shown in the
Equation 3 and 4.

Mu&&(t ) + Cu& (t ) + Ku (t ) = Fe (t )
C = M + K
=

(1)
(2)

i j
i + j

(3)

i +

(4)

The numeric model principle in this study is three

dimensional walls, frame system as beams, columns and
shear walls. The calculation of masses and load
distribution is made according to the principles of Turkish
Standards of design loads, Eurocode 8 and 1997, 2007
Earthquake Resistant Building Design Code (Turkish
Earthquake Resistant Design Building Code, 2007, TS498, Design Loads for Buildings, 1997, Eurocode 8,ENV
1998-1-3, 1994).
Time history analysis has not been common in
traditional building design. In this study dynamic analyses
are performed by time-history approach. According to this
concept, the structural models are analyzed by real
earthquake acceleration data and t = 0.02 s.

Figure 2 shows El Centro N-S earthquake record which

has ground acceleration data. El Centro earthquake was
in May, 1940 in Imperial Valley (USA) and the Richter
magnitude of the earthquake was recorded as 7.1. The
epicenter of the earthquake was 70 km from the ground
2
and max acceleration was 0.341 m/s .
The connection of columns and foundation is assumed
as an infinitely rigid foundation restrained for all degree of
freedom. All joints at a floor level are constrained to move
as a planar diaphragm in order to prevent in-plane
membrane deformations. Table 1 shows the area of
structural elements both in X and Y directions.
The proposed analytical model assumes that the
contribution of the masonry infill walls which can be seen
in Figure 3(a), to the response of the infilled frame can be
modeled by replacing the panel by a system of two
diagonal masonry in compression struts shown in Figure
3 (b) [5]. The combination of both diagonal struts
provides a lateral load resisting mechanism for the
opposite lateral directions of loading.
For practical purposes, the elasticity modulus of the
infill wall can be taken as 500 fckd .fckd is characteristic
2
shear strength which is taken about 2000 kN/m (Guney
and Boduroglu, 2006). Kanit and Dondurenmodeled
masonry walls with similar geometrical properties using
software and they compared numerical results with
experimental results. They showed that numerical results
and the experimental data results were close to each
other (Kanit and Donduren, 2010).
The general infill wall material characteristics of the
building stock in Turkey are presented in Table 2 (Erol et
al., 2004).
Analyses of structural models
All structural plan configurations are defined by the FEM

Gney and Kuruscu

701

Table 1. Structural configuration characteristics.

Column (x.y) (m 2)
Shearwall (x) (m2)
2
Shearwall (y) (m )
2
Infillwall (x) (m )
2
Infillwall (y) (m )
Total area of structuralelements (x) (m2)
Total area of structuralelements (y) (m2)
F/D
G/E

Moment

Without infillwall
6.72
2.80
2.00
0.00
0.00
9.52
8.72
0.00
0.00

CONF. 1
6.72
2.80
2.00
14.10
12.66
9.52
8.72
0.68
1.45

CONF. 2
6.72
2.80
2.00
10.50
8.66
9.52
8.72
0.91
0.99

CONF. 3
6.72
2.80
2.00
10.50
12.66
9.52
8.72
0.91
1.45

CONF. 4
6.72
2.80
2.00
10.50
6.32
9.52
8.72
0.91
0.72

frame
V

Masonry

h h

infill walls

8
l

(a)

(b)

Figure 3. Equivalent strut model for masonry infill walls in frame structures: (a) Masonry infill
frame geometry, (b) Masonry infill walls and strut (Madan and Reinhorn, 1997).

Table 2. Material properties of infill walls.

Parameter
Mod.of elasticity E (MPa)
Comp. strength (MPa)
Tensile strength (MPa)

software. All structural elements, materials, sections,

locations etc. for each configurations are described as a
first step of the FEM analysis. After this step, El Centro
N-S acceleration record (for 0.02 s time interval) is
applied to structure as dynamic load. The first structural
configuration without infill walls is shown in Figure 4.
The structural model is analyzed by FEM software in
time history domain under defined earthquake excitation.
The first mode shape of the structural model is shown in
Figure 5. The first period of the model is 0.4394 s.

Lowerbound
1500
1.90
1.1

Upperbound
5000
3.2
1.3

After this analysis, previously explained in detail, the

same steps are performed for the structural system with
infill walls. The first period of the model (first structural
configuration with infill walls) is 0.3607 s. The first mode
shape of the structural model is shown in Figure 6.
The time history comparison of two configurations (with
and without infill walls config.1) in x and y directions are
given in Figures 7 and 8. As shown in the figures, infill
walls decrease the displacement of the structure in both
directions.

702

Int. J. Phys. Sci.

Figure 4. Bare frame structural model.

Figure 5. Structural model with infill walls (the first configuration).

Figure 6. First mode shape of the structural model without infill

walls (Configuration 2).

Gney and Kuruscu

703

Displacement (m)

0.200

Displacement -u
Conf1

ux
ux-d

t(s)

0.000

10

15

20

25

30

-0.200
Figure 7. Comparison of displacement history in x-direction between two configurations (without and wit infill
walls, Configuration 1).

Displacement (m)

0.100
uy
uy-d

0.050

t (s)
0.000
0
-0.050

10

15

20

25

30

Displacement-u
Conf.1

-0.100
Figure 8. Comparison of displacement history in y-direction between two configurations
(without and with infill walls, Configuration 1).

Four structural plan configurations with infill walls are

designed and then analyzed under earthquake loading in
order to see effects of infill walls to the response of the
structure. The analysis results of the structural
configurations (periods, displacements, infill wall
parameters) are given in Table 3. Area rates 1 and 2 are
explained in Table 1 as F/D and G/E.
The time history comparison of two configurations (with
and without infill walls configuration 2, 3, 4) in x and y
directions are given in Figures 9 to 13. As shown in the
figures, infill walls decrease the displacement of the
structure in both directions. If infill walls area increases

which supply system additional lateral stiffness, the

displacement response decreases. However the
distribution of the infill walls is not symmetric in the plan,
this stiffness asymmetry may cause torsion which
magnifies lateral displacement response of the structure.
Conclusions
The most common construction type for existing Turkish
buildings is RC frames (with clay brick or block infill) and
the second most common type is bearing wall

704

Int. J. Phys. Sci.

Table 3. Analysis result of structural configurations.

Without infillwall
0.44
0.40
0.31
0.14
0.10
0.170
0.091
0.00
0.00

T1 (s)
T2 (s)
T3 (s)
T4 (s)
T5 (s)
Ux-max (m)
Uy-max (m)
Area rate 1
Area rate 2

CONF. 1
0.36
0.34
0.28
0.12
0.10
0.117
0.072
0.68
1.45

CONF. 2
0.37
0.35
0.29
0.12
0.10
0.122
0.075
0.91
0.99

CONF. 3
0.36
0.35
0.28
0.12
0.10
0.123
0.072
0.91
1.45

CONF. 4
0.36
0.35
0.29
0.12
0.10
0.121
0.082
0.91
0.72

Displacement (m)

0.200

Displacement -u
Conf.2

0.100

ux
ux-d
t(s)

0.000
0

10

15

20

25

30

-0.100
-0.200
Figure 9. Comparison of displacement history in x-direction between two configurations
(without and wit infill walls, Configuration 2).

Displacement (m)
0.100

Displacement - u
Conf.2

0.080

uy

0.060

uy-d

0.040
0.020
t(s)

0.000
-0.020

10

15

20

25

30

-0.040
-0.060
-0.080
-0.100

Figure 10. Comparison of displacement history in y-direction between two configurations

(without and with infill walls, Configuration 2).

Gney and Kuruscu

Displacement (m)

0.200

ux
ux-d

Displacement -u
Conf. 3

0.100

t (s)

0.000
0

10

15

20

25

30

-0.100
-0.200
Figure 11. Comparison of displacement history in x-direction between two configurations
(without and wit infill walls, Configuration 3).

Displacement (m)

0.100

uy

Displacement - u
Conf. 3

uy -d

0.050

t (s)
0.000
0

10

15

20

25

30

-0.050

-0.100
Figure 12. Comparison of displacement history in y-direction between two configurations
(without and with infill walls, Configuration 3).

Displacement (m)

0.200

Displacement
Conf. 4

0.100

ux

-u

ux-d
t (s)

0.000
0

10

15

20

25

30

-0.100

-0.200
Figure 13. Comparison of displacement history in x-direction between two configurations without
and with infill walls, Configuration 4).

705

706

Int. J. Phys. Sci.

construction with clay brick masonry. The effect of the

infill walls on the behavior of the RC frames is quite
complicated in terms of boundary conditions material
properties and geometry. Despite all of the uncertainties
and difficulties involved, including the infill in the model,
somehow, becomes a compulsory parameter for an
accurate estimation of the behavior and vulnerability
prediction of RC buildings. As shown in the analysis of
structural models, infill walls directly effects displacement
response of the structure under the earthquake
excitation. Generally, during the design stage, infill walls
are not taken into account. However, analysis results
show bare frame structures displacement response is
much higher than structure with infill walls. Depending on
location of infill walls can cause increase in lateral
stiffness of structure, then this decrease displacement
response of structure. So that it is necessary to take into
account these infill walls during structural analysis case.
In addition to this result, the configuration of infill walls
also can amplify of attenuate displacement of the
structure. The optimization of the location of infill walls is
not only technical problem but also economical problem.
That is why the ratio between total area of structural
elements and infill walls is one of the most important
parameter. In this study, the best result is taken for 0.68.
If the structural model cases increases, it is possible to
get better and more realistic results.
REFERENCES
Crisafulli FJ, Carr AJ, Park R (2000). Analytical modelling of infilled
frames structures a general review. Bull. New Zealand Soc.
Earthquake Eng., 33: 3047.
CSI, SAP2000 V-14 (2009). Integrated finite element analysis and
design of structures basic analysis reference manual; Berkeley,
California (USA), Computers and Structures Inc.
ENV 1998-1-3 (1994). Eurocode 8-Design Provisions for Earthquake
Resistance of Structures-Part 1-3: General Rules-Specific Rules for
Various Materials and Elements, Bruselles.

Erol G, Yuksel E, Saruhan H, Sagbas G, Tuga PT, Karadogan HF

(2004). A complementary experimental work on brittle partitioning
walls andstrengthening by carbon fibers. In: Proceedings of the 13th
World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Vancouver, Canada.
Fardis M, Bousias N, Franchioni G, Panagiotakos B (1999). Seismic
response and design of RC structures with plan-eccentric masonry
infills. Earthquake Eng. Struct. Dyn., 28: 173-191.
Guney
D,
Boduroglu
H
(2006).
Depremetkisialtndakisimetrikveasimetrikyaplarn,
lineerolmayantepkilerinedolguduvarlarnnkatks.
T
Dergisi/d
Mhendislik, Cilt:5, Say:3, Ksm: 2: 165-174.
Kanit R, Donduren MS (2010). Investigation of using ansys software in
the determination of stress behaviors of masonry walls under out-of
plane cycling load. Int. J. Phys. Sci., 5(2): 97-108.
Lee HS, Woo SW (2002). Effect of masonryinfills on seismic
performance of a 3 storey RC frame with non-seismic detailing.
Earthquake Eng. Struct. Dyn., 31: 353378.
Madan A, Reinhorn AM (1997). Modelling of masonary infill panels for
structural analysis. J. Struct. Eng., (ASCE), 123: 1295-1302.
Meguro K, Tagel-Din HS (2002). Applied element method used for large
displacement structural analysis. J. Nat. Disa. Sci., 24(1): 2534.
Moghaddam HA, Dowling PJ (1987). The state of the art in infilled
frames. ECEE Research Report No. 87-2. London: Civil Engineering
Department, Imperial College of Science and Technology.
Puglisi M, Uzcategui M, Florez-Lopez J (2009). Modeling of masonry of
infilled frames, Part I: The Plastic Concentrator. Eng. Struct., 31: 113118.
Puglisi M, Uzcategui M, Florez-Lopez J (2009). Modeling of masonry of
infilled frames, Part II: Cracking anddamage. Eng. Struct., 31(1): 119124.
Rutenberg A, Shoet G, Eisenberger M (1989). Inelastic seismic
response of code designed asymmetric structures. Publ. 303, Faculty
of Civil Engineering.Technion-Israel Institute of Technology, Haifa.
Saneinnejad A, Hobbs B (1995). Inelastic design of infilled frames, J.
Struct. Eng., pp: 634650.
TS-498 Design Loads for Buildings (1997). Turkish Standard Institute.
Tsai M, Huang T (2010). Effect of interior brick-infill partitions on the
progressive collapse potential of a rc building: Linear static analysis
results. Int. J. Appl. Sci. Eng. Technol., 6(1): 1-7.