International Journal of Civil Engineering and Technology (IJCIET)

Volume 8, Issue 2, February 2017, pp. 537546 Article ID: IJCIET_08_02_056

Available online at http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/issues.asp?JType=IJCIET&VType=8&IType=2
ISSN Print: 0976-6308 and ISSN Online: 0976-6316

IAEME Publication Scopus Indexed

SEISMIC EVALUATION OF RCMRF WITH MASONRY

INFILL
A.K. Sinha
Professor and Centre Director,
Earthquake Safety Clinic and Centre, Department of Civil Engineering,
National Institute of Technology Patna, 800005, Patna-India

ABSTRACT
Seismic vulnerability assessment and retrofitting of existing buildings is a key area in disaster
resilient communities. Nature finds weaknesses left behind by mankind in structure and presents
unambiguously in form of damage to such structures. Thus, Seismic damage concentrated at weak
zones of structure speaks of as a report by a perfectionist The Nature. The fact is beyond any doubt
that the widespread damage to structures and immense losses are not due to just natural act but due
to either our negligence or our ignorance. Earthquake Engineers can contribute in the noble cause
of seismic disaster mitigation by assessing seismic vulnerability of existing buildings and providing
the structure safe capacities against the anticipated demands during expected ground motion. There
are scores of reasons for seismic vulnerability of existing infilled RCMRF buildings. Response of
having infill and its impact over the seismic performance of Reinforced Concrete Moment Resisting
Frame (RCMRF) have been studied in the paper using adaptive static pushover analyses considering
2-storey, 4-storey, 6-storey, 8-storey and 12- storey buildings.
The earthquake resistant philosophy being practiced all over the world accepts structure going
well into inelastic zone during strong motion. A nonlinear method centered on Pushover analysis has
been proposed to quantify structural response in inelastic zone in view to assess seismic vulnerability.
RC MRF with masonry infill presents very different situation. Study of uniform and non-uniform
distribution of masonry infill using the Pushover based method provides enough guidelines to refine
and supplement our knowledge in dealing with such structures as a rational seismic vulnerability
presents roadmap for appropriate retrofit strategy for the existing buildings.
Key words: Reinforced Concrete Moment Resisting Frame, Infill, Adaptive Static Pushover Analysis,
Retrofitting
Cite This Article: A.K. Sinha, Seismic Evaluation of RCMRF with Masonry Infill. International
Journal of Civil Engineering and Technology, 8(2), 2017, pp. 537546.
http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/issues.asp?JType=IJCIET&VType=8&IType=2

http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/index.asp 537 editor@iaeme.com

 A.K. Sinha

1. INTRODUCTION
In general, construction of Reinforced Concrete Moment Resisting Frame (RCMRF) buildings all over the
world has erection of frame skeleton first and then includes the masonry infill without any specific
consideration of either mandatory gap or designed connection with surrounding frame elements. This type of
construction is quite rampant even in high seismic areas. Two general categories for infilled RCMRF
buildings, (i) buildings with uniform distribution of infill, and (ii) buildings with non-uniform distribution of
infill are considered in view of seismic vulnerability assessment of existing buildings. Infill interferes with
the free deformation of the structure during earthquake. Hence, these become structurally responsive in
earthquake although considered non-structural normally. They share the shear caused by seismic action with
structural frames. So, these should be considered in the structural model. But, as common design practice,
the presence of infill is ignored. This simplification ignores the important infill-frame interaction having
significant effect in the overall structural response. In fact, from point of view of seismic vulnerability, such
simplification may overlook some important damage
In view to study seismic vulnerability of such buildings, simplified POA based approach has been applied
to (i) uniformly infilled RCMRF buildings and (ii) Open ground floor (OGF) RCMRF buildings. 2-Bay
buildings with variation in storey as 2-storey, 4-storey, 6-storey, 8-storey and 12- storey have been considered
in the study with masonry infills modeled as diagonal compression struts as suggested in FEMA-356 (2000).
Effects on seismic vulnerability have been studied by comparing response for these building examples with
the similar response of bare frame model of structure.
Study of retrofit effectiveness is a relevant part of seismic vulnerability assessment. Jacketing of structural
elements at ground floor in a 4 Storey OGF has been considered for this study.

2. MODELING OF MASONRY INFILL

It is very complicated and highly uncertain to numerically simulate the infill response to global response of
a structure because of very large number of parameters involved and tremendous uncertainties associated
with them. The modeling effort in the frame-wall interaction can be put under two major streams, i.e.
Based on finite element mesh: These are microelement based and require appropriate constitutive relations.
Based on simplified diagonal strut:
Mallick and Severn (1967) suggested finite element approach addressing the appropriate representation of the
interface condition between infill and frame. Linear elastic rectangular elements with 2 DOFs at each of the
four corner nodes were used.
The model improved by Goodman included a new element that consisted a zero resistance to a net tensile
force normal to the interface and a high compression in same direction. An interface element with predefined
length and initial zero width was proposed in this work. Another improvement in this direction followed in
as representation of a pre-defined gap by Kost (1974). Linear link element was entered or removed whenever
gap closed or opened in a bid to cover nonlinear behaviour. Further, Riddington and Stafford Smith (1977)
simulated cracking at the interface between the frame and the infill, considering the possibility of separation
or no separation and friction or no friction. The interface conditions were simulated using full kinetic
constraint transfer matrix, directly introduced into the stiffness matrix and which represented a short and very
stiff member connecting adjacent joints one on the frame and other on the infill. The strut diagonal proposed
by Stafford (1969) was compared and significant modes of failure of the infill were investigated which were
corner crushing), diagonal cracking and horizontal sliding. There is always an uncertainty that contribution
on infill starts immediately or a gap has to be considered. Two elements- a gap element and a joint element
were used by Rivero and Walker (1984) to represent interface behaviour. The gap element represented the
space between frame and infill while the joint element represented contact.

http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/index.asp 538 editor@iaeme.com

 Seismic Evaluation of RCMRF with Masonry Infill

The other stream of work depended on simplified approach in this complex mathematical treatment of
infill behaviour. The characteristics of higher shear stiffness of the infill panel relative to frame, the low
tensile and shear strength at the interface between the frame and infill, the micro-cracking in the corner of
the infill where tensile stresses dominate, yielded in a diagonal strut model at the simplified platform. Initial
works are related to find width of the equivalent strut. Stafford Smith and Carter (1969) found that the finite
contact length between infill panel and frame members significantly influence the width of equivalent strut.
Based on the contact length Mainstone (1971) also gave width of the equivalent strut. FEMA-356 (2000) on
similar lines produces guidelines to calculate the width of equivalent width.
Holmes (1961) modeled infill by an equivalent pin-jointed diagonal strut with same material properties
but having a width of 1/3 of the infill diagonal. Improvement in the width considered strut saw works by
Stafford smith. The width was replaced by a frame stiffness parameter h (Smith and carter, 1969). For
considering inelastic behaviour, a frame/infill strength parameter (m) and an empirical penalty factor (P) to
reduce the infill strength was introduced by Wood. Saneinejad (1990) considered the important interface
shear forces between frame and infill.
In the present work, the 2D POA method has been used with masonry modeled as per FEMA-356 (2000).
Beam elements with concentrated plasticity for beams and columns have been lucrative to several studies.
Equivalent strut element carrying only axial compression represents the infill panel (Fajfar, 2000, Fardis,
2000). Reduced stiffness for beam and column was considered to weigh the damage incurred due to
inelasticity. Hinging in infill panel covering the full length has been considered (Menon et.al., 2004).

3. COMPARISON OF BARE, UNIFORMLY INFILLED AND OPEN GROUND

FLOOR RCMRF BUILDINGS
Studies have been done comparing response of bare frame, regularly infilled, and irregularly infilled frames.
Irregular distribution has been considered both in plan and along height of the building. General observation
is for increase in stiffness and reduction in deformation and ductility. Due to irregular distribution of infill,
there had been concentration of strength and ductility demands to certain elements as well as certain storey.
Fardis (2000) studied the adverse effect in form of in-plan eccentricity and soft storey due to irregular
arrangement of infill. He carried out nonlinear dynamic analyses on 12 RC frame structures with storey 4, 8,
12 as 3D models with 4 synthetic ground motions scaled to 0.15g or 0.30g and found that Storey shear
coefficient for infill had jumped to 0.035-0.17 from 0.008-0.0195 in bare frame. He concurred that resistance
of all beams and columns of open storey be increased by multiplying seismic moments, shears and axial
forces achieved by bare frame analysis with a factor
VRW
=1+
VBF (1)
Kappos (2000) inferred that the inter-storey drift was the most critical response quantity, which was equal
to the shear strain in infill panels. He found the increase as 32%. IS:1893-2002 speaks of a factor of 2.5 for
all cases.

4. EVALUATION OF RETROFIT EFFECTIVENESS

Kumar et. al (2002) studied the retrofit effectiveness of frame for retrofit with wall, steel braces and found
that ductile tension braces are more effective than compression infill. Excessive stiffening and strengthening
of open ground floor can lead to shifting the damage to upper stories. The ductility of the retrofitted structure
plays an important role in ensuring retrofit efficiency. Stiffening of ground floor reduces period and hence
attracts more seismic force. SAP2000 has been used by Thakkar (2002), Menon (2004), Murthy (2002) for
studying effective ness of retrofit and carrying out capacity/demand assessment or even NSP based

http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/index.asp 539 editor@iaeme.com

 A.K. Sinha

assessment. The Indian code IS: 13935:1993 briefly covers the selection of materials and techniques to be
used for repair and seismic retrofit. There are several options for retrofitting a soft storey building. Some can
be the following:
Inserting masonry infill
Bracing
Addition of shear wall
Column jacketing
But, a re-evaluation of the retrofitted structure is a must to identify the effectiveness of the retrofit option.
Seismic evaluation for retrofitting of RC framed building using steel bracing and infill walls was conducted
by linear dynamic analysis on 2D model (Prakash and Thakkar, 2003). In another attempt, a 2D RC Frame
was subjected to nonlinear static pushover analysis with code specified design shear distribution for three
retrofit options namely, (i) concrete jacketing of columns in the ground storey, (ii) brick masonry infill in the
ground storey, and (iii) RC structural wall in the ground storey (Dasgupta et al, 2003).

5. NUMERICAL STUDY
Three cases; uniformally infilled building, bare frame building and open ground building are considered in
the numerical study for comparison of seismic vulnerability of these type of buildings. 2, 4, 6, 8 and 12 storey
buildings with all the three situation mentioned above are considered in the numerical study.
A number of retrofit techniques are available such as jacketing of columns and beams, specially designed
supplemental energy dissipation devices, adding concrete shear wall to improve the seismic performance. It
is required that the retrofit effectiveness is evaluated. An OGF has been reevaluated after increasing strength
and stiffness of ground storey columns and beams of a 4 storey 2 bay building.

5.1. Assumptions: The assumptions used in previous chapter are valid for this study also.
Some specific assumptions made here are
Stiffness modeling: to consider cracked section as MI has been calculated taking 0.7 of gross section for all
RCC elements.
The openings in diaphragm are small and symmetric. Rigid diaphragm can be thus assumed safely.
Infilled has been modeled as compression strut. It has been considered as solid. In load calculation, opening
has been taken as 15%.
Wall load is distributed uniformly to beams.
5.2 Infill modeling: Infill panel has been modeled as diagonal strut, which takes only compression. To model
such behavior, infill element has been converted into equivalent strut using relationship as shown in eq (2)
(FEMA-356). An elastic frame element with pinned joint with linear curve has been used to model infill
element in structural model.
Unit weight of RCC= 25 KN/m3
Modulus of elasticity, Ec = 5000 f ck N/mm2
Modulus of elasticity, Es = 2 x 106 N/mm2
Masonry: Unit weight= 20 KN/m3
Modulus of elasticity, Em = 550 fm
Where, fm = 5.0 N/mm2

http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/index.asp 540 editor@iaeme.com

 Seismic Evaluation of RCMRF with Masonry Infill

As per FEMA-356 (2000), infill can be represented as equivalent diagonal strut with width as found using
eq (2) and thickness equal to the thickness of infill. Width (w) of equivalent strut is given as:

w = ( h col )
0.4
rinf x 0.175 (2)
where,
hcol = Column height between centre lines of beams, m
rinf = Diagonal length of infill panel, m
1
E t sin2 4
= in in
4 E fr I c h inf (3)
where,
Ein = Modulus of elasticity of infill material, KN/m2
Efr = Modulus of elasticity of frame material, KN/m2
tin = Thickness of infill panel, m
= Angle subtended by the diagonal with horizontal
Ic = Moment of inertia of column, m4
hinf = Height of infill panel, m
Nomenclature used for the various dimensions have been depicted in the fig 1
The calculated values for infill model have been tabulated as in Table 1
While modeling infill as compression strut in the software (Seismosoft, 2016) a hinge joint is modeled
which transfers only axial force in the strut of the computer model. A small element with very high stiffness
is attached to the frame joint and the hinge joint, which in turn makes the strut element carry only axial force
through this modeling. Modeling parameters as per eqs (2) and (3) are presented in table 2. The material data
pertaining to infill is shown in table 3. The computer model of bare, uniformly infilled and open ground floor
are shown in fig 2 to 4

Figure 1 Modelling of Infill frame

http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/index.asp 541 editor@iaeme.com

 A.K. Sinha
storey displacement
Drift at various floors
0.25
0.35

0.3
0.2

0.25
s to re y d is p la c e m e n t

Series1
0.15
Series2
0.2

D is p lc e m e n t
Series3
Series1
Series4
Series2
Series5
0.15 Series6
0.1
Series7
Series8

0.1

0.05

0.05

0 0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140
Base shear Base shear

Figure 2 Storey Displacement Vs base shear (for 2-story and 8-story)

0.6 0.4
Storey Storey
0.5 1 1
Storey
0.3 Storey
0.4
0.3 2 0.2 2
Storey Storey
0.2 3 3
Storey 0.1 Storey
0.1
4 4
0 0
0 50 100 150 0 500 1000

0.6
0.5 Storey
0.4 1
Storey
0.3
2
0.2 Storey
0.1 3
0
0 200 400 600 800

Figure 3 Drift (m) with respect to Frame Base shear (OGF, Uniformly infilled & Retrofitted OGF)

http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/index.asp 542 editor@iaeme.com

 Seismic Evaluation of RCMRF with Masonry Infill
Pushover curve

160 450
140

400
140
120

350
120

100
300
100

80 250

B ase sh ear
80

200
60
60

150
40
40
100

20
20
50

0 0 0
0 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6 2 0 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6 2
0 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6 2
Global Drift (%)

Figure 4 POC (Drift ratio (%) vs Base Shear (KN)) for bare, OGF and uniformly infilled frames (For 2 storey)
140
500
140

450
120
120
400

100
350 100

300
80 80
B ase shear

250
Series1

60 60
200

150 40
40

100
20
20
50

0
0 0
0 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6 2
0 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6 2 0 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6 2

Figure 5 POC (Drift ratio (%) vs Base Shear (KN)) for bare, OGF and uniformly infilled frames (For 4 storey)

http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/index.asp 543 editor@iaeme.com

 A.K. Sinha

160 140 400

140 350
120

120 300
100

100 250

80

80 200

60

60 150

40
40 100

20
20 50

0 0 0
0 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6 2 0 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6 2 0 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6 2

Figure 6 POC (Drift ratio (%) vs Base Shear (KN)) for bare, OGF and uniformly infilled frames (For 6 storey)
Pushover curve

160 120 450

400
140
100

350
120

80 300
100

250
B ase sh ear

80 60

200

60
40 150

40
100

20

20 50

0 0
0
0 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6 2 0 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6 2
0 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6 2

Figure 7 POC (Drift ratio (%) vs Base Shear (KN)) for bare, OGF and uniformly infilled frames (For 12 storey)

http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/index.asp 544 editor@iaeme.com

 Seismic Evaluation of RCMRF with Masonry Infill

Table 1 Modeling of Infill walls

Grade of Modulus of elasticity of Value of Width of equivalent Thickness of equivalent

concrete concrete strut, mm strut, mm
M20 22360 0.00133 571.975 230
M25 25000 0.001293 578.3941 230
M30 27836 0.001264 583.6906 230

Table 2 Material data for Masonry

Compressive strength Modulus of Elasticity Unit weight , KN/m3
(fm), N/mm2 (Em)
5 2750 20

Table 3 Time period and Sa/g for bare and infilled frame
Storey No TB TI TB/ TI (Sa/g)B (Sa/g)I (Sa/g)I /(Sa/g)B
2 storey 0.31 0.15 2.07 2.50 2.50 1.0
4 storey 0.52 0.3 1.73 1.92 2.50 1.30
6 storey 0.7 0.45 1.56 1.43 2.22 1.55
8 storey 0.87 0.60 1.45 1.15 1.67 1.45
12 storey 1.10 0.90 1.22 0.91 1.11 1.22

6. RESULTS
Following are the results of the numerical study undertaken:
There is an increase in base shear due to infill masonry in frames. Base shear increases due to change in
natural time period. Table-3 for sa/g shows the change from 1.0 to 1.55 for 2 to 8 storey building frames
There is an increase in shear strength in case of uniformly infilled frame over bare and OGF frames. In 2
storey frames, the infilled frame shows ultimate capacity in the range of 400 KN while it is ion the range of
120 -140 KN for Bare and OGF frames.
The reserve strength in OGF is on the lowest as compared to the other buildings. Higher reserve strength
in uniformly infilled frames shows higher over strength, but, one thing is marked that the overall deformation
capacity of infilled frame is restricted.
Column jacketing provided stiffness to ground floor. Ultimate shear capacity rises from 140 KN to 600
KN, which is at par to the strength in uniformly infilled frames. When beams at the ground storey are also
jacketed, increase in capacity is found to be marginal. Overall deformation in retrofitted OGF shows more
drift in upper floors.

7. CONCLUSION
There are instances of higher seismic vulnerability in RCMRF infilled buildings due to uncertainties involved
in the seismic behavior of such structures. Uniformly infilled and open ground floor system is the two general
types on construction in this category. A parametric study has been carried out using ASPOA based seismic
vulnerability approach. Following are the main conclusion derived from the numerical study:

http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/index.asp 545 editor@iaeme.com

 A.K. Sinha

There is higher over-strength in uniformly infilled frames

Storey drift on higher floors (midlevel) in uniformly frames indicates mid level storey vulnerability. Hence,
for taking up seismic vulnerability assessment of mid-rise buildings, Storey other than ground floor also needs
to be studied.
Uniformly infilled structures have restricted deformation. Hence, during seismic vulnerability assessment
based on deformation, these should be treated as frames with limited ductility.
Overstrength in infilled frames is certain. But, reserve strength index shows the final output as there is increase
in design base shear also in infilled frames. In this way, reserve strength index indicates seismic vulnerability
of frames as it speaks of effective surplus in such cases.
The proposed method for seismic vulnerability assessment for asymmetric structures speaks well of the
reduced seismic vulnerability in retrofitted 4 storey OGF. Seismic vulnerability is reduced with increase in
reserve strength index.
The deformation behavior of retrofitted ground floor in OGF shows vulnerability (more inelastic action)
moving towards higher floors. This clearly shows that an appropriate retrofit option would be that which
distributes the inelastic action more uniformly in the building. The retrofit option should be checked not only
for the increase inn reserve strength index but also for better distribution of drift.

REFERENCE
[1] Dasgupta, K and Murty CVR, Quantitative Seismic Retrofitting of Open Ground Storey RC Frame
Buildings, Proc Workshop on Retrofitting of Structures, 2003, IIT Rookee.
[2] Eurocode-8, Design Provisions for Earthquake Resistance of Structures Part I: General Rules, 1994,
CEN, Brussels.
[3] FEMA 356, Pre-standard and Commentary for the Seismic Rehabilitation of Buildings, 2000, Federal
Emergency Management Agency
[4] Gulkan, P., Sozen, M.A., Demir, S. & Ersoy, U., An Alternative Evaluating for Determining Seismic
Vulnerability of Building Structures, Xith Conference On Earthquake Engineering, 1996, Mexico.
[5] IS: 456-2000, Code of Practice for Plain and reinforced Concrete, Bureau of Indian Standards, 2000,
New Delhi, India.
[6] Mallick D V and Severn R T , The Behaviour of Infilled Frames under Static Loading, 1967, Jl of ASCE
[7] Menon, D, SenGupta and Sarkar, P, Seismic Evaluation and Retrofit of Existing Multi-Storeyed
Buildings, Proc of World Congress on Natural Disaster Mitigation, 2004, New Delhi
[8] Paulay, T., Are Existing Seismic Torsion Provisions Achieving the Design Aims?, Earthquake Spectra,
1997, Vol. 13, No. 2, 259-279.
[9] Prakash, A and Thakkar, S K, A Comparative Study of retrofitting of R. C. Building using Steel Bracing
and Infill Walls, Proc Workshop on Retrofitting of Structures, 2003, IIT Rookee.
[10] SP-16, Design Aids For Reinforced Concrete to IS-456-1978, Bureau of Indian Standards, 1980, New
Delhi, India
[11] Sozen, M.A. and Saiidi, M (1981), Simple Nonlinear Seismic analysis of R/C Structures, Jl of Structural
Div, Jl ASCE, Vol-107, No 5, 937-951.
[12] SeismoSoft (2016) SeismoStruct A computer program for static and dynamic nonlinear analysis of
framed structures.
[13] Alessandra Fiore, Adriana Netti and Pietro Monaco (2012). The influence of masonry infill on the seismic
behaviour of RC frame buildings Engineering Structures, Volume 44, November 2012, Pages 133145

http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/index.asp 546 editor@iaeme.com