Project Green

Design of RC Frames with Masonry Infill

Walls in Earthquake Regions

Submitted by

Sohaib Anwar

Matriculation number: 114883

Bauhaus-Universität Weimar

Faculty of Civil Engineering

Institute of Structural Engineering (IKI)

Earthquake Damage Analysis Centre (EDAC)

DECLARATION
Hereby, I declare that I worked on this project independently and using only the
specified sources and programs which are referred.

Sohaib Anwar

Weimar, April, 2016 ____________________

ii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
First of all, the author is grateful to his wife, parents and family for their everlasting
support and motivation in every sphere of life.

The author expresses profound gratitude to Prof. Dr. Jochen Schwarz (EDAC), Dr.
Lars Abrahamczyk and Dr. Silke Beinersdorf, Bauhaus University, Weimar for their
guidance and patience during this project.

iii
LIST OF FIGURES

Sr. No Description Pg. No.

Figure 1 Seismic zones in Pakistan .................................................................................... 1
Figure 2 Model I: Reference model ..................................................................................... 3
Figure 3 Model II: With an additional storey....................................................................... 4
Figure 4 Model III: Model with irregularities due to reinforced concrete walls .............. 4
Figure 5 Seismic load pattern............................................................................................... 6
Figure 6 Response spectrum ............................................................................................... 6
Figure 7 Time history (EW direction) Friuli 1976 earthquake .......................................... 7
Figure 8 Time history plot...................................................................................................... 7
Figure 9 Beams hinge definition .......................................................................................... 8
Figure 10 Columns hinge definition ..................................................................................... 8
Figure 11 Capacity curve and performance point for Model-I ....................................... 12
Figure 12 Capacity curve and performance point for Model-II ...................................... 13
Figure 13 Capacity curve and performance point for Model-III..................................... 14

iv
LIST OF TABLES

Sr. No. Description Pg. No.

Table 1 Seismic zones in Pakistan ...................................................................................... 1
Table 2 Seismic zone factor, Z ............................................................................................. 2
Table 3 Seismic coefficient Cv.............................................................................................. 2
Table 4 Seismic coefficient Ca ............................................................................................. 2
Table 5 Material properties and loads ................................................................................. 3
Table 6 Centers of mass and rigidity ................................................................................... 5
Table 7 Comparison of storey drifts ..................................................................................... 9
Table 8 Modal periods for all models................................................................................... 9
Table 9 Comparison of mode shapes................................................................................ 10

v
TABLE OF CONTENTS

Declaration ..................................................................................................................ii
Acknowledgements .................................................................................................... iii
List of Figures .............................................................................................................iv
List of Tables .............................................................................................................. v
Table of Contents .......................................................................................................vi
1. Introduction .......................................................................................................... 1
2. Study area ........................................................................................................... 1
3. Structural models and variations.......................................................................... 2
3.1 Model I: Reference model ............................................................................. 3
3.2 Model II: An additional storey added to the reference model ........................ 4
3.3 Model III: Model with irregularity in plan by inserting reinforced concrete
walls in both directions ............................................................................................ 4
4. Discussion on earthquake resistant design ......................................................... 5
5. Methods of analysis ............................................................................................. 5
5.1 Equivalent static method (linear static analysis). ............................................... 5
5.2 Response spectrum analysis (linear dynamic analysis). ................................... 6
5.3 Time history analysis (linear dynamic analysis). ............................................... 7
5.4 Pushover nonlinear analysis (nonlinear static analysis). ................................... 7
6. Storey drifts for time history analysis ................................................................... 8
7. Comparison of mode shapes and periods ........................................................... 9
8. Determination of performance points by pushover analysis .............................. 11
8.1 Performance point for Model-I......................................................................... 11
8.2 Performance point for Model-II........................................................................ 12
8.3 Performance point for Model-III....................................................................... 13
9. Conclusion ......................................................................................................... 15
10. References ..................................................................................................... 15

vi
1. INTRODUCTION
In this project our focus is to analyze a reinforced concrete frame structure by various
analysis methods. A four storied regular frame structure has been considered for the
purpose. The building is supposed to be located in the target area discussed in section
2 of this report.

2. STUDY AREA
Islamabad is the capital city of Pakistan and a has been chosen as the study area for
this project. It lies in seismic zone 2B according to Building Code of Pakistan (BCP
2007) [1] Seismic zones have been shown in Figure 1 and Table 1 below. Islamabad
has been chosen because it has been affected by some seismic events in the past
and is the center of country’s government headquarters. It also has a significant
industrial infrastructure in addition to a large domestic population.

Figure 1 Seismic zones in Pakistan

Table 1 Seismic zones in Pakistan

Seismic Zone Peak Horizontal Ground Acceleration
1 0.05 to 0.08g
2A 0.08 to 0.16g
2B 0.16 to 0.24g
3 0.24 to 0.32g
4 >0.32g

1
Factors ascertaining control periods and limits for response spectrum according to
BCP 2007 are Z, Cv and Ca. These factors along with other coefficients are also used
to carry out various types of analyses including equivalent lateral force. This implies
that the factors for seismic analysis to be used for the structure under study are
Z=0.20, Ca=0.25 and Cv=0.20 according to Table 2, Table 3 and Table 4. Soil class SB
has been considered.

Table 2 Seismic zone factor, Z

Zone 1 2A 2B 3 4
Z 0.075 0.15 0.20 0.30 0.40

Table 3 Seismic coefficient Cv

Soil Profile Seismic Zone Factor, Z
Type 0.075 0.15 0.20 0.30 0.40
SA 0.06 0.12 0.16 0.24 0.32Nv
SB 0.08 0.15 0.20 0.30 0.40Nv
SC 0.13 0.25 0.32 0.45 0.56Nv
SD 0.18 0.32 0.40 0.54 0.64Nv
SE 0.26 0.50 0.64 0.84 0.96Nv
Site specific geotechnical investigation and dynamic site response shall be
SF
performed to determine seismic coefficients for soil profile type SF

Table 4 Seismic coefficient Ca

Soil Profile Seismic Zone Factor, Z
Type 0.075 0.15 0.20 0.30 0.40
SA 0.06 0.12 0.16 0.24 0.32Nv
SB 0.08 0.15 0.20 0.30 0.40Nv
SC 0.09 0.18 0.24 0.33 0.40Nv
SD 0.12 0.22 0.28 0.36 0.44Nv
SE 0.19 0.30 0.34 0.36 0.36Nv
Site specific geotechnical investigation and dynamic site response shall be
SF
performed to determine seismic coefficients for soil profile type SF

Z = seismic zone factor as given in Table 5.9 (BCP 2007).

Ca = seismic coefficient, as set forth in Table 5.16 (BCP 2007).
Ct = numerical coefficient given in Section 5.30.2.2 (BCP 2007).
Cv = seismic coefficient, as set forth in Table 5.17 (BCP 2007).
SA- SF = Soil Profile Types as set forth in Table 4.1(BCP 2007).

3. STRUCTURAL MODELS AND VARIATIONS

In this project, following 3 types of variations were modeled and analyzed in CSI
ETABS 2015. Material properties and loading have been considered according to
Table 5 below.

2
 Table 5 Material properties and loads
Concrete compressive strength, f’c Concrete class C25 and f’c = 25 Mpa
Longitudinal Steel Yield strength, fy 400 Mpa
Transverse Steel Yield strength, fys 300 Mpa
Concrete Modulus of Elasticity, E 18000√f’c = 28460 Mpa
Dead Load 2 KN/m2
Live Load 2 KN/m2
Over strength factor, R 8
Load Combination, U1 1.4 DL+ 1.7 LL
Load Combination, U2 1.32 DL + 0.55 LL +1.1 (Sx/Sy)
Load Combination, U3 0.99 DL +1.1 (Sx/Sy)

Dimensions of the structural elements:

 No of stories: 4
 Spacing of frames in X- direction 5m (3 bays)
 Spacing of frames in X-direction: 5m (3 bays)
 Spacing of frames in Y-direction: 5m (3 bays)
 Column sizes: Exterior- 300x300mm
 Interior- 400x400mm
 Beam Sizes: 300x450mm
 Slab thickness: 160mm

Following 3 types of models were prepared and analyzed by various methods during
the course of this project.

3.1 Model I: Reference model

The reference model consists of a 4 storied reinforced concrete frame structure with
the material properties shown in Table 5.

Figure 2 Model I: Reference model

3
3.2 Model II: An additional storey added to the reference model
An additional storey was added to the reference model to come up to this form.
Therefore, Model II consists of 5 storeys with the 5th storey having the same
dimensions of members as the rest of the stories.

Figure 3 Model II: With an additional storey

3.3 Model III: Model with irregularity in plan by inserting reinforced concrete
walls in both directions
Model III was supposed to be an irregular model with reinforced concrete walls which
impart irregularity to the structure as can be seen in Figure

Figure 4 Model III: Model with irregularities due to reinforced concrete walls

4
4. DISCUSSION ON EARTHQUAKE RESISTANT DESIGN
Regularity of the structure in plan and elevation is considered as a very important
criteria during earthquake resistant design. In this context, centers of mass and rigidity
play a significant role in ascertaining building response during seismic events or during
any other kind of dynamic shaking.
Center of mass and center of rigidity have been determined for the reference model
as well as the two variations.

Table 6 Centers of mass and rigidity

Center of Center of
S. Structural
Model Storey Mass (m) Rigidity(m)
No. System
XCM YCM XCR YCR
4th Floor 7.5 7.5 7.5 7.5
Regular 4 3rd Floor 7.5 7.5 7.5 7.5
1. Model-I
storied frame 2nd Floor 7.5 7.5 7.5 7.5
1st Floor 7.5 7.5 7.5 7.5
4th Floor 7.5 7.5 7.5 7.5
Regular 5 3rd Floor 7.5 7.5 7.5 7.5
2. Model-II
storied frame 2nd Floor 7.5 7.5 7.5 7.5
1st Floor 7.5 7.5 7.5 7.5
Frame with 4th Floor 7.5 7.7 7.5 8
reinforced 3rd Floor 7.5 7.6 7.5 8.1
3. Model-III
concrete 2nd Floor 7.5 7.8 7.5 8.3
walls 1st Floor 7.5 7.8 7.5 7.75

Table 6 shows that Model-I and Model-II are symmetric. However, Model-III is irregular
due to the presence of unsymmetrical reinforced concrete walls which may impart
torsion in the system under dynamic loading. Model-I and Model-II are symmetrical in
plan and elevation according to Building Code of Pakistan (BCP 2007) [1]. Uniform
distribution of structural elements can be seen in Model-I and Model-II however
concrete walls in Model-III are non-uniform.

5. METHODS OF ANALYSIS
The models were analyzed using following analysis methods in this project.

5.1 Equivalent static method (linear static analysis).

Equivalent lateral force procedure was used for dynamic analysis of the structural
models. The properties and some screenshots from the program ETABS have been
shown below. Building code of Pakistan (BCP 2007) has been primarily based on UBC
2007. Therefore, seismic load pattern considering the seismic zone parameters
discussed in section 2 has been applied according to UBC 97 as shown in Figure 5.

5
 Figure 5 Seismic load pattern

5.2 Response spectrum analysis (linear dynamic analysis).

Response spectrum has also been considered in accordance with UBC 97 as shown
in Figure 6.

Figure 6 Response spectrum

6
5.3 Time history analysis (linear dynamic analysis).
Time history from Friuli earthquake (Ms=6.5) of 1976 was used to perform time history
analysis for the 3 models. Time history plot has been shown in Figure 7.

Figure 7 Time history (EW direction) Friuli 1976 earthquake

Figure 8 Time history plot

5.4 Pushover nonlinear analysis (nonlinear static analysis).
Non-linear static pushover analysis has also been performed to determine the
performance points for all the models. Before running the analysis we need to define
nonlinear hinges to all members depending on the failure mechanism expected at
each element. For beams, a moment (M3) hinge and for columns (P–M2–M3) hinges
were defined.
7
 Figure 9 Beams hinge definition

Figure 10 Columns hinge definition

6. STOREY DRIFTS FOR TIME HISTORY ANALYSIS

Storey drifts were computed for time history analysis and compared for all the stories
in Table 9 below.
It can be observed that Model-II experienced maximum storey drifts. This is perhaps
due to an additional storey and increase in height. Model-I comes next with minimum
storey drifts observed in the case of Model-III. This is due to increased stiffness of the
structure which inhibits or limits lateral storey drifts.

8
 Table 7 Comparison of storey drifts
Story Load Case/Combo Direction Drifts(m)
Model-I Model-II Model-III
Time History Max X - 0.000338 -
Story5
Time History Min X - 0.000285 -
Time History Max X 0.00032 0.000489 1.4E-05
Story4
Time History Min X 0.000416 0.000347 1.8E-05
Time History Max X 0.00048 0.000483 1.3E-05
Story3
Time History Min X 0.000545 0.000449 1.8E-05
Time History Max X 0.000349 0.000461 1.1E-05
Story2
Time History Min X 0.000401 0.000446 1.5E-05
Time History Max X 0.000317 0.000352 6E-06
Story1
Time History Min X 0.000317 0.000378 1E-05

7. COMPARISON OF MODE SHAPES AND PERIODS

It can be observed in Table 8 that Model-II has higher periods as compared to Model-
I and Model-III. The reason being an increase in the height of the building due to an
additional storey. It can also be noted that Model-II has the lowest periods.

Table 8 Modal periods for all models

Period (sec)
Mode

Model-I Model-II Model-III

1 0.814 1.029 0.177

2 0.814 1.029 0.117
3 0.756 0.942 0.084
4 0.281 0.349 0.05
5 0.281 0.349 0.038
6 0.255 0.316 0.036
7 0.17 0.212 0.034
8 0.17 0.212 0.026
9 0.156 0.191 0.025
10 0.126 0.153 0.023
11 0.126 0.153 0.02
12 0.121 0.14 0.02

9
This is due to the presence of reinforced concrete walls at the edges of the building.
The walls tend to make the building stiffer which implies an increase in modal
frequencies and decrease in period of vibration.

Table 9 Comparison of mode shapes

Mode Model-I Model-II Model-III

Translational Translational Translational

Translational Translational Translational

Rotational Rotational Rotational

Translational Translational Translational+Torsional

Translational Translational Translational+Torsional

Modal analysis was carried out for the 3 structural models to explore the difference in
their response and make a comparison. First 5 modes were considered here. It has
been observed that Model-I and Model-II vibrate primarily in translational and
rotational modes whereas, Model-III vibrates in coupled (translational+torsional)
modes for 4th and 5th mode with a period of 0.05sec and 0.038 sec respectively. The
analysis results augmented the expectation that Model-III may somehow experience
torsion.

10
8. DETERMINATION OF PERFORMANCE POINTS BY PUSHOVER ANALYSIS
Pushover analysis has to be performed in order to compute the capacity curve and
performance points for a structure. FEMA 440 [2] has been chosen as the reference
document for this purpose. Equivalent linearization was used to determine
performance points.
The capacity curve is the plot of the diagram of the total lateral force, or the base shear
V, against the lateral deflection, d, at the top of the structure. The analysis involves
applying horizontal loads, in a prescribed pattern, to the models, incrementally and
plotting the total applied shear force and associated lateral displacement at each
increment, until the structure reaches a limit state or collapse condition.
The procedures outlined in section 6.4 of this document have been followed. The
calculations are as follows.

8.1 Performance point for Model-I

ay = 1.57 m/s2
dy = 0.026 m
api = 1.99 m/s2
dpi = 0.078 m
To = 2π √(dy/ay) = 0.809 sec
μ = dpi / dy = 0.078 / 0.026 = 3
1 < μ < 4 then:
βeff = 4.9 * (μ-1) ² - 1.1 * (μ -1)³ + βo = 4.9 * (3-1)² - 1.1 * (3-1)³ + 5
βeff = 15.8 %
Teff = (0.2 * (μ-1) ² - 0.038 * (μ -1) ³ + 1) * To = 1.21 sec
B = 4 / (5.6 – ln βeff) = 4 / (5.6 – ln (15.8)) = 1.408
ADRS curve can be obtained from these calculations. After this MADRS curve can be
obtained by determining factor M.
𝑎𝑝𝑖 − 𝑎𝑦
[ ]
𝑑𝑝𝑖 − 𝑑𝑦
𝛼= = 0.133
𝑎𝑦
[ ]
𝑑𝑦
𝑇𝑜 1 + 𝛼(µ − 1)
[ ]= = 0.422
𝑇𝑠𝑒𝑐 µ
𝑇𝑒𝑓𝑓 2 𝑇𝑒𝑓𝑓 2 𝑇𝑜 2
𝑀=[ ] =[ ] [ ] = 0.398
𝑇𝑠𝑒𝑐 𝑇𝑜 𝑇𝑠𝑒𝑐

11
 Determination of Performance Point for Model-I
7

6
Capacity
Curve
5
Initial ADRS
Acceleration (m/s2)

4 ADRS Beff

MADRS
3

T0
2
Performance
1
point
Performance point

0
0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1
Displacement (m)
Figure 11 Capacity curve and performance point for Model-I

8.2 Performance point for Model-II

ay = 1.50 m/s2
dy = 0.026 m
api = 1.89 m/s2
dpi = 0.057 m
To = 2π √(dy/ay) = 0.82 sec
μ = dpi / dy = 0.057 / 0.026 = 2.19
1 < μ < 4 then:
βeff = 4.9 * (μ-1) ² - 1.1 * (μ -1)³ + βo = 4.9 * (2.19-1)² - 1.1 * (2.19-1)³ + 5
βeff = 10.47 %
Teff = (0.2 * (μ-1) ² - 0.038 * (μ -1) ³ + 1) * To = 0.99 sec
B = 4 / (5.6 – ln βeff) = 4 / (5.6 – ln (15.8)) = 1.23
ADRS curve can be obtained from these calculations. After this MADRS curve can be
obtained by determining factor M.

12
 𝑎𝑝𝑖 − 𝑎𝑦
[ ]
𝑑𝑝𝑖 − 𝑑𝑦
𝛼= = 0.21
𝑎𝑦
[ ]
𝑑𝑦
𝑇𝑜 1 + 𝛼(µ − 1)
[ ]= = 0.57
𝑇𝑠𝑒𝑐 µ
𝑇𝑒𝑓𝑓 2 𝑇𝑒𝑓𝑓 2 𝑇𝑜 2
𝑀=[ ] =[ ] [ ] = 0.40
𝑇𝑠𝑒𝑐 𝑇𝑜 𝑇𝑠𝑒𝑐

Determination of Performance Point for Model-II

7

5
Acceleration (m/s2)

Capacity
4 Curve
Initial ADRS
3
ADRS Beff

2 MADRS

1 Performance
point
Performance point
0
0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1
Displacement (m)
Figure 12 Capacity curve and performance point for Model-II

8.3 Performance point for Model-III

ay = 2 m/s2
dy = 0.0002 m
api = 15.41 m/s2
dpi = 0.0098 m
To = 2π √(dy/ay) = 0.0628 sec
μ = dpi / dy = 0.0098 / 0.0002 = 49
μ > 6.5 then:

13
 0.64(µ − 1) − 1 𝑇𝑒𝑓𝑓 2
βeff = 19 [ ][ ] + 𝛽𝑜
0.64(µ − 1)2 𝑇𝑜
βeff = 1.33%

µ−1
𝑇𝑒𝑓𝑓 = {0.89 [√ − 1] + 1} 𝑇𝑜
1 + 0.05(µ − 2)

Teff = 0.218 sec

B = 4 / (5.6 – ln βeff) = 4 / (5.6 – ln (1.33)) = 0.75
ADRS curve can be obtained from these calculations. After this MADRS curve can be
obtained by determining factor M.
𝑎𝑝𝑖 − 𝑎𝑦
[ ]
𝑑𝑝𝑖 − 𝑑𝑦
𝛼= = 0.139
𝑎𝑦
[ ]
𝑑𝑦
𝑇𝑜 1 + 𝛼(µ − 1)
[ ]= = 0.156
𝑇𝑠𝑒𝑐 µ
𝑇𝑒𝑓𝑓 2 𝑇𝑒𝑓𝑓 2 𝑇𝑜 2
𝑀=[ ] =[ ] [ ] = 0.0844
𝑇𝑠𝑒𝑐 𝑇𝑜 𝑇𝑠𝑒𝑐

Determination of Performance Point for Model-III

8

Capacity
Acceleration (m/sq.sec)

5
Curve
Initial
4 ADRS
ADRS Beff
3
MADRS
2
Performance point T0

1 Performan
ce point
0
0 0.0005 0.001 0.0015 0.002 0.0025 0.003
Displacement (m)
Figure 13 Capacity curve and performance point for Model-III

14
9. CONCLUSION
It is clearly evident that reinforced concrete walls add stiffness to the system as well
as shift the mass and stiffness centers due to which torsional behavior can be
observed. Also Model-III with reinforced concrete walls experienced maximum
accelerations under seismic loading. Moreover, increasing the building height increase
the period of vibration.

10. REFERENCES
[1] BCP (2007). Building Code of Pakistan (Seismic Provisions 2007). Ministry of
Housing and Public Works Islamabad.
[2] Improvement of Nonlinear Static Seismic Analysis Procedures, FEMA 440,
June 2005
[3] FEMA 306“Evaluation of earthquake damaged concrete and masonry wall
buildings”, basic procedures manual, Washington D.C., USA, 1998.

15