Mr.R.Suresh Babu et al.
/ (IJAEST) INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ADVANCED ENGINEERING SCIENCES AND TECHNOLOGIES
SEISMIC STRENGTHENING OF LOW RISE
BUILDINGS USING BRICK INSERTS
(RETROFIT) – EXPERIMENTAL
INVESTIGATION ON 2D & 3D RC FRAMED
STRUCTURES
Mr.R.Suresh Babu
Research scholar – Anna University, Coimbatore
Partner – PTK Architects, Chennai
Chennai, India
rsb@ptkarch.com
Abstract— Several literature and research papers
were published in the topic of seismic retrofit of
existing buildings. Attention has been focused on
loads) to prevent damages during future
ES
the existing building (designed without seismic
earthquake. A purpose of the study is to investigate
seismic retrofit using brick inserts to upgrade the
capacity of reinforce concrete frame with brick
masonry infill wall and to addresses the buildings
without following the details as stated in BIS
13920. The overall aim of study is by adding a
small brick insert in the partial infilled RC
structures, the structure could double its strength.
A
An experimental investigation is conducted to study
the effect of lateral behaviour of RC frames with
partial-infill masonry panels (2D & 3D) viz. one
with opening(frame 1) and other with masonry
insert in the opening(frame 2). One-third scale, two-
bay two-storey RC frame (2D & 3D) designed for
IJ
gravity loading is tested under in-plane lateral
loading for 2D RC frames and push & pull load for
3D RC frame structures. A non-linear finite element
analysis has been carried out using Ansys – 10. The
results of experiment and analytical analysis were
only marginal variations. In both 2D & 3D analysis
of both frames, the columns in the bottom storey
sustained critical shear damage with hinges in the
column portions adjacent to the gap. The
experimental results clearly indicated that the partial
infill in RC frame leads to critical damages, which
ISSN: 2230-7818 @ 2011 http://www.ijaest.iserp.org. All rights Reserved.
Vol No. 2, Issue No. 1, 072 - 085
Dr.R.Venkatasubramani
HOD, VLBJCET, Coimbatore
Coimbatore, India
rvs_vlb@yahoo.com
T
could be reinforced with the added strength of
masonry inserts. Finally it was suggested that, the
existing columns with short-column mechanism
could be strengthened with masonry inserts. By
improving building strength with the above
methods, the damage can be limited to within
repairable limits and complete collapse of the
building/loss of life can be avoided during an
earthquake. The cost effectiveness of providing
brick insert is very much cheaper than retrofit
normally adopted to strengthen the structural
elements and require simple construction method.
Keywords - Masonry Infill; Masonry Inserts;
Captive Column effect; Retrofit;
I INTRODUCTION
Everyone is aware that earthquake occurred in
Gujarat (Bhuj) - India in the year 2001 had several
incidents of failure or complete collapse. Majority of
the failure in the buildings are predominantly due to
Captive column failure or soft storeyed building.
After the revision in IS codes for seismic forces, we
are able to take care of the proposed new buildings.
But even many old buildings of similar nature still
exists (built as per IS 456 detailed with SP 34) in
highly earthquake prone areas throughout the
country. Energy dissipation of these buildings are
very poor for lateral loads mainly due to Captive
column failure. By providing necessary masonry
inserts in the partial infill opening shall increase the
Page 72
 Mr.R.Suresh Babu et al. / (IJAEST) INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ADVANCED ENGINEERING SCIENCES AND TECHNOLOGIES
stiffness of the building and increase in energy
dissipation. Due to this the collapse of the building
will delay and the structure became more safer. This
remedy is evaluated without major alteration to
structural elements and without affecting major
existing functioning of the buildings.
II MATERIALS AND METHODS
A LITERATURE REVIEW
Previous experimental research on the behaviour
of brick infilled RC frames(Achintya et.al.
1991:Yaw-jeng Ciou et.al.1999: Diptesh Das et.al.
2004: Ismail et.al 2004: Marina et.al:2006 have
shown that the strudtural behaviour of the framed
masonry wall subject to in – plane monotonic
loading on partial fill masonry wall induce a short
column effect aleads to severe failures of the
column. Further experimental research of Mehmat
Emin Kara et.al:2006 have shown that patially
infilled non-ductile RC Frames exhibited
significantly higher ultimate strength and higher
ES
initial stiffness than the bare frame. Prabavathy
et.al(2006) have shown that infill panels can
significantly improve the performance of RC
Frames. Alidad Hashemi et.al(2006) have shown
that infill wall changes the load path and the
distribution of forces Kasim Armagan Korkmaz
et.al(2007) shown that presence of nonstructural
masonry infill walls can modify the global seismic
behaviour of framed building to a larger extent.
A
Umarani (2008) examined the behaviour of infilled
frames (5 storey) for lateral loading. Test focused
on the increase of energy dissipation over and above
the base frames. Santiago pujol et.al(2008) shown
that masonry infill walls were effective in increase
the strength(by 100%) and stiffness (by 500%) of
IJ
the original reinforced concrete structures. Salah El
– Din Fahmy Taher et.al(2008) lower location of
infill frames yields the higher strength, stiffness and
frequency of the system
III EXPERIMENTAL & ANALYTICAL
INVESTIGATION ON 2D RC FRAME STRUCTURE
1) EXPERIMENTAL INVESTIGATION
A) Modelling of Frames:
ISSN: 2230-7818 @ 2011 http://www.ijaest.iserp.org. All rights Reserved.
Vol No. 2, Issue No. 1, 072 - 085
A structure representing a multi-storeyed frame
system is analysed and designed. The structure is
modeled for experimental investigation by scaling
down the geometric properties of the prototype
using the laws of Geometric similitude.
B) Details of Test Frame
Test models was fabricated to 1:3 reduced scale
following the laws of similitude by scaling down
the geometric and material properties of the
prototype for Frame (1) and Frame (2)(Ref. Fig.1).
T
Figure.1 Geometry of the frame model
C) Testing Procedure :
Lumped mass distribution was
calculated and lateral loads were distributed as 80%
for top storey & 20% for bottom storey. All applied
lateral loads were divided accordingly. Frame (1)
was tested of first increments of 10 kN base shear
for each cycle and released to zero after each cycle.
The deflections at all storey levels were measured at
each increment and decrement of the load. The
formation and propagation of cracks, hinge
formation and failure pattern were recorded. This
procedure was repeated for frame (2) with masonry
insert.
D) Results:
The results of various parameters like load Vs.
deflection, stiffness degradation and ductility factor
were considered for study of the captive column
behaviour of the frame
i) Loading And Load-Deflection Behaviour
(P-∆):
The frame was subjected to unidirectional
lateral loading. The load was applied in increment
of 10 kN base shear for each cycle and released to
zero after each cycle. The deflections at all storey
levels were measured using LVDT at each
increment or decrement of load. The ultimate base
shear of 73 KN was reached in the Eighth cycle of
Page 73
 Mr.R.Suresh Babu et al. / (IJAEST) INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ADVANCED ENGINEERING SCIENCES AND TECHNOLOGIES
Vol No. 2, Issue No. 1, 072 - 085

loading and ultimate base shear of 140KN was frame was found to be 6 mm for 30 KN base shear,
reached in fourteenth cycle for frame 1 & 2 while for frame (2), the same is found to be
respectively. 11.79mm for 80 KN base shear. The ductility
factor value µ = (∆1/∆y) for various load cycles of
Top storey deflection versus base shear is shown in
the frames was worked out and the variation of
Fig.2. Load and top storey deflection is presented in
ductility factor for both frames with load cycles are
Table 1. At the ultimate base shear the top storey
shown in Fig.3.
deflection was found to be 47mm for frame (1) and
The ductility factor is found to be increasing more
56mm for frame (2).
from 1.00 at third cycle to 7.833 at eighth cycle for
Table.1: Load and Deflection for Frame 1 & 2 frame (1). While for frame (2), the ductility factory
Frame (1) Frame (2) is 1 at eighth cycle of loading and only 4.75 at
fourteenth cycle of loading. This behaviour shows
Load Deflectio Load Deflect
the reduction of ductility of frame due to the
(KN) n (mm) (KN) ion
provision of masonry insert and is shown in Fig.4
(mm)

T
0 0 0 0
10 2 10 0.45
20 3.89 20 1
30 6 30 1.55
40 8.12 40 2.9
50 13.69 50 4.25
60
70
80
21.23
34.33
47
60
70
80
ES 6.95
9.08
11.79
90 15.66 Figure. 3 Ductility factor for both frames
100 19.33 iii) Stiffness Degradation:
110 29 The stiffness of the partially-infilled frames
120 37 for various load cycles is calculated and presented.
130 47 The variation of stiffness with respect to load cycles
140 56 is shown in Fig.4. For frame (1), it may be noted
A
that stiffness decreases from 5 kN/mm in first cycle
to 1.7 kN/mm in eighth cycle. A sudden reduction
in stiffness takes place after the first crack
occurrence in 30 kN load.
For frame (2), the initial stiffness of frame is 20
kN/mm against 5 kN/mm for the first frame and
IJ

stiffness is sustained for a longer duration until the

Figure. 2 Base shear
hear Vs Top storey deflection for
both frames
ii) Ductility:
The ductility factor (µ) was calculated. For
frame (1), the first yield deflection (∆y) for the
assumed bi-linear load-deflection behaviour of the
development of first crack and is reduced to 2.5
kN/mm in fourteenth cycle.
This behaviour shows that the initial stiffness of
frame (1) is comparatively very low and flexural
hinges and shear cracks are developed at an early
stage of loading. For frame(2) with masonry insert,
initial stiffness is increased and occurrence of
flexural hinges and shear cracks in concrete and
masonry takes place only after the eighth cycle.
Also, it could be noted that the initial stiffness is

ISSN: 2230-7818 @ 2011 http://www.ijaest.iserp.org. All rights Reserved. Page 74

 Mr.R.Suresh Babu et al. / (IJAEST) INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ADVANCED ENGINEERING SCIENCES AND TECHNOLOGIES
Vol No. 2, Issue No. 1, 072 - 085

increased by 4.5 times due to the introduction of
masonry insert and the stiffness is sustained for a
longer duration of loading. The behaviour of frame
for stiffness values is shown in Fig.4
Figure:4:Stiffness degradation curve for both
frames
iv) Behaviour and Mode of Failure:
diagonal crack were initiated in the first (loaded)
bay. Further, diagonal cracks were seen to flow
through the brick infill. Separation of infill
occurred at the tension corners. Due to the presence
of insert, diagonal cracks were observed to flow
from the loaded beam – column junction to the
diagonally opposite corner, clearly depicting the
expected strut action (Fig.6). At ultimate load of
140 KN, plastic hinge formation and failure of
frame at all bottom storey junctions were noticed.
The width of the cracks was ranging from 2mm –
10mm in concrete and masonry. The crack pattern
indicated a combined effect of flexure and shear
failure and the direction of flown crack showed the
developed strut action through the brick infill, due
to the presence of masonry insert

T
a) Frame-1 without masonry insert:
First crack was observed (horizontal hairline) at
30kN at the junction of loaded side of the beam and
column at the bottom storey, where moment and
shear forces are maximum while loading further,
ES
similar cracks were developed in the other bay
columns and flexural cracks were developed from
the junction of the loaded areas. Separation of infill
occurred at the tension corners. At the ultimate
failure load of 70 KN, crushing of loaded corner,
widening of diagonal cracks in columns and infill,
layer separation of brick infill were also observed.
Width of the cracks was ranging from 3mm to
15mm in concrete and masonry. The crack pattern
A
indicated a combined effect of flexure and shear Figure.5.Test frame 1 with failure in the bottom and
failure. Also plastic hinges formation was observed drift of the top storey (Constructed atVLBJCET,
first at loaded point and later to the middle column Coimbatore)
and finally at the leeward column. Captive column
phenomenon was identified with the failure pattern
of loaded column. It was also noticed that flow of
IJ

diagonal crack from the loaded column adjacent to

the opening was discontinuous, due to incomplete
strut action (Fig.5).
b) Frame-2 with masonry insert:

First crack observed (inclined downwards and

forwards) at only 80 kN, (against 30 kN for the
frame without insert) at loaded side of the beam and
column junction of the bottom storey where
moment and shear forces were maximum While Figure.6.Test frame 2 with failure in the bottom and
loading further, similar cracks were found to drift of the top storey(Constructed atVLBJCET,
propagate in middle column beam junctions and Coimbatore)

ISSN: 2230-7818 @ 2011 http://www.ijaest.iserp.org. All rights Reserved. Page 75

 Mr.R.Suresh Babu et al. / (IJAEST) INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ADVANCED ENGINEERING SCIENCES AND TECHNOLOGIES
Vol No. 2, Issue No. 1, 072 - 085

A crack in leeward column of the bottom storey at

the base was also observed (Fig.7). Separation of
infill occurred at the tension corners and the high
stress concentration at the loaded diagonal ends led
to early crushing of the loaded corners (Fig.8).No
crack was developed in the columns, beams and in
the infill of top storey clearly depicting that the
frame has failed only by hinges in columns due to
short column effect.
It is also evident from the propagation of cracks at
bottom storey level of the eighth cycle (80 kN Base
shear). Cracks in tension face of leeward column
were developed after tenth cycle of loading. Also
separation of infill from columns at highly stressed Load – 80 KN , Deflection – 47.453
tension faces of column were seen at tenth cycle of

T
Figure.9 Ultimate Deformed Shape of the
loading. Further, shear flow was observed in frame software Model For Frame 1
2 from the columns through the insert and brick
infill, creating a largely visible crack (about 12mm
wide), which is extended to the adjacent columns.
This phenomenon is clearly exhibits the
ES
development of strut action through masonry insert.
A
Figure. 7.crack in leeward Figure:8 Crushing of the
column loaded Corners

Load – 140 KN , Deflection – 56.285

2) FINITE ELEMENT ANALYSIS – ANSYS –
10: Fig.10 Ultimate Deformed Shape of the
software Model For Frame 2
IJ

A comparative study was made between

experimental and analytical values. Non-linear
finite element analysis has been carried out using
ANSYS-10 software for Frame (1) & (2). The
deformed shape of the software model for ultimate
load for Frame (1) and (2) is shown in Fig.9 &10
The results obtained from analytical by ANSYS-
10 for Frame (1) & (2) are compared with
experimental results and the variation is mariginal.
The experiments conducted on the two frames
(with and without masonry insert) the following
observations are drawn.
1) It is observed in frame with masonry insert
that at a base shear of 80 kN, cracks are
initiated at the junction of the loaded and
middle end of the beam and column of the

ISSN: 2230-7818 @ 2011 http://www.ijaest.iserp.org. All rights Reserved. Page 76

Mr.R.Suresh Babu et al. / (IJAEST) INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ADVANCED ENGINEERING SCIENCES AND TECHNOLOGIES
bottom storey where the moment and shear
forces are maximum whereas in frame
without insert, the first crack developed at
30 KN itself. The crack pattern indicated a
combined effect of flexure and shear
failure. However, it could be evidently
seen that the shear carrying capacity of the
frame is increased due to the presence of
masonry inserts
2) Separation of infill occurred at the tension
corners and the high stress concentration at
the loaded diagonal ends lead to early
crushing of the loaded corners.
3) Diagonal cracks flown through the brick
work where masonry inserts are provided
showing clear strut action. While further
loading of frames, further cracks are
initiated and noticed are much dissimilar
between a RC frame with partial infill and
with masonry insert.
4) The stiffness of the partially-infilled frame
ES
with and without insert for various load
cycles is calculated and the variation of
stiffness with respect to load cycles is
plotted. The stiffness of the brick infilled
RC frame with masonry insert is observed
to be very high when compared to frame
without insert. This shows greater
increase of stiffness while introducing
masonry insert.
5) The ductility factor value µ = (∆((∆1/∆y)
1/∆
∆1/ y) for
∆y)
A
various load cycles of the frame is worked
out for frames with and without insert and
the variation of ductility factors and
cumulative ductility factors for both
frames with reference to load cycles is
IJ
plotted. From the values, it may be noted
that ductility factor for frame with
masonry insert is reduced whereas
cumulative ductility factor for both frames
is more or less same.
6) Cracks were developed in the leeward
column (opposite to the loaded end) of the
bottom storey at the base because of
diagonal strut compression of the infill in
the frame with masonry insert.
7) The partial-infilled RC frame failed with
hinges at the portion of columns adjacent
ISSN: 2230-7818 @ 2011 http://www.ijaest.iserp.org. All rights Reserved.
Vol No. 2, Issue No. 1, 072 - 085
to the gap in the bottom storey indicating a
distinct “captive column effect” whereas
frame with masonry insert strut action took
place and diagonal crack flow clearly.
Also after the localised separation of the
infilled panel from the frame in the bottom
storey, the stress flow is mostly along the
line connecting the load point to the
diagonal opposite corner support
indicating the “diagonal strut” concept.
Therefore, it could be evidently proven
that the lateral strength of the RC frame is
considerably increased due to the presence
of masonry inserts.
8) The partial masonry infill failed with a
diagonal crack by shear along the mortar
T
and/or bricks joints.
9) In frame without masonry insert no crack
is developed in the columns, beams and in
the infill of top storey clearly depicting
that the frame has failed only by hinges in
columns due to captive column effect.
But, it was noticed that the development of
crack is postponed when the frame is
provided with masonry inserts.
10) The partial infill reduces the stiffness of
the frame leading to critical damages.
However, this could be improved to some
extent by the provision of masonry inserts.
11) In analytical study, it is noticed that a
sudden increase in deflection after the base
shear of 40 kN (nearly equal to
experimental value of 40 kN) for Frame
(1) and affect the base shear of 80 kN
(nearly equal to experiemtnal value of 80
kN) for Frame (2). This proves the
initiation of captive column behaviour
adjacent to gap region.
12) Analytical results by ANSYS-10
variations is very mariginal when
compared to Experimental results
Page 77
 Mr.R.Suresh Babu et al. / (IJAEST) INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ADVANCED ENGINEERING SCIENCES AND TECHNOLOGIES
Vol No. 2, Issue No. 1, 072 - 085

IV EXPERIMENTAL AND ANALYTICAL
INVESTIGATION ON 3D RC FRAME
STRUCTURE
1) EXPERIMENTAL INVESTIGATION
A) Modelling of Frames:
A structure representing a multi-storeyed frame
system is analysed and designed. The structure is
modeled for experimental investigation by scaling
down the geometric properties of the prototype
using the laws of Geometric similitude.
were applied and top storey deflections were
measured at each increment and decrement of the
load Using LVDT. Additional LVDT also placed at
other levels to find the frame behavior. The
formation and propagation of cracks, hinge
formation and failure pattern were recorded. This
procedure was repeated for frame (2) with masonry
insert.
D) Results:
The results of various parameters like load Vs.
deflection, stiffness degradation and ductility factor
were considered for study of the captive column
behaviour of the frame
i) Loading And Load-Deflection Behaviour
(P-∆
(P- ):
(P-∆):
∆):

ES
Figure.11 Geometry of the 3D frame model 1&2
A
B) DETAILS OF TEST FRAME
Test models was fabricated to 1:3 reduced scale
following the laws of similitude by scaling down
the geometric and material properties of the
prototype for Frame (1) and Frame (2)(Ref. Fig.11).
IJ
T
he frame
T was subjected to push and pull
loading. The push and pull load was applied in
increment of 5 kN base shear for each cycle and
released to zero after each cycle. The deflections at
top storey levels were measured using LVDT at
each increment or decrement of load. The ultimate
base shear of 105 KN was reached in the twenty
first cycle of loading and ultimate base shear of
195KN was reached in thirty nine cycle for frame 1
& 2 respectively.
The push pull curve for top storey displacement
versus base shear for both frames is represented in
Fig.12 & 13. Load and top storey deflection is
presented in Table 2. At the ultimate base shear the
top storey deflection was found to be 58.24mm for
frame (1) and 71.15mm for frame (2).
Table.2: Load and Deflection for Frame 1 & 2
Frame (1) Frame (2)

Load Deflectio Load Deflecti

C) Testing Procedure : (KN) n (mm) (KN) on (mm)
Lumped mass distribution was
calculated and lateral loads were distributed as 75% 0 0.00 0 0.00
for top storey & 25% for bottom storey. All applied 5 0.75 5 0.27
lateral loads were divided accordingly and applied 0 0.08 0 0.02
as push and pull method. Frame (1) was tested of -5 -0.66 -5 -0.19
first incremental Push load of 5 KN and released to 0 -0.02 0 -0.01
zero and a pull load of 5 KN and released to zero. 10 1.60 10 0.54
The deflections at top storey levels were recorded.
Further an incremental load of 5 KN(Push and Pull)

ISSN: 2230-7818 @ 2011 http://www.ijaest.iserp.org. All rights Reserved. Page 78

 Mr.R.Suresh Babu et al. / (IJAEST) INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ADVANCED ENGINEERING SCIENCES AND TECHNOLOGIES
Vol No. 2, Issue No. 1, 072 - 085

Frame (1) Frame (2) Frame (1) Frame (2)

Load Deflectio Load Deflecti Load Deflectio Load Deflecti
(KN) n (mm) (KN) on (mm) (KN) n (mm) (KN) on (mm)
0 0.22 0 0.08 0 1.35 0 0.67
-10 -1.67 -10 -0.40 -65 -13.62 -65 -10.32
0 -0.39 0 -0.04 0 -1.15 0 -0.47
15 2.74 15 0.82 70 16.17 70 12.31
0 0.92 0 0.12 0 1.43 0 0.69
-15 -2.51 -15 -0.67 -70 -16.31 -70 -12.49
0 -0.44 0 -0.07 0 -1.25 0 -0.50
20 3.91 20 1.16 75 17.34 75 14.07
0 1.04 0 0.36 0 1.47 0 0.77
-20 -3.17 -20 -0.98 -75 -17.13 -75 -14.66
0 -0.72 0 -0.12 0 -1.26 0 -0.53
25 5.06 25 1.55 80 22.81 80 17.40
0 0.22 0 0.36 0 1.89 0 0.70

T
-25 -4.84 -25 -1.30 -80 -21.12 -80 -15.87
0 -0.48 0 -0.19 0 -1.50 0 -0.52
30 6.17 30 1.91 85 24.05 85 19.02
0 0.13 0 0.45 0 1.77 0 0.68
-30 -5.67 -30 -1.38 -85 -23.30 -85
-85 -20.27
0
35
0
-0.59
7.24
0.71
0
35
0
ES -0.24
2.34
0.42
0
90
0
-1.55
29.79
1.93
0
90
0
-0.62
21.76
0.79
-35 -6.69 -35 -2.15 -90 -24.71 -90 -23.19
0 -0.71 0 -0.28 0 -1.55 0 -0.62
40 8.48 40 3.02 95 33.88 95 25.02
0 0.75 0 0.41 0 1.83 0 0.83
-40 -6.81 -40 -2.78 -95 -35.29 -95 -21.64
0 -0.74 0 -0.36 0 -1.88 0 -0.68
A
45 9.61 45 3.59 100 44.42 100 27.20
0 1.04 0 0.47 0 1.98 0 0.86
-45 -8.68 -45 -3.69 -100 -40.26 -100 -24.73
0 -0.84 0 -0.36 0 -1.84 0 -0.64
50 10.97 50 4.35 105 58.24 105 30.49
0 1.05 0 0.54 0 0.83
IJ

-50 -9.64 -50 -3.56 -105 -25.12

0 -0.89 0 -0.41 0 -0.62
55 12.23 55 6.53 110 32.15
0 1.24 0 0.58 0 0.98
-55 -10.44 -55 -5.78 -110 -30.62
0 -0.92 0 -0.38 0 -0.73
60 13.85 60 8.21 115 33.82
0 1.35 0 0.57 0 0.97
-60 -12.80 -60 -7.33 -115 -33.66
0 -1.16 0 -0.38 0 -0.76
10.049 35.53
65 14.84 65 120

ISSN: 2230-7818 @ 2011 http://www.ijaest.iserp.org. All rights Reserved. Page 79

Mr.R.Suresh Babu et al. / (IJAEST) INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ADVANCED ENGINEERING SCIENCES AND TECHNOLOGIES
Vol No. 2, Issue No. 1, 072 - 085

Frame (2) Frame (2)

Load Deflecti Load Deflecti
(KN) on (mm) (KN) on (mm)
0 1.05 175 60.97
-120 -36.92 0 2.13
0 -0.83 -175 -60.81
125 36.92 0 -2.12
0 0.99 180 63.09
-125 -35.63 0 2.70
0 -0.80 -180 -65.89
130 37.95 0 -2.20
0 1.08 185 65.72
-130 -41.47 0 2.93
0 -1.00 -185 -55.88
135 40.00 0 -2.56
0 1.30 190 67.63

T
-135 -44.96 0 3.04
0 -0.96 -190 -61.93
140 41.20 0 -2.47
0 1.40 195
195 71.15
-140 -37.90
0
145
0
ES -1.08
43.66
1.53
-145 -41.76
0 -1.07
150 45.22 Figure. 12 Push and Pull curve for Frame 1
0 1.48
-150 -42.94
0 -1.14
Figure. 12 Push and Pull curve for Frame 1
A
155 47.72
0 1.93
-155 -49.08
0 -1.38 Figure. 12 Push and Pull Curve for Frame 1
160 51.78
0 1.96
IJ

-160 -51.04
0 -1.55
165 54.42
0 2.12
-165 -52.99
0 -1.71
170 57.65
0 2.08 Figure. 13 Push and Pull Curve for Frame 2
-170 -52.01
0 -1.69

ISSN: 2230-7818 @ 2011 http://www.ijaest.iserp.org. All rights Reserved. Page 80

 Mr.R.Suresh Babu et al. / (IJAEST) INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ADVANCED ENGINEERING SCIENCES AND TECHNOLOGIES
ii) Ductility:
The ductility factor (µ) was calculated. For frame
(1), the first yield deflection (∆y) for the assumed
bi-linear load-deflection behaviour of the frame was
found to be 8.48 mm for 40 KN base shear, while
for frame (2), the same is found to be 14.06mm for
75 KN base shear. The ductility factor value µ =
(∆1/∆y) for various load cycles of the frames was
worked out and the variation of ductility factor for
both frames with load cycles are shown in Fig.14.
The ductility factor is found to be increasing more
from 1 at eighth cycle to 6.86 at twenty first cycle
for frame (1). While for frame (2), the ductility
factory is 1 at fifteenth cycle of loading and only
5.05 at thirty nine cycle of loading. This behaviour
shows the reduction of ductility of frame due to the
provision of masonry insert and is shown in Fig.4
ES
Figure. 14 Ductility factor for both frames
iii) Stiffness Degradation:
A
The stiffness of the partially-infilled frames for
various load cycles is calculated and presented. The
variation of stiffness with respect to load cycles is
shown in Fig.15. For frame (1), it may be noted
that stiffness decreases from 6.7KN/mm in first
IJ
cycle to 1.8 KN/mm in twenty first cycle. A sudden
reduction in stiffness takes place after the first crack
occurrence in 40 kN load.
For frame (2), the initial stiffness of frame is
18.69 KN/mm against 6.7 kN/mm for the first frame
and stiffness is sustained for a longer duration until
the development of first crack and is reduced to
2.74 KN/mm in Thirty nine cycle.
This behaviour shows that the initial stiffness of
frame (1) is comparatively very low and flexural
hinges and shear cracks are developed at an early
stage of loading. For frame(2) with masonry insert,
ISSN: 2230-7818 @ 2011 http://www.ijaest.iserp.org. All rights Reserved.
Vol No. 2, Issue No. 1, 072 - 085
initial stiffness is increased and occurrence of
flexural hinges and shear cracks in concrete and
masonry takes place only after the Fifteenth cycle.
Also, it could be noted that the initial stiffness is
increased by 2.8 times due to the introduction of
masonry insert and the stiffness is sustained for a
longer duration of loading. The behaviour of frame
for stiffness values is shown in Fig.15
T
Figure:15:Stiffness degradation curve for both
frames
iv) Behaviour and Mode of Failure:
a) Frame-1 without masonry insert:
First crack was observed (horizontal hairline) at
40kN at the junction of loaded side of the beam and
column at the bottom storey, where moment and
shear forces are maximum while loading further,
similar cracks were developed in the other bay
columns and flexural cracks were developed from
the junction of the loaded areas. Separation of infill
occurred at the tension corners. At the ultimate
failure load of 100 KN, crushing of loaded corner,
widening of diagonal cracks in columns and infill,
layer separation of brick infill were also observed.
Width of the cracks was ranging from 3mm to
17mm in concrete and masonry. The crack pattern
indicated a combined effect of flexure and shear
failure. Also plastic hinges formation was observed
first at loaded point and later to the middle column
and finally at the leeward column. Captive column
phenomenon was identified with the failure pattern
of loaded column. It was also noticed that flow of
diagonal crack from the loaded column adjacent to
the opening was discontinuous, due to incomplete
strut action (Fig.16).
Page 81
 Mr.R.Suresh Babu et al. / (IJAEST) INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ADVANCED ENGINEERING SCIENCES AND TECHNOLOGIES
Figure.16.Test frame 1 with failure in the bottom
and drift of the top storey (Constructed
atVLBJCET, Coimbatore)
b) Frame-2 with masonry insert:
ES
First crack observed (inclined downwards and
forwards) at only 75 kN, (against 40 kN for the
frame without insert) at loaded side of the beam and
column junction of the bottom storey where
moment and shear forces were maximum While
loading further, similar cracks were found to
propagate in middle column beam junctions and
A
diagonal crack were initiated in the first (loaded)
bay. Further, diagonal cracks were seen to flow
through the brick infill. Separation of infill
occurred at the tension corners. Due to the presence
of insert, diagonal cracks were observed to flow
from the loaded beam – column junction to the
IJ
diagonally opposite corner, clearly depicting the
expected strut action (Fig.17). At ultimate load of
195 KN, plastic hinge formation and failure of
frame at all bottom storey junctions were noticed.
The width of the cracks was ranging from 2mm –
10mm in concrete and masonry. The crack pattern
indicated a combined effect of flexure and shear
failure and the direction of flown crack showed the
developed strut action through the brick infill, due
to the presence of masonry insert
ISSN: 2230-7818 @ 2011 http://www.ijaest.iserp.org. All rights Reserved.
Vol No. 2, Issue No. 1, 072 - 085
T
Figure.17.Test frame 2 with failure in the bottom
and drift of the top storey(Constructed atVLBJCET,
Coimbatore)
A crack in leeward column of the bottom storey at
the base was also observed (Fig.18). Separation of
infill occurred at the tension corners and the high
stress concentration at the loaded diagonal ends led
to early crushing of the loaded corners (Fig.19).No
crack was developed in the columns, beams and in
the infill of top storey clearly depicting that the
frame has failed only by hinges in columns due to
short column effect.
It is also evident from the propagation of cracks at
bottom storey level of the Fifteenth cycle (75 kN
Base shear). Cracks in tension face of leeward
column were developed after twenty first cycle of
loading. Also separation of infill from columns at
highly stressed tension faces of column were seen at
tenth cycle of loading. Further, shear flow was
observed in frame 2 from the columns through the
insert and brick infill, creating a largely visible
crack (about 12mm wide), which is extended to the
adjacent columns. This phenomenon is clearly
exhibits the development of strut action through
masonry insert.
Page 82
 Mr.R.Suresh Babu et al. / (IJAEST) INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ADVANCED ENGINEERING SCIENCES AND TECHNOLOGIES
Vol No. 2, Issue No. 1, 072 - 085

Figure 18.crack in leeward Figure.19 Crushing of the

column loaded Corners

2) FINITE ELEMENT ANALYSIS – ANSYS –

10:
A comparative study was made between

T
experimental and analytical values. Non-linear
finite element analysis has been carried out using
ANSYS-10 software for Frame (1) & (2). The
deformed shape of the software model for ultimate
load for Frame (1) and (2) is shown in Fig.20 &21
ES Load – 195 KN , Deflection – 70.448
Fig.21 Ultimate Deformed Shape of the
software Model For Frame 2
The results obtained from analytical by ANSYS-
10 for Frame (1) & (2) are compared with
experimental results and the variation is mariginal.

The experiments conducted on the two frames

(with and without masonry insert) the following
A
observations are drawn.
1) It is observed in frame with masonry insert
that at a base shear of 75 kN, cracks are
initiated at the junction of the loaded and
middle end of the beam and column of the
bottom storey where the moment and shear
IJ

forces are maximum whereas in frame

without insert, the first crack developed at
40 KN itself. The crack pattern indicated a
combined effect of flexure and shear
Load – 105 KN , Defle
Deflection – 59.432
failure. However, it could be evidently
Figure.20 Ultimate Deformed Shape of the seen that the shear carrying capacity of the
software Model For Frame 1 frame is increased due to the presence of
masonry inserts
2) Separation of infill occurred at the tension
corners and the high stress concentration at

ISSN: 2230-7818 @ 2011 http://www.ijaest.iserp.org. All rights Reserved. Page 83

Mr.R.Suresh Babu et al. / (IJAEST) INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ADVANCED ENGINEERING SCIENCES AND TECHNOLOGIES
the loaded diagonal ends lead to early
crushing of the loaded corners.
3) Diagonal cracks flown through the brick
work where masonry inserts are provided
showing clear strut action. While further
loading of frames, further cracks are
initiated and noticed are much dissimilar
between a RC frame with partial infill and
with masonry insert.
4) The stiffness of the partially-infilled frame
with and without insert for various load
cycles is calculated and the variation of
stiffness with respect to load cycles is
plotted. The stiffness of the brick infilled
RC frame with masonry insert is observed
to be very high when compared to frame
without insert. This shows greater
increase of stiffness while introducing
masonry insert.
5) The ductility factor value µ = (∆1/∆y) for
various load cycles of the frame is worked
ES
out for frames with and without insert and
the variation of ductility factors and
cumulative ductility factors for both
frames with reference to load cycles is
plotted. From the values, it may be noted
that ductility factor for frame with
masonry insert is reduced whereas
cumulative ductility factor for both frames
is more or less same.
6) Cracks were developed in the leeward
A
column (opposite to the loaded end) of the
bottom storey at the base because of
diagonal strut compression of the infill in
the frame with masonry insert.
7) The partial-infilled RC frame failed with
IJ
hinges at the portion of columns adjacent
to the gap in the bottom storey indicating a
distinct “captive column effect” whereas
frame with masonry insert strut action took
place and diagonal crack flow clearly.
Also after the localised separation of the
infilled panel from the frame in the bottom
storey, the stress flow is mostly along the
line connecting the load point to the
diagonal opposite corner support
indicating the “diagonal strut” concept.
Therefore, it could be evidently proven
ISSN: 2230-7818 @ 2011 http://www.ijaest.iserp.org. All rights Reserved.
Vol No. 2, Issue No. 1, 072 - 085
that the lateral strength of the RC frame is
considerably increased due to the presence
of masonry inserts.
8) The partial masonry infill failed with a
diagonal crack by shear along the mortar
and/or bricks joints.
9) In frame without masonry insert no crack
is developed in the columns, beams and in
the infill of top storey clearly depicting
that the frame has failed only by hinges in
columns due to captive column effect.
But, it was noticed that the development of
crack is postponed when the frame is
provided with masonry inserts.
10) The partial infill reduces the stiffness of
the frame leading to critical damages.
T
However, this could be improved to some
extent by the provision of masonry inserts.
11) In analytical study, it is noticed that a
sudden increase in deflection after the base
shear of 40 kN (nearly equal to
experimental value of 40 kN) for Frame
(1) and affect the base shear of 75 kN
(nearly equal to experiemtnal value of 75
kN) for Frame (2). This proves the
initiation of captive column behaviour
adjacent to gap region.
12) Analytical results by ANSYS-10
variations is very mariginal when
compared to Experimental results
V CONCLUSION
For existing buildings with short column in
earthquake prone areas needs this easy method of
providing masonry insert to improve the base shear
capacity. Many of the existing captive columns
have poor seismic detailing. Due to short dowels
and little transverse reinforcement, risk of brittle
shear failure in such members is very high.
Therefore, it is important to develop efficient
techniques to strengthen shear critical columns and
increase their energy dissipation capacity. Wrapping
concrete columns with a proper strengthening
material can be an effective solution. . The various
method of improve the strengthening of existing
building and the costs are prescribed.
Page 84
 Mr.R.Suresh Babu et al. / (IJAEST) INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ADVANCED ENGINEERING SCIENCES AND TECHNOLOGIES
Vol No. 2, Issue No. 1, 072 - 085

Si.No Technique expanded steel meshes", Structural Engineering and

Cost/Sqm Mechanics, Vol. 21, No.3, pp. 333-50 (2005).
4) Galal, K.E., Arafa, A., and Ghobarah, A., (2005),
“Retrofit of RC square short columns" Engineering
External Internal Structures Journal, Vol. 27, No 5, pp. 801-813
5) Melhmet Mehmet Emin Kara, Altin Sinan, (2006),
1 Introducing Rs.750/- Rs.1500/- “Behavior of reinforced concrete frames with
masonry insert reinforced concrete partial infills”, ACI structural
in the opening journal, 2006, vol. 103, no5, pp. 701-709
6) FEMA 306, “Evaluation of earthquake damaged
2 Beam column Rs.10000/- Rs.12000/- concrete and masonry wall buildings”, Applied
joint Technology Council, USA
strengthening 7) “NEHRP guidelines for the seismic rehabilitation of
buildings. FEMA Publication 273”, Multidisciplinary
using carbon Center for Earthquake Engineering Research
fibres (MCEER), USA
3 Beam column Rs.7500/- Rs.8750/- 8) Dr.C.V.R.
.C.V.R. Murthy (2005) on Key notes on seismic
resistance buildings.
joint

T
strengthening
using GFRP
4 Introducing Rs.17000/- Rs.19700/-
longitudinal and
shear
reinforcement
and micro
concrete pack up
ES
Therefore, cheaper and affable solutions involving
easily available
ilable materials and simple construction
techniques such as masonry inserts must be given
much consideration during construction.
From the studies, the width of diagonal strut
A
transferring the shear is approximately found to be
0.10 times the length of the diagonal of infill.
Therefore, a minimum width of insert based on the
above criteria may be provided as described.
IJ

References:
1) Yaw-Jeng Chiou, Jyh-Cherng Tzeng, and Yuh-
Wehn Liou, (1999),
(1999), “Experimental and Analytical
Study of Masonry Infilled Frames”, Journal of
Structural Engineering, Vol. 125, No. 10, October
1999, pp. 1109-1117
2) Murtthy , C.V.R., and Das, Diptesh., (2000),
“Beneficial Effects of Brick Masonry In Fills In
Seismic Design of RC Frame buildings" Engineering
Structures Journal, Vol. 21, No 4, pp. 617-627
3) R. Morshed and M.T. Kazemi, (2005), "Seismic
shear strengthening of R/C beams & columns with

ISSN: 2230-7818 @ 2011 http://www.ijaest.iserp.org. All rights Reserved. Page 85