An Example - Masonry Wall Effects

Effects of Plan‐Eccentric Masonry Wall on
RC Building Response: An Example
Asian Center for Engineering Computations and Software

(ACECOMS)
Asian Institute of Technology (AIT), Thailand
Effects of Plan‐Eccentric Masonry Wall on RC Building Response: An Example
“Effects of Plan-Eccentric Masonry Infill Walls

on 3D Nonlinear Response of
Reinforced Concrete Frame Buildings”
-----------------------------------
An Example
Background
In most of the developing countries in Asia RC buildings
are primarily designed for Gravity Load without
seismic ductile detailing
These Buildings are often called “Gravity Load Design
(GLD) buildings”
These GLD buildings are vulnerable under earthquake
-Non-seismic
Non seismic Detailing
-Strong Beam–Weak Column
-Configuration irregularities- soft/weak storey
, torsional irregularity
Asian Center for Engineering Computations and Software(ACECOMS), AIT 1
Bhuj 2001, India

KocaeliNonductile
Earthquake,Reinforcement Details
Death toll >10000
1999, Turkey (EERI, 2002)
Low Transverse Reinforcement
Boumerdes
B d
2003, Northern Algeria Lap-Splice in Potential Plastic Hinge Region
Construction Joints
Sichuan Earthquake
(EERI, 2003) Non-Uniform
2008, Flexural
ChinaCapacity
Non-Uniform Shear Capacity
No Joint Reinforcement
Discontinuous Positive Beam Reinforcements

Short Embedment Length into Columns
Modeling of Building Components

Modeling of RC Column and Beam:
zero
length
equivalent
Lp
plastic hinge linear elastic shear spring
length
fiber-section element
clear story height – 2Lp linear elastic frame element
nonlinear shear spring
Lp rigid link
zero
length
fiber-section element
Suthasit (2007)
Flexural
Failure
Shear
Failure
Modeling of RC Beam
Beam--Column Joint:
Fbl Fbr
bond-slip springs
Vcu
nonlinear rotational spring (joint- Mcbl Mcbr 0.85db

shear spring)
bond-slip springs
Fcu F’cu Vcl
zero length
F’br
Mccu F’bl
steel springs - representative of

reinforcements embedded in joint
Mccl
Vbl Vbr
0.75dc
Fcl F’cl
Suthasit and Warnitchai (2008)
Interior Beam-
Column Joint (Joint
Shear Failure)
Exterior Beam-
Column Joint (Joint
Shear Failure)
Modeling of Building Components

Modeling of Masonry Infill wall:
wall:
Single Compression
strut model
Diagonal
Compression
Failure
Diagonal
Compression
Failure
Status of GLD Buildings in Bangladesh
Recent field survey in Bangladesh, one of the

de eloping country
developing co ntr in Asia located in seismic prone
area, show that most of the RC buildings in this
country are GLD buildings.
Generally, these buildings are residential and
commercial type.
From survey data it is found that most of the
residential buildings have configuration
irregularities due to masonry infill walls.
Typical Infill Wall Configuration

A B C D A B C D A B C D
3 3 3
4.6 4.6 4.6
2 2 2
4.6 4.6 4.6
1 1 1
3.7 3.7 3.7 3.7 3.7 3.7 3.7 3.7 3.7
No Infill (NI) Corner Infill (CI) Open Front Infill (OF)
A B C D A B C D A B C D
3 3 3
4.6 4.6 4.6
2 2 2
4.6 4.6 4.6
1 1 1
3.7 3.7 3.7 3.7 3.7 3.7 3.7 3.7 3.7
Boundary Infill (BI) Full Infill (FI) Second Story Infill
Objective
To investigate the effects such non-uniform
distrib tion of masonr
distribution masonry infill walls on the nonlinear
response of GLD RC buildings.
Approach to Investigate the Seismic

Performance of Buildings
A B C D
4.6
4.6
1
3.7 3.7 3.7
Y Floor Plan
Open Front Infill (OF)
OF--> Frame 1,2

OF--> Frame 3
OF--> Frame A, B,C,D
Building Properties
254 mm
356 mm 254 mm
406 mm
356 mm
356 mm
Column Section Beam X -Dir Beam Y -Dir

Longitudinal Bars: 12DB16 4DB16 and 3DB16 4DB16 and 3DB16
Transverse Bars : 3DB10@ 150 mm 3DB10@ 150 mm 3DB10@ 150 mm
Compressive strength of concrete (fc’) = 17 MPa
Steel tensile strength(fy) = 454 MPa
Masonry prisms compressive strength = 4.5 Mpa
Superimposed dead load = 75 kg/m2

Live load = 20 kg/m2 (10 % of Maximum Expected
Load)
Floor Slab thickness = 150 mm

Wall thickness = 127 mm
Damage Index
Column and beam damage:
Beam-column joint damage:
Infill wall damage:
3D Nonlinear Static Pushover Analysis

• Applied in X-direction and Y-direction Separately
• Load p
pattern Æ linear triangular
g proportional
p p to height.
g
• Applied in the single frame.
A B C D
4.6
4.6
1
3.7 3.7 3.7
Pushover Results
Capacity Curves
0.45
0.4
0.35
Normalizeed Base Shear (Vb/W)
0.3
0.25
0.2 OF-X-dir
OF-Y-dir
0.15
0.1
0.05
0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4
Roof Drift %
Pushover Results
Maximum Storey Drift Envelop
21 7
18 6
15 5
OF-X-dir
OF-Y-dir
Height (m)
12 4
9 3
Storyy
H
6 2
3 1
0 0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
Max Story Drift(%)
Pushover X-Direction Damage Sequence

A B C D
4.6
4.6
1
3.7 3.7 3.7
X 0.3
Normalized Basee Shear (Vb/W)
0.25
0.2
OPENFRONT INFILL
CONFIGURATION
0.15
OF-X-dir
0.1
0.05
0
Moderate Damage
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2
Extensive Damage
Roof Drift %
Collapse
Pushover X-Direction Damage Sequence

A B C D
4.6
4.6
1
3.7 3.7 3.7
X 0.3
0.25
0.2
OPENFRONT INFILL
0.15 CONFIGURATION
0.1 OF-X-dir
0.05
0
Moderate Damage
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2
Extensive Damage
Roof Drift %
Collapse
Pushover Y-Direction Damage Sequence

A B C D
4.6
4.6
1
3.7 3.7 3.7
X 0.45
0.4
0.35
0.3
0.25
OPENFRONT INFILL
0.2
CONFIGURATION
0.15
0.1
0.05
0
Moderate Damage
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4
Extensive Damage
Roof Drift %
Collapse
Pushover Y-Direction Damage Sequence

A B C D
4.6
4.6
1
3.7 3.7 3.7
X 0.45
0.4
0.35
0.3
0.25
OPENFRONT INFILL
0.2
CONFIGURATION
0.15
0.1
0.05
0
Moderate Damage
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4
Extensive Damage
Roof Drift %
Collapse
3D Nonlinear Dynamic Time History

Analysis
3 Ground motions used

Only horizontal components are taken into account
Rayleigh damping is assumed to be 5%
Earthquake Earthquake EpiD Soil Site PGV PGD

No. Year PGA (g)
Name Magnitude (km) Class (cm/sec) (cm)
1 Loma Prieta 1989 6.93 48.24 C 0.2794 48.20 23.34
2 Kobe, Japan 1995 6.90 24.20 D 0.2668 21.66 7.60
3 Northridge-01 1994 6.69 13.39 D 0.4594 54.22 12.06
Response Spectrum
7.0
Raleigh Damping 5%
Loma Prieta-00
Accerleration (Sa) 6.0 Kobe-00
Northridge-009
5.0 UBC1997-Class C
UBC1997-Class D
4.0 Average
X Component
3.0
Spectral A
2.0
1.0
0.0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
Natural Periods (Sec)

12.0
Spectral Accerleratiion (Sa)
10.0 Loma Prieta-00

Kobe-00
Northridge-009
g
Y Component
80
8.0 UBC1997-Class C
UBC1997-Class D
6.0 Average
4.0
2.0
0.0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
Natural Periods (Sec)
Scaled Ground Motions
Scaling Method
Where,
(PGA)X = Peak Ground Acceleration in X-direction
(PGA)Y = Peak Ground Acceleration in Y-direction
PGA)Avg = Average Peak Ground Acceleration
Scaled Ground Motions (moderate earthquake)
Loma Prieta (1989) Scaling to Average PGA=0.15 g

Original PGA X-dir = 0.370 g Scaled PGA X-dir = 0.202 g
Original PGA Y-dir = 0.177 g Scaled PGA Y-dir = 0.097 g
Scale Factor =0.548
Northridge(1994) Scaling to Average PGA=0.15 g

Scale Factor =0.322
Kobe(1995) Scaling to Average PGA=0.25 g

Scale Factor =0.837
Time History of Story Drift (Loma Prieta (1989) Earthquake)
Average PGA= 0.15g
Story Drift Time History in Y-direction

25
2.5
1.5
1
Story Drift (%)
0.5
0 OF-X-Loma
OF-Y-Loma
-0.5
-1
-1.5
-2
0 5 10 15
Time (sec)
Maximum Story Drift (Loma Prieta (1989) Earthquake)
Average PGA= 0.15g
21 7
18 6
OF-X-Loma Prieta
15 5
OF-Y-Loma Prieta
Height (m)
12 4
Story
9 3
6 2
3 1
0 0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5
Max Story Drift(%)
1 2 3 A B C D
2.5
1.5
1
Story Drifft (%)
0.5
OF-X-Loma
0 OF-Y-Loma
0 2 4 6 8 10
-0.5
-1
-1.5
-2
Time (sec)
Maximum Story Drift (Northridge(1994) Earthquake)
Average PGA= 0.15g
21 7
18 OF-X-Northridge 6
15 OF-X-Northridge 5
Height (m)
12 4
Story
9 3
6 2
3 1
0 0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2
Max Story Drift(%)
Maximum Story Drift (Kobe(1995) Earthquake)
Average PGA= 0.15g
21 7
18 6
OF-X-Kobe
15 OF-Y-Kobe 5
Height (m)
12 4
Story
9 3
6 2
3 1
0 0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6
Max Story Drift(%)
Comparison of Pushover Curves

0.4
d Base Shear (Vb/W)

0.35
Pushover X 0.3
0.25
FI-X-dir
0.2 BI-X-dir
0 15
0.15 OF-X-dir
O
Normalized
CI-X-dir
0.1
NI-X-dir
0.05
0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6
0.45 Roof Drift %
0.4
Normalized Base Sheear (Vb/W)
0.35
0.3
Pushover Y 0.25 FI-Y-dir
BI-Y-dir
0.2
OF-Y-dir
0.15 CI-Y-dir
0.1 NI-Y-dir
0.05
0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6
Roof Drift %
Comparison of Maximum Story Drifts
Pushover X
21 7
18 FI-X-dir 6
BI-x-dir
15 OF-X-dir 5
CI-X-dir
12 4
Height (m)
NI-X-dir
9 3
Story
S
6 2
3 1
0 0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Max Story Drift(%)
Comparison of Maximum Story Drifts
Pushover Y
21 7
18 FI-Y-dir 6
BI-Y-dir
15 OF-Y-dir 5
CI-Y-dir
12 NI-Y-dir 4
Height (m)
9 3
Story
6 2
3 1
0 0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
Max Story Drift(%)
Comparison of Max Story Drift (Loma Prieta(1989) Earthquake)
21 7
FI-X-Loma Prieta
18
BI-X-Loma Prieta
6 Loma Prieta PGA=0.15g
15 OF-X-Loma Prieta 5
Heigght (m)
CI-X-Loma Prieta
12 4
NI-X-Loma Prieta
Storry
9 3
6 2
3 1
0 0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5
Max Story Drift(%)
21 7
FI-Y-Loma Prieta
18 6
BI Y L
BI-Y-Loma Prieta
Pi t
15 5
OF-Y-Loma Prieta
Height (m)
12 CI-Y-Loma Prieta 4
Story
9 NI-Y-Loma Prieta 3
6 2
3 1
0 0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5
Max Story Drift(%)
Comparison of Max Story Drift (Northridge (1994) Earthquake)
21 7
18 FI-X-Northridge 6
BI-X-Northridge Northridge PGA=0.15g
15 5
OF-X-Northridge
Height (m)
12 CI-X-Northridge 4
Story
9 NI-X-Northridge 3
H
6 2
3 1
0 0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2
Max Story Drift(%)
21 7
FI-Y-Northridge
18 6
BI-Y-Northridge
15 OF X Northridge
OF-X-Northridge 5
Height (m)
12 CI-Y-Northridge 4
Story
NI-Y-Northridge
9 3
6 2
3 1
0 0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2
Max Story Drift(%)
Comparison of Maximum Story Drift (Kobe)

21 7
18 6
15 5
Kobe PGA=0.15g
Height (m)
12 4 FI-X-Kobe
BI-X-Kobe
9 3
Story
OF-X-Kobe
6 2 CI X K b
CI-X-Kobe
NI-X-Kobe
3 1
0 0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2
Max Story Drift(%)
21 7
18 6
15 5
m)
Height (m
12 4 FI-Y-Kobe
BI-Y-Kobe
9 3
Story
OF-Y-Kobe
6 2 CI-X-Kobe
NI-Y-Kobe
3 1
0 0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2
Max Story Drift(%)
Scaled Ground Motions( Severe Earthquake)
Northridge(1994) Scaling to Average PGA=0.25 g

S l F
Scale t =0.322
Factor 0 322
Loma Prieta (1989) Scaling to Average PGA=0.25 g

Scale Factor =0.913
(1994) Scaling to Average PGA=0.40

PGA 0.40 g

Scale Factor =1.34
Comparison of Maximum Story Drift (Loma Prieta)

21 7
18 6
15 5
Loma Prieta PGA=0.25g
Height (m)
12 4 FI-X-Loma
Story
BI-X-Loma
9 3
OF-X-Loma
OF X Loma
S
H
6 2 CI-X-Loma
NI-X-Loma
3 1
0 0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5
Max Story Drift(%)
21 7
18 6
15 5
Height (m)
12 4 FI-Y-Loma
Story
BI-Y-Loma
9 3
OF-Y-Loma
6 2 CI-Y-Loma
3 1 NI-Y-Loma
0 0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5
Max Story Drift(%)
1 NI (X) 2 3 A B
NI (Y) C D
1 2 3 A B C D
CI(X)
( ) CI(Y)
( )
1 2 3
OF (X) A B OF (Y) C D
A B C D
1 BI (X) 2 3
BI (Y)
1 FI(X)
( ) 2 3 A B
FI(Y)
( ) C D
Comparison of Maximum Story Drift (Northridge)

21 7
18 6
15 5
Northridge PGA=0.25g
Height (m)
12 4 FI-X-NorthBridge
BI-X-NorthBridge
9 3
Story
OF-X-NorthBridge
6 2 CI X N hB id
CI-X-NorthBridge
3 1 NI-X-Northridge
0 0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3
Max Story Drift(%)
21 7
18 6
15 5
Height (m)
12 4 FI-Y-NorthBridge
BI-Y-NorthBridge
9 3
Story
OF-Y-NorthBridge
6 2 CI-Y-NorthBridge
NI-Y-Northridge
3 1
0 0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3
Max Story Drift(%)
Comparison of Maximum Story Drift (Kobe (1995) Earthquake)
21 7
FI-X-Kobe
18 BI-X-Kobe 6 Kobe PGA=0.25g
OF-X-Kobe
15 5
CI-X-Kobe
Height (m)
NI-X-Kobe
12 4
Sttory
9 3
6 2
3 1
0 0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3
Max Story Drift(%)
21 7
18 FI-Y-Kobe 6
BI-Y-Kobe
15 OF-Y-Kobe 5
Height (m)
12 CI-Y-Kobe 4
Story
NI-Y-Kobe
9 3
6 2
3 1
0 0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3
Max Story Drift(%)
Comparison of Maximum Story Drift(Loma Prieta (1989) Earthquake)
Incremental Time History Analysis

3.5
Storyy Drift (%)

2.5
2 FI-X-Loma Prieta
BI-X-Loma Prieta
1.5
OF-X-Loma Prieta
1
CI-X-Loma Prieta
0.5 NI-X-Loma Prieta
0
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4
PGA (m/sec2)

3.5
3
Story Drift (%)
2.5
2 FI-Y-Loma Prieta
BI-Y-Loma Prieta
1.5
OF-Y-Loma Prieta
1
CI-Y-Loma Prieta
0.5
NI-Y-Loma Prieta
0
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4
PGA (m/sec2)
Comparison of Maximum Story Drift(Northridge (1994) Earthquake)

3.5
3
Storyy Drift (%)
2.5
2 FI-X-Northridge
BI-X-Northridge
1.5
OF-X-Northridge
1
CI-X-Northridge
0.5 NI-X-Northridge
0
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4
PGA (m/sec2)

3.5
3
Story Drift (%)
2.5
2 FI-Y-Northridge
BI-Y-Northridge
1.5
OF-Y-Northridge
1
CI-Y-Northridge
0.5
NI-Y-Northridge
0
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4
PGA (m/sec2)
Comparison of Maximum Story Drift(Kobe (1995) Earthquake)

3
2.5
Storyy Drift (%)

2
FI-X-Kobe
1.5 BI-X-Kobe
1 OF-X-Kobe
CI-X-Kobe
0.5
NI-X-Kobe
0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9
PGA (m/sec2)

3
25
2.5
Story Drift (%)
2
FI-Y-Kobe
1.5 BI-Y-Kobe
1 OF-Y-Kobe
CI-Y-Kobe
0.5 NI-Y-Kobe
0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9
PGA (m/sec2)
Comparison of Top Floor Rotation

0.006
Top Floor Rotation (Radians)
0.005
0.004
0.003
Loma Prieta
0.002 Northridge
Kobe
0.001
0
NI
CI
OF
BI
FI
Types of Infill Wall Configuration in Buildings
Discussion
NI, CI and OF buildings show poor performance as
compared
p to BI and FI buildings.
g
NI,CI, and OF buildings suffered moderate to severe

damage and show soft storey mechanism under
moderate earthquake whereas BI and FI building show
minor damage.
Under severe earthquake NI, CI and OF buildings are

severely damaged or even collapsed whereas BI and FI
buildings show severe damage.
Discussion
Among NI, CI and OF buildings, OF building show
better performance.
performance
Irregular distribution of masonry infill wall in plan
creates torsional irregularity( CI and OF show
higher torsional response).
Conclusion
Masonry infill walls configuration on the first story of the building
significantly affects the seismic performance of the building.
The distribution of storey drifts is very sensitive to the arrangement

and distribution of infill walls on the first storey. It is found that infill
walls arrangement on the first storey such as no infill walls, infill walls
at the corner, and open front buildings attracts very high storey drift
on the first floor and shows soft-storey mechanism. Furthermore, in
these buildings, storey drifts demand exceeds the UBC code limits of
0.02 of storey height. On the other hand, boundary infill walls and
f ll infill
full i fill walls
ll buildings
b ildi develop
d l less l than
th 1.51 5 % storey
t drift
d ift under
d
strong earthquake ground motions.
Conclusion
Non-uniform distribution of infill walls in plan develops torsional
irregularities in buildings which significantly contribute to the lateral
response of the buildings
buildings. Corner infill walls and open front buildings
on the first storey develop very high rotation on the top floor as
compared to the others.
Fairly regular and uniform distribution of infill walls can increase the
seismic performance of buildings and sustain relatively high PGA.
Results show that GLD RC buildings in Bangladesh need to be

retrofitted in order to reduce the risk of damage or collapse under
moderate to severe ground motion.

An Example - Masonry Wall Effects

Enviado por

Dados do documento

Título original

Direitos autorais

Formatos disponíveis

Compartilhar este documento

Compartilhar ou incorporar documento

Opções de compartilhamento

Você considera este documento útil?

Este conteúdo é inapropriado?

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

An Example - Masonry Wall Effects

Enviado por

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

Effects of Plan‐Eccentric Masonry Wall on

RC Building Response: An Example

Asian Center for Engineering Computations and Software

“Effects of Plan-Eccentric Masonry Infill Walls

Bhuj 2001, India

Low Transverse Reinforcement

Discontinuous Positive Beam Reinforcements

Modeling of Building Components

clear story height – 2Lp linear elastic frame element

nonlinear shear spring

nonlinear rotational spring (joint- Mcbl Mcbr 0.85db

steel springs - representative of

Suthasit and Warnitchai (2008)

Modeling of Building Components

Status of GLD Buildings in Bangladesh

Recent field survey in Bangladesh, one of the

Typical Infill Wall Configuration

4.6 4.6 4.6

4.6 4.6 4.6

No Infill (NI) Corner Infill (CI) Open Front Infill (OF)

4.6 4.6 4.6

4.6 4.6 4.6

Boundary Infill (BI) Full Infill (FI) Second Story Infill

Approach to Investigate the Seismic

OF--> Frame 1,2

OF--> Frame A, B,C,D

Column Section Beam X -Dir Beam Y -Dir

Superimposed dead load = 75 kg/m2

Floor Slab thickness = 150 mm

Beam-column joint damage:

Infill wall damage:

3D Nonlinear Static Pushover Analysis

Maximum Storey Drift Envelop

Max Story Drift(%)

Pushover X-Direction Damage Sequence

Pushover X-Direction Damage Sequence

Pushover Y-Direction Damage Sequence

Pushover Y-Direction Damage Sequence

3D Nonlinear Dynamic Time History

3 Ground motions used

Earthquake Earthquake EpiD Soil Site PGV PGD

Natural Periods (Sec)

10.0 Loma Prieta-00

Natural Periods (Sec)

Scaled Ground Motions

Scaled Ground Motions (moderate earthquake)

Loma Prieta (1989) Scaling to Average PGA=0.15 g

Northridge(1994) Scaling to Average PGA=0.15 g

Original PGA X-dir = 0.415 g Scaled PGA X-dir = 0.133 g

Kobe(1995) Scaling to Average PGA=0.25 g

Original PGA X-dir = 0.251 g Scaled PGA X-dir = 0.210 g

Time History of Story Drift (Loma Prieta (1989) Earthquake)

Average PGA= 0.15g

Story Drift Time History in Y-direction

Maximum Story Drift (Loma Prieta (1989) Earthquake)

Average PGA= 0.15g

Maximum Storey Drift Envelop

Max Story Drift(%)

Maximum Story Drift (Northridge(1994) Earthquake)

Average PGA= 0.15g

Maximum Storey Drift Envelop

Maximum Story Drift (Kobe(1995) Earthquake)

Average PGA= 0.15g