Available online at http://ssrn.

com
SSRN-ELSEVIER (2018-2019)

International conference on “Recent Advances in Interdisciplinary Trends in Engineering &

Applications”

Parametric Study on Analysis of R.C. Moment Frame with and

Without Masonry Infill Wall
Vijay Baradiyaa*, Richa Jaina, Mayank Mathuriyaa, Amit Sharmaa
a
Associate Professor, Department of Civil Engineering , IPS Academy Institute of engineering & Science Rajendra Nagar , Indore, 452012,
Indore, India

Abstract

In general practice the behavior of wall is neglected, it is considered as partition in the building analysis. The only contribution of
wall in such analysis is to impart load on the frame, it does not play a substantial role in load distribution. The purpose of this
analysis is to observe the behavior of building and its component under the action of seismic forces. The comparative study of 8-
storey building with different configuration in different zones is done to observe the behavior of frame with open ground storey
under the action of seismic forces. All building models are analyzed as per Indian standard guidelines. There is total three
configurations considered based on time period and masonry infill which is bare frame ( ), bare frame with infill frame
time period ( ) and masonry infill frame models. Comparison of result is done in order to obtain most suitable
configuration for designing purpose.

Keywords: Bare frame; Masonry Infill wall; Time period; Equivalent diagonal strut; Seismic analysis

1. Introduction

RC moment resisting frame with infill panel (wall) is the most common and versatile structure type used in India.
Generally masonry (Brick) and pre-cast concrete infills are used as exterior walls and interior partitions in RC frame
structures. In practice reinforced concrete (RC) framed buildings with infill walls are usually analyzed and designed as
bare frames without considering the stiffness and strength contributions of the infills, resulting actual behavior of the
structures may be significantly different than analysis model. From the previous researches it has been observed that
Infill walls influence the behavior of the frames with low lateral in-plane stiffness. It enhances lateral stiffness and
strength while their capacity for gravity loads may be low. In an open ground storey building, the infill walls changes
the force distribution significantly. The infill walls increases the stiffness of the buildings which results in the increase
in total base shear of the building. The moment in the ground storey columns increases approximately two times and
the failure of frame is caused due to formation of hinges in the ground storey columns by soft storey mechanism (Davis
and Menon, 2006). Infills interfere with the lateral deformations of the RC frame; separation of frame and infill takes
place along one diagonal and a compression strut forms along the other. Thus, infills add lateral stiffness to the
building. The structural load transfer mechanism is changed from frame action to predominant truss action. The frame
columns now experience increased axial forces but with reduced bending moments and shear forces. The presence of
masonry infills may affect the response positively or negatively depending on the bare frame period and its relationship
with the dominant period of input motion.
The brick infill walls present in RC frame buildings increases the strength and stiffness of the building and reduces the
structural drift and ductility. Infill wall brings down the damage in RC frame caused by earthquake force. Ground
storey beam and columns are more vulnerable to damage than upper stories beam and columns (Das and Murthy, 2004).
The aim of this study is to review the general practice carried out in designing of RC building with masonry infill wall,
without masonry infill wall and RC building analyzed as masonry infill RC frame but not including the behavior of
infill wall. Study also investigates the effect of seismic zone on considered building and comparison of the Seismic
quantities (base shear and storey drift) and member forces at specified location in building.

*Corresponding author. Tel.: +91-7869271106;

E-mail address: baradiya@gmail.com
Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3353129
 VijayBaradiya et al./ SSRN-ELSEVIER (2018-19) 000–000

2. Analytical Method

Static and dynamic analysis (equivalent static analysis, response spectrum analysis and time history analysis) are
present now a days to study the seismic behavior of the infill RC frames. In the analysis the basic term which
distinguishes between the bare frame and infill wall frame is the time period. It is also a preliminary step towards the
analysis. In the calculation of base shear, T is the fundamental period of vibration of the building. It is preferable to
determine this using the structural properties and deformational characteristics of the building by using a dynamic
analysis. However a dynamic analysis can calculate the period only after the building has been designed. Therefore an
approximate method is necessary to estimate building period with minimal information available on the building
characteristics. Hence IS 1893 (Part 1): 2016 provides simple formulas that involve only a general description of the
building type (such as concrete moment frame, infill wall structure and shear wall building etc.) and the overall height.

2.1 Time period for equivalent static method as per IS 1893 (Part 1):2016

For Bare frame structure

(1)

Where, h is the height of structure above ground level

For infill wall frame structure

(2)

Where, h is the height of structure and d is

2.2 Time period calculation as per dynamic analysis

The idealized system represents two kinds of structures a single-column structure with a relatively large mass at its top
and a single-storey frame with flexible columns and a rigid beam. If the mass is deflected and then suddenly released, it
will vibrate at a certain frequency called its natural or fundamental frequency of vibration. The reciprocal of frequency
is the period of vibration. It represents the time for the mass to move through one complete cycle. The period T is given
by the relation.

(3)
Where, the mass M is the weight W of the system divided by the acceleration of gravity g, that is,

(4)

The stiffness K of the system is the force F divided by the corresponding displacement ∆.

3. Modeling of infill wall

Numbers of finite element models has been evolved to foresee the behavior of infill frames. For the investigation of the
large structures such type of modeling is too time taking. Hence the most popular approach is a macro-modeling which
substitute the entire infill as equivalent strut as illustrated in Fig 1 (a) and (b).

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3353129

 VijayBaradiya et al./ SSRN-ELSEVIER (2018-19) 000–000

Fig: 1 (a) Masonry infill frame (b) Equivalent diagonal strut (c) Truss action in frame due to presence of infill

The study of the Polyakov (1956) on complicated behavior of masonry infill suggested that the infill and frame
excluding at two compression corners disparate. He established the idea of equivalent diagonal strut. He also proposed
that transformation of stresses from the frame to infill occurs only in the compression zone of the infill as illustrated in
Fig 1(C).

3.1 Equivalent strut frame method

Significant analytical and experimental researches are reported which attempts to understand the behavior of infill
frames. Studies show that infill walls increase stiffness & strength and decrease interstorey drifts of a structure. Quality
of infill material, quality of frame-infill interface and workmanship significantly affect the behavior of infill frames.

3.2 Expressions for calculating equivalent strut width

The most widely used model is the single strut, though sometimes multi-strut model are also reported to give better
results. The single strut model is the simplest one. It is unable to capture the local effects occurring to the frame
members, but for the analysis of large structures evidently it is most suitable one. Thus, RC frames with unreinforced
masonry walls are modeled as equivalent braced frames (EBF) with infill walls replaced by equivalent struts. The
expressions for calculating the strut width presented in the previous researches are shown in Table 1.

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3353129

 VijayBaradiya et al./ SSRN-ELSEVIER (2018-19) 000–000

Table 1: Expressions for strut width calculation

Author Expressions

Holmes (1961)

Smith and Cater (1969)

Mainstone (1971)

Decanini and Fantin (1986)

Paulay and Priestley (1992)

Where,

dz = diagonal length of the wall

H = Height of the wall

H’ = Clear height of wall between the bottom floor and top beam

3.3 Change in the frame behavior due to presence of infill wall

Infills affect the seismic structural response in the following manner-

• Stiffening of the structure: The fundamental period of vibration of the bare frame is shortened than infill
frame. Consequently, the dynamic amplification characteristics may vary.

• Load path: Presence of infill’s alters the distribution of lateral stiffness of the structure and hence the load flow
is changed. Unexpected stress concentrations may also arise from the interaction of wall bounding frames and
panels.

• Failure mechanism: By the presence of infill’s shear failures can be generated, especially in multi-storey
frames and where incomplete panel infilling is used. In addition brittle failure of the walls and pounding can
counteract the seismic performance of the structure.

Sources of major damage, particularly in columns are repeatedly observed in earthquakes, is the interference with the
deformations of members by rigid nonstructural elements, such as infill walls. The top edge of a brick wall will reduce
the effective length of one of the columns, thereby increasing its stiffness in terms of lateral forces. Since seismic forces
are attracted in proportion to element stiffness, the column may thus attract larger horizontal shear forces than it would
be capable of resisting. The unexpected failure of such major gravity-load-carrying elements may lead to the collapse of
the entire building. Therefore, it is very important to ensure that intended deformations, including those of primary
lateral-force-resisting components in the inelastic range of seismic response, can take place without interference.

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3353129

 VijayBaradiya et al./ SSRN-ELSEVIER (2018-19) 000–000

3.4 Building configuration

In this study 8-storey open ground storey building is considered for the analysis. The all over building configuration is
symmetric. Total 9 different models are considered for the study, which include zone, III, IV and V described in Table
2. Only medium soil is considered for all building models. Table 3 is showing the material properties of concrete and
brick masonry used in the analysis. Seismic forces on the building models are calculated by equivalent static analysis as
per the guidelines of IS 1893 (Part 1):2016 and gravity loads are taken from the IS 875 (Part 1):1987 and IS 875 (Part
2):1987 shown in Table 4. In the mathematical model the brick infill is modeled as equivalent diagonal strut using IS
1893 (Part 1):2016 recommendation. Diagonal strut is designed to take only compression forces because brick and
mortar has very low tensile strength. By specifying the moment release at both ends of the strut the transfer of bending
moment form RC frame to masonry infill is prevented. Table 2 is showing the study cases used in the study where, 8S
refers to the 8-storey and BF, IF, IT and Z refers to bare frame infill fame, infill time period and zone factor
respectively. For example model tag 8SBFZ3 representing the 8 storey bare frame analysed for zone 3. Fig 2 is showing
the plan of the studied building which shows the selection of building elements considered for comparison. Fig 3 and 4
is showing the 3-D model for bare frame and masonry infill model.

Fig 2 Plan of 8-storey building with selection of elements

Fig 3 3-D model of bare frame building

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3353129

 VijayBaradiya et al./ SSRN-ELSEVIER (2018-19) 000–000

Fig 4 3-D model of masonry infill frame building

Table 2: Study building models with model tag

S.No Building Model Model Tag

1 8 storey bare frame in zone III 8SBFZ3

2 8 storey bare frame in zone III with infill time period 8SBFZ3IT

3 8 storey infill frame in zone III 8SIFZ3

4 8 storey bare frame in zone IV 8SBFZ4

5 8 storey bare frame in zone IV with infill time period 8SBFZ4IT

6 8 storey infill frame in zone IV 8SIFZ4

7 8 storey bare frame in zone V 8SBFZ5

8 8 storey bare frame in zone V with infill time period 8SBFZ5IT

9 8 storey infill frame in zone V 8SIFZ5s

Table 3: Material properties

Concrete

Unit weight 25 KN/m3

Compressive strength (M25) 25 N/mm2

Modulus of elasticity (Ef) 2.17185E7

Poisson’s ratio 0.19

Brick masonry

Unit weight 20 KN/m3

Modulus of elasticity (Eb) 3.52E6

Poisson’s ratio 0.17

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3353129

 VijayBaradiya et al./ SSRN-ELSEVIER (2018-19) 000–000

Table 4: Details of building configurations

Modle 8-storey
Plan size 24 X 24 ( Bay = 4@6m each)
Floor height 4m
Beam size 0.3 X 0.6 m
Column 1-4 0.6 X 0.6 m
Column 4-8 0.5 X 0.5 m
Slab thickness 0.2 m
Brick wall 0.23 m
Floor finishing load 1KN/m2
Roof treatment load 1.5 KN/m2
Live load on floors 3 KN/m2
Live load on roof 1.5 KN/m2
Strut width (600X600) 0.910 m
Strut width (500X500) 0.843 m

4. Results and discussion

4.1 Seismic parameters

Table 5 shows the seismic parameters of 8 storey RC building with different configuration. This table shows variation
of base shear of the building, the design base shear for bare frame with infill time period and masonry infill model is
same which is higher than the base shear of bare frame.

Table 5: Seismic data of building models

Frame Height (m) Time Period, I R Sa/g Seismic Ah Design Base

T (sec) Weight, W Shear, Vd
(KN) (KN)
8SBFZ3 32 1.00908 1 5 1.348 71569 0.0216 1543.60

8SBFZ3IT 0.58788 2.313 0.037 2648.63

8SIFZ3 0.58788 2.313 0.037 2648.63

8SBFZ4 1.00908 1.348 0.324 2315.40

8SBFZ4IT 0.58788 2.313 0.0555 3972.94

8SIFZ4 0.58788 2.313 0.0555 3972.94

8SBFZ5 1.00908 1.348 0.485 3473.10

8SBFZ5IT 0.58788 2.313 0.0833 5959.41

8SIFZ5s 0.58788 2.313 0.0833 5959.41

It has been observed that variation of the base shear is due to time period which directly affect the horizontal spectral
acceleration which is higher for bare frame and lower for other two cases. All models follow same behavior pattern in
all zones.

4.2 Comparison of beam forces

In this study two locations are selected for the comparison of beam and column members. Firstly corner elements of
exterior frame are considered and second are middle elements of interior frame. Table 6, 7 and 8 shows bending and
shear behavior of the beam elements for zone 3, 4 and 5 respectively. It is observed that both bare frames follow same
pattern. The bending moments and shear forces gradually increases up to second storey but in ground storey (1st storey)
there is reduction in both bending moment and shear force, whereas in masonry infill wall building the actual behavior

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3353129

 VijayBaradiya et al./ SSRN-ELSEVIER (2018-19) 000–000

of wall is incorporated. Thus the infill wall counteracts some amount of bending moments and shear forces, due to
which bending moment and shear force is comparatively less in the masonry infill wall building. But in the ground
storey due to absence of infill wall there is abrupt increase in bending moment and shear force values. The pattern
remained same for zone 4 and 5 but the values gradually increase with the severity of earthquake forces.

Table 6: Comparison of beam forces for zone 3

Beam Storey Bending moment Shear force

Bare frame Bare frame Infill Bare frame Bare frame Infill Frame
( ) ( ) Frame ( ) ( )
Corner 8 36.456 55.036 12.352 -21.303 -28.248 -12.365
frame
7 81.207 132.838 15.320 -36.209 -54.380 -13.066
6 131.294 -220.052 20.147 -53.855 -84.557 -14.810
5 170.287 -294.876 23.345 -67.648 -108.136 -15.943
4 198.688 -336.156 28.026 -76.361 -123.135 -17.383
3 212.862 -358.164 32.502 -80.478 -130.194 -18.826
2 216.345 363.735 25.842 -81.781 -132.293 -16.375
1 186.138 311.378 101.415 -71.642 -114.700 -42.739
Middle 8 48.410 75.080 17.640 -23.506 -32.180 -13.338
frame
7 99.192 162.346 23.599 -40.622 -61.585 -15.436
6 150.442 250.193 30.166 -57.770 -90.989 -17.609
5 187.500 313.773 34.109 -70.240 -112.386 -18.98
4 219.023 367.841 40.73 -80.699 -130.280 -12.148
3 234.023 393.556 46.130 -85.643 -138.808 -22.991
2 232.052 390.144 36.646 -85.020 -137.736 -19.373
1 194.784 326.113 125.370 -72.637 -116.467 -49.979

Table 7: Comparison of beam forces for zone 4

Beam Storey Bending moment Shear force

Bare frame Bare frame Infill Bare frame Bare frame Infill
( ) ( ) Frame ( ) ( ) Frame
Corner 8 49.423 77.293 12.436 -26.150 -36.566 -12.474
frame
7 117.238 194.686 17.381 -48.890 -76.147 -13.831
6 192.209 -336.154 24.579 -75.280 -121.334 -16.411
5 -256.208 -448.183 29.318 -95.903 -156.636 -18.090
4 293.083 -510.305 36.446 -109.003 -179.165 -20.322
3 314.263 -537.558 43.175 -115.173 -189.747 -22.511
2 319.203 -547.802 33.095 -117.032 -192.799 -18.805
1 273.538 -467.572 146.509 -101.691 -166.279 -58.368
Middle 8 67.022 107.027 20.556 -29.560 -42.571 -14.220
frame
7 143.256 237.996 29.665 -55.252 -86.696 -17.409
6 220.054 369.68 39.424 -80.952 -130.78 -20.648
5 275.621 465.030 45.331 -99.652 -162.873 -22.611
4 322.877 546.104 55.311 -115.291 -189.708 -25.699
3 345.356 584.648 63.410 -122.745 -202.493 -28.737
2 342.379 579.517 49.190 -121.808 -200.882 -23.861
1 286.434 483.27 182.165 -103.225 -168.970 -68.449

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3353129

 VijayBaradiya et al./ SSRN-ELSEVIER (2018-19) 000–000

Table 8: Comparison of beam forces for zone 5

Beam Storey Bending moment Shear force

Bare frame Bare frame Infill Bare frame Bare frame Infill
( ) ( ) Frame ( ) ( ) Frame
Corner 8 68.872 -114.880 12.561 -33.419 -49.044 -12.638
frame
7 171.286 -296.620 20.473 -67.912 -108.797 -14.978
6 -292.288 -510.307 31.227 -107.419 -176.499 -18.812
5 -390.180 -678.143 38.278 -138.287 -229.386 -21.309
4 -444.417 -771.529 49.076 -157.966 -263.208 -24.731
3 -468.220 -812.455 59.184 -167.215 -279.076 -28.039
2 -477.247 -827.527 43.973 -169.907 -283.559 -22.450
1 -407.244 -706.751 214.147 -146.765 -243.647 -81.811
Middle 8 94.940 154.949 24.929 -38.640 -58.158 -15.543
frame
7 209.375 351.471 38.765 -77.195 -124.361 -20.370
6 324.473 548.912 53.311 -115.726 -190.468 -25.205
5 407.802 691.915 62.165 -143.771 -238.602 -28.151
4 478.659 813.498 77.163 -167.224 -278.848 -33.193
3 512.349 871.287 89.331 -178.398 -298.021 -37.357
2 507.869 863.577 68.007 -176.991 -295.602 -30.047

4.3 Comparison of column forces

From table 9, 10 and 11 it has been concluded that middle column has same axial forces for zone 3, 4 and 5 in all
models, also both bare frames have same axial forces because gravity load is governing force. But in the case of corner
columns earthquake force is governing force due to which variation in axial forces and bending moments is observed.
The bending moments gradually increases up to second storey but in ground storey (1st storey) there is reduction in
bending moment, whereas in masonry infill wall building due to consideration of masonry wall, bending moment is
comparatively less and in the ground storey due to absence of infill wall there is sudden increase in bending moment
values. The pattern remained same for zone 4 and 5 but the values gradually increase with the severity of earthquake
forces.

Table 9: Comparison of column forces for zone 3

Column Storey Axial force Bending moment

Bare frame Bare frame Infill Frame Bare frame Bare frame Infill
( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) Frame
Corner 8 33.193 26.839 34.752 -22.529 -45.522 6.980
frame
7 53.608 28.177 52.686 -66.392 -118.075 -2.12
6 55.508 -74.683 45.667 -85.978 -151.959 -1.84
5 43.496 -142.271 -41.481 -103.206 -181.186 -3.002
4 32.172 -207.553 -81.444 -95.110 -168.429 -4.997
3 -30.656 -275.038 -137.825 -109.987 -193.019 20.799
2 -37.584 -325.085 -182.206 132.947 232.532 -105.463
1 -7.049 -294.594 -151.670 249.679 430.298 303.622
Middle 8 67.218 113.368 99.957 -70.931 -121.752 -9.55
frame
7 134.573 180.558 158.677 -130.371 -223.778 -17.1
6 201.764 247.714 217.006 -173.695 -298.143 -21.8
5 268.919 314.823 282.897 -199.259 -342.023 -23.6
4 345.358 391.214 352.567 -231.991 -398.206 -36.7
3 421.750 467.588 422.055 230.360 395.407 49.5
2 498.124 543.885 520.541 249.463 428.196 -92.3
1 574.421 574.421 551.077 307.587 527.965 440

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3353129

 VijayBaradiya et al./ SSRN-ELSEVIER (2018-19) 000–000

Table 10: Comparison of column forces for zone 4

Column Storey Axial force Bending moment

Bare frame Bare frame Infill Frame Bare frame Bare frame Infill Frame
( ) ( ) ( ) ( )
Corner 8 28.976 -23.492 29.747 -38.575 -55.085 -3.793
frame
7 35.861 -89.469 31.094 -102.46 -123.818 -7.178
6 -45.384 -190.843 -90.602 -132.023 -158.071 -5.399
5 -98.791 -314.654 -176.617 -157.626 -186.819 6.976
4 -149.010 -439.658 -256.462 -146.277 -175.652 10.787
3 -201.201 -567.773 -378.319 -167.932 -198.922 33.772
2 -238.220 -669.417 -478.044 202.444 238.579 -155.580
1 -207.685 -638.935 -447.508 375.727 432.713 457.522
Middle 8 113.368 113.368 99.957 -106.397 -121.752 -14.326
frame
7 180.558 180.558 158.677 -195.556 -223.778 -25.707
6 247.714 247.714 217.006 -260.543 -298.143 -32.664
5 314.823 314.823 282.897 -298.889 -342.023 -35.404
4 391.214 391.214 352.667 -347.986 -398.206 -55.082
3 467.588 467.588 422.055 345.54 395.407 74.195
2 543.885 543.005 520.541 374.194 428.196 -138.477
1 574.421 574.421 551.077 461.38 527.965 660.638

Table 11: Comparison of column forces for zone 5

Column Storey Axial force Bending moment

Bare frame Bare frame Infill Bare frame Bare frame Infill
( ) ( ) Frame ( ) ( ) Frame
Corner 8 21.571 -69.187 -22.499 -62.644 -114.379 -7.85
frame
7 -63.947 -190.654 -102.223 -156.561 -272.848 -8.11

6 -146.894 -356.083 223.972 -201.091 -349.547 -10.7

5 -249.434 -573.227 -379.320 -239.255 -414.71 -12.9

4 -351.843 -787.816 -541.489 -223.027 -387.995 -19.5

3 -457.019 -1010 -739.062 -254.849 -441.671 53.2

2 -539.175 -1190 -921.802 306.689 530.756 -231

1 -508.639 -1160 -891.266 564.798 971.19 688

Middle 8 113.368 113.360 99.957 -159.596 -273.942 -21.489

frame
7 180.558 180.558 158.677 -293.334 -503.500 -38.560

6 247.714 247.741 217.006 -390.814 -670.821 -48.997

5 314.823 314.823 282.897 -448.333 -769.551 -53.106

4 391.214 391.214 352.667 -521.979 -895.964 -82.623

3 467.50 467.588 422.055 518.310 889.665 111.293

2 543.885 543.885 520.541 561.292 963.442 -207.715

1 574.21 574.421 551.077 692.071 1190 990.95

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3353129

 VijayBaradiya et al./ SSRN-ELSEVIER (2018-19) 000–000

4.4 Comparison of storey displacement

Table 12, 13 and 14 show the lateral displacement of the studied models for zone 3, 4 and 5 respectively. In a zone wise
comparison lateral displacement is increasing with zone factor. In model wise comparison bare frame with infill time
period has higher displacement then bare frame which is cause of base shear as discussed above where bare frame with
infill time period has more base shear then bare frame. In the case of masonry infill model lateral displacement is
smaller than remaining two cases due to presence of infill.

Table 12: Comparison of storey displacement for Zone 3

Storey Height Lateral displacement (m)

Bare frame Bare frame Infill Frame
( ) ( )
32 0.061442 0.105473 0.012923
28 0.058211 0.099915 0.012329
24 0.052122 0.089466 0.011443
20 0.043598 0.074835 0.010351
16 0.033341 0.057231 0.00912
12 0.024036 0.041256 0.007864
8 0.014414 0.024741 0.006614
4 0.005315 0.009121 0.004983
0 0 0 0

Table 13: Comparison of storey displacement for Zone 4

Storey Height Lateral displacement (m)

Bare frame Bare frame Infill Frame
( ) ( )
32 0.092169 0.158216 0.019394
28 0.087314 0.14987 0.018488
24 0.078183 0.1342 0.017153
20 0.065397 0.112251 0.01551
16 0.050013 0.085848 0.013663
12 0.036053 0.061884 0.011749
8 0.021621 0.037112 0.0099
4 0.007971 0.01368 0.007457
0 0 0 0

Table 14: Comparison of storey displacement for Zone 5

Storey Height Lateral displacement (m)

Bare frame ( ) Bare frame ( ) Infill Frame
32 0.138261 0.23733 0.0291
28 0.13097 0.224804 0.027727
24 0.117275 0.2013 0.025718
20 0.098095 0.168376 0.023249
16 0.075021 0.128773 0.020477
12 0.054079 0.092825 0.017604
8 0.032432 0.055668 0.014828
4 0.011955 0.02018 0.011169
0 0 0 0

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3353129

 VijayBaradiya et al./ SSRN-ELSEVIER (2018-19) 000–000

4.5 Interstorey drift ratio of building models

Interstorey drift ratio (IDR) for all building models is illustrated in Fig 5, 6 and 7 where 8SITZ3 shows minimum IDR
value as compare to other two models and 8sBFZ3IT has maximum IDR value. The pattern remained same for zone 4
and 5 but the values gradually increase with the severity of earthquake forces.

Fig 5 Interstorey drift ratio for zone

Fig 6 Interstorey drift ratio for zone 4

Fig 7 Interstorey drift ratio for zone 5

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3353129

 VijayBaradiya et al./ SSRN-ELSEVIER (2018-19) 000–000

5. Conclusion

The aim of the present work was to show the performance and behavior of the building having bare frame configuration
with two different time period ( ) and masonry infill frame. From above results it is
observed that the building model with time period of had least base shear and building model with time
period had higher base shear, because time period consider the presence of masonry infill wall
which impart its contribution in increasing lateral stiffness of the building resulting in attracting higher seismic forces.

Masonry infill wall has its own merits and demerits. By the introduction of infill in moment resisting RC frame there is
increase in overall lateral strength. It also reduces the total horizontal displacement and the storey drift of the structure
appreciably. However infill is also responsible for short column effect and soft storey. By the presence of infill wall, the
primary frame action of moment resisting frame is changed to truss action, which leads to increased axial forces in
column in infill frame model. As infill wall contribute in the force distribution, it enhance the response of structure in
terms of shear force and bending moment. It also reduces the shear force and bending moment to a great extent in the
structure. Above discussion concludes that bare frame ( ) has large storey drift and needed to be designed for
higher forces which makes it uneconomical, whereas masonry infill frame configuration shows more promising results.

References

• Angel, R, Abrams, D. P., Shapiro, D., Uzarski, J., & Webster, M. (1994). Behavior of reinforced concrete frames with masonry infills.

University of Illinois Engineering Experiment Station. College of Engineering. University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.

• Das, D., & Murty, C. V. R. (2004). Brick Masonry infills in seismic design of RC framed buildings: Part 1-Cost implications. Indian

Concrete Journal, 78(7), 39-44.

• Davis, R., Menon, D., & Prasad, A. M. (2008). Evaluation of magnification factors for open ground storey buildings using nonlinear

analyses. In The 14th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering.

• Holmes, M. (1961). Steel frames with brickwork and concrete infilling. Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers, 19(4), 473-478.

• Kaushik, H. B., Rai, D. C., & Jain, S. K. (2006). Code Approaches to Seismic Design of Masonry-Infilled Reinforced ConcreteFrames: A

State-of-the-Art Review. Earthquake Spectra, 22(4), 961-983.

• Kaushik, H. B., Rai, D. C., & Jain, S. K. (2008, October). A rational approach to analytical modeling of masonry infills in reinforced

concrete frame buildings. In The 14th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering (pp. 12-17)..

• Kaushik, H. B., Rai, D. C., & Jain, S. K. (2009). Effectiveness of some strengthening options for masonry-infilled RC frames with open

first story. Journal of structural engineering, 135(8), 925-937.

• Murty, C. V. R., & Jain, S. K. (2000, January). Beneficial influence of masonry infill walls on seismic performance of RC frame

buildings. In Proceedings of the 12th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Auckland, New Zealand, Paper (No. 1790).

• Polyakov, S. V. (1956). Masonry in framed buildings. Gosudarstvennoe izdatel'stvo Literatury postroitel'stvu i arkhitekture.

• Repapis, C., Zeris, C., & Vintzileou, E. (2006). Evaluation of the seismic performance of existing RC buildings II: A case study for

regular and irregular buildings. Journal of earthquake engineering, 10(03), 429-452.

• Shrestha, M. (2015). Study on Design and Performance Comparison of RC Buildings Designed for Various Indian Seismic

Zones (Doctoral dissertation).

• Stafford Smith, B., & Carter, C. (1969). A method of analysis for infilled frames. Proceedings of the institution of civil engineers, 44(1),

31-48.

• Standard, I. (1893). Criteria for earthquake resistant design of structures. Bureau of Indian Standards, Part, 1.

• Standard, I. (1987). Code of practice for design loads (other than earthquake) for buildings and structures. Part II, Imposed loads (second

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3353129

 VijayBaradiya et al./ SSRN-ELSEVIER (2018-19) 000–000

revision), IS-875-1987. Published by Bureau of Indian Standards, New Delhi-110002.

• Standard, I. (1987). Code of practice for design loads (other than earthquake) for buildings and structures. Part II, Imposed loads (second

revision), IS-875-1987. Published by Bureau of Indian Standards, New Delhi-110002.

• Standard, I. (2000). Plain and reinforced concrete-code of practice. New Delhi: Bureau of Indian Standards.

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3353129