See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/309582357

Quality Assessment of Equivalent Strut Models for Reinforced

Concrete Frames with Unreinforced Masonry Infill Walls

Conference Paper · September 2016

CITATIONS READS

0 312

3 authors, including:

Naveen Shetty Lars Abrahamczyk

KU Leuven Bauhaus Universität Weimar
18 PUBLICATIONS   11 CITATIONS    55 PUBLICATIONS   114 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Bauhaus Summer School: Engineering Courses View project

SERAMAR project View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Naveen Shetty on 25 July 2018.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Structural Analysis of Historical Constructions –
Anamnesis, diagnosis, therapy, controls – Van Balen & Verstrynge (Eds)
© 2016 Taylor & Francis Group, London, ISBN 978-1-138-02951-4

Quality assessment of equivalent strut models for RC frames with

URM infill walls

N. Shetty
Department of Civil Engineering, KU Leuven, Belgium
Earthquake Damage Analysis Center, Bauhaus Universität Weimar, Germany

L. Abrahamczyk & J. Schwarz

Earthquake Damage Analysis Center, Bauhaus Universität Weimar, Germany

ABSTRACT: The analytical evaluation of Reinforced Concrete (RC) frames with Unreinforced Masonry
(URM) infill walls under earthquake loading comprises many uncertainties and assumptions, especially for
the infill walls, which might lead to a misleading interpretation and prognosis of the inherent resistance and
overall response. This paper presents an extensive study on the equivalent strut method and the study focuses on
determining the strut widths by means of different empirical equations available in the literature. As a case study,
a masonry infilled RC frame has been considered. In particular, a sensitivity study is conducted for the different
input parameters describing the strut width to indicate the variations in the global response of the infilled RC
frame. By performing time history analysis and comparing the analytical with the experimental results, the most
suitable strut width is determined.

1 INTRODUCTION masonry infills, macro models use equivalent diagonal

Reinforced Concrete (RC) frames with masonry infill
walls are the leading construction type in seismic areas
due to their notable behavior under seismic excita-
tion. Unreinforced masonry infill walls embedded in
bare RC frames change the load transfer mechanism
from frame action to truss action, thereby modifies
the lateral response of the structure to a greater extent.
Based on macroseismic observations and experimen-
tal investigations, the presence of infill walls increases
the global strength and stiffness, thereby reducing
the deformation of the structure [Pinho and Elnashai,
2000; Murty and Jain, 2000;Abrahamczyk et al., 2004;
Pujol et al., 2008; Haldar et al., 2013; Schwarz et al.,
2014].
The most common way to represent the realistic
behavior of the masonry infilled RC frame is by devel-
oping numerical models. There are several modelling
techniques, ranging from simple to more sophisticated
methods, but the reliability of models in predict-
ing accurate results is an important issue. The two
main categories of modelling techniques are: micro
modelling and macro modelling. Due to high com-
putational effort involved in micro modelling, macro
modelling is mostly applied for analysis of structures
under seismic loading condition.
In macro modelling, the units, mortar and unit –
mortar interface are considered as a composite mate-
rial, i.e., it is represented by continuum elements. For
struts for determining the failure modes. Among the
variety of modelling methods, the macro modelling
approach is more widely used because it is effective
and requires less computational effort [Akhaveissy,
2012]. Hence, this method seems to be an appropriate
tool to model and analyze particularly large masonry
infilled RC structures.
In equivalent strut modelling, the determination
of the strut width is an important issue for eval-
uating strength and stiffness of the infilled frame.
Hence, there exists a lack of well consistent numer-
ical models for simulation due to presence of several
uncertain parameters which might lead to misleading
interpretation of the global response.
A full – scale masonry infilled RC frame tested
at ELSA (European Laboratory for Structural Assess-
ment) [Pinto et al., 2002] is considered as a case study.
This infilled frame had been designed to represent the
design and construction practice of forty to fifty years
ago in most European and Mediterranean countries. To
evaluate the vulnerability assessment of such existing
structures and to investigate retrofitting techniques,
this infilled frame was subjected to certain levels of
seismic input motions.
In this paper, the respective infilled frame tested
at ELSA is modelled in SAP2000 to simulate the
seismic action effects by performing time history anal-
ysis, considering different empirical equations for strut
widths available in literature and a sensitivity study is

1268

Figure 1. Schematic representation of masonry infilled RC
frame. The strut width is indicated with ‘w’.
made in order to highlight some annotations. Further,
the results of the numerical model are compared with
experimental data to identify the suitable equation for
the strut width.
2 MODELLING OF MASONRY INFILLS
2.1 Description
To predict the realistic behavior of masonry infills
under seismic excitation, it is an important issue for the
engineers and researchers to model masonry infills.
Most of the computational software does not pro-
vide specific elements for modelling the behavior
of masonry infills. This might be one of the rea-
sons for avoiding infills in numerical simulation by
considering it as a non – structural component [Crisa-
fulli et al., 2000]. But it is inappropriate to neglect
the strong influence of masonry infills on the global
response. Nevertheless, in macro modelling technique,
a few elements and considerations are used to model
the behavior of masonry infills in a straight forward
manner.
Under lateral loads an infill wall acts as a diago-
nal strut connected between two opposite compression
corners [Skafida et al., 2014]. Hence, in macro mod-
elling, the equivalent truss mechanism concept is
utilized in order to represent the global response of
the infill and its interaction with the surrounding frame
[Murty & Jain, 2000]. For that reason, considering the
direction of the load path, the infill is represented by a
strut connecting the opposite corner nodes in the diag-
onal direction. Therefore, this method is known as an
equivalent strut method, see Figure 1.
In equivalent strut modelling, the following steps
and assumptions are made in order to capture the
behavior of masonry infills:
• The strut elements are modelled as cross braces,
by taking the thickness and width of the strut into
consideration.
1269
• On either end of the strut elements, the moment
released pin jointed end connections are assigned
in order to prevent the transfer of bending moments
from the outer RC frame to the masonry infill.
• The mass of the masonry infills are considered to
be negligible, because they are considered as an
equivalent distributed load on the beams.
• The masonry infills take only compressive axial
loads and with the increase in lateral forces on the
frame, the area of infill wall in contact with the
RC frame tends to reduce due to separation of the
wall from the RC frame near the tension – diago-
nal joints. Hence, the tension limit in the equivalent
struts is assigned to be negligible.
2.2 Equivalent Strut Width
In numerical modelling, the strut width plays a major
role in controlling the stiffness and strength of the
infilled frame. The variation of strut width is mainly
dependent on the geometrical and material charac-
teristics of the infill and RC frame. Earlier studies
on the strut widths by many researchers have pro-
posed several empirical equations in order to provide
a better solution to the problem of predicting the real-
istic behavior of infilled frames. A brief overview of
representative proposals is presented in the following
paragraphs and Table 1.
Polyakov [1960] suggested that the masonry infills
could be equivalent to diagonal struts. Further, Holmes
[1961] replaced infills by an equivalent pin jointed
diagonal strut. Smith & Carter [1962] proposed a theo-
retical relation for the width of the diagonal strut based
on the relative stiffness of infill and adjacent columns.
Kadir [1974] included the influence of upper beam,
along with infill and adjacent columns in the relative
stiffness of the infilled frame for the determination
of the strut width. Furthermore, alternative propos-
als were given by many researchers as summarized in
Table 1.
The expressions in Table 1 are valid for the calcula-
tion of strut widths in relation to the full infill wall. In
case of an infill wall with openings, a reduction factor
for the strut width has been proposed by some of the
researchers [Asteris et al., 2012; Prasad et al., 2014],
based on the size of the openings. So far, very lim-
ited information is available in literature regarding the
infilled frame with openings.
In this paper, the infill wall stiffness reduction factor
‘λ’, as proposed by Asteris, and based on the finite
element technique has been considered. The proposed
equation for the reduction factor is given as,
where, ‘α’ is the infill wall opening percentage i.e.,
area of opening to the area of infill wall [Asteris et al.,
2012].
Table 1. Formulas for equivalent strut width proposed by different researchers [adopted from Uva et al., 2012, Samoilă 2012].

1270
Table 1. Continued.

Nomenclature: λ2 – infill wall to beam stiffness parameter

α1 – contact length between infill wall and column
w – strut width
α2 – contact length between infill wall and beam
d – diagonal length of the infill wall
γ – Poisson coefficient
t – thickness of the infill wall
c, β – coefficients based on Poisson’s module
θ – angle of inclination by strut
F – vertical load
H’ – height of the RC frame
k – coefficient based on vertical load
H – height of the infill wall
z – geometrical parameter
L – length of the infill wall
A1 – sectional area of column
A11 – sectional area of beam
A2 – sectional area of infill wall 3 APPLICATION
I1 – moment of inertia of column
I11 – moment of inertia of beam In this section, the wide range of formulas for strut
E1 – modulus of elasticity of concrete widths [Table 1] are applied on a study model of a
E2 – modulus of elasticity of masonry masonry infilled RC frame to determine the effect of
G2 – shear modulus of masonry different input parameters on the global response of
λ1 – infill wall to column stiffness parameter the infilled frame. Secondly, the accuracy of the strut

1271
 Table 2. Design parameters [Pinto et al., 2002].

Material Properties

Concrete Modulus of elasticity = 20 GPa

Compressive strength = 16 MPa
Tensile strength = 1.4 MPa
Steel Modulus of elasticity = 204.5 GPa
Minimum yield stress = 235 MPa
Effective yield stress = 343.6 MPa
Minimum tensile stress = 365 MPa
Effective tensile stress = 451.5 MPa
Masonry Modulus of elasticity = 2.864 GPa
Shear modulus = 1.171 GPa

Loading Properties

Weight of slab 3.75 KN/m2

Weight of finishings 0.75 KN/m2
Weight of 2.5 KN/m
transverse beams
Weight of 1.1 KN/m2
masonry infills
Live load 1 KN/m2

Figure 2. Structural plan and elevation view of the study

model [Pinto et al., 2002].

widths is determined by comparing with experimental

results.

3.1 Description of the study model

Innovative Seismic Design Concepts for New and
Existing Structures (ICONS) is a joint research
program in collaboration with the European Labo-
ratory for Structural Assessment (ELSA) which con-
tributes to the assessment of bare and infilled frames
and investigates various retrofitting techniques. The
representative structure of the ELSA project is a
four – story RC frame with three bays. The masonry Figure 3. 3D view of the numerical model.
infills included in the RC frame have different percent-
age of openings. This structure represents the design 0.5 m × 0.25 m on the third and fourth storeys. The
and construction practice of forty to fifty years ago in beams in the longitudinal direction are 0.25 m wide
most European and Mediterranean countries. Hence, and 0.5 m deep, transverse beams are 0.2 m wide and
this structure was built without the application of 0.5 m deep. The thickness of masonry infill is 20 cm.
capacity design principles and without advanced rein-
forcement detailing. Both, the bare frame and masonry
infilled frame were full scale tested at the ELSA
3.2 Numerical Model
laboratory in Italy [Pinto et al., 2002].
Figure 2 shows the general layout of the structure. For this study, a numerical model is developed in a user
The bare frame consists of three bays; two of 5 m friendly commercial software SAP2000. The strut ele-
span and one of 2.5 m span. The inter storey height ments are modelled as discussed in the Section 2.1.
is 2.7 m and 0.15 m thick slab of 2 m on each side. The Meanwhile there are 15 different proposals for defin-
stocky column in the interior section has a dimension ing the strut widths [Table 1], so a sensitivity study is
of 0.6 m × 0.25 m on the first and second storeys and firstly performed. Later, the strut widths are reduced

1272
Figure 4. Comparison of strut width for different length of infill walls from different empirical equations.
by using a reduction factor [equation 1] based on the
openings.
4 RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS
4.1 Sensitivity study
A sensitivity study on strut widths is conducted
by varying the geometrical and material parameters
within the different empirical equations. Here, the
three different lengths of infill walls from the study
model are analyzed in order to observe the variations
in the strut width [Figure 4]. Initially, the openings in
these infill walls are neglected for a better comparative
study.
By comparing the overall results, the following
conclusions can be drawn;
a. The equation from Smith & Carter, Decanini &
Fantin I & II, Dawe & Seah generate very large
values for the diagonal strut width, which leads to
an overestimated stiffness.
b. The relation from Mainstone I & II, Bazan & Meli,
Durrani & Luo are at lower limit.
c. The relation from Holmes is very close to that
proposed by Kadir, being at the exterior limit.
d. The results based on the equation from Liaw
& Kwan, Pauley & Priestley, Bertoldi, Hendry,
Cavaleri & Papia are comparable.
1273
As a result of the sensitivity study, it is observed that
the strut widths calculated for the same geometry of
infill walls from different empirical equations show an
extreme deviation. This is due to the different parame-
ters affecting the strut width for each proposal, which
are clearly identified in Table 1. In most of the cases,
an increase of the wall length will lead to an increase
in the strut width.
4.2 Comparison of experimental and numerical
results
Due to strong variability in the strut widths, it is a cru-
cial issue to figure out an approximate strut width in
order to capture the realistic behavior of the represen-
tative structure. Hence, it is a valid decision to compare
the results of numerical model with the experimental
one.
At ELSA laboratory, a bare and infilled frame were
subjected to three different seismic excitation. The
acceleration – time histories of an increasing return
period of 475, 975 and 2000 years were used for the
experiment [Pinho and Elnashai, 2000] (only the first
one is used in the present paper, see Figure 5).
In order to determine the accuracy of the numeri-
cal model, the modal time history analysis of a bare
frame for 475 years return period was carried out
before proceeding with the analyses of the infilled
frame. An eigenvalue modal analysis was conducted
Figure 5. Ground motion acceleration for 475 years return
period.

Figure 6. Comparison of experimental and analytical results

of a bare RC frame for 475 years return period.

by comparing the 1st period of test frame (0.64 sec)

with numerical model (0.63 sec). Figure 6 indicates
that the numerical model shows a good performance,
i.e. the displacement curves with respect to time of the
numerical model closely match with the experimental Figure 7. Comparison of experimental and analytical results
results, indicating that the seismic behavior of the bare of infilled frame for 475 year return period.
frame is modelled in a realistic manner.
For infilled frames, in order to predict the suitable
strut width for the model, the analysis is carried out by
considering the strut widths which are in the acceptable
limits from the sensitivity study. Here, the infill wall
stiffness reduction factor ‘λ’ [equation 1] is used to
reduce the strut widths based on the area of openings.
The strut widths calculated from the formulas of Table
1 is multiplied with the result of equation 1.
The modal time history analysis for 475 years return
period is performed by measuring the peak displace-
ments of each story in comparison to experimental
results. The representative results are shown are in
Figure 7.
From Figure 7, the results indicate that several strut
models depict a good fit to the experimental results.
From Figure 8, it can be justified that the Bertoldi strut
captures the realistic behavior by showing the least
mean error with the experimental result. Hence, this
strut width can be recommended as a suitable choice Figure 8. Average mean error between the numerical and
for this particular model. experimental results based on the peak story displacements.

1274
5 CONCLUSION
The present paper aims to investigate an evaluation
concerned to the determination of the strut width in
predicting the global response of a masonry infilled
RC structure. The variable parameters linked to the
geometrical and material properties of the infill and
surrounding RC frame are identified. The strut widths
calculated from each of the empirical equations are
validated with experimental data.
Based on a literature study, it was found that
many researchers, based on certain experiments, have
derived empirical equations to determine strut widths.
But still, there is a lack of a recognized and reliable
equation to determine the strut width for different
models in predicting the realistic results. Therefore,
it is worth noting that the validation of the model is an
important consideration to select the appropriate strut
width for the respective model.
Based on a sensitivity study, by analyzing the equa-
tions for the strut width on three different wall lengths,
it is found that in most of the cases, the strut width
increases with the increase in wall length. For fur-
ther research, by considering different aspect ratios of
infilled frames, it would be interesting to note, if the
increase of wall length always leads to an increase of
strut width. Besides, it would be interesting to note
the deviation of strut widths from model to model
variability.
For nonlinear analysis, the assignment of consti-
tutive force – displacement laws to the strut element
is another important issue for evaluating strength and
stiffness of the masonry infills. Again, there is a wide
range of approaches available in literature to determine
the capacity of the strut element. Hence, a more elabo-
rated study is needed to validate the nonlinearity of the
model, to get precise results on the capacity and fail-
ure modes of infilled RC frames subjected to seismic
action.
REFERENCES
Abrahamczyk, L., Schott, C., Schwarz, J., Swain, T.M. 2004.
Vulnerability of RC frame structures inTurkish earthquake
regions (Part 2): Modelling and analysis. 13th World Con-
ference on Earthquake Engineering, 1–6 August 2004.
Vancouver, Canada, Paper no. 220.
Akhaveissy, A.H. 2012. Finite element nonlinear analysis of
high-rise unreinforced masonry building. Latin American
Journal of Solids and Structures, 9: 547–567.
Asteris, P.G., Giannopoulos, I.P., Chrysostomou, C.Z. 2012.
Modeling of infilled frames with openings. The Open
Construction and Building Technology Journal, 6(1):
81–91.
1275
View publication stats
Crisafulli, F. J., Carr, A. J., Park, R. 2000. Analytical mod-
elling of infilled frame structures – A general review.
Bulletin of the New Zealand Society for Earthquake
Engineering, 33(1): 30–45.
Haldar, P., Singh, Y., Paul, D.K. 2013. Identification of seis-
mic failure modes of URM infilled RC frame buildings.
Engineering Failure Analysis, 33: 97–118.
Holmes, M. 1961. Steel frames with brickwork and concrete
infilling. Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers,
19(4): 473–478.
Kadir, MRA. 1974. The structural behavior of masonry infill
panels in framed structures. PhD Thesis, University of
Edinburgh.
Murty, C.V.R., Jain, S.K. 2000. Beneficial influence of
masonry infill walls on seismic performance of RC
frame buildings. 12th World Conference on Earthquake
Engineering.
Pinho, R., Elnashai, A.S. 2000. Dynamic collapse testing
of a full – scale four story RC frame. ISET Journal of
Earthquake Technology, Paper No. 406, 37(4): 143–163.
Pinto, A., Varum, H., Molina, J. 2002. Experimental assess-
ment and retrofit of full scale models of existing RC
frames. In: Proceedings of the 12th European Confer-
ence on Earthquake Engineering. Elsevier Science Ltd,
London.
Polyakov, S.V. 1960. On the interaction between masonry
filler walls and enclosing frame when loading in the
plane of the wall. Translation in earthquake engineer-
ing, Earthquake Engineering Research Institute (EERI),
36–42.
Prasad, R, Rahman S.S., Chandradhara, G.P. 2014. Equiva-
lent diagonal strut for infilled frames with openings using
finite element method. IOSR Journal of Mechanical and
Civil Engineering (IOSR-JMCE), 24–29.
Pujol, S., Benavent-Climent, A., Rodriguez, M.E., Smith-
Pardo, J.P. 2008. Masonry infill walls: An effective alter-
native for seismic strengthening of low rise reinforced
concrete building structures. The 14th World Conference
on Earthquake Engineering, 12-17 October 2008. Beijing,
China.
Samoilă, D. M. 2012. Analytical modelling of masonry
infills. Acta Technica Napocensis: Civil Engineering &
Architecture, 55(2): 127–136.
Schwarz, J., Abrahamczyk, L., Leipold, M., Wenk, T. 2014.
Vulnerability assessment and damage description for
RC frame structures following the EMS-98 principles.
Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering, 13(4): 1141–1159.
Smith, B.S. 1962. Lateral stiffness of infilled frames. Journal
of Structural Division, 88(6): 183–199.
Skafida, S., Koutas, L., Bousias, S.N. 2014. Analytical mod-
elling of masonry infilled RC frames and verification
with experimental data. Hindawi Publishing Corporation,
Journal of Structures, Article ID 216549, 1–17.
Uva, G., Raffaele, D., Porco, F., Fiore, A. 2012. On the role
of equivalent strut models in the seismic assessment of
infilled RC buildings. Engineering Structures, 42: 83–94.