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

net/publication/299745926

MODELING OF CHB MASONRY FOR SEISMIC ANALYSIS OF LOW-RISE

REINFORCED CONCRETE FRAMES: EFFECTS OF CHB MASONRY PROPERTIES

Conference Paper · November 2011

CITATIONS READS

0 1,069

1 author:

Rodolfo Mendoza Jr
De La Salle University
15 PUBLICATIONS   8 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

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

Theory, Experiment, and Modeling of Partial FRP-Confined Concrete Cylinders View project

Numerical development of coupled RBSM - nonlinear shell FEM for CFST analysis View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Rodolfo Mendoza Jr on 25 September 2016.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 th
37 National Convention Philippine Institute of Civil Engineers
Cagayan de Oro City, Philippines

MODELING OF CHB MASONRY FOR SEISMIC ANALYSIS OF LOW-RISE

REINFORCED CONCRETE FRAMES: EFFECTS OF CHB MASONRY
PROPERTIES

Rodolfo P. Mendoza Jr.1, 3, Edgardo S. Cruz1, 2, Delia B. Senoro1, 2

1
School of Civil, Environmental and Geological Engineering, Mapua Institute of Technology, Intramuros,
Manila, Philippines, 1002
2
Sustainable Development Research Office, School of Civil, Environmental and Geological Engineering, Mapua Institute of
Technology, Intramuros, Manila, Philippines 1002
3
Engineering Research and Development for Technology, Department of Science and Technology, Taguig, Philippines, 1631

Abstract: This paper presents a practical method of modeling CHB masonry for seismic analysis. CHB walls are commonly
used in low-rise buildings as non-structural elements that are usually neglected in the analysis of frames as they are assumed not
to carry any lateral forces during seismic activity. The inherent in-plane strength and stiffness of these walls attract substantial
amount of in-plane forces which were solely assigned to carry by the compositing frame. These actions deviates the behavior of
the frame by decreasing the natural period of the structure and correspondingly increase the applied seismic forces. Hence, the
frame behavior cannot just be idealized as a simple bare frame but instead a CHB in-filled frame. It was therefore the objective
of the study to model the CHB walls in order to determine its effects on the low-rise reinforced concrete frame. The method used
in carrying out this study was the compression strut theory that represents the CHB walls as equivalent pin-jointed compression
strut. The model considered the mechanical properties of local CHB masonry. Experimental test was conducted by the use of
prism having four types of masonry mortars, two types of CHB units with two variable thicknesses. The resulting data were then
used to calculate the equivalent thickness of compression struts which were subsequently modeled as cross-braced-type system
for the frame. The assessment of the modeled frames was conducted through static pushover analysis using SAP 2000 in which
produced capacity curves. Comparison of the capacity curves followed, i.e., for sixteen frame models with different CHB infill
properties with bare frame model. Results showed that modeling CHB walls as infill compression struts in seismic analysis can
significantly modify the behavior of the frame by increasing its strength and stiffness compared with the conventional bare
frame approach. It was concluded that the effect of compression infill strut to the behavior of the frame had been significantly
affected by the properties of CHB masonry. Hence, quality of CHB shall be given attention and shall be considered in the design
process of concrete frame. That, failure to consider CHB properties to the frame analysis would potentially lead to property
damage and adverse impact to public health.

Key words : compression strut, infill, low-rise, modeling, seismic

1 INTRODUCTION
Reinforced Concrete Frames (RCF) are the most common
type of structural system used in low-rise buildings in the
Philippines. In most cases, these low-rise RCF usually
consist of concrete hollow block (CHB) walls which serves
as partition walls, interior and exterior walls. A masonry
wall that is infilled with the frame is termed as ‘masonry
infill’. Current construction practice integrate these walls
through the compositing RCF by means of reinforcing
dowels connected to the vertical and horizontal
reinforcement of the CHB wall. In conventional analysis of
RCF, CHB walls are ignored by treating them as non-
structural elements and idealizing the frame as a bare RCF
consisting of beams and columns. Past researches and past
earthquakes, however, suggest that these walls interact with
the frame during seismic activity. The performance of
masonry walls were investigated by Mondal et al. (2008)
during the 1985 Mexico City earth-quake, and 2001 Bhuj
earthquake. Their investigation concluded that the structural
contribution of infill walls cannot simply be neglected
particularly in regions of moderate and high seismicity
where, the frame–infill interaction may cause substantial
increase in both stiffness and strength of the frame. Similarly,
vital lessons from the July 16, 1990, Luzon Earthquake
showed the structural implications of neglecting the CHB
walls such as soft storey failures which led in the collapsed
of hotel buildings in Baguio City (Hopkins 2001).
The inclusion of CHB walls in the analysis of frames
presents a complexity in modeling the wall-frame interaction.
This tends the structural engineers and designers to neglect

1
 th
37 National Convention Philippine Institute of Civil Engineers
Cagayan de Oro City, Philippines
their effect by analyzing the RCF as a bare frame model.
Past studies (Polyako 1959, Smith 1967), however, suggest
that the stiffness contribution of the masonry wall may be
represented as an equivalent compression strut, subsequently
forming the frame as a braced –type model. The
compression strut theory was based on experimental
observations; i.e., when frame is acted by in-plane forces,
the frame tends to separate from the infill near windward
lower and leeward upper corners of the infill panels. This
action causes a compressive contact stresses developed
between the frame and the infill at the other diagonally
opposite corners, and as a rough approximation, the stiffness their location. Since the equivalent idealization approach of
contribution of the masonry wall may be then assumed to
behave as a compression strut having the same property and
thickness of the masonry wall that it represents. The
equivalent strut idealization simplifies the load transfer
between the frame and the masonry wall, as the load transfer
actually takes place over an extended contact length, not just
at one point at the corners of the masonry wall. However,
in most practical structures, the frame is relatively flexible approach in considering the stiffness contribution of local
compared to the masonry panel, and any discrepancy caused
by this simplification is considered insignificant (Bashandy, seismic loading. The proposed approach aims to represent
1995). To further define the relationship between stiffness of the stiffness contribution of CHB walls as equivalent
the infill panel and frame, Smith (1967) introduced a non-
dimensional parameter, λ, (Equation 1-a) analogous to that
used in elastic foundation theory to express the stiffness of to determine the properties of local CHB masonry,
the foundation relative to an overlaying beam. The width of
equivalent strut was presented by Smith in terms of a series
of curves showing the relationship between the width ‘w’ of
the equivalent compression strut and the stiffness parameter
‘ λ ’. The same stiffness equation was recommended by
foreign building documents such as the Guidelines for the
Seismic Rehabilitation of Buildings by the Federal
Emergency Management Agency, (FEMA 273 1998) and
Seismic Rehabilitation of Existing Buildings by the
American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE 41-06).
However, a direct equation; given in equation 1b, to
calculate the width of the strut designated as ‘ 𝑎 ’ was
introduced instead of a series of curves.
1
E t sin 2θ 4
λ= [ me inf ] (1a)
4Efe Icol hinf
𝑎 = 0.175(λℎ𝑐𝑜𝑙 )−0.4 𝑟𝑖𝑛𝑓 (1b)
hcol = column height between centerlines of beams (in);
hinf = height of infill (in)
Efe = modulus of elasticity of frame material (ksi);
Eme = modulus of elasticity of infill material (ksi);
Icol = moment of inertia of column, (in4);
Linf = Length of infill panel (in);
rinf = diagonal length of infill panel (in);
t inf = thickness of infill panel and equivalent strut (in);
θ = angle whose tangent is the infill height to length
aspect ratio (radians); and
λ = coefficient used to determine equivalent width of
the infill strut
While there are vast of existing studies about the infill-frame
behavior and infill contribution to the strength and stiffness
of a RCF, they have however limitations due to the
geographical variation of masonry properties. Most of the
past studies have concentrated on brick masonry as this type
of masonry is the most commonly used masonry type in
considering the stiffness contribution of masonry infill relies
primarily on the properties of the masonry elements and its
constituent material, i.e. masonry units and mortar, hence,
the need to determine the properties of local CHB is evident
and important.
The purpose of the study is to present a simple analytical
CHB walls in the performance of low-rise RCF under
compression struts acting as cross-bracing system for the
RCF. The study was divided into a two-staged work; that is,
considering the following variables: thickness of CHB, type
of CHB (load-bearing and non-load-bearing), and the type of
mortar used, and to adopt these properties to calculate the
stiffness of CHB walls and to model them using the
equivalent strut idealization. Comparison on the seismic
performance of a bare RCF and a CHB-infilled frame with
varying CHB masonry properties was investigated via
pushover analysis.
2 METHODOLOGY
The methodologies in determining the properties of local
CHB masonry and the proposed modeling of CHB infill
stiffness contribution on seismic analysis of low-rise
reinforced concrete frames is described in detail on the
subsequent sections.
2.1 Testing of CHB Units, Mortar and CHB Prism
The CHB units used in this study were machine-built CHB
unit source from a local CHB commercial manufacturer.
Compression test of twenty-four CHB specimen consisted of
4-inch and 6-inch load bearing and non-load bearing CHB
units was conducted to compare the CHB manufacturer
reported compressive strength and the actual compressive
strength of CHB units. Load-bearing and non-load bearing
CHB units were designated as (S) and (T) type units,
respectively. Similarly, compression test was also conducted
on twelve 2-inch cube specimen of mortar from four types of
mixture proportion namely: Type M (1:3), Type S (1:4.5),
Type N (1:6) and Type O (1:9). Grading requirements for the
aggregate used in mortar was verified by conducting a sieve
analysis. Cement-to-water ratio was recorded to be 1.05 for
2
 th
37 National Convention Philippine Institute of Civil Engineers
Cagayan de Oro City, Philippines
Type M, 0.65 for Type S, 0.46 for Type N, and 0.32 for Type
O mortar. The compressive strength of CHB masonry was
determined using the prism test method. Three variables
were considered in the experiment; i.e., (1) the thickness of
CHB units (4-inch and 6-inch), (2) strength of CHB units (S
for load bearing and T for non-load bearing), and (3) the
type of mortar used (Type M, S, N, and O). The sample
specimens were labeled as to the thickness of the unit,
strength of the unit and the type of mortar used (e.g. 4S-M).
The prism specimens were saw-cut in order to meet the
requirements of ASTM C1314 or the Standard Test Method
for the Compressive Strength of Masonry Prism. Forty-eight
CHB prism specimens were tested under compression of
masonry. The prisms were constructed inside a moisture-
tight bag shown as Figure 1 and sealed after the initial forty- Fig. 2a Typical Floor Plan of Building Considered
eight hours of curing.
Fig. 1 Construction of CHB Prism Specimen
All prism specimens were tested at an age of 28 days. The
testing was conducted at the UTM Center of Mapua Institute
of Technology. Speed of loading was maintained at
15mm/min. Modulus of elasticity was determined using the
secant modulus method in which the slope of the line for the
modulus of elasticity is taken from 0.05f′m to a point on
the curve at 0.33f′m , where f’m is the ultimate
compressive strength
2.2 Building Model Considered
The building model considered is an office three-storey
reinforced concrete building with typical floor plan and
elevation are shown in Figures 2a and 2b, respectively. The
lateral resisting elements were located along the perimeter of
the frame both on the N-S and E-W direction.
Fig. 2b Perimeter Frame Elevation
CHB masonry walls enclosed the perimeter of the
building. The building is located in a seismic zone four
region. Column sections are 500x500 mm, typical floor
beams sections are 500 x 300 mm and roof beam sections
are 400 by 250 mm. Concrete compressive strength f‘c is
taken as 21.0 MPa and yield strength of reinforcing steel
strength is taken a 276 MPa. A two dimensional frame
modeling and analysis was conducted for the frame along
grid A (typical perimeter frame) using the commercial
software SAP2000. Flexural rigidity for columns and beams
were modeled considering the cracked section properties
taken as 0.7EcIg for columns and 0.5 EcIg for beams
(FEMA 356 2000). Design loads were referred from the
minimum design load tables of NSCP C101-01. Lateral
loads were computed using the Equivalent Lateral Force
Procedures by NSCP C101-01. Lateral load distribution was
analyzed considering the effect of accidental torsion.
Column nodal loads were distributed in proportion to their
location along grid A. Accidental torsion analysis was
considered by moving the center of mass of the structure by
5% of the least horizontal dimension of the structure. From
the analysis, a factor of 1.027 was derived and added to the
computed direct story shears. Nonlinear hinges were
modeled using the FEMA 356 default hinges properties. For
beams, M3 plastic hinges were applied at member endpoints
or on their dissipative zones whereas, bi-axial (PM3) hinges
were applied at column end joints.
2.3 Modeling of CHB Masonry Infill
The CHB masonry walls were modeled as a pin-jointed
strut in which resistance was limited to compression forces
only. The stiffness contribution of CHB masonry infills is
represented by equivalent compression strut connecting
windward upper and leeward lower corners of the infilled
frame. The recommended FEMA 273 and ASCE 41-06
equations (equation 1a and 1b) to determine the stiffness of
CHB masonry and its equivalent width were adopted in this
3
 th
37 National Convention Philippine Institute of Civil Engineers
Cagayan de Oro City, Philippines
study. The infill struts were placed concentrically across Table 1 Compressive Strength Results of 2-inch cube
the diagonal of the frame. Structural performance level for Mortar Specimen
the masonry infill was monitored using the FEMA 356
(2000) drift criteria given as 0.2% for Immediate Occupancy, Mortar Type Mixture Cement-to- Compressive
0.6% for Life Safety and 1.5% for Collapsed Prevention. Proportion water Ratio Strength,(Mpa)
The compression struts were modeled as axial elements with M 1:3 1.05 11.52
non-linear axial hinges applied on endpoints of the strut S 1:4.5 0.65 2.75
member. N 1:6 0.46 2.61
O 1:9 0.32 1.25
3 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Twenty-four CHB units were tested under compression to

compare reported compressive strengths of CHB units to the
actual experimental values. The relative percentage
difference (RPD), shown in Figure 3, between the reported
and actual compressive strength were reported to be as high
as 288% for the non-load bearing CHB units and as high as
147% difference for load bearing CHB units. As shown in
Figure 3 the non-load bearing units have higher RPDs
compared to the load bearing CHB units. This shows that the
properties of non-load bearing CHB units are highly variable
compared to the load-bearing CHB units. The higher values
of compressive strength of non-load bearing CHB units may
be affected by the unreported age of the units. Hence, such
factors must be addressed in further studies.

Fig. 4 Stress-Strain Diagram for all CHB Prisms

Figure 4 shows the stress-strain diagram of all the CHB

Fig. 3 Experimental f’m VS Reported f’m
The results of the compression test of the 2-inch cube mortar
were tabulated in Table 1. Type M mortar has the highest
recorded compressive strength while the lowest compressive
strength was recorded for Type O mortar. The compressive
strength of the Type M mortar is significantly higher by
approximately 320% than that of a Type S mortar. While the
relative percent difference of the strength between the other
mortar types ranged from 109% to 120%.
specimens. For the 6-inch CHB prism, 6S-M and 6T-M have
higher stress levels corresponding to 0.01 to 0.02 levels
of strain while 6T-O has the lowest recorded stress level. For
the 4-inch CHB units, 4S-M has the highest stress level
while the lowest stress level was reported for 4T-S. The
variability of the compressive strength results was evaluated
by computing the standard error of all the stress means. It
can be seen in Figure 4, that among all the specimens, 6T-M
has the most variable stress level, followed by 4T-S for
strain levels 0.01 to 0.02. . In general, a more variable
stress level was observed in non-load bearing CHB units.
This is consistent with the observed disparity in the
compressive strength of non-load bearing CHB units as
discussed above.

4
 th
37 National Convention Philippine Institute of Civil Engineers
Cagayan de Oro City, Philippines
Fig. 5 Standard Error of Stress Means for all CHB Prism
The stiffness and width of the equivalent compression strut
was determined using equation 1a and equation 1b. Figure 6
shows the graph of the calculated stiffness of CHB masonry
with varying properties. The graph shows that as the
stiffness of masonry decreases, the width of the compression
strut increases. This is in good agreement with the set of
curves presented by Smith which are based on experimental
results which shows the contact length relationship and
width of compression strut.
Fig. 8 Base Shear vs Roof Displacement
CHB-infilled frame were further group into two:
CHB-infilled frame with modulus of elasticity E of CHB
masonry less than 510 MPa, and CHB-infilled frame with
modulus of elasticity E of CHB masonry between 510 MPa
to 710 MPa. Figure 9 shows the hinges formation in bare
frame, frame with relatively weak infill (Em <510 MPa) and
frame with relatively strong infill (with 710 MPa ≤ Em ≥
510 MPa). The graphical formation of hinges shows the
weak points’ location and potential failure modes that the
structure would experience in case of a seismic activity.
Significant pushover steps were selected in order to show
the global performance of each frame type. As expected, the
bare frame model (Figure 9) has achieved the desired beam
sway mechanism behavior. On the other hand, sudden
formation of collapsed hinges was observed in CHB-infilled
RCF with weak infill struts properties. These sudden
formations of collapsed hinges may have caused the sudden
reduction in stiffness which led in single storey mechanism.
On the other hand, the formation of hinges in frames with
relatively strong infill (Infill with > Em ≥ 510 MPa) was
initially observed in infill struts. It can be considered that a
partial yield beam mechanism was achieved by the frame
with no formation of hinges in collapse levels for columns.

Fig. 7 Width of compression strut as a function of λ

Figure 8 shows the Pushover Capacity Curve (PCC)

of RC bare frame model and sixteen frame models with
different infill properties. The figure illustrates the
significant influence of infill which increased both strength
and stiffness of the frame analyzed as bare frame model. By
considering the presence of infill in the analysis, the strength
of bare frame was increased by as much as 26.5% while the
stiffness of a bare frame was increased by 12.7%. The
highest base shear was recorded for frame with 4T-S infill.
This infill may be considered as a relatively weak infill with
a lowest recorded modulus of elasticity of 221 MPa. Albeit,
the frame with 4T-S has resulted in a higher strength and
stiffness, it did not show a good performance as localized
sudden failure was observed in modeled infill struts.

Fig. 8 Plastic Hinges Formation

5
 th
37 National Convention Philippine Institute of Civil Engineers
Cagayan de Oro City, Philippines
4 CONCLUSION
Based on the results of this analytical and experimental
study, the following conclusions were drawn;
 The global behavior of a CHB-infilled RCF frame may
be evaluated by modeling stiffness contribution of CHB
walls as equivalent compression strut.
 The seismic assessment and comparison on the behavior
of bare RCF and an CHB-infilled RCF was done by via
pushover analysis. Results shows that the inclusion of
CHB walls in the analysis of low-rise RCF has
significantly altered the behavior of the frame under
seismic loading. The results from the analytical
investigation shows that considering the effects of CHB
walls in the seismic performance of low-rise RC frame
can increase the over-all strength and stiffness of the
frame 26.5% and 12.7%, respectively. However, it was
observed that the ductility of the frame was
considerably reduced.
 The width of the compression strut increases with the
decrease in stiffness of the CHB masonry. A graph
relationship between the width of compression strut and
stiffness of CHB masonry shows a good agreement with
the set of curves presented by some authors in the
literature.
 The global performance of the structure was
investigated through formation of plastic hinges and it
was observed that frames with relatively strong infill
behave more suitable as a gradual formation of hinges
was observed with no formation of collapsed hinges.
However, the desired beam sway mechanism was not
achieved but instead a partial yield mechanism was
observed. For the weak infill, sudden formation of
collapsed hinges and a single storey mechanism was
observed.
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
The author’s would like to express their sincerest gratitude
to the Engineering Research and Development for
Technology (ERDT), Department of Science of Technology
(DOST), Philippines for funding this study.
View publication stats
REFERENCES
Bashandy, T.R. (1995) Behavior of Concrete Infilled Frames.
Master’s Thesis, University of Texas Austin, U.S.A
Bertero, V.V., and Brokken, S. (1983) Infills in seismic
resistant buildings. ASCE Journal of the Structural
Division, ASCE, Vol. 109, ST6, 1337 - 1361.
Charleson, A (2008) Seismic Design for Architects. Elsevier
Ltd.
Federal Emergency Management Agency 356 (2000)
Prestandard and Commentary for the Seismic
Rehabilitation of Buildings. Second Edition, Federal
Emergency Management Agency, Washignton D.C.
Holmes, M. (1961) Steel frames with Brickwork and
Concrete Infilling. Proceedings, The Institution of Civil
Engineers, Vol. 19: 473 -478.
Mondal G. and Jain S. K. (2008) Lateral Stiffness of
Masonry Infilled Reinforced Concrete (RC) Frames with
Central Opening. Earthquake Spectra, Earthquake
Engineering Research Institute, Vol. 24, 701–723
ASEP (2010). National Structural Code of the Philippines,
Sixth Edition, Association of Structural Engineers of the
Philippines, Quezon City, Philippines.
Paulay, T and Priestley,M.J.N (1992) Seismic Design of
Reinforced Concrete and Masonry Buildings. John
Wiley & Sons, Inc.
SEAOC (2000) Seismic Design Manual, Building Design
Examples: Steel, Concrete and Cladding. Structural
Engineers Association of California, Sacramento,
California, U.S.A
Smith, B.S. (1967) Methods for Predicting the Lateral
Stiffness and Strength of Multistorey Infilled Frames.
Building Science, Vol. 2: 247 -257.