16th East Asia-Pacific Conference on Structural Engineering & Construction (EASEC16)

Edited by C.M. Wang, V. Dao and S. Kitipornchai

Brisbane, Australia, December 3-6, 2019

THE INFLUENCE OF NON-STRUCTURAL EXTERIOR WALL ON

THE STRUCTURAL RESISTANCE OF RC BUILDING FRAMES
AGAINST SEISMIC AND PROGRESSIVE COLLAPSE FAILURE

M. H. TSAI

Department of Civil Engineering, National Pingtung University of Science and Technology, Pingtung County,
912 Taiwan
Emails: mhtsai@mail.npust.edu.tw

Abstract. Because of environmental and architectural considerations, the partially infilled exterior
walls of RC condominium buildings in Taiwan were used to cast monolithically with surrounding
beams and/or columns. Among those various exterior walls, the parapet type is the more common one.
Thus, the influence of its mechanical properties on the structural resistance of RC building frames
against seismic and progressive collapse failure was investigated in this study. From the nonlinear
static pushover and pushdown analyses of seven RC building frames, the seismic and column-loss
resistances with and without the parapet exterior walls were compared. The analysis results revealed
that with the parapet exterior walls, both the horizontal seismic resistance and progressive collapse
resistance under column loss could be increased at the expense of reduced ductility. However, the
mechanical influence of the parapet exterior walls decreased with increased span, number of stories,
and seismic design coefficient of the RC building frames.

Keywords: Parapet exterior wall; RC building frame; Seismic resistance; Progressive collapse
resistance

1. INTRODUCTION
Confined masonry construction had been used as a major engineering technology for many
low-rise RC buildings in Taiwan. Hence, unreinforced masonry was usually used in the
construction of the exterior opening walls. However, due to some functional and architectural
considerations nowadays, the exterior opening walls of many metropolitan RC buildings are
often monolithically cast with the surrounding beams and columns. These exterior RC
opening walls are usually 12 cm or 15 cm thick and designed with temperature reinforcement.
The reinforcement may be provided for each direction in one or two layers, depending on the
thickness of the wall. The opening style is dominated by architects in most cases. Only the
weight of the opening walls is accounted for in the structural design process. Thus, they are
regarded as non-structural elements and their mechanical effects on the building frame are
neglected. A very common type of the exterior open walls is defined as parapet walls, as
shown in Figure 1. It is usually around 1 m high above the floor and quite popular for
buildings without balconies.
Ou et al. (2019) have investigated the effects of openings on the seismic resistance of
external RC walls. They indicated that the locations of openings could influence the lateral
strength of the wall specimens. On the other hand, experimental studies were also conducted
to investigate the effects of masonry infilled walls without and with openings on the collapse
 TSAI

resistance of building frames under column loss (Stringer and Orton 2013, Li et al. 2016,
Shan et al. 2016). The test results indicated that the non-structural infilled walls with and
without openings could both moderately increase the collapse resistance building frames.
Erena et al. (2019) indicated that the structural span length and story height may affect the
contribution of the concrete bricks to the collapse.

Figure 1. The typical external parapet walls.

RC walls, with or without openings, were usually considered as structural components in

most published studies with their seismic strengths as the main concerns. Very limited studies
were related to their structural resistance contribution as they were regarded as non-structural
components. The numerical study by Tsai and Huang (2013) indicated that with a same
opening rate, different types of exterior non-structural RC walls could have different influence
on the collapse resistances. However, the variations of structural design parameters may also
generate varied mechanical interaction with the exterior RC walls. Therefore, this study
focused on the influence of some selected structural design parameters on the resistance
contribution from the parapet walls. An inverted T-section model was validated for simulating
the integral flexural strength of the wall and underneath beam. Seven RC building frames with
varied span lengths, number of stories, and seismic coefficients were designed. Nonlinear
static pushover and pushdown analyses were respectively conducted for the lateral seismic
and progressive collapse resistance of the building frames with and with considering the
parapet walls. Effects of the design parameters on the variation of resistance were clarified
from the analysis results.

2. MODELING OF THE PARAPET RC WALL

2.1. Validation of the Shell-Frame Model

The RC building could be simulated with beam-column elements as the frame members
and shell elements as the parapet walls. Multi-layered shell element has been available in
several commercial structural analysis programs and is the most direct model for the RC walls
(Shayanfar and Javidan 2017). In the multi-layered shell element, concrete and steel
reinforcement were considered as several fully-bonded layers along the thickness of the wall.
Steel reinforcement was modeled as orthotropic layers with respect to their directions.
Experimental studies for the column-loss response of moment frame with parapet RC walls
are not common. Hence, the test result of a non-ductile RC frame infilled with RC shear wall
with openings by Tseng et al. (2018) was used to verify the accuracy of the shell-frame model.
Figure 2(a) shows the redrawn design drawing of the WO1D specimen, which was used to
investigate the effect of the opening shear walls on the horizontal cyclic response of the RC
frame. Since the test result revealed that most of the damages were concentrated on the walls
and columns, the horizontal behavior of the test specimen could be similar to the vertical
column-loss response of a moment frame with parapet RC walls.

2
 TSAI

Wall reinforcement
Single layer #3@20 2 1400
410 #3@20 #6
30 50 250 50 30 30 1200

50
50

1000
Wall

Load (kN)
reinforcement
#3@30 Single layer 800
170

170
#3@20
600
60

1 #6 1

400
70

70
Experiment
95 60 95
80 200 Shell + beam-column elements
50 50 250 50 50
Section 2-2
#3@30
2
0
#6
0 1 2 3 4 5
30

50 250 50 Displacement (cm)

350 Unit: cm
Section 1-1 Figure 2(b). Comparison of the cyclic loading
Figure 2(a). The WO1D specimen. test and the simulation results.

fc f c'xr fs
fc =
2 f c'r ε cu − ε c
r − 1 + xr fc = ( ) fu
f’c r − 1 + 2 r ε cu − 2ε c'

fy

x = ε c / ε c' f s = f y + ( fu − f y )
ε − ε sh
r = E /( E − f c'/ ε c') ε u − ε sh

ε’c 2ε’c εu εc εy εsh εu εs

Figure 3(a). Stress-strain model for concrete. Figure 3(b). Stress-strain model for steel.

The compressive strength of concrete was 22.2 MPa and the yield strength was 394.2 MPa
for the #3 rebar in the 12 cm walls, 522.5 MPa for the #6 rebar in the beam, and 518.8 MPa
for the #6 rebar in the columns, respectively, from the material test results by Tseng et al.
(2018). Unconfined stress-strain model proposed by Mander et al. (1984) was adopted for the
concrete, as shown in Figure 3(a). A simplified stress-strain model was used for the
reinforcement, as shown in Figure 3(b). As mentioned in the previous paragraph, the 12 cm
opening shear walls were simulated with multi-layered shell elements. Full body constraints
were imposed on the frame joints and the corner nodes of the shear walls. Partial equal
constraints (except the one along the longitudinal axis of frame members) were imposed on
the interfaces between the frame and the shear walls. Lumped plastic hinges were assigned to
the ends of frame members. The plastic hinges properties were determined from the strengths
of sectional cracking moment, crash moment, and 70% crash moment, which were estimated
from sectional analysis. Figure 2(b) show the comparison between the envelope of the cyclic
loading test by Tseng et al. (2018) and the pushover curve of the shell-frame model. The
numerical model could be validated from the consistent results.

2.2 Inverted T-section model

Although the shell-frame model was shown to be capable of capturing the nonlinear
response of the RC frame with opening wall, the required execution time could be very long
for a prototype RC building frame with parapet walls. Since the parapet wall is monolithically
cast with the underneath rectangular beam section, a planar beam-column sub-assemblage
was used to evaluate if they could be simulated with an inverted T-section model. The beam-
column sub-assemblage was extracted from the first floor of a seismically designed five-story

3
 TSAI

RC frame, which is introduced in a later section. It had four bays with a constant 6 m span
length and the middle bottom column was removed, as shown in Figure 4.
1 15

w w w w

100
#3@15
600
#3@10
1
6-#7

60
600 600 600 600 3-#7

Unit: cm 45 Section 1-1

Figure 4. The beam-column sub-assemblage for model validation.

2 1.5

Rectangular section Inverted T-section

1.5
1

1
0.5

0.5

M/My
M/My

0
0

-0.5
-0.5
Hinge model
Hinge model
-1 Sectional analysis
-1 Sectional analysis

-1.5 -1.5
-0.2 -0.15 -0.1 -0.05 0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 -0.15 -0.1 -0.05 0 0.05 0.1 0.15
Rotation (rad) Rotation (rad)

Figure 5(a). Normalized moment-rotation Figure 5(b). Normalized moment-rotation

curves of the rectangular sections. curves of the inverted-T sections.

3500 1200

3000 1000

2500
Strain energy (kN-m)

800
Load (kN)

2000
600
1500
400
1000
Inverted T-section Inverted T-section
200
500 Layered shell + beam-column Layered shell + beam-column

0 0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Displacement (cm) Displacement (cm)

Figure 6(a).The load-deflection curves of the Figure 6(b).Cumulative energy curves of the
two models. two models.

Pinned-end conditions were assumed for all the column stubs. Uniformly distributed
gravitational loadings were imposed on the beam members. Two different finite element
models were constructed for the sub-assemblage. One was constructed with rectangular beam
elements and layered shell elements as the parapet walls. However, they were combined into
inverted T-section beam elements in the other model. Lumped hinges were assigned to the
ends of the rectangular beam elements in the former model and the ends of the inverted T-
section members in the latter. The hinge properties were determined from the sectional
analysis results. Figures 5(a) and 5(b) show the normalized moment-rotation curves of the
rectangular and inverted-T sections, respectively. The piecewise linear approximations of the
curves for the structural models were also shown in the figures. Nonlinear static pushdown
analyses were carried out for the two models under uniformly distributed beam loads. The

4
 TSAI

loading resistance versus deflection of the column-removed joint responses of the two models
is compared in Figure 6(a). It is seen that although the inverted T-section model revealed
slightly larger initial stiffness than the more rigorous shell-frame model, they had similar
variations of loading resistance. In addition, they had similar variations of the accumulated
strain energy as shown in Figure 6(b). Hence, the inverted T-section members could be used
to account for the influence of the exterior parapet walls.

3. SEISMIC DESIGN AND CHARACTERISTICS OF BUILDING MODELS

Seven RC moment-resisting building frames were designed based on the Seismic Design
Specifications and Commentary for Buildings of Taiwan (MOI 2005). The compressive
strength of concrete and tensile yield strength of reinforcement were assumed as 27.5 MPa
(280 kgf/cm2) and 412 MPa (4200 kgf/cm2), respectively. Five-, ten-, and fifteen-story
building frames were considered and a constant story height of 3 m was adopted. As shown in
Figure 7, a regular four bay-by-three bay plan layout was used and three different span
lengths, 4, 6, and 10 m, were considered. The design dead load (DL) was composed of the
frame weight, a uniform slab loading of 3.92 kN/m2 (400 kgf/m2) and the weight of 24 cm-
thick exterior non-structural brick walls. The service live load (LL) is 1.73 kN/m2 (300
kgf/m2).

4 Table 1 Fundamental periods, yield base

shears, and seismic coefficients
Ly

Building Period (s) Vy (kN) Cs

3
05S04R15 0.523 1878 0.148
Ly

05S06R15 0.576 3263 0.134

2
05S10R15 0.430 12663 0.173
10S06R10 0.958 5299 0.096
Ly

C1
1 10S06R15 0.786 9941 0.158
Lx Lx Lx Lx 10S06R22 0.723 17469 0.260
A B C D E 15S06R15 1.045 18165 0.167
Plan view
Figure 7 Plan layout of the building frames

Three seismic coefficients, C s = 0.10, 0.15, and 0.22 were respectively determined for
typical low, medium, and high seismic regions. The equivalent lateral seismic design load was
determined from C sW and story-wise distributed in an inversely triangular pattern. The
effective structural weight was equal to (1.0DL+0.25LL). Load combinations of
(1.2DL+1.6LL) and (1.2DL+1.0LL+1.0EQ) were used for the structural design. A minimum
beam depth equal to one tenth of its center-to-center span length was used in the sectional
design for minimizing the elastic deflection under service loads. Also, the maximum
reinforcement ratio of beam sections was set as 1.2%. Since the building frames have fewer
bays in the transverse direction, more reinforcement was required for the transverse beams.
However, for the sake of simplicity, same reinforcement ratio was used in both the
longitudinal and transverse directions and same section dimensions were used in each
building frame. The column sections were determined according to the strong column-and-
weak beam mechanism. Table 1 shows the longitudinal fundamental periods of the building
frames. In the table, the buildings were designated by their number of stories, span lengths,
and seismic coefficients. For example, the designation of 10S06R10 stands for the ten-story
building frame with span length of 6 m and seismic coefficient of 0.10.

5
 TSAI

4. NONLINEAR STATIC ANALYSIS FOR STRUCTURAL RESISTANCE

Nonlinear static (NS) analyses were conducted for the lateral seismic resistances and
column-loss resistances of the aforementioned building models. The former was obtained
from the NS pushover analyses under the inversely triangular loads in the longitudinal
direction, while the latter was from the NS pushdown analyses under the bottom C1-column
loss scenario, as indicated in Figure 7, and subject to uniformly distributed gravitational loads.
As mentioned in an earlier section, lumped plastic hinges were assigned to the end of
structural members. Piece-wise linear hinge properties determined from sectional analysis
were adopted for the rectangular and inverted-T beam sections. However, the hinge properties
suggested in the FEMA-356 guidelines (FEMA 2000) were adopted for the column members.
The longitudinal pushover and downward pushdown curves of the seven building frames with
and without the parapet walls were compared.

4.1. Pushover Analysis for Lateral Seismic Resistance

The longitudinal (X) pushover curves of the seven building frames without and with
parapet walls are shown in Figures 8(a) and 8(b), respectively. In the figures, the ordinate is
the base shear normalized by the design structural weight (1.0DL+0.25LL) and the abscissa is
the global drift ratio determined from dividing the roof displacement by the building height.
The yield base shear, Vy, which was determined as the base shear corresponding to the first
appearance of structural hinges, of the seven building frames without parapet walls and the
corresponding seismic coefficient (Cs) are summarized in Table 1. The frames with 10 m span
length present apparently larger normalized seismic resistance than the others in the figures.
This is because that the bottom reinforcement at the beam ends were determined by the
minimum reinforcement requirement that the positive moment strength at joint faces shall be
not less than one-half the negative moment strength provided at that face of the joint. Table 1
indicates that resulting seismic coefficients generally agree with the original design values.

0.5 0.5
Without parapet walls 05S04R15 05S04R15
0.45 0.45 With parapet walls
05S06R15 05S06R15
0.4 0.4
05S10R15
05S10R15
0.35 0.35 10S06R10
R/(1.2DL+0.25LL)

10S06R10
R/(1.2DL+0.25LL)

0.3 0.3 10S06R15

10S06R15
0.25 0.25 10S06R22
10S06R22
15S06R15
0.2 15S06R15 0.2

0.15 0.15

0.1 0.1
0.05 0.05
0 0
0 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 0 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05
Roof drift (rad) Roof drift (rad)

Figure 8(a). Pushover curves without parapet Figure 8(b). Pushover curves with parapet
walls. walls.

The comparison of Figure 8(a) and 8(b) reveals that the peak pushover resistance generally
increased with consideration of the parapet walls. However, the roof drift ratio corresponding
to the peak resistance decreased. From the hinge development process during the pushover
analysis, it was observed that the strong-column and weak-beam mechanism could not be held
with the parapet walls. Since the flexural strengths of the inverted-T sections were
significantly larger than that of the original rectangular ones, the plastic hinges could thus
appear on the column ends earlier than on the beam ends. Due to the larger flexural strength
and smaller plastic rotation capacity of the column hinges, the horizontal seismic resistance
may increase, but with reduced corresponding drift ratio.

6
 TSAI

10 10

9 Without parapet walls 9 With parapet walls

8 05S04R15 05S06R15 05S10R15 10S06R10 05S04R15 05S06R15 05S10R15 10S06R10

8
10S06R15 10S06R22 15S06R15 10S06R15 10S06R22 15S06R15
7 7

R/(1.2DL+0.25LL)
R/(1.2DL+0.25LL)

6 6
5 5
4 4
3 3
2 2
1
1
0
0
0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1
0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1
Chord rotation (rad) Chord rotation (rad)

Figure 9(a). Pseudo-static response curves Figure 9(b). Pseudo-static response curves
without parapet walls. with parapet walls.

4.2. Pushdown Analysis for Progressive Collapse Resistance

Uniform loading pattern was adopted in the NS pushdown analysis. The dynamic effect
under column loss was not considered in the NS analysis. Therefore, the dynamic collapse
resistance was determined from the pseudo-static response curve, which was constructed from
the NS pushdown curve by using the work-energy principle as (Tsai and You 2012)
ud
PCC (u d ) = PNS (u )du / u d (1)
0
where PNS (u ) is the loading resistance from the NS pushdown curve and PCC (u d ) is the
pseudo-static loading resistance at the deflection demand u d . Figures 9(a) and 9(b) show the
pseudo-static response curves of the seven building frames without and with parapet walls,
respectively. The ordinate in the figures is the total imposed gravitational loading normalized
by the design structural weight (1.0DL+0.25LL). The abscissa is the chord rotation defined as
the displacement of the column-removed joint divided by the span length. The dynamic
collapse resistance of the seven building frames under the column loss were then determined
from the peak pseudo-static loading response. It is observed from the figures that the collapse
resistance was generally increased with the parapet walls, especially for the buildings with
shorter span, less story number, and lower seismic design coefficient. Except for the
10S06R22 and 15S06R15 buildings, the collapse resistance was developed at a much smaller
chord rotation. This means that although the collapse resistance was increased with the
parapet walls, the corresponding ductility capacity was significantly reduced. Therefore, it is
more probable to fail in a brittle manner under the column loss conditions.

5. CONCLUSIONS
The influence of a common exterior non-structural RC wall, which was defined as the
parapet wall, on the lateral seismic strength and progressive collapse resistance of building
frames was investigated in this study. The RC parapet walls were combined with the
peripheral rectangular beams into inverted-T beams in the nonlinear structural model.
Piecewise flexural hinge properties of the inverted-T beams were determined from the
sectional analyses and validated with the more rigorous multi-layered shell elements. Seven
moment-resisting RC building frames were designed with varied seismic coefficients, span
lengths, and number of stories. Nonlinear static pushover and pushdown analyses were
conducted to evaluate the mechanical contribution of the parapet walls to the structural
seismic and progressive collapse resistances, respectively. The analysis results indicated that

7
 TSAI

the peak pushover resistance generally increased with the parapet walls. However, the roof
drift ratio corresponding to the peak resistance decreased. Similarly, the progressive collapse
resistance could increase with the parapet walls, especially for the buildings with shorter span,
less story number, and lower seismic design coefficient. In general, the seismic and collapse
resistance increments decreased with increased span length, number of stories, and seismic
design coefficient. This implies that from the viewpoint of strength, the negligence of the
mechanical contribution of the exterior RC parapet walls could be practically acceptable for
medium-to-high building frames located in high seismic hazard zones. It should be reminded
that for lower building frames with the parapet walls, the resistance enhancement may be
accompanied with significantly reduced corresponding ductility.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The financial support provided by the Ministry of Science and Technology, Taiwan, under
the grant number MOST 07-2221-E-020-005 is gratefully acknowledged.

REFERENCES (IN ALPHABETICAL ORDER OF LAST NAME)

Erena, N., Brunesib, E., & Nascimbeneb, R., (2019), Influence of masonry infills on the
progressive collapse resistance of reinforced concrete framed buildings, Engineering
Structures, 178, 375-394.
FEMA 356 (2000), Prestandard and Commentary for the Seismic Rehabilitation of Buildings,
Federal Emergency Management Agency, Report No. FEMA 356, Washington, D.C.
Li, S., Shan, S., Zhai, C., & Xie, L., (2016), Experimental and numerical study on progressive
collapse process of RC frames with full-height infill walls, Engineering Failure Analysis,
59, 57-68.
Mander, J.B., Priestley, M.J.N., & Park, R., (1984), Theoretical Stress-Strain Model for
Confined Concrete, Journal of Structural Engineering, ASCE, 114(3), 1804-1826.
MOI, Seismic Design Specifications and Commentary for Buildings of Taiwan, Construction
and Planning Agency, Ministry of the Interior (MOI), Taipei, Taiwan, 2005.
Ou, Y.C., Hoang, L., & Roh, H. (2019), Cyclic behavior of squat reinforced concrete walls
with openings typical of exterior walls of row houses in Taiwan, Engineering Structures,
195, 231–242.
Shan, S., Li, S., Xu, S., & Xie, L., (2016), Experimental study on the progressive collapse
performance of RC frames with infill walls, Engineering Structures, 111, 80-92.
Shayanfar, M.A. & Javidan, M.M., (2017), Progressive collapse-resisting mechanisms and
robustness of RC frame-shear wall structures, Journal of Performance of Constructed
Facilities, 31 (5), 04017045-1-12.
Stinger S.M. & Orton S.L., (2013), Experimental evaluation of disproportionate collapse
resistance in reinforced concrete frames, ACI Structural Journal, 111(3), 521-529.
Tsai, M.H. & Huang, T.C., (2013), Progressive collapse analysis of an RC building with
exterior partially infilled walls, Structural Design of Tall and Special Buildings, 22(4),
327-348.
Tsai, M.H. & You, Z.K., (2012), Experimental evaluation of inelastic dynamic amplification
factors for progressive collapse analysis under sudden support loss, Mechanics Research
Communications, 40, 56-62.
Tseng, C.C., Chen, L.P., & Hwang, S.J., (2018), Experimental Study of Non-ductile Frame
Infilled with RC Shear Wall with Openings, Structural Engineering, 33(1), 68-83. (in
Chinese)