Asian Journal of Civil Engineering

https://doi.org/10.1007/s42107-023-00863-3

METHODOLOGY

Seismic performance of confined masonry walls with different infill

materials: a comparative study
Ankur Thakur1 · K. Senthil1

Received: 11 June 2023 / Accepted: 31 July 2023

© The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023

Abstract
The choice of infill material in confined masonry construction presents a conflicting scenario between strength and density.
The heavier material usually stronger also attracts more earthquake force because of its larger mass. Therefore, this study
presents the comparison of four contemporary materials, viz. AAC blocks, LWC panels, fly ash bricks and clay bricks con-
cerning their suitability as infill materials in the confined masonry of a four-story frame using SAP 2000, static linear analysis.
The results of 120 mm infill thickness considering zone II as the base case thus predicted from the simulation were compared
and validated with a strut and tie model of a confined masonry structure available in the literature. For joint displacement,
the maximum percentage change is 200.4% when using a wall thickness of 120 mm in zone V. Similarly, the maximum shell
stress experiences a percentage change of 13.1% with a 120 mm wall thickness in zone V, while the minimum change is
− 8.8% with a 200 mm wall thickness in zone II. In case of base shear maximum percentage change reaches 286% with a wall
thickness of 200 mm in zone V. The absolute values of the forces and deformations obtained from linear analysis may not
be fully accurate however, the relative differences between different configurations can still be meaningful and informative.
The results of base shear and displacement are used to determine the best infill material that will attract the least earthquake
force, displace the least and maintain the perfect joint between the infill and frame as idealized in CM walls. The results
indicate that AAC blocks demonstrate the better performance among all the materials considered. While LWC concrete
panels and fly ash bricks also performed well, they may require minor modifications in column size for specific scenarios.

Keywords AAC block · Clay brick · Fly ash brick · LWC panel · Infill material · Confined masonry · Strut and Tie method

Introduction masonry (URM) construction. The construction method of

Masonry is one of the oldest and most prevalent materials
for affordable construction of low to medium-rise buildings
due to its desirable properties in aspects such as durabil-
ity, sound, and heat insulation. However, its use in medium
to high seismic regions is always open to question due to
its poor performance, resulting in heavy economic and life
losses. Due to its satisfactory performance in past earth-
quakes, the CM construction system has emerged as an
improved masonry structural system over the unreinforced
* Ankur Thakur
ankurthakur1234@gmail.com
* K. Senthil
urssenthil85@yahoo.co.in
1
Department of Civil Engineering, Dr. B R Ambedkar
National Institute of Technology Jalandhar,
Jalandhar 144008, India
CM buildings is quite similar to reinforced concrete (RC)
buildings with a reversal in the construction order as the
walls are built first in the former, and then columns and
beams are poured in afterward to enclose the wall. The verti-
cal members known as tie-columns and horizontal members
known as tie-beams ensure the confining effect, which in
turn enhances the overall seismic performance of the build-
ing when subjected to lateral forces, Erberik et al. (2019)
and Meli et al. (2011). The walls are primarily responsible
for resisting the lateral load, and confining elements help
the structure to act in unison and delay the diagonal ten-
sion, thus imparting additional tensile strength. Erberik et al.
(2019), Meli (1990) observed that low-rise CM structures
perform satisfactorily even in severe seismic activity. On
the other hand, URM structures appear sensitive to seismic
action even at modest levels of seismicity. CM construction
is commonly used in earthquake-prone countries and has
been widely promoted in seismically active areas, Astroza

13
Vol.:(0123456789)

et al. (2012), Tanner and Carboni (2010). In India, the first
large-scale use of medium-rise CM building was in the
construction of 36 CM buildings in IIT Gandhinagar’s new
campus. According to preliminary cost estimates, CM con-
struction saved between 10 and 15% of the cost of alternative
RC frame construction. This cost savings is due to the use
of less concrete and steel in CM structures due to smaller
member sizes when compared to RC frame buildings, Jain
et al. (2014).
CM buildings have shown better in-plane and out-of-
plane performance during past earthquakes such as the 1939
Chilean earthquake (M7.8), Mexico 1985 (M8.0), Peru 2007
(M8.0), and Colombia 1999 (M6.2), Tanner and Carboni
(2010), Constantinescu (2017) and Karantoni et al. (2018).
CM is already adopted as a sustainable construction meth-
odology in many countries such as the UK, Germany, Chile,
Portugal, etc., and is currently a research topic in many
developing countries like India and Iran Thakur and Akbar
(2022). The type of infill material in CM walls considerably
impacts the economy, speed, and efficiency of construction
and the overall seismic behavior of walls. Studies conducted
in the past on CM walls are mostly limited to conventional
burnt solid clay units as the infill material. These solid
clay units are brittle, which results in an undesirable dam-
age pattern of CM building due to low ductility, low shear
strength along with lack of integral action between masonry
units, Yekrangnia (2017). CM construction is also economi-
cal when compared to RC construction mainly due to the
smaller cross-section of the tie beams and tie columns mak-
ing it a more affordable and sustainable construction prac-
tice in developing countries, Marques and Lourenço (2014).
Substantial studies have been carried out during the last two
decades on sustainable construction materials, Kaveh et al.
(2013), Kaveh and Zakian (2014), Kaveh (2014) and Zakian
and Kaveh (2020). Materials such as AAC blocks and LWC
concrete blocks possess superior mechanical and physical
properties compared to burnt clay bricks and are readily
available. The consistent mechanical qualities, low specific
weight, ease of laying, and sound insulation properties have
allowed these sustainable materials to expand worldwide.
There is a pressing need to replace the inefficient walling
units with more efficient ones.
Considering the importance of infill material, in the pre-
sent work, an effort has been made to compare four contem-
porary materials concerning their suitability as infill mate-
rial in CM by modeling and analysis of a four-story frame
in SAP 2000. Various modeling approaches and techniques
used by researchers in the past for the analysis of CM walls
and buildings are Finite element models (FEM), Equivalent
frame model (EFM), equivalent strut model (ESM), and
Strut-and-tie model (STM), Ghaisas et al. (2017), Crisafulli
et al. (2000), Filippou et al. (2019), Materazzi (1991). The
FEM-based analysis involves much computational effort
13
Asian Journal of Civil Engineering
and is rarely employed in the traditional seismic design of
masonry and CM buildings. On the other hand, EFM has
gained popularity because of its ease of use in linear-elastic
analysis of URM and RM structures. Still, its application
to CM structures is limited because of its imprecision in
analyzing walls with openings. If the load path for a wall
structure subjected to combined gravity and lateral load-
ing is known, the STM technique can be used efficiently to
analyze and design CM walls with openings. Ghaisas et al.
provided detailed instructions for creating the STM (strut-
and-tie model) for CM walls. The behaviour of uniaxial
cyclic loading between crack surfaces in concrete was stud-
ied for various models with varying aspect ratios of walls,
with and without openings for single and multi-story build-
ings. Rankawat et al. (2018) proposed an Equivalent Truss
Model (ETM) for CM walls with openings by idealizing a
CM wall system as a truss structure and modelling masonry
panels and RC confining elements as diagonal compression
struts and ties. Tripathy and Singhal (2019) proposed a strut-
and-tie method for estimating the in-plane shear capacity of
CM walls. The simulation was carried out using a damage
plasticity-based model.
CM is distinguished by the fact that the RC confining ele-
ments are cast only after the masonry panels have been con-
structed, allowing them to behave jointly and compositely
when subjected to seismic and gravity loads, even though
both have divergent material properties. As a result, the dis-
tribution of stresses and strains along the masonry and RC
sections is complicated, particularly at the interface of the
two materials. The relative strength of each material and the
connection efficiency between the masonry panel and RC
tie-elements impact the wall composite behavior. Substantial
ductility could be achieved if the column has a sufficient
section and reinforcement to preclude propagation of the
diagonal crack into the corner. A good interface between
masonry wall panels and concrete tie columns improves the
seismic resilience of CM walls. Vertical cracks on the face of
wall-frame connections are mainly responsible for the fail-
ure of brick walls; hence, the proper wall-frame connection
is prudent in increasing the structure seismic performance,
Wijaya et al. (2011). The primary research area associated
with CM walls is their behavior in respect of gravity and
in-plane lateral loading. The construction sequences in CM
construction automatically develop a superior integration
between the masonry and RC elements. In comparison to
URM and infilled RC frames, the chances of failure of CM
walls due to out-of-plane failure are very low, Meli et al.
(2011). In CM walls subjected to in-plane lateral loads,
possible four different failure modes may occur due to
very heavy vertical load on the wall, and low compressive
strength of masonry, diagonal-tension failure due to low
masonry tensile strength, shear sliding and flexural failure
Asian Journal of Civil Engineering
Fig. 1  Possible failure modes
in CM walls Marques and
Lourenço (2019)
due to yielding of longitudinal reinforcement in tie-columns
shown in Fig. 1, Marques and Lourenço (2019), Yekrangnia
et al. (2017).
With the increasing focus on energy-efficient and sus-
tainable building material, the use of lower-density AAC
masonry, LWC panels, and fly ash bricks are becoming
popular Kumar et al. (2021). The low mass density of these
materials results in lower inertia forces during earthquakes
when compared with conventional masonry buildings of
the same size. The efficiency of horizontal reinforcement
in terms of improving masonry wall resistance and strain
capacity could result in a significant increase in the overall
seismic performance of the building, Penna et al. (2015).
Costa et al. (2011) highlighted the potential of AAC for
application in countries with moderate to high seismicity. A
shaking table study was performed by Tomazevic and Gams
(2012) aimed at investigating the response of confined AAC
masonry buildings against seismic ground motion and high-
lighted the importance of tie-columns and AAC masonry.
All the tested models showed adequate seismic behavior as
the tie-columns prevented the disintegration and flexural
failure of walls. CM building employing LWC panels is a
cost-effective construction technology that performs well
without sustaining any significant damage and can be used
for low- to medium-rise buildings, Chourasia et al. (2020).
Salinas and Lazares (2018) investigated the seismic behavior
of CM buildings with standard and tubular bricks. The shear
capacity of the masonry wall with standard bricks was found
to be lower when compared with tubular bricks.
Based on the detailed literature, it was observed that the
application of new construction materials to partition walls
was found to be limited, however their use is increasing pro-
gressively in load-bearing walls. Therefore, CM walls with
different infill materials are focused to study their seismic
behavior subjected to earthquake loading. The seismic per-
formance of CM walls with varying infill materials (AAC
blocks, LWC panels, fly ash bricks, and standard clay bricks)
is compared using elastic analysis of a simplified model of a
four-storied CM building. In order to achieve reliable results,
a mesh convergence and validation is performed and com-
pared to the base model. The column designs are examined
in accordance with IS: 456 (2000), and the stress and strain
are measured to ensure that they were within the material
linear limits. Further, the analysis is carried out considering
the wall thicknesses of 120, 150 and 200 mm and zones
II, III, IV, and V as per IS 1893 (part 1) 2016. The results
of base shear and displacement are used to recommend the
optimal infill material that would attract the least amount
of seismic force, displace the least amount of material, and
maintain the perfect bond between the infill and frame as
envisaged in CM walls.
Numerical models and methodology
Numerical models
The study involved evaluating the performance of different
materials, namely AAC Blocks, LWC concrete panels, fly
ash bricks, and conventional clay bricks, as infill in CM con-
struction. SAP 2000 was used for the analysis. Though there
are no specific codes on CM in India, guidelines regarding
construction of CM is available in NBC 2016 (BIS, 2016).
Some of the important points mentioned in NBC-2016
pertaining to CM construction are: CM buildings can be
constructed upto 5 storeys depending on the compressive
strength of building unit. The thickness of the masonry walls
should not be less than 100 or 114 mm. The reinforced con-
crete columns and beams should have a minimum grade of
Fe 415. Maximum spacing of tie-columns is restricted to
4 m and minimum four HYSD bars to be provided as vertical
reinforcement in the columns and the horizontal reinforce-
ment should be provided in the form of hoops. The spacing
of the ties and hoops should not exceed 300 mm. These
things have been checked while designing CM buildings
in this study, however there are no designing guidelines or
design calculations are mentioned in NBC-2016. Some other
13

Fig. 2  SAP model subjected to earthquake force and gravity load
Fig. 3  Reference Model (Brzev & Gavilan, 2016)
codes like Eurocode 6 and 8, Algerian Code (MHUV, 2003)
and Mexican code (SMIE, 2004) provide detailed guidelines
on the method and designing calculations for CM structures.
Algerian code suggests Strut and Tie method while Mexican
code suggests Wide-Column method for analysis and design.
13
Asian Journal of Civil Engineering
For the study, a four-story CM wall with openings was
modeled under gravity and seismic loading, and the refer-
ence model used for validation was adopted from Brzev and
Gavilan (2016), see Figs. 2 and 3. The models were adjusted
slightly in terms of wall thicknesses, loads, and seismic
zones after validation. The outer columns 150 × 200 mm
(length x width), the inner column is 200 × 200 mm, and
the remaining beams and columns 120 mm × 200 mm for
all floors were considered. The wall thickness is 200 mm,
with window and door openings as 136 mm × 160 mm and
160 mm × 230 mm, respectively. Hinge support is provided
to the columns at the ground floor and the confining walls
are resting on plinth beams. The models for different infill
materials were analyzed statically by changing material
properties based on existing literature. The various mechani-
cal and physical properties of the material considered for
the evaluation are compressive strength, unit weight density,
poison’s ratio, modulus of elasticity, tensile strength, and
coefficient of thermal expansion. The models were subjected
to various load patterns as per IS 1893(1):2016, and linear
static analysis was performed with different load combina-
tions. Additionally, seismic zones II, III, IV, and V were con-
sidered in the analysis. The study aimed to assess the seismic
performance of various infill materials in CM construction
and ensure precise analysis through mesh convergence study
which is discussed in the next section.
Mesh convergence study
The mesh convergence study was carried out subsequently
by varying the size of the sub-mesh as 0.25, 0.2, 0.15, 0.1,
0.05, 0.025 and 0.0125 m. In the reference model, masonry
walls were built using multi-perforated clay block units of
size 240 mm × 200 mm × 120 mm (length × depth × width).
Moduli of elasticity for masonry and concrete were 4800 N/
mm2 and 19799 N/mm2, respectively. The model is meshed
with appropriate element sizes to ensure precise analysis. In
the convergence study, the parameters considered are dis-
placement, axial forces, maximum shell and minimum shell
stress. The percentage change for each sub-mesh size was
compared to the reference sub-mesh size of 0.0125, and the
results are presented in Table 1. This study is carried out for
the fly ash bricks under different meshing conditions. By
comparing the percentage variation in displacement, axial
forces, and maximum and minimum shell stresses of the
elements with respect to the mesh sizes, the convergence
towards the least percentage value was observed at the refer-
ence sub-mesh size of 0.0125 mm.
The model developed in Fig. 2 was subsequently com-
pared with the reference model shown in Fig. 3. Notably, the
axial forces in both models exhibited similarities. However,
slight variations in the results were observed, which can be
attributed to the utilization of different material properties
Asian Journal of Civil Engineering

Table 1  Mesh convergence analysis for different sub meshes

Sub mesh size (m) Displace- Axial force (kN) Max shell Min shell stress (kN/m2) %Max %Min shell stress %D %C
ment (mm) stress (kN/ Shell
m2) stress

0.25 8.57 − 704.99 14,731.52 − 12,154.46 8.3 − 12.4 − 5.5 2.5

0.2 8.60 − 704.97 14,857.72 − 12,816.79 9.4 − 7.8 − 5.2 2.6
0.15 8.59 − 705.06 14,761.78 − 13,367.98 8.5 − 3.7 − 5.3 2.6
0.1 9.12 − 687.06 14,376.32 − 13,831.32 5.7 − 0.4 0.5 − 0.1
0.05 9.24 − 687.34 13,874.96 − 13,935.31 1.9 0.5 0.5 − 0.1
0.025 9.10 − 687.5 13,698.47 − 13,826.97 0.7 − 0.3 0.3 0.0
0.0125 9.07 − 687.92 13,706.12 − 13,874.06 – – – –

Table 2  Comparison of axial axial force the analysis. The masonry wall is modeled as a single unit
Section Calculated axial Theoretical axial % Error
using equivalent properties and hence the effect of mor-
force (kN) force (kN) tar on the masonry unit is not considered. The different
load combinations used for the analysis as per the limit
C1 86.84 82.42 − 5.34 state of collapse are 1.5DL + 1.5LL, 1.5DL + 1.5EQX,
C2 5.32 5.12 − 3.76 and 1.2DL + 1.2LL + 1.2EQX and as per the limit state
C5 81.49 81.75 0.32 of serviceability 1.0DL + 1.0LL, 1.0DL + 1.0EQX and
1.0DL + 0.8LL + 0.8EQX (IS 456, 2000). To account for
dead load and live load, mass sources were incorporated
in the analysis. Specifically, the calculated axial force val- with factors of 1 and 0.25, respectively, based on IS 1893:
ues in the columns were determined as C1 = 86.84 kN, 2016. Additionally, response spectrum functions have been
C2 = 5.32 kN, and C5 = 81.49 kN. To quantify the differ- applied for different zones, using a response reduction factor
ences between the calculated and predicted axial forces with (R) of 5, soil type II, and an importance factor of 1.
the reference model, the percentage error was computed and The analysis was carried out by simultaneously chang-
is presented in Table 2. ing the wall thicknesses and the seismic zones along with
load patterns of EQX and response spectrum functions. A
Comparative study and seismic analysis of materials check was performed to ensure the percentage of steel in
the columns is within the acceptable range of 0.8 to 6%.
The properties of different materials, viz. Autoclaved aer- For the models under consideration, the proportion of steel
ated concrete block, Lightweight cellular Panel, fly ash in the bottom columns of cross-Section 150 × 200 mm and
brick & Clay brick listed in the existing literature are shown the centre bottom column of cross-Section 200 × 200 mm
in Table 3 with appropriate values taken into account for exceeds the safe limit. The cross-section of the column was

Table 3  Different properties of AAC, LWC panel, fly ash & Clay brick
Materials properties AAC blocks LWC panels Fly ash bricks Clay bricks

Compressive strength (MPa) 3–5 (4) 3–4 4–10 5–20

Density (Kg/m3) 450–950 (700) 1800–1950 (1875) 1750 1800–1950 (1875)
Unit weight (kN/m3) 6.86 18.39 17.16 18.39
Modulus of elasticity (MPa) 2000–4000 1000–2000 2000–4000 25,000–35000
Poisons coefficient 0.25 0.13 0.16 0.10
Coefficient of thermal expan- 8 × ­10–6 7.2 × ­10–6 7.2 × ­10–6 7.2 × ­10–6
sion (/°C)
Tensile strength (MPa) 0.28–0.30 1–3.5 0.5 1–1.68
Shear modulus (MPa) 767.20 530.97 1758.62 16,818.19
References Iernutan & Babota (2019), Chourasia et al. (2020), Pratap et al. (2019), Bakhteri et al. (2007),
Narayanan & Ramamurthy Assaad et al. (2018), Saito Basha & Kaushik Kaushik et al.
(2000), Raj et al. (2020) (1984), Yasar and Erdogan (2015) (2007)
(2008)

13

increased to 200 × 250 mm to meet the design standards.
The columns and shells were found to be within their elastic
range and passing in all aspects of the AAC block. The dis-
placement of the top left joint was analysed under limit state
of collapse and serviceability. The average of axial forces of
C1, C2, and C5 and maximum and minimum shell stresses
for the bottom most left shell were analysed. The base shear
of the structure was noted for a load combination of EQX.
The maximum and minimum shell stress for models with a
sub-mesh size of 0.025m was observed using the spreadsheet
created by the software.
A comprehensive study was conducted for wall thick-
ness of 120, 150, and 200 mm. The comparison is carried
out for different seismic zones and wall thickness combi-
nations using the 120 mm wall thickness with zone II as
reference. Notably, in the case of fly ash bricks with 200mm
wall thickness, the lower main three columns C1, C2, and
C5 of the model exceeded the maximum rebar of 6% of the
gross area in column design check for seismic zone V. As
a result, the width of the failing column is increased in the
lateral direction.
In case of CM wall with AAC blocks as an infill, the
maximum displacement of the topmost left joint was found
to be 0.7 mm for 120 mm wall thickness and zone V and
the minimum displacement was 0.19 mm observed in zone
II with a wall thickness of 200 mm. The contour diagrams
of the deformed shape at the ground floor left shell and 2nd
floor left shell are shown in Fig. 4a, b, while the entire model
deformed shape is shown in Fig. 4c. For LWC panels maxi-
mum deflection of the topmost left joint was 1.038 mm for
120 mm thickness of wall in zone V and a minimum dis-
placement of 0.292 mm for 200 mm thickness in zone II.
Fig. 4  a Enlarged view of con-
tour diagram at 2nd floor and b
ground floor left shell element
whereas the c deformed shape
of CM wall with resultant con-
tinuous contour for AAC blocks
(Zone V 120 mm wall)
13
Asian Journal of Civil Engineering
The contour diagram of the deformed shape for the maxi-
mum displacement case is shown in Fig. 5a–c. In case of
Fly Ash brick, maximum deflection of topmost left joint
was 0.507 mm in 120 mm thickness in zone V which is
191% more than displacement in zone II. The least value of
displacement of topmost left joint is 0.152 mm for 200 mm
thickness in zone II. The contour diagram of deformed shape
for maximum displacement case is shown in Fig. 6a–c. The
contour diagram of the deformed shape of clay bricks for
maximum displacement case is shown in Fig. 7a–c.
A comparison of the displacement values, axial forces,
maximum shell stress, minimum shell stress, and base shear
was conducted for different seismic zones with varying wall
thicknesses. The reference case was established using a wall
thickness of 120 mm in zone II. The results of this compari-
son were plotted in Fig. 8a representing the displacement
values and Fig. 8b–e displaying the axial forces, maximum
shell stress, minimum shell stress, and base shear, respec-
tively. Similarly, the same comparison was performed for
different infill materials, including AAC blocks, LWC pan-
els, fly ash bricks, and conventional clay bricks, with the
reference case of 120 mm wall thickness in zone II. The
graphs for displacement, axial force, maximum shell stress,
minimum shell stress, and base shear were plotted and pre-
sented in Fig. 9a–e, respectively.
Moreover, the results were also compared for the wall
thickness of 150 mm and 200 mm with different seismic
zones, and the graphs were plotted accordingly. The com-
parison graphs for displacement, axial force, maximum shell
stress, minimum shell stress, and base shear were shown in
Fig. 10a–e, respectively. Finally, it was observed that the
clay brick used as an infill material exhibited a maximum
Asian Journal of Civil Engineering

Fig. 5  a Enlarged view of con-

tour diagram at 2nd floor and
b ground floor left side shell
element and c deformed shape
of CM wall with resultant con-
tinuous contour for LWC panel
(Zone V 120 mm wall)

Fig. 6  a Enlarged view of con-

tour diagram at 2nd floor and
b ground floor left side shell
element whereas c Deformed
shape of CM wall with resultant
continuous contour for Fly Ash
brick (zone V 120 mm)

displacement of 0.141 mm for 120 mm wall thickness in Results and discussion

zone V and a minimum displacement of 0.079 m for 200 mm
wall thickness in zone II. The comparison graphs for dis-
placement, axial force, maximum shell stress, minimum
shell stress, and base shear were plotted against the refer-
ence case of 120 mm wall thickness in zone II, and they are
presented in Fig. 11a–e, respectively.
Taking wall thickness of 120 mm in zone II as a refer-
ence a change in the displacement of the joint, the axial
forces, base shear, and maximum and minimum shell stress
is observed for different wall thickness and seismic zones.
The maximum percentage change for each material is listed
in Table 4. Linear analysis can help in identifying the criti-
cal sections in CM walls, aiding in design and detailing
of reinforcement. In all cases, the maximum % change for

13
 Asian Journal of Civil Engineering

Fig. 7  a Enlarged view of con-

tour diagram at 2nd floor and
b ground floor shell element
whereas c deformed shape of
CM wall with resultant continu-
ous contour for clay brick (zone
V 120 mm)

Fig. 8  Comparison of a dis- 4

% Column force
placement b axial force c max. 220
% Displacement

(a) 2 (b)
shell stress d min. shell stress e
base shear for AAC blocks 140 0
-2
60
-4
-20 -6
2 3 4 5 2 3 4 5
Seismic zones Seismic zones
15 10
% Max shell stress

10 (c) (d)
% Min shell

5
stress

0
0
-5
-10 -10
2 3 4 5 2 3 4 5
Seismic Zones Seismic zones

300
(e)
% Base Shear

200

100

0
2 3 4 5
Seismic zones
120mm 150 mm 200 mm

displacement is with 120 mm wall thickness for zone V. The
maximum % change in base shear is for 200 mm wall thick-
ness of seismic zone V. The maximum % change in axial
force is for 120 mm wall thickness with zone V for AAC, fly
ash brick, and clay brick, and that for LWC panel is 200 mm
wall thickness zone V. The stresses developed in the shell for
AAC blocks are approximately half that of fly ash and nearly
the same as of the LWC panel. Without any infill material,
it can be concluded that a bare frame needs to have a higher
cross-section of the column as the seismic zone increases.
The analysis showed that for AAC blocks as infill
material with a 120 mm wall thickness, the rebar percent-
age was sufficient to resist forces under seismic forces as
per IS 1893(part I): 2016. With the increasing seismic
zones, an increase in the shell stresses was observed but
found within the range of compressive strength of the

13
Asian Journal of Civil Engineering

Fig. 9  Comparison of a dis- 150 10

placement b axial force c max.

% Column Force
% Displacement
shell stress d min. shell stress e 100 (a) 8 (b)
base shear for LWC Panels 50 6
0 4
-50 2
-100 0
2 3 4 5 2 3 4 5
Seismic zones Seismic zones

20 10

% Max shell stress

(c) (d)
15

% Min shell
10

stress
5
5
0
-5 0
2 3 4 5 2 3 4 5
Seismic zones Seismic zones

400
(e)
% Base shear

200

0
2 3 4 5
Seismic zones
120mm 150 mm 200 mm

material. Further, the AAC model is analyzed for the wall
thickness of 150 mm and 200 mm. The gradual increase
and decrease in maximum shell stress and minimum shell
stress have been observed respectively. The LWC panel
having a compressive strength of nearly 3200 kN/m2 did
not fail in column design check for 200 mm wall thick-
nesses. For some cases, the column size was increased
in the lateral direction of seismic force applied. Also,
the min shell stresses were found below the compressive
strength of the material. So, for the LWC panel, it can
be concluded that the material can be used for different
seismic zone by changing its column size dimension.
The fly ash material, with a compressive strength of
9800 kN/m2, demonstrated safety in compression but had
higher corresponding stresses than AAC and LWC pan-
els. Tensile strength analysis showed AAC models fail-
ing in tension for zone IV with 120 mm wall thickness
and zone V with 120 mm and 150 mm thickness walls.
LWC models remained below the tensile strength limit,
while fly ash and clay brick models exceeded the limit for
all seismic zones and wall thicknesses. An analysis of a
bare frame without infill material revealed failing column
design checks for some beams in zone II. Modification of
column dimensions was required to address these failures.
The maximum displacement, axial force, and base shear
were highest for the bare frame in seismic zone V. Col-
umn cross-sections were increased for the failing columns
in such cases.
Conclusion
The choice of infill material largely influences the seis-
mic behaviour of CM structures. It was observed that the
material compressive strength and wall thickness signifi-
cantly enhance the seismic performance and in-plane shear
capacity of the wall. The widespread use of burnt clay
bricks has a negative impact on the environment. There-
fore, it is essential to look for more environment-friendly
and sustainable materials such as AAC blocks, LWC con-
crete panels and fly ash bricks etc. This necessitates the
prediction of the suitability of these materials as an infill

13
 Asian Journal of Civil Engineering

Fig. 10  Comparison of a dis- 220 4

placement b axial force c max.

% Column force
% Displacement
170 (a) (b)
shell stress d min. shell stress e 2
base shear for fly ash bricks 120
0
70
20 -2
-30 -4
2 3 4 5 2 3 4 5
Seismic zones Seismic zones

10 6

% Max shell stress

(c) ( (d)

% Min shell
5
4

stress
0
2
-5
-10 0
2 3 4 5 2 3 4 5
Seismic zones Seismic zones

% Base shear 400

(e)

200

0
2 3 4 5
Seismic zones
120mm 150 mm 200 mm

in CM walls in high seismic regions. The properties of dif- still meet the design requirements for most cases. Joint
ferent material such as AAC blocks, LWC concrete panel, displacement shows a maximum percentage change of
fly ash brick & clay bricks used has been considered from 107.6% with a 120 mm wall thickness in zone V. Simi-
the available literature. Also, the study examines seismic larly, the maximum shell stress experiences a 17.2%
analysis of CM walls of different thicknesses with different percentage change with the same wall thickness in zone
infill materials and seismic zones and following conclu- V. As for base shear, the maximum percentage change
sions were drawn; reaches 320% with a 200 mm wall thickness in zone V.
Regarding axial forces, the peak percentage change is
• AAC blocks demonstrated good performance in terms of 9.2% with a 120 mm wall thickness in zone V, while the
displacements, axial forces, and shell stresses. They con- minimum change is − 4.1% with a 200 mm wall thick-
sistently met design requirements across different seis- ness in zone II. These observations highlight the sig-
mic zones and wall thicknesses. For joint displacement, nificant impact of varying wall thickness and seismic
the maximum percentage change is 200.4% when using zones on joint displacement, shell stress, base shear,
a wall thickness of 120 mm in zone V with respect to and axial forces.
zone II. Similarly, the maximum shell stress experiences • Fly ash bricks performed reasonably well however may
a percentage change of 13.1% with a 120 mm wall thick- require some modifications in column size to meet the
ness in zone V, while the minimum change is − 8.8% safety criteria, especially in higher seismic zones. The
with a 200 mm wall thickness in zone II. The noteworthy maximum percentage change in joint displacement for
observation is in the base shear, where the maximum fly ash bricks is 191.4% with a 120 mm wall thickness
percentage change reaches 286% with a wall thickness in zone V. For base shear, the maximum percentage
of 200 mm in zone V. Regarding the axial forces, the change reaches 315% with a 200 mm wall thickness in
percentage change is at its peak, reaching 2.3%, when zone V. When it comes to axial forces, the peak per-
using a 120 mm wall thickness in zone V. centage change is 2.6% with a 120 mm wall thickness
• LWC concrete panels exhibit relatively higher displace- in zone V. Additionally, the maximum and minimum
ments and stresses compared to AAC blocks, but they

13
Asian Journal of Civil Engineering

Fig. 11  Comparison of a dis- 200 10

placement b axial force c max.

% Displacement

% Column force
150 (a) (b)
shell stress d min. shell stress e 0
base shear for clay bricks 100
50 -10
0
-50 -20
2 3 4 5 2 3 4 5
Seismic zones Seismic zones

15 15

% Max shell stress

(c) (d)

% Min shell
10 10

stress
5 5

0 0
2 3 4 5 2 3 4 5
Seismic zones Seismic zones

400

% Base Shear
200

0
2 3 4 5
Seismic zones
(e)
120mm 150 mm 200 mm

Table 4  Maximum percentage Materials Displacement Axial force Base shear Max. shell stress Min. shell stress
(%) change of properties with
reference to wall thickness AAC​ 200.4 2.3 286 13.3 4.1
120 mm Zone II
LWC panel 107.6 9.2 319.9 17.2 8.3
Fly ash brick 191.4 2.6 314.9 7.3 5.2
Clay brick 166 3.2 320.8 13.8 11.8

percentage changes in shell stress are 13.8% and 11.8%, Author contributions All authors contributed to the study conception
respectively. and design. Material preparation, data collection and analysis were
performed by AT and KS. The first draft of the manuscript was writ-
• The density of the AAC block is the least among the ten by AT and second author commented on previous versions of the
chosen materials resulting to reduce the overall seismic manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.
weight of the structure. Burnt clay bricks were found to
be the least preferred infill material for CM construc- Funding The authors declare that no funds, grants, or other support
were received during the preparation of this manuscript.
tion in seismic regions due to their vulnerability to the
tensile failure. Data availability Data used to support the findings of this study will
be made available on request basis.
Although stronger infill material is preferable from a
strength perspective and it may attract more earthquake force Declarations
as it tends to be denser, hence giving rise to conflicting situa- Conflict of interest The authors have no relevant financial or non-fi-
tions. With the increasing use of these new innovative mate- nancial interests to disclose.
rials, it becomes imperative to carry out more numerical and
experimental studies to redress this contradictory situation
and to improve the overall seismic behaviour of CM walls.

13
 Asian Journal of Civil Engineering

References Structural and Civil Engineering, 12(3), 270–290. https://d​ oi.o​ rg/​
10.​1007/​s11709-​017-​0390-1
Kaushik, H. B., Rai, D. C., & Jain, S. K. (2007). Stress-strain character-
Assaad, J., Chakar, E., & Zéhil, G. P. (2018). Testing and modeling
istics of clay brick masonry under uniaxial compression. Journal
the behavior of sandwich lightweight panels against wind and
of Materials in Civil Engineering, 19(9), 728–739. https://d​ oi.o​ rg/​
seismic loads. Engineering Structures, 175(July), 457–466.
10.​1061/​(asce)​0899-​1561(2007)​19:​9(728)
https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​engst​r uct.​2018.​08.​041
Kaveh, A. (2014). Computational structural analysis and finite
Astroza, M., Moroni, O., Brzev, S., & Tanner, J. (2012). Seismic per-
element methods. Springer Verlag. https://​d oi.​o rg/​1 0.​1 007/​
formance of engineered masonry buildings in the 2010 Maule
978-3-​319-​02964-1
earthquake. Earthquake Spectra. https://​d oi.​o rg/​1 0.​1 193/1.​
Kaveh, A., Kalateh-Ahani, M., & Fahimi-Farzam, M. (2013). Con-
40000​40
structability optimal design of reinforced concrete retaining walls
Bakhteri, J., Makhtar, A. M., & Sambasivam, S. (2007). Finite Element
using a multi-objective genetic algorithm. Structural Engineer-
Modelling of Structural Clay Brick Masonry Subjected to Axial
ing and Mechanics, 47(2), 227–245. https://d​ oi.o​ rg/1​ 0.1​ 2989/s​ em.​
Compression. Journal Teknologi, 41(B), 57–68. https://​doi.​org/​
2013.​47.2.​227
10.​11113/​jt.​v41.​698
Kaveh, A., & Zakian, P. (2014). Optimal seismic design of rein-
Basha, S. H., & Kaushik, H. B. (2015). Evaluation of nonlinear mate-
forced concrete shear wall-frame structures. KSCE Journal of
rial properties of fly ash brick masonry under compression and
Civil Engineering, 18(7), 2181–2190. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​
shear. Journal of Materials in Civil Engineering, 27(8), 04014227.
s12205-​014-​0640-x
https://​doi.​org/​10.​1061/​(asce)​mt.​1943-​5533.​00011​88
Kumar, R., Thakur, A., & Tiwary, A. K. (2021). A comparative study
BIS (2016). National Building Code of India, 2016 Volume 1. National
on conventional clay bricks and autoclaved aerated concrete
Building Code of India, 80
blocks. IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Sci-
Brzev, S., & Gavilan, J. P. (2016). Application of Strut-and-Tie Model
ence. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1088/​1755-​1315/​889/1/​012061
for seismic design of confined masonry shear walls. Brick and
Marques, R., & Lourenço, P. B. (2014). Unreinforced and confined
block masonry (pp. 2399–2408). CRC Press. https://​doi.​org/​10.​
masonry buildings in seismic regions: Validation of macro-ele-
1201/​b21889-​296
ment models and cost analysis. Engineering Structures, 64, 52–67.
Chourasia, A., Singhal, S., & Parashar, J. (2020). Seismic performance
https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​engst​ruct.​2014.​01.​014
evaluation of full-scale confined masonry building using light
Marques, R., & Lourenço, P. B. (2019). Structural behaviour and
weight cellular panels. Journal of Building Engineering. https://​
design rules of confined masonry walls: Review and proposals.
doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​jobe.​2020.​101473
Construction and Building Materials, 217, 137–155. https://​doi.​
Constantinescu, S. (2017). Study of confined masonry buildings in
org/​10.​1016/j.​conbu​ildmat.​2019.​04.​266
seismic areas. Energy Procedia, 112(October 2016), 545–554.
Materazzi, A. L. (1991). Evaluation of compressive strength of
https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​egypro.​2017.​03.​1114
masonry walls by limit analysis. Journal of Structural Engineer-
Costa, A. A., Penna, A., & Magenes, G. (2011). Seismic performance
ing (united States), 117(1), 288–291.
of autoclaved aerated concrete (AAC) masonry: From experimen-
Meli, R. (1990). Behaviour of masonry walls under lateral loads.
tal testing of the in-plane capacity of walls to building response
WCEE, 1, 853–871.
simulation. Journal of Earthquake Engineering. https://​doi.​org/​
Meli. R., Svetlana B., Maximiliano A., Teddy B., Francisco C., Junwu
10.​1080/​13632​46100​36424​13
D., Mohammed F., Tim H., Miha T., (2011). Seismic Design
Crisafulli, F. J., Carr, A. J., & Park, R. (2000). Analytical modelling
Guide For Low-Rise Confined Masonry Buildings Prepared by
of infilled frame structures—A general review. Bulletin of the
Acknowledgments. In World Housing Earthquake Engineer-
New Zealand Society for Earthquake Engineering, 33(1), 30–47.
ing Research Institute, Oakland, California 94612–1934 (Issue
https://​doi.​org/​10.​5459/​bnzsee.​33.1.​30-​47
August)
Erberik, M. A., Citiloglu, C., & Erkoseoglu, G. (2019). Seismic perfor-
Narayanan, N., & Ramamurthy, K. (2000). Structure and properties
mance assessment of confined masonry construction at component
of aerated concrete: A review. Cement and Concrete Composites,
and structure levels. Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering, 17(2),
22(5), 321–329. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/​S0958-​9465(00)​00016-0
867–889. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​s10518-​018-​0468-8
Penna, A., Mandirola, M., Rota, M., & Magenes, G. (2015). Experi-
Filippou, C. A., Kyriakides, N. C., & Chrysostomou, C. Z. (2019).
mental assessment of the in-plane lateral capacity of autoclaved
Numerical Modeling of Masonry-infilled RC Frame. The Open
aerated concrete (AAC) masonry walls with flat-truss bed-joint
Construction & Building Technology Journal, 13(1), 135–148.
reinforcement. Construction and Building Materials, 82, 155–166.
https://​doi.​org/​10.​2174/​18748​36801​91301​0135
https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​conbu​ildmat.​2015.​02.​057
Ghaisas, K. V., Basu, D., Brzev, S., & Pérez Gavilán, J. J. (2017). Strut-
Pratap, A., Thakur, A., Senthil, R., & Kasilingam, S. (2019). Failure
and-Tie Model for seismic design of confined masonry buildings.
Mechanisms along with Constitutive Behaviour and Damage in
Construction and Building Materials, 147, 677–700. https://​doi.​
Concrete Bricks and Infilled Frames Failure Mechanisms along
org/​10.​1016/j.​conbu​ildmat.​2017.​04.​200
with Constitutive Behavior and Damage in Concrete Bricks and
Iernutan, R. A., & Babota, F. (2019). Numerical simulations for auto-
Infilled Frames. 7th International Congress on Computational
claved aerated concrete (AAC) masonry modules reinforced with
Mechanics and Simulation, December, 11–13.
columns of disperse reinforced concrete. Procedia Manufacturing,
Raj, A., Borsaikia, A. C., & Dixit, U. S. (2020). Evaluation of mechani-
32, 908–915. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​promfg.​2019.​02.​302
cal properties of autoclaved aerated concrete (AAC) block and its
Jain, S. K., Basu, D., Ghosh, I., Rai, D. C., Brzev, S., & Bhargava, L.
masonry. Journal of The Institution of Engineers (India): Series
K. (2014). Application of confined masonry in a major project in
A, 101(2), 315–325. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​s40030-​020-​00437-5
India. NCEE 2014 - 10th US National Conference on Earthquake
Rankawat, N., Brzev, S., Jos, J., & Gavil, R. E. Z. (2018). Equivalent
Engineering: Frontiers of Earthquake Engineering, January.
Truss model for non-linear static analysis of confined masonry
https://​doi.​org/​10.​4231/​D3B27​PS05
malls subjected to lateral loading. 16th European Conference on
Karantoni, F., Pantazopoulou, S., & Ganas, A. (2018). Confined
Earthquake Engineering. Thessaloniki. Greece., Junio 18–21.
masonry as practical seismic construction alternative–the
http://​papers.​16ecee.​org/​files/​Contr​ibuti​on 10745
experience from the 2014 Cephalonia Earthquake. Frontiers of
Saito, M. (1984). Tensile fatigue strength of lightweight concrete.
International Journal of Cement Composites and Lightweight

13
Asian Journal of Civil Engineering
Concrete, 6(3), 143–149. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/​0262-​5075(84)​
90002-2
Salinas, R., & Lazares, F. (2018). Seismic performance of confined
masonry buildings with seismic performance of confined masonry
buildings with tubular bricks in developing areas. 14th. World
Conference on Earthquake EngineeringAt: Beijing, China 2008
September.
Tanner, J. E., & Carboni, A. (2010). Performance of Masonry Build-
ings in the 2010 Chile (Maule) Earthquake. 1997(January 2015),
1–15
Thakur, A., & Akbar, M. (2022). Ductile detailing practices using con-
fined masonry—a case study of Himachal Pradesh. Recent trends
in civil engineering. Lecture notes in civil engineering. (Vol.
274). Springer. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​978-​981-​19-​4055-2_1
Tomaževič, M., & Gams, M. (2012). Shaking table study and model-
ling of seismic behaviour of confined AAC masonry buildings.
Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering, 10(3), 863–893. https://​doi.​
org/​10.​1007/​s10518-​011-​9331-x
Tripathy, D., & Singhal, V. (2019). Estimation of in-plane shear capac-
ity of confined masonry walls with and without openings using
strut-and-tie analysis. Engineering Structures, 188(August 2018),
290–304. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​engst​ruct.​2019.​03.​002
Wijaya, W., Kusumastuti, D., Suarjana, M., Rildova, & Pribadi, K.
(2011). Experimental study on wall-frame connection of confined
masonry wall. Procedia Engineering, 14, 2094–2102. https://​doi.​
org/​10.​1016/j.​proeng.​2011.​07.​263
Yaşar, E., & Erdoǧan, Y. (2008). Strength and thermal conductivity in
lightweight building materials. Bulletin of Engineering Geology
and the Environment, 67(4), 513–519. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​
s10064-​008-​0166-x
Yekrangnia M., Bakshia. A, Ghannad. M.A., (2017). Force-displace-
ment model for solid confined masonry walls with shear-domi-
nated failure mode. Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynam-
ics, 056, 1–6. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1002/​eqe
Zakian, P., & Kaveh, A. (2020). Topology optimization of shear wall
structures under seismic loading. Earthquake Engineering and
Engineering Vibration, 19(1), 105–116. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​
s11803-​020-​0550-5
Publisher's Note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to
jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds
exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the
author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted
manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of
such publishing agreement and applicable law.
13