You are on page 1of 12

INVESTIGATION OF THE INFLUENCE OF CHB WALLS IN THE

SEISMIC PERFORMANCE OF LOW-RISE REINFORCED CONCRETE


FRAMES USING THE EQUIVALENT STRUT THEORY AND SAP2000
Rodolfo P. Mendoza Jr.
1, 3
, Edgardo S. Cruz
1, 2
, Delia B. Senoro
1, 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 shows the in-plane effects of CHB walls in the seismic performance of
low-rise reinforced concrete frames. The construction of low-rise reinforced concrete (RC)
buildings with infilling CHB wall is a common practice in the Philippines. Conventional
analysis of these frames treats the CHB walls as non-structural elements. However, the inherent
in-plane strength and stiffness of CHB walls allows them to interact with compositing frames
during seismic activity. These conditions deviate from the expected response of buildings
analyzed as bare reinforced concrete frame. In order to account for these effects, the CHB walls
were modeled as equivalent pin-jointed compression struts at two opposite ends of the
compositing frame forming a cross-bracing-like system. Hence, the primary objective of the
study is to investigate the influence of these CHB walls during seismic activity once considered
in the frame analysis. The study was divided into two stages: the first stage is the experimental
investigation of the mechanical properties of CHB masonry and the second stage is analytical
modeling of frames taking into account the presence of CHB infill. Load-bearing and non-load
bearing CHB prisms with four types of mortar mixture proportion were tested to determine the
local CHB infill properties based on ASTM procedures. The determined properties of CHB
masonry were used to model the infill strut using the FEMA 356 procedures. A non-linear
pushover analysis using SAP2000 was conducted in a bare frame model and sixteen frames with
different CHB infill properties. It was found that CHB walls can significantly influence the in-
plane seismic performance of a low-rise RC frames by increasing both the strength and stiffness
of the frame by as much as 26.5% and 12.7% respectively.
KEYWORDS: CHB, Infill; Pushover Analysis; SAP2000
1. INTRODUCTION
Reinforced concrete (RC) moment resisting frame is a common type of structural system
used in low-rise buildings in the Philippines. Concrete Hollow Block (CHB) walls are usually
provided within these frames which are commonly considered as non-structural elements.
However, in actual construction practice, these CHB walls were integrated through the infilling
frame because of the presence of reinforcing dowels which connect the CHB wall to the frame.
Under lateral loads, the frame tends to separate from the infill wall near windward lower and
leeward upper corners. This causes compressive contact stresses which are developed between
the frame and the infill at the other diagonally opposite corners. The high in-plane rigidity of the
masonry wall provides additional stiffness to the frame. Additional stiffness reduces the natural
period of vibration which in turn leads to increase in accelerations and inertia forces (Charleston
2008); such actions change the structures mode of behavior and the forces in the frame. The
neglect of infills in seismic design can be attributed to the common misconception that masonry
infill in frames can only increase the overall lateral load capacity; hence, beneficial to seismic
performance (Paulay and Priestly 1992). However, serious structural damages, as recorded in
the 1990 Luzon earthquake, were traced to the modification of the structural frame due to the
presence of infilled CHB walls. The exclusion of CHB walls in the analysis of these buildings
has resulted in unintended soft storey failures and induced torsional eccentricities.
On the other hand, several researchers over the years have proven the significant positive
impact of masonry infilled walls in the seismic performance of RC frames. The observed
behavior of infilling walls clearly illustrates their significant structural implications such as an
increase in structural stiffness and strength relative to RC bare frames (Mondal et al. 2008).
Asteris (1996) has concluded that properly designed infills can considerably reduce the
probability of collapse, even in cases of defective frames. Bertero and Brokken (1983) quoted
that an infill that is properly designed and connected to the frame offers conceptual and practical
advantages, particularly if the basic structural system is a moment resisting frame. The
introduction of the compression strut theory paved way for the designers and researchers to
investigate the effects of masonry walls in the performance of concrete frames. 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 caused compressive contact stresses developed between the frame and
the infill at the other diagonally opposite corners. The equivalent compression strut concept was
further evaluated by Holmes (1961) in which, he developed a pin-jointed diagonal strut having
the same material and thickness of the infill and with a width equal to one-third of the infill
diagonal length. Similarly, Smith (1967) has introduced a relationship between the width of the
diagonal strut and an infill-frame stiffness parameter (

).
Currently, foreign government agencies such as the US Federal Emergency Management
Agency (FEMA 273 1998) and Applied Technology Council (ATC 40 1999), have
recommended modeling procedures to incorporate the effects of masonry infill in the behavior of
building frames. The use of simple modeling approach in the analytical investigation of masonry
infill was integrated with non-linear static pushover analysis. Pushover analysis is an inelastic
analysis method in which the structure is subjected to constant gravity loads and push to
monotonically increasing lateral force or displacement pattern. Pushover method of analysis
tends to simulate the effects of inertia forces by the application of static forces along the height
of the structure. The evaluation of new and existing buildings have preferred the use of pushover
analysis due to its simplicity, intuitiveness and wide availability of reliable and user-friendly
structural engineering software such as SAP2000. The observed positive and negative impacts as
well as the founding of simple analytical modeling procedures for infill walls and the birth of
reliable and user-friendly pushover analysis software have prompted designers and researchers to
investigate the effects of masonry walls in the seismic performance of concrete frames.
However, none of the past researches have investigated the effect of masonry properties on the
infill-frame behavior. The geographical variations in masonry properties may pose an
inconsistency in the results of past investigation. Therefore, the need to investigate local masonry
properties is evident and important. The current study aims to investigate the influence of local
CHB masonry walls in the seismic performance of low-rise RC frames. A two-stage study was
initiated; that is, to determine the properties of local CHB masonry, and to adopt these propert
in the investigation on the influence of
seismic performance of low-rise RC frames.
2. METHODOLOGY
The methodology on the investigation of the influence of CHB walls in the seismic performance
of low-rise RC frames is described in detail on the subsequent sections.
2.1 Testing of CHB Units, Mortar
The machine-built CHB units were supplied by a CHB commercial manufacturer
Compression test of twenty-four
non-load bearing CHB units was conducted to compare the CHB manufacturer reported
compressive strength and the actual compressive strength of CHB units. Load
load bearing CHB units were designated as (S
compression test was also conducted on twelve 2
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
analysis. Cement-to-water ratio was recorded to be 1.05 for 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
thickness of CHB units (4-inch and 6
for non-load bearing), and (3)
specimens were labeled according
of mortar used (e.g. 4S-M). The prism specimens were saw
ASTM C1314 or the Standard Test Method for the Compress
Forty-eight CHB prism specimens
constructed inside a moisture-
hours of curing.
Figure 1. CHB Prism specimens
; that is, to determine the properties of local CHB masonry, and to adopt these propert
in the investigation on the influence of CHB walls modeled as compression infill strut in the
rise RC frames.
The methodology on the investigation of the influence of CHB walls in the seismic performance
rise RC frames is described in detail on the subsequent sections.
Mortar and CHB Prism
built CHB units were supplied by a CHB commercial manufacturer
four CHB specimen consisted of 4-inch and 6
load bearing CHB units was conducted to compare the CHB manufacturer reported
compressive strength and the actual compressive strength of CHB units. Load
CHB units were designated as (S) and (T) type units, respectively
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 were verified by conducting a sieve
water ratio was recorded to be 1.05 for 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
prism test method. Three variables were considered in the experiment
inch and 6-inch), (2) strength of CHB units (S for load bearing and T
(3) the type of mortar used (Type M, S, N, and O)
according to the thickness of the units, strength of the unit
M). The prism specimens were saw-cut to meet the requirements of
ASTM C1314 or the Standard Test Method for the Compressive Strength of Masonry Prism.
eight CHB prism specimens were tested under compression of masonry.
-tight bag shown as Figure 1 and sealed after the initial forty
CHB Prism specimens during curing using a moistu
; that is, to determine the properties of local CHB masonry, and to adopt these properties
CHB walls modeled as compression infill strut in the
The methodology on the investigation of the influence of CHB walls in the seismic performance
built CHB units were supplied by a CHB commercial manufacturer.
inch and 6-inch load bearing and
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-
, respectively. Similarly,
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).
verified by conducting a sieve
water ratio was recorded to be 1.05 for 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
in the experiment; i.e., (1) the
strength of CHB units (S for load bearing and T
the type of mortar used (Type M, S, N, and O). The sample
, strength of the units and the type
to meet the requirements of
ive Strength of Masonry Prism.
were tested under compression of masonry. The prisms were
and sealed after the initial forty-eight
using a moisture-tight Bag.
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 0.05 to a point on the curve at 0.33,
where is the ultimate compressive strength
2.2 Building Model Considered
The building model considered was an office three-storey reinforced concrete building
with typical floor plan and elevation 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.
(a) (b)
Figure 2. Typical Floor Plan (a) and Frame Elevation (b)
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 is
taken as 21.0 MPa and yield strength of reinforcing steel strength is taken as 276 MPa.
2.3 Structural Modeling and Analysis
A two dimensional frame modeling and analysis was conducted for the frame along grid
A using the commercial software SAP2000. Flexural rigidity for columns and beams were
modeled considering the cracked section properties taken as 0.7E
c
I
g
for columns and 0.5 E
c
I
g
for
beams (FEMA 356 2000). Design loads were referred to the minimum design load tables of
NSCP C101-01. Imposed loads for the 2
nd
and 3
rd
floor level were computed as 13.8 KN/m, and
2.4 KN/m for roof beam levels. 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, shown in Table 1, were distributed in proportion to their
location along grid A. Torsional analysis was conducted 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.
Table 1. Column Nodal Forces for Analysis
2.4 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 Applied Technology Council (ATC 40 1999), and the Pre-
standard and Commentary for the Seismic Rehabilitation of Buildings (FEMA 356 2000) have
recommended similar modeling procedures in order to incorporate the effects of masonry infill in
the behavior of the building frames. According to this standard and pre-standard documents, the
elastic in-plane stiffness of masonry panels can be represented by an equivalent diagonal
compression strut of a width, , as given in Equations (1) and (1a).
= 0.175(

)
.

(1)

(1a)
where;

= column height between centerlines of beams (in);

= height of infill (in)

= expected modulus of elasticity of frame material (ksi);

= expected modulus of elasticity of infill material (ksi);

= moment of inertia of column, (in


4
);

= Length of infill panel (in);

= diagonal length of infill panel (in);


Level
Story Forces
(KN)
End Column
Node Forces
(KN)
Interior
Column Node
Forces (KN)
With Accidental Torsion
End Column
Node Forces
(KN)
Interior
Column Node
Forces (KN)
Roof 537.7 33.61 67.21 34.52 69.02
3rd 425 25.56 53.13 27.28 54.56
2nd 211.3 13.21 26.41 13.57 27.12
Total 1174

= thickness of infill panel and equivalent strut (in);


= angle whose tangent is the infill height to length aspect ratio (radians); and

= coefficient used to determine equivalent width of the infill strut


The width is related to the stiffness parameter (

) as described in equation 1a. The


equivalent diagonal strut shall have the same thickness and modulus of elasticity as that of the
CHB infill that it represents. The infill struts were placed concentrically across the diagonal of
the frame. Structural performance level for the masonry infill was monitored using the FEMA
356 (2000) drift criteria given as 0.2% for Immediate Occupancy, 0.6% for Life Safety and 1.5%
for Collapsed Prevention. The compression struts were modeled as axial elements with non-
linear axial hinges applied on endpoints of the strut member.
3.0 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 Table 2, 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. Table 2 also shows that 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.
Table 2. Compressive Strength of CHB Unit: Reported vs Experimental Values
The results of the compression test of the 2-inch cube mortar were tabulated in Table 3. Type M
mortar had 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%.
Figure 3 shows the generated mean stress-strain diagram from compression testing of twelve
types of CHB Prism. It can be seen that the maximum compressive strength was attained by
prism type 4S-M or the prism with 4-inch load bearing CHB unit with Type M mortar while the
lowest stress level was recorded for prism type 4T-S. The differences among specimens were
observed at strain levels between 0.01 to 0.02.
CHB Unit Type
Reported
Compressive
Strength (MPa)
Actual Compressive
Strength based on
experiment (MPa)
RPD (%)
4-inch load bearing (4S) 4.8 10.02 109
4-inch non-load bearing (4T) 2.76 10.71 288
6-inch load bearing (6S) 4.8 11.86 147
6-inch non-load bearing (6T) 2.76 10.4 277
Table 3. Compressive Strength of 2-inch Cube Mortar Specimen
Figure 3. Average Stress-Strain Diagram for all CHB Prisms
For the 6-inch CHB prism, 6S-M and 6T-M had higher stress levels corresponding to 0.01 to
0.02 levels of strain while 6T-O had the lowest recorded stress level. For the 4-inch CHB units,
4S-M had 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 had 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.
Mortar Type
Mixture
Proportion
Cement-to-water Ratio
Compressive
Stength (Mpa)
M 1:3 1.05 11.52
S 1:4.5 0.65 2.75
N 1:6 0.46 2.61
O 1:9 0.32 1.25
Figure 4. Average Stress-Strain Diagram for all CHB Prisms
From the determined experimental values of compressive strength and modulus of elasticity of
CHB masonry, a relationship between the constant a (reciprocal of modulus of elasticity) and
compressive strength of CHB prism is shown in Figure 5.
Figure 5. Relationship between the Constant and Compressive Strength of Masonry
Based on the best-fit curve generated, a polynomial relationship may be used to
determine the relation between the modulus of elasticity and the compressive strength of CHB
masonry. From this graph Equation 2 was derived relating the modulus of elasticity and
compressive strength of CHB masonry. This equation did not show a good agreement with the
code-based equation for modulus of elasticity which was attributed to the relatively weaker units
used in this study.

= 100
.
(2)
Figure 6 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 had
resulted to a higher strength and stiffness, it did not show a good performance as localized
sudden failure was observed in modeled infill struts.
Figure 6. Base Shear vs Roof Displacement
Figure 7 shows the hinges formation in bare frame, frame with relatively weak infill (E
m
<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. The bare frame model
(Figure 7) achieved the desired beam mechanism behavior at the initial step of pushover.
However, it was also observed that there was formation of collapsed hinges in roof beams,
second floor beams and on ground floor columns. Sudden formation of collapsed hinges was
observed in infill struts of frame with weak infill properties. These sudden formations of
collapsed hinges caused a sudden reduction in stiffness which led in soft storey mechanism. On
the other hand, the formation of hinges in frames with relatively strong infill (Infill with > Em
510 MPa) shows a better performance. Gradual formation of hinges was observed in the infill
struts and beam members. Also, there are no formation of collapsed hinges observed in beams
and columns. This is in addition with the sustained beam mechanism (strong column-weak
beam) behavior of the frame as illustrated in Figure 7.
Figure 7. Plastic Hinges Formation
4.0 CONCLUSIONS
Based on the results of this analytical and experimental study, the following conclusions were
drawn;
The consideration of CHB walls in the analysis of low-rise RC frames had significantly
influenced the behavior of the frame under seismic loading. The results from the analytical
investigation showed 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 by as much as
26.5% and 12.7%, respectively. However, it was observed that the ductility of the frame was
considerably reduced except for frames with relatively weak infill properties.
The over-all 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. On the
contrary, a sudden formation of collapsed hinges was observed in the frame with relatively
weak infill.
The reported compressive strength of CHB units may not represent the true properties of the
CHB units. The non-load bearing CHB units showed a higher RPD values indicating a higher
variability in their properties. This is consistent with the observed behavior of prism
constructed with non-load bearing CHB units which had the highest variable stress level.
The relationship between the compressive strength of CHB masonry and modulus of
elasticity can be expressed in terms of a polynomial expression. This demonstrates that there
is a non-linear relationship between compressive strength and the elastic modulus of
masonry. The derived equation did not show a good agreement with the code-based empirical
equation for masonry compressive strength of modulus of elasticity and was attributed to the
relatively weaker units used in the study.
REFERENCES
Asteris, P.G. (2008) Finite Element Micro-Modeling of Infilled Frames. Electronic Journal of
Structural Engineering, Volume (8), 1-1
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,
701723
Paulay, T and Priestley,M.J.N (1992) Seismic Design of Reinforced Concrete and Masonry Buildings.
John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Smith, B.S. (1967) Methods for Predicting the Lateral Stiffness and Strength of Multistorey Infilled
Frames. Building Science, Vol. 2: 247 -257.
ABOUT THE AUTHORS
Engr. Rodolfo P. Mendoza Jr. is a graduate of BSCE from the Don Honorio Ventura Technological State
University in 2008. He ranked 2
nd
Place in the November 2008 Board Examination for Civil Engineers.
Currently, he is a candidate for MS in Structural Engineering at the Mapua Institute of Technology. He is
also a scholar of Engineering Research and Development for Technology (ERDT), Department of
Science of Technology (DOST). He can be contacted at mendoza.structuralconsulting@gmail.com.
Engr. Edgardo S. Cruz, is a cum laude graduate of BSCE from the University of Santo Tomas in 1997. He
ranked 14
th
Place in the November 1997 Licensure Examination for Civil Engineers. He finished his MS
degree major in Structural Engineering at the University of the Philippines Diliman in 2006. Currently, he
is a permanent full time faculty member at the School of Civil, Environmental and Geological
Engineering at Mapua Institute of Technology. He is also the current faculty research associate of the
Sustainable Development Research Office (SDRO) and Coordinator for Community Extension of the
Institute. He can be contacted at engredgar2k@gmail.com.
Dr. Delia B. Senoro, has been a practicing civil engineer for more than 2 decades and is a doctor in
environmental engineering, acquired the graduate study degrees from the University of the Philippines,
Diliman in collaboration with Chia Nan University in Tainan, Taiwan. Currently, she is the Program
Coordinator for Environmental Engineering (undergraduate and graduate studies), a Professor and In-
charge of the Sustainable Development Research Office (SDRO) of the School of Civil, Environmental
and Geological Engineering, Mapua Institute of Technology. She is the Philippine representative for
Swedish International Development Cooperation Agency (SIDA) International Training Program (ITP)
on Strategies for Chemical Management (SCM) and Education for Sustainable Development (ESD) for
2011. She is also the Philippine representative for the Asian Network of Environment Research and
Energy (ANERGY) starting 2011. She can be contacted through dbsenoro@mapua.edu.ph.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The authors 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.

You might also like