PERGAMON Computers and Structures 69 (1998) 685±693

Inelastic dynamic response of reinforced concrete in®lled

frames
Harpal Singh a, *, D. K. Paul b, V. V. Sastry a
a
Thapar Institute of Engineering and Technology, Patiala, India
b
Department of EQ. Engineering, University of Roorkee, Roorkee, India
Received 9 January 1997; received in revised form 28 April 1998

Abstract

An inelastic ®nite element model to simulate the behaviour of reinforced concrete frames in®lled with masonry
panels subjected to static load and earthquake excitation has been presented. Under the loads, the mortar may
crack causing sliding and separation at the interface between the frame and the in®ll. Further, the in®ll may get
cracked and/or crushed which changes its structural behaviour and may render the in®ll ine€ective, leaving the bare
frame to take all the load which may lead to the failure of the framing system itself. In this study, a mathematical
model to incorporate this behaviour has been presented. # 1998 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction of three dimensional reinforced concrete frames sub-

Considerable e€ort has been made on the analysis of
the in®lled frame systems. Holmes [1] and Smith [2]
proposed the concept of in®ll as an equivalent diagonal
compression strut. Mallick and Severn [3], Liauw and
Kwan [4] and May and Ma [5] used the ®nite element
model for the analysis of 2D in®lled frames. Papia [6]
used boundary elements to model the behaviour at the
frame and the in®ll interface. Haddad [7] analysed
cracked frames with masonry in®ll using the ®nite el-
ement and fracture mechanics.
May and Naji [8] carried out nonlinear analysis of
in®lled frames under monotonic and cyclic loadings
using the ®nite element method. The skeletal frame
was modelled with a 3-noded frame element and the
panel was modelled with an 8-noded isoparametric el-
ement. A six-noded interface element was used to
model the interface between the frame and the in®ll.
Choubey and Sinha [9] carried out the experimental in-
vestigation into the behaviour of reinforced concrete
frames in®lled with brick masonry under lateral cyclic
loading. Singh [10] investigated the inelastic response
* Corresponding author.
jected to earthquake excitation using the ®nite element
method.
2. Finite Element Idealization
In the present study, reinforced concrete in®lled
frames have been analysed using the ®nite element
method. The skeleton frame, the panel and the inter-
face between the frame and the panel have been mod-
elled by a 3-noded frame element, 8-noded
isoparametric element and 6-noded interface element,
respectively, as shown in Fig. 1.
2.1. Reinforced Concrete Frame Element
A 3-noded beam±column element as shown in Fig. 1
has been used to model the skeletal frame [11].
Inelastic behaviour of the element is governed by the
interaction of the axial force, two ¯exural moments
and a torsional moment. The yield surface:
1
f ˆ ‰…Mx =Mxu †2 ‡ …My =Myu †2 ‡ …Mz =Mzu †2 Š2 ‡ ‰Fx =Fxu Šn
…1†

0045-7949/98/$ - see front matter # 1998 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.
PII: S 0 0 4 5 - 7 9 4 9 ( 9 8 ) 0 0 1 2 4 - 2
686 H. Singh et al. / Computers and Structures 69 (1998) 685±693
Fig. 1. Di€erent elements used for modelling the in®lled frame.
proposed by Powell and Chen [12] has been used. Here
M x, My, M z are the moments about the X, Y and Z
axes, respectively, F x is the axial force, and M xu, M yu,
M zu are the corresponding yield moments; F xu is the
axial yield force; and the exponent n has been taken as
1.6.
Concrete is not purely an elastic material. Plastic
¯ow (creep) has been observed in it. The modulus of
elasticity varies with the stress rate and magnitude of
the stress. The e€ective reinforced concrete section also
varies with the stress level. Both the modulus of elas-
ticity and the e€ective cross section decrease with the
increase in stress level. In the present study, 50% re-
duction in the short term value of the static modulus
of elasticity of concrete [13] and e€ective sectional
properties, both calculated as per Ref. [14] have been
assumed for the entire `elastic' range prior to the devel-
opment of the ultimate yield surface.
2.2. Brick Masonry In®ll
The eight-noded isoparametric element as shown in
Fig. 1 has been used to model the in®ll panels.
Masonry is a complex material consisting of an assem-
blage of bricks and mortar joints, each with di€ering
properties. Its behaviour is made more complex by the
mortar joints acting as planes of weakness due to their
low tensile, shear and bond strengths. The out-of-plane
sti€ness of the unreinforced masonry panels is very
low as compared to its in-plane sti€ness. In the present
study only in-plane sti€ness has been taken into con-
sideration. The material has been assumed to be line-
arly elastic till failure. To predict the cracking and
crushing type of failure, Von Mises failure criterion
with a tension cut o€ as shown in Fig. 2 has been
adopted [15]. In compression, upon crushing, the sti€-
ness and all stresses are reduced to zero. In tension,
upon cracking (see Fig. 3), the sti€ness normal to
crack is reduced to zero but along the crack partial,
shear sti€ness is maintained. The stress normal to the
crack is reduced to zero, however, a partial shear
transfer due to interlocking between the particles is
maintained. The normal sti€ness and stresses along the
crack are also maintained.
2.3. Concrete Mortar Interface Element
The behaviour of an in®lled frame depends upon the
interaction between the in®ll and the frame. There can
be separation, closing of gap and slipping between the
frame and the in®ll. A six noded interface element as
shown in Fig. 1 has been used to model this behaviour
between the frame element and the panel element. Two
in-plane translational degrees of freedom per node
have been considered. The displacement vector is
 H. Singh et al. / Computers and Structures 69 (1998) 685±693 687

Fig. 2. Yield surface for the masonry panel.

Fig. 3. Crack and principle axes directions.

d ˆ ‰u vŠT : …2† to calculate the sti€ness matrix. The sti€ness matrix in

the global coordinate system has been calculated as
The strains are the relative displacements at the top e
and bottom of the element. The strain vector is de®ned Ke ˆ TT K T …8†
as where T is the transformation matrix.
T
E ˆ ‰Du DvŠ : …3†

The relevant stress vector is 3. Inelastic Analysis

T
s ˆ ‰su sv Š : …4† For the inelastic static analysis, an incremental itera-
The material modulus matrix is de®ned as tive procedure has been adopted. For inelastic dynamic
  analysis a predictor±corrector form of the Newmark
ks 0 method [16] has been used. Initially, element forces or
Dˆ …5†
0 kn stresses are calculated assuming an elastic behaviour
for each element. The stress components and/or strains
where ks and kn are the shear and the normal sti€ness
at Gauss points are examined and cracking, yielding,
coecients, respectively. The values of sti€ness coe-
and separation is checked. When any of the above
cients for di€erent interface conditions are listed in
events has occurred, the forces/stresses are reduced to
Table 1. the yield surfaces and the equivalent nodal forces for
The strain matrix is de®ned as the element are calculated. The solution has been
B ˆ ‰ÿIN1 ÿ IN2 ÿ IN3 IN3 IN2 IN1 Š …6† assumed to be converged when the ratio of the norms
of unbalanced load to the norms of the total load is
where I is identity matrix of order 2  2 and N i are within the permissible limits.
the shape functions. The sti€ness matrix is calculated
as
… 4. Numerical Examples
Ke ˆ BT DBdx: …7†
To study the behaviour of reinforced concrete
The three point Gauss quadrature rule has been used frames in®lled with masonry panels subjected to static

Table 1
Selection of interface sti€ness coecients
Interface conditions Sti€ness coecients ks Sti€ness coecients kn

Firm contact vsuv < vmsvv Experimental Very low value

Contact with slip Dv ÿ compressive vsuv r vsvv Very low value Very high value
Separation or initial lack of ®t Dv-tensile Very low value Very low value
688 H. Singh et al. / Computers and Structures 69 (1998) 685±693

and dynamic loads, two such structures have been ana-
lysed using the proposed algorithm.
4.1. A Single Reinforced Concrete In®lled Frame
A single storey one-bay in®lled reinforced concrete
frame shown in Fig. 4(a), previously investigated ex-
perimentally and analytically by Choubey [17], has
been analysed using the proposed model. The structure
consists of a reinforced concrete frame and masonry
in®ll. The physical and material properties and other
details of the structure are given in the ®gure. The
structure has been discretised as shown in Fig. 4(b).
The load de¯ection curve obtained by using the pro-
posed model has been compared with that reported by
Choubey [17] in Fig. 4(c). A good agreement with the
experimental results has been observed. The failure
load of 180 kN as predicted by the proposed model is
close to that obtained experimentally (175.38 kN) by
Choubey [17]. The hinges in the frame and cracks in
the in®ll at the failure predicted by the proposed
model, as well as those obtained experimentally by
Choubey [17] have been presented in the Fig. 5. A
good comparison between the predicted and the
reported results [8] has been obtained. The separation
coecients, de®ned as the ratio of separation length to
the dimension of the in®ll, have been plotted in Fig. 6.
The maximum value of the separation coecient on
each side as estimated and those obtained experimen-
tally by Choubey [17] are shown in the ®gure. The
strut width observed at the centre is 0.627 L whereas
that proposed by Liauw and Kwan [4] is 0.707 L.
Where L is the lateral dimension of the in®ll.

Fig. 4. Load de¯ection behaviour of the in®lled reinforced concrete frame-1.

 H. Singh et al. / Computers and Structures 69 (1998) 685±693 689

Fig. 5. Location of hings and crack pattern for the in®lled reinforced concrete frame 1.

The closeness between the experimentally observed
and estimated load de¯ection behaviour, failure load,
central strut width, location of hinges, crack pattern
and mode of failure establishes the reliability of the
proposed model to simulate the behaviour.
4.2. Two Storey In®lled Frame
A two-storey single bay in®lled reinforced concrete
frame shown in Fig. 7 has been studied. The dimen-
sions of the in®lled frame along with member proper-

Fig. 6. Separation of frame with in®ll using program NIFAP.

690 H. Singh et al. / Computers and Structures 69 (1998) 685±693

Fig. 7. Geometry and X-sectional details of reinforced concrete in®lled frame-2.

ties are given in the ®gure. The discretisation of the
structure and loads are shown in Fig. 8. Both inelastic
static and inelastic dynamic analysis have been per-
formed.
4.2.1. Inelastic Static Analysis
The inelastic analysis of the structure has been car-
ried out using the proposed model. The load±de¯ec-
tion curve at the roof level has been shown in the
Fig. 9. The sequence of formation of plastic hinges in
the frame and the cracks in the in®ll along with the
corresponding de¯ections at the roof level have been
listed in the Table 2 and are shown in Fig. 10. The im-
portant features of the response of the problem are dis-
cussed below:
At a load factor, de®ned as the current load divided
by the load at the ®rst increment (as shown in Fig. 8),
of about 6.0, the cracking in the lower panel starts at
the ends of the tension diagonal (tension±tension zone)
with some cracks at the centre of in®lls 4 and 5. With
the increase in load, the cracking spreads from the end
of the tension diagonal to the centre, and from the
centre to the ends of both the tension and compression
diagonals. At a load factor of 10.5, the ®rst hinge
forms at the bottom of the load ward column and
it progresses upwards with the increase in load. At
load factor of 11.85, six more cracks develop and the

Fig. 8. Discretisation of in®lled frame-2.

 H. Singh et al. / Computers and Structures 69 (1998) 685±693 691

Fig. 9. Load de¯ection curves for in®lled frame-2.

structure becomes too ¯exible to take any additional

load. The structure fails at a load factor of about 12.0. Fig. 10. Crack pattern for in®lled frame-2.

4.2.2. Earthquake Response

The in®lled frame shown in Fig. 7, subjected to the
EL±Centro earthquake, has been analysed. In addition
to the mass of the structure itself, four concentrated
masses have been considered to be attached at points
A, B, C and D as shown in Fig. 7. The structure has
been subjected to the S-O-E component of the 1940.
EL±Centro, May 18, 1940, earthquake in the lateral
direction. The earthquake had a peak acceleration of
3417 mm/s2 at 2.14 s. Both elastic and inelastic re-
sponses have been studied for 20 s.
The entire time history response of the structure at
selected point has been observed. The elastic and
inelastic responses in terms of de¯ection at the roof
level (point A) have been plotted in Fig. 11. The elastic
and inelastic acceleration responses at the roof level
(point A) have been shown in Fig. 12. The elastic and
inelastic variation of bending moment at the base of
the left column has been shown in Fig. 13. The
sequence of formation of plastic hinges in the frame
and that of cracks in the in®ll are presented in Fig. 14.
The structure has been found to remain elastic up to
2.25 s. Both the elastic and inelastic responses in terms
of de¯ection, acceleration and bending moment are the
same up to 2.25 s and no hinge in the frame or crack
in the in®ll are developed. At a time of 2.5 s, both the
bottom storey columns exhibit a number of plastic
hinges in the lower half portion and the in®ll panels of
both the storeys exhibit cracking along the tension di-
agonal as shown in Fig. 14(a). The roof de¯ection at
this stage is ÿ10.0 mm. At time of 3.0 s, the bottom
storey columns are completely plasticised, but most of
the cracks in the panels `disappear' since the state of

Table 2
Sequence of formation of plastic hinges/cracks in the in®lled frame-2
Location and sequence of
appearance of cracks in the Location and sequence of
Load factor in®ll panels appearance of hinges in frames De¯ection at roof level (mm)
6.00 1 to 8 Ð 7.09
7.00 9 and 10 Ð 8.61
8.00 11 and 12 Ð 10.28
9.00 13±16 Ð 12.03
10.00 17 and 18 Ð 14.04
10.50 19 1 15.30
11.00 20 and 21 2 16.92
11.40 22 and 23 Ð 18.80
11.50 24 Ð 19.19
11.85 25±30 Ð 30.17
692 H. Singh et al. / Computers and Structures 69 (1998) 685±693
Fig. 11. Elastic and inelastic displacement response at point A.
Fig. 12. Elastic and inelastic acceleration response of point A.
Fig. 14. Crack pattern at di€erent times for in®lled frame-2.
Fig. 13. Elastic and inelastic variation of bending moment of
section F.
stresses at these points now lies inside the yield surface,
however, the plastic strains continue to be present. At
a time of 5.0 s some new cracks `appear; and some old
cracks `disappear', but the bottom storey columns
remain plasticised. Subsequently, almost all the cracks
in the panels and hinges in the frame `disappear'.
The maximum elastic de¯ection of 32.0 mm occurs
at 4.9 s whereas the maximum inelastic de¯ection of
22.0 mm occurs at 9.0 s. The inelastic de¯ection is
68.8% to that of elastic de¯ection. Fig. 12 indicates
the variation of the elastic and inelastic accelerations
at a roof level point A. The maximum acceleration
observed for the elastic and the inelastic analyses are
14.7 and 7.4 m/s2, respectively. The inelastic accelera-
tion being 50.3% of that obtained for the elastic analy-
sis.
Fig. 13 shows the variation of the moment at section
F near the base. The maximum elastic moment
observed is 49.0 kN m, while the maximum inelastic
moment is 28.0 kN m, which is 42.8% less than the
elastic moment. The above analysis demonstrates the
necessity of using an inelastic analysis for the realistic
prediction of the response of the in®lled framed struc-
tures.
5. Conclusions
Based on the above investigation the following ob-
servations are made:
 H. Singh et al. / Computers and Structures 69 (1998) 685±693
1. The proposed model is able to simulate the exper-
imentally observed load de¯ection behaviour, separ-
ation of the in®ll from the frame, central strut
width, failure mode and failure load. The inelastic
algorithms are able to predict the sequence of for-
mation of the plastic hinges in the frame members
and the cracks in the in®lls.
2. For inelastic dynamic analysis, the proposed model
can predict the entire time history response of the
in®lled frame systems. The plastic hinges and the
cracks `disappear' on the reversal of loads and on
reduction of the magnitude of the exciting force,
however, the state of stresses at these points now
lies inside the yield surface, but plastic strains con-
tinue to be present. The inelastic response quantities
have been found to di€er a lot form the elastic re-
sponse quantities. So elastic analysis is not ade-
quate, and inelastic analysis is required to simulate
the realistic behaviour of the in®lled frame systems.
References
[1] Holmes M. Steel frames with brick work and concrete
in-®lling. Institute of Civil Engineers, London
1961;19:473±98.
[2] Smith BS. Lateral sti€ness of in®lled frames. J Struct
Div, ASCE 1962;88(ST6):183±99.
[3] Mallick DV, Severn RT. The behaviour of in®lled frames
under static loading. Proc of ICE 1967;38 (Sept/
Dec):639±56.
[4] Liauw TC, Kwan KH. Nonlinear behaviour of non-inte-
gral in®lled frames. Comp Struct 1984;18(3):.
693
[5] May IM, Ma SYA. 1984. Computer aided analysis and
design of shear wall panels in frames using ®nite element
method. Proc of Int Conf on Computer Aided Analysis
and Design of Concrete Structs. Yugoslavia.
[6] Papia M. Analysis of in®lled frames using a coupled
®nite element and boundary element solution scheme. Int
J Num Meth Engng 1988;26:731±42.
[7] Haddad MHE. Finite element analysis of in®lled frames
considering cracking and separation phenomena. Comp
Struct 1991;41(3):439±47.
[8] May IM, Naji JH. Nonlinear analysis of in®lled frames
under monotonic and cyclic loading. Comp Struct
1991;38(2):149±60.
[9] Choubey UB, Sinha SN. Cyclic response of in®lled
frames. J Struct Engng 1994;21(3):203±11.
[10] Singh H, 1995. Response of reinforced concrete frames
with in®lled panels under earthquake excitation, Ph.D.
thesis, submitted to Thapar Institute of Engineering and
Technology, Deemed University, Patiala, India.
[11] Hughes TJR. The ®nite element method, linear static and
dynamic ®nite element analysis. Englewood Cli€s, NJ:
Prentice-Hall, 1987.
[12] Powell GH, Fu-song Chen Paul. 3D beam±column el-
ement with generalized plastic hinges. J Engng, Mech,
ASCE 1986;112(7):.
[13] Anderson JC, Townsend WH. Models for RC frames
with degrading sti€ness. J Struct Engng Div, ASCE
1977;103(ST12):2361±76.
[14] IS: 456-1978. Code of practice for plain and reinforced
concrete. Bureau of Indian Standards, New Delhi, India.
[15] Page AW, Ali SS. Finite element model for masonary
subjected to concentrated loads. J Struct Engng
1988;14(8):1761±83.
[16] Hughes TJR, Pister KS, Taylor RL. Implicit±explicit
®nite elements in nonlinear transient analysis. Comp
Meth App Mech Engng 1979;17/18:59±82.
[17] Choubey UB. Behaviour of in®lled frames under cyclic
loads. Ph.D. thesis. submitted to IIT Delhi, 1990.