IJSTE - International Journal of Science Technology & Engineering | Volume 2 | Issue 01 | July 2015

ISSN (online): 2349-784X

Behavior of a Multistoried Building with and

without infill Walls under Seismic Forces using
STAAD.PRO
K. Satya Narasimha Rao
M. Tech Student
Department of Civil Engineering
Andhra University College of Engineering

Anirudh Gottala
M. Tech Student
Department of Civil Engineering
Andhra University College of Engineering

Dr. Shaik Yajdani

Assistant Professor
Department of Civil Engineering
Andhra University College of Engineering

Abstract
The effect of masonry infill panel on the response of RC frame subjected to seismic action is widely recognized and has been
subject of numerous experimental investigations, while several attempts to model it analytically have been reported. In
analytically analysis infill walls are modelled as equivalent static approach there are various formulae derived by research
scholars and scientist for width of modelling. Infill behaves like compression between column and beam and compression forces
are transferred from one node to another. In this study the effect of masonry walls on high rise building is studied. Static analysis
on high rise building with different arrangement is carried out. For the analysis G+9 R.C.C framed building is modelled. The
width is calculated by using equivalent static method. Various cases of analysis are taken. All analysis is carried out by software
STAAD-PRO. Axial Force, Shear Force, Storey drift, Nodal displacement, bending moment is calculated and compared for all
models. The results show that infill walls reduce displacement, time period and increase base shear. So it is essential to consider
the effect of masonry infill for the seismic evaluation of moment resisting reinforced concrete frame.
Keywords: RCC Framed Buildings, In Filled Walls, High-Rise Building, Displacement
________________________________________________________________________________________________________

I. INTRODUCTION
It has always been a human aspiration to built earthquake resistant structures. The reinforced cement concrete moment resisting
frames in filled with unreinforced brick masonry walls are very common in India and in other developing countries.
Masonry is a commonly used construction material in the world for reason that includes accessibility, functionality, and cost.
The primary function of masonry is either to protect inside of the structure from the environment or to divide inside spaces.
Normally considered as architectural elements. Engineer's often neglect their presence. Because of complexity of the problem,
their interaction with the bounding frame is often neglected in the analysis of building structures, When masonry in fills are
considered to interact with their surrounding frames, the lateral load capacity of the structure largely increases.
This assumption may lead to an important inaccuracy in predicting the response of the structure. This occurs especially when
subjected to lateral loading. Role of infill's in altering the behavior of moment resulting frames and their participation in the
transfer of loads has been established by decades of research. The survey of buildings damaged in earthquakes further reinforces
this understanding. The positive aspects of the presence of never the less, it may be appropriate to neglect their presence and
declare the resulting design as conservative.
Observed infill induced damage in buildings in the past earthquakes exposes the shortcomings of the current bare frame
approach. In buildings, the ordinarily occurring vertical loads, dead or live, do not much of a problem, but the lateral loads due to
wind or earthquake tremors are a matter of great concern and need special consideration in the design of buildings. These lateral
forces can produce the critical stress in a structure, set up undesirable vibrations and in addition, cause lateral sway of the
structure which can reach a stage of discomfort to the occupants.
In many countries situated in seismic regions, reinforced concrete frames are in filled fully or partially by brick masonry.
Although the infill panels significantly enhance both the stiffness and strength of the frame, their contribution is often not taken
into account because of the lack of knowledge of the composite behavior of the frame and the infill. Infill wall can be modeled in
several forms such as creating a plate element with infill walls properties using stad.pro etc.
For new buildings, infill wall is modeled and designed to provide high rigidity. Also older buildings are rehabilitated with
infills that are compatible with the original frame work. Studies found that infill fails in two main ways, Shear failure and Corner
crushing. The variability of the mechanical properties of infill panels, depending on both the mechanical properties of their

All rights reserved by www.ijste.org

195

Behavior of a Multistoried Building with and without infill Walls under Seismic Forces using STAAD.PRO
(IJSTE/ Volume 2 / Issue 01 / 035)

materials and the construction details, introduces difficulty in predicting the behavior of infill panels. Additionally, the overall
geometry of the structure i.e., number of bays and stories, aspect ratio of infill panels and the detailing of the reinforced concrete
members are aspects that should be considered.
The location and the dimensions of openings play also an important role in the evaluation of the strength and stillness of the
infill panels. Despite the aforementioned cases of undesired structural behavior, field experience, analytical and experimental
research have demonstrated that he beneficial contribution of the infill walls to the overall seismic performance of the building,
especially when the latter exhibits limited engineering seismic resistance.
In fact, infill panels through their in-plane horizontal stiffness and strength decrease the storey drift demand, and increase the
storey lateral force resistance respectively, while their contribution to the global energy dissipation capacity is significant, always
under the assumption that they are effectively confined by the surrounding frame.

II. METHODS OF ANALYSIS

A. Code-based Procedure for Seismic Analysis
Main features of seismic method of analysis based on Indian standard 1893(Part 1):2002 are described as follows
Equivalent Static Lateral Force Method
B. By IS code method for Static analysis
C. By STAAD PRO software Method-for with and without infill walls both.
1) Equivalent Static Analysis:
All design against seismic loads must consider the dynamic nature of the load. However, for simple regular structures, analysis
by equivalent linear static methods is often sufficient. This is permitted in most codes of practise for regular, low-to medium-rise
buildings. It begins with an estimation of base shear load and its distribution on each story calculated by using formulas given in
the code. Equivalent static analysis can therefore work well for low to medium-rise buildings without significant coupled lateraltorsional effects, are much less suitable for the method, and require more complex methods to be used in these circumstances.

III. MODELLING AND ANALYSIS

For the analysis of multi storied building following dimensions are considered which are elaborated below. In the current study
main goal is to compare with and without infill walls (Rectangular) building.
A. Static and Dynamic Parameters:

Design Parameters: Here the Analysis is being done for G+9 (rigid joint regular frame ) building by computer software
using STAAD-Pro.
Design Characteristics: The following design characteristic are considered for Multistory rigid jointed plane frames
S.No
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15

Table - 1
Design Data of RCC Frame Structure
Particulars
Dimension/Size/Value
Model
G+9
Seismic Zone
II
Floor height
3m
Plan size
23.15 x 14.99 m
Size of columns
0.6 x 0.6 m
Size of beams
0.3 x 0.45 m
1) External Wall =0.23 m
Walls
2) Internal Wall =0.115 m
Thickness of slab
150 mm
Type of soil
Type-II, Medium soil as per IS-1893
Concrete M-30 and Reinforcement
Material used
Fe-415
Static analysis
Equivalent Lateral force method
Earthquake load
as per IS-1893-2002
Specific weight of RCC
25 KN/m2
Specific weight of infill
20 KN/m2
Software used
STAAD-Pro for both With and Without infill walls
Table - 2
Zone Categories
Seismic Zone
II
III
IV
V

All rights reserved by www.ijste.org

196

Behavior of a Multistoried Building with and without infill Walls under Seismic Forces using STAAD.PRO
(IJSTE/ Volume 2 / Issue 01 / 035)

Seismic intensity
Z

Low
0.10

Moderate
0.16

Severe
0.24

Very Severe
0.36

Fig. 1: Plan of Regular Building

Fig. 2: 3-D Model of Regular Building

All rights reserved by www.ijste.org

197

Behavior of a Multistoried Building with and without infill Walls under Seismic Forces using STAAD.PRO
(IJSTE/ Volume 2 / Issue 01 / 035)

Fig. 3: 3-D Model of Regular Building (With Sections)

Fig 4: 3-D Model of Infill Walls Building

All rights reserved by www.ijste.org

198

Behavior of a Multistoried Building with and without infill Walls under Seismic Forces using STAAD.PRO
(IJSTE/ Volume 2 / Issue 01 / 035)

Fig. 5: Earthquake Loading

Fig. 6: Deflection Diagram (Without Infill Walls)

Fig. 7: Deflection Diagram (With Infill Walls)

All rights reserved by www.ijste.org

199

Behavior of a Multistoried Building with and without infill Walls under Seismic Forces using STAAD.PRO
(IJSTE/ Volume 2 / Issue 01 / 035)

IV. RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS

The above RCC frame structure is analyzed both with and without infill walls and the results are compared for the following
three categories namely Shear Force, Storey-Drift, Axial Force, Displacements and Moment at different nodes and beams and the
results are tabulated as a shown below.
A. Comparison of Bending Moment for Beams

BEAM NUMBER
1228
1110
992
874
756
638
520
402
284
166

Table - 3
Comparison of Bending Moment
STOREY WITH INFILL(KN-m) WITHOUT INFILL(KN-m)
10
43.46
67.8
9
52.02
137.4
8
66.5
162.33
7
78.59
184.13
6
88.23
200.9
5
95.3
212.7
4
99.89
219.9
3
101.89
222.26
2
105.56
226.52
1
107.3
230.42

Fig. 8: Comparison of bending moment of with and without infill walls

B. Comparison of Storey-Drift for both with and without infill walls

Table 4
Comparison of Storey-Drift
STOREY HEIGHT

WITH INFILL WALL

(DRIFT)(mm)

WITHOUT INFILL WALL

(DRIFT)(mm)

30
27
24
21
18
15
12
9
6
3
0

1.898
2.59
3.159
3.597
3.905
4.089
4.158
4.095
3.805
2.903
0

2.625
4.096
5.517
6.681
7.55
8.144
8.46
8.468
7.879
5.857
0

All rights reserved by www.ijste.org

200

Behavior of a Multistoried Building with and without infill Walls under Seismic Forces using STAAD.PRO
(IJSTE/ Volume 2 / Issue 01 / 035)

Fig. 9: Comparison of Storey-Drift between with and without infill walls

C. Comparison of Displacement for both with and without infill walls

Table - 5
Comparison of Displacement(+X)
WITH INFILL WALL
WITHOUT INFILL WALL
STOREY HEIGHT
(DISPLACEMENT)(mm) (DISPLACEMENT)(mm)
30
34.755
66.305
27
32.852
63.680
24
30.267
59.584
21
27.108
54.067
18
23.511
47.386
15
19.606
39.835
12
15.517
31.691
9
11.359
23.223
6
7.264
14.755
3
3.459
6.879
0
0.556
1.022

Fig. 10: Comparison of Displacement(+X) between with and without infill walls

D. Comparison of Shear Force for both with and without infill walls

STOREY HEIGHT

Table 6
Comparison of Shear Force
WITH INFILL WALL
WITHOUT INFILL WALL
(SHEAR FORCE)(KN)
(SHEAR FORCE)(KN)

All rights reserved by www.ijste.org

201

Behavior of a Multistoried Building with and without infill Walls under Seismic Forces using STAAD.PRO
(IJSTE/ Volume 2 / Issue 01 / 035)

30
27
24
21
18
15
12
9
6
3
0

430.054
734.80
978.776
1168.71
1311.38
1413.53
1481.91
1523.277
1544.38
1551.98
1552.813

643.528
1255.30
1745.06
2126.36
2412.76
2617.81
2755.08
2838.12
2880.49
2895.742
2897.42

Fig. 11: Comparison of Shear Force between with and without infill walls

E. Comparison of Axial Force for both with and without infill walls

Column number
591
709
827
945
1063
1181

Table 7
Comparison of Axial Force
with infill walls(KN) without infill walls(KN)
475876
893943
370121
717686
272612
544221
185768
375775
112095
214650
54272
63377

Fig. 12: Comparison of Axial force between with and without infill walls

All rights reserved by www.ijste.org

202

Behavior of a Multistoried Building with and without infill Walls under Seismic Forces using STAAD.PRO
(IJSTE/ Volume 2 / Issue 01 / 035)

F. Nodal Displacements in (1-G-H) Frame:

Node
6

94

138

182

226

270

314

358

402

446

490

L/C
SEISMIC LOADS
DEAD LOAD
SEISMIC+DEAD
SEISMIC LOADS
DEAD LOAD
SEISMIC+DEAD
SEISMIC LOADS
DEAD LOAD
SEISMIC+DEAD
SEISMIC LOADS
DEAD LOAD
SEISMIC+DEAD
SEISMIC LOADS
DEAD LOAD
SEISMIC+DEAD
SEISMIC LOADS
DEAD LOAD
SEISMIC+DEAD
SEISMIC LOADS
DEAD LOAD
SEISMIC+DEAD
SEISMIC LOADS
DEAD LOAD
SEISMIC+DEAD
SEISMIC LOADS
DEAD LOAD
SEISMIC+DEAD
SEISMIC LOADS
DEAD LOAD
SEISMIC+DEAD
SEISMIC LOADS
DEAD LOAD
SEISMIC+DEAD

Table 8
Nodal Displacements in (1-G-H) Frame
X-Trans mm Y-Trans mm Z-Trans mm
0.653
-0.174
0.069
-0.001
-0.152
-0.006
-0.981
0.033
-0.113
4.526
-0.4
0.463
-0.008
-0.437
-0.043
-6.8
-0.054
-0.76
9.766
-0.536
0.974
-0.031
-0.695
-0.088
-14.696
-0.237
-1.593
15.387
-0.63
1.515
-0.057
-0.923
-0.141
-23.165
-0.44
-2.483
21.002
-0.696
2.052
-0.085
-1.122
-0.199
-31.631
-0.639
-3.376
26.399
-0.738
2.568
-0.117
-1.29
-0.26
-39.773
-0.828
-4.242
31.398
-0.757
3.045
-0.151
-1.427
-0.323
-47.324
-1.006
-5.053
35.816
-0.754
3.468
-0.186
-1.534
-0.386
-54.003
-1.17
-5.782
39.457
-0.73
3.823
-0.221
-1.608
-0.445
-59.516
-1.317
-6.403
42.148
-0.692
4.1
-0.263
-1.651
-0.492
-63.616
-1.437
-6.889
43.917
-0.665
4.305
-0.341
-1.662
-0.506
-66.387
-1.495
-7.217

RESULTANT (mm)
0.679
0.152
0.988
4.567
0.439
6.842
9.829
0.701
14.784
15.474
0.936
23.302
21.114
1.142
31.817
26.534
1.321
40.008
31.555
1.471
47.603
35.991
1.592
54.325
39.648
1.683
59.874
42.352
1.742
64.004
44.133
1.77
66.795

G. Column End Forces in (1-G-H) Frame:

Table 9
Column End Forces in (1-G-H) Frame
COLUMN

L/C

Node

Shear-Y (KN)

Shear-Z (KN)

C949

SEISMIC LOADS

357
401
357
401
357
401
358
402
358
402
358
402
401
445
401
445
401
445

42.898
-42.898
8.241
-8.241
-51.985
51.985
21.259
-21.259
8.79
-8.79
-18.704
18.704
29.688
-29.688
8.485
-8.485
-31.804
31.804

-0.624
0.624
-1.832
1.832
-1.812
1.812
-1.955
1.955
6.059
-6.059
12.022
-12.022
0.061
-0.061
-1.834
1.834
-2.842
2.842

DEAD LOAD
SEISMIC +DEAD
C950

SEISMIC LOADS
DEAD LOAD
SEISMIC +DEAD

C1067

SEISMIC LOADS
DEAD LOAD
SEISMIC +DEAD

Moment-Y
(KN-m)
0.115
1.756
2.725
2.77
3.915
1.522
1.302
4.564
-8.918
-9.259
-15.331
-20.735
-0.722
0.54
2.685
2.817
5.111
3.416

Moment-Z
(KN-m)
44.624
84.07
12.302
12.422
-48.484
-107.472
10.768
53.011
13.169
13.202
3.602
-59.713
22.379
66.684
12.352
13.104
-15.041
-80.371

All rights reserved by www.ijste.org

203

Behavior of a Multistoried Building with and without infill Walls under Seismic Forces using STAAD.PRO
(IJSTE/ Volume 2 / Issue 01 / 035)

C1068

SEISMIC LOADS
DEAD LOAD
SEISMIC +DEAD

C1185

SEISMIC LOADS
DEAD LOAD
SEISMIC +DEAD

C1186

SEISMIC LOADS
DEAD LOAD
SEISMIC +DEAD

402
446
402
446
402
446
445
489
445
489
445
489
446
490
446
490
446
490

14.104
-14.104
9.251
-9.251
-7.279
7.279
14.471
-14.471
8.09
-8.09
-9.571
9.571
0.31
-0.31
7.957
-7.957
11.47
-11.47

-1.022
1.022
6.245
-6.245
10.901
-10.901
0.199
-0.199
-1.752
1.752
-2.926
2.926
0.655
-0.655
5.672
-5.672
7.526
-7.526

-0.301
3.368
-8.81
-9.924
-12.764
-19.937
-0.561
-0.036
2.005
3.25
3.849
4.929
-1.884
-0.081
-7.646
-9.371
-8.643
-13.935

-3.271
45.583
13.197
14.556
24.702
-46.54
3.179
40.233
11.305
12.965
12.189
-40.902
-15.466
16.398
11.53
12.341
40.494
-6.084

H. Beam End Forces in (1-G-H) Frame:

Table 10
Beam End Forces in (1-G-H) Frame
Beam

L/C

Node

Shear-Y (KN)

Shear-Z (KN)

B993

SEISMIC LOADS

401
402
401
402
401
402
445
446
445
446
445
446
489
490
489
490
489
490

-25.561
25.561
44.827
50.063
105.583
36.752
-15.652
15.652
44.956
49.934
90.911
51.424
-8.315
8.315
14.16
18.644
33.712
15.493

-0.617
0.617
-0.102
0.102
0.771
-0.771
-0.843
0.843
-0.209
0.209
0.951
-0.951
-1.009
1.009
-0.482
0.482
0.79
-0.79

DEAD LOAD
DEAD+SEISMIC
B1111

SEISMIC LOADS
DEAD LOAD
DEAD+SEISMIC

B1229

SEISMIC LOADS
DEAD LOAD
DEAD+SEISMIC

Moment-Y
(KN-m)
1.154
1.368
0.185
0.234
-1.453
-1.702
1.571
1.877
0.372
0.482
-1.799
-2.093
1.864
2.264
0.888
1.084
-1.463
-1.77

Moment-Z
(KN-m)
-51.452
-53.094
28.266
-38.973
119.577
21.181
-31.538
-32.477
28.482
-38.663
90.03
-9.28
-16.134
-17.875
7.892
-17.062
36.039
1.219

V. CONCLUSION
The results as obtained using STAAD PRO 2006 for with and without infill walls are compared for different categories
The Bending Moment chart, Table 3of a beams shows a difference between with and without infill walls where without
infill walls show the maximum values. The difference in bending moment is Twice of with infill walls
In Table number 4 the storey drift shows a difference between with and without infill walls where without infill walls
shows the maximum drift. The difference in storey drift is 50% higher for without infill than with infill walls.
In Table number 5, the Nodal displacement shows a difference between with and without infill walls where without
infill walls show the maximum displacement. The difference in nodal displacement is 2 times higher for without infill
than with infill walls
The Shear Force Table number 6 of a beams shows the variations between with and without infill walls where without
infill walls will be having maximum amount of shear force than with infill walls
As per the results in Table No 7, We can see that there is not much difference in the values of Axial Forces as obtained
by With and Without infill walls of the RCC Structure..
Nodal Displacements and Bending moments in beams and columns due to seismic excitation showed much larger
values compared to that due to static loads.

All rights reserved by www.ijste.org

204

Behavior of a Multistoried Building with and without infill Walls under Seismic Forces using STAAD.PRO
(IJSTE/ Volume 2 / Issue 01 / 035)

REFERENCES
[1]
[2]
[3]
[4]
[5]

B.Srinavas and B.K.Raghu Prasad The Influence of Masonry in RC Multistory Buildings to Near- Fault GroundMotions Journal of International
Association for Bridge and Structural Engineering (IABSE) 2009, PP 240-248.
Indian Standard, Criteria for earthquake resistant design of structures, IS 1893(part 1):2002, Bureau of Indian Standards, New Delhi.
Indian Standard, Code of practice for plain and Reinforced Concrete,IS 456:2000,Bureau of Indian Standards, New Delhi.
Mehmet Metin Kose Parameters affecting the fundamental period of RC buildings with infill walls Engineering Structures 31 (2009), 93-102.
V.K.R.Kodur, M.A.Erki and J.H.P.Quenneville Seismic analysis of infilled frames Journal of Structural Engineering Vol.25, No.2, July 1998 PP 95-102.

All rights reserved by www.ijste.org

205