DECLARATION

I, Khomdram Vijayraj Singh declare that the work presented in this thesis entitled
‘‘Comparative Seismic Evaluation of Multistory Buildings using Red Brick and AAC
Block Walls using ETABS” submitted to the Department Civil Engineering, in the Faculty
of Engineering and Technology Shri Venkateshwara University, U.P., India, for the award
of the Master of Technology in Structural Engineering an original work. I have neither
plagiarized nor submitted the same work for the award of any other degree. In case this
undertaking is found incorrect, my degree may be withdrawn unconditionally by the University.

Date: Signature of Student

Place:

1
 CERTIFICATE OF ORIGINAL WORK

This is to be certifying that the studies conducted by Mr. Khomdram Vijayraj Singh during
2022-2024, as reported in the present thesis were done under my guidance and supervision. The
results reported by him are genuine and candidate himself has written the manuscript of the
thesis, and no part of the thesis has been submitted for any other degree or diploma.

His thesis entitled ‘‘Comparative Seismic Evaluation of Multistory Buildings using

Red Brick and AAC Block Walls using ETABS” is therefore, being forwarded for acceptance
in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the award of the degree of Master of Technology in
Structural Engineering, to the Shri Venkateshwara University, U.P., India.

Date:
Place:
(MOHD ZEESHAN KHAN)
Assistant Professor
Department of Civil Engineering

2
 CERTIFICATE OF RECOMMENDATION

This thesis entitled ‘‘Comparative Seismic Evaluation of Multistory Buildings using Red
Brick and AAC Block Walls using ETABS” has been prepared and submitted by Mr.
Khomdram Vijayraj Singh (SET22A04250018) for the award of degree of
Master of Technology in Structural Engineering, in Faculty of Engineering and Technology
of Shri Venkateshwara University, U.P., India.

This thesis is recommended for partial fulfillment of award of Master of Technology degree.

(MOHD ZEESHAN KHAN )

Assistant Professor (External Examiner)

Dr. Vivek Sachan

(Chairman)
Dean,School of Engineering
and
Technology

3
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The research I have presented within this thesis has been made possible with constant support
and encouragement from a number of people. Thereby, I would like to acknowledge all the
individuals for their valuable advices, recommendations and critiques, feedbacks,
encouragement and supports.
Firstly, I would like to thank my thesis supervisor and my advisory MOHD ZEESHAN
KHAN, Assistant Professor, Department of Civil Engineering, Shri Venkateshwara
University, U.P., India. for his constant support and guidance in helping and guiding me
throughout my thesis work.
I am very much indebted to Laishram Rishikanta Singh, Director, MAVEN Infrastructure
Projects Private Limited, Imphal, Manipur for his positive attitude, keen interest, constant
encouragement, and the freedom of the work provided to me throughout the entire course for
pursuing of my Master’s degree.
Similarly, my sincere gratitude goes to my colleagues Rajiv Sharma Leihaothabam Research
Scholar NIT, Manipur, Civil Engineering Department.
Last but not least, I am very grateful to my friends and family, in particular my Father,
Mother, Brother and Mreenalini Arambam for being the beacon of light guiding my path
throughout this journey.

Shri Venkateshwara University, U.P., India.

Dated: (Khomdram Vijayraj Singh)

4
 ABSTRACT

A building has been defined is an enclosed structure intended for human occupancy.
Constructions work has been seen in most the countries developing. With the increases in
material cost in the construction work, there is a need to find more cost saving alternatives so
as to maintain the cost of construction houses, multistorey etc, which can be affordable to
people. In the manufacturing of burnt clay bricks, smoke evolved at a great extent and also
some toxic gases which can harm an environment. So as to overcome with all these problem,
Autoclaved Aerated Concrete (AAC) blocks are used which is more economical and
ecofriendly. This project includes the analysis, design and estimates of structure, comparing
between autoclave aerated concrete and conventional brick in the form of steel consumptions.
Autoclaved Aerated Concrete (AAC) is a lightweight concrete building material cut into
masonry blocks or formed larger planks and panels. Currently it has not seen widespread use
in the United States. However, in other parts of the world it has been used successfully as a
building material. Cost of construction is reduced and it will be safe and economical in
earthquake forces also. The seismic Parameter Lateral displacements are also compared.
Index Terms- conventional blocks and AAC block, diagonal strut, infill wall with opening,
ETABS software.

5
 TABLE OF CONTENTS
DECLARATION 1
CERTIFICATE OF ORIGINAL WORK 2
CERTIFICATE OF RECOMMENDATION 3
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT 4
ABSTRACT 5
TABLE OF CONTENTS 6
LIST OF TABLES 7
1. CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION 8-15
1. 1 Overview 8
1. 2 Need and importance of the study 9
1. 3 Scope and limitation of the study 9-10
1. 4 Infill Wall 10-12
1. 5 Aerated Autoclave Concrete 12-13
1. 6 Earthquake Hazards 14
1.7 Seismic Analysis 14
1.8 ETABS Software 15

2. CHAPTER 2 LITERATURE REVIEW 16-38

2. 1 General 16-20
2. 2 Literature review related to masonry infill 20-23
2. 3 Literature review related to opening on masonry infill 23-25
2. 4 Literature review related to AAC masonry infill 25-27
2. 5 Literature review on existing codes for masonry infilled RCC frames 28-30
2.5.1 FEMA 356 31-32
2. 6 Literature review related to seismic performance evaluation 33-37
2.7 Literature review on comparision between AAC and brick masonry 38
3. CHAPTER 3 OBJECTIVES OF THE STUDY 39

4. CHAPTER 4 40-45
4. 1 Flow Chart 40
4. 2 Building modelling 41-44
4. 3 Modelling of Infill Wall 44-45
5. CHAPTER 5 46-48
6. CONCLUSION AND SCOPE FOR FURTHER WORK 49
7. REFERENCES 50
6
 LIST OF TABLES

Table No. Title Page No.

1. Properties of masonry units and masonry assemblages

according to Bose & Rai (2015) 27

2. Summary of contents of national codes on masonry

infilled RC frames from Kaushik, Rai, & Jain (2006) 30

3. Building Configuration Data 43

4. Values of Width of the Diagonal strut 45

5. Diaphragm Centre of Mass Displacements 46

6. Diaphragm Centre of Mass Displacements 47

7
 CHAPTER 1

1. INTRODUCTION
[Link]:
A tall structure is a multi-story structure in which most tenants rely upon lifts [lifts] to
arrive at their goals. Now a days due to growth of the population Housing has developed into
an economy generating industry. Because of these highrise buildings have become a solution
in large cities. The increasing frequency of the earthquakes in the world and building of tall
structures, over the last few 10-20 years forces for the development of tremor safe structures.
A considerable lot of the tall structures had fell in ongoing tremors and the reasons credited
were poor plan and development rehearses. The goal of this work is to talk about the potential
outcomes of demonstrating support itemizing of strengthened solid models in common sense
use considering different type of infill walls. To carry out the analytical investigations, the
structure is modelled and analysis is done in ETABS software. B. Infill Wall: The infill wall is
the supported wall that works as separator in buildings used to define shape of a room or outer
boundary of a building constructed with a three-dimensional framework structure generally
made of steel or reinforced concrete. Therefore, the basic edge guarantees the bearing capacity,
though the infill divider serves to isolate inward and space, topping off the crates of the external
casings. The walls has one of a kind static capacity to shoulder its very own load. Infill walls
are outside vertical misty kind of conclusion. As for different types of separators, the infill-
walls contrasts from the parcel that divides two inside spaces. The last plays out similar
elements of the infill-wall, hydro-thermally and acoustically, however performs static
capacities as well.. The use of masonry infill walls, and to some extent veneer walls, especially
in reinforced concrete frame structures, is regular in numerous nations. Indeed, the utilization
of stone work infill dividers offers a prudent and tough arrangement. They are anything but
difficult to fabricate, appealing for engineering and has a productive cost-execution. Infill
walling is the conventional name of a board that is worked in the middle of the floors of the
essential auxiliary casing of a working as such Infill board dividers are a type of cladding
worked between the basic individuals from a building. The auxiliary edge offers help for the
cladding framework, and the cladding gives division of the inner and outside environments.
Infill dividers are viewed as non-load bearing, yet they oppose wind loads. Useful prerequisites
for infill board dividers include: They are self-supporting between basic surrounding
individuals. They give climate obstruction. They give warm and sound protection. The give
imperviousness to fire. They give adequate openings to common ventilation and coating.
Brick masonry infill is one of the most common type of infill used in RC frame and steel frame
structure throughout the world due to its low cost, durability, aesthetics, good acoustic and
thermal properties. Although there is more alternative infill material, most of reinforced
concrete structures with conventional brick masonry infills are very usual and trusted one. It is

8
 generally believed that the infilled frame structural system first appeared in the early 20 century
as building materials built with frame structures.

[Link] and importance of the study :

The actual behavior of infilled frame structure is quite complex due to numerous
uncertainties parameters. They may be construction method, quality of material, workmanship,
length of contact, sectional and thermal properties of infill material etc. Past studies showed
that infill wall with frame also contributes lateral stiffness and strength to the frame. Presence
of opening is usual in the wall as door and window in normal buildings. These openings of the
infill cut across the diagonal strut model arise conflicts. Walls with opening are seem to be real
and logical in actual field and it should be considered in structural modelling to obtain more
reliable responses when subjected to seismic actions. In plane and out of plane response of
infilled frames due to earthquake actions are quite different as compared with bare frame one.
It was observed from many past earthquakes that severe damages were occurred in the infill
and minor cracks on surrounding frames. The increase of stiffness due to infill increases the
fundamental period while reduces deformation demand and improve the energy dissipation
capacity of the system. The non-linear behavior of infill materials and its interface with frames
make issues for analytical solutions and answers to these questions are still evolving. The
importance of inclusion of infill wall has been studied and accepted worldwide. As alternative
infill materials such as hollow concrete blocks, prefabs, AAC blocks etc. instead of
conventional bricks are becoming more popular nowadays, the infill panels with these materials
can be studied to look over difference in response in the modelling. Huge amount of fertile soil
is used for manufacture of bricks, so this is not environmental friendly. AAC blocks are light
and economical with proper thermal insulating properties. Thus, it would be better to look over
alternative building material by checking its global behavior with frame modeling. The
response of bare frame, infilled with and without opening along with AAC blocks and bricks
should be analyzed with proper consideration. This study might promote for alternative infill
uses instead of old conventional brick masonry system.

[Link] and limitation of the study:

The research investigated here is mainly focused on seismic behavior of the masonry infill
(brick and AAC infills) in RC frame. Only the In plane loading is considered for analysis
whereas the out of plane loading may significantly reduce deformation capacity of masonry
infill RC frame which is not covered here. The building having opening at different positions
and sizes affect the stiffness lateral resisting capacity of the infill panel which is basically
intended to be performed. Capacity curves for different cases are developed and compared for
9
 in plane lateral loading only. The strengthening options are also suggested so that failure at
openings and frames tends to be minimum and technically feasible. A case study for health post
type D is used for the study and seismic force is applied in only one direction for each cases
according to strut orientation. The multi strut model and micro model may be more effective
for accessing the effect of opening in infill but for simplicity and convenient way based on past
researches, here macro modeling (single equivalent diagonal strut modeling) is used for
consideration of infill in RC frame.

1.4. Infill Wall:

The infill wall is the supported wall that works as separator in buildings used to define
shape of a room or outer boundary of a building constructed with a three-dimensional
framework structure generally made of steel or reinforced concrete. Therefore, the basic edge
guarantees the bearing capacity, though the infill divider serves to isolate inward and space,
topping off the crates of the external casings. The walls has one of a kind static capacity to
shoulder its very own load. Infill walls are outside vertical misty kind of conclusion. As for
different types of separators, the infill- walls contrasts from the parcel that divides two inside
spaces. The last plays out similar elements of the infill-wall, hydro-thermally and acoustically,
however performs static capacities as well.. The use of masonry infill walls, and to some extent
veneer walls, especially in reinforced concrete frame structures, is regular in numerous nations.
Indeed, the utilization of stone work infill dividers offers a prudent and tough arrangement.
They are anything but difficult to fabricate, appealing for engineering and has a productive cost-
execution. Infill walling is the conventional name of a board that is worked in the middle of the
floors of the essential auxiliary casing of a working as such Infill board dividers are a type of
cladding worked between the basic individuals from a building. The auxiliary edge offers help
for the cladding framework, and the cladding gives division of the inner and outside
environments. Infill dividers are viewed as non-load bearing, yet they oppose wind loads.
Useful prerequisites for infill board dividers include: They are self-supporting between basic
surrounding individuals. They give climate obstruction. They give warm and sound protection.
The give imperviousness to fire. They give adequate openings to common ventilation and
coating.
According to Qian et al. (2020) for bare frames, in the initial stage, the flexural
action provides the load resistance. Compressive arch action was ineffective as the external
joints controlled the extent of the horizontal constraints for the beam ends. For infilled frames
with or without openings, in initial stage, the equivalent compressive strut of infilled walls
provided majority of the load resistance. However, in large deformation stage, the load
resistance of both bare frame and infilled frames mainly relied on tensile catenary action

10
developed in the beams. However, as the secondary compressive struts could provide additional
load redistribution path for infilled frames even in large deformation stage, the ultimate load
capacity of infilled frames was also greater than that of bare frames. Comparing the failure
mode of bare frames and infilled frames, it was found that infill walls may change the failure

mode of the bare frame significantly. The position of plastic hinge and rebar fracture in infilled
frames was different in different story. Therefore, for infilled frames, it was not reliable to
simplify the multistory frame into single story beam-column substructures. Conversely, for bare
frames, the failure mode of each floor was similar. Based on the measured shear distortion of
exterior joints, infill walls have benefits towards reducing the shear distortion of the joints. The
opening ratio of 31%, 16%, and 11% will decrease the static peak load of the infilled frames
with solid walls by 47%, 25%, and 13%, respectively. However, the opening ratio of 31%, 16%,
and 11% will decrease the dynamic peak load by 43%, 18%, and 11%, respectively. Therefore,
the detrimental effects of the openings are similar for static and ultimate load resistance.
According to Jalaeefar & Zargar (2020) the results indicatesthat inclusion of infill walls
increases the stiffness and strength and also, period of the 1st vibration mode decreases.
Furthermore, as the seismic shakings proceed, the infill walls are damaged and consequently,
strength of the structures drops severely. In contrast, the structures without infill walls
possessed lower strength and stiffness but, did not encounter abrupt loss of strength. Based on
the results, presence of infill walls lowers ductility of the structures. Moreover, comparison
over ductility (both displacement and rotational ductility) of the structures including infill walls
with and without opening, indicate that when openings are provided, ductility is greater which
is attributed to less global stiffness of the structure. As number of stories increases,
displacement and rotational ductility is reduced such that the 4 and 12-storey structures
exhibited maximum and minimum ductility, respectively. Contribution of infill walls decreases
energy dissipation capacity of the infilled frames. In general, it can be concluded that as
ductility decreases, less energy would be dissipated. As expected, the structure damaged under
main shock, incurs more damages after occurrence of the aftershock. Based on the results, it
can be perceived that inclusion of aftershocks in analysis of all structures particularly the ones
with infill walls, is of utmost importance. Although the stiffness of the structure increases with
addition of the masonry infills, but the structure is accompanied by a decrease in ductility,
which in total leads to a reduction in energy dissipation of the structure. Therefore, it can be
concluded that the worst scenario of a structure subjected to a seismic sequence belong to the
frame with full infill walls. For the future work, the effect of infill walls on behavior of steel
special moment frames and also effect of infill walls on seismic resilience of steel and concrete
will be investigated and under seismic sequences .

11
1.5. Aerated Autoclave Concrete:
The use of autoclaved aerated concrete (AAC) load-bearing elements is diffusely used
worldwide and they possess interesting material properties regarding earthquake engineering.
Indeed, their high deformability allied to their low weight reduces the inertia forces of these
vertical elements and, in Addiction to their non-combustibility and fire resisting nature of AAC
(earthquakes are commonly associated with fires), they may be an alternative to reinforced
concrete frame structures. On the other hand, masonry structures are commonly associated with
poor seismic performance as observed in past earthquakes. This negative perception is caused
mainly by many non-engineered masonry structures, mostly stone masonry houses which, if
not properly designed and/or strengthened regarding seismic provisions, will not behave
satisfactory under seismic excitations. On the contrary, modern approaches to masonry
constructions regarding seismic detailing with convenient conception or innovative materials
and solutions, may lead to safer and economical constructions especially concerning small
constructions. Therefore, a complete methodological approach to the seismic performance
assessment of unreinforced AAC masonry buildings is presented on this work, enhancing the
possibility to use nonlinear static procedures in the reproduction of the dynamic behaviour of
AAC masonry buildings.
Autoclaved aerated concrete (AAC) is a type of precast concrete materials and
comparing to normal concrete has a low density and excellent insulation properties. The low
density is achieved by the formation of air voids to produce a cellular structure. AAC is a

12
lightweight material used mainly for infill purposes. AACs composed of natural raw materials
including cement, lime, water, sand and Aluminum powder which make the mixture to expand
and have a porous structure due to producing hydrogen bubbles (Bayat, Liaghat, Ghalami-
Choobar, Ashkezari, & Sabouri, 2019). Some of the benefits of using AAC include highly fire
resistance, recyclability and low density which leads to easy handling and installation. The
increased thermal efficiency of AAC makes it suitable for use in areas with extreme
temperatures, as it eliminates the need for separate materials for construction and insulation,
leading the primary advantages of using AAC as infill material are its lightweight, low strength
and stiffness. Varela (2006) developed a rational procedure for determination of response
modification factor, R and displacement amplification factor, Cd for seismic design of AAC
structures and proposed maximum drift ratio of 1% to avoid collapse based on experimental
results. Liu (2004) carried out static and cyclic testing on full-scaled AAC-infilled steel frames
to study its hysteretic behavior and found out that AAC infill enhances the strength and stiffness
of steel frames significantly. Imran (2009) studied the behavior of two half-scaled RC frames
infilled with AAC blocks and conventional clay-brick masonry under cyclic loading and
observed that that AAC blocks exhibited better seismic performance. Ravichandran (2012)
investigated the seismic behavior of steel moment frames with masonry infills using the ATC
63 methodology for determination of seismic performance factors and observed that “infill
strength ratio” greater than 0.35 results in progressive deterioration of seismic performance.
The failure mechanism of bare frame remains unchanged for low strength infill. It has been
found from past studies that damage in the buildings can be reduced by uniform distribution of
infills. This is possible because, in those cases the stiffness and strength is uniformly distributed
along the height. Therefore, if low strength masonry infill (AAC) is used in OGS-RC frames,
the variation in stiffness and strength along the height of the frame will not be much and the
OGS failure mechanism can be possibly avoided. Compressive strength and elastic modulus of
AAC masonry was observed to be approximately one-half of the conventional masonry. The
low strength and stiffness of AAC masonry results in improved load sharing between the infill
and the frame which leads to the early development of yield mechanism in the frame enhancing
energy dissipation. Post-yield strain hardening behavior was observed during the displacement
controlled slow-cyclic test. Non-linear static and dynamic analyses performed according to
FEMA P695 methodology demonstrate superior performance of AAC infilled OGS-RC
framecompared to conventional masonry infills of clay and fly-ash bricks. The AAC infilled
OGS-RC frame designed using response reduction factor R of 5 (same as for ductile moment
resisting frame), results in lower probability of collapse at MCE (9.2%) and reduced maximum
story drifts. On the contrary, probability of collapse of conventional masonry infilled OGS-RC

13
 frame was much higher (26.1% and 33.6% for clay and fly-ash bricks, respectively) (Bose &
Rai, 2015).

1.6. Earthquake Hazards :

Earthquakes really pose little direct danger to a person. People can't be shaken to death by
an earthquake. Some movies show scenes with the ground suddenly opening up and people
falling into fiery pits, but this just doesn't happen in real life. Buildings can even sink into the
ground if soil liquefaction occurs. Liquefaction is the mixing of sand or soil and groundwater
(water underground) during the shaking of a moderate or strong earthquake. When the water
and soil are mixed, the ground becomes very soft and acts similar to quicksand. If liquefaction
occurs under a building, it may start to lean, tip over, or sink several feet. The ground firms up
again after the earthquake has past and the water has settled back down to its usual place deeper
in the ground. Liquefaction is a hazard in areas that have groundwater near the surface and
sandy soil. Buildings can also be damaged by strong surface waves making the ground heave
and lurch. Any buildings in the path of these surface waves can lean or tip over from all the
movement. The ground shaking may also cause landslides, mudslides, and avalanches on
steeper hills or mountains, all of which can damage buildings and hurt people.

1.7. Seismic Analysis:

It has been seen in past seismic tremors that the structures on inclined plane give more overlay.
Shivers make substantial damage to structures, for case, loss of people in the building and if the
intensity of vibration is high then it can cause collapse of the structure. In past years people has
been produced irrefutably and as a result of which cities and towns started expanding out. In
light of this reason distinctive structures are being inalienable inclined zones. India sports a
wide shoreline forefront which is anchored with mountains and plateau. The structures in these
zones are made on inclining grounds. A tremendous piece of the unforgiving ranges in India go
under the seismic zone II, III and IV zones in such case working in context of slanting grounds
are exceedingly slight against seismic tremor. This is a possible result of the way that the bits
in the ground floor differentiate in their statures as showed up by the tendency of the ground.
Segments toward one side are short and on flip side are long, by righteousness of which they
are exceedingly delicate. Seismic forces acts more separate in inclining zones due to the
assistant inconsistency. Moreover it has been examined that the seismic tremor exercises are
slanted in inclining ranges. In India, for example, the north-east states. The deficiency of plain
ground in inclining ranges powers advancement development on inclining ground realizing
diverse imperative structures, for instance, reinforced concrete encompassed specialist's offices,
colleges, motels and work environments laying on uneven inclinations. The lead of structures
in the midst of tremor depends on the dispersal of mass and immovability in both even and
vertical planes of the structures. In slanting district both these properties varies with irregularity
14
 and asymmetry. Such improvements in seismically slanted regions make them exhibited to
more unmistakable shears and torsion.

[Link] Software :
As our country is the fastest growing country across the globe so the need of shelter for
highly populated cities where the cost of land is high and further horizontal expansion is not
possible due to unavailability of space, so the only solution is vertical expansion. Structural
design is the primary aspect of civil engineering. The foremost basics in structure is the design
of simple basic components and members of a building like slabs, beams, columns, and
footings. In order to design them it is important to first obtain the plan of the particular building.
Thereby depending on the suitability plan layout of beams and the position of columns are
fixed. Thereafter, the vertical loads are calculated namely the dead load and live load. Once the
loads are obtained, the component takes the load first i.e. the slabs can be designed. Designing
of slabs depends upon whether it is a one-way or a two-way slab, the end condition and the
loading. From the slabs, the loads are transferred to the beam. The loads coming from the slabs
onto the beam may be trapezoidal or triangular. Depending on this, the beam may be designed.
Thereafter, the loads (mainly shear) from the beams are taken by the columns. For designing
columns, it is necessary to know the moments they are subjected to for this purpose; frame
analysis is done by Kanis method.

15
 CHAPTER 2

2. LITERATURE REVIEW

[Link] :
It is a very common practice to use masonry infill for non-structural partition walls in reinforced
concrete (RC) buildings, particularly in developing countries. However, it has a significant
influence on the structural behavior, which became apparent in recent earthquakes, e.g., 2016
Taiwan earthquake, 2016 Ecuador earthquake, and 2015 Nepal earthquake. Reinforced concrete
(RC) framed buildings with infill walls are usually analysed and designed as bare frames,
without considering the strength and stiffness contributions of the infills. However, during
earthquakes, these infill walls contribute to the response of the structure and the behavior of
infilled framed buildings is different from that predicted for bare frame structures. Therefore,
based on the understanding of the actual response, design provisions need to be developed.
Fortunately, a few countries already have codal provisions for seismic design of RC framed
buildings with brick masonry infills (Das & Murty, 2004). In a broad sense, masonry infill
enhances the overall in plane capacity. There are several parameters that influence the seismic
performance of an infilled frame, such as the brick type, aspect ratio of the panel and openings,
mortar characteristics, and frame strength. Out of the aforementioned parameters, the
characteristics of the surrounding RC frame, i.e., the strength and stiffness, are some of the most
important variables governing the seismic capacity and failure mode of infilled RC frames, as
shown in several previous experimental studies. The studies by Wood and Liauw et al. proposed
different failure mechanisms for infilled RC frames along with strength evaluation methods
based on the relative strength of the RC frame compared to the masonry infill strength. In a
similar study, Saneinejad et al. proposed an analytical model to estimate the length of the contact
between the RC frame and masonry, depending on the strength of the RC frame, which was
used to evaluate the in-plane strength of the infill. However, FEMA 306, based on the study by
Mainstone, emphasized not only the relative strength of the frame, but also its relative stiffness
compared to the masonry infill, to define the width of the equivalent strut used to calculate the
stiffness and strength of the infill. ASCE/SEI 41 suggested the calculation of the in-plane
strength of a masonry infilled frame based on a material test, i.e., shear test of the masonry, thus
ignoring the relative stiffness of the frame compared to the masonry infill, as proposed by
Mainstone (Alwashalia, Sena, Jinb, & Maedaa, 2019). Compression struts and tension struts
are formed along the diagonals of infill walls placed inside RC elements, which shows a
tendency to crack along diagonals under significant lateral displacement demands. This damage
could cause loss of infill walls that might result in a softer and weaker story. In other extremum
point, the out-of-plane (OOP) acceleration demands may cause loss of stability due to loss of
16
contact at the edges of infill walls stemming from excessive in-plane (IP) damage. Therefore,
the behavior of infill walls are not independent of IP and OOP demands. Many earthquake
damage investigations and experimental studies have shown that substantial damage to a frame
structure after an earthquake is caused by the strong interaction between the rigid masonry and
the frame. Additionally, most of the repair costs after an earthquake are associated with the
repair of walls because the previous code stated that masonry must be used as a nonstructural
component, which led to limited interest in the study of walls. However, after an earthquake,
the damage to a wall is usually more severe than that to a frame. The main reason for the above
result is the contradiction between rigid masonry and a flexible frame. Usually, at a limited drift
level (0.2%–0.5% drift), the masonry infill is not damaged or there is only minor damage. After
exceeding this condition, the infill is severely damaged, which reduces the lateral load and load
capacity, finally causing the loss of stability. Notably, postearthquake repairs are expensive. In
addition to this kind of damage, the impact of another kind of damage is more serious. Shear
failure may occur in a column because the strength of the solid infill is too high. During an
earthquake, falling debris from walls may hurt pedestrians. Some authors have performed
experiments that considered the wall in-plane and out-of-plane directions, and they found that
the higher the damage to a wall is in the in-plane direction, the greater the decrease in the
bearing capacity in the out-of-plane direction. When the in-plane inter-story drift of a wall
reaches 0.5%, the out-of-plane strength is reduced by 74% (Cheng, et al., 2020). Buildings can
become irregular in plan and elevation because of uncertain position of MI walls and openings
in them. Often MI walls are rearranged to suit the changing functional needs of the occupants,
the changes being carried out without considering their adverse effects on the overall structural
behavior because MI walls are generally regarded as nonstructural elements of buildings. MI
can be distributed in RC frames in several patterns. Thus, it is not only difficult to construct a
regular MI-RC frame building, but also it cannot be taken for granted that it will remain regular
after it is constructed (Kaushik, Rai, & Jain, Code Approaches to Seismic Design of
MasonryInfilled Reinforced Concrete Frames: A State-of-the-Art Review, 2006).

17
 Sachin Surendran and Hemant B. Kaushik [Link] (1) Reinforced concrete (RC) frames in-
filled with unreinforced masonry walls are quite commonly constructed all across the globe
since many decades. Past researchers have tried to find out experimentally and analytically the
influence of several parameters, like opening size and location, aspect ratio of openings,
connection between frame and infill wall, ductile detailing in frame members, material
properties, failure modes, etc. on behaviour of masonry infill RC frames. Accordingly, several
analytical models have been proposed in the literature and seismic codes of some countries to
model the stiffness and strength properties of infill walls.
Prof. P.B Kulkarni1, PoojaRaut2, Nikhil Agrawal [Link] (2) Many urban multistorey buildings
in India today have open first story as an unavoidable feature. This leave the open first storey
of masonry in-filled reinforced concrete frame building primarily to generate parking or
reception lobbies in the first storeys. Masonry infill walls are mainly used to increase initial
stiffness and strength of reinforced concrete (RC) frame buildings. It is mainly considered as a
non-structural element. In many cities of India, it is very common to leave the first storey of
masonry infilled reinforcement concrete (RC) frame building open preliminary to generate
parking space or any other purposes (ExReception lobbies) in the first storey. This Open First
storey is also termed as “Soft Storey”. The upper storeys have brick in-filled wall panels with
various opening percentage in it. [Link] A. Deshmukh [Link] (3) Earthquakes represent the
largest potential source of causalities and damage for inhabited areas due to natural hazard. The
construction of RC buildings with unreinforced infill wall is a regular practice in India. Infill

18
panels have usually been made of heavy rigid materials, such as clay bricks or concrete blocks.
However, more lightweight and flexible infill options such as AAC (aerated light weight
concrete) blocks are now obtainable in India to be used as masonry infill (MI) material in
reinforced concrete (RC) framed buildings. It has been accepted that infill materials
considerably influence the seismic performance of the infilled framed structures. Number of
researchers studied the behaviour of infilled RC frames experimentally and analytically.
NusfaKaruvattil*1, PriyankaDilip P. et. Al (4) Many urban multistorey buildings in India today
have open first storey as an unavoidable feature. This leave the open first storey of masonry
infilled reinforced concrete frame building primarily to generate parking or reception lobbies
in the first storey. Masonry infill walls are mainly used to increase initial stiffness and strength
of reinforced concrete (RC) frame buildings. It is mainly considered as a non-structural element.
In many cities of India, it is very common to leave the first storey of masonry infilled
reinforcement concrete (RC) frame building open preliminary to generate parking space or any
other purposes (ExReception lobbies). István Haris1*, GyörgyFarkas [Link]. (5) In many
countries it is a common practice to infill some of the bays of the steel and/or concrete frame.
Traditionally infill walls are usually considered as non-loadbearing, non-primary structural
elements The main goal of this paper is to present an executed research experiment, planned to
include a group of 15, onethird scale, one-bay, two-storey reinforced concrete (RC) frame
specimens infilled with masonries with different stiffness. UğurAlbayrak, EşrefÜnlüoğl, and
MizamDoğan [Link].(6) Infill walls are considered to non-bearing structural members but affect
not only structure masses also lateral rigidities which may cause free vibration behavior of the
buildings. Although infill walls are not considered structural members, they are acting together
with the frame when subjected to seismic loads. Analyze and calculation models including infill
wall contribution are difficult and complex especially on major construction projects. Behavior
of masonry infilled R.C. frames under seismic loads should be modeled to consider the effect
of the infill walls on the seismic performance of the structure. In this study an overview of the
modelling methods of infill walls in reinforced concrete frames is presented. The advantages or
disadvantages of the presented methods are discussed and an easy and effective procedure is
suggested for using in practice design. P.G. Asteris et. Al (7) The main objective of this paper
is to present a general classification scheme of the failure modes of in-filled frames, both with
and without openings. For the former, the existing classification is summarized based on a
literature review. For the latter, recent experimental results on frames in-filled with
unreinforced masonry walls with openings and subjected to slowly applied cyclic lateral loads
are used, and a number of different failure modes (crack patterns) of masonry in-filled frames
are identified and classified into distinct categories. Such a classification of failure modes
improves substantially the understanding of the earthquake resistant behaviour of in-filled
frames and leads to better methodological approaches regarding their modelling, analysis and
design Mehmet Baran1* and TugceSevil [Link].(8) Although hollow brick infills, widely used as

19
 partition walls, are considered as non-structural members, experimental studies revealed that
hollow brick infills have favourable effects on strength and stiffness of structures. In this work,
analytical studies were conducted to investigate the hollow brick infill behaviour, in which
infills were modeled by diagonal compression struts. Results were compared with experimental
ones obtained from tests of one-bay, one or two storey reinforced concrete (RC) frames, tested
under both vertical and reversed-cyclic lateral loads simulating earthquake.
BhargaviSattar, Pradeep Kumar Ramancharla [Link].(9) Improperly designed brick
masonry walls cause undesirable effects under seismic loading in both brick masonry in-filled
reinforced concrete (RC) frames and masonry load bearing wall structures. Doors and windows
(openings) are unavoidable components in brick masonry in-filled RC structures and masonry
load bearing wall structures because of its functional and ventilation requirements. Sreekeshava
K.S, A.S Arunkumar [Link].(10) The brick masonry is used in a wide range as an infill material
in reinforced concrete (RC) frames. In general masonry infill (MI) are treated as non-structural
elements and ignored in many structural designs, But the contribution of infill under lateral
loads shows the better performance and contribution to strength and stiffness of RC frames.
The stiffness of masonry controls the failure of MI and plays a significant role under lateral
loads. Masonry is a brittle material and exhibits poor performance under shear and flexure.

[Link] review related to masonry infill :

Most studies in recent years on seismic behavior of the reinforced concrete (RC) structures have
overlooked effects of interaction between the frames and infill walls despite the fact that such
walls significantly affect seismic performance of the structures. In recent decades, behavior of
the RC frames including masonry infill walls have drawn attention of researchers in such a way
that a number of experimental and numerical studies have been carried out on behavior of the
RC frames with masonry infill walls . Infilled frames are composite structure made by the
combination of infill wall and moment resisting plan frame. The infill are used as interior
partition walls and external walls. And also infills are protecting from outside environment to
the building to our requirements. Infill walls are tended to contact with the beam and column
when the structure is subjected to seismic load, and also exhibit-dissipation characteristics
under lateral loads. The presence of masonry infill walls has an effect on the lateral load of a
reinforced concrete frame building, increasing the structural stiffness and structural strength.
Clearly designed infills can increase the lateral resistance, overall strength and energy
dissipation of structure. An infill wall reduces the bending moment in the frame and lateral
deflections therefore decreasing the probability of collapse and also reduce the displacement.
Masonry walls are the non-structural part of building or structure. Masonry walls are provided
strength, stability and durability to the RC frame structure and also helps to maintain the indoor
and outdoor temperature. It separates a building from outside world. Masonry is the world used

20
for construction with mortar as a binding material with individual units of bricks, tiles etc.
mortar is a mixture of binding materials can be cement, lime soil or any other. The durability
and strength of masonry wall construction depends on the type and quality of materials used
and workmanship (Javaregowda k s & Prasad, 2017). In 2005, Tasnimi and Mohenkhah
investigated into the effect of irregularity caused by presence of infill walls on seismic demands
of the RC structures using the equivalent strut model as well as equivalent static and spectral
analyses. The results indicated that presence of infill walls in a storey leads to reducing relative
displacements and increasing shear forces. In 2008, Mehmat Matin evaluated the parameters
dominantly influencing fundamental period of a RC building including infill walls and found
that contribution of such walls shortens the period by 5–10% compared to the cases in which
infill walls are not included. In 2013, Meng et al. carried out a study on the impact of infill walls
on seismic performance of RC frames. To do so, two 4-storey RC structures with and without
infill walls under three ground motions (El Centro, Parkfield and San Fernando) were analyzed
using OpenSees software. It was found that contribution of the walls to the seismic performance
of the structure is not negligible. They also observed that inclusion of the infill walls increases
stiffness and reduces ductility and in addition, lessens the number of plastic hinges at collapse
state of the structure. In 2015, Jiang et al. carried out seven tests on a one-storey single-bay RC
structure among which, in 5 cases, the masonry wall with flexible connections, 1 case with the
wall with rigid connection and 1 case excluding the walls, were utilized. They found that in the
case of rigid connections, lateral strength, stiffness and energy dissipation capacity increase
whereas, displacement ductility significantly decreases. Moreover, in the case of flexible
connections, a reverse trend is observed. In 2016, Shan et al. experimentally studied collapse
performance of a RC frame with and without infill walls. To this end, a 2-storey RC frame with
4 bays with and without infill walls was numerically analyzed using OpenSees software. Based
on the results, the RC frame including the infill walls benefit from greater stiffness and strength
compared to the case in which wall is not included but to the contrary, its ductility is less. In
2016, Bolis et al. proposed a method to increase flexibility of the RC frames with infill walls to
ensure a ductile behavior and minimized damages. Experimental results demonstrated that with
an increase in the relative lateral strength of the frame, compared to masonry, there was a
considerable improvement in the seismic capacity of the masonry infill walls in terms of the
strength and ductility of the masonry infill. This parameter is not taken into account when
calculating the strength of masonry using the design codes but should be considered when
designing RC buildings with masonry infill because it has the potential to change the brittle
behavior into a relatively ductile behavior. It should be noted that the number of specimens in
this study was limited, and further investigations are necessary to account for the influence of
the investigated parameters in design codes. There is a large variation in the methods used by

21
different recent codes and researchers to estimate the initial stiffness. A simplified assumption
of a strut width of 0.25 times the infill diagonal length, as suggested by Paulay and Priestley
(1992), gave relatively better results than more empirical complex prediction models
(Alwashalia, Sena, Jinb, & Maedaa, 2019). Masonry infill (MI) walls confined by reinforced
concrete (RC) frames on all four sides play a vital role in resisting the lateral seismic loads on
buildings. It has been shown experimentally that MI walls have a very high initial lateral
stiffness and low deformability (Moghaddam and Dowling, 1987). Thus introduction of MI in
RC frames changes the lateral-load transfer mechanism of the structure from predominant frame
action to predominant truss action according to Murty and Jain (2000), which is responsible for
reduction in bending moments and increase in axial forces in the frame members. In addition,
construction of MI is cheaper because it uses locally available material and labor skills.
Moreover, it has good sound and heat insulation and waterproofing properties, resulting in
greater occupant comforts and economy.

Tests of clay brick infilled panels conducted by Thomas (1953) showed considerable additional
lateral capacity beyond first cracking due to arching of an infill confined within a frame. Hendry
(1973) also recognized the strength enhancement due to arching action and West et al. (1973)
have demonstrated the importance of frame-to-panel interface conditions on the lateral strength
of brickwork panels. The out-of-plane response of infilled frames due to earthquake actions
was under scrutiny of different researchers to find out the main influencing parameters. The
relevance of studying the out-of-plane behavior of brick infill walls was brought to light in the
recent earthquakes occurred in Europe such as L’Aquila earthquake in 2009, where severe
damages developed in the infill walls in comparison to some minor cracks observed in the
22
 surrounding structure. It was observed that no immediate occupancy was possible due to the
generalized damage in the masonry infills. From several examples, it was seen that the ground
motion was not strong enough to cause structural damage but due to improper anchorage and
interaction of the infill walls with surrounding frame, the exterior walls tore away and the
concrete beam and columns were exposed. In spite of the out-of-plane behavior of masonry
infilled frames have attracted less attention from the research community than masonry infill
under in-plane loading, some studies on the out-of-plane behavior of masonry infilled rc frames
can be found in literature. Experimental studies have been presented in literature in order to
investigate the non-linear response of unreinforced masonry infills surrounded by reinforced
concrete frames, subjected to actions orthogonal to their own plane. These tests have been
performed by applying monotonic and cyclic uniform static loads to the infill, in order to
simulate the effects of the inertia forces or applying dynamic excitations (Pantòa, Silva,
Vasconcelos, & Lourenço, 2019).

2.3. Literature review related to opening on masonry infill :

According to Qian et al. (2020) for bare frames, in the initial stage, the flexural action
provides the load resistance. Compressive arch action was ineffective as the external joints
controlled the extent of the horizontal constraints for the beam ends. For infilled frames with or
without openings, in initial stage, the equivalent compressive strut of infilled walls provided
majority of the load resistance. However, in large deformation stage, the load resistance of both
bare frame and infilled frames mainly relied on tensile catenary action developed in the beams.
However, as the secondary compressive struts could provide additional load redistribution path
for infilled frames even in large deformation stage, the ultimate load capacity of infilled frames
was also greater than that of bare frames. Comparing the failure mode of bare frames and infilled
frames, it was found that infill walls may change the failure mode of the bare frame significantly.
The position of plastic hinge and rebar fracture in infilled frames was different in different story.
Therefore, for infilled frames, it was not reliable to simplify the multistory frame into single story
beam-column substructures. Conversely, for bare frames, the failure mode of each floor was
similar. Based on the measured shear distortion of exterior joints, infill walls have benefits

towards reducing the shear distortion of the joints. The opening ratio of 31%, 16%, and 11% will
decrease the static peak load of the infilled frames with solid walls by 47%, 25%, and 13%,
respectively. However, the opening ratio of 31%, 16%, and 11% will decrease the dynamic peak

load by 43%, 18%, and 11%, respectively. Therefore, the detrimental effects of the openings are
similar for static and ultimate load resistance. According to Jalaeefar & Zargar (2020) the results
indicatesthat inclusion of infill walls increases the stiffness and strength and also, period of the

23
1st vibration mode decreases. Furthermore, as the seismic shakings proceed, the infill walls are
damaged and consequently, strength of the structures drops severely. In contrast, the structures
without infill walls possessed lower strength and stiffness but, did not encounter abrupt loss of
strength. Based on the results, presence of infill walls lowers ductility of the structures.
Moreover, comparison over ductility (both displacement and rotational ductility) of the structures
including infill walls with and without opening, indicate that when openings are provided,
ductility is greater which is attributed to less global stiffness of the structure. As number of stories
increases, displacement and rotational ductility is reduced such that the 4 and 12-storey structures
exhibited maximum and minimum ductility, respectively. Contribution of infill walls decreases
energy dissipation capacity of the infilled frames. In general, it can be concluded that as ductility
decreases, less energy would be dissipated. As expected, the structure damaged under main
shock, incurs more damages after occurrence of the aftershock. Based on the results, it can be
perceived that inclusion of aftershocks in analysis of all structures particularly the ones with infill
walls, is of utmost importance. Although the stiffness of the structure increases with addition of
the masonry infills, but the structure is accompanied by a decrease in ductility, which in total
leads to a reduction in energy dissipation of the structure. Therefore, it can be concluded that the
worst scenario of a structure subjected to a seismic sequence belong to the frame with full infill
walls. For the future work, the effect of infill walls on behavior of steel special moment frames
and also effect of infill walls on seismic resilience of steel and concrete will be investigated and
under seismic sequences.

There has been little research on the effects of openings on the behavior of structural
walls. Early investigations determined the effects of openings on structural elements within the
elastic range. Benjamin reported stress concentrations around corners of openings. More
recently, experimental data on stress concentrations around openings and the effects of openings
on wall behavior have been reported. However, reported test results deal with the inelastic
behavior of structural elements under monotonic loading only (Daniel, Shiu, & Corley, 1986).
The rationale behind neglecting infill walls in the design process is partly attributed to incomplete
knowledge of the behaviour of quasi-brittle materials such as unreinforced masonry (URM), of
the composite behaviour of the frame and the infill, as well as due to the lack of conclusive
experimental and analytical results to substantiate a reliable design procedure for this type of
structures, despite the extensive experimental efforts, and analytical investigations over the past
decades. Moreover, due to the large number of interacting parameters, if the infill wall is to be
considered in the analysis and design stages, a modelling problem arises because of the many
possible failure modes that need to be evaluated with a high degree of uncertainty. Therefore, it
is not surprising that no consensus has emerged leading to a unified approach for the design of

24
 infilled frame systems in spite of more than five decades of research. However, it is generally
accepted that under lateral loads an infill wall acts as a diagonal strut connecting the two loaded
corners, an approach that is only applicable to the case of infill walls without openings on the
diagonal of the infill panel (Chrysostomou, Giannopoulos, & Smyrou, 2011). While most of the
studies on proposing strut models have focused on the solid IF, there are few corresponding
studies with an attempt to address the behaviour of IF with opening. Buonopane and White
suggested off-diagonal struts for infill walls with window opening. Behaviour of IF with window
opening was modelled by four offdiagonal struts proposed by Kakaletsis and Karayannis which
are similar to the 1 ones in ASCE/SEI 41-06 recommendations. For infill walls with door
opening, Mohebkhah et al. observed compressive bands in the infill based on the crack patterns
of the test specimens. They schematically mapped these bands consisting of three off-diagonal
struts with the similar observations by El-Dakhakhni et al. [18] on the sketches of the specimens.
In general, it can be concluded that strut direction in infill walls can change to off-diagonal
depending on geometrical and mechanical characteristics of the infilled frames. Speaking of the
effects of openings on performance of perforated IF, some studies proposed reduction factors in
strength and stiffness of the corresponding solid IF. In these studies, the emphasis is on the
determination of ultimate strength and effective stiffness of perforated IF, provided that these
parameters are known - by any means - for the corresponding solid IF. In other words, these
studies remained silent about the force displacement behavior of the IF with opening (Yekrangnia
& Asteris, 2020).

2.4. Literature review related to AAC masonry infill :

AAC was developed by an architect Dr. Johan Eriksson in 1923 at the Royal Technical
Institute in Stockholm, Sweden, and was patented for manufacturing in 1924. Today, AAC is
used in 135 countries of 6 continents worldwide (Jaclhao & Pajgade, 2013). The autoclaved
aerated concrete is the combination of cement, lime, water and finegrained sand, Fly ash can be
preferred addition instead fine grain materials. The low specific weight of AAC is about nearly
400 to 800 kg/m3, and it has good thermal properties. AAC provides reduced weight of structures
of the building, which considered the enhanced application particularly in seismically active
areas. AAC is the use of no aggregate is larger than sand. Industrial and residential buildings
were constructed from AAC blocks are designed and planned for more than 50 years of lifetime.
The waste from demolished buildings has potential in recycling is not only economically
beneficial but a greener and more sustainable building industrial processes could be developed.
The chemical response of aluminum paste makes it a porous shape having mild weight and
greater insulation houses making one-of-a-kind from different mild weight concrete. AAC block
weighs nearly around eightieth less as compared to the standard red brick ultimately resulting

25
into great reduction of deadweight. The reduced dead weight results into reduction of the
employment of cement and steel that helps great in value savings. AAC Blocks have an attractive
appearance and is readily adaptable to any style of architecture. Almost any design can be
achieved with AAC (Kalpana & Mohith, 2019).
Autoclaved aerated concrete (AAC) is a type of precast concrete materials and comparing
to normal concrete has a low density and excellent insulation properties. The low density is
achieved by the formation of air voids to produce a cellular structure. AAC is a lightweight
material used mainly for infill purposes. AACs composed of natural raw materials including
cement, lime, water, sand and Aluminum powder which make the mixture to expand and have a
porous structure due to producing hydrogen bubbles (Bayat, Liaghat, Ghalami-Choobar,
Ashkezari, & Sabouri, 2019). Some of the benefits of using AAC include highly fire resistance,
recyclability and low density which leads to easy handling and installation. The increased thermal
efficiency of AAC makes it suitable for use in areas with extreme temperatures, as it eliminates
the need for separate materials for construction and insulation, leading the primary advantages
of using AAC as infill material are its lightweight, low strength and stiffness. Varela (2006)
developed a rational procedure for determination of response modification factor, R and
displacement amplification factor, Cd for seismic design of AAC structures and proposed
maximum drift ratio of 1% to avoid collapse based on experimental results. Liu (2004) carried
out static and cyclic testing on full-scaled AAC-infilled steel frames to study its hysteretic
behavior and found out that AAC infill enhances the strength and stiffness of steel frames
significantly. Imran (2009) studied the behavior of two half-scaled RC frames infilled with AAC
blocks and conventional clay-brick masonry under cyclic loading and observed that that AAC
blocks exhibited better seismic performance. Ravichandran (2012) investigated the seismic
behavior of steel moment frames with masonry infills using the ATC 63 methodology for
determination of seismic performance factors and observed that “infill strength ratio” greater
than 0.35 results in progressive deterioration of seismic performance. The failure mechanism of
bare frame remains unchanged for low strength infill. It has been found from past studies that
damage in the buildings can be reduced by uniform distribution of infills. This is possible
because, in those cases the stiffness and strength is uniformly distributed along the height.
Therefore, if low strength masonry infill (AAC) is used in OGS-RC frames, the variation in
stiffness and strength along the height of the frame will not be much and the OGS failure
mechanism can be possibly avoided. Compressive strength and elastic modulus of AAC masonry
was observed to be approximately one-half of the conventional masonry. The low strength and
stiffness of AAC masonry results in improved load sharing between the infill and the frame which
leads to the early development of yield mechanism in the frame enhancing energy dissipation.
Post-yield strain hardening behavior was observed during the displacement controlled slow-

26
cyclic test. Non-linear static and dynamic analyses performed according to FEMA
P695methodology demonstrate superior performance of AAC infilled OGS-RC frame compared
to conventional masonry infills of clay and fly-ash bricks. The AAC infilled OGS-RC frame
designed using response reduction factor R of 5 (same as for ductile moment resisting frame),
results in lower probability of collapse at MCE (9.2%) and reduced maximum story drifts. On
the contrary, probability of collapse of conventional masonry infilled OGS-RC frame was much
higher (26.1% and 33.6% for clay and fly-ash bricks, respectively) (Bose & Rai, 2015).

(Table – 1 )

Properties of masonry units and masonry assemblages according to Bose & Rai (2015).

Moreover, failure in AAC infilled OGS-RC frame was nearly uniformly distributed
throughout the entire height of the frame and no weak ground story mechanism was formed
unlike OGS-RC frames with conventional masonry infills. These results suggests that for
conventional masonry infills, suitable modifications in the design of RC moment frames is
required, such as reduced R value for increased frame design forces.
27
2.5. Literature review on existing codes for masonry infilled RCC frames :
Large variations exist among the different codes as the result of an incomplete
knowledge of the masonry infill material as well as seismic performance governing parameters
that were derived from a relatively limited number of experimental studies. The large variations
in the literature cause confusion when practicing engineers have to select an appropriate design
approach (Alwashalia, Sena, Jinb, & Maedaa, 2019). Numerical and experimental researches
have been conducted aiming at understanding infill wall and bounding frame interaction, which
is influential for building response under seismic excitation. Although majority of the previous
research are focused on investigation of IP and OOP response separately, infilled frames are
usually excited under combined bidirectional loading where failure of the walls are determined
by the interaction of combined IP and OOP loading. Previous experimental researches on
combined loading of infilled frames are usually conducted by sequential loading of bidirectional
lateral loads, which results in weak interaction between IP and OOP forces according to
Flanagan and Bennett (Binici, et al., 2018). According to Kaushik, Rai, & Jain (2006) various
codes can be broadly grouped in two categories of those that consider or do not consider the
role of MI walls while designing RC frames. A very few codes specifically recommend isolating
the MI from the RC frames such that the stiffness of MI does not play any role in the overall
stiffness of the frame _NZS-3101 1995, SNIP-II-7-81 1996_. As a result, MI walls are not
considered in the analysis and design procedure. The isolation helps to prevent the problems
associated with the brittle behavior and asymmetric placement of MI. Another group of national
codes prefers to take advantage of certain characteristics of MI walls such as high initial lateral
stiffness, cost-effectiveness, and ease in construction. These codes require that the beneficial
effects of MI are appropriately included in the analysis and design procedure and that the
detrimental effects are mitigated. In other words, these codes tend to maximize the role of MI
as a first line of defense against seismic actions, and to minimize their potential detrimental
effects through proper selection of their layout and quality control. The Italian and European
rules ([Link]., 2008; CEN, 2005) provide that, under inplane horizontal actions, infill panels
should be considered as completely ‘disconnected’ by the surrounding frame. However, the
global seismic response of the building is strongly influenced by the panels and actual behavior
of the infilled frames is very far from the proposed simplification by codes. The damage caused
by recent earthquakes confirms that the contribution in resistance provided by infill walls is
essential for the formation of the collapse mechanism of the frame (Braga et al., 2009). In
structures with regular shape, the high stiffness and/or irregularity in the distribution of the
panels (in height or in plan) can produce local effects (soft storey mechanisms or rotational
effects in plan) that often occur suddenly for the highly brittle characteristics of the reinforced
concrete elements. Therefore, strength and global stiffness of building depend on the
28
infill. For this well-known reason, in order to prevent damage observed on the existing building
heritage, the seismic improvement interventions have been addressed to the reinforcement of
masonry panels and their connection to the elements of surrounding frame (Porco et al., 2014;
El-Sokkary and Galal, 2009; Kakaletsis et al., 2011; Asteris and Cotsovos, 2012; Kauffman and
Memari, 2014). If on the one hand, when designing a new building, models without infills can
be used, on the other side it is necessary to resort to numerical models with infilled frames for
assessing the real performance of existing structures (Dolšek and Fajfar, 2008; Rodrigues et al.,
2008). Among the various proposals, the macro-models occupy a prominent role. They allow
to achieve a significant reduction of parameters involved, at the expense of strong variability
of the results (Fiore et al., 2012; Uva et al., 2012a). The Equivalent Strut Model is certainly the
most used. It only depends on the geometrical and mechanical quantities characterizing the rod
element that simulates the infill (width bw, stiffness and nonlinear law). Over the years several
researchers have proposed formulations for the calibration of strut in order to capture the failure
mode of the panel (particularly difficult to predict at the modelling stage) and local effects
(brittle behavior of the joints) (Fiore, Porco, & Uva, 2015). Most national codes recognize that
structures with simple and regular geometry perform well during earthquakes, and
unsymmetrical placement of MI walls may introduce irregularities into them. These codes
permit static analysis methods for regular short buildings located in regions of low seismicity.
However, for other buildings, dynamic analyses are recommended, in which it is generally
expected but not specifically required that all components imparting mass and stiffness to the
structure are adequately modeled. Most codes restrict the use of seismic design force obtained
from dynamic analysis such that it does not differ greatly from a minimum value that is based
on the code-prescribed empirical estimate of natural period. This restriction prevents the design
of buildings for unreasonably low forces that may result from various uncertainties involved in
a dynamic analysis.

29
 (Table -2 )

Summary of contents of national codes on masonry infilled RC frames from Kaushik, Rai, &
Jain (2006)

Nepal code (NBC-201, 1995) adopts a different analysis procedure in which axial forces
in the frame members are estimated by assuming a pin-jointed frame and representing MI by
compression diagonal struts. A method of distributing the lateral shear force on various MI
walls in a story is specified in the code, which depends upon the seismic base shear on the frame
and cross-sectional and material properties of MI and RC frame members.

30
2.5.1. FEMA 356 :
According to (FEMA-356) In-plane lateral stiffness of an infilled frame system is not the
same as the sum of the frame and infill stiffnesses because of the interaction of the infill with
the surrounding frame. Experiments have shown that under lateral forces, the frame tends to
separate from the infill near windward lower and leeward upper corners of the infill panels,
causing compressive contact stresses to develop between the frame and the infill at the other
diagonally opposite corners. Recognizing this behavior, the stiffness contribution of the infill is
represented with an equivalent compression strut connecting windward upper and leeward
lower corners of the infilled frame. In such an analytical model, if the thickness and modulus
of elasticity of the strut are assumed to be the same as those of the infill, the problem is reduced
to determining the effective width of the compression strut. Solidly infilled frames may be
modeled with a single compression strut in this fashion. For global building analysis purposes,
the compression struts representing infill stiffness of solid infill panels may be placed
concentrically across the diagonals of the frame, effectively forming a concentrically braced
frame system. In this configuration, however, the forces imposed on columns (and beams) of
the frame by the infill are not represented. To account for these effects, compression struts may
be placed eccentrically within the frames. If the analytical models incorporate eccentrically
located compression struts, the results should yield infill effects on columns directly.

Compression Strut Analogy–Concentric Struts

31
 Alternatively, global analyses may be performed using concentric braced frame models, and
the infill effects on columns (or beams) may be evaluated at a local level by applying the strut
loads onto the columns (or beams). Diagonally concentric equivalent struts may also be used to
incorporate infill panel stiffnesses into analytical models for perforated infill panels (e.g., infills
with window openings), provided that the equivalent stiffness of the infill is determined using
appropriate analysis methods (e.g., finite element analysis) in a consistent fashion with the
global analytical model. Analysis of local effects, however, must consider various possible
stress fields that can potentially develop within the infill. A possible representation of these
stress fields with multiple compression struts have been proposed by Hamburger (1993).
Theoretical work and experimental data for determining multiple strut placement and strut
properties, however, are not sufficient to establish reliable guidelines; the use of this approach
requires judgment on a case-by-case basis.

Compression Strut Analogy–Eccentric Struts

Compression Strut Analogy–Perforated Infills

32
2.6. Literature review related to seismic performance evaluation :
Furtado et al. proposed an equivalent bidiagonal strut macro model where failure of the
infill, which is adopted by an element removal algorithm, is determined by a linear interaction
curve between IP and OOP displacement capacities. Mosalam and Gunay, on the other hand,
proposed a single strut model with progressive collapse algorithm via element removal
mechanism where a yield interaction curve between IP and OOP displacement are defined
through a convex downward curve . Finally, Gulkan et al. adopted the hypothesis proposed by
Kadysiewski and Mosallam to IP force– displacement backbone curve of tested infilled RC
frames as the basis of the development of OOP acceleration versus base shear interaction curve
and concluded that OOP failure of a wall is possible only when the IP drift weakens it to a
degree when its capacity in that direction is substantially degraded (Binici, et al., 2018). In a
comparative analytical study by Kaushik et al. (2008) involving various analytical models for
masonry infills in a single-storey, single bay RC frame, the 1-strut model was found to be
predicting the global behavior (initial stiffness and ultimate failure load) of the system with
reasonable accuracy. On the other hand, 3-strut model was found to be estimating the force
resultants in the frame members more accurately as compared to that of a 1-strut model.
Moreover, the 3-strut model was found to model local failures in the frame members in addition
to the compressive failure of struts. Under lateral forces when strut action develops, a finite area
of infill is physically connected to the beams and columns of the frame. This finite area, which
can be effectively modeled using a 3-strut model, is responsible for distribution of large stiffness
of infill walls to a larger area on beams and columns; this prevents abrupt failure of masonry
infills under increasing lateral forces. The finite area is also responsible for local shear failure
in beams and columns, and in a 3-strut model, this failure mode can be represented in a more
appropriate manner. Moreover, design force resultants in RC beams and columns can be
obtained more accurately when 3-strut models are used. Therefore, the 3-strut model appears
to be physically more appropriate than the 1-strut model for masonry-infilled RC frames.

33
Figure: Macro models and utilized IP-OOP interaction curves :(a) Furtado et al. and (b) Mosallamand
Gunay

Earthquake design code should be formulated based directly on an in-depth

understanding of the intricacies of the nonlinear response of structures, in such a way that it
wisely simplifies the complex phenomena and grasps the significant and dominant phenomena.
This view is different from most of the current codedevelopment approaches, which rarely start
anew from the evolving knowledge about the physical nature of the problem, and which
typically focus only on fine-tuning of the previously adopted parameters and on the correction,
procedures aimed at extending or correcting the contemporary codes for the observed
discrepancies (Trifunac 2012). With the introduction of performance-based design principles
into earthquake-resistant design, it is now necessary to work with realistic descriptions of the
strong-groundmotion amplitudes. In terms of the traditional approach to specifying the design
forces via response-spectrum amplitudes, it is now necessary to at least specify the amplitudes
and shapes of the design spectra that are consistent with the performance-based design
requirements. It is argued in the following that there is no point in performing the multiple
levels of the performance-based design if inadequate and biased spectral shapes are used in the
process. The performance-based guidelines can be specified with respect of two different levels
of excitation, which are termed the no-collapse and damage limitation requirements. The no-
collapse requirement calls for the structure to withstand the design seismic action without local
or global collapse and to retain its integrity and residual load-bearing capacity after the seismic
event. This is associated with the largest credible level of ground shaking. What this means
34
specifically is defined by the national committees of experts, and it could be described, for
example, by a no-collapse requirement for seismic action with a probability of exceedance equal
to NCR P = 10% in 50 years (EC8). The damage limitation requirement calls for the design that
will withstand the seismic action without the occurrence of damage and the associated
limitations of use. EC8 guidelines recommended that this level of shaking be associated with
the probability of exceedance of DLR P = 10% in 10 years. The structural design for no-collapse
conditions will require nonlinear response analysis, while the damage limitation requirement
will be associated with essentially linear response analysis. During the largest credible levels
of shaking, the structure and its foundation soil will experience large nonlinear deformations,
so that the no-collapse analysis will be associated with considerably longer system periods than
the periods in the analysis of the same structure for the damage limitation requirements. In terms
of the design ground motions, it is seen that the no-collapse and damage limitation analyses
will have to be determined not only by the spectral amplitudes with different probabilities of
being exceeded, but also at different system periods. Since the shapes of hazard spectra of
strong ground motion depend on many factors, including the probability of being exceeded, it
is seen that selection of the design spectra in terms of peak-acceleration and fixed-shape design
spectra cannot satisfy the performance-based design objectives. Contemporary design practices
for no-collapse conditions add further complexities and increase the uncertainties in the final
outcome by (1) providing only approximations associated with modifying the linear response
spectrum to represent a nonlinear response spectrum, and (2) performing only what is at best
an approximate nonlinear response analysis. The resulting uncertainties and errors can be larger
than the errors and approximations in the selection of the linear response spectra for design
(Trifunac & Todorovska, 2012). The scientific literature offers a variety of models, which can
be grouped in two categories. The first one includes micro-modelling approaches (Asteris et
al., 2013), in which the RC frame, the masonry panel and their mutual connections are modelled
and described by proper constitutive laws. The second category, usually defined as
‘macromodelling approaches’, is the most used, and resorts to simple heuristic models – for
which the solution is straightforward – in order to analyse the frame-infill system. With regard
to frame-infill systems, many macro-models have been proposed in the literature (Asteris et al.,
2011). The original Equivalent Strut Method (Mainstone, 1974; Stafford Smith, 1963) is based
on the observation that, within the masonry panel, the compressive stress substantially follows
the diagonal path, and thence adopts one or more equivalent diagonal struts in order to simulate
the infill masonry panel. The main parameters of method are represented by the geometric
features of the strut (diagonal length dW, thickness tW and width bW), the stiffness λ and the
hysteretic constitutive law FW-S (FW-d in Figure 1) which regulates the nonlinear behaviour
of the panel (Fiore, Porco, & Uva, 2015). A wide literature can be found about the definition of
35
the geometric characteristics of the strut in order to achieve the equivalence in terms of strength
and stiffness with the infill panel. The thickness of the strut is usually assumed equal to
thickness of the panel, whereas two different approaches can be used to define the width bW.
A first one defines bW as a function of the diagonal length of panel, giving more emphasis to
the geometric aspects than to the mechanical ones (Holmes, 1961). The second approach,
instead, defines the width on the basis of the geometry and mechanical properties of the infilled
frame providing more refined numerical formulations (Dawe and Seah, 1989). At present, there
are two kinds of finite element analysis methods for the infill wall, micro-model and macro-
model. Micro-model is a detailed analysis method, block and mortar models are set up
respectively. This method can realize the simulation of the interaction between infill walls and
frames, but the efficiency of computation is low. Macro-model is a simplified analysis method,
which makes the performance of masonry blocks and mortars uniformly continuous, and only
one kind of material is used to simulate. The calculating efficiency of the method is higher, and
the analysis on the destruction property of structures also can be achieved (Jin, 2015).

Figure : The equivalent diagonal strut model

36
 There are also formulations in which, regardless of the geometrical and mechanical
characteristics of the infill, the predominant failure mode is a-priori defined.

For example, Panagiotakos and Fardis (1996) assume as failure mechanism, the crushing at the
center of panel.

Figure: The force-displacement relationship proposed by Panagiotakos and Fardis

(1996) for the equivalent strut model.

According to Fiore et. al. (2015) the infill walls affect the overall building
response, especially at the limit state of NC. Even slight variations in the mechanical
properties of materials affect the global performance of the structure. The real structural
response cannot be evaluated without to take into account the effects of infill panel in the
modelling, because the structural capacity without infill panels could be overestimate.
The infills change the nonlinear behavior of the single frames. In the present study, when
the panels are regularly distributed in height, they involve the diminution of plastic
commitment of horizontal structural elements. In case of uneven distribution in height,
local failure mechanisms can occur more easily and columns at the floor without panels
become more vulnerable.

37
2.7. Literature review on comparision between AAC and brick masonry :
According to Jaclhao & Pajgade (2013) , the influence of masonry infill on the
seismic response of multi-storeyed building under seismic loading is illustrated through
typical examples. It has been found that the Indian standard codal provisions do not
provide any guidelines for the analysis and design of RC frames with infill panels. It has
been also found that the presence of infill reduces the displacement capacity of structure
and modifies the structural force distribution significantly. The base shear experienced
by models with AAC blocks was significantly smaller than with conventional clay bricks
which results in reduction in member forces which leading to reduction in required
amount of Ast to resist member forces. So economy in construction can be achieved by
using AAC blocks instead of conventional clay bricks. The performance of AAC block
infill was superior to that of Conventional brick infill in RC frame. Therefore, the ALC
block material can basically be used to replace conventional bricks as infill material for
RC frames built in the earthquake prone region. If we compare the performance of frame
with full infill as conventional clay bricks and AAC blocks was significantly superior to
that of bare frame. Masonry is considered as an anisotropic composite material because
of different geometries and material properties of masonry, including: shape of units
(bricks/blocks), dimensions of units, perforations, slenderness ratio, strengths of
materials, modulus of elasticity of materials, water absorption, etc. (Zilch et al., 2001).
The mechanical properties of masonry are more complicated than mechanical properties
of other construction materials (Velazquez-Diams et al., 2000 and 1998). Elastic modulus
(or Young’s modulus) is one of the most important parameters in determination of the
stiffness of structural elements prior to cracking and is calculated according to the linear
part of stress-strain curves. According to Wolde-Tinsae et al. (1993), elastic modulus of
masonry walls is not related to properties of brick units, mortar joints, grout or h/t ratio
(of samples) individually; but is a function of all of mentioned parameters. Woulde-
Tinsae concluded that it is the best option to calculate the value of elastic modulus
according to the compressive strength of masonry samples, because compressive strength
is also influenced by mentioned parameters (Arash, 2012). There are complex
interactions between infill walls and frames. In the process of designing, due to lack of
reasonable and effective computing model, structural engineers usually ignore the
influences of infill walls, which leads to inaccurate results and even to serious damage.
Therefore, in order to assess the seismic performance of masonry-infilled frame structure,
it is very necessary to establish a reasonable and effective nonlinear analysis model of
frame structure with infill walls (Jin, 2015).

38
 CHAPTER 3

3. OBJECTIVES OF THE STUDY

 To reduce the stiffening effect of infill frame.

 To reduce the cost of construction.
 Usage reduces overall dead load of a building, thereby allowing construction of a taller
building.

39
 CHAPTER 4

4. Research Methodology
[Link] Chart:

Select a plan of commercial/ residential high rise

building.

Select column positions on the plan.

Plan beam layout for each floors for setting up

grid lines.

To start with modeling on Etabs select base units

and design standards

Setup grid lines for the modeling and define

storey levels.

Define section properties including material.

Draw structural objects lIke column, beam, slab

& openings:

Assign properties to drawn structural objects.

Define load patterns, assign load and define load

cases,Analyze model, check results & design
model.

40
 4.2. BUILDING MODELLING
For this study, a 10-story building with a 3-meters height for each story, regular in plan is modelled.
These buildings were designed in compliance to the Indian Code of Practice for Seismic Resistant Design
of Buildings. The buildings are assumed to be fixed at the base and the floors acts as rigid diaphragms.
The sections of structural elements are square and rectangular and their dimensions are changed for
different building. Storey heights of buildings are assumed to be constant including the ground storey.
The buildings are modelled using software ETAB Nonlinear v 9.5.0. Four different models were studied
with different material use in building. Models are studied in conventional brick and AAC block for adopt
in each model for comparing lateral displacement, story drift % Ast in column, concrete quantity required,
steel and total cost required in all zones for all models.
The plans of the building model are given below :
Model 1 - RCC building with Conventional Clay bricks as infill material. (Plan of building with
Conventional Clay Bricks as infill material)

Elevation of RCC Building showing Conventional Clay Bricks modelled as inclined Strut

41
Model 2- RCC building with ACC block as infill material (plan of ACC block)

Model 3- 3D render view of building with Conventional bricks as inclined sruts

Elevation of RCC Building Showing AAC blocks modelled as inclined Strut

42
Building Configuration Data: (Table -3 )
NO OF STORIES G+10

EACH STOREY HEIGHT 3m

THICKNESS OF SLAB 150mm

GRADE OF CONCRETE M20

GRADE OF STEEL Fe415

SIZE OF BEAM 0.23m X 0.35m

SIZE OF COLUMN 0.3m X 0.3m

THICKNESS OF INFILL 0.150mm

DENSITY OF BRICK 20KN/m3

INFILL
DENSITY OF ACC INFILL 6.5KN/m3

Description of loading
a. Dead load
i. Self-weight comprises of the weight of the beam, column and slab of the building.
ii. Wall load for brick masonry:7.35 KN/m.
iii. Wall load for AAC masonry:3.675kN/m.
iv. Floor finish load: 1 KN/m2.
v. Floor finish load on roof: 3 KN/m2.
vi. Unit weight of Brick: 20 KN/m3.
vii. Unit weight of AAC block: 6.5 KN/m3.
viii. Modulus of Elasticity
 Brick: 2640 N\[Link]
 AAC Block: 2040 N/[Link]
ix. Poissons Ratio
 Brick: 0.2
 AAC block: 0.25
b. Live load
 Imposed load: 2 KN/m2.
 Roof load: 1.5 KN/m2.

43
 c. Earthquake load
 Types of soil: Type I which means Hard soil.
 Seismic Zone: III.
 Zone factor, Z= 0.16
 Responsible reduction factor: 3
 Importance factor, I = I
 Damping of structure: 5%
Time period calculation as per IS 1893-2002
Model I,
Tx = 0.09H / SQRT (Dx)
= 0.766 sec.
Ty = 0.09H / Sqrt (Dy)
= 0.766 sec.
[Link] of Infill Wall:
In this work we are comparing reinforced concerned design using autoclave aerated concrete and
conventional bricks as a construction material, as the weight of autoclave aerated concrete is
much lesser than the conventional brick, by using this advantage we can reduce the weight of
infill wall on beam columns, footings if conventional bricks replace by AAC block and
simultaneously we can save reinforced steel. The plot building is as follows:

Fig: Diagonal strut modelling of infill wall.

Diagonal Strut Formula As per Fema 360

Ei = modulus of elasticity of infill material

Ef = modulus of elasticity of frame material

44
L = beam length between centre lines of columns
L' = length of infill wall
h = column height between centre lines of beams
s = height of infill wall
Ic = moment of inertia of column
t = thickness of infill wall
d = diagonal length of strut
θ = angle between diagonal of infill wall and the horizontal in radian.
The values of Width of the Diagonal strut are as follows: ( Table -4 )
Strut material Brick AAC Block

Width of strut 488 mm 500 mm

Thickness of Strut 150 mm 150 mm

45
 CHAPTER 5
5. RESULT AND DISCUSSION
The seismic analysis for all the RC frame models consists of brick infill (M- 1), model with full
infill (modelling infill as a AAC block infill element) (M- 2) and full infill with has been done
for both the infill materials, i.e. for brick masonry infill and AAC block masonry infill by using
software ETABS and the results are presented below. The parameters which have to be studied
are Base Shear, Displacement, Beam forces, Column forces, Storey Shear and Storey drift by
changing the material of infill as Brick infill and AAC block infill.
Lateral Displacement
Model 1: Brick Infill ( Table – 5 )
TABLE: Diaphragm Centre of Mass Displacements
Story Diaphragm Load case/ Combo UX
Story11 D1 EQX 29.977

Story10 D1 EQX 28.587

Story9 D1 EQX 26.791

Story8 D1 EQX 24.669

Story7 D1 EQX 22.303

Story6 D1 EQX 19.77

Story5 D1 EQX 17.142

Story4 D1 EQX 14.487

Story3 D1 EQX 11.865

Story2 D1 EQX 9.333

46
Model 2: AAC Block Infill ( Table – 6 )
TABLE: Diaphragm Centre of Mass Displacements
Story Diaphragm Load case/ UX
Combo
Story11 D1 EQX 21.06
Story10 D1 EQX 20.089
Story9 D1 EQX 18.817
Story8 D1 EQX 17.304
Story7 D1 EQX 15.609
Story6 D1 EQX 13.787
Story5 D1 EQX 11.891
Stroy4 D1 EQX 9.968
Story3 D1 EQX 8.062
Stroy2 D1 EQX 6.208

Lateral displacement in X or Y direction for all model in all zones are as shown in Fig.
Graph 1: Story’s wise of lateral displacement.

Therefore, The AAC block material can basically be used to replace conventional
bricks as infill material for RC frames built in the earthquake prone region. The results show
that, the minimum cost of building and maximum strength of AAC brick wall in a building can
helps to reduce the deflection and story drift in a building. Some studies deal with the evaluation

47
of steel and cost of building required for the building provided with AAC BLOCK masonry
wall. The seismic analysis for all the RC frame models which consist of full infill (modelling
infill as a strut element) (M-1), full infill with soft ground storey (M-2). Model with infill
ground storey has been done for two infill materials i.e. for brick masonry infill, AAC block
masonry infill by using software ETABS and the results are presented below. The parameters
which are to be studied are Base Shear, Displacement, Beam Forces, Column Forces, Storey
Shear and Storey drift by changing the material of infill as Brick infill and AAC block infill.
Hence The Comparison of displacement between brick in-filled frame, AAC block masonry in
filled frame and hollow concrete blocks in-filled frame: The effect of infill materials on the
lateral displacement is analysed for Brick masonry infill, AAC block masonry infill and hollow
concrete block masonry.

48
 6. CONCLUSION:

This work is a small attempt towards the understanding of the effect of AAC infill
masonry and brick infill masonry on the seismic behaviour of RC structures. In this work, the
seismic behaviour of brick infill panels and AAC in-filled panel was studied and compared in
a systematic manner. The main conclusions are summarized below:
 In column, considering AAC infill wall effect, the value of axial force, bending
moment, Ast is less compared to brick infill frame. Because of infill wall effect, there
is drastic decrease in the value of axial force in column. Maximum Axial Force is at
the foundation level.
 It has been observed that the base shear, lateral forces and story shear for a structure
with AAC blocks is significantly less as compared with the structure in-filled with brick
masonry due to low weight density of AAC blocks. Lesser base shear will result in
lesser lateral forces and as the weight density of AAC blocks is less as compare with
brick masonry the dead load of AAC block masonry is less as compared brick masonry
and hence economy in design can be achieved by replacing brick masonry with AAC
block masonry.
 The response of a structure in terms of bending moments is greatly improved in an infill
model. The bending moments is reduced greatly by the introduction of infill panels.
The bending moments for members of structure with AAC block in all cases were less
as compared with corresponding cases of structure with brick masonry.
 Therefore, the corresponding benefits of construction cost is lower than conventional
bricks material in RC frame structure.

49
 7. REFERENCES:
1) Prakash T M, Naresh kumar B G, Karisiddappa, Raghunath S “Propertie of Aerated
(Foamed) Concrete Blocks” International Journal of Scientific & Engineering Research
Volume 4, Issue 1, January-2013 1 ISSN 2229-5518.
2) Dr. B G Naresh kumar, Das, D., Murty, C. V. R., Brick masonry infills in seismic design of
RC framed buildings: Part 1 –Cost implications” The Indian Concrete Journal, 2004, vol78.
3) Ali J. Hamad, Hossain Mohammad Muyeed-Ul-Azam and Khan Mahmud Amanat [1]
(2005). Effect of Infill as a Structural Component on the Column Design of Multistoried
Building. UAP Journal of Civil and Environmental Engineering Vol. 1, No. 1, 2005
4) [Link] Bhavani Siram, [Link] “Study on Seismic Responses of Masonry Brick Infill
Walls in Slender Structures” IJSRD - International Journal for Scientific Research &
Development| Vol. 2, Issue 09, 2014 | ISSN (online): 2321- 0613.
5) Alim Shaikh, Momin Mohmedakil M, [Link] “seismic assessment of RC frame masonry
infill with AAC block”international journal of advanced engineering research and studies e-
issn2249–8974IJAERS/Vol. I/ Issue III/April-June, 2012/148-149
6) Riyaz Sameer Shah, Kashif Mahmud, Md. Rashadul Islam and Md. Al-Amin (2010). Study
of the Reinforced Concrete Frame with Brick
7) Nagesh. Mustapure ,Prashant Gautam, Navdeep Saxena “Comparison of Autoclaved Aerated
Concrete Blocks with Red Bricks” International Journal of Engineering Research
8) P.S. Bhandari and Mr. V. P. Jamnekar, Dr. P. V. Durge “Seismic evaluation of brick masonry
infill” International Journal of Emerging Trends in Engineering & Technology (IJETET) Vol.
02, No. 01, 2013 ISSN No. 2248-9592
9) Fema 306: “Evaluation of earthquake damaged concrete and masonry wall buildings”
Washington D.C.
10) IS:1893(Part I)-2002, Criteria for Earthquake Resistant Design of Structure, General
Provisions and Buildings, Bureau of Indian Standards, New Delhi.
11) Das, D., Murty, C. V. R., Brick masonry infills in seismic design of RC framed buildings:
Part 1 –Cost implications” The Indian Concrete Journal, 2004, vol78.
12) Rahul P. Rathi, Dr. P.S. Pajgade “Study of Masonry Infilled R.C. Frame With & Without
Opening” International Journal of Scientific & Engineering Research Volume 3, Issue 6, June-
2012 1 ISSN 2229-5518
13) IS:6041-1985, “Code of practice for AAC block masonry”, Bureau of Indian Standard, New
Delhi.
14) Rafic Ahmad, „Brick masonry and hollow concrete block masonry- A comparative study,
2013,14-21.
15) Hemant B. Kaushik; Durgesh C. Rai; and Sudhir K. Jain, “A rotational approach to
analytical modeling of masonry infills in reinforced concrete frame buildings” The 14th World
Conference on Earthquake Engineering October 12-17, 2008, Beijing, China.
50