THE SEISMIC RESISTANCE OF THE DIFFERENT INFILL MATERIALS USED IN THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE RC STRUCTUR

International Research Journal of Engineering and Technology (IRJET) e ISSN: 2395 0056

Volume: 09 Issue: 06 | Jun 2022 www.irjet.net p-ISSN: 2395-0072

“THE SEISMIC RESISTANCE OF THE DIFFERENT INFILL MATERIALS USED IN THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE RC STRUCTURES”

R.K.2

Abstract Due to the distance constraint withinside the principal towns of the country, there's a brand new inclination of production of the excessive upward push constructing withinside the excessive seismicity areas. Reinforced concrete shape with infill masonry partitions have diverse blessings due to that it's miles extensively utilizedinproductionexerciseofthemultistoriedresidential constructing in addition to in business homes. The fundamentalessentialcharacteristicoftheinfillpartitionsis filling the distance among RC structural elements. The gift examine examines the impact of the infill partitions at the lineardynamicoverallperformanceoftheexcessive upward push bolstered concrete constructing subjected to lateral seismicloads.Theaccuratemodellingperformsaessential position withinside the evaluation and layout of the shape subjectedtogravityinadditiontolateralloads,whichhave beeninitiatedduetotheearthquake.Intraditionalmodeling, mass of the infill masonry is taken into consideration howeveritsstiffnessignored.Becauseofthisreason,many homes are suffered from destructive impact in beyond earthquakes. In gift examine, the parametric research is performed with unique infill substances like AAC block masonry,RedclaybrickmasonryandFlyashbrickmasonry etc.anduniquestructuralpreparationslikenakedbody,infill bodyforuniqueearthquakezoneswhichincludequarterIII, IV and V. When shape is subjected to the earthquake infill acts as a compression strut, which converts the weight wearing mechanism from body movement to truss movement.Intheexistingexamineinfillimpactbroughtwith the assist of an equal diagonal approach in keeping with IS1893:2016.WehaveorganizedRCexcessiveupwardpush constructing fashions for the evaluation.In gift examine evaluationisdonewithreactionspectrumapproachasinline withIS1893:2016theusageofE tabssoftware.Comparative and parametric examine is performed with the assist of storey shear, storey drift, storey displacement, and herbal timeperiod.

Key Words: Masonry infill, AAC block, Red brick, Fly ash, Equvivalent diagonal strut, response spectrum method.

I. INTRODUCTION

Due to the lateral load initiated from the Earthquake, the seismic reaction of the structural factors of the body in

addition to the non structural issue of the constructing receives affected because of immoderate displacements purposethroughthelateralload.RCbodysystemswithinfill masonry partitions are typically used because of diverse usefulprogramslikeshortproduction,lowcost,appropriate architectural view, without problems availability etc. In structural analysis, masonry infill partitions handled as a non structural element, because of this purpose its mass taken into consideration however structural traits which include energy and stiffness are neglected. The traditional modellingofnakedbodyshape,theaffectofinfillisn'talways taken into consideration which suggests that the shape is muchlessstifferthantheyactual.Inproductionpractice,the general stiffness of the shape is multiplied due to affect of infill masonry partitions which ends up withinside the shorter herbal time periods. The effect of infill masonry partitions at the seismic overall performance of the shape reliesuponupondiversecomponentslikeconnectionamong RCbodyandwall,detailingofsection,mechanicalhousesof substances etc. From the inspection of RC constructing in beyondearthquakes,therearealargewidevarietyofhomes suffered from extreme impact on their terrible overall performancerelatedtoinfillmasonrypartitions.Totriumph over this situation, the modern day version of the I.S 1893:2016consistsofafewuniquerecordsconcerningthe impactofinfillmasonrypartitionsattheshapeatsomestage intheearthquake.Alongthepeakoftheconstructing,there's aversionwithinsidethestructuralhouseswhileinaircraft energyandstiffnessoftheunreinforcedmasonryinfilltaken intoconsideration.Iftheoneshousesareleftoutthenshape turnsintoirregular.

II. Indian standard code 1893:2016 provisions

I.S1893:2016statesthatURMinfillwallwillbeshapelyas the same diagonal strut. The ends of the equivalent strut shouldbetreatedaspinjointedwhichareconnectedtothe RC frame. The calculations of the width of the equivalent diagonal strut arestatedunder clauseno.7.9.2.2. also,the thicknessoftheURMinfillwallshouldbeusedasathickness oftheequivalentdiagonalstrut.URMinfillshallbemodeled byusingequivalentdiadonalstrutasbelow:

For walls without any openning, width Wds of equivalent diagonalstrutshallbetakenas:

wds =0.175 h( 0.4) L ds …………….(1)

Certified

Page1330

IRJET | Impact Factor value: 7.529 | ISO 9001:2008

Journal |

Nikita Uttam Pawar1 , Prof. Pote , Prof Kasliwal S.S3 1,2,3 Department of Civil Engineering, SND College of Engineering & Research Center Babhulgaon Tal yeola Dist Nashik

***

International Research Journal of Engineering and Technology (IRJET) e ISSN: 2395 0056

Where, h =coefficientusedtodefinewidthofdiagonalstrut

L ds=diagonallengthofequivalentstrut h =h{ } …………….(2)

Em=Elasticmodulusofinfillmaterial

Ef=Elasticmodulusofframematerial

Ic=momentofinertiaoftheconnectingcolumn t=thicknessoftheinfillwall θ=angleofthediagonalstrutwiththehorizontal

models are considered a bare frame; infilled frame. The lineardynamicanalysisisperformedconsideringResponse spectrummethod.Theparametricstudyiscarriedoutusing different parameters like base shear, fundamental natural timeperiod,storeydriftanddisplacement.

Followingdataisusedforanalysis:

1) RC frame Details:

a) Structural Details:

No.ofstories:G+10 DepthofFoundation:2m FloortofloorHeight:3.3m TypeofBuilding:Residential SizeofBeams:230X600mm

SizeofColumns:600X600mm ThicknessofSlab:150mm ThicknessofExternalWall:230mm

HeightofParapetwall:1.0m

b) Loading details

LLonfloor:4KN/m2

LLonroof:1.5KN/m2

Fig.1EquvivalentDiadonalStrutOfURMInfillWall.

III. Objectives



To compare the reaction of the open naked body, infill strut body uncovered to seismic masses as accordingtoIndianEarthquakeCode.

FFonfloor:1.5KN/m2 FFonroof:2KN/m2

c) Seismic details



Totakealookattheaffectoftheoneofakindinfill substances at the seismic reaction of the shape belowthelateralload.



To discover equal diagonal strut for masonry stiffnessattentionasaccordingtoIndianEarthquake codeforoneofakindearthquakezonesIII,IVandV.

TypeofFrame:RCbuildingwithSMRF Earthquakezone:ZoneIII,IV,V Typeofsoil: III(Soft) Importancefactor:1.5 Responsereductionfactor:5 Dampingofstructure:5%



To take a look at the linear dynamic traits of the shapethroughactingResponsespectrummethod.

IV. Problem statement

To evaluate the impact of the infill masonry wall on the seismic response of Reinforced concrete building, we considered a case study of the G+ 10 structure located in seismiczoneIII,IVandV.Inthepresentcasestudy,different infillmaterialslikeAuto claveAeratedConcreteblock(AAC), Fly ash brick, and Red clay brick were used. The different

Responsespectra:AsperIS1893:2016 Timeperiod:0.075(H)0.75 …..(Bareframe)

: 0.09H/ ……(Infillframe)

2) Material Properties:

a) Concrete:

Grade=30MPa Unitweight=25KN/m3 Poisson’sratio=0.2

International Research Journal of Engineering and Technology (IRJET) e ISSN: 2395 0056

Modulusofelasticity=27386.13MPa

b) Steel: Grade=500MPa Unitweight=78.5KN/m3 Poisson’sratio=0.25 Modulusofelasticity=2X105MPa

c) Masonrymaterials

TABLE1.PROPERTIESOFMASONRYMATERIAL

Property name AAC block masonry Redclaybrick masonry Fly ash brick masonry Unit weight (KN/m3) 6 18 14.5 Poisonsratio 0.25 0.15 0.2

Elastic modulus (MPa) 1380 2200 1860 Thermalexp. Coe.(/°C) 8.1X10 6 5.5X10 6 13.1X10 6

V. MODELING TECHNIQUES

Ingiftstudy,theequaldiagonalstruthasbeenmodelledas willingbeamwithsecondreleasesatitseachends.Thewidth of equitant strut is the width calculated the use of IS code methodandintensitysametowallthickness.Thewidthof thediagonalstrutisthefeatureofthestiffnessofthecolumn. Themodellinghasbeenachievedprimarilybasedtotallyon assumption that masonry is powerful in compression the reactionspectrumevaluationchangedintoachievedtheuse ofE tabssoftware.

TABLE2.EQUIVALENTDIAGONALSTRUTWIDTH

Wall span AAC block masonry Red brick masonry Fly ash brick masonry 4m 730 697 708

Fig.2PlanviewoftheG+10structure

Fig.3BareframemodelofG+10structures[BF]

International Research Journal of Engineering and Technology (IRJET) e ISSN: 2395 0056

Fig.4InfillframemodeloftheG+10structures[IF]

VI. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

The Linear dynamic evaluation is executed for the all fashions for hundreds described as in keeping with IS 1893:2016.Theinfillimpactistakenintoconsiderationwith the assist of diagonal strut as in keeping with clause no. 7.9.2.2. The dynamic evaluation is carried the usage of reaction spectrum technique to realize the linear dynamic behaviouroftheshape.Theestimationoftheelectricityand potential for the shape with distinct infill substances is executed. The outcomes that are received from evaluation areincomparisonandmentionedasfollows:

ZONE V:

1. Base shear:

Followingarepercentdistinctionofbaseshear:

a) AACblocksmasonry:

Base shear improved through 15.04% in case of equal strut version in x and y path respectively than base shearsforanakedframe.

b) Redbrickmasonry:

Base shear improved through 23.17% in case of equal strut version in x and y path respectively than base shearsforanakedframe.

c) Flyashbrickmasonry: Base shear improved through 20.15% in case of equal strut version in x and y path respectively than base shearsforanakedframe.

2.

Fig.5BASESHEARINXDIRECTIONFORZ V

Fig.6 BASESHEARINYDIRECTIONFORZ V

Storey Drift:

a) AAC blocks masonry: Storey drift decreased by 19.91%incaseofequivalentstrutmodelinxandy directionrespectivelythanstoreydriftsfora bare frame.

Fig.7STOREYDRIFTINXDIRECTIONFORAACBLOCK MASONRY

International Research Journal of Engineering and Technology (IRJET) e ISSN: 2395 0056

Volume: 09 Issue: 06 | Jun 2022 www.irjet.net p-ISSN: 2395-0072

Fig.8STOREYDRIFTINYDIRECTIONFORAACBLOCK MASONRY

b)Redbrickmasonry:Storeydriftdecreasedby23.89%in case of equivalent strut model in x and y direction respectivelythanstoreydriftsforabareframe.

Fig.11STOREYDRIFTINXDIRECTIONFORFLYASH BRICKMASONRY

Fig.9STOREYDRIFTINXDIRECTIONREDBRICK MASONRY

Fig.12STOREYDRIFTINYDIRECTIONFORFLYASH BRICKMASONRY

3. Storey displacement:

a) AAC block masonry: Storey displacement decreased by 17.69%incaseofequivalentstrutmodelinxandy direction respectivelythanstoreydisplacementforabareframe.

Fig.10STOREYDRIFTINYDIRECTIONFORREDBRICK MASONRY

C)Flyashbrickmasonry: Storeydriftdecreasedby22.32%incaseofequivalentstrut modelinxandy directionrespectivelythanstoreydriftsfor abareframe.

Fig.13STOREYDISPLACEMENT INXDIRECTIONFORAAC BLOCKMASONRY

International Research Journal of Engineering and Technology (IRJET) e ISSN: 2395 0056

c)Flyashbrickmasonry:Storeydisplacementdecreasedby 19.63%incaseofequivalentstrutmodelinxandy direction respectivelythanstoreydisplacementforabareframe.

Fig.14STOREYDISPLACEMENT INYDIRECTIONFORAAC BLOCKMASONRY

b)Redbrickmasonry: Storey displacement decreased by 21.10% in case of equivalentstrutmodelinxandy directionrespectivelythan storeydisplacementforabareframe.

Fig.17STOREYDISPLACEMENT INXDIRECTIONFORFLY ASHMASONRY

Fig.15STOREYDISPLACEMENT INXDIRECTIONFORRED BRICKMASONRY

Fig.18

STOREYDISPLACEMENT INY DIRECTIONFORFLY ASH MASONRY

4. Fundamental natural time period:

A) By I.S code Fundamental herbal term reduced through 34.02%forinfill body in x andy courserespectivelythan storeydriftswithinsidethenakedbody.

b)Byanalysis Fundamental herbal termreduced through 16.43%forinfill body in x andy courserespectivelythan storeydriftswithinsidethenakedbody

Fig.16STOREYDISPLACEMENT INYDIRECTIONFORRED BRICKMASONRY

International Research Journal of Engineering and Technology (IRJET) e ISSN: 2395 0056

e) Storey displacement is decreased notably in infill body thannakedbodyforallsubstancesinall3seismiczones.

f)Fromtheaboveeffects,wewillsaythatAACblockmasonry appears to be higher preference as an infill masonry cloth becauseoflesservaluesofstoreyglide,storeydisplacement andherbaltermthantheRedclaybrickmasonryandFlyash brickmasonry.

REFERENCES

1. Archana Dongre, Pradeep Kumar Ramancharla (2012) “Comparative study of the inelastic behaviourofRCframewithandwithoutbrickinfill UsingAppliedelementmethod”,ISETGoldenJubilee SymposiumonEarthquakeEngineering

Fig.19FUNDAMENTALNATURALTIMEPERIODFORBARE FRAMEMODELS

2. AjayChaurasiya,AnkushBhalke,ShubhamSinghal, (2017)“Confined masonryconstructionsfor mass housing.” Proceedings of Conference on Infrastructure Sustainability in Hilly Regions (CISHR), NIT Uttarakhand, Paper No. 83, pp. 214 221

3. Akash m Patel, Karuna S (2017) “A comparative study of the seismic response of bare, masonry infilled and braced RC framed tall structures considering the effect of soft story”, International Journal of Advanced Engineering & Research Development (IJAERD), Volume 4, Issue 6, Pg. no. 305 310,ISSN:2348 6406

4. BashaSH,KaushikHB(2015)“Evaluationofnon linearmaterialpropertiesofflyashbrickmasonry under compression and shear”. J Mater Civil EngineeringASCE2015;27

Fig.20FUNDAMENTALNATURALTIMEPERIODFOR INFILLFRAMEMODELS

VII. CONCLUSION

a)Fromtheeffectsreceivedfromlineardynamicevaluation, thebottomshearisalotmoreincaseofinfillstrutbodythan nakedbodyforallinfillsubstancestakenintoconsideration in3seismiczones.

b)Fromthelineardynamicevaluation,theessentialherbal term for equal diagonal strut is in contrast with empirical expressionofcode.

c)Amongtheallofthefashionsequaldiagonalstrutfashions displaylessertermthannakedbodymodel.

d)Storeyglidereceivedfromtheevaluationislesserincase ofinfillstrutbodythannakedbodyforallsubstancesinall3 seismiczones.

5. BashaSH,KaushikHB(2016)“Behaviorandfailure mechanismsofmasonry infilledRCframes(inlow rise buildings) subjected to lateral loading.” ELSEVIEREngineeringStructures111(2016)233 245

6. Data Iranata, Aniendhita Rizki Amalia (2017) “Comparativestudyondiagonalequivalentmethods ofmasonryinfillpanel”,GreenProcess,Material,and Energy: A Sustainable Solution for climate change AIPConf.1855,0300011Pg.no.01 11

7. DianaSamoila,AndreiFaur(2014)“Theinfluenceof the seismic action on the RC infilled frames”, InternationalorganizationofScientificTechnology, volume4,Issue12,Pg.no.25 29ISSN:2278:8719

8. Dr.SaeedAhmed,TalhaAfzal(2010)“Effectofthe in plane searing stiffness of infill walls on the response of moment resisting frames of high rise

International Research Journal of Engineering and Technology (IRJET) e ISSN: 2395 0056

Volume: 09 Issue: 06 | Jun 2022 www.irjet.net p-ISSN: 2395-0072

buildings under seismic loads”, Technical Journal, UniversityofEngineeringandTechnologyTaxila

9. Dr. Waghe U, Bhanupratap R Mehadia (2016) “ComparativesstudiesinanalysisanddesignofRCC structureswithandwithoutinfillwallunderseismic effect”,InternationalJournalofScienceTechnology & Engineering (IJSTE), Volume 2, Issue 10, Pg. no. 743 748,ISSN:2349 784

10. KaushikHB,RaiDC,JainSK.(2007)“Strain stress properties of masonry of clay brick subjected to uniaxial compression”. J Mater Civil Engineering ASCE;19(9):728 39.

11. KiranKamath,Shruthi(2015)“Comparativestudy ontheeffectofAspectratioontheperformanceof steelFramestructurewithandwithoutinfillusing Pushover Analysis”, an international journal of Innovative Research In Electrical, Electronics, Instrumentation And Control Engineering (NCAICET),Volume3,Issue1,Pg.no.326 330,ISSN: 2321 5626

12. Maidiawati, Agus, Yaushi Sanda, Jafril Tanjung (2017) “Seismic performance evaluation of IndonesianexistingR/Cbuildingconsideringbrick wall”,SustainableCivilEngineeringStructuresand Construction Materials, SCESCM 2016, ELSEVIER ProcediaEngineering 171(2017)Pg.no.1043 1051

13. Volume 28, Issue 7, Pg. no. 349 353, ISSN: 2231 5381

14. SalahEldinFahmyTaher,HamdymohyEl DinAfefy (2007)“Roleofmasonryinfillinseismicresistance of RC structures”, The Arabian Journal for Science andEngineering,Volume33,Issue2B,Pg.no.291 306.

15. Saurabh Singh, Prerna Nautiyal, Geeta Batham (2013)“Acomparativestudyoftheperformance of infill walls on seismic performance of reinforced concrete buildings”, International Journal of Civil Engineering & Technology (IJCIET),Volume4,Issue4,Pg.no.208 218,ISSN: 0976 6308

16. SmitaSingh,DilipKumar(2014)“Comparativestudy of analysis on masonry infill walls”, International JournalofAdvancedTechnologyinEngineeringand Science (IJATES), Volume 2, Issue 11, Pg. no. 463 469,ISSN:2348 7550

17. Umesh N Karandi, Haroon Rasheed Tamboli (2016) “Seismal analysis of RC frame structure withmasonryinfillwallsandbareframe”,Indian

Journal of Natural Sciences (IJONS), Volume 3, Issue14,Pg.no.1137 1148,ISSN:0976 0997

18. WakchaureMR,PedSP(2012)“Earthquakeanalysis ofhighrisebuildingwithandwithoutinfilledwalls”, InternationalJournalofEngineeringandInnovative Technologies(IJEIT),Volume2,Issue2,Pg.no.89 94

19. WaleedAboEl WafaMohamed(2012)“Parametric study on the effect of masonry infill walls on the seismic resistance of RC buildings”, Journal of EngineeringSciences,AssiutUniversity,Volume40, issue3,Pg.no.701 721.

20. Y.P.Yuena J.S.Kuangb (2015) “Nonlinear seismic responsesandlateralforcetransfermechanismsof RC frames with different infill configurations”. ELSEVIEREngineeringStructuresVolume91,Pages 125 14

Turn static files into dynamic content formats.

Create a flipbook