 Open Access
 Total Downloads : 1429
 Authors : C. Rajesh, Ramancharla Pradeep Kumar, Suresh Kandru
 Paper ID : IJERTV3IS100280
 Volume & Issue : Volume 03, Issue 10 (October 2014)
 Published (First Online): 14102014
 ISSN (Online) : 22780181
 Publisher Name : IJERT
 License: This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License
Seismic Performance of RC Framed Buildings with & Without Infill Walls
1C. Rajesh

echStructural Engineering, Student at C.M.R College of Engineering& Technology,Hyderabad, Telangana, India
2Dr. Ramancharla Pradeep Kumar Professor & Director of Earthquake Engineering Research Centre,
IIIT Hyderabad, India
3Prof. Suresh Kandru
Dept. of Civil EngineeringC. M. R College of Engineering& Technology,
Hyderabad, Telangana, India
Abstract–In building construction, RC framed structures are frequently used due to ease of construction and rapid progress of work, and generally these frames are filled by masonry infill panels (or) concrete blocks in many of the countries situated in seismic regions. Infill panels significantly enhance both stiffness and strength of frame, it behaves like compression strut between column and beam and compression forces are transferred from one node to another. Performance of building in earthquakes (like Bhuj Earthquake) clearly illustrates that the presence of infill walls has significant structural implications.
This study gives the overview of performance of RC frame buildings with and without infill walls. Here analyses and designs the masonry infill walls using equivalent diagonal strut concept inorder to assess their involvement in seismic resistance of regular reinforced concrete buildings. Modeled the two different buildings with and without infill walls and designed it and analysis done for gravity and seismic loads using software (SAP2000). Comparing the results from the computerized model analyses for with and without infill structures as bareframe and single strut models respectively. We check the results for total weight of building, time period, base shear, and modal participation mass ratio and comparison of results.
Keywords: Bareframe, Infill Walls, Equivalent Diagonal Strut

INTRODUCTION
Reinforced concrete (RC) frame buildings with masonry infill walls have been widely constructed for commercial, industrial and multifamily residential uses in seismicprone regions worldwide. Masonry infill typically consists of brick masonry or concrete block walls, constructed between columns and beams of a RC frame. These panels are generally not considered in the design process and treated as nonstructural components. In country like India, Brick masonry infill panels have been widely used as interior and exterior partition walls for aesthetic reasons and functional needs. Though the brick masonry infill is considered to be a nonstructural element, but it has its own strength and stiffness. Hence if the effect of brick masonry is considered in analysis and design, considerable increase in strength and stiffness of overall structure may be observed. Present code, IS 1893(PartI): 2000 of practice does not include provision of taking into consideration the effect of infill. It can be understood that if the effect of infill is taken into account in the analysis and design of frame, the resulting structure may be significantly different. Significant experimental and analytical research is reported in various literatures, which attempts to explain the behavior of infilled frames. Moreover, infill, if present in all storeys gives a significant contribution to the energy
dissipation capacity, decreasing significantly the maximum displacements. Therefore the contribution of masonry is of great importance, even though strongly depending on the characteristics of the ground motion, especially for frames which has been designed without considering the seismic forces. When sudden change in stiffness takes place along the building height, the story at which this drastic change of stiffness occurs is called a soft story. According to IS 1893(PartI): 2000, a soft story is the one in which the lateral stiffness is less than 50% of the storey above or below.
Another important issue is related to the numerical simulation of infilled frames. The different techniques for idealizing this structural model can be divided into two local or micromodels and simplified macro models. The first group involves the models, in which the structure is divided into numerous elements to take into account of the local effect in detail, whereas the second group includes simplified models based on a physical understanding of the behavior of the infill panel. In this study the strength and stiffness of the brick masonry infill is considered and the brick masonry infill is modeled using diagonal strut. The diagonal strut has been modeled using software package SAP2000. The analysis is performed using Linear static analysis for understanding the improvement in stiffness parameters.
Previous experimental studies also carried out on the behavior of RC frames with infills and the modeling, analysis of the RC frame with and without infills. Stafford Smith B [1] used an elastic theory to propose the effective width of the equivalent strut and concluded that this width should be a function of the stiffness of the infill with respect to that of bounding frame. By analogy to a beam on elastic foundation, he defined the dimensionless relative parameters to determine the degree of frame infill interaction and thereby, the effective width of the strut. Also defined the formulation of empirical equations for the calculation of infill wall parameter as strut model like contact length of strut, effective width of the strut. Holmes

was the first in replacing the infill by an equivalent pin jointed diagonal strut. He proposed the modeling of infill wall as the diagonal strut and finding the effective width and contact length of the diagonal strut. Das and C.V.R. Murty

carried out nonlinear pushover analysis on five RC frame buildings with brick masonry infills. Infills are
found to increase the strength and stiffness of the structure, and reduce the drift capacity and structural damage. Infills reduce the overall structure ductility, but increase the overall strength. Building designed by the equivalent braced frame method showed better overall performance. Amato et al. [4]discussed the mechanical behavior of single storeysingle bay infilled frames performed detailed numerical investigation on infilled meshes has proved that in the presence of vertical loads it is possible that a strong correlation between the dimension of the equivalent diagonal strut model and a single parameter, which depends on the characteristics of the system. V.K.R.Kodur et al. [5]considered a three storey RC frame building models for the analysis. These RC frames were analyzed for three cases

Bare frame ii) Infilled frame iii) Infilled frame with openings. Based on the analysis results they found that Base shear of infilled frame is more than infilled frame with openings and bare frame. Time period of infilled frame is less as compare to infilled frame with openings and bare frame. The natural frequency of infilled frame is more as compare to infilled frame with openings and bare frame. Haroon Rasheed Tamboli [6]considered the bare frame and infill model structures and performs the seismic analysis to see the variation in both the structures. His paper says that in presence of infill wall it affects the seismic behavior of frame structure to large extent and the infill will increase the strength and stiffness of structure. A.Mohebkhah et al. [7] performed kinds of numerical modeling strategies to stimulate the inplane nonlinear static behavior of infilled frames with openings with micro and macro modeling. Alsoanalyzed the model of infill frame as threestrutmodel and performed pushover analysis to check the capability of structures during nonlinear analysis in which threestrut model shows more strength and stiffness during the strong ground motion and perform well when stiffness of infill wall is considered. Neelima Patnala VS and Pradeep Kumar Ramancharla [8]considered three sets of 2D ordinary moment resisting frames with and without unreinforced masonry infill walls (with and without openings) are considered. Applied Element Method is used to model the frames and nonlinear static pushover analysis is carried out to obtain the capacity curves. It is observed that the strength of the frame with infill is 10 times more than the ordinary bare frame, ductility of the frame increases with the addition of the infill walls. increase in number of storeys, the strength of the bare frame increases, obviously, whereas the strength of the frame with infill decreases it can be said that the difference in behavior of bare frame should not only be verified on a single storey but to be checked with different number of stories.
Methodology of the Work
The methodology worked out to know the performance of the buildings with and without infill walls during the analysis. Considering two buildings of and modeled as bare frame and with infill walls which infill walls are modeled as equivalent diagonal strut model in the frame. Perform the linear static analysis for all the model buildings using SAP2000 software for both gravity and seismic load analysis and comparative study is taken out from the
analysis. Comparison is taken drawn out on all the aspects of the performance of the buildings individually.


MODELING & ANALYSIS OF BAREFRAME
BUILDINGS
Considered two buildings of G+5 & G+9 storeys having same floor height and similar properties of the structures. Both the buildings are modeled as bareframe i.e., buildings without considering infill walls between the vertical and horizontal elements of the building. These are analyzed for gravity loads and seismic loads in the software as per IS 1893(Part1):2002 condition of analysis.

Preliminary Data
To analyze the gravity and seismic load performance of the building we considered two different building of different heights as G+5 and G+9 storeys RC framed buildings of same storey levels. The general parameters required for the modeling of the two buildings has the same parameter are as follows:

Type of frame :Special RC moment resisting frame fixed at the base

Seismic zone V

Number of storeys :G+5 & G+9

Floor height :3.5 m

Plinth height :1.5 m

Depth of Slab :150 mm

Spacing between frames :5m along both directions

Live load on floor level :4 kN/m2

Live load on roof level :1.5 kN/m2

Floor finish :1.0 kN/m2

Terrace water proofing :1.5 kN/m2

Materials :M 20 concrete, Fe 415 steel and Brick infill

Thickness of infill wall :250mm (Exterior walls)

Thickness of infill wall :150 mm (Interior walls)

Density of concrete :25 kN/m3

Density of infill :20 kN/m3

Type of soil :Medium

Response spectra :As per IS 1893(Part 1):2002

Damping of structure :5 %
**Live load on floor level and roof level are taken from IS875 (Part) considered RC framed buildings as commercial usage.


Member and Material Properties
Dimensions of the beams and columns are determined on the basis of trial and error process in analysis of SAP2000 by considering nominal sizes for beams and columns and safe sizes are as show in the table below.
Table 1: Properties of Bare Frame, Strut Model Buildings
Type of
Analysis
Model
Gravity Load
Building
Seismic Load
Building
BEAM
(m)
COL.
(m)
BEAM
(m)
COL.
(m)
G+5
storey Building
Bare frame
0.40 x 0.40
0.50
x 0.50
0.50×0
.50
0.60 x 0.60
Single strut
0.40 x 0.40
0.55
x 0.55
0.45 x 0.45
0.60 x 0.60
G+9
storey Building
Bare frame
0.50 x 0.50
0.60
x 0.60
0.55 x 0.55
0.70 x 0.70
Single strut
0.50 x 0.50
0.60
x 0.60
0.55 x 0.55
0.65 x 0.65
Material properties of the building are like M20 grade of concrete, FE415 steel and 13800 N/mm2 of modulus of elasticity of brick masonry in the buildings.

Load Calculations
In this dead and live loads due to slab is transferred to beams using yield line theory as per IS CODE SP24 (1983) bending moments in the beams may be determined with sufficient accuracy by assuming that the loading is equivalent to a uniform load per unit length of the beam is as follows:
On the short span UDL =
3
The distribution of loads are calculated and found as shown in the table.
Table 2: Slab loads on beam using Yield line theory
Type of load
Position
DL of slab
LL of slab
DL of Wall
Units
(kN)
(kN)
(kN)
Load on roof beams
Exterior
beams
10.416
2.5
6.0
Interior
beams
20.832
5.0
0
Loads on Floor beams
Exterior beams
7.916
6.66
15.5
Interior
beams
15.83
13.33
9.3
Loads on Plinth beams
Exterior beams
0
0
15.5
Interior
beams
0
0
9.3
After modeling the buildings the plan, elevation and 3Dviews are show in the figures below. Using the load combinations for gravity and seismic loads as per IS 1893(Part1):2002, clause 6.3.1.2 analyzed the G+5 & G+9 storey bareframe models using the software and drawn out the results like total weight, time period, base shear and modal participation mass ratio of the two buildings. Also for finding the results of base shear and time period manual process is also done using Equivalent Static Method. The
2
results can be seen in the tables.
On the long span UDL =
Where,
lx = Shorter span,
ly= Longer span
W = Load per unit length
3
6
Figure 1: Load Carried By Supported Beams
Figure 2: Plan of G+5 & G+9 storey building of all models
Figure 3: Elevation of G+5 storey Bareframe model
Figure 4: Elevation of G+9 storey Bareframe model
Figure 5: 3Dview of G+5 storey Bareframe model
Figure 6: 3Dview of G+9 storey Bareframe model


MODELING & ANALYSIS OF BUILDINGS
WITH INFILL WALLS
Modeling of RC framed buildings with infill walls and the behavior of the structure due to gravity and seismic forces in the high seismic intensity zone area. Also deals with the change in the stiffness of the building when considered the infill between the vertical and horizontal resisting elements and the inill is modeled as the Equivalent diagonal strut model which is called as micromodel of analysis of infill frame. The main problem in the approach is to find the effective width for the equivalent diagonal strut. Various researchers have suggested different empirical formulas for finding the width of equivalent diagonal strut. In this study, used the formulas suggested by B.S.Smith [1] to find the width of the equivalent diagonal strut. Finally the infill wall is modeled in the building by transforming into an equivalent diagonal strut between the beam and column and analyzed the buildings.
In this the study is carried by considering the single strut model of analysis using the equivalent diagonal strut method. In this method of analysis the stiffness and strength of the wall is considered and transformed the wall as a strut by finding the width of the strut which is placed inclined between beamcolumn joints in the frame as show in the fig.
Figure 7: Equivalent Diagonal Strut model
In modeling the equivalent diagonal strut major part is to find the effective width of the strut in which it depend on length of contact between wall and column and between wall and beam. Stafford smith developed the formulations for h and L on the basis of beam on an elastic foundation. Hendry proposed the equation to find the equivalent diagonal strut width. The following equations
Table 3 Parameters of G+5 storey Diagonal Strut Models
Parameters
Data
Units
Grade of concrete
20
MPa
Modulus of elasticity of concrete Ef
22360.68
MPa
Modulus of
masonry Em
elasticity
of
brick
13800
MPa
Size of beam (Depth x Width)
0.50 x 0.50
m
Size of column
0.60 x 0.60
m
Moment of inertia of beam Ib
5.2 x 103
m4
Moment of inertia of column Ic
10.8 x 103
m4
Thickness of External Infill wall te
0.25
m
Thickness of internal infill wall ti
0.15
m
Length of masonry
4.4
m
Height of masonry h
Floor level
3.0
m
Plinth level
1.0
m
Angle of inclination of strut =
tan1
Floor level
34.28Â°
Degrees
Plinth level
12.80Â°
Degrees
are proposed to determine h and L, which
depend on the relative stiffness of the frame and infill walls, and on the geometry of panel.
=
=
4
2
4
4
t sin2
4
Where,
2 t sin2
The width of the single strut building is shown
Em and Ef = Elastic modulus of the masonry wall and frame material (i.e., concrete), respectively.
L, h, t = Length, height and thickness of the infill wall, respectively.
Ic, Ib = Moment of inertial of column and the beam of structure, respectively.
= tan1 = angle of inclination of diagonal
strut.
in table below.
Table 4: Calculation of Width of Diagonal of Single struts
Level
Strut
type
h
(m)
L
(m)
Wd (m)
Ld (m)
Ad (m2)
Floor
Ext.
wall
1.53
1.4
1.04
5.33
0.26
Int.
wall
1.74
1.59
1.18
5.33
0.18
Plinth
Ext.
wall
1.41
1.7
1.10
4.51
0.28
Int.
wall
1.6
1.93
1.25
4.51
0.19
The equation to determine the equivalent or
effective strut width (w ), length (L ) and area of strut
d d
( Ad), where the strut is assumed to be subjected to uniform compressive stress.
d
w = 1 2 +2
2
= 2 + 2
= wd
By using these formulas the effective width (wd), length (Ld) and area (Ad) of the diagonal strut is determined.
Consider the same parameters of bare frame modeled buildings of G+5 & G+9 storey building and its loading. Here bare frame model is changed into single strut model by considering the stiffness of the masonry infill wall which acts as a rigid element. The effective width, length and area of the strut, are calculated for both the buildings separately.
From the above table Wd the value of width of the strut placed diagonally between the beam and column joints. Using the width of the strut and length of the strut we modeled the singlestrut model building with the basic parameters and loading on beams and columns are same as the bareframe G+5 & G+9 storey building. So after modeling the building with external strut and internal strut we can see the model of buildings as shown in fig. below.
Figure 8: 3Dview of G+5 storeys Single – Strut Model Building
Figure 9: 3Dview of G+9 storeys SingleStrut Model Building
After modeling both the buildings as singlestrut models are analyzed for gravity and seismic load analysis using the SAP 2000 software. Observed the results like total weight, time period, base shear and modal participation mass ratio of the buildings.

OBSERVATIONS & RESULTS

In this G+5 & G+9 storey buildings are modeled as bareframe and strutmodel buildings by considering the stiffness and strength of the infill walls in the buildings. The models are analyzed for gravity and seismic loads as per IS 1893(PartI):2000 are analyzed in SAP2000 software.
Also for bareframe model the buildings are analyzed manually as per code and found the total weight, base shear and time period of the building. The results are show in the tables
Table 5: G+5 Bareframe building manual & software results
G+9 storey bareframe building 

Type of Analysis 
Total Weight (kN) 
Base shear (kN) 
Time period (sec.) 

Manual 
SAP 2000 
Manual 
SAP 2000 
Manual 
SAP 2000 

Gravity Load Analysis 
42114 
51195 
– 
– 
– 
1.705 
Seismic Load Analysis 
46235 
55892 
3935 
4759 
0.774 
1.185 
Table 6: G+9 bareframe building manual & software results
G+9 storey bareframe building 

Type of Analysis 
Total Weight (kN) 
Base shear (kN) 
Time period (sec.) 

Manual 
SAP 2000 
Manual 
SAP 2000 
Manual 
SAP 2000 

Gravity Load Analysis 
76309 
92123 
– 
– 
– 
2.003 
Seismic Load Analysis 
81688 
92123 
4868 
5802 
1.113 
1.670 
Table 7: G+5 & G+9 bare frame & Strut Model buildings Results
–
Results of G+5 & G+9 Bareframe & Strut Model 

Model 
Type of Analysis 
Total Wt. (kN) 
Base shear (kN) 
Time period (sec.) 
SAP 2000 
SAP 2000 
SAP 2000 

G+5 Bare frame Model 
Gravity Load Analysis 
51195 
– 
1.705 
Seismic Load Analysis 
55892 
4759 
1.185 

G+5 Single Strut Model 
Gravity Load Analysis 
51933 
– 
0.203 
Seismic Load Analysis 
54229 
6547 
0.194 

G+9 Bare frame Model 
Gravity Load Analysis 
92123 
– 
2.003 
Seismic Load Analysis 
97976 
5802 
1.67 

G+9 Single Strut Model 
Gravity Load Analysis 
92123 
– 
0.413 
Comparison of Gravity & Seismic Anlaysis Results for Time Period of

COMPARISON OF RESULTS
G+9 storey Models
3
Time Period (Sec.)
The comparison of results for bareframe and strut model buildings are show in the figures, and discussed the comparison of results are based in the analysis of buildings.
2.003
1.67
0.413 0.394
1
0
2
Comparison of Gravity & Seismic Analysis Results for Time Period of G+5 Storey Models
Time Period (Sec.)
2
1.5
1
0.5
0
1.705
1.185
Bare frame Single strut
G+9 Storey Models Gravity Analysis – Time period Seismic Anlaysis – Time period
0.203 0.194
Bare frame Single strut
G+5 Storey Models Gravity Analysis – Time period Seismic Analysis – Time period
Figure 10: Comparison of Time Period of G+5 storey Buildings
Comparison Base shear of G+5 Storey Models
Figure 12: Comparison of Time Period of G+9 storey Buildings
Comparison of Base shear of G+9 Storey Models
8643
5802
7000
Base Shear (kN)
6000
5000
4000
3000
2000
1000
0
4759
Bare frame
6547
Single strut
Single
Strut
0.6
0.4
Comparison of Modal Participation Mass Ratio for Gravity analysis of G+5 storey models in Xdirection
Base shear
Bare frame Single
strut
G+9 Storey Models
Base shear
10000
8000
6000
4000
2000
0
Base Shear (kN)
Figure 13: Comparison of Base Shear of G+9 storey Buildings
G+5 Storey Models
0
0.132
0.074
0.244
0.089
0.2
0.308
Figure 11: Comparison of Base Shear of G+5 storey Buildings
Bare
0.8
0.717
Mode 1
Mode 2
Mode3
Modes
Modal Mass Ratio
Figure 14: Comparison of Modal Participation of Mass Ratio for Gravity Analysis of G+5 storey Models in Xdirection
Mode3
Mode 2
Modes
Mode 1
0.133
0.035
0.061
0.25
0.313
0.4
0.2
0
Comparison of Modal Participation Mass Ratio for Seismic Analysis of G+5 storey modals in Xdirection
1
0.788
0.8 Bare
0.6
Mode 1 Mode 2 Mode 3
Modes
0.0740.132
0.244
0.089
Bare
Frame
Single Strut
0.308
0.717
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
Comparison of Modal Participation Mass Ratio for Gravity analysis of G+5 storey models in Ydirection
Modal Mass Ratio
Modal Mass Ratio
Figure 15: Comparison of Modal Participation of Mass Ratio for Gravity Analysis of G+5 storey Models in Ydirection
Figure 18: Comparison of Modal Participation of Mass Ratio for Seismic Analysis of G+5 storey Models in Xdirection
Bare
Single
Comparison of Modal Participation Mass Ratio for Gravity Analysis of G+9 storey modals in Xdirection
1
Modal Mass Rario
Modal Mass Ratio
1
0.791
0.8
Comparison of Modal Participation Mass Ratio for Seismic Analysis of G+5 storey modals in Ydirecti Bare
on
0.788
Strut
0.5
0.6
0.021
0.306
0.089
0.274
0.4
0.112
0.313
0.250
Single
Strut
0.133
0
Mode 1
Mode 2
Modes
Mode3
Figure 16: Comparison of Modal Participation of Mass Ratio for Gravity
0.2
0
0.061 0.035
Mode 1 Mode 2 Mode3
Modes
0.791
1
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
Modal Mass Ratio
Analysis of G+9 storey Models in Xdirection
Comparison of Modal Participation Mass Ratio for Gravity Analysis of G+9 storey modals in Ydirection
Bare
0.274
0.306
0.089
0.112
Modes
Mode3
Mode 1 Mode 2
0.021
Figure 17: Comparison of Modal Participation of Mass Ratio for Gravity Analysis of G+9 storey Models in Ydirection
Figure 19: Comparison of Modal Participation of Mass Ratio for Seismic Analysis of G+5 storey Models in Ydirection
0
Mode 1
Mode 2
Modes
Mode3
on
0.113
0.018
0.097
0.308
0.277
0.4
0.2
Single
Strut
0.6
Comparison of Modal Participation Mass Ratio for Seismic Analysis of 1G+9 storey modals in Xdirecti Bare
0.786
0.8
Modal Mass Ratio
Figure 20: Comparison of Modal Participation of Mass Ratio for Seismic Analysis of G+9 storey Models in Xdirection
Comparison of Modal Participation Mass Ratio for Seismic Analysis of G+9 storey modals in Ydirection

A. AMATO G, CAVALERI L, FOSSETTI M, AND PAPIA M, Infilled Frames: Influence of Vertical Load on The Equivalent Diagonal Strut Model, The 14th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Beijing, China, 2008.
0.9
0.8
Modal Mass Ratio
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
0.786
0.277 0.308
0.097
Bare
Single Strut
0.113
0.018

V.K.R.Kodur, M.A.Erki and J.H.P.Quenneville Seismic
analysis of infilled frames Journal of Structural Engineering Vol.25, No.2, July 1998 PP 95 102.

Haroon Raheed Tamboli and Umesh N.Karadi, Seismic Analysis of RC Frame Structures With and Without Masonary Walls, Indian Journal of Natural Sciences, Vol.3/Issue14, Oct.2012.

A.Mohebkhah, A.A.Tanimi, and H.A.Moghadam, A Modified ThreeStrut (MTS) Model for MasonryInfilledSteel Frames with Openings Journal of Seismology and Earthquake Engineering, Vol.9, No.1,2 , Spring and Summer 2007.

Patnala V S Neelima, Ramancharla Pradeep Kumar, Seismic Behaviour of RC Frame with URM Infill: A Case Study,
Mode 1 Mode 2 Mode3
Modes
Figure 21: Comparison of Modal Participation of Mass Ratio for Seismic Analysis of G+9 storey Models in Ydirection


CONCLUSION
From the observation of the results it states that decrease in the time period will leads to increase in the base shear of the building and also total weight of the building is less in strut model as compared to bareframe model buildings. Strut model buildings show the less time period and total weight of the building and higher in the base shear of the building. As if we know time period is inversely proportional to stiffness, here it is seen that strut model buildings has less time period than bareframe buildings which can say that strut model buildings are more stiffer and safer during the earthquakes than the bareframe models. From the previous earthquakes like Bhuj in 2001 many of the buildings are collapsed due to the improper analysis and design of buildings which are analyzed without considering the stiffness of the walls which leads to the sudden collapse of the buildings. From this analysis it concludes that strut model buildings gives better and best performance than bareframe model buildings in the high seismic prone areas.
REFERENCES

a. Stafford Smith B, Lateral stiffness of infilled frames, Journal of Structural division, ASCE,88 (ST6), 1962, pp. 183 199.

Stafford Smith B. Behaviour of Square Infilled Frames. Proceedings of the American Society of Civil Engineers, Journal of Structural Division, 92, no STI, 381403, 1966.

Stafford Smith B, Carter C. A method of analysis for infill frames. Proc. Inst. Civil Engineering, 1969.


Holmes M. Steel frames with brickwork and concrete infilling. Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers 19, 1961.

A. DAS D AND MURTY C V R, Brick Masonry Infills in Seismic Design of RC Frame Buildings: Part 2 Behaviour, The Indian Concrete Journal, 2004.
International Journal of Education and Applied Research (IJEAR), Vol.4, Issue Spl2, JanJune 2014.

Text book: Earthquake Resistant Design of Structures, by Pankaj Agarwal and Manish Shrikhande, PHI Learning Private Limited, 2013.

Text book: Earthquake Resistant Design of Structures, by S.K.Duggal.

IS 456, Plain and Reinforced ConcreteCode of Practice, Bureau of Indian Standards, New Delhi, 1993.

IS 1893, Criteria for Earthquake Resistant Design of StructuresPart1: General Provisions and Buildings (Fifth Revision), Bureau of Indian Standards, New Delhi, 2002.

SP16, Design Aids for Reinforced Concrete to IS: 4561978, Bureau of Indian Standards, New Delhi, 1980.

SP 24 (1983): Explanatory Handbook on Indian Standard Code of Practice for Plain and Reinforced Concrete (IS 456:1978, [CED 2: Cement and Concrete].

IS 1786 (2008): High strength deformed steel bars and wires for concrete reinforcement [CED 54: Concrete Reinforcement].

IS 8752 (1987): Code of Practice for Design Loads (Other Than Earthquake) For Buildings And Structures, Part 2: Imposed Loads [CED 37: Structural Safety].