Anda di halaman 1dari 82

TRIBHUVAN UNIVERSITY

INSTITUTE OF ENGINEERING
PULCHOWK CAMPUS
DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL ENGINEERING
M .Sc. Program in Structural Engineering

Thesis No: SS00147

STUDY ON REINFORCED CONCRETE FRAME WITH SOLID INFILL

BRICK MASONRY USING ARTIFICIAL NEURAL NETWORK

AJAY KUMAR GUPTA

February, 2011
TRIBHUVAN UNIVERSITY
INSTITUTE OF ENGINEERING
PULCHOWK CAMPUS
DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL ENGINEERING
M .Sc. Program in Structural Engineering

Thesis No: SS00147

STUDY ON REINFORCED CONCRETE FRAME WITH SOLID INFILL

BRICK MASONRY USING ARTIFICIAL NEURAL NETWORK

A Thesis Submitted By
AJAY KUMAR GUPTA

In partial fulfillment of the requirement for the degree of

MASTER OF SCIENCE
IN
STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING

February, 2011
COPYRIGHT

The author has agreed that the Library, Department of Civil Engineering, Institute of
Engineering, Pulchowk Campus, may make this thesis freely available for inspection.
Moreover, the author has agreed that permission for extensive copying of this thesis
for scholarly purpose may be granted by the professor who supervised the thesis work
recorded herein or, in his absence, by the Head of the Department or concerning
M.Sc. program coordinator or the Dean of the Institute in which thesis work was
done. It is understood that the recognition will be given to the author of this thesis and
to the Department of Civil Engineering, Institute of Engineering, Pulchowk Campus,
in any use of the material of this thesis. Copying or publication or other use of the
thesis for financial gain without approval of the Department of Civil Engineering,
Institute of Engineering, Pulchowk Campus and the authors written permission is
prohibited. Request for permission to copy or to make any other use of the material of
this thesis in whole or in part should be addressed to:

..
Head
Department of Civil Engineering
Pulchowk Campus
Institute of Engineering
Lalitpur, Nepal.

i
CERTIFICATE

This is to certify that the work contained in this thesis entitled Study on Reinforced
Concrete Frame with Solid Infill Brick Masonry using Artificial Neural
Network submitted by Mr. Ajay Kumar Gupta (Roll No. 065/MSS/r/102) for the
award of partial fulfillment of the degree of Master of Science in Structural
Engineering of Institute of Engineering, Tribhuvan University, Kathmandu is a
bonafide record of work carried out by him under my supervision and guidance, no
part of it has been published or submitted elsewhere for the award of degree.

.. .
Assoc. Prof. Prajwal Lal Pradhan Date
Department of Civil Engineering
Institute of Engineering
Pulchowk Campus
Lalitpur, Nepal

ii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

I would like to express my deep gratitude to my thesis supervisor, Assoc. Prof.


Dr. Prajwal Lal Pradhan his valuable guidance, expertise, encouragement and critical
suggestion without whom, this thesis could not come in this complete form. I highly
appreciate his scholastic attitude and pragmatic thinking over thesis problems.

I also express my gratitude to Mr. Shashidhar Ram Joshi, HOD, Department


of Electronics, Pulchowk campus for giving me the concept of Artificial Neural
Network. He has allowed me to attend the full semester course afford by the
Electronics department for the M.Sc. students of that department. He has also helped
me during my thesis period.

Special appreciation goes to all the teachers of the Department of Civil


Engineering, Pulchowk Campus, especially Prof. Dr. Prem Nath Maskey, Prof. Dr.
Hikmat Raj Joshi and Dr. Jishnu Subedi for their kind support and suggestions during
the entire thesis period.

I owe a debt of gratitude to many other seniors and colleagues who provided
technical support and social encouragement, especially Mr. Sujan Tripathi, Mr.
Dinesh Gupta, Mr. Anup Chaudhary, Mr. Arvind Jha and Mr. Chandan Karna. And
they, all, by virtue of proximity, became living sounding boards of ideas.

Finally, I would like to express my profound gratitude to my family for their


continuous support and encouragement during my study period.

Ajay Kumar Gupta


(065/MSS/r/102)

iii
TRIBHUVAN UNIVERSITY
INSTITUTE OF ENGINEERING
DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL ENGINEERING
M .Sc. Program in Structural Engineering

ABSTRACT

Student: Ajay Kumar Gupta Supervisor: Dr. Prajwal Lal Pradhan

Despite being the most common construction practice throughout the ages, infills
have not found the space it deserves, in the structural design. There is lack of proper
and easy method to consider the effect of the in-filled. So, this research is a small
effort in the search of the alternative approach for analyzing the infill frames. The
FEM Models are normally incapable of considering all the effecting factors such as
non-linear behavior of the infill materials, lack of fit, non-homogeneity of the
materials, etc. This research gives some idea to the structural engineer how to guess
initially the parameters of interest during the design of infills. Structural design
process is an iterative process and an approximate initial guess can reduce the time
and cost involved in the analysis. The tentative design parameters can be predicted
using the Artificial Intelligence and this computing power of the modern day
computers has been used to fulfill the intended purpose. The data sets, which are
generated by computer from the simulation of the infill-frame structure done in
sophisticated software (ANSYS v10.0) capable of non-linear analysis, are used for the
training of Neural Network. Few other unique data sets are taken for the validation of
the Network trained. The comparison of the results from the ANN and that of
software were in reasonable agreement with each other except in few rare cases.

iv
TABLE OF CONTENTS
COPYRIGHT . i

CERTIFICATE .. ii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT . iii

ABSTRACT iv

LIST OF TABLES .. vii

LIST OF FIGURES viii

LIST OF SYMBOLS .. ix

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION 1

1.1 Infilled Frames 1


1.2 Background 2
1.3 Why this Study ? 3
1.4 Objectives of the Study 5
1.5 Methodology 5
1.5.1 Review of Literature 6
1.5.2 Collection of Input Data 6
1.5.3 Modeling of the Structure 7
1.5.4 Analysis of the Structure 7
1.5.5 Result Validation 7

CHAPTER 2: REVIEW OF LITERATURE 8

2.1 General 8
2.2 Experimental Studies 8
2.3 Analytical Studies 9
2.4 About ANN 12
2.4.1 Back-Propagation Neural Network 13
2.4.2 The Back-Propagation Training Algorithm 14

CHAPTER 3: REINFORCED CONCRETE INFILL FRAME MATERIALS .. 16

3.1 General 16
3.2 Masonry 16
3.3 Bricks 17
3.4 Mortar 18
3.5 Reinforced Concrete 19

v
CHAPTER 4: FINITE ELEMENT MODEL . 22

4.1 About ANSYS 22


4.2 Modelling Strategy 23
4.2.1 Calibration of the Model 23
4.2.2 Dimensions of the Model 23
4.3 Description of the Models 24
4.3.1 Element used in Modeling 24
4.3.2 Boundary Conditions Imposed 25
4.3.3 Overview of the Materials Used 26
4.3.4 Model Descriptions 27
4.3.5 The Outputs 27
4.4 Preparation of the Training sets 28

CHAPTER 5: TRAINING THE DATA SETS USING ANN ... 30

5.1 Introduction to NeuNet Pro 30


5.2 Development of ANN Tool 30

CHAPTER 6: RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS .. 32

6.1 Parametric Studies 32


6.2 Geometric Parameters 33
6.2.1 Influence of wall thickness 34
6.2.2 Influence of Aspect Ratio 35
6.2.3 Influence of Bricks 37
6.2.4 Influence of Mortar 37
6.3 Variation of stiffness 38
6.4 Effective width of equivalent diagonal strut 40
6.5 Validation of Neural Network 42

CHAPTER 7: CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS . 48

7.1 General 48
7.2 Conclusions 50
7.3 Recommendations for the future works 51

APPENDIX 53

A. ANSYS Contour Result Plot 53


B. Output Result from ANSYS 55

REFERENCES .. 70

vi
LIST OF TABLES
Table 2-1: Analogy between biological and artificial neural networks 13

Table 3-1: Types and Properties of Bricks (Pradhan, P.L., 2009) 17

Table 3-2: Types and Properties of Mortar (Pradhan, P.L., 2009) 19

Table 3-3: Properties of concrete and rebars used in analysis 20

Table 4-1: Material properties used in analysis (Pradhan, P.L., 2009) 26

Table 4-2: Designation of Models used for analysis 27

Table 6.1: Parameters of Interest 32

Table 6-2: Parametric characteristics of infilled frames analysed 33

Table 6-3: Response variation due to wall thickness 35

Table 6-4: Response variation due to aspect ratio 36

Table 6-5: Response variation due to Bricks 37

Table 6-6: Response variation due to Mortar 38

Table 6-7: Comparison of strut widths 41

Table 7-1: Comparison of Results obtained from ANSYS and ANN 43

Table A-1: ANSYS Results for Span 3m 55

Table A-1: ANSYS Results for Span 3.5m 58

Table A-1: ANSYS Results for Span 4m 61

Table A-1: ANSYS Results for Span 4.5m 64

Table A-1: ANSYS Results for Span 5m 67

vii
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1-1: Structure of Artificial Neural Network model 3

Figure 1-3: Flow Chart for Analysis of Infill Wall using ANN 6

Figure 2-1: Single Diagonal Strut Models (Smith and Carter 1969) 9

Figure 2-2: Geometric characteristics in Equations. (2-8) and (2-9) 12

Figure 2-3: Biological Neural Network 13

Figure 2-4: Typical Back-Propagation Network 14

Figure 3-1: Stress-strain characteristics of different bricks used. 18

Figure 4-1: Plane stress element used for Modeling 24

Figure 4-2: Beam3 element used for Modeling Beam and Column 25

Figure 4-4: Sample model prepared for the analysis 26

Figure 4-5: Salient nodal points considered for the output 28

Figure 5-1: Back-propagation Neural Network used for Training 31

Figure 5-2: Error reduction graph during Back-propagation Neural Network Training 31

Figure 6-1 : Infilled frames with different Aspect Ratios 34

Figure 6-2: Variation of displacement with span 39

Figure 6-3: Variation of stiffness with load 40

Figure 6-4 : Equivalent Strut Model 41

Figure 6-5 : Comparison of actual versus predicted data 42

Figure A-1 : Displacement contour plot 53

Figure A-2 : Stress Intensity contour plot 53

Figure A-3 : Shear Stress contour plot 54

Figure A-4 : X-axis Stress contour plot 54

viii
LIST OF SYMBOLS

t thickness of the infill

h height of the infill

length of the infill

inclination of infill with the horizontal

d diagonal length of infill

h height of the frame, measured between the centerlines of the beams

l span of the frame, measured between the centerlines of the columns

Wds width of the diagonal strut

h non-dimensional parameter given by Smith

non-dimensional parameter given by FEMA

Ic moment of inertia of the columns

Ed youngs modulus of the infill material

Ef youngs modulus of the material constituting the frame

Fi total number of inputs of neuron i in the network

p number of step

xi(p) input of ith node in pth step

yj(p) output of jth node in pth step

wij weight assigned to a hidden layer node in between ith and jth nodes

k error in the output

stress at a node

strain at a node

ix
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION

1.1 Infilled Frames


Infill-frames have been used in many parts of the world over a long time. In
these structures, exterior masonry walls and/or interior partitions, usually regarded as
nonstructural architectural elements, are built as an infill between the frame members.
However, the usual practice in the structural design of infill-frames is to ignore the
structural interaction between the frame and infill. This implies that the infill has no
influence on the structural behaviour of the building except for its mass. This would
be appropriate if the frame and infill panel were separated by providing a sufficient
gap between them. However, gaps are not usually specified and the actual behaviour
of infill frames observed during past earthquakes shows that their response is
sometimes wrongly predicted. Infill-frames have often demonstrated good earthquake
resistant behaviour, at least for serviceability level earthquakes in which the masonry
infill can provide enhanced stiffness and strength. It is expected that this structural
system will continue to be used in many countries because the masonry infill panels
are often cost-effective and suitable for temperature and sound insulation purposes.
Hence, further investigation of the actual behaviour of these frames is warranted, with
a goal towards developing a displacement-based approach to their design.
Masonry panels, which contribute a large proportion of the mass of the infill-
frame, normally consist of anisotropic materials with a wide range of strength,
deformation and energy dissipation properties. Unlike other conventional materials
such as concrete and steel which have, to some extent, standard properties. Masonry
materials vary significantly from one country to another based on the local constituent
materials (the bricks and the mortar) and workmanship. Different local materials are
used to produce masonry units with different shapes; they might be solid or hollow
units with different hole-sizes and hole arrangements.
In many countries, situated in seismic regions, reinforced concrete frames are
infilled by brick masonry panels. Although the infill panels significantly enhance both
the stiffness and strength of the frame, their contribution is often not considered
mainly because of the lack of knowledge of the composite behavior of the frame and
the infill. In multistory structures, the frames are generally well engineered in
accordance with the state of knowledge of the day and to the building practice of
1
every country, whereas the infill panels are considered non-structural. The reason for
the negligence is the high amount of non-linearity and non-homogeneity involved in
the analysis making the analysis portion extremely tedious and monotonous. Thus
computers can be extremely useful in such scenario. The computing capabilities of the
computers can be used to deal with the problems imposed due to the inconsistent
characteristics of the infill.

1.2 Background
Infill frame construction represents a common type of construction in urban
areas. Infill walls change the behavior of frames considerably under lateral loads and
affect mainly the strength, rigidity, energy dissipation, etc. characteristics. In the
conventional design, the building frames are designed for dead and live loads. Hence,
they cannot withstand lateral loads, especially when they are very tall. On the other
hand, post-earthquake damage reports often note poorly detailed reinforced concrete
frames that have failed due to localized forces produced by the infill. Any attempt to
increase the size of the structural elements to withstand these occasional loads is both
expensive and undesirable. The concept of the infill frame considers the integral
structural action of walls and slab with the frames, and provides increased lateral
force resisting capacity for frames.

The use of computers as we all know is inevitable these days in any portion of
the structural design of any type of the structures. And the use of artificial intelligence
in the field of computers is one of the most fascinating and interesting as the use these
days is recommended in almost any field of real life and practical applications. The
field being related to computer applications has not found much of the place in
structural field and especially in the context of Nepal the use has been found to be
very limited. The method based on the Artificial Neural Networks (ANN) can
accommodate all parameters and uncertainties like non-linear behavior of infill, lack
of fit at the frame infill interface, non-homogeneity of the materials. The main
advantage of this method is that the size of the output vector can be increased to meet
all the requirements. The inherent tolerance mechanism and the ability to learn from
the new patterns (data sets) make it an ideal method.

The origins of Artificial Neural Networks (ANN) are in the field biology. The
biological brain consists of billions of highly interconnected neurons forming a neural
2
network. Human information processing depends on this connectionist system of
nervous cells. Based on this advantage of information processing, neural networks can
easily exploit the massively parallel local processing and distributed storage
properties in the brain. Generally speaking, an ANN is an informational system
simulating the ability of a biological neural network by interconnecting many simple
neurons (Fig. 1-1). The neuron accepts inputs from a single or multiple sources and
produces outputs by simple calculations, processing with a predetermined non-linear
function. Therefore, the primary characteristics of an ANN can be presented as
following: (1) the ability of learning; (2) distributed memory; (3) fault tolerance and
(4) operating in parallel.

Figure 1-1: Structure of Artificial Neural Network model

1.3 Why this Study ?


With the advancement of computational technology and ever going increasing
trend of research activities, the demand for inelastic design is increasing day by day.
The term inelastic is associated to material whose stress-strain diagram is non-linear.
But, the usual practices follow only the linear stress-strain relationships. The linear
relations are acceptable only for the small deformations. Whereas, in most of the
cases when the deformation becomes too large, structural members undergo failure
before the strains become finite. Such a situation can be frequently observed in infill
frame structures. Infill frames are widely constructed using brick masonry infill walls.
Since the brick masonry wall possesses highly heterogeneous material, non-linear
studies become inevitable. Thus, for the analysis of infill frames, the models which
can account for nonlinear behavior of individual materials must be used. For this,
3
non-linear characterization of the materials is quite essential to formulate. These days,
engineering practices demand more and more new additional materials. Whose stress-
strain behaviors are still not known or they have to be tested in laboratories. For the
very common materials like bricks, concrete and mortars, which have a long history,
people still are adopting linear relations for stress-strain curve. In the early days,
computational challenges and efforts have made people compelled to accept the state
of linear assumption. Now the advancement in computational technology stipulates
more precised computational techniques, which can minimize the gap between
realistic value and the approximation.

Structural engineering involves understanding of material behavior, laws of


mechanics, intuition, past experience or expertise and analysis techniques. The
modern computer can bring speed, efficiency and accuracy in analysis of structures.
But to computerize the areas such as conceptual design, modeling of natural
phenomenon and material behavior, damage assessment etc., is extremely difficult as
it requires human expertise. Structural design is an iterative process. The initial design
is the first step in design process. Though the various aspects of structural design are
controlled by many codes and regulations, the structural engineer has to exercise
caution and use his judgment in addition to calculations in the interpretation of the
various provisions of the I.S 4562000 code to obtain an efficient and economic
design. After the design process the designer makes an overall guess about the
possible optimum solution consistent with designers experience, knowledge,
constraints, and requirements. The analysis of the structure is then carried out using
initial design. Based on the results of the analysis a re-design of the structure is
carried out if any of the constraints is not satisfied. The efficiency of the design
process depends heavily on initial guess. A good initial design reduces the number of
subsequent analysisdesign cycles. This phase is extremely difficult to computerize as
it needs human intuition. In recent years efforts have been made to computerize the
initial design process using artificial neural networks as they can learn from available
designs during training process. Artificial neural network is a new technology
emerged from approximate simulation of human brain and has been successfully
applied in many fields of engineering. Neural networks and genetic algorithm
demonstrate powerful problem solving ability. They are based on quite simple
principles but take advantage of their mathematical nature in terms of non-linear
4
iteration. Neural networks with Back Propagation (BP) learning can be an extremely
powerful tool for the prediction of subsequent design parameters.

1.4 Objectives of the Study


The overall picture of the analysis of infill wall panels is still so vague in
structural engineering fields. The amount of non-linearity involved due to
heterogeneity in the materials presents complex design scenario for structural
engineers. The presence of whole infill is found to be neglected in design studios. The
research work is intended to produce some useful design criteria in the case of infill
wall panels and easy prediction of the macro response of the wall panels with the use
of artificial intelligence techniques. The summary can be listed as below

To determine the nonlinear response (using material non-linearity) of


the composite action between brick infill walls and reinforced concrete
frame, under in plane lateral load.

To compare the results obtained from a series of analysis of infill of


different aspect ratios, thickness and materials.

To determine the equivalent diagonal strut thickness of infill wall


useful in SEDS (Single Equivalent Diagonal Strut) Model.

To train the computer for the development of ANN tool for the
prediction of non linear results associated with the infill masonry wall.

To predict the infill wall response parameters of interest


instantaneously without any real modeling and with much of accuracy
desired.

1.5 Methodology
The analysis comprise of a series of steps which are briefed as under in a
systematic manner.

5
Non-linear Analysis of Infill

Identification of Modelling Training &


Material Properties & Validation of
(Non-linear) Analysis Neural Network

Density, Poissons 2D Modelling


ratio & Stress-Strain of Infill Wall Training Neural
curve of Brick Frame Network with
Trainee Data Sets

Density, Poissons 2D Non-linear


ratio & Stress-Strain Analysis of RC Verification of
curve of Mortar Infill Wall Result obtained
from Trained
Network
Density, Poissons
ratio & Stress-Strain
curve of Reinforced
Concrete

Figure 1-3: Flow Chart for Analysis of Infill Wall using ANN

1.5.1 Review of Literature


The various literatures related with the works were searched and reviewed. In
this regard, the literatures concerned with the traditional masonry infills, steel frame
with infills, etc. were searched. Experimental and analytical studies conducted in the
past were referred simultaneously.

1.5.2 Collection of Input Data


The data regarding the material non-linearities and other properties were
collected from previous researches and published journals. The dimensions of the
infill to be used for the analysis were concluded from the practice being availed in this
part of the country.

6
1.5.3 Modeling of the Structure
Four different Ansys elements are used for preparation of Reinforced Concrete
infill model in Ansys. Three different materials reinforced concrete, brick and mortar
are considered. In which Ansys element Plane42 is used for both brick and mortar,
and the element Beam3 is used for both beam and column. Link10 element is used for
connection between line and plane element. Using these three elements 2D model is
prepared in Ansys. Different aspect ratios were considered providing the data sets a
wide range and two thickness of infill were used for analysis.

1.5.4 Analysis of the Structure


The infill was modeled as a planar structure and hence the analysis was also
done for the in-plane lateral loading. Since the non-linear analysis was found to quite
time-consuming, static analyses were done for different models in advanced software.

1.5.5 Result Validation


The responses obtained from the analytical analyses were used as data sets to
train the Neural Network and then the trained network was used for the validation of
other data sets for the quick prediction of the responses.

7
CHAPTER 2: REVIEW OF LITERATURE

2.1 General

Recent earthquakes have clearly shown that the damages done to the buildings
with infills were considerable less than those without infills and the difference was
quite a bit significant. Therefore, the structural contribution of infill walls cannot
simply be neglected particularly in regions of moderate and high seismicity where, the
frameinfill interaction may cause substantial increase in both stiffness and strength
of the frame. A review of analysis and design provisions related to masonry infill RC
frames in seismic design codes of different countries shows that only a few codes
have considered the effect of infill in analysis and design of masonry infill RC frames
(Kaushik et al. 2006). On the other hand, the stiffness and strength of the infill frames
are not taken care of by most of the codes. Hence, the behavior of infill frames needs
to be studied extensively in order to develop a rational approach or guidelines for
design.

2.2 Experimental Studies


Hinged steel-frame with solid infill tested under monotonic loading were
found to lose their load carrying capacity at ultimate stage by cracking of mortar
joints along the compressive diagonal of the infill wall (Polyakov, 1948). About 45
single storey, single bay frames with reinforced concrete infill of reduced scale
(between 1/8 and 3/8) were studied under monotonic loading (Benjamin& Williams,
1950). The influence of infill geometry, amount and direction of reinforcement in the
wall, and column reinforcement were studied on ductility and load carrying capacity
of the frame. Another study on steel frames with brick work, and concrete in-filling
showed that the stiffness and the strength of the steel frame was greatly increased
under the composite action of frame and masonry infill wall panel (Holmes, 1960).
Several full-size tests were carried out to determine the behaviour of infill steel
frames subjected to racking or shear loading. Tests on single storey steel frame with
reinforced concrete and brick infill under lateral load led to semi-empirical methods
for accounting effect of infill (Holmes, 1962). Infill walls were modelled as
equivalent diagonal strut and the ultimate lateral load carrying capacity of the infill

8
frame expressed as a function of geometry of frame and infill, and of the compressive
strength of the infill.

2.3 Analytical Studies


Analytical models that have been developed to estimate lateral stiffness and
strength of the infill frames include the equivalent frame model, the single diagonal
strut model, and the multi-diagonal strut model. The equivalent frame model is based
on the concept of equivalent frame, where members have the properties of the
composite sections of the actual structure (Liauw 1972, Kodur et al. 1998). The
equivalent diagonal strut model is the most simplified yet reasonably accurate macro-
model. This is usually done by modeling the infill panel as a single diagonal strut
connected to the two compressive diagonal corners. The key to this approach lies in
determination of effective width of equivalent diagonal strut. In the last few decades,
several attempts have been made to compute the effective width of diagonal strut for
infill frames (Holmes 1961, Smith and Carter 1969, Mainstone 1971, Liauw and
Kwan 1984, Paulay and Priestley 1992).

Figure 2-1: Single Diagonal Strut Models (Smith and Carter 1969)

9
During the last three decades, different approaches have been proposed for the
prediction of the ultimate strength of infill steel frames subjected to monotonic lateral
load. Holmes (1961) proposed that the infill wall be replaced by an equivalent
diagonal strut having a width equal to one-third of the diagonal length of the infill
wall. Stafford Smith (1966) proposed an expression relating the width of the
equivalent strut to the properties of the frame and infill wall. The width of the
equivalent strut varied with value of the following non-dimensional factor:
1/ 4
E th 3 sin 2
h = c (2-1)
4Es I
Where,
Ec = elastic modulus of the infill material, ksi
Es = elastic modulus of the frame material, ksi
t = thickness of the infill wall, inches
h = height of a single story, inches
4
I = moment of inertia of the frame columns, inch
= slope of the infill diagonal relative to horizontal

Stafford Smith and Carter (1969) further related the width of the equivalent
strut not only to factor h, but also to the variation of the elastic modulus of the infill
material at different stress levels. Makino (1984) proposed a simplified formula to
calculate the width of the equivalent strut based on Stafford Smith and Carters work.
In his formula, the width of the equivalent strut was only related to the diagonal
length of the infill wall or the thickness of the infill wall. Liauw and Kwan (1983a)
expressed the equivalent strut width as a fraction of hcos:
0.86
b= (h cos ) 0.45(h cos ) (2-2)
h

where, the non-dimensional factor parameter h is defined in Eq. (1). This


relation was obtained by parametric study using the finite element method.
There has been a concern by some researchers (Meharbi et al. (1994), Al-
Chaar (2002), and Al-Chaar et al. (2003a, 2003b)) that the single equivalent diagonal
strut does not predict satisfactorily the lateral stiffness of infill frame. It is therefore
10
important to compare the width of diagonal strut of solid infill frames obtained from
several empirical relationships available in the literature with that obtained by the
finite element analysis. The following relations have been considered.

d
WdS = (Holmes 1961) (2-3)
3
0.445 0.064
l
WdS = 0.58 (h )0.335d l (Smith and Carter 1969) (2-4)
h h
WdS = 0.16h0.3 d (Mainstone 1971) (2-5)

WdS =
(0.95h cos )
(Liauw and Kwan 1984) (2-6)
.h
d
WdS = (Paulay and Priestley 1992) (2-7)
4
d
WdS = (Angel At. Al 1994) (2-8)
8

WdS = 0.175(h )
0.4
d (FEMA 274, 1997) (2-9)

FEMA 356
The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) code 356 explains
clearly enough how to take infills into account: the effect of infills has to be
considered by a FEM analysis or, alternatively, by introducing a diagonal pin-jointed
strut equivalent to the infill. For the first option no more is said, unlike the second
one, which is derived from an experimental observation: under lateral forces the
frame tends to separate from the infill near the windward lower and leeward upper
corners of the infill mesh. For FEMA 356 the equivalent strut is to have the same
thickness and modulus of elasticity as the infill panel (but it is not clear along which
direction the modulus of elasticity must be calculated) while the width w is given by
the following equation
W 0.4
= 0.175( ' h') (2-10)
d

Ed tSin(2 )
' = 4 (2-11)
4E f I c h

11
Figure 2-2: Geometric characteristics in Equations. (2-8) and (2-9)

2.4 About ANN


Machine learning involves adaptive mechanisms that enable computers to
learn from experience, learn by example and learn by analogy. Learning capabilities
can improve the performance of an intelligent system over time. The most popular
approaches to machine learning are Artificial Neural Networks and Genetic
Algorithms. A neural network can be defined as a model of reasoning based on the
human brain. The brain consists of a densely interconnected set of nerve cells, or
basic information-processing units, called neurons. The human brain incorporates
nearly 10 billion neurons and 60 trillion connections, synapses, between them. By
using multiple neurons simultaneously, the brain can perform its functions much
faster than the fastest computers in existence today. Each neuron has a very simple
structure, but an army of such elements constitutes a tremendous processing power. A
neuron consists of a cell body, soma, a number of fibers called dendrites, and a single
long fiber called the axon.
Our brain can be considered as a highly complex, non-linear and parallel
information-processing system. Information is stored and processed in a neural
network simultaneously throughout the whole network, rather than at specific
locations. In other words, in neural networks, both data and its processing are global
rather than local. Learning is a fundamental and essential characteristic of biological

12
neural networks. The ease with which they can learn led to attempts to emulate a
biological neural network in a computer.

Figure 2-3: Biological Neural Network

An artificial neural network consists of a number of very simple processors,


also called neurons, which are analogous to the biological neurons in the brain. The
neurons are connected by weighted links passing signals from one neuron to another.
The output signal is transmitted through the neurons outgoing connection. The
outgoing connection splits into a number of branches that transmit the same signal.
The outgoing branches terminate at the incoming connections of other neurons in the
network.

Table 2-1: Analogy between biological and artificial neural networks

Biological Neural Network Artificial Neural Network

Soma Neuron
Dendrite Input
Axon Output
Synapse Weight

2.4.1 Back-Propagation Neural Network


The network computes its output pattern, and if there is an error or in other
words a difference between actual and desired output patterns, the weights are
adjusted to reduce this error. A training set of input patterns is presented to the
network. In a back-propagation neural network, the learning algorithm has two
phases.

13
First, a training input pattern is presented to the network input layer. The
network propagates the input pattern from layer to layer until the output pattern is
generated by the output layer. If this pattern is different from the desired output, an
error is calculated and then propagated backwards through the network from the
output layer to the input layer. The weights are modified as the error is propagated.

2.4.2 The Back-Propagation Training Algorithm


Step 1: Initialisation -Set all the weights and threshold levels of the network to
random numbers uniformly distributed inside a small range:
2.4 2.4
,+ (2-12)
Fi Fi

Figure 2-4: Typical Back-Propagation Network

Step 2: Activation- Activate the back-propagation neural network by applying inputs


x1(p), x2(p),, xn(p) and desired outputs yd,1(p), yd,2(p),, yd,n(p).
(a) Calculate the actual outputs of the neurons in the hidden layer:
n
y j ( p ) = sigmoid xi ( p ).wij ( p ) j (2-13)
i =1
Where, n is the number of inputs of neuron j in the hidden layer, and sigmoid is
the sigmoid activation function.
14
(b) Calculate the actual outputs of the neurons in the output layer:
m
yk ( p ) = sigmoid x jk ( p ).w jk ( p ) k (2-14)
j =1
Where, m is the number of inputs of neuron k in the output layer.

Step 3: Weight training- Update the weights in the back-propagation network


propagating backward the errors associated with output neurons.
(a) Calculate the error gradient for the neurons in the output layer:
k ( p) = y k ( p).[1 y k ( p)].ek ( p) (2-15)

Where, ek ( p ) = y d ,k ( p ) y k ( p ) (2-16)

Calculate the weight corrections:


w jk ( p ) = . y j ( p) k ( p ) (2-17)

Update the weights at the output neurons:


w jk ( p + 1) = w jk ( p ) + w jk ( p ) (2-18)

Step 4: Iteration- Increase iteration p by one, go back to Step 2 and repeat the process
until the desired error criterion is satisfied.

15
CHAPTER 3: REINFORCED CONCRETE INFILL FRAME
MATERIALS

3.1 General
Reinforced Concrete, mortar & brick are the major components of masonry
units. Masonry possesses distinct directional properties due to the mortar joints. A
number of influence factors (such as anisotropy of units, size of units, mortar
thickness, material properties of units and mortar, arrangement of bed as well as head
joints, and quality of workmanship) make simulation of masonry structures extremely
difficult. The frame-masonry interaction in infill makes it even harder for the
computer simulation.

3.2 Masonry
Masonry is the building of structures from individual units laid in and bound
together by mortar; the term masonry can also refer to the units themselves. The
common materials of masonry construction are brick, stone such as marble, granite,
travertine, limestone; concrete block, glass block, and tile. Masonry is generally a
highly durable form of construction. However, the materials used, the quality of the
mortar and workmanship, and the pattern in which the units are assembled can
significantly affect the durability of the overall masonry construction.

Masonry units, such as brick, tile, stone, glass brick or concrete block
generally conform to the requirements specified in the 2003 International Building
Code (IBC) Section 2103.

Masonry is commonly used for the walls of buildings, retaining walls and
monuments. Brick and concrete block are the most common types of masonry in use
in industrialized nations and may be either weight-bearing or a veneer. Concrete
blocks, especially those with hollow cores, offer various possibilities in masonry
construction. They generally provide great compressive strength, and are best suited
to structures with light transverse loading when the cores remain unfilled. Filling
some or all of the cores with concrete or concrete with steel reinforcement (typically
rebar) offers much greater tensile and lateral strength to structures.

16
Masonry is broadly classified as i) Stone masonry and ii) Brick masonry.
Apart from the load-bearing capacity, the following aspects also are considered while
selecting the most suitable type of masonry unit: (a) adequate thermal and sound
insulation capacity of masonry, especially in the case of external walls, (b) reduction
of the weight of the building in order to reduce the seismic loads, and (c) economy of
construction.

3.3 Bricks
A brick is a block of ceramic material used in masonry construction, usually
laid using various kinds of mortar. The term brick refers to small units of building
material, often made from fired clay and secured with mortar, a bonding agent
comprising of cement, sand, and water. Long a popular material, brick retains heat,
with-stands corrosion, and resists fire. Masonry construction are being made of either
burnt clay brick, concrete or light-weight concrete units in different sizes and shapes,
either solid or perforated. As a rule, they must meet national standard requirements.
When selecting the most suitable type of unit, one has to consider, apart from the
load-bearing capacity, the following aspects:

1. That can provide adequate thermal and sound insulation capacity, especially
in external walls.

2. Which can minimise the weight of the building and of seismic horizontal
forces.

3. Which can optimise the cost of construction.

Table 3-1: Types and Properties of Bricks (Pradhan, P.L., 2009)

Modulus of Elasticity Density


Material Types Poisson's Ratio
E (N/m2) , (kg/m3)
MB 3.022 E9
Brick 0.09 1700
LB 2.387 E9

Build houses using brick masonry is a common practice in this part of the
world. Generally there can be a few types of brick available anywhere in the world.
Here also we intend to use three different types of brick, based on their properties and
not dimensions. The types of the brick and their corresponding properties used in the
modeling are tabulated in Table 3-1.
17
Figure 3-1: Stress-strain characteristics of different bricks used.

3.4 Mortar

Mortar is a mixture of sand, lime and Portland cement, mixed with water to a
workable consistency. It is used as a bond in masonry or for covering a wall. Mortar
are referred as any of various bonding materials used in masonry, surfacing, and
plastering, especially a plastic mixture of cement or lime, sand, and water that hardens
in place and is used to bind together bricks or stones. Sometimes, additives are added
to mortar to improve its workability, or for other reasons. Mortars must be sufficiently
strong, durable, capable of keeping the wall intact, and must create a water-resistant
barrier. It is applied with a bricklayer's trowel, and sets solid in a few hours. There are
many different mixes and admixtures used to make mortars with different
performance characteristics.

According to the classification used in Euro Code 6, different types of mortar


are used in masonry construction some of them are:

1. General purpose mortar, use in joints with a thickness greater than 3 mm


and in which only dense aggregates are used.

2. Thin-layer mortar, designed mortar for use in joints between 1 mm and 3


mm in thickness.

18
3. Lightweight mortar, designed mortar with a dry hardened density lower
than 1500 kg/m3.

4. Pre-batched mortar, consisting of constituents batched in a plant, supplied


to the building site and mixed there under factory specified proportions and
conditions.
5. Site-made mortar, composed of primary constituents batched and mixed on
the building site.

The types of the mortar and their corresponding properties used here for
modeling are stated as below.

Table 3-2: Types and Properties of Mortar (Pradhan, P.L., 2009)

Modulus of Elasticity Density


Material Composition Poisson's Ratio
E (N/m2) , (kg/m3)
1:4 3.651 E9
Mortar 0.17 1780
1:6 2.616 E9

Figure 3-2: stress-strain characteristics of different mortar used

3.5 Reinforced Concrete

Concrete is a mixture of cement (usually Portland cement) and stone


aggregate. When mixed with a small amount of water, the cement hydrates form
microscopic opaque crystal lattices encapsulating and locking the aggregate into a
rigid structure. Typical concrete mixes have high resistance to compressive stresses
(about 4000 psi (28 Mpa); however any appreciable tension (e.g., due to bending) will
19
break the microscopic rigid lattice, resulting in cracking and separation of the
concrete. For this reason, typical non-reinforced concrete must be well supported to
prevent the development of tension.

A rebar (short for reinforcing bar), also known as reinforcing steel,


reinforcement steel, or a deformed bar, is a common steel bar, and is commonly used
as a tensioning device in reinforced concrete and reinforced masonry structures
holding the concrete in compression. It is usually formed from carbon steel, and is
given ridges for better mechanical anchoring into the concrete. Rebars were known in
construction well before the era of the modern reinforced concrete. The name is taken
from an extinct species of African jungle snakes used in tribal wars. The cast iron
used for rebars is of very high quality, and they can resist corrosion on them for
extremely long periods.

If a material with high strength in tension, such as steel, is placed in concrete,


then the composite material, reinforced concrete, resists not only compression but also
bending and other direct tensile actions. A reinforced concrete section where the
concrete resists the compression and steel resists the tension can be made into almost
any shape and size for the construction industry.

The common practice observed in this part of Nepal and almost everywhere in
the country is to use reinforced concrete for frame materials and brick masonry for
infill materials. So here we have intended to get closer to the real practice by
modeling the structure using these four distinct materials and use their non-linear
characteristics as far as possible.

The properties of the concrete and the reinforcing bars used for the modeling
purpose are listed as under:

Table 3-3: Properties of concrete and rebars used in analysis

Modulus of Elasticity Density


Material Poisson's Ratio
E (N/m2) , (kg/m3)
Reinforced Concrete 2.549E+10 0.15 2500

20
Figure 3-3: Stress-Strain Characteristics of Reinforced Concrete

21
CHAPTER 4: FINITE ELEMENT MODEL

4.1 About ANSYS


The finite element method is a numerical procedure that can be used to obtain
solutions to a large class of engineering problems involving stress analysis, heat
transfer, electromagnetism, and fluid flow. ANSYS software is the software of choice
for structural dynamics, material modeling, fast fluid flow, impact and blast and shock
response at many leading institutions worldwide. An integrated ANSYS software
tightly integrates the preprocessing, post-processing and analysis modules for
maximum productivity.

ANSYS software is not an average explicit finite element or Computational


Fluid Dynamics (CFD) program. From the very beginning, ANSYS developed this
technology to handle, naturally and effectively, the non-linear behavior of fluids and
structures in an integrated fashion. A key component is the seamless way that users
can couple sophisticated material models with a fluid structure program. ANSYS
software is different from other explicit programs in a number of ways:

Integrated and coupled response of fluids, structures and materials.

Multiple solvers including finite element, CFD and Smooth Particle


Hydrodynamics (SPH) as well as the coupling between FE and the
other solvers.

Use of materials with strength, such as metals, in all solvers, in


addition to fluids and gasses.

Comprehensive remapping capabilities from FE to CFD and vice


versa.

Interactive GUI with leading edge visualization.

Solvers seamlessly integrated pre- and post-processors.

22
4.2 Modelling Strategy
A parametric study is performed to obtain lateral stiffness of infill frames with
varying aspect ratios. The FE model is prepared for the purpose. The FE model is first
calibrated using published results of experimental specimens available in the
literature. This calibrated model is used in the parametric study to determine the
lateral stiffness of infill frames. The width of equivalent diagonal strut for the infill
frame using other established relations is compared to that estimated from the FE
method. That is, equivalent width of diagonal strut is to be determined that will give
correct approximation of lateral stiffness. In the parametric study, five parameters,
i.e., aspect ratio, brick property, mortar property, thickness of infill and lateral load
are varied considerably to get the sufficient data for Neural Network training. A
single-bay single-story is considered for the study and their lateral stiffness is
determined by non-linear analysis considering material non-linearity. The single-bay
single-story infill frame considered is shown in figure bellow. Thus a total of 200
models have to be analysed in the parametric study. All the analyses are performed
using the software ANSYS v10.0.

4.2.1 Calibration of the Model


Experimental results available in the published literatures are used to calibrate
the FE model (Table 5-1). The influence of the following four factors namely, (a)
modulus of elasticity of reinforced concrete, (c) modulus of elasticity of brick and (d)
modulus of elasticity of mortar are considered in the analysis. Other data are taken as
the provisions in the relevant codes.

4.2.2 Dimensions of the Model

Frame section comprising of beam of size 300mm x 350mm and


column section of size 300mm x 300mm.

Length of the panels varying from 3m to 5m, c/c of columns, at an


interval of 0.5m.

Single storey single bay frame panel of height 3m.

Brick masonry infill of two different thicknesses of 110mm and


230mm.

23
Mortar thickness of 12mm provided in between consecutive bricks.

4.3 Description of the Models


The finite element model shown above is prepared using ANSYS. The
material properties and the elements used for analytical study are described as under.

4.3.1 Element used in Modeling


Four different Ansys elements are used for preparation of Reinforced Concrete
infill model in Ansys. Three different materials reinforced concrete, brick and mortar
are considered. In which Ansys element Plane42 is used for both brick and mortar,
and the element Beam3 is used for both beam and column. Link10 element is used for
connection between line and plane element. Using these three elements 2D model is
prepared in Ansys.

Plane42 element can be used either as a plane element (plane stress or plane strain) or
as an axi-symmetric element for 2D analysis of structure. According to name of the
element Plane means aerial, 4 means four nodes i.e. quadrilateral and 2 means two
degree of freedom (translations in the nodal x and y directions) at each nodes.

Figure 4-1: Plane stress element used for Modeling

Beam3 is a linear element. This element is used for modelling of the members which
has bending capabilities. The element has three degrees of freedom at each node,
translations in the nodal x and y directions and rotation about the nodal z-axis.

24
Figure 4-2: Beam3 element used for Modeling Beam and Column

Link10 is a linear element. This element is used where only compressive or tension
property of the material has to be considered. When it is used as compressive only, at
that time tension property of that material is taken to be zero. This element is used for
modelling of cable, non-tension element etc.

Figure 4-3: Link10 element used for Modeling Frame-Infill Interface

4.3.2 Boundary Conditions Imposed

Two degrees of freedom are considered for all the nodes of infill. The
displacements in X- and Y- directions in the plane of frame are considered at all
nodes for the infill and for this Plane42 element is used. The element having
translations in the nodal x and y directions and rotation about the nodal z-axis i.e.
Beam3 element is used for modelling of Beam and Column. Link10 element is used
for connection between Frame (i.e. line element) and infill (i.e. Plane42 element) by
taking only compression feature of this element.

25
Figure 4-4: Sample model prepared for the analysis

4.3.3 Overview of the Materials Used

Three different materials reinforced concrete, brick and mortar are used for
modeling to incorporate the complex heterogeneity involved in the infill as far as
possible. The area for the link element is computed using average spacing of the link
elements throughout the run of the infill and the thickness of the beam and column
element. The material non-linearity is also considered. An overview of the material
properties used for the analysis purpose is presented in the tabular form below.

Table 4-1: Material properties used in analysis (Pradhan, P.L., 2009)

Modulus of Elasticity Density


Material Remarks Poisson's Ratio
E (N/m2) , (kg/m3)
Reinforced
2.549E10 0.15 2500
Concrete
MB 3.022 E9
Brick 0.09 1700
LB 2.387 E9
1:4 3.651 E9
Mortar 0.17 1780
1:6 2.616 E9

26
4.3.4 Model Descriptions
The above mentioned materials and geometries were combined to generate the
models which ensured the combination of materials in a systematic way and thus
creating the desired variation in the analysis that was intended to be given to this
research. The respective combination of geometries with their respective material
properties are given in the table below.

Table 4-2: Designation of Models used for analysis

Aspect Wall Thickness Model


Brick Mortar
Ratios (mm) Designation
110 11-MB4
1:4
Machine 230 23-MB4
Made Brick 110 11-MB6
1:6
230 23-MB6
1
110 11-LB4
1:4
230 23-LB4
Local Brick
110 11-LB6
1:6
230 23-LB6
0.86 Same as in Aspect Ratio 1
0.75 Same as in Aspect Ratio 1
0.67 Same as in Aspect Ratio 1
0.60 Same as in Aspect Ratio 1

4.3.5 The Outputs


The model prepared was described above and the outputs taken were limited
to the specific points as described below. All the points could not be considered for
the output so the salient points which were considered to be of considerable interest
were only considered. The reactions and moments were noted at both the supports
along with the top roof displacement and then the stresses and strains were also noted
down for the points as shown below in the figure.

27
LU, LU RU, RU

C, C

LB, LB RB, RB

Hz L ML Hz R
MR

V
Figure 4-5: Salient nodal points considered for the output

Where,
HzL - Horizontal reaction at Left Support.
HzR - Horizontal reaction at Right Support.
V - Vertical Reaction at each Support
ML - Moment at the Left Support.
MR - Moment at the Right Support.

LB, LB - Stress and Strain at the Bottom-Left corner.

LU, LU - Stress and Strain at the Upper-Left corner.

C, C - Stress and Strain at the Center of the Infill.

RB, RB - Stress and Strain at the Bottom-Right corner.

RU, RU - Stress and Strain at the Upper-Right corner.

4.4 Preparation of the Training sets


Total of 200 sets of data were prepared and organized in a schematic manner
in order to feed them in the neural network. The non-linear analysis results from

28
Ansys were taken as the reference for the preparation of the training sets. Another 16
data sets were also prepared using Ansys for validation purpose. The 200 data sets
that were collected for the training purpose of the neural network comprised of
variation of single height, five spans, two brick-types, two mortar-types, two
thicknesses of infill and five loads thus making a total of 5 x 2 x 2 x 2 x 5 = 200
models to be analysed. The validating 16 data sets were taken in order to check the
accuracy of the data predicted from the trained network.

29
CHAPTER 5: TRAINING THE DATA SETS USING ANN

5.1 Introduction to NeuNet Pro


NeuNet Pro is a complete neural network development system. Neural
networks can be used for pattern recognition, data mining, market forecasting,
medical diagnosis, sports handicapping, and almost any activity where you need to
make a prediction based on our data. The graphical user interface incorporated in the
software makes it extremely easy to operate and handle while providing flexibility in
operation and handling as well. The user is allowed to choose manually which rows as
well as fields are to be trained and which rows values are to be predicted after the
training is accomplished. However the field that can be predicted is limited to one for
greater accuracy. The user is allowed to select from available classic Backprop
algorithms. Records containing missing values are automatically detected and
handled. Algorithms are fully compiled and optimized for extremely fast operation.
Backprop algorithm allows one output value to be predicted using up to 255 input
values. Backprop allows up to 128 neurons in the hidden layer. Users are allowed to
browse through data table while comparing actual versus predicted. One can
interactively experiment with field values while observing effect on the prediction.
Data mine anomalies by performing a descending sort on difference between actual
and prediction. Perform graphical data mining by clicking mouse on scatter graph
and confusion matrix. While browsing data, rows may be interactively check marked
for export.

5.2 Development of ANN Tool


The data obtained from the linear analyses were trained using a sophisticated
Artificial Neural Network. The network consisted of 5 inputs and a single output
every-time the training was done, i.e. a single output field was predicted every-time
the training was done, for greater accuracy. The network comprised of five nodes in a
single hidden layer. The model of the network that was used for the training purpose
is shown below (Figure 5-1). Taking Ansys results as the reference, the verification
was done regarding the accuracy of the trained network. In total, 200 sets of data were
used as training sets and 16 data sets were used for validating the results obtained
from the neural network.

30
Figure 5-1: Back-propagation Neural Network used for Training

Figure 5-2: Error reduction graph during Back-propagation Neural Network Training

31
CHAPTER 6: RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS

6.1 Parametric Studies


In previous chapter, a finite element model developed for simulating the
infilled frame which was of interest in this study. As stated in Section 4.2 and 4.3, the
finite element model was developed in order to supplement the generally adopted
construction practices. It was also pointed out that material characteristics were taken
as per the availing practices in this part of the country. In this chapter, the finite
element model that was developed will be used to investigate the influence of several
parameters. The parameters investigated are those that relate to choices that ordinarily
need to be made in the design process, such as geometric sizes, material properties
and strength parameters. In Table 6.1 a list of parameters that may be of interest is
shown. The geometric parameters investigated are: the overall dimensions of infilled
frames, thus, aspect ratio; the wall thickness. Under material properties are considered
the elasticity modulus of Brick and the Mortar Units. The influence of infill to the
overall Frame-infill structure is considered under the strength criterion; however this
study is limited to the plane of the infill.

Table 6.1: Parameters of Interest

Geometric Material Properties Strength

Modulus of Elasticity
Aspect Ratio
of Brick In-plane Lateral
Modulus of Elasticity Stiffness
Thickness of wall
of Mortar

The variation is the parameters on the above mentioned interest are tabulated
below making the sum total number of analysed models 200. Combination of five
aspect ratios, two thicknesses of wall, two different bricks, and two different mortars
are anylysed for five loading conditions. The schematic variation in the considered
parameters is shown in the table below.

32
Table 6-2: Parametric characteristics of infilled frames analysed

Wall
Aspect Lateral load
Analyses Brick Mortar Thickness
Ratios (KN)
(mm)
110
Machine 1:4 100,200,300,400,500
230
Made
110
Brick 1:6 100,200,300,400,500
230
1 40 1
110
1:4 100,200,300,400,500
230
Local Brick
110
1:6 100,200,300,400,500
230
41 - 80 0.85 Same as in 1 - 40
81 120 0.75 Same as in 1 - 40
121 160 0.67 Same as in 1 - 40
161 200 0.60 Same as in 1 - 40

6.2 Geometric Parameters


In Table 6-2 a summary of the geometric characteristics of the two hundred
types of infilled frames analysed is given. Three geometric parameters, namely, aspect
ratio and thickness of wall in the infill are included in the study. The aspect ratio is
defined as h/l where h is the height of the infilled frame and l is its length. Five aspect
ratios, 0.6, 0.67, 0.75, 0.85 and 1.0 were used in the analyses. The corresponding
infilled frames, shown in Figure 6.1, are 3.0 m high by 5.0 m wide, 3.0 m high by 4.5
m wide, 3.0 m high by 4.0 m wide and 3.0 m high by 3.5 m wide and 3.0 m high by
3.0 m wide respectively.
The first geometric parameter is the aspect ratio. The variation is shown in the
table above ranging from 0.6 to 1.0. The second geometric parameter studied is the
thickness of the wall. The thickness is either 110 mm or 230 mm. First forty analyses
were done as per stated in the table above and the subsequent analyses were carried
out considering the same variation as in 1 40. In conformity with the materials used
in the experiments and the validation of the ANSYS model, the properties of the
materials used in the analyses are as shown in Table 4.1

33
(a) Aspect Ratio 1.0 (3m x 3m) (b) Aspect Ratio 0.86 (3m x 3.5m)

(c) Aspect Ratio 0.75 (3m x 4m) (d) Aspect Ratio 0.67 (3m x 4.5m)

(e) Aspect Ratio 0.6 (3m x 5m)

Figure 6-1 : Infilled frames with different Aspect Ratios

6.2.1 Influence of wall thickness


The table shown below shows that the ratios of stiffness and stresses at main
and the off-diagonal points of infilled frames with 230 mm thick infill walls to those
of infilled frames with 110 mm thick infill walls. These results indicate that there is a

34
near linear relationship between the wall thickness and the infilled frame stiffness, as
well as between the wall thickness. The Ratio of stiffness is increasing as the aspect
ratio is decreasing, i.e., the ratio of stiffness is increasing with increase in the span.
However, the trend for the ratio of stress and strain is opposite. The ratio of stresses
and strains at the specified nodal points seems to be decreasing with the decrease in
aspect ratio (i.e. increase in span).

Table 6-3: Response variation due to wall thickness

Aspect Model Ratio of Ratio of Stresses Ratio of Stresses


Ratios Designation Stiffness LU C RU LU C RU
MB-4 1.060 0.565 0.508 0.509 0.566 0.508 0.511
MB-6 1.067 0.569 0.518 0.518 0.570 0.518 0.512
1
LB-4 1.063 0.569 0.513 0.513 0.569 0.513 0.513
LB-6 1.070 0.574 0.523 0.523 0.574 0.523 0.515
MB-4 1.076 0.511 0.508 0.507 0.512 0.508 0.507
MB-6 1.086 0.516 0.520 0.520 0.517 0.519 0.510
0.85
LB-4 1.080 0.508 0.512 0.512 0.509 0.512 0.507
LB-6 1.091 0.511 0.522 0.522 0.512 0.522 0.512
MB-4 1.091 0.527 0.509 0.510 0.524 0.509 0.508
MB-6 1.102 0.527 0.520 0.518 0.523 0.519 0.514
0.75
LB-4 1.104 0.579 0.513 0.513 0.576 0.513 0.528
LB-6 1.114 0.565 0.523 0.523 0.561 0.522 0.531
MB-4 1.101 0.524 0.508 0.508 0.527 0.509 0.506
MB-6 1.117 0.529 0.518 0.518 0.531 0.518 0.507
0.67
LB-4 1.107 0.571 0.518 0.519 0.571 0.514 0.512
LB-6 1.139 0.567 0.521 0.521 0.564 0.515 0.507
MB-4 1.114 0.531 0.506 0.506 0.532 0.505 0.523
MB-6 1.131 0.533 0.512 0.512 0.534 0.511 0.506
0.6
LB-4 1.137 0.588 0.511 0.512 0.592 0.511 0.528
LB-6 1.151 0.583 0.519 0.519 0.587 0.518 0.510

6.2.2 Influence of Aspect Ratio


The influence of aspect ratio can be clearly seen on the in-plane stiffness of
the infill frame and bare frame. The stiffness decreases if the aspect ratio decreases in
case of the bare frame. However, the stiffness was found to increase with the decrease
in aspect ratio for the infilled frame. The normalised stresses exert almost linear
relationship with the change in aspect ratio. In this study the size of aperture was kept
constant for respective aspect ratio as stated in table 6-2.

35
Table 6-4: Response variation due to aspect ratio

Model Normalised Stiffness Normalised stresses Normalised strains


Designation 1 0.85 0.75 0.67 0.6 1 0.85 0.75 0.67 0.6 1 0.85 0.75 0.67 0.6
11 MB 4 1 1.085 1.146 1.182 1.196 1 0.990 1.338 0.973 0.985 1 0.993 1.365 1.009 1.032
11 MB 6 1 1.079 1.097 1.119 1.114 1 1.023 0.981 0.745 0.717 1 1.030 0.992 0.762 0.742
11 LB 4 1 1.078 1.131 1.161 1.170 1 0.991 1.341 0.990 1.013 1 0.992 1.370 1.025 1.061
11 LB 6 1 1.071 1.094 1.112 1.103 1 1.050 1.029 0.780 0.747 1 1.055 1.043 0.799 0.773
23 MB 4 1 1.105 1.185 1.230 1.269 1 0.873 1.254 0.924 0.972 1 0.877 1.263 0.975 1.020
23 MB 6 1 1.102 1.180 1.232 1.261 1 0.913 1.244 0.945 0.973 1 0.920 1.257 0.981 1.020
23 LB 4 1 1.101 1.177 1.227 1.255 1 0.876 1.251 0.946 0.978 1 0.878 1.259 0.981 1.024
23 LB 6 1 1.098 1.171 1.258 1.245 1 0.909 1.241 0.961 0.982 1 0.913 1.253 0.954 1.030
6.2.3 Influence of Bricks
The influence of aspect ratio can be clearly seen on the in-plane stiffness of
the infill frame and bare frame. The stiffness decreases if the aspect ratio decreases in
case of the bare frame. However, the stiffness was found to increase with the decrease
in aspect ratio for the infilled frame. The normalised stresses exert almost linear
relationship with the change in aspect ratio. In this study the size of aperture was kept
constant for respective aspect ratio as stated in table below. The ratio of stiffness was
found to increases with decrease in aspect ratio. The stresses and strains were found to
be decrease with decrease in aspect ratio and also on increase in wall thickness.

Table 6-5: Response variation due to Bricks

Aspect Model Ratio of Ratio of Stresses Ratio of Stresses


Ratios Designation Stiffness LU C RU LU C RU
11 1:4 1.015 1.071 1.095 1.094 0.845 0.865 0.779
11 1:6 1.015 1.063 1.080 1.079 0.840 0.853 0.781
1
23 1:4 1.008 1.063 1.073 1.074 0.838 0.848 0.778
23 1:6 1.008 1.054 1.060 1.059 0.832 0.838 0.777
11 1:4 1.021 1.068 1.077 1.077 0.845 0.853 0.764
11 1:6 1.022 1.060 1.065 1.064 0.839 0.843 0.786
0.85
23 1:4 1.011 1.057 1.053 1.052 0.837 0.834 0.759
23 1:6 1.012 1.054 1.044 1.044 0.834 0.827 0.779
11 1:4 1.024 1.071 1.050 1.050 0.845 0.829 0.900
11 1:6 1.024 1.032 1.033 1.033 0.813 0.814 0.903
0.75
23 1:4 1.014 1.072 1.029 1.034 0.846 0.812 0.888
23 1:6 1.015 1.055 1.013 1.013 0.833 0.799 0.897
11 1:4 1.030 1.060 1.051 1.051 0.838 0.830 0.813
11 1:6 1.029 1.042 1.033 1.034 0.823 0.815 0.806
0.67
23 1:4 1.015 1.049 1.030 1.031 0.832 0.816 0.811
23 1:6 1.001 1.048 1.029 1.029 0.830 0.813 0.813
11 1:4 1.034 1.058 1.092 1.092 0.837 0.863 0.727
11 1:6 1.031 1.031 1.072 1.073 0.814 0.847 0.697
0.6
23 1:4 1.018 1.054 1.079 1.080 0.833 0.854 0.750
23 1:6 1.019 1.037 1.057 1.058 0.820 0.836 0.723

6.2.4 Influence of Mortar


The ratio of responses with 1:4 mortar to 1:6 mortar are tabulated below. It
can be clearly seen on the in-plane stiffness of the infill frame with 1:4 mortar are
slightly above to those compared to those with 1:6 mortar. The ratio of stiffness was

37
found to increases with decrease in aspect ratio. The stresses and strains were found to
be decrease with decrease in aspect ratio and also with the increase in wall thickness.

Table 6-6: Response variation due to Mortar

Aspect Model Ratio of Ratio of Stresses Ratio of Stresses


Ratios Designation Stiffness LU C RU LU C RU
11 MB 1.016 1.019 0.951 0.950 1.021 0.951 1.052
11 LB 1.016 1.011 0.938 0.937 1.014 0.938 1.054
1
23 MB 1.013 1.011 0.941 0.943 1.013 0.941 1.049
23 LB 1.014 1.002 0.929 0.929 1.006 0.929 1.048
11 MB 1.017 0.953 0.968 0.967 0.952 0.964 0.976
11 LB 1.018 0.947 0.957 0.955 0.945 0.953 1.005
0.85
23 MB 1.014 0.959 0.960 0.959 0.958 0.957 0.976
23 LB 1.014 0.957 0.952 0.952 0.955 0.948 1.002
11 MB 1.025 1.080 1.008 1.008 1.081 1.011 0.889
11 LB 1.025 1.039 0.991 0.991 1.039 0.992 0.892
0.75
23 MB 1.014 0.981 1.001 1.002 0.980 1.003 0.855
23 LB 1.015 0.966 0.985 0.982 0.965 0.987 0.863
11 MB 1.030 1.061 1.005 1.003 1.065 1.004 1.005
11 LB 1.029 1.041 0.988 0.987 1.045 0.987 0.996
0.67
23 MB 1.025 0.973 0.985 0.984 0.983 0.995 0.993
23 LB 1.010 0.972 0.983 0.981 0.982 0.991 0.995
11 MB 1.036 1.094 0.951 0.950 1.099 0.948 1.010
11 LB 1.034 1.065 0.933 0.934 1.069 0.931 0.969
0.6
23 MB 1.016 0.988 0.940 0.940 0.988 0.938 0.999
23 LB 1.016 0.972 0.921 0.921 0.972 0.919 0.961

6.3 Variation of stiffness


Stiffness is defined as the resistance to the deformation. This is one parameter
which can be considered of considerable interest to structural engineers. In the study
conducted now, the variation of stiffness with load and span is studied. The graphs
showing the variation are shown below.
The deflection goes on decreasing with increase in span, i.e., the tendency of
the infill to resist the horizontal load seems to be increasing and thus causing a
schematic increase in the stiffness with increase in span. The stiffness of the infilled
frame goes on decreasing with the application of load, i.e. the decrease in stiffness is
observed for different loading values. Also the stiffness for the infilled frame with 230
mm thickness is considerably greater than the stiffness of those with thickness 110
mm. the decrease in stiffness can be observed from the graphs below.

38
(a) MB4 (b) LB4

(a) MB6 (b) LB6

Figure 6-2: Variation of displacement with span

(a) 3m (b) 3.5m

39
(c) 4m (d) 4.5m

(e) 5m

Figure 6-3: Variation of stiffness with load

6.4 Effective width of equivalent diagonal strut


The results of the finite element analyses in this research support the
observation that infill walls essentially provide diagonal bracing to bounding frames.
As such, the wall can be replaced with an equivalent diagonal strut. In order to
evaluate the effective widths of the equivalent diagonal strut for the walls in the
infilled frames analysed, it is hereby assumed that the equivalent diagonal strut is
pinned to the intersection of the beams and columns at the loaded corners; the
modulus of elasticity and the thickness of the strut are the same as those of the wall;
and the frame connections are rigid. As stated in chapter 2, several theoretical and
empirical formulae for the effective width have been proposed by various researchers.
In Table 6.7 effective widths derived from the finite element analyses of rigidly
connected infilled frames with 110 mm thick walls are compared with effective
widths calculated from some of these expressions.

40
Figure 6-4 : Equivalent Strut Model

The finite element (FE) effective widths have been determined by replacing
the infill wall with a strut that results in the same infilled frame stiffness as from the
corresponding finite element analysis. Calculations based on Mainstone (1971)
method, and the FEMA 306 (1998) method are in reasonable agreement with each
other while that obtained from the current FE analyses shows the results on a higher
side for the estimates of the effective widths of the equivalent diagonal struts.

Table 6-7: Comparison of strut widths

FEM FEMA Mainstone Angel


Aspect Model
Ratio Designation Wds Wds Factor Wds Factor Wds Factor
(m) (m) of FE (m) of FE (m) of FE
MB4 0.364 0.398 1.093 0.417 1.146 0.473 1.299
MB6 0.371 0.405 1.091 0.422 1.138 0.473 1.275
1
LB4 0.369 0.403 1.091 0.421 1.140 0.473 1.282
LB6 0.376 0.409 1.089 0.426 1.133 0.473 1.258
MB4 0.403 0.438 1.086 0.458 1.138 0.519 1.289
MB6 0.417 0.445 1.067 0.464 1.113 0.519 1.245
0.86
LB4 0.413 0.443 1.072 0.463 1.120 0.519 1.258
LB6 0.423 0.450 1.064 0.468 1.107 0.519 1.228
MB4 0.454 0.481 1.059 0.503 1.109 0.569 1.253
MB6 0.459 0.489 1.065 0.510 1.110 0.569 1.239
0.75
LB4 0.456 0.486 1.067 0.508 1.114 0.569 1.248
LB6 0.464 0.495 1.066 0.514 1.108 0.569 1.226

41
MB4 0.483 0.527 1.090 0.551 1.140 0.621 1.285
MB6 0.497 0.535 1.077 0.558 1.122 0.621 1.249
0.67
LB4 0.492 0.533 1.083 0.556 1.130 0.621 1.262
LB6 0.501 0.542 1.082 0.563 1.123 0.621 1.239
MB4 0.536 0.575 1.072 0.600 1.120 0.674 1.258
MB6 0.542 0.584 1.078 0.608 1.122 0.674 1.244
0.6
LB4 0.538 0.582 1.081 0.606 1.126 0.674 1.254
LB6 0.546 0.591 1.083 0.613 1.124 0.674 1.235

6.5 Validation of Neural Network


After the training of the network was done, the predicted output was compared
with the standard outputs obtained from the analysis done in Ansys. The
corresponding maximum error was noted down. This process was repeated for all the
16 outputs and results were tabulated below. A sample error comparison chart for the
displacement-output is shown as below. The dots show the predicted data and the
diagonal line corresponds to the actual data.

Figure 6-5 : Comparison of actual versus predicted data

This was done for all the 16 outputs those were desired to be produced from the
network. The validation of the predicted data sets was done in reference to those data
sets from Ansys analysis. The predicted data and the desired data and their
corresponding difference in percentage which indicates the accuracy of the predicted
data are shown in the table below.

42
Table 7-1: Comparison of Results obtained from ANSYS and ANN

Model 11-MB4 23-MB4


Load 250 450 150 350
Responses ANSYS ANN % Error ANSYS ANN % Error ANSYS ANN % Error ANSYS ANN % Error
Hz L (N) -99997 -100329 0.332 -136850 -135908 0.689 -58495 -57538 1.635 -182490 -182535 0.024
Hz R (N) -150000 -149503 0.331 -213150 -211241 0.896 -91505 -89219 2.498 -267510 -268607 0.410
V (N) 163970 163451 0.317 231990 232805 0.351 99461 98058 1.411 293230 292447 0.267
M L (N-m) 74302 75393 1.468 97796 97432 0.373 41834 41200 1.516 138530 139091 0.405
M R (N-m) 97579 98226 0.663 132500 132989 0.369 56706 56212 0.871 179010 179778 0.429
Disp (mm) 12.911 13.168 1.988 16.589 16.473 0.701 7.064 6.934 1.842 24.421 24.434 0.054

LB (N/m2) 2033 1849 9.022 1118 1074 3.879 528 465 11.894 4778 5438 13.810

LU (N/m2) -4795728 -4737439 1.215 -3475204 -3565439 2.597 -1653769 -1858448 12.377 -6301922 -5778220 8.310

C (N/m2) -606176 -611721 0.915 -430130 -434327 0.976 -197155 -189955 3.652 -993716 -1009572 1.596

RB (N/m2) -4817533 -4989542 3.570 -3718866 -4037448 8.567 -1511038 -1508890 0.142 -6231407 -5653019 9.282

RU (N/m2) 6144 5980 2.661 4348 4268 1.853 2093 1876 10.370 10183 10634 4.430

LB 3.870E-07 3.928E-07 1.487 3.035E-07 3.382E-07 11.428 1.556E-07 1.648E-07 5.901 8.622E-07 8.048E-07 6.652

LU -9.583E-04 -1.004E-03 4.808 -7.266E-04 -7.915E-04 8.933 -3.319E-04 -3.175E-04 4.335 -1.985E-03 -1.962E-03 1.161

C -1.900E-04 -1.947E-04 2.496 -1.347E-04 -1.366E-04 1.444 -5.894E-05 -5.702E-05 3.261 -3.942E-04 -3.937E-04 0.144

RB -1.418E-03 -1.443E-03 1.768 -1.003E-03 -1.095E-03 9.162 -4.427E-04 -4.558E-04 2.959 -2.276E-03 -2.172E-03 4.592

RU 1.047E-06 9.798E-07 6.381 8.407E-07 9.091E-07 8.128 2.883E-07 2.672E-07 7.299 2.181E-06 2.320E-06 6.336
Model 11-MB6 23-MB6
Load 250 450 150 350
Responses ANSYS ANN % Error ANSYS ANN % Error ANSYS ANN % Error ANSYS ANN % Error
Hz L (N) -100560 -100822 0.261 -182510 -181804 0.387 -58495 -57538 1.635 -137790 -135330 1.785
Hz R (N) -149440 -149582 0.095 -267490 -268872 0.517 -91505 -89219 2.498 -212210 -212342 0.062
V (N) 163550 163207 0.209 293250 292111 0.388 99461 98058 1.411 231490 233048 0.673
M L (N-m) 75332 75896 0.749 138180 139530 0.977 41834 41200 1.516 99041 98977 0.064
M R (N-m) 98313 98861 0.557 179240 180898 0.925 56706 56212 0.871 133400 133916 0.387
Disp (mm) 13.163 13.337 1.322 24.498 24.706 0.850 7.064 6.934 1.842 16.879 16.809 0.414

LB (N/m2) 2129 1896 10.956 5772 5819 0.815 528 465 11.894 1179 1089 7.575

LU (N/m2) -4953283 -4798553 3.124 -6470576 -5717876 11.633 -1653769 -1858448 12.377 -3603996 -3646379 1.176

C (N/m2) -643746 -630214 2.102 -1165171 -1119811 3.893 -197155 -189955 3.652 -457402 -451793 1.226

RB (N/m2) -4967742 -5091107 2.483 -6165900 -5832554 5.406 -1511038 -1508890 0.142 -3890035 -4183064 7.533

RU (N/m2) 6881 6180 10.189 12541 10981 12.443 2093 1876 10.370 4873 4457 8.539

LB 3.856E-07 3.405E-07 11.689 3.745E-07 3.337E-07 10.919 1.556E-07 1.648E-07 5.901 3.230E-07 3.444E-07 6.619

LU -9.901E-04 -1.061E-03 7.187 -1.535E-03 -1.655E-03 7.831 -3.319E-04 -3.175E-04 4.335 -7.226E-04 -7.968E-04 10.274

C -2.026E-04 -1.939E-04 4.295 -3.675E-04 -3.544E-04 3.568 -5.894E-05 -5.702E-05 3.261 -1.438E-04 -1.374E-04 4.451

RB -1.467E-03 -1.476E-03 0.602 -2.120E-03 -2.075E-03 2.122 -4.427E-04 -4.558E-04 2.959 -1.061E-03 -1.123E-03 5.911

RU 1.078E-06 9.972E-07 7.466 2.146E-06 1.866E-06 13.062 2.883E-07 2.672E-07 7.299 8.339E-07 9.100E-07 9.125

44
Model 11-MB4 23-MB4
Load 250 450 150 350
Responses ANSYS ANN % Error ANSYS ANN % Error ANSYS ANN % Error ANSYS ANN % Error
Hz L (N) -100640 -100821 0.180 -182490 -182535 0.024 -58594 -57519 1.835 -137330 -136552 0.566
Hz R (N) -149360 -149124 0.158 -267510 -268607 0.410 -91406 -89400 2.194 -212670 -210674 0.939
V (N) 163420 162810 0.373 293230 292447 0.267 99367 98049 1.326 231590 231613 0.010
M L (N-m) 75703 76678 1.288 138530 139091 0.405 42077 41032 2.483 98821 98036 0.795
M R (N-m) 98491 99194 0.714 179010 179778 0.429 56862 56070 1.393 133160 133232 0.054
Disp (mm) 13.249 13.459 1.586 24.421 24.434 0.054 7.124 6.913 2.952 16.832 16.632 1.187

LB (N/m2) 1938 1757 9.321 4778 5438 13.810 487 446 8.546 1166 1029 11.726

LU (N/m2) -4435134 -4587174 3.428 -6301922 -5778220 8.310 -1490799 -1690440 13.392 -3275523 -3411099 4.139

C (N/m2) -562581 -578272 2.789 -993716 -1009572 1.596 -173548 -175490 1.119 -402957 -414469 2.857

RB (N/m2) -4489361 -4800765 6.936 -6231407 -5653019 9.282 -1371119 -1329601 3.028 -4157936 -3812790 8.301

RU (N/m2) 5461 5980 9.501 10183 10634 4.430 1676 1801 7.477 3901 4268 9.406

LB 4.740E-07 4.279E-07 9.735 8.622E-07 8.048E-07 6.652 1.756E-07 1.954E-07 11.268 3.664E-07 4.162E-07 13.585

LU -1.218E-03 -1.258E-03 3.310 -1.985E-03 -1.962E-03 1.161 -3.663E-04 -3.683E-04 0.541 -8.288E-04 -9.125E-04 10.101

C -2.225E-04 -2.298E-04 3.298 -3.942E-04 -3.937E-04 0.144 -7.053E-05 -7.342E-05 4.100 -1.592E-04 -1.678E-04 5.407

RB -1.671E-03 -1.708E-03 2.187 -2.276E-03 -2.172E-03 4.592 -4.778E-04 -4.338E-04 9.191 -1.210E-03 -1.316E-03 8.815

RU 1.270E-06 1.428E-06 12.464 2.181E-06 2.320E-06 6.336 3.589E-07 3.662E-07 2.025 8.354E-07 8.799E-07 5.335

45
Model 11-MB4 23-MB4
Load 250 450 150 350
Responses ANSYS ANN % Error ANSYS ANN % Error ANSYS ANN % Error ANSYS ANN % Error
Hz L (N) -101230 -101758 0.521 -183690 -183992 0.165 -58715 -57684 1.756 -137890 -136786 0.800
Hz R (N) -148770 -148815 0.030 -266310 -267203 0.335 -91285 -88847 2.671 -211110 -210329 0.370
V (N) 162970 162562 0.250 292140 291252 0.304 99277 97952 1.335 230400 231858 0.633
M L (N-m) 76832 77282 0.585 141160 143211 1.453 42311 41680 1.492 99861 99622 0.239
M R (N-m) 99283 99877 0.598 181010 182771 0.973 57013 56395 1.084 133730 134214 0.362
Disp (mm) 13.524 13.637 0.832 25.135 25.550 1.652 7.179 7.063 1.610 17.094 16.980 0.665

LB (N/m2) 1886 1803 4.432 4986 5622 12.753 492 451 8.306 1130 1043 7.684

LU (N/m2) -4587630 -4657419 1.521 -5828512 -5683134 2.494 -1561059 -1751616 12.207 -3392969 -3492311 2.928

C (N/m2) -602243 -600434 0.300 -1065036 -1048822 1.522 -185955 -183159 1.504 -430671 -432644 0.458

RB (N/m2) -4663352 -4926436 5.642 -6328377 -5708711 9.792 -1459303 -1449315 0.684 -3821021 -3980147 4.164

RU (N/m2) 6338 6180 2.492 11861 10981 7.425 1947 1876 3.622 4522 4457 1.443

LB 4.003E-07 3.638E-07 9.117 9.378E-07 8.283E-07 11.679 1.816E-07 2.011E-07 10.738 3.768E-07 4.227E-07 12.185

LU -1.158E-03 -1.254E-03 8.329 -1.957E-03 -1.890E-03 3.422 -3.958E-04 -3.835E-04 3.101 -8.593E-04 -8.957E-04 4.242

C -2.395E-04 -2.342E-04 2.222 -4.249E-04 -3.983E-04 6.253 -7.377E-05 -7.096E-05 3.807 -1.710E-04 -1.682E-04 1.651

RB -1.741E-03 -1.734E-03 0.385 -2.367E-03 -2.180E-03 7.908 -5.372E-04 -4.830E-04 10.096 -1.278E-03 -1.339E-03 4.795

RU 1.365E-06 1.448E-06 6.097 2.556E-06 2.327E-06 8.961 3.892E-07 3.584E-07 7.930 9.738E-07 8.800E-07 9.625

46
From the above tables it can be noted that the percentage of error in prediction
of data from the ANN tool so developed is varying from maximum of 13.81% to
minimum of 0.01%. Hence ANN can be taken as a powerful tool for the prediction of
initial design parameters related to any field especially if the mass data regarding that
field is available. For the data sets given above it can be noticed that error percentage
is relatively high in stress and strain fields whereas the error percentage is almost
negligible in reaction fields (displacements, shear and vertical reaction). This is a
good sign that the parameters of interest was predicted more accurately by the tool so
developed and the variation in data predicted for stress and strain fields can be
attributed to the reason that the data taken was not uniform enough as the
recognisation of nodes at the exact place was almost impossible for all the models
prepared thus creating a more varying data for the training sets itself and hence the
prediction showing the results afterwards.

47
CHAPTER 7: CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

7.1 General
Infilled frame has been studied by various researchers; this research represents
the yet another effort to investigate the behaviour of infill walls using various
materials. The peculiarities of brick and mortar combinations along with varying
thickness being practiced traditionally are still unknown. It was therefore considered
necessary to carry out an experimental and numerical investigation in order to
describe the structural behaviour of such infilled frames.
The influence of several geometrical, material and interface parameters on this
behaviour has been investigated. In this research the behaviour of reinforced concrete
frame infilled with brick masonry units subjected to in-plane lateral loads has been
described. Simplified expressions for prediction of the stiffness and other macro
responses of these types of infilled frames have been proposed. Infill walls are already
commonly used as partitions and claddings on building structures. Accounting for
their contribution in resisting loads leads to more efficient use of materials.
Evaluating the stiffness and strength of the infills also leads to reduced risks of
damage to the infills, bounding frames and the finishes. This in turn can lead to
significant reductions in maintenance and rehabilitation costs of buildings.

The literature review includes modelling of infilled frames by replacing the


infill wall by strut models with best possible result outcomes. Work on infilled frames
was initiated in 1940s. Modelling of infilled frames and further development in this
area happened by late 1960s. Studies on monotonic behaviour of infilled frames under
lateral load were carried out in the 1970s. Similarly, cyclic tests, full scaled tests and
nonstructural infill frame tests were carried out during the 1980s and 90s. Studies
were concentrated primarily in two distinct areas, namely on materials and on
modelling of infilled frames. Basic properties were studied of bricks, mortar and
masonry wallets. Infill frame models were developed that describe the different
failure modes. These models include strut models, effective column width model and
micro-models. Over the years, several different analytical approaches were proposed.
But, the equivalent -strut method gained the most popularity among practitioners.

48
Several modifications were proposed in the equivalent strut models. The outcomes of
this research are in reasonable agreement with the one proposed by FEMA356.

A series of two hundred full scale analyses was conducted using finite element
model to simulate each model. The finite element model was used to carry out
parametric studies. The model utilises 4-noded plane stress elements for masonry
units, 2-noded link elements for frame-to-wall contact and again 2-noded beam
element for the modelling of beam and column. A simplified approach to formulate an
equivalent strut width for the infills has been proposed in this research. With the aid
of software, reactions, deflections and other responses at several nodes on each
specimen were recorded. Load deflection responses showed that infills increased the
stiffness of frames by 2.5 times.

Non-linear elastic behaviour was prescribed for frame-to-wall contact and


thin-layer joints. Linear elastic behaviour was assumed for steel. Material properties
used in this model were obtained from estimations based on the available literature.
The finite element model has been used to study the influence of several geometric,
material and interface parameters. These parameters included the aspect ratio of the
infilled frame, the thickness of the infill wall, the elasticity modulus of the bricks and
the mortars. It has been concluded that composite infilled frame action is optimum in
infilled frames with aspect ratios less than or nearly equal to one. In relatively squat
infilled frames, the wall dominates the behaviour while the frames contribution
diminishes. On the other hand, for relatively slender infilled frames, bending
deflections increasingly overshadow composite action of the bounding frame and
infill walls. In general, most geometrical parameters have the highest relative
influence on the stiffness of square infilled frames.
A comparison of effective widths of equivalent diagonal struts derived from
finite element analyses in this study with those derived from other methods from
literature showed that a width of the diagonal proposed by FEMA length is a good,
though a bit underestimated, approximation.
The data thus obtained from the structural analyses were then fed into the
neural network and the network was trained for as many cycles as possible to reduce
the mean RMS error. The neural network was trained to predict one output at a time
for the prediction of a particular response. The results predicted from the trained
network and those from the ANSYS were compared and found to be in reasonable
49
accuracy. Thus based on this study, ANN model was found to be reasonably accurate
for the structure like infilled frame where the degree of non-linearity is very high.
And hence the ANNs are expected to be applicable to other civil engineering
problems, and may have wider applications in other engineering problems.

7.2 Conclusions
The following conclusions are drawn from this study:

Three strut models considered, two performed okay but the one fitting best
with the current FE analyses is the one proposed by FEMA; the locations for
the strut and the formula for the calculation of their strut width best represent
the scenario of an infill bounded by reinforced concrete frame.

The combination of material constituting masonry units have a wider influence


on the stiffness and stress- strain responses developed in the infill and each
case has to be investigated peculiarly to know the exact response rather than
treating complete masonry infill as a single unit.

The responses from the non-linear analysis of the infill model prepared in
ANSYS were used as training data sets. Standard Neural Network software
was used to train the network and later some data sets were used for validation
of the results predicted. The results were found to be satisfactory with error
ranging from 0.01% minimum to 13.81% maximum.
For the quick prediction of the design parameters, neural network can be
extremely useful. The network needs to be trained with data sets of similar
types though. A typical neural network was fed into 200 data sets as training
data sets for the training purpose and the network with just one hidden layer
containing 5 nodes produced accuracy as high as 99.99%. However the
accuracy on the predicted data heavily depends upon the anomalies present in
the data that is being used to train the network.

The research conducted above makes it clear that infill materials present a
very complex scenario for structural engineers when it comes to the simulation of the
real structures in computers. The material heterogeneity and complex interaction
among several infill-masonry components make it extremely difficult to idealise the

50
structure and thus the computer simulation to represent the characteristics of the infill
becomes extremely tedious and monotonic. Thus the prediction of correct initial
design parameters, if possible, can be a boon to structural engineers. These days
computers come with extra-ordinary computing capabilities and hence computing
powers of modern day computers can be used to an optimum extent to predict the
responses of the infill due to in-plane lateral load analysis. This is where the Artificial
Neural Networks can be extremely useful.

7.3 Recommendations for the future works


Keeping the time frame in mind, all the possible combination of parameters
are taken into account in this research. However the scope for the development never
perishes. Recommendations are hereby made from the point of view of the future
continuation of this research. The above issues can be experimentally investigated
without any major changes to the existing setup used in this work. The limitations
being the high costs and practical difficulties involved in conducting large-scale tests,
it is essential that experimental tests should be carried out hand-in-hand with
numerical analyses. As encountered in this investigation, although modelling non-
linear behaviour of brick masonry walls and frame-to-wall interfaces is by no means
easy, numerical modelling can be powerful contributor in understanding and
interpreting the experimental behaviour. It is recommended that the numerical
analyses conducted in this investigation should be extended into the cracking and post
cracking range. This would facilitate an assessment of the ultimate load and give a
more realistic assessment of the margin between the cracking (service) loads and the
ultimate load. This in turn would assist in determining the appropriate safety factors in
the design guidelines.

It is hereby recommended that this research should be continued, generally, in


the following order:

Experimental investigation of infilled frames


The infilled frames analysed in this study should be studied experimentally as
for the correct prediction of their responses and verification of the responses
derived analytically here in this study.

51
Variation in masonry properties
Although some variation in the properties of masonry units are considered in
the current study, a broad investigation on the influence of masonry properties
on response parameters is felt necessary as strength of a masonry wall depends
on the individual properties of brick units and mortar mix.

Reversal cyclic loading


All the analyses carried in the current research are under monotonic loading of
the infilled frame. However it can be interesting to study the responses of the
infill under the reverse cyclic loading for any structural engineer.

Generation of more data sets for the training purpose


Due to the time limitations, only two hundred sets of data were prepared and
fed into the neural network for its training purpose. It has to be noticed the
error in the double digits is an outcome of limitation on the data sets being
used for the training purpose. To get even better accuracy at least 500 data sets
has to be used for the training purpose, thus making the prediction of
responses more accurate.

52
APPENDIX

A. ANSYS Contour Result Plot

Figure A-1 : Displacement contour plot

Figure A-2 : Stress Intensity contour plot

53
Figure A-3 : Shear Stress contour plot

Figure A-4 : X-axis Stress contour plot

54
B. Output Result from ANSYS
Table A-1: ANSYS Results for Span 3m
Input Reactions Displacement
Thickness Load HzL HzR V ML MR (mm)
Mortar Brick
(m) (KN) (N) (N) (N) (N-m) (N-m)
0.11 1:4 MB 100 -42976 -57024 93155 31126 36911 5.88350
0.11 1:4 MB 200 -85901 -114100 185750 63191 74552 12.04600
0.11 1:4 MB 300 -128270 -171730 278220 95425 112400 18.28000
0.11 1:4 MB 400 -170410 -229590 370720 127600 150230 24.51000
0.11 1:4 MB 500 -212200 -287800 463090 159980 188260 30.82300
0.11 1:4 LB 100 -43132 -56868 92979 31447 37115 5.96880
0.11 1:4 LB 200 -86227 -113770 185420 63803 74935 12.20900
0.11 1:4 LB 300 -128860 -171140 277730 96344 112960 18.52100
0.11 1:4 LB 400 -171230 -228770 369960 129010 151110 24.88200
0.11 1:4 LB 500 -213330 -286670 462030 161930 189480 31.33900
0.11 1:6 MB 100 -43069 -56931 92936 31509 37183 5.99620
0.11 1:6 MB 200 -85691 -114310 185380 63819 75049 12.24000
0.11 1:6 MB 300 -127850 -172150 277750 96210 113030 18.53400
0.11 1:6 MB 400 -169660 -230340 370060 128700 151130 24.87400
0.11 1:6 MB 500 -211450 -288550 462320 161250 189280 31.24100
0.11 1:6 LB 100 -43221 -56779 92756 31838 37393 6.08470
0.11 1:6 LB 200 -86058 -113940 185040 64438 75429 12.40300
0.11 1:6 LB 300 -128420 -171580 277210 97216 113660 18.80100
0.11 1:6 LB 400 -170530 -229470 369260 130170 152050 25.26600
0.11 1:6 LB 500 -212670 -287330 461220 163290 190550 31.77800
0.23 1:4 MB 100 -42568 -57432 93712 30112 36251 5.60320
0.23 1:4 MB 200 -85231 -114770 187330 60393 72610 11.26100
0.23 1:4 MB 300 -127870 -172130 280400 91606 109690 17.18300
0.23 1:4 MB 400 -170160 -229840 373410 122880 146880 23.13700
0.23 1:4 MB 500 -212200 -287800 466360 154250 184170 29.13600
0.23 1:4 LB 100 -42655 -57345 93614 30292 36365 5.65120
0.23 1:4 LB 200 -85383 -114620 187150 60719 72818 11.34600
0.23 1:4 LB 300 -128120 -171880 280120 92113 110020 17.31900
0.23 1:4 LB 400 -170510 -229490 373040 123570 147310 23.32200
0.23 1:4 LB 500 -212700 -287300 465910 155080 184680 29.35300
0.23 1:6 MB 100 -42583 -57417 93664 30198 36310 5.62830
0.23 1:6 MB 200 -85304 -114700 186900 61140 73166 11.47500
0.23 1:6 MB 300 -127630 -172370 279870 92495 110400 17.45200
0.23 1:6 MB 400 -169620 -230380 372790 123910 147730 23.46600
0.23 1:6 MB 500 -211180 -288820 465670 155360 185130 29.51000
0.23 1:6 LB 100 -42669 -57331 93560 30388 36432 5.67940
0.23 1:6 LB 200 -85469 -114530 186700 61496 73392 11.57100
0.23 1:6 LB 300 -127890 -172110 279580 93020 110730 17.59300
0.23 1:6 LB 400 -169990 -230010 372410 124600 148160 23.64900
0.23 1:6 LB 500 -211750 -288250 465210 156220 185650 29.73500

55
Input Stress (N/m2)
Thickness Load
(m)
Mortar Brick
(KN) LB LU C RB RU
0.11 1:4 MB 100 1.846E+03 -1.627E+06 -2.237E+05 -1.453E+06 2.259E+03
0.11 1:4 MB 200 3.581E+03 -2.730E+06 -4.416E+05 -2.580E+06 4.450E+03
0.11 1:4 MB 300 5.371E+03 -3.791E+06 -6.595E+05 -3.648E+06 6.671E+03
0.11 1:4 MB 400 7.194E+03 -4.904E+06 -8.800E+05 -4.694E+06 8.881E+03
0.11 1:4 MB 500 9.044E+03 -5.945E+06 -1.101E+06 -5.605E+06 1.108E+04
0.11 1:4 LB 100 1.881E+03 -1.513E+06 -2.068E+05 -1.313E+06 2.089E+03
0.11 1:4 LB 200 3.654E+03 -2.551E+06 -4.087E+05 -2.352E+06 4.128E+03
0.11 1:4 LB 300 5.472E+03 -3.555E+06 -6.101E+05 -3.306E+06 6.166E+03
0.11 1:4 LB 400 7.378E+03 -4.567E+06 -7.933E+05 -4.227E+06 8.009E+03
0.11 1:4 LB 500 9.357E+03 -5.561E+06 -9.795E+05 -5.055E+06 9.901E+03
0.11 1:6 MB 100 1.688E+03 -1.524E+06 -2.354E+05 -1.502E+06 2.376E+03
0.11 1:6 MB 200 3.339E+03 -2.673E+06 -4.643E+05 -2.663E+06 4.693E+03
0.11 1:6 MB 300 5.051E+03 -3.781E+06 -6.947E+05 -3.755E+06 7.016E+03
0.11 1:6 MB 400 6.808E+03 -4.865E+06 -9.249E+05 -4.689E+06 9.346E+03
0.11 1:6 MB 500 8.594E+03 -5.978E+06 -1.155E+06 -5.600E+06 1.167E+04
0.11 1:6 LB 100 1.728E+03 -1.429E+06 -2.200E+05 -1.380E+06 2.223E+03
0.11 1:6 LB 200 3.418E+03 -2.532E+06 -4.353E+05 -2.452E+06 4.397E+03
0.11 1:6 LB 300 5.156E+03 -3.545E+06 -6.509E+05 -3.418E+06 6.570E+03
0.11 1:6 LB 400 6.982E+03 -4.571E+06 -8.470E+05 -4.280E+06 8.569E+03
0.11 1:6 LB 500 8.869E+03 -5.623E+06 -1.046E+06 -5.106E+06 1.059E+04
0.23 1:4 MB 100 9.394E+02 -8.260E+05 -1.121E+05 -7.363E+05 1.133E+03
0.23 1:4 MB 200 1.858E+03 -1.654E+06 -2.265E+05 -1.486E+06 2.288E+03
0.23 1:4 MB 300 2.729E+03 -2.228E+06 -3.369E+05 -2.022E+06 3.404E+03
0.23 1:4 MB 400 3.614E+03 -2.788E+06 -4.470E+05 -2.570E+06 4.520E+03
0.23 1:4 MB 500 4.511E+03 -3.292E+06 -5.569E+05 -3.125E+06 5.633E+03
0.23 1:4 LB 100 9.662E+02 -7.689E+05 -1.030E+05 -6.678E+05 1.039E+03
0.23 1:4 LB 200 1.916E+03 -1.565E+06 -2.116E+05 -1.354E+06 2.138E+03
0.23 1:4 LB 300 2.813E+03 -2.099E+06 -3.147E+05 -1.864E+06 3.180E+03
0.23 1:4 LB 400 3.724E+03 -2.624E+06 -4.179E+05 -2.352E+06 4.218E+03
0.23 1:4 LB 500 4.648E+03 -3.105E+06 -5.216E+05 -2.847E+06 5.271E+03
0.23 1:6 MB 100 8.812E+02 -8.857E+05 -1.219E+05 -8.163E+05 1.228E+03
0.23 1:6 MB 200 1.706E+03 -1.574E+06 -2.393E+05 -1.492E+06 2.414E+03
0.23 1:6 MB 300 2.532E+03 -2.159E+06 -3.563E+05 -2.078E+06 3.594E+03
0.23 1:6 MB 400 3.380E+03 -2.711E+06 -4.722E+05 -2.694E+06 4.766E+03
0.23 1:6 MB 500 4.247E+03 -3.265E+06 -5.891E+05 -3.252E+06 5.948E+03
0.23 1:6 LB 100 9.096E+02 -8.317E+05 -1.135E+05 -7.480E+05 1.146E+03
0.23 1:6 LB 200 1.766E+03 -1.493E+06 -2.261E+05 -1.386E+06 2.284E+03
0.23 1:6 LB 300 2.622E+03 -2.055E+06 -3.368E+05 -1.940E+06 3.402E+03
0.23 1:6 LB 400 3.499E+03 -2.582E+06 -4.474E+05 -2.495E+06 4.515E+03
0.23 1:6 LB 500 4.390E+03 -3.108E+06 -5.591E+05 -3.007E+06 5.650E+03

56
Input Strain
Thickness Load
(m)
Mortar Brick
(KN) LB LU C RB RU
0.11 1:4 MB 100 5.745E-07 -4.934E-04 -6.736E-05 -4.463E-04 1.034E-06
0.11 1:4 MB 200 1.115E-06 -8.231E-04 -1.330E-04 -7.871E-04 2.050E-06
0.11 1:4 MB 300 1.672E-06 -1.142E-03 -1.986E-04 -1.108E-03 3.055E-06
0.11 1:4 MB 400 2.240E-06 -1.477E-03 -2.650E-04 -1.423E-03 4.068E-06
0.11 1:4 MB 500 2.816E-06 -1.791E-03 -3.315E-04 -1.695E-03 5.076E-06
0.11 1:4 LB 100 7.377E-07 -5.821E-04 -7.883E-05 -5.115E-04 1.315E-06
0.11 1:4 LB 200 1.433E-06 -9.751E-04 -1.558E-04 -9.100E-04 2.610E-06
0.11 1:4 LB 300 2.146E-06 -1.358E-03 -2.326E-04 -1.274E-03 3.898E-06
0.11 1:4 LB 400 2.894E-06 -1.744E-03 -3.025E-04 -1.624E-03 5.247E-06
0.11 1:4 LB 500 3.671E-06 -2.123E-03 -3.735E-04 -1.937E-03 6.640E-06
0.11 1:6 MB 100 5.291E-07 -4.594E-04 -7.091E-05 -4.592E-04 9.844E-07
0.11 1:6 MB 200 1.047E-06 -8.050E-04 -1.399E-04 -8.086E-04 1.942E-06
0.11 1:6 MB 300 1.584E-06 -1.139E-03 -2.093E-04 -1.136E-03 2.902E-06
0.11 1:6 MB 400 2.134E-06 -1.465E-03 -2.786E-04 -1.416E-03 3.866E-06
0.11 1:6 MB 500 2.694E-06 -1.801E-03 -3.478E-04 -1.688E-03 4.844E-06
0.11 1:6 LB 100 6.824E-07 -5.462E-04 -8.388E-05 -5.347E-04 1.251E-06
0.11 1:6 LB 200 1.350E-06 -9.658E-04 -1.659E-04 -9.436E-04 2.474E-06
0.11 1:6 LB 300 2.036E-06 -1.352E-03 -2.481E-04 -1.310E-03 3.697E-06
0.11 1:6 LB 400 2.757E-06 -1.743E-03 -3.229E-04 -1.636E-03 4.973E-06
0.11 1:6 LB 500 3.503E-06 -2.144E-03 -3.988E-04 -1.949E-03 6.298E-06
0.23 1:4 MB 100 2.924E-07 -2.505E-04 -3.377E-05 -2.263E-04 5.251E-07
0.23 1:4 MB 200 5.785E-07 -5.017E-04 -6.822E-05 -4.567E-04 1.051E-06
0.23 1:4 MB 300 8.497E-07 -6.727E-04 -1.015E-04 -6.188E-04 1.568E-06
0.23 1:4 MB 400 1.125E-06 -8.406E-04 -1.346E-04 -7.841E-04 2.079E-06
0.23 1:4 MB 500 1.404E-06 -9.922E-04 -1.677E-04 -9.521E-04 2.589E-06
0.23 1:4 LB 100 3.789E-07 -2.958E-04 -3.927E-05 -2.603E-04 6.746E-07
0.23 1:4 LB 200 7.517E-07 -6.027E-04 -8.069E-05 -5.278E-04 1.350E-06
0.23 1:4 LB 300 1.103E-06 -8.035E-04 -1.200E-04 -7.237E-04 2.015E-06
0.23 1:4 LB 400 1.461E-06 -1.003E-03 -1.593E-04 -9.101E-04 2.674E-06
0.23 1:4 LB 500 1.823E-06 -1.186E-03 -1.989E-04 -1.100E-03 3.333E-06
0.23 1:6 MB 100 2.762E-07 -2.678E-04 -3.674E-05 -2.503E-04 5.031E-07
0.23 1:6 MB 200 5.347E-07 -4.744E-04 -7.208E-05 -4.558E-04 1.003E-06
0.23 1:6 MB 300 7.938E-07 -6.502E-04 -1.073E-04 -6.325E-04 1.492E-06
0.23 1:6 MB 400 1.060E-06 -8.165E-04 -1.422E-04 -8.183E-04 1.979E-06
0.23 1:6 MB 500 1.332E-06 -9.833E-04 -1.774E-04 -9.855E-04 2.467E-06
0.23 1:6 LB 100 3.591E-07 -3.189E-04 -4.325E-05 -2.907E-04 6.464E-07
0.23 1:6 LB 200 6.972E-07 -5.703E-04 -8.619E-05 -5.367E-04 1.289E-06
0.23 1:6 LB 300 1.035E-06 -7.838E-04 -1.284E-04 -7.482E-04 1.918E-06
0.23 1:6 LB 400 1.382E-06 -9.846E-04 -1.706E-04 -9.599E-04 2.548E-06
0.23 1:6 LB 500 1.734E-06 -1.185E-03 -2.131E-04 -1.154E-03 3.178E-06

57
Table A-1: ANSYS Results for Span 3.5m

Input Reactions
Displacement
Thickness Load HzL HzR V ML MR (mm)
Mortar Brick
(m) (KN) (N) (N) (N) (N-m) (N-m)
0.11 1:4 MB 100 -41315 -58685 79952 30142 37526 5.425
0.11 1:4 MB 200 -83003 -117000 159550 60994 75564 11.055
0.11 1:4 MB 300 -124450 -175550 238960 92222 113930 16.785
0.11 1:4 MB 400 -165500 -234500 318280 123580 152440 22.571
0.11 1:4 MB 500 -206370 -293630 397540 155060 191050 28.404
0.11 1:4 LB 100 -41508 -58492 79753 30565 37801 5.534
0.11 1:4 LB 200 -83383 -116620 159170 61813 76091 11.267
0.11 1:4 LB 300 -125090 -174910 238350 93513 114760 17.118
0.11 1:4 LB 400 -166590 -233410 317380 125490 153670 23.061
0.11 1:4 LB 500 -207910 -292090 396290 157720 192760 29.083
0.11 1:6 MB 100 -41463 -58537 79812 30438 37721 5.507
0.11 1:6 MB 200 -83077 -116920 159180 61750 76121 11.257
0.11 1:6 MB 300 -124280 -175720 238450 93233 114690 17.072
0.11 1:6 MB 400 -165080 -234920 317620 124900 153440 22.960
0.11 1:6 MB 500 -206120 -293880 396590 156960 192480 28.948
0.11 1:6 LB 100 -41657 -58343 79606 30875 38004 5.620
0.11 1:6 LB 200 -83495 -116500 158780 62613 76673 11.478
0.11 1:6 LB 300 -124990 -175010 237800 94610 115580 17.425
0.11 1:6 LB 400 -166270 -233730 316670 126930 154740 23.476
0.11 1:6 LB 500 -207630 -292370 395270 159790 194270 29.664
0.23 1:4 MB 100 -40721 -59279 80528 28917 36733 5.110
0.23 1:4 MB 200 -81494 -118510 161040 57869 73491 10.230
0.23 1:4 MB 300 -122610 -177390 241300 87342 110600 15.518
0.23 1:4 MB 400 -163830 -236170 321250 117410 148200 20.935
0.23 1:4 MB 500 -204740 -295260 401200 147480 185820 26.365
0.23 1:4 LB 100 -40824 -59176 80421 29146 36881 5.169
0.23 1:4 LB 200 -81704 -118300 160830 58322 73785 10.347
0.23 1:4 LB 300 -122910 -177090 240980 88014 111040 15.691
0.23 1:4 LB 400 -164230 -235770 320830 118310 148780 21.168
0.23 1:4 LB 500 -205290 -294710 400670 148610 186550 26.656
0.23 1:6 MB 100 -40774 -59226 80481 29019 36799 5.135
0.23 1:6 MB 200 -81757 -118240 160820 58333 73798 10.367
0.23 1:6 MB 300 -123050 -176950 240760 88426 111400 15.798
0.23 1:6 MB 400 -163860 -236140 320640 118630 149130 21.266
0.23 1:6 MB 500 -204420 -295580 400470 148910 186950 26.778
0.23 1:6 LB 100 -40882 -59118 80366 29263 36956 5.198
0.23 1:6 LB 200 -81967 -118030 160600 58808 74105 10.489
0.23 1:6 LB 300 -123370 -176630 240440 89123 111840 15.977
0.23 1:6 LB 400 -164310 -235690 320200 119580 149730 21.509
0.23 1:6 LB 500 -205050 -294950 399910 150110 187710 27.084

58
Input Stress (N/m2)
Thickness Load
(m)
Mortar Brick
(KN) LB LU C RB RU
0.11 1:4 MB 100 4.411E+02 -1.203E+06 -2.302E+05 -1.323E+06 2.324E+03
0.11 1:4 MB 200 1.135E+03 -2.306E+06 -4.574E+05 -2.655E+06 4.617E+03
0.11 1:4 MB 300 1.695E+03 -3.406E+06 -6.834E+05 -4.036E+06 6.903E+03
0.11 1:4 MB 400 2.265E+03 -4.549E+06 -9.102E+05 -5.430E+06 9.193E+03
0.11 1:4 MB 500 2.840E+03 -5.884E+06 -1.138E+06 -6.664E+06 1.149E+04
0.11 1:4 LB 100 4.224E+02 -1.125E+06 -2.161E+05 -1.242E+06 2.184E+03
0.11 1:4 LB 200 8.158E+02 -2.173E+06 -4.296E+05 -2.497E+06 4.337E+03
0.11 1:4 LB 300 1.212E+03 -3.183E+06 -6.415E+05 -3.764E+06 6.480E+03
0.11 1:4 LB 400 1.624E+03 -4.253E+06 -8.355E+05 -5.081E+06 8.438E+03
0.11 1:4 LB 500 2.045E+03 -5.513E+06 -1.032E+06 -6.244E+06 1.042E+04
0.11 1:6 MB 100 5.084E+02 -1.258E+06 -2.392E+05 -1.377E+06 2.422E+03
0.11 1:6 MB 200 1.161E+03 -2.383E+06 -4.731E+05 -2.634E+06 4.779E+03
0.11 1:6 MB 300 1.750E+03 -3.560E+06 -7.069E+05 -4.137E+06 7.140E+03
0.11 1:6 MB 400 2.352E+03 -4.922E+06 -9.392E+05 -5.362E+06 9.487E+03
0.11 1:6 MB 500 2.952E+03 -6.119E+06 -1.169E+06 -6.056E+06 1.181E+04
0.11 1:6 LB 100 4.378E+02 -1.181E+06 -2.263E+05 -1.308E+06 2.294E+03
0.11 1:6 LB 200 8.615E+02 -2.246E+06 -4.486E+05 -2.505E+06 4.535E+03
0.11 1:6 LB 300 1.295E+03 -3.328E+06 -6.707E+05 -3.886E+06 6.783E+03
0.11 1:6 LB 400 1.748E+03 -4.609E+06 -8.730E+05 -5.092E+06 8.825E+03
0.11 1:6 LB 500 2.202E+03 -5.904E+06 -1.077E+06 -5.823E+06 1.088E+04
0.23 1:4 MB 100 2.229E+02 -6.076E+05 -1.164E+05 -6.674E+05 1.171E+03
0.23 1:4 MB 200 4.451E+02 -1.220E+06 -2.329E+05 -1.345E+06 2.349E+03
0.23 1:4 MB 300 8.674E+02 -1.779E+06 -3.482E+05 -2.067E+06 3.514E+03
0.23 1:4 MB 400 1.145E+03 -2.321E+06 -4.626E+05 -2.743E+06 4.673E+03
0.23 1:4 MB 500 1.426E+03 -2.873E+06 -5.766E+05 -3.514E+06 5.826E+03
0.23 1:4 LB 100 2.154E+02 -5.726E+05 -1.106E+05 -6.306E+05 1.118E+03
0.23 1:4 LB 200 4.301E+02 -1.150E+06 -2.209E+05 -1.275E+06 2.231E+03
0.23 1:4 LB 300 6.302E+02 -1.689E+06 -3.304E+05 -1.963E+06 3.338E+03
0.23 1:4 LB 400 8.290E+02 -2.205E+06 -4.390E+05 -2.603E+06 4.437E+03
0.23 1:4 LB 500 1.031E+03 -2.721E+06 -5.481E+05 -3.320E+06 5.536E+03
0.23 1:6 MB 100 2.605E+02 -6.459E+05 -1.218E+05 -6.991E+05 1.229E+03
0.23 1:6 MB 200 5.154E+02 -1.272E+06 -2.429E+05 -1.411E+06 2.453E+03
0.23 1:6 MB 300 8.831E+02 -1.835E+06 -3.626E+05 -2.111E+06 3.664E+03
0.23 1:6 MB 400 1.176E+03 -2.410E+06 -4.804E+05 -2.882E+06 4.850E+03
0.23 1:6 MB 500 1.475E+03 -2.982E+06 -5.990E+05 -3.650E+06 6.065E+03
0.23 1:6 LB 100 2.270E+02 -6.102E+05 -1.166E+05 -6.687E+05 1.179E+03
0.23 1:6 LB 200 4.478E+02 -1.207E+06 -2.323E+05 -1.354E+06 2.348E+03
0.23 1:6 LB 300 6.625E+02 -1.750E+06 -3.469E+05 -2.026E+06 3.503E+03
0.23 1:6 LB 400 8.820E+02 -2.291E+06 -4.606E+05 -2.740E+06 4.650E+03
0.23 1:6 LB 500 1.105E+03 -2.824E+06 -5.752E+05 -3.468E+06 5.809E+03

59
Input Strain
Thickness Load
(m)
Mortar Brick
(KN) LB LU C RB RU
0.11 1:4 MB 100 1.336E-07 -3.660E-04 -6.992E-05 -4.024E-04 6.319E-07
0.11 1:4 MB 200 3.422E-07 -6.985E-04 -1.389E-04 -8.096E-04 1.262E-06
0.11 1:4 MB 300 5.110E-07 -1.031E-03 -2.076E-04 -1.224E-03 1.890E-06
0.11 1:4 MB 400 6.829E-07 -1.375E-03 -2.766E-04 -1.641E-03 2.518E-06
0.11 1:4 MB 500 8.562E-07 -1.778E-03 -3.458E-04 -2.011E-03 3.147E-06
0.11 1:4 LB 100 1.612E-07 -4.320E-04 -8.286E-05 -4.779E-04 8.237E-07
0.11 1:4 LB 200 3.111E-07 -8.317E-04 -1.647E-04 -9.632E-04 1.646E-06
0.11 1:4 LB 300 4.622E-07 -1.217E-03 -2.461E-04 -1.443E-03 2.461E-06
0.11 1:4 LB 400 6.191E-07 -1.625E-03 -3.206E-04 -1.943E-03 3.304E-06
0.11 1:4 LB 500 7.797E-07 -2.106E-03 -3.961E-04 -2.384E-03 4.169E-06
0.11 1:6 MB 100 1.592E-07 -3.828E-04 -7.289E-05 -4.188E-04 6.454E-07
0.11 1:6 MB 200 3.540E-07 -7.226E-04 -1.442E-04 -8.000E-04 1.287E-06
0.11 1:6 MB 300 5.338E-07 -1.078E-03 -2.155E-04 -1.251E-03 1.934E-06
0.11 1:6 MB 400 7.173E-07 -1.489E-03 -2.864E-04 -1.618E-03 2.584E-06
0.11 1:6 MB 500 9.008E-07 -1.854E-03 -3.567E-04 -1.825E-03 3.244E-06
0.11 1:6 LB 100 1.694E-07 -4.541E-04 -8.709E-05 -5.034E-04 8.198E-07
0.11 1:6 LB 200 3.341E-07 -8.604E-04 -1.727E-04 -9.626E-04 1.632E-06
0.11 1:6 LB 300 5.027E-07 -1.274E-03 -2.584E-04 -1.486E-03 2.445E-06
0.11 1:6 LB 400 6.795E-07 -1.762E-03 -3.365E-04 -1.944E-03 3.288E-06
0.11 1:6 LB 500 8.584E-07 -2.261E-03 -4.152E-04 -2.222E-03 4.163E-06
0.23 1:4 MB 100 6.752E-08 -1.849E-04 -3.536E-05 -2.030E-04 3.198E-07
0.23 1:4 MB 200 1.349E-07 -3.711E-04 -7.073E-05 -4.091E-04 6.401E-07
0.23 1:4 MB 300 2.615E-07 -5.398E-04 -1.057E-04 -6.297E-04 9.602E-07
0.23 1:4 MB 400 3.450E-07 -7.035E-04 -1.404E-04 -8.356E-04 1.278E-06
0.23 1:4 MB 500 4.300E-07 -8.702E-04 -1.751E-04 -1.067E-03 1.596E-06
0.23 1:4 LB 100 8.220E-08 -2.201E-04 -4.241E-05 -2.427E-04 4.212E-07
0.23 1:4 LB 200 1.641E-07 -4.420E-04 -8.471E-05 -4.906E-04 8.433E-07
0.23 1:4 LB 300 2.404E-07 -6.477E-04 -1.267E-04 -7.562E-04 1.266E-06
0.23 1:4 LB 400 3.161E-07 -8.441E-04 -1.683E-04 -1.004E-03 1.684E-06
0.23 1:4 LB 500 3.930E-07 -1.041E-03 -2.102E-04 -1.274E-03 2.102E-06
0.23 1:6 MB 100 8.139E-08 -1.971E-04 -3.712E-05 -2.127E-04 3.278E-07
0.23 1:6 MB 200 1.615E-07 -3.872E-04 -7.400E-05 -4.293E-04 6.563E-07
0.23 1:6 MB 300 2.693E-07 -5.573E-04 -1.104E-04 -6.434E-04 9.820E-07
0.23 1:6 MB 400 3.588E-07 -7.309E-04 -1.464E-04 -8.752E-04 1.309E-06
0.23 1:6 MB 500 4.499E-07 -9.042E-04 -1.826E-04 -1.105E-03 1.636E-06
0.23 1:6 LB 100 8.771E-08 -2.352E-04 -4.487E-05 -2.574E-04 4.207E-07
0.23 1:6 LB 200 1.734E-07 -4.641E-04 -8.939E-05 -5.215E-04 8.431E-07
0.23 1:6 LB 300 2.569E-07 -6.716E-04 -1.334E-04 -7.811E-04 1.261E-06
0.23 1:6 LB 400 3.423E-07 -8.782E-04 -1.773E-04 -1.052E-03 1.679E-06
0.23 1:6 LB 500 4.288E-07 -1.082E-03 -2.215E-04 -1.328E-03 2.096E-06

60
Table A-1: ANSYS Results for Span 4m
Input Reactions
Displacement
Thickness Load HzL HzR V ML MR (mm)
Mortar Brick
(m) (KN) (N) (N) (N) (N-m) (N-m)
0.11 1:4 MB 100 -40118 -59882 69917 29529 38302 5.147
0.11 1:4 MB 200 -80713 -119290 139610 59584 76987 10.500
0.11 1:4 MB 300 -122000 -178000 209000 90150 116000 15.900
0.11 1:4 MB 400 -162000 -238000 278000 121000 155000 21.400
0.11 1:4 MB 500 -203000 -297000 348000 152000 195000 26.900
0.11 1:4 LB 100 -40347 -59653 69710 30032 38628 5.271
0.11 1:4 LB 200 -81158 -118840 139200 60575 77627 10.694
0.11 1:4 LB 300 -122330 -177670 208410 91755 117120 16.262
0.11 1:4 LB 400 -163400 -236600 277440 123330 156920 21.943
0.11 1:4 LB 500 -204400 -295600 346340 155210 196940 27.708
0.11 1:6 MB 100 -40302 -59698 69794 29826 38500 5.226
0.11 1:6 MB 200 -81179 -118820 139250 60428 77585 10.656
0.11 1:6 MB 300 -121850 -178150 208550 91358 116960 16.181
0.11 1:6 MB 400 -162170 -237830 277670 122660 156650 21.819
0.11 1:6 MB 500 -199080 -300920 345420 156670 199130 28.474
0.11 1:6 LB 100 -40535 -59465 69576 30355 38842 5.355
0.11 1:6 LB 200 -81636 -118360 138810 61484 78264 10.915
0.11 1:6 LB 300 -122660 -177340 207840 93068 118060 16.599
0.11 1:6 LB 400 -163510 -236490 276680 125080 158180 22.403
0.11 1:6 LB 500 -201030 -298970 344350 159450 200650 29.049
0.23 1:4 MB 100 -39422 -60578 70519 28067 37355 4.789
0.23 1:4 MB 200 -78888 -121110 141030 56140 74720 9.580
0.23 1:4 MB 300 -118680 -181320 211380 84611 112360 14.501
0.23 1:4 MB 400 -158910 -241090 281530 113540 150340 19.523
0.23 1:4 MB 500 -199220 -300780 351570 142700 188520 24.591
0.23 1:4 LB 100 -39547 -60453 70408 28338 37531 4.856
0.23 1:4 LB 200 -79106 -120890 140810 56687 75070 9.714
0.23 1:4 LB 300 -119050 -180950 211050 85424 112880 14.699
0.23 1:4 LB 400 -159450 -240550 281060 114670 151080 19.801
0.23 1:4 LB 500 -199890 -300110 350990 144100 189430 24.935
0.23 1:6 MB 100 -39486 -60514 70470 28187 37434 4.818
0.23 1:6 MB 200 -79180 -120820 140850 56584 75014 9.705
0.23 1:6 MB 300 -119410 -180590 210970 85569 113040 14.747
0.23 1:6 MB 400 -159750 -240250 280950 114880 151320 19.851
0.23 1:6 MB 500 -199830 -300170 350860 144320 189740 25.008
0.23 1:6 LB 100 -39620 -60380 70349 28480 37623 4.890
0.23 1:6 LB 200 -79442 -120560 140610 57161 75387 9.845
0.23 1:6 LB 300 -119780 -180220 210630 86408 113570 14.955
0.23 1:6 LB 400 -160280 -239720 280460 116060 152090 20.141
0.23 1:6 LB 500 -200550 -299450 350230 145850 190730 25.382

61
Input Stress (N/m2)
Thickness Load
(m)
Mortar Brick
(KN) LB LU C RB RU
0.11 1:4 MB 100 3.331E+02 -1.732E+06 -2.428E+05 -1.531E+06 2.452E+03
0.11 1:4 MB 200 6.311E+02 -3.306E+06 -4.836E+05 -3.367E+06 4.885E+03
0.11 1:4 MB 300 9.259E+02 -4.779E+06 -7.203E+05 -5.676E+06 7.276E+03
0.11 1:4 MB 400 1.227E+03 -6.377E+06 -9.584E+05 -7.503E+06 9.678E+03
0.11 1:4 MB 500 1.525E+03 -7.956E+06 -1.191E+06 -8.529E+06 1.203E+04
0.11 1:4 LB 100 4.111E+02 -1.601E+06 -2.327E+05 -1.425E+06 2.351E+03
0.11 1:4 LB 200 7.862E+02 -3.060E+06 -4.635E+05 -3.115E+06 4.684E+03
0.11 1:4 LB 300 1.147E+03 -4.488E+06 -6.929E+05 -5.120E+06 6.999E+03
0.11 1:4 LB 400 1.514E+03 -6.022E+06 -9.040E+05 -6.855E+06 9.130E+03
0.11 1:4 LB 500 1.883E+03 -7.457E+06 -1.118E+06 -8.117E+06 1.129E+04
0.11 1:6 MB 100 2.131E+02 -1.787E+06 -2.430E+05 -1.649E+06 2.454E+03
0.11 1:6 MB 200 3.972E+02 -3.314E+06 -4.812E+05 -3.789E+06 4.864E+03
0.11 1:6 MB 300 5.928E+02 -4.711E+06 -7.162E+05 -5.590E+06 7.233E+03
0.11 1:6 MB 400 7.954E+02 -6.018E+06 -9.489E+05 -6.035E+06 9.584E+03
0.11 1:6 MB 500 1.243E+03 -5.864E+06 -1.167E+06 -6.335E+06 1.179E+04
0.11 1:6 LB 100 2.850E+02 -1.684E+06 -2.364E+05 -1.544E+06 2.388E+03
0.11 1:6 LB 200 5.384E+02 -3.113E+06 -4.685E+05 -3.448E+06 4.731E+03
0.11 1:6 LB 300 7.906E+02 -4.607E+06 -6.993E+05 -5.213E+06 7.063E+03
0.11 1:6 LB 400 1.039E+03 -6.036E+06 -9.124E+05 -6.181E+06 9.214E+03
0.11 1:6 LB 500 1.485E+03 -5.787E+06 -1.117E+06 -6.356E+06 1.129E+04
0.23 1:4 MB 100 1.681E+02 -8.693E+05 -1.234E+05 -7.642E+05 1.252E+03
0.23 1:4 MB 200 3.363E+02 -1.764E+06 -2.457E+05 -1.559E+06 2.485E+03
0.23 1:4 MB 300 4.866E+02 -2.615E+06 -3.673E+05 -2.450E+06 3.713E+03
0.23 1:4 MB 400 6.320E+02 -3.412E+06 -4.887E+05 -3.855E+06 4.934E+03
0.23 1:4 MB 500 7.786E+02 -4.130E+06 -6.085E+05 -5.264E+06 6.134E+03
0.23 1:4 LB 100 2.095E+02 -8.071E+05 -1.212E+05 -7.183E+05 1.208E+03
0.23 1:4 LB 200 4.186E+02 -1.645E+06 -2.378E+05 -1.461E+06 2.398E+03
0.23 1:4 LB 300 6.102E+02 -2.443E+06 -3.558E+05 -2.295E+06 3.591E+03
0.23 1:4 LB 400 7.941E+02 -3.174E+06 -4.735E+05 -3.505E+06 4.781E+03
0.23 1:4 LB 500 9.782E+02 -3.884E+06 -5.904E+05 -4.820E+06 5.956E+03
0.23 1:6 MB 100 1.114E+02 -9.367E+05 -1.218E+05 -8.174E+05 1.232E+03
0.23 1:6 MB 200 2.136E+02 -1.839E+06 -2.467E+05 -1.694E+06 2.493E+03
0.23 1:6 MB 300 3.046E+02 -2.632E+06 -3.687E+05 -2.836E+06 3.721E+03
0.23 1:6 MB 400 3.972E+02 -3.381E+06 -4.887E+05 -4.331E+06 4.935E+03
0.23 1:6 MB 500 4.945E+02 -4.063E+06 -6.084E+05 -5.219E+06 6.146E+03
0.23 1:6 LB 100 1.489E+02 -8.805E+05 -1.215E+05 -7.728E+05 1.230E+03
0.23 1:6 LB 200 2.891E+02 -1.753E+06 -2.426E+05 -1.603E+06 2.450E+03
0.23 1:6 LB 300 4.169E+02 -2.499E+06 -3.627E+05 -2.619E+06 3.662E+03
0.23 1:6 LB 400 5.449E+02 -3.204E+06 -4.810E+05 -4.022E+06 4.854E+03
0.23 1:6 LB 500 6.748E+02 -3.857E+06 -5.998E+05 -4.934E+06 6.055E+03

62
Input Strain
Thickness Load
(m)
Mortar Brick
(KN) LB LU C RB RU
0.11 1:4 MB 100 1.003E-07 -5.223E-04 -7.558E-05 -4.618E-04 1.381E-07
0.11 1:4 MB 200 1.902E-07 -1.000E-03 -1.509E-04 -1.017E-03 2.778E-07
0.11 1:4 MB 300 2.786E-07 -1.454E-03 -2.242E-04 -1.709E-03 4.162E-07
0.11 1:4 MB 400 3.699E-07 -1.947E-03 -2.984E-04 -2.261E-03 5.507E-07
0.11 1:4 MB 500 4.590E-07 -2.445E-03 -3.726E-04 -2.575E-03 6.822E-07
0.11 1:4 LB 100 1.567E-07 -6.112E-04 -9.177E-05 -5.441E-04 1.541E-07
0.11 1:4 LB 200 2.997E-07 -1.173E-03 -1.829E-04 -1.191E-03 3.091E-07
0.11 1:4 LB 300 4.374E-07 -1.729E-03 -2.735E-04 -1.954E-03 4.608E-07
0.11 1:4 LB 400 5.771E-07 -2.335E-03 -3.573E-04 -2.618E-03 6.104E-07
0.11 1:4 LB 500 7.178E-07 -2.909E-03 -4.420E-04 -3.102E-03 7.590E-07
0.11 1:6 MB 100 6.421E-08 -5.386E-04 -7.555E-05 -4.982E-04 1.612E-07
0.11 1:6 MB 200 1.197E-07 -1.006E-03 -1.497E-04 -1.142E-03 3.233E-07
0.11 1:6 MB 300 1.786E-07 -1.434E-03 -2.228E-04 -1.685E-03 4.820E-07
0.11 1:6 MB 400 2.396E-07 -1.839E-03 -2.952E-04 -1.818E-03 6.353E-07
0.11 1:6 MB 500 3.746E-07 -1.786E-03 -3.624E-04 -1.908E-03 6.819E-07
0.11 1:6 LB 100 1.087E-07 -6.429E-04 -9.315E-05 -5.902E-04 1.781E-07
0.11 1:6 LB 200 2.052E-07 -1.196E-03 -1.847E-04 -1.316E-03 3.564E-07
0.11 1:6 LB 300 3.014E-07 -1.783E-03 -2.758E-04 -1.989E-03 5.286E-07
0.11 1:6 LB 400 3.960E-07 -2.355E-03 -3.603E-04 -2.360E-03 6.994E-07
0.11 1:6 LB 500 5.660E-07 -2.236E-03 -4.407E-04 -2.423E-03 7.726E-07
0.23 1:4 MB 100 5.064E-08 -2.621E-04 -3.845E-05 -2.304E-04 6.969E-08
0.23 1:4 MB 200 1.013E-07 -5.319E-04 -7.648E-05 -4.703E-04 1.395E-07
0.23 1:4 MB 300 1.466E-07 -7.891E-04 -1.143E-04 -7.403E-04 2.103E-07
0.23 1:4 MB 400 1.903E-07 -1.033E-03 -1.521E-04 -1.164E-03 2.810E-07
0.23 1:4 MB 500 2.345E-07 -1.254E-03 -1.895E-04 -1.587E-03 3.515E-07
0.23 1:4 LB 100 7.987E-08 -3.082E-04 -4.787E-05 -2.741E-04 7.856E-08
0.23 1:4 LB 200 1.596E-07 -6.279E-04 -9.375E-05 -5.577E-04 1.571E-07
0.23 1:4 LB 300 2.326E-07 -9.334E-04 -1.403E-04 -8.774E-04 2.369E-07
0.23 1:4 LB 400 3.027E-07 -1.217E-03 -1.868E-04 -1.339E-03 3.163E-07
0.23 1:4 LB 500 3.729E-07 -1.493E-03 -2.329E-04 -1.840E-03 3.948E-07
0.23 1:6 MB 100 3.356E-08 -2.824E-04 -3.782E-05 -2.467E-04 8.141E-08
0.23 1:6 MB 200 6.436E-08 -5.544E-04 -7.668E-05 -5.119E-04 1.637E-07
0.23 1:6 MB 300 9.178E-08 -7.972E-04 -1.146E-04 -8.558E-04 2.462E-07
0.23 1:6 MB 400 1.197E-07 -1.027E-03 -1.520E-04 -1.305E-03 3.287E-07
0.23 1:6 MB 500 1.490E-07 -1.236E-03 -1.893E-04 -1.573E-03 4.097E-07
0.23 1:6 LB 100 5.678E-08 -3.361E-04 -4.787E-05 -2.951E-04 9.092E-08
0.23 1:6 LB 200 1.102E-07 -6.690E-04 -9.557E-05 -6.127E-04 1.828E-07
0.23 1:6 LB 300 1.589E-07 -9.583E-04 -1.429E-04 -1.001E-03 2.747E-07
0.23 1:6 LB 400 2.077E-07 -1.232E-03 -1.896E-04 -1.535E-03 3.665E-07
0.23 1:6 LB 500 2.572E-07 -1.485E-03 -2.365E-04 -1.883E-03 4.556E-07

63
Table A-1: ANSYS Results for Span 4.5m
Input Reactions
Displacement
Thickness Load HzL HzR V ML MR (mm)
Mortar Brick
(m) (KN) (N) (N) (N) (N-m) (N-m)
0.11 1:4 MB 100 -39266 -60734 62023 29192 39202 4.992
0.11 1:4 MB 200 -78893 -121110 123880 58808 78722 10.111
0.11 1:4 MB 300 -119070 -180930 185480 89090 118770 15.378
0.11 1:4 MB 400 -159320 -240680 247000 119530 158960 20.693
0.11 1:4 MB 500 -199570 -300430 308420 150250 199380 26.086
0.11 1:4 LB 100 -39524 -60476 61811 29771 39577 5.130
0.11 1:4 LB 200 -79426 -120570 123450 59984 79485 10.389
0.11 1:4 LB 300 -119920 -180080 184790 90948 119980 15.819
0.11 1:4 LB 400 -160620 -239380 245990 122300 160760 21.347
0.11 1:4 LB 500 -201480 -298520 307000 154100 201880 26.993
0.11 1:6 MB 100 -39433 -60567 61908 29505 39409 5.070
0.11 1:6 MB 200 -79483 -120520 123530 59741 79386 10.331
0.11 1:6 MB 300 -119780 -180220 184990 90364 119690 15.690
0.11 1:6 MB 400 -160170 -239830 246310 121330 160300 21.158
0.11 1:6 MB 500 -205210 -294790 306200 155390 204200 27.917
0.11 1:6 LB 100 -39697 -60303 61683 30120 39805 5.215
0.11 1:6 LB 200 -80011 -119990 123070 60988 80189 10.627
0.11 1:6 LB 300 -120700 -179300 184250 92394 121000 16.170
0.11 1:6 LB 400 -161550 -238450 245200 124350 162240 21.862
0.11 1:6 LB 500 -206340 -293660 305020 158810 206080 28.566
0.23 1:4 MB 100 -38487 -61513 62642 27504 38110 4.593
0.23 1:4 MB 200 -76982 -123020 125280 55015 76225 9.188
0.23 1:4 MB 300 -115730 -184270 187810 82815 114550 13.878
0.23 1:4 MB 400 -154960 -245040 250150 111090 153250 18.686
0.23 1:4 MB 500 -197742 -302257 309158 139892 191614 23.689
0.23 1:4 LB 100 -38630 -61370 62527 27816 38312 4.667
0.23 1:4 LB 200 -77275 -122730 125050 55645 76633 9.338
0.23 1:4 LB 300 -116190 -183810 187450 83784 115180 14.109
0.23 1:4 LB 400 -155570 -244430 249670 112380 154090 18.992
0.23 1:4 LB 500 -195200 -304800 311770 141280 193240 23.927
0.23 1:6 MB 100 -38559 -61441 62591 27642 38199 4.625
0.23 1:6 MB 200 -77258 -122740 125120 55450 76520 9.305
0.23 1:6 MB 300 -116510 -183490 187420 83819 115280 14.131
0.23 1:6 MB 400 -139186 -260813 266527 119077 163891 20.069
0.23 1:6 MB 500 -195620 -304380 311700 141370 193470 23.962
0.23 1:6 LB 100 -38713 -61287 62466 27982 38419 4.706
0.23 1:6 LB 200 -77563 -122440 124870 56130 76959 9.465
0.23 1:6 LB 300 -116980 -183020 187040 84855 115950 14.376
0.23 1:6 LB 400 -156660 -243340 249080 113920 155210 19.355
0.23 1:6 LB 500 -199225.1 -300774 307676 139491 190884 23.639

64
Input Stress (N/m2)
Thickness Load
(m)
Mortar Brick
(KN) LB LU C RB RU
0.11 1:4 MB 100 3.025E+03 -1.271E+06 -2.533E+05 -1.079E+06 2.552E+03
0.11 1:4 MB 200 6.100E+03 -2.480E+06 -5.056E+05 -2.175E+06 5.107E+03
0.11 1:4 MB 300 9.216E+03 -3.614E+06 -7.556E+05 -3.342E+06 7.632E+03
0.11 1:4 MB 400 1.238E+04 -4.705E+06 -1.006E+06 -4.592E+06 1.016E+04
0.11 1:4 MB 500 1.561E+04 -5.787E+06 -1.256E+06 -5.947E+06 1.269E+04
0.11 1:4 LB 100 2.894E+03 -1.195E+06 -2.423E+05 -1.018E+06 2.447E+03
0.11 1:4 LB 200 5.849E+03 -2.332E+06 -4.839E+05 -2.061E+06 4.886E+03
0.11 1:4 LB 300 8.894E+03 -3.396E+06 -7.254E+05 -3.122E+06 7.323E+03
0.11 1:4 LB 400 1.213E+04 -4.439E+06 -9.515E+05 -4.260E+06 9.608E+03
0.11 1:4 LB 500 1.554E+04 -5.503E+06 -1.179E+06 -5.529E+06 1.190E+04
0.11 1:6 MB 100 3.066E+03 -1.303E+06 -2.545E+05 -1.118E+06 2.578E+03
0.11 1:6 MB 200 6.185E+03 -2.484E+06 -5.060E+05 -2.273E+06 5.117E+03
0.11 1:6 MB 300 9.365E+03 -3.589E+06 -7.543E+05 -3.549E+06 7.619E+03
0.11 1:6 MB 400 1.260E+04 -4.587E+06 -1.001E+06 -4.854E+06 1.011E+04
0.11 1:6 MB 500 1.587E+04 -4.457E+06 -1.229E+06 -5.914E+06 1.241E+04
0.11 1:6 LB 100 2.959E+03 -1.242E+06 -2.470E+05 -1.066E+06 2.499E+03
0.11 1:6 LB 200 5.985E+03 -2.366E+06 -4.913E+05 -2.168E+06 4.966E+03
0.11 1:6 LB 300 9.114E+03 -3.413E+06 -7.351E+05 -3.324E+06 7.422E+03
0.11 1:6 LB 400 1.244E+04 -4.404E+06 -9.641E+05 -4.619E+06 9.736E+03
0.11 1:6 LB 500 1.580E+04 -4.385E+06 -1.180E+06 -5.714E+06 1.192E+04
0.23 1:4 MB 100 1.535E+03 -6.443E+05 -1.290E+05 -5.503E+05 1.304E+03
0.23 1:4 MB 200 3.070E+03 -1.294E+06 -2.566E+05 -1.088E+06 2.588E+03
0.23 1:4 MB 300 4.625E+03 -1.918E+06 -3.844E+05 -1.638E+06 3.883E+03
0.23 1:4 MB 400 6.195E+03 -2.506E+06 -5.121E+05 -2.199E+06 5.187E+03
0.23 1:4 MB 500 7.799E+03 -3.043E+06 -6.338E+05 -2.877E+06 6.402E+03
0.23 1:4 LB 100 1.483E+03 -6.106E+05 -1.263E+05 -5.171E+05 1.274E+03
0.23 1:4 LB 200 2.968E+03 -1.231E+06 -2.479E+05 -1.037E+06 2.505E+03
0.23 1:4 LB 300 4.478E+03 -1.829E+06 -3.716E+05 -1.568E+06 3.753E+03
0.23 1:4 LB 400 6.007E+03 -2.379E+06 -4.953E+05 -2.103E+06 5.002E+03
0.23 1:4 LB 500 7.561E+03 -2.939E+06 -6.188E+05 -2.658E+06 6.248E+03
0.23 1:6 MB 100 1.558E+03 -6.712E+05 -1.277E+05 -5.742E+05 1.304E+03
0.23 1:6 MB 200 3.126E+03 -1.325E+06 -2.588E+05 -1.131E+06 2.607E+03
0.23 1:6 MB 300 4.709E+03 -1.931E+06 -3.875E+05 -1.715E+06 3.912E+03
0.23 1:6 MB 400 6.604E+03 -2.637E+06 -5.434E+05 -2.372E+06 5.486E+03
0.23 1:6 MB 500 7.926E+03 -3.087E+06 -6.416E+05 -2.999E+06 6.484E+03
0.23 1:6 LB 100 1.521E+03 -6.430E+05 -1.271E+05 -5.433E+05 1.288E+03
0.23 1:6 LB 200 3.053E+03 -1.277E+06 -2.539E+05 -1.090E+06 2.574E+03
0.23 1:6 LB 300 4.605E+03 -1.864E+06 -3.803E+05 -1.658E+06 3.842E+03
0.23 1:6 LB 400 6.180E+03 -2.426E+06 -5.054E+05 -2.245E+06 5.105E+03
0.23 1:6 LB 500 7.691E+03 -2.985E+06 -6.265E+05 -2.762E+06 6.331E+03

65
Input Strain
Thickness Load
(m)
Mortar Brick
(KN) LB LU C RB RU
0.11 1:4 MB 100 9.112E-07 -3.993E-04 -8.054E-05 -3.308E-04 8.153E-07
0.11 1:4 MB 200 1.837E-06 -7.766E-04 -1.608E-04 -6.661E-04 1.629E-06
0.11 1:4 MB 300 2.776E-06 -1.129E-03 -2.404E-04 -1.020E-03 2.454E-06
0.11 1:4 MB 400 3.729E-06 -1.468E-03 -3.203E-04 -1.398E-03 3.284E-06
0.11 1:4 MB 500 4.702E-06 -1.807E-03 -4.002E-04 -1.809E-03 4.119E-06
0.11 1:4 LB 100 1.103E-06 -4.750E-04 -9.751E-05 -3.950E-04 9.964E-07
0.11 1:4 LB 200 2.230E-06 -9.239E-04 -1.948E-04 -7.989E-04 1.992E-06
0.11 1:4 LB 300 3.391E-06 -1.343E-03 -2.924E-04 -1.208E-03 3.001E-06
0.11 1:4 LB 400 4.624E-06 -1.754E-03 -3.841E-04 -1.645E-03 4.049E-06
0.11 1:4 LB 500 5.925E-06 -2.176E-03 -4.764E-04 -2.135E-03 5.137E-06
0.11 1:6 MB 100 9.234E-07 -4.093E-04 -8.089E-05 -3.425E-04 8.157E-07
0.11 1:6 MB 200 1.863E-06 -7.766E-04 -1.609E-04 -6.938E-04 1.635E-06
0.11 1:6 MB 300 2.821E-06 -1.120E-03 -2.400E-04 -1.080E-03 2.468E-06
0.11 1:6 MB 400 3.796E-06 -1.431E-03 -3.188E-04 -1.477E-03 3.304E-06
0.11 1:6 MB 500 4.778E-06 -1.373E-03 -3.924E-04 -1.809E-03 3.953E-06
0.11 1:6 LB 100 1.128E-06 -4.935E-04 -9.940E-05 -4.135E-04 1.004E-06
0.11 1:6 LB 200 2.282E-06 -9.357E-04 -1.979E-04 -8.387E-04 2.013E-06
0.11 1:6 LB 300 3.475E-06 -1.347E-03 -2.964E-04 -1.283E-03 3.039E-06
0.11 1:6 LB 400 4.745E-06 -1.739E-03 -3.894E-04 -1.780E-03 4.104E-06
0.11 1:6 LB 500 6.025E-06 -1.712E-03 -4.780E-04 -2.207E-03 5.025E-06
0.23 1:4 MB 100 4.623E-07 -2.026E-04 -4.103E-05 -1.690E-04 4.129E-07
0.23 1:4 MB 200 9.246E-07 -4.069E-04 -8.157E-05 -3.338E-04 8.258E-07
0.23 1:4 MB 300 1.393E-06 -6.019E-04 -1.222E-04 -5.023E-04 1.238E-06
0.23 1:4 MB 400 1.866E-06 -7.850E-04 -1.628E-04 -6.718E-04 1.651E-06
0.23 1:4 MB 500 2.392E-06 -9.676E-04 -2.046E-04 -9.066E-04 2.093E-06
0.23 1:4 LB 100 5.656E-07 -2.428E-04 -5.090E-05 -2.008E-04 5.098E-07
0.23 1:4 LB 200 1.132E-06 -4.896E-04 -9.977E-05 -4.027E-04 1.020E-06
0.23 1:4 LB 300 1.707E-06 -7.264E-04 -1.495E-04 -6.087E-04 1.529E-06
0.23 1:4 LB 400 2.290E-06 -9.427E-04 -1.994E-04 -8.138E-04 2.040E-06
0.23 1:4 LB 500 2.883E-06 -1.164E-03 -2.493E-04 -1.026E-03 2.557E-06
0.23 1:6 MB 100 4.692E-07 -2.112E-04 -4.057E-05 -1.762E-04 4.149E-07
0.23 1:6 MB 200 9.415E-07 -4.163E-04 -8.224E-05 -3.468E-04 8.293E-07
0.23 1:6 MB 300 1.419E-06 -6.050E-04 -1.232E-04 -5.235E-04 1.244E-06
0.23 1:6 MB 400 1.920E-06 -7.996E-04 -1.663E-04 -7.108E-04 1.688E-06
0.23 1:6 MB 500 2.388E-06 -9.644E-04 -2.041E-04 -9.108E-04 2.088E-06
0.23 1:6 LB 100 5.798E-07 -2.559E-04 -5.115E-05 -2.110E-04 5.165E-07
0.23 1:6 LB 200 1.164E-06 -5.076E-04 -1.022E-04 -4.233E-04 1.033E-06
0.23 1:6 LB 300 1.756E-06 -7.387E-04 -1.531E-04 -6.412E-04 1.550E-06
0.23 1:6 LB 400 2.356E-06 -9.597E-04 -2.036E-04 -8.657E-04 2.074E-06
0.23 1:6 LB 500 2.803E-06 -1.130E-03 -2.421E-04 -1.006E-03 2.484E-06

66
Table A-1: ANSYS Results for Span 5m
Input Reactions
Displacement
Thickness Load HzL HzR V ML MR (mm)
Mortar Brick
(m) (KN) (N) (N) (N) (N-m) (N-m)
0.11 1:4 MB 100 -38574 -61426 55649 29068 40188 4.923
0.11 1:4 MB 200 -77472 -122530 111160 58528 80685 9.961
0.11 1:4 MB 300 -116980 -183020 166410 88705 121770 15.161
0.11 1:4 MB 400 -156650 -243350 221590 119050 163000 20.412
0.11 1:4 MB 500 -196600 -303400 276650 149720 204530 25.761
0.11 1:4 LB 100 -38848 -61152 55434 29722 40610 5.074
0.11 1:4 LB 200 -78056 -121940 110720 59866 81551 10.269
0.11 1:4 LB 300 -117910 -182090 165700 90836 123150 15.652
0.11 1:4 LB 400 -158110 -241890 220520 122280 165120 21.155
0.11 1:4 LB 500 -198650 -301350 275170 154190 207440 26.776
0.11 1:6 MB 100 -38711 -61289 55551 29363 40380 4.989
0.11 1:6 MB 200 -78088 -121910 110810 59534 81409 10.195
0.11 1:6 MB 300 -117810 -182190 165930 90088 122770 15.495
0.11 1:6 MB 400 -158550 -241450 220770 121270 164900 21.087
0.11 1:6 MB 500 -203820 -296180 274110 156130 210800 28.048
0.11 1:6 LB 100 -39007 -60993 55318 30072 40838 5.153
0.11 1:6 LB 200 -78677 -121320 110340 60971 82330 10.525
0.11 1:6 LB 300 -118820 -181180 165150 92447 124300 16.036
0.11 1:6 LB 400 -159390 -240610 219760 124470 166740 21.713
0.11 1:6 LB 500 -204990 -295010 272850 160190 213060 28.813
0.23 1:4 MB 100 -37731 -62269 56280 27151 38951 4.482
0.23 1:4 MB 200 -75471 -124530 112560 54311 77909 8.966
0.23 1:4 MB 300 -113430 -186570 168750 81711 117060 13.532
0.23 1:4 MB 400 -151850 -248150 224770 109570 156580 18.214
0.23 1:4 MB 500 -190560 -309440 280660 137800 196410 22.964
0.23 1:4 LB 100 -37885 -62115 56163 27506 39180 4.564
0.23 1:4 LB 200 -75787 -124210 112320 55025 78372 9.132
0.23 1:4 LB 300 -113920 -186080 168390 82795 117760 13.781
0.23 1:4 LB 400 -152510 -247490 224280 111050 157540 18.553
0.23 1:4 LB 500 -191430 -308570 280040 139670 197620 23.392
0.23 1:6 MB 100 -37808 -62192 56228 27307 39053 4.517
0.23 1:6 MB 200 -75727 -124270 112410 54739 78203 9.076
0.23 1:6 MB 300 -114180 -185820 168390 82725 117810 13.787
0.23 1:6 MB 400 -152980 -247020 224230 111110 157740 18.573
0.23 1:6 MB 500 -191930 -308070 280010 139630 197810 23.404
0.23 1:6 LB 100 -37974 -62026 56100 27695 39303 4.607
0.23 1:6 LB 200 -75976 -124020 112190 55418 78627 9.220
0.23 1:6 LB 300 -114670 -185330 168010 83893 118550 14.052
0.23 1:6 LB 400 -153680 -246320 223700 112720 158780 18.940
0.23 1:6 LB 500 -192820 -307180 279320 141720 199160 23.883

67
Input Stress (N/m2)
Thickness Load
(m)
Mortar Brick
(KN) LB LU C RB RU
0.11 1:4 MB 100 2.184E+03 -1.318E+06 -2.553E+05 -1.126E+06 2.579E+03
0.11 1:4 MB 200 4.376E+03 -2.568E+06 -5.100E+05 -2.311E+06 5.152E+03
0.11 1:4 MB 300 6.588E+03 -3.719E+06 -7.662E+05 -3.863E+06 7.739E+03
0.11 1:4 MB 400 8.839E+03 -4.828E+06 -1.026E+06 -5.596E+06 1.036E+04
0.11 1:4 MB 500 1.114E+04 -5.855E+06 -1.288E+06 -7.585E+06 1.301E+04
0.11 1:4 LB 100 2.286E+03 -1.239E+06 -2.349E+05 -1.055E+06 2.371E+03
0.11 1:4 LB 200 4.600E+03 -2.409E+06 -4.696E+05 -2.169E+06 4.743E+03
0.11 1:4 LB 300 6.973E+03 -3.500E+06 -7.086E+05 -3.473E+06 7.157E+03
0.11 1:4 LB 400 9.478E+03 -4.553E+06 -9.362E+05 -5.012E+06 9.459E+03
0.11 1:4 LB 500 1.211E+04 -5.634E+06 -1.162E+06 -6.822E+06 1.174E+04
0.11 1:6 MB 100 2.291E+03 -1.365E+06 -2.706E+05 -1.190E+06 2.738E+03
0.11 1:6 MB 200 4.593E+03 -2.561E+06 -5.392E+05 -2.576E+06 5.443E+03
0.11 1:6 MB 300 6.949E+03 -3.669E+06 -8.107E+05 -4.352E+06 8.191E+03
0.11 1:6 MB 400 9.448E+03 -4.291E+06 -1.081E+06 -6.099E+06 1.091E+04
0.11 1:6 MB 500 1.236E+04 -4.289E+06 -1.329E+06 -7.943E+06 1.343E+04
0.11 1:6 LB 100 2.419E+03 -1.297E+06 -2.528E+05 -1.119E+06 2.548E+03
0.11 1:6 LB 200 4.874E+03 -2.435E+06 -5.048E+05 -2.389E+06 5.091E+03
0.11 1:6 LB 300 7.414E+03 -3.490E+06 -7.618E+05 -3.920E+06 7.687E+03
0.11 1:6 LB 400 1.011E+04 -4.397E+06 -1.006E+06 -5.696E+06 1.017E+04
0.11 1:6 LB 500 1.310E+04 -4.200E+06 -1.229E+06 -7.613E+06 1.241E+04
0.23 1:4 MB 100 1.166E+03 -6.692E+05 -1.296E+05 -5.672E+05 1.310E+03
0.23 1:4 MB 200 2.219E+03 -1.345E+06 -2.591E+05 -1.139E+06 2.619E+03
0.23 1:4 MB 300 3.332E+03 -1.992E+06 -3.884E+05 -1.725E+06 3.926E+03
0.23 1:4 MB 400 4.448E+03 -2.599E+06 -5.176E+05 -2.443E+06 5.231E+03
0.23 1:4 MB 500 5.569E+03 -3.202E+06 -6.472E+05 -3.308E+06 6.537E+03
0.23 1:4 LB 100 1.174E+03 -6.335E+05 -1.178E+05 -5.360E+05 1.190E+03
0.23 1:4 LB 200 2.349E+03 -1.279E+06 -2.409E+05 -1.078E+06 2.434E+03
0.23 1:4 LB 300 3.533E+03 -1.896E+06 -3.613E+05 -1.642E+06 3.650E+03
0.23 1:4 LB 400 4.731E+03 -2.465E+06 -4.818E+05 -2.296E+06 4.862E+03
0.23 1:4 LB 500 5.945E+03 -3.036E+06 -6.044E+05 -3.072E+06 6.103E+03
0.23 1:6 MB 100 1.245E+03 -6.976E+05 -1.379E+05 -6.001E+05 1.390E+03
0.23 1:6 MB 200 2.338E+03 -1.380E+06 -2.756E+05 -1.210E+06 2.790E+03
0.23 1:6 MB 300 3.511E+03 -1.999E+06 -4.129E+05 -1.933E+06 4.178E+03
0.23 1:6 MB 400 4.693E+03 -2.602E+06 -5.499E+05 -2.768E+06 5.562E+03
0.23 1:6 MB 500 5.893E+03 -3.175E+06 -6.883E+05 -3.686E+06 6.960E+03
0.23 1:6 LB 100 1.248E+03 -6.677E+05 -1.300E+05 -5.695E+05 1.313E+03
0.23 1:6 LB 200 2.498E+03 -1.347E+06 -2.606E+05 -1.151E+06 2.629E+03
0.23 1:6 LB 300 3.763E+03 -1.929E+06 -3.903E+05 -1.835E+06 3.943E+03
0.23 1:6 LB 400 5.043E+03 -2.503E+06 -5.210E+05 -2.617E+06 5.266E+03
0.23 1:6 LB 500 6.351E+03 -3.053E+06 -6.537E+05 -3.483E+06 6.603E+03

68
Input Strain
Thickness Load
(m)
Mortar Brick
(KN) LB LU C RB RU
0.11 1:4 MB 100 6.930E-07 -4.183E-04 -8.236E-05 -3.453E-04 4.077E-07
0.11 1:4 MB 200 1.388E-06 -8.126E-04 -1.646E-04 -7.060E-04 6.935E-07
0.11 1:4 MB 300 2.089E-06 -1.174E-03 -2.475E-04 -1.169E-03 1.046E-06
0.11 1:4 MB 400 2.803E-06 -1.524E-03 -3.316E-04 -1.692E-03 1.401E-06
0.11 1:4 MB 500 3.533E-06 -1.848E-03 -4.167E-04 -2.296E-03 1.761E-06
0.11 1:4 LB 100 9.259E-07 -4.972E-04 -9.575E-05 -4.089E-04 4.887E-07
0.11 1:4 LB 200 1.862E-06 -9.642E-04 -1.916E-04 -8.375E-04 9.782E-07
0.11 1:4 LB 300 2.822E-06 -1.399E-03 -2.895E-04 -1.332E-03 1.481E-06
0.11 1:4 LB 400 3.835E-06 -1.817E-03 -3.832E-04 -1.919E-03 2.009E-06
0.11 1:4 LB 500 4.898E-06 -2.252E-03 -4.763E-04 -2.616E-03 2.562E-06
0.11 1:6 MB 100 7.261E-07 -4.337E-04 -8.744E-05 -3.651E-04 3.582E-07
0.11 1:6 MB 200 1.455E-06 -8.098E-04 -1.744E-04 -7.821E-04 7.180E-07
0.11 1:6 MB 300 2.202E-06 -1.158E-03 -2.624E-04 -1.317E-03 1.085E-06
0.11 1:6 MB 400 2.995E-06 -1.348E-03 -3.501E-04 -1.856E-03 1.443E-06
0.11 1:6 MB 500 3.925E-06 -1.336E-03 -4.311E-04 -2.464E-03 1.746E-06
0.11 1:6 LB 100 9.767E-07 -5.209E-04 -1.033E-04 -4.344E-04 5.052E-07
0.11 1:6 LB 200 1.967E-06 -9.736E-04 -2.065E-04 -9.190E-04 1.013E-06
0.11 1:6 LB 300 2.992E-06 -1.392E-03 -3.120E-04 -1.503E-03 1.538E-06
0.11 1:6 LB 400 4.078E-06 -1.754E-03 -4.128E-04 -2.187E-03 2.088E-06
0.11 1:6 LB 500 5.295E-06 -1.657E-03 -5.052E-04 -2.971E-03 2.599E-06
0.23 1:4 MB 100 3.713E-07 -2.125E-04 -4.179E-05 -1.742E-04 2.071E-07
0.23 1:4 MB 200 7.041E-07 -4.272E-04 -8.359E-05 -3.495E-04 4.143E-07
0.23 1:4 MB 300 1.057E-06 -6.318E-04 -1.253E-04 -5.288E-04 5.280E-07
0.23 1:4 MB 400 1.411E-06 -8.228E-04 -1.670E-04 -7.413E-04 7.043E-07
0.23 1:4 MB 500 1.766E-06 -1.013E-03 -2.090E-04 -9.991E-04 8.830E-07
0.23 1:4 LB 100 4.755E-07 -2.544E-04 -4.803E-05 -2.080E-04 2.509E-07
0.23 1:4 LB 200 9.513E-07 -5.137E-04 -9.821E-05 -4.180E-04 5.020E-07
0.23 1:4 LB 300 1.431E-06 -7.607E-04 -1.473E-04 -6.361E-04 7.527E-07
0.23 1:4 LB 400 1.915E-06 -9.871E-04 -1.965E-04 -8.818E-04 1.005E-06
0.23 1:4 LB 500 2.406E-06 -1.214E-03 -2.468E-04 -1.174E-03 1.262E-06
0.23 1:6 MB 100 3.959E-07 -2.218E-04 -4.457E-05 -1.845E-04 2.129E-07
0.23 1:6 MB 200 7.411E-07 -4.382E-04 -8.908E-05 -3.715E-04 3.649E-07
0.23 1:6 MB 300 1.112E-06 -6.329E-04 -1.335E-04 -5.866E-04 5.473E-07
0.23 1:6 MB 400 1.487E-06 -8.231E-04 -1.779E-04 -8.367E-04 7.326E-07
0.23 1:6 MB 500 1.867E-06 -1.003E-03 -2.227E-04 -1.114E-03 9.196E-07
0.23 1:6 LB 100 5.040E-07 -2.684E-04 -5.313E-05 -2.214E-04 2.607E-07
0.23 1:6 LB 200 1.009E-06 -5.417E-04 -1.065E-04 -4.469E-04 5.217E-07
0.23 1:6 LB 300 1.519E-06 -7.728E-04 -1.596E-04 -7.056E-04 7.816E-07
0.23 1:6 LB 400 2.036E-06 -1.001E-03 -2.132E-04 -1.001E-03 1.047E-06
0.23 1:6 LB 500 2.563E-06 -1.220E-03 -2.676E-04 -1.332E-03 1.317E-06

69
REFERENCES

Arulselvan, S. and K.Subramanian, K., Experimental Investigation on Three


Dimensional RC Infilled Frame - RC Plane Frame Interactions With Slab for
Seismic Resistance, American Journal of Applied Sciences, ISSN 1546-9239
2008

Asteris,P.G., Finite Element Micro-Modeling of Infilled Frames, Electronic Journal of


Structural Engineering (8) 2008

Bryan Stafford Smith and C. Carter, A Method of Analysis for Infilled Frames,
University of Southampton, Southampton College of Technology, February
1970

FEMA 306, Evaluation Of Earthquake Damaged Concrete And Masonry Wall Buildings,
Basic Procedures Manual, Prepared by: Applied Technology Council (ATC-43
Project) 555 Twin Dolphin Drive, Suite 550, Redwood City, California 94065,
Prepared for: The Partnership for Response and Recovery, Washington, D.C.,
Funded by: Federal Emergency Management Agency, 1998

FEMA 356, Prestandard and commentary for the seismic rehabilitation of the buildings,
Prepared by: American society of Civil Engineers(ASCE), Reston, Virginia,
Prepared for: Federal Emergency Management Agency, Washington, D.C., 1998

Ghassan Al-Chaar, Mohsen Issa, and Steve Sweeney, Behavior of Masonry-Infilled


Nonductile Rein forced Concrete Frame, Journal of Structural Engineering,
Vol. 128, No. 8, ASCE, ISSN 0733- 9445/2002/8-10551063, August 1, 2002

Moghaddam,H.A. and Karimian, M.R., Prediction of Cracking pattern and shear


strength of masonry infilled frames,2007

Ngandu, B.M., Bracing Steel Frames with Calcium Silicate Element Walls, Eindhoven
University of Technology, the Netherlands, 2006

Paulay, T. and Priestley, M.J.N., Seismic Design of Reinforced Concrete and Masonry
Buildings, John Wiley & Sons, U.S.A., 1992

70
Polyakov, S.V., Masonry in framed buildings (Godsudarstvenoe Isdatel stvo
Literatury Po Stroidal stvui Architecture. Moscow, 1956). Translated by G. L.
Cairns in 1963. National Lending Library for Science and Technology, Boston
Spa, Yorkshire, U.K.

Pradhan, P.L., Composite Actions of Brick Infill Wall In RC Frame under In-Plane
Lateral Load, Institute of Engineering, Tribhuvan University, Ph. D. Thesis,
2009

Rai, D.C., Masonary infills in Framed Buildings, Indian Institute of Technology,


Kanpur(India), 2009

Rooij, A., Steel frames with precast reinforced concrete infill panels, January 2005.

Shakya, A., Application of Artificial Neural Network in the Analysis of In-filled


Frame., Institute of Engineering, Tribhuvan University, M. Sc. Thesis,2003

Smyrou, E., Implementation and Verification of a masonry panel model for nonlinear
dynamic analysis of infilled RC frames, 2006

Thiruvengadam, V., On The Natural Frequencies fo In-filled Frames, Earthquake


Engineering and Structural Dynamics, Vol. 13, pp.401-419, 1985

71