Masonry Infill Walls in RC Buildings

Hindawi
Advances in Civil Engineering

Volume 2020, Article ID 9261716, 20 pages
https://doi.org/10.1155/2020/9261716
Review Article
Recent Findings and Open Issues concerning the Seismic
Behaviour of Masonry Infill Walls in RC Buildings
1
André Furtado and Maria Teresa de Risi2
1
CONSTRUCT-LESE, Faculdade de Engenharia da Universidade do Porto, Porto, Portugal
2
Department of Structures for Engineering and Architecture, University of Naples Federico II, Via Claudio 21, 80125 Naples, Italy
Correspondence should be addressed to André Furtado; [email protected]
Received 4 October 2019; Accepted 19 February 2020; Published 13 March 2020
Academic Editor: Chongchong Qi
Copyright © 2020 André Furtado and Maria Teresa de Risi. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons
Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is
properly cited.
The extension of the damages observed after the last major earthquakes shows that the seismic risk mitigation of infilled reinforced
concrete structures is a paramount topic in seismic prone regions. In the assessment of existing structures and the design of new
ones, the infill walls are considered as nonstructural elements by most of the seismic codes and, generally, comprehensive
provisions for practitioners are missing. However, nowadays, it is well recognized by the community the importance of the infills
in the seismic behaviour of the reinforced concrete structures. Accurate modelling strategies and appropriate seismic assessment
methodologies are crucial to understand the behaviour of existing buildings and to develop efficient and appropriate mitigation
measures to prevent high level of damages, casualties, and economic losses. The development of effective strengthening solutions
to improve the infill seismic behaviour and proper analytical formulations that could help design engineers are still open issues,
among others, on this topic. The main aim of this paper is to provide a state-of-the-art review concerning the typologies of
damages observed in the last earthquakes where the causes and possible solutions are discussed. After that, a review of in-plane
and out-of-plane testing campaigns from the literature on infilled reinforced concrete frames are presented as well as their relevant
findings. The most common strengthening solutions to improve the seismic behaviour are presented, and some examples are
discussed. Finally, a brief summary of the modelling strategies available in the literature is presented.
1. Introduction between the infill panel and the frame elements, and the
infills’ material and mechanical properties, among others.
The seismic vulnerability assessment of existing buildings Recent postearthquake survey damage assessment re-
that were not designed according to the recent and modern ports recognized that the infill masonry (IM) walls played an
codes and the development of effective strengthening important role in the seismic response of the RC buildings
techniques are, nowadays, a paramount topic in the seismic [5–7]. The infill panels’ seismic behaviour was also char-
engineering field. Over the last few years, it is visible a great acterized by extensive level of damages and collapses, due to
interest regarding the study of the masonry infill walls and combined in-plane and out-of-plane loadings, as reported in
their influence in the response of reinforced concrete (RC) [8, 9]. The collapse of many infill panels was responsible for
buildings when subjected to earthquakes, proved by the several fatalities, direct and indirect economic losses [10, 11].
number of numerical and experimental studies available in It is recognized that their in-plane (IP) behaviour affects
the literature [1–4]. Their presence can be favorable or not with their out-of-plane (OOP) performance, since extensive
for the seismic performance of the building, depending on damages caused by IP demands, such as the panel detach-
several phenomena such as their plan and height distribu- ment, diagonal cracking, or shear failure, increase the infill
tion, existence or not of connection to the surrounding panel OOP vulnerability [12, 13]. Different authors [1, 9, 14]
frame, boundary conditions, relative stiffness and strength reported that the masonry infill walls’ OOP behaviour is
2 Advances in Civil Engineering
strongly affected by existence or not of connection between possibility of those members to be not able to suffer high
the panel and the reinforced concrete frame elements; ex- levels of deformation demands until it fails. The insufficient
istence of not of connection between leafs (in case of double- strength capacity or incapacity of the structural elements to
leaf infill walls); inadequate panel support width (very face seismic actions, which is several times higher than the
common constructive procedure adopted for thermal value considered in the design process and results in shear
bridges’ prevention); boundary conditions, panel slender- loads higher than their strength capacity, is very common in
ness, and inadequate execution of the upper bed joint; and existing low-standard buildings. The structures should be
lastly, the existence of previous damage. The infill panels’ designed according to the seismic loading demand defined
collapse can also result in plan and/or vertical irregularities, in the codes and to have stiffness, strength, and ductility
which can trigger global failure mechanisms such as torsion balanced between the elements, joints, and supports. Sim-
or soft storey. ilarly, the strength and stiffness contribution of the infill
Considering the number of experimental and numerical panels should be considered since these elements can sig-
studies investigating the vulnerability issues of infilled RC nificantly affect the whole structural behaviour.
frames, the missing of proper prescriptions by codes, and This section aims at presenting the major learnings and
based on the well common masonry infill walls’ presence in findings concerning the typical damages from the last major
the RC buildings in the southern European countries, it is earthquake in the Mediterranean area. They are presented
fundamental to carry out studies to characterize the seismic and discussed, and a particular focus is dedicated to the
behaviour of these panels and to develop efficient masonry infill wall seismic behaviour and participation in
strengthening strategies to improve their performance and the structural response.
prevent their collapse when subjected to earthquakes.
The present research work aims at presenting a global
2.1. Damage Typology Definition in Infilled RC Structures.
state-of-the-art review concerning the infilled RC frame
The Eurocode 8 [18] classifies the building elements as
seismic behaviour. First, a damage reconnaissance report
structural or nonstructural. Concerning the structural ele-
from the last major earthquakes is presented. Observations
ments, they are subdivided into primary members (SP) and
of the RC structure performance during strong earthquakes
secondary members (SS). The primary members (SP) are
represent a mean of teaching builders and engineers and
considered as part of the structural system that resists to the
proper and improper construction of earthquake load
seismic demands, modelled in the analysis for the seismic
resisting systems. In regions that have long been inhabited,
design situation, and fully designed and detailed for
and which are subjected to relatively frequent strong ground
earthquake resistance. On the other hand, the secondary
shaking, design procedures have evolved, resulting in rel-
elements are members which are not considered as part of
atively good performance of engineered structures [15, 16].
the seismic action resisting system and whose strength and
Although such design procedures are not universally ap-
stiffness against seismic actions are neglected; they are not
plicable because of regional differences in construction
required to comply with all the capacity design rules
materials and techniques, structural engineers can learn
according to Eurocode 8 [18], but are designed and detailed
much by studying such procedures. Additionally, the
to support gravity loads when subjected to the displacements
postearthquake damage reconnaissance highlighted the
caused by the seismic design condition. Last, nonstructural
importance of the infill walls in the seismic performance of
elements (NS) comprising architectural, mechanical, or
RC structures. Many authors pointed out that these elements
electrical elements, systems, and components, whether due
(used to be called as “nonstructural”) are very important and
to lack of strength or to the way they are connected to the
are responsible for a significant part of the human, material,
structure, are not considered in the seismic design as load
and economic losses [7, 17].
carrying elements.
Second, a deep state-of-the-art review of the experiments
During the last major earthquakes all over the world,
carried out on infilled RC frames is presented, where the
different types of damages, being the most representative
major findings by each author are discussed. This section is
ones listed above, affected the RC structures according to
very important to associate those findings with the damages
several authors and postearthquake survey damage assess-
observed in postearthquake scenarios. Finally, a brief pre-
ments [5–8, 19]:
sentation of modelling strategies of the masonry infill walls is
provided, from the macromodelling approaches to micro- Damage Type 1: damages associated with stirrups and
modelling approaches. hoops (inadequate quantity and detailing, regarding the
required ductility)
2. The Role of the Masonry Infill Walls in the Damage Type 2: damages associated with detailing
Recent Seismic Events over the World (bond, anchorage, and bond splitting)
Damage Type 3: damages associated with shear and
The RC structure behaviour depends on the strength and
flexural capacity of beam/column/wall elements
stiffness characteristics of the structural elements. The
structural strength is provided by each of the structural Damage Type 4: damages associated with the inade-
members and by the interaction among them. Their re- quate shear capacity of RC joints
sponse is controlled by the loading redistribution capacity Damage Type 5: damages associated with strong-beam
that results in the failure of some members and/or in the weak-column mechanism
Advances in Civil Engineering 3
Damage Type 6: damages associated with short-column at the lowest floors, where the relative displacement demand
mechanism is generally higher. Such kind of damage is the clear evidence
Damage Type 7: damages associated with structural of the cooperation of infills in the seismic response of the
irregularities (in plan and/or in elevation: torsion, building, so that their typical definition of “nonstructural”
“weak storey,” and “soft storey”) components can be considered as not appropriate. Addi-
tionally, as anticipated above, this damage, which is often
Damage Type 8: damages associated with pounding
particularly severe also under quite moderate seismic
Damage Type 9: damages in secondary elements shaking, considerably affects the economic seismic losses for
(cantilevers, stair, etc.) RC buildings [17], in terms of repair costs, downtime, and
Damage Type 10: damages in nonstructural elements. casualties, thus reducing the seismic resilience of the
communities in seismic prone areas.
From the list, the first eight damages are related to A structural irregularity can be induced by a nonuniform
primary members (SP), the ninth is related to secondary distribution of the infill panel along the height. As a matter
elements (SP), and finally, the tenth is related to non- of fact, due to severe seismic actions, a soft-storey collapse
structural elements (SS). According to the after-earthquake mechanism can be induced by the (quite common) absence
damage survey assessment, it was concluded that there is an of panels at the ground floor (see, for example, Figure 2(a)).
interaction among the last five types of damages. This in- Another kind of “irregularity” is the presence of frames with
teraction is related to the contribution/participation of the
ribbon windows that are only partially infilled: such a sit-
nonstructural elements or secondary elements in the global
uation generates very squat columns, which are extremely
response of the infilled RC structure [20]. The existence of
vulnerable to shear failures (see, for example, Figure 2(b)).
buildings with different (in plan or vertical) irregularities These vulnerability issues clearly assume a crucial role since
results in different responses than those expected; part of they are related to the life-safety performance level.
them are related to the disposition of the nonstructural One of the big problems for life-safety purposes due to
elements [21]. Damages observed in postearthquake field the infills is their OOP collapses (or overturning), which can
missions highlighted that masonry infills, the main core of be produced by the absence of proper connection systems
this work, cannot be generally regarded as nonstructural or between the “nonstructural” panel and the RC frame, as
secondary elements, as better discussed in Section 2.2, but typical in existing buildings. In these cases, the problem
should be considered as primary members, especially if they becomes also more severe due to the typical high slenderness
were built in full contact with the surrounding frame. of the infills in existing buildings, generally realised in two
(not properly connected to each other) leafs. As a result, the
2.2. Most Common Damages in Masonry Infill Walls in Recent overturning of the infills is generally observed in post-
Earthquakes. Infills represent the external skin of the RC earthquake field missions, as shown in Figure 3, enhanced by
structures; they are generally used as interior partitions and the combination between the damage due to in-plane actions
to separate the inner spaces for the outside with constructive and the transverse acceleration demand during a seismic
techniques that strongly depend on the construction practice event [6, 7].
typical of each country (double- or single-leaf infill, con- A further issue affecting the life-safety performance level
nection system between infill panel and surrounding frame, concerns the local shear interaction between the infill panels
workmanship, etc.). This aspect can introduce a significant and the surrounding RC members. As well known, due to
heterogeneity in the influence of the infills on the RC horizontal actions, an infill panel locally produces a shear
building seismic performance. Nevertheless, some similar- action on the surrounding RC columns/beams concentrated
ities in the main vulnerability issues can be identified and in a squat portion of the RC member [26]. Such an action can
observed in postearthquake reconnaissance field missions, lead to the shear failure of the RC structural members,
especially if the more recent seismic events in the Medi- especially in existing buildings, not designed according to
terranean area are considered. The presence of infill panels capacity design principals, thus affecting the integrity and
generally leads to an increase of the IP lateral stiffness and safety level of the whole building. Some examples of local
strength, at least at low displacement demand, and a ben- shear interaction, from L’Aquila (Italy) 2009 [24] and Lorca
eficial increase of the dissipated energy during a ground (Spain) 2011 [7] earthquakes, are reported in Figure 4.
motion. Under higher displacement demand, infill panels,
above all traditional (slender) panels, generally reduce their
contribution to the lateral load and stiffness, thus producing 3. Literature Review on Recent
a strength drop in the global lateral response of the whole Developments on Experimental Testing of
infilled frame [22]. Some significant detrimental effects can Infilled RC Frames
be induced by the infill panels, certainly affecting the damage
limitation performance level, but also potentially dangerous The postearthquake damage analyses reported in the pre-
for the life safety, as discussed in the following remarks. vious section highlight that a comprehensive knowledge of
As well known, due to horizontal action parallel to their all the vulnerability aspects related to the seismic behaviour
plane, infill panels generally exhibit a diagonal damage of infilled framed structures, of their nonstructural com-
pattern, as shown in Figure 1. Such damage can be more or ponents, and of the phenomena related to the interaction
less diffused across the building and generally concentrated between structural and “nonstructural” elements is
(a) (b) (c)
Figure 1: Example of medium-severe in-plane damage to infills (adapted from [23]). (a) Izmit (1999). (b). L’Aquila (2009). (c) Centre Italy
(2016).
(a) (b)
Figure 2: Example of structural irregularities induced by the infill panel (adapted from [7, 23]). (a) Izmit (1999). (b) Lorca (2011).
(a) (b) (c)
Figure 3: Example of out-of-plane collapses (adapted from [23–25]). (a) Izmit (1999). (b) L’Aquila (2009). (c) Centre Italy (2016).
(a) (b) (c)
Figure 4: Example of in-plane shear interaction between infill panels and RC frames adapted from [7, 24]. (a) L’Aquila (2009). (b) L’Aquila
(2009). (c) Lorca (2011).
necessary. To this aim, the experimental testing allows A complete list of these campaigns can be found in Table 1
understanding and characterizing the structural behaviour for infilled without openings (i.e., doors or windows).
of given elements under different loading conditions For these tests, the experimentally observed failure mode
reproducing the damage due to real earthquakes in lab. This has been different depending on the main geometrical and
is a key point to achieve the knowledge that is necessary to mechanical features of infills and frames. More in detail, the
improve the codes with the capability of designing safer failure modes, specifically related to the infill panel, can be
structures and with lower risk. Different types of experi- classified as follows [68]: (i) sliding shear failure, charac-
ments can be found over the literature concerning the terized by the horizontal sliding along mortar bed join-
infilled RC structures, which can be classified in in-plane ts—typical in weak mortar infills and strong frame; (ii)
(loading acting in the infill plane) and the out-of-plane diagonal cracking failure, characterized by cracks along the
(loading acting perpendicularly to the infill plane) testing of infill diagonals—typical of weak frame infilled with a strong
masonry infill walls. Section 3.1 presents a literature review infill; (iii) diagonal compression failure, characterized by the
about the in-plane (IP) tests, and Section 3.2 presents the infill crushing in the centre of the panel—typical of slender
out-of-plane (OOP) testing review and, lastly, a revision of infills; and (iv) corner crushing failure, characterized by the
strengthening techniques is presented in Section 3.3. infill crushing in the corners—typical of weak masonry
infills and frames with weak joints and strong members.
3.1. In-Plane Tests. Numerous tests have been performed in Although the significant heterogeneity of the tests is due
the literature to study the behaviour of infilled RC frames to their differences in mechanical properties or material
under in-plane actions in the last sixty years (see Table 1). brick units (see Table 1), some general conclusions can be
Each experimental campaign investigated the influence of carried out.
the infill panel on the lateral response of the whole frame From a phenomenological point of view, the evolution of
depending on the brick typology (e.g., hollow or solid clay damage affecting the infill panel under increasing in-plane
bricks, concrete or autoclaved aerated concrete (AAC) lateral load goes from a hairline cracking along mortar bed
blocks, or other material typologies), on the infill-to-frame joints or in bricks (“Slight Damage”), to more severe diagonal
relative stiffness and strength, and on the presence of cracking and bricks crushing, often in the corners (“Moderate
openings with different opening ratios and eccentricities, Damage”), until the complete “Collapse” of the panel [69], as
among other investigated parameters. Tested specimens shown in Figure 5. Starting from the analysis of the in-plane
were generally one-bay one-storey scaled infilled frames collected tests, the displacement capacity thresholds of the
(e.g., [13, 34, 58] among many others—see Table 1). More infills can be obtained for given Damage States (DS), from
rarely two- or three-storey frames (e.g., [29, 64]) or full-scale Slight Damage to Collapse, depending on their material ty-
infilled frames [33, 40, 49] were tested in lab. Different pology, as recognized in Del Gaudio et al. [10]. It was found
typologies of test have been performed, by means of the that, for infills with clay bricks, the median interstorey drift
application of monotonic or cyclic actions and pseudostatic capacity is equal to 0.08%, 0.33%, and 1.6%, respectively, at
or pseudodynamic actions or, more rarely, by means of Slight Damage level, at Moderate Damage, and at Collapse.
shake table tests. Overall, about two hundred tests per- Infills with concrete blocks showed a higher median drift
formed on RC frames with various typologies of infills can be capacity with respect to the infills with clay bricks, whereas,
collected from the literature [4, 65–67]. The main findings of generally, a smaller drift capacity characterized infills with
these experimental campaigns on unreinforced masonry solid clay bricks with respect to infills with hollow clay bricks
infills under in-plane actions are discussed in what follows. at more severe DSs [10].
Table 1: Literature review of IP experimental tests of infill walls depending on infill material typology: subset of tests on 1-bay 1-storey
frames infilled without opening (adapted from [4]).
Author Number of tests Masonry unit Scale factor
Aly and Mooty [27] 2 Solid clay unit 1:2
Akhoundi et al. [28] 1 Hollow clay unit 1:2
Al-Chaar et al. [29] 2 Solid clay unit-solid concrete unit 1:2
Angel et al. [13] 7 Solid clay unit-solid concrete unit 1:2
Baran and Sevil [30] 3 Hollow clay unit 1:3
Basha and Kaushik [31] 4 Solid fly ash unit 1:2
Bergami and Nuti [32] 2 Hollow clay unit 1:2
Calvi and Bolognini [33] 2 Hollow clay unit 1 :1
Cavaleri and Di Trapani [34] 12 Hollow clay or concrete unit-solid calcarenite unit 1:2
Centeno et al. [35] 1 Hollow concrete unit 1:2
Chiou and Hwang [36] 2 Solid clay unit 1 :1
Colangelo [37] 11 Hollow clay unit 1:2
Combescure and Pegon [38] 4 Hollow clay unit 2:3
Gazic and Sigmund [39] 10 Hollow clay unit-solid clay unit 1:2
Guidi et al. [40] 2 Hollow clay unit 1 :1
Haider [41] 3 Hollow clay unit 1 :1
Hashemi and Mosalam [42] 1 Solid clay unit 1 :1
Kakaletsis and Karayannis [26] 2 Hollow clay unit-vitrified clay unit 1:3
Khoshnoud and Marsono [43] 1 Solid clay unit 1:4
Kyriakides and Billington [44] 1 Solid clay unit 1:5
Lafuente and Molina [45] 10 Solid clay unit 1:3
Mansouri et al. [46] 1 Solid clay unit 1:2
Mehrabi et al. [47] 11 Solid or hollow concrete unit 1:2
Misir et al. [48] 4 Hollow clay unit-solid AAC unit-hollow pomice unit 4:5
Morandi et al. [49] 1 Hollow clay unit 1 :1
Parducci and Checchi [50] 6 Hollow clay unit 1:2
Pereira et al. [51] 1 Hollow clay unit 2:3
Pires [52] 6 Hollow clay unit 2:3
Schwarz et al. [53] 5 Solid AAC unit 1:2
Sigmund and Penava [54] 1 Hollow clay unit 1:2
Shing et al. [55] 1 Solid clay unit 2:3
Stylianidis [56] 11 Hollow clay unit 1:3
Suzuki et al. [57] 2 Hollow concrete unit 1:4
Verderame et al. [58] 2 Hollow clay unit 1:2
Waly [59] 2 Hollow clay unit 1:2
Yuksel and Teymur [60] 1 Hollow clay unit 1:2
Zarnic and Tomaževič [61] 1 Semisolid clay unit 1:3
Zhai et al. [62] 1 Hollow concrete unit 1 :1
Zovkic et al. [63] 3 Hollow clay unit-solid AAC unit 1:2
(a) (b) (c)
Figure 5: Example of damage evolution (adapted form De Risi et al. (2018)). (a) Slight. (b) Moderate. (c) Collapse.
Concerning the lateral response of the infilled frame, the the infill panel from the frame, until the born of a diagonal
analysed experimental responses for RC frames where the compressive stress flow—often reproduced in numerical
infill is well connected to the frame, under increasing lateral analyses by means of one single- or multistrut (only resisting
in-plane loading, generally showed an initial detachment of to compressive) [70], as better explained in Section 4. A high
initial stiffness until first cracking occurrence is generally which can be strictly dependent on the construction practice
observed, depending on the in-plane stiffness (thickness and adopted country by country, and which can strongly affect
material) of the infill panel. After the first macrocracking, a the in-plane response of the whole frame (as recently carried
subsequent lateral stiffness degradation generally occurred out by [72, 73]). Lastly, quite few tests from the literature
up to the peak load. After the achievement of the maximum studied the in-plane behaviour of infilled frame considering
in-plane load, a degrading branch can be easily recognized all the above-mentioned critical issues by means of shake
until the residual strength of the frame, when the infill panel table tests (as in [42]; or [74], one of the most recent study).
is no more able to contribute in terms of strength and It should be desirable to carry out new and further data from
stiffness [4]. The in-plane response and particularly the peak shake table tests to more realistically reproduce the ground
load and the subsequent softening branch were found to be shaking for the investigation of the seismic response of
dependent on the failure mode of the panel. Additionally, a infilled frames.
significant portion of the experimental results indicated that,
at least for one-bay one-storey frames under in-plane ac-
tions, (i) the presence of the infills can improve the lateral 3.2. Out-of-Plane Tests. Over the literature, few testing
strength, stiffness, ductility, and energy dissipation capacity campaigns can be found where it was carried out the study
with respect to bare frames, and (ii) specimens with strong and characterization of the OOP behaviour of infill panels in
infills can exhibit a higher strength, stiffness, and energy steel or RC frames, considering or disregarding their in-
dissipation capacity than those with weak infills [26]. teraction with the IP loading demand [13, 33, 51, 75–86].
Nevertheless, the estimation of the lateral load of the Part of these testing campaigns were based on shaking table
infill is important to define the shear action produced by the tests of single IM panels or scaled infilled RC structures
panel on the surrounding structural members. During the [87–94].
in-plane testing on infilled frames, some tests exhibited a Dawe and Seah [76] started in 1989 the study of the OOP
shear failure in beams or columns due to their interaction seismic behaviour of masonry infill walls surrounded by a
with the infill panel. The analysis of the experimental steel frame. The authors performed eight full-scale infill
campaigns revealed that such phenomenon, often observed panels made with concrete blocks. The loading on the wall
also after seismic events as described in Section 2, was more was transferred with a system of airbags against a reaction
likely for specimens with infills relatively strong with respect frame, uniformly inflating to impose a displacement history.
to the frame [68], as typical when the former is made up of The objectives were to study the horizontal connections with
strong concrete blocks or solid clay bricks and the latter is reinforcement, other with mortar interface of infill frame,
representative of existing low-standard buildings. Unfor- the influence of the wall’s thickness, openings, among other
tunately, very few experimental studies [58, 71] are available parameters. Some of the conclusions were as follows: (1) the
from the literature to reproduce the local shear interaction interface’s reinforcement provided higher OOP deformation
between infill and frame, even less if masonry panels made of capacity of the system, (2) interface reinforcement sustained
hollow clay units (typical of light nonstructural masonry in more OOP loading before appearance of the first crack, (3)
European and Mediterranean countries) are considered. higher thickness allowed the limitation of OOP arch
More experimental tests on these units should be carried out mechanism, resulting in stronger loadings for collapse, (4)
to provide a useful support for a comparison with more or the opening did not reduce significantly the OOP capacity,
less simplified nonlinear modelling approaches [58], from and (5) the connections with reinforcement are introducing
FEM-based micromodelling to macromodelling, and the stress concentrations when connectors transmit in-plane
choice/proposal of a proper modelling tool. loads. This causes premature damage to the infill, which
Additionally, few tests exist in the literature about the reduces the infill’s out-of-plane capacity. Thereafter, Fred-
study of the in-plane behaviour of infills with openings, eriksen [95] tested fifteen scaled infill panels surrounded by
taking into account their possible differences in void ratio, steel frames under OOP loading using an airbag. Three types
aspect ratio, or eccentricity (e.g., [26, 38, 54], among others). of brick were used in their experiment, and the main ob-
As expected, the presence of openings leads to a reduction in jective was to study the effect of infill-to-frame boundary
infill lateral strength and stiffness and energy dissipation condition by placing different materials in gaps between the
capacity, mainly depending on the opening size [26]. infill and the frame at all boundaries instead of mortar. They
Nevertheless, openings with an opening percentage (i.e., concluded that the effect of bound type on the OOP strength
opening area divided by the whole frame area) lower than and cracking patter is negligible so long as the infill is in tight
40% can improve the lateral strength, stiffness, and energy contact with the bounding frame. Angel et al. [13] performed
dissipation capacity under in-plane actions with respect to thirteen full-scale infill walls made with concrete blocks and
bare frames [4, 25]. More frequently, the presence of with brick masonry walls. They tested the combination of IP-
openings is investigated only numerically (e.g., [2], among OOP loading sequence. The OOP forces were applied with
others), and therefore, additional real data should be pro- an airbag system following monotonic loading protocol.
vided by further experimental campaigns to be compared Some of the conclusions were as follows: (1) the OOP
with the numerical results. strength was affected by the thickness of the wall and by the
A higher number of experimental results should be still compressive strength of the masonry, and (2) IP loading
produced also to investigate about the effect of the level of increased the OOP secant stiffness. Calvi and Bolognini [33]
restraint between the panel and the surrounding frame, performed a set of tests in full-scaled RC frames infilled with
brick masonry. The tests were analysed for monotonic OOP to the confining RC frames; namely, it was tested a panel
loading after application of cyclic IP loading to introduce bounded along all edges to the surrounding frame (specimen
prior damage on the walls. The used systems were bare OOP_4E), a panel detached from the confining frame at the
frame, unreinforced infills, horizontally reinforced, and upper edge (specimen OOP_3E), and a panel bounded to the
reinforced with meshes. The authors concluded that the confining frame only along the upper and lower edges
OOP behaviour was strongly improved by the reinforcement (specimen OOP_2E). The authors concluded that the panel
material. OOP_2E exhibited brittle failure and the remaining ones
Later, Lunn and Rizkalla [96] performed an experi- some displacement capacity for arching mechanism. Con-
mental campaign comprising 14 full-scale specimens, four cerning the maximum strength, the panel with all edges
as-built specimens (reference specimens) and 10 strength- bounded (OOP_4E) reached 1.6 times higher strength and
ened specimens. The main aim of this study was to assess the the specimen OOP_3E reached 1.3 times higher strength
efficiency of different strengthening strategies to improve the than the value obtained by the panel OOP_2E.
OOP behaviour. Varela-Rivera et al. [97] tested six confined Ricci et al. [12] performed OOP tests in scaled infill
walls made with vertical hollow concrete blocks to assess the panels previously damaged due to quasistatic IP tests. Three
effect of the boundary conditions in which the authors found different levels of prior IP drift were adopted, namely, 0.16%
that the panels with four and three supports reached similar (IP + OOP_L), 0.37% (IP + OOP_M), and 0.58%
maximum strength. Pereira et al. [51] carried out a testing (IP + OOP_H). Additionally, the results were compared with
campaign of scaled infill panels subjected to uniform OOP the one reference specimen OOP_4E (with no prior damage)
loadings applied by airbags to assess the effect of plaster and that was tested by Di Domenico et al. [14] and described in
bed joint reinforcement. From the results, the authors the previous paragraph. The authors concluded that all the
concluded that the bed joint reinforcement provided higher specimens reached an almost bilinear response behaviour
strength and deformation capacity to the panel; however, it with a pseudolinear response up to peak load and a softening
is not relevant when subjected to IP loading demands. Guidi branch after the maximum load. As expected, the specimens
et al. [98] developed an experimental campaign comprised of with medium-high in-plane damage exhibited lower
six panels with different thicknesses (large and thick) and strength capacity and lower stiffness. In fact, larger IP drift
tested with textile-reinforced mortar technique to assess the demands caused higher reduction of the panel OOP
improvement of the OOP behaviour. Hak et al. [82] studied capacity.
the OOP behaviour of strong infill panels in the context of Later, Ricci et al. [102] investigated the influence of the
the modern construction in the southern European coun- panel slenderness ratio and of the in-plane/out-of-plane
tries. da Porto et al. [83] tested the efficiency of strengthening interaction on the out-of-plane strength. To this aim, the
mortars to improve the seismic behaviour of infill panels authors tested three specimens with the slenderness ratio of
subjected to IP and OOP loading sequence. Moreno-Herrera 22.9 and compared with the results obtained by panels with
et al. [99] tested the influence of the masonry unit and aspect the lower slenderness ratio of 15.2, tested in a previous
ratio on the OOP capacity of confined infill walls, from testing campaign [12, 14]. From the results, the panels with
which it was concluded that (1) the maximum OOP dis- the slenderness ratio of 22.9 reached larger peak loads (twice
placements were larger for walls built with solid bricks; (2) the results of the panels with slenderness ratio of 15.2). This
the OOP strength depends highly on the masonry com- result indicates that panels with larger slenderness ratio
pressive strength; and (3) the OOP capacity decreases with potentiate the development of arching mechanism, which
the increase of the panel aspect ratio. can increase the panel OOP strength capacity. However,
Recently, Akhoundi et al. [100] tested three scaled infill further experimental investigations must be developed to
panels made with hollow clay horizontal bricks to study the reinforce the conclusions and results obtained in this testing
effect of the workmanship and the effect of a central opening campaign. Finally, it was again observed the reduction of the
(window). From the results, the authors pointed out a OOP strength capacity with larger IP drift demands.
variation of about 30% related to the workmanship and a Lastly, De Risi et al. [71] carried out an experimental
reduction of the panel OOP strength and deformation ca- campaign on square infill walls in RC frames to investigate
pacity due to the opening. about the OOP behaviour of the masonry infills and about
Furtado et al. [84] studied the effect of the gravity load the IP/OOP interaction. Overall, four specimens were tested
and the previous damage due to prior IP test and concluded under OOP monotonic load. Three of them were firstly
that the gravity load modifies the cracking pattern and the damaged due to cyclic IP actions, with different levels of
previous damage (0.5% IP drift) reduced the OOP strength demand. The remaining one was only subjected to OOP
capacity of about 70% and the panel behaved as a rigid body. loading and thus was considered as reference specimen. The
Later, the authors [101] studied the effect of the panel width main purpose of the testing campaign was to assess the
support condition in which it was observed a reduction of influence of the infill panel aspect ratio on the IP/OOP
the panel OOP strength capacity of about 60%. interaction through the comparison between the tests per-
Di Domenico et al. [14] carried out an experimental formed in this campaign and tests performed in the cam-
campaign comprised of three infill panels made with hollow paigns carried out by Ricci [12, 14] with nominally identical
clay bricks, with the same geometrical properties, con- infills except that for the aspect ratio of the specimens. The
struction materials, and workmanship. The major goal was authors concluded that, from the comparison between the
to assess the effect of adopting different boundary conditions square panels and the rectangular ones, it was observed that,
at roughly same drift demand, square and rectangular infills nonfused specimens; (3) preventing the panel from the
exhibit very different damage states, namely, the rectangular occurrence of damage/cracking during seismic actions; and
specimens reached higher levels of damage than the square (4) high efficiency of the sliding fuse in increasing ductility of
ones. Obviously, at the same time, it was observed that, for the infilled frames. Despite the advantages of the sliding fuse,
the same IP drift, the square panels exhibited a strength simple configuration of the applied sliding fuse had two
reduction of 24% while the rectangular panel exhibited main shortcomings: (1) increasing the vulnerability of shear
larger degradation of about 58%. A complete list of these failure in some column zones and (2) creating a potential
campaigns can be found in Table 2 containing the variables surface for OOP movement of the wall in the fuse area.
under study, number of tests, loading approach, and ma- Two further testing campaigns were performed by Preti
sonry unit. et al. [106] focused on the development of a similar engi-
Recently, Butenweg et al. [103] carried out an experi- neered solution with sliding joints to reduce the infill-frame
mental campaign of combined IP-OOP tests in full-scale RC interaction and ensure OOP stability. The authors validated
frames filled with high thermal insulating clay brick. The the potential of horizontal partition joints (embedded in few
main novelty of this experimental investigation is the si- masonry mortar beds and acting as sliding joints) to ensure a
multaneous application of the IP and OOP loadings. From ductile mechanism for the infill under IP loading; during the
the testing campaign, the authors pointed out that boundary tests, it was prevented the development of the typical di-
condition in the connection area between the infill panel and agonal strut mechanism. Two additional works developed by
the frame is a crucial point for earthquake damage of the Morandi et al. [107] and Verlato et al. [108] can be found in
infill walls. the literature.
Some authors proposed solutions composed of energy
dissipation devices that consist of the disconnection between
3.3. Retrofit and Strengthening Techniques. The retrofit and
the panel and the frame structure. Goodno et al. [109] pro-
improvement of infill walls seismic behaviour is a complex
posed design criteria formulated in terms of energy, which
subject, since it cannot be disconnected from their effect on
provide optimal balance of stiffness and energy dissipation to
the overall building response. It is paramount to take this
the structure through appropriate cladding connection.
coupled behaviour into consideration. In this context, two
Aliaari and Memari [110] tested a seismic IM wall isolator
main approaches can be considered, as described below: (i)
from the main envelope structure (SIWIS). The solution
disconnection of infills from the structural system and (ii)
consisted in using subframes to be attached to the structural
effective integration in the superstructure and strengthening
frame, and the infill wall then was constructed within the
of the panel.
subframe. The OOP stability of the panel was provided
through the top subframe member. The authors stated that the
3.3.1. Disconnection of the Panel from the Structural System. location of SIWIS elements showed that due to the fact of
Concerning this first assumption, three different strategies being located at the top of the wall, the frame will first contact
can be adopted: the use of sliding devices, energy dissipation the panel at that point under lateral drift and will tend to close
devices, and assuming a disconnection using gap. From the the gap if there were no SIWIS elements. Later, Aliaari and
literature, it is possible to find out that some authors tested Memari [111] carried out an IP test of a two-bay three-story
the use of sliding devices to reach a good seismic perfor- steel frame with three different configurations: (i) bare frame,
mance of the panel. For example, Mohammadi et al. [104] (ii) infilled braced frame, and (iii) pinned frame equipped with
carried out an experimental campaign to achieve engineered the proposed SIWIS device. The authors also tested a series of
infilled frames in two stages. One of the techniques used on components on three different designs for the fuse element.
Stage 1 was the use of an infill “fuse,” in which some sliding From the tests, the authors pointed out that the response of
layers were provided in the infill. In these techniques, some the frame with SIWIS elements was significantly affected by
elements such as small parts of the columns or horizontal the stiffness and strength properties of the SIWIS elements.
layers in infills (called “fuses”) are supposed to yield or slide Finally, seismically active countries such as New Zea-
before infill cracking. Two 2/3 scaled, 3 m-long and 2 m-high land, Japan, and some states in the USA adopted the practice
single-story single-bay infilled steel frames having an IPE- of separating the infill walls from their frames by including a
140 standard shape were tested under cyclic lateral in-plane gap. This strategy was based on the poor seismic perfor-
loading. The specimens were used to check the efficiency of mance of the infill panels in past events. Additionally, the
the mentioned technique in increasing ductility. The authors seismic design codes required that nonstructural elements
found in a previous experimental work that multilayer infill are not damaged during earthquakes with low magnitude
panels, composed of layers of masonry and concrete ma- and do not affect the structural performance of the main
terials, are acceptable to be used in engineered infilled structure in events with large magnitude. Due to that, the
frames, as they have a better ductility in comparison with the separation between the panel and the frame became the most
single-layer ones, and their strength can be adjusted by common practice [112]. Separation gaps allow the frame to
changing the layer thickness and material [105]. The author deflect freely without mobilizing the wall. However, this
concluded that supplying the infills with sliding fuses had the approach can result in serious consequences when the panel
following advantages: (1) increasing the deformation ca- is subjected to some OOP loadings. Some approaches have
pacity and consequently the ductility of the infilled frame; been presented by different authors aiming to be effective for
(2) avoid necking in cyclic load-displacement behaviour for both IP and OOP loadings [107, 108, 113, 114].
Table 2: Literature review of OOP experimental tests of masonry infill walls.

Author Number of tests Loading approach Masonry unit Variables under study
Horizontal connections with reinforcement
Slenderness
Dawe and Seah [76] 8 Airbags VHCB
Openings
Boundary conditions
HCHB
Frederiksen [95] 15 Airbags Boundary conditions
SCB
HCHB Masonry unit
Angel et al. [13] 13 Airbags
VHCB IP + OOP
IP + OOP
Calvi and Bolognini [33] 9 Airbags HCHB Bed joint reinforcement
Meshes
Lunn and Rizkalla [96] 14 Airbags CSB Strengthening strategies
Varela-Rivera et al. [97] 6 Airbags VHCB Boundary condition
Bed joint reinforcement
Pereira et al. [51] 7 Airbags HCHB
Plaster
Slenderness
Guidi et al. [98] 6 4 points load HCHB
Strengthening strategies
Hak et al. [82] 5 4 points load VCHB Strong infills
da Porto et al. [83] 8 4 points load HCHB Strengthening mortars
VHCB
Moreno-Herrera et al. [99] 8 Airbags SCB Masonry unit
VCHB Aspect ratio
Workmanship
Akhoundi et al. [100] 3 Airbags HCHB
Opening
Gravity load
Furtado et al. [84] 3 Airbags HCHB
IP-OOP
Panel width support
Furtado et al. [101] 2 Airbags HCHB
Gravity load
Di Domenico et al. [14] 3 4 points load HCHB Boundary conditions
Ricci et al. [12] 3 4 points load HCHB IP-OOP
IP-OOP
Ricci et al. [102] 3 4 points load HCHB
Slenderness
De Risi et al. [71] 4 4 points load HCHB Aspect ratio
Butenweg et al. [103] 4 Airbag VHCB IP-OOP
VHCB: vertical hollow concrete block; SB: solid brick; CSB: concrete solid brick; HCHB: hollow clay horizontal brick.
3.3.2. Effective Strengthening of the Panel. The integration of plastic and having different shapes and geometry (very
the infill panels on the substructure and respective behaviour dependent on the wall system), are usually adopted [118].
improvement and reduction of the OOP vulnerability can be However, it cannot be found over the literature any study
achieved by using different strengthening techniques such as regarding the effect of the ETICS in the infilled RC frame
fiber-reinforced polymers (FRP) [115], engineered cemen- seismic performance.
titious composites (ECC) [116], textile-reinforced mortars Backing to the FRP technique, Carney and Myers [119]
(TRM) [33], and bed joint reinforcement [33]. tested two series of IM walls made with concrete blocks to be
The knowledge and techniques to improve the way subjected to OOP loadings. A total of twelve walls with
infilled RC buildings respond to earthquakes have been the different strengthening schemes using FRP composite ma-
object of several studies and tests. However, in parallel to terials were tested. Two FRP strengthening techniques were
these advances in the last years, and due to the concerns with adopted with anchorages for both techniques. The first
thermal comfort, new bricks and new techniques have also method was composed by the application of externally
been developed for buildings’ façade walls with the main bonded glass FRP laminates. This strategy includes a primer
goal of reducing the cooling and heating losses. As a result of and a glass fiber sheet to form the composite material. The
the innovation, new types of masonry units and construction authors stated that glass fiber sheets are more economical
technologies have been developed, being pushed by the and provide more compatible strength than the carbon fi-
market competition. The masonry industry improved the bers. The second method consisted in the application of
thermal properties of masonry units and developed new, near-surface-mounted (NSM) glass FRP rods. These rods
faster, and cheaper technologies of construction [117]. The were attached to the wall using an epoxy-based grout. The
use of external thermal insulation composite systems specimens strengthened with anchorage produced a system
(ETICS) is now common in the external walls with energy capable of carrying a load of approximately twice that of the
saving purposes. Distinct types of ties, generally from steel or reference one. Later, Hamid et al. [120] carried out an
experimental investigation to study the IP behaviour of face masonry wallets subjected to flexural strength tests parallel
shell mortar bedded IM wall assemblages retrofitted with and perpendicular to the bed joints using hollow clay
FRP laminates. Tests including specimens loaded in horizontal bricks. The objective of the experimental cam-
compression with different bed joint orientations, diagonal paign was to assess the efficiency of the ECC strengthening
tension specimens, and specimens loaded under joint shear technique to improve the OOP capacity and to evaluate the
were carried out. The FRP laminate was selected according effect of different ECC thicknesses. For that, 30 specimens
to an equivalent-stiffness-based approach, from which the were built with geometric dimensions 600 × 600 mm made
laminate required was equated to the minimum steel re- with 150 mm thick hollow clay horizontal bricks. For each
inforcement ratio of 0.2% (based on the gross cross-sec- type of tests were tested 5 as-built specimens (Group R), 5
tional area of the panel) according to the requirement of the retrofitted with 10 mm ECC thick (Group A), and 5 ret-
Masonry Standards Joint Committee [121]. Lastly, Lunn rofitted with 20 mm ECC thick (Group B). From the flexural
and Rizkalla [96] carried out an extensive experimental tests parallel to the horizontal bed joints, it was observed that
campaign composed by 14 full-scale infilled RC frame the failure mode of the as-built specimens (Figure 6(a)) was
specimens, which included four unstrengthened specimens characterized by the detachment of the first row of bricks
and 10 strengthened specimens. Solid clay bricks were used from the adjacent row which according to the author was
to build the IM wall specimens. The strengthened speci- controlled by the mortar-brick adhesion. Regarding the
mens were reinforced with externally bonded glass fiber- retrofitted specimens, similar damages were observed in
reinforced polymer sheets applied in the exterior tension both groups, shear failure occurred most of the times due to
face of the external leaf of the panel. Different coverage the geometry of the panel (small distance between the OOP
ratios were adopted by the authors considering only uni- loading application and OOP restrains), and the remaining
directional (vertical or horizontal) directions. Three dif- failures were characterized by the crushing of the bricks
ferent anchorage systems were used. From the testing combined with one or two major horizontal cracks. It was
campaign, the authors concluded that the externally observed that Group A and Group B specimens reached an
bonded solution was effective if proper anchorage of the average flexural strength of 0.43 MPa and 0.46 MPa, re-
FRP laminate is guaranteed. Overlapping the FRP rein- spectively. Therefore, it can be concluded that the double
forcement onto the RC frame revealed to be very effective thickness of the ECC layer did not provide any significant
for double-wythe specimens, but less for single-wythe effect in terms of strength (increase of around 6%). The
specimens. This strengthening technique requires the fol- authors pointed out that, due to the fragility of this type of
lowing steps to be applied: (1) application of primer; (2) masonry units, the ECC layer was too strong and the
smoothing of the surface with a layer of putty; (3) appli- damages concentrated in the masonry. Regarding the
cation of a first layer of epoxy resin; (4) positioning of the comparison between the as-built specimens and the retro-
fibers; and (5) use of a small paint roller (FRP) to press the fitted ones, it was obtained an increase of the flexural
strip or a palette-knife (SRP), to allow proper impregnation strength of about 5.38 times and 5.75 times for the Group A
of strands. and Group B specimens, respectively. The authors compared
Moving to the ECC technique, in 2015, Kesner and also the OOP displacement corresponding to the occurrence
Billington [122] studied the application of ductile fiber- of the maximum OOP loading (df,oop,max). The df,oop,max of
reinforced mortar material referred to as engineered ce- the Group A and Group B specimens was around 1.86 times
mentitious composites. The study was about the use of ECC and 2.04 times higher than that of the as-built specimens.
to retrofit precast panels in lieu of a traditional reinforced The double thickness of the Group B specimens contributed
concrete or masonry. From the testing campaign, it was for a df,oop,max 9% larger.
observed that different levels of strength and stiffness in- Finally, some studies were performed to study the effi-
crement can be achieved by varying the mix design of the ciency of using textile-reinforced mortars (TRMs) to im-
ECC material and the amount of reinforcement in the prove the OOP seismic behaviour of infill panels. Since 1980,
panels. Kyriakides and Billington [44] studied the impact of the use of textile-reinforced mortar technique (TRM) started
a thin layer of ECC in IM wallets, made with solid clay to be adopted. The most basic application is the fiber-
bricks, subjected to flexure strength tests. The variables reinforced mortar, which consists in a mixture of mortar
studied were the use of wall anchors to improve the ECC- with a percentage of fibers randomly distributed within its
masonry bond and alternate steel reinforcement ratios composition. It is generally used as shotcrete, which became
within the ECC layer in the form of welded wire fabric. From widespread for tunnel reinforcements. Some of the factors
the tests, it was observed that the ECC retrofit increased the that affect the effectiveness of this solution are fiber slen-
strength and stiffness by 45 and 53%, respectively. Billington derness and length as well as the size of aggregates in the
et al. [123] proposed a thin layer of sprayable ECC applicable mortar matrix since they define the bonding properties and
to retrofit an infilled RC frame subjected to IP loadings. thus the capacity to behave as a composite [125]. More
From the 2/3-scale tests, the authors concluded that the ECC complex solutions using the same kind of material imply
enhanced the performance of the infill walls in terms of both defining a direction for the reinforcement, according to the
strength and deformation capacity. The authors also pointed material requirements of the design of the structure; in this
out that the retrofit details need special attention to bond the way, the fibers can develop their maximum capacity. The
ECC layer to the infill panel and to connect the ECC to the constructive solutions are unidirectional and bidirectional
frame. Barros [124] carried out a testing campaign of reinforcement meshes.
(a) (b) (c)
Figure 6: Test results obtained by Barros [124]: damages observed after the flexural strength tests parallel to the horizontal bed joints. (a) As-
built specimens, (b) Group A, and (c) Group B.
The first investigations were related to the tensile strengthened, developed bending OOP failure that some-
properties of fiber-reinforced mortar and its application to how limited the panel strength. The OOP strength of
retrofit RC structures that made it suitable for reinforcing reinforced infill walls was higher than that of unreinforced
beams (for both bending and shear) or jacketing and walls, for higher IP prior drift. Strength decreased due to
confining columns. The application as a method of ret- the increase of in-plane drift (or damage) was smaller in
rofitting IM walls is a relatively new concept still under reinforced masonry (-6%) than in unreinforced masonry
investigation, with many parameters still to be defined. (-23%). Lastly, Koutas et al. [126] studied the development
Among the parameters that affect the performance of the and performance of new textile-based anchors used to
reinforcement, there are some remarkable ones, namely: (1) transfer tensile forces in models made of IM wallets and
density of the mesh, depending on quantity of fibers in each reinforced concrete prisms, to simulate the connection
thread (defined by mass of textile-reinforced mortar) and between infill walls and RC frames using TRM. None of
the separation among them; and (2) mortar and textile these strengthening techniques has been tested under si-
surfaces properties, affecting the bond between the element multaneous IP-OOP loadings.
and the reinforcement. Calvi and Bolognini [33] tested two
different retrofit strategies, namely, bed joints steel rein- 4. Numerical Modelling Approaches to Study
forcement and external steel reinforcement combined with the Seismic Behaviour of Masonry Infill Walls
bed joint reinforcement. The external reinforcement was
composed by mortar layer reinforcement. The design In recent years, the study of the influence of infill panels on
methodology was not provided by the authors. From the the seismic response of existing buildings has been deeply
testing campaign, the authors observed that the presence of investigated. The contribution of the IM walls to the
little reinforcement improved significantly the panel re- building’s seismic performance can be favorable or not,
sponse, namely, by increasing the deformation capacity and depending on a series of phenomena, detailing aspects, and
by modifying the damage limit states for higher drift levels. mechanical properties, such as the relative stiffness and
Guidi et al. [98] carried out combined IP-OOP tests with strength between the frames and the masonry walls, and the
the aim of characterizing the OOP behaviour of IM walls type of connection between masonry and structures
made with different types of masonry units, with and [5–8, 127–129].
without reinforcement. Two specimens were unreinforced, For the assessment of infilled RC frame structures, the
and other two were made of reinforced masonry, having nonlinear behaviour induced by earthquakes should be
both horizontal and vertical bed joint reinforcement. The considered [3, 70, 130, 131]. Different techniques are
remaining two specimens were built with thin (120 mm) available in the literature to simulate the response of infilled
clay units with plaster layer, one of them was strengthened frames, from refined micromodels to simplified macro-
by means of a special quadriaxial net made with hybrid models [3, 131]. For the nonlinear analysis of complex
glass fibers that was casted in an extra fiber-reinforced structures when subjected to earthquakes, in many cases, it is
plaster layer. From the test results, it was observed that the not suitable to adopt refined models. Thus, for the simu-
thick masonry systems tested (both reinforced and unre- lation of the response of infilled frame structures, consid-
inforced) presented higher OOP strength, due to the de- ering the IM walls and their interaction with the
velopment of an arch mechanism, even for higher values of surrounding frame elements, the adoption of simplified
previous IP drift. The thinner specimens, even when models is unavoidable.
Different approaches are available in the literature to the assumption made by the author was to use a simplified
simulate the infill panels’ seismic behaviour, which can be modelling for two-phase material, where the units are
divided into two different groups, namely, micromodelling simulated by continuous elements, but the mortar and in-
and simplified macromodelling approaches. The first of terfaces were lumped to discontinuous elements.
them involves models in which the panel is discretized into Finally, a more simplified approach was proposed by
numerous elements to consider the local effects in detail, and assuming one-phase materials, in which units, mortars, and
the second includes simplified models based on a physical interfaces are combined into a continuum and homoge-
understanding of the behaviour of the infill panels. In the neous element. Chen and Liu [136] developed a finite ele-
case of the last group, a small number of struts are used to ment model to simulate the IP behaviour of concrete
represent the effect of the infill panels on the structural masonry infills bounded by steel frames with openings. The
response of buildings when subjected to lateral loadings. authors proved that the model had the capability of simu-
This section presents a review of the numerical mod- lating the experimental tests with high accuracy. Mohyeddin
elling strategies to simulate the seismic behaviour of ma- et al. [137] developed a generic three-dimensional discrete-
sonry infill walls. Comparison and discussion among the finite-element model that has been constructed for infilled
modelling strategies will be presented. RC frames using a commercial software to assess the in-
plane and out-of-plane behaviour interaction. From the
results, the authors found some differences between the
4.1. Detailed Micromodelling Approaches. The micro- behaviour predicted by the finite element model and the
modelling is a refined/detailed strategy in which all the experimental results. The reasons behind these differences
elements composing the wall are modelled, masonry units, were justified by the authors as the combination of large
mortar joints as volumetric elements, and boundary link coefficients of variation of masonry material properties and
models simulating the contact and friction conditions be- existence of weaker areas within the infill panel which were
tween the individual elements and frame. A simplified ap- attributed to workmanship and that cannot be modelled.
proach within the micromodelling may consist in reducing Several other studies and efforts were carried out by
the number of elements by combining a brick with the other authors [68, 138–148]. Asteris et al. [131] present an
surrounding mortar, which is connected to the rest by link extensive and in-depth state-of-the-art review concerning
models. These approaches are expensive both on the the infill masonry micromodelling approaches.
modelling phase and on computational demands, especially
when applied to dynamic and nonlinear analysis. The de-
tailed modelling allows obtaining results that help to un- 4.2. Simplified Macromodelling Approaches. The macro-
derstand the behaviour at local level and the panel cracking modelling with equivalent diagonal struts was originally
pattern, which can be very useful for calibration of global developed to capacitate numerical analysis models of infilled
models and to perform parametric studies. This is an im- frames with high shear stiffness. From its evolution with
portant advantage of the micromodels when compared with multistrut models, it was possible to integrate shear and
the simplified macromodels. This modelling procedure al- tensile stresses within the contact length between wall and
lows to assess and quantify the influence of each parameter frame. Models have started to become more complex, with
on the seismic response of the infill panel [131]. some considering the reduction of stiffness and strength
From the literature, it can be observed that micro- under dynamic loads, or other equivalent approaches to
modelling was started in 1967 with the work carried out by consider the shear slip at the middle of the infill walls. One of
Mallick and Severn [132], concerning the simulation of the the aspects yet to be developed is the OOP behaviour itself, an
IP behaviour of an infilled RC frame, with particular focus in even more important issue when combined with the diagonal
the frame-panel interface. The authors’ strategy was to cracking created by IP demands on the masonry infill walls.
model the wall by rectangular elastic elements with two First, Polyakov [149] in 1956 proposed an equivalent
degrees of freedom per node. The frame-wall interaction was strut model to simulate the IM wall behaviour. The proposal
provided by the consideration of frictional shear forces to was based on experimental observation studies on steel
simulate slippage. frames with focus on normal and shear stresses on the infill
A different approach was proposed by different authors walls, in which it was found that the stresses were only
such as Rots [133], Lofti and Shing [134], and Lourenço [135] transferred by the compression corners of infill-frame in-
with the introduction of the continuous-interface models’ terfaces from the structure to the nonstructural elements.
concept, which basically can be applied to bed joints by From that work, the authors developed a numerical tech-
accounting for the interaction between the tangential and nique to estimate the load intensity to create diagonal
normal stress. Lourenço [135] proposed a model in which cracking. Holmes [150] improved the previous concept,
the Coulomb friction rule, tension cutoff, and compression being the first author to propose a formulation for the di-
strength are combined. From this, the obtained damages are agonal strut. The proposed formula to calculate the equiv-
concentrated in the IM wall bed joints and in the middle of alent strut width is a simplified approach, calibrated for steel
the masonry units. One of the simplifications proposed is to frames with brickwork and concrete infill walls. It triggered
simulate the IM panel as a three-phase material in which the several other studies to define the width more accurately.
units/mortar and their interfaces are modelled as continuous This simplified model considered deformation and ultimate
and discontinuous elements, respectively. For this purpose, strength of the global infill panel.
From these innovative works, successive authors have typologies of damages were defined concerning the infilled
proposed improvements for the calculation method and a RC structures. From this revision, the main conclusions that
series of other modelling refinements, replacing the infill can be achieved are that in the assessment of existing
walls with additional diagonal struts. For example, El- buildings and in the design of new buildings:
Dakhakhni et al. [151] proposed a model with three diagonal
Consideration of the masonry infill walls in the
struts on each direction, one in the diagonal of the panel and
structural design (based on simple checking rules/
the other two nonparallel in off-diagonal. According to the
procedures after the structural design) should be
researchers, it was better suited to compute the wall stiffness
enforced
and describe the development of stresses along the frame
elements when compared to other models with less diagonal Attention should be given to the stiffness differences
struts. The frame was modelled with elastic elements with the between the 1st storey and the upper storeys (storey
nonlinearity lumped on the frame joints with springs. This height, dimensions and position of openings, and
simplified nonlinear model was capable of computing the distribution of masonry infill walls)
frame-infill interaction and corner crushing failure Appropriate strengthening of the panel to the OOP
mechanism. loadings should be designed, with adequate connection
Later, Crisafulli and Carr [152] proposed an improved of the reinforcement material to the RC elements
strut model to compute the behaviour of infilled frame
A state-of-the-art review concerning the testing of
systems. For that, it was presented an integration of struts
infilled RC structures was provided where the major aspects
and spring to computing independently two phenomena: (i)
of each testing campaign were discussed. The analysed
diagonal cracking and corner crushing and (ii) shear sliding.
campaigns have investigated the influence of the infill panel
The model considers six strut members using hysteresis
on the lateral response of the whole frame, depending on the
rules. It consists in two diagonal and parallel struts in each
brick typology, on the infill-to-frame relative stiffness and
direction, which carry the axial loads on the panel, and
strength, and on the presence of openings with different
another pair to describe shear from the top and bottom of
opening ratios and eccentricities, among other investigated
the panel, which are activated in each direction, depending
parameters. The experimentally observed failure mode has
on the activation due to axial compressive loads while the
been different depending on the main geometrical and
panel is deformed.
mechanical features of infills and frames. Experimental
Crisafulli [153] compared different one-strut, double-
results indicated that, under in-plane actions, (i) specimens
strut, and triple-strut models, concluding that the double-
with strong infills can exhibit a better performance than
strut model was the most balanced of the strategies, achieving
those with weak infills in terms of the observed lateral
accurate results without too much complexity in terms of
strength, stiffness, ductility, and energy dissipation capacity;
calibration and computational efforts. According to the au-
(ii) the presence of the infills—even with openings—can
thors, the model finds its limitation on the connection to
improve the in-plane performance of RC frames; and (iii) a
beam-column joints that avoids accurate development of
great attention should be paid to the shear load acting on RC
bending moments and shear forces on the structural elements.
members due to their interaction with the infill panel, es-
Recently, some advances have emerged regarding the
pecially if the infill is strong and the frame is nonconforming
strut models capable of simulating the combined IP and
to the most updated seismic codes.
OOP behaviour. Kadysiewski and Mosalam [154] proposed
The out-of-plane tests of masonry infill walls available in
a model capable of simulating both in-plane and out-of-
the literature are still scarce, and the large number of variables
plane behaviour of the infill walls, with a single diagonal
such as the specimen geometries, masonry unit, loading
beam-column element with a node at the midspan having a
protocol, among others, makes very difficult to achieve further
concentrated mass to trigger the OOP inertia forces. A new
and more robust conclusions and, thus, makes a step forward
macroelement model was also proposed by Trapani et al.
towards the reduction of the collapse risk for these panels.
[155] for the simulation of the IP-OOP response of infilled
From those tests, it can be pointed out that the effect of
frames subjected to seismic actions. The model consists of
previous damage caused by prior IP drift demand can highly
two diagonals plus one horizontal and one vertical struts.
reduce the OOP strength capacity of the infills and lead to
Each strut is represented by two fiber-section modelling
fragile collapses due to the reduction of the probability of arch
beam-column elements. The model can capture the arching
mechanism development. The slenderness and the reduction
action of the wall under an OOP load as well as the in-
of the panel width support reduce the panel OOP capacity as
teraction between the IP and OOP actions.
well as the aspect ratio. An open issue is the testing of infill
panels with openings (such as doors or windows) which
5. Conclusions and Open Issues represent mode adequately the buildings facades. The
IP + OOP combination requires also higher efforts to rein-
This manuscript aims at presenting an overview regarding force the conclusions achieved until the present. The reali-
the seismic performance of infilled RC structures and with zation of tests with multiple loadings (IP and OOP) at the
focus on the infill wall damages. A brief revision of the most same time is one of the open issues for future research studies.
common damages observed in this type of structures in the Regarding the strengthening of infill walls, two different
last major earthquakes was presented. From that, eleven approaches, which are commonly adopted in research
studies, have been presented. Looking for the sustainable infills with hollow clay bricks in RC frames,” Engineering
solutions regarding the strengthening strategies is still an Structures, vol. 168, pp. 257–275, 2018.
open issue as well as the development of guidelines to the [5] X. Romão, A. A. Costa, E. Paupério et al., “Field observations
design and application of these strategies. To this aim, many and interpretation of the structural performance of con-
studies and experimental tests are needed, which allow structions after the 11 May 2011 Lorca earthquake,” Engi-
neering Failure Analysis, vol. 34, pp. 670–692, 2013.
assessing the efficiency of the techniques under both IP
[6] L. Hermanns, A. Fraile, E. Alarcón, and R. Á.and n, “Per-
loadings and OOP loadings. Special attention should be formance of buildings with masonry infill walls during the
provided to the connection of the reinforcement material to 2011 Lorca earthquake,” Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering,
the surrounding frame. Without proper design and detail- vol. 12, no. 5, pp. 1977–1997, 2014.
ing, the retrofitting of the infill panels could result in an [7] F. De Luca, G. M. Verderame, F. Goméz-Martinez, and
inadequate performance when subjected to earthquakes A. Pérez-Garciı́a, “The structural role played by masonry
until the collapse. infills on RC buildings performaces after the 2011 Lorca,
Finally, simplified macromodels can be used and Spain, earthquake,” Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering,
implemented by structural engineers nowadays with lower vol. 12, no. 5, pp. 1999–2026, 2014.
computational effort and easy implementation methodol- [8] P. Ricci, F. De Luca, and G. M. Verderame, “6th April 2009
ogies. Strut-based models with the capability of simulating L’Aquila earthquake, Italy: reinforced concrete building
the infills out-of-plane behaviour need further calibration performance,” Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering, vol. 9,
no. 1, pp. 285–305, 2011.
based on experimental data. However, from the state-of-art
[9] R. S. Vicente, H. Rodrigues, H. Varum, A. Costa, and
review, there is a lack of enough results that covered the J. A. R. Mendes da Silva, “Performance of masonry enclosure
innumerous number of variables that are related to these walls: lessons learned from recent earthquakes,” Earthquake
nonstructural elements, which currently produce also the Engineering and Engineering Vibration, vol. 11, no. 1,
lack of proper code provisions to help practitioners in the pp. 23–34, 2012.
design and assessment of infilled RC structures. This gap [10] C. Del Gaudio, M. T. De Risi, P. Ricci, and G. M. Verderame,
should be urgently filled. “Empirical drift-fragility functions and loss estimation for
infills in reinforced concrete frames under seismic loading,”
Conflicts of Interest Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering, vol. 17, no. 3,
pp. 1285–1330, 2019.
The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest. [11] L. Sousa and R. Monteiro, “Seismic retrofit options for non-
structural building partition walls: impact on loss estimation
Acknowledgments and cost-benefit analysis,” Engineering Structures, vol. 161,
pp. 8–27, 2018.
This work was financially supported by UID/ECI/04708/ [12] P. Ricci, M. Di Domenico, and G. M. Verderame, “Exper-
2019—CONSTRUCT—Instituto de I&D em Estruturas e imental assessment of the in-plane/out-of-plane interaction
Construções funded by national funds through the FCT/ in unreinforced masonry infill walls,” Engineering Structures,
vol. 173, pp. 960–978, 2018.
MCTES (PIDDAC) and specifically through the research
[13] R. Angel, D. Abrams, D. Shapiro, J. Uzarski, and M. Webster,
project P0CI-01-0145-FEDER-016898—ASPASSI—Safety Behavior of Reinforced Concrete Frames, with Masonry Infills,
Evaluation and Retrofitting of Infill masonry enclosure Civil Engineering Studies, Research Series No. 589, UILU-
Walls for Seismic demands. This work was also supported by ENG, University of Ilinois, Springfield, IL, USA, 1994.
AXA Research Fund Post-Doctoral Grant “Advanced non- [14] M. Di Domenico, P. Ricci, and G. M. Verderame, “Exper-
linear modelling and performance assessment of masonry imental assessment of the influence of boundary conditions
infills in RC buildings under seismic loads: the way forward to on the out-of-plane response of unreinforced masonry infill
design or retrofitting strategies and reduction of losses.” These walls,” Journal of Earthquake Engineering, pp. 1–39, 2018.
supports are gratefully acknowledged. [15] H. Varum, A. Furtado, H. Rodrigues, J. Dias-Oliveira,
N. Vila-Pouca, and A. Arêde, “Seismic performance of the
References infill masonry walls and ambient vibration tests after the
Ghorka 2015, Nepal earthquake,” Bulletin of Earthquake
[1] A. Furtado, H. Rodrigues, A. Arêde, and H. Varum, “Out-of- Engineering, vol. 15, no. 3, pp. 1185–1212, 2017.
plane behavior of masonry infilled RC frames based on the [16] D. Gautam, H. Rodrigues, K. K. Bhetwal, P. Neupane, and
experimental tests available: a systematic review,” Con- Y. Sanada, “Common structural and construction defi-
struction and Building Materials, vol. 168, pp. 831–848, 2018. ciencies of Nepalese buildings,” Innovative Infrastructure
[2] P. G. Asteris, L. Cavaleri, F. Di Trapani, and V. Sarhosis, “A Solutions, vol. 1, no. 1, 2016.
macro-modelling approach for the analysis of infilled frame [17] M. T. De Risi, C. Del Gaudio, and G. M. Verderame,
structures considering the effects of openings and vertical “Evaluation of repair costs for masonry infills in RC buildings
loads,” Structure and Infrastructure Engineering, vol. 12, from observed damage data: the case-study of the 2009
no. 5, pp. 551–566, 2016. L’aquila earthquake,” Buildings, vol. 9, no. 5, p. 122, 2019.
[3] P. G. Asteris, S. T. Antoniou, D. S. Sophianopoulos, and [18] European Committee for Standardization, Design of Struc-
C. Z. Chrysostomou, “Mathematical macromodeling of tures for Earthquake Resistance-Part 1-1: General Rules,
infilled frames: state of the art,” Journal of Structural Engi- Seismic Actions and Rules for Buildings, European Com-
neering, vol. 137, no. 12, pp. 1508–1517, 2011. mittee for Standardization, Brussels, Belgium, 2005.
[4] M. T. De Risi, C. Del Gaudio, P. Ricci, and G. M. Verderame, [19] H. Varum, R. Dumaru, A. Furtado, A. R. Barbosa,
“In-plane behaviour and damage assessment of masonry D. Gautam, and H. Rodrigues, “Chapter 3—seismic
performance of buildings in Nepal after the gorkha earth- unreinforced masonry infill walls,” in Proceedings of the 14th
quake,” in Impacts and Insights of the Gorkha Earthquake, World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Beijing,
D. Gautam and H. Rodrigues, Eds., pp. 47–63, Elsevier, China, October 2008.
Amsterdam, Netherlands, 2018. [36] T.-C. Chiou and S.-J. Hwang, “Tests on cyclic behavior of
[20] H. Varum, Seismis assessment, strengthening and repair of reinforced concrete frames with brick infill,” Earthquake
existing buildings, Ph.D. thesis, Universidade de Aveiro, Engineering & Structural Dynamics, vol. 44, no. 12,
Aveiro, Portugal, 2003. pp. 1939–1958, 2015.
[21] A. Furtado, H. Rodrigues, H. Varum, and A. Costa, “Eval- [37] F. Colangelo, “Pseudo-dynamic seismic response of rein-
uation of different strengthening techniques’ efficiency for a forced concrete frames infilled with non-structural brick
soft storey building,” European Journal of Environmental and masonry,” Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics,
Civil Engineering, vol. 21, no. 4, pp. 371–388, 2017. vol. 34, no. 10, pp. 1219–1241, 2005.
[22] P. Ricci, M. T. De Risi, G. M. Verderame, and G. Manfredi, [38] D. Combescure and P. Pegon, “Application of the local-to-
“Influence of infill distribution and design typology on global approach to the study of infilled frame structures
seismic performance of low- and mid-rise RC buildings,” under seismic loading,” Nuclear Engineering and Design,
Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering, vol. 11, no. 5, vol. 196, no. 1, pp. 17–40, 2000.
pp. 1585–1616, 2013. [39] G. Gazić and V. Sigmund, “Cyclic testing of single-span weak
[23] H. Sezen, K. Elwood, A. Whittaker, K. Mosalam, J. Wallace, frames with masonry infill,” GraCevinar, vol. 68, no. 8,
and J. Stanton, Structural Engineering Reconnaissance of the pp. 617–633, 2016.
August 17, 1999, Kocaeli (Izmit), Turkey, Earthquake, Pacific [40] G. Guidi, F. da Porto, N. Verlato, and C. Modena, Com-
Earthquake Engineering Research Center, New York, NY, portamento Sperimentale nel Piano e Fuori Piano di Tam-
USA, 2000. ponamenti in Muratura Armata e Rinforzata. Edile e
[24] G. Verderame, I. Iervolino, and P. Ricci, “Report on the Ambientale (Padova), Dipartimento di Ingegneria Civile,
damages on buildings following the seismic event of 6th of Edile e Ambientale, Padua, Italy, 2013.
April 2009,” 2009, http://www.reluis.it. [41] S. Haider, “In-plane cyclic response of reinforced concrete
[25] F. Celano, M. Cimmino, O. Coppola, G. Magliulo, and frames with unreinforced masonry infills,” Ph.D. thesis, Rice
P. Salzano, “Report dei danni registrati a seguito del terre- University, Houston, TX, USA, 1995.
moto del Centro Italia del 24 agosto 2016,” 2016, http://www. [42] A. Hashemi and K. M. Mosalam, “Shake-table experiment on
reluis.it. reinforced concrete structure containing masonry infill
[26] D. J. Kakaletsis and C. G. Karayannis, “Influence of masonry wall,” Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics,
strength and openings on infilled R/C frames under cycling vol. 35, no. 14, pp. 1827–1852, 2006.
loading,” Journal of Earthquake Engineering, vol. 12, no. 2, [43] H. R. Khoshnoud and K. Marsono, “Experimental study of
pp. 197–221, 2008. masonry infill reinforced concrete frames with and without
[27] S. Aly and M. A. Mooty, “Cyclic behaviour of masonry corner openings,” Structural Engineering and Mechanics,
infilled RC frames with and without openings,” in Pro- vol. 57, no. 4, pp. 641–656, 2016.
ceedings of the 26th Conference on Our World in Concretes [44] M. A. Kyriakides and S. L. Billington, “Behavior of unre-
and Structures, Singapore, August 2001. inforced masonry prisms and beams retrofitted with engi-
[28] F. Akhoundi, G. Vasconcelos, P. Lourenço, C. Palha, and neered cementitious composites,” Materials and Structures,
L. Silva, “In-plane and out-of plane experimental charac- vol. 47, no. 9, pp. 1573–1587, 2014.
terization of RC masonry infilled frames,” in Proceedings of [45] M. Lafuente and A. Molina, “Seismic resistant behavior of
the M2D-6th International Conference on Mechanics and minor reinforced concrete frames with masonry infill walls,”
Materials in Design, pp. 427–440, Azores, Portugal, 2015. in Proceedings of the 12th World Conference on Earthquake
[29] G. Al-Chaar, M. Issa, and S. Sweeney, “Behavior of masonry- Engineering, Auckland, New Zealand, February 2000.
infilled nonductile reinforced concrete frames,” Journal of [46] A. Mansouri, M. S. Marefat, and M. Khanmohammadi,
Structural Engineering, vol. 128, no. 8, pp. 1055–1063, 2002. “Experimental evaluation of seismic performance of low-
[30] M. Baran and T. Sevil, “Analytical and experimental studies shear strength masonry infills with openings in reinforced
on infilled RC frames,” International Journal of Physical concrete frames with deficient seismic details,” The Struc-
Science, vol. 5, no. 13, pp. 1981–1988, 2010. tural Design of Tall and Special Buildings, vol. 23, no. 15,
[31] S. H. Basha and H. B. Kaushik, “Behavior and failure pp. 1190–1210, 2014.
mechanisms of masonry-infilled RC frames (in low-rise [47] A. B. Mehrabi, P. Benson Shing, M. P. Schuller, and
buildings) subject to lateral loading,” Engineering Structures, J. L. Noland, “Experimental evaluation of masonry-infilled
vol. 111, pp. 233–245, 2016. RC frames,” Journal of Structural Engineering, vol. 122, no. 3,
[32] A. Bergani and C. Nuti, “Experimental tests and global pp. 228–237, 1996.
modeling of masonry infilled frames,” Earthquake and [48] M. S. Misir, O. Ozcelik, S. C. Girgin, and U. Yucel, “The
Structures, vol. 9, no. 2, pp. 281–303, 2015. behavior of infill walls in RC frames under combined bi-
[33] G. M. Calvi and D. Bolognini, “Seismic response of rein- directional loading,” Journal of Earthquake Engineering,
forced concrete frames infilled with weakly reinforced ma- vol. 20, no. 4, pp. 559–586, 2016.
sonry panels,” Journal of Earthquake Engineering, vol. 5, [49] P. Morandi, S. Hak, and G. Magenes, “In-plane experi-
no. 2, pp. 153–185, 2001. mental response of strong masonry infills,” in Proceedings of
[34] L. Cavaleri and F. Di Trapani, “Cyclic response of masonry the 9th International Masonry Conference 2014, Guimaraes,
infilled RC frames: experimental results and simplified Portugal, July 2014.
modeling,” Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, [50] A. Parducci and A. Checci, “Contributo delle tamponature di
vol. 65, pp. 224–242, 2014. mattoni alla resistenza sismica delle strutture intelaiate,” in
[35] J. Centeno, C. Ventura, and S. Foo, “Shake table testing of Proceedings of the Sixth International Brick Masonry
gravity load designed reinforced concrete frames with Conference, Rome, Italy, May 1982.
[51] P. Pereira, M. Pereira, J. Ferreira, and P. Lourenço, “Be- [66] G. Blasi, F. De Luca, and M. A. Aiello, “Brittle failure in RC
havior of masonry infill panels in RC frames subjected to in masonry infilled frames: the role of infill overstrength,”
plane and out of plane loads,” in Proceedings of the Pre- Engineering Structures, vol. 177, pp. 506–518, 2018.
sented at the 7th Conference on Analytical Models and New [67] L. Liberatore, F. Noto, F. Mollaioli, and P. Franchin, “In-
Concepts in Concrete and Masonry Structure, Cracow, plane response of masonry infill walls: comprehensive ex-
Poland, 2012. perimentally-based equivalent strut model for deterministic
[52] F. Pires, Influência das paredes de alvenaria no comporta- and probabilistic analysis,” Engineering Structures, vol. 167,
mento de estruturas de betão armado sujeitas a ações hori- pp. 533–548, 2018.
zontais, LNEC, Lisbon, Portugal, 1990. [68] A. B. Mehrabi and P. B. Shing, “Finite element modeling of
[53] S. Schwarz, A. Hanaor, and D. Z. Yankelevsky, “Experi- masonry-infilled RC frames,” Journal of Structural Engi-
mental response of reinforced concrete frames with AAC neering, vol. 123, no. 5, pp. 604–613, 1997.
masonry infill walls to in-plane cyclic loading,” Structures, [69] D. Cardone and G. Perrone, “Developing fragility curves and
vol. 3, pp. 306–319, 2015. loss functions for masonry infill walls,” Earthquake and
[54] V. Sigmund and D. Penava, “Experimental study of masonry Structures, vol. 9, no. 1, pp. 257–279, 2015.
infilled R/C frames with opening,” in Proceedings of the 12th [70] M. N. Fardis and T. B. Panagiotakos, “Seismic design and
World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Lisboa, response of bare and masonry-infilled reinforced concrete
Portugal, 2012. buildings. Part II: infilled structures,” Journal of Earthquake
[55] P. B. Shing, A. Stavridis, I. Koutromanos et al., “Seismic Engineering, vol. 1, no. 3, pp. 475–503, 1997.
performance of non-ductile RC frames with brick infill,” in [71] M. T. De Risi, M. Di Domenico, P. Ricci, G. M. Verderame,
Proceedings of the Improving the Seismic Performance of and G. Manfredi, “Experimental investigation on the in-
Existing Buildings and Other Structures, San Francisco, CA, fluence of the aspect ratio on the in-plane/out-of-plane in-
USA, December 2009. teraction for masonry infills in RC frames,” Engineering
[56] K. Stylianidis, “Experimental investigation of masonry Structures, vol. 189, pp. 523–540, 2019.
infilled R/C frames,” The Open Construction and Building [72] A. V. Tsantilis and T. C. Triantafillou, “Innovative seismic
Technology Journal, vol. 6, no. 1, pp. 194–212, 2012. isolation of masonry infills using cellular materials at the
[57] T. Suzuki, H. Choi, Y. Sanada et al., “Experimental evaluation interface with the surrounding RC frames,” Engineering
of the in-plane behaviour of masonry wall infilled RC Structures, vol. 155, pp. 279–297, 2018.
frames,” Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering, vol. 15, no. 10, [73] Q. Peng, X. Zhou, and C. Yang, “Influence of connection and
pp. 4245–4267, 2017. constructional details on masonry-infilled RC frames under
[58] G. Verderame, P. Ricci, M. T. De Risi, and C. Del Gaudio, cyclic loading,” Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering,
“Experimental assessment and numerical modelling of vol. 108, pp. 96–110, 2018.
conforming and non-conforming RC frames with and [74] S. A. A. Shah, J. S. Khan, S. M. Ali, K. Shahzada, W. Ahmad,
without infills,” Journal of Earthquake Engineering, pp. 1–42, and J. Shah, “Shake table response of unreinforced masonry
2019, (In press). and reinforced concrete elements of special moment
[59] Waly, “Experimental and analytical work on the seismic resisting frame,” Advances in Civil Engineering, vol. 2019,
performance of different types of masonry infilled reinforced Article ID 7670813, 17 pages, 2019.
concrete frames under cyclic loading,” M.Sc thesis, School of [75] H. Moghaddam, P. Dowling, and N. Ambraseys, “Shaking
Natural and Applied Sciences of Dokuz Eylül University, table study of brick masonry infilled frames subjected to
İzmir, Turkey, 2010. seismic actions,” in Proceedings of the Presented at the World
[60] E. Yuksel and P. Teymur, “Earthquake performance im- Conference on Earthquake Engineering—9WCEE, Tokyo,
provement of low rise RC buildings using high strength clay Japan, 1988.
brick walls,” Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering, vol. 9, no. 4, [76] J. L. Dawe and C. K. Seah, “Out-of-plane resistance of
pp. 1157–1181, 2011. concrete masonry infilled panels,” Canadian Journal of Civil
[61] R. Zarnic and M. Tomaževič, “The behaviour of masonry Engineering, vol. 16, no. 6, pp. 854–864, 1989.
infilled reinforced concrete frames subjected to cyclic [77] M. Beconcini, “Sulla resistenza a forze orizzontali di pareti in
lateral loading,” in Proceedings of the 8th World Confer- elementi forati in laterizio,” Construire in laterizio, vol. 55,
ence on Earthquake Engineering, San Francisco, CA, USA, pp. 60–69, 1997.
July1984. [78] R. D. Flanagan and R. M. Bennett, “Bidirectional behavior of
[62] C. Zhai, J. Kong, X. Wang, and Z. Chen, “Experimental and structural clay tile infilled frames,” Journal of Structural
finite element analytical investigation of seismic behavior of Engineering, vol. 125, no. 3, pp. 236–244, 1999.
full-scale masonry infilled RC frames,” Journal of Earthquake [79] M. Griffith and J. Vaculik, “Out-of-plane flexural strength of
Engineering, vol. 20, no. 7, pp. 1171–1198, 2016. unreinforced clay brick masonry walls,” TMS Journal,
[63] J. Zovkic, V. Sigmund, and I. Guljas, “Cyclic testing of a vol. 25, no. 1, pp. 53–68, 2007.
single bay reinforced concrete frames with various types of [80] M. C. Griffith, J. Vaculik, N. T. K. Lam, J. Wilson, and
masonry infill,” Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dy- E. Lumantarna, “Cyclic testing of unreinforced masonry
namics, vol. 42, no. 8, pp. 1131–1149, 2013. walls in two-way bending,” Earthquake Engineering &
[64] P. Negro and G. Verzeletti, “Effect of infills on the global Structural Dynamics, vol. 36, no. 6, pp. 801–821, 2007.
behaviour of R/C frames: energy considerations from [81] J. Varela-Rivera, M. Polanco-May, L. Fernandez-Baqueiro,
pseudodynamic tests,” Earthquake Engineering & Structural and E. I. Moreno, “Confined masonry walls subjected to
Dynamics, vol. 25, no. 8, pp. 753–773, 1996. combined axial loads and out-of-plane uniform pressures,”
[65] T. Kalman Šipoš, V. Sigmund, and M. Hadzima-Nyarko, Canadian Journal of Civil Engineering, vol. 39, no. 4,
“Earthquake performance of infilled frames using neural pp. 439–447, 2012.
networks and experimental database,” Engineering Struc- [82] S. Hak, P. Morandi, and G. Magenes, “Out-of-plane ex-
tures, vol. 51, pp. 113–127, 2013. perimental response of strong masonry infills,” in
Proceedings of the Presented at the Second European Con- [96] D. S. Lunn and S. H. Rizkalla, “Strengthening of infill ma-
ference on Earthquake Engineering and Seismology—2ECEES, sonry walls with FRP materials,” Journal of Composites for
Istanbul, Turkey, August 2014. Construction, vol. 15, no. 2, pp. 206–214, 2011.
[83] F. da Porto, G. Guidi, N. Verlato, and C. Modena, “Effec- [97] J. L. Varela-Rivera, D. Navarrete-Macias, L. E. Arêde, and
tiveness of plasters and textile reinforced mortars for E. I. Moreno, “Out-of-plane behaviour of confined masonry
strengthening clay masonry infill walls subjected to com- walls,” Engineering Structures, vol. 33, no. 5, pp. 1734–1741,
bined in-plane/out-of-plane actions/Wirksamkeit von Putz 2011.
und textilbewehrtem Mörtel bei der Verstärkung von Aus- [98] G. Guidi, F. da Porto, M. Benetta, N. Verlato, and
fachungswänden aus Ziegel,” Mauerwerk, vol. 19, no. 5, C. Modena, “Comportamento Sperimentale nel Piano e
pp. 334–354, 2015. Fuori Piano di Tamponamenti in Muratura Armata e Rin-
[84] A. Furtado, H. Rodrigues, A. Arêde, and H. Varum, “Ex- forzata,” in Proceedings of the XV Convegno Nazionale
perimental evaluation of out-of-plane capacity of masonry ANIDIS—“L’ingegneria Sismica in Italia”, Padova, Italy,
infill walls,” Engineering Structures, vol. 111, pp. 48–63, 2013.
2016. [99] J. Moreno-Herrera, J. Marinković, and L. Salatić, “Out-of-
[85] M. Mosoarca, C. Petrus, V. Stoian, and A. Anastasiadis, Plane design procedure for confined masonry walls,” Journal
“Behaviour of masonry infills subjected to out of plane of Structural Engineering, vol. 142, no. 6, Article ID 04015126,
seismic actions part 2: experimental testing,” in Proceedings 2016.
of the Presented at the International Brick and Block Masonry [100] F. Akhoundi, G. Vasconcelos, P. Lourenço, and B. Silva,
Conference—IB2MAC, Padua, Italy, June 2016. “Out-of-plane response of masonry infilled RC frames: effect
[86] L. Silva, G. Vasconcelos, P. Lourenço, and F. Akhoundi, of workamnship and opening,” in Proceedings of the Pre-
“Experimental evaluation of a constructive system for sented at the International Brick and Block Masonry
earthquake resisting masonry infill walls,” in Proceedings of Conference—IB2MAC, Padua, Italy, 2016.
the Presented at the Brick and Block Masonry Conference [101] A. Furtado, H. Rodrigues, A. Arêde, and H. Varum, “Effect of
(IB2MAC), Padua, Italy, June 2016. the panel width support and columns axial load on the infill
[87] T. Liauw and K. Kwan, “Experimental study of shear wall and masonry walls out-of-plane behavior,” Journal of Earthquake
infilled frame on shake-table,” in Proceedings of the Presented Engineering, pp. 1–29, 2018.
at the World Conference on Earthquake Engineering - 10WCEE, [102] P. Ricci, M. Di Domenico, and G. M. Verderame, “Exper-
Madrid, Spain, July 1992. imental investigation of the influence of slenderness ratio
[88] R. Klingner, D. C. Rubiano, V. Singhal, and S. Sweeney, and of the in-plane/out-of-plane interaction on the out-of-
“Evaluation and analytical verification of shaking table data plane strength of URM infill walls,” Construction and
from infilled frames,” in Proceedings of the Presented at the Building Materials, vol. 191, pp. 507–522, 2018.
World Conference on Earthquake Engineering—11WCEE, [103] C. Butenweg, R. R. Marinković, and R. Salatić, “Experimental
Acapulco, Mexico, 1996. results of reinforced concrete frames with masonry infills
[89] M. Fardis, S. Bousias, P. B. Franchioni, and T. Panagiotakos, under combined quasi-static in-plane and out-of-plane
“Shake-table tests of a three-story reinforced concrete frame seismic loading,” Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering, vol. 17,
with masonry infill walls,” Earthquake Engineering & pp. 3397–3422, 2019.
Structural Dynamics, vol. 28, no. 6, pp. 173–191, 1999. [104] M. Mohammadi, V. Akrami, and R. Mohammadi-Ghazi,
[90] R. Zarnic, S. Gostic, A. Crewe, and A. Taylor, “Shaking table “Methods to improve infilled frame ductility,” Journal of
tests of 1 : 4 reduced scale models of masonry infilled rein- Structural Engineering, vol. 137, no. 6, pp. 646–653, 2011.
forced concrete frame buildings,” Earthquake Engineering & [105] M. Mohammadi, “Stiffness and damping of infilled steel
Structural Dynamics, vol. 30, pp. 819–834, 2001. frames,” Structures & Buildings, vol. 160, no. 2, pp. 105–118,
[91] G. Corte, L. Fiorinho, and F. Mazzolani, “Lateral-loading 2007.
tests on a real RC building including masonry infill panels [106] M. Preti, N. Bettini, and G. Plizzari, “Infill walls with sliding
with and without FRP strengthening,” Journal of Materials in joints to limit infill-frame seismic interaction: large-scale
Civil Enginering, vol. 20, no. 6, pp. 419–431, 2008. experimental test,” Journal of Earthquake Engineering,
[92] S. Komaraneni, D. Rai, M. Eeri, and V. Singhal, “Seismic vol. 16, no. 1, pp. 125–141, 2012.
behavior of framed masonry panels with prior damage when [107] P. Morandi, R. Milanesi, and G. Magenes, “Innovative so-
subjected to out-of-plane loading,” Earthquake Spectra, lution for seismic-resistant masonry infills with sliding
vol. 27, no. 4, pp. 1077–1103, 2011. joints: in-plane experimental performance,” Engineering
[93] A. Stavridis, I. Koutromanos, and P. Shing, “Shake-table tests Structures, vol. 176, pp. 719–733, 2018.
of a three-story reinforced concrete frame with maosnry [108] N. Verlato, G. Guidi, F. da Porto, and C. Modena, “Inno-
walls,” Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics, vative systems for masonry infill walls based on the use of
vol. 41, pp. 1089–1108, 2012. deformable joints: combined in-plane/out-of-plane tests,” in
[94] M. Tondelli, K. Beyer, and M. DeJong, “Influence of Proceedings of the 16th IB2MAC—International Brick and
boundary conditions on the out-of-plane response brick Block Masonry Conference, Padua, Italy, June 2016.
masonry walls in buildings with RC slabs,” Earthquake [109] B. Goodno, J. Pinelli, and J. Craig, “An optimal design
Engineering & Structural Dynamics, vol. 45, no. 8, approach for passive damping of building structures using
pp. 1337–1356, 2016. architectural cladding,” in Proceedings of the World Con-
[95] V. Frederiksen, “Membrane effect in laterally loaded ference on Earthquake Engineering—11WCEE, Acapulco,
masonary walls. A second order phenomenon,” in Pro- Mexico, 1996.
ceedings of the Presented at the 6th Canadian Masonry [110] A. S. Aliaari and A. M. Memari, “Analysis of masonry infilled
Symposium, University of Saskatchewan, Saskatoon, Canada, steel frames with seismic isolator subframes,” Engineering
June 1992. Structures, vol. 27, no. 4, pp. 487–500, 2005.
[111] M. Aliaari and A. M. Memari, “Experimental evaluation of a anchors,” Journal of Composites for Construction, vol. 18,
sacrificial seismic fuse device for masonry infill walls,” no. 3, 2014.
Journal of Architectural Engineering, vol. 13, no. 2, pp. 111– [127] M. N. Fardis, “Experimental and numerical investigations on
125, 2007. the seismic response of RC infilled frames and recommen-
[112] A. Charleson, Seismic Design for Architects, Elsevier Archi- dations for code provisions ECOEST/PREC 8,” Report No. 6,
tectural Press, Amsterdam, Netherlands, 2008. LNEC, Lisbon, Portugal, 1996.
[113] M. Marinković and C. Butenweg, “Innovative decoupling [128] M. Dolsek and P. Fajfar, “The effect of masonry infills on the
system for the seismic protection of masonry infill walls in seismic response of a four storey reinforced concrete
reinforced concrete frames,” Engineering Structures, vol. 197, frame—a probabilistic assessment,” Engineering Structures,
2019. vol. 30, no. 11, pp. 3186–3192, 2008.
[114] A. Tasligedik, S. Pampanin, and A. Palermo, “Low damage [129] P. G. Penna, S. T. Morandi, D. S. Rota, C. Z. Manzini,
seismic solutions for non-structural drywall partitions,” F. Porto, and G. Magenes, “Performance of masonry
Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering, vol. 13, no. 4, buildings during the emilia 2012 earthquakes,” Bulletin of
pp. 1029–1050, 2015. Earthquake Engineering, vol. 12, no. 5, pp. 2255–2273, 2014.
[115] E. Akin, G. Ozcebe, and U. Ersoy, “Strengthening of brick [130] M. Dolsek and P. Fajfar, “Simplified non-linear seismic
infilled reinforced concrete (RC) frames with carbon fiber analysis of infilled reinforced concrete frames,” Earthquake
reinforced polymers (CFRP) sheets,” in Seismic Risk As- Engineering & Structural Dynamics, vol. 34, no. 1, pp. 49–66,
sessment and Retrofitting: With Special Emphasis on Existing 2005.
Low Rise Structures, pp. 367–386, Springer, Dordrecht, [131] P. Asteris, D. Cotsovos, C. Chrysostomou, A. Mohebkhah,
Netherlands, 2009. and G. Al-Chaar, “Mathematical micromodelling of infilled
[116] M. A. Kyriakides and S. L. Billington, “Cyclic response of frames: state of the art,” Engineering Structures, vol. 56,
nonductile reinforced concrete frames with unreinforced pp. 1905–1921, 2013.
masonry infills retrofitted with engineered cementitious [132] D. V. Mallick and R. T. Severn, “The behaviour of infilled
composites,” Journal of Structural Engineering, vol. 140, frames under static loading,” Proceedings of the Institution of
no. 2, Article ID 04013046, 2014. Civil Engineers, vol. 38, pp. 639–656, 1967.
[117] M. Tomaževič, M. Lutman, and V. Bosiljkov, “Robustness of [133] J. Rots, “Smeared and discrete representations of localized
hollow clay masonry units and seismic behaviour of masonry fracture,” International Journal of Fracture, vol. 51, no. 1,
walls,” Construction and Building Materials, vol. 20, no. 10, pp. 45–59, 1991.
pp. 1028–1039, 2006. [134] H. Lofti and P. Shing, “An appraisal of smeared crack models
[118] A. Collina and G. Lignola, “The external thermal insulation for masonry shear wall analysis,” Computers and Structures,
composite system (ETICS) more than comfort and energy vol. 41, no. 3, pp. 413–425, 1991.
saving,” in Proceedings of the Presented at the Third Portu- [135] P. Lourenço, Computational strategies for masonry struc-
guese Congress on Construction Mortars—3PCCM, Lisbon, tures, Ph.D thesis, Delft University, Delft, Netherlands, 1996.
Portugal, March 2010. [136] X. Chen and Y. Liu, “Numerical study of in-plane behaviour
[119] P. Carney and J. J. Myers, “Shear and flexural strengthening and strength of concrete masonry infills with openings,”
of masonry infill walls with FRP for extreme out-of-plane Engineering Structures, vol. 82, pp. 226–235, 2015.
loading,” in Proceedings of the Architectural Engineering [137] A. Mohyeddin, H. M. Goldsworthy, and E. F. Gad, “FE
Conference (AEI), Austin, TX, USA, September 2003. modelling of RC frames with masonry infill panels under in-
[120] A. A. Hamid, W. W. El-Dakhakhni, Z. H. R. Hakam, and plane and out-of-plane loading,” Engineering Structures,
M. Elgaaly, “Behavior of composite unreinforced masonry- vol. 51, pp. 73–87, 2013.
fiber-reinforced polymer wall assemblages under in-plane [138] R. Goodman, R. Taylor, and T. Brekke, “A model for the
loading,” Journal of Composites for Construction, vol. 9, no. 1, mechanics of jointed rock,” ASCE Journal of the Soil and
pp. 73–83, 2005. Mechanics and Foundations Division, vol. 94, no. 3,
[121] MSJC, Building Code Requirements for Masonry Structures, pp. 637–659, 1968.
MSJC, San Jacinto, CA, USA, 2004. [139] G. J. W. King and P. C. Pandey, “The analysis of infilled
[122] K. Kesner and S. L. Billington, “Investigation of infill panels frames using finite elements,” Proceedings of the Institution of
made from engineered cementitious composites for seismic Civil Engineers, vol. 65, no. 4, pp. 749–760, 1978.
strengthening and retrofit,” Journal of Structural Engineer- [140] P. B. Shing and A. B. Mehrabi, “Behaviour and analysis of
ing, vol. 131, no. 11, pp. 1712–1720, 2005. masonry-infilled frames,” Progress in Structural Engineering
[123] S. Billington, M. Kyriakides, B. Blackard, K. Willam, and and Materials, vol. 4, no. 3, pp. 320–331, 2002.
A. Stravidis, “Evaluation of a sprayable, ductile cement-based [141] G. Kost, W. Weaver, and R. Barber, “Nonlinear dynamic
composite for the seismic retrofit of unreinforced masonry analysis of frames with filler panels,” ASCE Journal of the
infills,” in Proceedings of the 2009 ATC and SEI Conference on Structural Division, vol. 100, no. 4, pp. 743–757, 1974.
Improving the Seismic Performance of Buildings and Other [142] L. Te-Chang and K. Kwok-Hung, “Nonlinear behavior of
Structures, San Francisco, CA, USA, December 2009. non-integral infilled frames,” Computer Structures, vol. 18,
[124] S. Barros, “Caracterização de argamassas com fibras de PVA no. 3, pp. 551–560, 1984.
para reforço de paredes de alvenaria,” M.Sc thesis, Faculdade de [143] J. L. Dawe and C. K. Seah, “Behaviour of masonry infilled
Engenharia da Univerisdade do Porto, Porto, Portugal, 2017. steel frames,” Canadian Journal of Civil Engineering, vol. 16,
[125] J. Gómez, “Innovative retrofitting materials for brick ma- no. 6, pp. 865–876, 1989.
sonry infill walls,” M.Sc thesis, University of Minho, Gui- [144] R. R. Yuen, J. S. Kuang, and B. S. M. Ali, “Assessing the effect
marães, Portugal, 2012. of bi-directional loading on nonlinear static and dynamic
[126] L. Koutas, A. Pitytzogia, T. C. Triantafillou, and S. N. Bousias, behaviour of masonry-infilled frames with openings,” Bul-
“Strengthening of infilled reinforced concrete frames with letin of Earthquake Engineering, vol. 14, no. 6, pp. 1721–1755,
TRM: study on the development and testing of textile-based 2016.
[145] V. Bolis and M. Preti, “Openings in infills with horizontal

sliding joints: a parametric study to support the design,”
Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering, vol. 17, no. 9, pp. 5101–
5132, 2019.
[146] A. Stavidris and P. Shing, “Finite-element modelling of
nonlinear behavior of masonry-infilled RC frames,” Pro-
ceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers, vol. 136, no. 1,
pp. 285–296, 2010.
[147] W. W. Kubalski, M. Butenweg, and A. A. Marinković,
“Investigation of the seismic behaviour of infill masonry
using numerical modelling approaches,” in Proceedings of the
16th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering
(16WCEE), vol. 2, Santiago, Chile, 2017.
[148] R. R. Milanesi, P. Morandi, and G. Magenes, “Local effects on
RC frames induced by AAC masonry infills through FEM
simulation of in-plane tests,” Bulletin of Earthquake Engi-
neering, vol. 16, no. 9, pp. 4053–4080, 2018.
[149] S. V. Polyakov, Masonry in Framed Buildings. Gosudalst-
Vennoe’stvo Literature po Straitel’ stuv i Arkitecture,
G. L. Cairns, Ed., Building Research Station, Watford, UK,
1956.
[150] M. Holmes, “Combined loading on infilled frames,” Pro-
ceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers, vol. 25, no. 1,
pp. 31–38, 1963.
[151] W. W. El-Dakhakhni, M. Elgaaly, and A. A. Hamid, “Three-
strut model for concrete masonry-infilled steel frames,”
Journal of Structural Engineering, vol. 129, no. 2, pp. 177–185,
2003.
[152] F. J. Crisafulli and A. J. Carr, “Proposed macro-model for the
analysis of infilled frame structures,” Bulletin of the New
Zealand Society for Earthquake Engineering, vol. 40, no. 2,
pp. 69–77, 2007.
[153] F. Crisafulli, “Seismic behavior of reinforced concrete
structures with masonry infills,” Ph.D thesis, University of
Canterbury, Christchurch, New Zealand, 1997.
[154] S. Kadysiewski and K. M. Mosalam, Modeling of Unrein-
forced Masonry Infill Walls Considering In-Plane and Out-
Of-Plane Interaction,PEER, New York, NY, USA, 2009.
[155] F. D. Trapani, P. B. Shing, and L. Cavaleri, “Macroelement
model for in-plane and out-of-plane responses of masonry
infills in frame structures,” Journal of Structural Engineering,
vol. 144, no. 2, Article ID 04017198, 2018.

Masonry Infill Walls in RC Buildings

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Masonry Infill Walls in RC Buildings

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Masonry Infill Walls in RC Buildings

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Hindawi

Advances in Civil Engineering

Correspondence should be addressed to André Furtado; [email protected]

Received 4 October 2019; Accepted 19 February 2020; Published 13 March 2020

Academic Editor: Chongchong Qi

(a) (b) (c)

(a) (b) (c)

(a) (b) (c)

(a) (b) (c)

Table 2: Literature review of OOP experimental tests of masonry inﬁll walls.

(a) (b) (c)

[145] V. Bolis and M. Preti, “Openings in inﬁlls with horizontal

You might also like