Effect of Gap Between Column and Masonry Infill on the

Response of Masonry-Infilled Reinforced Concrete Frames

Ashutosh Sonpal1 , Manish Kumar2 , and Hrishikesh Sarma3

A BSTRACT
Reinforced concrete (RC) frames with an unreinforced masonry infill constitute the primary lateral force
resisting system in a large number of buildings across the world. The lateral force-displacement response
of infilled RC frames is a function of the geometrical and material properties of the frame and infill, and the
interaction between the two. The interaction is affected by the gap between columns and masonry infill. This
paper presents a study on the effect of column-infill gaps on the lateral force-displacement response. A finite
element model of a masonry-infilled RC frame is developed, calibrated, and validated against experimental
studies on one-bay-one-story infilled RC frames (with and without column-infill gaps) subjected to lateral
in-plane loads. A parametric study using the finite element model revealed that the presence of a column-
infill gap does not affect the peak strength of the infilled frame substantially but leads to a considerable
reduction in the initial stiffness. The load shared by the frame decreases significantly with an increase in
the gap. The extent of reduction may be a function of specimen, however. Therefore, a gap between the
columns and the masonry panel may help contain the damage to the frame.

K EYWORDS : masonry infill, RC frame, column-infill gap, finite element modeling (FEM)

1
Engineer; Thornton Tomasetti; Gandhinagar, India; [email protected]
2
Assistant Professor; Indian Institute of Technology; Gandhinagar, India; [email protected]
3
Junior Research Fellow; Indian Institute of Technology; Gandhinagar, India; [email protected]

Sonpal A., Kumar M., and Sarma H. (2019, June). “Effect of Gap Between Column and Masonry Infill on the Response of Masonry-Infilled
Reinforced Concrete Frames.” In P.B. Dillon & F.S. Fonseca (Eds.), Proceedings of the Thirteenth North American Masonry Conference. Paper
presented at the 13th North American Masonry Conference, Salt Lake City, Utah (pp. 623–635). Longmont, CO: The Masonry Society. c 2019
TMS. All rights reserved. ISSN 1053-2366.

623
P ROCEEDINGS OF THE 13 TH N ORTH A MERICAN M ASONRY C ONFERENCE

INTRODUCTION
Reinforced concrete (RC) frames with an unreinforced masonry infill are widely used in many countries,
including India. While the masonry panel is intended to meet functional needs in most cases, it can
significantly alter the lateral response of the structural system (e.g., Jain et al. 1992, Kumar et al. 2015).
As noted by Kaushik et al. (2006), most design codes across the world either do not treat the infill as a
structural component or permit the surrounding frame to be designed for a rather small fraction of the
total lateral design force. Kumar et al. (2015) concluded that the infilled frames with frames having a
smaller lateral load carrying capacity compared to the infill panel can lead to less desirable performances.
The performance of the infilled frames can also be affected by the forces developed in the RC frame and
masonry panel under lateral loading, which are a function of the stiffness and capacity of the two
components, and the interaction between them. The interaction is expected also to be affected by the gap
(e.g., an unintentional gap during construction) between the columns and the masonry infill panel.

Studies on the frame-infill gaps are limited for infilled RC frames. However, masonry-infilled steel
frames with the frame-infill gaps are relatively better studied. Liauw and Kwan (1985) reported that the
interfacial gaps did not affect the lateral strength and stiffness of the infilled frame considerably once the
contact was established. Dawe and Seah (1989) investigated the effect of frame-panel integration through
a series of experiments on infilled steel frames and concluded that a gap at the roof beam level
significantly reduces the ultimate load carried by the system. Similar conclusions were drawn by Kadir
(1974), Yong (1984) and Nazief (2014). Flanagan (1994) provided a 25.4 mm gap between each of the
two columns and infill, and observed little reduction in the load carrying capacity of the system. Nazief
(2014) provided gaps at all the interfaces (roof beam-infill and column-infill) and noted that a total gap (=
sum of gaps at all interfaces) of up to 5 mm did not affect the ultimate strength considerably but reduced
the initial stiffness by about 30%. However, a gap of 10 – 15 mm led to a reduction in the peak load by up
to 50%. Chen and Liu (2017) performed an analytical study on infilled steel frames using the commercial
software package ANSYS. They concluded that the presence of interfacial gaps did not affect the failure
mode greatly, except in the case of strong frames. Beam-infill gaps were found to affect the lateral load
capacity more significantly compared to column-infill gaps. In addition, the effect of interfacial gaps was
less for weak frames compared to strong frames.

The authors are aware of a single experimental study (by Hu 2015) on the infilled RC frames with gaps
between frame and infill. This study concluded that frame-infill gaps, especially those between the
column and the infill, lead to a reduction in the initial stiffness. If the sum of the gaps at the two column-
infill interfaces was larger than 12 mm, a reduction in the ultimate load by about 20% was observed. The
reduction was greater for specimens with a gap between the roof beam and the infill.

This paper presents a study on the effect of gaps between columns and masonry panel in one-bay-one-
story infilled RC frames. A detailed finite element model of the infilled frame without the gaps has been
developed using the commercially available software program ANSYS (ANSYS Inc. 2017a). This model
is calibrated first based on the available experimental results. The model is then validated against an
additional set of available experimental results for the infilled frames with no interfacial gap, and the
experimental results reported for an infilled RC frame with gaps. Finally, a parametric study is performed
to understand the influence of the column-infill gap on the lateral force-displacement response, with
particular emphasis on the distribution of load between the frame and the infill.

624
S ALT L AKE C ITY, U TAH J UNE 16–19, 2019

MODELING MASONRY-INFILLED REINFORCED CONCRETE (RC) FRAMES

A brief description of the modeling approach and simulation is presented in the sections below.
Additional details are presented in Sonpal (2018).

Reinforced Concrete Frame

Reinforced concrete frame is modeled using SOLID65 element available with ANSYS. This element is a
three-dimensional (3D) solid element capable of capturing cracking, crushing, plastic deformation and
creep in concrete. The nonlinear behavior of the concrete is captured using the multilinear kinematic
hardening model (TB, MKIN), which considers a von Mises failure surface. The stress-strain behavior of
the core concrete and the cover concrete are specified using the models proposed by Mander et al. (1988)
and Kent and Park (1971), respectively. The tensile cutoff associated with the Von Mises surface (=
uniaxial tensile strength of concrete) is specified through the concrete material table (TB, CONCR). The
crushing capability in the TB,CONCR material table is turned off to prevent possible convergence issues
(e.g., Mohyeddin et al. 2013). Reinforcement is smeared across the concrete elements and contributes to
the element stiffness in the axial direction. A kinematic hardening model, with a bilinear stress-strain
relationship (TB, BKIN) and a small post-yield slope (~3%) is considered for the reinforcement. Only a
half of the frame (thickness equal to half the actual value) is modeled taking advantage of the symmetry
in the infilled frame (a symmetric boundary condition was enforced). Further details on the properties of
the elements and material models can be found in the ANSYS element (ANSYS Inc. 2017b) and material
(ANSYS Inc. 2017c) references.

Validation of the RC Frame Model

A finite element model of an RC frame was developed using the approach discussed in the preceding
section. This frame was experimentally tested by Mehrabi et al. (1996). It is a “weak” frame, designed to
resist only wind loads. Salient material properties and calibration parameters are listed in Table 1. The
finite element model was subjected to a lateral displacement. The lateral force-displacement response
obtained analytically is shown along with the experimentally recorded response in Figure 1. Figure 2a
shows the cracks developed in the frame during the experiment, and Figure 2b shows the simulated
cracking pattern in the frame at a displacement of 52 mm. The analytical results compare well with the
experimental observations.

Table 1. Salient Parameters for Modeling the Bare Frame Tested by Mehrabi et al. (1996)
Property Value Remarks
Compressive strength of concrete 30.90 N/mm2 Experimental tests on concrete
cylinders by Mehrabi et al. (1996)
Tensile strength of concrete 3.29 N/mm2 Experimental split cylinder test by
Mehrabi et al. (1996)
Yield strength for the #2, #4 and #5 367.24 N/mm2, 420.29 N/mm2 and Experimental tensile tests for rebar
rebars used 413.40 N/mm2 respectively carried out by Mehrabi et al. (1996)
Open crack shear transfer factor for 0.53 From Mohyeddin et al. (2013)
concrete
Closed crack shear transfer factor 0.98 From Mohyeddin et al. (2013)
for concrete
Tensile crack factor for concrete 1.0 To achieve convergence

625
P ROCEEDINGS OF THE 13 TH N ORTH A MERICAN M ASONRY C ONFERENCE

Masonry Panel
A simplified modeling strategy for the masonry panel has been considered (e.g., Lourenço 2002,
Mohyeddin et al. 2013). A masonry unit is combined with half of the surrounding mortar layer to produce
a “masonry finite element unit.” These units are separated by interfaces incorporating the behavior of
mortar. The central mortar SOLID65 elements are assigned a linear elastic behaviour, while the interface
elements account for the nonlinear response (see Figure 3).

Figure 1. Lateral force-displacement response of the bare frame tested by Mehrabi et al. (1996)

(a) Experimental results (adopted from Mehrabi et

(b) Analytical results
al. 1996)
Figure 2. Cracking pattern in the bare frame tested by Mehrabi et al. (1996)

Masonry units have been modeled using SOLID65 elements. The material model for masonry is similar
to that for concrete except that the uniaxial stress-strain relationship proposed by Hendry et al. (2003) has
been considered.

Interface Elements
The pair-based contact feature in ANSYS is employed to model the interface. The contact is realized
through the 3D contact element CONTA174 and target element TARGE170 (ANSYS Inc., 2017d). A
cohesive zone model (TB, CZM) is used to define the material properties of the interfaces, wherein a
large contact stiffness (~107 N/mm) and small penetration tolerance (= 0.01 mm) has been considered.

626
S ALT L AKE C ITY, U TAH J UNE 16–19, 2019

Central mortar SOLID65

elements (linear elastic
behaviour)
Masonry unit

Figure 3. A masonry finite element unit and the interface

The CZM governs the tangential slip and normal separation of the contact elements, and is based on the
Mohr-Coulomb frictional law.

Calibration of Contact Parameters

Some parameters characterizing the properties of the interfaces are based on those reported in the
literature (e.g., Mehrabi et al. 1997, Mohyeddin et al. 2013). The remaining parameters are calibrated
against the experimental results for the specimen 9 of Mehrabi et al. (1996). This specimen comprised of
a “weak” frame infilled with solid concrete masonry units. Select contact parameters are listed in Table 2.
Details on additional parameters are presented in Sonpal (2018).

Table 2. Contact Parameters

Parameter Value Source
0.875 for bed joints
Coefficient of friction 0.32 for head joints Mohyeddin et al. (2013)
0.75 for frame-infill interfaces
0.28 N/mm2 for bed joints
Mehrabi et al. (1997), Mohyeddin et
Tensile bond strength 0.0 N/mm2 for head joints
al. (2013)
1.72 N/mm2 for frame-infill interfaces
2.5 N/mm2 for bed joints
Shear bond strength 0.0 N/mm2 for head joints
1.58 N/mm2 for frame-infill interfaces
0.28 N/mm for bed joints
Mehrabi et al. (1997), Mohyeddin et
Mode I fracture energy 0.001 N/mm for head joints
al. (2013)
0.001 N/mm for frame-infill interfaces
2.8 N/mm for bed joints
Mode II fracture energy 0.01 N/mm for head joints Mehrabi et al. (1997)
0.01 N/mm for frame-infill interfaces

Response of a Masonry-Infilled RC Frame

Figure 4 presents the experimentally observed and simulated lateral force-displacement response of
specimen 9 of Mehrabi et al. (1996). The experimental and simulated responses compare well up to the
peak load. Figure 5 presents the experimentally observed cracking pattern (panel (a)) and that obtained
analytically (panel (b); cracks correspond to peak load). Both panels of Figure 5 indicate a “stepped

627
P ROCEEDINGS OF THE 13 TH N ORTH A MERICAN M ASONRY C ONFERENCE

cracking” failure in masonry panel. The deformed shape in Figure 5b is scaled up by 20 times to make the
cracking pattern distinguishable.

Figure 4. Lateral force-displacement response of specimen 9 of Mehrabi (1996)

(a) Experimental observation (adapted from

(b) Analytical results
Mehrabi et al. 1996)
Figure 5. Cracking patterns observed in specimen 9 tested by Mehrabi et al. (1996)

VALIDATION OF THE ANALYTICAL MODEL FOR INFILLED RC FRAME

The analytical model presented in the preceding section is used to simulate the response of specimen 3 of
Mehrabi et al. (1996). Figure 6a presents the experimentally observed and simulated lateral force-
displacement response. This specimen consisted of a “weak” frame with a solid concrete block infill.
Gravity loads were applied to the columns. Figure 6b presents results similar to Figure 6a, but for
specimen 2 of Al-Chaar et al. (2002). No additional gravity loads were applied on this specimen.
Experimental results are simulated reasonably well up to the peak load for both the specimens.

Experimentally observed and analytically simulated cracking patterns for specimen 3 of Mehrabi et al.
(1996) are presented in Figures 7a and 7b, respectively. Corresponding results for the specimen 2 of Al-
Chaar et al. (2002) are presented in Figures 7c and 7d, respectively. The diagonal cracking experimentally
observed in the test specimens are captured reasonably well by the analytical models.

628
S ALT L AKE C ITY, U TAH J UNE 16–19, 2019

Figure 6. Experimentally observed and simulated lateral force-displacement response

Two masonry-infilled RC frame specimens tested by Hu (2015) are considered: 1) with no gap between
columns and infill (specimen IFNG), and 2) with a gap of 6 mm at both column-infill interfaces
(specimen IFSG12)1. The experimentally observed and simulated force-displacement responses for the
two specimens are presented in Figures 8a and 8b, respectively. The experimentally recorded peak force
and initial stiffness compare reasonably well with the analytical results for specimen IFNG. For the
specimen IFSG12, on the other hand, the simulated initial stiffness compares well with experimental
observations, but the analysis could be run only up to a lateral displacement of 33.7 mm, while the
experiment was performed up to a lateral displacement of 40 mm. The analytical model considered for
these specimens (Figure 8) is slightly different2 from that considered previously (Figure 6). The diagonal
cracking pattern observed in the IFNG specimen (see Figure 9a) compares well with that obtained using
the analytical model (see Figure 9b). The failure pattern observed in the IFSG12 specimen is
characterized by shear sliding along a bed joint (see Figure 9c), which is associated with a sudden drop in
the force. Further formation of diagonal cracks and subsequent closure of the interfacial gaps is observed
in the experimental specimen. A similar pattern of cracking and shear sliding is also seen in the analytical
results (see Figure 9d).

Share of Total Lateral Force Developed in RC Frame

The forces developed in the frame and masonry panel are obtained3 for the specimens considered in
Figures 6 and 8. The fractions of the total lateral force developed in the RC frames are reported in Table 3
at two stages: 1) peak force, and 2) 50% of the displacement at peak force. Reinforced concrete frames in
the specimens studied by Mehrabi et al. (1996) and Al-Chaar et al. (2002) carried between 78% and 94%
of the total lateral force, and that the share did not change significantly as different levels of lateral
displacements were considered. The frame in the IFNG (IFSG12) specimen studied by Hu (2015) carried

1
This is the only experimental study on a one-bay-one-story infilled RC frames with a gap between columns and infill to the knowledge of the
authors.
2
A smaller value of penalty stiffness (~106 N/mm) and a higher value of penetration tolerance (= 0.05 mm) have been considered. All other
parameters remain unchanged.
3
These forces are determined by summing the forces associated with corresponding constrained nodes at the base. It should be noted that the
leeward column accounts for almost entire force carried by the frame.

629
P ROCEEDINGS OF THE 13 TH N ORTH A MERICAN M ASONRY C ONFERENCE

58% (45%) and 44% (-) of the total lateral force at the two stages, respectively. Results for specimen
IFSG12 could not be generated at the peak force, as the debonding of mortar joints led to numerical
convergence issues, which is attributed to the CZM material model considered for the interfaces (also see
Mohyeddin et al. 2013). The frame carried 36% of the total load at the lateral displacement of 33.7 mm. It
should be noted that the solid bricks were considered by Mehrabi et al. (1996) and Al-Chaar et al. (2002),
while hollow bricks were considered by Hu (2015).

(a) Experimental observation (adopted from (b) Analytical simulation results for Mehrabi et
Mehrabi et al. 1996) al. 1996 specimen

(c) Experimental observation (adopted from Al- (d) Analytical simulation results for Al-Chaar et
Chaar et al. 2002) al. 2002 specimen
Figure 7. Comparison of experimentally observed and analytically simulated cracking patterns

Figure 8. Lateral force-displacement response of infilled frames

630
S ALT L AKE C ITY, U TAH J UNE 16–19, 2019

(a) Experimental observations – IFNG (adapted from (b) Analytical simulation – IFNG
Hu 2015)

(c) Experimental observations – IFSG12 (adapted (d) Analytical simulation – IFSG12

from Hu 2015)
Figure 9. Cracking patterns for specimens tested by Hu (2015)

Table 3. Fraction of Total Lateral Force Developed in the Frame

Fraction of total force developed
Fraction of total force developed in
Specimen in the frame at 50% of the
the frame at peak load
displacement at peak load
Specimen 3 of Mehrabi et al. (1996) 0.78 0.81
Specimen 2 of Al-Chaar et al. (2002) 0.94 0.92
Specimen IFNG of Hu (2015) 0.58 0.44
Specimen IFSG12 of Hu (2015) 0.45 -

Imposed Beam-infill interface

Displacement

Column-infill gaps

Figure 10. Schematic of an infilled RC frame with gaps between columns and masonry panel

631
P ROCEEDINGS OF THE 13 TH N ORTH A MERICAN M ASONRY C ONFERENCE

Lateral Force-displacement Response

Figure 11a presents the lateral force-displacement response for the control model. Also shown are the
forces developed in the frame and the infill through the analysis. The lateral force-displacement response
of the bare frame has also been plotted. These results for the model with a 2.5 mm gap are shown in
Figure 11b. The early response of the infilled frame with a column-infill gap is close to that for the bare
frame. A similar observation is made from Figures 11c and 11d, which present the results for a gap of 5.0
mm and 10.0 mm, respectively. Table 4 summarizes key results from Figure 9, namely, peak lateral force,
lateral displacement at the peak force, initial stiffness of the infilled frame, secant stiffness at the peak
load, and the fraction of the lateral force carried by the frame when the peak lateral force in the infilled
frame is reached. The peak lateral force associated with the specimen with 10.0 mm gap was 23% smaller
than that for the control specimen. The displacement corresponding to the peak lateral force was greater
by a factor between 1.11 (for 2.5 mm gap) and 2.57 (for 10 mm gap) compared to that for the control
specimen. The secant stiffness was 70% smaller for the specimen with 10.0 mm gap compared to that for
the control specimen. The fraction of total lateral force at peak force level carried by the RC frame
decreased from 0.77 to 0.21 as the gap was increased from 0 mm to 10 mm.

Figure 11. Lateral force-displacement response of infilled RC frame with column-infill gaps

632
S ALT L AKE C ITY, U TAH J UNE 16–19, 2019

Table 4. Lateral Force-Displacement Response Parameters

Model Peak Displacement Initial Secant Fraction of Fraction of lateral
lateral at peak lateral tangent stiffness at lateral force force taken by the
force force stiffness the peak taken by the RC frame at the
(kN) (mm) (kN/mm) load infill at the peak peak lateral force
(kN/mm) lateral force
Control 298.80 8.06 103.67 37.07 0.23 0.77
Gap = 2.5 mm 252.30 9.01 46.89 28.00 0.40 0.60
Gap = 5.0 mm 279.70 15.64 46.08 17.88 0.52 0.48
Gap = 10.0 mm 230.80 20.78 47.28 11.11 0.79 0.21

Failure Mode
The failure mode of the masonry-infilled RC frame is not affected significantly by the introduction of the
gap between column and infill. However, it is observed that the cracks at the corners of the unloaded
diagonal also appear in addition to the diagonal cracks (see Figure 12) for the specimen considered for the
parametric study. This observation is in line with those by Dawe and Seah (1989) for the masonry-infilled
steel frames.

Figure 12. Cracks in the infill of an infilled RC frame with a gap between columns and masonry panel

CONCLUSIONS
A finite element model of the masonry-infilled RC frames is developed, calibrated, and validated. A
parametric study has been conducted to understand the effect of the column-infill gap on the response of
an infilled RC frame. Key observations are noted below.

1. An increase in the column-infill gap leads to an increase in the drift at which engagement
between the frame and the infill occurs, and a reduction in the initial stiffness.
2. Lateral strength of the infilled frame was found not to be affected by the column-infill gap very
significantly.
3. Increasing the gap led to a substantial reduction in the share of the total force carried by the frame
for the specimen considered for the parametric study. The reduction may be a function of

633
P ROCEEDINGS OF THE 13 TH N ORTH A MERICAN M ASONRY C ONFERENCE

specimen under consideration. Overall, a column-infill gap can help reduce the damage to the RC
frame.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Authors gratefully acknowledge the financial support provided by Science and Engineering Research
Board (File No. YSS/2015/1514) of the Department of Science and Technology, Government of India.

REFERENCES
Al-Chaar, G., Issa, M., and Sweeney, S. (2002). “Behavior of masonry-infilled nonductile reinforced
concrete frames,” Journal of Structural Engineering, 128(8), 1055-1063.

ANSYS Inc. (2017a). “ANSYS Mechanical APDL.” Release 17.2

ANSYS Inc. (2017b). “ANSYS Mechanical APDL Element Reference.” Release 17.2

ANSYS Inc. (2017c). “ANSYS Mechanical APDL Material Reference.” Release 17.2

ANSYS Inc. (2017d). “ANSYS Contact Technology Guide.” Release 17.2

Chen, X., and Liu, Y. (2017). “Finite element study of the effect of interfacial gaps on the in-plane
behaviour of masonry infills bounded by steel frames,” Structures, 10, 1-12.

Dawe, J. L., and Seah, C. K. (1989). “Behaviour of masonry infilled steel frames,” Canadian Journal of
Civil Engineering, 16(6), 865-876.

Flanagan, R. D. (1994). “Behavior of structural clay tile infilled frames,” Ph.D. Thesis, Oak Ridge
National Laboratory, Tennessee, United States.

Hendry, A. W., Sinha, B. P., and Davies, S. R. (2003). Design of masonry structures 3rd Ed., CRC Press.

Hu, C. (2015). “Experimental study of the effect of interfacial gaps on the in-plane behaviour of masonry
infilled RC frames,” M.Sc. Thesis, University of Dalhousie, Halifax, Canada.

Jain, S. K., Singh, R. P., Gupta, V. K., and Nagar, A. (1992). “Garhwal earthquake of Oct. 20, 1991,”
EERI Newsletter, Earthquake Engineering Research Institute, 26(2).

Kadir, M. R. A. (1974). “Structural behaviour of masonry infill panels in framed structures,” PhD Thesis,
University of Edinburgh, United Kingdom.

Kaushik, H. B., Rai, D. C., and Jain, S. K. (2006). “Code approaches to seismic design of masonry-
infilled reinforced concrete frames: A state-of-the-art review,” Earthquake Spectra, Earthquake
Engineering Research Institute, 22(4), 961-983.

Kent, D. C., and Park, R. (1971). “Flexural members with confined concrete,” Journal of the Structural
Division, 97(7), 1969–1990.

634
S ALT L AKE C ITY, U TAH J UNE 16–19, 2019

Kumar, M., Rai, D. C., and Jain, S. K. (2015). “Ductility reduction factors for masonry-infilled reinforced
concrete frames,” Earthquake Spectra, 31(1), 339–365.

Liauw, T. C., and Kwan, K. H. (1985). “Static and cyclic behaviours of multistorey infilled frames with
different interface conditions,” Journal of Sound and Vibration, 99(2), 275-283.

Lourenço, P. B. (2002). “Computations on historic masonry structures,” Progress in Structural

Engineering and Materials, 4(3), 301–319.

Mander, J. B., Priestley, M. J. N., and Park, R. (1988). “Theoretical stress‐strain model for confined
concrete,” Journal of Structural Engineering, 114(8), 1804–1826.

Mehrabi, A. B., and Shing, P. B. (1997). “Finite element modeling of masonry infilled RC frames,”
Journal of Structural Engineering, 123(5), 604-613.

Mehrabi, A. B., Shing, P. B., Schuller, M. P., and Noland, J. L. (1996). “Experimental evaluation of
masonry-infilled RC frames,” Journal of Structural Engineering, 122(3), 228–237.

Mohyeddin, A., Goldsworthy, H. M., and Gad, E. F. (2013). “FE modeling of RC frames with masonry
infill panels under in-plane and out-of-plane loading,” Engineering Structures, 51, 73–87.

Nazief, M. A. (2014). “Finite element characterization of the behaviour of masonry infill shear walls with
and without openings,” Ph.D. Thesis, University of Alberta, Canada.

Sonpal, A. (2018). “Influence of a gap between the column and masonry wall on the response of a
masonry infilled reinforced concrete frame,” M.Tech. Thesis, Indian Institute of Technology
Gandhinagar, India.

Yong, T. C. (1984). “Shear strength of masonry panels in steel frames,” M.Sc. Thesis, University of New
Brunswick, Canada.

635