Arabian Journal for Science and Engineering

https://doi.org/10.1007/s13369-018-3389-6

RESEARCH ARTICLE - CIVIL ENGINEERING

Effect of Masonry Infill Wall Configuration and Modelling Approach on

the Behaviour of RC Frame Structures
Kamaran Mohammed Kareem1,2 · Esra Mete Güneyisi1

Received: 17 July 2017 / Accepted: 3 June 2018

© King Fahd University of Petroleum & Minerals 2018

Abstract
The masonry infill walls influence substantially the response of reinforced concrete (RC) buildings under lateral loading due
to their contribution to strength and stiffness. In the literature, there are several approaches for modelling the infill walls.
However, they provide different results. In this study, the equivalent diagonal strut model was used. The basic parameter of
this strut is its equivalent width. In the first stage of the study, various equations available in the literature for determining the
width of the compressed diagonal strut were compared. Among them, Paulay and Priestley relation which gives approximately
average value was selected for modelling the masonry infill walls. In the second stage of the study, a sensitivity analysis was
performed by considering 2-, 4-, 6- and 8-storey RC bare frames and those with infill walls. Four different infill wall frame
configurations, namely fully infilled frame, fully infilled-except first storey frame, interior bay infilled frame and interior bay
infilled-except first storey frame, were adopted. Single-strut and three-strut models for simulating wall panels were used in all
infilled frames. Thus, a total of 36 different RC frame models were evaluated through the nonlinear pushover analysis in order
to appraise the infill wall effect on the overall response of the case study frame buildings. The analysis of the results indicated
that the arrangement of the infill panels over the elevation of the frame remarkably influenced the performance of structures.
Moreover, the serious capacity degradation was observed especially for the case of infills discontinued at the ground level.

Keywords Equivalent diagonal strut · Lateral load · Masonry infill wall · Nonlinear analysis · Reinforced concrete frame

1 Introduction over, some of the mechanical characteristics are difficult to

be properly defined, especially for masonry infill and for
Reinforced concrete (RC) frame structures having masonry the interface between the infill and the surrounding frame.
infill walls constitute a great segment of the building stock in These facts constitute the main reasons for the considera-
Turkey. Besides, they have been constructed on a large-scale tion of infills as “nonstructural element”, despite their impact
commercial, institutional, industrial and residential uses in on the response of the buildings [2]. The current seismic
seismic-prone areas all over the world; the stiffness contri- codes disregard the contribution of the infill to the lateral
butions of masonry infill walls are generally ignored and strength and stiffness of a structure due to the wide variation
usually considered as nonstructural elements [1]. Infilled of opening sizes and material characteristics of the infill and
frames are not simple structures due to their greatly nonlinear inadequate research information on the complex response
inelastic response. The most significant factor participating of infilled frame structures [3]. Furthermore, the observa-
to this behaviour arises from the nonlinearity in material that tions after earthquakes have distinctly shown that masonry
needs to be considered accurately in analytical modelling infill walls have probable positive impact when they are con-
and that requires complex computational methods. More- fined by the bounding frame such that infill panels decrease
the storey drift demands and increase the resistance storey
B Esra Mete Güneyisi lateral force through their in-plane horizontal strength and
[email protected] stiffness, while they contribute to energy dissipation [4–6].
On the other hand, the existence of infill walls in the RC
1 Department of Civil Engineering, Gaziantep University, frames in some cases produces undesirable (potentially nega-
27310 Gaziantep, Turkey
tive) effects such as torsional effects induced by irregularities
2 Department of Building and Construction Engineering, in plan, short-column states or soft-storey situation [7,8].
University of Halabja, Halabja, Iraq

123
 Arabian Journal for Science and Engineering

Therefore, it may not be appropriate way to always ignore and an equation which provides a value close to the average
its existence and declare the output of design as conservative of the values obtained from these equations was utilized for
[4]. the further evaluation of RC frames with infill walls. For
In the literature, for modelling the masonry infill walls, this, 2-, 4-, 6- and 8-storey RC frames without infill and
macro-model and micro-model have been suggested. In the with four different infill wall arrangements modelled with
micro-model, the modelling joints between masonry blocks two different equivalent diagonal strut models were taken
and mortar necessitate the formulization of the links between into consideration. All frame models were subjected to the
them with the discrete elements by means of the constitutive nonlinear analysis. The results obtained from the parametric
equations of the material of the infill walls. The micro-model study were given and discussed comparatively.
for the infill walls was first investigated by Mallick and Sev-
ern [9]; this micro-modelling approach for the behaviour of
masonry infill walls was further developed by Dhanasekhar 2 Case Study
and Page [10], Papia [11], El Haddad [12], May and Naji [13]
and still under investigation in some recent studies [14–17]. 2.1 Description of Bare Frames
In general, the micro-modelling of walls becomes time-
consuming and too complex to be used in large structures and In this study, the effects of masonry infill wall on the
practice-oriented analyses. Because of this, the macro-model behaviour of RC frame building were investigated. For this
for simulating the behaviour of infill with compression equiv- purpose, as case study structures, two-, four-, six- and eight-
alent diagonal strut or struts has been found to be accurately storey RC frames were considered as shown in Fig. 1.
sufficient in evaluating the response of masonry-infilled RC The dead load for the frame is taken as 12.6 kN/m, while
frame buildings [18,19]. Since the initial trials to analyse the design live load is assumed as 8 kN/m. The compres-
the composite infilled frame structures, the experimental and sive strength of concrete is 30 MPa, and the yield strength
theoretical studies have shown that a diagonal strut with of the steel is taken as 365 MPa. The frame column sec-
proper geometrical and mechanical properties could be uti- tion of C1, C2, C3 and C4 is 35 × 60 cm, 35 × 55 cm,
lized as a solution to the problem. In the last two decades, 30 × 55 cm and 30 × 50 cm, respectively. All frame beam
in order to evaluate the complex behaviour of the infilled sections are 25 × 60 cm, and typical reinforcement in the
frames, many researchers [20–23] investigated more com- columns and beams is presented in Fig. 2. In the analytical
plex macro-models still based on diagonal strut approach. For models, the nonlinear behaviour of the frame members was
instance, Chrysostomou [20] presented more details about defined according to a lumped plasticity approach, introduc-
the multi-strut models which take into account both strength ing plastic hinges defined by a moment–rotation (M − θ )
and stiffness degradation of the infill. Furthermore, in the relationship which were evaluated according to FEMA 356
studies of Saneinejad and Hobbs [21] and Buonopane and [24]. With regard to the constitutive laws of the materials, a
White [22], it was reported that the single diagonal strut con- parabola–rectangle stress–strain relationship was considered
necting the two loaded corners in some cases could not be for concrete in compression and an elastic perfectly plastic
adequately utilized in prediction of the bending moments stress–strain relationship was taken into account for the steel
and shear forces in the frame members, and more compli- bars [25]. Axial force biaxial moment interaction hinges were
cated macro-models were suggested based on increasing in assigned for the columns, and moment hinges were assigned
the number of diagonal struts. On the other hand, Asteris et al. for the beams. Furthermore, shear hinges were introduced
[23] evaluated and compared a finite element (micro) model for the frame members. The plastic hinges were assigned to
with single-strut, two-strut and three-strut (macro) models. the end of the members, and the plastic hinge length was
They observed that in spite of its simplicity in the modelling assumed as half of the section depth.
and in the analysis of large infilled frame structures, equiva-
lent diagonal strut allowed an adequate consideration of the 2.2 Frames with Infill Walls
lateral stiffness of the panel and of the strength of masonry
panel. 2.2.1 Equivalent Strut Model for Infill Walls
The objective of this study is to examine the frames with
various arrangements of infill walls and investigate the effects Masonry infill walls could be modelled using a diagonal 1-
of these infill walls on the seismic behaviour of the frames. It strut, 2-strut, 3-strut or similarly more number of struts. Even
is also aimed at pointing out the similarities and differences though many analytical models for masonry infill walls exist
of some measurement parameters about the modelling of the in the literature, the principles on the choice of a numeri-
infill walls according to available equations in the literature cal model do not exist. In the past, several researchers have
that are related to the width of the equivalent struts. Based used 1-strut diagonal model for modelling the masonry infill
on these equations, the width of the strut was determined walls [21,22,26,27]. However, the local effects caused by

123
Arabian Journal for Science and Engineering

Fig. 1 Elevation view of the bare frames. a 2 Storey, b 4 storey, c 6 storey, d 8 storey

the interface of the infill with the bounding frame could not the width of the strut. In case of the model with 3 strut,
be totally included in the analysis by 1-strut models. Due the width of central diagonal strut was taken as half of the
to this, the macro-models including two, three or multiple total strut width, and the width of off-diagonal struts was
diagonal struts were proposed and investigated by various considered as one-fourth of the total strut width. Additionally,
researchers [2,28,29]. In spite of the increase in complexity, the location of equivalent struts is another key parameter in
the significance of these models is their capacity to indicate 3-strut models. The vertical contact length between the infill
the local effects and to reveal the frame behaviour more pre- and the column was assumed with αm as shown in Fig. 3.
cisely [18,23]. The equation used for the determination of αm is as follows
In this study, among the macro-models suggested for infill [30,31]:
walls, one and three diagonal compression strut models were

utilized for developing analytical models of the infill walls. π 4E c Ic Hw
One of the important parameters in modelling the infills is αm = 4
(1)
2 E w · tw sin (2θ )

123
 Arabian Journal for Science and Engineering

Fig. 2 Typical reinforcement

bay infilled-except first storey frame (IBI-EFSF) as shown in

Fig. 4, were examined. The nonlinear pushover analysis of all
frame models was carried out through SAP 2000 Nonlinear
version 14.0 which is a general purpose structural analysis
programme [25].

2.2.2 Determination of Equivalent Strut Width

In macro-modelling, one or a few diagonal strut elements

simulate each infill panel. In the study of Mallick and Severn
[9], it was reported that Polyakov in 1958 firstly consid-
ered this issue, and suggested the equivalent diagonal struts
instead of the masonry panels in the infilled frames under
lateral load. Then, Holmes [33] proposed replacing the infill
Fig. 3 Details of 3-strut model for masonry infill walls [32] by an equivalent diagonal strut having pin joints at its ends
and having the same material characteristics, whereas its
width was the third crucial component of the diagonal mem-
where E c and Ic are Young’s modulus and second moment of ber. Later, Smith and Carter [30] recommended a theoretical
area of the column, respectively; E w , tw and Hw are Young’s relationship for the width of the diagonal strut connected
modulus, thickness and height of the infill panel, respec- to infill–frame stiffness parameter λh , and it was revealed
tively; and θ is the slope of the equivalent strut to horizontal. that the effective width of the strut was not a constant value
The horizontal length of the contact between the infill and for a particular infill but decreased as the load increased. In
the beam was considered the same as the vertical contact alternative studies for the evaluation of the equivalent strut
length between the infill and the column [32]. In this study, width of the panel, Mainstone and Weeks [34] and Main-
two-, four-, six- and eight-storey RC frames were taken into stone [35] considered the relative infill to frame flexibility.
consideration; each building was evaluated and analysed as Based on the analytical and experimental data, they proposed
bare frame (BF) as shown in Fig. 1. Then, different config- a relationship for the calculation of the equivalent strut width.
urations of 1-strut and 3-strut infilled frames, namely full According to Abdul-Kadir [36], actually the width of the
infilled frame (FIF), full infilled-except first storey frame strut was influenced not only by the adjacent columns, but
(FI-EFSF), interior bay infilled frame (IBIF) and interior also affected by the top beam, by dividing the parameter λ

123
Arabian Journal for Science and Engineering

Fig. 4 Different analytical models for the infilled frames

into two different factors λT and λ P that were correlated to reasonably took a conservative value of bw as one-fourth
the adjacent columns and to the upper beam, respectively, of the diagonal length, which could be utilized as a rough
and prepared a relation for the width bw of the equivalent and conservative estimate for the determination of the elastic
strut, as a function of the two different factors λT and λ P . period of the infilled frame. Later, Durrani and Luo [38], by
Another numerical model simulating the infill behaviour with conducting a comprehensive numerical finite element anal-
nonlinear diagonal struts was proposed by Klingner and Bert- ysis, proposed a new formula in which the effects of frame
ero [37] by performing laboratory tests; they suggested an geometry were introduced through the coefficient m. Papia et
expression for the width bw of the equivalent strut, as a func- al. [39] also introduced that the size of the strut was not only
tion of the stiffness parameter λh . Paulay and Priestley [31] depended on the lateral stiffness of the existing frame, but

123
 Arabian Journal for Science and Engineering

Table 1 Different expressions

Equation no. References Width of the equivalent strut bw
with regard to the width of the
strut bW
2 Holmes [33] bw = 13 d
 −0.445  0.064
0.335d H1w
3 Smith and Carter [30] bw = 0.58 H1w (λh H )

·tw sin(2θ)
λh = 4 E w4E c Ic Hw

4 Mainstone and Weeks [34] and bw = 0.175d (λh H )−0.4

Mainstone [35]
 2  2
π
5 Abdul-Kadir [36] bw = 2
1
λT + 1
2λ p

E w ·tw sin(2θ)
λp = 4
4E c I p Hw

E w ·tw sin(2θ)
λT = 4
4E c IT Hw
6 Klingner and Bertero [37] bw = 0.175d (λh Hw )−0.4
7 Paulay and Priestley [31] bw = 0.25d
√
8 Durrani and Luo [38] bw = γ L 2 + H 2 sin (2θ )
√  4
−0.1
γ = 0.32 sin (2θ) mEIwc tEwcHHw
 
m = 6 1 + 6E c Ib H
π E c Ic L

9 Papia et al. [39] bw = d cz 1

(λ∗ )β
c = 0.249 − 0.0116ν + 0.567ν 2
β = 0.146 + 0.0073ν + 0.126ν 2
 2 
λ∗ = EEwp tAHC HL 2 + 0.25 AAbc HL
1 ≤ z ≤ 1.125
10 FEMA 306 [40] bw = 0.175d (λh H )−0.4

also depended on the axial stiffness of the RC members. The

equivalent width was formulated by considering the elastic
modulus of the masonry, the diagonal inclination angle and
the Poisson coefficient. Apart from the above researchers,
FEMA 306 [40] proposed an equation for the equivalent strut
width, bw , which is represented by the diagonal length and
the actual infill thickness in the frame. As a result, the width of
the equivalent diagonal strut (bW ) can be obtained by various
formulations (Equations 2–10) as summarized in Table 1.
Figure 5 shows the panel example of the building; the
length of the strut is given by the diagonal distance (d) of
the panel. And the thickness of the strut is usually assumed
to be the same thickness of the panel. In this study, the strut
thickness was taken as 25 cm. The material properties of
the masonry infill wall were used according to the results Fig. 5 Equivalent strut (for compression) used in this study
of an extensive experimental studies conducted by Porco et
al. [41] and Uva et al. [5,42]. They conducted the diagonal
compression test on the masonry infill wall specimens under
The width of the struts calculated according to the equa-
monotonically increasing load applied through the plates
tions proposed by different sources in the literature is given
connected on two opposite corners of the specimen. It was
in Fig. 6. For example, the equations proposed by the
reported that the tensile strength, the diagonal elastic mod-
researchers, namely Smith and Carter [30], Holmes [33] and
ulus (Young’s modulus) and the transversal elastic modulus
Abdul-Kadir [36], provided higher values for the strut width
(shear modulus) of the infill masonry wall were as 0.36, 1495
since they considered the stiffness of the beams in addition
and 598 MPa, respectively.
to that of the columns. On the other hand, the sources such

123
Arabian Journal for Science and Engineering

Fig. 6 Equivalent strut width

determined according to the
equations in different sources

formation in the panel after the separation of the infill from

the bounding frame. The third part defines the infill walls
softening behaviour after the critical displacement Sm and is
characterized by the K 3 slope. The final part which is a hori-
zontal line describes the final behaviour of the infill walls. In
the literature, the final part can be ignored by assuming a soft-
ening line that reaches a zero residual strength Su , as shown
in Fig. 7. In the current study, the calculation of stiffness and
strength was performed as shown in the following procedure
based on the previous studies [42–44]. Thus, the initial shear
stiffness of the un-cracked infill panel (K 1 ), yielding force at
the first cracking of the infill panel (Fy ), displacement cor-
responding to yielding (S y ), axial stiffness of the equivalent
Fig. 7 Force–displacement curve for the equivalent strut model based strut (K 2 ) and the displacement corresponding to the maxi-
on the study of Panagiotakos and Fardis [43] mum force are given in Equations (11) through (15) [42–44].

G w Tw L w
K1 = (11)
as Mainstone and Weeks [34], Klingner and Bertero [37] Hw
and FEMA 306 [40] gave lower values for the strut width. Fy = f t p Tw L w (12)
However, the value calculated by the equation of Paulay and Fy
Priestley [31] yielded the result that is approximately the Sy = (13)
K1
average of all equations evaluated for the strut width. E m bw Tw
K2 = (14)
d
2.2.3 Strength and Stiffness of Infill Panel Fm − Fy
Sm = Sy + (15)
K2
The scientific literature includes various proposals for the
determination of the strength and stiffness of infill. In this where G w , L w and f t p are the shear modulus, length and
study, a constitutive relation proposed by Panagiotakos and tensile strength of the infill panel, respectively. Due to uncer-
Fardis [43] was used. They validated this relation by the tainties in the modelling and the lack of data, it was necessary
experimental cyclic tests, and the curve obtained is shown to randomly assume some mathematical parameters for the
in Fig. 7. This curve has mainly four segments. The first part models. In this study, in order to simplify some of the param-
shows the initial shear behaviour of the un-cracked panel. eters: as in the studies of Dolsek and Fajfar [45,46], the
The second segment depends on the equivalent diagonal strut ratio between the yield force and the maximum force was

123
 Arabian Journal for Science and Engineering

Base Shear Coefficient (V/W) 3 1.4

Base Shear Coefficient (V/W)

BF
2.5 BF 1.2
FIF
FIF
FI-SSF
FI-EFSF 1
2 IBIF
IBIF
IBI-SSF
IBI-EFSF 0.8
1.5
0.6
1
0.4
0.5
0.2

0 0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
Roof Drift Ratio % Roof Drift Ratio %
(a) (b)
0.9 0.7
BF (b) 4-storey frames BF
Base Shear Coefficient (V/W)

0.8 0.6

Base Shear Coefficient (V/W)

FIF FIF
0.7 FI-SSF FI-SSF
IBIF 0.5
IBIF
0.6 IBI-SSF IBI-SSF
0.5 0.4

0.4 0.3
0.3
0.2
0.2
0.1
0.1
0 0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8

Roof Drift Ratio % Roof Drift Ratio %

(c) (d)
Fig. 8 Capacity curves for the bare frames and infilled frames with 1-strut model. a 2-Storey frames, b 4-storey frames, c 6-storey frames, d
8-storey frames

supposed as Fy /Fm = 0.6, the residual force was taken infill. Furthermore, the main difference among the frames
as Fr = 0, and the ratio between the displacement at col- with infill except first storey (FI-EFSF and IBI-EFSF) and
lapse force and that at the maximum force was accepted as without infill (BF) was examined up to the point where failure
Sr /Sm = 5. in the infill walls occurred. Beyond the failure of infill walls,
the behaviour of the frame with infill wall became in gen-
eral similar to the behaviour of the frame without infill wall.
3 Results and Discussion Moreover, especially for 1-strut modelled infilled frames,
for the frames with infills at all storeys (FIF, IBIF), gener-
3.1 Capacity Curves ally with the failure of infills a considerable reduction in the
lateral load-carrying capacity of the frames was observed.
The capacity curves for bare frames (BFs) and those with On the other hand, when the frames with infill panels were
different configurations of infill walls (namely, full infilled compared, it was pointed out that the lateral load-carrying
frame (FIF), full infilled-except first storey frame (FI-EFSF), capacity of the FI-EFSF and IBI-EFSF was almost the same
interior bay infilled frame (IBIF) and interior bay infilled- and also close to BF except for 8-storey frame. In addition,
except first storey frame (IBI-EFSF)) were obtained from the for all building heights, the FI-EFSF and IBI-EFSF mod-
nonlinear static analysis. The capacity curves gathered from elled with using 1-strut and 3-strut approaches had similar
1-strut and 3-strut analytical models are given in Figs. 8 and behaviour in terms of their capacity curves.
9, respectively. It was observed that the presence of the infill
walls affected both the strength and stiffness of the structural
system, irrespective of the number of struts used in modelling

123
Arabian Journal for Science and Engineering

4 1.6
BF
Base Shear Coefficient (V/W)
3.5 FIF 1.4 BF

Base Shear Coefficient (V/W)

FI-EFSF FIF
3 IBIF 1.2 FI-EFSF
IBI-EFSF IBIF
2.5 1
IBI-EFSF
2 0.8

1.5 0.6

1 0.4

0.5 0.2

0 0
0 1 2 3 4 5 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2
Roof Drift Ratio % Roof Drift Ratio %
(a) (b)
1.4 0.9
BF (b) 4-storey frames
0.8

Base Shear Coefficient (V/W)

1.2 FIF
Base Shear Coefficient (V/W)

BF
FI-EFSF 0.7
FIF
1 IBIF 0.6 FI-EFSF
IBI-EFSF IBIF
0.8 0.5
IBI-EFSF
0.6 0.4
0.3
0.4
0.2
0.2 0.1

0 0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6
Roof Drift Ratio % Roof Drift Ratio %
(c) (d)
Fig. 9 Capacity curves for the bare frames and infilled frames with 3-strut model. a 2-Storey frames, b 4-storey frames, c 6-storey frames, d
8-storey frames

3.2 Maximum Base Shear Capacity 3.3 Initial Stiffness

The effects of infill walls on the maximum base shear capac- Figure 11 demonstrates the effect of infill walls on the initial
ity of the frames are graphically summarized in Fig. 10. In stiffness of the frames. In the figure, the ratio of the initial
this figure, the ratio of the maximum base shear of the infilled stiffness of the infilled frame to that of the bare frame was
frame to that of the bare frame was plotted with respect to plotted with respect to the frames having various numbers
the frames having different numbers of storeys. As revealed of storeys. The analysis of the results indicated that initial
in Fig. 10, the maximum base shear capacity of the FIF and stiffness of masonry-infilled frames was found to be sig-
IBIF was greater than that for the FI-EFSF and IBI-EFSF, nificantly greater as compared to the frames without infill,
whereas the values of FI-EFSF and IBI-EFSF were close to especially for FIF and IBIF cases. Due to the limited amount
each other. The maximum base shear capacity of the infilled of infill walls in IBI-EFSFs, their initial stiffness value was
frames with 3 strut differed from those of infilled frames with observed to be close to that of the BFs. As expected, among
1 strut, which may be due to the influence of local infill–frame the infilled frames, the FIF had higher initial stiffness than
interaction. The effect of the local infill–frame interaction the other infilled frames for different heights and for both
was considered in the analytical modelling process by the 1-strut and 3-strut models of infills.
equivalent struts pin connected to the frame elements so that
no moment transfer occurs. The plastic hinges were defined 3.4 Axial Load in Columns
at the end of the beam and column members outside the rigid
end zones, as moment or axial load-biaxial moment and shear The influence of infill walls on the axial force developed
hinge. The definition of plastic hinges was defined according in columns was studied for 8-storey frames having different
to FEMA 356 [24] based on axial load and/or shear. configurations of infill walls since the diagonal strut model

123
 Arabian Journal for Science and Engineering

5 4

Initial stifness, IF/Initial stifness, BF

FIF IBIF FI-EFSF IBI-EFSF
FIF IBIF FI-EFSF IBI-EFSF
4.5 3.5
4
3
3.5
Vmax, IF/Vmax, BF

2.5
3
2.5 2

2 1.5
1.5 1
1
0.5
0.5
0
0 2 storey 4 storey 6 storey 8 storey
2 storey 4 storey 6 storey 8 storey (a)
(a)
3.5
7 FIF IBIF FI-EFSF IBI-EFSF

Initial stifnes, IF/Initial stifness, BF

FIF IBIF FI-EFSF IBI-EFSF 3
6
2.5
Vmax, IF/Vmax, BF

5
2
4
1.5
3
1
2
0.5
1
0
0 2 storey 4 storey 6 storey 8 storey
2 storey 4 storey 6 storey 8 storey (b)
(b)
Fig. 11 Comparison of the ratio of the initial stiffness of infilled frame
Fig. 10 Comparison of the ratio of the maximum base shear of infilled to bare frame (initial stiffness, IF/initial stiffness, BF). a 1 Strut, b 3
frame to bare frame (Vmax, IF/Vmax, BF). a 1 Strut, b 3 strut strut

of infill walls may alter both the axial force developed and
the failure mode of columns. In Fig. 12, the elevation view
of the frame and label of the ground floor columns studied
are given. For the purpose of investigating the axial load in
the columns, the column E in the first storey was considered
for the cases of FIF and FI-EFSF, while the column D was
illustrated for IBIF and IBI-EFSF. Then, the ratio of the axial
force of the column under combined loading of gravity and
lateral loads during pushover analysis (P) to the axial force
of the column under gravity loading (P0 ) was obtained. The
variation of P/P0 with the ratio of roof displacement to the
yield displacement ( / y ) derived from the analysis was
examined as plotted in Fig. 13. It could be clearly observed
from the figure that infill walls had a considerable effect on
the column axial force. Addition of infill walls resulted in
higher axial internal forces in column E for FIF and FI-EFSF
configurations as compared to the column D in IBIF and
IBI-EFSF configurations. It was also pointed out that as the
lateral displacement increased, the axial force had a tendency
to rise in the columns in the compression side of the infilled
frame buildings.
Fig. 12 Elevation of the 8-storey frame and label of the ground floor
columns

123
Arabian Journal for Science and Engineering

3 3

2 2

P/Po
P/Po

1 1
E BF E BF
E 1 Strut
E 1 Strut
E 3 Strut
E 3 Strut
0 0
0 1 2 3 4 0 1 2 3

(a) (b)
2 2

P/Po
P/Po

1 1

D BF
D BF
D 1 Strut
D 1 Strut
D 3 Strut D 3 Strut

0 0
0 1 2 3 4 0 1 2 3

(c) (d)
Fig. 13 Variation of the axial force ratio in the columns of 8-storey frames: a FIF, b FI-EFSF, c IBIF and d IBI-EFSF

3.5 Plastic Hinge Formations and Displacement infilled frame modelled with 1-strut infill model (Fig. 14c)
Demand had less plastic hinges formed in the infills than the six-storey
interior bay infilled frame modelled with 3-strut infill model
Figure 14 illustrates the plastic hinge formations at the final (Fig. 14g).
step of the pushover analysis (at mechanism) for the 6-storey The target displacement which is an indicator of the peak
bare and infilled frames. As shown in Fig. 14j, the plastic displacement likely to be observed in the structure during
hinge states are given in terms of points A, B, C, D and the design earthquake, the yield displacement and the cor-
E, in addition to the performance states of immediate occu- responding yield strength were obtained according to the
pancy (IO), life safety (LS) and collapse prevention (CP) displacement coefficient method in FEMA 440 [47]. The val-
according to FEMA 356 [24]. As seen from the figure, the ues obtained for the frames are given in Table 2. As seen from
presence of masonry infill walls caused a marked change in this table, the yield displacement and the corresponding yield
the distribution of plastic hinges and had effects on the col- strength of the frames were to some extent different from
lapse mechanism of the frames. As expected for all frames each other. Similarly, based on the same demand parameters,
with infills, generally in most of the infill walls, the plastic the target displacement determined for each slightly differed
hinges were observed at the stage of mechanism indepen- from each other.
dent from the approach of modelling, 1 strut or 3 strut. On
the other hand, it was shown that at mechanism the number
of plastic hinges that formed in the infill walls of the single-
strut frame models was less than the number of hinges that
4 Summary and Conclusions
were formed in the infill walls of the three-strut frame mod-
In the current study, two-, four-, six- and eight-storey bare
els. For instance, at mechanism, the six-storey interior bay
frames (BFs) and those with different configurations of the

123
 Arabian Journal for Science and Engineering

Fig. 14 Plastic hinge

distribution of 6-storey bare and
infilled frames at the final stage.
a BF, b 1-strut FIF, c 1-strut
IBIF, d 1-strut FI-EFSF, e
1-strut IBI-EFSF, f 3-strut FIF, g
3-strut IBIF, h 3-strut FI-EFSF, i
3-strut IBI-EFSF, j force
deformation criteria for hinges
according to FEMA 356

123
Arabian Journal for Science and Engineering

Fig. 14 continued

Table 2 Displacement demand

Frame Vy (kN) δ y (m) Performance point
in the frames based on FEMA
440 [47] V (kN) δt (m)

BF
2 storey 514.6 0.015 572.0 0.036
4 storey 403.7 0.013 460.3 0.024
6 storey 608.0 0.021 682.5 0.093
8 storey 616.1 0.020 710.3 0.080
1 strut
FIF
2 storey 1208.8 0.009 1110.8 0.009
4 storey 1104.2 0.017 1919.6 0.038
6 storey 1645.4 0.031 2281.8 0.063
8 storey 1995.1 0.034 2535.6 0.074
FI-EFSF
2 storey 542.8 0.009 552.9 0.021
4 storey 730.0 0.016 745.1 0.052
6 storey 954.8 0.022 897.7 0.089
8 storey 1236.2 0.027 1341.2 0.112
IBIF
2 storey 964.3 0.008 1174.8 0.009
4 storey 1234.6 0.018 1864.2 0.034
6 storey 1722.7 0.030 2032.4 0.060
8 storey 1942.0 0.037 2004.3 0.094
IBI-EFSF
2 storey 549.6 0.009 545.2 0.023
4 storey 714.0 0.016 680.0 0.052
6 storey 850.4 0.020 977.7 0.090
8 storey 1191.8 0.028 1316.6 0.114

123
 Arabian Journal for Science and Engineering

Table 2 continued
Frame Vy (kN) δ y (m) Performance point
V (kN) δt (m)

3 strut
FIF
2 storey 912.5 0.010 985.0 0.011
4 storey 1011.1 0.019 1781.3 0.043
6 storey 1075.4 0.022 2578.4 0.073
8 storey 1257.4 0.027 2806.7 0.090
FI-EFSF
2 storey 528.3 0.009 580.6 0.022
4 storey 713.4 0.015 758.0 0.057
6 storey 904.0 0.025 991.3 0.097
8 storey 1078.0 0.030 1310.4 0.116
IBIF
2 storey 838.8 0.012 955.6 0.014
4 storey 799.3 0.019 1696.0 0.040
6 storey 1089.1 0.026 2338.8 0.082
8 storey 1940.5 0.042 2437.1 0.100
IBI-EFSF
2 storey 565.5 0.012 591.3 0.024
4 storey 703.3 0.016 754.5 0.061
6 storey 894.5 0.027 978.7 0.105
8 storey 1151.8 0.034 1293.7 0.120

infilled panels (namely, full infilled frame (FIF), full infilled- Regarding the figures about capacity curve, it was observed
except first storey frame (FI-EFSF), interior bay infilled that with the change in the height of the structure, their
frame (IBIF) and interior bay infilled-except first storey response with and without infill case had altered. In par-
frame (IBI-EFSF)) were investigated through the nonlinear ticular, for the cases of FI-EFSF and IBI-EFSF, considering
analysis. For modelling of the infill walls both single- and the maximum lateral load-carrying capacity, the effects of
triple-strut models were utilized to evaluate the differences infill walls on the 2-storey frame were negligible compared
in macro-modelling approaches of infill walls. The interac- to their effects on the 4-, 6- and 8-storey frames. On the other
tion between the RC columns and the infill wall panels was hand, for the FIF and IBIF cases, the behaviour observed was
examined considering the two approaches, and the variation approximately similar for all building heights showing more
in the capacity curves and the plastic hinge formations as increase in the lateral load-carrying capacity in FIFs than in
well as the internal forces developed in the vertical structural IBIFs.
members were also compared. Furthermore, it was pointed out that the masonry infill
The results exhibited that the single-strut model was bet- walls caused changing the distribution of plastic hinge and
ter to be used in the analysis to predict the global behaviour collapse mechanism. The results revealed a significant incre-
of the infilled frame buildings such as the initial stiffness ment in the peak strength of the FIF and IBIF while a
or the load-carrying capacity due to its more conservative substantial reduction in the peak strength of the FI-EFSF
results and simplicity. On the other hand, triple-strut models and IBI-EFSF due to different arrangements of infill panels.
seemed to be more suitable modelling method for predicting
the resulting forces in the frame members (local effects of
infill–frame interaction). In these models, during the nonlin- 5 Recommendations for Future Work
ear analysis, it was observed that generally the three struts
did not fail at the same time, which reflects the case in real In this study, the influence of masonry infill panels having
infill panels in which the crushing starts at some points of the various configurations was investigated extensively on the
infill and propagates to the middle regions that leads to the frames with constant geometrical properties. In order to rep-
failure of the infill panel. resent more general conclusions, the change in the infill panel
aspect ratio of the infills (hence angle for struts) should also
be taken into account as a further research.

123
Arabian Journal for Science and Engineering

References quake Engineering, Computational Methods in Applied Sciences,

vol. 30, pp. 197–224. Springer, Dordecht (2013)
1. Davis, R.; Krishnan, P.; Menon, D.; Prasad, A.: Effect of infill stiff- 24. FEMA 356: Prestandard and commentary for the seismic reha-
ness on seismic performance of multi-storey RC framed buildings bilitation of building. Federal Emergency Management Agency,
in India. In: 13th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Washington, DC (2000)
Vancouver, BC, Canada (2004) 25. Computers and Structures Inc.: SAP 2000 Advanced 14.0.0., Struc-
2. Crisafulli, F.J.; Carr, A.J.: Proposed macro-model for the analysis tural Analysis Program Manual, Berkeley, CA (2011)
of infilled frame structures. Bull. N. Z. Soc. Earthq. Eng. 40(2), 26. Thiruvengadam, V.: On the natural frequencies of infilled frames.
69–77 (2007) Earthq. Eng. Struct. Dyn. 13(3), 401–419 (1985)
3. Dorji, J.; Thambiratnam, D.P.: Modelling and analysis of infilled 27. Reflak, J.; Fajfar, P.: Elastic analysis of infilled frames using
frame structures under seismic loads. Open Constr. Build. Technol. substructures. In: Proceedings of 6th Canadian Conference on
J. 3, 119–126 (2009) Earthquake Engineering. University of Toronto Press, Toronto, pp.
4. Wakchaure, M.R.; Ped, S.P.: Earthquake analysis of high rise build- 285–292 (1991)
ing with and without in filled walls. Int. J. Eng. Innov. Technol. 28. Andreaus, U.; Cerone, M.; D’Asdia, P.; Iannozzi, F.: A finite ele-
(IJEIT) 2, 89–94 (2012) ment model for the analysis of masonry structures under cyclic
5. Uva, G.; Porco, F.; Fiore, A.: Appraisal of masonry infill walls effect actions. In: Proceeding of the Seventh International Brick and
in the seismic response of RC framed buildings: a case study. Eng. Masonry Conference, Vol. 1, pp. 479–488 (1985)
Struct. 34, 514–526 (2012) 29. Chrysostomou, C.Z.; Gergely, P.; Abel, J.F.: Nonlinear seismic
6. Wood, R.H.: The stability of tall buildings. Proc. Inst. Civ. Eng. response of infilled steel frames. In: Tenth World Conference on
11(1), 69–102 (1958) Earthquake Engineering, Madrid, Spain (1992)
7. Agrawal, N.; Kulkarni, P.B.; Raut, P.: Analysis of M asonry infilled 30. Smith, B.S.; Carter, C.: A method of analysis for infilled frames.
RC frame with & without opening including soft storey by using Proc. Inst. Civ. Eng. 44, 31–48 (1969)
equivalent diagonal strut method. Int. J. Sci. Res. Publ. 3(9), 1–8 31. Paulay, T.; Priestley, M.J.N.: Seismic Design of Reinforced Con-
(2013) crete and Masonry Buildings. Wiley, New York (1992)
8. Korkmaz, K.A.; Demir, F.; Sivri, M.: Earthquake assessment of 32. Kaushik, H.B.; Rai, D.C.; Jain, S.K.: A rational approach to ana-
R/C structures with masonry infill walls. Int. J. Sci. Technol. 2(2), lytical modeling of masonry infills in reinforced concrete frame
155–164 (2007) buildings. In: Proceedings of the 14th World Conference on Earth-
9. Mallick, D.V.; Severn, R.T.: The behaviour of infilled frames under quake Engineering, pp. 12–17 (2008)
static loading. Proc. Inst. Civ. Eng. 38(4), 639–656 (1967) 33. Holmes, M.: Steel frames with brickwork and concrete infilling.
10. Dhanasekhar, M.; Page, A.W.: The influence of brick masonry infill Proc. Inst. Civ. Eng. 19(4), 473–478 (1961)
properties on the behaviour of i nfilled frames. Proc. Inst. Civ. Eng. 34. Mainstone, R.J.; Weeks, G.A.: The influence of bounding frame
81(4), 593–605 (1986) on the racking stiffness and strength of brick walls. In: Proceed-
11. Papia, M.: Analysis of infilled frames using a coupled finite element ings of the 2nd International Brick Masonry Conference, Building
and boundary element solution scheme. Int. J. Numer. Methods Research Establishment, Watford, England, pp. 165–171 (1970)
Eng. 26(3), 731–742 (1988) 35. Mainstone, R.J.: Supplementary note on the stiffness and strengths
12. El Haddad, M.H.: Finite element analysis of infilled frames consid- of infilled frames. Current Paper CP 13/74. Building Research Sta-
ering cracking and separation phenomena. Comput. Struct. 41(3), tion, Garston, Watford, UK (1974)
439–447 (1991) 36. Abdul-Kadir, M.R.: The structural behaviour of masonry infill pan-
13. May, I.M.; Naji, J.H.: Nonlinear analysis of infilled frames under els in framed structures. Ph.D. thesis, University of Edinburgh,
monotonic and cyclic loading. Comput. Struct. 38(2), 149–160 Edinburgh (1974)
(1991) 37. Klingner, R.E.; Bertero, V.V.: Infilled Frames in Earthquake Resis-
14. Lotfi, H.R.; Shing, P.B.: Interface model applied to fracture of tant Construction, Report EERC 76-32. Earthquake Engineering
masonry structures. J. Struct. Eng. 120(1), 63–80 (1994) Research Center, University of California, Berkeley, CA (1976)
15. Mehrabi, A.B.; Shing, P.B.: Finite element modeling of masonry- 38. Durrani, A.J.; Luo, Y.H.: Seismic retrofit of flat-slab buildings with
infilled RC frames. J. Struct. Eng. 123(5), 604–613 (1997) masonry infills. Technical Report, National Center for Earthquake
16. Lourenço, P.B.; Rots, J.G.: Multisurface interface model for anal- Engineering Research, Buffalo, NY, pp. 1–8 (1994)
ysis of masonry structures. J. Eng. Mech. 123(7), 660–668 (1997) 39. Papia, M.; Cavaleri, L.; Fossetti, M.: Infilled frames: developments
17. Van Zijl, G.P.: Modeling masonry shear-compression: role of dila- in the evaluation of the stiffening effect of infills. Structural Engi-
tancy highlighted. J. Eng. Mech. 130(11), 1289–1296 (2004) neering and Mechanics, Vol. 16. Techno Press, Korea (2003)
18. Samoilă, D.M.: Analytical modelling of masonry infills. Acta Tech. 40. FEMA 306: Evaluation of Earthquake Damaged Concrete and
Napoc. Civ. Eng. Archit. 55(2), 1–10 (2012) Masonry Wall Buildings: Basic Procedures Manual, Federal Emer-
19. Perera, R.: Performance evaluation of masonry-infilled RC frames gency Management Agency, Washington, DC (1998)
under cyclic loading based on damage mechanics. Eng. Struct. 41. Porco, G.; Uva, G.; Porco, F.: Reliability analysis for non stan-
27(8), 1278–1288 (2005) dard masonry systems under seismic loading. Paper No. 1601. In:
20. Chrysostomou, C.Z.: Effects of degrading infill walls on the nonlin- 13th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Vancouver,
ear seismic response of two-dimensional steel frames. Ph.D. thesis, BC, Canada, August 1–6 (2004)
Cornell University, Ithaca, NY (1991) 42. Uva, G.; Raffaele, D.; Porco, F.; Fiore, A.: On the role of equivalent
21. Saneinejad, A.; Hobbs, B.: Inelastic design of infilled frames. J. strut models in the seismic assessment of infilled RC buildings.
Struct. Eng. 121(4), 634–650 (1995) Eng. Struct. 42, 83–94 (2012)
22. Buonopane, S.G.; White, R.N.: Pseudodynamic testing of masonry 43. Panagiotakos, T.B.; Fardis, M.N.: Seismic response of infilled RC
infilled reinforced concrete frame. J. Struct. Eng. 125(6), 578–589 frames structures. In: 11th World Conference on Earthquake Engi-
(1999) neering, Acapulco (1996)
23. Asteris, P.G.; Chrysostomou, C.Z.; Giannopoulos, I.; Ricci, P.: 44. Bertoldi, S.H.; Decanini, L.D.; Gavarini, C.: Telai tamponati
Modeling of infilled framed structures. In: Papadrakakis, M., soggetti ad azioni sismiche, un modello semplificato: confronto
Fragiadakis, M., Plevis, V. (eds.) Computational Methods in Earth- sperimentale e numerico. Atti del 6 Convegno Nazionale ANIDIS,
vol. 2, Perugia, 13–15 Ottobre, pp. 815–824 [in Italian] (1993)

123
 Arabian Journal for Science and Engineering

45. Dolsek, M.; Fajfar, P.: Simplified non-linear seismic analysis of 47. FEMA 440: Improvement of Nonlinear Static Seismic Analy-
infilled reinforced concrete frames. Earthq. Eng. Struct. Dyn. 34, sis Procedures, Applied Technology Council (ATC-55 Project)
49–66 (2005) (2005)
46. Dolsek, M.; Fajfar, P.: The effect of masonry infills on the seismic
response of a four-storey reinforced concrete frame-a deterministic
assessment. Eng. Struct. 30, 1991–2001 (2008)

123