Engineering Structures 42 (2012) 8394

Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect

Engineering Structures
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/engstruct

On the role of equivalent strut models in the seismic assessment

of inlled RC buildings
G. Uva, D. Raffaele, F. Porco, A. Fiore
Dipartimento ICAR, Politecnico di Bari, Via Orabona 4, 70126 Bari, Italy

a r t i c l e

i n f o

Article history:
Received 3 August 2011
Revised 17 January 2012
Accepted 5 April 2012
Available online 26 May 2012
Keywords:
Masonry-inlled RC frames
Seismic assessment
Nonlinear static analysis
Equivalent strut models
Collapse mechanisms
Existing RC buildings

a b s t r a c t
The participation of masonry inll panel to the overall seismic resistance of a framed building has a signicant variation according to the specic mechanical characteristics of the inll, the geometrical distribution within the building and the local interaction among the panel and the surrounding primary RC
elements. Especially in the case of structure designed only for vertical loads, essence of the inll can
be decisive under an unexpected earthquake, providing an additional contribution to the strength and
to the stiffness. On the other side, this benecial role is often accompanied by the modication of the global collapse mechanisms, with the appearance of brittle failure modes.
In the present paper, an existing RC framed building for which a good level of knowledge was available,
including a wide experimental database, was chosen as a case study. A reference frame was considered
for performing nonlinear static analyses aimed at investigating some signicant aspects about the modelling of the inll and the relapse induced by the related computational choices on the structural
response. In particular, it is faced the sensitivity analysis about specic parameters involved in the definition of the equivalent strut models: the width bW of the strut; the constitutive ForceDisplacement law
of the panel; the number of struts adopted to simulate the panel.
2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction
In Italy, existing RC framed buildings are often characterized by
the presence of non-engineered inll panels which, according to
the current constructive practice, are in contact with the frame
(i.e. without special separation joints) and actually interact with
the primary structural elements.
The observation of the post-earthquake damage (e.g. Marche
Umbria and LAquila earthquakes) and the experience developed
about the seismic assessment of existing buildings especially
those designed for vertical loads only and with no specic seismic
details has denitely demonstrated that inll masonry walls often behave like real primary elements, bringing a signicant contribution to the seismic response [1]. In some cases, even in the
presence of a regular skeleton, an anomalous structural behaviour
(additional torsional actions; soft storey mechanism; etc.) can be
triggered [2,3]. The appearance of these effects, moreover, can be
sudden and unexpected, because of the abrupt brittle failure of
some panels, which modies the original regular geometric conguration. It is evident, after all, that the contribution brought by the
inll walls to the overall seismic resistance is crucial, and should
not be neglected in the modelling.
Corresponding author. Tel.: +39 080 5963832; fax: +39 080 5963823.
E-mail address: andrea.ore@poliba.it (A. Fiore).
0141-0296/$ - see front matter 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2012.04.005

Usually, in the design of new buildings, two different approaches are followed [4]. The rst one is oriented at completely
neglecting the presence of the inll (which is considered unreliable
because of the uncertainties arising during the execution) and
thence encompasses the disjunction of the panels from the supporting frame. The second approach is antithetic, and stresses the
importance of the positive effects brought by the inll panels,
especially under severe earthquakes: increase of the overall
strength and stiffness, enhancement of energy dissipation. Inll
panels, according to this philosophy, are always connected with
the resisting RC frame by using specic devices (ties, belts, posts
or shear connectors). This idea is often followed also in the case
of existing buildings, by applying specic bandaging as a retrotting technique, in order to encourage an integral behaviour of the
inll panels with the RC frame and avoid the early expulsion and
collapse of the inll.
The European Technical Standards (Eurocode 8 EC8) and the
recent Italian Building Code [5,6], generally consider masonry inll
panels as non-structural elements, that not contributing to the lateral resistance. Both the Italian Building Code (Section 7.2.6) and
EC8 (Section 4.3) only provide some general indications: Inll
walls which contribute signicantly to the lateral stiffness and resistance of the building should be taken into account. Anyway, no specication of the threshold level dening such a transition is
provided. On the other side, EC8, when dening a non-structural

84

G. Uva et al. / Engineering Structures 42 (2012) 8394

element (Section 1.5.2), explicitly excludes inll panels, since they

are able to bear horizontal loads and must thence be considered in
the design. After all, even if the actual role of masonry inll in the
lateral resistance is recognised, there is a certain caution, mainly
related to the lack of well established and reliable numerical models for the simulation and, above all, to the presence of many factors of uncertainty.
In the paper, a RC inlled framed building is considered as a
case study. A signicant reference frame is selected and modelled
in the plane for the application of the nonlinear static analysis.
Two congurations are analysed: the bare frame and the inlled
frame, in order to perform a critical comparison and deduce some
observations about the modelling of the inll. With regard to the
modelling of the inll panels, a review of the most representative
models available in the literature has been preliminarily performed (Section 2), in order to highlight between the methods.
The reference data about the mechanical characteristics of the inll walls have been extracted from an experimental investigation
performed by the authors [7]. The comparative analyses allowed
to investigate the role of masonry inll in the seismic behaviour
of RC frames, pointing out some relevant questions about the sensitivity to the material parameters and the choice the modelling
approach.

2. State of the art

As already briey discussed, the latest research studies about
the inllframe interaction, point out some difculties related to
the variety and uncertainty of the parameters involved, the complexity of the models and the experimental investigation.
The scientic literature offers a variety of models, which can be
grouped in two classes [8]. The rst one includes micro-modelling
approaches, in which the RC frame, the masonry panel and their
mutual connections are individually modelled and described by
proper constitutive laws. The second class, usually dened as
macro-modelling approach, is the most widely used, and resorts
to simple heuristic models for which the solution is straightforward in order to analyse the frame-inll system. Among these,
it is worth mentioning the so called method of the composite cantilever [9], and the method of the equivalent strut (derived from
the observation that the load path within the inll panel mainly
follows the diagonal [1012]), that is by far the most popular. It
should be remembered that, in the eld of the nonlinear seismic
analysis, the approaches pursuing the micro-modelling of the inll
panels by means of a detailed FEM mesh are hard to apply, because
of the high computational effort.
The present work is oriented to the macro-modelling approaches, which provide an effective and operative application,
even if the exibility and simplicity of use often implies that the
numerical results are not always clear and univocal. In particular,
the identication of the mechanical parameters is the most crucial
point. A signicant example is represented by the case of an inll
panel with an opening, for which the model of the equivalent strut
becomes completely abstract, and can only be applied by introducing an articial adjustment of the mechanical parameters, which
have no physical correspondence with the reality [13].
The calibration of the macro-models is particularly affected by
the extreme variability of the mechanical parameters of the inll
(non-structural materials are typically scarcely inspected and
tested). The model of the equivalent strut, thence, is quite effective
and simple, but presents a number of critical aspects that, if not
properly managed, can compromise the reliability of the results.
With regard to this problem, specic comments will be made
about the parameters used in the analyses and about the quality
of the obtained results.

2.1. Equivalent strut model

A particularly effective and widespread approach for representing the combined frame-masonry inll response under the seismic
actions, is the use of equivalent diagonal struts (Fig. 1). Under progressively increasing loads, a detachment between the panel and
the frame (coupled with a slip along the contact surfaces, both horizontal and vertical) happens at the nodes (Fig. 1a), determining a
stress increase in the panel. The initial shear behaviour of the masonry inll is progressively modied, because the axial stress in the
corners that are still in contact with the frame becomes relevant. It
is thence reasonable to model the inlled frame as a system braced
by diagonal equivalent struts that simulate the axial behaviour of
the panels. According to this model, the masonry elements
although diffusely cracked bring a signicant stiffening contribution to the RC frame (Fig. 1b). The consequent effects over the global response of the building are generally positive. In fact, even in
the presence of higher stiffness the natural period of the structure
is shifted towards lower values, increasing the seismic actions, a
signicant part of the horizontal forces can be absorbed by the inll panels, and overall the RC structure is less stressed. The previous remarks are also conrmed by experimental studies based on
pseudo-dynamic tests performed over scale models (1:2) of RC
frames with hollow brick masonry inll [14].
The fundamental factors that govern the equivalent strut model,
which will be discussed in detail in the following paragraphs, are:
 the width bW of the strut;
 the constitutive relationship of the panel;
 the number of struts introduced.
2.1.1. Choice of the strut section
A wide literature can be found about the choice of the geometric
characteristics of the panel in order to achieve the equivalence in
terms of strength and stiffness. The thickness of the strut is usually
assumed to be the same of the panel, whereas different proposals
have been made with regard to the width bW. Basically, there are
two main approaches. A rst one, simply denes bW as a function
of the diagonal length of the panel, giving more emphasis to the
geometric aspects than to the mechanical ones. The second approach, instead, denes the parameters of the equivalent strut on
the basis of both the geometry and the mechanical properties of
the inlled frame providing more rened numerical formulations.
A brief review of the most representative proposals is now
presented.
One of the rst authors, who dealt with this issue, at the beginning of the 1960s, was Holmes [15]. He assumed the value 0.33d as
the width of the strut (where d is the diagonal measure of the panel). Even if such a formulation seems quite simplistic, it is the result of a large number of numerical simulations and parametric
analyses aimed at identifying the value that could best ts at the
structural response. Afterwards, many research studies followed
the footsteps of Holmes, providing alternative and variations to
his proposal. Among these, for example, we remember the denitions made by [16,17], where bW is assumed to be 0.25d and
0.20d, respectively. The rst value, in particular, can be used in order to provide an approximate estimate (in a conservative sense) of
the elastic period of the inlled frame.
In the other cases, in order to take into account the actual variability of the mechanical properties of the inll, the denition of
the width bW of the strut includes besides the length d, both the
characteristics of the frame and of the masonry inll. It is particularly important to consider the level of degradation and cracking of
the panel, by adjusting the parameters in the different phases of
the loading history: the width of the strut shall be greater at the
beginning, in order to represent the initial stiffness of the

85

G. Uva et al. / Engineering Structures 42 (2012) 8394

Fig. 1. The equivalent strut model.

undamaged panel; it shall be smaller [18] in proximity of the failure (incipient sliding of the bed joints or crushing of the corners),
when only the central strip of the panel is actually working.
The rst author to work in this direction was Stafford Smith
[10], who introduced on the basis FEM numerical analyses a
parameter k expressing the relative stiffness of the frame and of
the panel:

s
4 EW t W sin 2h
k
4EC IP HW

bW 0:175dkHW 0:4

Durrani and Luo [13] later modied the relation (2) on the basis
of detailed numerical FEM analyses, providing a formulation in
which the dependence on the geometry of the frame is introduced
by means of the coefcient m:
1:5

EW t W H
mIP EC HW

!0:1
3

where m is given by:



6
HIT
m 6 1 arctan
p
LiP

H and L denote the height and the width of the mesh, respectively.
According to some authors, the dimensions of the strut are actually inuenced not only by the adjacent columns, but also by the
top beam, as proposed at the beginning of the 1970s [20], by splitting the parameter k (cfr. Eq. (1)), into two distinct factors kT and kP,
that are correlated to the upper beam and to the adjacent columns,
respectively. In particular, the expression of kP is provided by Eq.
(1) as well, while kT is dened as follows:

s
4 EW t W sin 2h
kT
4Ec IT HW

bW

2 4kP

!
6

k2T

Dawe and Seah [21] proposed a slightly different formulation

based on the same parameters kT and kP:

where EW and EC respectively are, the elastic modulus of the inll

panel and of the RC frame; tW is the thickness of the panel; IP is
the moment of inertia of the column; HW is the height of the panel;
h is the slope angle of the panels diagonal.
Klingner and Bertero [19] resumed the above-mentioned study,
performing laboratory tests on scale models (1:3) that reproduced
RC frames and inll panels made by hollow concrete/brick masonry. They obtained the following expression for the width bW
of the equivalent strut, as a function of the stiffness parameter k:

bW 0:32d sin

The width bW of the equivalent strut, as a function of the above

dened parameters, is given by:

bW



2p cos h sin h

kP
kT
3

It is particularly interesting to mention the research study

developed by Bertoldi et al. [22] about the modelling of hollow
block masonry inll. In this approach, besides providing the stiffness and strength parameters of the inlled frame, a specic calibration of the bW/d ratio was made, in order to properly
represent the response of the completely cracked panel under cyclic loads. A validation of the model was made on the basis of nonlinear FEM analyses and experimental laboratory tests. In the case
of panels without openings, the following semi-empiric expression
is provided:

bW K 1

K2
d
kH

The values of the parameters K1 and K2 gathered in Table 1.

An extensive application of the method both to existing and to
new buildings [8] allowed to appraise the value bW/d. In the case of
frames designed only for vertical loads and lled with strong
panels, this ratio is approximately 10%. In the presence of weak
inll, instead, values higher than 20% are encountered.
Recently, a few innovations have been introduced in the evaluation of the parameter bW. Among these, it is worth mentioning the
research work of Papia et al. [23]. He introduces the dependence of
the strut size not only on the lateral stiffness of the bare frame, but
also on the axial stiffness of the RC elements. The equivalent width
is thence dened by introducing the elastic modulus EWh of the maTable 1
The parameters K1 and K2 of the model [22].

K1
K2

kH < 3.14

3.14 < kH < 7.85

kH > 7.85

1.3
0178

0707
0.01

0.47
0.04

86

G. Uva et al. / Engineering Structures 42 (2012) 8394

sonry evaluated along the diagonal (h = inclination angle) and

the Poisson coefcient m, according to the following expression:

c
bW d k b
z

are derived from the phenomenological observation of experimental tests in which scale models are dynamically brought to
collapse.
Among the different approaches, we will refer to those proposed by:

where with 1 6 z 6 1.125:

c 0249  0:0116m 0567m2

10

b 0146 0:0073m 0126m2

11

EWh th
k
EP AC


H2

AP L
0:25
2
A
T H
L

!
12

AP and AT respectively are the transversal area of the adjacent columns and of the upper beam.
At the end of this brief review, it should be observed that the
critical elements in the denition of bW are, rst of all, the mechanical properties of the inll, but also the damage level attained by
the panels. In fact, as long as the horizontal loads grow, the response of the system becomes strongly nonlinear, and the consequent stiffness variation cannot be properly simulated by any of
the above mentioned formulations.
In this regard, it should be specied that the rst group of formulations recalled at the beginning of the paragraph is strictly oriented at modelling the linearly elastic behaviour of the panel,
disregarding the inelastic phase and the damage state of the panel.
The basis of these models is referable to the analogy with the foundation beam on an elastic soil, where the foundation beam is the column, and the elastic soil is the inll panel.
The second group, instead, the damage within the panel is taken
into account, according to different assumptions. In some cases,
the proposed value of bW is referred to the rst cracking condition
of the panel ((2) and (3)). In other cases ((6)(9)), the relationship
is calibrated in order to represent the full damaged state. By resorting to nonlinear FEM analyses and specic experimental results, it
is also possible to provide values of bW capable of simulating the
stiffness of inll panels under cyclic loading. Of course, this class
of models is particularly suited for analyses in the nonlinear eld.
It should be also mentioned that the choice of the most appropriate model has to be made coherently with the specic reference
experimental tests used in the calibration of the model. For instance, relation (8) can be conveniently used for the inll panels
typically used in residential buildings, for which has been specically calibrated.
2.1.2. Evaluation of the strength of the equivalent strut
It is well acknowledged that the presence of the inll in a frame
modies the overall strength and stiffness of the system, by altering the seismic response. This is clearly evident when linear methods of analysis are used, whereas in the nonlinear eld the
question is more complex and the actual response is inuenced
by several factors. In particular, it is important to take into account
the progressive degradation of the stiffness and strength of the masonry panel during the cyclic loading. This is not an easy task, considering the many factors involved: the variability of materials and
constructive techniques that can be encountered; the high degree
of uncertainty about the mechanical parameters; the geometrical
conguration; the presence of openings.
Actually, in all the formulations discussed in the previous paragraph, the width bW of the equivalent strut is not related to the
degrading cyclic behaviour of the inll panel under horizontal
loads. This is a crucial issue, and affects the performance of the
model, making it insensitive to the recalled factors.
In the literature, several models aimed at the appraisal of the
hysteretic behaviour of the inlled frame can be found, that

 Panagiotakos and Fardis [24],

 Bertoldi et al. [22],

which will be used for developing the analyses on the case studies, and are briey described in this paragraph.
Panagiotakos and Fardis proposed a model based on the equivalent strut idea, proposing a constitutive relationship validated by
experimental cyclic tests on scale samples of frames with brick inll panels, obtaining the curve shown in Fig. 2, that is composed by
four segments (if no residual resistance is assumed, the segments
are reduced to 3). The rst segment represents the initial shear
behaviour of the uncracked panel. The second corresponds to the
formation of the equivalent strut in the panel, after the detachment
of the inll from the surrounding frame. The third describes the
softening response of the panel after the critical displacement Sm
and is characterized by the K3 slope. The last horizontal segment
denes the nal state of the panel, and is characterized by a constant residual resistance. Actually, the results of the experimental
tests show non-zero values of the residual resistance only for
few samples, so that some authors [25] decide to neglect it, assuming a softening line that reaches a zero residual strength (Su,
dashed line in Fig. 2). The adoption of the relationship shown in
Fig. 2 (continuous line) has the advantage to improve the numerical stability of the analyses.
In Fig. 3, the parameters dening the different branches of the
curve are specied:
 Initial shear stiffness K1 of the uncracked panel:

K1

GW tW LW
HW

13

GW is the tangential elastic modulus of the masonry inll; LW,

HW and tW respectively are the length, the height and the
thickness of the panel.
 Yielding force Fy corresponding to the rst cracking of the
panel:

F y ftp tW LW

14

ftp is the tensile strength of the panel, evaluated by the diagonal compression test

Fig. 2. The ForceDisplacement relationship proposed by Panagiotakos and Fardis

[24] for the equivalent strut model.

87

G. Uva et al. / Engineering Structures 42 (2012) 8394

The stiffness Km is given by (19):

Km

Em bW t W
cos2 h
d

19

In order to evaluate the maximum strength Fm, four possible

collapse modes of the panel are singled out: crushing at the centre
of the panel; crushing of the corners; sliding of the horizontal mortar joints; diagonal tensile failure. A specic value of the ultimate
stress rw (which is assumed to be uniform both on the section
and on the length of the equivalent strut) is associated to each of
these mechanisms
Crushing at the centre of the panel:
Fig. 3. ForceDisplacement relationship for the equivalent strut proposed by
Bertoldi et al. [22].

rW1
 Displacement at the yielding, Sy:

Sy

Fy
K1

15

 Axial stiffness K2 of the equivalent strut:

Em bW t W
d

16

in which for the width bW, will be here adopted the formulation proposed by Klingner and Bertero [19], provided by the
Eq. (2);

Fm  Fy
K2

Fm  Fr
K3

22

Sliding of the bed joints:

rW3

rW4
17

 Stiffness of the softening branch, which can be assumed

within the range 0.005K1 6 K3 6 0.1K1.
 Residual force Fr in order to guarantee the numerical stability, it can be assumed 0 6 Fr 6 0.1Fy. In the proposed case
studies, the residual force is assumed to be 0.
 Ultimate displacement Sr (or Su) corresponding to the residual force:

Sr Sm

1:12rm0 sin h cos h

K 1 kH0:12 K 2 kH0:88

1:2 sin h 0:45 cos hu 0:3r0

K1
kH

K2

23

Diagonal tensile failure:

 Maximum force Fm, assumed as 1.3Fy.

 Displacement Sm corresponding to the maximum force:

Sm Sy

21

Crushing of the corners:

rW2
K2

1:16rm0 tan h
K 1 K 2 kH

18

Some authors [25,26] have simplied some of the parameters

previously dened:
Fy/Fm = 0.6;
Fr = 0;
Sm = 0.2% in the case of masonry walls no openings; Sm = 0.1% in
the presence of openings;
Sr/Sm = 5.
In the analysis presented in Section 3 of the paper, we will refer
to the above mentioned assumption.
The constitutive law proposed by Bertoldi et al. [22] was obtained by analysing the seismic behaviour of 10 different frames
having two bays with equal span and a varying number of storeys
(from 2 to 24) of equal height. The pushover analyses were performed both for the bare and for the inlled conguration, by
adopting the model of the equivalent strut for the panels, dened
by the Eq. (8), described in the Section 2.1.1. The ForceDisplacement relationship of each equivalent strut is similar to the one reported in Fig. 2. The main parameters to be dened are Km and Fm,
which respectively are the maximum strength and the stiffness of
the equivalent strut (Fig. 3).

0:6sm0 0:3r0
K1
kH

K2

24

rm0 is the compressive strength of the masonry inll; sm0 is the

shear resistance provided by the diagonal compression test; u is
the sliding resistance of the bed joints; r0 is the average normal
stress on the panel. The horizontal component of the corresponding
critical force is then simply obtained by:
F m rW min t W bW cos h

20

The dimension bW is given by the Eq. (8).

The results of the research work of Bertoldi et al. conrm that
the presence of the inll in the RC frame induces a reduction of
the natural vibration period of the structure and a signicant diminution of the horizontal displacements, as a natural consequence
of the stiffening.
2.1.3. Multiple strut models
An important aspect is the question of the local interaction
between the inll panel and the surrounding structural elements
in the proximity of the nodes (see Fig. 1). The detachment of the
inll masonry from the surrounding frame determines a concentration of the load transfer in the area delimited by z, fostering
the shear behaviour of the structural elements, which become particularly sensitive to brittle shear ruptures under horizontal loads.
In particular, this is a critical point in the buildings dated back to
the 1970s, where, according to the constructive practice, the distribution of stirrups within the structural elements is typically poor
and ineffective, whereas in the column-beam nodes they are completely absent.
This issue is specically dealt by many research studies that can
be found in the literature, most of which are based on the use of
multiple parallel strut [27,28].
The equivalent model with a single strut (Fig. 4a), as described
in Sections 2.1.1 and 2.1.2, is a simplied representation of the
non-structural panel within the frame, but is not able to describe
the above mentioned phenomenon of local interaction. The brittle
behaviour of the beam-column node, that affects the global post-

88

G. Uva et al. / Engineering Structures 42 (2012) 8394

Fig. 4. (a) Equivalent model with a single strut. (b) Equivalent model with two struts. (c) Equivalent model with three struts.

elastic structural response of the frame, decreasing both the resistance and the ductility, can be instead described, if 2 or 3 struts are
introduced (Fig. 4b and c). In this way, the critical zone endowed
with a low ductility is clearly identied.
The constitutive laws assigned to the multiple struts can be the
same as the case of the single one. The actual difference is only given by the dimension of the transversal section and by the stiffness, which is properly shared among the struts. Actually, the
choice of the amount to be assigned to each strut signicantly affects the shear forces acting on the columns, and thence the nal
response of the structure to the horizontal actions. Such a choice
is not univocal, and should be properly calibrated from case to case
on the basis of specic analyses and considerations. Some examples about the distribution of the stiffness proposed in the literature can be mentioned. Verderame et al. [29] and Crisafulli [28]
have developed models based on three equivalent struts, assuming
that, for each of the lateral struts, the stiffness is 25% of the total
one, whereas the remaining 50% quote is assigned to the central
strut. Different values are proposed by Combescure and Pegon
[30,31] on the basis of the results of detailed FEM analyses, showing that the shear force conveyed to the column is equal to 64% of
the strength of the inll panel.
The main parameter of the multi-strut models is the distance z
between the centre of the node and the position of the struts,
which represents the distance from the corner to the detachment
line of the panel (see Figs. 1a and 4a and b). The different formulations proposed in the literature for its evaluation are referable to
the original one by Stafford Smith [10]:

p
2k

25

3. The case study

3.1. Short description of the building
The case study is a 7-storeys RC framed located in a high seismic
risk area (Province of Cosenza, Calabria, Southern Italy). According
to the acquired information, it was designed in the second half of
the 1970s. At that time, the in force seismic codes were the Law
No. 64 of 02.02.1974 and the Ministerial Decree 03/03/1975, which
nowadays have been completely overcome both in the general philosophy and in the specic methods of calculation and assessment.
The building is regular both in plan (with a symmetry axis in
the X direction Fig. 5) and in elevation (no signicant variations
in the masses or stiffness are present, and the re-entrant corners or
edge recesses are small enough). Approximately, the main in plan
dimensions are Lx  Ly = 27 m  13 m, and the typical interstorey
height is 3 m, except the ground oor, that is 4 m high.

At the rst storey, the beams are all 30 cm wide and 70 cm high,
except the cantilever beams supporting the balconies that are
30 cm wide and 50 cm high. All the other oors present different
types of beams: 30  50 cm, 30  60 cm, 30  70 cm, 30  21 cm,
60  21 cm, 80  21 cm.
The geometry of the columns is variable with the height, with a
regular tapering, and includes rectangular sections, with dimensions ranging from a minimum of 30  40 cm to a maximum
40  80 cm, and square sections varying from 40  40 cm to
55  55 cm.
The oors have a mixed structure made up by cast-in place concrete, precast lattice joists and hollow tile bricks, for a total height
of 21 cm.
The inll panels are made of hollow bricks, for a total thickness
of 25 cm.
On site inspections allowed the identication of the reinforcements, that are shown in Fig. 5 for the case of the frame #X1 (to
which the analyses and results reported in the following paragraph
are referred).
With regard to the transversal reinforcements, in the beams
there are by 8 stirrups, uniformly spaced every 20 cm, except
for the rst storey, where the spacing is 25 cm. In the columns, as
well, there are 8 stirrups, uniformly spaced every 20 cm, except for the rst storey, where the spacing is 25 cm.
3.2. Experimental characterization of the materials
A specic and complete investigation protocol was carried out,
which provided the general geometrical survey, the direct inspection of the hidden structural elements and a detailed experimental
program. In order to evaluate the mechanical properties of materials, laboratory tests on specimens pulled out from signicant structural elements were performed (Fig. 6a), and complementary on
site non-destructive testing were carried out. With regard to the
concrete, it was found that the average compressive strength, both
for the beams and for the columns, was fc = 22 MPa. The yielding
stress of the steel samples was found to be fy = 430 MPa.
A complete review and classication of the masonry inll
panels was performed, identifying the constructive features, the
materials and the recurrent dimensions. With regard to the identication of the mechanical parameters, it was possible to refer to
the results of an extensive experimental investigation performed
by the authors [7], in which the main types of masonry walls used
in Calabria in the 1970s were studied and subjected to experimental laboratory testing, including diagonal compression tests
(Fig. 6b). This inventory embraces many different arrangements
and textures, with brick or concrete hollow blocks, including the
masonry type detected in the selected case study.

G. Uva et al. / Engineering Structures 42 (2012) 8394

89

Fig. 5. The case study: typical structural plan and reinforcements of the reference frame X1.

Fig. 6. (a) Extraction of a specimen from a RC column. (b) The diagonal compression test on a masonry inll sample.

With regard to the parameters to be used in the model (described in Section 2.1.2), for the specic masonry type, we have:

3.3. The numerical model

The diagonal compression tests provided the following values:

The numerical modelling has been performed by implementing

proper 2D models of the reference X1 frame (with or without inll
panels) within the solver SAP2000 [32]. The presence of the
inll has been modelled by using two different approaches: a single
equivalent strut (Fig. 7a) and a double equivalent strut (Fig. 7b). In
the SAP models, the diagonal rods representing the inll have been
oriented along the compression direction induced by lateral loads.

Tensile strength: ftp = 0.36 MPa.

Diagonal elastic modulus: Ed = 1495 MPa, from which the transversal elastic modulus can be deduced: GW = 598 MPa.

3.3.1. Constitutive models of the frame elements

With regard to the constitutive laws for the materials, the classical parabola-rectangle diagram has been adopted for the concrete

rm0 = 2.5 MPa (in Eqs. (21) and (22));

sm0 = 0.23 MPa (in Eq. (24));
u = 0.28 MPa (in Eq. (23));
r0 = 0 (in Eqs. (23) and (24)).

90

G. Uva et al. / Engineering Structures 42 (2012) 8394

uated according to the equations C8.7.2.1(a) and C8A.6.1 provided

by the Italian seismic code [34], which are in complete agreement
with EC8.

Fig. 7. 3D view of the frame model with the single equivalent strut (a) and with the
double equivalent strut (b).

under compression, and an elastic hardening diagram has been

adopted for the steel.
The nonlinear behaviour of columns and beams was described
according to a lumped plasticity approach, introducing plastic
hinges, in which all nonlinearity is concentrated, at the end-sections of the elastic beams.
The nonlinear behaviour of columns and beams is described
according to a lumped plasticity approach, in which the frame elements are elastic, and all the nonlinearities are concentrated at the
end-sections of the beams, in a plastic hinge that is dened by a
proper nonlinear M/ (or Mh) relationship. In this paper, the nonlinear constitutive law assumed for the plastic hinges is the one
proposed by FEMA-356 provisions [33] (Fig. 8). It is worth mentioning that this formulation includes the shear span LV, which
identies the distance between the end section of the element
and the inection point of the deformed shape (the length LV varies
during the pushover analysis).
The rotations corresponding to the yielding moment My and to
the ultimate moment Mu = aMy shown in the gure have been eval-

3.3.2. Constitutive modelling of the inll panels

With regard to the masonry inll panels, as already discussed in
the Section 2.1.2, we have adopted as a reference the two following
constitutive models: the ForceDisplacement relationship by
Decanini et al., and the ForceDisplacement relationship proposed
by Panagiotakos and Fardis (with the simplications [25,26]). Both
the approaches provide the simulation of the ith inll panel by
means of a single equivalent strut Bi (see Figs. 3 and 4).
In the frame X1 there are 14 panels, corresponding to 14 struts,
whose constitutive parameters, for the two afore mentioned approaches, are listed in Tables 2 and 3. The thickness of the strut
coincides with that of the panel, the length is equal to the diagonal
of the panel, whereas the width is obtained by Eq. (8).
The plot of the ForceDisplacement relationships obtained by
applying the two models is displayed in Fig. 9 for one of the struts
(B1). It is well evident that the constitutive model proposed by
Panagiotakos and Fardis provides struts that have a strong
behaviour with regard to the ultimate strength, while the behaviour obtained with the model of Decanini is denitely weaker.
Both the mentioned approaches were originally dened and
validated by their authors with a specic reference to the brick masonry. Nevertheless, in the present analysis, a large difference between the strength of the struts has been obtained, as the results
listed in Tables 2 and 3 show. Actually, such a relevant discrepancy
is ascribable to the different failure modes assumed by the authors
in order to derive the semi-empirical relationship. In particular,
Panagiotakos and Fardis [24], after dening the section of the
equivalent strut, determine the maximum strength as a function
of the ultimate shear stress provided by the diagonal compression
test. Of course, the formulation is accurate and realistic only if the
crisis of the panel is actually governed by a diagonal compressive
failure. The approach of Bertoldi et al. [22], instead, incorporates
several possible collapse mechanisms and the nal strength of
the panel is identied by the minimum value of the corresponding
ultimate loads [18]. It is evident that the two formulations are in a
good agreement only in those cases for which the behaviour is governed by the diagonal failure mechanism.
4. Results of the nonlinear static analyses
In this section, the results obtained by applying the pushover
procedure to the different models of the reference frame X1 de-

Table 2
ForceDisplacement relationship by Panagiotakos and Fardis [24]: constitutive
parameters adopted for the 14 equivalent struts.

Fig. 8. Typical MomentRotation relationship for the plastic hinge.

Strut

Fy (kN)

Fm (kN)

Fr (kN)

Sy (mm)

Sm (mm)

Sr (mm)

B1
B2
B3
B4
B5
B6
B7
B8
B9
B10
B11
B12
B13
B14

516
473
450
400
454
403
457
406
460
409
463
412
466
415

860
788
751
666
756
671
761
677
767
682
772
687
777
692

0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

2.2
2.4
1.1
1.1
1.1
1.1
1.1
1.1
1.1
1.1
1.1
1.1
1.1
1.1

10.4
10.4
6.4
6.4
6.4
6.4
6.4
6.4
6.4
6.4
6.4
6.4
6.4
6.4

52
52
32
32
32
32
32
32
32
32
32
32
32
32

G. Uva et al. / Engineering Structures 42 (2012) 8394

Table 3
ForceDisplacement relationship by Bertoldi et al. [22]: constitutive parameters
adopted for the 14 equivalent struts.
Strut

Fy (kN)

Fm (kN)

Fr (kN)

Sy (mm)

Sm (mm)

Sr (mm)

B1
B2
B3
B4
B5
B6
B7
B8
B9
B10
B11
B12
B13
B14

160
138
162
140
163
141
165
143
166
144
167
145
169
147

201
173
202
175
204
176
206
178
207
180
209
182
211
183

70
61
71
61
71
62
72
62
73
63
73
64
74
64

0.4
0.4
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.4
0.4

2.2
2.2
1.2
1.1
1.2
1.2
1.4
1.3
1.5
1.4
1.7
1.6
2.0
1.9

38.6
38.0
20.5
19.3
21.9
20.6
24.1
22.7
26.9
25.4
30.4
28.8
35.2
33.3

Fig. 9. Plot of the ForceDisplacement relationship for the strut B1.

scribed in Section 3.1 are presented and discussed. The objective is

to appraise the sensitivity of the structural response of the inlled
frame with respect to three fundamental parameters:
1. the width bW of the equivalent strut model;
2. the constitutive law (FD) of the masonry inll panel;
3. the number of strut used in the model (single/multiple strut).
4.1. Inuence of the width bW
As a rst step, the different formulations described in Section
2.1.1 for the width bW of the equivalent strut are compared. For
the different panels of the reference frame X1, the corresponding
values of bW have been calculated, and are listed in Table 4. The
mechanical characteristics of the materials have been deduced
from the experimental research work described in Section 3.2.
By looking at the data listed in the table, it can be immediately
noticed a strong variability of the results, so that it is really difcult
to single out a recurrent value of the parameter bW. Such a scattering is clearly related to the different nature of the models, which
are mainly heuristic and include diverse sometimes not comparable parameters.
In particular, the formulation of Kadir and that of Dawe and
Seah provide the highest values, because also the stiffness of the
beams is considered in addition to that of the columns.
The relationship proposed by Klingner and Bertero is particularly suitable for the application considered in the present research
work, since the experimental validation concerned inlled frames
very similar to our case study.
The proposal of Durrani and Seah is quite in line with the studies of Klingner and Bertero, but provides a value of bW that is very
sensitive to the geometrical parameters of the inlled frame, as
shown by our numerical analysis the width bW has a relevant var-

91

iation from storey to storey, reaching a maximum percentage variation (64%) between the 1st and the 5th storey. In fact, the
different interstorey heights (and thence the different value of
the diagonal d) and the variation of the columns and beams dimensions (and thence of the stiffness) signicantly affects the results.
Those formulations in which the width bW is determined as an
aliquot of the length d of the diagonal (Holmes, Pauley and Priestley and Kappos) provide results that are near to the mean value,
even if this does not anyway makes them more representative than
the others. Actually, these proposals are mainly oriented to the appraisal of the inll effect over the dynamic overall properties of the
frame more than to the detailed investigation of the collapse
mechanisms.
The formulations by Bertoldi et al. and Papia et al., which have
been both validated by nonlinear FEM analyses, are quite equivalent, even if the second one is less sensitive to the geometric variations within the frame, and supplies fairly uniform results at the
different storeys.
For each of the previously discussed approaches, a specic model of the X1 frame has been implemented, performing the nonlinear
static analysis and drawing the corresponding pushover curve.
With regard to the ForceDisplacement adopted for the equivalent
strut, the law dened by Panagiotakos and Fardis, with the parameters listed in Table 2, has been used. In Fig. 10, the pushover
curves corresponding to different models, listed below, are plotted:
bare frame model;
inlled frame modelled with equivalent struts in which the
width bW is calculated according to the formulation of Dawe
and Seah (7);
inlled frame modelled with equivalent struts in which the
width bW is calculated according to the formulation of Klingner
and Bertero (2).
The comparison among the pushover curves indicates, as easily
predicted, that the initial stiffness is greater for the models providing a wider strut (Dawe and Seah) than for the models with thin
struts (Klingner and Bertero). The latter, anyway, have a better performance with respect to the displacement ductility. In general, it
could be said that, once the mechanical characteristics, the geometry of the frame and the panel are xed, the inll panels simulated
with thin struts have a ductile behaviour, while the panels modelled with larger struts reach a greater strength peak, but are penalised by a brittle behaviour.
It is worth noting that the two pushover curves reported in
Fig. 10 for the inlled frames can be intended as limit conditions,
since they envelope all the elasticplastic responses obtained by
using the other formulations. The actual behaviour of the real
structure is comprised within the shaded area.

4.2. The inuence of the constitutive law of the equivalent strut

At the end of the comparative review of the formulations proposed in the literature for bW, two of them, that could well represent the limit response of the frame, have been selected and used
for a set of nonlinear static analyses that will be now discussed.
The rst formulation is that of Bertoldi et al., the second that of
Klingner and Bertero. For a same conguration of the masonry inll
(geometry, materials. . .), the results show signicant differences in
the characterization of the nonlinear response, which exhibits the
features of a typical strong inll (Bertoldi et al.) or of a typical
weak inll (Klingner and Bertero).
The above mentioned models have been further distinguished
into two sub-models, by differentiating the constitutive ForceDisplacement law assigned to the single equivalent strut:

92

G. Uva et al. / Engineering Structures 42 (2012) 8394

Table 4
A comparison among the values of bW for the inll panels of the frame #X1 according to different models available in the literature (the reference to the equations of Section 2.1.1
is reported within the round brackets).
Strut

Holmes
[15]

Klingner and Bertero

[19] (2)

Kadir [20]
(6)

Dawe and Seah

[21] (7)

Pauley and
Priestley [16]

Bertoldi et al.
[22] (8)

Durrani and Luo

[13] (3)

Kappos et al.
[17]

Papia [23]
(9)

B1
B2
B3
B4
B5
B6
B7
B8
B9
B10
B11
B12
B13
B14

245
225
214
190
215
191
217
193
218
194
220
196
221
197

91
83
92
81
91
80
89
79
87
77
85
75
83
73

327
315
306
290
304
288
302
286
300
284
298
283
297
281

549
539
456
451
439
434
421
417
402
399
383
381
363
362

184
168
160
142
162
143
163
145
164
146
165
147
166
148

239
216
296
254
281
241
258
222
234
201
210
180
184
157

208
207
86
101
84
99
82
96
80
94
77
91
75
88

147
135
128
114
129
115
130
116
131
117
132
117
133
118

284
255
238
212
239
213
239
214
240
214
241
215
241
215

Fig. 11. Inuence of the choice of the constitutive law on the pushover curves.

Fig. 10. Inuence of bW on the pushover curves.

Constitutive law proposed by Panagiotakos and Fardis [24] (the

corresponding parameters are listed in Table 2).
Constitutive law proposed by Bertoldi et al. [22] (the corresponding parameters are listed in Table 3).
Overall, 4 models have been considered for the pushover analyses. The resulting pushover curves are plotted in Fig. 11 together
with that of the bare frame model.
When the ForceDisplacement law of Bertoldi et al. is assigned
to the equivalent struts, the pushover curves exhibit values of the
stiffness and of the strength signicantly lower than in the case of
the Panagiotakos and Fardis constitutive law. More in detail, the
peak strength is 75% lower, while the stiffness is 30% lower. The
deviation is mainly related to the different denition of the parameters governing the branches of the constitutive law. Bertoldi takes
into account multiple failure mechanisms affecting the panel. The
specic mechanical features of the constituents of the masonry
(brick and mortar) will then determine which of the mechanisms
will occur before. Panagiotakos and Fardis, instead, exclusively focus their attention on the tensile strength in the diagonal direction
of the panel, without introducing the inuence of others mechanical parameter of the individual constituents. As a consequence,
possible early local failures are neglected, and the strength of the
panel can be over-estimated. It should be anyhow remarked that
usually these failures have a secondary relevance.

Fig. 12. Comparison among the pushover curves obtained with 1 or 2 equivalent
struts.

With regard to the models used for the denition of bW, the
modication induced in the structural behaviour is observed also
when the ForceDisplacement law of Bertoldi et al. is used, as discussed in the previous paragraph.
4.3. Inuence of the number of equivalent struts
In Section 2.1.3, the most acknowledged methods available in
the literature for the appraisal of the local inllframe interaction

G. Uva et al. / Engineering Structures 42 (2012) 8394

have been shortly reviewed. Among these, we have selected some

reference models based on the presence of two struts (Fig. 7b) and
on the use of the ForceDisplacement relationship of Panagiotakos
and Fardis and we have dened a set of alternative models to be
used in the pushover analyses aimed at specically investigating
the local nonlinear response of the columns in the presence of
the panel. At the nodal end sections of these elements a shear
hinge has been placed in order to assess the possible development
of brittle shear failures.
The possibility of adopting three equivalent struts for simulating the inll panel has not been here considered. Actually, such a
model would explicitly account for the potential presence of shear
mechanisms also within the beams, but we have deemed this
question to have a secondary importance if compared to the role
played by the columns in the seismic response of the frame.
In Fig. 12, the results of the nonlinear static analyses performed
for the reference frame X1 by introducing 1 or 2 equivalent struts
are shown. The pushover curves clearly show the inuence of the
local inllframe interaction at the nodes on the overall structural
response. When passing from the single to the model with double
strut, the peak strength is reduced by over than 50%. The relevant
drop of the resistance is related to the formation of a storey mech-

Fig. 13. Formation of the plastic hinges and development of the storey mechanism
in the X1 frame with inll panels modelled with 2 equivalent struts.

93

anism at the 2nd level, where the nodes suffer a local shear failure
(Fig. 13). It is interesting observing that such a collapse mechanism
is attained regardless of the formulation adopted for bW (model by
Bertoldi et al.; model by Klingner and Bertero).

5. Conclusions
In the last few decades, the scientic community has been
extensively involved in the investigation about the interaction between inll masonry walls and RC frames under seismic actions.
Despite the great interest and the wide literature, fully satisfactory
models are still not available.
The critical review of many signicant references and the experiences developed by the authors show that the numerical response of inlled RC frames under horizontal loads is very
sensitive to the specic parameters assumed in the constitutive
models. In particular, the formulation adopted for the width bW
of the equivalent strut, the choice of the ForceDisplacement law
of the inll panel under horizontal loads and use of multiple struts
for simulating the local interactions are crucial aspects that have
been specically investigated in the presented research work. A
sensitivity analysis aimed at assessing the inuence of the above
mentioned parameters has been performed by considering as a
case study an existing building, and focusing the attention over a
representative frame.
The analyses have shown that, for the same geometry and
mechanical properties of the frame-panel system, the inll panels
simulated with wide struts (high values of bW) are characterized by
a greater strength peak, but are penalised by a brittle behaviour,
whereas lower values of bW favour a ductile behaviour.
With regard to the constitutive ForceDisplacement law of the
panel, a signicant dependence on the type of failure mechanisms
of the panel has been observed.
Finally, the possibility of using multiple struts in order to model
the formation of brittle shear mechanisms at the nodes of the
frames, because of the interaction between the RC columns and
the inll panel, was investigated. The nonlinear static analysis of
the reference frame was thence performed by using 2-struts models for the inlls. By comparing these results with the analyses previously performed with a single strut model, the inuence of the
local inllframe interaction at the nodes on the overall structural
response is clearly evident, and is shown by a signicant reduction
of the peak strength.
The aim of the paper was to investigate the main questions
regarding the modelling of inll panels embedded in RC frames
to a representative case study. The relevance of the different
parameters involved was analysed, by looking at the variability
and dispersion of the results that is typically observed in this eld,
and providing a small reference framework for the highlighted
problems.
Some conclusions can be drawn from the experience carried
out, and, although related to a specic case study, we believe that
they could be extended to a more general level.
In particular, it seems evident that, in the framework of the seismic assessment of existing inlled RC frames, if one decide to
choose an equivalent strut model in order to represent the effect
of inll panels, it is crucial to adopt multi-strut systems. This is
in fact the only model able to include the brittle behaviour triggered at the nodes by the presence of the inll, which is actually
systematically observed in buildings designed according to obsolete rules.
With regard to the specic model to be used for the multiple
struts, instead, it was not possible to state if one is better than
the other. Actually, there is a signicant level of variability between the different formulations that have been tested, but since

94

G. Uva et al. / Engineering Structures 42 (2012) 8394

there is no experimental comparison showing the real structural

response, an objective, unquestionable indication cannot be provided. There is anyway, according to us, a very important aspect
to be considered: the realistic assessment of the masonry mechanical parameters to be introduced in the strut models is paramount.
Too often, literature values are easily assigned, whereas we have
shown that a great sensitivity of the results is just related to the
variation of these parameters. Instead, it would be sufcient to collect the basic information about the inll walls to bring a signicant improvement.
It is important to emphasise that the sensitivity analysis has
been performed for a single frame extracted from the building. This
specic frame is fully and uniformly inlled, and the structural response is strongly inuenced by the presence of the inll panels.
Probably, the sensitivity of the seismic structural response would
have been less evident, if the entire building was modelled. For
example, if a shear failure of the columns occurs in one frame only,
this does not mean that the whole structure will collapse, since
nearby frames (possibly without inll) could still be able to resist
to the seismic action.
Acknowledgement
The research presented in this article was partially funded by
the Department of Civil Protection, Project ReLUIS-DPC 2010-2013.
References
[1] Uva G, Porco F, Fiore A. Appraisal of masonry inll walls effect in the seismic
response of RC framed buildings: a case study. Eng Struct 2012;34(1):51426.
[2] Dolsek M, Fajfar P. Soft storey effects in uniformly inlled reinforced concrete
frames. J Earthquake Eng 2001;5(1):112.
[3] Mezzina M, Monti G, Uva G, Marano G, Raffaele D, Greco R, et al. Prime
considerazioni sul comportamento delle costruzioni nel terremoto de LAquila.
Ingegneria Sismica, Patron Ed. Bologna, no. 2; aprilegiugno 2009 [in Italian].
[4] Fardis MN, (Ed.). Experimental and numerical investigations on the seismic
response of RC inlled frames and recommendations for code provisions.
ECOEST/PREC 8, Rep. No. 6. LNEC. Lisbon; 1996.
[5] DM 14/01/2008. Norme Tecniche per le Costruzioni. Gazzetta Ufciale n.29.
Roma; 2008 [in Italian].
[6] CEN. Eurocode 8: design of structures for earthquake resistance. Part 1: general
rules, seismic actions and rules for buildings. Brussels; 2005.
[7] Uva G, Porco G, Porco F. Reliability analysis for non standard masonry systems
under seismic loading. Paper No. 1601. In: 13th World conference on
earthquake engineering Vancouver, BC, Canada; August 16, 2004.
[8] Decanini LD, Liberatore L. Il ruolo delle tamponature nella risposta sismica
delle strutture intelaiate. Valutazione e riduzione della vulnerabilit sismica di
edici esistenti in cemento armato. Monza: Polimetrica International Scientic
Publisher; 2008. p. 40917 [in Italian].
[9] Fiorato AE, Sozen MA, Gamble WL. An investigation on the interaction of
reinforced concrete frames with masonry ller walls. Report UILU-ENG 70100. University of Illinois Urbana Champaign; 1970.
[10] Stafford Smith B. Behaviour of square inlled frames. J Struct Div
1966;92(1):381403.

[11] Mainstone RJ. On the stiffness and strength of inlled frames. Proc Inst Civil
Eng, Suppl (IV) Lond 1971;Paper 7360S:5789.
[12] Mainstone RJ. Supplementary note on the stiffness and strength of inlled
frames. Current Paper CP13/74. Building Research Establishment, London;
1974.
[13] Durrani AJ, Luo YH. Seismic retrot of at-slab buildings with masonry inlls.
In: Proceeding from the NCEER workshop on seismic response of masonry
inlls. Report NCEER-94-0004. March 1, 1994. p. 1/38.
[14] Colangelo F. Qualicazione, risposta sismica pseudodinamica e modelli
fenomenologici di portali di c.a. tamponati con laterizio. Pubblicazione
DISAT n. 1/99, Universit degli Studi dellAquila; Febbraio 1999 [in Italian].
[15] Holmes M. Steel frames with brickwork and concrete inlling. Proc Inst Civil
Eng, Part 2, Lond 1981;19:4738.
[16] Paulay T, Priestley MJN. Seismic design of reinforced concrete and masonry
buildings. New York: John Wiley & Sons; 1992.
[17] Penelis GG, Kappos AJ. Earthquake-resistant concrete structures. London: E &
FN Spon; 1997.
[18] Biondi S, Colangelo F, Nuti C. La risposta sismica dei telai con tamponature
murarie. CNR-Gruppo Nazionale per la Difesa dai Terremoti. Roma; 2000 [in
Italian].
[19] Klingner RE, Bertero VV. Inlled frames in earthquake-resistant construction.
Report EERC 76-32. Earthquake Engineering Research Center; 1976.
[20] Kadir MRA. The structural behaviour of masonry inll panels in framed
structures. PhD Thesis, University of Edinburgh; 1974.
[21] Dawe JL, Seah CK. Analysis of concrete masonry inlled steel frames subjected
to in-plane loads. In: Proceeding of the 5th Canadian Masonry Symposium,
Vancouver; 1989. p. 32940
[22] Bertoldi SH, Decanini LD, Gavarini C. Telai tamponati soggetti ad azioni
sismiche, un modello semplicato: confronto sperimentale e numerico. Atti
del 6 Convegno Nazionale ANIDIS, vol. 2, Perugia, 1315 Ottobre 1993 [in
Italian]. p. 81524.
[23] Papia M, Cavaleri L, Fossetti M. Inlled frames: developments in the evaluation
of the stiffening effect of inlls. Structural engineering and mechanics, vol.
16. Korea: Techno Press; 2003.
[24] Panagiotakos TB, Fardis MN. Seismic response of inlled RC frames structures.
In: Proceedings of 11th world conference on earthquake engineering.
Acapulco; 1996 [Paper No. 225].
[25] Dolek M, Fajfar P. Simplied non-linear seismic analysis of inlled reinforced
concrete frames. Earthquake Eng Struct Dynam 2005;34:4966.
[26] Dolek M, Fajfar P. The effect of masonry inlls on the seismic response of a
four storey reinforced concrete frame a deterministic assessment. Eng Struct
2008;30(7):19912001.
[27] El Dakhakhni, Elgaaly WW, Hamid AA. Three-strut model for concrete
masonry-inlled steel frames. J Struct Eng 2003;129(2):17785.
[28] Crisafulli FJ. Seismic behaviour of reinforced concrete structures with masonry
inlls. PhD Thesis. Civil Engineering, University of Canterbury; 1997.
[29] Verderame GM, De Luca F, Ricci P, Manfredi G. Preliminary analysis of a softstorey mechanism after the 2009 LAquila earthquake. Earthquake Eng Struct
Dynam 2011;40(8):92544.
[30] Combescure D. Some contributions of physical and numerical modelling to the
assessment of existing masonry inlled RC frames under extreme loading. In:
Proceedings of rst European conference on earthquake engineering and
seismology, Geneva, Switzerland; 2006.
[31] Combescure D, Pegon P. Application of the local-to-global approach to the
study of inlled frame structures under seismic loading. Nucl Eng Des
2000;196(1):1740.
[32] SAP2000. Advanced 14.2.2 structural analysis program manual. Computer
and Structures, Inc.; 2010.
[33] FEMA 356. Prestandard and commentary for the seismic rehabilitation of
buildings; 2000.
[34] Circolare 2 febbraio 2009, n. 617 approvata dal Consiglio Superiore dei Lavori
Pubblici. Istruzioni per lapplicazione delle Nuove norme tecniche per le
costruzioni di cui al Decreto Ministeriale 14 gennaio 20082009 [in Italian].