Structures 24 (2020) 922–939

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Structures
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/structures

New approximate method to identify soft story caused by infill walls T

a,⁎ b c
Azadeh Noorifard , Mohammad Reza Tabeshpour , Fatemeh Mehdizadeh Saradj
a
School of Architecture, College of Fine Arts, University of Tehran, Tehran, Iran
b
Department of Mechanical Engineering, Sharif University of Technology, Tehran, Iran
c
School of Architecture and Environmental Design, Iran University of Science and Technology, Tehran, Iran

ARTICLE INFO ABSTRACT

Keywords: When the stiffness of a story is much less than the story above it, a significant portion of lateral displacement
Soft story of the building is concentrated in this story and soft story is formed. One of the main reasons of soft story in
Approximate method buildings is eliminating or reducing the infill walls in lower stories. This reason is more important than the
Infill wall others because structural engineers usually neglect infill walls in modeling the structure, and on the other
Seismic codes
hand, architects do not consider the seismic behavior of infill walls during architectural design. In this
Story stiffness
research, based on the provision of soft story in seismic codes, 2277 macro models with different arrange-
ments of infill walls in the adjacent floors were analyzed. By combining the three linear regression equations
derived from the results of analyses, an approximate method was proposed for identifying the soft story. In
this method, there is no need to the structural specifications and only by geometric specifications of ar-
chitectural drawings, the arrangement of infill walls in adjacent stories can be checked. So, it can be used
from the final stages of basic architectural design both by architects and structural engineers. The evaluation
of this method on the analyzed models showed that 93% of models with soft story were identifiable by this
method and in 97% of models, the results were reliable, which indicated high performance of this
method.

1. Introduction
In seismic resistant design of buildings, the uniform distribution of
stiffness in elevation is very important. In some buildings, it is ne-
cessary to create large open spaces without any columns or increase
the height of some stories based on architectural design, functional
relationships or spatial quality. This is common in entrances with
large span, lobbies, car parking, shopping stores and leads to a phe-
nomenon called “soft story” in structural engineering [1]. Soft story
occurs due to discontinuity of stiffness in elevation which appears in
the joints of next story. When the stiffness of a story is significantly
lower than the stiffness of upper story, major part of lateral dis-
placement concentrates on this story [1–7] and leads to formation of
plastic hinges on the top and bottom of columns. In this way, vertical
carrying elements in the soft story are severely damaged whereas most
of other building elements remain undamaged [2]. In many cases,
despite designing a regular structure in elevation, reducing or elim-
inating infill walls in a story leads to irregularity [1–3,7–14] and
formation of soft story during earthquakes. It should be noted that this
phenomenon is not just about ground floor, it can also occur in the
middle stories where the stiffness changes suddenly. The location of
soft story across the height of the building affects the fundamental
period of the structure [15,16]. When the soft story is at the top floors,
lower values of the period result [16].
The main reasons of soft story are as follows:
1. Greater height of a story [9,17]
2. Removing a number of columns in a story
3. Removing the bracings of a story
4. Removing the shear wall of a story [9]
5. Removing the infill walls of a story [1–3,7–12,14]
The first four reasons of forming soft story are related to the geo-
metry of the main structure and therefore, they are considered in
modeling, analyzing, and designing the structure. Whereas the last
one is not considered by structural engineers since they usually as-
sume masonry infill walls as non-structural elements [14,18–28] and
only calculate the weight of the walls. So, analyzing and designing the
structure is based on bare frame [14,19,23,26,29–34]. Although, some
seismic codes such as the Eurocode 8 emphasize that the effects of

⁎
Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: azadeh.noorifard@ut.ac.ir (A. Noorifard), tabeshpour@sharif.edu (M.R. Tabeshpour), mehdizadeh@iust.ac.ir (F.M. Saradj).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.istruc.2020.01.050
Received 9 November 2019; Received in revised form 31 January 2020; Accepted 31 January 2020
Available online 26 February 2020
2352-0124/ © 2020 Institution of Structural Engineers. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
A. Noorifard, et al. Structures 24 (2020) 922–939

Notation list R Reduction factor of ultimate strength and initial stiffness

of infills
Ao The area of the opening Pd The percentages of infilled frames in lower floor
Aaxe Frame area from axes Pu The percentage of infilled frames in upper floor
Kx The story stiffness along X-axis 0 The length ratio of infill walls of the considered story to
KR0 The story stiffness ratio of the considered story to the story the story above in the condition of bare frames in lower
above in the condition of bare frames in lower floor floor
KR The story stiffness ratio of the considered story to the story The length ratio of infill walls of the considered story to
above the story above

irregularity in elevation produced by the infills shall be taken into
account [35]. On the other hand, architects do not consider the
seismic behavior of walls when determine their specifications and
arrangement during architectural design [14]. So, one of the most
important reasons of creating soft story has been neglected in the
engineering society. This is especially noticeable in conventional
buildings where there is little collaboration between architects and
structural engineers. One of the most effective stages for checking
architectural drawings in terms of soft story caused by infill walls is
the final stages of basic architectural design, when the arrangement of
spaces and location of walls are both determined and can be modified.
In this stage the structure is not designed, so an approximate method
for checking architectural drawings only based on geometric specifi-
cation of architectural design and independent of structural design
will be very practical and useful.
Although, some researchers have proposed detailed equations con-
sidering the effects of infill walls for estimating the fundamental period
of structure [36–39], there is no equation with parameters of infill walls
for controlling the soft story to some extent that the authors reviewed
the literature and seismic codes. Especially there is not any method
independent of structural models to control infill walls for preventing
soft story and to be applicable for architects too. The main purpose of
this research was to propose an approximate method to identify the soft
story caused by infill walls at the final stages of basic architectural
design. In which, without structural specifications and only with geo-
metric specification of architectural drawings, the arrangement of infill
walls in adjacent stories can be checked. By using this method, designer
can be sure that infill walls will not create soft story if the structure is
designed properly and the requirement of seismic codes about soft floor
are met. In this research, based on the provision of soft story in seismic
codes, 2277 macro models with different arrangements of infill walls in
the adjacent stories were analyzed. For this, the provisions of soft story
in seismic codes were reviewed. Then effective variables on formation
of soft story were recognized through analyzing six conventional re-
sidential building with different arrangement of infill walls in adjacent
stories. Finally, based on the results of the analyses, an approximate
method was extracted.
2. Provisions of soft story in seismic codes
To prevent soft story according to table 12.3.2 of ASCE 7-10 (2010),
section 1.7.2.e of standard No.2800 (2015) (Iranian standard), section
4.5.1.2 of NZS 1170.5 (2004) (New Zealand Standard) and table 5 of IS
1893 (2002) (Indian Standard) as a condition of vertical regularity, the
lateral stiffness of each story shall not be less than 70% of that in the
story above or 80% of the average stiffness of the three stories above
[40–43]. There is the same provision in Australian standard 1170.4
(1993), but it is omitted in new version of 2007 [44,45]. In RCDF-04
(2004) and NTCS-04 (the current Mexican seismic code) this ratio is
67% [46,47]. As one of criteria for regularity in elevation, in section
4.2.3.3.3 of Eurocode 8 (2003), the lateral stiffness of the individual
stories shall remain constant or reduce gradually from the base to the
top of a building [35]. In Table 2.1 of seismic design code of Turkey
(2007), soft story is a story in which the ratio of the average story drift
to the average story drift at the story immediately above or below is
greater than 2 [48]. A summary of these criteria is presented in the
Table 1. In this research the ratio of 70% which is presented in most
seismic codes was selected.

Table 1
Provision of soft story in seismic codes.
Code Section/Table Country Provision of Soft Story

ASCE 7-10, 2010 Table 12.3.2 USA Ki

< 70% or
Ki
< 80%
Standard No 2800, 2015 Section 1.7.2.e Iran Ki + 1 (Ki + 1 + Ki + 2 + Ki + 2) / 3

NZS 1170.5, 2004 Section 4.5.1.2 New Zealand

IS 1893, 2002 Table 5 India
AS 1170.4, 1993 Section 2.9.3. a Australia

AS 1170.4, 2007 – Australia –

RCDF-04, 2004; NTCS-04, 2004 – Mexico Ki

< 67%
Section 6.1.10 Ki + 1

EN 1998-1, 2003 Section 4.2.3.3. 3 Europe Ki < Ki + 1

Specification for Structures to be Built in Earthquake Areas, 2007 Table 2.1 Turkey Drifti Drift i
> 2 or >2
Drift i + 1 Drifti 1

923
A. Noorifard, et al.
3. The calculation method of story stiffness
For evaluating the provision of soft story, first it is necessary to
calculate the story stiffness. In a research done by Tabeshpour and
Noorifard (2016), four common methods in professional society of
structural engineers and two proposed ones for accurate calculation of
story stiffness are investigated through analytical models. The results
show that different calculation methods of story stiffness lead to com-
pletely different answers and it can even make an error in evaluating
the soft story. When the purpose is to control the provisions of soft story
and evaluate the behavior of structure against seismic loads, the most
appropriate method for calculating the story stiffness is the one in
which without any modification in original model, forces with a tri-
angular distribution similar to seismic force distribution are applied to
the center of mass of all stories and then by calculating the drift of each
story, the stiffness of that story is obtained [49]. Accordingly, this
method was used to calculate the story stiffness in this research.
4. Introducing the selected buildings
Since in the most common urban layout, there are solid infill walls
along the Y-axis adjacent to the neighboring buildings, the present
study was concentrated on infill walls along X direction where the
different layouts of infill wall in adjacent floors can be investigated. In
this paper, for analytical modeling, six conventional residential build-
ings in Tehran were selected as follows. Schematic plan and section of
the selected buildings are represented in Fig. 1 and their residential
floor plans in Fig. 2.
Fig. 1. Schematic plan and section of the selected buildings.
924
Structures 24 (2020) 922–939
Case 1: Seven-story building with dimensions of 26 × 16 m, stair-
case in the center of building, with different layouts of two-unit and
four-unit floors in elevation
Case 2: Seven-story building with dimensions of 22 × 16 m, stair-
case in the center of building, two residential units in each floor
Case 3: Five-story building with dimensions of 17 × 10 m, staircase
in the corner of building, one residential unit in each floor
Case 4: Five-story building with dimensions of 17 × 10 m, staircase
in the middle of building length, one residential unit in each floor
Case 5: Five-story building with dimensions of 17 × 10 m, staircase
in the middle of building width, one residential unit in each floor
Case 6: Five-story building with dimensions of 11 × 6 m, staircase
in the corner of building, one residential unit in each floor
5. Structural design
Structural system of selected buildings is reinforced concrete in-
termediate moment resisting frame in two directions that properties of
concrete and rebar are summarized in Table 2. Design forces were de-
termined based on provisions of the Iranian national building code-part
6 and seismic forces were calculated based on Iranian standard No.
2800 [50,51]. Reinforced concrete structures were designed according
to ACI-318-99 [52].
6. Modeling of infill walls
In the literature, many methods have been proposed for modeling
the infill walls which can be categorized into micro and macro models.
Micro-models can simulate the structural behavior with great detail,
A. Noorifard, et al. Structures 24 (2020) 922–939

Fig. 2. Residential floor plan of selected cases.

925
A. Noorifard, et al. Structures 24 (2020) 922–939

Fig. 2. (continued)

Table 2
Concrete and rebar properties.
Concrete Rebar

Mass per unit Modulus of Poisson’s Ratio Coefficient of Thermal f'c fy fys
volume Elasticity Expansion Concrete compressive Bending Reinforcement Yield Shear Reinforcement Yield
Strength Stress Stress

kg/m3 N/mm2 – 1/°C N/mm2 N/mm2 N/mm2

2500 24516 0.15 1E-5 24.5 392 392

926
A. Noorifard, et al.
Table 3
Equivalent modulus of elasticity and thickness of infill walls with considering the effect of finish layers [80].
Infill wall with a thickness of 15 cm, one finish layer with cement plaster, and one finish layer
with gypsum plaster
Infill wall with a thickness of 15 cm, both finish layers with cement plaster
Infill wall with a thickness of 10 cm, both finish layers with gypsum plaster
however, they are computational intensive and difficult to apply in the
analysis of large structures. Macro-models exhibit obvious advantages
in terms of computational simplicity and efficiency [53], but they do
not take account the local effects of the masonry infill in details. The
simplest macro method for modeling the infill walls is equivalent di-
agonal strut concept [7,53–56] which is proposed by Polyakov for the
first time [56,57]. After that, other researchers proposed different
equations for one strut model [6,58–67]. By this method, it is possible
to predict the overall structural response [68] such as torsion, soft story,
and shear stiffness of infill wall, shear and tension stresses of columns in
the connection of walls [6].
When the structure is subjected to dynamic loading, the use of only
one diagonal strut cannot describe properly the internal forces induced
in the members of the frame. In this case, at least two struts must be
considered [53]. Some researchers proposed two diagonal compression
strut [69,70]. Some used a technique with three struts in each direction
to predict lateral stiffness up to failure and the ultimate load capacity of
infilled frame [71,72]. There are more complex methods such as com-
bination of two parallel struts with a shear spring in each direction to
model infilled frames when a failure due to diagonal tension or crushing
of the corners is expected in the panel [73], or combination of two
diagonal, one horizontal, and one vertical struts for simulation of the in-
plane and out-of-plane response of infilled frames which can be used for
the static or dynamic analysis of an entire structural system [74]. Ac-
cording to the purpose of this research, one strut model were appro-
priate. In this method, for linear elastic analysis only the area and
length of the strut, and the modulus of elasticity are needed to calculate
the elastic stiffness [53].
6.1. Width of equivalent strut of infill walls
There are many proposed equations in the literature for determining
the width of equivalent strut. Some have proposed only a coefficient for
diagonal of infill wall [6,43,58,62,65], some have considered geome-
trical and mechanical properties of the surrounding frame and masonry
infill [59–61,73,67,75–77] and a number of researchers have proposed
more complex equations with more effective parameters [64,66].
Normally the equivalent width of strut varying between 0.1 and 0.4 of
diagonal of infill wall [78]. Tabeshpour, et al. (2012, 2013) has in-
vestigated the previous researches and proposed 0.2 times of diagonal
length of the wall for upper bond (negative effects) and 0.1 times of
diagonal length of the wall for lower bond (positive effects) [6,65]
which are very effective for designing and studying the overall effects of
infills on the behavior of the structure. So, 0.2 times of diagonal length
of the wall was selected in this research.
927
Structures 24 (2020) 922–939
Equivalent modulus of elasticity of infill Equivalent thickness of infill walls
walls
MPa cm
4760 14
4760 19
4760 8
6.2. The effect of opening on the stiffness of equivalent strut of infill walls
The presence of openings in the infill walls significantly reduces the
lateral strength and stiffness of infilled frame. Many researchers have
done numerical and experimental studies in this regard. Based on an
extensive statistical analysis which is conducted by Mohammadi and
Nikfar (2013) on the most proposed equations by other researchers
including Durrani and Luo, Al-Chaar, NZSEE, Mondal and Jain (IS
1893), Tasnimi and Mohebkhah, and Astris, et al. and comparing the
results with experimental data, the formula proposed by Al-Chaar in
2002 for reduction factor of ultimate strength and initial stiffness of
infills with both window and door openings is the most accurate one
[56].
Tabeshpour and Noorifard (2019), based on an extensive literature
review proposed a comprehensive and practical algorithm for all types
of openings, which determines the specifications of simplest equivalent
strut in term of stiffness and force distribution in macro models. In this
algorithm, for central and eccentric openings linear equation of Al-
Chaar in which for ease of use the dimensions of the wall is converted to
the dimensions of structural axes is used (Eq. (1)). In this equation, Ao
is the area of the opening and Aaxe is the frame area from axes. When the
area of the opening is greater than 46% of the frame area from axes or
the length of opening is greater than 60% of the frame length from axes
the infill panel should be neglected [79]. This equation and the pro-
posed algorithm were used in the present research.
Ao
R=1 1.5
Aaxe (1)
6.3. Modulus of elasticity of infill walls
In the selected buildings, infill walls are constructed with hollow
concrete blocks and include three types in terms of thickness and finish
layers of walls. Noorifard and Tabeshpour, considered the effect of
plaster on the modulus of elasticity of wall, thickness of plaster on both
finish layer of wall, and net area of blocks and calculated the equivalent
modulus of elasticity and thickness of walls for the common materials
in Iran [80]. Based on their research the equivalent modulus of elasti-
city and thickness of infill walls for models of this research were de-
termined (Table 3).
7. Results of analyzed models
To study the maximum possible layout of infills along X-axis, infills
were reduced one by one to bare frame. In buildings with two opposite
facades, area of openings can be increased to the extent that the
A. Noorifard, et al. Structures 24 (2020) 922–939

Table 4
Layout of infill walls in all stories based on the considered story (Case 1).

Infill walls Infill walls Infill walls Infill walls Infill walls Infill walls Infill walls
Considered
of First of Second of Third of Fourth of Fifth of Sixth of Seventh
Story
Story Story Story Story Story Story Story
Second Four-unit Four-unit Four-unit Four-unit Four-unit
8 0 to 9
Story 1 to 15 1 to 15 1 to 15 1 to 15 1 to 15
Third 9 Four-unit Two-unit Two-unit Two-unit Two-unit
8
Story Bare frame 0 to 13 1 to 14 1 to 14 1 to 14 1 to 14
Four-unit
Fourth Four-unit Two-unit Two-unit Two-unit
8 9 Same
Story Bare frame
0 to 13 1 to 14 1 to 14 1 to 14
Two-unit Two-unit
Two-unit Four-unit Four-unit
Fifth Story 8 9 Same Same
0 to 14 1 to 15 1 to 15
Bare frame Bare frame
Two-unit Two-unit Two-unit
Two-unit Four-unit
Sixth Story 8 9 Same Same Same
0 to 14 1 to 15
Bare frame Bare frame Bare frame

1.40
0.78
1.30 0.72
1.20 0.67
0.61
1.10
0.56
1.00 0.50
0.90 0.44
0.39
0.80
0.33
0.70 0.28
0.60 0.22
0.17
0.50
0.11
0.40 0.06
0.00 0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50 0.60 0.70 0.80 0.90 1.00
α
Fig. 3. The chart of stiffness ratio based on infill walls length ratio in the third story for different percentage of infilled frames in the upper floor in the condition of
bare frames in lower floor (Case 1).

1.40
0.78
1.30 0.72
1.20 0.67
0.61
1.10
0.56
1.00 0.50
0.90 0.44
0.39
0.80
0.33
0.70 0.28
0.60 0.22
0.17
0.50
0.11
0.40 0.06
0.00 0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50 0.60 0.70 0.80 0.90 1.00
α
Fig. 4. The chart of stiffness ratio based on infill walls length ratio in the third story for different percentage of infilled frames in the upper floor in the condition of
maximum infilled frames in lower floor (Case 1).

928
A. Noorifard, et al. Structures 24 (2020) 922–939

(caption on next page)

929
A. Noorifard, et al. Structures 24 (2020) 922–939

Fig. 5. The chart of stiffness ratio based on infill walls length ratio for different percentage of infilled frames in the upper floor in the condition of bare frames in
lower floor (Case 1).

Table 5
The matrix of the third story stiffness ratio for all layouts of infill walls in the condition of bare frames in lower floor (Case 1).
Number of infill walls in fourth story

14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

Number of infill walls in third story 0 0.45 0.47 0.51 0.53 0.57 0.60 0.65 0.70 0.73 0.79 0.82 0.91 1.02 1.13
1 0.48 0.51 0.55 0.57 0.61 0.65 0.70 0.75 0.78 0.85 0.88 0.97 1.09
2 0.52 0.54 0.59 0.61 0.65 0.69 0.74 0.81 0.84 0.91 0.94 1.04
3 0.55 0.58 0.63 0.66 0.70 0.74 0.80 0.86 0.90 0.97 1.01
4 0.59 0.62 0.67 0.70 0.74 0.79 0.85 0.92 0.95 1.03
5 0.61 0.64 0.69 0.72 0.77 0.81 0.88 0.95 0.99
6 0.64 0.67 0.72 0.76 0.80 0.85 0.92 1.00
7 0.66 0.69 0.75 0.78 0.83 0.88 0.95
8 0.69 0.72 0.79 0.82 0.87 0.93
9 0.72 0.76 0.82 0.86 0.91
10 0.76 0.79 0.86 0.90
11 0.79 0.83 0.90
12 0.81 0.85
13 0.84

Table 6
Calculation results of the third story for different layouts of infills in lower floor (Case 1).
Layout of infill walls Kx3 Kx4 Kx3/Kx4 Variation of Kx3/Kx4 Percentage of infilled frame in lower floor
N/mm N/mm – – –

The length ratio of infill walls in the third story to the fourth story 0.70
14 on 10 – D0 629,857 832,454 0.76 1.00 0.00
14 on 10 – D1 639,114 831,504 0.77 1.02 0.06
14 on 10 – D2 668,194 836,277 0.80 1.06 0.11
14 on 10 – D3 691,230 833,645 0.83 1.10 0.17
14 on 10 – D4 704,612 831,979 0.85 1.12 0.22
14 on 10 – D5 727,105 833,884 0.87 1.15 0.28
14 on 10 – D6 735,571 831,267 0.88 1.17 0.33
14 on 10 – D7 741,763 831,267 0.89 1.18 0.39
14 on 10 – D8 753,956 831,267 0.91 1.20 0.44
14 on 10 – D9 761,501 831,979 0.92 1.21 0.50
KR
= 0.4405Pd + 1.0095
KR0

stiffness of perimeter infills is disregarded. In the case of interior infill
walls, changing the axes of the structure or moving the infills can lead
to eliminating the interior infill walls. Despite the fact that the models
are three-dimensional, but due to investigating all layouts of infills in
elevation, the models were analyzed two-dimensionally, so that the
behavior of the structure and lateral displacements do not change due
to the torsion caused by asymmetric infill walls.
In conventional mid-rise buildings, architectural plan typically
changes in the floor above pilotis or at most in one other location in the
elevation. The probability of soft story exists exactly in these locations.
Therefore, in the studied models, architectural plan of the considered
floor and lower ones assumed the same and upper ones assumed dif-
ferent. Initially, it was assumed that the effective parameters in creating
soft story include the ratio of the length of infill walls in considered
story to the story above ( ) and percentage of infilled frames in upper
floor. As this research was exploratory study, during the analyses, it was
found that the percentage of infilled frames in the lower floor has an
effect on creating soft story. This effect is justifiable based on the se-
lected calculation method of story stiffness. This parameter was studied
by investigating the floor above pilotis in two conditions include pilotis
with bare frames and pilotis with maximum infilled frames for all
layouts of infills in considered story and the stories above it. This study
showed that the effect of the percentage of infilled frames in lower floor
is independent of the number of infill walls in the considered story and
the ones above it. Changing the architectural plan only in one section of
elevation means that in the process of reducing the infills one by one,
the percentage of infilled frame in lower floor will be different. So, for
creating the condition for aggregating the results and extracting an

930
A. Noorifard, et al. Structures 24 (2020) 922–939

Table 7 approximate method, it was necessary to convert all models to the

The results of calculation for infill walls length ratio of the third story to the condition with bare frames in lower floor. This was done by modeling
fourth story based on percentage of infilled frame in the stiffness ratio of 0.7 one of the layouts of infills in each story for different percentages of
(Case 1). infilled frames in lower floor and extracting the corresponding regres-
= L 3/ L 4 Equation of stiffness ratio Percentage of infilled sion equation. In the following, the results of these analyses are pre-
frame in the fourth story sented in the form of charts for each story. In this research, 2277 models
were analyzed. Due to the great amount of outputs, only the results of
0.56 KR 0 = 0.392 + 0.479 0.78
0.51 KR 0 = 0.392 + 0.499 0.72
third floor of case 1 are presented completely.
0.41 KR 0 = 0.398 + 0.538 0.67
0.35 KR 0 = 0.389 + 0.562 0.61
0.28 KR 0 = 0.376 + 0.593 0.56
7.1. Case 1
0.20 KR 0 = 0.361 + 0.627 0.50
0.08 KR 0 = 0.352 + 0.672 0.44 This is a building with width of 16 m and seven stories include five
stories above ground floor and one underground floor. Residential
floors are not the same, different layouts of two-unit and four-unit
floors were considered in elevation. The staircase is located in the

Table 8
Layout of infill walls in all stories based on the considered story (Case 2).

Infill walls Infill walls Infill walls Infill walls Infill walls Infill walls Infill walls
Considered
of First of Second of Third of Fourth of Fifth of Sixth of Seventh
Story
Story Story Story Story Story Story Story
Second
8 0 to 8 1 to 10 1 to 10 1 to 10 1 to 10 1 to 10
Story
Third 8
8
Bare frame
0 to 9 1 to 10 1 to 10 1 to 10 1 to 10
Story
Fourth Same
8 8 Bare frame
0 to 9 1 to 10 1 to 10 1 to 10
Story
Same Same
Fifth Story 8 8 Bare frame Bare frame
0 to 9 1 to 10 1 to 10
Same Same Same
Sixth Story 8 8 Bare frame Bare frame Bare frame
0 to 9 1 to 10

Fig. 6. The chart of stiffness ratio based on infill walls length ratio for different percentage of infilled frames in the upper floor in the condition of bare frames in
lower floor (Case 2).

931
A. Noorifard, et al. Structures 24 (2020) 922–939

Table 9 tables and figures, Kx is The story stiffness along X-axis, KR0 is the story
Layout of infill walls in all stories based on the considered story (Case 3). stiffness ratio of the considered story to the story above in the condition
Infill walls Infill walls Infill walls Infill walls Infill walls of bare frames in lower floor, KR is the story stiffness ratio of the
Considered
Story of First of Second of Third of Fourth of Fifth considered story to the story above, and is the length ratio of infill
Story Story Story Story Story
First Story 0 to 3 1 to 6 1 to 6 1 to 6 1 to 6 walls of the considered story to the story above.
Second 3 0 t0 5 1 to 6 1 to 6 1 to 6
Story Bare frame
Third Same
Story 3 Bare frame 0 t0 5 1 to 6 1 to 6 7.2. Case 2
Fourth 3 Same Same
0 t0 5 1 to 6
Story Bare frame Bare frame
This is a building with width of 16 m and seven stories include five
stories above ground floor and one underground floor. The staircase is
located in the center of building. According to the plans presented in
Fig. 2, the maximum number of infill walls along X-axis, in residential
center of building (Fig. 1). According to the plans presented in Fig. 2, floors is 10, in ground floor is 8 and in the underground floor is fixed to
the maximum number of infill walls along X-axis, in two-unit floors is 8. It should be noted that the infills which are not extended in entire
14, in four-unit floors is 15 and in ground floor is 9. In the underground span of the frame were neglected as their stiffness is not considerable.
floor, due to the dual function of walls as infills and retaining wall, the Different stories in this case with various layouts of infill walls were
number of infill walls is fixed to 8. It should be noted that in the pre- studied in accordance with Table 8. For this Case, 536 models were
sented results, the floor number from the foundation has been used constructed and the results of analyses are presented in Fig. 6.
instead of “the ground floor” and “the underground floor“. Different
stories in this case with various layouts of infill walls were studied in
7.3. Case 3
accordance with Table 4. For this case, 1061 models were constructed
and the results of analyses are presented in Fig. 5. Due to the great
This is a building with width of 10 m and five stories include four
amount of outputs, as an example, the results of third floor are pre-
stories above ground floor. The staircase is located in the corner of
sented completely in Table 5 to 7and Figs. 3 and 4. In the following
building. According to the plans presented in Fig. 2, the maximum

Fig. 7. The chart of stiffness ratio based on infill walls length ratio for different percentage of infilled frames in the upper floor in the condition of bare frames in
lower floor (Case 3).

932
A. Noorifard, et al. Structures 24 (2020) 922–939

Table 10 Table 11
Layout of infill walls in all stories based on the considered story (Case 4). Layout of infill walls in all stories based on the considered story (Case 5).

Considered Infill walls Infill walls Infill walls Infill walls Infill walls Considered Infill walls Infill walls Infill walls Infill walls Infill walls
Story of First of Second of Third of Fourth of Fifth Story of First of Second of Third of Fourth of Fifth
Story Story Story Story Story Story Story Story Story Story
First Story 0 to 5 1 to 7 1 to 7 1 to 7 1 to 7 First Story 0 to 6 1 to 7 1 to 7 1 to 7 1 to 7
Second 5 0 t0 6 1 to 7 1 to 7 1 to 7 Second 6 0 t0 6 1 to 7 1 to 7 1 to 7
Story Bare frame Story Bare frame
Third 5 Same
0 t0 6 1 to 7 1 to 7 Third 6 Same
0 t0 6 1 to 7 1 to 7
Story Bare frame Story Bare frame
Fourth 5 Same Same
0 t0 6 1 to 7 Fourth 6 Same Same
0 t0 6 1 to 7
Story Bare frame Bare frame Story Bare frame Bare frame

number of infill walls along X-axis, in residential floors is 6 and in
ground floor is 3. Different stories in this case with various layouts of
infill walls were studied in accordance with Table 9. For this case, 162
models were constructed and the results of analyses are presented in
Fig. 7.
maximum number of infill walls along X-axis, in residential floors is 7
and in ground floor is 5. Different stories in this case with various
layouts of infill walls were studied in accordance with Table 10. For this
case, 217 models were constructed and the results of analyses are
presented in Fig. 8.

7.4. Case 4 7.5. Case 5

This is a building with width of 10 m and five stories include four This is a building with width of 10 m and five stories include four
stories above ground floor. The staircase is located in the middle of stories above ground floor. The staircase is located in the middle of
building length. According to the plans presented in Fig. 2, the building width. According to the plans presented in Fig. 2, the

Fig. 8. The chart of stiffness ratio based on infill walls length ratio for different percentage of infilled frames in the upper floor in the condition of bare frames in
lower floor (Case 4).

933
A. Noorifard, et al. Structures 24 (2020) 922–939

Fig. 9. The chart of stiffness ratio based on infill walls length ratio for different percentage of infilled frames in the upper floor in the condition of bare frames in
lower floor (Case 5).

7.6. Case 6
Table 12
Layout of infill walls in all stories based on the considered story (Case 6). This is a building with width of 6 m and five stories include four
Infill walls Infill walls Infill walls Infill walls Infill walls stories above ground floor. The staircase is located in the corner of
Considered
Story of First of Second of Third of Fourth of Fifth building. According to the plans presented in Fig. 2, the maximum
Story Story Story Story Story
First Story 0 to 2 1 to 4 1 to 4 1 to 4 1 to 4 number of infill walls along X-axis, in residential floors is 4 and in
Second 2 0 to 3 1 to 4 1 to 4 1 to 4 ground floor is 2. Different stories in this case with various layouts of
Story Bare frame
Third 2 Same 0 to 3 1 to 4 1 to 4 infill walls were studied in accordance with Table 12. For this case, 82
Story Bare frame
Fourth Same Same models were constructed and the results of analyses are presented in
2 0 to 3 1 to 4
Story Bare frame Bare frame
Fig. 10.

8. Approximate method to identify soft story caused by infill walls

maximum number of infill walls along X-axis, in residential floors is 7
and in ground floor is 6. Different stories in this case with various
layouts of infill walls were studied in accordance with Table 11. For this
case, 219 models were constructed and the results of analyses are
presented in Fig. 9.
In this section, by using the results of the analyses, an approximate
method for identifying soft story caused by infill walls was proposed, in
this method structural models and specifications are not required. An
important characteristic of this method is its performance for checking
the architectural plan in final stages of basic design when the specifi-
cations of structural elements are not determined and the model of the

934
A. Noorifard, et al. Structures 24 (2020) 922–939

Fig. 10. The chart of stiffness ratio based on infill walls length ratio for different percentage of infilled frames in the upper floor in the condition of bare frames in
lower floor (Case 6).

Fig. 11. The effect of the percentage of the infilled frame in lower story on the story stiffness ratio of the considered story to the story above.

structure is not available. As noted in the previous sections, for all frame. The results of all analyses are presented in Fig. 11. The linear
stories of studied cases, one layout of infill walls in considered story and regression equation with a correlation coefficient of 0.80 was calculated
the story above was selected and different percentages of infilled frames and simplified as Eq. (2).
in lower floor were modeled. Then, the amount of stiffness ratio var-
iation of the considered story to the story above was calculated in KR
= 0.6Pd + 1
comparison with the same case in which the lower story was bare KR 0 (2)

935
A. Noorifard, et al. Structures 24 (2020) 922–939

where KR = (0.6Pd + 1)(a + b)

0.7 = (0.6Pd + 1) a + 0.6bPd + b

KR The story stiffness ratio of the considered story to the story above
The story stiffness ratio of the considered story to the story above in the
0.7 0.6bPd b
KR 0 =
condition of bare frames in lower floor (0.6Pd + 1) a (5)
Pd The percentages of infilled frames in lower floor
0.7 0.6bPd b
=
According to the results of analyzed models, a regression equation was 0 (0.6Pd + 1)(0.7 b) (6)
presented for each percentage of infilled frames in the story above
which determines the relation between the length ratio of infill walls The above equation shows that the ratio of to 0 is independent of
and the story stiffness ratio of the considered story to the story above. the slope of the line and only y-intercept is required. Accordingly, the
This relation is in the form of Eq. (3) in the condition of bare frames in average of y-intercept of all models equation has been calculated, which
lower floor. is equivalent to 0.5. In this way, Eq. (6) is converted into a simplified
Eq. (7).
KR0 = a + b (3)
0.7 0.6bPd b 0.7 0.6 × 0.5Pd 0.5 0.2 0.3Pd
where = = =
0 (0.6Pd + 1)(0.7 b) (0.6Pd + 1)(0.7 0.5) 0.2 + 0.12Pd

2 3Pd
The story stiffness ratio of the considered story to the story above in the
=
KR 0
0 2 + Pd (7)
condition of bare frames in lower floor
The length ratio of infill walls of the considered story to the story above In all models, for each percentage of infilled frame in upper floor,
the length ratio of infill walls of the considered story to the story above,
The intersection point of the horizontal line of 0.7, which is equivalent
in which the story stiffness ratio is 0.7 and soft story occurs, was cal-
to the soft story criteria in seismic codes (ASCE 7-10, 2010; Standard No
culated. The results of all analyses are presented in Fig. 12 and the
2800, 2015; NZS 1170.5, 2004; IS 1893, 2002; AS 1170.4, 1993), with
regression equation with a correlation coefficient of 0.76 was calcu-
each line (Figs. 3-10), is obtained by Eq. (4).
lated.
0.7 b By simplifying the regression equation, Eq. (8) can be presented.
0.7 = a +b =
0 0
a (4) This equation actually represents the boundary of the soft story oc-
where currence, so it can be converted into inequality (Eq. (9)). This means
that if the inequality is valid, the soft story will occur.
0 = Pu (8)
0 The length ratio of infill walls of the considered story to the story above in the
condition of bare frames in lower floor < Pu (9)
0

If the frames of lower floor are infilled, Eq. (5) can be calculated based
on Eq. (2) and (3). This equation shows that by changing the percentage
of infilled frame in lower floor, for what length ratio of infill walls of the
considered story to the story above, the story stiffness in the considered
story to the story above will be 0.7. Obviously, this value will be less
than 0 . Then according to Eq. (4), practical Eq. (6) can be extracted.
KR = (0.6Pd + 1) KR0
KR0 = a + b
where
0 The length ratio of infill walls of the considered story to the story above in the
condition of bare frames in lower floor
Pu The percentage of infilled frames in upper floor
By using Eq. (7), the effect of percentage of infilled frame in lower story
is also applied to the above inequality. In order to remove the negative
sign for greater percentage of infilled frame in lower story, the absolute
value of the equation is multiplied on both sides of the inequality.

Fig. 12. The relation between the percentage of infilled frame in upper story and the length ratio of infill walls of the considered story to the story above.

936
A. Noorifard, et al. Structures 24 (2020) 922–939

Finally, an approximate equation for identifying soft story caused by opening is greater than 60% of the frame length from axes the infill
infill walls is obtained as Eq. (10). walls should be neglected (Tabeshpour, Noorifard, 2019). So the ef-
fective infill walls in each story are:
2 3Pd
0 < Pu 0 × < Pu
0 2 + Pd Ground floor: 2AB
First floor (under consideration): 2AB, 3AB, 4AB
2 3Pd
< Pu Second floor: 1AB, 1BC, 2AB, 2BC, 3AB, 4AB, 4BC
2 + Pd (10)
7
where Pu = = 0.875
8
1
Pd = = 0.125
The length ratio of infill walls of the considered story to the story above 8
Pu The percentage of infilled frames in upper floor
Pd The percentages of infilled frames in lower floor. If this story is located on the 4.4 + 4.4 + 4.4 13.2
foundation, the coefficient will be 1.
= = = 0.4
4.4 + 5 + 4.4 + 5 + 4.4 + 4.4 + 5 32.6

2 3Pd 2 3 × 0.125
Example Pu = 0.875 = 0.67, 0.4 < 0.67
2 + Pd 2 + 0.125

In this section as an example for using the proposed approximate 2 3Pd

method, one layout of case 4 is investigated (Fig. 13). For checking the
soft story due to infill walls along X-axis on the first floor, first it is
necessary to determine the effective infill walls in terms of lateral
stiffness. As noted at the end of section 6.2. when the area of the
opening is greater than 46% of the frame area from axes or the length of
< Pu First story is soft stoty due to infill walls
2 + Pd
In order to verify the proposed approximate method, 2277 models
which were analyzed accurately were also investigated by using this
method. It showed that in 80% of the models, the results of the

Fig. 13. One layout of case 4 for checking soft story due to infill walls in first floor by using the proposed approximate method.

17% 3%

Similar results

80% Conservative different results

Non-conservative different results

Fig. 14. Comparison between the results of the proposed approximate method and the accurate method in identifying the soft story.

937
A. Noorifard, et al.
7%
93%
Fig. 15. The performance of the proposed approximate method in identifying the soft story.
approximate method and the accurate software method were similar. In
17% of the models, different results were conservative, and only in 3%
of the models, different results were non-conservative (Fig. 14). In other
words, 97% of the models were reliable. The results also showed that
93% of models with soft story were identifiable by this method, which
indicated its high performance (Fig. 15).
9. Conclusion
Based on the analyzed models, in the stages of basic architectural
design when the specifications of structural elements are not de-
termined and the model of the structure is not available, there are three
effective variables for identifying soft story caused by infill walls. These
variables include percentage of infilled frames in upper floor, percen-
tage of infilled frames in lower floors and the length ratio of infill walls
of the considered story to the story above. In this research, by com-
bining three linear regression equations derived from the results of the
analyses, an approximate equation without any need to the structural
specifications and only with geometric specification of architectural
drawings was extracted. Verification of this equation by 2277 analyzed
macro models showed that 80% of the models, the results of the ap-
proximate method and the accurate software method were similar. In
17% of the models, different results were conservative, and only in 3%
of the models, different results were non-conservative. In other words,
97% of the models were reliable. The results also showed that 93% of
models with soft story were identifiable by this method, which in-
dicated its high performance.
Declaration of Competing Interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial
interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influ-
ence the work reported in this paper.
References
[1] Noorifard A, Saradj FM, Tabeshpour MR. Preventing undesirable seismic behaviour
of infill walls in design process. Urbanism Archit Constr 2017;8(1):1–24.
[2] Asteris PG. Lateral stiffness of brick masonry infilled plane frames. J Struct Eng
2003;129(8):1071–9.
[3] Arnold Ch. Seismic issues in architectural design. FEMA 454: Designing for
Earthquakes, A manual for Architects, 2006.
[4] Arslan MH, Korkmaz HH. What is to be learned from damage and failure of re-
inforced concrete structures during recent earthquakes in Turkey? Eng Fail Anal
2007;14(1):1–22.
[5] Harmankaya ZY, Soyluk A. Architectural design of irregular buildings in Turkey. Int
J Civ Environ Eng 2012;12(1):42–8.
[6] Tabeshpour MR, Azad A, Golafshani AA. Seismic Behavior and Retrofit of Infilled
Frames. Earthquake-Resistant Structures – Design, Assessment and Rehabilitation,
Prof. Abbas Moustafa (Ed.), INTECH 2012.
[7] Mulgund GV, Kulkarni AB. Seismic assessment of RC frame buildings with brick
masonry infills. Int J Adv Eng Sci Technol 2011;2(2):140–7.
[8] Fardis MN, Bousias SN, Franchioni G, Panagiotakos TB. Seismic response and design
of RC structures with plan-eccentric masonry infills. Earthquake Eng Struct Dyn
1999;28(2):173–91.
[9] Özmen C, Ünay Aİ. Commonly encountered seismic design faults due to the
938
Structures 24 (2020) 922–939
Identifying the soft story
Failure in identifying the soft story
architectural design of residential buildings in Turkey. Build Environ
2007;42(3):1406–16.
[10] Zhao B, Taucer F, Rossetto T. Field investigation on the performance of building
structures during the 12 May 2008 Wenchuan earthquake in China. Eng Struct
2009;31(8):1707–23.
[11] Yatağan S. Damages and Failures Observed in Infill Walls of Reinforced Concrete
Frame after 1999 KocaeliEarthquake. ITU A|Z, 2011; 8(1), 219–228.
[12] Nwofor TC. Shear resistance of reinforced concrete infilled frames. Int J Appl
2012:2(5).
[13] Noorifard A, Tabeshpour MR, Saradj FM. Effect of infills on torsion and soft storey
in a conventional residential building in Tehran-Iran. In; 7th International
Conference on Seismology & Earthquake Engineering (SEE 7), Tehran, Iran, 2015.
[14] Noorifard A, Tabeshpour MR, Saradj FM. Preventing irregularity effects of infills
through modifying architectural drawings. Archit Civ Eng Environ
2016;9(2):77–92.
[15] Asteris PG, Repapis CC, Cavaleri L, Sarhosis V, Athanasopoulou A. On the funda-
mental period of infilled RC frame buildings. Struct Eng Mech
2015;54(6):1175–200.
[16] Asteris PG, Repapis CC, Tsaris AK, Di Trapani F, Cavaleri L. Parameters affecting the
fundamental period of infilled RC frame structures. Earthquakes Struct
2015;9(5):999–1028.
[17] Ambrose J, Vergun D. Design for earthquakes. Newyork: John Wiley & Sons Inc;
1998.
[18] Marjani F, Ersoy U. Behavior of brick infilled reinforced concrete frames under
reversed cyclic loading. ECAS2002 International Symposium on Structural and
Earthquake Engineering Middle East Technical University, Ankara, 2002.
[19] Das D, Murty CVR. Brick masonry infills in seismic design of RC framed buildings:
Part 1-Cost implications. Indian Concr J 2004;78(7):39–44.
[20] Kaushik HB, Rai DC, Jain SK. Code approaches to seismic design of masonry-infilled
reinforced concrete frames: a state-of-the-art review. Earthquake Spectra
2006;22(4):961–83.
[21] Mohebkhah A, Tasnimi AA, Moghadam HA. A modified three-strut (MTS) model for
masonry-infilled steel frames with openings. J Seismol Earthquake Eng 2007;9(1,
2):39–48.
[22] Mondal G, Jain SK. Lateral stiffness of masonry infilled reinforced concrete (RC)
frames with central opening. Earthquake Spectra 2008;24(3):701–23.
[23] Tsai MH, Huang TC. Effect of interior brick-infill partitions on the progressive
collapse potential of a RC building: linear static analysis results. Eng Technol
2009;50:883–9.
[24] Baran M, Sevil T. Analytical and experimental studies on infilled RC frames. Int J
Phys Sci 2010;5(13):1981–98.
[25] Rodrigues H, Varum H, Costa A. Simplified macro-model for infill masonry panels. J
Earthquake Eng 2010;14(3):390–416.
[26] Pradhan PM, Pradhan PL, Maskey RK. A review on partial infilled frames under
lateral loads. Kathmandu University J Sci Eng Technol 2012;8(1):142–52.
[27] Firdausy AI. Preliminary study on seismic responses of single-story reinforced
concrete frame with different arrangement of masonry infill wall. Thesis for the
degree of Master of Science in civil engineering, National central university, 2014.
[28] Huang Q, Guo Z, Kuang JS. Designing infilled reinforced concrete frames with the
‘strong frame-weak infill’principle. Eng Struct 2016;123:341–53.
[29] Mostafaei H, Kabeyasawa T. Effect of Infill Masonry Walls on the Seismic Response
of Reinforced Concrete Buildings Subjected to the 2003 Bam Earthquake Strong
Motion: A Case Study of Bam Telephone Center. Bull. Earthquake Research
Institute, The University of Tokyo, 2004; 79, 133-156.
[30] Mohebkhah A, Tasnimi AA, Moghadam HA. Nonlinear analysis of masonry-infilled
steel frames with openings using discrete element method. J Constr Steel Res
2008;64(12):1463–72.
[31] Tasnimi AA, Mohebkhah A. Investigation on the behavior of brick-infilled steel
frames with openings, experimental and analytical approaches. Eng Struct
2011;33(3):968–80.
[32] Kaplan O, Guney Y, Doğangün A, Livaoğlu R. Effect of infill walls and plaster for a
four storey R/C building. In:IOMAC'15, 6th International Operational Modal
Analysis Conference, 2015 May12-14 Gijón – Spain, 2015.
[33] Motwani P, Santhi AS. Simulation of brick infill and effect of openings on RC frames
using ANSYS. Indian J Sci Technol 2015;8(S2):29–35.
[34] Chaulagain H, Rodrigues H, Spacone E, Varum H. Seismic safety assessment of
existing masonry infill structures in Nepal. Earthquake Eng Eng Vibr
A. Noorifard, et al.
2016;15(2):251–68.
[35] EN 1998-1. Eurocode8: Design of structures for earthquake resistance -Part 1:
General rules, seismic actions and rules for buildings. European Committee for
Standardization, Brussels, 2003.
[36] Asteris PG, Repapis CC, Repapi EV, Cavaleri L. Fundamental period of infilled re-
inforced concrete frame structures. Struct Infrastruct Eng 2017;13(7):929–41.
[37] Amanat KM, Hoque E. A rationale for determining the natural period of RC building
frames having infill. Eng Struct 2006;28(4):495–502.
[38] Hatzigeorgiou GD, Kanapitsas G. Evaluation of fundamental period of low-rise and
mid-rise reinforced concrete buildings. Earthquake Eng Struct Dyn
2013;42(11):1599–616.
[39] Kose MM. Parameters affecting the fundamental period of RC buildings with infill
walls. Eng Struct 2009;31(1):93–102.
[40] ASCE 7-10. Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and Other Structures. American
Society of Civil Engineers, Reston, Virginia, United States, 2010.
[41] Standard No 2800. Iranian Code of Practice for Seismic Resistant Design of
Buildings 4th Edition, Building and Housing Research Center, Tehran, Iran, 2015
(In Persian).
[42] NZS 1170.5. Structural Design Actions, Part 5: Earthquake actions- New Zealand.
Published by Standards New Zealand, New Zealand, 2004.
[43] IS 1893. (Indian Standard). Criteria for Earthquake Resistant Design of Structures,
Part 1: General Provisions and Buildings. Fifth Revision, Bureau of Indian Standard,
New Delhi, 2002.
[44] AS 1170.4. Minimum design loads on structures, Part 4: Earthquake loads, Second
edition. Published by Standards Australia, Sydney, 1993.
[45] AS 1170.4. Australian Standard, Structural design actions, Part 4: Earthquake ac-
tions in Australia. Published by Standards Australia, Sydney, 2007.
[46] NTCS-04. Normas Técnicas Complementarias para Diseño por Sismo. Gaceta Oficial
del Distrito Federal, 2004 (in Spanish).
[47] RCDF-04. Reglamento de construcciones para el Distrito Federal. Diario Oficial de
la Federación, México, 2004 (in Spanish).
[48] Specification for Structures to be Built in Earthquake Areas. Ministry of Public
Works and Settlement, Government of the Republic of Turkey, 2007.
[49] Tabeshpour MR, Noorifard A. Comparing calculation methods of storey stiffness to
control provision of soft storey in seismic codes. Earthquakes Struct
2016;11(1):1–23.
[50] Standard No 2800. Iranian Code of Practice for Seismic Resistant Design of
Buildings 3th Edition, Building and Housing Research Center, Tehran, Iran, 2006
(In Persian).
[51] Iranian national building code, part 6. Design loads for buildings, Ministry of roads
and urban development Islamic Republic of Iran, Tehran, Iran, 2013 (In Persian).
[52] ACI committee 318. Building code requirements for structural concrete and com-
mentary, American concrete institute, Farmington Hills, Mich, 1999.
[53] Crisafulli FJ, Carr AJ, Park R. Analytical modelling of infilled frame structures-a
general review. Bull New Zealand Soc Earthquake Eng 2000;33(1):30–47.
[54] Liauw TC. An approximate method of analysis for infilled frames with or without
opening. Build Sci 1972;7(4):233–8.
[55] Haris I, Hortobágyi Z. Different FEM models of reinforced concrete frames stiffened
by infill masonry for lateral loads. Civ Eng 2012;56(1):25–34.
[56] Mohammadi M, Nikfar F. Strength and stiffness of masonry-infilled frames with
central openings based on experimental results. J Struct Eng 2013;139(6):974–84.
[57] Al-Chaar G. Evaluating strength and stiffness of unreinforced masonry infill struc-
tures (No. ERDC/CERL-TR-02-1). Engineer research and development center
champaign il construction engineering research lab, 2002.
[58] Holmes M. Steel frames with brickwork and concrete infilling. ICE Proc
939
Structures 24 (2020) 922–939
1961;19(4):473–8.
[59] Stafford-Smith B, Carter C. A method of analysis for infilled frames. ICE Proc
1969;44(10):31–48.
[60] Mainstone RJ. On the stiffness and strengths of infilled frames. Proceedings,
Institution of Civil Engineers, 1971; Supplement IV, 57–90.
[61] Decanini LD, Fantin GE. Modelos simplificados de la mampostería incluida en
porticos. Caracteristicas de stiffnessy resistencia lateral en estado limite. Jornadas
Argentinas de Ingeniería Estructural 1986;2:817–36. (in Spanish).
[62] Paulay T, Priestly MJN. Seismic Design of Reinforced Concrete and Masonry
Buildings. New York, United States: John Wiley & Sons Inc; 1992.
[63] Durrani AJ, Luo YH. Seismic retrofit of flat-slab buildings with masonry infills.
In Technical Report (pp. 1-8). National Center for Earthquake Engineering
Research, 1994.
[64] Papia M, Cavaleri L, Fossetti M. Infilled frames: developments in the evaluation of
the stiffening effect of infills. Struct Eng Mech 2003;16(6):675–93.
[65] Tabeshpour MR. Infilled Frames. Tehran, Iran: Fadak Issatis Publisher; 2013. (In
Persian).
[66] Asteris PG, Cavaleri L, Di Trapani F, Sarhosis V. A macro-modelling approach for
the analysis of infilled frame structures considering the effects of openings and
vertical loads. Struct Infrastruct Eng 2016;12(5):551–66.
[67] Liauw TC, Kwan KH. Nonlinear behaviour of non-integral infilled frames. Comput
Struct 1984;18(3):551–60.
[68] Asteris PG, Giannopoulos IP, Chrysostomou CZ. Modeling of infilled frames with
openings. Open Constr Build Technol J 2012;6(1):81–91.
[69] Madan A, Reinhorn AM, Mander JB, Valles RE. Modeling of masonry infill panels
for structural analysis. J Struct Eng 1997;123(10):1295–302.
[70] Saneinejad A, Hobbs B. Inelastic design of infilled frames. J Struct Eng
1995;121(4):634–50.
[71] El-Dakhakhni WW, Elgaaly M, Hamid AA. Three-strut model for concrete masonry-
infilled steel frames. J Struct Eng 2003;129(2):177–85.
[72] Chrysostomou CZ, Gergely P, Abel JF. A six-strut model for nonlinear dynamic
analysis of steel infilled frames. Int J Struct Stab Dyn 2002;2(03):335–53.
[73] Crisafulli FJ. Seismic behaviour of reinforced concrete structures with masonry
infills Ph.D. Thesis New Zealand: University of Canterbury, Christchurch; 1997.
[74] Di Trapani F, Shing PB, Cavaleri L. Macroelement model for in-plane and out-of-
plane responses of masonry infills in frame structures. J Struct Eng
2017;144(2):04017198.
[75] FEMA 306. Evaluation of Earthquake Damaged Concrete and Masonry Wall
Buildings. Basic Procedures Manual. Washington, D.C: Federal Emergency
Management Agency; 1998.
[76] FEMA 356. Prestandard and commentary for the Seismic Rehabilitation of
Buildings. Federal Emergency Management Agency, Washington, D.C, 2000.
[77] NZSEE (New Zealand Society for Earthquake Engineering). Assessment and
Improvement of the Structural Performance of Buildings in Earthquakes.
Recommendations of a NZSEE Study Group on Earthquake Risk Buildings,
Wellington, New Zealand, 2006.
[78] Smyrou E, Blandon C, Antoniou S, Pinho R, Crisafulli F. Implementation and ver-
ification of a masonry panel model for nonlinear dynamic analysis of infilled RC
frames. Bull Earthq Eng 2011;9(5):1519–34.
[79] Tabeshpour MR, Noorifard A. A new procedure to determine equivalent strut of
infill walls with openings for engineering applications. In: Proceedings of the
Institution of Civil Engineers-Structures and Buildings, 2019; 1-17.
[80] Noorifard A, Tabeshpour MR. Determining the modulus of elasticity of infill walls
constructed by common materials in Iran for engineering applications. Res Bull
Seismol Earthquake Eng 2017;20(1):25–35. (In Persian).