Finite-Element Modeling of Nonlinear Behavior

of Masonry-Infilled RC Frames
Andreas Stavridis1 and P. B. Shing2
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Indian Institute of Technology Roorkee on 10/08/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Abstract: The evaluation of the seismic performance of masonry-infilled reinforced concrete 共RC兲 frames has been a major challenge for
structural engineers. This paper addresses pertinent issues on the development and calibration of nonlinear finite-element models for
assessing the seismic performance of these structures. The modeling scheme considered here combines the smeared and discrete crack
approaches to capture the different failure modes of infilled frames, including the mixed-mode fracture of mortar joints and the shear
failure of RC members. A systematic approach is presented here to calibrate the material parameters, and the accuracy of the nonlinear
finite-element models has been evaluated with experimental data. The comparison of the numerical and experimental results indicates that
the models can successfully capture the highly nonlinear behavior of the physical specimens and accurately predict their strength and
failure mechanisms. The validated models have been used to assess the sensitivity of the numerical results to the modeling parameters and
to identify the critical material parameters through a parametric study.
DOI: 10.1061/共ASCE兲ST.1943-541X.116
CE Database subject headings: Masonry; Reinforced concrete; Frames; Finite element method; Shear failures; Seismic effects;
Earthquakes.
Author keywords: Masonry; Reinforced concrete; Finite-element method; Shear failure; Seismic assessment; Earthquake performance;
Smeared-crack models, Discrete crack models, Cohesive interface models; Infill.

Introduction as a predictive tool is limited. ASCE 共2006兲 also allows more

Reinforced concrete 共RC兲 frames with masonry infill walls can be
frequently found in areas of high seismic risk around the world.
Although infills can develop strong interaction with the bounding
frames under seismic loads, they are often considered as non-
structural elements and are overlooked in the structural analysis
and design. How infills affect the seismic performance of an RC
building is an intricate issue since their exact role in the seismic
load resistance is not yet clearly understood. The variability of
material properties, geometric configurations, and construction
methods add to the complexity of this problem.
Evaluating the seismic behavior of infilled frames is a major
challenge for structural engineers. Guidelines for the structural
assessment of infilled frames can be found in ASCE 共2006兲,
which provides simplified analytical methods based on an equiva-
lent strut concept 共Stafford Smith 1966; Mainstone and Weeks
1970兲. Despite the recent improvements 共e.g., Al-Chaar 2002兲,
strut models are still deficient in capturing some of the failure
mechanisms exhibited by infilled frames. Moreover, the estima-
tion of the effective strut properties often relies on empirical for-
mulas or case-specific experimental data. Hence, their usefulness
1 available for this matter. Furthermore, refined constitutive models
Postdoctoral Researcher, Dept. of Structural Engineering, Univ. of
California, San Diego, La Jolla, CA 92093-0085 共corresponding author兲.
E-mail: andreas@ucsd.edu
2
Professor, Dept. of Structural Engineering, Univ. of California, San
Diego, La Jolla, CA 92093-0085.
Note. This manuscript was submitted on September 6, 2008; approved
on September 30, 2009; published online on February 12, 2010. Discus-
sion period open until August 1, 2010; separate discussions must be sub-
mitted for individual papers. This paper is part of the Journal of
Structural Engineering, Vol. 136, No. 3, March 1, 2010. ©ASCE, ISSN
0733-9445/2010/3-285–296/$25.00.
refined methods using nonlinear finite-element models. However,
it does not provide any recommendations or guidelines for such
analysis.
In recent years, there have been significant advances in the
nonlinear finite-element modeling of concrete and masonry struc-
tures. Lotfi 共1992兲, Lourenco 共1996兲, and Attard et al. 共2007兲
have modeled masonry walls with a combination of continuum
elements and interface line elements to simulate the fracture be-
havior of brick units and mortar joints. Mehrabi and Shing 共1997兲
and Al-Chaar et al. 共2008兲 have simulated the behavior of ma-
sonry infilled RC frames using a similar approach. Chiou et al.
共1999兲 have modeled infilled RC frames by discretizing the brick
units and concrete members into blocks interconnected with con-
tact springs simulating tensile and shear failure. Commercial pro-
grams are available for nonlinear finite-element analyses of
infilled frames as used by Al-Chaar et al. 共2008兲. Nevertheless,
many practicing engineers have not been able to benefit from
these tools due to the complexity of the constitutive models and
the lack of comprehensive guidelines for the development and
calibration of structural models. Even though past studies have
indicated that the accuracy of a model depends very much on the
finite-element discretization scheme, no general guidelines are
normally have many material parameters, which may or may not
be easy to calibrate with standard tests. Hence, when pertinent
material data are not available, the accuracy of these models
could be questionable.
This paper discusses general issues related to the development
and calibration of nonlinear finite-element models for assessing
the seismic performance of masonry infilled RC frames. It fo-
cuses on a modeling methodology that combines the smeared and
discrete crack approaches to capture the different failure modes of

JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / MARCH 2010 / 285

J. Struct. Eng., 2010, 136(3): 285-296

 Failure mechanisms
(a) Horizontal sliding
(a)
(b) Diagonal crack
(c) Panel crushing
(b)
Plastic hinge
Shear crack
Crack in infill
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Indian Institute of Technology Roorkee on 10/08/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Crushing (c)
Slip at mortar joint
Fig. 1. Failure mechanisms of infilled frames observed by Mehrabi et
al. 共1994兲
infilled frames, including the mixed-mode fracture of mortar
joints and the shear failure of RC members. The methodology has
been validated with the experimental data of Mehrabi et al. 共1994兲
as well as the predictive analysis of infilled frames recently tested
in a multiuniversity collaborative project 共Stavridis 2009兲. Three
of the tests by Mehrabi et al. 共1994兲 are used in this paper to
demonstrate the modeling and calibration methods as well as the
capabilities of these models. Furthermore, an extensive paramet-
ric study has been conducted to examine the influence of the
material parameters on the numerical results and identify the im-
portant modeling parameters.
In-Plane Behavior of Infilled Frames
The seismic performance of masonry-infilled RC frames has been
investigated in a number of experimental studies 共e.g., Mehrabi et
al. 1994; Fardis et al. 1999; Al-Chaar et al. 2003; Hashemi and
Mosalam 2006兲. These studies have indicated that the in-plane
lateral resistance of an infilled frame is not equal to a simple
summation of the resistance of the masonry wall and that of the
bare frame.
Mehrabi et al. 共1994兲 have examined the influence of various
parameters on the structural performance of 14 half-scale single-
story RC frames tested under in-plane loads. The RC frames had
either a ductile or nonductile design with two types of infill pan-
els. One consisted of hollow concrete blocks 共weak infill兲 and the
other had solid concrete bricks 共strong infill兲. Both panel types
significantly increased the strength and stiffness of an RC frame.
The study identified three main failure mechanisms, as illustrated
in Fig. 1. A frame with a weak infill tended to exhibit a relatively
ductile behavior dominated by the sliding within the masonry bed
joints over the height of the wall and the flexural yielding in the
columns as shown in Fig. 1共a兲. This mechanism could also occur
in a strong infill bounded by a relatively strong and ductile RC
frame. The second mechanism, illustrated in Fig. 1共b兲, was char-
acterized by a diagonal crack initiating in the infill near the top
windward corner, which eventually led to the shear failure of the
adjacent RC column. This was a brittle mechanism associated
with a significant drop of the load carrying capacity, and it nor-
mally occurred in nonductile frames with strong infills. In the
case of a strong frame, a third mechanism characterized by infill
corner crushing, as shown in Fig. 1共c兲, could occur.
286 / JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / MARCH 2010
J. Struct. Eng., 2010, 136(3): 285-296
Flexural steel
Shear steel
Nodal location
Smeared-crack
concrete element
Interface
concrete element
Fig. 2. Finite-element discretization of RC members
Finite-Element Modeling Scheme
As discussed above, the failure of an infilled RC frame may in-
volve diffused flexural cracks and dominant shear cracks in RC
members, tensile and shear fracture in mortar joints, and compres-
sive failure of concrete and masonry units. To capture these
mechanisms with the finite-element method, the selection of an
appropriate discretization scheme and constitutive models re-
quires special attention.
Discretization Scheme for Reinforced Concrete
Members
RC members are often discretized with a rectangular grid of
nodes connected with quadrilateral smeared-crack elements. The
reinforcing steel can be modeled as a smeared overlay or with
discrete truss elements. While the former is more efficient, the
latter is often preferred when the mesh for the concrete member is
fine enough to permit the placement of steel bars at proper loca-
tions. However, smeared-crack elements have a stress-locking
problem that does not allow proper modeling of shear cracks, and
can therefore lead to unconservative results 共Rots 1988; Lotfi and
Shing 1991兲. This problem can be circumvented by the use of
zero-thickness cohesive interface elements to model shear cracks
in a discrete fashion. To achieve this without the prior knowledge
of the locations and orientations of the cracks, each quadrilateral
element can be replaced with a module of four triangular
smeared-crack elements connected with four, diagonally placed,
double-noded, interface elements, as illustrated in Fig. 2. Each
module is connected to the adjacent modules with horizontal and
vertical interface elements. With this mesh, discrete cracks can
develop at angles of 0°, 90°, and ⫾␪, where ␪ can be close to 45°
to represent diagonal shear cracks. The introduction of discrete
cracks not only removes the undesired stress locking under shear
but also alleviates the mesh-size sensitivity problem, which is
well known for smeared-crack models 共Bazant and Oh 1983兲.
With the aforementioned discretization scheme, each interior
node of the initial orthogonal mesh is replaced by eight nodes,
each associated with one triangular and two interface elements as
shown in Fig. 2. Consequently, the steel bars can be connected to
the concrete elements in a number of ways. However, it is desir-
able to have as many nodes of a smeared-crack element con-
nected to steel bars as possible to enhance numerical stability.
Furthermore, it is important that a potential discrete crack will
cross the right quantity of flexural and shear steel.
The reinforcement modeling scheme shown in Fig. 2 is pro-
posed in light of the above considerations. As shown, the flexural
 steel at each interior location is equally divided into eight truss
elements so that every triangular element is attached to the flex-
ural steel at two of its nodes. Along the external edges of an RC
member, the flexural steel is divided into four truss elements be-
cause there are only four nodes at each location. This arrangement
provides a degree of restraint to the triangular elements when the
tensile strength of the adjacent interface elements has been ex-
hausted. For the shear reinforcement, the number of bars can be
reduced for computational efficiency since the arrangement of the
longitudinal reinforcement provides the desired restraint to the
triangular smeared-crack elements. The total shear steel area at
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Indian Institute of Technology Roorkee on 10/08/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
each location can be divided into two bars placed in a zigzag
pattern, as shown in Fig. 2. This modeling scheme prevents the
sliding along horizontal interfaces which is not a realistic failure
pattern and ensures that every potential discrete crack will cross
the proper quantity of steel.
Modeling Scheme for Masonry Infill
In a masonry assembly, the mortar is normally much weaker and
softer than the brick. However, the failure of masonry may in-
volve the crushing and tensile fracturing of masonry units, and the
fracturing of mortar joints. When a masonry assembly is under
compression, the lateral expansion of the mortar introduces a lat-
eral tensile stress on the brick, which in turn provides a confining
stress on the mortar 共Hilsdorf 1969兲. This often leads to the ten-
sile splitting of the brick in a plane perpendicular to the bed
joints. Due to this brick-mortar interaction, the stiffness and com-
pressive strength of a masonry assembly are lower than those of
the brick but higher than those of the mortar. Under tension or
shear, experimental evidence has indicated that the fracture of a
masonry assembly normally occurs at a brick-mortar interface.
Owing to a kinematic constraint introduced by the continuum
approach 共Lotfi and Shing 1991兲, which contributes to the stress-
locking problem, a smeared-crack model cannot capture the slid-
ing failure of a mortar joint. Hence, a precise simulation of the
failure behavior would require detailed modeling of the brick
units and mortar joints with continuum elements and their inter-
connection with cohesive interface elements. However, this
would result in a rather computationally intensive model.
For the modeling of a masonry wall, one can make a signifi-
cant simplification and represent an entire mortar joint with a
zero-thickness cohesive interface model 共Lotfi and Shing 1994兲.
Clearly, with this approach, the failure of a brick-mortar interface
is not distinguished from that of the mortar layer itself. Further-
more, the brick-mortar interaction and the tensile splitting of the
brick units under compression cannot be simulated. Hence, with
this approach, some of the material parameters for the continuum
elements representing the brick should reflect the properties of a
masonry assembly rather than those of the brick itself, as it is
discussed further in a following section.
A discretization scheme based on the above discussion is
shown in Fig. 3, in which each masonry unit is modeled with two
rectangular continuum elements that are interconnected with a
vertical interface element. The latter allows for the tensile split-
ting of the brick units and the relative sliding motion in a frac-
tured unit.
Constitutive Models
A number of smeared-crack and cohesive interface models are
available in the literature and commercial programs. The models
JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / MARCH 2010 / 287
J. Struct. Eng., 2010, 136(3): 285-296
Interface elements for mortar joints
Interface brick element
Smeared-crack brick element
Fig. 3. Finite-element discretization of masonry infill
considered here have the essential features to capture the quasi-
brittle behavior of concrete and masonry in a satisfactory manner,
and are general enough to cover broad modeling issues.
Smeared-Crack Model
From the theoretical standpoint, a plasticity-based model is pref-
erable for simulating the compressive failure of a quasi-brittle
material. However, because of the computational efficiency,
simple nonlinear orthotropic material laws are most attractive for
simulating the tensile fracture process and the behavior of a frac-
tured material. The smeared-crack model used in this study takes
advantage of both model types. An uncracked material is modeled
with an elastic-plastic law governed by a von Mises failure sur-
face combined with a tension cutoff. When the von Mises failure
surface is reached, an associated flow rule is used to compute the
plastic strains. The von Mises criterion is expressed as
J2 − 1/3␴2e 共␧ p兲 = 0 共1兲
in which J2 = second invariant of the deviatoric stress; ␴e
= effective stress; and ␧ p = effective plastic strain computed from
the plastic strain tensor ␧ijp as ␧ p = 兰冑共2 / 3兲d␧ijpd␧ijp. For modeling
the strain-hardening/softening behavior of concrete and masonry
in compression, the effective stress is expressed as a parabolic
function of the effective plastic strain followed by an exponential
tail as shown in Fig. 4共a兲. When the maximum principal stress
reaches the tensile strength f t⬘ of the material, cracks initiate in a
direction normal to the direction of the maximum principal stress.
The material model then adopts an orthotropic material law to
simulate the nonlinear behaviors in tension and compression. The
axes of orthotropy, n-t, are normal and tangential to the direction
of the crack, which is assumed to be fixed. The orthotropic ma-
terial laws adopted are shown in Figs. 4共b and c兲.
The plasticity and orthotropic laws should be so calibrated that
the two models exhibit similar uniaxial compressive stress-strain
behavior. The details of the smeared-crack model used here can
be found in Lotfi and Shing 共1991兲. Their model has been imple-
mented in the finite-element program FEAP 共Taylor 2007兲.
Interface Model
The interface model used in this study is implemented in FEAP as
a four-noded, zero-thickness, isopararametric line element, as
shown in Fig. 5共a兲. The constitutive model adopts a cohesive
crack formulation to simulate Mode-I, Mode-II, and mixed-mode
fracture 共Lotfi and Shing 1994兲. It also accounts for the shear
dilatation, which is often observed in reality and can be important
for simulating the shear response of a confined crack. The model
follows a classical elastic-plastic formulation as follows:
 σe
⎛ 2ε 2ε 2 ⎞ hyperbola. The following softening rules govern the evolution of
σ e =f o + ( f ' m − f o ) ⎜ p − 2 p ⎟
⎜ ε1p ε1p ⎟
⎝ ⎠ the yield surface:

冉 冊
f m'
σ e = σ 2e + ( rp ⋅ f 'm − σ 2e ) [1 −
␬1 ␬2
σ 2e
s = s0 1 − − ⱖ 0, r = rr + 共r0 − rr兲e−␤␬3,
⎛ ⎞⎤ GIf GIIf
⎜ r ⋅ f ' − σ ( p 2p ) ⎟⎟ ⎥⎥
m
exp ⎜ − ε −ε
f0 ⎝ p m 2e ⎠⎦
−m
1 rp f m' ␮ = ␮r + 共␮0 − ␮r兲e−␣␬3 共4兲
ε1 p ε2 p εp in which q0 = 兵s0 r0 ␮0其⌻ characterize the initial surface and qr
(a) = 兵0 rr ␮r其⌻ the final state; G⌱f and G⌱⌱f = Mode-I and Mode-II
σn fracture energies; ␣ and ␤ = material parameters controlling the
rate of reduction of ␮ and r; and ␬i = plastic work that governs the
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Indian Institute of Technology Roorkee on 10/08/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

ft'
strength degradation. A nonassociated flow rule with the follow-
− α1 (ε n − ε cr ) ing plastic potential is used:
σ n = f t ' [rt + (1 − rt ) exp( )]
ft'

rt f t '
Q共␴,q兲 = ␩␶2 + 共r − rr兲共␴ − s兲 共5兲
in which ␩ = scalar parameter controlling shear dilatation. The di-
ε cr εn rection of plastic relative displacements is governed by the flow
(b) rule, i.e., ḋ p = ␭˙ 共⳵Q / ⳵␴兲 = ␭˙ m, where ␭ is the plastic multiplier.
σt ⎛ εt ε t2 ⎞ With the above plastic potential, the rate of shear dilatation de-
σ t = f m' ⎜⎜ 2 − ⎟
⎝ ε1 ε12 ⎟⎠ creases as the plastic work or the compressive stress increases.
f m'
σ t = σ 2 + (rp f m' − σ 2 )[(1 −
2

σ2
ε2 εt − ε2
1. 5

1
exp( 2 f m' ( − ) )]
1
ε1 ε1 rp f m' − σ 2 Calibration of Material Models
0. 5

rp f m' Calibration of Concrete Model

εt
0

ε1 ε 2
0 0. 001 0. 002 0. 003 0 . 00 4 0. 005 0 . 00 6 0 . 007 0 . 00 8

(c)
As mentioned previously, cohesive interface models can be used
to compensate for the deficiency of smeared-crack models in cap-
Fig. 4. Smeared crack constitutive model: 共a兲 effective stress-versus- turing the brittle shear behavior of a concrete member. When both
effective plastic strain relation for plasticity model; 共b兲 tensile behav- models are employed, they should be calibrated in a consistent
ior of orthotropic model; and 共c兲 compressive behavior of orthotropic manner. To this end, one can calibrate the interface model first as
model it is a more direct representation of an actual crack.
The interface elements are not supposed to influence the stiff-
ness of the RC member before fracture. Therefore, their elastic
␴˙ = D共ḋ − ḋ p兲 共2兲 stiffnesses, Dn and Dt, should be high but not too high to make
the model numerically ill-conditioned. The tensile strength of
in which ␴ = 兵␴ ␶其 , with ␴ and ␶ being the normal and shear
T
concrete, f t⬘, can be obtained from direct tension tests, but these
stresses at the interface; d = 兵dn dt其T, with dn and dt being the are generally difficult to conduct. Hence, f t⬘ is normally obtained
relative normal and shear displacements across a crack; the super- by the modulus of rupture or split-cylinder tests. For flexural
posed dot represents the rate form; and D = diagonal matrix with cracks, the modulus of rupture can be used for the tensile strength
elastic constants Dn and Dt. of the interface model, while the strength provided by split-
The following hyperbolic yield surface, as shown in Fig. 5共b兲, cylinder tests is more appropriate for shear cracks. However, such
is used to model fracture: considerations will complicate the model calibration. In general,
F共␴,q兲 = ␶2 − ␮共␴ − s兲2 + 2r共␴ − s兲 = 0 共3兲 the use of the split-cylinder strength for all the interface elements
in a model should be sufficiently accurate, as the tensile strength
in which ␮ = slope of the asymptotes of the hyperbola; s = tensile of concrete does not have a significant influence on the flexural
strength; and r = radius of the yield surface at the vertex of the behavior of a RC member. In the absence of test data, one can
estimate the tensile strength from the compressive strength using
empirical formulas provided in design codes and the literature
共MacGregor and Wight 2005兲. Besides the tensile strength, the
cohesive crack model considered here allows one to specify the
Mode-I and Mode-II fracture energies, GIf and GIIf , directly in
terms of work per unit area. As shown in Eq. 共4兲, they govern the
rate of loss of the cohesive strength of an interface with respect to
χ
the plastic work. The parameter GIf can be obtained from Mode-I
4 3 fracture tests, or it can be estimated with the test data and formu-
las available in the literature 共e.g., Bazant and Becq-Giraudon
1 2 ξ 2002; Wittmann 2002兲. Information on GIIf is more difficult to
(a) (b) obtain. However, one can assume that GIIf = 10GIf , which has been
found to provide satisfactory results 共Lotfi 1992兲. The change of
Fig. 5. 共a兲 Isoparametric interface element; 共b兲 hyperbolic yield cri- the shape of the failure surface shown in Fig. 5共b兲 signifies the
terion smoothening of a fractured interface under frictional work, and is

288 / JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / MARCH 2010

J. Struct. Eng., 2010, 136(3): 285-296

 governed by ␣ and ␤, the material parameters controlling the rate 38

of reduction of ␮ and r as shown in Eq. 共4兲. Information for the B 2088

38 38 #2 @ 76 229 38
2 - #5 2 - #5 38
calibration of these parameters, as well as the dilatation param- SECTION A-A
8-#4
eter, ␩, is generally not readily available. Such properties depend 38 229 B
44
#2@76
on the size of aggregates, the composition of the concrete mixture Solid Units
(not in scale)
Hollow Units
(not in scale) A A
and other factors, and can be determined with mixed-mode frac- 71 194 #2 @64
ture tests 共Hassanzadeh 1990兲. The influence of these parameters
#2@64
194 92 71
1341
on the numerical results has been investigated with a sensitivity 8-#4
92
60

92
study presented in a later section. 92
SECTION B-B
2x2-#5
For the calibration of the tensile properties of the smeared- 51 51 44
TYP. TYP. 6 - #5 4 - #4
4 - #6
crack elements, one can use the calibrated stress-displacement
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Indian Institute of Technology Roorkee on 10/08/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

203 #3
curve of the interface model as a reference. To do this analyti-
254 #3
cally, one can convert the tensile strain in a smeared-crack ele- #2 @76

ment to nodal displacements by means of a characteristic length. 51 236 178 2134 178 236 51

For constant strain triangular elements, the characteristic length

can be assumed equal to the square root of the element area
共Papadrakakis et al. 2005兲.
For the uniaxial compressive stress-strain relation of concrete,
one can first calibrate the orthotropic model with concrete cylin-
der tests and then the plasticity model accordingly to assure a
smooth transition from the latter to former at crack initiation. The
slope of the postpeak softening branch should be calibrated with
the consideration of the element size to avoid the mesh-size sen-
sitivity problem and capture the localization of compressive fail-
ure in an accurate manner. However, this problem could be
alleviated by the use of cohesive interfaces in the model in that
the discretization shown in Fig. 2 can simulate compressive fail-
ure with discrete shear fracture along the inclined interfaces.
Calibration of Masonry Model
The interface line elements representing mortar joints are to be
calibrated to reflect the properties of the mortar as well as those of
the brick-mortar interface, which dominates the fracture behavior.
Direct tensile tests on mortar joints are difficult to conduct and
may not yield good results. Hence, the tensile strength of a brick-
mortar interface is normally estimated with beam tests or bond
wrench tests. For characterizing the shear behavior of mortar
joints, triplet tests 共Drysdale et al. 1999兲 or direct shear tests can
be conducted. In situ shove tests 共ICBO 2001兲 can also be per-
formed to measure the mortar joint shear strength and the corre-
sponding normal stress in a masonry wall. Direct shear tests on
mortar joints are reported by Mehrabi 共1994兲, Amadei 共1989兲, and
Manzouri 共1995兲. When the shear sliding response of a mortar
joint is available, the Mode-II fracture energy GIIf can be deter-
mined, and the Mode-I facture energy can be estimated with the
assumption that GIIf = 10GIf . The elastic normal stiffness Dn of the
interface elements can be so determined that, when combined
with the smeared-crack elements representing the brick, they ac-
curately simulate the compressive behavior of the masonry as-
sembly, while Dt can be assumed to be Dn / 2共1 + ␯兲.
A brick unit is modeled with smeared-crack elements joined
by zero-thickness interfaces. The tensile and shear behavior of the
interface and smeared crack elements can be calibrated in the
same way as those for concrete. The tensile strength of the brick
elements can be estimated from tensile splitting or modulus of
rupture tests. Experimental data on the Mode-I fracture energy of
clay bricks are available in the literature 共van der Pluijm 1992兲.
However, one should be cautious about the possible differences in
brick properties. With the interface line elements representing
mortar joints, the three-dimensional brick-mortar interaction and
the possible compressive failure of the mortar are not accounted
for. However, these can be indirectly considered by calibrating
Fig. 6. Design of RC frame
the smeared-crack elements in such a way that the overall behav-
ior of a masonry assembly is captured. To this end, the compres-
sive strength of the smeared-crack elements representing the brick
should be based on that of masonry prisms rather than that of
individual brick units. The elastic modulus of the brick elements
can be estimated from the compressive strength, and the elastic
stiffness of the interface elements representing the mortar joint is
then determined to match the load-deformation behavior of a
prism.
Validation of the Modeling Scheme
Experimental Data
The proposed modeling method is evaluated with three of the
infilled frames tested by Mehrabi et al. 共1994兲. They are Speci-
men 1, which was a bare frame, Specimen 8, which was infilled
with hollow concrete blocks 共weak infill兲, and Specimen 9, which
had solid concrete bricks 共strong infill兲. The frames, as shown in
Fig. 6, were designed for moderate wind loads according to the
provisions of ACI 318-89 without the consideration of seismic
loads, and are therefore, considered as nonductile frames. Speci-
mens 8 and 9 had the same concrete frame. The frame was re-
paired after the test of Specimen 8 and reused for Specimen 9.
Finite-Element Model
The concrete columns are modeled with the scheme shown in Fig.
2. The base slab and the beam are modeled with four-node
smeared-crack elements only for computational efficiency since
no shear cracks are expected to develop in these members. The
infill is modeled in the way shown in Fig. 3. The thickness of the
infill in Specimen 8 is specified to be the total thickness of the
face shells, which is 3.175 cm 共1.25 in.兲.
The values of the material parameters for the interface and
smeared-crack elements are summarized in Table 1. The material
parameters for concrete have been calibrated with data from com-
pression and split-cylinder tests conducted by Mehrabi et al.
共1994兲. The calibrated stress-strain/displacement curves are
shown in Fig. 7. The postpeak tensile behavior of the concrete is
determined with the data from wedge splitting tests conducted by
Wittmann 共2002兲. These tests indicate that the Mode-I fracture
energy ranges from 123 to 159 N/m 共0.0007–0.0009 ksi/in.兲 for
concrete tensile strength varying from 1.9 to 3.8 MPa 共0.28 to
0.55 ksi兲. Split-cylinder tests of concrete conducted by Mehrabi et

JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / MARCH 2010 / 289

J. Struct. Eng., 2010, 136(3): 285-296

 Table 1. Material Parameters for Interface and Smeared-Crack Models
Smeared-crack model Interface model
f c⬘ or f m
⬘ Dn f t⬘ G⌱f G⌱⌱
f r0 rr ␣ ␤
Material/specimen 共MPa兲 ␧1 ␧2 共GPa/m兲 共MPa兲 共N/m兲 共N/m兲 ␮0 ␮r 共kPa兲 共kPa兲 ␩ 共m/N兲 共m/N兲
Concrete 26.9 0.0027 0.0043 2,443 2.75 140 1,400 0.9 0.7 138 35 0.6 0.011 12.5
Brick/8 9.5 0.0015 0.00165 2,443 1.72 105 1,050 0.8 0.7 138 35 0.6 0.011 12.5
Brick/9 14.2 0.0017 0.0022 2,443 1.72 105 1,050 0.8 0.7 138 35 0.6 0.011 12.5
Mortar/8 — — — 84.1 0.275 35 350 0.8 0.7 138 35 0.6 0.011 12.5
Mortar/9 — — — 146.6 0.275 35 350 0.8 0.7 138 35 0.6 0.011 12.5
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Indian Institute of Technology Roorkee on 10/08/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

al. 共1994兲 indicate a tensile strength of 2.76 MPa 共0.40 ksi兲. 60 to 130 N/m 共0.00034–0.00074 ksi/in.兲 for brick tensile
Hence, the Mode-I fracture energy of the concrete is assumed to strength varying from 1.5 to 3.5 MPa 共0.22–0.51 ksi兲. With the
be 140 N/m 共0.0008 ksi/in.兲. absence of other data, the Mode-I fracture energy is assumed to
The data from the shear tests of mortar joints conducted by be 105 N/m 共0.0006 ksi/in.兲 based on the above results, and the
Mehrabi et al. 共1994兲 have been used to calibrate the interface Mode-II fracture energy is calculated accordingly.
elements in the masonry panels. The tests were conducted under
constant compressive stresses of 345, 517, 689, and 1,034 kPa
Numerical Results
共50, 75, 100, and 150 psi兲. The Mode-II fracture energy for the
mortar joints is determined by adjusting the analytical shear The load-displacement relations obtained from the finite-element
stress-shear displacement curve to match the experimental data, analyses are compared with the experimental results in Fig. 9. As
and the Mode-I fracture energy is assumed to be one-tenth of that shown, the strength and postpeak behavior of the three numerical
of Mode-II. The experimental and analytical shear stress-shear models match the experimental results well. The behavior of
displacement relations for a compressive stress of 1,034 kPa 共150 Specimen 1 共bare frame兲 is reproduced well with the numerical
psi兲 are shown in Fig. 8共a兲. Fig. 8共b兲 shows the peak and residual model, which develops plastic hinges at the top and bottom of the
shear stresses obtained in the tests and the initial yield and final columns. The deformed mesh is omitted for conciseness.
failure surfaces of the calibrated model. In the analyses, the same Figs. 10共a and b兲 present the deformed mesh of Specimen 8 at
properties are assumed for the bed and head joints. The initial two different drift levels. The crushing of a smeared-crack ele-
tensile strength for the wall-to-beam and wall-to-column inter- ment is denoted by an “X,” and cracking by a line reflecting the
faces is assumed to be 1.38 kPa 共20 psi兲, and, the corresponding crack orientation. The length of each line corresponds to the ex-
Mode-I fracture energy is 17.5 N/m 共0.0001 ksi/in.兲 because these tent of crushing or crack opening. The failure pattern resembles
joints are normally weaker than the bed joints. that of the physical specimen, which is shown in Fig. 10共c兲. As
The compressive behavior of the smeared-crack elements rep- the lateral drift increases, the damage is governed by severe slips
resenting the masonry units has been calibrated with prism test along a large number of bed joints in the infill. Furthermore, the
data obtained for the infill walls. The elastic modulus of these failure of Specimen 8 involves the cracking and crushing of the
elements is estimated from the compressive strength of the brick masonry units; however, the crushing observed in the finite-
itself using the same formula for normal-weight concrete accord- element model is more severe than that in the specimen. In the
ing to ACI 318. Then, the stiffness of the interface elements rep- numerical model, as well as in the test, the concrete columns
resenting the mortar joints is so determined that the combined exhibit a flexural behavior. However, at a very late stage of load-
stiffness of a smeared-crack element and mortar interface element ing in the analysis, which is beyond practical interest, diagonal
matches the stiffness of a masonry prism. The tensile strength of shear cracks open at the top of the left column and the bottom of
the masonry units is assumed to be 10% of its compressive the right column.
strength 共Drysdale et al. 1999兲. For the Mode-I fracture energy of The failure of Specimen 9 initiated with the formation of a
brick units, van der Pluijm 共1992兲 has found values ranging from stair-stepped diagonal/sliding crack in the infill that was followed

Displacement [mm]
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2
Concrete Orthotropic model
30 0.45 3
Concrete Plasticity model
4 0.4 Brick - Smeared Crack
Brick/ Spec 8 - Orth. Model
25 2.5
Brick/ Spec 8 - Plast. Model 0.35 Brick - Interface
Stress [MPa]
Stress [MPa]

Brick/ Spec 9 - Orth. Model

Stress [ksi]

3
Stress [ksi]

20 0.3 Concrete - Smeared Crack 2

Brick/ Spec 9 - Plast. Model
0.25 Concrete - Interface
15 1.5
2 0.2
10 0.15 1
1 0.1
5 0.5
0.05
0 0 0 0
0 0.002 0.004 0.006 0.008 0 0.002 0.004 0.006 0.008
strain Displacement [in]

(a) (b)

Fig. 7. Calibration of smeared crack and interface models for concrete and brick: 共a兲 compressive behavior; 共b兲 tensile behavior

290 / JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / MARCH 2010

J. Struct. Eng., 2010, 136(3): 285-296

 Shear Displacement [mm] Normal Stress [kPa]
-10 -5 0 5 10 -1100 -600 -100 400
200 1400 200
180 Initial yield surface 1200

Shear Stress [kPa]

160

Shear Stress [psi]

Final yield surface
100 700

Shear Stress [kPa]

Shear Stress [psi]
140 1000
Test σ = 345 kPa
120 Test σ = 519 kPa 800
0 0 100
Test σ = 690 kPa
80 600
Test Data, Test σ = 1035 kPa
-100 -700 60 400
Model 40
200
20
-200 -1400
0 0
-0.4 -0.2 0.0 0.2 0.4 -160 -110 -60 -10 40 90
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Indian Institute of Technology Roorkee on 10/08/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Shear Displacement [in] Normal Stress [psi]

(a) (b)

Fig. 8. Calibration of interface model for mortar joints: 共a兲 shear test and numerical results for ␴ = 1 , 034 kPa 共150 ksi兲; 共b兲 initial and final yield
surfaces

by a distinct diagonal shear crack at the top of the windward
column, as shown in Fig. 11共c兲. This failure pattern and sequence
have been accurately reproduced with the finite-element model as
shown in Figs. 11共a and b兲.
Sensitivity Analysis
A parametric study has been conducted to investigate the sensi-
tivity of the numerical results to the material parameters used to
define the behavior of concrete, mortar joints, and masonry units.
The study considers all material parameters and uses the numeri-
cal models representing Specimens 8 and 9 as baselines to cover
two distinct failure scenarios. Some of the modeling parameters
are not explicitly discussed here either because their values are
not independent of those considered, or because their influence
has been found to be insignificant. The parameters are varied one
at a time to a lower and a higher value, and the range of variation
reflects the level of uncertainty associated with their values. How-
ever, for interface elements, to keep the same shear strength of a
material under the initial normal stress when the tensile strength,
s0 共which is also denoted as f t⬘兲, is varied, the value of ␮0 is
adjusted accordingly. The confidence level of each parameter de-
pends on the expected variability in the value of the parameter,
and the availability of standard and reliable material testing meth-
ods.
As shown in Table 2, the tensile and shear behavior of the
cohesive interface models simulating discrete cracks in RC mem-
bers, brick units and mortar joints are controlled by 11 param-
Specimen 1 - Analysis
80 Specimen 8 - Analysis
70 Specimen 9 - Analysis
eters. For mortar joints, the normal stiffness, Dn, is varied in
conjunction with the stiffness of the brick elements so that the
overall stiffness of a masonry assembly is not changed. The pa-
rameters for the tensile behavior of the smeared-crack models for
the concrete and brick units are calibrated to match the corre-
sponding behavior of the cohesive interface models and are,
therefore, not independent. The compressive behaviors of con-
crete and masonry are mainly governed by the following three
parameters of the orthotropic material model: the compressive
strengths, f ⬘c and f m⬘ , of concrete and masonry, respectively, and
the strains ␧1 and ␧2, as shown in Fig. 4共c兲. These are explicitly
considered in the sensitivity study, while the corresponding pa-
rameters for the plasticity model are calibrated to match the be-
havior of the orthotropic model. The parameters considered, their
ID’s and their variations are summarized in Table 2 and Fig.
12共a兲, while the baseline values are shown in Table 1. The data
shows large variations considered for ␩, ␣, and ␤ 共ID Nos. 12, 13,
and 14兲, which reflect the fact that these parameters are in general
more difficult to quantify.
To quantify the influence of each parameter on the structural
response, four response quantities are selected to characterize the
force-displacement relation of an infilled frame. They are the ef-
fective initial stiffness K60, which is defined as the secant stiffness
between zero load and 60% of the peak load, the peak strength
Fmax and the corresponding drift ratio ␦Fmax, and the drift ratio ␦90,
at which the resistance drops to 90% of the peak strength. The
influence of each parameter on a structural response quantity is
assessed with two indices. One is CY,P, the maximum percentage
change of a response quantity “Y” with respect to the baseline
value when the value of a parameter “P” is increased or decreased
according to the values shown in Table 2. The other is EY,P, the
Specimen 1 -TEST sensitivity of a response quantity to a parameter. They can be
Specimen 8 -TEST 350 expressed as
Specimen 9 -TEST
300
Lateral Load [kN]

60
250
Lateral Load [kips]

50
200
40
150
30
100
20

10 50

0 0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 (a) (b) (c)
Lateral Drift [%]
Fig. 10. Deformed mesh and experimental failure pattern for Speci-
Fig. 9. Lateral force versus lateral displacement curves men 8 at lateral drifts of 共a兲 0.82%; 共b兲 3.0%; and 共c兲 3.0%

JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / MARCH 2010 / 291

J. Struct. Eng., 2010, 136(3): 285-296

 Table 2. Range of Values for the Material Parameters Considered in the Parametric Study for Brick 共B兲, Concrete 共C兲, and Mortar 共M兲
292 / JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / MARCH 2010

共a兲 Smeared-crack model

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Indian Institute of Technology Roorkee on 10/08/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

f c⬘ or f m
⬘
Parameter 共MPa兲 ␧1 ␧2

ID 1 2 3

Material B C M B C M B C M
Specimen 8 8.3–11.0 22.8–31.0 N/A 0.0023–0.0031 0.0020–0.0035 N/A 0.005–0.008 0.0035–0.0050 N/A
Specimen 9 11.7–17.9 22.8–31.0 N/A 0.0022–0.003 0.0020–0.0035 N/A 0.0037–0.0049 0.0035–0.0050 N/A

共b兲 Interface model

Dn f t⬘ G⌱f G⌱⌱
f
Parameter 共GPa/m兲 共MPa兲 共N/m兲 共N/m兲

ID 4 5 6 7
Material B C M B C M B C M B C M
Specimen 8 814–4071 814–4071 67.8–100.4 1.03–2.41 1.38–4.14 0.13–0.55 52.5–157.6 70.0–215.2 17.5–52.5 525–1576 700–2101 175–525
Specimen 9 814–4071 814–4071 117–176 1.03–2.41 1.38–4.14 0.13–0.55 52.5–157.6 70.0–215.2 17.5–52.5 525–1576 700–2101 175–525
r0 rr
Parameter ␮0 ␮r 共MPa兲 共MPa兲
ID 8 9 10 11
Material B C M B C M B C M B C M
Specimen 8 0.72–0.88 0.81–0.99 0.72–0.88 0.63–0.77 0.63–0.77 0.63–0.77 0.07–0.28 0.034–0.34 0.034–0.34 0.003–0.070 0.0013–0.070 0.0034–0.070
Specimen 9 0.72–0.88 0.81–0.99 0.72–0.88 0.63–0.77 0.63–0.77 0.63–0.77 0.07–0.28 0.034–0.34 0.034–0.34 0.003–0.070 0.0013–0.070 0.0034–0.070
␣ ␤
Parameter ␩ 共m/N兲 共m/N兲

ID 12 13 14

Material B C M B C M B C M
Specimen 8 0.06–6.0 0.035–3.5 0.06–6.0 0.0011–0.11 0.0011–0.11 0.0011–0.11 1.14–24.0 1.14–24.0 1.14–24.0
Specimen 9 0.06–6.0 0.035–3.5 0.06–6.0 0.0011–0.11 0.0011–0.11 0.0011–0.11 1.14–24.0 1.14–24.0 1.14–24.0

J. Struct. Eng., 2010, 136(3): 285-296

 CY,P = max 冏 冏 Y − YB
YB
⫻ 100% EY,P = max 冏 Y − Y B PB
Y B P − PB
冏
共6兲

in which the superscript B = respective value of the baseline

(a) (b) (c) model. Figs. 12 and 13 present the values of CY,P and EY,P ob-
tained from the parametric study for the two frames.
Fig. 11. Deformed mesh and experimental failure pattern for Speci-
men 9 at lateral drifts of 共a兲 0.46%; 共b兲 2.8%; and 共c兲 2.8%
Effective Initial Stiffness and Peak Strength
As shown in Figs. 12共b and c兲, the percentage changes in the
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Indian Institute of Technology Roorkee on 10/08/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

effective initial stiffness and peak strength of the infilled frames

are relatively small for the variations in the material parameters
considered here. The results for Specimens 8 and 9 are different
because of the different failure mechanisms, which affect the rela-

Specimen 8 (Weak Infill) 1000

Specimen 9 (Strong Infill)
1000
1000

1000
Change in Parameter Value [%]

800
800 (a) Parameter Variation 800 800 Brick
Concrete
600
600 600 600

Mortar
400
400 400 400

200
200 200 200

00 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14
0 0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

-200
-200 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 -200 -200
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14
20
Change in Structural Response [ %]

20
(b) Initial Stiffness
15 15

10 10

5 5

0 0

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14
20 20
Change in Structural Response [ %]

(c) Peak Strength

15 15

10 10

5 5

0 0

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14
Change in Structural Response [ %]

250 250
(d) Drift at Peak Strength
200 200

150 150

100 100

50 50

0 0

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14
Parameter ID Parameter ID
Fig. 12. Change in material parameters and corresponding change in structural response 共see Table 2 for parameter ID兲

JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / MARCH 2010 / 293

J. Struct. Eng., 2010, 136(3): 285-296

 1
Specimen 8 (Weak Infill) 1
Specimen 9 (Strong Infill)
(a) Initial Stiffness
0.8 0.8
Brick
Concrete
Sensitivity

0.6 0.6
Mortar
0.4 0.4

0.2 0.2

0 0

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Indian Institute of Technology Roorkee on 10/08/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

1 1
(b) Peak Strength
0.8 0.8
Sensitivity

0.6 0.6

0.4 0.4

0.2 0.2

0 0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14
5 5
(c) Drift at Peak Strength
4 4
Sensitivity

3 3

2 2

1 1

0 0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14
Parameter ID Parameter ID
Fig. 13. Sensitivity of structural response to material parameters 共see Table 2 for Parameter ID兲

tive importance of the parameters. However, it is interesting to
note that for both models, the material parameters for the concrete
frames have little influence on the initial stiffness and peak
strength. For most cases, the percentage changes in the two re-
sponse quantities are less than 5%, with a few cases lying be-
tween 10% and 17%. The interface parameters, f t⬘, r0, and ␩, for
the mortar joints, seem most influential. However, as it can be
noted in Fig. 12共a兲, the range of variation of ␩ is also very large.
Figs. 13共a and b兲 present the sensitivity of the initial stiffness and
peak strength to the material parameters. The initial stiffness of
both frames demonstrates relatively low sensitivity as the sensi-
tivity index is, in most cases, below 0.4. While the stiffness is
cant for many of the parameters as compared to that of the initial
stiffness and peak strength. However, for most parameters, the
change in drift is less than 25% with only a couple of cases
exceeding 50% for Specimen 8 共weak infill兲. For this frame, the
drift at peak strength is increased by 210% when the Mode-I
fracture energy of the concrete is decreased by 50%. To evaluate
the implication of this large change, the numerical results are
70
60
Lateral Force [kips]

most sensitive to the compressive behavior of the masonry, the 50

peak strength is most sensitive to the ␮0 parameter that affects the
40
initial shear strength of the mortar joints. The sensitivity index
EFmax,␮0 has the highest value of 0.85 as compared to its values 30
Spec 8, Gf1=140 N-m
for the other parameters. However, the positive aspect is that the 20 Spec 8, Gf1=70 N-m
␮0 parameter for a mortar joint can be measured with shear tests
10 Spec 8, Gf1=210 N-m
under different normal compressive stresses and its value is not
expected to vary significantly. 0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3
Drift [%]
Story Drifts
As Fig. 12共d兲 shows, the percentage change of the drift ratio at Fig. 14. Influence of fracture energy of concrete on the load-
the peak strength of an infilled frame model is relatively signifi- displacement response

294 / JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / MARCH 2010

J. Struct. Eng., 2010, 136(3): 285-296

 examined in further detail. Fig. 14 presents the lateral force-
versus-drift curves for Specimen 8 obtained with three different
Mode-I fracture energy values for concrete. It can be observed
that even though the drifts at the peak strength are very different,
the overall responses are very similar for all three cases. Hence, to
quantify the drift property, one should exercise appropriate judg-
ment and interpretation based on the load-versus-drift response
curve.
The sensitivity of the models in terms of the drift at the peak
strength is presented in Fig. 13共c兲. This figure indicates that the
model with the weak infill is very sensitive to the Mode-I fracture
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Indian Institute of Technology Roorkee on 10/08/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
energy of concrete and the residual shear strength of the mortar
joints. The sensitivity index for the drift at the peak strength with
respect to the variation of GIf and ␩ is 4.2 and 4.6, respectively.
For the model with the strong infill, the sensitivity of the drift
response is generally much lower except in the case of ␮0 param-
eter for the concrete, brick, and mortar joints. Similar observa-
tions can be obtained for the drift at 90% of the peak strength.
The results are not presented here for conciseness.
Summary and Conclusions
This paper presents a finite-element modeling scheme for assess-
ing the nonlinear load-deformation behavior and failure mecha-
nisms of masonry infilled RC frames. The scheme combines the
discrete and smeared-crack modeling approaches to circumvent
the inadequacy of the smeared-crack elements in simulating the
brittle shear behavior of RC members and the mixed-mode frac-
ture of masonry mortar joints. The constitutive models adopted
here have a number of materials parameters which can be system-
atically calibrated with the methods discussed to capture the fail-
ure behaviors of concrete and masonry in a realistic manner. As
shown by the numerical examples presented in this paper, the
proposed modeling scheme is able to capture the different failure
mechanisms as well as the load-displacement responses exhibited
by infilled RC frames. A study has also been conducted to evalu-
ate the sensitivity of the numerical results to the modeling param-
eters. It has been found that the initial stiffness and peak strength
of an infilled frame can be estimated quite accurately as they are
governed by material parameters that can be calibrated with rela-
tively easy to obtain test data. Among all the material parameters,
the ␮0 values governing the initial shear strength of the concrete,
brick, and mortar joints are the most important. Of the three ma-
terials, the mortar joint properties appear to be the most influen-
tial. In general, the ␮0 value for mortar joints can be measured
with shear tests or estimated with existing test data since it is not
expected to vary significantly.
Acknowledgments
National Science Foundation Grant No. 0530709 supported the
study presented in this paper under the George E. Brown, Jr.
Network for Earthquake Engineering Simulation 共NEES兲 pro-
gram. However, the opinions expressed in this paper are those of
the writers and do not necessarily reflect those of the sponsor.
References
Al-Chaar, G. 共2002兲. “Evaluating strength and stiffness of unreinforced
masonry infill structures.” Rep. No. ERDC/CERL TR-02-1, U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers, Champaign, Ill.
JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / MARCH 2010 / 295
J. Struct. Eng., 2010, 136(3): 285-296
Al-Chaar, G., Berman, J. B., and Sweeney, S. C. 共2003兲. “Investigation of
FRP for seismic rehabilitation of RC structural frames with URM
infill.” Rep. No. ERDC/CERL TR-03-10, U.S. Army Corps of Engi-
neers, Champaign, Ill.
Al-Chaar, G., Mehrabi, A. B., and Manzouri, T. 共2008兲. “Finite element
interface modeling and experimental verification of masonry-infilled
R/C frames.” Masonry Soc. J., 26共1兲, 47–65.
Amadei, B., Sture, S., and Saeb, S. 共1989兲. “An evaluation of masonry
joint shear strength in existing buildings.” Rep. Prepared for NSF,
Civil Engineering Dept., Univ. of Colorado at Boulder, Boulder, Colo.
ASCE. 共2006兲. “Seismic rehabilitation of existing buildings.” ASCE/SEI
41-06, New York.
Attard, M. M., Nappi, A., and Tin-Loi, F. 共2007兲. “Modeling fracture in
masonry.” J. Struct. Eng., 133共10兲, 1385–1392.
Bazant, Z. P., and Becq-Giraudon, E. 共2002兲. “Statistical prediction of
fracture parameters of concrete and implications for choice of testing
standard.” Cem. Concr. Res., 32, 529–556.
Bazant, Z. P., and Oh, B. H. 共1983兲. “Crack band theory for fracture of
concrete.” Mater. Struct., 16共93兲, 155–177.
Chiou, Y. J., Tzeng, J. C., and Liou, Y. W. 共1999兲. “Experimental and
analytical study of masonry infilled frames.” J. Struct. Eng., 125共10兲,
1109–1117.
Drysdale, R. G., Hamid, A. A., and Baker, L. R. 共1999兲. “Masonry
structures-behavior and design.” Masonry Soc. J.
Fardis, M. N., Bousias, S. N., Franchioni, G. T., and Panagiotakos, B.
共1999兲. “Seismic response and design of RC structures with plan-
eccentric masonry infills.” Earthquake Eng. Struct. Dyn., 28, 173–
191.
Hashemi, A., and Mosalam, K. M. 共2006兲. “Shake-table experiment on
reinforced concrete structure containing masonry infill wall.” Earth-
quake Eng. Struct. Dyn., 9共1兲, 73–83.
Hassanzadeh, M. 共1990兲. “Determination of fracture zone properties in
mixed mode I and II.” Eng. Fract. Mech., 35共4–5兲, 845–853.
Hilsdorf, H. K. 共1969兲. “Investigation into the failure mechanism of brick
masonry under axial compression.” Designing, engineering and con-
struction with masonry products, F. H. Johnson, ed., Gulf, Houston,
34–41.
ICBO. 共2001兲. Guidelines for seismic retrofit of existing buildings, Inter-
national Conference of Building Officials, Whittier, Calif.
Lotfi, H. R. 共1992兲. “Finite element analysis of fracture of concrete and
masonry structures.” Ph.D. dissertation, Univ. of Colorado at Boulder.
Lotfi, H. R., and Shing, P. B. 共1991兲. “An appraisal of smeared crack
models for masonry shear wall analysis.” J. Computers Struct.,
120共1兲, 63–80.
Lotfi, H. R., and Shing, P. B. 共1994兲. “An interface model applied to
fracture of masonry structures.” J. Struct. Eng., 120共1兲, 63–80.
Lourenco, P. B. 共1996兲. “Computational strategies for masonry struc-
tures.” Ph.D. dissertation, Delft Univ. of Technology, Delft, The Neth-
erlands.
MacGregor, J. G., and Wight, J. K. 共2005兲. Reinforced concrete mechan-
ics and design, Prentice-Hall, Upper Saddle River, N.J.
Mainstone, R. J., and Weeks, G. A. 共1970兲. “The influence of bounding
frame on the racking stiffness and strength of brick walls.” Proc., 2nd
Int. Conf. on Brick Masonry, 165–171.
Manzouri, T. 共1995兲. “Nonlinear finite element analysis and experimental
evaluation of retrofitting techniques for unreinforced masonry struc-
tures.” Ph.D. dissertation, Univ. of Colorado at Boulder, Boulder,
Colo.
Mehrabi, A. B., and Shing, P. B. 共1997兲. “Finite element modeling of
masonry-infilled RC frames.” J. Struct. Eng., 123共5兲, 604–613.
Mehrabi, A. B., Shing, P. B., Schuller, M. P., and Noland, J. L. 共1994兲.
“Performance of masonry-infilled R/C frames under in-plane lateral
loads.” Rep. No. CU/SR-94/6, Univ. of Colorado at Boulder, Boulder,
Colo.
Papadrakakis, M., Papadopoulos, V., Georgioudakis, M., Hofstetter, G.,
and Feist, C. 共2005兲. “Reliability analysis of a plain concrete beam.”
IALAD Project Rep., Verbund-Austrian Hydro Power, Austria.
 Rots, J. G. 共1988兲. “Computational modeling of concrete fracture.” Ph.D.
dissertation, Delft Univ. of Technology, The Netherlands.
Stafford Smith, B. 共1966兲. “Behavior of square infilled frames.” J. Struct.
Div., 92共1兲, 381–403.
Stavridis, A. 共2009兲. “Analytical and experimental study of seismic per-
formance of reinforced concrete frames infilled with masonry walls.”
Ph.D. dissertation, Univ. of California at San Diego, La Jolla, Calif.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Indian Institute of Technology Roorkee on 10/08/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
296 / JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / MARCH 2010
J. Struct. Eng., 2010, 136(3): 285-296
Taylor, R. L. 共2007兲. FEAP—A finite element analysis program—Version
8.1, Univ. of California at Berkeley, Berkeley, Calif.
van der Pluijm, R. 共1992兲. “Material properties of masonry and its com-
ponents under tension and shear.” Proc., 6th Canadian Masonry
Symp., Univ. of Saskatchewan, Saskatchewan, Canada, 675–686.
Wittmann, F. H. 共2002兲. “Crack formation and fracture energy of high
strength concrete.” SAPSER, 27共4兲, 413–423.