Architectural
Institute of Japan
Translated Paper
Modeling of interactions between RC columns and
masonry infill in buildings with a column-sway
mechanism
Yasushi Sanada1 and Maidiawati2
1
Graduate School of Engineering, Osaka University, Osaka, Japan; 2Civil Engineering Department, Padang Institute of Technology, Padang, Indonesia
Correspondence
Yasushi Sanada, Graduate School of Engineering, Osaka
University, Osaka, Japan.
Email: sanada@arch.eng.osaka-u.ac.jp
Funding information
No funding information is provided.
The Japanese version of this paper was published in
Volume 79, Number 695, pages 173-180, https://doi.org/
10.3130/aijs.79.173 of Journal of Structural and
Construction Engineering (Transactions of AIJ). The
authors have obtained permission for secondary
publication of the English version in another journal
from the Editor of Journal of Structural and Construction
Engineering (Transactions of AIJ). This paper is based on
the translation of the Japanese version with some slight
modifications.
Received July 6, 2017; Accepted October 6, 2017
doi: 10.1002/2475-8876.1012
1. Introduction
1,2
Previous experimental studies clarified that nonstructural
masonry infill walls that are commonly used in buildings in
countries outside Japan affect structural performance. These
types of walls are vulnerable to seismic loads that result in out-
of-plane failure and thus, they should be prospectively replaced
by reinforced concrete (RC) or nonstructural curtain walls to
reduce seismic risks. However, masonry infill walls are used not
only in existing buildings but also in new construction especially
in developing countries. Therefore, it is necessary to consider
masonry infill effects to appropriately evaluate the seismic per-
formance of buildings with these types of walls.
Multiple analytical models were proposed for nonstructural
masonry infill walls, and it is necessary to consider interactions
between the infill and surrounding moment-resisting frame as sug-
gested by several researchers. A typical approach for evaluating
infill effects involves replacing an infill by a diagonal compres-
sion strut. Smith proposed a theoretical evaluation method to pro-
vide equivalent strut width with an index that represents the
relative stiffness of a frame to an infill, which was derived by
assuming a line element on an elastic foundation.3 Wood consid-
ered a plastic hinge formation in a surrounding frame to introduce
This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs License, which permits use and distribution in any medium, provided
the original work is properly cited, the use is non-commercial and no modifications or adaptations are made.
© 2018 The Authors. Japan Architectural Review published by John Wiley & Sons Australia, Ltd on behalf of Architectural Institute of Japan.
Abstract
This study proposes a new analytical model to evaluate interactions between
reinforced concrete (RC) columns and masonry infill. An infill is replaced by a
diagonal strut and its width is defined by column/infill contact length. A calcula-
tion procedure is presented to determine the contact length by mainly consider-
ing compression balance and lateral displacement compatibility at the column/
infill interface. The proposed model is verified by performing a comparison with
an experiment on a concrete block infilled RC frame in which the column/infill
interactions are observed in detail. The model effectively evaluates both the
strength of the infilled frame and its deformability.
Keywords
analytical model, nonstructural infill wall, reinforced concrete column, seismic per-
formance evaluation, strut
macro modeling techniques.4 Mainstone5 and Liauw and Kwan6
provided empirical equations to determine equivalent strut width
based on Smith’s index. Although micro numerical modeling such
as finite-element methods were also applied to infill performance
evaluation,7 classical macro modeling is still useful for practical
implementation based on seismic evaluation standards8 in Japan.
A previous study investigated the interactions between nonstruc-
tural masonry infill and RC frame by focusing on earthquake-
damaged buildings in countries outside Japan2 and old existing
buildings in Japan.9 Specifically, with respect to the latter study,
experimental data were obtained to clarify RC column-masonry
infill interactions from a specific laboratory test of a masonry infilled
RC frame specimen in which the local reactional forces were mea-
sured. The test results are summarized and referred to in this study.
This study presents a new macro model to evaluate the lateral
resistance and deformability of masonry infilled RC moment-
resisting frames and discusses its suitability through a perfor-
mance evaluation of the test specimen introduced above. The
proposed model is potentially useful in applying Japanese seis-
mic evaluation standards8 to RC buildings with nonstructural
masonry infill because the current standards do not consider a
nonstructural masonry infill that is not currently used in Japan.
Jpn Archit Rev | 2018
SANADA and MAIDIAWATI
2. RC column-masonry infill interaction model
2.1 Strut replacement of infill based on the column-infill contact
length
Structures of interest in the study include RC moment-resisting
frame buildings with nonstructural masonry infill that fail via
column sway. Figure 1a shows the ideal behavior of this type
of a structure under seismic loads that results in contact/sepa-
ration at boundaries between the frame and infill. This study
focuses on contact regions between the columns and infill and
proposes an estimation method for the column-infill contact
length to evaluate frame-infill interactions.
The infill wall was replaced by a compressive strut that was
parallel and symmetrical to the diagonal as shown in Figure 1b.
The thickness and material properties of the strut were identical
to those of the infill. The strut width was defined based on the
column-infill contact length because the strut was likely to reach
the strength at the column-infill boundary under higher
Figure 1. RC frame-masonry infill interaction model. (a) Frame-infill contact/separation under seismic loads. (b) Compressive strut replacement
of the infill. (c) Reactions to the strut
wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/jar3
compression, and this is supported by a recent experimental
research that indicates higher compressive stress at the ends of
the strut.10,11 As shown in the figure, the proposed model evalu-
ates the column-infill contact length by assuming ideal flexural/
shear deformation of the column/infill. This assumption indi-
cates that a strain profile along the strut width is similar to the
profile of the quotient obtained by (di(y)
dc(y))/ls(y) as shown
in the close-up in Figure 1b. Thus, the averaged stress, fm of
strut is represented by Equations (1) and (2) given an ideal lin-
ear relationship between stress and strain as follows:
fm ¼ afm ð1Þ
R hs
eave eðyÞdy=hs
a¼ ¼ 0 ð2Þ
emax emax
where a denotes the strength reduction factor that represents
the averaged stress of strut, fm denotes compressive strength of
Jpn Archit Rev | 2018 | 2
wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/jar3 SANADA and MAIDIAWATI

the infill, e(y) refers to Figure 1b, eave/emax denotes the aver-
age/maximum of e(y), and hs denotes column-infill contact
length.
Reactional forces are applied to both ends of the compressive
strut from the columns as shown in Figure 1c; thus, it is neces-
sary to consider reactional forces from the beams to balance
moments applied to the strut. Consequently, the strut width W
is defined in Equation (3), and this results in the compressive
strength Cs as shown in Equation (4). Equations (4a) and (4b)
represent the lateral and vertical components, respectively, of
Equation (4) per unit length at the column-infill boundaries,
namely ch and cv, respectively. In addition, those at the beam-
infill boundaries bch and bcv are given by Equations (4b) and
(4c), respectively. The expressions are as follows:
W ¼ 2hs cos h ð3Þ
Cs ¼ Wtfm ð4Þ
ch ¼ tfm cos2 h ð4aÞ
cv ¼ b ch ¼ tfm sin h cos h ð4bÞ
respectively, and h denotes column/infill clear height. Equa-
tion (7) for Qce was obtained under the assumption of zero
rotation at the column end out of the column-infill contact
region (at y = h). The expressions are as follows:
1
Qce ¼ ch h3s =h2
ch h2s =h þ ch hs þ 2Mu =h ð7Þ
3
 
N
Mu ¼ 0:8at ry D þ 0:5ND 1
ð8Þ
bDFc
where at and ry denote area and yield stress of tensile longitudi-
nal rebar, respectively, D denotes column depth, N denotes axial
load applied to the column end (at y = 0), b denotes column
width, and Fc denotes the compressive strength of concrete.
The infill shear deformation was defined by Equation (9)
considering the lateral displacement compatibility between the
column and infill at y = h; thus, the height of y satisfying
Equation (10) is the column-infill contact length hs. Conse-
quently, the width W and compressive strength Cs of the strut
are obtained by Equations (3) and (4), respectively.

b cv ¼ tfm sin2 h ð4cÞ dc ðhÞ

di ðyÞ ¼ ci y ¼ y ð9Þ
h
where h denotes the angle of the diagonal of infill to the hori- dc ðyÞ ¼ di ðyÞ ð10Þ
zontal direction as shown in Figure 1, and t denotes the thick-
ness of the infill. where di(y) is the lateral deformation of the infill at height y
Figure 2 summarizes the evaluation flow for the column- and ci is the shear strain of the infill.
infill contact length, hs, which is obtained as the minimum
between the column top-infill and column bottom-infill con-
tact lengths at both ends of the strut. The column flexural 2.2 Lateral load-drift relationship for the infill
deformation was evaluated by Equation (5) by assuming that The performance curve, namely the lateral force-drift relation-
the curvature profile was similar to the moment diagram rep- ship of the strut, is presented based on the fore-mentioned strut
resented by Equation (6) in which an origin of the column model to incorporate it into the seismic performance evalua-
height y was set at the column top/bottom for the column tion scheme.8 The relationship was replaced by a bilinear
top/bottom-infill boundary. As shown in Figure 2, hs is model with the following yield point and deformability:
obtained through iteration under the preset a and N (for
[Infill yield point]
Equation 8) as follows:
In the case of 0 ≤ y ≤ hs, The lateral resistance of infill is calculated using Equation (11)
Z Z   as the lateral component of the compressive strength by Equa-
1 1 1 1
dc ðyÞ ¼ uc ðyÞdy2 ¼ ch y4
Qce y3 þ Mu y2 tion (4). In addition, the corresponding lateral drift angle is
EI 24 6 2 obtained by Equation (12) with the evaluation of the strut
ð5aÞ deformation at the compressive strength based on the material
properties of masonry infill as follows:
1
Mc ðyÞ ¼ ch y2
Qce y þ Mu ð6aÞ Qi ¼ Wtfm cos h ð11Þ
2
In the case of hs ≤ y ≤ h, Ri ¼ ðei ls = cos hÞ=h ð12Þ
Z Z 
1 1 where Qi and Ri denote lateral resistance and drift angle,
dc ðyÞ ¼ uc ðyÞdy2 ¼ ðch hs
Qce Þy3 respectively, at the point of compressive yielding of the strut,
EI 6
ð5bÞ ei denotes strain at compressive strength of the masonry, and ls
1 1 1
þ ð2Mu
ch h2s Þy2 þ ch h3s y
ch h4s Þ denotes strut length (= diagonal length of the infill).
4 6 24
[Infill deformability]
1
Mc ðyÞ ¼ ðch hs
Qce Þy þ Mu
ch h2s ð6bÞ Generally, masonry materials exhibit brittle behavior; thus, Ri
2
from Equation (12) is considered as the deformability. How-
where dc(y) and φc(y) denote the lateral deformation and curva- ever, as shown in Figure 1b, the proposed model replaces the
ture of the column at the height of y, respectively, EI denotes stress distribution across the strut width by an equivalent stress
column flexural rigidity, Mc(y) denotes the bending moment of block (refer to Equation 2), and this is likely to result in stress
the column at the height of y, Qce and Mu denote shear force redistribution within the strut even beyond Ri to result in
and flexural strength at the column end on the column-infill higher deformability. Therefore, this study considers two defi-
contact region (at y = 0) obtained by Equations (7) and (8), nitions for the deformability: by Ri and by the column

Jpn Archit Rev | 2018 | 3

SANADA and MAIDIAWATI
Figure 2. Evaluation flow for the column-infill contact length, hs
deformability Rc because deterioration of the infill could be
triggered by loss of reactions from the columns as shown in
Figure 1c.
2.3 Lateral load-drift relationship for the column
As mentioned above, in order to evaluate the deformability
of masonry infilled RC frames, it is critical to evaluate the
wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/jar3
deformability of both the column and the infill due to their
interactions. In this study, the lateral force-drift relationship
of the column was also represented by a bilinear model
considering the ultimate lateral resistance and deformability.
Specifically, the ultimate lateral resistance was defined based
on the column shear applied to the column-infill boundary
evaluated by Equation (6) as follows.
Jpn Archit Rev | 2018 | 4
wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/jar3 SANADA and MAIDIAWATI

Figure 3. Scheme to evaluate column shear performance. (a) Evaluation of the ultimate lateral resistance. (b) Evaluation of the deformability

[Column ultimate lateral resistance] Priestley et al12 Figure 3b illustrates the concept to evaluate the
deformability. A ductility ratio l of the column is defined based on
The shear distribution along the column height is not uni- the lateral drift when the lateral resistance Ri is reached as follows:
form but higher at the column-infill boundary as shown in
Figure 3a that corresponds to dy d
Mc ðyÞ from Equation (6). pffiffiffiffiffi D
c Av fyh D0
The ultimate lateral resistance is defined as an averaged Vc ¼ k Fc ð0:8Ag Þ þ Nþ cot 30 ð16Þ
h s
column shear Qca at the failure region with the height of
hf in the figure as given in Equation (13) as follows: where Vc denotes the column shear capacity, k denotes a
In the case of hf ≤ hs, reduction factor for concrete strength considering l (in the
Z hf case of l ≤ 2, k = 0.29; when l ≥ 4, k = 0.1; and when
Qca ¼
1
Qc ðyÞdy=hf ¼ ch hf
Qce ð13aÞ 2 < l < 4, k is linearly interpolated), Ag denotes the column
0 2 cross-sectional area, c denotes the neutral axis depth, Av and
fyh denote cross-sectional area and yield stress of the shear
In the case of hf > hs, reinforcement, respectively, D0 denotes the distance between
Z hf the perimeter shear reinforcements, and s denotes the spac-
1 ing between the shear reinforcements.
Qca ¼ Qc ðyÞdy=hf ¼
ch h2s =hf þ ch hs
Qce ð13bÞ
0 2
3. Verification of the proposed model
where Qc(y) denotes the shear force of the column at the
height of yð¼ dy d
Mc ðyÞÞ. In a previous study,9 experimental data on local reactional
The lateral drift when the lateral resistance in the bilinear forces at the base of a concrete block infilled RC frame
model is reached is identical to Ri obtained by Equation (12) by
considering the lateral displacement compatibility of Equa-
tion (10) in which it is necessary to satisfy the yielding of the
column end at the column-infill contact region (at y = 0)
because dc(y) for Equation 10 was obtained from Equations (5)
and (6). Specifically, φc(0) under dc(h) = di(h) as obtained by
Equation (14) is confirmed as equal to or greater than the yield
curvature, φy, which is approximately evaluated using Equa-
tion (15) with the tensile yielding of the longitudinal rebar under
realistic axial loads as follows:
Mc ð0Þ di ðhÞ
uc ð0Þ ¼ ð14Þ
EI dc ðhÞ
ey
uy ¼ ð15Þ
d
xn

where ey denotes the tensile strain at yielding of longitudinal

rebar, d denotes the effective depth of the column, and xn
denotes the neutral axis depth at the rebar yielding.
Thus, the focus of this study involves an experimental inves-
tigation that satisfies φc(0) > φy; and cases with φc(0) < φy are
beyond the scope of the proposed model.
[Column deformability]
The column deformability Rc is defined at a drift angle when the
column performance curve (lateral force-drift relationship) inter-
sects the shear capacity curve by Equation (16) as proposed by Figure 4. Specimen drawings

Jpn Archit Rev | 2018 | 5

SANADA and MAIDIAWATI wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/jar3

Table 1. Specifications of the specimen exposed to static cyclic lateral loads under a constant axial
RC column Concrete block infill
load that was equivalent to the column axial stress ratio of
0.15 (=N/(bDFc)). The lateral loads were applied on the
second-floor level as shown in Figure 5.
Dimensions Width: 180 Dimensions of block Length: 390 The lateral load–drift relationship and failure pattern after
Depth: 180 Height: 190 column shear failure of the specimen are shown in Figures 7
Thickness: 70 and 8, respectively. A maximum strength of 230 kN was
Longitudinal rebar 8-D10 Reinforcement D6@400 observed at a drift angle of 0.49% rad after the column
Hoop 2-D4@120 — — formed flexural hinging during the cycle to 0.5% rad. Sub-
Unit: mm. sequently, the specimen gradually deteriorated, and this
resulted in a steep decrease in strength with shear failure at
the columns beside the column-infill contact regions during
Table 2. Material properties used for the specimen the cycle to 1% rad. However, the lateral resistance recov-
ered in the following cycle to +2% rad, and this is poten-
Concrete Rebar tially because the infill supported a higher axial load instead
of the failed columns to result in a higher frictional
Young’s modulus 23.1 kN/mm2 Young’s D10: 184 kN/mm2 resistance.
modulus
Compressive strength 18.5 N/mm2 Yield stress D10: 352 N/mm2 3.2 Performance evaluation by the proposed model and compar-
Concrete block D6: 339 N/mm2 ison with the test results
Compressive strength 14.2 N/mm2 D4: 383 N/mm2 Table 3 shows the column-infill contact length hs for the speci-
Mortar Tensile D10: 492 N/mm2 men evaluated based on the flow of Figure 2, and the major
Compressive strength 35.2 N/mm2 strength D6: 503 N/mm2 parameters of the proposed model are also evaluated based on
— — D4: 537 N/mm2 hs. With respect to the column deformability Rc, the averaged
shear at the failure region Qca was evaluated under the height
of the failure region hf of 1.5D by considering the experimen-
specimen were observed by incorporating load cells into the tal failure pattern in Figure 8, which was then compared with
bottom of the specimen, and this was useful in verifying the the shear capacity Vc to determine Rc as illustrated in Figure 9.
effectiveness of the proposed model. Thus, the proposed model Furthermore, Rc corresponded to 0.72% rad/0.87% rad for the
was applied to simulate the experimental behavior of the speci- column bottom/top at each column-infill boundary as shown in
men as described below. Table 3.
The performance curve of the overall specimen that was
3.1 Summary of verification test obtained based on the above evaluations is compared to the
Figure 4 shows the experimental specimen with separated experimental results in Figure 7 in which the analytical lateral
bases such that local reactional forces applied to the col- resistance at each drift was obtained as a summation of the lat-
umn and infill bottoms are measured. The specifications eral resistances of columns and infill at the same height (as
and material properties of the specimen are summarized in shown in Figure 10b). The maximum lateral resistance of
Tables 1 and 2, respectively. The specimen corresponds to 223 kN was obtained at a drift angle of 0.31% rad from the
a 3/10 scale model that represents the first story of an analysis, and this agrees well with the experimental values of
existing RC building constructed in/before the 1970s in 230 kN at 0.49% rad. Furthermore, in this study, the deforma-
Japan. Figures 5 and 6 show a test configuration for and bility of the specimen was defined by Ri and Rc. Consequently,
close-up of the bottom of a specimen placed on four load the value of Rc agreed well with the experimental deformabil-
cells to measure local shear and axial forces sustained ity in which the column failed in shear to trigger a significant
on the separated bases, respectively. The specimen was decrease in strength.

Figure 5. Test configuration

Jpn Archit Rev | 2018 | 6

wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/jar3 SANADA and MAIDIAWATI

Figure 6. Enlarged view of the bottom of the specimen

Table 3. Evaluation results by using the proposed model

Strut replacement Infill/column lateral resistance-drift

model relationship

h 38° Qi 182 kN
a 0.64 Ri 0.31% radb
fm 9.1 N/mm2 Qca (column bottom) 68 kN
hs 231 mma Rc (column bottom) 0.72% rad
W 367 mm φc(0) (column bottom) 3.0 9 10
5 1/mm
Cs 234 kN φy (column bottom) 2.3 9 10
5 1/mmc
ch 402 N/mm Qca (column top) 44 kN
cv and bch 309 N/mm Rc (column top) 0.87% rad
b cv 238 N/mm φc(0) (column top) 5.0 9 10
5 1/mm
— — φy (column top) 1.8 9 10
5 1/mmc
Figure 7. Lateral load-drift relationship of the specimen a
The minimum value from the column top. bNo experimental datum
exists for ei; and thus this value is obtained from Priestley and Elder.13
c
xn for Equation (15) is evaluated under the elastic plane section with
no tensile strength of concrete and elastic compressive stiffness of
concrete.

Figure 8. Failure pattern of the specimen after the column shear

failure

Figure 10 shows the bending moment, shear, and axial force

diagrams along the column height when the strut is brought to
the limit of its compressive strength. The columns are sub-
jected to higher stress beside the column-infill contact regions
because of the interaction effects. Figure 9. Evaluation of column deformability, Rc

Jpn Archit Rev | 2018 | 7

SANADA and MAIDIAWATI wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/jar3

Figure 10. Column stress profiles estimated by the proposed model.

(a) Bending moment diagram. (b) Shear force diagram. (c) Axial force
diagram

Table 4. Comparisons between experimental and analytical local

reactions at the bottom of the specimen Figure 11. Evaluation scheme for local reactions on the separated
bases of the specimen. (a) Evaluation of the shear forces on the bases.
Base Base below (b) Evaluation of the axial forces on the bases
Base below the
below the the compressed
uplifted column
infill column
In the experiment summarized in the previous section, local
Shear force (kN) shear and axial reactions on the separated bases were mea-
Experiment at the 17 26 186 sured, and the experimental data were compared with the eval-
maximum strength uations in Figure 10. Table 4 compares the shear and axial
Experiment at the 14 14 167 reactions between the analysis and experimental results at the
ultimate drift maximum strength and ultimate drift (at the column shear fail-
Analysisb 6 51 165 ure in Figure 7) in which the values of the former and latter
Axial force (kN)a experimental drifts approximately correspond to the analytical
Experiment at the
91 28 262 values of Ri and Rc, respectively. The analytical values shown
maximum strength on the table were evaluated by considering that the bases
Experiment at the
72 29 243 below the columns possessed an extra length below the infill
ultimate drift as shown in Figures 4-6. Figure 11 illustrates the evaluation
Analysisc
63 39 224 flow in which the boundary between bases is defined as
a
Positive under compression. bQuc, Qi, and Qcc in Figure 11 from the the middle of each gap between the bases. Table 4 indicates
left. cNuc, Ni, and Ncc in Figure 11 from the left. that the proposed model generally simulates local stress
Jpn Archit Rev | 2018 | 8
wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/jar3
concentrations at the column-infill boundary. The experimental
data slightly fluctuated from the maximum strength to the ulti-
mate drift, and this could be caused by stress redistribution
within the compressive strut as discussed in Section 2.2. In
contrast, the analytical estimations are constant because the
compressive stress across the strut is averaged in the proposed
model as shown in Figure 1b. The above comparisons support
the effectiveness of the proposed model to evaluate the perfor-
mance of masonry infilled RC frames with a column-sway
mechanism by considering column-infill interactions.
4. Conclusions
This study proposed a new RC column-masonry infill interac-
tion model. The proposed model provides a scheme to evaluate
the width of a diagonal strut that replaces a masonry infill in
RC moment-resisting frames failing in a column sway by con-
sidering compression balance and lateral displacement compat-
ibility at the column-infill interface. The major conclusions of
the study are as follows:
1. A procedure was presented for the evaluation scheme of
the strut width. Additional procedures to represent the per-
formance curves of the column and infill were also pre-
sented based on the strut width evaluated above.
2. A summary of a previous experimental study was provided
to introduce test results by observing the local reaction
behavior of a concrete block infilled RC frame.
3. The specimen performance observed in the above experi-
ment was evaluated by the proposed model. Consequently,
good agreement was obtained between the experiment and
analysis for the lateral load-drift relationship of the speci-
men. Furthermore, local shear and axial reactions observed
at the bottom of the specimen were accurately simulated by
the analysis. The comparisons supported the effectiveness
of the proposed model in evaluating RC column-masonry
infill interactions.
5. Future issues
The verification for the proposed model was performed by
focusing on an experiment in which a unique force measure-
ment was applied. In addition, the proposed model was applied
to several brick masonry infilled RC frames in Indonesia, and
the results indicated good agreement.14 However, further stud-
ies are required to investigate the applicability of the proposed
model with respect to infills with different failure modes15 and
for multi-span moment-resisting frames16 or weak beam-strong
column type frames.10,11
Jpn Archit Rev | 2018 | 9
SANADA and MAIDIAWATI
Disclosure
The authors have no conflict of interest to declare.
References
1 Hashemi A, Mosalam KM. Seismic evaluation of reinforced concrete build-
ings including effects of masonry infill walls. PEER Report, 2007/100, Paci-
fic Earthquake Engineering Research Center, 2007.
2 Maidiawati, Sanada Y, Konishi D, Tanjung J. Seismic performance of non-
structural brick walls used in Indonesian R/C buildings. J Asian Architect
Build Eng. 2011;10:203-210.
3 Smith BS. Behavior of square infilled frames. J Struct Div. 1966;92:381-
404.
4 Wood RH. Plasticity, composite action, and collapse design of unreinforced
shear wall panels in frames. Proc Inst Civil Eng. 1965;65:381-411.
5 Mainstone RJ. On the stiffness and strength of infilled frames. Proc Inst
Civil Eng. 1971;49:57-90.
6 Liauw T-C, Kwan K-H. Nonlinear behaviour of non-integral infilled frames.
Comput Struct. 1984;18:551-560.
7 Smyrou E, Blandon C, Antoniou S, Pinho R, Crisafulli F. Implementation
and verification of a masonry panel model for nonlinear dynamic analysis of
infilled RC frames. Bull Earthquake Eng. 2011;9:1519-1534.
8 The Japan Building Disaster Prevention Association. Standard for Seismic
Evaluation of Existing Reinforced Concrete Buildings, 2001. English Ver-
sion, 1st. Tokyo: The Japan Building Disaster Prevention Association; 2005.
9 Sanada Y, Yorkinov B. Experimental investigation on lateral force-resisting
mechanism of concrete block infilled R/C frames based on force measure-
ments. J Struct Constr Eng (Trans AIJ). 2009;74:1335-1344. (in Japanese).
10 Jin K, Choi H, Takahashi N, Nakano Y. Shear strength evaluation of RC
frame with URM wall focusing on diagonal strut mechanism. Proc Jpn
Concr Inst. 2013;35:337-342.
11 Jin K, Choi H, Nakano Y. Experimental study on lateral strength evaluation
of unreinforced masonry-infilled RC frame. Earthquake Spectra. 2016;
32:1725-1747.
12 Nigel Priestley MJ, Verma R, Xiao Y. Seismic shear strength of reinforced
concrete columns. J Struct Eng. 1994;120:2310-2329.
13 Priestley MJN, Elder DM. Stress-strain curves for unconfined and confined
concrete masonry. ACI J. 1983;80:192-201.
14 Maidiawati, Sanada Y. R/C frame-infill interaction model and its application
to Indonesian buildings. Earthquake Eng Struct Dyn. 2017;46:221-241.
https://doi.org/10.1002/eqe.2787.
15 Asteris PG, Kakaletsis DJ, Chrysostomou CZ, Smyrou EE. Failure modes of
in-filled frames. Electr J Struct Eng. 2011;11:11-20.
16 Suzuki T, Choi H, Sanada Y, Nakano Y, Matsukawa K, Paul D, Gulkan P,
Binici B. Experimental evaluation of the in-plane behaviour of masonry wall
infilled RC frames. Bull Earthquake Eng. 2017;15:4245-4267. https://doi.org/
10.1007/s10518-017-0139-1.
How to cite this article: Sanada Y, Maidiawati.
Modeling of interactions between RC columns and
masonry infill in buildings with a column-sway
mechanism. Jpn Archit Rev. 2018;00:1–9. https://doi.org/
10.1002/2475-8876.1012