IN-PLANE ANALYSIS OF MASONRY INFILL MATERIALS

By Roger D. Flanagan1 and Richard M. Bennett,2 Members, ASCE

ABSTRACT: Simple methods for determining the corner crushing strength and the in-plane stiffness of
masonry infills are developed. The methods are applicable to structural clay tile, clay brick, and concrete
masonry infills and to both steel and concrete bounding frames. The corner crushing strength is determined
as a function of the infill thickness and the infill prism compressive strength. The stiffness is determined
using a stepwise function of the displacement and is a function of the relative stiffness of the infill to the
frame. The only infill material property required for the stiffness is the modulus of elasticity. The methods
were developed by looking at a wide variety of tests as reported in the literature.

INTRODUCTION mining the strength of an infill with respect to the shear

Masonry infills can be a main contributor to the lateral limit state. The method is based on bed joint shear
strength and stiffness of a building, particularly of older strength, and the net collapse load of the infill is deter-
buildings that have little other lateral resistance. Seismic mined as
performance of masonry infills has generally been good, Hult = An fve (1)
with infills often preventing collapse of buildings (Flan-
agan et al. 1996). However, no consensus method of mod- in which An is the net mortared section of the infill and
eling infills and determining their strength and stiffness is fve is the expected shear strength of the masonry infill. The
available, in spite of significant experimental and analyt- value of fve may be determined from in-place shear tests
ical research on the in-plane behavior of masonry infills. as follows:
This paper presents simplified methods for determining
the stiffness and corner crushing strength of solid masonry
infill materials. Forces generated in the bounding frame
0.75 冉 0.75vte ⫹
An冊
PCE

have been covered in another paper (Flanagan and Bennett
1999).
There are two main failure modes of masonry infill ma-
terials: shear failure and corner crushing. A shear failure
is characterized by sliding along the bed joint. Shear fail-
ures are typically more predominant in concrete frames
than steel frames. A corner crushing failure is character-
ized by the compressive failure of the masonry. Although
the term corner crushing has been used in the literature
and is used herein to be consistent with the literature, the
actual crushing of the masonry can occur in parts of the
infill other than the corner. A third limit state that is some-
times considered is diagonal cracking. This is more of a
serviceability limit than a strength limit state. The diag-
onal cracking strength is related to the size of the infill,
and for large infills the diagonal cracking strength can be
greater than the corner crushing strength. If this is the
case, there is a drop in load after diagonal cracking, but
the infill continues to carry load until corner crushing oc-
curs.
FEMA 273 (FEMA 1997) presents a method for deter-
1
Asst. General Mgr., Bechtel Nevada Corp., P.O. Box 98521, MS
NLV101, Las Vegas, NV 89193-8521.
2
Prof., Dept. of Civ. and Envir. Engrg., Univ. of Tennessee, Knox-
ville, TN 37996-2010.
Note. Discussion open until April 1, 2002. To extend the closing date
one month, a written request must be filed with the ASCE Manager of
Journals. The manuscript for this paper was submitted for review and
possible publication on April 3, 2000; revised February 27, 2001. This
paper is part of the Practice Periodical on Structural Design and Con-
struction, Vol. 6, No. 4, November, 2001. 䉷ASCE, ISSN 1084-0680/
01/0004-0176–0182/$8.00 ⫹ $.50 per page. Paper No. 22156.
fve = (2)
1.5
in which vte is the average bed joint shear strength and
PCE is the vertical compressive force on the wall. FEMA
273 (1997) only considers the shear strength of the infill
and not the corner crushing limit state.
Several methods have been proposed to determine the
corner crushing strength of masonry infills. Stafford-Smith
and Coull (1991) and Mainstone (1971) developed meth-
ods based on an equivalent strut analogy. Liauw and
Kwan (1983) used plastic collapse theory to determine the
infill strength. To account for the nonideal plasticity of the
masonry, Wood (1978) suggested a penalty factor. Another
analytical method was recently proposed by Saneinejad
and Hobbs (1995). However, all of these methods indicate
a higher influence of frame properties and geometry on
the corner crushing capacity than observed in recent tests
(Flanagan and Bennett 1999). Based on a series of large-
scale tests with steel frames and structural clay tile infills
that covered a wide range of frame and geometry param-
eters, a simplified method for determining the corner
crushing strength was proposed by Flanagan and Bennett
(1999) as follows:
Hult = Kult tf⬘m (3)
in which Hult is the corner crushing strength of the infill,
Kult is an empirical constant, t is the net thickness of the
infill, and f⬘m is the prism compressive strength of the ma-
sonry. The thickness, t corresponds to the prism test result,
f⬘m; if the gross area is used for f⬘m, then the gross thickness
is used; if the net area is used for f⬘m, then the net thickness

176 / PRACTICE PERIODICAL ON STRUCTURAL DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION / NOVEMBER 2001

 TABLE 1. Summary of Structural Clay Tile in Steel Frame Tests
Panel thickness Panel length Panel height Description Kult
Specimen (mm) (mm) (mm) Column size Beam size (including column orientation) (mm)
1 195 2,240 2,240 W250 ⫻ 18 W310 ⫻ 52 Single wythe; weak axis Push—205
Pull—280
2 195 2,240 2,240 W250 ⫻ 45 W310 ⫻ 52 Single wythe; weak axis Push—267
Pull—295
3 195 2,240 2,240 W250 ⫻ 67 W310 ⫻ 52 Single wythe; weak axis Push—238
Pull—262
9 195 2,240 2,240 W250 ⫻ 45 W310 ⫻ 52 Single wythe; strong axis Push—305
Pull—286
21 195 2,840 2,240 W250 ⫻ 45 W310 ⫻ 52 Single wythe; weak axis Push—266
Pull—310
17 195 3,450 2,240 W250 ⫻ 45 W310 ⫻ 52 Single wythe; weak axis Push—330
Pull—288
4 330 2,240 2,240 W410 ⫻ 39 W460 ⫻ 113 Double wythe; weak axis Push—252
Pull—162
5 330 2,240 2,240 W410 ⫻ 60 W460 ⫻ 67 Double wythe; weak axis Push—204
Pull—177
H 330 7,315 6,223 W250 ⫻ 49 W410 ⫻ 54 Double wythe; weak axis Push—149
Pull—149

is used. The coefficient of variation of the ratio of ex-
perimental corner crushing load to the analytical corner
crushing load was much smaller using (3) than for other
methods. Although the units of the empirical constant, Kult,
are length, the empirical constant does not represent the
actual bearing contact length of the infill along the col-
umn. Approximately 50% of the force in an infill is trans-
ferred through shear along the top boundary, with the rest
being from the column bearing against the infill (Flanagan
and Bennett 1999).
One purpose of this paper is to extend (3) to clay brick
and concrete masonry infills and to infills with concrete
frames. It will be shown that (3) is applicable to a wide
variety of conditions. The other purpose of this paper is
to develop a simple means for determining the in-plane
stiffness of the infill.
Typically, infills are replaced by equivalent diagonal
struts for analysis purposes. The concept of using an
equivalent diagonal strut was first proposed by Polyakov
(1963). Stafford-Smith and Carter (1969) recognized that
the equivalent strut area (or modulus) is not constant, but
rather varies with applied load or displacement. Often the
equivalent strut area is expressed as a function of the rel-
ative panel-to-frame-stiffness parameter, ␭h
state of the infill. In examining the behavior of a 6.2 m
high versus a 2.2 m high infill, Flanagan and Bennett
(1999) determined that in-plane displacement is a better
indicator of performance than in-plane drift (displacement
divided by height). Lacking further experimental studies,
it is proposed that actual displacement be used indepen-
dently of infill height to determine the value of C. Values
of C for a wide variety of masonry are presented in the
paper.
CORNER CRUSHING STRENGTH
The results of various experimental tests as reported in
the literature are given in Tables 1–5. Brief descriptions
of each of the tests with comments are given in the fol-
lowing sections. Unless noted, all tests were static tests
on a single bay performed using an actuator at the top
corner of the infill. Only infills in which corner crushing
was the failure mode are considered. In a small number
of the tests, the diagonal cracking load was larger than
the corner crushing load. The corner crushing load is what
is reported herein; where sufficient information was pres-
ent, the capacity given is the net infill capacity, or the

␭h = h 冑
4 Em t sin 2␪
4EIh⬘
(4)
TABLE 2.

Specimen
Summary of Clay Brick in Steel Frame Tests

Description
Kult
(mm)
in which h is the height to the centerline of the beam, Em Hendry and Liauw Unreinforced 198
is the modulus of elasticity of the masonry, t is the thick- (1994)—1
2 Unreinforced 201
ness of the infill, ␪ is the angle of the infill diagonal with 3 Shear connectors 212
respect to the horizontal, EI is the flexural rigidity of the 4 Shear connectors 191
columns, and h⬘ is the height of the infill panel. 5 Reinforced alternate courses 211
6 Reinforced alternate courses 193
Flanagan and Bennett (1999) proposed that a piecewise 7 Reinforced every course 204
linear strut area, A, be determined as 8 Reinforced every course 212
El-Ouali et al. Clay brick masonry—95 mm thick 91
␲t (1991)—2
A= (5)
C␭ cos ␪ 5 Lime and sand masonry—95 mm thick 184
6 Lime and sand masonry—47 mm thick 204
in which C is an empirical constant that varied with the Benjamin and — 196
Williams (1958)
in-plane drift displacement and is an indicator of the limit

PRACTICE PERIODICAL ON STRUCTURAL DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION / NOVEMBER 2001 / 177

 TABLE 3. Results from Dawe and Seah’s (1989) Steel Frames with Concrete Masonry Infill Tests
Frame Characteristics
Polyethylene
Mortar packed between membrane
Joint column flanges Panel-to-column between panel Sandy, poor Kult
Specimen reinforcement and panel ties Bond beams and frame quality mortar (mm)
WA1 ⻫ ⻫ — — — — 261
WA2 ⻫ ⻫ — — — — 241
WA3 ⻫ ⻫ — — — — 265
WA4 — ⻫ — — — — 295
WA5 ⻫ ⻫ ⻫ — — — 264
WA6 ⻫ ⻫ — ⻫ — — 291
WB1 ⻫ ⻫ — — — — 286
WB2 ⻫ — — — — — 253
WB3 ⻫ — — — — — 259
WB6 ⻫ — ⻫ — — — 180
WC1 ⻫ — — — ⻫ — 200
WC2 ⻫ — — — ⻫ ⻫ 170
WC7 — — — — — — 242
WD7 ⻫ — — — — — 294

TABLE 4. Summary of Concrete Masonry in Steel Frame Tests
Specimen Description
Hendry and Liauw (1994)—1 Unreinforced
(1994)—2 0.4% vertical reinforcing
(1994)—3 0.8% vertical reinforcing
El-Ouali et al. (1991)—3 90-mm thick infill
4 45-mm thick infill
maximum load minus the bare frame load at the same
displacement.
Structural Clay Tile Infills in Steel Frames
The results of eight tests performed on structural clay
tile infills in steel frames by Flanagan and Bennett (1999)
are given in Table 1. The tests included a variation of 78
times in the moment of inertia of the columns, single and
double wythe infills, and varying lengths of infills. Also
reported is a test by Henderson (1994), labeled as a spec-
imen H in Table 1, which was approximately three times
the size of the specimens tested by Flanagan and Bennett
(1999). All of the structural clay tile tests involved in-
creasing displacement controlled loading to capture the
hysteretic behavior. The mean value of Kult for these tests
is 246 mm, with a coefficient of variation of 24%.
Clay Brick Infills in Steel Frames
Kult
Hendry and Liauw (1994) monotonically tested eight
(mm)
clay brick infills in steel frames. All infills were 2,025 mm
322
308 long and 1,200 mm high. The columns and beam were
258 100 ⫻ 60 ⫻ 6 mm tubes, with the columns bent about
204 the strong axis. Various types of reinforcement were used,
322
as indicated in Table 2, which also indicates the value of
Kult. The average value of Kult for Hendry and Liauw’s
tests was 203 mm, with a coefficient of variation of 4%.
El-Ouali et al. (1991) tested five steel frames with ma-
sonry infills: one with clay brick, two with lime and sand
bricks, and two with concrete bricks. Each frame was
2,500 mm long and 1,500 mm high, with both the col-
umns and the top and bottom beams being W150 ⫻ 37
members. An increasing cyclic load was applied to the
specimens until failure. Results of Kult are given in Table
2 for the clay and lime and sand bricks, and in Table 4
for the concrete bricks.
Benjamin and Williams (1958) monotonically tested a
3,260 mm long by 2,250 mm high by 200 m thick clay
brick infill in a pinned steel frame. No prism strength for
the infill was reported. Based on the given unit strength
and the relationship between unit strength and prism
strength given in Drysdale et al. (1994), a prism strength
of 19.3 MPa was assumed.

TABLE 5. Results from Mehrabi et al.’s (1994) Concrete Frames with Concrete Masonry Infill Tests
TEST CHARACTERISTICS
Vertical Load (kN)
Aspect ratio Kult
Specimen Type of frame Type of masonry (height/length) Lateral load Columns Beams (mm)
3 weak solid 0.67 Monotonic 293 0 185
4 weak hollow 0.67 Cyclic 196 98 225
5 weak solid 0.67 Cyclic 196 98 176
6 strong hollow 0.67 Cyclic 196 98 314
7 strong solid 0.67 Cyclic 196 98 335
8 weak hollow 0.67 Monotonic 196 98 302
9 weak solid 0.67 Monotonic 196 98 197
10 weak hollow 0.48 Cyclic 196 98 324
11 weak solid 0.48 Cyclic 196 98 248
12 weak solid 0.48 Cyclic 293 147 261

178 / PRACTICE PERIODICAL ON STRUCTURAL DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION / NOVEMBER 2001

 TABLE 6. Statistical Summary of Corner Crushing Results
Specimen Characteristics
Infill masonry type Frame
Clay tile Steel
Brick Steel
(with outlier removed)
Concrete Steel
Concrete Concrete
Clay tile and concrete combined Steel and concrete
All All
Concrete Masonry Infill in Steel Frame
Dawe and Seah (1989) monotonically tested several dif-
ferent configurations of concrete masonry infills in steel
frames. In all cases, the infill was 3.6 m long, 2.8 m high,
and constructed with 190 mm concrete blocks and Type
S mortar. Column sections were W250 ⫻ 58 bent about
the weak axis, and the top beam was a W200 ⫻ 46. A
variety of conditions were tested, including joint rein-
forcement versus no joint reinforcement, adding bond
beams to the infill, packing mortar between the infill and
column flanges, using column-to-panel ties, and having a
polyethylene bond break between the steel and masonry.
Specific characteristics of 14 solid infills that they tested
are given in Table 3, along with the value of Kult. The
average value of Kult was 250 mm, with a coefficient of
variation of 16%.
Other monotonic tests of concrete masonry in steel
frames were conducted by Hendry and Liauw (1994). In-
fills 2,700 mm long by 2,475 mm high in 100 ⫻ 100 ⫻
8 mm steel tubes were tested with various amounts of
vertical reinforcement. Results of the tests are shown in
Table 4. The average value of Kult was 296 mm, with a
coefficient of variation of 11%.
Table 4 also shows the results of the two tests on steel
frames with concrete brick infills performed by El-Ouali
et al. (1991), which were described in the previous sec-
tion.
Concrete Masonry Infill in Concrete Frames
Mehrabi et al. (1994) tested several concrete masonry
infills in concrete frames. In all tests the infill was 1,420
mm high. Other characteristics of the infills are given in
Table 5, along with the values of Kult. The average value
of Kult was 257 mm, with a coefficient of variation of 23%.
Summary
Table 6 gives statistical results for values of Kult in terms
of the type of masonry used in the infill and frame ma-
terial. The data were checked for outliers using the max-
imum normed residual test (Snedecor and Cochran 1980).
At the 5% significance level, the only value determined
to be an outlier was the clay brick masonry test of El-
Ouali et al. (1991), with Kult of 91. This value is not in-
cluded in further statistical analysis of the data.
PRACTICE PERIODICAL ON STRUCTURAL DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION / NOVEMBER 2001 / 179
Statistical Results of Kult
Mean Coefficient of variation
Number of tests (mm) (%)
18 246 23.5
12 191 17.1
11 201 4.6
19 259 17.3
10 257 23.3
47 253 20.7
58 243 21.2
To statistically compare different frame and infill types,
the U-test was used. The U-test is distribution-free, is
nearly as statistically efficient as the t-test, can handle dif-
ferent sample sizes, and is robust against different vari-
ances (Sachs 1984). If the U-test statistic is greater than
the critical U-test statistic, the null hypothesis cannot be
rejected. A 5% significance level was chosen for the sta-
tistical tests.
The tests with concrete masonry infills in steel frames
were compared to the tests with concrete masonry in con-
crete frames to determine if there was any statistical dif-
ference between bounding frame material types. The U-
statistic when comparing frame material was 94, with the
critical U-statistic being 58. Thus, the null hypothesis can-
not be rejected at the 5% level, and the bounding frame
material does not statistically affect corner crushing
strength.
All tests within steel frames were compared to deter-
mine if there were statistically significant differences be-
tween masonry types. The null hypothesis that concrete
masonry infills were different from clay tile infills could
not be rejected at the 5% significance level (U-statistic =
159; critical U-statistic = 116). However, the null hypoth-
esis that brick was the same as clay tile was rejected (U-
statistic = 52; critical U-statistic = 61), and the null hy-
pothesis that brick was the same as concrete masonry was
rejected (U-statistic = 49; critical U-statistic = 65).
Additional statistical information is given in Table 6 for
clay tile and concrete masonry combined (both steel and
concrete frames), since there was no statistically signifi-
cant difference. Table 6 also gives results if the difference
between masonry types is ignored and all tests are com-
bined. Considering the wide variety of test conditions that
this data set represents, the coefficient of variation of Kult
is not excessive. Thus, (3) provides a simple but quite
reliable estimate of the corner crushing strength of a ma-
sonry infill.
IN-PLANE STIFFNESS
In analytical modeling of masonry infills, the infill can
be replaced with an equivalent diagonal strut to account
for the stiffness of the infill. Eq. (5) can be used to de-
termine the strut area, where the constant C varies with
the in-plane displacement. Values of C for structural clay
tile in steel frames are given in Table 7 (Flanagan and
 TABLE 7. Values of C for Masonry Infill Stiffness

C
Concrete masonry
Displacement Structural clay tile Concrete masonry in concrete
(mm) in steel frame in steel frame frames Proposed Typical infill damage
0–4 7 5 4 5 None
4–12 11 9 11 10 Diagonal mortar joint cracking
12–18 14 12 — 13 Mortar crushing and cracking of units
18–25 18 17 — 17 Failure of units (primarily corner regions)

FIG. 1. Value of C versus Infill Displacement for Dawe and Seah’s FIG. 2. Value of C versus Infill Displacement for Mehrabi et al.’s
(1989) Tests of Concrete Masonry Infills in Steel Frames (1994) Tests of Concrete Masonry Infills in Concrete Frames

Bennett 1999). A limiting displacement of 25 mm is used

for structural clay tile.
Fig. 1 shows the value of C versus infill displacement
for the concrete masonry infills in steel frames tested by
Dawe and Seah (1989). Also shown in Fig. 1 is a piece-
wise linear approximation to the data. Using the same
displacement regions as for structural clay tile, values of
C for these regions are shown in Table 7.
Fig. 2 shows the value of C versus infill displacement
for the concrete masonry infills in concrete frames tested
by Mehrabi et al. (1994). Summary results are presented
in terms of hollow and solid block infills; individual tests
are not shown for clarity. Solid block infills appear to be
slightly stiffer than hollow block infills, but there is not a
large difference in behavior. These specimens reached
peak loads at smaller displacement levels; thus only stiff- FIG. 3. Experimental and Analytical Load-Deflection Curves for
Frame 2 (Bennett and Flanagan 1999), Frame WD7 (Dawe and Seah
ness values up to 12 mm are shown. Significant ductility 1989), and Frame 9 (Mehrabi et al. 1994); Experimental Shown in Solid
was observed in these tests, however, with only a gradual Line, Analytical in Dashed Line
decrease in load with increasing displacement. Using the
same displacement regions as for structural clay tile, val-
ues of C for these regions are shown in Table 7 up to a load-deflection curves. In the case of frames 2 and 9, the
displacement of 12 mm. corner crushing capacity of the infill was reached before
The values of C are similar for all types of masonry. the 25 mm limit of displacement. In the case of frame
Thus, proposed values of C to be used with all types of WD7, the 25 mm displacement was reached before the
masonry are given in column 5 of Table 7. A limiting corner crushing capacity. The load at 25 mm displacement
value of displacement of 25 mm is used. These C values, was taken as a peak load.
along with the corner crushing strength, are used to obtain As a general rule, the strength of the infill will be
load-deflection curves for three tests: frame 2 from Flan- reached at smaller displacement levels for stiffer columns.
agan and Bennett (1999); frame WD7 from Dawe and For more flexible columns, the infill will be controlled by
Seah (1989); and frame 9 from Mehrabi et al. (1994). Fig. the displacement limit of 25 mm. This behavior has been
3 shows both the proposed analytical and experimental observed in experimental testing (Flanagan and Bennett

180 / PRACTICE PERIODICAL ON STRUCTURAL DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION / NOVEMBER 2001

1999). In the general case, the infill would have to be
checked for shear capacity as well as corner crushing ca-
pacity. All three infills shown in Fig. 3 failed through cor-
ner crushing.
Although it is possible to obtain better correlation be-
tween experimental and analytical load-deflection curves
than shown in Fig. 3 for specific infill tests, the proposed
method offers several advantages. The method is quite
general, being applicable to all types of masonry and
bounding frames. It was developed by examining a wide
variety of tests and conditions. The only infill material
properties required are the prism compression strength and
modulus of elasticity. Both are common values that are
either easily obtained or estimated. Nonlinear methods of-
ten require additional material parameters that can be dif-
ficult to obtain. Although the method requires an iterative
solution (values of C are obtained through iteration), the
method typically converges quite rapidly within two to
three iterations (Flanagan et al. 1994). The results of the
analysis, or the value of C, give a qualitative description
of the expected infill damage or limit state. Thus, the
method is a simple, practical method for incorporating
infills into routine structural analysis.
The postpeak behavior of infills is a function of both
the infill and frame properties. In some cases the infill/
frame system has shown significant ductility after being
damaged. Stone et al. (1987) identified the dissipation of
seismic energy as the infills were being damaged as a
reason for preventing collapse of buildings. After the 1992
Erzincan, Turkey, earthquake, one wing of the Military
Hospital was observed to have shear failures in the col-
umns, but yet remained standing due to the infills
(O’Malley et al. 1993). In other cases, the loss of the top
portion of the infill from corner crushing has created par-
tial height infills. Partial height infills create short effec-
tive column heights that attract a high proportion of the
load. The short columns often fail in shear, particularly if
constructed of reinforced concrete (Berg and Hanson
1973).
CONCLUSIONS
A simple expression for determining the corner crush-
ing strength of masonry infills was presented that is a
function only of the thickness of the infill and the com-
pressive strength of the masonry. This expression was
shown to have good agreement with a wide variety of
tests. There was a small, statistically significant difference
between concrete and clay tile masonry and clay brick
masonry. However, the difference was small enough that
it is recommended that one single expression be used for
all types of masonry. This formula for corner crushing
strength would complement the existing formula in FEMA
273 (1997) for shear failure of an infill.
A piecewise linear strut was proposed for modeling the
stiffness of an infill for routine structural analysis. Param-
eters for the stiffness (values of C) of the strut are given
PRACTICE PERIODICAL ON STRUCTURAL DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION / NOVEMBER 2001 / 181
that are applicable for all masonry types. The value of
parameter C is also an indicator of the limit state, or ex-
pected damage, in the infill.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
This work was partially sponsored by the National Science Foun-
dation, Grant No. CMS-9416262, and Lockheed Martin Energy Sys-
tems. This support is gratefully acknowledged.
REFERENCES
Benjamin, J. R., and Williams, H. A. (1958). ‘‘The behavior of one-
story brick shear walls.’’ J. Struct. Div., ASCE, 84(4), 1723-1–1723-
30.
Berg, G. V., and Hanson, R. D. (1973). ‘‘Engineering lessons taught by
earthquakes.’’ Proc., 5th World Conf. on Earthquake Engrg., Rome,
Italy, 82–91.
Dawe, J. L., and Seah, C. K. (1989). ‘‘Behavior of masonry infilled
steel frames.’’ Can. J. Civ. Engrg., 16, 865–876.
Drysdale, R. G., Hamid, A. A., and Baker, L. R. (1994). Masonry struc-
tures: Behavior and design, Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, N.J.
El-Ouali, T., Houde, J., and Tinawi, T. (1991). ‘‘Comportement d’un
cadre rempli soumis à un chargement cyclique: Modélisation pour
une analyse dynamique non linéaire.’’ Can. J. Civ. Engrg., 18(6),
1013–1023.
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). (1997). ‘‘NEHRP
guidelines for the seismic rehabilitation of buildings.’’ FEMA-273,
Building Seismic Safety Council, Washington, D.C.
Flanagan, R. D., and Bennett, R. M. (1999). ‘‘In-plane behavior of
structural clay tile infilled frames.’’ J. Struct. Engrg., ASCE, 125(6),
590–599.
Flanagan, R. D., Bennett, R. M., Adham, S. A., and Fischer, W. L.
(1996). ‘‘Masonry infill performance during the Northridge earth-
quake.’’ Proc., 7th North Am. Masonry Conf., The Masonry Society,
Boulder, Colo., 906–917.
Flanagan, R. D., Tenbus, M. A., and Bennett, R. M. (1994). ‘‘Seismic
evaluation of industrial facilities with unreinforced structural clay tile
infills.’’ 5th U.S. Nat. Conf. Earthquake Engrg., Earthquake Engi-
neering Research Institute, Oakland, Calif., 365–374.
Henderson, R. C. (1994). ‘‘Experimental and analytical investigation of
out-of-plane and in-plane seismic drift in unreinforced masonry in-
filled frames.’’ PhD dissertation, University of Tennessee, Knoxville.
Hendry, A. W., and Liauw, T. C. (1994). ‘‘Tests on steel frames with
reinforced masonry infilling.’’ Proc., 3rd Int. Masonry Conf., The
British Masonry Society, London, 108–114.
Liauw, T. C., and Kwan, K. H. (1983). ‘‘Plastic theory of non-integral
infilled frames.’’ Proc., Instn. of Civ. Engrs., London, 75, 379–396.
Mainstone, R. J. (1971). ‘‘On the stiffness and strength of infilled
frames.’’ Proc., Instn. of Civ. Engrs., London, Supplement IV, Paper
7360S, 57–90.
Mehrabi, A. B., Shing, P. B., Schuller, M. P., and Noland, J. L. (1994).
‘‘Performance of masonry-infilled R/C frames under in-plane lateral
loads.’’ Structural engineering and structural mechanics research se-
ries Cu/SR-94/6, University of Colorado, Boulder.
O’Malley, J., Celebi, M., Bruneau, M., Saatcioglu, M., Erdik, M., and
Gulkan, P. (1993). ‘‘Erzincan, Turkey earthquake of March 13, 1992
reconnaissance report—buildings.’’ Earthquake Spectra, Supplement
to Vol. 9, 53–85.
Polyakov, S. V. (1963). Masonry in framed buildings, G. L. Cairns,
translator, National Lending Library for Science and Technology,
Yorkshire, U.K.
Sachs, L. (1984). Applied statistics, A handbook of techniques, 2nd Ed.,
Springer, New York.
Saneinejad, A., and Hobbs, B. (1995). ‘‘Inelastic design of infilled
frames.’’ J. Struct. Engrg., ASCE, 121(4), 634–650.
Snedecor, G. W., and Cochran, W. G. (1980). Statistical methods, 7th
Ed., Iowa State University Press, Ames, Iowa.
Stafford-Smith, B., and Carter, C. (1969). ‘‘A method for the analysis
of infilled frames.’’ Proc., Inst. of Civ. Engrs., London, 44, 31–
48.
Stafford-Smith, B., and Coull, A. (1991). Tall building structures: Anal-
ysis and design, Wiley, New York.
Stone, W. C., Yokel, F. Y., Celebi, M., Hanks, T., and Leyendecker, E.
V. (1987). ‘‘Engineering aspects of the September 19, 1985 Mexico
earthquake.’’ Nat. Bureau of Standards Build. Sci. Ser. 165, U.S. De-
partment of Commerce, Washington, D.C.
Wood, R. H. (1978). ‘‘Plasticity, composite action and collapse design
of unreinforced shear wall panels in frames.’’ Proc., Inst. of Civ.
Engrs., London, 65, 381–411.

182 / PRACTICE PERIODICAL ON STRUCTURAL DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION / NOVEMBER 2001