Seismic Analysis of Masonry-Infilled Reinforced Concrete Frames

Armin B. Meharbi1 and P. Benson Shing2

Masonry infill panels are frequently used as interior EXPERIMENTAL STUDY

partitions in reinforced concrete structures. They are
usually treated as non-structural elements, and their
interaction with the bounding frames is often ignored in
design. Results of prior experimental studies have indicated
that infill panels can have a significant influence on the
lateral resistance of a reinforced concrete frame [Fiorato
et al. (1970); Klingner and Bertero (1976); Bertero and
Broken (1983); Mehrabi et al. (1994)]. This depends, to a
large extent, on the strength and stiffness of the bounding
frames with respect to those of the panels and the
configuration of the framing system. The main difficulty
in evaluating the performance of infilled structures is to
determine the type of interaction between the infill and
the frame.
In this paper, simple analytical techniques that can be
used to evaluate the seismic performance of masonry-
infilled reinforced concrete frames are presented. A
response spectrum analysis method is introduced to
evaluate the inelastic dynamic response of a multi-story
structure based on the load resistance characteristics of a
single-bay, single-story frame. The failure mechanism and
lateral strength and stiffness of the one-bay, one-story
infilled frame can be assessed using experimental results,
if available, simple analytical models, or the finite element
method. Using the proposed method, the maximum ground
accelerations that can be resisted by bare and infilled
frames without collapse can be calculated. Simple
analytical models are also presented in this paper to assess
the load resistance characteristics of single-bay, single-
story, masonry-infilled reinforced concrete frames. These
analytical models are only for frames with infills that have
no openings and are in full contact with the surrounding
frame elements.
The prototype frame selected in the experimental study
was a six-story, three-bay, moment resisting reinforced con-
crete frame, with a 13.5 m x 4.5 m (44.3 ft x 14.7 ft) tribu-
tary floor area at each story. Figure 1 shows a schematic
of the prototype frame. Two types of frames were consid-
ered. One had a “weak” frame design which was based on
a strong wind load, and the other had a “strong” frame
design which was based on the equivalent static forces
stipulated for Seismic Zone 4 in the Uniform Building Code
(1991). The test specimens were chosen to be one-half-
scale frame models representing a frame in the interior
bay at the bottom story of the prototype frame. Figure 2
shows the details of a weak frame specimen. For infill
panels, 10 x 10 x 20 cm (4 x 4 x 8 in. nominal) hollow and
solid concrete masonry blocks were used to represent weak
and strong infill panels, respectively. Twelve single-bay
and two two-bay specimens were tested. Monotonically
increasing as well as cyclic loading histories were used
for in-plane lateral loading. A total of 294 kN (66 kips)
(440 kN (99 kips) for Specimen 12) of vertical load was
applied onto each specimen and the load was kept con-
stant during a test. Figure 3 shows a load-displacement
curve for a weak-frame, strong-panel specimen subjected
to cyclic loading. Three types of failure mechanisms were
observed. A frame with a weak panel had its lateral resis-
tance governed by the sliding of the bed joints often oc-
curring over the entire panel. In the case of a strong infill

Several full-scale six-story, three-bay frame structures

are evaluated by the proposed method. The load resisting
characteristics of the single-story frames used in the
response spectrum analysis were obtained from
experiments. Experimental results are also used to validate
the simple analytical models proposed here. For this reason,
a brief summary of an experimental study conducted earlier
by the authors is first presented below.

1
Senior Principal Engineer, Construction Technology
Laboratories, Inc., 5400 Old Orchard Road, Skokie, IL
60077.
2
Professor, Department of Civil, Environ., & Archit.
Engrg., University of Colorado, Boulder, CO 80309-
0428. Figure 1—Prototype Frame (1′′ = 1 ft = 0.3048 m)

TMS Journal September 2003 81

Figure 2—Details of a Weak Frame Specimen (1 in. = 2.54 cm)
and a weak frame, the ultimate resistance and failure were
dominated by the diagonal and horizontal cracks in the
infill and the shear failure of the windward column. In the
case of a strong infill and a strong frame, the ultimate re-
sistance was governed by corner crushing in the infill.
DUCTILITY
For the infilled frames tested in this study, the nonlin-
ear behavior is usually initiated by the separation at the
frame-to-panel interface. After that, the initiation of ma-
jor cracks (which were usually horizontal for weak infills
and horizontal/diagonal for strong infills) or compressive
crushing in the infill induced the first significant nonlin-
ear behavior. To assess the ductilities of the infilled frames,
the load-deflection curve of a frame specimen is idealized
by an elastic-perfectly plastic behavior, as shown in Fig-
ure 4. For such an idealized system, ductility can be de-
fined as the ratio of the maximum allowable displacement
to the displacement at which the first yield occurs. In this
study, the maximum allowable displacement is defined in
two ways. In one definition, it is taken to be the displace-
ment, ∆rm, at which the maximum resistance is developed
and, in the other, it is the displacement, ∆80, at which the
lateral resistance is reduced to 80% of the maximum lat-
eral resistance. The latter was the displacement at which
the degradation of structural resistance began to acceler-
ate in most of the infilled frame specimens tested in this
study. However, unlike infilled frames, the bare frame
tested did not exhibit a significant load degradation after
the maximum lateral resistance had been reached. For this
reason, the maximum allowable drift for the bare frame is

Table 1. Ductility and Energy Dissipation Capability of Frame Specimens (1 kN = 0.2248 kip and 1 cm = 0.3937 in.)
Equivalent Elastic-Plastic System
Max. Res. Yield Res. Stiffness Yield Disp.
TestNo. rmax ry=0.8rmax k** ∆y
(kN) (kN) (kN/cm) (cm)
1 106.4 85.0 42 2.03
2 — — — —
3 277.7 222.0 1,296 0.17
4 157.9* 126.4 753 0.17
5 249.6* 199.8 2,242 0.09
6 198.0* 158.4 841 0.19
7 467.3* 373.8 2,558 0.15
8 190.0 152.2 578 0.26
9 292.8 234.1 1,034 0.23
10 173.1* 138.4 692 0.20
11 289.3* 231.4 2,575 0.09
12 359.1* 287.4 3,416 0.08
*Average of two directions.
**Based on the secant stiffness as defined in the text; + Based on 2% drift limit.

82 TMS Journal September 2003

 r Equivalent Elastic-Perfectly Plastic Resonpce
Actual Response Curve
rmax
ry = 0.80 rmax

r50 = 0.50 rmax

k
1

∆y ∆r m ∆80
Figure 3—Load-Displacement Hysteresis Curves for
a Weak-Frame, Strong-Panel Specimen (1kN = 0.2248 Figure 4—Idealized Elastic-Perfectly Plastic Load-
kip and 1 cm = 0.3937 in.) Displacement Curve
taken to be 2%, with respect to the story height, which is lower yield displacement of an infilled frame, when com-
considered to be significant from the damage standpoint pared to those of the bare frame. In most cases, the speci-
(Naeim 1989). These ductility measures can be expressed mens that had strong panels appeared to be more ductile
as follows: than those with weak panels, in spite of the fact that there
∆ rm ∆ 80 were brittle shear failures developing in the weak columns.
µ rm = or µ 80 = (1) This is because of a very small yield displacement for a
∆y ∆y
frame with a strong panel.
in which ∆y is the yield displacement. The yield displace-
ment is obtained by dividing the yield resistance, ry, by the IMPLICATIONS ON SEISMIC
elastic stiffness, k. To be conservative, the yield resis-
tance, ry is defined to be 80% of the maximum resistance,
PERFORMANCE
rmax, obtained from the tests. The elastic stiffness, k, is
approximated by the slope of a line connecting the origin The seismic performance of a structure depends on a
to a point that corresponds to 50% of the maximum resis- number of factors, such as the natural period of vibration,
tance on the ascending branch of the response curve (Fig- yield resistance, ductility, and energy-dissipation capabil-
ure 4). The values of the idealized parameters and the ity, in addition to the characteristics of the earthquake
ductilities computed for the frame specimens are shown ground motion. While some of these properties have been
in Table 1. The results indicate that the ductility of the identified for the frame specimens, their actual performance
infilled frames is higher than that of the bare frame. This is governed by a combination of these effects. To assess
is due to the higher elastic stiffness and, consequently, the the performance of the prototype structures in a meaning-
ful manner, elastic and inelastic response spectrum analy-
Table 1. Continued (1 kN = 0.2248 kip and 1 cm = 0.3937 in.)
At Maximum Resistance At 80% of Maximum Resistance
Disp. Ductility Energy Disp. Ductility Energy
∆rm µrm Dissipated ∆80 µ80 Dissipated
(cm) U (kJ) (cm) U (kJ)
— — — 3.05 + 1.5+ 1.36+
— — — — — —
0.33 1.5 0.34 1.78 10.3 3.96
0.94 4.5 7.12 2.24 13.3 19.10
1.22 10.9 9.94 2.18 24.6 32.77
0.91 3.9 5.20 2.74 14.6 28.59
1.07 7.2 27.23 1.60 10.9 47.46
1.38 4.3 1.81 2.79 10.7 4.41
0.74 2.6 1.02 3.05 13.5 7.12
0.61 2.4 2.49 2.89 14.4 32.65
0.69 6.1 6.44 2.31 26.0 44.97
0.76 7.3 10.51 1.57 18.8 22.37

TMS Journal September 2003 83

 vn
rn
V0
Idealized System

v3 V0y
r3 (a)
v2
r2 Equivalent S.D.O.F.
v1 (b)
k System
r1
1l
v1
v1y v1a
V0

Figure 5—Equivalent Single-Degree of Freedom (S.D.O.F.) System

ses are conducted with the frame properties deduced from
the test results. These analyses are carried out with the
following procedure.
Equivalent Single-Degree of-Freedom System
As shown in Figure 5(a), the prototype frame is first
idealized to have six lateral degrees of freedom. Its equa-
tions of motion can be expressed as
Mv˙˙ + r = − M {1} ag (2)
in which M is the mass matrix, v is the displacement vec-
tor, with each superposed dot representing differentiation
with respect to time, r is the restoring force vector, {1} is
a unit vector, and ag is the ground acceleration. If one
assumes that the response of the structure is dominated by
its fundamental mode, i.e., v = φ1 Y1 , where φ1 is the fun-
damental modal vector and Y1 is the corresponding dis-
placement coordinate, Equation (2) can be reduced to
1 Mφ 1 Y˙˙1 + 1 r = − 1 M {1} ag (3)
in which <1> is a unit row vector. By normalizing φ1 in
such a manner that the value of the component for the first
story is unity, i.e., φ11 = 1, one has Y1 = v1, where v1 is the
displacement response at the first story. Consequently,
Equation (3) becomes
L1 v˙˙1 + V0 = − Mt ag (4)
in which L1 = <1> M φ1, Mt = <1> M {1} is the total mass
of the structure, and V0 = < 1 > r is the base shear, as
shown in Figure 5(a). Equation (4) represents the equa-
tion of motion for an equivalent single-degree-of-freedom
system. For a linearly elastic system,
V0 = 1 K φ 1 Y1 = ω 12 L1 v1 = k v1 (5)
in which K and ω1 are the stiffness matrix and fundamen-
tal angular frequency of the structure, and k = ω12 L1 is the
elastic stiffness of the equivalent system. This approxi-
mation can also be applied to an inelastic structure by

Table 2. Maximum Allowable Ground Accelerations for the Prototype Frame (1 kN = 0.2248 kip and 1 cm = 0.3937 in.)
Equivalent S.D.O.F. System for Prototype Frame
Specimens At Max.
Resistance
Test T k V0y vly vrm µrm
No. Frame h/L Infill (sec.) (kN/cm) (kN) (cm) (cm) (cm)
1 no 1.50 149 685 4.60 — —
4 weak 0.67 weak 0.54 1,160 547 0.47 1.88 4.0
5 strong 0.41 2,099 841 0.40 2.44 6.1
— no 1.32 188 846 4.49 — —
6 strong 0.67 weak 0.49 1,408 690 0.49 1.83 3.7
7 strong 0.37 2,577 1,553 0.60 2.08 3.5
10 weak 0.50 1,452 596 0.41 1.22 3.0
11 weak 0.48 strong 0.33 3,562 970 0.27 1.37 5.0
12 strong 0.33 3,562 1,193 0.33 1.52 4.5
•
Based on 2% drift limit.

84 TMS Journal September 2003

Figure 6—Failure Mechanisms of Prototype Frame
adopting a general V0 -vs- v1 relation for the structure. In
this study, an elastic-perfectly plastic behavior is assumed
for the equivalent system, as shown in Figure 5(b). The
yield displacement can be computed as v1y = V0y / k, and
according to Equation (1), the ductility factor for the
equivalent system is defined as µ = v1a / v1y, in which v1a is
the maximum allowable displacement for the equivalent
system. For response spectrum analyses, the elastic and
inelastic properties of the prototype frame and of the cor-
responding equivalent system can be extracted from those
of a single-degree-of-freedom frame based on experimen-
tal results, finite element models, or the simple analytical
models described later on in this paper. This procedure is
illustrated below.
been adopted for reinforced concrete (RC) frame mem-
bers in the eigenvalue analyses. This is determined from
the experimental results. In the absence of experimental
results, this can be estimated with appropriate code provi-
sions for reinforced concrete structures. For the prototype
frame with infill, only the center bay has infill panels. The
infilled bay is modeled with an equivalent beam, whose
stiffness is estimated from that of an infilled frame speci-
men. The calculated natural periods of the prototype frame
(T) with and without infills are shown in Table 2. The
elastic stiffness, k, of an equivalent single-degree-of-free-
dom system, as shown in Table 2, is computed with the
relation k = ω12 L1, in which L1 is based on the eigenvec-
tors obtained from the aforementioned analyses.

Elastic Properties of Prototype Frame Inelastic Properties of Prototype Frame

Analyses have been performed using the finite ele-
ment method to obtain the modal vector, φ1, and the fun-
damental period, T, of the prototype frame with and with-
out infill panels. An effective moment of inertia, Ie, which
is assumed to be 44% of that of an uncracked section, has
The yield base shear, V0y, which represents the maxi-
mum resistance, is influenced, to a large extent, by the
failure mechanism of the prototype frame. To evaluate this,
the failure mechanisms shown in Figure 6 are assumed.
For a weak bare frame and a frame with infill panels, it is

Table 2. Continued (1 kN = 0.2248 kip and 1 cm = 0.3937 in.)

Equivalent S.D.O.F. System for Prototype Frame
At 80% of
Resistance Max. Allowable Peak Ground Acceleration (g)

v80 vla = vly vla = vrm vla = v80

(cm) µ80 Sylmar El Centro Sylmar El Centro Sylmar El Centro
6.10 1.3 0.45 0.55 — — 0.60* 0.70*
4.47 9.5 0.10 0.10 0.35 0.45 0.55 0.90
4.37 10.9 0.20 0.20 0.45 0.65 0.80 1.00
6.10 1.4 0.55 0.55 — — 0.50* 0.70*
5.49 11.2 0.15 0.15 0.40 0.45 0.75 1.20
3.20 5.3 0.35 0.35 0.75 0.75 1.00 1.00
5.79 14.2 0.10 0.10 0.25 0.30 0.70 1.15
4.62 17.0 0.20 0.20 0.55 0.50 0.85 1.20
3.15 9.5 0.25 0.25 0.65 0.60 0.85 0.95

TMS Journal September 2003 85


Figure 7—Idealized Mode Shapes for Inelastic Response
assumed that a soft-story mechanism (Figures 6(b) and
6(c)) will dominate. For a strong bare frame, which has a
strong column-weak beam design, it is assumed that the
collapse load is governed by the plastic moments devel-
oped in the beams (Figure 6(a)). With these assumptions,
the inelastic response of a strong bare frame can be ap-
proximated by a linear modal vector, and those of a weak
bare frame and infilled frame by a uniform displaced shape
with a soft first story, as shown in Figures 7(a) and 7(b),
respectively.
To obtain the yield base shear for the strong bare
frame, a collapse analysis is conducted with the failure
mechanism shown in Figure 6(a). For this analysis, the
lateral forces are assumed to be proportional to the height
of the structure, and the plastic moment capacities of the
Figure 8—Ductility Spectrum for 1994 Northridge Record
86
frame members are calculated theoretically. However, the
calculated moment capacities are increased by 15% to ac-
count for the possible discrepancy between the actual and
theoretical values, as reflected by the bare frame speci-
men tested. To be conservative, the yield base shear, V0y,
is taken to be 80% of the maximum base shear computed.
In the case of the weak bare frame and infilled frames,
where plastic deformation is concentrated in the first story,
the yield base shear, V0y, is considered to be equal to the
yield resistance of the first story alone. For the weak bare
frame, the yield resistance of the first story is taken to be
twice as large as that of the middle bay, with the assump-
tion that the interior and exterior columns are identical.
To obtain the yield resistance of the first story of an in-
filled frame, the lateral forces resisted by the exterior col-
umns are added to the yield resistance of the middle bay.
The yield resistance of the middle bay of the prototype
frame is obtained from test results by applying similitude
rules. These values are shown in Table 2. For an infilled
frame, v1a is assumed to be controlled by the middle bay.
Hence, it can be obtained from the experimental results
by applying the scale factor of 2. For a bare frame, v1a is
calculated with the 2% drift limit as discussed before. The
maximum allowable displacements and the correspond-
ing ductilities, µrm and µ80, are shown in Table 2.
Response Spectrum AnaIysis
The north-south component of the 1940 El Centro
record and the east-west component of the Sylmar record
obtained in the 1994 Northridge earthquake are used to
TMS Journal September 2003
 V0
V0y
-v1y
v1y
-V0y
Figure 9—Idealized Hysteresis Curves for Inelastic
Analysis
assess the performance of the prototype frame. A damping
ratio of 5% of the critical is adopted for all cases. For the
abovementioned ground motion records, both linearly
elastic response spectra and ductility spectra of the form
presented by Bertero et al. (1978) were computed based
on the non-dimensional equation of motion presented
below:
ω 1 2 ag
v˙˙ + 2ω 1ζγ + ω 12 ρ = −
η agmax
in which the non-dimensional parameters are defined as γ
= v1 /v1y, ρ = V0/V0y, ζ is the critical damping ratio, agmax is
the maximum ground acceleration, and
V0 y
η =
Mt agmax
which is called the seismic resistance factor. Figure 8 shows
the ductility spectra derived for the 1994 Northridge record.
Each spectral curve is a plot of the ductility demand µ,
which is defined as the maximum absolute value of γ de-
rived from Equation (6), against the natural period of a
structure for a specific η value. The hysteresis curves used
for these analyses are shown in Figure 9. They are intended
to mimic the experimental behavior shown in Figure 3.
The maximum allowable ground accelerations that the pro-
totype frame can withstand without exceeding the different
limit states are calculated and shown in Table 2.
v1
The maximum allowable ground acceleration, aa, for the
elastic limit state is calculated using the following equation:
V0 y agmax
ag = (8)
Mt PSa
in which PSa is the pseudo spectral acceleration obtained
from the elastic response spectra. For the inelastic re-
sponse, the seismic resistance factor η is first obtained
from the ductility spectra (see Figure 8) based on the elas-
tic period and maximum allowable ductility of the equiva-
lent single-degree-of-freedom system. Then, the maximum
allowable ground acceleration for the system, agmax, is cal-
culated using Equation (7).
The comparison of the results in this table shows that
the addition of infill panels tends to reduce the maximum
ground acceleration that can be resisted by the structure
before reaching the elastic limit state. This is partly due to
the fact that an infilled structure attracts more seismic forces
because of the larger mass, and partly due to the large yield
(6)
displacement computed for the bare frame. It must be men-
tioned that, in reality, damage might have already occurred
in the bare frame specimen before the calculated yield dis-
placement is reached. For the ultimate limit state corre-
sponding to 80% of the maximum resistance, the addition
of infill panels is clearly beneficial in all cases. In general,
(7)
a stronger panel results in a better performance.
It must be pointed out that the results obtained here
are based on the assumption that the ductility of the multi-
story frame can be directly deduced from that of a single-
story frame. This can be true for the prototype frame con-
sidered here. Only one bay of the three-bay frame is

Vu1 (1) Vu2 (2) Vu3 (3)

Crack Shear
Concrete
Failure Plastic Curshing
Hinge

Vu4 (4) Vu5 (5)

Crack/Slip

Figure 10—Slected Failure Mechanisms

TMS Journal September 2003 87

 P P
V Rigid Beam
W
al Wall
l
Column
h
L Vh/L
Figure 11—Vertical Load Distribution Model
infilled with masonry and the exterior columns of the pro-
totype frame help to counteract the overturning moment
introduced by the upper stories. Consequently, the bottom-
story infilled frame will behave like a single-story frame.
Nevertheless, experimental investigations [Fiorato et al.
(1970)] have demonstrated that in single-bay multi-story
infilled frames, tensile forces induced by the overturning
moments can result in tensile cracking of the first-story
windward column and shear failure of the leeward col-
umn. While the overall flexibility of the frame will increase
as compared to a single-story frame, the ductility may de-
crease because of the reduced stiffness and increased com-
pressive force in the leeward column that may cause an
early compression failure of the column.
In the above analyses, available experimental results
were used to determine the load resistance characteristics
of single-bay, single-story infilled frames. In the absence
of such results, simple analytical methods as those pre-
sented below can be used to calculate the load-resistance
properties required for the seismic analyses.
ANALYTICAL PREDICTION OF LATERAL
RESISTANCE AND STIFFNESS
In the absence of experimental results, one can use
simple analytical models or finite element models to as-
sess the strength and stiffness of infilled frames for the
response spectrum analysis described previously. Mehrabi
et al. (1994) have described these methods in detail. A
brief summary of a simple analytical approach is presented
here. Only infills without openings are considered in this
approach.
For the lateral stiffness of a single-bay, single-story,
infilled frame, the equivalent diagonal strut model pro-
posed by Stafford Smith (1966) or the composite beam
model proposed by Fiorato et al. (1970) can be utilized.
However, it must be realized that these methods are not
perfect. It has been shown that the composite beam model
88
V
V P
c1
Pc1
Pwv Pw1 = Vh/L
tends to overestimate the lateral stiffness (by 15 to 150%)
while the equivalent strut model tends to underestimate
the stiffness (by 50 to 65%) based on the results of the
tests conducted by the authors [Mehrabi et al. (1994)].
From experimental results, it has been observed that
the lateral strength of an infilled frame strongly depends
on the type of the failure mechanism developed. Among
all the possible failure mechanisms of a single-story, single-
bay infilled frame identified by Mehrabi et al. (1994), five
of them have been selected as the most possible cases and
are shown in Figure 10. For a specific infilled frame struc-
ture, the lateral resistance corresponding to each of the
five failure mechanisms can be calculated using the equa-
tions proposed by Mehrabi et al. (1994). The mechanism
which results in the lowest lateral resistance is the domi-
nant failure mechanism and the corresponding load deter-
mines the maximum lateral resistance. This method is de-
scribed below.
Residual Shear Strength of Cracked Wall
The cracking load of an infilled frame is the lateral
load at which the first major diagonal/sliding crack initiates
in the infill. This load can be approximated with the model
proposed by Fiorato et al. (1970). This model is shown in
Figure 11. As shown, the beam is assumed to be rigid and
the wall is represented by a diagonal strut and a vertical
strut, which are connected by a hinge. P is the total vertical
load applied on the infilled frame and V is the lateral load;
Pc1 is the axial load in a column due to the applied vertical
load P, Pwl is the vertical component of the load carried by
the compression strut, and Pwv is the portion of the total
vertical load carried by the vertical strut (i.e. P = 2Pc1 +
Pwv + Pwl) The cracking load of the infill, Vwcr, is estimated
with the Mohr-Coulomb criterion as:
Vwcr = C Aw + µ 0 Pw (9)
where C is a cohesion factor, Aw is the wall cross section,
µ0 is the initial coefficient of friction of masonry mortar
joints, and
TMS Journal September 2003
 Pw = Pwv + Pwl (10)
It is assumed that the vertical load on an infilled frame is
distributed between the horizontal cross section of the wall
and the columns in accordance with their relative axial
stiffnesses. The lateral load applied to an infilled frame results
in a diagonal force in the strut. Based on these considerations,
at cracking load, Pwv and Pwl are expressed as:
PAw
Pwv = (11)
Aw + 2 Aceq
h the infill is assumed to be cracked at that time and the
Pwl = Vwcr (12)
L
where h is the story height, L is the frame span length, the
equivalent area in masonry for reinforced concrete columns
Aceq = Ac Ec/Ew , and the cross-sectional area of a reinforced
concrete column Ac = hc bc + As ((Es/Ec) - 1). Ec, Ew, and Es are
the elastic moduli of the column material, masonry, and
reinforcing bars, respectively, hc and bc are the depth and the
width of the concrete columns, and As is the cross-sectional
area of the longitudinal bars in a column. Combining these
equations with Equations (9) through (12) results in
µ0P
C+
Aw + 2 Aceq
Vwcr = Aw (13)
h
1 − µ0
L the following relation for Fcc:
The residual shear strength of a cracked wall, Vwr, therefore,
can be calculated by eliminating the cohesion factor and
replacing the friction coefficient by the residual coefficient
of friction, µr ,
µr P
Aw + 2 Aceq
Vwr = Aw (14)
1 − µr
h Failure Mechanism 2
L
Crushing Load
The lateral load Vcrush corresponding to the diagonal
crushing of an infill can be calculated based on the
equivalent diagonal strut concept proposed by Stafford
Smith (1962) as
Vcrush = w t fm′ cos θ (15)
in which fm′ is the compressive strength of the masonry
and t is the wall thickness, and θ is the angle between the
frame diagonal and a horizontal line. The effective width,
w, of the diagonal compressive strut can be obtained from
the empirical curves presented by Stafford Smith (1967)
based on the relative stiffness of the wall with respect to
that of the frame.
Failure Mechanism 1
This mechanism and the corresponding model that is
used for calculating the lateral resistance are quite similar
to those proposed by Fiorato et al. (1970). Nevertheless,
the residual shear resistance of the infill which has been
neglected in Fiorato’s method, is considered here. As
shown in Figure 12, the lateral resistance corresponding
to Mechanism 1 is the sum of the shear forces in the
columns and the shear resistance of the wall. The resistance
of the frame is governed by the plastic hinges formed at
one end and the mid-height of each column. However, the
development of plastic hinges in the columns usually
occurs at a relatively large lateral displacement. Therefore,
residual shear force of the cracked infill should be
considered as the shear resistance of the wall. Hence, the
lateral resistance is given as
Vu1 = Vwr + Fcc + Fct (16)
in which Vwr is obtained from Equation (14), and Fcc and
Fct are the shear forces in the leeward and windward
columns, respectively. In Mechanism 1 (see Figure 12),
for the column segment AB, taking moment about A results
in the following expression for Fct:
4 M pct
Fct = (17)
h
in which Mpct is the plastic moment developed in the
windward column considering the effect of the axial force.
Taking moment about D in column segment CD results in
4 M pc
Fcc = (18)
h
in which Mpc is the plastic moment of the leeward column
for which the influence of the axial compressive load is
ignored for simplicity.
This mechanism has been identified in this study based
on experimental observations. As shown in Figure 12, the
lateral resistance, Vu2, provided by Mechanism 2 is the sum
of the ultimate shear resistance of the windward column,
the shear force in the leeward column, and the residual
shear resistance along the horizontal crack in the wall.
Hence,
Vu 2 = Vwr′ + Fcc + Vct (19)
in which Vwr′ is the residual shear resistance provided by
the horizontal crack in the wall and can be expressed as:
µrP
Aw + 2 Aceq
Vwr′ = Aw (20)
h
1 − 0.5µ r
L
The above equation is similar to Equation (14). The
difference is that only one-half of the vertical component
of the diagonal force is considered here, assuming that the
diagonal force is divided equally between the two
segments of the wall separated by the diagonal crack. Fcc is

TMS Journal September 2003 89

 P P
Vu1 A Vu1 A

h/2
B D B D
D
Fct Fcc
Vwr
Mpct Mpc
C
(1) Nct Pw

P P
Vu2 A Vu2 A
Vct
h/2
D D
B Nct
Fcc
Vwr
Mpc
C
(2) Pwh
Lw - h/2

Figure 12—Force Diagrams for Mechanisms 1 and 2

the same as that described in Mechanism 1, and Vct is the is the location at which the moment is maximum and the
ultimate shear resistance of the windward column shear is zero. Taking moment about A in column segment
approximated by AB results in
Vct = 0.8Vcs + Vcc (21) fm′ t y 2
in which Vcs and Vcc are the shear resistances of the column = 2 M pc (22)
2
provided by the shear reinforcement and the concrete,
in which fm′ is the compressive strength of masonry. For
respectively. These can be calculated with appropriate code
provisions for reinforced concrete structures. The factor simplicity, the plastic moment of the columns, Mpc, is
0.8 in Equation (21) is to reduce the shear capacity of the evaluated without considering the influence of the axial
section due to the fact that not all the ties which intersect load. Based on Equation (22), the contact length can be
the diagonal crack in the column have the necessary evaluated as:
development length to reach the yield capacity. 4 M pc
y= (23)
fm′ t
Failure Mechanism 3
Considering the equilibrium of column segment AB, one
In Mechanism 3, as shown in Figure 13, masonry is obtains
assumed to reach the crushing strength along the length y Vu 3 = y fm′ t = mc fm′ t hc (24)
at the wall-to-frame interface, and plastic hinges are
4Mp
assumed to develop in the columns near the beam-to- where mc = .
column joints and at points B in the columns. This fm′ t hc2
mechanism, which is based upon the plastic analysis
method, has been proposed by Liauw and Kwan (1985). It
is assumed that there is no significant shear transfer
Failure Mechanism 4
between the beam and the wall. The contact stress is
assumed uniform, which implies that the entire region has Mechanism 4 is based on the plastic analysis method
reached the plastic state. Point B in the windward column proposed by Liauw and Kwan (1985). In Mechanism 4,

90 TMS Journal September 2003

 Vu3 A Vu4 A

fm′
B
(3) h
fm′ (4)

Nct Nct

Mpc Mpc
Vu3 Vu4
Fc

fm′ y fm′ αh
B

Mpc

Nct
B Fc
Mpc

Figure 13—Force Diagrams for Mechanisms 3 and 4
as shown in Figure 13, plastic hinges are assumed to
develop at both ends of the columns and the masonry is
assumed to reach crushing at the compression corners. No
significant shear transfer is assumed between the beam and
the infill. It is assumed that the contact stress at the wall-
to-column interface has a parabolic distribution along the
contact length αh with the maximum compressive stress
at the corner. This distribution of the compressive stress
is based on the assumption that the rotation of the column
induces a linear variation of compressive strain in the
masonry panel. Taking moment about A in column AB
results in
Fc h + 0.25 fm′ t (α h) = 2 M pc
2
(25)
in which Fc is the shear force in each column. Again, for
simplicity, the plastic moment of the column, M pc, is
evaluated without the consideration of the axial load.
Hence, considering the equilibrium of column AB in the
horizontal direction, we have
Vu 4 = 0.67 fm′ t α h + 2 Fc
(
= mc2 + 0.67α − 0.5α 2 fm′ t h ) (26)
As proposed by Stafford Smith (1966),
Ec I c h
αh=π4 .
4 Ew t sin 2θ
Nct
Failure Mechanism 5
As shown in Figure 14, in Mechanism 5, the frame
and the infill are considered as two parallel systems with a
displacement compatibility at the compression corners.
Hence, the lateral resistance of this mechanism is
considered to be the sum of the flexural resistance of the
frame and the residual shear resistance of the fractured
wall as:
Vu 5 = Vwr + Ff (27)
in which Vwr can be obtained from Equation (14). The
resistance of a bare frame, Ff, with plastic hinges at the
end sections of the columns, can be expressed as:
4 M pc
Ff = (28)
h
In the calculation of Mpc, the influence of the axial loads is
ignored. The vertical load distribution on the wall and the
columns is based on the model shown in Figure 11.
Verification of Lateral Resistance Prediction
Method
The lateral resistances of several infilled frame
specimens tested by the authors [Mehrabi et al. (1994)]
and used in the seismic analyses discussed above were

TMS Journal September 2003 91

 P
Pc1 Pc1 Pwv + Pw1
Vu5 Ff Vwr
A

(5) h Frame Wall

B Ff

Figure 14—Force Diagrams for Mechanisms 5

calculated using the analytical method described above.
The results are summarized in Table 3. As mentioned
previously, these frames reflected a variation of several
design parameters, namely, the strength of the frame and
infilled panels, and the aspect ratio of the structure. The
minimum of the lateral resistances calculated for different
failure mechanisms defines the failure load, and the
corresponding mechanism identifies the dominant failure
mode of the infilled frame. The analytical results indicate
that Mechanism 5 is the dominant failure mechanism of
the specimens which had a weak panel. In this mechanism,
large slips along the bed joints and the plastic hinges in
the columns govern. On the other hand, for the specimens
that had a strong panel, the results indicate that Mechanism
2 is dominant. This mechanism is governed by the diagonal/
sliding shear failure of the infill and the shear failure of
the windward column.
this specimen, Mechanism 2 has been identified by the
analysis as the dominant failure mechanism, whereas the
actual failure is similar to a combination of Mechanisms 4
and 5. For the specimens whose failure mechanisms match
the experimental results, the analytical failure loads are in
good agreement with the actual lateral resistances.
CONCLUSIONS
A response spectrum analysis method is proposed in this
paper to evaluate the inelastic response of a multi-story frame
structure. In this method, the structure is idealized as an equiva-
lent single-degree-of-freedom system whose inelastic load
resistance characteristics are deduced from those of a single-
story frame based on an assumed collapse mechanism. The
performance of several full-scale six-story, three-bay struc-
tures is evaluated by the proposed method.

Table 3 also shows the actual failure loads and failure
mechanisms of the specimens. The comparison of the
experimental and analytical results shows that the failure
mechanisms identified from the analysis agree with those
obtained from the experiments in all cases, except for the
strong frame-strong panel specimen, i.e., Specimen 7. For
Two types of frames are considered in this study. One
was designed for strong wind loads and the other for severe
earthquake forces. This results in “weak” and “strong”
frame designs, respectively. Both solid and hollow concrete
masonry units were used for the infill, which represented
strong and weak infill panels. An experimental study was

Table 3. Comparison between Lateral Resistances Obtained fromTests And Predicted by Simple Method
(1 kN = 0.2248 kip)
Actual Lateral Actual
Specimen Vu1 Vu2 Vu3 Vu4 Vu5 Resistance Failure
kN kN kN kN kN kN Mechanism
4 240 192 202 195 164 158 5
5 450 300 402 479 392 250 2
6 336 282 264 248 203 198 5
7 530 379 523 555 404 467 4+5
8 240 192 202 195 164 190 4+5
9 451 300 402 479 392 293 2
10 234 203 202 195 157 173 5
11 408 321 402 484 336 289 2
NOTE: The lowest lateral resistance calculated is shown in bold.

92 TMS Journal September 2003

conducted earlier on half-scale models to determine the
lateral load resistance characteristics of single-story infilled
frames. The results are used for the response spectrum
analysis. In addition, a simple analytical method is
proposed to assess the lateral load resistance of single-
story, single-bay infilled frames. This method can be used
in the absence of experimental data.
Stafford Smith, B., “Behavior of the Square Infilled
Frames.” Journal of Structural Division, ASCE, 1966, Vol.
92, No. ST1: 381-403.
Stafford Smith, B., “Lateral Stiffness of Infilled Frames.”
Journal of Structural Division, ASCE, 1962, Vol. 88, No.
ST6, pp. 183-199.

The results of the response spectrum analyses indi-
cate that the addition of infill panels tends to reduce the
maximum ground acceleration that can be resisted by the
structure before reaching the elastic limit state. In reach-
ing the ultimate limit state where the load resistance drops
to 80% of the peak resistance, the addition of infilled pan-
els is clearly beneficial in all cases.
Stafford Smith, B., “Methods for Predicting the Lateral
Stiffness and Strength of Multi-Story Infilled Frames.”
Building Science, Vol. 2, Pergamon Press, Great Britain,
1967, pp. 247-257.
Uniform Building Code, International Conference of
Building Officials, Whittier, CA, 1991.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS NOTATIONS

The study presented in this paper was supported by the aa maximum allowable ground acceleration for the elas-
National Science Foundation under Grant No. MSM- tic limit state.
8914008. However, opinions expressed in this paper are ag ground acceleration.
those of the writers, and do not necessarily represent those agmax maximum ground acceleration.
of the sponsor. Aceq the equivalent area in masonry for reinforced
concrete columns
REFERENCES As cross-sectional area of the longitudinal bars in a
column.
Bertero, V.V. & Brokken, S., “Infills in Seismic Resistant Aw wall cross-sectional area.
Building.” Journal of Structural Engineering, ASCE, bc width of the concrete columns.
1983, 109(6): 1337-1361. C cohesion factor.
Ec elastic modulus of the column material.
Bertero, V.V., Mahin S.A., & Herrera, R.A., “Aseismic Es elastic modulus of the reinforcing bars.
Design Implications of Near-Fault San Fernando Earth- Ew elastic modulus of the masonry.
quake Records.” Earthquake Engineering and Structural fm′ compressive strength of the masonry
Dynamics, 1978, Vol. 6: 31-42. Fc shear force in each column.
Fcc shear forces in the leeward columns.
Fiorato, A.E, Sozen, M.A., & Gamble, W.L., “An Investi- Fct shear forces in the windward columns.
gation of the Interaction of Reinforced Concrete Frames Ff, resistance of a bare frame with plastic hinges at the
with Masonry Filler Walls.” Report No. UILU-ENG 70- end sections of the columns.
100, University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign, IL. , 1970. h story height.
hc depthof the concrete columns.
Klingner, R.E. & Bertero, V.V., “Infilled Frames in Earth- Ie effective moment of inertia.
quake-Resistant Construction.” Report No. EERC/76-32, k elastic stiffness of the equivalent system.
University of California, Berkeley, CA, 1976. K stiffness matrix.
L frame span length.
Liauw, T.C. & Kwan, K.H., “Unified Plastic Analysis for L1 effective mass of the equivalent system.
Infilled Frames.” Journal of Structural Engineering, M mass matrix.
ASCE, 1985, Vol. 111, No. 7, pp. 1427-1448. Mpc plastic moment of the leeward column.
Mpct plastic moment developed in the windward column
Mehrabi, A.B., Shing, P.B., Schuller, M.P., & Noland, J.L., considering the effect of the axial force.
“Performance of Masonry-Infilled R/C Frames Under In- Mt total mass of the structure.
Plane Lateral Loads.” Report No. CU/SR-94-6, Dept. of P total vertical load applied on the infilled frame.
Civil, Environmental, and Architectural Engineering, Uni- Pc1 axial load in a column due to the applied vertical
versity of Colorado, Boulder, CO., 1994. load P.
Pwl vertical component of the load carried by the
Naeim, F, Seismic Design Handbook, Van Nostrand compression strut.
Reinhold, NY, 1989.

TMS Journal September 2003 93

Pwv portion of the total vertical load carried by the vertical V0y yield base shear.
strut. w effective width of the diagonal compressive strut.
PSa pseudo spectral acceleration obtained from the elas- y length of compression block.
tic response spectra. Y1 normal displacement coordinate.
r restoring force vector. αh contact length.
rmax maximum resistance. φ1 fundamental modal vector.
ry yeild resistance. γ normalized displacement of a structure.
t wall thickness. µ ductility factor.
T fundamental period. µr residual coefficient of friction.
v displacement vector.
∆ rm
v1 displacement response at the first story. .
µrm ∆y
v1a maximum allowable displacement for the equivalent
system. µ0 initial coefficient of friction of masonry mortar joints.
V lateral load. ∆ 80
Vcc shear resistances of the column provided by the µ80 .
∆y
concrete.
Vcrush lateral load corresponding to the diagonal crushing ω1 fundamental angular frequency of the structure.
of an infill. ζ critical damping ratio.
Vct ultimate shear resistance of the windward column. ∆rm displacement at which the maximum resistance is
Vcs shear resistances of the column provided by the shear developed.
reinforcement. ∆y yield displacement.
Vu2, lateral resistance provided by Mechanism 2 is the ∆80 displacement at which the lateral resistance reduces
sum of the ultimate shear resistance of the windward to 80% of the maximum lateral resistance.
column, the shear force in the leeward column, and θ angle between the frame diagonal and a horizontal
the residual shear resistance along the horizontal line.
crack in the wall. {1} unit vector.
Vwr residual shear strength of a cracked wall. <1> unit row vector
Vwr′ residual shear resistance provided by the horizontal
crack in the wall.

94 TMS Journal September 2003