Development and Utilization of a Database of Infilled

Frame Experiments for Numerical Modeling

Honglan Huang, S.M.ASCE 1; Henry V. Burton, M.ASCE 2; and Siamak Sattar 3

Abstract: Reliable analytical and empirical models of the force-deformation parameters used to characterize the nonlinear behavior of
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by CASA Institution Identity on 08/18/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

masonry panels are essential to simulating the seismic response of infilled reinforced concrete and steel frame systems. This paper presents
the development of empirical equations to predict the backbone curve parameters of infill panels modeled using equivalent struts. For this
purpose, a database of 264 infilled frame experiments is assembled from the existing literature. The experimental data from a subset of 113
specimens is used to calibrate the force-deformation parameters of the infill equivalent struts. Using the results from multivariate regression
analyses, empirical equations are proposed for the backbone curve parameters that define the axial response of the infill struts. Discussions
and recommendations for the cyclic degradation and pinching effect parameters are also presented. DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)ST.1943-
541X.0002608. © 2020 American Society of Civil Engineers.
Author keywords: Masonry infilled frame; Database; Numerical modeling; Empirical model.

Introduction each diagonal direction to incorporate more local interactions

Masonry infill panels are often treated as nonstructural components
in the design of reinforced concrete (RC) and steel frame buildings.
However, observations from past earthquakes, as well as experi-
mental and numerical investigations, have demonstrated the signifi-
cant influence of masonry panels on the lateral strength, stiffness,
and energy dissipation capacity of infilled frames (Asteris et al.
2011; Liberatore et al. 2018; Mehrabi et al. 1996; Noh et al. 2017).
Developing a reliable numerical model that is able to simulate the
nonlinear response of a structural system from the onset of damage
through collapse is a key step in implementing the Performance
Based Earthquake Engineering (PBEE) framework (Haselton et al.
2008; Koliou and Filiatrault 2017; Lignos and Krawinkler 2011).
More specifically, reasonable assessments of the seismic perfor-
mance of masonry-infilled frame structures require appropriate
modeling techniques as well as reliable predictive equations for es-
timating key force-deformation parameters of the masonry infill
panels.
A variety of macro models and material laws for characterizing
the in-plane response of infilled frames have been proposed in the
past. The idea of using compression-only diagonal struts to re-
present the infill panel was proposed in the 1960s (Holmes 1961;
Mainstone and Weeks 1974; Polyakov 1960; Stafford Smith and
Carter 1969), and has since been adopted by most of the recent
macro models. Among the more recently proposed macro models,
there are two major developments: (1) the use of multiple struts in
1
Graduate Student, Dept. of Civil and Environmental Engineering,
Univ. of California, Los Angeles, CA 90095 (corresponding author). Email:
honglanhuang@ucla.edu
2
Assistant Professor, Dept. of Civil and Environmental Engineering,
Univ. of California, Los Angeles, CA 90095. ORCID: https://orcid.org
/0000-0002-5368-0631
3
Research Structural Engineer, National Institute of Standards and
Technology, 100 Bureau Dr., Gaithersburg, MD 20899.
Note. This manuscript was submitted on February 25, 2019; approved
on October 15, 2019; published online on March 18, 2020. Discussion
period open until August 18, 2020; separate discussions must be sub-
mitted for individual papers. This paper is part of the Journal of Struc-
tural Engineering, © ASCE, ISSN 0733-9445.
between the frame and infill (Burton and Deierlein 2014;
Chrysostomou et al. 2002; Crisafulli and Carr 2007; Crisafulli
1997; El-Dakhakhni et al. 2003; Sattar and Liel 2016); and (2) uti-
lizing shear springs to capture the sliding shear mechanism of the
infill panel (Crisafulli and Carr 2007; Crisafulli 1997). However,
these improvements in the ability to capture local behavior with
more precision also increases the complexity in determining the
governing parameters. On the other hand, several constitutive laws
that define the hysteretic response of equivalent infill struts have
also been proposed (Cavaleri et al. 2005; Klingner and Bertero
1978; Liberatore 2001). A more comprehensive summary regard-
ing these strut models and material laws can be found in the state-
of-the-art review by Noh et al. (2017).
Analytical models for estimating the stiffness and strength prop-
erties of the equivalent diagonal struts and the frame-infill system
have also been the subject of prior research. Stafford Smith and
Carter (1969) proposed a nondimensional parameter to represent
the relative stiffness between the frame and the infill, and developed
analytical methods that relate the contact length and effective strut
width to the relative stiffness. The effective strut width, a key
parameter in estimating the stiffness and ultimate strength of the
infill strut, has been investigated in numerous studies (Decanini and
Fantin 1986; Holmes 1961; Mainstone 1971; Mainstone and Weeks
1974; Saneinejad and Hobbs 1995; Stafford Smith and Carter
1969), among which the most frequently used are the equations
proposed by Mainstone and Weeks (1974), which have also been
adopted in FEMA 306 (FEMA 2000). Several researchers proposed
analytical equations for the strength of the equivalent diagonal
struts (Decanini and Fantin 1986; Panagiotakos and Fardis 1996;
Paulay and Priestley 2009; Priestley and Calvi 1991; Saneinejad and
Hobbs 1995; Stafford Smith and Carter 1969). The recently updated
ASCE 41 provisions on masonry infills adopted a framework pro-
posed by Stavridis et al. (2017) to estimate the backbone curve
parameters used to model the lateral response of the infilled frame.
Although these macro models, constitutive laws, and analytical
equations cover important aspects of the seismic analysis of ma-
sonry infilled frames, most of them are derived based on relatively
small data sets from experimental and numerical studies. There-
fore, their accuracy and generalizability need to be validated on

© ASCE 04020079-1 J. Struct. Eng.

J. Struct. Eng., 2020, 146(6): 04020079

 more comprehensive infilled frame response data sets. In this re-
gard, Liberatore et al. (2017) constructed a database consisting of
162 specimens of masonry-infilled RC and steel frames and con-
fined masonry structures to assess the performance of five analyti-
cal models for strut strength and stiffness. They subsequently
proposed a multilinear backbone curve for the infill panel lateral
response and a framework to combine and modify previous ana-
lytical equations to estimate the associated backbone curve
parameters. De Risi et al. (2018) collected 219 specimens of
RC frames with unreinforced hollow clay brick panels, among
Table 1. Database sources
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by CASA Institution Identity on 08/18/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
which 38 were used to evaluate the applicability of two constit-
utive models for simulating the lateral response of the infill panel,
and further modified the model proposed by Panagiotakos and
Fardis (1996).
The primary objectives of the current study are to: (1) develop
an experimental database of masonry-infilled frames (steel and
RC), (2) develop a modeling approach for RC-infilled frames using
the pinching material (Lowes et al. 2004) (also denoted as the
Lowes-Mitra-Altoontash model) to simulate the nonlinear axial re-
sponse of the infill equivalent diagonal struts, (3) calibrate the infill
strut force-deformation parameters based on the experimental re-
sults, (4) develop empirical models for estimating the backbone
curve parameters of the equivalent diagonal struts, and (5) discuss

Number of Frame
and provide recommendations for the associated hysteretic param-
Reference specimens type Loading type eters. It is important to note that while the calibration was per-
formed using an implementation of the Lowes-Mitra-Altoontash
Abdul-Kadir (1974)a 12 Steel Monotonic pinching model in the Open System of Earthquake Engineering
Akhoundi et al. (2018)a 1 RC Quasi-static cyclic
(OpenSees) (Mckenna 1999), the backbone curve parameters can
Al-Chaar et al. (2002)a 4 RC Monotonic
Angel et al. (1994)a 7 RC Quasi-static cyclic also be used for nonpinching materials to represent the nonlinear
Anil and Altin (2007) 7 RC Quasi-static cyclic response of equivalent infill struts [e.g., the peak-oriented hyster-
Baran and Sevil (2010)a 3 RC Quasi-static cyclic etic model formulated by Burton and Deierlein (2014)]. Moreover,
Basha and Kaushik (2016)a 9 RC Quasi-static cyclic the cyclic degradation and pinching parameters can be used with
Bergami and Nuti (2015)a 2 RC Quasi-static cyclic the Lowes-Mitra-Altoontash model in non-OpenSees contexts.
Billington et al. (2009)a 1 RC Quasi-static cyclic
Blackard et al. (2009)a 4 RC Quasi-static cyclic
Bose and Rai (2014)a 1 RC Quasi-static cyclic Experimental Database
Calvi and Bolognini (2008)a 4 RC Quasi-static cyclic
Cavaleri and Di Trapani (2014)a 12 RC Quasi-static cyclic The entire experimental database consists of 257 one-bay one-story
Chiou and Hwang (2015)a 4 RC Quasi-static cyclic and 7 multi-bay one-story masonry infilled frames, collected from
Colangelo (2005)a 11 RC Pseudo-dynamic 49 journal publications, conference proceedings, and technical re-
Combescure et al. (1996)a 2 RC Quasi-static cyclic
ports. The sources of the database are listed in Table 1. The frame
Crisafulli (1997)a 2 RC Quasi-static cyclic
Da Porto et al. (2013) 6 RC Quasi-static cyclic types include both reinforced concrete and steel. The infill panels in
Dautaj et al. (2018)a 7 RC Quasi-static cyclic the database cover a range of different types of masonry units, re-
Dawe and Seah (1989)a 28 Steel Monotonic inforced and unreinforced masonry, panels with and without open-
Fiorato et al. (1970)a 7 RC Monotonic ings and with and without retrofit measures. A graphical summary
Flanagan and Bennett (1999) 8 Steel Quasi-static cyclic of the types of infilled frames in the database is provided in Fig. 1.
Gazic and Sigmund (2016)a 11 RC Quasi-static cyclic Since the focus of the current study is on RC infilled frames, the
Haider (1995)a 4 RC Quasi-static cyclic detailed characteristics of the infilled steel frames are omitted from
Kakaletsis and 6 RC Quasi-static cyclic Fig. 1. Table 2 presents the types of masonry units included in the
Karayannis (2008) database and the corresponding number of specimens. Approxi-
Khoshnoud and 2 RC Monotonic
mately 60% of the specimens are made from clay brick, slightly
Marsono (2016)a
Kumar et al. (2016)a 1 RC Quasi-static cyclic
Leuchars and Scrivener (1976)a 2 RC Quasi-static cyclic
Liu and Soon (2012) 10 Steel Monotonic
Mansouri et al. (2014)a 5 RC Quasi-static cyclic
Markulak et al. (2013) 6 Steel Quasi-static cyclic
Mehrabi et al. (1996)a 10 RC Monotonic/
Quasi-static cyclic
Misir et al. (2016)a 5 RC Quasi-static cyclic
Morandi et al. (2014)a 4 RC Quasi-static cyclic
Mosalam et al. (1997) 4 Steel Quasi-static cyclic
Pires et al. (1997)a 2 RC Quasi-static cyclic
Schwarz et al. (2015) 3 RC Quasi-static cyclic
Sigmund and Penava (2013)a 9 RC Quasi-static cyclic
Stylianidis (2012)a 5 RC Quasi-static cyclic
Tasnimi and Mohebkhah (2011) 5 Steel Quasi-static cyclic
Tawfik Essa et al. (2014)a 3 RC Quasi-static cyclic
Tizapa (2009)a 3 RC Quasi-static cyclic
Verderame et al. (2016)a 2 RC Quasi-static cyclic
Waly (2000)a 2 RC Quasi-static cyclic
Yorulmaz and Sozen (1968)a 7 RC Monotonic
Yuksel and Teymur (2011)a 2 RC Quasi-static cyclic
Zarnic and Tomazevic (1985) 3 RC Quasi-static cyclic
Zhai et al. (2016)a 3 RC Quasi-static cyclic
Zovkic et al. (2013) 3 RC Quasi-static cyclic
a Fig. 1. Summary of database structure.
Experiments used in calibration.

© ASCE 04020079-2 J. Struct. Eng.

J. Struct. Eng., 2020, 146(6): 04020079

 Table 2. Types of masonry units in the database Table 4. Failure modes observed in a subset of the experiments
Masonry unit type Number of specimens Failure Number of
mode Description specimens
Hollow clay brick 99
Solid clay brick 63 SF Dominant diagonal shear sliding (cracking) of the 37
Solid concrete block 46 infill; formation of flexural hinges in the columns.
Hollow concrete block 27 SS Dominant diagonal shear sliding (cracking) of the 26
Fly ash brick 11 infill; brittle shear failure in the columns.
Autoclaved aerated concrete 9 CF Sliding in the early stages of loading and crushing 46
Calcarenite brick 4 of the infill at larger drifts; formation of flexural
Vitrified ceramic brick 3 hinges in the columns
Cement brick 1 CS Sliding in the early stages of loading and crushing 4
Pumice block 1 of the infill at larger drifts; brittle shear failure in
the columns.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by CASA Institution Identity on 08/18/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

more than half of which are hollow. Concrete blocks, most of which
are solid, comprise approximately 30% of the specimens. Other less
common types of brick (e.g., calcarenite, vitrified ceramic, cement
and pumice) are also included and there are nine autoclaved aerated
concrete specimens.
For the purpose of the current study, the subset (134) of speci-
mens that include only RC frames with unreinforced masonry panels
without openings or retrofit are first extracted. As one of the impor-
tant steps in this study is to calibrate the backbone modeling param-
eters of the axial response of the equivalent diagonal struts, explicit
force-displacement curves from the tests are needed. However, some
of the investigations did not report the force-displacement curves for
all tested specimens. After excluding those investigations that did not
include this information, 113 specimens remained and were used to
calibrate and develop empirical equations for the backbone curve
parameters of the infill struts.
Table 3 provides a statistical summary of the key structural var-
iables in the specimen subset used for subsequent calibrations.
These variables are selected based on a review of prior literature
on the behavior of infilled frames. hcol is the column height from
the top of the base to the centerline of the beam, lbeam is the beam
span to the centerline of the column, ld is the length of the diagonal
strut (measured based on the centerline dimension of the frame, as
is used in the structural models in subsequent sections), hw is the
height of the infill panel, lw is the length of the infill panel, hw =lw is
the aspect ratio of the infill panel, tw is the thickness of the infill
panel, and P=Ag fc0 is the column axial load ratio. In most experi-
ments, the axial load was applied directly to the columns (to re-
present gravity loads). However, it is worth noting that in real
buildings some of the gravity load can be transmitted from the frame
beams to the infill panels. ρt;col is the column transverse reinforce-
ment ratio, fm is the masonry prism strength, and Em is the masonry
modulus of elasticity. For consistency, the recorded values of fm and
Em are based on prism compression tests with loading applied
perpendicular to the bed joint (some studies also performed the com-
pression tests parallel to the bed-joints). In some cases where Em is
not available, an empirical relationship, Em ¼ 550fm , as recom-
mended by Kaushik et al. (2007) and FEMA 306, has been adopted.
In addition, the relative stiffness parameter (λhcol ) proposed by
Stafford Smith and Carter (1969) is also computed:


Em tw sinð2θÞ 0.25
λhcol ¼ · hcol ð1Þ
4Ef I col hw
where θ ¼ tan−1 ðhw =lw Þ is the angle between the diagonal and hori-
zontal of the panel, Ef = the modulus of elasticity of the frame, I col =
the moment of inertia of the column.
The infilled frame failure mode classification scheme proposed
by Tempestti and Stavridis (2017) has been adopted for the current
study. In the original literature, the infilled frames are first classified
into four categories based on two quantitative metrics, then each
category is assigned a distinct failure mode. For the current study,
because the failure observations in the experiments are available,
we did not use the quantitative metrics for classification, but instead
assigned each specimen to a distinct failure mode based on
the available observations. Table 4 presents the adopted failure
mode descriptions and the number of specimens corresponding
to each one.
Numerical Modeling and Calibration of the Infill
Strut Parameters
This section discusses the numerical modeling of infilled frames
using the Lowes-Mitra-Altoontash pinching model and details of
the process used to calibrate the parameters of the equivalent diago-
nal struts. The single-strut model (in each direction) used for the
calibration process is consistent with the modeling framework pro-
posed by Bose et al. (2018) and Stavridis et al. (2017), and adopted
in ASCE 41 (ASCE 2017). As discussed earlier, while this model-
ing approach may not be able to precisely capture any localized
failure modes, the total response of the masonry infill and the frame
can represent the global seismic response of the tested specimens.
A schematic view of a one-bay one-story model is shown in Fig. 2.

Table 3. Statistical summary of key structural parameters in the database

hw P
Summary hcol (mm) lbeam (mm) ld (mm) hw (mm) lw (mm) lw tw (mm) Ag f c0 ρt;col f m (MPa) Em (MPa) λhcol
Min 432 838 940 381 762 0.4 22 0 0 0.83 434 1.63
Max 3,124 4,547 5,512 2,946 4,191 1.56 350 0.37 0.02 31.72 20,684 7.36
Median 1,600 2,007 2,540 1,499 1,829 0.71 120 0.09 0.004 4.62 2,889 3.31
Mean 1,600 2,184 2,718 1,473 1,981 0.76 125 0.1 0.004 8.62 5,316 3.43
COVa 0.37 0.38 0.36 0.37 0.38 0.26 0.54 1.06 0.70 1.05 1.03 0.33
a
Coefficient of variation.

© ASCE 04020079-3 J. Struct. Eng.

J. Struct. Eng., 2020, 146(6): 04020079

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by CASA Institution Identity on 08/18/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Fig. 2. Schematic view of the infilled frame model in OpenSees.
Development of the Infilled Frame Model in OpenSees
The numerical model of the infilled frame is developed in
OpenSees. However, it is worth noting that the overall approach
is applicable to other platforms (e.g., LS DYNA) that have similar
implementations of the adopted material models. A concentrated
plasticity model is used for the RC beams and columns, which con-
sists of elastic beam-column elements with two zero-length hinges
at the ends (Burton and Deierlein 2014; Haselton et al. 2008;
Haselton et al. 2016; Noh et al. 2017), as shown in Fig. 2. The peak
oriented hysteretic model developed by Ibarra et al. (2005) (also
denoted as the Ibarra-Medina-Krawinkler model) is used to model
the beam flexural hinges. As column failure is one of the primary
concerns in the seismic performance of nonductile infilled frames,
it is critical that this mechanism is incorporated in the simulation.
Given this consideration, Burton and Deierlein (2014) used a flexu-
ral spring with the Ibarra-Medina-Krawinkler model paired with a
shear spring with rigid-softening material to incorporate flexural
hinging and column shear failure. Sattar (2014) used a flexural
spring with the Ibarra-Medina-Krawinkler model, a shear spring
with the failure model developed by Elwood (2004), and an axial
spring with the failure model also developed by Elwood (in series)
to capture the complex flexure-shear-axial interactions. In this
study, flexural and shear springs are modeled in series at the col-
umn ends (top and bottom), as shown in Fig. 2. The flexural spring
is modeled using the Ibarra-Medina-Krawinkler model and the
shear spring is modeled with Elwood’s shear failure model. It is
worth noting that this frame model can also capture column shear
and flexural failure in the spans with no infill walls. Therefore, the
same column modeling approach can be used for all the columns
when modeling a real building.
The infill panel is modeled as two diagonal struts (one in each
direction) using a truss element with the Lowes-Mitra-Altoontash
pinching material model. Various material models have been used
by different researchers to simulate the nonlinear behavior of infill
struts. Some examples include an early version of the Ibarra-
Medina-Krawinkler model (Burton and Deierlein 2014), the con-
crete material model (Mohd-Yassin 1994; Bose and Stavridis
2018), the Kent-Scott-Park model (Scott et al. 1982; Noh et al.
2017), the Bouc-Wen hysteretic model (Bouc 1967; Noh et al.
2017), and the Lowes-Mitra-Altoontash model (Furtado et al. 2015;
Noh et al. 2017). In this study, the Lowes-Mitra-Altoontash model
is adopted because of its flexibility in controlling pinching effects
© ASCE 04020079-4
J. Struct. Eng., 2020, 146(6): 04020079
and cyclic degradations in the infill panel, and its effectiveness for
modeling the infill struts has been illustrated by Noh et al. (2017).
A schematic response of the Lowes-Mitra-Altoontash model and
associated parameters is shown in Fig. 3 (adapted from Lowes
et al. 2004). The parameters that are critical to the calibration pro-
cess described in the next subsection are presented in bold font. A
response envelope, an unload-reload path and three damage rules
define the hysteretic response in the Lowes-Mitra-Altoontash
model. More specifically, eight points (16 parameters) are used
to construct a multilinear response envelope (shown as solid lines
in Fig. 3). The unload-reload path (shown as dashed lines in Fig. 3)
is controlled by four points (six parameters). The unloading stiff-
ness degradation, reloading stiffness degradation and strength deg-
radation, are each controlled by five parameters, which predict the
damage index as functions of the displacement history and energy
accumulation. More details of the model can be found in Lowes
et al. (2004).
Calibration
The flexural hinge parameters of the reinforced concrete beams and
columns are determined using the semi-empirical equations pro-
posed by Haselton et al. (2016), whereas the column shear hinge
parameters are obtained using the equations by Elwood (2004).
Once the parameters of the reinforced concrete frame are deter-
mined, those governing the axial response of the infill struts are
calibrated through an iterative procedure, where the lateral hyster-
etic curve of the entire one-bay one-story infilled frame from the
numerical simulation is compared with the experimental hysteretic
curve, and the parameters of the infill struts are adjusted until an
acceptable visual match is achieved (Burton and Deierlein 2014),
i.e., close visual resemblance in the response envelope, the pinch-
ing effects, and the unloading-reloading slopes.
A good fit (compared to the experimental results) is achieved
using the Lowes-Mitra-Altoontash material model because of the
flexibility to control a wide range of parameters. However, a
trade-off between precision and complexity in parameter defini-
tions must be considered when applying the model. For the pur-
pose of this study, several simplifying assumptions are made to
determine the parameters for the Lowes-Mitra-Altoontash model
applied to the equivalent infill struts, while seeking to maintain an
adequate level of calibration accuracy. Some of the modeling
J. Struct. Eng.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by CASA Institution Identity on 08/18/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Fig. 3. Schematic response of the Lowes-Mitra-Altoontash model. (Adapted from Lowes et al. 2004.)
assumptions discussed by Noh et al. (2017) are also adopted. The
details of the calibration process are as follows:
1. The points defining the multilinear backbone curve of the strut
axial response are calibrated such that there is a close match
between the simulated and experimental lateral response envel-
ope of the infilled frame. In the Lowes-Mitra-Altoontash model,
eight points define this envelope. However, as the infill panel is
modeled by a compression-only strut in each diagonal direction,
only the negative (compression) branch [ðeNd1 ; eNf 1 Þ, ðeNd2 ;
eNf2 Þ, ðeNd3 ; eNf 3 Þ, ðeNd4 ; eNf4 Þ] needs to be calibrated.
The force level of the positive (tension) branch is taken to be
1% of that in the compression branch (Noh et al. 2017), result-
ing in a response envelope similar to the constitutive model de-
veloped by Cavaleri and Di Trapani (2014). After calibrating a
certain number of specimens, it was discovered that specifying
another point between the yield and capping points does not
significantly influence the calibration accuracy (as measured
by the dissipated hysteretic energy). Therefore, ðeNd2 ; eNf2 Þ
is assigned by linear interpolation after obtaining ðeNd1 ; eNf1 Þ
and ðeNd3 ; eNf3 Þ. As a result, this step can be simplified to
calibrating three points: the yield point ðeNd1 ; eNf1 Þ, the cap-
ping point ðeNd3 ; eNf3 Þ, and the point where the residual
strength is achieved ðeNd4 ; eNf 4 Þ.
2. The unload-reload path parameters are adjusted to match the
pinching shape as exhibited in the hysteretic response measured
during the experiment. The Lowes-Mitra-Altoontash model uses
six parameters to control pinching effects (through the points de-
fining the unload-reload path). In the current study, four para-
meters are calibrated: uForceN which determines the strength
at the start of unloading from the tension branch, rDispN and
rForce which define the point at which reloading begins, and
uForceP, which is used to match the strength at which unloading
from the compression branch begins. As the tension branch is
negligible, rDispP and rForceP are not influential and values
of rDispP ¼ 0.2 and rForceP ¼ 0.5 are assumed.
3. The Lowes-Mitra-Altoontash model uses 15 parameters to con-
trol the strength, unloading stiffness and reloading stiffness
degradation, which significantly adds to the complexity of the
© ASCE 04020079-5
J. Struct. Eng., 2020, 146(6): 04020079
calibration process. A simplified approach is adopted in this
study, which relates the strength and stiffness degradation to
the displacement history (Lowes et al. 2004). More specifically,
gK 1 and gK 3 are used to define unloading stiffness degradation,
with gKLim setting the limit for the damage index (Lowes et al.
2004). Similarly, ðgD1 ; gD3 ; gDLimÞ and ðgF1 ; gF3 ; gFLimÞ
are used to control the reloading stiffness and strength degrada-
tion, respectively. The other six parameters ðgK 2 ; gK 4 ; gD2 ;
gD4 ; gF2 ; gF4 Þ are set to zero.
4. The dmgType parameter, which is set to “Cycle,” relates the
damage indices to the displacement history. gE is taken as
10 for all specimens (Noh et al. 2017).
The calibration process follows the sequence of steps 1, 2, and 3
discussed previously, i.e., first the response envelope is adjusted,
then the pinching shape is addressed, and finally the cyclic degra-
dation parameters are determined. Table 5 lists the parameters in the
Lowes-Mitra-Altoontash model that are used in the calibration, in-
cluding a description of how each parameter is used. Also note that
for the calibration, the strut area and other infill parameters are not
pre-determined using previously developed equations. Instead, a
unit cross section area is used for the strut such that the calibrated
stress parameters (for example, eNf 1 ) are equal to the actual strut
force values.
A calibration example for specimen TA2 of the experimental
investigation by Morandi et al. (2014) is illustrated in Fig. 4.
The experimental hysteretic curve of the infilled frame is shown
with the solid line in Fig. 4(a), while the numerical simulation result
is represented by the dashed line. A reasonable match between the
simulated and experimental hysteretic curve in terms of the overall
response envelope, pinching effect and cyclic degradation, is ob-
served. A further comparison is made between the cumulative en-
ergy dissipation of the experimental and simulated response, as
illustrated in Fig. 4(b), where the horizontal axis is the displace-
ment level of the test and the vertical axis is the cumulative energy.
A reasonable visual match is achieved between the experimental
and simulated results.
Fig. 5 further presents four calibration results based on experi-
ments by Cavaleri and Di Trapani (2014). Specimen S1B-2 is used
J. Struct. Eng.
 Table 5. Calibrated parameters in the Lowes-Mitra-Altoontash model
Parameter type Parameter name Description
Envelope eNd1 Strain in the infill strut at the yield point
eNf 1 Stress (force) in the infill strut at the yield point
eNd3 Strain in the infill strut at the capping point
eNf 3 Stress (force) in the infill strut at the capping point
eNd4 Strain in the infill strut at the point where the residual strength initiates
eNf 4 Stress (force) in the infill strut at the point where the residual strength initates
Unloading-reloading uForceN Stress (force) developed upon unloading from the tension branch
and pinching effects rDispN Strain at the start of reloading
rForceN Stress (force) at the start of reloading
uForceP Stress (force) developed upon unloading from the compression branch
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by CASA Institution Identity on 08/18/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Cyclic degradation gK 1 Controls unloading stiffness degradation

gK 3 Controls unloading stiffness degradation
gKLim Damage index limit for unloading stiffness degradation
gD1 Controls reloading stiffness degradation
gD3 Controls reloading stiffness degradation
gDLim Damage index limit for reloading stiffness degradation
gF1 Controls strength degradation
gF3 Controls strength degradation
gFLim Damage index limit for strength degradation

Fig. 4. Calibration result for specimen TA2 in Morandi et al. (2014): (a) hysteretic response; and (b) cumulative energy dissipation.

as an example to illustrate the process for determining the transition
point between the negative post-peak stiffness and the residual
strength ðeNd4; eNf4Þ [the circled point in Fig. 5(a)]. This point
is estimated by observing the start of the stabilizing portion of the
hysteretic response, where the load remains approximately constant
with increased displacement. Once the residual strength transition
point is identified, the corresponding deformation is converted to
the diagonal direction and used as eNd4 (needs to be divided by ld
to obtain strain) in the Lowes-Mitra-Altoontash model. eNf4,
which specifies the strut residual strength, is then adjusted until the
simulated hysteretic response of the entire infilled frame reasonably
matches the experimental response, as shown in the calibration re-
sult in Fig. 5(a).
The calibration process is performed on the data set of
113 specimens until an adequate visual match between experimen-
tal and simulated response is achieved for each experiment.
For experiments with available digital force-deformation data, a
cumulative energy dissipation comparison is also conducted for
further validation.
Empirical Model for the Backbone Curve Parameters
of the Equivalent Infill Struts
This section presents the statistical analysis results for the cali-
brated model parameters that define the axial force-displacement
relationship of the infill struts. The main focus of this paper is
calibrating and predicting the force-displacement parameters that
define the backbone curve, which can be used to model the infill
struts using pinching materials such as the one by Lowes-Mitra-
Altoontash and others (e.g., peak-oriented models like the Ibarra-
Medina-Krawinkler model). These parameters are presented here as

© ASCE 04020079-6 J. Struct. Eng.

J. Struct. Eng., 2020, 146(6): 04020079

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by CASA Institution Identity on 08/18/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 5. Calibration results for specimens: (a) S1B-2; (b) S1A-1; (c) S1C-1; and (d) S1C-3 of the Cavaleri and Di Trapani (2014) experiments.

Table 6. Relationship between the infill strut backbone parameters and

those of the Lowes-Mitra-Altoontash model
Calibrated Lowes-Mitra-
Backbone parameter Altoontash model parameters
eNf 1
Ke
eNd1 · ld
Fy eNf 1
Fc eNf 3
dc eNd3 · ld
eNf 4 − eNf3
K pc
ðeNd4 − eNd3 Þld
Fres eNf 4
Note: Unit strut area is used so the calibrated stress is the same as the
associated force.

Fig. 6. Axial force-deformation response of the infill strut model.
the initial stiffness (K e ), the yield strength (Fy ), the capping strength
(Fc ), the deformation corresponding to the capping strength (dc ),
the post-capping stiffness (K pc ), and the residual strength (Fres ),
as shown in Fig. 6. Table 6 provides the relationship between
these backbone parameters and those that define the Lowes-Mitra-
Altoontash model. An empirical equation is established to relate each
backbone parameter to several geometric and material properties of
the infilled frame. No regression analysis is performed for the pinch-
ing and cyclic degradation parameters. However, recommendations
for the appropriate range of the parameter values are presented later
in this section.

© ASCE 04020079-7 J. Struct. Eng.

J. Struct. Eng., 2020, 146(6): 04020079

 The empirical model is developed using multivariate regression
analysis. The general functional form is an additive model in the
logarithmic scale, which is given by
d
lnðYÞ ¼ lnðYÞþϵ ¼ β 0 þβ 1 lnðX 1 Þþβ 2 lnðX 2 Þþ ··· þβ p lnðX p Þþϵ
ð2Þ
ϵ ∼ Nð0; σ2 Þ ð3Þ
where Y = the strut model parameter (response variable), fX j jj ¼
1; 2; : : : pg = the predictor variables (each represents a structural
property), fβ j jj ¼ 0; 1; : : : pg = the regression coefficients, ϵ =
a random error term, and σ2 = an unknown constant variance of
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by CASA Institution Identity on 08/18/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
ϵ. This functional form has been adopted in empirical models
for the response parameters for steel components (Lignos and
Krawinkler 2011), reinforced concrete beam-column elements
(Haselton et al. 2008, 2016), and reinforced concrete beam-column
joints (Jeon et al. 2014). After obtaining the regression coefficients,
the resulting equation can be equivalently expressed in the original
space using a multiplicative functional form
Y ¼ eβ 0 ðX 1 Þβ1 ðX 2 Þβ2 : : : ðX p Þβp ð4Þ
which is more comparable to the form of the mechanistic analyti-
cal relationships between the response parameters and structural
properties.
The adequacy of the predictive model is evaluated using the co-
efficient of determination (R2 ) and the residual standard error (σ), ^
which is an estimate of the standard deviation (σ) of the random
error term (ε) that quantifies the uncertainty in the model predic-
tion. Note that the R2 and σ^ values are evaluated based on the re-
gression model developed using the functional form in Eqs. (2) and
(3), not the transformed multiplicative form in Eq. (4).
As a first step toward developing the empirical equations, the
trends between each model parameter and several geometric and
material properties are investigated to gain a general understanding
of the relationships and to select the necessary variables to be used
in the regression analysis. The trends are illustrated using a set of
scatterplots. A linear trend line is shown in each plot to illustrate the
relationship between the model parameter and the predictor varia-
bles. This line only serves as an illustration and does not represent
the final equation because the actual regression model takes on the
multivariate nonlinear form shown in Eq. (2).
Multivariate regression analysis is performed for each backbone
parameter, incorporating the predictor variables deemed influential
based on a prior understanding of the basic mechanics that govern
infilled frame behavior (after reviewing the prior literature) and
from the trend analysis. A stepwise selection strategy based on
the F test is implemented to exclude predictors that are not statisti-
cally significant at the 95% level (Haselton et al. 2008; Hocking
1976; Lignos and Krawinkler 2011). Once an initial model is ob-
tained, an outlier detection strategy based on plotting jackknifed
residuals (Cook and Weisberg 1982) against predicted values is
performed to determine whether some data points need to be re-
moved to obtain a final model.
Empirical Equation for Initial Stiffness K e
Fig. 7 shows the trends between the initial stiffness K e and six
structural parameters. An increase in Em , fm , tw , ld , and λhcol are
associated with an increase in K e , while an increase in hw =lw results
in a decrease in K e .
Table 7 presents a summary of the regression results including
all six predictors discussed earlier. Based on the individual t-tests,
© ASCE 04020079-8
J. Struct. Eng., 2020, 146(6): 04020079
lnðfm Þ, lnðλhcol Þ, lnðld Þ and the intercept term are not significant at
the 95% level. Tables 8–10 present, in sequence, the results from
performing backward stepwise elimination based on an F-test
(Hocking 1976). At each round, the variable with the smallest in-
fluence on the prediction is eliminated, as indicated with “*” in
Tables 8–10. After performing three rounds of backward elimina-
tion, the remaining variables are all significant at the 95% level
based on the F-test.
Fig. 8 shows the residual plot after fitting the reduced model
[with lnðEm Þ, lnðtw Þ, and lnðhw =lw Þ as predictors]. The jackknifed
residual (t) is plotted against the predicted lnðK e Þ value. The resid-
uals are generally evenly scattered and no curved pattern is ob-
served, which indicates reasonable model performance. The solid
lines added to the plot represent a boundary of jtj ¼ 2. Based on a
rule of thumb (Cook and Weisberg 1982), seven data points with
jtj > 2 are detected as outliers and subsequently removed. Note that
the intercept term is statistically insignificant based on the t-test.
However, it is included in the final model because excluding it in-
troduces significant bias when removing the outliers and refitting
the regression model.
Eq. (5) presents the empirical equation for K e obtained from the
analysis discussed previously
 −1.096
0.618 0.694 hw
K e ¼ 0.0143Em tw
lw
R2 ¼ 0.54; σ̂ ¼ 0.56 ð5Þ
where K e , Em , and tw are in units of kN=mm, MPa, and mm, re-
spectively. An alternative way to estimate K e incorporating the
results from the statistical analysis is by using the following ana-
lytical formulation:
E m A e E m w e tw
Ke ¼ ¼ ð6Þ
ld ld
where Ae = the equivalent diagonal strut area, we = the effective
strut width. The empirical formulation Eq. (5) incorporates the
positive effects of Em and tw on K e , while the effect of we =ld
is implicitly accounted for by hw =lw. To use Eq. (6), the effective
width we needs to be determined. A widely used empirical equa-
tion for estimating the effective width is given by (Mainstone
1971)
we ¼ ðλhcol Þ−0.175 ld ð7Þ
Based on the data set used in this study, another empirical equa-
tion for effective width can be provided as follows:
1. From Eq. (6), the ratio between the effective width we and strut
length ld can be derived when K e , Em , tw , and ld are given
we Ke
¼ ð8Þ
ld E m tw
Thus, we =ld can be determined for all the specimens in the
current data set.
2. Subsequently, a regression analysis is performed on we =ld ,
resulting in the following equation:
 −0.871
we h
¼ 0.318ðλhcol Þ−0.661 w
ld lw
R2 ¼ 0.25; σ̂ ¼ 0.59 ð9Þ
Eq. (9) is consistent with Eq. (7) because it does not introduce a
new variable [see Eq. (1), the formula for λhcol ], so it is an adjusted
J. Struct. Eng.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by CASA Institution Identity on 08/18/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 7. Trends between K e and (a) Em ; (b) fm ; (c) hw =lw ; (d) tw ; (e) ld ; and (f) λhcol .

Table 7. Summary of regression the results for the proposed empirical Table 9. Stepwise elimination based on the partial F-test (round 2)
model including all six parameters
Predictors F statistic P value
Standard
lnðλhcol Þ 1.44 0.23
Predictors Coefficient error t value P value
lnðld Þ 3.87 0.05
lnðtw Þ 1.13 0.24 4.63 1 × 10−5 lnðtw Þ 31.03 1.91 × 10−7
lnðEm Þ 0.72 0.15 4.90 3.44 × 10−6 lnðEm Þ 42.52 2.37 × 10−9
lnðhw =lw Þ −1.16 0.30 −3.86 1.98 × 10−4 lnðhw =lw Þ 15.64 1.38 × 10−4
lnðfm Þ −0.06 0.14 −0.46 0.65
lnðld Þ −0.53 0.31 −1.70 0.09
lnðλhcol Þ −0.34 0.28 −1.23 0.22 Table 10. Stepwise elimination based on the partial F-test (round 3)
Intercept −2.49 2.05 −1.22 0.23
Predictors F statistic P value
lnðld Þ 3.29 0.07
Table 8. Stepwise elimination based on the partial F-test (round 1) lnðtw Þ 30.19 2.64 × 10−7
lnðEm Þ 59.67 6.11 × 10−12
Predictors F statistic P value
lnðhw =lw Þ 18.25 4.19 × 10−5
ln ðfm Þ 0.21 0.65
lnðλhcol Þ 1.52 0.22
lnðld Þ 2.89 0.09 version of Eq. (7) based on the current data set. The much lower R2
lnðtw Þ 21.48 1.03 × 10−5 value obtained for we =ld (0.25) compared to K e (0.54) [based on
lnðEm Þ 24.03 3.44 × 10−6 Eq. (5)] is worth noting and may influence the decision regarding
lnðhw =lw Þ 14.87 1.98 × 10−4
which of the two formulations [Eq. (5) or (6)] to use.

© ASCE 04020079-9 J. Struct. Eng.

J. Struct. Eng., 2020, 146(6): 04020079

 Empirical Equation for the Capping Strength F c effects of Em and fm on Fc . The actual effects need to be examined
based on a fundamental understanding of the mechanics governing
Fig. 9 shows the trends for the calibrated Fc . Strong associations
the behavior of infilled frames and multivariate statistics.
between Fc and both tw and ld can be observed. It is worth noting
Eq. (10) presents the equation obtained from the regression
that the lines in Figs. 9(a and b) do not represent the univariate
analysis. It is observed that f m and tw are positively correlated with
Fc , which is consistent with our understanding of the basic me-
chanics governing the response of infilled frames

Fc ¼ 0.003766f0.196
m t0.867
w l0.792
d

R2 ¼ 0.80; σ̂ ¼ 0.38 ð10Þ

where Fc , fm , tw , and ld are in units of kN, MPa, and mm, respec-

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by CASA Institution Identity on 08/18/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

tively. From the standpoint of basic mechanics, the capping

strength Fc is known to be positively correlated with the compres-
sive strength of the infill f m , the thickness of infill and the effec-
tive strut width (or contact length between the frame and infill) at
crushing, which is proportional to the strut length ld [Eq. (7)].
Moreover, the physical validity of Eq. (10) is consistent with sev-
eral previously developed empirical equations (Mainstone and
Weeks 1974; Paulay and Priestley 2009), but with the λhcol
Fig. 8. Residual plot for lnðK e Þ.
parameter excluded.

Fig. 9. Trends between Fc and (a) Em ; (b) fm ; (c) hw =lw ; (d) tw ; (e) ld ; and (f) λhcol .

© ASCE 04020079-10 J. Struct. Eng.

J. Struct. Eng., 2020, 146(6): 04020079


Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by CASA Institution Identity on 08/18/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Fig. 10. Relationship between Fy and Fc .
Fig. 11. Relationship between Fres and Fc .
Empirical Equation for the “Yield” Strength F y
Fig. 10 shows a scatterplot of Fy against Fc . A strong association
between Fy and Fc is observed. Therefore, Fy can be simply com-
puted as a proportion of Fc after the latter is determined. After
regressing Fy against Fc , a simple equation is obtained
Fy ¼ 0.72Fc R2 ¼ 0.98; σ̂ ¼ 0.13 ð11Þ
Eq. (11) provides a simplified approach to estimating the yield
point in the backbone curve using Fc , which is consistent with pre-
viously developed models (e.g., Stavridis et al. 2017; Dolšek and
Fajfar 2008).
Empirical Equation for the Residual Strength F r es
The analysis for Fres is based on 75 experimental observations
where the residual strength is reached as indicated by the load-
displacement curves. Fig. 11 shows a strong trend between the cali-
brated Fres and Fc . Therefore, similar to Fy , Eq. (12) provides a
simplified approach to estimating Fres using Fc .
The obtained empirical equation is given by
Fres ¼ 0.4Fc R2 ¼ 0.81; σ^ ¼ 0.41 ð12Þ
Empirical Equation for Deformation at
Peak Strength d c
This subsection presents the analysis of the axial deformation of
the infill strut at peak strength (dc ) normalized by the length of the
© ASCE 04020079-11
J. Struct. Eng., 2020, 146(6): 04020079
strut (ld ). Fig. 12 shows the relationships between dc =ld and five
potential predictors. An increase in hw =lw and tw leads to a larger
dc =ld value, while a higher Em decreases dc =ld . A significant as-
sociation between dc =ld and λhcol is not observed in the scatterplot.
The obtained equation is presented in Eq. (13)
 0.978
dc hw
¼ 0.0154E−0.197
m
ld lw
R2 ¼ 0.34; σ̂ ¼ 0.47 ð13Þ
As Em increases, the infill panel becomes stiffer and the capping
strength is reached at smaller displacement. As the aspect ratio hlww
increases, the entire frame tends to have a more ductile response,
and the infill panel often crushes because of compression at large
drifts instead of sliding shear, which tends to occur at smaller drift
demands. As a result, the displacement at the point where the
strength starts to degrade tends to be larger.
Empirical Equation for the Ratio between the
Post-Capping Stiffness and Initial Stiffness K pc =K e
Fig. 13 presents the trends between the ratio of the post-capping
to initial stiffness (K pc =K e ) and six parameters. Increases in Em ,
fm , tw , and λhcol are associated with an increase in K pc =K e
(a decrease in magnitude because K pc is negative). The aspect ratio
of the infill (hw =lw ) does not appear to have a significant influence
on K pc =K e .
The empirical equation for K pc =K e is given by
K pc
¼ −1.278f −0.357
m tw −0.517
Ke
R2 ¼ 0.32; σ̂ ¼ 0.46 ð14Þ
where fm and tw are in units of MPa and mm, respectively.
It is worth noting that the R2 values for Eqs. (13) and (14)
are relatively low. This means that the variance of the response var-
iable is not fully captured by the adopted predictors. Nevertheless,
the statistical significance indicates that the predictors provide
valuable information about the response variable. More impor-
tantly, the computed coefficients can reasonably capture the rela-
tionships between the response variable and the adopted predictors.
Fig. 14 presents comparisons between the parameter values pre-
dicted using the developed empirical equations and the original
calibrated parameters after removing the outlier datapoints. The
mean and median of the ratios of the predicted to calibrated param-
eter values are listed in Table 11. The ranges of the mean and
median ratios are 0.95–1.14 and 0.84–1.08, respectively, indicating
that the empirical models predict the backbone parameters with
reasonable accuracy.
Cyclic Degradation and Pinching Parameters
This section discusses the calibration results for the parameters that
control the cyclic degradation and pinching effects which are not
included in the regression analysis. Although the material models
provide well-defined rules to simulate the response incorporating
the degradation effects, the influence of the structural characteris-
tics on the degradation parameters could not be extracted from the
experimental data and is still not well understood. More in-depth
studies are necessary in this respect. Nevertheless, the statistical
values of these degradation parameters are used to recommend
appropriate ranges for use in numerical modeling.
J. Struct. Eng.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by CASA Institution Identity on 08/18/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 12. Trends between dc =ld and (a) Em ; (b) fm ; (c) hw =lw ; (d) tw ; and (e) λhcol .

As discussed earlier, this study assumes gK 2 , gK 4 , gD2 , gD4 ,
gF2 , and gF4 to be zero. Three sets of parameters: ðgK 1 ; gK 3 ;
gKLimÞ, ðgD1 ; gD3 ; gDLimÞ, and ðgF1 ; gF3 ; gFLimÞ, are used
to relate cyclic unloading stiffness degradation, reloading stiffness
degradation, and strength degradation to the displacement history.
Table 12 presents the statistical summary of the calibrated cyclic
degradation parameters. In general, using values close to the mean
in Table 12 provides an approximate match between the simulated
and experimental hysteretic curves. A more precise match requires
further adjustments.
Table 13 presents the statistical summary for the parameters that
control the pinching effect. rDispP and rForceP are assumed to
be 0.2 and 0.5, respectively, as discussed earlier. The pinching
parameters vary significantly across different specimens. Therefore,
a generalized set of values might not provide a reliable approxima-
tion. However, the ranges of values presented in Table 13 can provide
some suggestions for setting these parameters. uForceP is usually
assigned a negative value. The larger magnitude of this parameter is
because the actual pinching point is adjusted by uForceP · ePf3,
while ePf 3 is a tension branch parameter that is set to be small,
as discussed in the calibration process. The ranges of rDispN,
rForceN, and uForceN are 0.02–0.3, 0.02–0.4, and 0–0.3,
respectively.
Conclusion
The main purpose of this study is to characterize the nonlinear
force-deformation parameters of infill panels modeled using equiv-
alent diagonal struts, which is essential to performing reliable sim-
ulations of the nonlinear response of infilled frame systems subject
to seismic loads and performance-based assessments.
An experimental database of infilled frames was assembled as
part of the study. The entire database consists of 264 infilled frame
specimens subjected to monotonic, quasi-static, and pseudo-
dynamic loading, among which 191 specimens have reinforced
concrete frames and 73 specimens have steel frames. To achieve
consistency in the generalized modeling assumptions, 113 rein-
forced concrete infilled frame specimens are used to calibrate
and develop empirical equations for the infill strut backbone curve
parameters.

© ASCE 04020079-12 J. Struct. Eng.

J. Struct. Eng., 2020, 146(6): 04020079

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by CASA Institution Identity on 08/18/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 13. Trends between K pc =K e and (a) Em ; (b) f m ; (c) hw =lw ; (d) tw (e) ld ; and (f) λhcol .

The calibration of the strut model parameters is based on the
pinching material model proposed by Lowes et al. (2004). An iter-
ative procedure is used such that the simulated lateral hysteretic re-
sponse curve of the entire one-bay one-story infilled frame achieves a
good visual match with the values reported in the experiment.
Based on the calibration results, multivariate regression analyses
are performed to develop empirical predictive equations for the
backbone curve parameters of equivalent diagonal struts, including
the initial stiffness (K e ), the yield strength (Fy ), the capping
strength (Fc ), the deformation at capping strength normalized by
the strut length (dc =ld ), the post-capping stiffness (K pc ), and the
residual strength (Fres ). The predictor variables include several
geometric and material properties of the infill panels, which are
easily obtained from design or experimental documentation. The
prediction errors are quantified to inform the uncertainties associ-
ated with using the empirical equations. Statistical information for
the parameters controlling pinching effects and cyclic degradation
is also presented and discussed. Despite using a pinching material
as the basis of the calibration, the backbone curve parameters ob-
tained from the empirical equations can be used for modeling infill
struts with non-pinching materials (e.g., the peak-oriented hysteretic
material model). Subsequently, the strut model can be incorporated
in the nonlinear analysis models of multi-bay multi-story masonry
infilled reinforced concrete frame systems for limit state (e.g., col-
lapse, demolition) assessments.
There are several unavoidable limitations associated with the
current study. Although the collected database covers a variety
of masonry-infilled frame tests, the primary scope of this study
is on reinforced concrete frames with unreinforced solid infill pan-
els, which limits the number of specimens that can be utilized in the
calibration and the applicability of the empirical equations. Further
research efforts incorporating specimens with other characteristics,
such as masonry panels with openings and masonry infilled steel
frames, are needed to support the development of more generalized
and comprehensive empirical models. In addition, because of the
differences in the objectives and details provided among the pub-
lications used to assemble the database, several structural properties
having potential influence on the nonlinear behavior of the infill
panels could not be collected for many of the test specimens, which
reduces the range of available predictors. The calibration process is
based on a simplified numerical model that is able to capture the
global seismic response of the infilled frame. The accuracy of the
calibration could be further improved by using more complex
numerical models for the frame and infill. Also, the developed

© ASCE 04020079-13 J. Struct. Eng.

J. Struct. Eng., 2020, 146(6): 04020079

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by CASA Institution Identity on 08/18/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 14. Calibrated versus predicted response parameters: (a) K e ; (b) Fc ; (c) Fy ; (d) Fres ; (e) dc =ld ; and (f) K pc =K e .

Table 11. Mean and median of the ratio of the predicted to the calibrated Table 12. Statistical summary of the cyclic degradation parameters
parameters
Summary gK 1 gK 3 gKLim gD1 gD3 gDLim gF1 gF3 gFLim
Statistics Ke Fc Fy Fres dc =ld K pc =K e
Min 0.2 0.05 0.10 0.18 0.10 0.06 0.00 0.00 0.00
Mean 1.14 1.06 0.99 0.95 1.11 1.11 Max 0.9 0.50 0.95 1.50 1.50 0.70 1.00 1.50 0.30
Median 1.08 1.03 0.97 0.84 1.00 0.97 Median 0.75 0.20 0.95 0.50 0.20 0.25 0.80 0.90 0.20
Mean 0.69 0.22 0.92 0.57 0.36 0.26 0.75 0.98 0.18
COVa 0.26 0.49 0.13 0.34 0.87 0.36 0.19 0.28 0.26
a
Coefficient of variation.
empirical equations are for the backbone curve parameters of the
infill struts. The parameters associated with pinching effects and
cyclic degradation have not been examined in detail. More in-depth models was evaluated using the training data (i.e., the same data
studies are needed to improve the characterization of these param- used to develop the model). Ideally, the model performance should
eters. Finally, because of the small number (relatively speaking) of be evaluated using a data set that is different from the one used in its
available experiments, the predictive capability of the empirical development (i.e., testing data).

© ASCE 04020079-14 J. Struct. Eng.

J. Struct. Eng., 2020, 146(6): 04020079

 Table 13. Statistical summary of the pinching parameters
Summary uForceP rDispN rForceN uForceN
Min −50.00 0.02 0.02 0.00
Max 0 0.30 0.40 0.30
Median 0 0.15 0.25 0.15
Mean −11.46 0.16 0.22 0.13
COVa −1.30 0.37 0.46 0.60
a
Coefficient of variation.
References
Abdul-Kadir, M. R. 1974. “The structural behaviour of masonry infill
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by CASA Institution Identity on 08/18/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
panels in framed structures.” Ph.D. dissertation, Dept. of Civil Engi-
neering and Building Science, Univ. of Edinburgh.
Akhoundi, F., G. Vasconcelos, P. Lourenço, L. M. Silva, F. Cunha, and
R. Fangueiro. 2018. “In-plane behavior of cavity masonry infills and
strengthening with textile reinforced mortar.” Eng. Struct. 156 (Feb):
145–160. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2017.11.002.
Al-Chaar, G., M. Issa, and S. Sweeney. 2002. “Behavior of masonry-
infilled nonductile reinforced concrete frames.” J. Struct. Eng.
128 (8): 1055–1063. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9445(2002)
128:8(1055).
Angel, R. A., P. Daniel, D. Shapiro, J. Uzarski, and M. Webster. 1994.
Behavior of reinforced concrete frames with masonry infills. Civil
Engineering Studies SRS-589. Champaign, IL: Univ. of Illinois Engi-
neering Experiment Station, College of Engineering, Univ. of Illinois at
Urbana-Champaign.
Anil, Ö., and S. Altin. 2007. “An experimental study on reinforced concrete
partially infilled frames.” Eng. Struct. 29 (3): 449–460. https://doi.org
/10.1016/j.engstruct.2006.05.011.
ASCE. 2017. Seismic evaluation and retrofit of existing buildings. ASCE
41. Reston, VA: ASCE.
Asteris, P., K. Demetrios, C. Chrysostomou, and E. Smyrou. 2011. “Failure
modes of in-filled frames.” Electron. J. Struct. Eng. 11 (1): 11–20.
Baran, M., and T. Sevil. 2010. “Analytical and experimental studies on
infilled RC frames.” Int. J. Phys. Sci. 5 (13): 1981–1998.
Basha, S. H., and H. B. Kaushik. 2016. “Behavior and failure mechanisms
of masonry-infilled RC frames (in low-rise buildings) subject to lateral
loading.” Eng. Struct. 111 (Mar): 233–245. https://doi.org/10.1016/j
.engstruct.2015.12.034.
Bergami, A., and C. Nuti. 2015. “Experimental tests and global modeling
of masonry infilled frames.” Earthquake Struct. 9 (2): 281–303. https://
doi.org/10.12989/eas.2015.9.2.281.
Billington, S. L., M. A. Kyriakides, B. Blackard, K. Willam, A. Stavridis,
and P. B. Shing. 2009. “Evaluation of a sprayable, ductile cement-based
composite for the seismic retrofit of unreinforced masonry infills.” In
Proc., ATC and SEI 2009 Conf. on Improving the Seismic Performance
of Existing Buildings and Other Structures. Reston, VA: ASCE.
Blackard, B., K. Willam, and M. Sivaselvan. 2009. Experimental observa-
tions of masonry infilled reinforced concrete frames with openings.
Special Publication SP-265. Farmington Hills, MI: American Concrete
Institute.
Bose, S., J. Martin, and A. Stavridis. 2018. “Framework for the nonlinear
dynamic simulation of the seismic response of infilled RC frames.” In
Proc., 11th US National Conf. on Earthquake Engineering. Oakland,
CA: Earthquake Engineering Research Institute.
Bose, S., and D. C. Rai. 2014. “Behavior of AAC infilled RC frame under
lateral loading.” In Proc., 10th US National Conf. on Earthquake
Engineering, Frontiers of Earthquake Engineering. Oakland, CA:
Earthquake Engineering Research Institute.
Bose, S., and A. Stavridis. 2018. “Modeling of the seismic performance of
building with infilled RC frames.” In Proc., 11th US National Conf. on
Earthquake Engineering. Oakland, CA: Earthquake Engineering
Research Institute.
Bouc, R. 1967. “Forced vibration of mechanical systems with hysteresis.”
In Proc., 4th Conf. on Nonlinear Oscillation. Prague, Czech: Academia.
© ASCE 04020079-15
J. Struct. Eng., 2020, 146(6): 04020079
Burton, H., and G. Deierlein. 2014. “Simulation of seismic collapse in
nonductile reinforced concrete frame buildings with masonry infills.”
J. Struct. Eng. 140 (8): A4014016. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)ST
.1943-541X.0000921.
Calvi, G. M., and D. Bolognini. 2008. “Seismic response of reinforced
concrete frames infilled with weakly reinforced masonry panels.”
J. Earthquake Eng. 5 (2): 153–185. https://doi.org/10.1080
/13632460109350390.
Cavaleri, L., and F. Di Trapani. 2014. “Cyclic response of masonry infilled
RC frames: Experimental results and simplified modeling.” Soil Dyn.
Earthquake Eng. 65 (Oct): 224–242. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soildyn
.2014.06.016.
Cavaleri, L., M. Fossetti, and M. Papia. 2005. “Infilled frames: Develop-
ments in the evaluation of cyclic behaviour under lateral loads.” Struct.
Eng. Mech. 21 (4): 469–494. https://doi.org/10.12989/sem.2005.21
.4.469.
Chiou, T.-C., and S.-J. Hwang. 2015. “Tests on cyclic behavior of rein-
forced concrete frames with brick infill.” Earthquake Eng. Struct.
Dyn. 44 (12): 1939–1958. https://doi.org/10.1002/eqe.2564.
Chrysostomou, C. Z., P. Gergely, and J. F. Abel. 2002. “A six-strut model
for nonlinear dynamic analysis of steel infilled frames.” Int. J. Struct.
Stab. Dyn. 2 (3): 335–353. https://doi.org/10.1142/S021945540200
0567.
Colangelo, F. 2005. “Pseudo-dynamic seismic response of reinforced con-
crete frames infilled with non-structural brick masonry.” Earthquake
Eng. Struct. Dyn. 34 (10): 1219–1241. https://doi.org/10.1002/eqe.477.
Combescure, D., F. Pires, P. Cerqueira, and P. Pegon. 1996. “Test on ma-
sonry Infilled RC frames and its numerical interpretation.” In Proc.,
11th World Conf. on Earthquake Engineering. Oxford, UK: Pergamon.
Cook, R. D., and S. Weisberg. 1982. Residuals and Influence in Regres-
sion. New York: Chapman and Hall.
Crisafulli, F. J. 1997. “Seismic behaviour of reinforced concrete structures
with masonry infills.” Ph.D. dissertation, Dept. of Civil Engineering,
Univ. of Canterbury.
Crisafulli, F. J., and A. J. Carr. 2007. “Proposed macro-model for the analy-
sis of infilled frame structures.” Bull. N. Z. Soc. Earthquake Eng. 40 (2):
69–77. https://doi.org/10.5459/bnzsee.40.2.69-77.
Da Porto, F., G. Guidi, M. Dalla Benetta, and N. Verlato. 2013. “Combined
in-plane/out-of-plane experimental behaviour of reinforced and
strengthened infill masonry walls.” In Proc., 12th Canadian Masonry
Symp. Longmont, CO: Masonry Society.
Dautaj, A. D., Q. Kadiri, and N. Kabashi. 2018. “Experimental study on the
contribution of masonry infill in the behavior of RC frame under seis-
mic loading.” Eng. Struct. 165 (Jun): 27–37. https://doi.org/10.1016/j
.engstruct.2018.03.013.
Dawe, J. L., and C. K. Seah. 1989. “Behaviour of masonry infilled
steel frames.” Can. J. Civ. Eng. 16 (6): 865–876. https://doi.org/10
.1139/l89-129.
Decanini, L. D., and G. E. Fantin. 1986. “Modelos simplificados de la
mampostería incluidas en porticos. Características de rigidez y resistencia
lateral en estado límite.” In Proc., 6th Jornadas Argentinas de Ingenierìa
Estructural, 817–836. Buenos Aires, Argentina: Asociacion de
Ingenieros Estructurales.
De Risi, M. T., C. Del Gaudio, P. Ricci, and G. M. Verderame. 2018.
“In-plane behaviour and damage assessment of masonry infills with
hollow clay bricks in RC frames.” Eng. Struct. 168 (Aug): 257–275.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2018.04.065.
Dolšek, M., and P. Fajfar. 2008. “The effect of masonry infills on the seis-
mic response of a four-storey reinforced concrete frame: A deterministic
assessment.” Eng. Struct. 30 (7): 1991–2001. https://doi.org/10.1016/j
.engstruct.2008.01.001.
El-Dakhakhni, W. W., M. Elgaaly, and A. A. Hamid. 2003. “Three-strut
model for concrete masonry-infilled steel frames.” J. Struct. Eng.
129 (2): 177–185. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9445(2003)
129:2(177).
Elwood, K. J. 2004. “Modelling failures in existing reinforced concrete
columns.” Can. J. Civ. Eng. 31 (5): 846–859. https://doi.org/10.1139
/l04-040.
J. Struct. Eng.
 FEMA. 2000. Evaluation of earthquake damaged concrete and masonry
wall buildings: Basic procedures manual. FEMA 306. Washington,
DC: FEMA.
Fiorato, A. E., M. A. Sozen, and W. L. Gamble. 1970. An investigation of
the interaction of reinforced concrete frames with masonry filler walls.
Civil Engineering Studies SRS-370. Champaign, IL: Univ. of Illinois
Engineering Experiment Station, College of Engineering, Univ. of
Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.
Flanagan, R. D., and R. M. Bennett. 1999. “In-plane behavior of structural
clay tile infilled frames.” J. Struct. Eng. 125 (6): 590–599. https://doi
.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9445(1999)125:6(590).
Furtado, A., H. Rodrigues, and A. Arêde. 2015. “Modelling of masonry
infill walls participation in the seismic behaviour of RC buildings using
OpenSees.” Int. J. Adv. Struct. Eng. 7 (2): 117–127. https://doi.org/10
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by CASA Institution Identity on 08/18/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
.1007/s40091-015-0086-5.
Gazic, G., and V. Sigmund. 2016. “Cyclic testing of single-span weak
frames with masonry infill.” Grad evinar 68 (8): 617–633.
Haider, S. 1995. “In-plane cyclic response of reinforced concrete frames
with unreinforced masonry infills.” Ph.D. dissertation, Dept. of Civil
and Environmental Engineering, Rice Univ.
Haselton, C. B., A. B. Liel, S. L. Lange, and G. Deierlein. 2008. Beam-
column element model calibrated for predicting flexural response lead-
ing to global collapse of RC frame buildings. Berkeley, CA: Pacific
Earthquake Engineering Research Center.
Haselton, C. B., A. B. Liel, S. C. Taylor-Lange, and G. G. Deierlein. 2016.
“Calibration of model to simulate response of reinforced concrete
beam-columns to collapse.” ACI Struct. J. 113 (6): 1141–1152.
https://doi.org/10.14359/51689245.
Hocking, R. R. 1976. “A biometrics invited paper. The analysis and selec-
tion of variables in linear regression.” Biometrics 32 (1): 1–49. https://
doi.org/10.2307/2529336.
Holmes, M. 1961. “Steel frames with brickwork and concrete infilling.”
Proc. Inst. Civ. Eng. 19 (4): 473–478. https://doi.org/10.1680/iicep
.1961.11305.
Ibarra, L. F., R. A. Medina, and H. Krawinkler. 2005. “Hysteretic models
that incorporate strength and stiffness deterioration.” Earthquake Eng.
Struct. Dyn. 34 (12): 1489–1511. https://doi.org/10.1002/eqe.495.
Jeon, J.-S., A. Shafieezadeh, and R. Desroches. 2014. “Statistical models
for shear strength of RC beam-column joints using machine-learning
techniques.” Earthquake Eng. Struct. Dyn. 43 (14): 2075–2095.
https://doi.org/10.1002/eqe.2437.
Kakaletsis, D. J., and C. G. Karayannis. 2008. “Influence of masonry
strength and openings on infilled R/C frames under cycling loading.”
J. Earthquake Eng. 12 (2): 197–221. https://doi.org/10.1080/13632
460701299138.
Kaushik, H. B., D. C. Rai, and S. K. Jain. 2007. “Stress-strain character-
istics of clay brick masonry under uniaxial compression.” J. Mater. Civ.
Eng. 19 (9): 728–739. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0899-1561
(2007)19:9(728).
Khoshnoud, H. R., and K. Marsono. 2016. “Experimental study of masonry
infill reinforced concrete frames with and without corner openings.”
Struct. Eng. Mech. 57 (4): 641–656. https://doi.org/10.12989/sem
.2016.57.4.641.
Klingner, R. E., and V. V. Bertero. 1978. “Earthquake resistance of infilled
frames.” J. Struct. Div. 104 (6): 973–989.
Koliou, M., and A. Filiatrault. 2017. “Development of wood and steel
diaphragm hysteretic connector database for performance-based earth-
quake engineering.” Bull. Earthquake Eng. 15 (10): 4319–4347. https://
doi.org/10.1007/s10518-017-0141-7.
Kumar, M., M. Haider, and S. H. Lodi. 2016. “Response of low-quality
solid concrete block infilled frames.” Proc. Inst. Civ. Eng. Struct. Build.
169 (9): 669–687. https://doi.org/10.1680/jstbu.15.00068.
Leuchars, J. M., and J. C. Scrivener. 1976. “Masonry infill panels subjected
to cyclic in-plane loading.” Bull. N. Z. Nat. Soc. Earthquake Eng. 9 (2):
122–131.
Liberatore, L. 2001. “Approcci innovativi in termini di energia e di spos-
tamento per la valutazione della risposta sismica di strutture a più gradi
di libertà.” [In Italian.] Ph.D. Dissertation, Dept. of Structural and
Geotechnical Engineering, Univ. of Rome.
© ASCE 04020079-16
J. Struct. Eng., 2020, 146(6): 04020079
Liberatore, L., F. Noto, F. Mollaioli, and P. Franchin. 2017. “Comparative
assessment of strut models for the modelling of in-plane seismic re-
sponse of infill walls.” In Proc., 6th Int. Conf. on Computational Meth-
ods in Structural Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering (COMPDYN
2015). Athens, Greece: Institute of Structural Analysis and Antiseismic
Research, School of Civil Engineering, National Technical Univ. of
Athens.
Liberatore, L., F. Noto, F. Mollaioli, and P. Franchin. 2018. “In-plane re-
sponse of masonry infill walls: Comprehensive experimentally-based
equivalent strut model for deterministic and probabilistic analysis.”
Eng. Struct. 167 (Jul): 533–548. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct
.2018.04.057.
Lignos, D. G., and H. Krawinkler. 2011. “Deterioration modeling of steel
components in support of collapse prediction of steel moment frames
under earthquake loading.” J. Struct. Eng. 137 (11): 1291–1302. https://
doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)ST.1943-541X.0000376.
Liu, Y., and S. Soon. 2012. “Experimental study of concrete masonry infills
bounded by steel frames.” Can. J. Civ. Eng. 39 (2): 180–190. https://doi
.org/10.1139/l11-122.
Lowes, L., N. Mitra, and A. Altoontash. 2004. A beam-column joint model
for simulating the earthquake response of reinforced concrete frames.
PEER Rep. No. 2003/10. Berkeley, CA: Pacific Earthquake Engineer-
ing Research Center, Univ. of California.
Mainstone, R. J. 1971. “On the stiffness and strengths of infilled frame.”
Supplement, Proc. Inst. Civ. Eng. (S4): 57–90.
Mainstone, R. J., and G. A. Weeks. 1974. “The influence of a bounding
frame on the racking stiffness and strengths of brick walls.” In Proc.,
2nd Int. Brick Masonry Conf. Stoke-on-Trent, UK: British Ceramic
Research Association.
Mansouri, A., M. S. Marefat, and M. Khanmohammadi. 2014. “Experimen-
tal evaluation of seismic performance of low-shear strength masonry in-
fills with openings in reinforced concrete frames with deficient seismic
details.” Struct. Des. Tall Special Build. 23 (15): 1190–1210. https://doi
.org/10.1002/tal.1115.
Markulak, D., I. Radić, and V. Sigmund. 2013. “Cyclic testing of single bay
steel frames with various types of masonry infill.” Eng. Struct. 51 (Jun):
267–277. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2013.01.026.
Mckenna, F. T. 1999. “Object-oriented finite element programming: Frame-
works for analysis, algorithms and parallel computing.” Ph.D. dissertation,
Dept. of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Univ. of California,
Berkerley.
Mehrabi, A. B., P. Benson Shing, M. P. Schuller, and J. L. Noland. 1996.
“Experimental evaluation of masonry-infilled RC frames.” J. Struct.
Eng. 122 (3): 228–237. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9445
(1996)122:3(228).
Misir, I. S., O. Ozcelik, S. C. Girgin, and U. Yucel. 2016. “The behavior
of infill walls in RC frames under combined bidirectional loading.”
J. Earthquake Eng. 20 (4): 559–586. https://doi.org/10.1080/13632469
.2015.1104748.
Mohd-Yassin, M. H. 1994. “Nonlinear analysis of prestressed concrete
structures under monotonic and cycling loads.” Ph.D. dissertation,
Dept. of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Univ. of California,
Berkerley.
Morandi, P., S. Hak, and G. Magenes. 2014. “In-plane experimental re-
sponse of strong masonry infills.” In Proc., 9th Int. Masonry Conf.
Whyteleafe, UK: International Masonry Society.
Mosalam, K., R. N. White, and P. Gergely. 1997. “Static response of infilled
frames using quasi-static experimentation.” J. Struct. Eng. 123 (11):
1462–4169. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9445(1997)123:11
(1462).
Noh, N. M., L. Liberatore, F. Mollaioli, and S. Tesfamariam. 2017.
“Modelling of masonry infilled RC frames subjected to cyclic loads:
State of the art review and modelling with OpenSees.” Eng. Struct.
150: 599–621. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2017.07.002.
Panagiotakos, T. B., and M. N. Fardis. 1996. “Seismic response of infilled
RC frames structures.” In Proc., 11th World Conf. on Earthquake
Engineering. Oxford, UK: Pergamon.
Paulay, T., and M. J. N. Priestley. 2009. Seismic design of reinforced
concrete and masonry buildings. New York: Wiley.
J. Struct. Eng.
 Pires, F., R. Bairrão, A. Campos-Costal, E. Coelhoi, and J. Rodrigues.
1997. “Behavior of masonry infilled R/C frames under horizontal
loading experimental results.” In Proc., 11th Int. Brick/Block Masonry
Conf. Peking, China: China Association for Engineering Construction
Standardization.
Polyakov, S. V. 1960. “On the interaction between masonry filler walls
and enclosing frame when loaded in the plane of the wall.” Transl.
Earthquake Eng. 2 (3): 36–42.
Priestley, M. J. N., and G. M. Calvi. 1991. “Towards a capacity-design
assessment procedure for reinforced concrete frames.” Earthquake
Spectra 7 (3): 413–437. https://doi.org/10.1193/1.1585635.
Saneinejad, A., and B. Hobbs. 1995. “Inelastic design of infilled frames.”
J. Struct. Eng. 121 (4): 634–650. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733
-9445(1995)121:4(634).
Sattar, S. 2014. “Influence of masonry infill walls and other building
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by CASA Institution Identity on 08/18/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
characteristics on seismic collapse of concrete frame buildings.” Ph.D.
dissertation, Dept. of Civil, Environmental, and Architectural Engineer-
ing, Univ. of Colorado at Boulder.
Sattar, S., and A. B. Liel. 2016. “Seismic performance of nonductile rein-
forced concrete frames with masonry infill walls. I: Development of a
strut model enhanced by finite element models.” Earthquake Spectra
32 (2): 795–818. https://doi.org/10.1193/90914EQS139M.
Schwarz, S., A. Hanaor, and D. Z. Yankelevsky. 2015. “Experimental re-
sponse of reinforced concrete frames with AAC masonry infill walls to
in-plane cyclic loading.” Structures 3 (Aug): 306–319. https://doi.org
/10.1016/j.istruc.2015.06.005.
Scott, B. D., R. Park, and M. J. Priestley. 1982. “Stress-strain behavior of
concrete confined by overlapping hoops at low and high strain rates.”
Ame. Concr. Inst. J. 79 (1): 13–27.
Sigmund, V., and D. Penava. 2013. “Influence of openings, with and with-
out confinement, on cyclic response of infilled R-C frames: An exper-
imental study.” J. Earthquake Eng. 18 (1): 113–146. https://doi.org/10
.1080/13632469.2013.817362.
Stafford Smith, B., and C. Carter. 1969. “A method of analysis for infilled
frames.” Proc. Inst. Civ. Eng. 44 (1): 31–48. https://doi.org/10.1680
/iicep.1969.7290.
Stavridis, A., J. Martin, and S. Bose. 2017. “Updating the ASCE 41 pro-
visions for infilled RC frames.” In Proc., 2017 Structural Engineers
Association of California (SEAOC) Convention. Sacramento, CA:
Structural Engineers Association of California.
Stylianidis, K. 2012. “Experimental investigation of masonry infilled R/C
frames.” Open Constr. Build. Technol. J. 6 (1): 194–212. https://doi.org
/10.2174/1874836801206010194.
© ASCE 04020079-17
J. Struct. Eng., 2020, 146(6): 04020079
Tasnimi, A. A., and A. Mohebkhah. 2011. “Investigation on the behavior of
brick-infilled steel frames with openings, experimental and analytical
approaches.” Eng. Struct. 33 (3): 968–980. https://doi.org/10.1016/j
.engstruct.2010.12.018.
Tawfik Essa, A. S. A., M. R. Kotp Badr, and A. H. El-Zanaty. 2014. “Effect
of infill wall on the ductility and behavior of high strength reinforced
concrete frames.” HBRC J. 10 (3): 258–264. https://doi.org/10.1016/j
.hbrcj.2013.12.005.
Tempestti, J. M., and A. Stavridis. 2017. “Simplified analytical method to
predict the failure pattern of infilled RC frames.” In Proc., 16th World
Conf. on Earthquake Engineering. Oakland, CA: Earthquake Engineer-
ing Research Institute.
Tizapa, S. S. 2009. “Experimental and numerical study of confined ma-
sonry walls under in-plane loads. Case: Guerrero State (Mexico).”
Ph.D. dissertation, École Doctorale Materiaux-Ouvrages-Durabilité-
Environnement-Structures, Université Paris-Est.
Verderame, G., P. Ricci, C. Del Gaudio, and M. De Risi. 2016. “Experi-
mental tests on masonry infilled gravityand seismic-load designed RC
frames.” In Proc., 16th Int. Brick and Block Masonry Conf. London:
CRC Press.
Waly, A. A. 2000. “Experimental and analytical work on the seismic per-
formance of different types of masonry infilled reinforced concrete
frames under cyclic loading.” Master’s thesis, Graduate School of
Natural and Applied Sciences, Dokuz Eylül Univ.
Yorulmaz, M., and M. Sozen. 1968. Behavior of single-story reinforced
concrete frames with filler walls. Civil Engineering Studies SRS-337.
Champaign, IL: Univ. of Illinois Engineering Experiment Station,
College of Engineering, Univ. of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.
Yuksel, E., and P. Teymur. 2011. “Earthquake performance improvement of
low rise RC buildings using high strength clay brick walls.” Bull. Earth-
quake Eng. 9 (4): 1157–1181. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10518-010-9242-2.
Zarnic, R., and M. Tomazevic. 1985. “Study of the behaviour of masonry
infilled reinforced concrete frames subjected to seismic loading.” In
Proc., 7th Int. Conf. on Brick Masonry. Melbourne: Brick Development
Research Institute.
Zhai, C., J. Kong, X. Wang, and Z. Chen. 2016. “Experimental and finite
element nalytical Investigation of seismic behavior of full-scale ma-
sonry infilled RC frames.” J. Earthquake Eng. 20 (7): 1171–1198.
https://doi.org/10.1080/13632469.2016.1138171.
Zovkic, J., V. Sigmund, and I. Guljas. 2013. “Cyclic testing of a single bay
reinforced concrete frames with various types of masonry infill.” Earth-
quake Eng. Struct. Dyn. 42 (8): 1131–1149. https://doi.org/10.1002/eqe
.2263.
J. Struct. Eng.