Empirical Models for Lateral Stiffness and

Strength of Masonry-Infilled RC Frames

Considering the Influence of Openings
Syed Humayun Basha 1; Sachin Surendran 2; and Hemant B. Kaushik, M.ASCE 3
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Indian Institute of Technology Guwahati on 01/28/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Abstract: Lateral load behavior of reinforced concrete (RC) frames infilled with fly-ash brick masonry having various sizes of central
openings was investigated experimentally. Results showed that the infilled frames with openings exhibited significantly different lateral
load behavior than the corresponding infilled frames without openings. The drift limit states corresponding to commencement of major
events during the lateral loading (initiation of major cracks in frame members, peak load, and 80% of postpeak load) were found to improve
significantly due to the presence of openings when designed in accordance with current earthquake standards. The presence of openings in
masonry infills modifies two of the most important design parameters, lateral stiffness and strength, for which nonlinear prediction models
were developed by carrying out statistical analyses of the experimental results. Empirical models were used to estimate the stiffness and
strength of frames tested in past studies and were found to be more accurate and consistent compared with several existing predictive relations.
A normalized lateral load–drift relationship for different performance levels of such frames was also propounded based on the observed
damage events. The empirical equations can be used very conveniently to simulate the variations of stiffness and strength (global response) of
the infilled frames with openings under lateral loads. DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)ST.1943-541X.0002562. © 2020 American Society of Civil
Engineers.

Introduction
Masonry infill walls are commonly used as partition elements in
reinforced-concrete frame buildings. The presence of infills signifi-
cantly alters the lateral load behavior of frames in terms of strength,
stiffness, energy dissipation, and failure mechanisms. Infill walls
are generally considered nonstructural elements primarily due to
their brittle nature, their highly variable material properties, and
their unpredictable placement in buildings. This issue becomes
even more critical when openings are provided in infills. Signifi-
cant uncertainty lies in the evaluation of lateral load behavior of
such frames due to variability in the material properties of masonry
and the size and location of the openings (Decanini et al. 2014;
Choudhury and Kaushik 2018a). A sensitivity analysis of seismic
response of infilled RC frames showed that the uncertainty in infill
properties plays the most significant role in the variable lateral load
behavior of the frames (Choudhury and Kaushik 2018b). A large
number of experimental (Stafford-Smith 1962; Mainstone 1971;
Mehrabi et al. 1996; Al-Chaar et al. 2002; Blackard et al. 2009;
Basha and Kaushik 2019b) and numerical investigations (Polyakov
1960; Mainstone 1971; Crisafulli et al. 2000; Chrysostomou et al.
2002; Ghosh and Amde 2002; El-Dakhakhni et al. 2003; D’Ayala
et al. 2009; Chrysostomou and Asteris 2012; Asteris et al. 2016;
1
Postdoctoral Fellow, College of Civil Engineering, Huaqiao Univ.,
Xiamen 361021, China. Email: humayunbashasyed@gmail.com
2
Formerly, Graduate Student, Dept. of Civil Engineering, Indian Insti-
tute of Technology Guwahati, Guwahati 781039, India. ORCID: https://
orcid.org/0000-0003-4375-9001. Email: sachin.rit@gmail.com
3
Professor, Dept. of Civil Engineering, Indian Institute of Technology
Guwahati, Guwahati 781039, India (corresponding author). ORCID:
https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5896-6543. Email: hemantbk@iitg.ac.in
Note. This manuscript was submitted on February 9, 2019; approved on
September 3, 2019; published online on January 22, 2020. Discussion per-
iod open until June 22, 2020; separate discussions must be submitted for
individual papers. This paper is part of the Journal of Structural Engineer-
ing, © ASCE, ISSN 0733-9445.
Celarec and Dolšek 2013; Cavaleri et al. 2017; Basha and Kaushik
2019a) were carried out to understand the lateral load behavior
of infilled frames without openings for various types of infills, geo-
metric ratios, and support conditions. The in-plane behavior of fully
infilled frames is well documented in state-of-the-art reports by
Moghaddam and Dowling (1987), CEB (1996), Asteris et al.
(2011a), Asteris et al. (2013), and Di Trapani et al. (2015).
Several experimental (Stafford-Smith 1962; Mainstone 1971;
Mallick and Garg 1971; Mosalam et al. 1997; Moghaddam and
Dowling 1987; Dawe and Seah 1989; Choubey and Sinha 1994;
Raj 2000; Yáñez et al. 2004; Kakaletsis and Karayannis 2008,
2009; Sigmund and Penava 2014; Mansouri et al. 2014; Zhai et al.
2016; Su et al. 2017) and analytical investigations (Sachanski 1960;
Liauw 1972; Achyutha et al. 1986; Dawe and Seah 1989; Durrani
and Luo 1994; Al-Chaar et al. 2003; Asteris 2003; Papia et al.
2003; Mondal and Jain 2008; Tasnimi and Mohebkhah 2011;
Mohammadi and Nikfar 2013; Decanini et al. 2014; Asteris et al.
2016; Su et al. 2017) have been carried out to evaluate the influence
of infill openings under seismic loading. An exhaustive review of
the past literature highlighting the importance of openings has been
consolidated by Moghaddam and Dowling (1987) and Surendran
and Kaushik (2012). It has been observed that most seismic stan-
dards often neglect the influence of openings in infills on the lateral
load behavior whereas some provide a few recommendations,
which are discussed here.
Eurocode 8 (CEN 2004) recommends disregarding the infill
panels with more than one significant perforation or opening. To
avoid premature damage or to prevent brittle failure of infill walls
with openings, Eurocode 8 recommends safeguarding the edges of
openings with belts and posts. MSJC (2013) provides a basic set of
provisions for the design of both participating (designed to resist
in-plane loads) and nonparticipating (structurally isolated from the
lateral load resisting system) infills. The standard recommends not
considering the beneficial influence of infills in the case of partial-
height infills and infills with openings due to their detrimental

© ASCE 04020021-1 J. Struct. Eng.

J. Struct. Eng., 2020, 146(4): 04020021

 effect of causing premature failure of columns. As per NBC-201
(1994), only those infills walls are required to be considered to re-
sist seismic loads whose opening area is less than 10% of the gross
area of the wall.
Several analytical models have been proposed in the literature to
simulate the lateral load behavior of infilled frames. Broadly, two
ways of modeling the infills have been reported: by simplified mac-
romodeling methods or by detailed finite-element micromodeling.
Detailed simulation of openings in infill walls can be carried out
directly to evaluate the structural response of the infilled frames in
terms of both local and global effects by micromodeling. The sen-
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Indian Institute of Technology Guwahati on 01/28/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
sitivity of the model to material constitutive laws, the definition of
interface connections followed by their calibration, and primarily,
high computational demand are the major difficulties encountered
during micromodeling. In the case of macromodeling, infill is mod-
eled as equivalent diagonal strut, and generally two approaches are
followed to account for the influence of openings. In the first
approach, multiple struts are used to model the infill around the
openings (Thiruvengadam 1985; Hamburger and Chakradeo 1993;
Decanini et al. 2014). This modeling analogy is based on the de-
velopment of two sets of cracks (along the frame–infill boundary
and near the openings) at smaller lateral drifts (Hamburger and
Chakradeo 1993). However, the analytical and experimental inves-
tigations for multiple strut placements and their locations are not
sufficient to establish the required guidelines (ASCE 2013). The
second approach is to indirectly reduce the strength and stiffness
of the infill walls in proportion to the opening size by reducing
the width of the single diagonal strut using approximate reduction
factors (Polyakov 1956; Sachanski 1960; Imai and Miyamoto
1989; Durrani and Luo 1994; Al-Chaar et al. 2003; Asteris 2003;
Papia et al. 2003; NZSEE 2006; Mondal and Jain 2008; Asteris
et al. 2011b; Tasnimi and Mohebkhah 2011; Mohammadi and
Nikfar 2013; Decanini et al. 2014; Asteris et al. 2016; Su et al.
2017). Some of these relevant studies are discussed here.
Sachanski (1960) proposed a unique stiffness (Rk ) and
strength (Rs ) reduction factor as given in Eq. (1) for practical
use based on the length ratio (length of the opening lo divided
by length of the infill li ) and height ratio (height of the opening
ho divided by height of the infill hi ) of the infill panel. Similarly,
Imai and Miyamoto (1989) evaluated the shear strength of ma-
sonry panels with openings using the reduction factor given in
Eq. (2)


2l 3h
R k ; Rs ¼ 1 − o − o ð1Þ
5 li 5 hi
0 sffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi1
l lo h o A
Rk ; Rs ¼ min@1 − o ; 1 −
li li h i
Durrani and Luo (1994) developed a predictive model based on
the finite element analysis to estimate the strength and stiffness-
reduction factors for infilled frames with central openings as given
in Eq. (3). The factor Ad is given by Eq. (4). Here the variables d
and do are the diagonal length of the infill wall and the diagonal
length of the opening, respectively; θ and θo are the tangents of the
height-to-length ratio of infill and opening, respectively, and Ai is
the area of solid infill wall


Ad
Rk ; R s ¼ 1 − ð3Þ
li × h i

2
 openings on the lateral strength and stiffness of infilled frames
ðd sin 2θ − do sinðθ þ θo ÞÞ
Ad ¼ Ai −
2 sinð2θÞ
© ASCE
J. Struct. Eng., 2020, 146(4): 04020021
Based on the finite-element analysis, Papia et al. (2003) reported
that the reduction in lateral stiffness due to openings does not
depend on the geometry of the panel (l=h ratio), but rather on a
single dimensional parameter, i.e., the size of the opening ξ
(¼ho =hi ¼ lo =li ). A fourth order polynomial was proposed to es-
timate the stiffness-reduction factor, but the polynomial equation
was replaced by Eq. (5) for practical applications
Rk ¼ 1.24 − 1.7ξ ð5Þ
To consider the influence of both door and window openings,
Al-Chaar et al. (2003) carried out experimental and analytical in-
vestigations and suggested an analogous reduction factor [Eq. (6)]
for both Rk and Rs using an area opening ratio (Ar ) defined as the
ratio of the area of opening Ao to the area of solid infill wall Ai . On
a similar note, NZSEE (2006) recommended a simplified empirical
relation to estimate Rk and Rs for both door and window openings,
using the length of the opening (lo ) and the length of the infill (li ),
as shown in Eq. (7). The proposed empirical equation was based on
the experimental investigations of Dawe and Seah (1989) on steel
infilled frames
Rk ; Rs ¼ 0.6A2r − 1.6Ar þ 1 for Ar < 0.6 ð6Þ
lo
Rk ; Rs ¼ 1 − 1.5 for lo < 0.6li ð7Þ
li
Based on a finite element study on infilled frames with central
window openings, Mondal and Jain (2008) proposed a linear
stiffness-reduction factor (Rk ) for opening ratio Ar less than 40%
as given in Eq. (8). Similarly, Asteris (2003) carried out a finite
element study and developed plots to estimate the variation of lat-
eral stiffness for various locations and sizes of the openings. At a
later stage, Asteris et al. (2011b) conducted a detailed parametric
study using the same results and proposed a stiffness-reduction fac-
tor (Rk ) as shown in Eq. (9)
Rk ¼ 1 − 2.6Ar for Ar < 0.4 ð8Þ
Rk ¼ 1 − 2Ar0.54 þ A1.14
r for Ar < 0.5 ð9Þ
Tasnimi and Mohebkhah (2011) conducted an exhaustive exper-
imental investigation on infill walls with various sizes of door and
window openings. Regression analysis was carried out using the
experimental results, and a strength-reduction factor (Rs ) was
suggested for opening ratios less than 40% as given by Eq. (10).
Mohammadi and Nikfar (2013) proposed empirical relations based
on a comprehensive statistical analysis of finite element results for
ð2Þ estimating stiffness and strength-reduction factors for steel and
RC-confining frames for different opening sizes (doors and win-
dows) as given in Eqs. (11)–(13)
Rs ¼ 1.49A2r − 2.238Ar þ 1 for Ar < 0.4 ð10Þ
Rk ¼ 1.1859A2r − 1.6781Ar þ 1 for Ar < 0.4 RC and steel frame
ð11Þ
Rs ¼ −1.085Ar þ 1 for Ar ≤ 0.4 RC frame ð12Þ
Rs ¼ −2.122Ar þ 1 for Ar ≤ 0.25 steel frame ð13Þ
Decanini et al. (2014) studied the effect of door and window
ð4Þ by considering approximately 150 numerical and analytical studies.
A unique expression for reduction of strength and stiffness was
04020021-2 J. Struct. Eng.
 proposed [Eqs. (14) and (15)] as a function of area ratio and length
ratio for various reinforcing conditions around the opening
Rk ; Rs ¼ 0.55eð−3.5Ar Þ þ 0.44eð−2.5lo =li Þ
unreinforced and partially reinforced openings ð14Þ
Rk ; Rs ¼ 0.63eð−2.0Ar Þ þ 0.40eð−1.0lo =li Þ reinforced openings
ð15Þ
ASCE (2013) recommends a linear equation [Eq. (16)] to esti-
mate the in-plane lateral stiffness of the uncracked masonry-infilled
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Indian Institute of Technology Guwahati on 01/28/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
frame. Asteris et al. (2016) proposed an analytical fifth order
polynomial expression [Eq. (17)] for the determination of the re-
duction factor for stiffness, considering the opening percentage and
vertical-load distribution based on the past works of Asteris (2003)
and Cavaleri et al. (2005)
Rk ¼ 1 − 2Ar ð16Þ
Rk ¼ 1 þ 0.24ξ − 4.23ξ 2 − 2.6ξ 3 þ 12.73ξ 4 − 7.15ξ 5 ð17Þ
Recently, Su et al. (2017) proposed simple linear models to es-
timate the strength and stiffness-reduction factors based on the full-
scale experimental investigation on infilled frames as given in
Eqs. (18)–(21) for solid bricks and hollow bricks. The equations
are valid only for Ar < 0.5
Rs ¼ −0.9582Ar þ 0.9704 solid and hollow brick infill ð18Þ
Rs ¼ −1.14Ar þ 0.97 hollow brick infill ð19Þ
Rk ¼ −1.2545Ar þ 0.9821 solid and hollow brick infill ð20Þ
Rk ¼ −1.69Ar þ 1.0 hollow brick infill ð21Þ
It is clear that the presence of openings in infill walls further
complicate the already complex lateral load behavior of infilled
frames. Therefore, generalized empirical models, which are simple
to use, are required to be developed for accurate assessment of lat-
eral stiffness and strength of masonry-infilled RC buildings. In the
present study, the influence of central openings on the lateral load
behavior of the infilled frames designed according to the current
codal recommendations was studied. A prediction model was de-
veloped to assess the reduction in lateral strength and stiffness of
infilled frames due to the presence of central openings. This was
achieved with the help of an experimental investigation in which
eight specimens were tested followed by an exhaustive and system-
atic analytical study. The developed prediction models were then
verified and validated using several past experimental and analyti-
cal results and were compared with the predictions made by other
empirical models available in the literature. Finally, using the ex-
perimental results, an idealized lateral load–drift relationship was
developed for masonry-infilled RC frames with openings to serve
as a quick design tool.
Research Significance
Although several prediction models are available in the literature
to estimate the reduction in strength and stiffness of infilled RC
frames due to the presence of openings, most of the models are
specific to the considered frames, and there are limitations on the
opening sizes. Considering the huge variation in material properties
of masonry and construction practices in different parts of the
world, it is quite clear that unless validated, these models may
not work well with other frames. Further, most of the available
© ASCE 04020021-3
J. Struct. Eng., 2020, 146(4): 04020021
empirical expressions are simplified linear equations or polynomial
equations that neglect the nonlinear variation of the strength and
stiffness of infills under lateral loads due to the presence of open-
ings. In some studies, experimental and analytical results of some
past research conducted in different countries were used for the es-
timation of such reduction factors without paying much attention to
the type of frames considered. All of these reasons limit the effec-
tiveness of using the available reduction factors in a general sense.
There is a need for carrying out a comparative evaluation of ex-
isting prediction models for understanding their effectiveness in
estimating the strength and stiffness of different frames tested in
different regions. Therefore, the primary motivation of the present
study was to develop an empirical model that could predict the stiff-
ness and strength of a variety of frames with reasonable accuracy,
even for higher opening ratios instead of achieving high accuracy
for some frames while sacrificing the quality of prediction for other
frames.
Experimental Study
A detailed experimental program was designed to test eight half-
scale, single-story, single-bay RC-frame specimens under lateral load
as described in Table 1 and shown in Fig. 1. The specimens were
infilled with single wythe fly ash brick units (230 × 110 × 75 mm)
constructed in running bond pattern using a 1:4 (cement:sand) mor-
tar mixture. The frame specimens included a bare frame (BF) and a
fully infilled frame as reference specimens. The remaining six spec-
imens had infill panels with concentric central openings of various
sizes defined by the percentage of area ratio Ar equal to 3%, 10%,
20%, 30%, 40%, and 50%. In all infilled frame specimens, the as-
pect ratio of the infill panel and the opening size was maintained as
1.0. The reinforcement detailing in different members of the RC
frame is shown in Fig. 1. The model frame represents the exterior
ground-story frame of a two-story building in Assam, which is one
of the highest seismically active regions in India. The frames were
constructed in accordance with the relevant Indian design and de-
tailing standards (BIS 2000, 2016a, b). A 100-mm thick slab was
constructed monolithically over the beam to simulate realistic
frame action. In specimens with openings, a precast lintel beam of
section 110 × 110 mm was placed over the opening and extended
on each side of the opening by 220 mm. The lintel beam was de-
signed to carry the entire masonry weight above it, neglecting the
arching action developed.
The average compressive strength of concrete cubes (150 ×
150 × 150 mm) used in the study was found to be about 24 MPa.
The yield strength of the high-strength deformed bars obtained
from tension tests on 6, 8, 10, and 12-mm diameter bars was found
to be about 520, 570, 570, and 507 MPa, respectively. The average
compressive strength of fly ash brick units and mortar cubes was
found to be about 5.7 and 17.3 MPa, respectively. The average
compressive strength of five brick-high stack-bonded masonry
Table 1. Description of test specimens
Type of frame specimen Notation Ar (%)
Fully infilled frame IF-Ar -0 0
Infilled frame with 3% opening IF-Ar -3 3
Infilled frame with 10% opening IF-Ar -10 10
Infilled frame with 20% opening IF-Ar -20 20
Infilled frame with 30% opening IF-Ar -30 30
Infilled frame with 40% opening IF-Ar -40 40
Infilled frame with 50% opening IF-Ar -50 50
Bare frame BF —
J. Struct. Eng.
 300 175 1500 175 300 342.5 115 342.5
115 115 A B
3-8ϕ 2-8ϕ 300

175
175 6ϕ@90 175 6ϕ@120
A B
15 15
2-10ϕ 2-10ϕ C C
Section AA 110
Section BB
175 175 6ϕ@120
6ϕ@ 90 6ϕ@ 110 110 1500
15
11 2-8ϕ 115 2-8ϕ
D D
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Indian Institute of Technology Guwahati on 01/28/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

10ϕ@ 4 corners
15 15
Section of Lintel
12ϕ@ 4 corners 12ϕ@ 4 corners
Section CC 675 675 8-16ϕ
Section DD
8ϕ@
Key: All dimensions are in mm
120 400
3-8ϕ = 3 bars of 8 mm diameter
6ϕ@90 = 6 mm diameter bars at 90 mm 40
center to center spacing 3200 350

Fig. 1. Reinforcement detailing of infilled frame with openings.

prisms and the shear strength of 1,200 × 1,200 × 110-mm masonry
wallettes obtained from diagonal compression tests was found to
be about 3.9 and 0.14 MPa, respectively. The compressive strength
(3.9 MPa) and elastic modulus of the fly ash brick masonry prism
(2,667 MPa) was found to be significantly lower than the com-
monly used burnt clay brick masonry (Kaushik et al. 2007).
Detailed material characterization of fly ash brick masonry under
various loading conditions can be obtained from Basha and
Kaushik (2015). The experimental loading setup and arrangement
of instrumentation of the test specimens is shown in Fig. 2. All
specimens were subjected to a combination of incremental horizon-
tal loads applied cyclically and constant vertical loads applied by
placing reinforced concrete plates over the slab.
In the present study, displacement-controlled cyclic loading
was applied on specimens in a slow, controlled, and predetermined
manner by disregarding the dynamic effects. The cyclic loads
were applied using a 250 kN capacity servo-controlled hydraulic
actuator of 125-mm stroke length. Cyclic tests provide basic in-
formation on strength and stiffness characteristics, deformation
capacities, cyclic hardening or softening effects, and deterioration
behavior. Considering the slow varying nature of the amplitude
modulation of the ground motion, it is advisable to load the spec-
imens by applying multiple cycles of each drift level to observe the
strength and stiffness degradation of the specimens in each drift
level. In the present study, three cycles of each drift level were ap-
plied on the specimens as shown in the loading protocol in Fig. 3.
The considered loading protocol permits explicit control of force
and deformation histories and allows visual observation and mark-
ing of damage. The drift level was initially incremented in equal
steps of 0.15% until 1.54% drift level because of higher stiffness
of the specimens in initial stages. Later, the drift increment was
doubled (0.30%) in the inelastic excursion stages to capture the
ultimate limit state quickly as most of the damage was concentrated
in the original locations, until the capacity of the specimen was
reduced to at least 75% or the failure of the frame became immi-
nent. The loading protocol must be chosen carefully, as the number
of inelastic excursions increases with a decrease in time, and at the
same time, the increase in rate is very high for short time-period

Strain gauges 1500 All dimensions are in mm

LVDT 300 175 175 300 342.5 115 342.5
Dead Load

Actuator
175
Strong Wall

1
1260 2
1500

675 750 3
180
4 70
400

Strong Floor
3200 350
Front View Side View

Fig. 2. Details of experimental setup and instrumentation.

© ASCE 04020021-4 J. Struct. Eng.

J. Struct. Eng., 2020, 146(4): 04020021

 6.5
3.9
Drift (%)
1.3
-1.3
-3.9
-6.5
0 1000 2000 3000 4000
Time (sec)
Fig. 3. Loading history for slow-cyclic test.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Indian Institute of Technology Guwahati on 01/28/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
frame systems (Su et al. 2017). The specimens were instrumented
with load cell, linearly varying displacement transducers (LVDT),
and strain gauges. The lateral deflections along the height of the
frame were monitored using LVDTs. The strains in the longitudinal
bars were recorded using strain gauges bonded to the rebar in the
critical regions of columns and beams (Fig. 2).
Experimental Observations
Experimental behavior of infilled frames with openings can be seg-
regated into three categories based on the initiation of cracks and
their subsequent propagation. The first category consists of the in-
filled frame with 3% opening (IF-Ar -3), whose behavior was found
to be quite similar to that of the fully infilled frame (IF-Ar -0). In the
second category, infilled frames with 10% opening size (IF-Ar -10)
and 20% opening size (IF-Ar -20) are placed where the masonry
piers adjacent to the opening were of intermediate size. The third
category belongs to infilled frames with opening sizes of 30%
(IF-Ar -30), 40% (IF-Ar -40), and 50% (IF-Ar -50), in which the
width of the piers was narrower compared with the first two cat-
egories. The undamaged state of the specimens before the com-
mencement of the test is shown in Fig. 4.
In the case of IF-Ar -0 (fully infilled frame), the cracks in infill
walls were formed at the frame–wall interface at 0.15% lateral drift
level, followed by formation of stepped cracking along the diagonal
Fig. 4. Specimens before commencement of the tests: (a) IF-Ar -0; (b) IF-Ar -3; (c) IF-Ar -10; (d) IF-Ar -20; (e) IF-Ar -30; (f) IF-Ar -40; (g) IF-Ar -50;
and (h) BF.
© ASCE
J. Struct. Eng., 2020, 146(4): 04020021
direction in the subsequent drift level (0.46%). Formation of diago-
nal strut was clearly observed with further development of cracks
on both sides of the initially observed stepped cracks. Shear cracks
in the columns were observed at a drift level of 0.76% near beam–
column joints, followed by flexural cracks at 0.92% drift level. At
4.61% drift level, out-of-plane collapse of the infill panel was ob-
served. Finally, at 5.8% drift level, the test was terminated due to
extensive crushing of core concrete in columns and failure of lon-
5000
gitudinal reinforcement [Fig. 5(a)]. In the case of IF-Ar -3, cracks
originated near the loading corners in both push and pull directions
as diagonal stepped cracks passing through a mortar bed and head
joints of infill panel. The cracks often passed through brick units
using vertical splitting, as was observed in the case of IF-Ar -0.
Most of the cracks in the masonry infill below the opening were
vertical in nature, passing through the mortar head joints and brick
units. At 0.62% drift level, brick units below the lintel beam near
the left and right edge of the opening in both the masonry piers
disintegrated and stopped contributing to the lateral load resistance.
At the same drift level, diagonal tension cracks were observed near
the top of the columns along with flexural cracks along the length
of the columns. With further increases in drift levels, bed-joint slid-
ing cracks, vertical cracks in masonry, and diagonal and flexural
cracks in columns were observed (up to 2.46% drift level). In
the subsequent drift level (3.07%), the entire masonry below the
lintel beam disintegrated. The lintel beam dislodged at a drift level
of 4.61%, and the infill above the lintel beam collapsed in the sub-
sequent drift levels, after which the test was terminated at a 5.84%
drift level [Fig. 5(b)].
In cases of the second category of frames (IF-Ar -10 and
IF-Ar -20), initially the cracks formed in infill as interface cracks
near both the loading corners and spread toward the bottom of the
lintel, along with a vertical crack below the opening. In subsequent
drift levels, diagonal stepped cracks were observed below the lintel
beam, emanating from the corners of the openings toward the
opposite beam–column joint. In the initial drift levels, most of
the cracks were concentrated in masonry piers leading to disinte-
gration of the brick units near the edges of the openings at 0.92%
and 1.23% drift levels in IF-Ar -10 and IF-Ar -20, respectively.
04020021-5 J. Struct. Eng.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Indian Institute of Technology Guwahati on 01/28/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Fig. 5. Failure mechanisms observed in various specimens: (a) IF-Ar -0; (b) IF-Ar -3; (c) IF-Ar -10; (d) IF-Ar -20; (e) IF-Ar -30; (f) IF-Ar -40; (g) IF-
Ar -50; and (h) BF.
Flexural and diagonal tension cracks in columns were initiated at
0.46% drift level in the case of IF-Ar -20, whereas similar cracks
were initiated at a higher drift level of 0.92% in the case of
IF-Ar -10. With further increases in drift levels, crushing of mortar
bed joints above and below the opening was observed. At 1.84%
drift level, masonry brick units near the openings started falling in
the out-of-plane direction after complete disintegration from the
infill wall. At 4% drift level, the crushing of concrete was observed
in columns of IF-Ar -10, near the beam–column joint. The lintel
beam supporting the spandrel masonry dislodged at drift levels of
5.84% and 3.69% in the case of IF-Ar -10 and IF-Ar -20, respec-
tively, and the tests were terminated in the subsequent drift levels
(6.15% and 4.30%) when complete collapse of the frames was im-
minent [Figs. 5(c and d)].
In the cases of IF-Ar -30, IF-Ar -40, and IF-Ar -50, the width of
the masonry pier was much shorter, so the diagonal stepped cracks
were not observed in the masonry piers in the initial drift levels.
The cracks in the infill initiated as interface cracks from the loading
corners spreading toward the bottom of the lintel, along with a ver-
tical crack in the sill masonry. Subsequently, diagonal stepped
cracks were observed in masonry piers in the case of IF-Ar -30,
whereas no such cracks developed in the other two frames. Flexural
cracks developed in the columns at drift levels of 0.46%, 0.62%,
and 0.46%, respectively, in the cases of the three specimens of
IF-Ar -30, IF-Ar -40, and IF-Ar -50. Diagonal tension cracks were
observed in the columns near the beam–column joints at a drift
level of 0.62% (IF-Ar -30) and 0.92% (IF-Ar -40 and IF-Ar -50).
Disintegration of bricks was observed below the lintel beam near
the opening at 0.77% drift level in the case of IF-Ar -30, and out-of-
plane falling of the bricks in both masonry piers was observed at
2.15% drift level. The contribution of infill was substantially less in
the case of IF-Ar -40 and IF-Ar -50, as the width of the masonry piers
was smaller and very few diagonal stepped cracks were formed in
both piers even at higher drift levels. The tests were terminated at
6.46%, 5.84%, and 5.23% drift levels in the cases of IF-Ar -30
[Fig. 5(e)], IF-Ar -40 [Fig. 5(f)], and IF-Ar -50 [Fig. 5(g)], respec-
tively, when crushing of the core concrete was observed near the
ends of both columns. The reference specimen of bare frame
© ASCE 04020021-6
J. Struct. Eng., 2020, 146(4): 04020021
observed flexural cracks in the columns near the top beam–column
joints at a drift level of 0.62%. In the subsequent drift levels
(1%–2%), flexural cracks developed along the length of both
columns. At 3% drift level, concrete cover spalled near the top
column–beam junctions. Finally, at 6.15% drift level, the experi-
mental investigation was aborted when the postpeak capacity of
the BF was reduced to 75% of its maximum capacity [Fig. 5(h)]
by the formation of flexural hinges at both ends of the columns.
Influence of Openings on Lateral Load Response
Experimental observations revealed the differences in crack forma-
tion profiles and failure modes of different frames. The influence of
opening size on the lateral load response of infilled frames in terms
of hysteretic response, lateral strength, lateral stiffness, and energy
dissipation is assessed in this section.
Fig. 6 shows the hysteretic response of all the frames. It can be
observed that the hysteretic loops are more symmetric in nature in
both push and pull directions for specimens with larger openings,
reflecting that the influence of infill on the overall response was less
in these specimens. In the initial drift levels, the lateral load resis-
tance of IF-Ar -0 and IF-Ar -3 was higher compared with that of the
other infilled frames, due to the major contribution of infill in the
initial stages. As soon as the infill panel cracked, gaps developed
along the infill–frame interface, and the loops became irregularly
spaced. Nonuniformity (kinks) in the lateral load response, ob-
served especially in the cases of IF-Ar -0 and IF-Ar -3, was due to
the complete contribution of the infill in the initial drift levels by
forming diagonal cracks followed by readjustment of the interlock-
ing brick units in the infill wall panels. In the cases of other spec-
imens (IF-Ar -10, IF-Ar -20, IF-Ar -30, IF-Ar -40, and IF-Ar -50), the
contribution of the infill was found to be gradual by observing com-
bined diagonal cracks and bed-joint cracks. Pinching was found to
be significantly higher in the cases of IF-Ar -0 and IF-Ar -3 in the
postpeak regime when compared with other specimens with open-
ings, which may be due to the extensive cracking observed in the
infill. The variation in lateral load response parameters (lateral
strength, stiffness, and energy dissipation) of different frames with
J. Struct. Eng.
 140
IF-Ar-0 IF-Ar-3

Lateral Load (kN)

70

-70

-140
-7 -5 -3 -1 1 3 5 7 -7 -5 -3 -1 1 3 5 7
(a) Drift (%) (b) Drift (%)
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Indian Institute of Technology Guwahati on 01/28/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

140
IF-Ar-10 IF-Ar-20
Lateral Load (kN)

70

-70

-140
-7 -5 -3 -1 1 3 5 7 -7 -5 -3 -1 1 3 5 7
(c) Drift (%) (d) Drift (%)

140
IF-Ar-30 IF-Ar-40
Lateral Load (kN)

70

-70

-140
-7 -5 -3 -1 1 3 5 7 -7 -5 -3 -1 1 3 5 7
(e) Drift (%) (f) Drift (%)

140
IF-Ar-50 BF
Lateral Load (kN)

70

-70

-140
-7 -5 -3 -1 1 3 5 7 -7 -5 -3 -1 1 3 5 7
(g) Drift (%) (h) Drift (%)

Fig. 6. Hysteretic response of the specimens: (a) IF-Ar -0; (b) IF-Ar -3; (c) IF-Ar -10; (d) IF-Ar -20; (e) IF-Ar -30; (f) IF-Ar -40; (g) IF-Ar -50; and (h) BF.

respect to the bare frame is given in Table 2 and shown in Fig. 7.
Further, Table 2 also compares the lateral load behavior of all spec-
imens in terms of lateral drifts, recorded at various salient points on
the envelop response of lateral load–drift curves [Fig. 7(a)].
The lateral load carrying capacity of infilled frames with open-
ings ranged from 2.1 to 1.25 times that of the bare frame specimen,
whereas the lateral load resistance of the fully infilled frame
(IF-Ar -0) was about 2.5 times that of the bare frame. The lateral
load capacity of infilled frames decreased significantly with in-
creasing opening sizes from 3% to 20%, whereas the capacity re-
mained almost constant (about 1.25 times higher than that of BF)
for higher opening ratios (30%, 40%, and 50%). The lateral load
capacity of infilled frames with opening sizes from 3% to 20% was
attained at a lateral drift of 0.62%–1.08%, which was slightly
higher than that observed in the case of the fully infilled frame
(0.45%). The frames with 30%, 40%, and 50% openings reached
their respective capacities at drift levels ranging from 1.85% to
2.46%. The lateral load capacity reduced to 80% of its peak in the
range of 2.46%–4.92% drift level, considering both push and pull
directions. IF-Ar -20 observed degradation at the lowest drift level
(−2.46% in the push direction), primarily due to disintegration of
the masonry piers and their out-of-plane failure.
Kakaletsis and Karayannis (2007, 2009) reported that the lateral
load resistance of infilled frames with concentric openings
(10%, 22%, and 38% opening sizes) made using low-strength ma-
sonry was in the range of 1.47–1.5 times that of the bare frame.
However, in cases of specimens with eccentric openings moving
from the leeward column to the center, the average lateral strength
was found to vary from 1.38 to 1.64 times that of the bare frame.
The lateral stiffness of the infilled frames was found to be about

© ASCE 04020021-7 J. Struct. Eng.

J. Struct. Eng., 2020, 146(4): 04020021

 Table 2. Influencing parameters in infilled frames with openings
DRi DRf DRs DRmax DR80 DRu
Frame K=K b ED=EDb F (kN) (%)
IF-Ar -0 11 1.73 −105, þ107 0.46 0.92 0.77 0.46 −2.77, þ2.15 5.85
IF-Ar -3 10 1.60 −88, þ67 0.31 0.46 0.62 0.77 −3.69, þ3.08 5.85
IF-Ar -10 9 2.44 −74, þ73 0.15 0.92 0.92 2.15 −3.38, þ3.69 6.15
IF-Ar -20 7 1.08 −78, þ73 0.15 0.46 0.46 1.08 −2.46, þ3.69 4.31
IF-Ar -30 6 1.36 −57, þ51 0.15 0.46 0.62 2.15 −4.92, þ4.62 6.46
IF-Ar -40 5 0.79 −52, þ50 0.15 0.62 0.92 1.85 −3.69, þ3.08 5.85
IF-Ar -50 4 0.95 −55, þ54 0.15 0.46 0.62 2.15 −4.31, þ4.62 5.23
BF 1 1.00 −42, þ34 — 0.77 1.85 3.08 −6.15, þ5.23 6.15
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Indian Institute of Technology Guwahati on 01/28/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Note: K and K b represent the initial stiffness of infilled and bare frames, respectively; ED and EDb represent the cumulative energy dissipation of infilled and
bare frames, respectively; F is the maximum lateral load; DRi , DRf , DRs , DRmax , DR80 , and DRu represent the drift at initiation of crack in infill (sliding/
diagonal), initiation of flexural cracks in columns, initiation of shear cracks in columns, peak load, 80% of peak load in postpeak region, and ultimate lateral
deformation, respectively.

140 27 IF-Ar-0
IF-Ar-0
IF-Ar-3 IF-Ar-3

Lateral Stiffness (kN/mm)

IF-Ar-10 18 IF-Ar-10
IF-Ar-20 IF-Ar-20
70
Lateral Load (kN)

IF-Ar-30 IF-Ar-30
IF-Ar-40 9 IF-Ar-40
IF-Ar-50 IF-Ar-50
BF BF
0 0

-9
-70
-18

-140 -27
-7 -6 -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 -7 -6 -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
(a) Drift (%) (b) Drift (%)

16000 IF-Ar-0 4000 IF-Ar-0

Energy Dissipation Per Cycle (kNmm)

IF-Ar-3 IF-Ar-3
IF-Ar-10 3500 IF-Ar-10
Energy Dissipation (kNmm)

IF-Ar-20 IF-Ar-20
12000 IF-Ar-30 3000 IF-Ar-30
IF-Ar-40 IF-Ar-40
IF-Ar-50 IF-Ar-50
BF
2500 BF

8000 2000

1500

4000 1000

500

0 0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
(c) Drift (%) (d) Drift (%)

20
IF-Ar-0
Equivalent Visocus Damping (%)

IF-Ar-3
IF-Ar-10
IF-Ar-20
15 IF-Ar-30
IF-Ar-40
IF-Ar-50
BF

10

0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
(e) Drift (%)

Fig. 7. Lateral load behavior of infilled frames with openings: (a) envelop of lateral load response; (b) variation in lateral stiffness; (c) cumulative
energy dissipation; (d) reduced energy dissipation per cycle; and (e) equivalent viscous damping at different drift levels.

© ASCE 04020021-8 J. Struct. Eng.

J. Struct. Eng., 2020, 146(4): 04020021

 1.52–2.14 times that of the bare frame. The lateral strength and
stiffness of the specimens also decreased with the location of
the opening moving toward the center of the span. In the present
study, the lateral load resistance was found to vary from 2.0 to
1.3 times for 10%, 20%, and 40% opening sizes, and the initial
stiffness of infilled frames with openings was found to be about
10–4 times that of the bare frame (Table 2). Though the lateral stiff-
ness of the infilled frames with openings was found to decrease
with increasing opening size, the contribution of infill to lateral
stiffness cannot be ignored even if large openings are provided
in infill walls. Fig. 7(b) shows the variation in secant stiffness
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Indian Institute of Technology Guwahati on 01/28/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
of infilled frames with openings at different drift levels. The deg-
radation in lateral stiffness was found to be in the range of 30%–
41% from the first drift level (0.15%) to the subsequent drift level
(0.31%). The lateral stiffness decreased to 80% of its maximum
at a drift level ranging from 1.23% to 3%. The degradation pattern
of lateral stiffness did not follow any specific trend, unlike lateral
strength variation, and the lateral stiffness of infilled frames
with different opening sizes reached 80% of their maximum at
almost the same drift level (1.23%–1.38%), except in the case
of IF-Ar -50, in which it was attained at a significantly higher drift
level of 3%.
Cumulative energy dissipation was calculated as the summa-
tion of area under the hysteretic loops for all drift levels. The cu-
mulative energy dissipation obtained for all the specimens is
normalized with respect to that of the bare frame and is given in
Table 2. The variation in the energy dissipation capacity, reduced-
energy dissipation per cycle, and the variation of equivalent
viscous damping ratio for all the specimens at various drift levels
are also shown in Figs. 7(c–e). The equivalent viscous damping
(β e ) of specimens was calculated following the recommen-
dations of ATC 40 (ATC 1996) and FEMA 368 (2001) given in
Eqs. (22) and (23)
Pþ − P−
K ef ¼ ð22Þ
Δþ − Δ−
2 Ecy
βe ¼ ð23Þ
π K eq ðΔþ − Δ− Þ2
where K ef = effective stiffness; Δþ and Δ− = peak lateral dis-
placements corresponding to peak lateral forces Pþ and P− in pull
and push directions, respectively; and Ecy represents the energy
dissipated per displacement cycle. The energy-dissipation capacity
of the infilled frames with 3%, 10%, 20%, and 30% opening ratios
was found to be higher when compared with a bare-frame speci-
men. The energy dissipation was found to be highest in the case of
IF-Ar -10 (2.44 times BF), primarily due to the contribution of in-
fill even at higher drift levels [Fig. 7(a)], lesser amounts of pinch-
ing, and fewer numbers of kinks observed under lateral loading.
The equivalent viscous damping ratio [Fig. 7(e)] was found to
vary irregularly in the initial drift levels due to the influence of
the masonry infill, and with an increase in drift levels, the ratio
was more or less linearly amplified as the contribution of the
frame members was initiated. As discussed in the previous study
by Basha and Kaushik (2016), energy dissipation can be quanti-
fied based on lateral strength, displacement sustained, and the
effect of pinching. Additionally, a nonquantifiable parameter,
i.e., the damage observed under lateral loading, may be considered
to evaluate the variation in energy dissipation. The case of IF-
Ar -40 exhibited a lower energy dissipation capacity (0.79 times)
compared with that of the BF, primarily because the infill walls
stopped contributing to the lateral load resistance after a 3.67%
drift level until the termination of the test (5.85% drift level).
© ASCE 04020021-9
J. Struct. Eng., 2020, 146(4): 04020021
However, the energy dissipation in the case of BF was found
to be increasing with an increase in drift level until the termination
of test (6.15% drift level) as shown in Fig. 7(c). The energy dis-
sipation in the case of IF-Ar -50 was found to be similar (0.95
times) to that of the bare frame even though the test was termi-
nated at a lower drift level (5.23%). Kakaletsis and Karayannis
(2007) reported that the total energy dissipation of infilled frames
with eccentric openings was about 1.02–1.49 times the capacity of
the bare frame, and it was also reported that the higher energy-
dissipation ratio was observed in cases of openings moving toward
the columns. From the variation in energy dissipation at various
drift levels, it can be inferred that the presence of openings in infill
panels significantly influences energy dissipation both in pre- and
postpeak regimes up to disintegration of masonry infill walls.
From the analysis of the strain-gauge data, it was observed that
the major damage events in the columns (formation of flexural and
shear cracks) initiated prior to the yielding of the rebar. In the
cases of IF-Ar -0, IF-Ar -3, and IF-Ar -10, the rebar yielded at a drift
level of 1.23%, whereas in the case of IF-Ar -20, IF-Ar -30,
IF-Ar -40, and IF-Ar -50 specimens, yielding of the rebar was ob-
served at a slightly higher drift level of 1.84%, 1.84%, 2.15%, and
2.15%, respectively. In comparison, the major damage in the col-
umns initiated at a drift level of 0.46%–0.92%. Additionally, it
was affirmed from the strain responses that the lateral load carry-
ing capacity of most of the specimens (IF-Ar -0, IF-Ar -3, IF-Ar -10,
IF-Ar -20, and IF-Ar -30) was attained before yielding of the rebar
in the columns (Table 2). In the cases of IF-Ar -40 and IF-Ar -50,
specimens with larger openings, both the yielding of rebar and
lateral load capacity were attained at nearly the same drift level
(1.84%–2.15%), as the influence of the infill was reduced with
an increase in the opening ratio. In comparison, the bare-frame
specimen observed yielding of reinforcement at a drift level of
2.33% prior to the attainment of the lateral load capacity (drift
level of 3.08%).
Evaluation of Stiffness and Strength-Reduction Factors
It was clearly observed from this experimental study that the lateral
stiffness and strength of infilled frames decrease with an increase in
opening size. As observed in past studies, the reduction in the lat-
eral stiffness and strength of infilled frames due to the presence of
openings can be taken into account by using appropriate stiffness
and strength-reduction factors [ratio of stiffness (K o ) and strength
(Fo ) of the infilled frame with opening to the corresponding stiff-
ness (K i ) and strength (Fi ) of the fully infilled frame]. In simplified
macromodeling techniques, these reduction factors are used to ap-
propriately modify the properties of the equivalent diagonal struts
in linear as well as nonlinear analysis (Choudhury and Kaushik
2018a; Basha and Kaushik 2019a). Therefore, in the present study,
the stiffness and strength-reduction factors were obtained using un-
constrained regression analysis of the experimentally obtained ef-
fective secant stiffness for the first drift level and the peak strength,
respectively. The obtained stiffness (Rk ) and strength (Rs ) reduction
factors are given by Eqs. (24) and (25), respectively, and the fitted
prediction models are shown in Fig. 8. The coefficient of determi-
nation (R2 ) and the standard error of estimate (σ) between the
experimentally obtained reduction factors and those obtained using
the proposed model are found to be approximately 0.94 and 0.06,
respectively, for the stiffness-reduction factor, and approximately
0.97 and 0.04, respectively, in case of the strength-reduction factor.
Fig. 8 shows the developed prediction models estimate the lateral
stiffness and strength with high accuracy. Standard deviation and
coefficient of variation in the prediction of stiffness-reduction fac-
tors were found to be approximately 0.06 and 0.07, respectively.
J. Struct. Eng.
 1.00 1.00 proposed model were also compared with the predictions provided
by other empirical relations available in the literature. Only the ap-
propriate results of past studies, based on their limitations, were
Stiffness Reduction Factor (Ko /Ki)

Strength Reduction Factor (Fo /Fi )

0.80 0.80 taken into consideration for the comparison. The variation in the
ratio of the actual reduction factors (reported in the past experimen-
tal or analytical studies) to the predicted reduction factors obtained
0.60 Rs = 1-Ar0.65 0.60 using different empirical models is shown in Fig. 9. The mean val-
Rk = 1-Ar0.55 ues of this ratio are also shown for each model to understand the
effectiveness of various empirical models in predicting lateral stiff-
0.40 0.40 ness and strength.
Tables 3 and 4 show the comparison of actual and predicted re-
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Indian Institute of Technology Guwahati on 01/28/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Experimental Rk duction factors (stiffness and strength) with the corresponding error
0.20 Proposed Rk 0.20 in prediction. In addition to the prediction model developed in the
Experimental Rs present study, the empirical relations proposed by Sachanski (1960),
Proposed Rs
Imai and Miyamoto (1989), and ASCE (2013) are found to estimate
0.00 0.00 the stiffness-reduction factor with high accuracy, which is demon-
0.00 0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50 strated in Fig. 9(a) where the mean of the reduction-factor ratio is
Area Opening Ratio (Ar) nearly equal to 1.0. Apart from this, models by Su et al. (2017) for
hollow bricks and by Durrani and Luo (1994) also predicted the
Fig. 8. Stiffness and strength reduction models for infilled frames with Rk values satisfactorily. The models by Al-Chaar et al. (2003),
central openings. Mohammadi and Nikfar (2013), and Su et al. (2017) for solid bricks
slightly overestimated the actual stiffness values. Conversely, Papia
et al. (2003), NZSEE (2006), Mondal and Jain (2008), Asteris et al.
(2011b), Decanini et al. (2014), and Asteris et al. (2016) underesti-
A slightly higher standard deviation (0.18) and coefficient of varia- mated the stiffness values. As far as strength prediction is con-
tion (0.17) were found for the strength-reduction factor, primarily cerned, the model proposed in the present study and that by
due to the brittle nature of masonry Al-Chaar et al. (2003) leave all other models behind in accuracy,
as shown in Fig. 9(b) and Table 4. The models suggested by
Rk ¼ 1 − A0.55
r for Ar ≤ 0.5 ðR2 ¼ 0.94; σ ¼ 0.06Þ ð24Þ Tasnimi and Mohebkhah (2011), Mohammadi and Nikfar (2013),
and Su et al. (2017) for hollow bricks, and Su et al. (2017) for solid
bricks also predicted the strength reduction satisfactorily. Imai and
Rs ¼ 1 − A0.65
r for Ar ≤ 0.5 ðR2 ¼ 0.97; σ ¼ 0.04Þ ð25Þ
Miyamoto (1989), Sachanski (1960), Durrani and Luo (1994),
NZSEE (2006), and Decanini et al. (2014) underestimated strength
To validate the proposed prediction models, a comparative study values. It is clear from Fig. 9 that although there are existing em-
was carried out to estimate the lateral stiffness and strength reported pirical models that can predict the stiffness and strength of some
in the past experimental and analytical studies (Choubey and Sinha cases with very good accuracy, the equations developed in the
1994; Raj 2000; Yáñez et al. 2004; Kakaletsis and Karayannis present study are more consistent in providing reasonably good
2008, 2009; Mansouri et al. 2014; Sigmund and Penava 2014; predictions in almost all considered cases. This is quite evident
Zhai et al. 2016; Decanini et al. 2014; Akhoundi et al. 2016) using from the mean of the reduction-factor ratio, which is nearly equal
the proposed Eqs. (24) and (25). Further, the values predicted by the to 1.0 for both stiffness and strength in the case of the proposed

2.0 2.0
Mean Mean
Actual /Predicted (Rs )
Actual/Predicted (Rk )

1.5 1.5

1.0 1.0

0.5 0.5

0.0 0.0

(a) Prediction Models (b) Prediction Models

Fig. 9. Variation in the ratio of actual to predicted reduction values for (a) stiffness; and (b) strength.

© ASCE 04020021-10 J. Struct. Eng.

J. Struct. Eng., 2020, 146(4): 04020021

 Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Indian Institute of Technology Guwahati on 01/28/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Table 3. Comparison of experimentally and analytically obtained stiffness with their predicted values
Actual

© ASCE
values Predicted stiffness-reduction factor (Rk ) using different empirical models
Past experimental Proposeda M&J AL N At M&N Su Su S D&L D Ast P I&M AS
or analytical studies Ar Rk [Eq. (24)] [Eq. (8)] [Eq. (6)] [Eq. (7)] [Eq. (9)] [Eq. (11)] [Eq. (20)] [Eq. (21)] [Eq. (1)] [Eq. (3) [Eqs. (14)] [Eq. (17)] [Eq. (5)] [Eq. (2)] [Eq. (16)]
Present study 0.00 1.00 1.00(0)b 1.00(0) 1.00(0) 1.00(0) 1.00(0) 1.00(0) 1.00(0) 0.99(2) 1.00(0) 1.00(0) 0.99(1) 1.00(0) 1.24(24) 1.00(0) 1.00(0)
Present study 0.03 0.79 0.86(8) 0.93(16) 0.96(20) 0.74(7) 0.72(10) 0.96(20) 0.95(20) 0.95(19) 0.83(4) 0.90(13) 0.79(2) 0.92(15) 0.95(19) 0.83(4) 0.94(19)
Present study 0.10 0.72 0.73(0) 0.75(3) 0.85(18) 0.53(26) 0.5(31) 0.85(18) 0.84(16) 0.86(19) 0.69(5) 0.73(0) 0.60(18) 0.69(5) 0.71(2) 0.69(5) 0.81(12)
Present study 0.20 0.59 0.59(0) 0.49(18) 0.71(20) 0.33(44) 0.33(45) 0.72(21) 0.67(13) 0.74(25) 0.56(6) 0.52(12) 0.42(29) 0.42(30) 0.49(18) 0.56(6) 0.61(2)
Present study 0.30 0.43 0.49(13) 0.23(48) 0.58(34) 0.18(58) 0.22(51) 0.61(41) 0.50(15) 0.61(41) 0.46(5) 0.37(14) 0.31(29) 0.24(46) 0.32(28) 0.46(5) 0.41(6)
Present study 0.40 0.38 0.40(5) NA 0.46(21) 0.05(87) 0.14(65) NA 0.33(15) 0.48(27) 0.37(3) 0.26(33) 0.23(40) 0.12(70) 0.17(57) 0.37(3) 0.20(48)
Present study 0.50 0.26 0.32(22) NA 0.36(35) NA 0.08(70) NA 0.16(40) 0.36(37) 0.30(13) 0.17(36) 0.18(34) 0.06(79) 0.04(85) 0.30(13) 0.01(100)
Kakaletsis and 0.10 0.70 0.72(1) 0.73(4) 0.84(20) 0.63(11) 0.49(31) 0.84(19) 0.83(17) 0.86(21) 0.66(7) 0.70(2) 0.62(12) 0.48(33) 0.54(24) 0.75(7) 0.80(13)
Karayannis (2008,
2009)
Kakaletsis and 0.16 0.71 0.64(10) 0.59(17) 0.77(8) 0.43(39) 0.39(46) 0.77(8) 0.74(4) 0.79(11) 0.60(15) 0.60(16) 0.49(31) 0.48(33) 0.54(25) 0.62(12) 0.69(3)
Karayannis (2008,
2009)
Kakaletsis and 0.21 0.80 0.58(28) 0.46(43) 0.70(14) 0.25(69) 0.32(61) 0.71(13) 0.65(19) 0.73(10) 0.56(31) 0.51(38) 0.40(51) 0.48(41) 0.54(34) 0.50(38) 0.59(27)
Karayannis (2008,
2009)
Kakaletsis and 0.10 0.95 0.72(25) 0.73(23) 0.84(12) 0.63(34) 0.49(49) 0.84(12) 0.83(13) 0.86(10) 0.66(32) 0.70(27) 0.62(35) 0.48(50) 0.54(44) 0.75(21) 0.80(17)
Karayannis (2008,
2009)
Yáñez et al. (2004) 0.38 0.52 0.42(21) 0.01(98) 0.48(9) 0.05(91) 0.15(72) 0.54(2) 0.36(32) 0.51(4) 0.39(26) 0.28(48) 0.24(55) 0.16(71) 0.22(58) 0.37(30) 0.24(54)
Yáñez et al. (2004) 0.38 0.57 0.42(28) 0.01(98) 0.48(16) 0.05(92) 0.15(74) 0.54(6) 0.36(37) 0.51(11) 0.39(32) 0.28(52) 0.24(59) 0.16(73) 0.22(61) 0.37(36) 0.24(58)
Yáñez et al. (2004) 0.15 0.95 0.65(32) 0.61(37) 0.78(19) 0.62(35) 0.40(59) 0.78(19) 0.75(22) 0.80(17) 0.54(44) 0.55(42) 0.56(42) 0.16(84) 0.22(77) 0.75(22) 0.70(27)

04020021-11
Yáñez et al. (2004) 0.35 0.47 0.44(6) 0.09(82) 0.52(9) 0.07(87) 0.17(64) 0.56(19) 0.41(13) 0.54(16) 0.42(12) 0.31(35) 0.26(46) 0.21(56) 0.29(39) 0.38(20) 0.30(37)
Yáñez et al. (2004) 0.14 0.95 0.67(30) 0.65(33) 0.80(17) 0.64(33) 0.42(56) 0.80(17) 0.77(19) 0.81(15) 0.57(41) 0.59(38) 0.58(39) 0.21(78) 0.29(70) 0.76(21) 0.73(24)
Yáñez et al. (2004) 0.35 0.35 0.44(23) 0.09(76) 0.52(44) 0.07(83) 0.17(53) 0.56(57) 0.41(14) 0.54(53) 0.42(16) 0.31(15) 0.26(29) 0.21(42) 0.29(20) 0.38(6) 0.30(17)
Yáñez et al. (2004) 0.14 0.80 0.67(18) 0.65(20) 0.80(2) 0.64(21) 0.42(48) 0.80(2) 0.77(5) 0.81(1) 0.57(30) 0.59(27) 0.58(28) 0.21(74) 0.29(65) 0.76(6) 0.73(10)

J. Struct. Eng., 2020, 146(4): 04020021

Raj (2000) 0.11 0.54 0.70(29) 0.71(30) 0.83(53) 0.63(15) 0.47(14) 0.83(52) 0.81(49) 0.85(55) 0.63(16) 0.67(23) 0.61(12) 0.41(25) 0.48(12) 0.75(38) 0.78(43)
Raj (2000) 0.11 0.50 0.70(41) 0.71(43) 0.83(67) 0.63(26) 0.47(6) 0.83(67) 0.81(63) 0.85(70) 0.63(27) 0.67(34) 0.61(22) 0.41(18) 0.48(4) 0.75(51) 0.78(56)
Raj (2000) 0.11 0.88 0.70(21) 0.71(20) 0.83(6) 0.63(29) 0.47(47) 0.83(7) 0.81(8) 0.85(5) 0.63(29) 0.67(25) 0.61(31) 0.41(54) 0.48(46) 0.75(15) 0.78(12)
Raj (2000) 0.11 0.60 0.70(17) 0.71(19) 0.83(39) 0.63(5) 0.47(22) 0.83(38) 0.81(36) 0.85(41) 0.63(6) 0.67(12) 0.61(2) 0.41(32) 0.48(20) 0.75(26) 0.78(30)
Sigmund and Penava 0.13 0.96 0.68(30) 0.67(31) 0.81(16) 0.59(39) 0.44(55) 0.81(16) 0.79(18) 0.83(14) 0.62(36) 0.64(34) 0.58(41) 0.39(60) 0.46(53) 0.73(25) 0.75(23)
(2014)
Sigmund and Penava 0.13 0.83 0.68(18) 0.67(19) 0.81(3) 0.59(30) 0.44(47) 0.81(3) 0.79(5) 0.83(1) 0.62(26) 0.64(23) 0.58(31) 0.39(54) 0.46(45) 0.73(13) 0.75(10)
(2014)
Choubey and Sinha 0.25 0.63 0.54(15) 0.35(44) 0.64(1) 0.25(60) 0.26(59) 0.66(4) 0.58(8) 0.67(6) 0.50(21) 0.44(31) 0.36(44) 0.31(51) 0.39(38) 0.50(21) 0.50(21)
(1994)
Mansouri et al. (2014) 0.16 0.61 0.63(3) 0.58(7) 0.76(23) 0.47(24) 0.38(39) 0.76(23) 0.73(18) 0.78(27) 0.59(5) 0.58(6) 0.49(20) 0.39(38) 0.46(26) 0.65(5) 0.68(9)
Mansouri et al. (2014) 0.27 0.57 0.51(10) 0.29(50) 0.61(7) 0.29(50) 0.24(59) 0.63(11) 0.54(6) 0.64(12) 0.47(18) 0.40(30) 0.35(39) 0.19(68) 0.26(54) 0.53(8) 0.46(21)
Akhoundi et al. (2016) 0.02 0.92 0.88(4) 0.95(3) 0.97(5) 0.72(22) 0.76(17) 0.97(5) 0.97(5) 0.96(4) 0.86(7) 0.92(0) 0.79(15) 0.97(6) 1.04(14) 0.81(12) 0.96(4)
Akhoundi et al. (2016) 0.04 0.86 0.84(3) 0.90(5) 0.94(9) 0.68(21) 0.68(21) 0.94(9) 0.94(9) 0.94(9) 0.81(6) 0.88(2) 0.74(14) 0.90(5) 0.93(8) 0.79(8) 0.93(7)
Akhoundi et al. (2016) 0.06 0.79 0.79(1) 0.84(6) 0.91(14) 0.63(21) 0.60(25) 0.90(14) 0.90(13) 0.91(14) 0.75(5) 0.81(2) 0.68(14) 0.80(1) 0.82(3) 0.75(5) 0.88(11)
Akhoundi et al. (2016) 0.09 0.72 0.74(3) 0.77(7) 0.87(20) 0.55(23) 0.52(27) 0.86(20) 0.85(18) 0.87(21) 0.70(2) 0.74(3) 0.61(15) 0.71(1) 0.73(2) 0.70(2) 0.82(15)
Akhoundi et al. (2016) 0.12 0.65 0.69(6) 0.69(5) 0.82(25) 0.48(27) 0.45(31) 0.82(25) 0.80(22) 0.83(28) 0.65(0) 0.67(3) 0.55(16) 0.61(6) 0.65(1) 0.65(0) 0.76(16)
Akhoundi et al. (2016) 0.15 0.58 0.65(12) 0.61(5) 0.78(33) 0.42(28) 0.40(32) 0.78(34) 0.75(29) 0.80(37) 0.61(6) 0.61(5) 0.49(15) 0.53(9) 0.58(0) 0.61(6) 0.70(20)
Akhoundi et al. (2016) 0.20 0.51 0.59(15) 0.48(7) 0.71(38) 0.33(36) 0.32(37) 0.71(40) 0.66(29) 0.73(43) 0.55(8) 0.52(1) 0.42(19) 0.41(20) 0.48(6) 0.55(8) 0.60(17)

J. Struct. Eng.
 Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Indian Institute of Technology Guwahati on 01/28/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Table 3. (Continued.)
Actual

© ASCE
values Predicted stiffness-reduction factor (Rk ) using different empirical models
Past experimental Proposeda M&J AL N At M&N Su Su S D&L D Ast P I&M AS
or analytical studies Ar Rk [Eq. (24)] [Eq. (8)] [Eq. (6)] [Eq. (7)] [Eq. (9)] [Eq. (11)] [Eq. (20)] [Eq. (21)] [Eq. (1)] [Eq. (3) [Eqs. (14)] [Eq. (17)] [Eq. (5)] [Eq. (2)] [Eq. (16)]
Akhoundi et al. (2016) 0.25 0.44 0.54(21) 0.35(21) 0.64(44) 0.25(44) 0.26(41) 0.66(48) 0.58(30) 0.67(51) 0.50(13) 0.44(1) 0.36(20) 0.31(30) 0.39(12) 0.50(13) 0.50(13)
Akhoundi et al. (2016) 0.30 0.38 0.49(26) 0.22(44) 0.58(50) 0.18(54) 0.21(46) 0.61(58) 0.49(28) 0.61(58) 0.45(18) 0.37(5) 0.31(21) 0.23(41) 0.31(20) 0.45(18) 0.40(4)
Akhoundi et al. (2016) 0.36 0.33 0.43(32) 0.07(80) 0.51(54) 0.10(69) 0.17(51) 0.55(68) 0.40(20) 0.54(62) 0.40(22) 0.30(10) 0.26(22) 0.16(53) 0.22(33) 0.40(22) 0.28(14)
Akhoundi et al. (2016) 0.39 0.30 0.41(35) NA 0.47(57) 0.07(79) 0.14(53) 0.53(76) 0.35(14) 0.50(65) 0.38(26) 0.27(12) 0.24(22) 0.13(58) 0.18(40) 0.38(25) 0.22(26)
Akhoundi et al. (2016) 0.42 0.27 0.38(37) NA 0.44(57) 0.03(91) 0.12(57) NA 0.29(4) 0.46(65) 0.35(27) 0.23(16) 0.22(23) 0.10(64) 0.14(51) 0.35(27) 0.16(44)
Akhoundi et al. (2016) 0.45 0.25 0.36(40) NA 0.40(58) NA 0.11(60) NA 0.24(8) 0.42(64) 0.33(30) 0.21(20) 0.20(23) 0.08(69) 0.10(62) 0.33(29) 0.10(64)
Akhoundi et al. (2016) 0.49 0.23 0.33(42) NA 0.37(58) NA 0.09(64) NA 0.18(25) 0.37(61) 0.30(32) 0.18(25) 0.18(23) 0.06(74) 0.05(78) 0.30(32) 0.02(91)
Zhai et al. (2016) 0.20 0.66 0.59(10) 0.49(26) 0.71(8) 0.36(45) 0.33(51) 0.72(9) 0.67(2) 0.74(12) 0.56(16) 0.53(20) 0.43(35) 0.39(42) 0.46(31) 0.58(13) 0.61(8)
Decanini et al. (2014) 0.05 0.73 0.81(11) 0.87(19) 0.93(26) 0.78(6) 0.64(13) 0.92(26) 0.92(25) 0.92(26) 0.74(1) 0.82(12) 0.77(5) 0.65(12) 0.68(8) 0.85(16) 0.90(23)
Decanini et al. (2014) 0.07 0.69 0.78(12) 0.83(20) 0.90(30) 0.70(1) 0.59(16) 0.90(29) 0.89(29) 0.90(30) 0.72(4) 0.79(14) 0.71(2) 0.65(7) 0.68(2) 0.80(16) 0.87(26)
Decanini et al. (2014) 0.08 0.64 0.75(16) 0.79(22) 0.88(36) 0.63(2) 0.54(16) 0.87(36) 0.86(34) 0.88(37) 0.70(9) 0.76(17) 0.65(1) 0.65(0) 0.68(5) 0.75(17) 0.84(30)
Decanini et al. (2014) 0.10 0.58 0.72(24) 0.74(28) 0.85(46) 0.55(5) 0.50(15) 0.85(46) 0.84(43) 0.86(48) 0.68(17) 0.72(23) 0.60(3) 0.65(11) 0.68(16) 0.70(21) 0.80(38)
Decanini et al. (2014) 0.12 0.53 0.70(31) 0.70(31) 0.83(55) 0.48(10) 0.46(13) 0.83(55) 0.81(51) 0.84(58) 0.66(25) 0.68(28) 0.55(4) 0.65(21) 0.68(27) 0.65(23) 0.77(45)
Decanini et al. (2014) 0.13 0.49 0.67(37) 0.66(33) 0.80(63) 0.40(18) 0.43(13) 0.80(63) 0.78(58) 0.82(66) 0.64(31) 0.65(31) 0.51(3) 0.65(31) 0.68(37) 0.60(22) 0.74(50)
Decanini et al. (2014) 0.05 0.79 0.81(2) 0.87(10) 0.93(17) 0.78(2) 0.64(19) 0.92(16) 0.92(16) 0.92(16) 0.74(6) 0.82(4) 0.77(3) 0.65(19) 0.68(15) 0.85(8) 0.90(14)
Decanini et al. (2014) 0.07 0.74 0.78(5) 0.83(12) 0.90(21) 0.70(5) 0.59(21) 0.90(21) 0.89(20) 0.90(21) 0.72(3) 0.79(6) 0.71(5) 0.65(13) 0.68(9) 0.80(8) 0.87(17)
Decanini et al. (2014) 0.08 0.69 0.75(8) 0.79(14) 0.88(26) 0.63(9) 0.54(22) 0.87(26) 0.86(25) 0.88(27) 0.70(1) 0.76(9) 0.65(6) 0.65(7) 0.68(2) 0.75(9) 0.84(21)
Decanini et al. (2014) 0.10 0.64 0.72(12) 0.74(16) 0.85(32) 0.55(14) 0.50(23) 0.85(32) 0.84(30) 0.86(34) 0.68(6) 0.72(12) 0.60(7) 0.65(0) 0.68(5) 0.70(9) 0.80(25)
Decanini et al. (2014) 0.12 0.59 0.70(17) 0.70(18) 0.83(39) 0.48(19) 0.46(22) 0.83(39) 0.81(36) 0.84(42) 0.66(12) 0.68(15) 0.55(7) 0.65(9) 0.68(14) 0.65(10) 0.77(30)
Decanini et al. (2014) 0.13 0.54 0.67(24) 0.66(21) 0.80(48) 0.40(26) 0.43(21) 0.80(48) 0.78(43) 0.82(51) 0.64(19) 0.65(19) 0.51(6) 0.65(19) 0.68(25) 0.60(11) 0.74(36)
Note: NA = Not available due to upper limit of the predicted models.
a
Proposed = proposed model; M&J = Mondal and Jain (2008); AL = Al-Chaar et al. (2003); N = NZSEE (2006); At = Asteris et al. (2011b); M&N = Mohammadi and Nikfar (2013); Su = Su et al. (2017);

04020021-12
S= Sachanski (1960); D&L = Durrani and Luo (1994); D = Decanini et al. (2014); Ast = Asteris et al. (2016); P = Papia et al. (2003); I&M = Imai and Miyamoto (1989); and AS = ASCE (2013).
b
Figures in parentheses indicate the percent error between experimental (or analytical) and predicted values.

J. Struct. Eng., 2020, 146(4): 04020021

J. Struct. Eng.
 Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Indian Institute of Technology Guwahati on 01/28/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Table 4. Comparison of experimentally and analytically obtained strength with their predicted values
Actual values Predicted strength-reduction factor (Rs ) using different empirical relations

© ASCE
a
Past experimental or Proposed AL T N M&N Su Su S D&L D I&M
analytical studies Ar Rs [Eq. (25)] [Eq. (6)] [Eq. (10)] [Eq. (7)] [Eq. (12)] [Eq. (18)] [Eq. (19)] [Eq. (1)] [Eq. (3)] [Eq. (14)] [Eq. (2)]
Present study 0.00 1.00 1.00(0)b 1.00(0) 1.00(0) 1.00(0) 1.00(0) 0.97(3) 0.98(3) 1.00(0) 1.00(0) 0.99(1) 1.00(0)
Present study 0.03 0.82 0.90(9) 0.96(16) 0.94(14) 0.74(10) 0.97(18) 0.94(14) 0.95(15) 0.83(1) 0.90(10) 0.79(5) 0.83(1)
Present study 0.10 0.70 0.78(12) 0.85(22) 0.80(14) 0.53(24) 0.90(28) 0.86(23) 0.88(26) 0.69(2) 0.73(3) 0.60(15) 0.69(2)
Present study 0.20 0.73 0.65(11) 0.71(3) 0.62(16) 0.33(55) 0.79(8) 0.75(2) 0.78(7) 0.56(24) 0.52(29) 0.42(43) 0.56(24)
Present study 0.30 0.53 0.55(3) 0.58(9) 0.47(12) 0.18(66) 0.68(27) 0.63(19) 0.69(29) 0.46(14) 0.37(30) 0.31(42) 0.46(14)
Present study 0.40 0.49 0.45(8) 0.46(7) NA 0.05(90) NA 0.52(5) 0.59(20) 0.37(25) 0.26(49) 0.23(54) 0.37(25)
Present study 0.50 0.52 0.37(30) 0.36(32) NA NA NA 0.41(23) 0.50(5) 0.30(43) 0.17(68) 0.18(67) 0.30(43)
Kakaletsis and Karayannis 0.10 0.82 0.78(6) 0.84(3) 0.79(4) 0.63(24) 0.89(9) 0.86(4) 0.88(7) 0.66(20) 0.70(15) 0.62(24) 0.68(17)
(2008, 2009)
Kakaletsis and Karayannis 0.16 0.81 0.70(14) 0.77(6) 0.69(16) 0.43(47) 0.83(2) 0.79(3) 0.82(1) 0.60(26) 0.60(27) 0.49(40) 0.61(26)
(2008, 2009)
Kakaletsis and Karayannis 0.21 0.80 0.64(20) 0.70(13) 0.60(25) 0.25(69) 0.78(3) 0.74(8) 0.78(3) 0.56(31) 0.51(37) 0.40(51) 0.50(37)
(2008, 2009)
Kakaletsis and Karayannis 0.10 0.93 0.78(18) 0.84(10) 0.79(16) 0.63(33) 0.89(5) 0.86(9) 0.88(7) 0.66(30) 0.70(26) 0.62(34) 0.68(27)
(2008, 2009)
Yáñez et al. (2004) 0.38 0.63 0.47(26) 0.48(24) 0.37(42) 0.05(92) 0.59(7) 0.54(15) 0.61(4) 0.39(39) 0.28(57) 0.24(63) 0.37(42)
Yáñez et al. (2004) 0.38 0.63 0.47(27) 0.48(25) 0.37(43) 0.05(93) 0.59(8) 0.54(16) 0.61(5) 0.39(39) 0.28(57) 0.24(63) 0.37(42)
Yáñez et al. (2004) 0.15 0.87 0.71(18) 0.78(11) 0.70(20) 0.62(28) 0.84(4) 0.80(8) 0.83(5) 0.54(38) 0.55(37) 0.56(36) 0.61(30)
Yáñez et al. (2004) 0.35 0.53 0.50(7) 0.52(4) 0.40(25) 0.07(89) 0.62(16) 0.57(7) 0.64(19) 0.42(22) 0.31(43) 0.26(53) 0.38(30)
Yáñez et al. (2004) 0.14 0.90 0.73(20) 0.80(12) 0.72(20) 0.64(30) 0.86(6) 0.82(10) 0.84(7) 0.57(37) 0.59(35) 0.58(36) 0.63(30)
Yáñez et al. (2004) 0.35 0.51 0.50(4) 0.52(0) 0.40(23) 0.07(88) 0.62(20) 0.57(11) 0.64(23) 0.42(20) 0.31(41) 0.26(51) 0.38(27)
Yáñez et al. (2004) 0.14 0.77 0.73(6) 0.80(3) 0.72(6) 0.64(18) 0.86(11) 0.82(6) 0.84(9) 0.57(26) 0.59(24) 0.58(25) 0.63(18)
Raj (2000) 0.11 0.93 0.76(19) 0.83(11) 0.77(18) 0.63(33) 0.88(6) 0.85(10) 0.87(7) 0.63(32) 0.67(28) 0.61(35) 0.67(29)

04020021-13
Raj (2000) 0.11 0.88 0.76(14) 0.83(6) 0.77(13) 0.63(29) 0.88(0) 0.85(4) 0.87(2) 0.63(28) 0.67(24) 0.61(31) 0.67(24)
Raj (2000) 0.11 0.87 0.76(13) 0.83(5) 0.77(12) 0.63(28) 0.88(1) 0.85(4) 0.87(1) 0.63(28) 0.67(24) 0.61(30) 0.67(24)
Raj (2000) 0.11 0.87 0.76(13) 0.83(5) 0.77(12) 0.63(29) 0.88(0) 0.85(4) 0.87(1) 0.63(28) 0.67(24) 0.61(31) 0.67(24)
Mansouri et al. (2014) 0.16 0.78 0.70(11) 0.76(3) 0.68(14) 0.47(40) 0.83(6) 0.79(1) 0.82(5) 0.59(25) 0.58(26) 0.49(37) 0.60(24)

J. Struct. Eng., 2020, 146(4): 04020021

Mansouri et al. (2014) 0.27 0.72 0.57(22) 0.61(16) 0.50(31) 0.29(61) 0.71(3) 0.66(9) 0.71(2) 0.47(36) 0.40(45) 0.35(53) 0.48(34)
Akhoundi et al. (2016) 0.09 1.01 0.80(22) 0.87(15) 0.82(20) 0.55(45) 0.91(10) 0.87(14) 0.89(12) 0.70(31) 0.74(27) 0.61(40) 0.70(31)
Akhoundi et al. (2016) 0.12 1.00 0.75(26) 0.82(19) 0.75(25) 0.48(52) 0.87(13) 0.84(17) 0.86(15) 0.65(35) 0.67(33) 0.55(46) 0.65(35)
Akhoundi et al. (2016) 0.15 0.85 0.71(17) 0.78(9) 0.70(18) 0.42(51) 0.84(1) 0.80(6) 0.83(2) 0.61(28) 0.61(28) 0.49(42) 0.61(28)
Akhoundi et al. (2016) 0.20 0.77 0.65(16) 0.71(9) 0.61(21) 0.33(58) 0.79(1) 0.74(4) 0.78(1) 0.55(29) 0.52(33) 0.42(46) 0.55(29)
Akhoundi et al. (2016) 0.25 0.75 0.60(21) 0.64(15) 0.54(29) 0.25(67) 0.73(3) 0.69(9) 0.74(3) 0.50(34) 0.44(42) 0.36(53) 0.50(34)
Akhoundi et al. (2016) 0.30 0.74 0.55(27) 0.58(23) 0.46(38) 0.18(76) 0.68(9) 0.63(15) 0.69(8) 0.45(39) 0.37(51) 0.31(59) 0.45(39)
Akhoundi et al. (2016) 0.36 0.69 0.49(30) 0.51(27) 0.39(44) 0.10(86) 0.61(12) 0.56(19) 0.63(10) 0.40(42) 0.30(57) 0.26(63) 0.40(42)
Akhoundi et al. (2016) 0.45 0.64 0.41(38) 0.40(38) NA NA NA 0.46(30) 0.54(17) 0.33(49) 0.21(69) 0.20(70) 0.33(49)
Akhoundi et al. (2016) 0.49 0.64 0.38(42) 0.37(43) NA NA NA 0.42(35) 0.51(21) 0.30(53) 0.18(73) 0.18(72) 0.30(53)
Zhai et al. (2016) 0.20 0.86 0.66(24) 0.71(18) 0.62(28) 0.36(58) 0.79(9) 0.75(13) 0.79(9) 0.56(36) 0.53(39) 0.43(50) 0.56(35)
Decanini et al. (2014) 0.05 0.73 0.86(17) 0.93(26) 0.90(22) 0.78(6) 0.95(30) 0.92(25) 0.93(26) 0.74(1) 0.82(12) 0.77(5) 0.78(6)
Decanini et al. (2014) 0.07 0.69 0.83(20) 0.90(30) 0.86(24) 0.70(1) 0.93(34) 0.90(30) 0.91(31) 0.72(4) 0.79(14) 0.71(2) 0.75(8)
Decanini et al. (2014) 0.08 0.64 0.81(25) 0.88(36) 0.83(29) 0.63(2) 0.91(42) 0.88(37) 0.90(39) 0.70(9) 0.76(17) 0.65(1) 0.72(11)
Decanini et al. (2014) 0.10 0.58 0.78(34) 0.85(46) 0.80(36) 0.55(5) 0.90(54) 0.86(48) 0.88(51) 0.68(17) 0.72(23) 0.60(3) 0.69(18)
Decanini et al. (2014) 0.12 0.53 0.76(42) 0.83(55) 0.76(43) 0.48(10) 0.88(65) 0.84(58) 0.86(62) 0.66(25) 0.68(28) 0.55(4) 0.65(23)
Decanini et al. (2014) 0.13 0.49 0.74(49) 0.80(63) 0.73(49) 0.40(18) 0.86(75) 0.82(67) 0.85(72) 0.64(31) 0.65(31) 0.51(3) 0.60(22)
Decanini et al. (2014) 0.05 0.79 0.86(9) 0.93(17) 0.90(13) 0.78(2) 0.95(20) 0.92(16) 0.93(17) 0.74(6) 0.82(4) 0.77(3) 0.78(2)
Decanini et al. (2014) 0.07 0.74 0.83(12) 0.90(21) 0.86(16) 0.70(5) 0.93(25) 0.90(21) 0.91(23) 0.72(3) 0.79(6) 0.71(5) 0.75(0)

J. Struct. Eng.
 Proposed = proposed Model; AL = Al-Chaar et al. (2003); T = Tasnimi and Mohebkhah (2011); N = NZSEE (2006); M&N = Mohammadi and Nikfar (2013); Su = Su et al. (2017); S = Sachanski (1960); D&L =
[Eq. (2)]

0.65(10)
0.60(11)
model, even for high opening ratios. No other empirical model

0.72(3)
0.69(7)
I&M
gives such consistent results for both stiffness and strength predic-
tion, a fact that is also evident from Tables 3 and 4.
To throw more insight into these observations, the stiffness and
[Eq. (14)] strength values are predicted using all these empirical models and
0.65(6)
0.60(7)
0.55(7)
0.51(6)
directly compared with results of each of the considered experi-
D

mental and analytical studies in Figs. 10 and 11. It can be inferred

that the equations developed in the present study are effective in
predicting the strength and stiffness of masonry-infilled RC frames
[Eq. (3)]

0.72(12)
0.68(15)
0.65(19)
0.76(9)

obtained in most of the past studies. Although the proposed equa-

D&L

tions slightly overestimate the stiffness-reduction factors and

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Indian Institute of Technology Guwahati on 01/28/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

underestimate the strength-reduction factors for higher opening-

area ratios (Ar ≥ 30%), the predictions by the proposed models
Predicted strength-reduction factor (Rs ) using different empirical relations

[Eq. (1)]

0.66(12)
0.64(19)

are more accurate than those by the other models. It is clear from
0.70(1)
0.68(6)
S

Figs. 10 and 11 that only few experimental studies have been

undertaken to study the influence of larger opening sizes (>30%)
on the lateral load behavior of masonry-infilled RC frames. More-
over, several past studies have suggested that empirical models
[Eq. (19)]
0.90(29)
0.88(37)
0.86(46)
0.85(56)

limit themselves to either prediction of stiffness or strength up

Su

to a limited opening-area ratio. The variation in the errors across

all the prediction models for different opening-area ratios is shown
and compared in Figs. 12 and 13. It is observed from Table 3 and
[Eq. (18)]

Fig. 12 that the linear Eq. (8), proposed by Mondal and Jain
0.88(27)
0.86(34)
0.84(42)
0.82(51)
Su

(2008), can predict the stiffness-reduction factor satisfactorily only

up to 20% of Ar . The error in prediction increases drastically for
higher opening-area ratios. The prediction errors in the case of the
NZSEE (2006) empirical models were found to be very high for
[Eq. (12)]

Durrani and Luo (1994); D = Decanini et al. (2014); P = Papia et al. (2003); and I&M = Imai and Miyamoto (1989).
0.91(32)
0.90(39)
0.88(48)
0.86(58)

higher opening ratios (>20%) perhaps because the NZSEE (2006)

M&N

prediction model was developed based on the previous work of

Dawe and Seah (1989) on steel-infilled frames, whose validity
for RC infilled frames is hypothetical. The solid circles in Fig. 12
represent the proposed empirical models for which the prediction
[Eq. (7)]

0.55(14)
0.48(19)
0.40(26)

Figures in parentheses indicate the % error between experimental (or analytical) and predicted values.
0.63(9)

error is reasonably low for both stiffness and strength for all the
N

opening-area ratios compared with the prediction made by the

other models.
Pertaining to the experimental study by Kakaletsis and Karayan-
[Eq. (10)]
0.83(19)
0.80(24)
0.76(29)
0.73(35)

nis (2008, 2009) on strong and weak masonry, it was found that the
T

prediction models of Mohammadi and Nikfar (2013) and Su et al.

(2017) for hollow bricks estimated stiffness reduction reasonably
well, as the models were developed using the same experimental
results. The other models (Papia et al. 2003; NZSEE 2006; Asteris
[Eq. (6)]
0.88(26)
0.85(32)
0.83(39)
0.80(48)
AL

et al. 2011b; Decanini et al. 2014; Asteris et al. 2016) resulted in a

Note: NA = Not available due to upper limit of the predicted model.

slightly higher error for stiffness, specifically for infilled frames

with weak masonry and Ar ≈ 20%. Similarly, the empirical equa-
tions proposed by Sachanski (1960), Imai and Miyamoto (1989),
a

[Eq. (25)]
Proposed

0.81(16)
0.78(21)
0.76(28)
0.74(35)

Durrani and Luo (1994), and Decanini et al. (2014) predicted the
reduction in strength with higher errors in the case of the aforemen-
tioned frame (Ar ≈ 20%). Yáñez et al. (2004) conducted an exper-
imental investigation on frames with door and window openings
involving significantly high-strength and stiff concrete and hollow-
0.69
0.64
0.59
0.54
Actual values

Rs

brick masonry. From the analysis of stiffness and strength-reduction

values, it was found that most of the empirical equations either
0.08
0.10
0.12
0.13

overestimated or underestimated the actual values by a significant

Ar

margin, with obviously higher error for higher opening-area ratios.

Also in this case, significantly stronger and stiffer masonry was
used, and the model developed in the present study, along with
the model of Al-Chaar et al. (2003), provided reasonable estimates
Table 4. (Continued.)

(2014)
(2014)
(2014)
(2014)

of lateral stiffness and strength, as shown in Fig. 13 and compared

Past experimental or

in Tables 3 and 4.
analytical studies

Decanini et al. (2014) carried out an analytical investigation on

al.
al.
al.
al.

RC and steel frames infilled with stiff solid-brick masonry and soft
et
et
et
et
Decanini
Decanini
Decanini
Decanini

hollow-brick masonry for opening-area ratio ranging from 0% to

13%. It is clear that the prediction models developed by Su et al.
2017)) for hollow bricks and solid bricks are not able to accurately
b
a

© ASCE 04020021-14 J. Struct. Eng.

J. Struct. Eng., 2020, 146(4): 04020021

 1.00

Stiffness Reduction Factor (Ko/Ki)

0.80

0.60

0.40

0.20
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Indian Institute of Technology Guwahati on 01/28/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Present Study Akhoundi et al. (2016) Decanini et al. (2014)

0.00
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5
(a) Opening Ratio (Ar) (b) Opening Ratio (Ar) (c) Opening Ratio (Ar)

1.00 Sigmund and

Penava(2014)
Stiffness Reduction Factor (Ko/Ki)

0.80

0.60

0.40

0.20 Kakaletsis and

Choubey and
Karayannis Sinha (1994) Mansouri et al. (2014)
Yáñez et
(2008, 2009) al. (2004) Raj (2000) Zhai et al. (2016)
0.00
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5
(d) Opening ratio(Ar) (e) Opening Ratio (Ar) (f) Opening Ratio (Ar) (g) Opening Ratio (Ar)

Prediction Models

Fig. 10. Comparison of predicted lateral stiffness with individual experimental or analytical study.

estimate the reduction in stiffness and strength. Similarly, ASCE Al-Chaar et al. (2003), Mohammadi and Nikfar (2013), and Su et al.
(2013), Mohammadi and Nikfar (2013), and Al-Chaar et al. (2003) (2017) significantly overestimated stiffness reduction for area ratios
also overestimated the stiffness and strength-reduction factors >10%. Conversely, Papia et al. (2003), NZSEE (2006), Mondal
(i.e., stiffness and strength were underestimated). The other empir- and Jain (2008), Decanini et al. (2014), and Asteris et al. (2016)
ical models (Durrani and Luo 1994; Imai and Miyamoto 1989; significantly underestimated the stiffness reduction. In addition to
NZSEE 2006; Papia et al. 2003; Asteris et al. 2016) considered the the accurate estimation in the present study, Sachanski (1960), Imai
length ratio (lo =li ) as a varying parameter and predicted the stiff- and Miyamoto (1989), and Durrani and Luo (1994) predicted stiff-
ness reduction reasonably well. The empirical model of Decanini ness reduction reasonably well. It was found that almost all predic-
et al. (2014) [Eq. (14)] was also developed using length ratio as one tion models underestimated strength reduction, whereas the models
of the parameters. The empirical models proposed in the present proposed by Su et al. (2017) and Mohammadi and Nikfar (2013)
study and by Sachanski (1960) and Imai and Miyamoto (1989) es- predicted strength reduction satisfactorily up to an opening ratio of
timated the stiffness-reduction factors accurately in the case of an only 25%.
experimental investigation carried out by Mansouri et al. (2014) on Once again, it is important to highlight from Tables 3 and 4 and
low-strength and soft solid-clay bricks for various sizes of window Figs. 12 and 13 that the error in estimation of both stiffness and the
and door openings. Mohammadi and Nikfar (2013), Al-Chaar et al. strength-reduction factors increases significantly with an increase
(2003), and Su et al. (2017) predicted the strength reduction for in Ar regardless of the empirical model used. The equations devel-
hollow bricks reasonably well for the two opening ratios (16% oped in the present study estimate stiffness and strength reduction
and 27%). with good accuracy not only for the present experimental results
In the case of the analytical study on RC frames with central but also for the past experimental and analytical results. From
window openings by Akhoundi et al. (2016), it was found that the comparative study, it is clear that the past empirical equations

© ASCE 04020021-15 J. Struct. Eng.

J. Struct. Eng., 2020, 146(4): 04020021

 1.00

Strength Reduction Factor (Rs)

0.80

0.60

0.40

0.20
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Indian Institute of Technology Guwahati on 01/28/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Present
Experimental Study Decanini et al. (2014) Akhoundi et al. (2016)
0.00
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5
(a) Opening Ratio (Ar) (b) Opening Ratio (Ar) (c) Opening Ratio (Ar)

1.00
Strength Reduction Factor (Rs)

0.80

0.60

0.40

0.20 Raj (2000)

Kakaletsis & Karayannis Mansouri et al. (2014)
(2008, 2009) Yáñez et al. (2004) Zhai et al. (2016)
0.00
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5
(d) Opening Ratio (Ar) (e) Opening Ratio (Ar) (f) Opening Ratio (Ar)

Prediction Models

Fig. 11. Comparison of predicted lateral strength with individual experimental or analytical study.

100 100.0
Error in Stiffness Reduction (%)

Error in Strength Prediction (%)

80 80.0

60 60.0

40 40.0

20 20.0

0 0.0
0.00 0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50 0.00 0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50
(a) Area Opening Ratio (Ar) (b) Opening Area Ratio (Ar)

Fig. 12. Comparison of prediction error in relation to the opening-area ratio for (a) stiffness-reduction factor; and (b) strength-reduction factor (same
markers are used as in Figs. 10 and 11).

© ASCE 04020021-16 J. Struct. Eng.

J. Struct. Eng., 2020, 146(4): 04020021

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Indian Institute of Technology Guwahati on 01/28/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 13. Comparison of prediction error across all the studies for (a) stiffness-reduction factor; and (b) strength-reduction factor.

© ASCE 04020021-17 J. Struct. Eng.

J. Struct. Eng., 2020, 146(4): 04020021

 IO LS CP
considered (Al-Chaar et al. 2003; ASCE 2013; Mohammadi and 1.4
5.0
Nikfar 2013; Su et al. 2017; Imai and Miyamoto 1989; Sachanski 4.5
1.2
1960) predicted the reduction factors satisfactorily for opening-area

Normalized Lateral Load

4.0
ratios of only up to about 30%. For this reason, the equations pro- 1.0

Base Shear Ratio

3.5
posed in the present study predicted the reduction factors with
0.8 3.0
less error even for higher opening-area ratios. The effectiveness of
the proposed model was validated with other experimental studies 2.5
0.6
(Yáñez et al. 2004; Kakaletsis and Karayannis 2008, 2009) with Cracks in Infill 2.0
Shear Crack in Column
higher opening-area ratios. It was also ascertained that the existing 0.4 Flexural Crack in Column 1.5
empirical models were not effective in estimating the reduction in Peak Lateral Load 1.0
0.2 80% of Peak Lateral Load
stiffness and strength for those frames or studies that were not con- Infilled Frame with Openings 0.5
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Indian Institute of Technology Guwahati on 01/28/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

sidered in the development of the respective models. Fully Infilled Frame

From Tables 3 and 4, it is observed that although the stiffness
and strength prediction models developed in the present study do
not result in the lowest error when used on the past experimental
and analytical studies, the models are found to be most consistent
with maximum error being 42% and 49% for estimating stiffness
and strength reduction, respectively. Whereas all other empirical
models resulted in higher maximum error, some of them provided
a few predictions with very low errors. Therefore, the proposed pre-
diction models estimated the stiffness and strength of a variety of
frames with acceptable accuracy instead of accomplishing higher
accuracy for a limited number of frames while rendering the quality
of prediction for the other frames. Similarly, the mean error in the
prediction of stiffness and strength reduction using the proposed
models was also found to be significantly lower (17% and 20%,
respectively) than that found in the other existing models. Clearly,
the proposed prediction model is good at predicting both lateral
stiffness and strength of masonry-infilled RC frames with central
openings.
Idealized Lateral Load–Drift Relationship
Once the prediction models for lateral stiffness and strength are
developed, the idealized lateral load–drift relationship can be de-
veloped for masonry-infilled RC frames with central openings
based on the commencement of primary damage events such as
initiation of cracks in infills, flexure and shear cracks, peak load,
and 80% of peak load-carrying capacity in the postpeak region.
Fig. 14 shows the idealized plot after normalizing the lateral load
with the average peak load on the primary y-axis and base shear
ratio (ratio of lateral load-carrying capacity to seismic weight) on
secondary y-axis. The idealized plot developed in the previous
study by Basha and Kaushik (2016) for fully infilled frames (with-
out openings) is also shown for comparison. The secondary axis
(base shear ratio) is not applicable for the idealized plot for fully
infilled frames due to different scaling adopted for the lateral load-
carrying capacity curve of infilled frames without openings.
Major cracks in infill with openings (considered serviceability
limit state) initiated at a drift level ranging from 0.15% to 0.31%,
with an average drift level of 0.18% [coefficient of variation (COV)
of 0.35], corresponding to a lateral load level of 55% of average
peak load. In cases of fully infilled frames, the cracks in infill
initiated at a higher average drift level (0.23%) and lateral load
capacity (78% of corresponding peak load). Clearly, the service-
ability limit state (cracking in infill) occurred early due to the pres-
ence of openings in infill walls. With an increase in drift levels,
flexure cracks (0.56% drift) and shear cracks (0.69% drift) initiated
at 82% and 85% of lateral load capacity, respectively. It was ob-
served that the flexural cracks initiated prior to the formation of
shear cracks, unlike in columns of fully infilled frames (without
openings), in which shear cracks formed before flexural cracking
(Basha and Kaushik 2016). The average drift level and the lateral
loads corresponding to the initiation of cracks in the frame members
0.0 0.0
0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50 3.00 3.50 4.00 4.50 5.00
Drift (%)
Fig. 14. Idealized lateral load-drift relationship for infilled frames with
openings.
were found to be slightly lower than those observed for the forma-
tion of similar cracks in fully infilled frames (without openings).
Further, the cracks in the RC frames with openings formed prior
to the attainment of lateral load-carrying capacity of the frame.
The peak lateral load in cases of infilled frames with openings
was reached at a higher drift level (1.72%) compared with the fully
infilled frames (0.92% drift). The 80% postpeak capacity, termed
as ultimate limit state, was in the range of 2.46%–4.92% drift
with an average value of 3.74% (COV 0.22). The average drift
value for the ultimate limit state in cases of various fully infilled
frame specimens (Basha and Kaushik 2016) was to found to be
about 2.6%.
From the comparison of the aforementioned drift levels, it was
affirmed that commencement of various events was observed at
significantly higher drift levels (except infill cracking) in infilled
frames with openings compared with those of the fully infilled
frames. The infilled frames with openings exhibited more deform-
able behavior with increasing opening size as the influence of the
infill ceased, even though the lateral load capacity was fairly com-
parable to the fully infilled frames. Therefore, utmost care must be
exercised in the design of infilled frames with openings, as the lat-
eral load–drift relationship is not similar to that of either the fully
infilled frames or bare frames. The design lateral drift level of 0.4%
specified in the Indian seismic code (BIS 2016a) was reached be-
fore any major crack was formed in the columns of the frames with
openings in the walls. However, at a similar drift level, shear cracks
were observed in the columns of the frames without openings in the
walls. The design lateral drift occurred at a lower lateral load level
(70% of peak load) in frames with openings in the walls compared
with the fully infilled frames (80% of peak load). Kakaletsis and
Karayannis (2009) reported that the drift corresponding to the first
major crack (serviceability limit state) and a reduction of capacity
to 85% of maximum was in the range of 0.27%–0.39% drift and
1.87%–3.48% drift, respectively, considering door and window
openings. ASCE (2013) defines the performance levels immediate
occupancy (IO) and life safety (LS) as those corresponding to mi-
nor cracking in infills and significant cracking in frame elements,
respectively. The present study identifies these limit states for
masonry-infilled RC frames with openings at 0.45% and 0.90%
drift levels, respectively, as shown in Fig. 14. These drift levels are
quite similar to those identified for the fully infilled frames (Basha
and Kaushik 2016). The collapse prevention (CP) performance
level is defined by ASCE (2013) as that corresponding to extensive
cracking and hinge formation in frame members and is identified in
the present study at the initiation of 80% lateral load capacity in the

© ASCE 04020021-18 J. Struct. Eng.

J. Struct. Eng., 2020, 146(4): 04020021

 postpeak regime, which corresponds to a 3.4% drift level for frames
with openings in walls. Interestingly, this drift level, corresponding
to the CP limit state, was found to be significantly higher than that
identified for the fully infilled frame (1.9% drift). From the drift
values corresponding to the ultimate limit state, it can be inferred
that the drift limits increased with increasing opening size, as the
capacity degrades gradually with an increase in the size of the
opening. The idealized load–drift relationship may be used as a
guideline for the design of new buildings as well as the evaluation
of existing buildings. The proposed normalized lateral load–drift
relationship is established based on a limited study and needs to
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Indian Institute of Technology Guwahati on 01/28/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
be used carefully.
Summary and Conclusion
Seismic analysis and design of masonry-infilled RC frames re-
quires accurate representation of lateral stiffness and strength of
infill walls in analytical models. Openings make an integral part of
masonry infill walls in several cases, and therefore a comprehensive
experimental study was undertaken to understand the influence of
central openings on the lateral load behavior of masonry-infilled
RC frames. Eight half-scale frame specimens infilled with fly
ash brick masonry, having different opening-area ratios, were tested
under slow-cyclic lateral loading. From the experimental study, it
was observed that the infilled frames with openings exhibited
significantly better behavior compared with those of the infilled
frames without openings in terms of lower lateral stiffness, higher
lateral deformability, and higher energy-dissipation capacity. Though
the lateral load-carrying capacity and stiffness of the infilled frames
with openings decreased with increases in opening sizes, they were
still found to be higher than those of the corresponding bare frames,
even for high opening-area ratios. Therefore, a bare frame assumption
of an infilled frame with openings is not recommended.
To account for the reduced stiffness and strength of the infilled
frames due to the presence of openings in infill walls, simplified
analytical models generally use stiffness and strength-reduction
factors. Using the experimental results, prediction models were
developed to estimate both lateral stiffness and strength of masonry-
infilled RC frames. The prediction models were validated by apply-
ing them in estimation of lateral stiffness and strength of several
frames tested and analyzed in the past. Similarly, several other em-
pirical relations suggested in the past were also used to estimate the
lateral stiffness and strength of all frames. The comparative study
showed that the empirical models developed in the present study
were very effective in predicting the lateral stiffness and strength
of such frames with the least maximum error as well as least mean
error compared with the other empirical relations available in the
literature. The stiffness and strength-reduction factors, thus ob-
tained, can be very effectively used in modifying the properties of
the analytical models to predict the lateral load response of such
frames with reasonable accuracy.
Based on the commencement of major damage events during
lateral load performance, an idealized lateral load–drift relationship
was developed for masonry-infilled RC frames for better under-
standing of the influence of openings on the lateral load response.
The idealized curve showed that the shear cracks in columns ini-
tiated at a slightly higher drift level compared with flexural crack-
ing in all tested specimens with openings in walls. This behavior is
remarkably different from that observed in masonry-infilled RC
frames without wall openings, in which the shear cracks in columns
preceded the flexural cracks. This peculiar behavior, along with the
observation that openings in infill walls reduce their lateral stiffness
and strength and improve their lateral deformability and energy
© ASCE 04020021-19
J. Struct. Eng., 2020, 146(4): 04020021
dissipation, points toward the fact that the presence of openings
in infill walls is advantageous. It was also deduced that the serv-
iceability limit state (formation of the first major crack) and
ultimate limit state (reduction in capacity to 80%) occurred at
higher drift levels in the present study compared with those ob-
served in other studies, signifying the influence of using softer
and weaker fly ash bricks in the construction. The idealized lateral
load–drift relationship developed in the study can be used not only
as a quick design tool but also for structural assessment.
References
Achyutha, H., R. Jagadish, P. S. Rao, and S. Shakeebur Rahman. 1986.
“Finite element simulation of the elastic behaviour of infilled frames
with openings.” Comput. Struct. 23 (5): 685–696. https://doi.org/10
.1016/0045-7949(86)90077-5.
Akhoundi, F., P. B. Lourenço, and G. Vasconcelos. 2016. “Numerically
based proposals for the stiffness and strength of masonry infills with
openings in reinforced concrete frames.” Earthquake Eng. Struct. Dyn.
45 (6): 869–891. https://doi.org/10.1002/eqe.2688.
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).
Al-Chaar, G., G. E. Lamb, and M. A. Issa. 2003. “Effects of openings on
structural performance of unreinforced masonry infilled frames.”
In Large scale structural testing, edited by M. A. Issa and Y. L. Mo.
Detroit: American Concrete Institute.
ASCE. 2013. Seismic evaluation and retrofit of existing buildings. ASCE/
SEI 41. Reston, VA: ASCE.
Asteris, P. G. 2003. “Lateral stiffness of brick masonry infilled plane
frames.” J. Struct. Eng. 129 (8): 1071–1079. https://doi.org/10.1061
/(ASCE)0733-9445(2003)129:8(1071).
Asteris, P. G., S. T. Antoniou, D. S. Sophianopoulos, and C. Z.
Chrysostomou. 2011a. “Mathematical macromodeling of infilled
frames: State of the art.” J. Struct. Eng. 137 (12): 1508–1517. https://
doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)ST.1943-541X.0000384.
Asteris, P. G., L. Cavaleri, F. Di Trapani, and V. Sarhosis. 2016. “A macro-
modelling approach for the analysis of infilled frame structures consid-
ering the effects of openings and vertical loads.” Struct. Infrastruct. Eng.
12 (5): 551–566. https://doi.org/10.1080/15732479.2015.1030761.
Asteris, P. G., C. Z. Chrysostomou, I. P. Giannopoulos, and E. Smyrou.
2011b. “Masonry infilled reinforced concrete frames with openings.”
In Proc., 3rd Int. Conf. on Computational Methods in Structural
Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering. Barcelona, Spain: European
Community on Computational Methods in Applied Sciences.
Asteris, P. G., D. M. Cotsovos, C. Z. Chrysostomou, A. Mohebkhah, and
G. K. Al-Chaar. 2013. “Mathematical micromodeling of infilled frames:
State of the Art.” Eng. Struct. 56 (Nov): 1905–1921. https://doi.org/10
.1016/j.engstruct.2013.08.010.
ATC (Applied Technology Council). 1996. Seismic evaluation and retrofit
of concrete buildings. ATC-40. Redwood City, CA: ATC.
Basha, S. H., and H. B. Kaushik. 2015. “Evaluation of non-linear material
properties of fly ash brick masonry under compression and shear.”
J. Mater. Civ. Eng. 27 (8): 04014227. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)
MT.1943-5533.0001188.
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.
Basha, S. H., and H. B. Kaushik. 2019a. “A novel macromodel for predic-
tion of shear failure in columns of masonry infilled RC frames under
earthquake loading.” Bull. Earthquake Eng. 17 (4): 2219–2244. https://
doi.org/10.1007/s10518-018-00537-5.
Basha, S. H., and H. B. Kaushik. 2019b. “Investigation on improving the
shear behavior of columns in masonry infilled RC frames under lateral
loads.” Bull. Earthquake Eng. 17: 3995–4026. https://doi.org/10.1007
/s10518-019-00622-3.
J. Struct. Eng.
 BIS (Bureau of Indian Standards). 2000. Indian standard plain and rein-
forced concrete—Code of practice. IS 456. New Delhi, India: BIS.
BIS (Bureau of Indian Standards). 2016a. Indian standard criteria for
earthquake resistant design of structures—Part 1: General provisions
and buildings. IS 1893. New Delhi, India: BIS.
BIS (Bureau of Indian Standards). 2016b. Indian standard ductile detailing
of reinforced concrete structures subjected to seismic forces–Code of
practice. IS 13920. New Delhi, India: BIS.
Blackard, B., K. William, and S. Mettupalayam. 2009. “Experimental
observations of masonry infilled reinforced concrete frames with
openings.” ACI Spec. Publ. 265 (9): 199–222.
Cavaleri, L., F. Di Trapani, P. G. Asteris, and V. Sarhosis. 2017. “Influence
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Indian Institute of Technology Guwahati on 01/28/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
of column shear failure on pushover-based assessment of masonry in-
filled reinforced concrete frame structures: A case study.” Soil Dyn.
Earthquake Eng. 100 (Sep): 98–112. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soildyn
.2017.05.032.
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.
CEB (Comite Euro-International Du Beton). 1996. RC frames under earth-
quake loading: State of the Art Report. London: Thomas Telford.
Celarec, D., and M. Dolšek. 2013. “Practice-oriented probabilistic seismic
performance assessment of infilled frames with consideration of shear
failure of columns.” Earthquake Eng. Struct. Dyn. 42 (9): 1339–1360.
https://doi.org/10.1002/eqe.2275.
CEN (European Committee for Standardization). 2004. Design of struc-
tures for Earthquake Resistance—Part 1: General rules, seismic ac-
tions and rules for buildings. BS EN 1998-1. Eurocode 8, Brussels,
Belgium: CEN.
Choubey, U. B., and S. N. Sinha. 1994. “Cyclic response of infilled
frames.” J. Struct. Eng. 21: 203–211.
Choudhury, T., and H. B. Kaushik. 2018a. “Seismic fragility of open
ground storey RC frames with wall openings for vulnerability assess-
ment.” Eng. Struct. 155 (Jan): 345–357. https://doi.org/10.1016/j
.engstruct.2017.11.023.
Choudhury, T., and H. B. Kaushik. 2018b. “Seismic response sensitivity to
uncertain variables in RC frames with infill walls.” J. Struct. Eng.
144 (10): 04018184. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)ST.1943-541X
.0002190.
Chrysostomou, C. Z., and P. G. Asteris. 2012. “On the in-plane properties
and capacities of infilled frames.” Eng. Struct. 41 (Aug): 385–402.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2012.03.057.
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
/S0219455402000567.
Crisafulli, F. J., A. J. Carr, and R. Park. 2000. “Analytical modelling of
infilled frame structures—A general review.” Bull. New Zealand Soc.
Earthquake Eng. 33 (1): 30–47.
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.
D’Ayala, D., J. Worth, and O. Riddle. 2009. “Realistic shear capacity as-
sessment of infill frames: Comparison of two numerical procedures.”
Eng. Struct. 31 (8): 1745–1761. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct
.2009.02.044.
Decanini, L. D., L. Liberatore, and F. Mollaioli. 2014. “Strength and stiff-
ness reduction factors for infilled frames with openings.” Earthquake
Eng. Eng. Vib. 13 (3): 437–454. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11803-014
-0254-9.
Di Trapani, F., G. Macaluso, L. Cavaleri, and M. Papia. 2015. “Masonry
infills and RC frames interaction: Literature overview and state of the
art of macromodeling approach.” Eur. J. Environ. Civ. Eng. 19 (9):
1059–1095. https://doi.org/10.1080/19648189.2014.996671.
Durrani, A. J., and Y. H. Luo. 1994. Seismic retrofit of flat-slab buildings
with masonry infills. Technical Rep. No. NCEER-94-0004. Taipei,
Taiwan: National Center for Earthquake Engineering Research.
© ASCE 04020021-20
J. Struct. Eng., 2020, 146(4): 04020021
El-Dakhakhni, W. W., M. Elgaaly, and A. A. Hamid. 2003. “Three-strut
model for concrete masonry-infilled frames.” J. Struct. Eng. 129 (2):
177–185. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9445(2003)129:2(177).
FEMA. 2001. The 2000 NEHRP recommended provisions for seismic reg-
ulations for new buildings and old structures. FEMA-368. Washington,
DC: FEMA.
Ghosh, A. K., and A. M. Amde. 2002. “Finite element analysis of infilled
frames.” J. Struct. Eng. 128 (7): 881–889. https://doi.org/10.1061
/(ASCE)0733-9445(2002)128:7(881).
Hamburger, R. O., and A. S. Chakradeo. 1993. “Methodology for seismic
capacity evaluation of steel frame buildings with infill unreinforced
masonry.” In Vol. 2 of Proc., National Earthquake Conf., 173–191.
Memphis, TN: Central US Earthquake Consortium.
Imai, H., and M. Miyamoto. 1989. “Seismic behavior of reinforced ma-
sonry walls with small opening.” In Vol. 2 of Proc., 5 Jornadas Chi-
lenas de Sismología e Ingeniería Antisísmica, 965–973. Santiago,
Chile: Ministerio de Vivienda y Urbanismo.
Kakaletsis, D. J., and C. G. Karayannis. 2007. “Experimental investigation
of infilled R/C frames with eccentric openings.” Struct. Eng. Mech.
26 (3): 231–250. https://doi.org/10.12989/sem.2007.26.3.231.
Kakaletsis, D. J., and C. G. Karayannis. 2008. “Influence of masonry
strength and openings on infilled RC frames under cyclic loading.”
J. Earthquake Eng. 12 (2): 197–221. https://doi.org/10.1080
/13632460701299138.
Kakaletsis, D. J., and C. G. Karayannis. 2009. “Experimental investigation
of infilled reinforced concrete frames with openings.” ACI Struct.
J. 106 (2): 132–141.
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).
Liauw, T. C. 1972. “An approximate method of analysis for infilled frames
with or without opening.” Build. Sci. 7 (4): 233–238. https://doi.org/10
.1016/0007-3628(72)90004-7.
Mainstone, R. J. 1971. “On the stiffness and strength of infilled frames.”
In Proc., Transportation and Institute of Civil Engineers, 57–90.
London: Institute of Civil Engineers.
Mallick, D. V., and R. P. Garg. 1971. “Effect of openings on the lateral
stiffness of infilled frames.” ICE Proc. 49 (2): 193–209. https://doi
.org/10.1680/iicep.1971.6263.
Mansouri, A., M. S. Marefat, and M. Khanmohammadi. 2014. “Experimental
evaluation of seismic performance of low-shear strength masonry infills
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.
Mehrabi, A. B., P. B. 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).
Moghaddam, H. A., and P. J. Dowling. 1987. The state-of-the-art in infilled
frames. London: Imperial College of Science and Technology.
Mohammadi, M., and F. Nikfar. 2013. “Strength and stiffness of masonry-
infilled frames with central openings based on experimental results.”
J. Struct. Eng. 139 (6): 974–984. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)ST
.1943-541X.0000717.
Mondal, G., and S. K. Jain. 2008. “Lateral stiffness of masonry infilled
reinforced concrete (RC) frames with central opening.” Earthquake
Spectra 24 (3): 701–723. https://doi.org/10.1193/1.2942376.
Mosalam, K. M., 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).
MSJC (Masonry Standards Joint Committee). 2013. Building code require-
ments and specifications for masonry structures. Farmington Hills, MI:
MSJC.
NBC. 1994. Nepal national building code for mandatory rules of thumb
for reinforced concrete buildings with masonry infill. NBC 201.
New York: NBC.
J. Struct. Eng.
 NZSEE (New Zealand Society for Earthquake Engineering). 2006.
Assessment and improvement of the structural performance of buildings
in earthquakes. Wellington, NZ: NZSEE.
Papia, M., L. Cavaleri, and M. Fossetti. 2003. “Infilled frames: Develop-
ments in the evaluation of the stiffening effect of infills.” Struct. Eng.
Mech. 16 (6): 675–693. https://doi.org/10.12989/sem.2003.16.6.675.
Polyakov, S. V. 1956. Masonry in framed buildings. Wetherby, UK:
National Lending Library for Science and Technology.
Polyakov, S. V. 1960. “On the interaction between masonry filler walls and
enclosing frame when loaded in the plane of the wall.” In Translations
in earthquake engineering, 36–42. San Francisco: Earthquake Engi-
neering Research Institute.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Indian Institute of Technology Guwahati on 01/28/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Raj, G. B. P. 2000. “Experimental investigation of R.C. frames with brick
masonry infill walls having central opening subjected to cyclic displace-
ment loading.” M.Tech. thesis, Dept. of Civil Engineering, Indian
Institute of Technology Kanpur.
Sachanski, S. 1960. “Analysis of earthquake resistance of frame buildings
taking into consideration the carrying capacity of the filling masonry.”
In Proc., 2nd World Conf. on Earthquake Engineering, 2127–2141.
Tokyo: Architectural Society of Japan.
Sigmund, V., and D. Penava. 2014. “Influence of openings, with and
without confinement, on cyclic response of infilled R-C Frames—An
experimental study.” J. Earthquake Eng. 18 (1): 113–146. https://doi
.org/10.1080/13632469.2013.817362.
© ASCE 04020021-21
J. Struct. Eng., 2020, 146(4): 04020021
Stafford-Smith, B. 1962. “Lateral stiffness of infilled frames.” J. Struct.
Div. 88 (6): 183–199.
Su, Q., G. Cai, and H. Cai. 2017. “Seismic behaviour of full-scale hollow
bricks-infilled RC frames under cyclic loads.” Bull. Earthquake Eng.
15 (7): 2981–3012. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10518-016-0074-6.
Surendran, S., and H. B. Kaushik. 2012. “Masonry infill RC frames with
openings: Review of in-plane lateral load behaviour and modeling
approaches.” Open Constr. Build. Technol. J. 6 (1): 126–154. https://
doi.org/10.2174/1874836801206010126.
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.
Thiruvengadam, V. 1985. “On the natural frequencies of infilled frames.”
Earthquake Eng. Struct. Dyn. 13 (3): 401–419. https://doi.org/10.1002
/eqe.4290130310.
Yáñez, F., M. Astroza, A. Holmberg, and O. Ogaz. 2004. “Behavior of
confined masonry shear walls with large openings.” In Proc., 13th
World Conf. on Earthquake Engineering. Vancouver, BC, Canada:
Canadian Association for Earthquake Engineering.
Zhai, C., J. Kong, X. Wang, and Z. Chen. 2016. “Experimental and finite
element analytical 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.
J. Struct. Eng.