Journal of Earthquake Engineering

ISSN: (Print) (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/ueqe20

An Experimental Study on Finding Prequalified

Connectors between the Wall and Steel Frame
Infilled with Autoclave-Cured Aerated Concrete
Blocks

Saheb Ali Asadzadeh , Majid Mohammadi , Nader K. A. Attari & Seyed Alireza
Zareei

To cite this article: Saheb Ali Asadzadeh , Majid Mohammadi , Nader K. A. Attari & Seyed Alireza
Zareei (2020): An Experimental Study on Finding Prequalified Connectors between the Wall
and Steel Frame Infilled with Autoclave-Cured Aerated Concrete Blocks, Journal of Earthquake
Engineering, DOI: 10.1080/13632469.2020.1822231

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/13632469.2020.1822231

Published online: 21 Sep 2020.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 47

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=ueqe20
JOURNAL OF EARTHQUAKE ENGINEERING
https://doi.org/10.1080/13632469.2020.1822231

An Experimental Study on Finding Prequalified Connectors

between the Wall and Steel Frame Infilled with Autoclave-Cured
Aerated Concrete Blocks
Saheb Ali Asadzadeh a, Majid Mohammadi b
, Nader K. A. Attari c
,
and Seyed Alireza Zareei a
a
Department of Civil Engineering, Isfahan (Khorasgan) Branch, Islamic Azad University, Isfahan, Iran (The Islamic
Republic of); bStructural Engineering Research Center, International Institute of Earthquake Engineering and
Seismology, Tehran, Iran (The Islamic Republic of); cDepartment of Structural Engineering, Road, Housing & Urban
Development Research Center, Tehran, Iran (Islamic Republic of)

ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

In this study, experiments are conducted to investigate the effect of wall-to- Received 8 November 2019
frame connectors on in-plane/out-of-plane (IP/OOP) behavior of the steel Accepted 7 September 2020
frames infilled with autoclave-cured aerated concrete (AAC) wall to find KEYWORDS
a reasonable connection type. Six infilled frames with different connection Frame-wall interaction; wall-
designs were tested. In specimens with V-shaped and T-shaped connectors, to-frame connection type;
the OOP stability of the wall was maintained, the frame–wall interaction was prequalified connectors; in-
ignored, and the wall remained intact up to 2.5% IP drift. They compensated plane/out-of-plane tests;
the stiffness degradation and strength reduction of the frame after 2.5% drift. AAC infill
These two connectors can be used as prequalified connectors in the steel
structures.

1. Introduction
Recent earthquakes have shown that the infill wall damage occurs in both older and new seismically
designed buildings. This shows the need for the separate verification of in-plane (IP) and out-of-plane
(OOP) loading Butenweg, Marinković, and Salatić (2019). The OOP behavior of masonry infill walls
inserted in framed buildings is one of the most important failure modes of this nonstructural element
during an earthquake, which may be a consequence of simultaneous or prior IP damage Mazza (2018).
OOP collapse of masonry infills may cause both casualty risks and unfavorable situations affecting the
overall structural response Pasca, Liberatorea, and Masianib (2017). The analysis of the behavior of
masonry infills under OOP and IP loading is required to correctly assess the seismic performance of
the frame, where the most important issue is IP/OOP interaction, i.e., “the analysis of how the IP
damage, which affects infills during earthquakes, can influence their OOP behavior and vice-versa”
Ricci, Di Domenico, and Verderame (2018). These are the reasons to perform comprehensive
investigations of the seismic behavior of this traditional construction type for separate and combined
IP and OOP loading. In this regard, several experimental and numerical studies have been conducted
in recent years. For example, Furtado et al. (2016a), Furtado et al. (2018), Furtado et al. (2020)
experimentally evaluated the OOP performance of masonry infill walls and the effect of different
variables on the panel performance, such as aspect ratio, panel slenderness, percentage of masonry
units’ voids, masonry properties, previous IP drift, gravity load, and panel support condition by
presenting a simplified macro-model to consider OOP behavior of the infill panels and the corre­
sponding IP/OOP interaction under seismic loadings. Their results showed that the previous IP

CONTACT Saheb Ali Asadzadeh asadzadeh.sali649@gmail.com Department of Civil Engineering, Isfahan (Khorasgan)
Branch, Islamic Azad University, Isfahan 81595-158, Iran (The Islamic Republic of)
© 2020 Taylor & Francis Group, LLC
2 S. A. ASADZADEH ET AL.

damage reduced the OOP capacity of the panel changing the failure mode of the panel which can result
in fragile collapses. In Pasca et al. (2017)’s study, the OOP response of masonry infill walls was
investigated by identifying the main involved parameters and the most critical configurations, and
examining the influence of geometrical characteristics, panel slenderness, previous IP damage, pre­
sence of reinforcing elements and openings. Both the panel slenderness and the presence of prior IP
damage affected the OOP stiffness and strength of the wall. However, such dependence was influenced
by the boundary conditions. When the infill was confined along all the edges, the arching action of the
wall increased strength, and due to crushing of masonry at the crack lines and at the interface with the
confining frame until total collapse, a load drop was finally observed. They suggested that further
investigation is needed on the interaction among these factors. (Mazza 2018) presented IP/OOP non-
linear model of masonry infills in reinforced concrete–framed buildings using a five-element macro
model with four diagonal OOP non-linear beams and one horizontal IP non-linear truss, with an
equivalent mass of the infill panel divided between two central nodes. Masonry panels of the upper
story, where faster OOP loading was expected due to the increase of seismic acceleration, showed an
OOP collapse with little or no degradation and without reaching the ultimate value of the IP drift ratio.
In the intermediate storys, with equal IP and OOP loading, masonry panels presented a large number
of IP cycles exceeding the second branch of the backbone curve, thus causing OOP degradation.
Moreover, masonry panels of the lower storys, where IP loading was faster than OOP to represent high
seismic shear forces, showed an IP collapse complemented by a high level of OOP degradation. (Anic
et al. 2019) performed a numerical investigation of two distinct static OOP loading methods (infill
loading and frame loading) for framed masonry walls with openings. They concluded that the frame
loading causes the infill to bear significantly greater damage than the infill, and the infill does not
influence initial stiffness. Other studies have investigated the IP action effects on the OOP response of
thin unreinforced masonry infills (Ricci, Di Domenico, and Verderame 2018), the IP/OOP response of
a cavity masonry wall made of two thin walls not connected transversely (Palieraki et al. 2018), and the
effect of the infill aspect ratio on the IP/OOP interaction (De Risi et al. 2019). By reviewing the
literature, it can be said that there is a paucity of experimental studies on the effect of wall-to-frame
connection type on the IP/OOP interaction of the wall.
In the past studies, less attention has been paid to the effect of wall-to-frame connection type on the
behavior of infilled frames. Among conducted studies, the effect of connector type has been investigated
only on IP behavior of infilled frame (Wang and Li 2017) and has been reported that the previous IP
damage can greatly reduce the OOP strength and stability of the infill walls (Furtado et al. 2016a, 2018).
After several IP loading cycles, the lowest OOP resistance of the infill wall is observed when there is a low
integration between the frame and the wall, which should not be overlooked. Frame–wall interaction,
depending on the construction details of the infill wall and its type of connection to the surrounding
frame, can have positive and negative effects on the frame, infill wall, and the overall structural response.
Infill wall damages (diagonal traction cracks, shear slip, corner crashing, and throw-off failure), shear
rupture of concrete beams and columns, fracture of beam-to-column connections in infilled steel frame,
reduced periodic structural time, soft story failure (irregularity in height), torsion (irregularity in plan),
and short column effect (non-uniform distribution of forces in the columns) are among its negative
effects. Over the past two decades, in order to use the positive effects of such interaction and reduce its
negative effects, different techniques such as retrofitting of walls (Altın et al. 2010; El-Dakhakhni, Hamid,
and Elgaaly 2004; El-Gawady, Lestuzzi, and Badoux 2006; Lestuzzi, ElGawady, and Badoux 2006),
repairing damaged walls (Amanat, Alam, and Alam 2007; Teymur, Yuksel, and Pala 2008), separating
walls from the frame (Hashemi et al. 2018; Ju et al. 2012), providing a new configuration for the
engineered wall (Mohammadi and Mohammadi Ghazi 2012), providing compromise solution
(Markulak, Radic, and Sigmund 2013), and providing innovative seismic solution for the walls with
sliding joints (Morandi, Milanesi, and Magenes 2018) have been proposed.
Considering above mentioned materials and due to a paucity of experimental studies on the effect of
wall-to-frame connection type on the IP/OOP interaction of the frame, the present study aimed to evaluate
the effect of the type of connection between walls made of the Autoclave-Cured Aerated Concrete (AAC)
 JOURNAL OF EARTHQUAKE ENGINEERING 3

and the surrounding steel frame on the IP/OOP behavior of the infilled frame to find some kinds of
prequalified connectors that can obviate some of the weaknesses of infill walls to be applicable in buildings.
For this purpose, six steel frames infilled with AAC blocks having different connection types are tested. It is
assumed that a reasonable wall-to-frame connector can: (1) avoid the evolution of damage in the wall, (2)
eliminate the adverse effects of increased initial stiffness, (3) compensate the frame stiffness and increase the
wall strength by keeping the wall intact up to 2.5% drift ratio, (4) eliminate the adverse effects of frame–wall
interaction on the OOP behavior of infill wall and improve its OOP strength, and (5) ensure OOP stability
of the wall during an earthquake. It is an attempt to

2. Experimental Program
2.1. Test Specimens
Specimens were six 1/2 scaled single-story single-bay steel moment-resisting frames infilled with AAC
blocks with a dimension of 300 × 120 × 100 mm. The section used for columns and beams in all frames
was HEA120. Table 1 presents the details of the specimens. Polyurethane adhesive (StoneFix, Zettex Co.,
Netherlands) was used as bed-joint mortar. It is an affordable and easy-to-use adhesive and can be a good
alternative for conventional and traditional mortars. To attach AAC blocks to each other, thin steel plates
and iron pins were used in horizontal even rows (Fig. 1). Specimen CINF-0 consisted of a regular AAC
wall bonded to the beams and columns of the frame with StoneFix adhesive (Fig. 2a). In specimen CINF-
1, in addition to the adhesive, steel plates (220 × 50 × 3 mm) were welded to the columns as shear
connectors (Fig. 2b). The distance between them was 240 mm. For specimen CINF-2, the infill wall was
“completely” isolated from the frame and there was no interaction between frame and wall up to 1.5%
drift ratio. The infill wall was surrounded by two L40 × 4 steel angle sections at a distance of 12 mm from
the inner column surface and the upper beam (Fig. 2c). The OOP stability of the infill wall was provided
by a number of steel plates (200 × 80 × 4 mm) welded to the column and beam flanges from both sides
and in contact with the confining angle. These plates were welded to beam and columns flanges on both
sides in midpoints and also in a distance equal to 1/6 of the total length from the corner. For specimen
CINF-3, the infill wall surrounded by the steel angle sections was “partially” isolated from the frame. For
connecting the infill to frame, a number of V-shaped steel connectors were welded to the columns (three
at each corner) and the confining angle (Fig. 2d). The distance of the angle section from the column and
the upper beam was 24 and 12 mm, respectively. The OOP stability in this specimen was also provided by
the 200 × 80 × 4-mm steel plates welded in the middle of the column flanges in midpoints and also in
a distance equal to 1/6 of the total length from the corner of the beams. For specimen CINF-4, a number
of T-shaped steel connectors were used (three at each corner) between the wall and the frame (Fig. 2e).
One side of this connector was welded to the column and the other side was horizontally placed in the
bed joints of the AAC wall. The length of the horizontal part was 220 mm, and the distance between
these connectors was 120 mm. Its OOP stability was provided like the way it was done for the specimen

Table 1. Information of the test specimens.

Wall thickness Wall connection IP OOP test

Specimen Wall type (mm) Mortar and glue type Connector type test (a) (b)
BF - - - - - Yes No No
WNPD block 100 Polyurethane Infill Type – A No Yes No
CINF-0 block 100 Polyurethane Infill Type – A Yes No Yes
CINF-1 block 100 Polyurethane Infill Type – B Yes No Yes
CINF-2 block 100 Polyurethane Infill Type – C Yes No Yes
CINF-3 block 100 Polyurethane Infill Type – D Yes No Yes
CINF-4 block 100 Polyurethane Infill Type – E Yes No Yes
(a) With no previous IP damage;
(b) With previous IP damage
4 S. A. ASADZADEH ET AL.

Figure 1. Execution of the infill wall with AAC blocks.

Figure 2. Detailed dimensions and configurations of specimens (unit: mm).

 JOURNAL OF EARTHQUAKE ENGINEERING 5

Figure 2.

CINF-3. In this model, the wall was not confined with angle sections. The wall was in contact with the
upper and lower beam flanges, and the distance between the wall and the columns was 24 mm.
6 S. A. ASADZADEH ET AL.

Table 2. Summary of mechanical properties of steel materials.

Frame section Connectors
Property No. of specimens Mean CV(%) No. of specimens Mean CV(%)
Yield Stress, Fy (MPa) 6 297.5 2.47 3 288 0.60
Ultimate Stress, Fu (MPa) 6 435.5 2.66 3 376 0.67
Ultimat Strain, u(%) 6 21 2.91 3 21.5 2.58
Young’s Modulus, E(GPa) 6 202 1.78 3 198 0.77
CV = Coefficient of variation

2.2. Material Properties

To determine the mechanical properties of the used steel in the frame sections and the connectors,
three samples from flanges, three from webs of HE-A120 sections, and three from connectors were
tested according to ASTMA370-11 (2011). The results are reported in Table 2. For determining the
compressive strength of AAC units, six units tested according to ASTM C1386–07 (2009). The results
reported a mean compressive strength and dry density of 3.4 MPa and 5.20 kN/m3, respectively. Other
properties are provided in Table 3.
For determining the compressive strength of the AAC wall, three AAC prisms were prepared, each
consisting of two courses of AAC blocks bonded to each other by the adhesive. After 72 hours, they
were subjected to vertical compression strength tests using a hydraulic actuator according to ASTM
C1314-07 (2009). The results reported the average vertical compressive strength of 1.07 MPa and the
average vertical elasticity modulus of 1637 MPa (Table 3).
Furthermore, tensile strength, shear strength, and shear modulus of AAC masonry prisms were
measured by preparing four block walletes according to ASTM E519/E519M–10 [2009] which is
shown in Fig. 3. Samples were tested after 72 hours. They were instrumented with two linear variable
displacement transducers (LVDTs) to measure their horizontal and vertical deformations. The
pressure load was applied in a diagonal direction using a hydraulic actuator. According to the results,
mean tensile strength, shear strength, and shear modulus of AAC block wallets were obtained 0.22,
0.35, and 597 MPa, respectively (Table 3).
To determine the pure shear strength of polyurethane adhesive, based on (DIN EN 2007-3 (2007)
standard and without applying pre-compression, tests were conducted on two series each with three
samples made of scaled AAC block with a dimension of 300 × 120 × 100 mm (Fig. 4). In sample
A-i (i = 1,2,3), AAC blocks were jointed to each other using the adhesive, while in sample
B-i (i = 1,2,3), thin steel plates were employed between the blocks in addition to the adhesive. They
were tested 72 hours after construction. This time was determined because the used adhesive
(StoneFix) takes up to 72 hours to be fully cured according to the manufacturer (Zettex Company).
The shear strength results for the two samples are presented in Table 4.

2.3. Test Setup and Instrumentation

The experimental test setup is illustrated in Fig. 5. For IP testing, the columns base of the specimen was
connected to the strong floor. The specimen frame was laterally supported at two points to supply its

Table 3. Compressive, tensile and shear strength of AAC block.

Property Type of specimens No. of specimens Mean(MPa) CV(%)
Compressive strength, fm Units 6 3.40 12.47
Compressive strength, fb Prisms 3 1.07 11.79
Elasticity modulus, Em Prisms 3 1637 6.36
Tensile strength, ft Walletes 4 0.22 16.17
Shear strength, fv Walletes 4 0.35 15.78
Shear modulus, Gm Walletes 4 597 15.97
CV = Coefficient of variation
 JOURNAL OF EARTHQUAKE ENGINEERING 7

Figure 3. AAC wallettes for the tensile test, (a) before failure (b) after failure.

Figure 4. Testing the shear strength of polyurethane adhesive. (a) Sample A-3 after failure, (b) Sample B-3 after failure.

Table 4. Shear strength of the used adhesive (sliding shear strength of the bed joints).
Property Sample No. of specimens Mean CV(%)
Shear strength, fvo (MPa) A-i 3 0.41 9.30
Shear strength, fvo (MPa) B-i 3 0.22 9.32
CV = Coefficient of variation

OOP displacements (Fig. 5a). Specimens went under cyclic loading by using two hydraulic actuators
(500 kN capacity and stroke ±150 mm) at the upper beam’s level. The assumed IP loading protocol
shown in Fig. 6a was according to Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA 461) (2007). The
loading speed was slow enough for quasi-static cyclic loading. Environmental testing to determine the
crack pattern and OOP failure mechanism of the infill wall is usually performed using a system of
airbags that need financial support and equipment. A cyclic loading at the center of the infilled wall
8 S. A. ASADZADEH ET AL.

Figure 5. Experimental test set-up: (a) General view, (b) Lateral view, (c) Instrumentation.

Figure 6. Loading protocol: (a) IP, (b) OOP.

helped in reaching results considering the effect of infill wall connector on OOP stability. The cyclic
OOP loading with controlled displacement was vertically applied in one direction by one hydraulic
 JOURNAL OF EARTHQUAKE ENGINEERING 9

actuator at the center of the wall and increased cyclically in one direction until reaching the target
displacement. A steel plate of 500 × 300 × 10 mm was installed at the end of the actuator to prevent
local damages to the wall (Fig. 5b). The cyclic OOP loading protocol shown in Fig. 6(b) was according
to the approach employed in previous studies (Furtado et al., 2016a). To monitor the applied IP and
OOP loadings, one load cell was installed and the displacements were measured by LVDTs. The
measured data were stored in a data logger. Figure 5c illustrates the instrumentation of the experi­
mental tests.

3. Experimental Results
3.1. Failure Modes, Damage Evolution and Cracking Patterns
3.1.1. Specimen BF
Figure 7 illustrates the IP and OOP failure mechanisms of tested specimens. During IP testing of the
specimen BF, plastic deformation started at column flanges at 18-mm displacement (1.1% drift ratio).
After 98 mm (6% drift), the amount of lateral load (100 kN) remained almost constant. With the
increase in the amplitude of horizontal displacement, local buckling at the column flange and
plasticization of the panel zone at the beam-column joint was observed (Fig. 7a).

Figure 7. The IP (red lines) vs. OOP (green lines) damage observed in tested specimens at the end of test.
10 S. A. ASADZADEH ET AL.

3.1.2. Specimen WNPD

In OOP testing of the specimen WNPD (with no previous damage), the failure occurred in the middle
as the wall moved out of the plane. First one vertical crack developed from the middle point to its
upper part and the mid-span, and one diagonal crack from the middle point to the lower left corner.
With an increase in the amplitude of OOP displacement, the pattern of these cracks was completed
and other diagonal cracks propagated from the middle point to the lower and upper right corners
(Fig. 7b).

3.1.3. Specimen CINF-0

In IP testing of the specimen CINF-0 where the wall was connected to the frame using polyurethane
glue, after 2.2% drift ratio, the wall subdivided into six horizontal stripes (Fig. 7c) being able to slide on
each other. No noticeable diagonal cracks were observed on the wall. Under OOP testing, the
dominant wall failure modes of this specimen were vertical and horizontal cracks and, as OOP loading
amplitude increased, some parts of the infill wall in the horizontal even rows moved out of the plane.

3.1.4. Specimen CINF-1

During IP testing of the specimen CINF-1 where the wall was connected to the frame using
polyurethane glue and shear connectors, when the displacement reached 35 mm (2.2% drift), the
specimen subdivided into three horizontal stripes able to slide in the horizontal bed joints (Fig. 7d). In
this specimen, like specimen CINF-0, the tendency of the blocks for horizontal bed-joint sliding was
observed in the even rows where thin steel plates and iron pins were used for attaching blocks together
(see Fig. 1). This was because the use of thin steel plates in horizontal bed joints reduced the shear
strength of polyurethane glue as 46%. Under OOP testing, the cracks gradually developed from the
middle point to the corners as the amplitude of displacement increased. Some of these cracks
developed over the previous cracks and others were new cracks. The failure mode of this model was
somehow similar to that of specimen WNPD (Fig. 7d).

3.1.5. Specimen CINF-2

In IP testing of the specimen CINF-2 (full isolation at the frame–wall interface), until 35-mm
displacement (2.2% drift), no damage was observed in the infill wall. The only failure was observed
at 9.1 mm (0.56% drift) where a small part of the column flange yielded. As the amplitude of horizontal
displacement increased to 45.5 mm (2.8% drift), a diagonal tension crack with 1970 mm length
appeared along with the compression diagonal. This crack propagated through blocks and inclined
at 45°. With the increase of the displacement to 55 mm (3.4% drift), a diagonal tension crack with
3320 mm length appeared. Another observation at this displacement was the slip of AAC blocks in the
horizontal bed joints. The slip length was 780 mm observed in the 8th row, and its starting point was
from the end of the diagonal crack which appeared at 2.8% drift (Fig. 7e). At 65-mm displacement
(4.02% drift), in addition to this slip, horizontal bed-joint sliding occurred in the 11th row. Under
OOP testing, failure occurred over the previous cracks caused by IP loading (Fig. 7e).

3.1.6. Specimen CINF-3

For the specimen CINF-3 (partial isolation of infill wall from bonding frame using V-shaped
connectors), no damage was observed in the wall under IP testing up to 55-mm displacement (3.4%
drift). At 9.1-mm displacement, plastic hinges were formed at the bottom ends of columns and then
developed up to 65-mm displacement (4.02% drift). In this specimen, there was a cooperative behavior
between the frame and the wall due to the use of V-shaped connectors. Up to 45.5 mm displacement
(2.8% drift), the connectors provided the possibility of sliding for the infill wall through IP bending
(opening/closing). As a result, bending deformation in the frame had no negative effects on the wall.
At 45.5 mm, the frame entered into contact with the confining angle and caused a frame–wall
interaction. At 3.4% drift, two oblique cracks appeared in one-third of the wall area on the loading
side (Fig. 7f). During the test, no damage was observed in the connectors. Under the OOP test, first
 JOURNAL OF EARTHQUAKE ENGINEERING 11

a small crack in the mid-point of the wall was developed over the previous cracks and then, new cracks
appeared with the increase of OOP displacement. The development of cracks caused by OOP loading
was from the mid-point to the corners (Fig. 7f).

3.1.7. Specimen CINF-4

For the specimen CINF-4 (partial isolation of infill wall from the frame using T-shaped connectors)
under IP testing, sliding in the upper part of the wall along the bed joints was observed at 3.5-mm
displacement (0.2% drift) where the slip length was equal to the length of the wall. At 12.8 mm (0.8%
drift), the second shear slip occurred in the lower part of the wall. At this drift, at a distance of 420 mm
from the column on the loading side, vertical bed-joint of the one of AAC blocks was separated
changing the sliding position from the lower part of the wall to the bed-joint of the first row which
disturbed the performance of connectors in this area (Fig. 7g). Plastic hinge formation at the bottom
ends of columns started when displacement reached 9.1 mm (0.56% drift) and developed as displace­
ment increased. At displacements 35 (2.2% drift), 45.5 (2.8% drift), and 55 mm (3.4% rift), some cracks
appeared in the lower corner of tensile diagonal, and some parts of tensile corners in the vertical and
horizontal bed joints gradually disparted. Under OOP testing, no failure occurred over the cracks
previously created by IP loading. In the early stages of OOP loading, a crack occurred along a vertical
line from the mid-point of the wall to the upper beam. Then, with the increase of displacement, a series
of horizontal cracks developed from the mid-point toward the columns. In the end, as the displace­
ment increased, cracks gradually developed towards the corners of the wall (Fig. 7g).
In all specimens, the failure mode was the OOP movement of the wall in the middle point. None of
them had OOP throw-off failure. The OOP and IP cracking patterns of tested specimens are plotted in
Fig. 8. The results show that the compliance rate of OOP crack pattern to the IP crack pattern in
specimens CINF-0, CINF-1, CINF-2, CINF-3, and CINF-4 are 60.9%, 50.2%, 90.4%, 36.2%, and 4.7%,
respectively. The V- and T-shaped connectors considerably reduced the evolution of damage in
specimens CINF-3 and CINF-4.

3.2. Hysteric Behavior and Strength

The IP horizontal load–displacement curves obtained from all specimens are shown in Fig. 9 and their
envelope curves compared to specimen BF are presented in Fig. 10. The presence of AAC infill walls in
the infilled frame increased the IP strength of all specimens; however, the increasing trend and its

Figure 8. The IP (red lines) vs. OOP (green lines) cracking patterns in tested specimens.
12 S. A. ASADZADEH ET AL.

Figure 9. In-plane lateral load–displacement hysteresis curves of tested specimens.

amount for the same drifts varied in specimens. There was no significant difference between envelope
curves of CINF-0 and CINF-1 indicating that the presence of shear connectors has no considerable
effect on the wall strength. The IP strength of specimen CINF-2 was similar to that of specimen BF
until 1.5% drift ratio. In this model, there was no interaction between the frame and wall up to 1.5%
drift due to the complete isolation at the frame–wall interface. As the wall came in contact with the
frame at this drift, its IP strength increased and continued until 3% drift. Afterward, the IP strength
decreased due to the evolution of damage in the wall and the frame. The envelope curves of CINF-3
and CINF-4 were almost identical. Due to cooperation between the frame and wall, the increase in the
strength of these specimens was evident from the beginning of the cyclic loading. There was little
increase in the IP strength of these two specimens up to 1.5% drift. Afterward, their IP strength
increased more until 4.02% drift.
 JOURNAL OF EARTHQUAKE ENGINEERING 13

Figure 10. In-plane lateral load–displacement envelope curves of tested specimens.

The ratio of IP strength in the infilled frames to that of BF and CINF-0 was calculated at drift ratios
of 0.8, 2.5, and 3.5% in order to assess the effect of wall-to-frame connection type and infill wall on
increasing the lateral resistance of infilled frame at the performance levels of Immediate Occupancy
(IO) and Life Safety (LS). The results are shown in Table 5. The IP strength of specimens CINF-0 and
CINF-1 showed a higher increase (87%) at 0.8% drift compared to the specimen BF. This rate declined
at 2.5% drift due to the evolution of damage in the wall and reached 32% in CINF-0 and 34% in CINF-
1. There was no increase in the IP strength of the specimen CINF-2 at 0.8% drift; however, it was
increased by 40% at 2.5% drift. After 3% drift, no considerable increase was reported. In specimen
CINF-3, the IP strength of the infilled frame increased by 23% at 0.8% drift compared to that of BF.
This increase continued as displacement increased such that at 3.5% drift without any damage in the

Table 5. Comparing the ratio of IP strength in the infilled frames to that of BF and CINF-0.
0.8% drift 2.5% drift 3.5% drift
Ratio Ratio Ratio
Loading
Specimen direction P(kN) (a) (b) P(kN) (a) (b) P(kN) (a) (b)
BF Average 31.4 1.00 0.53 78.3 1.00 0.76 87.9 1.00 0.74
CINF-0 + 58.8 1.87 1.00 104.6 1.32 1.00 120.2 1.35 1.00
- 58.9 101.9 117.0
Average 58.85 103.2 118.6
CINF-1 + 58.7 1.87 1.00 103.7 1.34 1.02 122.5 1.41 1.04
- 58.8 106.8 125.2
Average 58.8 105.3 123.9
CINF-2 + 31.5 1.01 0.54 112.3 1.40 1.06 124.7 1.40 1.04
- 31.8 107.4 122.1
Average 31.7 109.9 123.4
CINF-3 + 39.9 1.23 0.66 97.8 1.24 0.94 123.7 1.40 1.04
- 37.2 97.1 122.6
Average 38.6 97.5 123.2
CINF-4 + 39.5 1.30 0.69 111.6 1.39 1.06 129.4 1.46 1.08
- 42.1 106.1 127.4
Average 40.8 108.9 128.4
(a) Bare frame, (b) CINF-0
14 S. A. ASADZADEH ET AL.

infill wall, the increase in IP strength reached 40%. The increase rate for specimen CINF-4 compared
to BF at 0.8, 2.5, and 3.5% drift ratios was 30, 39, and 46%, respectively.
The OOP load-displacement hysteresis curves of specimens and their envelope curves compared to
specimen WNPD are shown in Figs. 11 and 12. The maximum OOP load-carrying capacity of
specimen WNPD (6.26 kN) was recorded at the OOP displacement of 50 mm (6.7% drift ratio) at
the middle point of the wall. For specimens CINF-0, CINF-1 and CINF-2, the appearance of envelope
curves were similar to each other. The OOP load carrying of these specimens increased with a gentle
slope to a maximum point by the increase in displacement at the midpoint of the wall up to a specific
drift ratio. From this point onwards, the OOP strength of the wall decreased. Their maximum OOP
load-carrying capacity was 3.64, 3.74, and 3 kN recorded at 85-mm (11.3% drift), 75-mm (10% drift)
and 55-mm (8.7% drift) OOP displacement at the middle of the wall, respectively. In OOP tests, OOP

Figure 11. Out-of-plane load–displacement hysteresis curves of tested specimens.

 JOURNAL OF EARTHQUAKE ENGINEERING 15

Figure 12. OOP load-displacement envelope curves of tested specimens.

displacement of the wall measured at mid-point was divided by 1/2 of its height and defined as its OOP
drift ratio. The envelope curves of specimens CINF-3 and CINF-4 had two parts each with different
maximum value for OOP load-carrying capacity. The highest capacity of these models was measured
at the first part at 27-mm (3.6% drift) and 25-mm (3.2% drift) displacements as 4.70 and 5.20 kN,
respectively. Overall, it was found out that previous damage caused by IP loading can reduce the OOP
strength of specimens at the same drift ratios.
The ratio of OOP strength in infilled specimens to that of WNPD was compared at 0.8, 3.3, 5.3 and
8% OOP drift ratios in order to evaluate the role of connectors in preventing the reduction of OOP
strength in the infill walls. Comparison results presented in Table 6 showed that the previous damage
caused by IP loading reduced the OOP strength of specimens CINF-0, CINF-1, CINF-2, CINF-3 and
CINF-4 until 4.02% IP drift ratio compared to WNPD. The average reduction rates were 73%, 70%,
74%, 14%, and 11%, respectively up to 5.3% OOP drift. Although in specimens CINF-0 and CINF-1,
the amount of previous damage was higher than in other models, the highest reduction in OOP
strength was recorded for specimen CINF-2 where the infill wall had been fully isolated from the
structural frame. The main reason for this result is the high level of interaction between OOP and IP
failure patterns. The lowest reduction in OOP strength was recorded for specimens CINF-3 and CINF-
4. In these models, the connectors reduced the damage caused by IP loading in the wall and changed
the IP failure pattern and, thus, the level of OOP/IP interaction was minimized and the OOP behavior
of the infill was improved. The comparison of OOP strength between infilled specimens and WNPD at
the same drifts is illustrated in Fig. 13.

Table 6. Comparing the ratio of OOP strength in the infilled specimens to that of WNPD.
0.8% drift 3.3% drift 5.3% drift 8% drift
Specimen P(kN) Ratio P(kN) Ratio P(kN) Ratio P(kN) Ratio
WNPD 3.80 1.00 5.40 1.00 5.60 1.00 5.60 1.00
CINF-0 0.55 0.14 1.75 0.32 1.95 0.35 2.85 0.51
CINF-1 0.53 0.14 1.87 0.35 2.40 0.43 3.20 0.57
CINF-2 0.40 0.11 1.60 0.30 2.10 0.38 2.70 0.48
CINF-3 3.73 0.98 4.60 0.85 4.20 0.75 4.45 0.79
CINF-4 3.60 0.95 5.20 0.96 4.30 0.77 4.55 0.81
16 S. A. ASADZADEH ET AL.

3.3. Stiffness Degradation

Figure 14 shows the stiffness degradation curves of specimens. The stiffness degradation factor (Kj)
was defined as: ([Wang and Li 2017])
X
n X
n
Kj ¼ Pji = uij
i¼1 i¼1

where Pji shows the maximum horizontal load at ith loading cycle and uij is the corresponding
displacement at the ith cycle when the column end displacement is equal to j. moreover,M
n represents the number of loading cycles for each cycle. To evaluate the effect of connection type
on the increase of stiffness in specimens and their stiffness degradation quantificationally, three typical
characteristic points of specimens were introduced to stiffness degradation curves corresponding to
the drift ratios of 0.8%, 2.5%, and 3.5%. These points are summarized in Table 7. Based on the results,
the presence of AAC infill walls highly increased the stiffness of specimens CINF-0 and CINF-1 from
the early stages of loading, while in CINF-2, CINF-3 and CINF-4 little increase were reported. This is
because of using different wall-to-frame connection types in these specimens. Quantitatively, the
initial stiffness of CINF-0 and CINF-1 was approximately 3.07 times the initial stiffness of BF. This
value for CINF-2, CINF-3, and CINF-4 was 1.01, 1.15, and 1.28 times, respectively. Overall, with the
increase of displacement amplitude, the stiffness of all specimens was degraded where the speed of
degradation in CINF-0 and CINF-1 was higher.

3.4. Out-of-plane Displacement Profiles

The OOP displacement profiles of all infill walls were measured during the experiments along three
different alignments: left, center, and right and at five different heights: h1 = 0 m; h2 =1/3hwall; h3
= 1/2hwall; h4 = 2/3hwall, and h5 = hwall; where hwall is the wall height. The main goal was to characterize

Figure 13. Comparing the OOP strength of the infilled specimens with that of WNPD.
 JOURNAL OF EARTHQUAKE ENGINEERING 17

Figure 14. Stiffness degradation curves of tested specimens.

Table 7. Comparing the ratio of stiffness degradation in the infilled frames to that of bare frame.
Kini 0.8% drift 2.5% drift 3.5% drift
Loading
Specimen direction Kini(kN/mm) Ratio Kj(kN/mm) Ratio Kj(kN/mm) Ratio P(kN) Ratio
BF Average 2.84 1.00 2.62 0.92 2.09 0.74 1.67 0.59
CINF-0 + 6.01 3.02 4.90 1.72 2.79 0.97 2.29 0.80
- 6.44 4.91 2.72 2.23
Average 6.23 4.90 2.75 2.26
CINF-1 + 6.02 3.02 4.89 1.72 2.77 0.99 2.33 0.83
- 6.44 4.90 2.85 2.38
Average 6.23 4.90 2.81 2.36
CINF-2 + 2.78 1.01 2.63 0.93 2.99 1.03 2.38 0.83
- 2.67 2.65 2.86 2.33
Average 2.73 2.64 2.93 2.35
CINF-3 + 3.37 1.15 3.33 1.13 2.61 0.92 2.36 0.83
- 3.19 3.10 2.59 2.34
Average 3.28 3.21 2.60 2.35
CINF-4 + 3.68 1.28 3.29 1.20 2.98 1.02 2.46 0.86
- 3.61 3.51 2.83 2.43
Average 3.65 3.4 2.9 2.45

the evolution of displacements during the experiment. Figure 15 shows the OOP displacement profiles
of infilled specimens in comparison with the specimen WNPD when the OOP load at the mid-point of
the wall was at maximum level. Results showed the positive role of the V-shaped and T-shaped
connectors in maintaining the OOP stability of the wall. In specimens CINF-3 and CINF-4, since the
infill wall was bounded on all sides, these connectors avoided the OPP displacement of the sides in the
vertical direction. It was resulted in a significant OOP strength of these specimens due to the
occurrence of two-way arching mechanism which can be seen in Fig. 15.

4. Discussion
To the best of our knowledge, this is the first study that investigates the IP/OOP behavior of steel
frames infilled with AAC blocks under cyclic lateral loading using five infilled specimens with
18 S. A. ASADZADEH ET AL.

Figure 15. Out-of-plane displacement profiles of infilled specimens compared to WNPD at different alignments. (a) Left, (b) centre,
(c) right.

different wall-to-frame connection types. With increasing horizontal displacement, stiffness of all
tested specimens was degraded where the speed of degradation was higher in the specimens CINF-0
(connection by polyurethane glue only) and CINF-1 (polyurethane glue + shear connection). This is
consistent with the results of (Wang and Li 2017). At 2.5% drift, the stiffness of other three
specimens (CINF-2, CINF-3, and CINF-4) was almost equal to initial stiffness of a bare frame,
while for the bare frame it was dropped by 36% indicating that in these specimens the infills
compensated the stiffness degradation of the bare frame without being damaged. This confirmed our
first and third hypotheses. Test results of these three infilled specimens revealed that the negative
effects caused by the increase of initial tangent stiffness in the frame can be reduced by employing
some connectors in wall-to-frame connection which is according to our second hypothesis. This is
somehow in agreement with the findings of (Ju et al. 2012; Wang and Li 2017), and (Hashemi et al.
2018) where they found that the infill wall had no effect on the initial stiffness, although Ju et al. and
Hashemi et al. only investigated the effect of reinforced concrete infill wall separation from the
frame, and Wang and Li investigated the effect of connector type only on the IP behavior of
concrete-filled steel tube frames. In the first two specimens, IP frame–wall interaction caused
damage to the infill wall, and the stability and OOP strength of the infill was reduced which is in
agreement with the findings of (Furtado et al. 2016b, Palieraki et al. 2018) and (Ricci, Di Domenico,
and Verderame 2018), but no throw-off failure was occurred which is contrary to the results
reported in Furtado et al.’s study.
In the last two specimens (CINF-3 and CINF-4), V-shaped and T-shaped connectors changed the
failure patterns and prevented the evolution of damage in their infill wall compared to other specimens
with no such connectors. The increase in the strength of these two specimens at 3.5% drift in
comparison to a bare frame was 40 and 46%, respectively. This confirms the fourth hypothesis of
the study. This increase in the strength of infilled frames where no damage was observed in their infill
wall until the drift ratio of 2.5% (equal to LS performance level based on Federal Emergency
Management Agency (FEMA356) 2000) can be considered as an additional safety factor for the
seismic behavior of buildings during an earthquake even if the wall is constructed with fragile
materials such as AAC blocks. (Butenweg, Marinković, and Salatić 2019) also demonstrated that the
load-bearing capacity severely depends on the boundary conditions in the connection area between
the infill and the frame; however, they did not examine the effect of wall-to-frame connection type on
the IP/OOP behavior of the frame, and their investigations were on reinforced concrete frames filled
with high thermal insulating clay bricks.
The previous damage produced by IP loading in the three first infilled specimens (CINF-0, CINF-1
and CINF-2) led to OOP instability of the wall. This is also reported in the studies conducted by
(Furtado et al. 2016a, Palieraki et al. 2018) and (Ricci, Di Domenico, and Verderame 2018).The highest
reduction in OOP strength was recorded in the specimen fully isolated at the frame–wall interface.
This was mainly because of the higher compliance between OOP and IP cracking patterns observed for
 JOURNAL OF EARTHQUAKE ENGINEERING 19

this model. This challenges the solution of separating the infill from the frame to eliminate the harmful
effects of frame–wall interaction reported by (Ju et al. 2012) and (Hashemi et al. 2018). The lowest
reduction was observed in specimens with partial isolation at the frame–wall interface using T- and
V-shaped connectors (CINF-3 and CINF-4). In these models, according to our first and fifth
hypotheses, the used connectors reduced the damage caused by IP loading and changed the IP
cracking pattern of the wall. Thus, the IP/OPP compliance reached a minimum level improving the
OOP behavior of the wall and provided its OOP stability.

5. Conclusion
There is a relationship between wall-to-frame connection type and IP/OOP behavior of the frames
infilled with AAC wall. The use of V-shaped and T-shaped connectors can be a promising technique
for providing a reliable wall-to-frame connection in infilled steel frames and having a two-level
performance of the infill wall. These connectors changed the frame–wall interaction into
a cooperative behavior, and the wall was not damaged until 2.5% drift ratio; therefore, these walls
can help the major frame during an earthquake by increasing its strength at drift ratios higher than the
LS performance level. The results of this paper can be used as a source for the application of these
connectors as pre-qualified connectors between the wall and the frame in steel structures.

ORCID
Saheb Ali Asadzadeh http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9730-1090
Majid Mohammadi http://orcid.org/0000-0003-2253-978X
Nader K. A. Attari http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5490-078X
Seyed Alireza Zareei http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4869-4174

References
Altın, S., Ö. Anıl, Y. Kopraman, and Ç. Belgin. 2010. Strengthening masonry infill walls with reinforced plaster.
Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers-Structures and Buildings 163 (5): 331–42. doi: 10.1680/
stbu.2010.163.5.331.
Amanat, K. M., M. M. Alam, and M. S. Alam. 2007. Experimental investigation of the use of ferrocement laminates for
repairing masonry in filled RC frames. Journal of Civil Engineering 35 (2): 71–80.
American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM A370-11). [2011]. Standard test methods and definitions for
mechanical testing of steel products, ASTM, West Conshohocken, PA, US.
American Society for Testing Materials (ASTM) [2009]. Standard test method for diagonal tension (Shear) in masonry
assemblages, E519/E519M–10, West Conshohocken, PA, US.
American Society for Testing Materials (ASTM C1314-07). [2009]. Standard test methods for compressive strength of
masonry prisms, ASTM, West Conshohocken, PA, US.
American Society for Testing Materials (ASTM C1386–07). [2009]. Standard specification for precast autoclaved aerated
concrete (AAC) wall construction units, ASTM, West Conshohocken, PA, US.
Anic, F., D. Penava, L. Abrahamczyk, and V. Sarhosis. 2019. Computational evaluation of experimental methodologies
of out-of-plane behavior of framed walls with openings. Earthquake and Structures 16 (3): 265–77.
Butenweg, C., M. Marinković, and R. Salatić. 2019. Experimental results of reinforced concrete frames with masonry
infills under combined quasi-static in-plane and out-of-plane seismic loading. Earthquake Engineering 17 (6):
3397–422. doi: 10.1007/s10518-019-00602-7.
De Risi, M. T., M. Di Domenico, P. Ricci, G. M. Verderame, and G. Manfredi. 2019. Experimental investigation on the
influence of the aspect ratio on the in-plane/out-of-plane interaction for masonry infills in RC frames. Engineering
Structures 189: 523–40. doi: 10.1016/j.engstruct.2019.03.111.
DIN EN 1052-3. 2007. Methods of test for masonry. Part 3: Determination of initial shear strength. Berlin: Beuth Verlag.
El-Dakhakhni, W. W., A. A. Hamid, and M. Elgaaly. 2004. Seismic retrofit of concrete-masonry-infilled steel frame with
glass fiber-reinforced polymer laminates. Journal of Structural Engineering 130 (9): 1343–52. doi: 10.1061/(ASCE)
0733-9445(2004)130:9(1343).
El-Gawady, M. A., P. Lestuzzi, and M. Badoux [2006]. “Retrofitting of masonry walls using shotcrete,” Proc. Of the
NZSEE Conference, New Zealand.
20 S. A. ASADZADEH ET AL.

Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA356). [2000]. Prestandard and Commentary for the Seismic
Rehabilitation of Buildings, FEMA, Washington, D.C, US.
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA461). [2007]. Interim Testing Protocols for Determining the Seismic
Performance Characteristics of Structural and Nonstructural Components, FEMA, Washington, D.C., US.
Furtado, A., H. Rodrigues, A. Arêde, and H. Varum. 2016a. Experimental evaluation of out-of-plane capacity of masonry
infill walls. Engineering Structures 111: 48–63. doi: 10.1016/j.engstruct.2015.12.013.
Furtado, A., H. Rodrigues, A. Arêde, and H. Varum. 2016b. Simplified macro-model for infill masonry walls considering
the out-of-plane behavior. Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics 45 (4): 507–24.
Furtado, A., H. Rodrigues, A. Arêde, and H. Varum. 2018. Out-of-plane behavior of masonry infilled RC frames based
on the experimental tests available: A systematic review. Construction and Building Materials 168: 831–48. doi:
10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2018.02.129.
Furtado, A., H. Rodrigues, A. Arêde, and H. Varum. 2020. Effect of the panel width support and columns axial load on
the infill masonry walls out-of-plane behavior. Journal of Earthquake Engineering 24 (4): 653–81. doi: 10.1080/
13632469.2018.1453400.
Hashemi, S. J., J. Razzaghi, A. S. Moghadam, and P. B. Lourenço. 2018. Cyclic testing of steel frames infilled with
concrete sandwich panels. Archives Of Civil And Mechanical Engineering 18 (2018): 557–72. doi: 10.1016/j.
acme.2017.10.007.
Ju, R.-S., H.-J. Lee, -C.-C. Chen, and -C.-C. Tao. 2012. Experimental study on separating reinforced concrete infill walls
from steel moment frames. Journal of Constructional Steel Research 71: 119–28. doi: 10.1016/j.jcsr.2011.10.004.
Lestuzzi, P., M. A. ElGawady, and M. Badoux. 2006. Shear strength of URM walls retrofitted using FRP. Engineering
Structures 94 (20): 2151–2112.
Markulak, D., I. Radic, and V. Sigmund. 2013. Cyclic testing of single bay steel frames with various types of masonry
infill. Engineering Structures 5: 267–77. doi: 10.1016/j.engstruct.2013.01.026.
Mazza, F. 2018. In-plane–out-of-plane non-linear model of masonry infills in the seismic analysis of r.c.-framed
buildings. Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics 48 (4): 432–53.
Mohammadi, M., and M. R. Mohammadi Ghazi. 2012. A new infilled steel framewith engineering properties.
Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers-Structures and Buildings 165 (1): 15–25. doi: 10.1680/
stbu.2012.165.1.15.
Morandi, P., R. R. Milanesi, and G. Magenes. 2018. Innovative solution for seismic-resistant masonry infills with sliding
joints: In-plane experimental performance. Engineering Structures 176: 719–33. doi: 10.1016/j.engstruct.2018.09.018.
Palieraki, V., C. Zeris, E. Vintzileou, and C. E. Adami. 2018. In-plane and out-of plane response of currently constructed
masonry infills. Engineering Structures 177: 103–16. doi: 10.1016/j.engstruct.2018.09.047.
Pasca, M., L. Liberatorea, and R. Masianib. 2017. Reliability of analytical models for the prediction of out-of-plane
capacity of masonry infills. Structural Engineering and Mechanics 64 (6): 765–81.
Ricci, P., M. Di Domenico, and G. M. Verderame. 2018. Experimental assessment of the in-plane/out-of-plane
interaction in unreinforced masonry infill walls. Engineering Structures 173: 960–78. doi: 10.1016/j.
engstruct.2018.07.033.
Teymur, P., E. Yuksel, and S. Pala [2008]. “Wet-mixed shotcrete walls to retrofit low ductile RC frames,” Proc. of the 14th
World Conference On Earthquake Engineering, Beijing, China.
Wang, J., and B. Li. 2017. Cyclic testing of square CFST frames with ALC panel or block walls. Journal of Constructional
Steel Research 130: 264–79. doi: 10.1016/j.jcsr.2016.12.006.