Arabian Journal for Science and Engineering

https://doi.org/10.1007/s13369-018-3235-x

RESEARCH ARTICLE - CIVIL ENGINEERING

The Theoretical Prediction of Collapse Mechanisms

for Masonry-Infilled Steel Frames
Sayeh Beroual1 · Abdelhadi Tekkouk1 · Mohamed Laid Samai1

Received: 12 July 2017 / Accepted: 28 March 2018

© King Fahd University of Petroleum & Minerals 2018

Abstract
The masonry infills in infilled steel frames are generally considered non-structural elements and are neglected in design by
different codes. In fact, the presence of these infills should have a decisive influence on the mechanical properties such as
lateral stiffness and ultimate strength. In the present work, a new macro-model has been proposed to model the masonry
infill by two equivalent pin-jointed diagonal struts connecting the beams and the columns, respectively. To show the infill
effect, the theory of plastic hinges has been adopted as an appropriate approach. In this parametric study, the prediction of
the nature of failure mechanisms of structures subjected to a combined loading system has been presented, including their
collapse loads with information about the location and order of plastic hinges. The model has been validated by theoretical
and experimental predictions. In addition, interaction diagrams, λV −λH , were constructed. From the result, the factors that
have a direct influence are the infill thickness and the values of α. By comparing the collapse loads for the infilled frames to
their corresponding open frames, it was found that the lateral stiffness and the vertical strength were considerably increased.
It can be said that the two-strut model proposed can realistically capture the collapse mechanisms of infilled frames and can
more accurately estimate the local effects due to the infill–frame interaction. Finally, important conclusions about the failure
modes of the infilled frames and their corresponding collapse loads were drawn from this work.

Keywords Masonry infill · Infilled steel frame · Equivalent diagonal strut · Plastic hinge · Collapse mechanism · Interaction
diagram

1 Introduction tors, which may impose an influence on the global behavior

For a long period, the effect of masonry infills within frames
has been neglected by different codes, whereas several stud-
ies have shown that the overall behavior of the structure has
been greatly influenced by the interaction between infill and
frame members [1–11]. In addition, the failure modes of an
infilled frame will also be affected and will normally be diffi-
cult to predict because they are influenced by several factors
such as the ratio of vertical and horizontal loads acting on
the structure, rigidity of the infill and the bounding frame
and the geometrical and mechanical characteristics of the
structure [12–17]. It is, however, hard to isolate those fac-
B Sayeh Beroual
beroual_sayeh@yahoo.fr
1 Department of Civil Engineering, Faculty of Sciences of
Technology, Mentouri Brothers University, Constantine,
Algeria
of the structure, as they are interacting with each other.
Based on the experimental evidence, it was found that
there is a separation of the infill panel from its surround-
ing frame; the area of contact between these two structural
elements is limited to the two opposite compression corners
[18–24]. Early modeling attempts suggested replacing the
infill panel by an equivalent diagonal with the same material
characteristics of the infill.
Polyakov [25] first proposed the equivalent diagonal strut
concept. Since that time, several variants on the equivalent
diagonal model have been proposed by several researchers
as [5,23,26–32].
Holmes [28], in his attempt, suggested modeling the infill
panel by a single equivalent pin-jointed diagonal strut having
the same mechanical properties and thickness as the masonry;
its width was taken equal to 1/3 of the length of the strut.
Mainstone [33] then modified this fixing of the strut width,
taking into account the following parameters: the stiffness
and moments of inertia of the columns of the surrounding

123

frame and the stiffness and dimensions of the infill panel.
In addition, researchers such as [23,24,27,30,33] have devel-
oped equations for the calculation of ultimate strength and
the initial stiffness of diagonal struts.
Samai [21] tests showed that the infill caused damage in
the frame members and plastic hinges were formed in beams,
columns or their connections. The modeling of the infill by
a single-diagonal strut cannot cause bending moments and
shear forces in the frame members. For this reason, several
researchers such as [4–6,11,19,34–36] proposed a number of
macro-models with more than one-diagonal strut.
The theoretical prediction of collapse loads for open
frames without infill as well as the identification of the real
collapse mechanisms are classical and can be obtained using
the concepts of plastic analysis of structures; the methods
used are based on the concept of virtual work and limit anal-
ysis [37–41]. For infilled frames, different approaches have
been used to take into account the effect of the infill while
knowing that almost all the current codes neglect it in the cal-
culation. The main difficulty is related to the modeling of the
frame–infill interaction. In general, in the macro-modeling,
the infill is replaced by diagonals whose number and width to
be taken vary from one author to another [42,43]. In reality,
not only taking into account the infill involves the interaction
of two different materials, but it describes the real behavior
of the structures and their failure modes [44,45].
During the last decade, several researches have focused
on the description of the real behavior of framed structures
with particular attention devoted to the infill effect because
of the key role he plays in modifying the overall stiffness,
strength and ductility, especially under the seismic excita-
tion. For example, an alternative plane macro-element has
been proposed by Pantò et al. [46] for predicting the nonlinear
seismic behavior. Di Trapani et al. [47] have also presented a
new macro-element model for the simulation of the in-plane
and out-of-plane responses of infilled frames subjected to
seismic actions. The effect of the infill on the fundamen-
tal period of reinforced concrete structures as well as in
Fig. 1 New proposed
macro-model of the
masonry-infilled steel frame
123
Arabian Journal for Science and Engineering
the vibration period of existing structures was addressed by
[48,49]. In addition, researchers such as [50–52] have studied
the effect of masonry infills on the column shear failure. For
the researchers [53,54], they have performed experimental
investigations of single-storey, single-bay infilled reinforced
concrete frame models subjected to lateral cyclical loads.
In the present work, a parametric study was carried out
on the plastic analysis of masonry-infilled steel frames; a
new macro-model was proposed by modeling the infill panel
by two equivalent pin-jointed diagonal struts. The analysis
was carried out in order to achieve the following objec-
tives:
• Show the effect of the masonry infill on the strength and
the collapse modes.
• Identify structural collapse mechanisms.
• Predict collapse loads.
• The construction of the interaction diagrams λV –λH .
• Review the results against the limit state approach.
• Develop appropriate analytical techniques and recom-
mendations for design.
2 Macro-Modeling of Masonry-Infilled Steel
Frames
In the present paper, a new two-strut macro-model has
been proposed for modeling the infill panel. This macro-
model is illustrated in Fig. 1. The masonry infill is sup-
posed to be replaced by two equivalent pin-jointed diago-
nal struts. The application points of these diagonal struts
in relation to the corners of the frame are distant by
lceff for diagonal columns strut and by lbeff for diag-
onal beams strut. Each equivalent diagonal strut shall
have an effective width (a), the same modulus of elas-
ticity and the same thickness as the infill panel it repre-
sents.
Arabian Journal for Science and Engineering

Fig. 2 Estimating forces applied to columns and beams

2.1 The Diagonal Strut Width strut (diagonal columns strut) is equal to:

a
In the earliest works of [33,55], these researches have rec- lceff = (3)
ommended that the effective width of the equivalent diagonal cos θc
compression strut (a) may be taken as:
where
−0.4
a = 0.175(λ1 · h col ) rinf (1) h inf − a
cos θc
tan θc = . (4)
where L inf

 1 2.3 Diagonal Strut Acting in Beams Members

E me tinf sin 2θ 4
λ1 = (2) Adjacent to Infill Panels (Diagonal Beams Strut)
4E fe Icol h inf

and a, strut equivalent width; h col , column height; h inf , infill
panel height; E fe , elasticity modulus of frame material; E me ,
elasticity modulus of infill material; Icol , column moment of
inertia; rinf , panel diagonal length; tinf , infill panel thickness
and equivalent strut; θ , angle of the panel diagonal (radians);
λ1 , coefficient used to calculate strut width.
The equivalent strut should have the same thickness and
modulus of elasticity as the infill panel. FEMA 273 [56] has
later adopted this expression.
2.2 Diagonal Strut Acting in Column Members
Adjacent to Infill Panel (Diagonal Columns Strut)
The infill wall can cause significant horizontal and vertical
forces to the surrounding frame members. These forces can
be considered as external design forces applying to an open
frame. As shown in Fig. 2a, the diagonal columns strut is
supposed to act eccentrically.
As mentioned in FEMA 274 [57], the distance (lceff ) of the
application point of the horizontal component of the diagonal
Similarly, vertical forces resulting from the infill panel also
attract the beam members. The detail is shown in Fig. 2b,
where the equivalent diagonal strut (diagonal beams strut) is
supposed to act eccentrically.
As mentioned in FEMA 274 [57], the distance (lbeff ) of the
application point of the vertical component of this diagonal
strut (diagonal beams strut) is equal to:
a
lbeff = (5)
sin θb
where
h inf
tan θb = (6)
L inf − sinaθb
where lceff , distance between the application point of the
diagonal columns strut and the beam–column joint; lbeff , dis-
tance between the application point of the diagonal beams
strut and the beam–column joint; L inf length of infill panel;
θc , angle between diagonal columns strut and beam, shown

123

Table 1 Geometrical and mechanical parameters of frame members
Frame elements Steel grade Transverse section type Length between axes (mm)
Beams S235 IPE 270 3000
Columns S235 HEA 220 3000
in Fig. 2a (in degrees); θb , angle between diagonal beams
strut and beam, shown in Fig. 2b (in degrees).
3 Methodology Adopted
To predict the collapse loads and identify the real collapse
mechanisms, a static nonlinear analysis was performed. This
analysis takes into account the phenomenon of redistribu-
tion of the bending moments for different loading stages.
Plastic hinges form at both columns and beams when their
bending moments reach the plastic moment and others form
at the equivalent diagonal struts when their axial forces
reach the maximum value of the compressive strength. The
analysis was carried out using SAP 2000 software [58]
because it allows the phenomenon of redistribution of bend-
ing moments.
The fundamental conditions of a true collapse mechanism
are:
• Equilibrium condition: The sum of all forces and
moments at each node is equal to zero.
• Yield condition: The moment of bending should never
exceed the plastic moment anywhere in the structural ele-
ments M < Mp .
• Mechanism condition: A mechanism can only be formed
after the development of a necessary number of plastic
hinges; the collapse load is reached when a mechanism
is formed.
These three conditions should be fulfilled simultaneously,
and verification of the mechanism condition is necessary for
each analysis step.
The analysis was carried out using SAP 2000 software
of which the three fundamental conditions of a true collapse
mechanism mentioned above were verified in each loading
step until the collapse mechanism was obtained.
As mentioned above, the approach adopted in this nonlin-
ear static analysis is that of plastic hinges. A two-dimensional
model was created in SAP2000 software for modeling the
structure. Nonlinear frame elements were used to model the
structural frame as well as for both diagonal struts. The
hinges in frame members represent the bending moment
123
Arabian Journal for Science and Engineering
Moment of inertia (mm4 ) Plastic moment (KN m)
5790 × 104 113.74
5410 × 104 133.60
Table 2 The properties of the materials
Materials Modulus of elasticity (MPa)
Steel frame E fe = 2.1 × 105
Masonry infill E me = 5.2 × 103
hinges, these hinges are placed in each critical section, and
the critical sections are defined at the column–beam joints,
at the intersections of the connecting diagonal struts with
frame members and at the mid-span of the upper beam.
As for the hinges in equivalent struts, they represent the
axial load hinges; these hinges are placed at the one-third
of the member. The frame is assumed to be subjected to the
loading system until the formation of the collapse mecha-
nism.
As for the loading system, the studied structures were
subjected to two types of concentrated loads: λV , vertical
incremental load applied to the middle of top beam and
λH , horizontal incremental load applied to the longitudi-
nal axe of the top beam (see Fig. 1). These two vertical
and horizontal concentrated loads are linearly dependent
α = λV /λH .
Initially, the model is subjected simultaneously to a con-
centrated vertical load V and concentrated horizontal load H,
α = V /H . These both loads are incremented in each analysis
step by a load factor λ (α = λV /λH ), the process contin-
ues automatically until the collapse of the structure and this
factor λ becomes the collapse load factor λc .
As for failure mechanisms and their failure loads, they are
identified for different values of α [α varying from 0.1 to 15
in steps of 0.1 for α less than one (α < 1) and with a step of
1 for α greater than one (α > 1)].
In this document, three thicknesses of infill panels were
retained, precisely 50, 100 and 200 mm representing weak
infill (IFW), medium infill (IFM) and strong infill (IFS),
respectively. The geometrical and mechanical properties of
the frame members are shown in Table 1, and the mechanical
properties of the steel frames and masonry infills are shown
in Table 2.
As regards the axial forces in the diagonal struts, they are
calculated by Eq. (7).
P = atinf f cinf (7)
Arabian Journal for Science and Engineering

Table 3 Geometrical and mechanical parameters of the masonry infill

Infilled frame designation IFW IFM IFS

Infill thickness: tinf (mm) 50 100 200

Infill panel height: h inf (mm) 2730 2730 2730
Infill panel length: L inf (mm) 2790 2790 2790
Panel diagonal length: rinf (mm) 3903.46 3903.46 3903.46
Angle of the panel diagonal: θ (◦ ) 44.37 44.37 44.37
Coefficient used to calculate strut width: λ1 (mm−1 ) 0.0011 0.0013 0.0016
Equivalent strut width: a (mm) 423.64 395.27 368.80
Angle between diagonal columns strut and beam, shown in 38.18 38.59 38.97
Fig. 2a: θc (◦ )
Angle between diagonal beams strut and beam, shown in 50.56 50.15 49.77
Fig. 2b: θb (◦ )
Distance between the application point of the diagonal 538.90 505.68 474.37
columns strut and the beam–column joint: lceff (mm)
Distance between the application point of the diagonal 548.52 514.84 483.08
beams strut and the beam–column joint: lbeff (mm)
Axial force in each of the two diagonal struts: P (KN) 165.219 308.310 575.326

Fig. 3 Test rig, Samai [21]

where P, axial force in the diagonal strut; a, equivalent
strut width; tinf , infill thickness; f cinf , the mean compressive
strength of the masonry infill. In this paper, the mean com-
pressive strength of the masonry infill is taken to be equal to
f cinf = 7.8 MPa [21].
The axial forces in the diagonal struts (P) and the geo-
metrical parameters of the masonry infill are regrouped in
Table 3.
4 Validation of the Proposed Model
4.1 Introduction
The proposed macro-model for simulation of the influence of
infill on the plastic behavior of structures was verified using
the results obtained from a series of experimental tests of
reinforced concrete frames infilled with lightweight concrete

123
 Arabian Journal for Science and Engineering

Fig. 4 Geometrical properties and reinforcement details of reinforced concrete frame model

Table 4 Geometrical and mechanical properties of Samai’s specimens

Specimen Frame l × h Beam b × dt Column b × dt tinf (mm) E c (KN/mm2 ) E inf (KN/mm2 ) f cinf (N/mm2 )
designation (mm × mm) (mm × mm) (mm × mm)

IHW 1 910 × 910 100 × 100 100 × 100 35 25.8 5.2 6.2
IHM 1 910 × 910 100 × 100 100 × 100 57 25.8 5.2 6.2
IHS 1 910 × 910 100 × 100 100 × 100 100 25.8 5.2 6.2
ICM 1 910 × 910 100 × 100 100 × 100 57 25.8 5.2 6.2
ICS 1 910 × 910 100 × 100 100 × 100 100 25.8 5.2 6.2
IHW 2 910 × 910 100 × 100 100 × 100 35 27.3 5.2 6.2
IHM 2 910 × 910 100 × 100 100 × 100 57 27.3 5.2 6.2
IHM 2* 910 × 910 100 × 100 100 × 100 57 27.3 5.2 6.2
ICM 2 910 × 910 100 × 100 100 × 100 57 27.3 5.2 6.2
IHW 3 910 × 910 100 × 100 100 × 100 35 25.7 5.2 6.2
IHM 3 910 × 910 100 × 100 100 × 100 57 25.7 5.2 6.2
ICM 3 910 × 910 100 × 100 100 × 100 57 25.7 5.2 6.2
ICM 4 910 × 1010 100 × 200 100 × 100 57 26.8 5.2 7.8
ICM 5 1010 × 910 100 × 100 100 × 200 57 24.6 5.2 7.8

blockwork. Because of the availability of the data file, it was
decided to choose the experimental program performed by
Samai and Hobbs (Samai [21], cited in the references). This
experimental campaign was performed in the laboratory of
the department of civil and structural engineering, university
of Sheffield. The test rig is presented in Fig. 3.
The infilled reinforced concrete experimental model is
single bay and single story. The specimens tested are in
one-third scale. These were tested under two types of load-
ing: static horizontal racking loading only applied in the
plane of the frame and combined loading (vertical loads
on the columns plus horizontal racking load applied in
the plane of the frame). The cross-sectional dimensions

123
Arabian Journal for Science and Engineering

Table 5 Analysis results obtained by the proposed method

Specimen λh (mm−1 ) a (mm) lceff (mm) lbeff (mm) P (KN) Mpb (KN m) Mpc (KN m) Hplast (KN) Identified collapse
designation mechanism

IHW 1 0.0037 123.85 158.98 158.98 26.875 2.56 2.56 40.79 DDSM
IHM 1 0.0041 117.95 152.04 152.04 41.685 2.56 2.56 56.64 DDSM + BC&BB
IHS 1 0.0048 111.51 144.39 144.39 69.134 2.54 2.54 59.80 NDSM + BC&BB
ICM 1 0.0041 117.95 152.04 152.04 41.685 2.56 2.56 56.50 ODSM + BC&BB
ICS 1 0.0048 111.51 144.39 144.39 69.134 2.55 2.55 61.73 NDCM + BC&BB
IHW 2 0.0036 124.39 159.62 159.62 26.993 3.75 3.75 47.43 DDSM
IHM 2 0.0041 118.47 152.65 152.65 41.868 3.77 3.77 64.29 DDSM
IHM 2* 0.0041 118.47 152.65 152.65 41.868 3.77 3.77 64.29 DDSM
ICM 2 0.0041 118.47 152.65 152.65 41.868 3.78 3.78 63.75 DDSM
IHW 3 0.0037 123.81 158.94 158.94 26.867 3.84 3.84 46.61 DDSM
IHM 3 0.0041 117.92 152.00 152.00 41.673 3.86 3.86 65.63 DDSM
ICM 3 0.0041 117.92 152.00 152.00 41.673 3.85 3.85 66.46 DDSM
ICM 4 0.0041 113.47 146.72 146.72 50.449 8.51 3.85 75.00 DDSM
ICM 5 0.0025 143.37 181.61 181.61 63.744 3.84 8.51 75.74 ODSM + BB

Table 6 Comparison of the

Specimen designation Hu exp (KN) HWood (KN) Hplast (KN) Hplast /Hu exp Hplast /HWood
ultimate loads
IHW 1 27.6 42.5 40.79 1.48 0.96
IHM 1 53.6 58.3 56.64 1.06 0.97
IHS 1 56.3 80.6 59.80 1.06 0.74
ICM 1 61.9 57.9 56.50 0.91 0.98
ICS 1 76.0 84.7 61.73 0.81 0.73
IHW 2 41.0 47.5 47.43 1.16 1.00
IHM 2 50.0 62.8 64.29 1.29 1.02
IHM 2* 63.4 65.6 64.29 1.01 0.98
ICM 2 67.3 67.9 63.75 0.95 0.94
IHW 3 54.3 57.5 46.61 0.86 0.81
IHM 3 51.4 75.4 65.63 1.28 0.87
ICM 3 58.9 77.6 66.46 1.13 0.86
ICM 4 93.7 77.2 75.00 0.80 0.97
ICM 5 92.7 69.9 75.74 0.82 1.08

and the reinforcement details of the frame members and
the geometrical and mechanical properties of specimens
tested are shown, respectively, in Fig. 4 and Table 4,
in which the original nomenclature for the specimens is
used.
approach, the results of this analysis are presented in Table 5.
The collapse loads obtained by the present plastic analysis
and the ultimate loads from the experimental campaign per-
formed by Samai are summarized in Table 6.

4.3 Single-Bay Single-Story Infilled Reinforced

4.2 Modeling of Test Specimens Using Proposed
Method
The series specimens were modeled and analyzed; the same
loading protocols used in the tests are used in the analy-
sis. The identification of the collapse mechanisms and their
corresponding collapse loads were determined by the present
Concrete Frame
The ultimate loads obtained from Samai’s tests are compared
with several empirical and theoretical predictions from previ-
ous work; for him none of the methods seems to be absolutely
safe. On the other hand, he confirms that the method giv-
ing the closest predictions for the test results is the Wood’s

123
 Arabian Journal for Science and Engineering

Fig. 5 Plastic collapse loads versus experimental and theoretical ultimate loads

Fig. 6 The open frame “OF” collapse mechanisms for different intervals of α

123
Arabian Journal for Science and Engineering

Fig. 7 The infilled frame “IFW” collapse mechanisms for different intervals of α

123
 Arabian Journal for Science and Engineering

Fig. 8 The infilled frame “IFM” collapse mechanisms for different intervals of α

123
Arabian Journal for Science and Engineering

Fig. 9 The infilled frame “IFS” Collapse mechanisms for different intervals of α

method [17]. Therefore, in order to better highlight the val- has developed a method based on the theory of plasticity (see
idation of the proposed model, it was considered useful to Table 6).
present the collapse loads for the specimens tested calculated From Fig. 5, it can be seen that the correlation between the
by the theoretical formulas established by Wood, since Wood results obtained from this method and the experimental ones

123
 Arabian Journal for Science and Engineering

5.2 Presentation of the Different Collapse

Mechanisms

For the different values of α, the accurate failure mechanisms

were obtained with an attempt to nomination of these mecha-
nisms. The location and order of the developed plastic hinges
were presented. The results of the open frame and the three
infilled frames are, respectively, shown in Figs. 6, 7, 8 and 9.

5.3 Construction of Interaction Diagrams

For a better graphic presentation of the results, interaction

Fig. 10 Interaction diagram for system λV –λH , case: open frame “OF”
is reasonably good, especially those resulting from Wood’s
theoretical prediction.
diagrams (ID) were constructed. These ID group the values
of λV and λH (simultaneous action of vertical and horizontal
collapse loads) giving different elementary collapse mecha-
nisms with respect to the values of α (α varying between 0.1
and 15). These ID are represented in Figs. 10, 11, 12 and 13,
the straight line of which passes through the origin, and the
intersection of the ID represents the values of the ratio α.
6 Analysis Results

5 Presentation of the Results 6.1 Discussion of the Collapse Mechanisms Obtained

5.1 Introduction
From the plastic analysis performed in this work, all the
different failure mechanisms were identified as well as the
corresponding failure loads were predicted.
For open frames, their usual collapse modes, such as the
sway mechanism (SM), the combined mechanism (CM)
and the beam mechanism (BM), are well known in the
literature (see Figs. 6, 10). However, for masonry-infilled
frames, their collapse modes are not sufficiently devel-

Fig. 11 Interaction diagram for

system λV –λH , case: infilled
frame “IFW”

123
Arabian Journal for Science and Engineering
Fig. 12 Interaction diagram for
system λV –λH , case: infilled
frame “IFM”
Fig. 13 Interaction diagram for
system λV –λH , case: infilled
frame “IFS”
oped. The present plastic analysis of the infilled frames
with the studied combined loading system (simultaneous
action of vertical and horizontal loads) allowed the develop-
ment of mechanisms almost similar to those of open frames
with a significant increase in vertical and horizontal col-
lapse loads. (See Figs. 11, 12, 13). However, they include
other mechanism types such as DDSM, DDCM, ODCM,
ODCM + BC, ODBM + BC + BB, NDBM, etc. (See
Figs. 7, 8, 9, 11, 12, 13). These mechanisms are characterized
by the absence or presence of the plastic hinges in both diag-
onals with three possibilities of failure of the diagonal struts:
double-diagonal failure (DD), one-diagonal failure (OD) and
no-diagonal failure (ND).
In addition, the frame–infill interaction allowed the devel-
opment of the plastic hinges in the frame members such
as a braced column (BC) and a braced beam (BB). The
presence of these hinges facilitated the total distortion of
the infilled frame and allowed the development of asso-
ciated collapse mechanisms such as (DDSM) + (BB),
(DDCM) + (BB&BC), (ODCM) + (BB&BC), etc. (See
Figs. 7, 8, 9, 11, 12, 13).
The relationship between the failures in the diagonal struts
and the nature of collapse mechanisms developed is pre-
sented in Table 7. Thus, it was found that the associated sway
mechanisms (ASM) can be only obtained after the failure of
the double-diagonal struts (e.g., DDSM and DDSM+BB).
123

Table 7 The effect of the failure in the diagonal struts on the collapse modes
Failures in the diagonal Nature of collapse mechanism
struts
Associated sway
mechanism (ASM)
Double-diagonal failure
DDSM
DDSM + BB
One-diagonal failure – ODCM + BC
No-diagonal failure – –
For the associated combined mechanisms (ACM), they can
be obtained with the failure of one- or double-diagonal struts
(e.g., ODCM + BC, DDCM, DDCM + BB). As regards the
last mechanism type (associated beam mechanism ABM), it
can be obtained with or without failure of one-diagonal struts
(e.g., ODBM + BB&BC, NDBM + BB).
NB: For all extensions of the ratio α, the values of α where
two associated mechanisms take place at the same time (i.e.,
where an over collapse occurs) are evaluated very precisely.
In conclusion, the various collapse mechanisms are iden-
tified and their names are given and grouped in Table 8.
6.2 Effect of the Different Variables
6.2.1 Effect of the Infill
In order to show the infill effect, it is necessary to exploit
the identified ID by their grouping in a single graphical rep-
resentation. These four interaction diagrams relating to the
open frame “OF” and the three infilled frames “IFW, IFM
and IFS” are grouped in Fig. 14. Each diagram represents
the relationship between the vertical and horizontal collapse
loads for different values of α; all the four diagrams have
the same shape and having three different ranges of α; each
range is associated with its collapse mode. Then, the effect of
the masonry infill is clearly illustrated in Fig. 14 by compar-
ing the collapse loads for the three infilled frames and their
corresponding open frame; it was found that the horizontal
collapse load λH increased considerably by a factor ranging
from 2.17 to 5.24. There is an increase in vertical collapse
load λV by a factor ranging from 1.17 to 1.26.
This is best illustrated graphically in Fig. 15, which shows
that the ratio infilled/open frame of the vertical strength is
around 1.24, while the ratio infilled/open frame of the lateral
strength appears to increase proportionally with the increase
in the infill thickness.
123
Arabian Journal for Science and Engineering
Associated combined Associated beam
mechanism (ACM) mechanism (ABM)
DDCM –
DDCM + BC
DDCM + BB
DDCM + BC & BB
ODBM + BC
ODCM + BC & BB ODBM + BB
ODBM + BB & BC
NDBM + BB
Thus, the presence of the masonry infill not only increased
the lateral rigidity and ultimate strength of an open frame, but
also changed the distortion mode of this open frame.
6.2.2 Effect of the Infill Thickness
Figure 11 also illustrates the effect of the infill thickness by
comparing the collapse loads of the three infilled frames with
their corresponding open frames. The collapse loads increase
with the thickness of the infill; for the lateral strength the
increase has reached 5.24 times for “IFS,” 3.24 times for
“IFM” and 2.17 times for “IFW.” As regards the vertical
strength, the increase was 1.17 times for “IFW,” 1.26 for
“IFM” and 1.24 for “IFS.”
Furthermore, from Figs. 10, 11, 12, 13 and 14, it can be
seen that the collapse loads increase with the increase in the
infill thickness. The use of a thicker infill also delayed the
appearance of plastic hinges in both infill and frame.
6.3 Effect of the Ration α (α = λV/λH)
It can be seen from Figs. 10, 11, 12, 13, 14 and 16 that the
collapse modes of the open and infilled frames are directly
influenced by the values of the ratio α. In other words, when
the horizontal loads λH are the predominant loads (α takes
its minimum values), the sway mechanisms (SM) and asso-
ciated sway mechanisms (ASM) develop as failure modes.
When the vertical loads λV are the predominant loads (α
takes its maximum values), the beam mechanisms (BM) and
associated beam mechanisms (ABM) develop as collapse
modes. Moreover, when α assumes its intermediate values,
the combined mechanisms (CM) and associated combined
mechanisms (ACM) develop as failure modes.
In conclusion, from Table 8, the numerical results can
confirm all that was said above on this point:
Arabian Journal for Science and Engineering

Table 8 Identified collapse mechanisms for different ranges of α (α varying from 0.1 to 15)
Infilled frame OF IFW IFM IFS
designation
Value of α Nature of collapse mechanism

0.1 (SM) (DDSM) (DDSM) (DDSM) + (BB)

0.2 // // // //
0.3 // // // //
0.3812 // // // Over collapse
(DDSM + DDCM) + (BB)
0.4 // // // (DDCM) + (BB)
0.412 // // // (DDCM) + (BC + BB)
0.455 // // // //
0.4887 // // Over collapse (ODCM) + (BC + BB)
(DDSM + DDCM)
0.5 // // (DDCM) //
0.5788 // // // Over collapse
(ODCM + ODBM) +
(BC + BB)
0.586 // // // (ODBM) + (BC + BB)
0.6 // // // (ODBM) + (BB)
0.6156 // Over collapse // //
(DDSM + DDCM)
0.7 // (DDCM) // //
0.712 // // // (NDBM) + (BB)
0.718 // // (DDCM) + (BC) //
0.8 // // // //
0.825 // // // //
0.9 // // (ODCM) + (BC) //
1 Over collapse // // //
(SM + CM)
1.19 (CM) (DDCM) + (BC) // //
1.279 // // Over collapse //
(ODCM + ODBM) +
(BC + BB)
1.316 // // (ODBM) + (BC + BB) //
1.46 // // (ODBM) + (BB) //
1.8344 // Over collapse // //
(ODCM + ODBM)
1.95 // (ODBM) + (BC) // //
2 // (ODBM) // //
2.05 // // // //
3 // // (NDBM) + (BB) //
4 Over collapse // // //
(CM + BM)
5–15 (BM) // // //

123
 Arabian Journal for Science and Engineering

Fig. 14 Regrouped interaction

diagrams for open and infilled
frames

Fig. 15 Vertical and lateral

strength versus 100 (tinf /rinf )

• Sway mechanisms (SM) and associated sway mecha- 7 Conclusion

nisms (ASM) occurred when: α ≤ 1 for “OF,” α ≤
0.6156 for “IFW,” α ≤ 0.4887 for “IFM” and α ≤
0.3812 for “IFS.” The thicker the infill thickness, the
smaller the extension of the range of α.
• The beam mechanisms (BM) and associated beam mech-
anisms (ABM) occurred when: α ≥ 4 for “OF,” α ≥
1.8344 for “IFW,” α ≥ 1.279 for “IFM” and α ≥ 0.5788
for “IFS.” The thicker the infill thickness, the greater the
extension of the range of α.
• As far as the combined mechanisms (CM) and associated
combined mechanisms (ACM), α takes the following
intermediate values: 1 ≤ α ≤ 4 for “OF,” 0.6156 ≤
α ≤ 1.8344 for “IFW,” 0.4887 ≤ α ≤ 1.279 for “IFM”
and 0.3812 ≤ α ≤ 0.5788 for “IFS.”
This article presents the results of a parametric plastic analy-
sis of masonry-infilled steel frames subjected to a combined
loading system (concentrated horizontal and vertical loads
simultaneously acting on a structure). A new macro-model
has been proposed to model the masonry infill through two
equivalent pin-jointed diagonal struts, and it has been vali-
dated with theoretical and experimental data available in the
literature.
Important conclusions about the failure modes of infilled
frames and their corresponding collapse loads can be drawn
from this work, among which:

123
Arabian Journal for Science and Engineering
Fig. 16 Effect of the value of ratio α = λV /λH on the collapse modes
• The theoretical prediction of collapse loads as well as
the identification of the real collapse mechanisms of any
infilled frame can be realized by means of this plastic
analysis.
• The thickness of the infill and the value of the ratio α
have a major and direct influence on the failure modes
and the collapse loads. The thicker the infill, the stronger
the infilled frame.
• The two-strut model proposed resulted in the creation
of collapse mechanisms that greatly involved the infill.
For example, a braced beam (BB) and a braced col-
umn (BC) have accompanied certain developed collapse
mechanisms.
• The construction of the interaction diagrams for different
values of the ratio α (α = λV /λH ) is very interesting
when choosing the optimal solution in terms of safety
margin and deformation of the plane structures. In fact, it
should be noted that in the literature these interaction dia-
grams for infilled frames have not been developed until
now.
• The infill furnishes a significant contribution and pos-
itively collaborates with the structure until the total
distortion of the infill panel. In other words, the lateral
stiffness and the vertical strength have been considerably
increased.
Finally, the current study highlights the need to take into
account not only the beneficial effect of the contribution of
masonry infill panels, but also the effects of the forces derived
from the interaction of infill and frame on the collapse modes.
References
1. Asteris, P.G.; Antoniou, S.T.; Sophianopoulos, D.S.; Chrysosto-
mou, C.Z.: Mathematical macro-modeling of infilled frames: state
of the art. J. Struct. Eng. Am. Soc. Civ. Eng. (ASCE) 137(12),
1508–1517 (2011)
2. Asteris, P.G.; Cotsovos, D.M.; Chrysostomo, C.Z.; Mohebkhah, A.;
Al-Chaar, G.K.: Mathematical micro-modeling of infilled frames:
state of the art. Eng. Struct. 56, 1905–1921 (2013)
3. Bhagyalaxmi, S.; Anusha, P.G.; Harshitha, R.K.; Renukadevi,
M.V.: Effect of modulus of masonry stiffness of infilled frames
with openings. Int. J. Res. Eng. Technol. 03(6), 218–224 (2014)
4. Chysostomou, C.Z.; Gergely, P.; Abel, J.F.: A six-strut model for
nonlinear dynamic analysis of steel infilled frames. Int. J. Struct.
Stab. Dyn. 2(3), 335–353 (2002)
5. El-Dakhakhni, W.W.; Mohamed, E.; Hamid, A.A.: Three-strut
model for concrete masonry-infilled steel frames. J. Struct. Eng.
129(2), 177–185 (2003)
123

6. Hashemi, A.; Mosalam, K.M.: Seismic evaluation of reinforced
concrete buildings including effects of infill masonry walls. Pacific
Earthquake Engineering Research Center (PEER), University of
California, Berkeley (2007)
7. Kaushik, H.B.; Rai, D.C.; Jain, S.K.: A rational approach to ana-
lytical modeling of masonry infills in reinforced concrete frame
buildings. In: Proceedings of the 14th World Conference on Earth-
quake Engineering, Beijing, China (2008)
8. Liauw, T.C.; Kwan, K.H.: Nonlinear behaviour of non-integral
infilled frames. Comput. Struct. 18(3), 551–560 (1984)
9. Mosalam, K.M.; Günay, M.S.: Chapter 23: Seismic and design
of masonry-infilled frames. In: S.K. Kunnath (ed) Structural and
Geotechnical Engineering. Encyclopedia of Life Support Systems
(EOLSS) Publishers, Oxford (2012).
10. Pereira, V.G.; Barros, R.C.; César, M.T.: A parametric study of
a R/C frame based on ‘Pushover’ analysis. In: Proceeding of the
3rd International Conference on Integrity, Reliability and Failure,
Porto, Portugal (2009)
11. Samoilà, D.M.: Analytical modeling of masonry infills. Civ. Eng.
Archit. 55(2), 127–136 (2012)
12. Asteris, P.G.; Kakaletsis, D.J.; Chrysostomou, C.Z.; Smyrou, E.E.:
Failure modes of in-filled frames. Electron. J. Struct. Eng. 11(1),
11–20 (2011)
13. Chrysostomou, C.Z.; Asteris, P.G.: On the in plane properties and
capacities of infilled frames. Eng. Struct. 41, 385–402 (2012)
14. Liauw, T.C.; Kwan, K.H.: Plastic theory of non-integral infilled
frames. Proc. Inst. Civ. Eng. 75(2), 379–396 (1983)
15. Mallick, D.V.; Severn, R.T.: The behaviour of infilled frames under
static loading. Proc. Inst. Civ. Eng. 38, 639–656 (1967)
16. May, I.M.: Determination of collapse loads for unreinforced panels
with and without openings. Proc. Inst. Civ. Eng. 71(2), 215–233
(1981)
17. Wood, R.H.: Plasticity, composite action and collapse design of
unreinforced shear wall panels in frames. Proc. Inst. Civ. Eng.
65(2), 379–411 (1978)
18. Amato, G.; Cavaleri, L.; Fossetti, M.; Papia, M.: Infilled frames:
influence of vertical load on the equivalent diagonal strut model.
In: Proceedings of the 14th World Conference on Earthquake Engi-
neering, Beijing, China (2008)
19. Buonopane, S.G.; White, R.N.: Pseudo-dynamic testing of
masonry-infilled reinforced concrete frame. J. Struct. Eng. 125(6),
578–589 (1999)
20. Mallick, S.K.; Barua, H.K.: Behaviour of single storey reinforced
concrete frame infilled with brickwork under lateral loads. In: Pro-
ceedings of the 6th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering,
New Delhi (1977)
21. Samai, M.L.: Behaviour of reinforced concrete frames with
lightweight block work infill panels. Ph. D. Thesis, University of
Sheffield, London (1984)
22. Shing, P.B.; Mehrabi, A.: Behaviour and analysis of masonry-
infilled frames. Progr. Struct. Eng. Mater. 4, 320–331 (2002)
23. Stafford-Smith, B.: Behaviour of square infilled frames. J. Struct.
Div. ASCE 92(ST1), 381–403 (1966)
24. Stafford-Smith, B.; Carter, C.: A method of analysis for infilled
frames. Proc. Inst. Civ. Eng. 44, 31–49 (1969)
25. Polyakov, S.V.: On the interaction between masonry filler walls and
enclosing frame when loaded in the plane of the wall. Translations
in Earthquake Engineering, Earthquake Engineering Research
Institute, Oakland, California, pp. 36–42 (1960)
26. Chrysostomou, C.Z.: Effect of degrading infill walls on the non-
linear seismic response of two dimensional steel frames. Ph.D.
Dissertation. University of Cornell, Ithaca, NY (1991)
27. Hamburger, R.O.: Methodology for seismic capacity evaluation
of steel frame buildings with infill unreinforced masonry. In Pro-
ceedings of 1993 National Earthquake Conference, Central U.S.
123
Arabian Journal for Science and Engineering
Earthquake Consortium, Memphis, Tennessee, May (2), pp. 173–
197 (1993)
28. Holmes, M.: Steel frames with brickwork and concrete infilling.
Proc. Inst. Civ. Eng. 19(2), 473–478 (1961)
29. Holmes, M.: Combined loading on infilled frames. Proc. Inst. Civ.
Eng. 25(1), 31–38 (1963)
30. Stafford-Smith, B.: Lateral stiffness of infilled frames. J. Struct.
Div. ASCE 88(ST6), 183–199 (1962)
31. Stafford-Smith, B.: Model test results of vertical and horizontal
loading of infilled frames. ACI Struct. J. 65(8), 618–624 (1968)
32. Thiruvengadam, V.: On the natural frequencies of infilled frames.
Earthq. Eng. Struct. Dyn. 13(3), 401–419 (1985)
33. Mainstone, R.J.: On the stiffnesses and strengths of infilled frames.
In: Proceedings of Institution of Civil Engineers, Supplement IV
(Paper 73605), pp. 57–90 (1971)
34. Kadysiewski, S.; Mosalam, K.M.: Modeling of unreinforced
masonry infill walls considering in-plane and out-of-plane inter-
action. University of California, Berkeley, Pacific Earthquake
Engineering Research Center PEER (2009)
35. Mosalam, K.M.; Ayala, G.; White, R.N.; Roth, C.: Seismic reliabil-
ity of LRC frames with and without masonry infill wall. J. Earthq.
Eng. 1(4), 693–720 (1997)
36. Reflak, J.; Fajfar, P.: Elastic analysis of infilled frames using
substructures. In: Proceeding of 6th Canadian Conference on Earth-
quake Engineering, Toronto, Canada (1991)
37. Boukeloua, S.; Tekkouk, A.; Samai, M.L.: Prediction of collapse
mechanisms by the construction interaction diagrams for plane
steel structures. Arab. J. Sci. Eng. 43, 1687–1696 (2017)
38. Grigorian, M.; Kaveh, A.: A practical weight optimization for
moment frames under combined loading. Int. J. Optim. Civ. Eng.
3(2), 289–312 (2013)
39. Lord Baker, J.H.: Plastic Design of Frames, 1 Fundamental. Cam-
bridge University Press, New York (1980)
40. Moy, S.S.J.: Plastic Methods for Steel and Concrete Structures, 2nd
edn. Macmilian, Basingstoke (1996)
41. Liu, Y.-S.; Guo-Qiang, L.: A nonlinear analysis method of steel
frames using element with internal plastic hinge. Adv. Steel Constr.
4(4), 341–352 (2008)
42. Burton, H.: Literature review of reinforced concrete infill frame.
Ph.D. Thesis, Chapter in progress, University of Stanford, Califor-
nia (2012)
43. Framed Infill Network: Modeling technique: development and
implementation. Publishing GeoHazards International and EERI.
http://framedinfill.org/resources/technical-literature/. Accessed
11 July 2017 (2017)
44. Abolghasem, S.; Hobbs, B.: Inelastic design of infilled frames. J.
Struct. Eng. 121(4), 634–650 (1995)
45. Sarhosis, V.; Tsavdaridis, K.D.; Giannopoulos, I.: Discrete ele-
ment modelling of masonry infilled steel frames with multiple
window openings subjected to lateral load variations. Open Con-
struct. Build. Technol. J. 8, 93–103 (2014)
46. Pantò, B.; Caliò, I.; Lourenço, P.B.: Seismic safety evaluation of
reinforced concrete masonry infilled frames using macro modelling
approach. Bull. Earthq. Eng. 15(9), 3871–3895 (2017)
47. Di Trapani, F.; Shing, P.B.; Cavaleri, L.: Macro-element model for
in-plane and out-of-plane responses of masonry infills in frame
structures. ASCE J. Struct. Eng. 144(2), 04017198 (2017)
48. Asteris, P.G.; Repapis, C.C.; Tsaris, A.K.; Trapani, F.D.I.; Cava-
leri, L.: Parameters affecting the fundamental period of infilled RC
frame structures. Earthq. Struct. 9(5), 999–1028 (2015)
49. Crowley, H., Pinho, R.: Simplified equations for estimating the
period of vibration of existing buildings. In: Proceedings of the First
European Conference on Earthquake Engineering and Seismology,
Geneva, Switzerland (2006)
Arabian Journal for Science and Engineering
50. Cavaleri, L.; Di Trapani, F.: Prediction of the additional shear action
on frame members due to infills. Bull. Earthq. Eng. 13(5), 1425–
1454 (2015)
51. Cavaleri, L.; Trapani, F.D.; Asteris, P.G.; Sarhosis, V.: Influence
of column shear failure on pushover based assessment of masonry
infilled reinforced concrete framed structures: a case study. Soil
Dyn. Earthq. Eng. 100, 98–112 (2017)
52. Celarec, D.; Dolšek, M.: Practice-oriented probabilistic seismic
performance assessment of infilled frames with consideration of
shear failure of columns. Earthq. Eng. Struct. Dyn. 42, 1339–1360
(2013)
53. Cavaleri, L.; Di Trapani, F.: Cyclic response of masonry infilled RC
frames: experimental results and simplified modeling. Soil Dyn.
Earthq. Eng. 65, 224–242 (2014)
54. Kakaletsis, D.J.; Karayannis, C.G.: Experimental investigation of
infilled reinforced concrete frames with openings. ACI Struct. J.
102(2), 132–141(2009)
55. Mainstone, R.J.; Weeks, G.A.: The influence of a bounding frame
on the racking stiffnesses and strengths of brick walls. In: Proceed-
ing of 2nd International Brick Masonry Conference, pp. 165–171
(1971)
56. FEMA 273.: NEHRP Guidelines for the Seismic Rehabilitation of
Buildings. Report No. FEMA 273, Federal Emergency Manage-
ment Agency, Washington, DC (1997)
57. FEMA 274.: NEHRP Commentary on the Guidelines for the Seis-
mic Rehabilitation of Buildings. Report No. FEMA 274, Federal
Emergency Management Agency, Washington, D.C (1997)
58. SAP2000: Linear and nonlinear static and dynamic analysis and
design of three-dimensional structures. Structural Analysis Pro-
gram SAP2000, V15.0.0, Berkeley, California (2011)
123