Journal of Earthquake Engineering

This article was downloaded by: [Dicle University]
On: 02 November 2014, At: 01:49

Publisher: Taylor & Francis
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House,
37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK
Journal of Earthquake Engineering

Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/ueqe20
SEISMIC DESIGN AND RESPONSE OF BARE AND MASONRY-

INFILLED REINFORCED CONCRETE BUILDINGS. PART II:
INFILLED STRUCTURES
a a
M. N. FARDIS & T. B. PANAGIOTAKOS
a
Department of Civil Engineering , University of Patras , P.O. BOX 1424, Patras, 26500,
Greece
Published online: 31 May 2007.
To cite this article: M. N. FARDIS & T. B. PANAGIOTAKOS (1997) SEISMIC DESIGN AND RESPONSE OF BARE AND MASONRY-
INFILLED REINFORCED CONCRETE BUILDINGS. PART II: INFILLED STRUCTURES, Journal of Earthquake Engineering, 1:3, 475-503,
DOI: 10.1080/13632469708962375
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13632469708962375
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE
Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) contained
in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no
representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the
Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, and
are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and
should be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for
any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever
or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of
the Content.
This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic
reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any
form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://
www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions
Journal of Earthquake Engineering Vol. 1, No. 3 (1997) 475-503
@ Imperial College Press
SEISMIC DESIGN AND RESPONSE OF BARE AND

MASONRY-INFILLED REINFORCED CONCRETE
BUILDINGS. PART 11: INFILLED STRUCTURES
M. N. FARDIS and T. B. PANAGIOTAKOS

University of Patras, Department of Civil Engineering,
P.O. BOX 1/24, 26500 Patms, Greece
Downloaded by [Dicle University] at 01:49 02 November 2014
Received 16 July 1996

Revised 7 September 1996
Accepted 1 October 1996
The effects of masonry infills on the global seismic response of reinforced concrete struc-
tures is studied through numerical analyses. Response spectra of elastic SDOF frames
with nonlinear infills show that, despite their apparent stzening effect on the system,
infills reduce spectral displacements and forces mainly through their high damping in the
first large post-cracking excursion. Parametric analyses on a large variety of multi-storey
infilled reinforced concrete structures show that, due to the hysteretic energy dissipation
in the infills, if the infilling is uniform in dl storeys, drifts and structural damage are
dramatically reduced, without an increase in the seismic force demands. Soh-storey ef-
fects due to the absence of infills in the bottom storey are not so important for seismic
motions a t the design intznsity, but may be very large at higher motion intensities, if the
ultimate strength of the infills amounts to a large percentage of the building weight. The
Eurocode 8 provisions for designing the weak storey elements against the effects of infill
irregularity are found to be quite effective, in general, for the columns, but unnecessary
and often counterproductive for the beams.
Keywords: Eurocode 8, infilled structures, mmonry infills, reinforced concrete structures,

seismic design, seismic response.
1. Introduction
In masonry-infilled structures, the infills often control the global seismic response
and perforthance. Experience from earthquakes suggests that strong infills, al-
though non-engineered and considered as non-structurd, often provide most of the
earthquake resistance and prevent collapse of relatively flexible and weak RC struc-
tures. On the other hand, infills may fail in a rather brittle fashion, giving rise to
irregularities in the strength and stiffness of the structure and possibly formation
of a soft storey. Moreover, since infills are not included in conventional structural
modelling and analysis for the purposes of seismic design, their contribution to
the lateral stiffness and strength, if significant, may invalidate the analysis and,
furthermore, the proportioning of structural members for earthquake resistance on
the basis of its results as well. As a result, two opposite schools of thought have
emerged: according to the first, infills introduce a significant source of uncertainty
in the seismic response, negate the efforts of the designer to control the seismic
476 M. N . Fardi~t3 T.B. Panagiotakos
response and performance of the structure, and overall have more negative effects
than positive. Accordingly, infills, if present at all, shall be engineered to be non-
structural through proper isolation from the surrounding structural members. The
other school of thought supports, on the contrary, that because of economic consid-
erations and of the unpredictability of the peak seismic demands on our structures,
the engineer should take profit from every element, structural or not, that can
contribute to earthquake resistance. Accordingly, he should make every effort to
maximize the role of infills as a second Iine of defense against the seismic action and
to minimize their potential detrimental effects, global or local, through proper se-
lection of their layout and quality control during construction. Seismic design codes
usually adopt the first point of view, penalizing infilled structures in comparison to
bare ones.
The importance of the influence of infills on the seismic behaviour of RC frame
structures is widely recognised by the European earthquake engineering community.
Section 2.9 "Additional design measures for masonry infilled frames" of Part 1.3 of
Eurocode 8 reflects current European thinking on this issue. Although pioneering in
its very presence, this section of EC8 is essentially limited to (a) general principles
regarding the need to appropriately consider the effects of infills; (b) the requirement
to take into account the effects of infills with irregular arrangements in plan through
appropriate analysis in 3D,including explicitly the infills in the model (due to the
immaturity of the State-of-theArt, detailed application rules on how this can be
accomplished are not given); (c) specific and rational application rules regarding
how the effects of infill irregularities in elevation can be taken into account in the
design of the frame; (d) very specific application rules, aiming at increasing the
seismic action effects for which the frame should be designed, due to the shortening
of the elastic period of the structure effected by the infilling; (e) general and specific
application rules, to take into account the adverse local effects of infills on the
adjacent structural members, including captive columns.
Infills irregularly arranged in plan do not seem to increase the global vulnerabil-
ity of the structure considerably, as any detrimental effects of the induced torsional
response seem to be offset by the contribution of the infills to the lateral resistance
and energy dissipation. Hence, development of very detailed rules, to assist in the
application of the principles mentioned under point (b), does not seem to be of top
priority. On the contrary, infill irregularities in eIevation invalidate the concepts of
global ductility and Capacity Design, and may pose a major threat t o the global
integrity of otherwise properly designed RC structures. The EC8 application rules
mentioned under point (c) are a step in the right direction. Nevertheless, they lack
the necessary support of in-depth research. Findly, the application rules under
point (d) seem to lead to over-conservative designs and penalise infilled frames, to
a point not justified by bbserved earthquake damage.
A broad survey of the available experimental results on the behaviour of infilled
frames under in-plane cyclic lateral loading, static or dynamic, as well as of the
available models of this behaviour can be found in Chapter 6 of C.E.B. Bulletin
Seismic Design and Response of Ban and Maaony-Infilled . . . (Part 11) 477
No 231 [C.E.B., 19961. Contrary to the experimental behaviour and modelling

of individual infill panels, the effects of infills on the global seismic response of
structures has received relatively little attention at the present time. This paper
focuses on aspects of this global response, and in particular on the above points
(c) and (d). The effect of the shortening of the natural period, i.e. point (d), is
considered first, mainly in Sec. 2 on the simplest possible infill-frame configuration,
and also in Secs. 3 and 4 on various multi-storey RC structures with regular or
irregular infilling. Point (c), i.e. the effects of irregularities of infills in elevation, is
addressed in Secs. 3 and 4. In Secs. 4 and 5, alternatives to the current provisions
of Sec. 1.3.2.9 of Eurocode 8 are proposed on the basis of the present results.
2. Seismic Response of SDOF Infilled RC Frames

A single-storey infilled frame is a parallel system in which the infill panel and the
surrounding frame have common horizontal response displacements, accelerations,
etc., at the top and share among them the storey shear force. If u denotes the
cornrnon displacement of the frame and the infill panel and m the effective mass,
the equation of motion of the SDOF system is
in which ug is the ground acceleration and F the total resisting force of the system.
If the frame is considered linear-elastic with elastic stiffness K, and is assumed to
have mass-proportional damping with damping ratio C (as a fraction of critical), and
if the entire effective mass of the system is assigned to the frame, then Eq. (2.1)
can be written as
+ + +
ii 2Cwu w2u fi,(u) = -ii, (2.2)
in which w = is the frame circular frequency and fi,(u) is the shear force
of the panel normalised with respect to m. Equation (2.2) is a convenient form for
performing parametric analyses of the seismic response of the SDOF infilled frame.
Figure l ( a ) shows the simplest approximation of the infill shear force as a func-
tion of lateral displacement, in the first post-cracking excursion of the panel in each
direction of loading to distortions around or even beyond ultimate strength. In
the first and third quadrants, this relationship is rigid-perfectly plastic in mono-
tonic loading and includes rigid unloading to zero force. In the second and fourth
quadrants, the infill shows no resistance to unloading up to the initial undeformed
position. For full loading-unloading-reloading cycles, the inherent hysteretic damp-
ing of this relation is equivalent t o a damping ratio of l l n == 32%, which is only
slightly higher than the hysteretic damping of an infill panel in its first post-cracking
excursion to shear distortions close to or beyond ultimate strength.
For this hysteretic relation of the infill panel, the peak response displacements
and accelerations of the SDOF infilled frame to 10 sec-long artificial motions, com-
patible with the Eurocode 8 5%-damped elastic spectrum for soil type B, are shown
478 M. N. Fardia d T.B. Panagiotakos
Fig. 1. Shear force-distortion models for infill panels under cyclic loading: (a) simplified;
(b) realistic.
in Fig. 2(a) as a function of the elastic period of the frame, Tf, = 2 n m .

Response accelerations are calculated as w2Sd = ( ~ / m ) and ~ ~ correspond
d t o the
peak shear force of the frame done. The response was calculated for the same four
artificial motions used for the nonlinea: aniyses of the bare frame structures in
Sec. 6 of the companion paper by Fardis and Paragiotakos (19971. The average of the
results of the analyses for the four motions are shown.in Fig. 2(a) for various values
of the ratio of the normalised to m infill strength to the peak ground acceleration
%. If the constant strength of the infill model of Fig. l(a) is taken as the average
between the cracking and the ultimate shear force of the panel, F,, and F,, and F,
is taken to be equal to 1.3 F,,, then the constant infill strength in Fig. l(a) is equal
to F,/1.15. If the ratio F,/ma, is denoted by f,, the average of the four inelastic
response spectra of the SDOF infilled frame are shown in Fig. 2(a) for f, = 0.5, 1.0,
1.5 and 2.0, and compared to the 5%-damped elastic spectrum (which corresponds
t o f,, = 0) represented by the heavy line. The results of Fig. 2(a) suggest a very
drastic reduction of response accelerations and displacements of the elastic frame
due to the presence of the infill panel, even when the strength of the latter is a
fraction of the peak input force in the rigid system m%.
T h e response analyses of the SDOF infilled frame to the four artificial motions
were repeated using, this time, a more representative hysteretic model for the infill
panel, as shown in Fig. l(b) [Panagiotakos and Fardis, 19941. According t o this
model, the monotonic curve is trilinear with a horizontal residual strength branch
for very large values of the panel deformation. The corner between the first two
branches corresponds to cracking, and that between the second and third branch
to ultimate strength of the panel. For cyclic loading, the hysteretic model is an
extension of that in Tassios [1984]: unloading takes place a t a slope equal to that
of the first (elastic) loading branch K1, down to a point D at a fraction P of the
ultimate shear force I?, and then heads linearly towards a point C in the opposite
direction of loading at a force equal to a fraction P of F,. This point is at horizontal
Seismic Derign and Rerponse of Bare and Masonry-Infilled .. . (Part 11) 479
Fig. 2. Effect of infilling on the spectral accelerations and displacements of a SDOF 5%-damped
elastic frame (average for four ECB compatible input motions) (a) infill model of Fig. 1(a);
(b) infill model of Fig. l(b) with KJ = 0.01 K1;(c) infill model of Fig. l ( b ) with K3 = 0.1 K1.
distance from the first loading branch equal to a fraction y of the maximum previous
post-cracking excursion in the current direction of (re)loading, i.e. to 7(bi ti,,), -
where b,, = Fc,/K1 is the deformation at cracking and bi 2 6,, is the maximum
deformation ever reached in this (re)loading direction in previous cycles. If it is the
first time that the panel is loaded in this direction, then the maximum previous
-
post-cracking deformation, bi 6,,, is zero, and reloading heads towards a point
on the first loading (elastic) branch at a force of PF,. Beyond point C reloading
stfiens, heading towards a point on the branch of unloading from the maximum
previous deformation 6; in the current direction of reloading, but a t a force level
which is lowered by aFi. Unloading-reloading from intermediate points of hysteresis
loops follow similar rules. The damping ratio inherent in these hysteresis rules is
equal to
for the first full cycle to a preultimate peak deformation p times the cracking value,
6,,, in each direction, and to
for full pre-ultimate unloading-reloading cycles after the first. If the full unloading-
reloading cycle after the first is to a peak displacement p6,, greater than that at
ultimate strength, pubc, (i.e. if p > p,), then the corresponding damping ratio is
480 M . N . Fardia 8 T . B. Panagiotakos
In Eqs. (2.3) to (2.5)) p is the hardening ratio, K2/K1, of the post-cracking branch
in monotonic loading, and in Eq. (2.5), pl = K3/K1 is the post-ultimate softening
ratio. For large values of p and for typical values of the parameters cr, 0 and 7,
Eq. (2.3) gives a damping ratio equal to about 30%, and Eqs. (2.4) and (2.5) give
damping ratios of 5% to 6% respectively.
The analyses of the SDOF infilled frame t o the four artificial motions are per-
formed for the following values of the monotonic infill model parameters: F u =
1.3 F,,, K1 (elastic stiffness up to cracking) equal to four times the stiffness K of
the elastic frame, post-cracking hardening ratio p = K2/K1 = 0.03, post-ultimate
softening ratio pl = K3/K1 = 0.01 (realistic value) or 0.1 (corresponding to an
unusually brittle infill) and residual strength equal to zero. In addition, the pararn-
eters a, B and 7 of the hysteresis are given values of 0.15, 0.1 and 0.8 respectively,
which provide the best overall fit t o available cyclic test results on infilled frames.
Average inelastic spectra are shown in Fig. 2(b) for K3 = 0.01 K1 and in Fig. 2(c)
for K3 = 0.1 K1. The four curves correspond again t o fu = Fu/ma, = 0.5, 1.0, 1.5
and 2.0 and are compared to the 5%-damped elastic spectrum of the bare frame
(f, = 0). For realistic post-ultimate softening, i.e. for K3 = 0.01 K,,the inelastic
spectra are always below those of the elastic bare frame, despite the stiffening effect
of the infill and the associated shortening of the elastic natural period of the frame-
infill system from 2 n m to 2 7 ~ J n= 27r Jm/5K. However, the reduction
with respect to the elastic spectrum is much lower than that effected by the i d e d
rigid-perfectly plastic infill of Fig. l(a). The softening branch of the monotonic
force-deformation relation of the infill affects the inelastic spectra only for f,, = 0.5
and 1.0, as for higher values of f, the ultimate strength of the infill is not reached.
For infills with a steep softening branch [K3 = 0.1 K1,Fig. 2(c)] and f, 5 1.0,
even the zero residual strength of the infill is reached during the response, for T <
1.5 sec when fu = 0.5 and for T < 0.7 sec when fu .= 1.0. As a result, the peak
response displacements and accelerations of these infilled SDOF frames approach,
or even exceed, those of the bare frame over part of this low to intermediate period
range [Fig. 2(c)]. In other words, rather weak (f, < 1.0) and unusually brittle infills
may increase peak displacements and shears of frames with elastic periods in the
constant acceleration part of the spectrum. In all other cases, the presence of infills
reduces the peak response of the frame.
Inelastic spectra of SDOF infilled frames are also constructed for two real earth-
quake records, namely, the strong horizontal components of the Kalamata 1986 and
the Aegion 1995 earthquakes. As shown in Fig. 3(a), in contrast to the artificial m*
tions the acceleration time histories of these events have just a few large amplitude
cycles, and are expected to cause few post-cracking excursions of the infill panel.
Seirmic Design and Respon~eof Bare and Maronry-Infilled . . . (Part 11) 481
Fig. 3. Effect of infilling on spectral response of a 5%-damped SDOF elutic frame subjected to
(a) Aegion 1995, and (b) Kalamata 1986 recorded motions.
Inelastic spectra for these two events using the simplified rigid-perfectly plastic infill
model of Fig. l(a) (dashed lines) or the realistic one of Fig. l(b) (continuous lines)
are compared in Figs. 3(b) and 3(c). It is clear that for the same ultimate strength
value f,, very similar results are obtained using these two alternative models. This
is despite the fact that the model of Fig. l(a) corresponds to infinite elastic stiffness
and zero elastic natural period of the infill-frame system, and to a damping ratio,
in subsequent cycles, which is more than 5 times that of the more realistic model of
Fig. 2(b). This means that for real acceleration time histories typical of near field
conditions, which contain a few large acceleration cycles, the only infill parameter
which is important for the response of the infilled frame is the strength of the infill
panel as a fraction of the inertia force induced in a rigid frame of the same mass. The
stiffness of the infill from the initial elastic stage to the post-ultimate softening one
is rather unimportant. The large reduction in the response displacements and forces
of the frame is due to the large hysteretic damping of the infill in its first large post-
cracking excursion. This large damping is best exploited in impulsive-type ground
motions with few large acceleration peaks. Because the 5%-damped elastic spectra
of the two events considered in Fig. 3 exhibit a single large peak around 0.4 sec or
0.5 sec and a rapid decay thereafter even in spectra. displacements, if the elastic
482 M. N. Fardis €d T.B. Panagiotako~
frame has natural period between 0.7 sec and 1.5 sec, the stiffening effect of infilling
may lead to higher (but not overly so) response accelerations and displacements,
as it may shift the effective nonlinear period to values near the peaks of the elastic
spectrum. This is another case example of potentially adverse effects of the infills.
Nevertheless, this adverse effect is rare and limited in magnitude.
3. P a r a m e t r i c Seismic Response Analyses of Infilled 4-Storey

Frame S t r u c t u r e
The conclusions of the previous section regarding the insensitivity of the response
to the stiffness of the infills, the importance of infill strength and the primary role of
energy dissipation in the first large post-cracking excursion of the infills, have been
derived for a SDOF system in which the frame remains elastic. To study the effect
of infills on the response of MDOF reinforced concrete structures, with members
having a realistic post-yield hysteretic behaviour, parametric studies are performed
on the Cstorey full-scale ELSA test structure [Donea et al., 19951, considered with
various configurations of infills (Fig. 4). This structure had indeed been tested
with both bays of its two exterior frames infilled either in all four storeys or from
the second t o the top storey, i.e. in an open (or soft) first storey configuration.
The infill panels had no openings, were 112 mm thick and were constructed of
vertically perforated clay bricks. The strength of the masonry, as measured on
wallettes, was about 2.4 MPa in compression normal to the holes and parallel to
the bed joints, and about 7.3 MPa paralIel to the holes and normal to the bed
joints, while the cracking strength in diagonal compression a t 45O to the bed joints
was approximately 0.26 MPa. The vaIues of the Elastic Modulus in the former two
directions and of the Shear Modulus were approximately equal to 2.5 GPa, 8.2 GPa
and 1.25 GPa, respectively. The fully or partially infilled structure was tested
pseudodynamically at the same excitation as the bare test structure, i.e. roughly at
1.5 times the design ground motion. Measured base shear and top displacement time
histories in the two tests are shown by solid line in Fig. 8 of the companion paper
by Fardis and Panagiotakos [1997]. In the test of the fully infilled structure, frame
members had no distress or visible damage, while infill panels cracked and suffered
significant local damage, which increased from the top to the ground storey. In the
test of the open first storey structure, some columns of the ground storey suffered
minor spalling of the concrete cover a t the corners, while the long bay beams of
the external frames of this storey developed full depth cracks at the exterior joints,
indicative of yield penetration and bar slippage in the joint.
As the parametric nonlinear response analyses of this section are performed on
the same two configurations of the Cstorey structure tested in ELSA, using different
ground motions and infill properties, the tests of the two infilled configurations are
numerically simulated here for the purposes of assessing the modelling and the tools
to be used in the parametric studies. Modelling of the reinforced concrete structure
and its members is the same as in the bare frame (see Sec. 4 of the companion paper
S e i ~ m i cDesign and Respon~eof Bare and Masonry-Infilled . . . (Part 11) 483
Fig. 4. Bare, fully and partially infilled Pstorey ELSA test structure.
by Fardis and Paragiotakos (19973). Infill panels are modeled through bidiagonal
struts, which are effective only in tension and follow the inter-storey shear-drift
relation of Fig. l(b), The parameters of the monotonic force-deformation curve of
the p'ulel in shear up to ultimate strength are determined as follows:
The slope of the elastic branch KI is taken to be equal to GA/H, in which G is the
Shear Modulus of the panel as measured in diagonal compression tests of wallettes
a t 45' to the bed joints (1.25 GPa in the present case), A the horizontal cross-
sectional area of the panel and H its clear height. The cracking force F,, is taken
to be T,,A, with rCrdenoting the shear stress on bed joints at failure of the wallette
specimens in diagonal compression (0.26 MPa in this case). The ultimate strength
F, is taken to be at 1.3 Fc, and the deformation at ultimate is determined from
the corresponding secant stiffness of the panel, equal to the product of the Elastic
Modulus in the weak (horizontal) direction of the masonry (2.5 GPa in this case)
484 M. N. Fardis # T.13.Panagiotakos
times the thickness times the equivalent strut width according to the Mainstone
[Mainstone, 19711 expression. With so determined cracking and ultimate points,
the post-cracking hardening ratio p = K2/K1 takes values between 117 and 1/10
for the four types of panels of the structure. This selection of panel parameters was
found to provide the best (among various other simple alternatives) agreement with
the few available tests on infill panels, in which measurements of masonry properties
on wallettes are also available. The post-ultimate softening ratio, pl = Ei3/Kl1 is
taken equal to 0.5%, while parameters a,0 and y which control the hysteresis are
taken equal to 0.15, 0.1 and 0.8 respectively. Base shear and top displacement time
histories computed with these models and parameter values are compared in Fig. 8
of the companion paper by Fardis and Paragiotakos [I9971 with measured results.
The agreement is more in the waveform (i.e. in the effective nonlinear period of
vibration) rather than in the peak values. Indeed, as shown in Table 2 of the
companion paper, peak base she& is underpredicted by lo%, 24% and 4% in the
bare, fully infilled and open first-storey structure, while top and first storey drifts
are fairly well predicted in the bare and the fully infilled structure (9% difference
at most), but underpredicted by 21% (for the top drifts) and by 37% (for the 1st
storey drift) in the soft-storey one. Part of this discrepancy may be attributed to
differences between the actual properties of the infill panels and the ones estimated
on the basis of a few wallette tests. Computed damage ratios for beams and columns
are in good qualitative agreement with the observed damage.
In the parametric analyses, the impact of the strength and stiffness of infills
on the response is studied by considering three cases: The "reference" case is the
four-storey structure infilled in the two configurations tested, with a 0.112 m thick
masonry which has cracking shear strength and Shear Modulus in the directions
parallel and normal to the bed joints equal to 0.26 MPa and 1.25 GPa, respectively,
and Young's Modulus normal and parallel to the bed joints equal to 2.5 GPa and
8.2 GPa. In the "weak" and in the "strong" infill cases, the strength and stiffness
of the infill panels are halved and doubled, respectively, in comparison t o those of
the reference case. In terms of ultimate strength, the infiiIs are equivalent to a base
shear coefficient of 0.04, 0.08 and 0.16 respectively in the "weak", "reference" and
"strong" infill cases and in terms of cracking strength to base shear coefficients of
about 0.03, 0.06 and 0.12. The contribution of the elastic stiffness of the infills to the
overall lateral stiffness of the fully infilled structure for storey drifts that increase
linearly with height is 12, 24 or 48 times that of the frame for all its members
considered cracked with their secant stiffness at yielding, in the "weak" infills, the
"reference1' and the "strong" infills case respectively.
In all infilled structures, the dimensions and the reinforcement of the frame
members are the same as in the bare structure. Actually, application of the special
provisions of Eurocode 8, Part 1.3, for masonry-infilled reinforced concrete frames
would not have changed the seismic design forces of the structure. The reason is that
both the fundamental period of the uncracked bare structure, on the basis of which
the frame was designed, and the average of the fundamental period of the infilled
Seismic Design and Response of Bare and Masonry-Infilled . . . (Part 11) 485
and the bare structures lie in the constant acceleration part of the design spectrum.
However, Eurocode 8, Part 1.3, requires the increase of the design seismic forces of
the elements of those storeys which have less infills than the neighbouring ones (in
this case of the open first storey) to account for the irregularity in the distribution
of the infills and in the storey strength. This design provision, considered separately
in Sec. 4, is disregarded here, as the present parametric study focuses on the effects
of infills on the response of structures which have not been specifically designed
having taken into account the structural role of the infills.
The parametric nonlinear dynamic analyses are performed using, as input m e
tions, the four artificial records compatible to the Eurocode 8 soil B elastic spectrum,
which were used in the nonlinear analyses of Sec. 6 of the companion paper by Fardis
and Panagiotakos [I9971 and of Sec. 2 herein. The motions are applied in the di-
rection of the two infilled exterior Games, and are scaled to multiples of the design
intensity of 0.30 g effective peak acceleration, ranging from 1.0 to 3.0 with incre-
ments of 0.5. Clearly effective peak accelerations three times higher than the design
value and of the order of 0.9 g are beyond those of the "10,000 year return period"
event (sometimes called maximum credible or capable earthquake) of a structure.
This is even more so as they are associated with a smooth spectrum which is rich
in all frequencies, and does not allow the nonlinear structure to seek refuge into a
valley of the spectrum. However, it is mainly under such ground motion intensities
that the impact of the presence of infills is felt. In addition to the nonlinear dy-
namic response analyses, static nonlinear "pushover" analyses are performed under
monotonically increasing storey lateral forces proportional to the product of storey
mass times the storey height. According to these pushover analyses, first yielding
in the frame takes place at a base shear corresponding to a base shear coefficient of
0.23 in the bare frame at 0.24, 0.28 or 0.36 in the fully infilled Game with "weak",
"reference" or "strong" infills respectively, and 0.21 in the open-first-storey struc-
ture independently of the stiffness of the upper storey infills. The same analyses
suggest that the frame is transformed into a (sidesway or soft-storey) mechanism at
a base shear coefficient of 0.42 for the bare frame, 0.4, 0.44 and 0.52 for the three
fully infilled structures and 0.4 for the soft storey ones.
Some results of the nonlinear dynamic response analyses are summarized in
Fig. 5, in the form of average values for the four input motions. Results for the bare
frame are also presented for comparison. These results include:
(a) At the top of Fig. 5, the predominant period of the nonlinear response T,I,
calculated from a Fourier analysis of the time history of roof displacements.
This value can be compared to the fundamental period of the elastic structure
Tel,calculated with a l l frame members taken with their secant stiffness a t yield,
and the infills considered uncracked and in full contact with the surrounding
frame.
(b) At the second from the top part of Fig. 5, the peak base shear coefficient attained
during the dynamic response, to be compared with the corresponding values
486 M. N. Fnrdi~€9 T.B. Pnnagiotakos
El col. ?st. 4 col. 2nd.

E beams 1st. El beams 2nd. - %I
Fig. 5 . Results of parametric studies of infilled Cstorey ELSA test structure (average for
4 motions).
Seismic Design and Re~ponseof Bare and Masonq-Infilled ... (Port 11) 487
at first yielding in the frame and at formation of a mechanism quoted in the

previous paragraph. Peak base shear values sometimes exceed those required for
the formation of a mechanism, because in the analyses frame members are taken
t o harden indefinitely a t a constant hardening ratio after formation of plastic
hinges a t their ends. A small exceedance of the base shear at the formation of
a mechanism is physically possible, to the extent that frame members continue
hardening without failure. Large exceedances make little sense and are typically
associated with high values of the predicted damage indexes in the structural
members, meaning that in reality some of these members may fail, therefore
putting a limit to the base shear of the structure.
(c) The square root of the normalised to motion intensity input energy ratio,
d m ,
with intensity 1.0 corresponding to the design effective peak accel-

eration of 0.3 g, intensity 3.0 to 0.9 g, etc. As in Sec. 4 and Figs. 10 to 12 of
the companion paper by Fardis and Panagiotakos [1997], Ei, is the absolute
input energy of the structure, computed as the total work done by the storey
inertia forces on the storey displacements. As the predominant period of the
nonlinear response is above the corner period of 0.6 sec and lies in the constant
pseudovelocity part of the input motion spectrum, the value of the normalised
t o intensity input energy ratio should be compared to the pseudovelocity value
of ( 0 . 6 1 2 ~ x) 2.5 x 0.3 g % 0.7 m/sec of the elastic spectrum for 0.6 sec < T <
3 sec.
(d) In the fourth from the top part of Fig. 5, the peak drift ratio at the top of
the structure and at the first storey. As suggested by the nonlinear pushover
analyses, first yielding or transformation of a single storey into a mechanism
take place at storey drift ratios of about 1% and 2.3% respectively. The inter-
storey drift ratio is the sum of the average chord rotation of the columns of the
storey, of the average chord rotation of the storey beams and of the average
end rotation due to bar pull-out and push-in in the joints plus the joint shear
distortion. In the present case all these contributions to the inter-storey drift
ratio are included in the model, with the exception of the joint shear distortion,
and contribute roughly equally to the inter-storey drift.
(e) The portion Eh of the total input energy E;,,which is dissipated by hysteresis
in the members by the end of the 10 sec. of the excitation, and its breakdown
to energy dissipated in the infills, beams and columns, with the percentage of
energy input dissipated in the first storey columns listed separately.
(f) At the bottom of Fig. 5, the maximum over the storey values of the damage
index in the 1st and in the 2nd storey columns and beams. Damage index values
have been computed using the first method described in Sec. 4 of the companion
paper. Average member damage index values in the storey are about half the
maximum values shown in Fig. 5. Damage index values in the 3rd and 4th
storeys, which are not listed, are very low in all cases, with the exception of the
3rd storey of the bare frame, in which they are slightly lower than in the 2nd
storey.
Conclusions drawn on the basis of Fig. 5 and of more detailed results of the
nonlinear analyses are as follows:
(a) Despite the very high stiffness of the uncracked infills, the frequency content of
the nonlinear response is controlled by the frame, as infills crack and separate
from the surrounding frame quite early in the response. The waveforms of the
top displacement time histories are dominated by the vibration a t the predom-
inant period of the cracked and possibly yielding frame, on top of which some
high frequency components are superimposed, which are due to higher modes
controlled by the still uncracked infill panels of the upper storeys. As the inten-
sity of the excitation increases up to three times that of the design motion, not
only the predominant period of the frame lengthens due to inelastic action, but
also the high frequency components diminish and disappear as the infill panels
crack in the upper storeys as well.
(b) The high lateral stiffness of the infilled structures, although quite effective in
reducing top and inter-storey drifts (the latter with the exception of the soft first
storey), does not lead, in general, to increased seismic force demands as these
are expressed by the value of the peak base shear coefficient (the exception is
the "strong infills" .case for both the fully and the partially infilled structure).
The simultaneous reduction of peak displacements and peak forces is due to
the large energy dissipation in the infills during their first major post-cracking
excursion in each direction. The reduction in peak displacements and forces
is larger than that in Fig. 2(b), in the SDOF elastic frame for the same type
of infill model [that of Fig. l(b)] and input motions (the artificial ones). It is
noteworthy that in the infilled SDOF system, the total base shear, which is
equal to the shear force of the infill (about equal to its ultimate shear strength
f,) plus that of the elastic frame, shown as S,/a, in Fig. 2(b), is higher than in
the bare elastic frame. On the contrary, in the multi-storey structures, the total
base shear of the infilled structure is generally lower than in the bare structure,
despite the fact that the normalised to the product of the total mass times the
effective peak acceleration of the input, ultimate strength of the infills f, is low:
for the 0.3 g excitation f,, is equal to 0.04/0.3 = 0.13 for the "weak" infills
case, 0.08/0.3 = 0.27 for the "reference" case and 0.53 for the "strong" infills
one, but it is divided by the multiple of the excitation intensity for the stronger
motions, decreasing by a factor of 3 for the 0.9 g input motion. The larger
effectiveness of the infills in reducing the response of the multi-storey structure
may be explained by the fact that the infill panels of the various storeys have the
opportunity to go through their energy-absorbing first post-cracking excursion
in each direction at different instants in the inelastic response.'1. Therefore, they
reduce the amplitude of the subsequent peaks of the response as well, while the
infills of a SDOF system may exhaust their energy dissipation capacity in the
first large inelastic excursion.
(c) The pseudovelocity-type of input energy measure (normalised to motion inten-
sity) decreases with full infilling, especially at the lower excitation intensities.
Seismic Design and Response oJ Bare and Maaonry-Infilled . . . (Part 11) 489
For an elastic system with fundamental period T less than the corner period of
0.6 sec, this energy input is approximately proportional to T. As this energy
input accumulates during the entire response, including its early part domi-
nated in the fully infilled frames by higher frequencies, its find value may be
lower in these latter structures than in the bare ones, despite the fact that the
predominant period of their entire response is above the corner period of 0.6 sec
of the spectrum.
(d) The comparison of the peak base shear coefficients during the response with the
corresponding values a t first yielding of the frame and at formation of a mecha-
nism, estimated from the nonlinear pushover analyses, suggest that in the fully
infilled structures, the stronger the infills the higher is the excitation intensity
necessary to cause yielding of the frame or transformation into a mechanism.

The opposite is the case for the open first storey structures. In these latter
structures, inelastic action of the frame is concentrated in the soft first storey.
Therefore, increasing the strength and stiffness of infills in the second storey
decreases its shear distortion and increases the fixity of the first storey columns
a t their top as well as the bending moment and chord rotation there, thereby
accelerating yielding and plastic hinge formation (Fig. 6).
(e) Although in the bare frame most of the energy dissipation takes place in the
beams, consistent with the weak-beam strong-column Capacity Design philos-
ophy of seismic codes, in the infilled structures the contribution of the beams
to energy dissipation is negligible. In the fully infilled structures, the energy
is dissipated mainly in the infills and also in the (first-storey) columns. In the
open first storey structures, most of the energy dissipation occurs mainly in
the (1st-storey) columns and some in the infilis of the upper storeys. The con-
tribution of the infills to the energy dissipation decreases with input motion
intensity, whereas that of the frame increases. The reason is that infills crack
and start dissipating energy even at low motion intensities for which the frame
is nearly elastic, but approach fast the limit of their energy dissipation capacity
as the intensity increases. On the contrary, the stronger the input motion the
more extensive is the inelastic action and the energy dissipation in the frame.
In soft-storey structures, the concentration of inelasticity and energy dissipa-
tion in the first-storey columns increases with motion intensity and with the
strength and stiffness of the infills. The increase of this concentration with infill
stiffness and strength is explained by the increase in column fixity at the top of
the first storey described under point (d) above. As this also results in faster
formation of a column-sway mechanism in the first storey, by putting a limit
to the energy passing through to upper storeys, the stronger are the infills of
the open storey structures, the smaller is theii contribution to the energy dis-
sipation. Finally, in bare and in open storey structures the fraction of energy
dissipated by hysteresis increases with motion intensity, as the energy dissipa-
tion in frame members increases with the magnitude of inelastic deformations
and (especially for the bare structure) with the gradual spreading of inelasticity
490 M. N . Fardia & T. B. Panagiotakos
Fig. 6. Bending moment diagrams and elastic deformations of a (a) bare 2-storey frame; and
(b) frame with stiff infills only at the top storey.
in several members. On the contraq, in the fulIy infilled structures, the dissi-
pated fraction of input energy decreases with motion intensity, as it is the infills
rather than the frame that dissipate the energy, and the limit of their energy
dissipation capacity is almost reached a t low excitation intensities.
(e) Everywhere, structural damage decreases with the presence and the strength
and stiffness of infills, except in the columns of the open first storey. In contrast
with the rather'uniform distribution of deformations and damage throughout
the bare frame, in the open first storey structures, drifts and structural damage
are localised in the first storey and especially in its columns. The stronger and
stiffer the infills above the first storey, the larger is the concentration of drifts
in the ground storey, as demonstrated by the ratio of the first storey drift to
the average drift ratio. The increase of the damage in the first storey columns
with the strength and stiffness of the upper storey infills is due to the increase
in the degree of fixity and the (plastic) chord rotations at their tops. For the
same Ievel of first storey drift ratio, much higher damage is predicted in the
columns of this storey and much lower in its beams, in comparison to those of
the bare frame. The reason is that in the open first storey, most of the story
drift ratio is due to the column chord rotations, whereas in the bare frame
the chord rotations of beams and columns contribute almost equally to the
Seismic Design and Reaponse of Bare and Masonry-Infilled . . . (Part 11) 491
inter-storey drift ratio. Finally, for ground motions up to 1.5 times the design
motion, damage in the open first storey of the "weak" infills case is not higher
than in the first storey of the bare structure. On the contrary, the "strong"
infills and the "reference" cases of the open first storey structure are equally
more critical than the bare structure, as far as damage is concerned, for all
motion intensities.
4. Effect of Structural Configuration and of Designing for t h e

Infill Irregularity on the Response of Infilled Frames
In the previous section, the effect of the strength and the configuration of infills
on the response of a single structural configuration to motions of several intensity

levels was studied. The present section focuses on the influence of the configuration
of the structure and on the effectiveness of alternative design strategies against
the adverse soft-storey effects of the irregularity of infills in elevation. Specifically,
the three classes of multi-storey structures designed as bare frames in Sec. 3 and
subjected to nonlinear analyses in Sec. 6 of Fardis and Panagiotakos [1997], are
now considered fulIy or patially infilled in their exterior frames and subjected to
a new series of nonlinear analyses separately in the two horizontal directions. This
gives various combinations of infill ultimate shear strengths normalised to building
weight, and fundamental elastic periods of the structure, either uncracked (on the
basis of which the design base shear was calculated) or cracked and a t incipient
yielding. Assuming that the infill masonry has the same in-plane strength and
stiffness properties as the "reference" case of the infilled ELSA test structure, infills
in the exterior frames of the 4storey structures have an ultimate shear strength of
0.17 and 0.135 in horizontal directions X and Y, respectively. The corresponding
numbers for the other two types of structures are 0.045 and 0.035 for the 12-storey
and 0.11 and 0.06 for the bstorey ones. The Cstorey structures, which have the
heaviest (base-shear-coefficient-equivalent) infilling, have fundamental periods of
0.4 sec and about 0.48 sec in their uncracked state in the X- and Y-directions,
and around 1.15 sec and 1.28 sec when all members are at incipient yielding. The
12-storey structures, with the lightest infilling, have fundamental periods around
0.76 sec and 0.87 sec in the X- and Y-directions when uncracked, and around 1.85 sec
or 2.03 sec, respectively, when cracked and a t near yielding. In the X-direction, in
which infilling is nearly as heavy as that of the 4storey structures, the bstorey ones
have fundamental periods around 0.54 sec if uncracked, or 1.72 sec, on the average,
when cracked and a t incipient yielding, i.e. values close to those of the 12-storey
structures. Finally, in the Y-direction, in which infilling is almost as light as in the
12-storey structures, the 3-storey ones designed to a ground acceleration of 0.1.5 g
have periods close to those of the 12-storey structures (0.74 sec and about 2.12 sec,
depending on whether they are considered uncracked, or cracked and near yielding),
while those designed for a ground acceleration of 0.3 g have periods similar to those
of the 4storey structures (0.4 sec if uncracked, or about 1.1 sec when cracked).
492 M. N. Fardis 8 T. B. Panagiotakos
The 12 structures are considered with their exterior frames in both directions
either fully infilled in all storeys, or infilled in all storeys except the first. Eurocode
8, Part 1.3.2. (Concrete) requires increasing the resistance to lateral forces of the
beams and columns of storeys which have less infills than the neighbouring ones.
The goal is to make up for the reduction in the ultimate strength of the infills of
the storey and to ensure-that this reduction will not cause early yielding of the
storey structural elements. This is effected by multipIying the beam and column
seismic internal forces, as these result from the analysis for the seismic action, by
+
( V E ~ AVu,in)/V~d,where V E is~ the storey shear due to the design seismic action
and AV;,;, is the deficit in infill ultimate shear strength of the storey. This is a
very rational provision, as it implies that if the structural members are proportioned
exactly for the design seismic action effects (with no overstrengths), the lower (weak)
storey will be capable of transmitting to the underlying storeys the maximum storey
shears and overturning moment that may develop in the overlying (infilled) storeys.
Overstrengths in the structural members will increase safety further, provided that
they are uniform in the lower (weak) storey and in the overlying ones. Three
alternatives are considered here in the design of the structuraI members of the open
first storey. In the first, these elements are designed only for the design seismic
forces of the bare frame, without the increase for the irregularity of the infills. In
the second, only the seismic internal forces of the first storey columns are multiplied
by the (VEd+AVu,in)/V~dratio of this storey, and in the third, both the beams and
the columns of the first storey are increased by that factor. This factor equals 1.0
plus the ratio of the ultimate strength of the infills (expressed as the equivalent base
shear coefficients quoted above) to the base shear coefficient for which the structures
have been designed (see Table 1 of Fardis and Panagiotakos [1997]). So the value of
this multiplicative factor ranges from 2.77 for the DC M Cstorey structures designed
to ground acceleration of 0.15 g, to 1.22 for the 0.3 g 12-storey DC M structures.
The amplification of the seismic internal forces for the design of the elements is
the only modification of the design of the structures to account for the presence of
the infills. In Secs. 2 and 3 the stiffening effect of infills on the effective period of
nonlinear response and on the magnitude of global response measures, such as base
shears and floor displacements, was found negligible. Accordingly, the requirement
of Eurocode 8, Part 1.3.2, to design the fully or partially infilled structures for a base
shear corresponding to the mean value of the elastic periods of the uncracked bare
frame and the same frame with uncracked infills, is considered unwarranted and ex-
cessively conservative, and is neglected in the design of the fully'or partially infilled
frames. In fact, implementation of this requirement would increase the design base
shear of essentially only the 12-storey structures, which have (uncracked) funda-
mental periods greater than the corner value of 0.6 sec of the spectrum. Essentially,
all other structures are already designed for the maximum design accelerations of
the spectrum.
Figures 7 to 12 show results (average over the four ground motions) of the
nonlinear analyses of the response of the bare, fully infilled and soft-storey structures
(a) 0.15g design - 0.30g excitation. (b) 0.30g design - O.Mg excitation.
saftlno s01Vcol softlall full

LM LM LM LM
- bare s0fVIlO soft/col soWall full
n a d storey. 1st storey.

2nd Sore
", 40 .
Fig. 7. Response of alternative infill configurations and soft-storey designs of 4-storey structures
(4/Rame) - Direction X (infill ult. strength 17% of structure's weight).
494 M. N. Fardis & T. B. Panagiotakos
(a) 0.15g design - 0.30g excitation. (b) 0.309 design - 0 . 6 0 ~exatation.

E l InRlls O Beams Colurnna _ fl Infills Baarns 0 Cdumrm
s 80
V) in storey. OZnd storey. 1st sforey. O a d storey.
Em
(4/Frame) - Direction Y (infill ult. strength 13.5% of structure's weight).'
Seismic Design and Response of Bare and Masonry-lnj5lled .. . (Part 11) 495
(a) O.1Sg design - 0.30g excitation. (b) 0.309 design - 0 . 6 0 ~excitation.

Fig. 9. Response of alternative infill configurations and soft-storey designs of 1%-storeystructures

(12/Frame) - Direction X (infill ult. strength 4.5% of structure's weight).
(a) 0.1Sg design - 0.30g excitation. (b) 0.- design - 0.60g excitation.
S 50 + bare soma xln/co~ SOW~II ~ I I
Em-
'" I M I M 1 M I M
m 1st storey. OZnd storey.
2 30-
(12/Frame) - Direction Y (infill ult. strength 3.5% of structure's weight).
Seismic Design and Response of Bare and Masonry-Injlled . . . (Part 11) 497
(a) 0.159 design - 0.309 excitation. (b) 0.309 design - 0.609 excitation.
(3/Rame) - Direction X (infill ult. strength 11% of structure's weight).
498 M. N. Fardis & T. B. Panagiotakos
(a) 0.159 design - excitation.

0.30~ (b) 0.309 des~gn- 0.60g excitation.
(3/Rarne) - Direction Y (infill ult. strength 6% of structure's weight). .
to an excitation with an intensity twice that of the design motion of the bare
frame. The left-hand-side of these figures refers to the structures designed for a
0.15 g peak ground acceleration, and the right-hand-side to those designed for a
0.30 g acceleration. The alternative designs of the soft storey elements are de-
noted by "soft/nol' if these elements are not designed for internal forces increased
to compensate for the irregularity of the infills, by "soft/col." if only the columns
are designed t o that purpose, and by "soft/all" if both beams and .columns of
the open first storey axe designed for increased seismic internal actions. For the
range of ground motion intensities considered here, the response of the fully in-
filled structures is almost independent of the Ductility Class for which the frame
has been designed, as inelastic action in the frame members is very limited. For
the same reason, the response and structural damage of the fully infilled structures
is affected very little even by the design ground acceleration of the bare frame.
For example, for the same structural configuration, the response of the fully in-
filled structure to a ground motion with effective peak acceleration of 0.3 g is
nearly the same, regardless of whether the bare structure has been designed for
a peak ground acceleration of 0.15 g or 0.3 g. In other words, the response is so
much,controlled by the infills that the strength and ductility of the frame elements
is unimportant.
Qualitative conclusions reached in Sec. 3 regarding the global and local effects
of infilling on the basis of the results of Fig. 5 for excitation intensity equal t o twice
the design value, are verified-by the results of Figs. 7 to 12. So here the discussion
focuses first on how quantitative conclusions of the previous section are affected by
the different structural configurations of the three classes of structures considered
here, and then on the effect of designing the structural elements of the open storey
against the irregularity of the infilling.
The larger the ultimate strength of the infills (normalised to the weight of the
structure), the stronger are the effects of full or partially infilling on the response of
the structure. However, in the 12-storey structures, the impact of the presence of
the infills and of their irregularity due to the open first storey is disproportionately
small. Although the ultimate strength of the infills (normalised to building weight)
is about the same in the 12-storey structures as in the 4storey test structure of
Sec. 3 with "weak" infilling, or in the Y-direction of the bstorey structure, the
differences in the global and local response measures between the bare, fully infilled
and open first storey versions of the 12-storey structures are much smaller than in
the afore mentioned equally lightly infilled but lower-rise structures. Possibly, this
may have to do with the fact that, in the 12-storey structures, the coIumn-tebeam
stiffness ratio is much higher than in the lower rise buildings, so that the dynamic
response to lateral excitation is much closer to that of a vertical flexural cantilever
than to a shear-beam type of building, even without the presence of infills. Overall,
present results suggest that in the 12-storey structures the main effect of even partial
infilling is beneficial: structural damage in the beams is significantly reduced by full
or partial infilling, whereas structural' damage in the first storey columns, which is
500 M. N. Fardis d T.B. Panagiotakos
already quite low in the bare frames, does not materially increase when only the
upper storeys are infilled.
Designing the columns and beams in the open first storey 12-storey structures
has very little effect on the local and global response measures, because the lack
of infills in that storey is already felt very little by the structure and its members.
However, in the other two classes of structures, the alternative designs of the open
storey elements typically have significant effects. In general, open first storey struc-
tures with beams and columns of the ground floor strengthened against the effect of
infill irregularity develop the highest base shear and input energy demands within
their class of buildings, contrary to the fully infilled structures which develop the
lowest. Their first storey drift ratios are lower than those of the bare structures.
The fraction of input energy they dissipate is the lowest in their class, after the fully
infilled structures. Particularly low is the energy dissipation in the beams of the
open first storey structures with elements designed against the infill irregularity.
However, by reducing the concentration of energy dissipation in the open storey
columns, the increased strength of these structural elements increases the fraction
of energy dissipated in the infills of the storeys above the ground floor t o levels
comparable to the energy dissipated in the ground-storey columns.
Structural damage is already very low in the open first storey beams not de-
signed for the infill irregularity, and decreases further if these beams are designed
for resistance against this irregularity. With one set of exceptions, a similar u p
grading of the resistance of the soft-storey columns is very effective in Limiting the
concentration of structural damage and energy dissipation to these columns, and
in reducing the levels of their damage below those of the bare structures under the
same intensity of excitation. The exceptions are the more heavily infilled structures
(the Cstorey ones in both directions and the bstorey structures in the X-direction)
when subjected to an excitation twice as strong as their design motion. In these
' structures, upgrading the resistance of first-storey beams and columns to make up
for the irregularity of the infills in elevation may increase, instead of reducing, the
damage in the first storey columns for this high level of excitation, although the
drift ratio of the soft storey is significantly reduced. This adverse effect, which is not
observed for a ground motion a t the design level, can be attributed t o the reduction
in column ductility due to the higher reinforcement ratio of upgraded columns, in
combination with the higher shear force and energy dissipation demands incurred
in the structures with an upgraded first storey.
If only the columns, and not the beams, of the open storeys are designed for
extra resistance to make up for the infill irregularity, then the global response is
in-between those of the soft-storey structures with and without designing all first
storey elements for additional resistance according to the Eurocode 8, Part 1.3.2
provisions. However, the distribution of energy dissipation and the pattern of struc-
tural damage are improved. Energy dissipation in the beams, and sometimes in the
infills above the soft-storey, is increased, while that in the first storey columns usu-
ally decreases. More importantly, structural damage in the soft-storey columns is
Seismic Design and Response of Bare and Masonq-Infilled . . . (Part 11) 501
appreciably reduced to levels usually below the ones in the bare structure. Struc-
tural damage of the first-storey beams is only slightly increased over the very low
level achieved when these beams are provided with the additional resistance of the
Eurocode 8, Part 1.3.2 provisions, however staying well below the damage levels
of the same beams in the bare frames. The reduction in column damage is not so
much due t o the small and non-systematic reduction in the first storey drifts usually
effected by omitting the upgrading of the beam resistance, but it is mainly due to
the fact that the contribution of the beam chord rotations to this inter-storey drift
increases, as beams become more flexible and develop more inelastic action, t o the
benefit of the chord-rotation demands on the first-storey columns. The problem of
the increase in damage of the soft-storey columns of the heavily-infilled buildings
under the 0.6 g excitation, when their resistance is upgraded relative to that in
the bare structure, is also ameliorated by omitting the upgrading of the beams, at
least to the point at which damage is less than in the columns of the soft-storey
structures which are not designed against the irregularity of the infills. It seems,
therefore, that ,upgrading the resistance of the open-storey columns against the ef-
fect of infill irregularity, without similar upgrading of the beams of this storey, is
the most cost-effective measure of reducing the adverse effects of the irregularity of
infills in elevation.
All the above conclusions refer to the response of the partiaIly or fully infilled
structures t o a seismic excitation twice as strong as the design motion of the bare
structures. The resuIts of analyses of the response to ground motions at the design
excitation lead to similar conclusions regarding the effect of partial infilling or of
designing the elements of the soft storey for the infill irregularity, etc. However,
these results allow an additional general observation: under an excitation of the
same intensity as the design motion of the bare frame, the structural damage in the
soft-storeys is light and more similar to that in the bare-frame than under a ground
motion of twice the design intensity. The implication is that, although upgrading
the resistance of the soft storey elements (and especially only of the columns) to
make up for the reduction in infill shear strength in that storey improves their
performance, even to the point that it becomes better than in the bare structure,
such an upgrading is not essential if we are concerned only with the response to
a ground motion at the design intensity. It is mainly in the very unlikely event
of ground motions well in excess of the design level that the vulnerability of the
irregularly infilled structures increases to disconcerting levels. It is against such an
occurrence that increasing the resistance of soft-storey structural elements becomes
necessary.
5. Conclusions
A series of parametric analyses of idealized SDOF infilled frames and of many multi-
storey reinforced concrete frame structures with various degrees and configurations
of infilling, shows that, with very few exceptions, the presence of infills is beneficial
502 M . N . Fardis d T. B. Panagiotakos
for the global seismic response and performance of the structure. This is more so for
impulsive-type ground motions with one or few large acceleration peaks, because for
such motions the structure derives the greatest benefit from the energy dissipation
capacity of the infills, which is much larger in a single large post-cracking or post-
ultimate strength excursion than in subsequent large amplitude cycles. Infills are
found to crack and separate from the frame at rather low ground motion intensities,
and hence their high stiffness affects very little the frequency content of the global
dynamic response: The magnitude of this response is most affected by the ultimate
strength and the post-ultimate behaviour of infills to a degree disproportional to
the magnitude of their shear strength relative to that of the frame and to the design
base shear.
Very brittle infills, which shed their entire load soon after reaching ultimate
strength, and irregularities in elevation of heavy infills, are identified as the only
conditions which may lead to inferior overall seismic performance in the presence
of infills. Adverse effects of irregularities of infills in elevation on the local response
of structural members are more pronounced at ground motion intensities much
higher than that of the design motion. In medium-high rise reinforced concrete
frame buildings, the presence of infills and even irregularities in their arrangement
in elevation have a very small effect on the global and local seismic response. This
seems to be not only due to the low shear strength of the infills in comparison to
the total strength and base shear of the building, but also to the fact that due to
the high column-to-beam stiffness ratio of such buildings, their dynamic response
is already closer to that of a.verticd cantilever, even without the infills.
In light of the present results, some of the prbvisio~sof Eurocode 8 related to
seismic design of infilled reinforced concrete structures seem too conservative and
therefore unable to fulfill their purpose. In particular it seems that (a) there is' no
need to compute the lateral seismic forces and base shears of an infilled structure on
the basis of the average of the period of the bare and the infilled configuration, and
(b) upgrading the resistance of soft-storey beams in proportion to the reduction of
infill strength in the storey relative to the design seismic shear is unnecessary and
usually counterproductive as it intensifies, rather than alleviates, the concentration
of inelastic action and ductility demands on the most vulnerable elements of soft
storeys, i.e. on the columns. Upgrading the strength of only these latter critical
soft-storey elements, along with improving'their ductility and deformation capacity,
seems to be the best measure against the adverse effects of infill irregularities in
elevation on the integrity of the structure under ground motions well in excess of
the design level.
Acknowledgments
The research reported in this paper has been financially' supported by the Joint
Research Centre of the European Commission through contract No. 101969405
FlED ISP I, by the European Centre for Earthquake Forecasting and Prediction in-
S e i s m i c D e s i g n and R e s p o n ~ eof Bare and M a s o n r y - l n j i l l e d . . . (Part It) 503
Athens, and by the Human Capital and Mobility program of the European Com-
mission under the PREC8 ("Prenormative Research in Support of EC8") project.
References
C.E.B. I19961 Comite Eurointernational du Beton, Bull. dl Information No. 231 "RCframes
under earthquake loading. State-of-the-Art report," T. Telford, London, May 1996.
Donea, J., Magonette, G., Negro, P., Pegon, P., Pinto, A. V. and Verzeletti, G. [I9951
"Large-scale testing a t the ELSA reaction wall in support of Eurocode 8," European
Seismic Design Pmctice ed. Elnashai, A. S., (Balkema, Rotterdam), pp. 19-26.
Fardis, M. N,and Panagiotakos, T. B. [I9971 "Seismic design and response of bare and
masonry-infilled reinforced concrete buildings. Part I: Bare structures," J. of Enrth-
quake Engineering l ( 1 ) .
Mainstone, R. J. [1971] "On the stiffnesses.and strengths of infilled frames," Proc. Inst.
Civil Eng., i v 73609, pp. 57-90.
Panagiotakos, T. B. and Fardis, M. N. [I9941 "Proposed nonlinear strut models for infill
panels," 1st year progress report of PR.EC8 project. Univ. of Patras, Patras.
Tassios, T. P. [1984]"Masonry infill and rc walls under cyclic actions," CIB Symp. on
Wall Structures, Warsaw.

Journal of Earthquake Engineering

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Journal of Earthquake Engineering

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

This article was downloaded by: [Dicle University]

On: 02 November 2014, At: 01:49

Journal of Earthquake Engineering

SEISMIC DESIGN AND RESPONSE OF BARE AND MASONRY-

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13632469708962375

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

SEISMIC DESIGN AND RESPONSE OF BARE AND

M. N. FARDIS and T. B. PANAGIOTAKOS

Received 16 July 1996

Keywords: Eurocode 8, infilled structures, mmonry infills, reinforced concrete structures,

No 231 [C.E.B., 19961. Contrary to the experimental behaviour and modelling

2. Seismic Response of SDOF Infilled RC Frames

in Fig. 2(a) as a function of the elastic period of the frame, Tf, = 2 n m .

3. P a r a m e t r i c Seismic Response Analyses of Infilled 4-Storey

El col. ?st. 4 col. 2nd.

at first yielding in the frame and at formation of a mechanism quoted in the

with intensity 1.0 corresponding to the design effective peak accel-

necessary to cause yielding of the frame or transformation into a mechanism.

4. Effect of Structural Configuration and of Designing for t h e

on the response of a single structural configuration to motions of several intensity

saftlno s01Vcol softlall full

- bare s0fVIlO soft/col soWall full

n a d storey. 1st storey.

(a) 0.15g design - 0.30g excitation. (b) 0.309 design - 0 . 6 0 ~exatation.

E l InRlls O Beams Colurnna _ fl Infills Baarns 0 Cdumrm

(a) O.1Sg design - 0.30g excitation. (b) 0.309 design - 0 . 6 0 ~excitation.

Fig. 9. Response of alternative infill configurations and soft-storey designs of 1%-storeystructures

S 50 + bare soma xln/co~ SOW~II ~ I I

(a) 0.159 design - excitation.

You might also like