See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/334093880

NUMERICAL MODELLING OF INFILLED RC FRAMES: THE DETECTION OF

COLUMN FAILURE DUE TO LOCAL SHEAR INTERACTION

Conference Paper · June 2019

DOI: 10.7712/120119.7092.19079

CITATIONS READS

0 175

4 authors:

Maria Teresa De Risi Carlo Del Gaudio

University of Naples Federico II University of Naples Federico II
84 PUBLICATIONS   1,024 CITATIONS    65 PUBLICATIONS   987 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Paolo Ricci Gerardo Mario Verderame

University of Naples Federico II University of Naples Federico II
157 PUBLICATIONS   3,089 CITATIONS    279 PUBLICATIONS   4,892 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

COMPDYN2021 - MS9 - Nonlinear modelling and assessment of existing Reinforced Concrete elements View project

Buildings (MDPI) - Special Issue: "Seismic Performance of New-Designed and Existing RC Buildings" View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Maria Teresa De Risi on 18 January 2020.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 COMPDYN 2019
7th ECCOMAS Thematic Conference on
Computational Methods in Structural Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering
M. Papadrakakis, M. Fragiadakis (eds.)
Crete, Greece, 24–26 June 2019

NUMERICAL MODELLING OF INFILLED RC FRAMES: THE

DETECTION OF COLUMN FAILURE DUE TO LOCAL SHEAR
INTERACTION
De Risi Maria Teresa1(*), Del Gaudio Carlo1, Ricci Paolo1, Verderame Gerardo Mario1
1
Department of Structures for Engineering and Architecture, University of Naples Federico II,
via Claudio 21, 80125, Naples, Italy
{mariateresa.derisi, carlo.delgaudio, paolo.ricci, verderam}@unina.it
(*)
beneficiary of an AXA Research Fund Post-Doctoral grant

Abstract

Numerical and experimental studies highlighted that the presence of masonry infills in Rein-
forced Concrete (RC) frames certainly leads to the increase in their lateral strength and stiff-
ness. Nevertheless, post-earthquake observed damage showed that infills can also cause po-
tential brittle failures due to the local interaction with structural elements, thus producing a
limitation of deformation capacity of the surrounding frame. This detrimental effect is partic-
ularly important for existing masonry-infilled RC buildings designed for gravity loads only
without any capacity design requirements.
A proper numerical model both for infills and RC members is necessary to reliably detect the
shear failure on columns due to the local interaction with the masonry infill. In the last years,
several researches dealt with this topic, ranging from very simple models such as the equiva-
lent strut model to more complex models like the double- and triple-strut models or FEM-
approaches. Nevertheless, the choice of the proper modelling strategies and degrading shear
strength model is still a frontier issue for the most recent research works, especially when the
shear failure occurs in the degrading phase of the infilled frame response.
This paper presents a preliminary numerical investigation on column shear failure due to lo-
cal interaction between structural and non-structural elements, starting from the results of
two experimental tests on infilled frames performed by the Authors. Different shear strength
models and different strategies of macro-modelling for infills are applied and discussed, in
order to (i) to match the experimental response in terms of initial stiffness, peak strength and
corresponding displacement, and softening behaviour and (ii) to capture (or not) the column
shear failure exhibited (or not) during the test. The best modelling strategy is finally identified
to provide a support towards future necessary numerical investigations.

Keywords: Masonry infills, Reinforced concrete frames, Local interaction, Column shear
failure, Numerical simulations.
 M.T. De Risi, C. Del Gaudio, P. Ricci, G.M. Verderame

1 INTRODUCTION
Numerical and experimental studies highlighted that the presence of masonry infills in Re-
inforced Concrete (RC) frames leads to the increase in their lateral strength and stiffness.
Nevertheless, post-earthquake observed damage (e.g. [1]-[3]) showed that infills can also
cause potential brittle failures due to the local interaction with structural elements, thus pro-
ducing a limitation of deformation capacity of the surrounding frame. This detrimental effect
is particularly important for existing masonry-infilled RC buildings designed for gravity loads
only without any capacity design requirements.
During last decades, a growing attention has been addressed to the behaviour of masonry
infill walls in RC buildings under seismic action, also considering that damage to these ele-
ments largely affects repair costs of buildings and their loss of functionality after earthquakes
[4]. Several experimental studies investigated the seismic behaviour of RC frames with infills.
A significantly smaller number of experimental studies investigated the effects of the interac-
tion between panel and surrounding elements resulting in brittle failure mechanisms such as
shear failure in RC columns (e.g., [5]-[6]), especially for hollow clay bricks, very widespread
in the Mediterranean region.

1.1 Columns-infill shear interaction modelling from codes and literature

Experimental data have been the support for analytical modelling efforts since late 1970s'
(e.g., [7]-[9]). Infills have been generally modelled by means of quite complex FEM micro-
modelling approaches or simpler single- or multi-struts (reacting only in compression) ap-
proaches. Nevertheless, even recently, there is lack of unanimity about the best modelling ap-
proach among the various literature proposals (e.g., [10]-[12]), above all about the column-
infill shear interaction modelling strategy.
More specifically, about the shear failure modelling in non-ductile RC frames, some stand-
ards propose simplified procedures aimed at taking into account the effects of interaction be-
tween panels and surrounding elements. These procedures usually consider a concentrated
load on the column (or beam) equal to the horizontal (or vertical) component of the resultant
of the stresses along the loaded diagonal of the panel. Among codes, some practice-oriented
prescriptions are present in the American code ASCE/SEI 41-06 [13], which suggested to
model the infill as a single eccentric strut in compression as shown in Figure 1a. On the con-
trary, the most recent Italian technical standards ([14]-[15]) do not provide any indication for
the modelling and the assessment of the local interaction phenomena in the case of solid pan-
els adjacent to column/beam elements.
About research studies from literature, the issue of shear failure modelling in non-ductile
RC frames due to local interaction with infill elements has been investigated with different
approaches (Figure 1) during the last years (e.g., [16]-[19], among others). Multiple-strut ap-
proaches are generally suggested in these studies, generally proposing to model the infill by a
minimum of one-strut - eccentrically placed respect to the infill diagonal, like suggested in the
ASCE-SEI/41[13] - to a maximum of two (Figure 1b,d) or three struts (Figure 1c,e,f), basical-
ly different for the position of the loading points on the adjacent columns, the ratio of the total
infill lateral load adsorbed by each strut, and for the struts inclination. The number of struts,
their positions, and their width have to be carefully selected to reliably reproduce the stress
demand they induce and the strength and deformability contribution of the panel to the in-
filled RC frame. Currently, additional efforts seem to be still required to this aim.
 M.T. De Risi, C. Del Gaudio, P. Ricci, G.M. Verderame

(a) (b)

(c) (d)

(e) (f)
Figure 1: Examples of column-infill interaction modelling from codes and literature: adapted from ASCE-
SEI/41 [13] (a); Crisafulli et al. [16] (b,c); Burton and Dierlein [17] (d); Sattar and Liel [18] (e); Jeon et al. [19]
(f)

Moreover, a key issue of the shear local interaction modelling is the adequacy and the ap-
plicability of the usually adopted shear capacity models in capturing the shear-controlled be-
haviour of a RC member adjacent to an infill panel. All the proposals from codes and
literature mentioned above suggest to use the model by Sezen and Moehle [20], also adopted
in the American code ASCE-SEI/41 (2017) [21], as explained in detail in Section 5 and
shown in Figure 2. This model assumes a shear strength degradation due to inelastic ductility
demand, as typical in “free” columns/beams. In the case of very “squat” portions of columns,
as those generated by the limited infill-to-column contact length (as shown in Figure 1), a
shear strength degradation due to an increasing flexural demand appears not totally meaning-
ful. Therefore, the model by Sezen and Moehle [20] should be applied without any strength
degradation (k=1 in Figure 2). Alternatively, a different “family” of shear strength models
should be adopted, degrading with the shear crack opening demand or, from a predictive
standpoint, with the strain demand, instead than with the flexural inelastic ductility demand.
 M.T. De Risi, C. Del Gaudio, P. Ricci, G.M. Verderame

V  0.50 f N Asw f yw 
Vn = k  c
1+ (0.80A g ) + d
 a/d 0.50 f c A g s 
 
k =1
VRd,max

VRd,min k =0.7

2 6 µ
Figure 2: Schematic representation of the model by Sezen and Moehle [20]

Therefore, the topic certainly deserves a deeper investigation, both about the best infill
modelling strategy and the proper shear strength model to be adopted.

1.2 Aims and objectives

This paper presents a preliminary numerical investigation on column shear failure due to
local interaction between structural and non-structural elements, starting from the results of
some experimental tests on infilled RC frames performed by the Authors. Two conforming
and non-conforming infilled frames were tested, designed according to the current Italian
seismic technical code (SLD), and according to an older Italian technical code in order to be
representative of existing RC buildings constructed between 1970s and 1990s (GLD). Infill
panels are made of hollow clay bricks, common in Mediterranean countries. Due to the differ-
ences in these two specimens, the GLD frame exhibited a column shear failure due to interac-
tion with the infill; conversely, in SLD frame no shear failures were experimentally detected.
Different strategies of macro-modelling for infills and different shear strength models are
applied and discussed, in order (i) to match the experimental response in terms of initial stiff-
ness, peak strength and corresponding displacement, and softening behaviour and (ii) to cap-
ture (or not) the column shear failure exhibited (or not) during the test. The best modelling
strategy is finally identified to provide a support towards further numerical investigations.

2 ANALYSED EXPERIMENTAL DATA

One-storey one-bay half-scaled RC frames shown in Figure 3 were tested and presented in
Verderame et al. [22]. These specimens represent the subject of the modelling strategies pre-
sented in this paper, and their results are briefly recalled in this Section. The GLD specimen
(hereinafter referred to as GI-80) was designed in order to be representative of the bottom sto-
rey of a five-storey gravity load designed RC frame, according to Italian technical codes in
force between 1970s and 1990s ([23]-[24]). The SLD specimen (hereinafter referred to as SI-
80) was designed according to the Italian seismic code [14], in compliance with all the capaci-
ty design requirements.
Mean value of 28-day cylindrical concrete strength was equal to 21.9 MPa. Deformed bars
were used for longitudinal and transverse reinforcement in both the specimens. Commercial
typology of reinforcing steel B450C [14] was used, characterized by a mean yielding strength
equal to 507 MPa, 586 MPa, 490 MPa and 481 MPa, for bar diameters of 6 mm, 8 mm, 10
mm, and 12 mm, respectively. Hollow clay units with cement mortar were used as infill mate-
rial. Dimensions of brick units were 250×250×80 mm3, with 66.3% void ratio, and the catego-
ry of the mortar was M15, with a mean compressive strength of 14.03 MPa. Compression
tests carried out on three-course masonry prisms, perpendicular and parallel to the holes, and
 M.T. De Risi, C. Del Gaudio, P. Ricci, G.M. Verderame

diagonal shear test carried out on a five-course masonry prisms, lead to the mechanical prop-
erties shown in Table 1.
Ø6@150mm Ø6@50mm Ø6@100mm Ø6@50mm

300
Ø6@50mm

425

300

425
250

250
Ø6@50mm

1475

2400

1475
1350

2400
Ø6@150mm

1350
Ø6@100mm

Ø6@50mm

500

500

500

500
700 200 2100 200 700 700 200 2100 200 700

800 2300 800 800 2300 800

beam column beam column

(3+2+3) 8 (3+3) 10 (3+2+3) 12
(3+3) 10
21

23
21

21

200

155
200

159

250

208
250

208

23
21
200
200 21
21
200
200

(a) (b)
Figure 3: Geometry and reinforcement details of GLD (a) and SLD (b) specimens, all measures are in mm.

Dimension of the wallette 770×770×80 (mm3)

3-course masonry wallette Compressive strength (// to holes), fw-h 4.88 (MPa)
Compressive strength (⊥ to holes), fw-v 3.19 (MPa)
Dimension of the wallette 1285×1285×80 (mm3)
5-course masonry wallette
Shear strength, fv 0.36 (MPa)
Table 1: Mechanical properties of infill materials.

About the test setup, the foundation block of the specimen was anchored to the strong floor
by means of vertical post-tensioned steel rods connected to stiff steel profiles. The lateral load
is applied by means of a hydraulic actuator in displacement control. The actuator is fixed to a
steel reaction wall anchored to the strong floor. The actuator was connected to the mid-span
of the beam through steel profiles connected to steel rod passing through the transverse hole
in the mid-span of the beam. The related loading protocol applied to infilled specimens con-
sisted of 3-push-pull-cycles per each imposed drift levels, the latter assumed to be equal to
0.01%, 0.02%, 0.15%, 0.50%, 0.90%, 1.30%, 1.70%, 2.00%, 2.40%, 3.00%, and 3.6%.
The vertical load on columns is applied by hydraulic jacks in load control. The vertical
load is kept constant during the tests and it corresponds to an axial load ratio equal to 10%.
Further details about setup can be found in Verderame et al. [22].
Linear Variable Displacement Transducers (LVDTs) were used to measure cracks width
and deformations at columns’ and beam’s ends. Wire potentiometers were placed along infill
panel diagonals in infilled specimens GI-80 and SI-80.
 M.T. De Risi, C. Del Gaudio, P. Ricci, G.M. Verderame

2.1 Experimental results

The experimental results related to the infilled specimens, which represent the core of the
following numerical simulations, are reported in brief in this Section. Note that the corre-
sponding “bare” frames (without infills) were also tested by the Authors, and the main related
results can be found in [22].
First, the lateral load-drift cyclic response of the SI-80 specimen is shown in Figure 4, to-
gether with the final damaged state of the specimen.

End of the test

200

150
expected strength (bare frame)
100
lateral load [kN]

expected yielding (bare frame)

50

-50

-100

-150

-200
-4.0 -3.0 -2.0 -1.0 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0
drift [%]

Figure 4: Lateral load-drift response of infilled specimen SI-80 – adapted from [22].

Basically, a ductile, flexure-controlled post-elastic behaviour of the frame, without shear

failures, was observed, thanks to the applied strength hierarchy prescriptions. The formation
of a plastic mechanism involving beam’s ends and columns’ base was observed. A corner
crushing failure of the infill, completed at the peak load of the response, was observed. The
lateral response following the collapse of the infill panel (i.e., for drift higher than ±2.00%)
perfectly matches the response of the corresponding bare specimen tested by the Authors (see
[22]). This is consistent with the development of the same plastic mechanism in the RC frame,
as described above.
Similarly to SI-80, the lateral load-drift cyclic response of the GI-80 infilled frame is
shown in Figure 5, together with the most significant photos of the damaged specimen. For
GI-80 specimen, diagonal cracking developed in the panel since very low drift values (i.e.,
between 0.15% and 0.50%). A drop in lateral force associated to the development of severe
diagonal cracking at the top of the columns (with crack inclination quite close to 45°) was ob-
served for an applied drift range between 0.50% and 1.30%. At 1.70% of drift, an abrupt in-
crease in vertical displacement of the top of the columns also occurred, highlighting the
potential for an imminent axial failure. The observation of the local behaviour showed the ev-
idence of a shear failure due to the local interaction between RC columns and infill panel [22],
as also marked on the cyclic response of the specimen in Figure 5.

3 ADOPTED NUMERICAL MODELLING APPROACH

Some preliminary calculations can been carried out for beams and columns of the analysed
frames depending on their design typology. Table 2 reports the yielding moment and the flex-
ural strength of beams and columns evaluated based on the simplified assumption of constant
axial load, equal to the initial test value (N0), i.e. Ncol,0=P=86.0 kN in columns and Nb,0=0 in
beam. Axial load - bending moment interaction is not be taken into account in such a prelimi-
 M.T. De Risi, C. Del Gaudio, P. Ricci, G.M. Verderame

nary simple calculation. Moments for columns and beam at yielding and peak condition are
referred to as Mc,y, Mb,y and Mc,max, Mb,max, respectively.

150 End of the test

right column
shear crack ing
100
expected strength (b are frame)
lateral load [kN]

expected yielding (b are frame)

50
left column
axial load failure
0
right column
axial load failure
-50

-100
left column
shear crack ing
-150
-2.0 -1.5 -1.0 -0.5 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0
drift [%]
Peak load End test End test
(left column) (left column) (right column)

Figure 5: Lateral load-drift response of infilled specimen GI-80 – adapted from Errore. L'origine riferimento
non è stata trovata..

For the following calculations, bending moments are reported at the intersection of the
beam and columns centrelines and referred to as M*c,y, M*b,y and M*c,max, M*b,max, respec-
tively. Such values can be used for a preliminary classification of the failure mode of beams
and columns, in a simplified approach, allowing the calculation of the plastic shear (Vpl) to be
compared with the maximum-degraded shear strength (Vn,min) (evaluated according to ASCE-
SEI/41 [21], with K=0.7 in Figure 2). The plastic shear of the column is equal to Vc,pl
=2Mc,max/Hw, and plastic shear of the beam is calculated as Vb,pl =2Mb,max/Lw, where Hw and
Lw are the infill panel height and length, respectively. Since, both for beams and columns in
SLD and GLD frames, Vpl results lower than Vn.min, the elements can be defined as “ductile
elements”.
The expected yielding (Vy) and the maximum (Vmax) lateral loads for the GLD and SLD
frames are also reported in Table 2 and calculated by means of Eqs. (1) and (2), namely by
assuming the simultaneous attainment of yielding and flexural strength, respectively, in mem-
bers involved in the collapse mechanism.
Starting from these preliminary remarks, first the modelling strategy for the ductile behav-
iour of the frames is described here.

Mc,y + min(M*b,y ;M*c,y )

Vy = 2 (1)
H
 M.T. De Risi, C. Del Gaudio, P. Ricci, G.M. Verderame

Mc,max + min(M*b,max ;M*c,max )

Vmax = 2 (2)
H

No My Mmax My* Mmax* Vpl Vn,min Vy Vmax

Frame Element
(kN) (kNm) (kNm) (kNm) (kNm) (kN) (kN) (kN) (kN)
Column 86.0 22.1 25.7 26.2 30.4 38.1 43.3
GLD 65.6 78.4
Beam 0.0 24.2 24.9 26.5 27.3 23.7 52.9
Column 86.0 33.4 40.2 38.0 45.7 59.6 90.6
SLD 81.0 99.9
Beam 0.0 24.2 24.9 26.5 27.3 23.7 114.1
Table 2: Yielding and maximum lateral load of GLD and SLD specimens.

The infilled frames have been numerically reproduced by means of the numerical model
shown in Figure 6. The considered loading direction is shown with a red arrow in these fig-
ures. However, if the opposite loading direction is considered, all the remarks reported in the
following can be repeated in a specular way. Increasing horizontal displacements are imposed
in the mid-point of the beam, as in the experimental setup, thus faithfully reproducing the var-
iation of axial load acting in beam during the test. The fibre-type ForceBeamColumn element
has been adopted in OpenSees [25] for each beam/column element. Mander et al. [26]’s con-
crete law, considering confining effect, if any, has been used (Concrete04 uniaxial material).
ReinforcingSteel uniaxial material reproduces the experimental constitutive laws of the
adopted reinforcing steel, characterized by the strength values reported in Section 2. Beams
and columns have been considered as ductile members, as classified above. Beam-column
joints are considered as supplied by infinite strength and stiffness.
The modelling approaches adopted for the infill panels, the core of this work, are investi-
gated in detail in the next Section. Two different modelling approaches have been used to re-
produce the response of the infill panel for specimens SI-80 and GI-80, based on the most
common modelling strategies, namely, in a single- or three- (compressive only) strut approach.
Compressive-only struts have been introduced in Figure 6 consisting with the considered
loading direction.

fiber type nonlinear beam-column rigid offset fiber type nonlinear beam-column rigid offset
h b /2
h b /2

zc

Hw
Hw

H
H

ϴ ϴ
h c/2 Lw h c/2 h c/2 Lw h c/2

L L

L R L R
(a) (b)
Figure 6: Numerical modelling approach adopted for infilled frames: single-(a) and three-(b) strut approaches.
 M.T. De Risi, C. Del Gaudio, P. Ricci, G.M. Verderame

4 ADOPTED INFILL MODELLING STRATEGIES

First, the global infill response adopted for numerical simulations in terms of horizontal
load (Vw) -versus-horizontal displacement (D) (or, equivalently, Drift) reproduces the exper-
imental response. The latter has been derived as the difference between the infilled frame and
the corresponding bare one, thus assuming that the RC frame and the infill panel work as a
parallel system. This procedure (see [12]) implies that the RC surrounding frame exhibits the
same base shear-top displacement response in bare and infilled configurations. Such a hy-
pothesis is not totally rigorous, but often suggested and adopted in literature (e.g. [12], [27]-
[28]) to obtain the infill lateral response. This hypothesis will be “validated” by the numeri-
cal-versus-experimental comparisons themselves, as shown in Section 6. Force-drift infill re-
sponse has been finally averaged between positive and negative loading directions for both
the specimens (Figure 7a,b), by assuming that experimental results are approximately sym-
metric. The obtained averaged curve represents the experimental response of the infill panel
adopted for the simulations.

120

Pos
100
Neg
Av erage
80 multilin
Vwww(k(kN)
(kN)
Hww (kN)

N)

60
FH
V

40

20

0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5
Drift (%)
(a) (b)
Figure 7: Average curve and multi (three)-linearized experimental response for infills in SI-80 (a) and GI-80 (b).

The experimental responses obtained in such a way clearly show a high initial stiffness un-
til first cracking occurrence and a subsequent stiffness degradation up to the peak load. After
the achievement of the maximum lateral load, a degrading branch can be easily recognised.
Therefore, some characteristic points have been recognised, namely: cracking point (Dcr,
Vw,cr); peak load point (Dpeak, Vw,peak); residual load point (Dres, Vw,res). Figure 7 shows the
three-linearization of the experimental response for GI-80 and SI-80, based on the characteris-
tic points mentioned above. The corresponding data are reported in Table 3 together with a
comparison with the predictions by the well-known model proposed by Panagiotakos and
Fardis (“P&F) [29]. Such a model well predicts the cracking point, but slightly underestimates
the peak strength (-15% on average) and significantly the corresponding displacement (-42%
on average) for both tests (see Table 3). Figure 7 finally shows that the infill response is simi-
lar for the corresponding two tests; slight differences, at the peak point and in the softening
branch, can be likely ascribable to the different failure mode exhibited by the infill panels.
Vcr,h Dcr,h Vmax,h Dmax,h αsoft= Ksoft/ Kel
(kN) (%) (kN) (%) (%)
GI-80 (exper.) 59.37 0.03 90.86 0.46 -1.56
SI-80 (exper.) 64.21 0.04 93.47 0.40 -3.43
P&F [29] 60.48 0.03 78.62 0.25 -(0.5÷10)
Table 3: Characteristic points of infill responses for tests GI-80 and SI-80.
 M.T. De Risi, C. Del Gaudio, P. Ricci, G.M. Verderame

As anticipated before, the modelling of infills adopted herein is based on two strategies.
The first one models the infill as a single compressive diagonal strut (as shown in Figure
6a). Such an approach is generally adopted to catch the global behaviour of infilled frames,
being able to reproduce the contribution of the infill panel to the global strength and stiffness
of the infilled frame. In this case, the horizontal response of the infill is simply projected
along the diagonal direction to characterise the axial load-deformation behaviour of the com-
pressive strut. Nevertheless, this model is not able to detect any eventual localised shear de-
mand in the surrounding RC members, thus failing in the detection of eventual shear failures
of the adjacent columns induced by the infill-column shear interaction.
Therefore, the second modelling approach reproduces the infill contribution by means of
three compressive struts (as shown in Figure 6b) based on the proposals by Chrysostomou et
al. [30] and Jeon et al. [19]. In this case, the global (Vw – drift) response obtained before is
distributed among three compressive diagonal struts, as explained in the following. First, the
contact length z between infill panel and column is computed by following the approach pro-
posed by Stafford Smith [31]. In the critical section of column shear failure, assumed to be
located at a distance equal to the column effective depth from the beam-column interface [19],
the contact length z is divided into two portions: one in contact with the lower part of the cen-
tral strut and the other in contact with the lower off-diagonal strut. The portion of the global
lateral load absorbed by the central strut (γc) is determined based on the corresponding area of
the bearing stress distribution with respect to the total area of the same bearing stress distribu-
tion, according to the proposal by Jeon et al. [19]. On the same bases, the end-point of the
lower off-diagonal truss (zc in Figure 6b) is obtained. As a result, the central diagonal truss
absorbs 35% of the global lateral load (γc = 0.35).
In addition, elastic stiffness, secant-to-peak stiffness and lateral loads of the off-diagonal
struts have been reproduced according to the proposal by Chrysostomou et al. [30] depending
on their eccentricity with respect to central diagonal strut, and, more specifically, depending
on the parameter α = (zc /Hw)<1.
First, being K and ΔU the global stiffness of the infill panel and an assigned incremental
displacement in horizontal direction, respectively, the axial stiffness of the central diagonal
strut (kc) and related incremental displacement (Δuc) can be computed as in Eqs. (3) and (4):

K
kc =  c (3)
cos 2 
uc = U  cos  (4)

Axial stiffness of the off-diagonal struts (koff) and related incremental displacement (Δuoff)
can be obtained in the hypothesis of linear deformed shape of the columns, as suggested by
Chrysostomou et al. [30] and shown in Eqs. (5) and (6):

K − k c  cos2  K(1 −  c )
k off = = (5)
2(1 − )  cos  2(1 − )2  cos2 
2 2

uoff = U  cos  (1 − ) (6)

The same “eccentricity” and lateral load-portion for the two off-diagonal struts has been
also assumed, for the sake of simplicity. As a result, the incremental axial load acting in the
central diagonal (Δpc) and off-diagonal (Δpoff) struts can be calculated, as in Eqs. (7) and (8),
respectively:
 M.T. De Risi, C. Del Gaudio, P. Ricci, G.M. Verderame

 K  K  U V
pc = k c  u c =  2   c   ( U  cos  ) =  c = w  c (7)
 cos   cos  cos 
K  (1 −  c ) K  (1 −  c )
poff = k off u off =  ( U  cos   (1 − ) ) =  U =
2(1 − )  cos 
2 2
2(1 − )  cos 
(8)
Vw (1 −  c ) 1
= 
cos  2 (1 − )

In such a way, the global (horizontal) infill action ΔVw obtained by means of a three-strut
model is equal to the infill lateral response obtained by means of a single concentric strut
model, as expected, namely:

Vw =  k c  u c + 2(k off  u off )  (1 − )   cos  =

 (1 −  c )  (9)
= Vw   c + 2  H w    (1 −  ) = Vw  (  c + (1 −  c ))
 2(1 − ) 

By assuming that γoff = (1- γc)/2, it results: γc + 2 γoff = 1.

For both the modelling approaches, the struts have been implemented in OpenSees by
means of Truss elements defined with a Hysteretic uniaxial material and reacting only in
compression.

5 COLUMNS SHEAR FAILURE DETECTION

The numerical response described until now does not account for a potential shear failure
of the columns, particularly important for RC frames interested by a local shear interaction
with the infill panel.
Shear failures in columns can be first detected starting from a post-processing of the nu-
merical output, but a proper shear strength model should be selected, suitable for squat col-
umns, as those generated by the column-to-infill interaction (see Figure 6b). Therefore, two
models have been adopted herein as explained in the following.
First, shear strength is evaluated according to ASCE/SEI 41 [21] (see Eq. (10)), as pro-
posed by Sezen and Moehle [20] (“S&M”) and very commonly adopted in previous studies
from literature for similar applications (e.g. [17]-[19], [32]):

 0.50 f N Asw f yw 
Vn = k  c
1+ (0.80A g ) + d (10)
 a/d 0.50 f c A g s 
 

In Eq. (10), a/d is the shear span-to column effective depth ratio, Ag the gross area of the
column, Asw, fyw, and s are the transverse reinforcement area, yielding strength and stirrups
spacing, respectively. N is the column axial load at the interface section with the joint and
changes for increasing applied horizontal displacement (reaching a minimum value in the left
column and a maximum value in the right column, given the assumed loading direction). Ac-
tually, ASCE/SEI 41 [21] suggests to conservatively assume N=0 in Eq. (10) to assess the
shear capacity in columns subjected to the local shear interaction with the surrounding infills.
 M.T. De Risi, C. Del Gaudio, P. Ricci, G.M. Verderame

Such an assumption can result too much conservative for the numerical-versus-experimental
comparison. Therefore, the actual axial load acting on the column (and varying step-by-step)
is assumed herein in Eq. (10). Factor k takes into account the strength degradation due to ine-
lastic ductility demand. Since the lack of meaning of a strength degradation assessment due to
an increasing flexural demand in such a squat columns, the strength model by ASCE/SEI-41
[21] is applied herein always with k=1. The shear span a in Eq. (10) has been assumed as
equal to the distance between the null point of the moment diagram in the squat portion of
column and the beam-column interface (variable during the analysis), limiting the a-to-d ratio
between 2 and 4, as prescribed by Sezen and Moehle [20] and in ASCE/SEI-41 [21].
Additionally, as anticipated in Section 1.1, a different “family” of shear models could be
adopted for the squat columns of the infilled frames. A model providing a strength value that
degrades with the crack opening demand or, from a predictive standpoint, with the strain de-
mand (numerically evaluable) - instead than with the flexural inelastic ductility demand -
should be more suitable for the very “squat” portions of columns due to the limited infill-to-
column contact length. Therefore, the modified compression field theory (MCFT) model [33]
has been analysed and, in particular, its (more practical) simplification [34] is adopted herein.
According to the Simplified MCFT (SMCFT) proposed by Bentz et al. [34], shear strength
can be evaluated according to Eq. (11):

Asw f yw
VRd =  fc (b w  d) +  0.9d  cot  (11)
s

where coefficient β represents the capacity of cracked concrete to transfer shear stress, and ϴ
is the inclination of the principal compressive stress. Both β and ϴ depend on the shear crack
opening demand, namely, on the longitudinal strain demand (εx) (according to Eq.s (12) and
(13)).

0.4 1300
=  (12)
1 + 1500   x 1000 + s xe
 s 
 = ( 29 + 7000 x )   0.88 + xe   75 (13)
 2500 

The parameter sxe in above equations – representing the expected horizontal distance
among shear cracks – is assumed equal to 300 mm, according to Bentz et al. [34]. The longi-
tudinal strain at the mid-depth of the web (εx) is evaluated as equal to one-half of the strain in
the longitudinal tensile reinforcing steel [34] in a “critical section” located at a distance d
from the null point of the bending moment (see Figure 8), also taking into account the transla-
tion of the bending moment diagram, as suggested by Model Code [35], namely:

1 M 
x =   * + V − 0.5N  (14)
2As Es  d 

where As and Es are tensile longitudinal steel area and Young modulus of steel, respectively; V,
M and N represent the shear, moment and axial compression demand, respectively, acting on
the (squat) column at the “critical section” (see Figure 8), and d* is assumed equal to 0.9 times
the effective depth of the column. Therefore, looking at Figure 9, a shear failure is detected if
 M.T. De Risi, C. Del Gaudio, P. Ricci, G.M. Verderame

the column shear demand-drift curve (black curve) intersects the column shear capacity-drift
curve (green curve), for a shear value hereinafter referred to as Vcol,SF.
No

M N V

critical section
a x
d zc

Vw,off

Figure 8: Definition of the critical section for shear safety check.

V SHEAR FAILURE

Vcol,SF
Asw f yw
VRd =  fc (b w  d) +  0.9d  cot 
s

d (f(εx))
Figure 9: Shear failure detection.

The shear failure could be also directly detected by properly adding to the numerical model
an explicit shear spring in the squat column, as shown in Figure 10 (similarly to Jeon et al.
[19], among others). This spring could be defined by means of a sort of “limit state material”
(as defined in [32]), which monitors the strain demand in the critical section of the column
(according to Bentz et al. [34]) instead of the inter-story drift demand (as originally suggested
by Elwood [32]) during the analysis. Such a monitoring possibility is currently not imple-
mented in OpenSees; therefore, herein, the strength of this spring is defined as the shear de-
mand for which the shear failure is achieved (Vcol,SF).
The shear spring introduced in the model is characterized by an infinite elastic stiffness up
to Vcol,SF, and by a softening constant stiffness up to a residual strength (Vc,res), if any (see
Figure 11). The softening stiffness adopted is defined according to Elwood and Moehle [36]
proposal (referred to as “E&M” in the following). On a mechanical base, Elwood and Moehle
[36] proposed to estimate the displacement δa,E&M at which column begins to lose its axial
load carrying capacity after the occurrence of a shear failure as in Eq. (15). Such a displace-
ment coincides with the total loss of lateral load carrying capacity (Vc,res=0).

1 + ( tan  )
2
a,E&M 4
= 
L 100 tan  + N s (15)
Asw  f yw  d  tan 
 M.T. De Risi, C. Del Gaudio, P. Ricci, G.M. Verderame

fiber type nonlinear beam-column rigid offset

Shear Spring

h b /2
zc

Hw

H
ϴ
h c/2 Lw h c/2

L R
Figure 10: Shear spring modelling.

In Eq. (15), L is imposed equal to zc, defining the displacement δa,E&M as the relative dis-
placement between the two end points of the squat column. Additionally, the column axial
load N is assumed equal to its initial value (N0), in the hypothesis that, when the column axial
load failure occurs, the infill does not provide anymore a strength contribution, so that no axi-
al load variation is induced in the adjacent column with respect to N0.
Additionally, the shear critical angle θ in Eq. (15) is assumed by Elwood and Moehle [36]
equal to 65°. Nevertheless, the values of θ should be coherent with Eq. (13). Therefore, Eq.
(15) is implemented by assuming both the values of θ: the one suggested by Elwood and
Moehle (2005) and θSMCFT.
In both cases, the shear spring has been introduced in the numerical model in OpenSees as
shown in in Figure 10, namely by means of a ZeroLength Element (between two nodes, in red,
geometrically coincident) defined with a Hysteretic Uniaxial Material.

Asw f yw
VRd =  fc (b w  d) +  0.9d  cot 
V s

Vcol,SF
1 + ( tan  )
2
a,E&M 4
= 
Lv 100 tan  + N s
Asw  f yw  d  tan 
Elwood & Moehle (2005)

d
Figure 11: Shear spring backbone.

6 NUMERICAL VERSUS EXPERIMENTAL COMPARISONS

The results of the described modelling approach shown in Figure 6, with a single- (dotted
red line) or a three-strut (solid red line) infill model, is shown in Figure 12a and Figure 12b
for test SI-80 and GI-80, respectively. Note that Vb in Figure 12 is the base shear, which coin-
cides with the applied lateral load.
 M.T. De Risi, C. Del Gaudio, P. Ricci, G.M. Verderame

V max V max
Vy Vy

-V y -V y
-V max -V max

(a) (b)
Figure 12: Numerical (red) versus experimental (grey) response: test SI-80 (a); test GI-80 (b) single-strut (dotted
red line) and tri-strut (solid red line) modelling approaches.

In both numerical simulations for SLD infilled frame (test SI-80), the resulting numerical-
versus-experimental comparison shows a very good matching in terms of maximum load and
also initial stiffness and frame deformability in the first loading steps. Note that the missing of
the fixed-end-rotation and of the joint panel deformability contribution in the numerical mod-
elling does not affect this comparison, because the weight of the infill strut lateral stiffness is
clearly predominant over the numerically missing deformability contributions. The maximum
lateral load finally achieved during the simulation is equal to 159.0 kN, very close to the cor-
responding experimental value (-158.6 kN). Moreover, at about 2.00% drift, lateral load drops
up to the expected flexural strength (Vmax) of the bare frame only (calculated as in Eq. 2), in
tune with the experimental evidence. Such an outcome can be useful to validate the assump-
tions that allowed the experimental definition of the infill panel response, as explained in Sec-
tion 4. Additionally, the agreement between the results of the modelling approach based on a
single concentric strut and a tri-strut modelling approach (shown in Figure 12a) confirms the
validity of the proposals by Chrysostomou et al. [30] for the off-diagonal struts. It can be con-
cluded that the linear deformed shape of columns, which is the base of this proposal, results
realistic for this struts configuration.
Regarding test GI-80 (see Figure 12b), the agreement between modelling results and ex-
perimental findings appears very good in terms of maximum load and also initial stiffness and
frame deformability, especially in the ascending branch of the lateral behaviour up to shear
cracks in the column start to significantly increase their width (namely until the penultimate
cycle of the response). The maximum lateral load achieved during the simulation is equal to
140.9 kN, that is very close to the corresponding experimental value (-140.1 kN). Similarly to
SI-80 test, the agreement between the results of the modelling approach based on a single
concentric strut and a tri-strut modelling approach confirms the validity of the proposal by
Chrysostomou et al. [30] and the assumption of the linear deformed shape of the columns that
is the base of this proposal.
As stated before, the modelling approach shown in Figure 6, and resulting in Figure 12, is
not able to detect any eventual shear failure. Therefore, first this eventuality is checked by
means of a post-processing of the analysis results (as explained in Section 5). In particular, the
attention will be focused on the left (L) side column, where axial load decreases during the
simulation thus producing a reduction in shear strength, and which clearly reached the crack-
ing condition during the test GI-80 (where local shear interaction exhibited the most signifi-
 M.T. De Risi, C. Del Gaudio, P. Ricci, G.M. Verderame

cant experimental evidence). Both shear strength models, by ASCE/SEI 41 [21] and by Bentz
et al. [34] (SMCFT) are applied herein for both the infilled specimens (see Figure 13). As a
results, no shear failure has been detected by ASCE/SEI 41 [21]’s strength model (see
“S&M” curve in Figure 13a). Note that VRd by “S&M” model is reducing for increasing drift
levels due to the action of the lower off-diagonal strut that produces a progressive reduction of
the column axial load. On the contrary, for test GI-80, Bentz et al. [34]’s proposal leads to a
column shear failure at about 1.0 % of applied lateral drift (red star in Figure 13a), namely on
the descending branch of the global lateral response (red curve), as experimentally observed.
Vcol,SF is equal to 52.4 kN in this case. Note that Figure 13 also shows axial load (N) and
shear demand (V) variation during the simulation (in grey and black solid line, respectively),
together with the global (Vb-drift) response (red line). It is also noteworthy that, as expected,
the same safety checks for SI-80 specimen do not provide any column shear failure, since
shear strength capacity evaluated by both SMCFT theory and “S&M” proposal is higher than
the maximum column shear demand (see Figure 13b).

150 200

V
col V
150 col
N
Force (kN)
Force (kN)

100 col N
col
V
100base V
base
V
Rd,S&M V
50 V
Rd,S&M
50Rd,SMCFT V
Rd,SMCFT
numer. SF

0 0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 0 0.5 1 1.5 2
drift (%) drift (%)

(a) (b)
Figure 13: Shear failure (SF) detection for left-side squat column for test GI-80 (a) and SI-80 (b).

In a second step of modelling, for the specimen GI-80, where the shear failure is detected,
an explicit shear spring has been added to the model, as shown in Figure 10 and explained in
Section 5. Such a spring is linear elastic up to Vcol,SF, and then characterised by a softening
constant stiffness up to a null residual strength (Vc,res = 0). The softening stiffness adopted is
defined according to Elwood and Moehle [36] proposal, namely by means of Eq. (15), where
the shear critical angle θ should be first defined. If θ is evaluated by Eq. (13) at the onset of
the shear failure (θSMCFT), the value of 41.2° is obtained. Otherwise, according to Elwood and
Moehle [36] proposal, θ is equal to 65°. Both these hypotheses on θ (65° and 41.2°) have been
analysed. The corresponding values of δa,E&M are equal to 30 mm and 8.2 mm, respectively.
Note that θSMCFT value is closer to the experimental main shear crack angle shown in Section
2. Therefore, a better prediction of the numerical response is expected when δa,E&M is evaluat-
ed with θ = θSMCFT, as shown immediately below.
The results of these simulations for the specimen GI-80 are shown in Figure 14a and the
related responses of the shear spring are reported in Figure 14b. It can be observed that shear
failure – meant as the initiation of a shear-controlled softening response – begins at a drift
value roughly equal to 1% (see Figure 14a). The global softening branch changes depending
on the assumption adopted for θ. The numerical response better reproduces the experimental
response if the θSMCFT value is adopted (red solid lines in Figure 14a).
 M.T. De Risi, C. Del Gaudio, P. Ricci, G.M. Verderame

SF onset

SF onset

(a) (b)
Figure 14: Numerical-versus-experimental comparison for test GI-80 including column shear spring with θ SMCFT
(solid red line) or θ=65° (dotted red line) (black line is related to the simulation without shear spring) (a); related
shear spring responses (b).

In conclusion, Figure 15 shows the axial load (Nw)-axial deformation (εw) response of the
three compressive struts without (Figure 15a) and with (Figure 15b) the explicit shear spring
in the numerical model. At the end of the test all the struts are still contributing to the lateral
response of the frame (Nw>0) if no shear spring is modelled (Figure 15a). On the contrary, the
lower off-diagonal strut starts unloading at the onset of the shear failure in the adjacent col-
umn, as expected, when the shear spring is explicitly modelled; after the column shear failure,
the remaining struts still contribute to the lateral response since the axial displacement de-
mand can still increase in these two (Diagonal and Upper Off-Diagonal) struts (Figure 15b).

SF onset

(a) (b)
Figure 15: Response of the three infill struts during the analysis in terms of axial load (Nw)-axial deformation
(εw) without shear spring (a) and with shear spring (and δ a,E&M with θSMCFT) (b).

7 CONCLUSIONS
A preliminary numerical investigation on column shear failure due to local interaction be-
tween structural and non-structural elements has been presented, starting from the results of
some experimental tests on infilled frames performed by the Authors. Different shear strength
models and different strategies of macro-modelling for infills have been applied and discussed,
in order to (i) capture (or not) the column shear failure exhibited (or not) during the test and
 M.T. De Risi, C. Del Gaudio, P. Ricci, G.M. Verderame

(ii) to match the experimental response in terms of initial stiffness, peak strength and corre-
sponding displacement, and softening behaviour.
The analysed experimental data have been briefly described and numerically reproduced
by means of proper models carefully taking into account the local shear interaction between
infill panel and RC columns observed during one of the analysed tests. It resulted that the
shear demand on the surrounding columns due to the interaction with the infill panels could
be well caught by means of a three-compressive struts modelling approach, properly identify-
ing the location and the contribution of each strut according to the proposals by Jeon et al. [19]
and Chrysostomou et al. [30]. On the other side, the column shear strength could be well es-
timated based on the modified compression field theory [34], more suitable model for the
squat columns produced by this interaction with respect to shear strength models degrading
due to the increasing cyclic ductility demand.
The numerical results shown in the paper appear to be very close to the experimental ones.
Nevertheless, future further efforts will be devoted to the extension of this modelling strategy
to other similar specimens experimentally tested in the literature, to finally provide a wider
validation of the adopted numerical models.

ACKNOWLEGMENTS
This work was developed under the support of ReLUIS-DPC 2014-2018 Linea CA -WP6
Tamponature funded by the Italian Department of Civil Protection (DPC), and of the AXA
Research Fund Post-Doctoral Grant “Advanced nonlinear modelling and performance as-
sessment of masonry infills in RC buildings under seismic loads: the way forward to design or
retrofitting strategies and reduction of losses” funded by AXA Research Fund. These sup-
ports are gratefully acknowledged.

REFERENCES
[1] EERI. 1999 Kocaeli, Turkey earthquake reconnaissance report. Earthquake Spectra,
16(S1), 237-279, 2000.
[2] P. Ricci, F. De Luca, G.M. Verderame. 6th April 2009 L’Aquila earthquake, Italy: rein-
forced concrete building performance. Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering, 9(1), 285-
305, 2011.
[3] F. De Luca, G.M. Verderame, F. Gómez-Martínez, A. Pérez-García. The structural role
played by masonry infills on RC building performances after the 2011 Lorca, Spain,
earthquake. Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering, 12(5), 1999-2026, 2014.
[4] C. Del Gaudio, M.T. De Risi, P. Ricci, G.M. Verderame. Empirical drift-fragility func-
tions and loss estimation for infills in reinforced concrete frames under seismic loading.
Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering, 17(3), 1285-1330, 2019.
[5] A.B. Mehrabi, P.B. Shing, M.P. Schuller, J.L. Noland. Experimental evaluation of ma-
sonry-infilled RC frames. Journal of Structural Engineering, 122(3), 228-237, 1996.
[6] G. Al-Chaar, M. Issa, S. Sweeney. Behavior of masonry-infilled non-ductile reinforced
concrete frames. Journal of Structural Engineering, 128(8), 1055-1063, 2002.
[7] T.C. Liauw, K.H. Kwan. Unified plastic analysis for infilled frames. Journal of Struc-
tural Engineering, 111(7), 1427-1148, 1984.
 M.T. De Risi, C. Del Gaudio, P. Ricci, G.M. Verderame

[8] A.B. Mehrabi, P.B. Shing, M.P. Schuller, J.L. Noland. Performance of masonry infilled
R/C frames under in-plane lateral loads. Report No. CU/SR-94/6. Department of Civil,
Environmental, and Architectural Engineering, University of Colorado at Boulder,
Boulder, CO, USA, 1994.
[9] A. Saneinejad and B. Hobbs. Inelastic design of infilled frames, Journal of Structural
Engineering, 121 (4), 634-650, 1995.
[10] C.Z. Chrysostomou, P.G. Asteris. On the in-plane properties and capacities of infilled
frames. Engineering Structures, 41, 385-402, 2012.
[11] P. Ricci, M.T. De Risi, G.M. Verderame, G. Manfredi. Procedures for calibration of lin-
ear models for damage limitation in design of masonry-infilled RC frames. Earthquake
Engineering and Structural Dynamics, 45(8), 1315-1335, 2016.
[12] M.T. De Risi, C. Del Gaudio, P. Ricci, G.M. Verderame. In-plane behaviour and dam-
age assessment of masonry in-fills with hollow clay bricks in RC frames. Engineering
Structures 168:257–275, 2018.
[13] ASCE/SEI 41-06. Seismic rehabilitation of existing buildings. American Society of
Civil Engineers, Reston, VA, USA, 2007.
[14] D.M. 2008, D.M. 14/01/2008. Approvazione delle nuove norme tecniche per le costru-
zioni. G.U. n. 29 del 4/2/2008. (in Italian)
[15] D.M. 2018, D.M. 17/01/2018. Aggiornamento delle nuove norme tecniche per le co-
struzioni. G.U. n. 42 del 20/2/2018. (in Italian)
[16] F. J. Crisafulli. Seismic behaviour of reinforced concrete structures with masonry infills,
PhD Thesis, 1997.
[17] H. Burton, G. Deierlein. Simulation of seismic collapse in non-ductile reinforced con-
crete frame buildings with masonry infills. Journal of Structural Engineering, 140(SI:
Computational simulation in structural engineering). 140(8), A4014016, 2014.
[18] S. Sattar, A.B. Liel. Seismic performance of nonductile reinforced concrete frames with
masonry infill walls: I. Development of a strut model enhanced by finite element mod-
els. Earthquake Spectra, 32(2), 795-818, 2015.
[19] J.S. Jeon, J.H. Park, R. DesRoches. Seismic fragility of lightly reinforced concrete
frames with masonry infills. Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics, 44(11),
1783-1803, 2015.
[20] H. Sezen, J.P. Moehle. Shear Strength Model for Lightly Reinforced Concrete Columns.
Journal of Structural Engineering, Vol. 130, No. 11, 2004.
[21] ASCE/SEI 41, Seismic evaluation and retrofit of existing buildings. American Society
of Civil Engineers, Reston, VA, USA, 2017.
[22] G. M. Verderame, P. Ricci, C. Del Gaudio, M.T. De Risi. Experimental tests on mason-
ry infilled gravity-and seismic-load designed RC frames. In Brick and Block Masonry:
Trends, Innovations and Challenges-Proceedings of the 16th International Brick and
Block Masonry Conference, IBMAC (pp. 1349-1358), 2016.
[23] D.M. 30/05/1972 Norme tecniche alle quali devono uniformarsi le costruzioni in con-
glomerato cementizio, normale e precompresso ed a struttura metallica. alla G.U. n. 190
de 22/7/1972. (in Italian)
 M.T. De Risi, C. Del Gaudio, P. Ricci, G.M. Verderame

[24] D.M. 14/02/1992. Norme tecniche per l’esecuzione delle opere in cemento armato nor-
male e precompresso e per le strutture metalliche. Suppl. Ord. alla G.U. n. 65 del
18/3/1992. (in Italian)
[25] F. McKenna, G.L. Fenves, M.H. Scott. OpenSees: Open System for Earthquake Engi-
neering Simulation. Pacific Earth-quake Engineering Research Center. University of
California, Berkeley, CA, USA. http://opensees.berkeley.edu, 2010.
[26] J.B. Mander, M.J.N. Priestley, R. Park. Theoretical stress-strain model for confined
concrete. Journal of Structural Engineering, 114(8), 1804-1826, 1988.
[27] S. Hak, P.Morandi, G. Magenes, T.J. Sullivan. Damage control for clay masonry infills
in the design of RC frame structures. Journal of Earthquake Engineering, 16(sup1), 1-
35, 2012.
[28] A.V. Bergami, C. Nuti. Experimental tests and global modeling of masonry infilled
frames. Earthquake Structures; 2015.
[29] T.B. Panagiotakos, M.N. Fardis. Seismic response of infilled RC frames structures. In:
Proceedings of the 11th world conference on earthquake engineering, Acapulco, Méxi-
co. Paper No. 225; 1996.
[30] C.Z. Chrysostomou, P. Gergely, J.F. Abel. A six-strut model for nonlinear dynamic
analysis of steel infilled frames. Int J Struct Stab Dyn 2002; 2(3):335–53, 2002.
[31] B. Stafford Smith. Lateral stiffness of infilled frames. J Struct Div, ASCE 1963; 88
(ST6):183–99, 1963.
[32] K.J. Elwood. Modelling failures in existing reinforced concrete columns. Can J Civ Eng
31(5):846–859, 2004.
[33] F. J. Vecchio, M.P. Collins. The modified compression-field theory for reinforced con-
crete elements subjected to shear. ACI J., 83(2), 219-231, 1986.
[34] E. C. Bentz, F.J. Vecchio, M.P. Collins. Simplified modified compression field theory
for calculating shear strength of reinforced concrete elements. ACI Materials Journal,
103(4), 614, 2006.
[35] Model Code 2010-first complete draft. Fédération Internationale du Béton
fib/International Federation for Structural Concrete, 2010.
[36] K.J. Elwood, J.P. Moehle. Drift capacity of reinforced concrete columns with light
transverse reinforcement. Earthquake Spectra 21(1):71–89, 2005.

View publication stats