International Journal of Civil Engineering

https://doi.org/10.1007/s40999-023-00922-5 (0123456789().,-volV)(0123456789().
,- volV)

RESEARCH PAPER

Influence of Wall Openings on Nonlinear Lateral Load Response

of Reinforced Concrete Frames with Masonry Infills: A Finite Element
Study
Bonisha Borah1 • Sanil Naik1 • V. Abhishek1 • Hemant B. Kaushik1 • Vaibhav Singhal2

Received: 18 March 2023 / Revised: 18 October 2023 / Accepted: 8 November 2023

Ó The Author(s), under exclusive licence to the Iran University of Science and Technology 2023

Abstract
In the present study, a simplified finite element micro-modeling technique was developed for the in-plane cyclic lateral
load analysis of reinforced concrete frames with masonry infill walls having openings. Such frames are commonly
constructed in several countries, and if not constructed properly, tend to get damaged during earthquakes thereby
increasing the seismic risk in the region. Results of the numerical studies showed the effectiveness of using the simplified
finite element micro-model in accurately predicting their lateral load responses. A finite element parametric study was
undertaken to understand the influence of size and location of openings in masonry infill walls and aspect ratio of the
reinforced concrete frames on lateral load response of infilled frames. Though the aspect ratio of the frame and size of the
openings were found to have a significant effect on the lateral load characteristics of the frames, such as, lateral strength,
lateral stiffness, and energy dissipation capacity, the influence of location of opening on these parameters was limited. It
was also observed that the contribution of masonry infills reduced significantly when size of the opening in the wall was
more than 20%. Further, the influence of horizontal eccentricity in the wall openings was found to be insignificant for most
of the studied frames.

Keywords Masonry infilled RC frames  Openings in infill walls  Finite element modeling  Nonlinear analysis 
Earthquake load analysis

1 Introduction

In many countries, masonry infill walls are extensively

used in reinforced concrete (RC) buildings due to easily
available low-cost materials, high impact resistance,
& Hemant B. Kaushik excellent heat, sound insulation properties, etc. Though
hemantbk@iitg.ac.in inclusion of infills increases the global lateral load demand
Bonisha Borah on RC frame buildings due to increased lateral stiffness,
borahbonisha@gmail.com most of this additional load is resisted by the infill walls
Sanil Naik themselves by forming diagonal strut action [1]. Thus,
naiksanil473@gmail.com introduction of masonry infill in RC frames changes the
V. Abhishek lateral-load transfer mechanism of the structure from pre-
abhishek7050@gmail.com dominant frame action to predominant truss action. The
Vaibhav Singhal complex interaction between frame members and infills
singhal@iitp.ac.in drastically reduces the local demands on beams and col-
1 umns until brittle infills suffer damage. During this inter-
Department of Civil Engineering, Indian Institute of
Technology Guwahati, Guwahati 781039, India action, columns generally suffer damage by forming shear
2 cracks due to the transfer of high axial loads from the
Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Indian
Institute of Technology Patna, Patna 801106, India diagonal struts to columns as shear forces. After the failure

123

of infill walls, the lateral loads are transferred to the frame
elements. This sudden increase in demands on frame
members is detrimental to the already damaged columns.
As a common practice, designers often ignore the complex
interaction between masonry walls and frames for simpli-
fication. Clearly, such simplification results in erroneous
simulation of seismic response of these frames. Past
earthquake performance and experimental studies have
demonstrated the following in-plane modes of failure of
such frames (Fig. 1): (i) cracking in walls along the loaded
diagonal, (ii) sliding shear in walls along the mortar joints,
(iii) compression failure in walls along the loaded diagonal
(diagonal strut failure), (iv) corner crushing in masonry, or
(v) column failure [1–5]. Failure modes of masonry infilled
RC frames also depend upon the relative strength and
stiffness of the frame and the wall. Improperly connected
masonry infill walls may also fail in the out-of-plane
direction, but this is not the topic of discussion in the
present study.
There are typically two primary approaches used for
numerical modeling of masonry infill walls—the macro-
modeling approach and the micro-modeling approach. In
line with the terminology ‘‘macro’’ and ‘‘micro,’’ the
decision between these approaches relies on achieving the
necessary level of detail and precision to accurately rep-
resent failure modes and predict lateral load behavior. The
macro-modeling approach considers the masonry wall as a
continuum structure, overlooking the heterogeneous nature
of masonry. Consequently, by accurately calibrating input
parameters, it attains an acceptable level of precision in the
analysis outcomes, making it apt for investigating the
behavior of masonry infilled RC frames. Macro-modeling
approaches for masonry are commonly adopted to repre-
sent the global structural behavior, where the material
parameters are obtained from the masonry tests under
homogeneous states of stress. Simplest form of macro-
models, i.e., the equivalent diagonal strut models, have
been commonly used to simulate the behavior of solid infill
Diagonal
Lateral Load tension
Shear
Column sliding
damage
Column
damage
Flexure Diagonal Corner
compression crushing
Fig. 1 Schematic of different in-plane failure modes for masonry
infilled RC frames
123
International Journal of Civil Engineering
walls as well as those with openings under monotonic and
cyclic loading [6–12]. In this approach, masonry walls are
modeled using pin-jointed diagonal strut elements in
between the centre-line RC frame elements. Moreover,
finite element (FE) macro-models and discrete element
methods have also been used extensively for simulating the
behavior of masonry-infilled RC frames [13–18]. Here,
though the RC frame and the masonry infill walls are
modeled using 3D solid elements, the infill walls are
modeled in a simplified manner as a macro-element con-
sidering the gross properties of masonry and defining
appropriate interaction properties between the masonry and
RC elements. On the other hand, micro-modeling approa-
ches including both detailed and simplified versions are
employed [19–30] in order to represent the heterogeneous
states of masonry and predict precisely the propagation of
crack and reinforcement bar yielding. In detailed, micro-
properties of each constituent and interface are considered.
This in turn requires a large number of input parameters,
which are difficult to obtain experimentally with reason-
able confidence. Clearly, the modeling complexity and
computational demands significantly escalate when
employing such a detailed FE model, making it better
suited for analyzing small structural components. Micro-
modelling has also been done using a simplified approach
in which bricks are expanded up to half of the mortar
thickness in vertical and horizontal directions, and the
mortar is clamped into mortar interface. The masonry joint
interfaces were modeled by considering shear sliding and
opening of joints.
The lateral load behavior of masonry infilled RC frames
and their numerical simulation become increasingly com-
plicated when openings are present in the infill walls.
Openings in walls can significantly reduce the lateral
strength and stiffness of RC frames, and alter their failure
modes. To date, there have been few comprehensive
studies conducted on the evaluation of lateral load perfor-
mance in frames with infill walls with openings [8, 31–35].
Additionally, there is a limited availability of parametric
studies that takes into account the impact of opening size
and location within the infill walls, as well as aspect ratios
of the frames. National codes of various countries also
showed limitations and many gaps for the analysis and
design of masonry infilled RC frames with openings
[1, 36]. Clearly, there is a need to carry out a systematic
study of this structure considering variation in the impor-
tant parameters. In this study, combined influence of
opening location, size of opening, and aspect ratio of RC
frame on the behavior of RC frames with masonry infill
walls under the action of in-plane lateral loads is studied
numerically by considering a matrix of different combi-
nations of these three parameters. The obtained results can
help in predicting the lateral response of such frames
International Journal of Civil Engineering
including their failure modes. With this understanding, the
seismic vulnerability associated with masonry-infilled RC
frames can be reduced leading to safer construction
practices.
2 Development and Validation of FE Model
2.1 Frames CONSIDERED in the Study
A past experimental study [36], in which eight half-scale
specimens of infill RC frames having different sizes of
central opening were tested, was considered for develop-
ment and validation of FE models. The size of the openings
was defined as opening area ratio Ar, which is the ratio of
the area of opening in a wall to the area of the solid wall.
Geometric configuration of these frames and reinforcement
detailing in all the members are shown in Fig. 2. The
influence of RC slab was considered in the tests by casting
400 mm wide slab along the beam. Out of eight frames,
one had a solid wall without opening (0% Ar), one had
100% Ar (i.e., no infill wall), and the remaining six frames
had Ar of 3%, 10%, 20%, 30%, 40%, and 50%. All the
specimens were 1.5 m long excluding the columns and
1.5 m high excluding the beam. Thus, the aspect ratio (AR)
of the specimens was 1.0 (AR of the specimens is defined
as the ratio of the height to the length excluding the depth
2450
175
1500
3200
Lintel Section
ϕ represents diameter of bar in mm. 6ϕ@90 represents 6 mm diameter bars at 90 mm center-to-center spacing.
Fig. 2 Details of the specimens considered in the study (dimensions in mm)
of the beam and width of the column, respectively). The
cross-sectional dimensions of beams and columns of all the
frames were 115 mm 9 175 mm. RC Lintel beams were
used over the openings (Fig. 2). Masonry infill walls were
constructed in running bond using fly-ash brick units of
size 230 mm 9 110 mm 9 75 mm and 1:4 (cement:sand)
mortar. The specimens were subjected to quasi-static cyclic
displacement at the slab level applied using servo-con-
trolled hydraulic actuator. RC plates were placed over the
RC slabs of the specimens to simulate the vertical loads
corresponding to the tributary area above the frame in the
upper storey. Total applied vertical load corresponds to an
axial load ratio of about 1% on each column as reported in
the experimental study. Material properties used in these
frames are summarized in Table 1.
2.2 Material Modeling
Concrete or masonry being brittle material, discrete crack
models have been extensively used to simulate the non-
linear behavior and development of crack surfaces in
concrete, brick material, and mortar joints [22, 25, 27, 29].
However, because of the requirement of manual predefi-
nition of crack initiation and propagation planes, large
computational time, wearisome calibration process, and
convergence issues in discrete crack models, continuum
material models have gained more popularity to simulate
2450 2450
300
300
1675
1500
400
1500 1500
3200 3200
Section A-A Section B-B
Section C-C Section D-D
123
 International Journal of Civil Engineering

Table 1 Mechanical properties of materials used in the specimens materials were provided as inputs. Poisson’s ratio was
[36] considered as 0.2 for masonry and concrete, and 0.3 for
Material Properties Parameter and steel. To describe the yield surface and flow potential
value (MPa) parameters in the inelastic range, default values from
ABAQUS user manual were taken as discussed below.
Concrete Compressive strength fc = 24
Flow potential eccentricity was considered as 0.1 in the
Brick fb = 5.7
simulation, while the ratio of initial equibiaxial compres-
Mortar fj = 17.3
sive yield stress to initial uniaxial compressive yield stress
Masonry fm0 = 3.9
was taken as 1.16. The ratio of second stress invariant on
Concrete Elastic modulus Ec = 23,700
the tensile meridian to that on compressive meridian was
Masonry Em = 2667
considered as 0.667 (Table 2). In order to reduce the
Masonry Shear strength (Diagonal vm = 0.14
convergence issues when the analysis followed the soft-
Compression)
ening branch, a small value of viscosity parameter was
Longitudinal Yield strength fy = 507
steel (12/) considered without compromising results. The dilation
Longitudinal fy = 570 angle is generally assumed to vary from 5° to 51°
steel (10/) [38, 43, 45]; it was considered as 30° for concrete and 12°
Longitudinal fy = 520 for masonry in this study based on the calibration of the
steel (8/) numerical results with the experimental results.
Stirrups (6/) fy = 520 In CDP model, the strength of material can be varied in
tension and compression considering different damage
parameters to simulate the strength and stiffness degrada-
tion. In addition, when the material is unloaded from a
shear-type cracks in concrete material [37–43]. In the point beyond the peak load, some stiffness degradation
present study, Concrete Damaged Plasticity (CDP) model takes place due to the occurrence and accumulation of
of ABAQUS [44] was used. CDP is a continuum material damage. This behavior is simulated in the numerical
model for brittle and quasi-brittle materials under mono- analysis by the damage parameters, i.e., ratio of cracking
tonic/cyclic loading (Fig. 3). All the parameters involved or inelastic strain to the total strain under tension or com-
in CDP can be obtained from uniaxial, biaxial, and triaxial pression, respectively (dt and dc in Fig. 3).
tests. The parameters can also be calibrated with the As per the requirements of ABAQUS for cyclic load
experimental results by using initial values recommended analysis, yield stress of materials as well as damage
in literature. Density and elastic characteristics of the parameters were defined as function of inelastic strain or

0.8 2.5
Tension Tension
Stress (MPa)
Stress (MPa)

0.6 2.0
1.5
0.4
1.0
0.2 0.5 Concrete
Masonry 0.0
0.0
0 0.0015 0.003 0 0.0005 0.001

5 30
Compression
Stress (MPa)

Compression
Stress (MPa)

4
20
3
2 10
1 Concrete
Masonry 0
0
0 0.004 0.008 0 0.002 0.004 0.006
Strain Strain
Strain
E0 = elastic modulus; dt, dc = damage parameters (0 to 1); wt, wc = stiffness recovery factors (wt =0, wc=1 by default)

Fig. 3 Details of the basic CDP Model under uniaxial load cycle (tension–compression–tension) along with stress–strain material properties used
in the CDP models of masonry and concrete

123
International Journal of Civil Engineering
Table 2 Values of some important input parameters used in numer-
ical modeling
Sr Part Material properties
1 Extended Poisson’s ratio
brick Dilation angle
units
Flow potential eccentricity
Initial equibiaxial to uniaxial
compressive yield stress ratio
Tensile to compressive second stress
invariant ratio
Viscosity parameter
Tension recovery factor (wt)
Compression recovery factor (wc)
Tension damage parameter (dt)
Compression damage parameter (dc)
2 Interfaces Friction coefficient for brick–mortar
and masonry-frame interfaces
Cohesive stiffness (knn, kss, and ktt)
Maximum nominal stress for damage
initiation in normal direction
Maximum nominal stress for damage
initiation in shear 1 or 2
Total/plastic displacement for damage
evolution
3 Concrete Poisson’s ratio
frame
Dilation angle
Flow potential eccentricity
Initial equibiaxial to uniaxial
compressive yield stress ratio
Tensile to compressive second stress
invariant ratio
Viscosity parameter
Tension recovery factor (wt)
Compression recovery factor (wc)
Tension damage parameter (dt)
Compression damage parameter (dc)
4 Steel rebar Poisson’s ratio
cracking strain under compression and tension, respec-
tively. When damage is encountered, ABAQUS converts
inelastic strain to plastic strain using the input damage
parameters. The pivot rule of Park et al. [46] was used to
estimate the degradation parameters (dc and dt). dt and dc
can take the values between zero to one representing an
undamaged and total loss of strength, respectively. More-
over, opening and closing of cracks was simulated in CDP
by recovering the stiffness partially or totally using
recovery parameters. Default values for tension recovery
and compression recovery factors recommended in ABA-
QUS (wt = 0 and wc = 1) were assumed in this study. The
stress–strain curves for concrete and masonry used in the
numerical simulation are shown in Fig. 3.
Values
2.2.1 Stress–Strain Behavior of Concrete and Steel
0.2
12°
The compressive behavior of unconfined concrete was
0.1 defined by using Kent and Park [47] model (Fig. 3), and
1.16 the stirrups were modeled separately. The strain corre-
sponding to peak compressive stress was taken as 0.002. To
0.667
avoid kinetic instabilities, 20% of the peak compressive
0.0005
stress was considered as the residual strength based on
recommendations of past studies [7, 9, 50]. The tension
0
stiffening model suggested in the literature [48] was used
1
to simulate the tensile response of concrete. The calibrated
0—1
tensile strength of concrete was 2 MPa; which is accept-
0—1
able as the maximum value according to BIS [49] is
0.8 pffiffiffiffi
0:7 fc . The residual tensile strength was taken as 10% of
4 MPa/ the peak strength. The uniaxial response of reinforcement
mm bars was simulated by using an elastic–perfectly plastic
0.14 MPa material model.
0.56 MPa 2.2.2 Stress–Strain Behavior of Masonry
1.5 mm Experimental stress–strain data obtained from Basha and
Kaushik [50] was used to model the compressive behavior
0.2
of fly ash brick masonry. The tensile behavior of masonry
30°
was assumed to be linearly elastic until it reaches its tensile
0.1
strength; this is followed by a linear softening curve. The
1.16
tensile strength was assumed as a fraction of its compres-
sive strength and it generally varies from 10 to 25% of
0.667
compressive strength [39, 51]. In the present study, a
0.0005 sensitivity analysis was carried out using the masonry
0 prism test data provided by Basha and Kaushik [50] to
1 calibrate the tensile strength of masonry (Fig. 4). Results
0—1
obtained from the FE simulation of the axial load behavior
0—1
of masonry prisms matched closely with the experimental
result for the masonry tensile strength of 0.75 MPa (19% of
0.3
compressive strength). Further, the ultimate tensile strain at
which the masonry loses its tensile strength (residual is
10% of peak) was considered as 10 times the strain cor-
responding to the peak tensile strength.
2.3 Finite Element Discretization Scheme
The three-dimensional FE model developed for the con-
sidered frames is shown in Fig. 5. The solid elements used
for a typical RC frame, loading and boundary conditions,
reinforcement detailing in different RC members, and
simplified micro-model used for masonry walls are shown
in Fig. 5. The FE discretization along with the constitutive
models for different materials and interfaces were chosen
carefully to simulate the diagonal cracking and sliding
123
 International Journal of Civil Engineering

4.5

Compressive Stress (MPa)

Expt
Num-0.75
3.0 Num-0.38
Num-0.28
Num-0.14
1.5

0.0
0 0.005 0.01 0.015
Strain

(a) (b) (c)

Fig. 4 Behaviour of fly ash masonry prisms under compression: a schematic of prism test, b minimum principal stress contour of masonry prism
obtained numerically, and c experimental and numerical compressive stress–strain behavior of prism for different input tensile strength

Bed joint of zero

thickness

8-noded C3D8R Head joints of

Elements zero thickness
Right Column

2-noded Truss
Elements (T3D2)
Left Column

Extended
Brick Element

(a) (b)
Masonry Unit

Mortar Bed Joint

Zero thickness
Interface
Continuum
Element
Expansion of Masonry Unit
Mortar Head Joint
(c)

Fig. 5 Details of the FE model: a various elements, loading, boundary conditions, b reinforcement modeling, and c simplified-micro modeling
approach for masonry

shear cracking in masonry along with all expected modes
of failures, i.e., compressive crushing and tensile cracking
of concrete and masonry, shear or tensile failure of mortar
joints, and yielding of steel reinforcement. As shown in
Fig. 5a, RC frame and brick elements were discretized
using three-dimensional eight-noded linear hexahedral
solid continuum elements with reduced integration (named
as C3D8R in the Explicit element library). The reduced
integration activates enhanced hourglass control to avoid
zero-energy deformation of the elements under bending.
Steel bars were discretized with 3-D truss elements with
two nodes (T3D2) using wire feature (Fig. 5b). Embed
element constraints were used between reinforcement and
concrete elements forcing their corresponding nodes to
displace exactly by the same amount. Meshing is very
important not only from the perspective of accuracy, but
also from the computational efforts required for the simu-
lation. Coarser mesh will result in erroneous results,

123
International Journal of Civil Engineering
whereas too finer mesh will result in higher computational
effort. The cross-section of the column is 175 9 115 mm.
Abaqus Manual recommends a minimum of four elements
along the thickness to properly simulate bending. There-
fore, taking 115 mm as a minimum dimension, maximum
mesh size of 25 mm was chosen such that at least four
elements can be generated along each dimension. Based on
this, a sensitivity study was carried out to achieve the
convergence and a mesh size of 25 mm was finally chosen.
As already discussed, in the simplified micro-modeling
approach, the bricks and mortar were not modelled sepa-
rately. Instead, the bricks were expanded up to half of the
mortar thickness in vertical and horizontal directions, and
the mortar was clamped (i.e., zero thickness) into mortar
interface. The expanded brick elements were modeled as
inelastic continuum elements and they were connected by
the head and bed joints represented by discontinuous
interfaces (Fig. 5c). Similarly, the concrete frame elements
were connected to the expanded brick units by discontin-
uous concrete-to-infill interfaces in the vertical and hori-
zontal directions (Fig. 5b). In case of infill walls, shear
cracks usually pass through the bond between brick and
mortar. With this prior knowledge of crack location and
propagation, the idea behind using the cohesive interfaces
for mortar is to smear cracks between the continuum ele-
ments. Implementation of this approach enabled the
incorporation of frictional resistance after cohesive
strength started diminishing. Detailed interface modeling is
discussed in the next section.
2.4 Interface Modeling
The interfaces at head and bed joints between brick ele-
ments as well as the concrete to infill interfaces require
proper modeling. For interaction modeling, the general
contact algorithm of ABAQUS/Explicit was used with all
with self contact domain (i.e., the surfaces that interact with
one another), in addition to global property assignment and
individual property assignments of bed joint, head joint,
and concrete-to-masonry unit joint for each surface pair.
For the interaction property definitions, an understanding
of the failure modes of bond between different elements is
y
x
z model, there is no slip till the tangential stress reaches
(a)
(b)
Tangential Interaction Surface Normal Interaction Surface
(cohesive and friction properties) (cohesive properties)
Fig. 6 Interface definition for brick masonry: a, b tangential direction,
and c normal direction
required. As shown in Fig. 6, the first two modes are in the
tangential direction, in which interaction can be modeled
by friction and cohesion properties. The third mode is in
the normal direction, in which only cohesive properties
exist. Though strength in the three modes may differ for
anisotropic material, failure modes in tangential directions
were assumed to be the same for brevity. The initial shear
strength of masonry interfaces can be represented by the
Mohr–Coulomb model, which can be expressed as scr-
= c ? lrn, where c is the cohesive strength of the inter-
face, l is the coefficient of friction, and rn is the normal
stress on the interface. Once the shear stress reaches scr, the
cohesive strength starts degrading, and friction starts
resisting the deformation after complete degradation of
cohesion.
Cohesive behavior was simulated by the traction–sep-
aration behavior, which assumes an initial linear elastic
traction–separation law prior to damage as shown in
Fig. 7a. Uncoupled traction–separation behavior was used
so that pure normal separation does not give rise to tan-
gential forces and vice versa. The required data for normal
and tangential cohesive stiffnesses (knn, kss, and ktt) can be
calibrated using experimental results, or mathematical
relations reported in the past [52–54]; the obtained cali-
brated values were 4 MPa/mm. Varying degree of damage
was simulated by reduction in cohesive interfaces includ-
ing failure in two stages represented first by damage ini-
tiation and then by damage evolution. The damage
initiation criterion was specified in terms of maximum
nominal stress in quadratic traction criterion. As experi-
mental data for bed joint strengths in normal and tangential
directions was not available, some relevant data from the
past was considered as reference [53, 55, 56] for calibra-
tion, and the obtained values were 0.14 MPa and
0.56 MPa, respectively. After the damage initiation, a
linear damage evolution law, as shown in Fig. 7a, was
adopted to simulate the rate of degradation of the cohesive
stiffness. It was specified in terms of effective separation or
total/plastic displacement (which was considered as 1.5 as
given in Table 2).
Subsequently, as the cohesive strength degrades, the
friction model activates to further resist the shear defor-
mation of the joints as shown in Fig. 7b. The classical
isotropic coulomb friction model was used for all the
interfaces. According to the standard Coulomb friction
maximum shear stress (Fig. 7b). Here, as the penalty for-
mulation was used for implementation of the friction
(c)
constraint, it creates sticking stiffness with some finite
elastic slip depending upon the penalty stiffness. Thus,
infinite stiffness was selected for the elastic slip stiffness
ensuring no elastic slip. The friction coefficient value for
the interfaces was specified as 0.8 for brick–mortar and
123
 International Journal of Civil Engineering

Standard Column
friction model

Contact Pressure
(Nominal Stress)
Damage initiation

Shear Stress
In contact

Traction
Damage evolution Slipping friction (any pressure possible)
Sticking friction
No contact
Cohesive (no pressure)
stiffness
Separation Total Slip Clearance
(a) (b) (c)

Fig. 7 Typical interaction behavior: a cohesive traction–separation law, b friction model, and c normal pressure-overclosure relationship for hard
contact

masonry–frame interfaces. In the normal direction, pres-
sure–overclosure relationship of the surfaces defines the
contact pressure between two surfaces at a point as a
function of the overclosure or interpenetration. Here, as
shown in Fig. 7c, hard contact was assigned along with
default constraint to avoid penetration of finite elements.
According to this rule, any pressure is possible when the
surfaces come into contact and zero pressure when there
are tensile forces across the interface. On the closure of
cracks under compression, the compressive forces are
transferred completely across the interface.
2.5 Boundary and Loading Conditions
The bottom beam was considered fixed by using the en-
castre boundary condition at the base. A loading sequence
similar to the experimental conditions was applied as an
input starting from the full intensity of gravity loading in
the first stage, followed by the cyclic lateral loading in the
form of lateral displacement with smooth step increase in
amplitude. Three cycles of different drift levels were
applied on the specimens incrementally. These drift levels
were incremented in smaller equal steps of 0.15% lateral
drift until 1.54% drift level, because the specimens had
higher stiffness in the initial stages. The drift increment
was later increased to 0.30% when the specimens started
showing the inelastic behavior so that the ultimate limit
state can be captured quickly because the damage was
found to continue in the original locations. Though the tests
were continued until the capacity of the specimen was
reduced to at least 75% or the failure of the frame became
imminent, the numerical results were compared with the
experimental results only till 3% lateral drift for better
visibility of the comparative envelop curves. The devia-
tions increased significantly beyond 3% lateral drift, which
was already too high in comparison to the design level
drifts. In the experimental study, a slow rate of lateral
loading was adopted, and therefore, the frequency of cyclic
lateral loading in FE analysis was kept as 10 Hz for which
the conditions for the application of slow loading were
satisfied, i.e., ratio of kinetic energy to the total energy was
below 5% [37, 40, 44].
3 Results of FE Analyses
The experimental lateral load responses of one solid infil-
led RC frame, six infilled frames (IF) with openings, and
one bare frame (BF) were compared with those obtained in
the FE analyses. The primary objective of the comparative

Table 3 Comparison of FE and test results for the eight frames

Ar(%) Push Pull
Peak load (kN) Drift at peak load (%) Peak load (kN) Drift at peak load (%)
Tests FE Error (%) Tests FE Error (%) Tests FE Error (%) Tests FE Error (%)

0 104.5 93.2 10.8 0.4 0.6 – 50.0 106.7 92.5 13.3 0.5 0.6 – 20.0
3 87.5 86.1 1.6 0.6 0.9 – 50.0 66.5 75.4 – 13.4 0.8 0.6 25.0
10 71.0 76.5 – 7.7 0.8 0.7 12.5 71.3 70.3 1.4 0.8 0.6 25.0
20 77.6 65.4 15.7 1.1 1.2 – 9.1 73.5 66.5 9.5 1.1 1.5 – 36.4
30 56.6 63.4 – 12.0 1.8 1.3 27.8 51.1 59.4 – 16.2 2.1 1.5 28.6
40 49.8 58.0 – 16.5 1.8 2.3 – 27.8 52.1 56.4 – 8.3 2.4 2.2 8.3
50 54.3 58.2 – 7.2 2.1 2.0 4.8 55.1 58.4 – 6.0 2.1 2.2 – 4.8
100 42.4 46.5 – 9.7 3.0 3.1 – 3.3 33.9 46.9 – 38.3 3.1 2.8 9.7

123
International Journal of Civil Engineering

assessment of different key output parameters was to val- cracking in masonry followed by redistribution of loads in
idate the FE model for its further use in the parametric different parts of the infill wall. The initial stiffness
study. obtained from some of the numerical models was observed
to be slightly higher than the experimentally obtained
3.1 Backbone Curves stiffness, which may be due to the influence of non-quan-
tifiable parameters on the experimental results, like varia-
The hysteresis backbone curves obtained from the FE tion in material properties, non-ideal boundary conditions,
analyses for the eight frames are compared with their applied loads, etc. The numerical models predicted the
experimental counterparts in Table 3 and Fig. 8. The lateral load carrying capacity of infilled frames satisfacto-
comparison shows that the numerically obtained envelope rily in addition to simulating the corresponding drifts in
responses matched quite well with the experimentally both push and pull directions satisfactorily (Table 3). The
obtained results. The major beneficial influence of the maximum error in lateral strength estimation of infilled
simplified micro-model is that it captures quite efficiently frames was only 16.5% (for IF-Ar-40, i.e., infilled frame
various cracking and damages in different members with 40% Ar). The maximum error in lateral drift estima-
exhibited by minor drops and redistribution of the lateral tion of the infilled frames was higher (almost 50% in two
loads. These minor drops in the load in the numerically cases); however, it may be acceptable as the prediction of
obtained backbone curves occurred mainly due to the deformation capacity is a complex parameter for masonry
failure at contact surfaces that leads to the sliding of brick structures which depends on many variables related to
layers and reorientation of the stress flow with the increase material, geometrical properties, overburden loading, in
in the drift levels. Whereas, in case of the experimental addition to the heterogeneity and highly nonlinear behavior
study, the minor drops in the lateral loads was due to the of masonry.

120 120 120

IF-Ar-0 Push IF-Ar-3 Push IF-Ar-10 Push
Lateral Load (kN)

Lateral Load (kN)

Lateral Load (kN)

60 60 60

0 0 0

-60 -60 -60

Pull Pull Pull
-120 -120 -120
-3 -1.5 0 1.5 3 -3 -1.5 0 1.5 3 -3 -1.5 0 1.5 3
Lateral Drift (%) Lateral Drift (%) Lateral Drift (%)
120 120 120
IF-Ar-20 Push IF-Ar-30 Push IF-Ar-40 Push
Lateral Load (kN)

Lateral Load (kN)

Lateral Load (kN)

60 60 60

0 0 0

-60 -60 -60

Pull Pull Pull
-120 -120 -120
-3 -1.5 0 1.5 3 -3 -1.5 0 1.5 3 -3 -1.5 0 1.5 3
Lateral Drift (%) Lateral Drift (%) Lateral Drift (%)
120 120
IF-Ar-50 Push BF Push
Lateral Load (kN)

Lateral Load (kN)

60 60

0 0 Numerical
-60 -60 Experimental
Pull Pull
-120 -120
-3 -1.5 0 1.5 3 -3 -1.5 0 1.5 3
Lateral Drift (%) Lateral Drift (%)

Fig. 8 Comparison of numerical and experimental backbone curves for the considered eight frames. Note: IF-Ar-3 represent Infilled Frame with
3% Ar

123

3.2 Stress Variation Around Openings
Lateral load behavior of infill walls is best understood by
observing the developed stress patterns, especially around
the openings in order to compare the flow of compressive
stresses, formation of diagonal struts, and stress concen-
tration around openings. Figure 9 shows the variation in
minimum principal stresses in the considered frames for
the pull direction. For fully infilled frame, the stress dis-
tribution was uniform in the wall and the formation of a
diagonal strut was clearly visible along the loaded diago-
nal. However, with the presence of openings, stress path in
the walls got oriented around the openings, and the critical
corner crushing zone in masonry walls shifts to the opening
corners. For the frame with 10% Ar (IF-Ar-10), an almost
smooth diversion of stress flow was observed around the
opening. Whereas, in frames with 20% Ar and higher, the
stress path abruptly changed its direction around the
opening. Moreover, as expected the stress concentration
around openings increased with the size of the openings. It
can also be observed that discontinuous diagonal struts
formed in all the infill wall specimens with openings and
Fig. 9 Variation in minimum principal stress in the considered frames for pull direction
123
International Journal of Civil Engineering
Fig. 10 Comparison of the experimentally observed damage pattern c
with that observed numerically using equivalent plastic strain (PEEQ)
and cohesive surface damage (CSDMG) distribution for one fully
infilled RC frame and six infilled RC frames with 3% to 50% opening
clear compression zones were visible along the loading
direction.
3.3 Damage Pattern
The developed FE models predicted the experimentally
obtained damage patterns with high accuracy as shown in
Fig. 10, in which the equivalent plastic strain (PEEQ) and
cohesive surface damage (CSDMG) distribution are com-
pared with the damage observed experimentally. CSDMG
values of 0 and 1 represent undamaged material and
complete failure (no stiffness in the material), respectively,
for the cohesive surface. Damage representing the bed joint
cracks and diagonal stepped cracks in masonry can be
observed in the FE results of all the models. For walls with
openings, damage of masonry around openings resembles
International Journal of Civil Engineering

123

the experimental observations. Cracks in bricks were not
modeled explicitly in any of the models as it was not the
objective of the study. For the purpose of comparison,
specimens are classified into three categories based on the
slenderness ratio (SR) of masonry pier adjacent to the
opening: (i) SR less than 2.5, (ii) SR between 2.5 and 4,
and (iii) SR greater than 4. The frames IF-Ar-0 and IF-Ar-3,
having large pier size, fall in the first category, and behaved
quite similarly. Stepped cracks were observed in walls of
these frames initiated at low drift levels and propagated
towards the center of the wall; this can be seen in the FE
results too. The second category comprises of frames with
intermediate pier size, i.e., IF-Ar-10 and IF-Ar-20. In both
these frames, crushing was observed in masonry piers,
which is well captured by the FE models. Though crushing
of masonry in piers was also observed in IF-Ar-3, FE model
predicted mixed type of damage, i.e., bed joint sliding at
sill and lintel level, and crushing of masonry, which was
not distinctively observed experimentally. The frames
having slender piers fall in the third category (IF-Ar-30, IF-
Ar-40, and IF-Ar-50). For these specimens, damage can be
characterized by sliding of bed joint at sill and lintel level
and subsequent failure of masonry piers both in experi-
mental as well as FE observations.
3.4 Initial Stiffness
The presence of infill walls in RC frames has a huge
influence on lateral stiffness, which is sometimes ignored
in simplistic analysis process. Infill walls increase the ini-
tial stiffness of the frame resulting in the attraction of
larger lateral loads. The comparison between numerically
and experimentally obtained stiffnesses (Fig. 11) shows
consistent stiffness degradation with increasing Ar; overall
degradation being about 65–70% both experimentally and
numerically when Ar increased from 0 to 50%. The FE
models predicted slightly higher initial stiffness for most of
the cases with maximum prediction error of 30%. Though
30
Exp
Initial Stifness (kN/mm)
25
Num
20
15
10
5
0 0
0 10 20 30 40 50
Ar (%)
Fig. 11 Comparison of stiffness degradation with increasing opening
size
123
International Journal of Civil Engineering
the predictions are not precise enough, the FE model rea-
sonably captures the rate of reduction of stiffness with the
increase in the size of opening (Fig. 11), which validates
the numerical results.
3.5 Energy Dissipation Capacity
The hysteretic energy dissipated in each displacement
cycle was evaluated as the area enclosed under the hys-
teresis loops (first cycle was considered for each dis-
placement level). RC frame structures possess good energy
dissipation characteristics, and the inclusion of infill walls
further enhances the energy dissipation capacity due to
cracking in masonry along which bricks slide over each
other. In case of fully infilled frame, the damage pattern
was uniform and it possessed the highest energy dissipation
capacity as shown in Fig. 12. As expected, energy dissi-
pation capacity reduces with an increase in the area of wall
opening as the damage gets localized resulting in crack
formation in narrower zones near the corners of openings.
The numerically obtained energy dissipation capacity was
found to be very high compared to those obtained experi-
mentally for all the frames (Fig. 12). This is because for-
mation of individual cracks and the bond-slip behavior was
not simulated in the simplified micro-model used in the
present study. Therefore, the developed FE model was
unable to simulate the pinching effect properly, as shown
as an example in Fig. 13, resulting in an unrealistically
higher estimation of the cumulative energy dissipation.
Clearly, a method was required to correct the energy
dissipation capacity obtained using the simplified numeri-
cal models. The numerically obtained cumulative energy
dissipation capacity (EDNumerical) followed a common
trend with those obtained experimentally for all the frames
as observed in Fig. 12. Using this trend, the corrected
45
Fully Infilled
Exp Dissipated Energy (kNm)
3 % opening
10% opening
20% opening
30
30% opening
40% opening
50% opening
15
0
15 30 45
Numerical Dissipated Energy (kNm)
Fig. 12 Comparison of numerically and experimentally obtained
cumulative energy dissipation capacity for different loading cycles for
all the specimens
International Journal of Civil Engineering

70 70 70
3rd cycle 10th cycle 15th cycle

Lateral Load (kN)

Lateral Load (kN)

Lateral Load (kN)
35 35 35

0 0 0

-35 Exp -35 -35

Exp Exp
Num Num Num
-70 -70 -70
-1.0 -0.5 0.0 0.5 1.0 -3.0 -1.5 0.0 1.5 3.0 -6.0 -3.0 0.0 3.0 6.0
Drift (%) Drift (%) Drift (%)

Fig. 13 Comparison of experimentally obtained hysteresis curves with their numerical counterparts at different loading cycles for the infilled
frame with 20% Ar

50 40 40
Dissipated Energy (kNm)

Dissipated Energy (kNm)

Dissipated Energy (kNm)

0% Ar 3% Ar 10% Ar
40
30 30
30
20 20
20
10 10
10

0 0 0
0 6 12 18 0 6 12 18 0 6 12 18
Drift Cycles Drift Cycles Drift Cycles
30 30 30
Dissipated Energy (kNm)

Dissipated Energy (kNm)

Dissipated Energy (kNm)

20% Ar 30% Ar 40% Ar

25 25 25
20 20 20
15 15 15
10 10 10
5 5 5
0 0 0
0 6 12 18 0 6 12 18 0 6 12 18
Drift Cycles Drift Cycles Drift Cycles
30
Dissipated Energy (kNm)

50% Ar
25
20
15
10
5
0
0 6 12 18
Drift Cycles

Fig.14 Corrected cumulative energy dissipation capacity for all the specimens

cumulative energy dissipation capacity (EDCorrected) was The correction factor of Eq. (1) was further used in the
obtained by regression analysis of the energy dissipation parametric study.
data as given by Eq. (1) as
 
EDCorrected ¼ 2:347ðEDNumerical Þ0:8 R2 ¼ 0:9563 ð1Þ 4 Parametric FE Study
where EDCorrected and EDNumerical are to be considered in
Nm. The correction factor was found to be very effective in The present FE study as well as past research studies and
reducing the numerically obtained energy dissipation performance during earthquakes have shown that openings
capacity to the experimental values as shown in Fig. 14. in infill walls play a major role in influencing the lateral
load response of RC frame buildings. The interaction

123

between the RC frame and infill walls is quite complex and
becomes more difficult to predict when openings are pre-
sent in the walls. The developed FE models were used in a
systematic parametric FE study to study their lateral load
behavior as a function of aspect ratio (AR) of RC frame,
size of openings, and location of openings. The FE models
were calibrated with the experimental specimens whose
AR was 1.0. To study the lateral behavior of the frames of
different AR and having varying sizes and locations of
openings in infill walls, it was deemed important to not
change the original design of the frame. Therefore, the AR
was chosen by carrying out a comparative lateral load
analysis such that the design force resultants in columns
according to BIS [49] do not vary by more than 15%, so
that the same design of RC members can be safely utilized.
Figure 15 shows the variation in shear force (SF) and
bending moment (BM) in the columns due to the change in
wall AR. Based on this analysis, aspect ratios of 0.75, 1.0
and 1.33 were chosen for the RC frames in the parametric
FE study by varying the wall length and keeping its height
constant as 1.5 m. Four opening sizes with opening area
ratios (Ar) of 3%, 10%, 20%, and 30% and three opening
locations in each opening size—central, left eccentric, and
right eccentric—were considered as shown in Fig. 16. The
openings towards the loading end are termed as left
eccentric and those away from it are termed as right
eccentric. The opening configurations were chosen by
horizontally shifting the openings towards the columns by
leaving a minimum width of masonry for supporting the
lintel (half-brick or full brick wide depending upon the size
of the openings). Influence of opening sizes higher than
30% and that of vertical shifting of openings was not
studied as these are not common in real construction. Thus,
in total, 39 simplified FE micro models (3 solid frames and
3 9 4 9 3 = 36 frames with openings) were analyzed and
studied considering the variation in aspect ratio, size of
opening, and location of opening.
15
Change in Force Resultants (%)
10
5
0 the squat frame (AR 1.0) was about 12%, 11%, 9%, and
-5
-10
-15
1.33 1.25 1.2 1.1
Aspect Ratio
Fig.15 Change in design force resultants in columns of RC frames
with different aspect ratios
123
International Journal of Civil Engineering
The sensitivity of the obtained lateral strength, stiffness,
and energy dissipation to the influencing input parameters
of the frame, such as aspect ratio of the frame, size of
openings, and location of openings, are compared in the
following sections.
4.1 Influence on Lateral Strength
All the input parameters were found to have a significant
influence on lateral strength of these frames. Figure 17
shows the variation in the lateral strength due to changes in
Ar and AR; the strength values obtained for different
frames (on Y-axis) were normalized with respect to the
strength of the solid infilled frame with AR = 1.0. As
discussed earlier, the lateral strength decreases as Ar
increases in all three AR cases (Fig. 17), e.g., the nor-
malized strength of the frame with 30% central opening
reduced by about 30%, 30% and 17% for the frames with
AR = 0.75, 1.0, and 1.33, respectively. Infilled frames with
AR less than 1.0, i.e., the squat walls exhibiting shear type
behavior, derive much lateral strength from masonry infill.
Whereas, for infilled frames with AR greater than 1.0, i.e.,
for slender walls, flexure type behavior dominates and
masonry infill is not utilized to its capacity. For fully
infilled frame without opening (Ar = 0%), the lateral
strength increased by about 10% (normalized strength =
1.1) when AR was reduced to 0.75 from 1.0, and
decreased by about 20% (normalized strength = 0.8) when
AR was increased to 1.33 from 1.0. Thus, the sensitivity of
lateral strength to AR was comparatively more for the
slender wall with no openings. However, this sensitivity
diminished for walls with higher opening sizes. For the
frames with 30% opening, the lateral strength increased by
11% for frame with AR 0.75 and decreased by only 3% for
frame with AR 1.33 in comparison to the frame with AR
1.0.
The variation in the lateral strength because of the
horizontal (left or right) shifting of the opening is shown in
Fig. 18. The lateral strengths (on Y-axis) are normalized
with respect to the strength of the corresponding solid
infilled RC frame with no opening (Ar of 0%,). The lateral
strength was not found to be much affected by the opening
location; the maximum difference in the lateral strength of
8% for the frames with Ar of 3%, 10%, 20%, and 30%,
respectively. For the other frames with higher AR, the
% change in SF difference in the lateral strengths was even lesser.
% change in BM
4.2 Influence on Initial Stiffness
1 0.91 0.85 0.83 0.75
Initial stiffness of masonry infilled RC frames is several
times higher than the corresponding bare frames. From the
parametric study, the initial stiffness was also observed to
International Journal of Civil Engineering

Wall Ar 3% Ar 10% Ar 20% Ar 30%

Openings
AR 0.75 AR 0.75 AR 0.75 AR 0.75

Ar 3% Ar 10% Ar 20% Ar 30%

AR 1.0 AR 1.0 AR 1.0 AR 1.0

Ar 3% Ar 10% Ar 20% Ar 30%

AR 1.33 AR 1.33 AR 1.33 AR 1.33

Left Eccentric Opening Central Opening Right Eccentric Opening

Fig.16 Masonry infilled RC frames with different opening area ratio (Ar), opening placement, and aspect ratio (AR) considered in the parametric
FE study

1.2 1.6

Normalized Initial Stiffness

AR=0.75 AR=0.75
AR=1.00 AR=1.00
Normalized Strength

1.0 AR=1.33 1.2 AR=1.33

Bare Frame Bare Frame

0.8 0.8

0.6 0.4

0.4 0.0
0 10 20 30 0 10 20 30
Ar (%) Ar (%)

Fig.17 Sensitivity of the lateral strength to size of central opening and Fig.19 Sensitivity of lateral stiffness to size of central opening and
wall aspect ratio wall aspect ratio

be highly influenced by Ar and AR as shown in Fig. 19. For the presence of 30% central opening was about 53%, 47%
instance, the reduction in initial stiffness, normalized with and 48% for the frames with AR = 0.75, 1.0 and 1.33,
respect to the initial stiffness of solid infill frames, due to respectively, in comparison to the solid walls. When AR

1.00 1.00 1.00

AR=0.75 AR=1.00 AR=1.33
Normalized Strength

L C R
0.90 0.90 0.90

0.80 0.80 0.80

0.70 0.70 0.70

0.60 0.60 0.60

0 3 10 20 30 0 3 10 20 30 0 3 10 20 30
Ar (%) Ar (%) Ar (%)
(a) (b) (c)

Fig.18 Sensitivity of lateral strength to aspect ratio, size of opening, and location of opening. L, C, and R represent left eccentric, central, and
right eccentric opening

123
 International Journal of Civil Engineering

1.00 1.00 1.00

AR=0.75 AR=1.00 AR=1.33

Normalized Stiffness
L C R
0.80 0.80 0.80

0.60 0.60 0.60

0.40 0.40 0.40

0.20 0.20 0.20

0 3 10 20 30 0 3 10 20 30 0 3 10 20 30
Ar (%) Ar (%) Ar (%)
(a) (b) (c)

Fig. 20 Sensitivity of lateral stiffness to aspect ratio, size of opening, and location of opening

was reduced from 1.0 to 0.75, the initial stiffness increased opening in infill walls dissipated higher energy because of
by 47% for fully infilled RC frame. On the other hand, the the uniform distribution of damage over the entire wall area
initial stiffness reduced by 13% when AR was increased to exhibiting shear dominating behavior. Whereas, frames
1.33 from 1.0. Clearly, the sensitivity of initial stiffness to with higher aspect ratios generally fail in flexural mode,
AR is higher for squat solid frames having lower AR. where cracks do not spread across the whole wall. When
Further, for these infilled frames with 30% central opening, three solid infilled RC frames with different AR were
the stiffness was 32% higher for AR = 0.75, and 16% compared from the parametric study, it was observed that
lower for AR = 1.33 compared to the frame with AR = the corrected cumulative energy dissipation capacity for
1.0. Thus, the variation in initial stiffness tends to con- frame (obtained using Eq. 1) with AR = 1.33 was about
verge at higher opening area ratios, signifying that increase 18% lesser than the frame with AR = 1, whereas it was
in opening size reduces the influence of AR on initial about 5% higher for the frame with AR = 0.75. This dif-
stiffness. Though in most cases, the initial stiffness did not ference in the corrected energy dissipation capacity
change much due to a change in the opening position reduced with increasing opening size and remains almost
(Fig. 20), the maximum difference in the initial stiffness the same for all three aspect ratios beyond 20% Ar as
due to horizontal shifting of opening was found to be about shown in Fig. 21. The energy dissipation capacity of the
50% in a few frames of AR 1.33 and higher opening size frames with 30% opening reduced by about 35%, 30%, and
(Fig. 20c). Clearly, the influence of location of opening 18% for aspect ratio of 0.75, 1.0, and 1.33, respectively, in
was significant only in case of slender specimens having comparison to the solid infilled frame. The comparison in
larger opening sizes. Fig. 22 shows that horizontal shifting of the opening
position resulted in about 32% change (maximum) in the
4.3 Influence on Energy Dissipation energy dissipation capacity for the frame with AR 0.75. For
most of the cases, the influence of size and location of
Due to the reasons already specified, the energy dissipation openings was prominent for lower aspect ratio and lower
capacity was corrected and normalized with respect to that opening area ratio. It was observed that in squat frames
of the solid infilled frames having AR = 1.0. As shown in (AR B 1), the energy dissipation capacity gets enhanced in
Fig. 21, squat frames (low AR of 0.75) with any size of the later cycles of loading when damage gets evenly dis-
tributed as shown in Fig. 23. A noticeable influence of
1.1 opening sizes was observed on the energy dissipation
AR=0.75
Normalized Dissipated Energy

AR=1.00 capacity of the squat frames at higher loading cycles. With

1.0
AR=1.33 an increase in the size of the openings, the damage gets
0.9 localized around openings resulting in a reduction of the
energy dissipation capacity. Whereas, in slender frames,
0.8
the flexural cracks did not spread evenly resulting in the
0.7 lowest energy dissipation capacity, which was not much
affected by opening sizes as well.
0.6
0 10 20 30
Ar (%)

Fig. 21 Sensitivity of energy dissipation to size of central opening

and wall aspect ratio

123
International Journal of Civil Engineering

1.00 1.00 1.00

AR=0.75 AR=1.00 AR=1.33
L C R

Normalized ED
0.80 0.80 0.80

0.60 0.60 0.60

0.40 0.40 0.40

0.20 0.20 0.20

0 3 10 20 30 0 3 10 20 30 0 3 10 20 30
Ar (%) Ar (%) Ar (%)
(a) (b) (c)

Fig. 22 Sensitivity of energy dissipation (ED) to aspect ratio, size of opening, and location of opening

12000 Ar Ar
ED Capacity (kN-mm)

AR 0.75 AR 1.0 AR 1.33

0% 0% Ar
9000 0%

6000

3000 30% 30% 30%

0
0 5 10 15 0 5 10 15 0 5 10 15
Loading Cycles Loading Cycles Loading Cycles
(a) (b) (c)

Fig. 23 Variation in energy dissipation (ED) with loading cycles

5 Summary and Conclusion
It is a well-known fact that masonry infill walls alter the
seismic behaviour of RC frames significantly. Designers
can use this significant effect of masonry infill walls to the
advantage of RC frames for improving their lateral load
behaviour. It requires a detailed understanding of the effect
of different input parameters on lateral load characteristics
of such frames before such an advantage can be envisaged.
Some of the common configuration-related parameters that
are generally varied in construction practice are the aspect
ratio of the frame, size of openings in the walls, and
location of openings in the walls. This study focuses on
numerical analyses of the in-plane lateral load behavior of
masonry-infilled RC frames having openings in infill walls.
Half-scaled test specimens of RC frames constructed with
masonry infill walls with and without openings were con-
sidered for the development of 3D finite element models
for simulation of lateral load behaviour of these frames.
For modeling the masonry infills, masonry was considered
as heterogeneous material and a simplified micro-modeling
technique was presented by extending the dimensions of
the brick units to include the thickness of the mortar joints
in all the directions. The interface between different ele-
ments was simulated by using an interface failure criterion
that includes straight tension cut-off in normal direction,
whereas the effect of friction and cohesion in shear direc-
tion was modeled using traction–separation law with linear
softening.
The developed micro-model was found to be capable of
simulating the local interaction between masonry compo-
nents and also of reproducing the experimental behavior
reasonably well. The development of the simplified micro-
model for numerical simulation of such frames provides an
alternative way to study their nonlinear behavior consid-
ering different geometrical configurations and uncertain-
ties. This can reduce the number of expensive laboratory
tests that are otherwise required for gaining such a detailed
understanding on the behavior of structures under the
action of lateral loads. The developed FE models were then
used in a parametric study by considering the variation in
wall aspect ratio, size of openings in the walls, and location
of openings to comprehend the effect of these input
parameters on different lateral load characteristics of such
frames. From the study, it was observed that for all the
frames having different AR, the output parameters such as
lateral strength, lateral stiffness, and energy dissipation
capacity reduced with an increase in the size of the open-
ings. As the wall aspect ratio reduced, the values of these
output parameters increased and vice-versa. The influence
of the aspect ratio on lateral strength, stiffness, and energy
dissipation was more significant for solid walls. As the size

123

of openings in wall increased, the influence of the aspect
ratio on the output parameters drastically reduced. For
more than 20% opening, the contribution of infill reduced
significantly and frames with different aspect ratios pro-
vided an almost similar range of strength, stiffness, and
energy dissipation capacity. Interestingly, the influence of
horizontal eccentricity in wall openings was found to be
insignificant for most of the frames. It is important to note
here that weaker masonry (with 3.9 MPa compressive
prism strength) was used in the current study. Thus, it can
be expected that the sensitivity of opening location may
increase if stronger masonry is used as infill. Moreover,
though the global output parameters considered in the
study did not vary much due to different opening locations,
the force resultants in the columns under lateral loading
may differ significantly. It will be interesting to explore
this aspect in a future study, which will definitely govern
the design and safety of the frame. Additional experimental
and numerical studies are required for developing gener-
alized design guidelines for masonry infilled RC frames
with wall openings.
Author Contributions All authors contributed to the study conception
and design. Material preparation, data collection and analysis were
performed by [BB], [SN] and [VA]. The first draft of the manuscript
was written by [SN] and all authors commented on previous versions
of the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.
Data availability Datasets generated during the current study are
available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.
Declarations
Conflict of Interest There are no relevant financial or non-financial
competing interests to report. On behalf of all authors, the corre-
sponding author states that there is no conflict of interest.
References
1. Kaushik HB, Rai DC, Jain SK (2006) Code approaches to seismic
design of masonry infilled reinforced concrete frames: a state-of-
the-art review. Earthq Spectra 22(4):961–983
2. Kaltakcı MY, Köken A, Korkmaz HH (2006) Analytical solutions
using the equivalent strut tie method of infilled steel frames and
experimental verification. Can J Civ Eng 33(5):632–638
3. Drysdale RG, Hamid AA (2005) ‘‘Masonry Structures Behaviour
and Design.’’ Canada Masonry Design Center, Mississauga,
Ontario, Canada, 531–562
4. El-Dakhakhni WW, Elgaaly M, Hamid AA (2003) Three-strut
model for concrete masonry-infilled steel frames. J Struct Eng
129(2):177–185
5. Mann W, Müller H (1982) Failure of shear-stresses masonry - an
enlarged theory, tests and application to shear walls. Proc British
Ceramic Soc 30:139–149
123
International Journal of Civil Engineering
6. Choudhury T, Kaushik HB (2018) Seismic fragility of open
ground storey rc frames with wall openings for vulnerability
assessment. Eng Struct 155:345–357
7. Basha SH, Kaushik HB (2016) Behavior and failure mechanisms
of masonry-infilled RC frames (in low-rise buildings) subject to
lateral loading. Eng Struct 111:233–245
8. Surendran S, Kaushik HB (2012) Masonry infill RC frames with
openings: review of in-plane lateral load behaviour and modeling
approaches. Open Construct Build Technol J Bentham Sci Pub-
lish 6(1):126–154
9. Kaushik HB, Rai DC, Jain SK (2009) Effectiveness of some
strengthening options for masonry-infilled RC frames with open
first story. J Struct Eng ASCE 135(8):925–937
10. Smith BS, Coull A (1991) Chapter 8: Infilled-frame structures.
‘‘Tall Building Structures: Analysis & Design,’’ New York: John
Wiley & Sons, Inc., 168–183
11. Mainstone RJ (1971) On the stiffness and strength of infilled
frames. Proc Institut Civil Eng 49(2):57–90
12. Smith BS, Carter C (1969) A method of analysis for infilled
frames. Proc Inst Civ Eng 44(1):31–48
13. Asteris PG, Antoniou ST, Sophianopoulos DS, Chrysostomou CZ
(2011) Mathematical macro-modeling of infilled frames: state-of-
the-art. J Struct Eng ASCE 137(12):1508–1517
14. Chen SY, Moon FL, Yi T (2008) A macro-element for the non-
linear analysis of in-plane unreinforced masonry piers. Eng Struct
30(8):2242–2252
15. Mohebkhah A, Tasnimi AA, Moghadam HA (2008) Nonlinear
analysis of masonry-infilled steel frames with openings using
discrete element method. J Constr Steel Res 64:1463–1472
16. Chiou YJ, Tzeng JC, Liou YW (2006) Experimental and ana-
lytical study of masonry infilled frames. J Struct Eng ASCE
125(10):1109–1117
17. Dolšek M, Fajfar P (2005) Simplified non-linear seismic analysis
of infilled reinforced concrete frames. Earthq Eng Struct Dynam
34:49–66
18. Kappos AJ, Stylianidis KC, Michailidis CN (1998) Analytical
models for brick masonry infilled RC frames under lateral load-
ing. J Earthq Eng Imper College Press London 2(1):59–87
19. Mohamed HM, Romao X (2018) Performance analysis of a
detailed FE modelling strategy to simulate the behaviour of
masonry-infilled RC frames under cyclic loading. Earthq Struct
14(6):551–565
20. Nasiri E, Liu Y (2017) Development of a detailed 3D FE model
for analysis of the in-plane behaviour of masonry infilled concrete
frames. Eng Struct 143:603–616
21. Noh NM, Liberatore L, Mollaioli F, Tesfamariam S (2017)
Modelling of masonry infilled RC frames subjected to cyclic
loads: State of the art review and modelling with OpenSees. Eng
Struct 150:599–621
22. Zhai C, Wang X, Kong J, Li S, Xie L (2017) Numerical simu-
lation of masonry-infilled RC frames using XFEM. J Struct Eng
143(10):04017144
23. Zhai C, Kong J, Wang X, Chen Z (2016) Experimental and finite
element analytical investigation of seismic behavior of full-scale
masonry infilled RC frames. J Earthq Eng 20(7):1171–1198
24. Koutromanos I, Stavridis A, Shing PB, Willam K (2011)
Numerical modeling of masonry-infilled RC frames subjected to
seismic loads. Comput Struct 89:1026–1037
25. Stavridis A, Shing PB (2010) Finite-element modeling of non-
linear behavior of masonry-infilled RC frames. J Struct Eng
136(3):285–296
26. Ghosh AK, Amde AM (2002) Finite element analysis of infilled
frames. J Struct Eng 128(7):881–889
27. Mehrabi AB, Shing PB (1997) Finite element modeling of
masonry-infilled RC frames. J Struct Eng 123(5):604–613
International Journal of Civil Engineering
28. Shing PB, Lofti HR, Barzegarmehrabi A, Bunner J (1992) Finite
element analysis of shear resistance of masonry wall panels with
and without confining frames. In Proceedings of the Tenth World
Conference on Earthquake Engineering 1(10):2581–2586
29. Lotfi HR, Shing PB (1991) An appraisal of smeared crack models
for masonry shear wall analysis. Comput Struct 41(3):413–425
30. Achyutha H, Jagadish R, Rao PS, Rahman SS (1986) Finite
element simulation of the elastic behaviour of infilled frames with
openings. Comput Struct 23(5):685–696
31. Tasnimi AA, Mohebkhah A (2011) Investigation on the behavior
of brick-infilled steel frames with openings, experimental and
analytical approaches. Eng Struct 33:968–980
32. Voon KC, Ingham JM (2008) Experimental in-plane strength
investigation of reinforced concrete masonry walls with open-
ings. J Struct Eng ASCE 134(5):758–768
33. Mondal G, Jain SK (2008) Lateral stiffness of masonry infilled
Reinforced Concrete (RC) frames with central opening. Earthq
Spectra 24(3):701–723
34. Kakaletsis DJ, Karayannis C (2007) Experimental investigation
of infilled R/C frames with eccentric openings. Struct Eng Mech
26(3):231–250
35. Schneider SP, Zagers BR, Abrams DP (1998) Lateral strength of
steel frames with masonry infills having large opening. J Struct
Eng ASCE 124(8):896–904
36. Basha S, Surendran S, Kaushik HB (2020) Empirical models for
lateral stiffness and strength of masonry-infilled RC frames
considering the influence of openings. J Struct Eng ASCE
146(4):04020021
37. Rai DC, Selvaraj BR, Sagar L (2021) Masonry-infilled RC frames
strengthened with fabric-reinforced cementitious matrix. In
emerging trends of advanced composite materials in structural
applications (pp. 31–65). Springer, Singapore
38. Borah B, Kaushik HB, Singhal V (2021) Development of a novel
V-D strut model for seismic analysis of confined masonry
buildings. J Struct Eng 147(3):04021001
39. Borah B, Singhal V, Kaushik HB (2021) Assessment of seismic
design provisions for confined masonry using experimental and
numerical approaches. Eng Struct 245:112864
40. Borah B, Kaushik HB, Singhal V (2020) ‘‘Finite element mod-
elling of confined masonry wall under in-plane cyclic load’’, IOP
Conf. Series: Materials Science and Engineering 936 012020,
IOP Publishing
41. Borah B, Kaushik HB, Singhal V (2022) Seismic force distri-
bution in members of confined masonry buildings. Eng Struct
266:114605
42. Bolhassani M, Hamid AA, Lau AC, Moon F (2015) Simplified
micro modeling of partially grouted masonry assemblages.
Constr Build Mater 83:159–173
43. Sümer Y, Aktaş M (2015) Defining parameters for concrete
damage plasticity model. Challenge J Struct Mech 1(3):149–155
44. Simulia (2011) ABAQUS analysis user’s manual (Version 6.11).
Hibbitt, Karlsson, and Sorenson, Pawtucket, R.I
45. Michał S, Andrzej W (2015) ‘‘Calibration of the CDP model
parameters in Abaqus.’’ World Congress on Advances in Struc-
tural Engineering and Mechanics (ASEM15), 25–29 August
2015, Songdo Convensia in Incheon, Korea
46. Park YJ, Reinhorn AM, Kunnath SK (1987) Inelastic damage
analysis of reinforced concrete frame (IDARC) -shear-wall
structures. NCEER-87-0008. National Center for Earthquake
Engineering Research; Buffalo, NY
47. Kent DC, Park R (1971) Flexural members with confined con-
crete. J Struct Divis 97(7):1969–1990
48. Wahalathantri BL, Thambiratnam DP, Chan THT, Fawzia S
(2011) ‘‘A material model for flexural crack simulation in rein-
forced concrete elements using Abaqus.’’ Cowled CJL (Ed.),
Proceedings of the First International Postgraduate Conference on
Engineering, Designing and Developing the Built Environment
for Sustainable Wellbeing, Queensland University of Technol-
ogy, Australia, 260–264
49. BIS (2000) ‘‘Indian standard plain and reinforced concrete-code
of practice.’’ IS 456, 4th Rev., Bureau of Indian Standards, New
Delhi, India
50. Basha SH, Kaushik HB (2015) Evaluation of non-linear material
properties of Fly Ash Brick Masonry under Compression and
Shear. J Mater Civil Eng 27(8) https://doi.org/10.1061/
(ASCE)MT.1943-5533.0001188
51. Akhaveissy AH, Desai CS (2011) Unreinforced masonry walls:
nonlinear finite element analysis with a unified constitutive
model. Arch Comput Methods Eng 18(4):485
52. Penava D, Sigmund V, Kožar I (2016) Validation of a simplified
micromodel for analysis of infilled RC frames exposed to cyclic
lateral loads. Bull Earthq Eng 14(10):2779–2804
53. Selvaraj BR (2015) Analytical out-of-plane response of Fabric-
Reinforced Cementitious Matrix (FRCM) strengthened masonry
infilled Reinforced Concrete frames with prior in-plane damage.
M. Tech. thesis, IIT Kanpur
54. Sendra González L (2010) Numerical analysis of the out-of-plane
behavior of unreinforced masonry walls
55. Riahi Z, Elwood KJ, Alcocer SM (2009) Backbone model for
confined masonry walls for performance-based seismic design.
J Struct Eng 135(6):644–654
56. Singhal V, Rai DC (2014) Suitability of half-scale burnt clay
bricks for shake table tests on masonry walls. ASCE J Mater Civil
Eng 26(4):644–657
Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds
exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the
author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the
accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the
terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.
123