Theoretical/experimental Study of Reinforced-Concrete Frame With Masonry Infill

Structures and Buildings
Volume 169 Issue SB11

Theoretical/experimental study of
reinforced-concrete frame with
masonry infill
Bob, Marginean and Scurt
Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers

Structures and Buildings 169 November 2016 Issue SB11
Pages 825839 http://dx.doi.org/10.1680/jstbu.15.00051
Paper 1500051
Received 14/04/2015
Accepted 15/04/2016
Published online 27/05/2016
Keywords: buildings, structures & design/composite structures/
seismic engineering
ICE Publishing: All rights reserved
Theoretical/experimental study
of reinforced-concrete frame
with masonry infill
1
&
Corneliu Bob Dipl. Eng., PhD
Professor, Civil Engineering Department, Politehnica University of

Timisoara, Timisoara, Romania
3
&
Adriana Scurt Dipl. Eng.
Teaching Assistant, Civil Engineering Department, University of

Oradea, Oradea, Romania
2
&
Sorin Marginean Dipl. Eng.
Senior Lecturer, Civil Engineering Department, University of Oradea,

Oradea, Romania (corresponding author: sorin.marginean@gmail.com)
This paper presents the results of a set of experiments on reinforced-concrete (RC) frames with and without masonry
infill. The experiments were performed on a RC frame with one span and one level. This structure was tested both as
a reference frame without masonry infill and as a frame with infill walls made of solid bricks, bricks with vertical
hollows and cellular concrete bricks. Each structure was loaded with vertical and alternating horizontal forces applied
in the frame plane. The main results of the tests, including shear resistance, structure stiffness and structure ductility,
are reported and discussed. The technical literature on the behaviour of a RC frame with and without masonry infill in
response to seismic actions is also presented in this paper. Finally, a comparison of the theoretical calculation with the
experimental results for the shear resistance and structure stiffness for the reference frame and the masonry panels is
summarised.
Notation
Ab
Ac
Am
bw, d
Dh
dm
Ec
Em
F (VR)
FC
Fl-h
Fr-h
F SLS
fc
fck
fcm
fm
ft
ftm
fvk
fvm
cross-sectional area of beam

cross-sectional area of column
horizontal cross-sectional area of infill
dimensions of member cross-section
energy dissipated by structure (area enclosed by
curve F, charge and discharge curves)
diagonal length of infill
Youngs modulus of concrete
Youngs modulus of infill
horizontal load applied to structure
first cracking horizontal load
horizontal load applied left-hand to the structure
horizontal load applied right-hand to the structure
horizontal load corresponding to SLS
ra
compressive strength of mortar
compressive strength of concrete
compressive strength of concrete
compressive strength of masonry
tensile strength of mortar
tensile strength of masonry
characteristic shear strength of masonry
average shear strength of masonry
Gm
H
Hl
Ib
Ic
K
Kf
Km
kb
kc
kd
L
Ll
lc
t
VR,mf
VR,mi
VRd,c
w
modulus of rigidity of infill

height of infill
height of column
moment of inertia of cross-sectional area of beam
moment of inertia of cross-sectional area of column
stiffness of structure
stiffness of frame
contribution of infill to lateral stiffness
axial stiffness of beam
axial stiffness of column
axial stiffness of diagonal strut
length of infill
length of beam
length of contact zone between frame and infill
thickness of infill
final shear capacity of infill
initial shear capacity of infill
shear resistance of reinforced-concrete frame
width of equivalent diagonal strut
angle between main diagonal and the horizontal
capacity of structure to dissipate seismic energy
partial safety factor for concrete
deflection of structure
Downloaded by [ UNIVERSITY OF MORATUWA] on [04/11/16]. Copyright ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
825

l-h
r-h
SLS
ra
l
cp
1.
deflection at top of structure left-hand

deflection at top of structure right-hand
inter-storey drift limitation
angle between infills diagonal and the horizontal
stiffness reduction factor
structure ductility
longitudinal reinforcement coefficient
average unit effort under axial stress
Introduction
The subject of this study is the behaviour of reinforcedconcrete (RC) frame structures with masonry infill. The influence of the masonry infill on the total shear resistance of the
structural system is of major interest. According to BS EN
1998-1:2004 (BSI, 2004), the following systems are of interest:
the frame system in which both the vertical and lateral loads
are mainly resisted by spatial frames whose shear resistance at
the building base exceeds 65% of the total shear resistance of
the whole structural system; the dual system in which support
for the vertical loads is mainly provided by a spatial frame and
resistance to lateral loads is contributed to in part by the
frame system and in part by structural walls, coupled or
uncoupled; the frame-equivalent dual system in which the
shear resistance of the frame system at the building base is
greater than 50% of the total shear resistance of the whole
structural system; and the wall-equivalent dual system in
which the shear resistance of the walls at the building base is
greater than 50% of the total shear resistance of the whole
structural system. The present paper seeks to determine which
of these systems an RC frame with masonry infill is closest to,
using theoretical formulas and an original test programme. A
comparison of the theoretical and experimental results is presented and discussed.
The experimental programme described in this paper utilises
an RC frame with one span and one level. This frame was
tested both as a reference frame without masonry infill and as a
frame with infill walls made of solid bricks, bricks with vertical
hollows and cellular concrete bricks. These structures were
loaded with vertical and alternating horizontal forces applied
in the frame plane. The shear resistance and the drift were
measured in each case. The tests were conducted at the service
limit state (SLS) to make it easier to compare the six tested structures. The ductility of the structures was determined based on
one cycle. In addition, the tested structures were strengthened
with carbon-fibre-reinforced polymer (CFRP) composites and
loaded to obtain a rehabilitated structure; such a procedure is
sometimes used for strengthening of concrete structures.
2.
2.1
Theory
The behaviour of RC frames with masonry infill

in response to seismic action
In the first stage, the behaviour of the structure is elastic, as
illustrated in Figure 1 (Samoila , 2012).
826
masonry infill
(a)
Masonry
(b)
Frame
(c)
Figure 1. Elastic behaviour of framepanel assembly
At 5070% of the maximum value of the horizontal force,

the RC frame begins to separate from the masonry panel
(Samanta, 2009). In this stage, contact between the two structures occurs in a small zone: the masonry panel is compressed
along its diagonal and a crack appears (as reported in NZSEE
(2006)) (Figure 2). In the final stage, the masonry panel is
broken and the RC frame is in its elasticplastic stage.
In the technical literature, many models have been used to
determine the composite structure. Among the multitudinous
papers, some are of recent interest in terms of the present
paper: Crisafulli et al. (2000), Asteris et al. (2011, 2012) and
Chrysostomou and Asteris (2012). A general review of the
different procedures used for the analysis of infilled frames,
which can be grouped into local or micro-models and simplified or macro-models, depending on the degree of refinement
used to represent the structure, was presented by Crisafulli
et al. (2000).
One of the models used in the technical literature is a single
compressed element as a double-hinge diagonal (Stafford

masonry infill
Detachment
frameinfill
Detachment
frameinfill
Figure 2. Appearance of cracks in masonry infill
Smith, 1966; Zybaczynski, 2011) (Figure 3). The geometric

dimensions of the diagonal dm, w and lc are defined by different equations.
d
lc
lc
lc
1:
H'
For the contact zone between concrete and masonry, lc was

determined experimentally by Stafford Smith (1966) and
theoretically by Paulay and Priestley (1993). The last two
derived the formulas
with
2:
s
4 Em t sin 2
4Ec Ic H
L'
Figure 3. Geometric characteristics of a framepanel assembly
The width of the masonry diagonal has been estimated by

many authors. Paulay and Priestley (1993) proposed a simplified equation for it
3:
The contribution of the infill to the lateral stiffness is obtained

from the relation
w dm =4
4:
More complex models analysing the composite structure

have frequently been used. Crisafulli (1997) used a model
with two eccentric diagonals while Chrysostomou (1991) and
El-Dakhakhni et al. (2003) proposed a three-struts model
(Figure 4). For this paper, a model using a single compressed
element as a double-hinge element was chosen.
2.2
The stiffness and the strength of RC frames

with masonry infill in response to seismic action
The stiffness of the composite structure according to Cavaleri
and Papia (2003) is shown in Figure 5. These authors proposed
to obtain the total stiffness of the composite structure from the
individual stiffnesses of the RC frame and the masonry infill.
Km
kd cos2
1 kd =kc sin 1=4kd =kb cos2
2
where
5:
kd
Em tw
dm
6:
kc
Ec Ac
Hc
7:
kb
E b Ab
Ll
827

masonry infill
The stiffness of the masonry is calculated using formulas from

Sattar and Liel (2010)
The stiffness of the RC frame is calculated using the equation

of Cavaleri and Papia (2003)
"

1 #
Ec Ic
Ib H l
10:
Kf 24
1 15 3
2
I c Ll
H l 3
8:
Km 2
Em wt
cos2
dm
and Dolsek and Fajfar (2008) (based on the approach mentioned in Ecoest/Prec8 report number 6, Fardis (1996))
Km
Gm Lt
H
According to SR EN 1992-1 (ASRO, 2006), the horizontal

force on an RC frame is the median of
h
i
11:
VRd;c CRd;c 1 k100l fck 1=3 k1 cp bw d
hz = lc /3
9:
The strength, expressed as the horizontal forces V of the two

components of the structure, has been defined by many
researchers.
12:

VRd;min Vmin k1 cp bw d
Am/2
where CRd,c = 018/c, 1 = 100, k 1

1=2
and Vmin 0035k 3=2 fck .
Am/2
p
200=d , k1 = 015
To calculate the strength of the masonry panel in the horizontal

direction, a variety of formulas have been used.
(a)
The Israel norm SI 413 (SII, 1995) uses the formula

hz = lc /2
13:
Am/4
VR;m 04Am fvk
where Am is the sum of the cross-sectional area of masonry.

Am/2
According to Paulay and Priestley (1993), the horizontal resistance of the masonry panel is
Am/4
14:
p
VR;mi Am 017 fm
15:
VR;mf 03 VR;mi
available initial shear capacity
(b)
Figure 4. Multidiagonal models
Xp
F/2
F/2
F1/2
F1 + F2 = F
L
L'
L'
(a)
(b)
(c)
Figure 5. Equivalent diagrams for the frame with wall padding

filling: (a) real system; (b) equivalent diagonal; (c) and (d)
decomposition of the equivalent diagonal
828
Xp
F2/2
P
H'
Xp
F1/2
final shear capacity
(d)
F2/2

masonry infill
New Zealand norm (NZSEE, 2006) and Fema 306 (Fema, 1998)
give the same formula as presented above in Equation (14).
Riddington and Stafford Smith (1977) proposed
250
400
VR;m 172Am ftm

1500
where the tensile strength is ftm = 007 N/mm2, as these

authors proposed.
200
200
200
VR;m Am ftm
2
2300
200
Priestley and Calvi (1991) used a similar formula

17:
2700
1750
16:
400
3500
70
0
20
Figure 6. Geometrical dimensions in mm of RC frames
According to Romanian norm CR-6-2013 (MDRAP, 2013),

the horizontal strength of a masonry panel is
18:
VR;m fvm tlc
Fardis (1996) used the formula

19:
can predict accurately the behaviour of infilled frames and give

practicing engineers the confidence to use them routinely in their
Vmax 13ftm tL
designs.
The present experimental programme focuses on some important and original aspects, including the following.
&
2.3
Ductility of the structures
The ductility of a structure is calculated as the ratio between the
ultimate drift and the drift of the first crack (yielding) and is
denoted . The capacity of the structure to dissipate the seismic
energy is given by ACI T11-01 (ACI, 2001) by coefficient , as
20:
Dh
max
0125
max
max
Flh Frh
lh max
rh
where Dh is the energy dissipated by the structure (the area

enclosed by the curve F, charge and discharge curves) and
the denominator represents the dissipated energy by a perfect
elasticplastic structure.
3.
Experimental programme
Many experimental tests have recently been performed and

described (Abrams, 1994; Asteris, 2003; Dhanasekar and Page,
1986; Griffith, 2008; Mehrabi et al., 1994). As was pointed out
by Chrysostomou and Asteris (2012)
the subject of infilled frames has been studied for more than
60 years, there are still no definitive answers either about their
behaviour and interaction with the bounding frame or about the
estimation of their stiffness and strength.
However, as it was pointed by Asteris et al. (2012, 2013)

despite the many studies of infilled frames, there exist no definitive
answers regarding their modelling. There is still room for research,
both experimental and analytical, in order to develop models that
&
&
&
Three important mechanical parameters are determined:

horizontal strength, structure stiffness and structure ductility.
Three types of structures and three types of infill masonry
are used.
The tests are conducted at the service limit state with a
lateral storey drift of 075%, which is in accordance with
other experimental programmes.
Some of the tested structures are rehabilitated with CFRP
composites and then tested again.
The geometrical dimensions of the RC frames are shown in

Figure 6. The elements were modelled at a scale of 1:2.
The main girder, secondary beam (bottom beam) and columns
reinforcement are shown in Figure 7. The members geometrical
dimensions and the amount of reinforcement were calculated
in accordance with Romanian code provisions P100-1/2006
(MTCT, 2006) and NP 007-97 (MLPAT, 1997).
The applied load model and the arrangement of measuring
and testing instruments (M) are shown in Figures 8(a) and
8(b). The vertical action applied was a uniformly distributed
load with a constant intensity of 9 kN/m. Horizontal action
was applied in both directions of the frame plan in approximately 12 steps until the maximum inter-storey drift SLS
ra at or
above the SLS was reached. Deflectometers with accuracies of
01 mm for horizontal motion and 0001 mm for vertical
motion were used as testing instruments.
The experimental programme utilised two RC frames: a reference frame without reinforcement for masonry anchorage and a
frame with reinforcement bars for coupled masonry (Figure 7).
829

masonry infill
2 22 S345
2 22 S345
2 12 S255
8
20 S345
1
2 14 S355
2 14 S355
2 14 S355
2 14 S355
2 10 S255
0200
6 S255
0200
3 12 S355
0200
0200
6 S255
0200
Section 22
0200
0250
Section 11
6 S255
6 S255
0200
6 S255
(a)
2 22 S345
2 22 S345
2 12 S255
8
20 S345
1
2 10 S255
0200
0200
3 12 S355
0200
0200
6 S255
0200
Section 22
6 S255
0200
0250
Section 11
0200
6 S255
(b)
Figure 7. RC frame reinforcement: (a) reinforcement anchors

provided (coupled masonry); (b) no reinforcement anchors
provided. Dimensions are in mm
830
2 14 S355
2 14 S355
2 14 S355
2 14 S355

masonry infill
p
B
C F'
200 200
200 200
200 200
A
500
1625
200 250
2500
3500
500
(a)
M
200 250
200 200
200 200
200 200
500
1625
Figure 9. Reference frame
2500
3500
500
(b)
Figure 8. (a) Applied load model and (b) arrangement of

measuring and testing instruments. Dimensions are in mm
The test was performed on three types of structures: a reference frame without masonry infill (Figure 9), a frame with
uncoupled masonry infill and a frame with coupled masonry
infill. The uncoupled infill walls were made of three different
types of masonry: cellular concrete blocks (Figure 10), ceramic
blocks with vertical hollows and solid bricks. The coupled
infill walls were made of ceramic blocks with vertical hollows
(Figure 11) and solid bricks (Figure 12).
Figure 10. Cellular concrete blocks masonry infill
The main mechanical properties of the materials used in the

experimental programme were as follows. The mortar used for
masonry erection was of the quick-hardening type; the strengths
at 7 d were fc = 935 N/mm2 and ft = 082 N/mm2. The properties
of the concrete used in the RC frame are presented in Table 1.
The properties of the infill walls are presented in Table 2.
The maximum horizontal action taken depended on the interstorey drift limitation indicated in BS EN 1998-1:2004 (BSI,
2004)
&
SLS
ra 0005H = 0005 1725 mm = 863 mm for buildings
having non-structural elements made of brittle materials
attached to the structure
Figure 11. Masonry infill made of ceramic blocks with vertical

hollows
831

masonry infill
Figure 12. Solid bricks masonry infill
Concrete age at tests: d
Density c: kg/m
Compressive strength fcm: N/mm2
3
28
2341
229
2285
332
Figure 13. Frame with many cracks after left-hand and righthand loading
Table 1. Concrete properties
Compressive strength: N/mm2

Bricks with vertical hollows
Cellular concrete bricks
Solid bricks
550
230
659
Table 2. Infill walls properties
&
&
SLS
ra 00075H = 00075 1725 mm = 1294 mm for
buildings having ductile non-structural elements
SLS
ra 001H = 001 1725 mm = 1725 mm for buildings
with non-structural elements that do not interfere with
structural deformations, or without non-structural
elements.
The tests were conducted at the SLS and the inter-storey drift
of 13 mm (075%). The tests at the SLS were used to determine the behaviour of the structures at service limit states. It is
easier to compare the behaviour of different structures at the
SLS than at the ultimate limit state (ULS). In addition, however, some of the tested structures at SLS where rehabilitated
and new tests were performed; the results of those tests will be
presented in a future paper. However, it is easier to compare
the different types of masonry infill at the SLS. The chosen
lateral storey drift of 075% is in accordance with the infilledframe test results (12 papers summarised by Griffith (2008))
832
Figure 14. Frame with masonry infill after its first load, showing
shearing cracks in horizontal and vertical masonry joints
from which the maximum force Fmax was obtained at

max = 03 to 11% (average = 056%).
4.
Test results
Aspects of the experimental elements after loading are shown

in Figures 13 and 14.

masonry infill
Reference frame
Reference frame
Frame with uncoupled masonry made with

bricks of cellular concrete
Frame with coupled masonry made of

bricks with vertical hollows
Frame with uncoupled masonry made of

bricks with vertical hollows
Frame with coupled masonry made of

solid bricks
Frame with uncoupled masonry made of

solid bricks
130
120
130
110
120
100
110
90
100
80
F: kN
90
F: kN
80
70
60
60
50
50
40
40
30
30
20
20
10
10
0
25
20
15
10
70
5
0
10
20
25 20 15 10
5
10
15
: mm
20
0
5
0
10
20
10
15 20
: mm
30
30
40
40
50
50
60
60
70
70
80
80
90
90
100
100
110
110
120
120
Figure 15. Graphical representations of the experimental

horizontal load plotted against the deflection at the top of the
frame for uncoupled structure
Figure 16. Graphical representations of the experimental

horizontal load plotted against the deflection at the top of the
frame for coupled structure
The experimental horizontal load for all six tests is plotted

against the deflection at the top of the frame in Figures 15
and 16. Figure 15 shows the reference frame alone, the frame
with uncoupled masonry made of bricks of cellular concrete,
the frame with uncoupled masonry made of bricks with vertical hollows, and the frame with uncoupled masonry made of
solid bricks. Figure 16 shows the reference frame, the frame
with coupled masonry made of solid bricks and the frame with
coupled masonry made of bricks with vertical hollows. From
Figures 15 and 16 it can be observed that the lateral strength
of some of the structures was not reached during the test (the
slope of the forcedisplacement curve indicates that the lateral
force could have increased); this behaviour was attributable to
the targets of the paper which set the maximum storey drift at
the SLS (075%). As Figure 14 shows for the RC frame with
an infill wall, cracking appeared in the masonry wall first; no
cracking appeared in the RC frame.
The alternating horizontal loads and the experimental results
of their average values are presented in Table 3.
The tests showed an increase in the shear resistance at the base
of the masonry-infilled RC frame compared to the reference
frame. A significant increase in both the stiffness and the ductility of the dual structure was also recorded. The stiffnesses,
K, of the structures were calculated using the ratio of the
833

No.
Structure
1.
Reference frame
2.
Frame with uncoupled masonry

made of cellular concrete blocks
3.

made of bricks with vertical hollows
4.

made of solid bricks
5.
Frame with coupled masonry

made of bricks with vertical hollows
6.
Frame with coupled masonry

made of solid bricks
masonry infill
Horizontal
action
applied
Left-hand
Right-hand
Mean value
Left-hand
Right-hand
Mean value
Left-hand
Right-hand
Mean value
Left-hand
Right-hand
Mean value
Left-hand
Right-hand
Mean value
Left-hand
Right-hand
Mean value
Main characteristics obtained from tests

F: kN
K: kN/mm
Dh: kN/mm
at expl
value
at
13 mm
at expl
value
at
13 mm
at expl
value
39
39
39
81
87
84
90
90
90
126
96
111
111
78
945
104
104
104
37
34
355
81
78
795
90
49
695
118
68
93
111
78
945
104
89
965
271
244
257
678
422
550
854
466
660
782
1126
954
973
595
784
858
640
749
285
262
273
678
600
639
692
377
535
908
523
715
973
595
784
858
685
771
274
204
239
503
681
592
530
596
563
1050
675
8625
868
657
7525
586
657
622
()
031 (68)
027 (67)
022 (85)
036 (90)
050 (80)
028 (73)
Note: F, horizontal action; K, structure stiffness; Dh, energy dissipated by the structure; , capacity of the structure to dissipate
seismic energy; , structure ductility
Table 3. Experimental data
horizontal force to the displacement at the experimental value

of or at = 13 mm. The energy dissipated by the structure
Dh was calculated from experimental tests (Figures 15 and 16)
as the area enclosed by the curve F (charge and discharge
curves). Only one cycle was applied to obtain the ductility of
the various structures at the SLS. The ductility of the structures is given by specific coefficients and ; no correlation
were observed for the two coefficients. The dissipated energy
Dh for multiple cycles differs from that for one cycle, but is
more difficult to obtain due to the degradation of the structures stiffness. The multi-cycle ductility may be a subject of
future investigations.
Increases in the above-mentioned characteristics compared to
the reference structure are presented in Table 4.
The lateral storey drift at which the first crack appeared/was
observed in the structure is presented in Table 5 and Figure 17.
From these data some interesting conclusions can be drawn.
The reference frame without masonry infill cracked at a small
lateral drift and at half the value of the experimentally applied
horizontal force; the level of the horizontal force at the first
crack was 435 times smaller than the calculated yield force for
834
the frame columns and 625 times smaller than the calculated
maximum horizontal force; the horizontal force slowly increased
after the first crack (Figure 16); a small lateral storey drift was
found for structure 5; the lateral drift of the frame with different
types of masonry infill (structures 2 to 6) was recorded at a
ratio between horizontal force at first crack F C and the horizontal force at 13 mm lateral drift F SLS of 053081 (Table 5); for
the RC frame with an infill wall (structures 2 to 6), no cracking
appeared in the RC frame elements, which means that the
maximum strength does not occur for the composite structure
at the same drift at which it occurs for the RC frame alone; the
maximum strength of the RC frame with masonry infill is
assumed to occur at the value of the drift at which the first
cracks appear, after which the shear strength increases slowly
with a slope similar to that of the RC frame without infill.
The test results underline several important ideas, as described
below.
(a) The shear resistance/horizontal force at the structure base
is 196 to 272 times as high as it is at SLS. This means
that the shear resistance of the walls at the building base
is nearly equal to or greater than 50% of the total

masonry infill
No.
Ratios at SLS
ra = 13 mm of the
mean values
Structure
Horizontal force
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Ratio at experimental
value
Structure stiffness
Dissipated energy
F/F ref (1: %)
: %
K/K ref (1: %)
: %
Dh/Dhref (1: %)
: %
224 (124)
553
234 (134)
572
248 (148)
596
196 (96)
489
196 (96)
489
236 (136)
575
262 (162)
266 (166)
618
624
262 (162)
287 (187)
618
651
361 (261)
315 (215)
723
682
272 (172)
632
282 (182)
645
260 (160)
616
Frame with uncoupled masonry made of cellular

concrete bricks
Frame with uncoupled masonry made of bricks with
vertical hollows
Frame with uncoupled masonry made of solid bricks
Frame with coupled masonry made of bricks with
vertical hollows
Frame with coupled masonry made of solid bricks
Note: F, K, Dh characteristics of the dual system, from test; F ref, K ref, Dref
h characteristics of the reference frame, from test;
1, increase of the characteristic values compared with the reference frame (1) or with total force ().
Table 4. Increases of the main characteristics compared with the
reference structure
Structurea
Lateral drift for first crack, c: %
Experimental value of horizontal force for left-hand action, F: KN
F C/F SLS
a
020
18
046
031
63
077
018
48
053
031
84
071
011
78
070
030
84
081
As detailed in Table 3.
Table 5. Lateral storey drift at which the structure elements begin

to crack
resistance at the SLS of the complete structural system

(489632%). The experimental value of the shear
resistance of the walls (536649%) is greater than 50%
of the total resistance of the complete structural system.
These data demonstrate that the dual system is a
wall-equivalent dual system.
(b) The increase of the structures stiffness compared to the
reference frames stiffness (when it is tested alone) is in
the same range as the increase of the horizontal force:
489651%. For a composite structure (see Figure 14),
the RC frame is without cracks and it is possible for the
RC frame to have a greater stiffness, but no quantitative
values were deduced from the tests.
(c) The energy dissipated by the structures was calculated as
the surface inside the chargedischarge curves for the
horizontal action in both directions. As compared with
the reference frame, the increase in dissipated energy of
the dual system is only slightly more than the increase in
stiffness of the structure: 575723%.
On the other hand the capacity for all structures to

dissipate the sesmic energy, expressed by coefficient is
greater than the minimum value given at item 23.
(d) A future paper by the present authors is devoted to the
results from research into tested structures at SLS and
rehabilitated with CFRP composites.
(e) Based on the results of these tests, which were conducted
at the SLS, it can be observed that the contribution
to the lateral load and stiffness of coupled masonry
compared with uncoupled masonry is positive for
structures made of blocks with vertical hollows and
increases slightly for structures made of solid bricks.
( f ) The lateral drift at which the masonry infill begins to
crack is a function of the material used for the masonry
infill
& the lateral drift for the first crack is between 011%
(structure 5) and 031% (structures 2 and 4)
C
& the ratio between horizontal force at first crack (F )
SLS
and the horizontal force at SLS (F ) is 04 for the
835

masonry infill
118
120
(4)
(5)
(6)
110
100
104
90
90
(3)
84
78
80
F: kN
111
70
84
(2)
81
63
60
48
50
40
(1)
37
30
18
20
10
0
0
005 010 015 020 025 030 035 040 045 050 055 060 065 070 075
c: %
Figure 17. The simplified correlation between the horizontal

force and lateral drift at first crack and at SLS
reference frame and 053081 for the frame with

masonry infill, which means a stronger horizontal
force is required to create this crack.
5.
Discussion of the theoretical and

experimental results
Experimental data obtained from tests made by a number

of authors are to be compared with theoretical calculations.
The characteristic values of the stiffness and horizontal force
F (VR) for the reference frame, the masonry panel made of
solid bricks (coupled and uncoupled) and the masonry panel
made of cellular concrete blocks are presented in Table 6.
The most important considerations are listed below.
(a) The reference RC frame has an elastic deformation only
at the first charge steps. The theoretical and experimental
values of the stiffness in the elastic stage are very close.
The horizontal force VR given in SREN 1992-1-1
(ASRO, 2006) is lightly smaller (139%) than the
experimental value (F).
(b) For the masonry panel, the stiffness (including the RC
frames contribution) has an elastic stage for which there is
satisfactory agreement between theoretical (Cavaleri and
Papia, 2003) and experimental values for uncoupled and
coupled masonry. The formulas of Sattar and Liel (2010)
and Dolsek and Fajfar (2008) give very high stiffness values.
836
The horizontal force F (VR) obtained by averaging the

results of different formulas is quite close to the experimental values for the SLS at a drift of 13 mm (075%). The
differences are
& 11% for coupled masonry made of solid bricks,
6% for uncoupled masonry made of solid bricks
and 21% for a panel made of cellular concrete blocks
(see Table 6)
& from the experimental data presented (see Tables 3
and 6), the influence of coupling on the horizontal
force is positive with an increase of 6% for a masonry
panel made of solid brick; for an RC frame with
masonry infill made of solid bricks the increase
was 38% and for bricks with vertical hollows it
was 36%.
(c) The structures capacity to dissipate seismic energy is
approximately 265 greater than the minimum necessary.
6.
Conclusions
Based on theoretical and experimental research, the following

conclusions have been reached.
(a) Masonry infill has an important influence on the behaviour of an RC-framed structure.
& The shear resistance/horizontal force and the structure
stiffness of the walls average 5065% of those of the
whole structural system.

Structure
Reference frame
Masonry panel made of

solid bricks (coupled
and uncoupled)
masonry infill
Characteristic
values
Stiffness K: kN/mm
Horizontal force
F (VR): kN
Stiffness K: kN/mm
Horizontal force
F (VR): kN
Masonry panel made

of cellular concrete
blocks
Horizontal force
F (VR): KN
Theoretical
Experimental
Authors
Formula
Value
Cavaleri, Papia
SREN 1992-1
(10)
(11), (12)
15
3058
Cavaleri, Papia
Sattar
Dolek, Fajfar
Paulay, Priestley
New Zealand Norm
Israelian Norm SI 413
Riddington, Stanford
Priestley, Calvi
Romanian Norm
CR 6-2013
Fardis
Paulay, Priestley
New Zealand Norm
Israelian Norm SI 413
Romanian Norm
CR 6-2013
(4)
(8)
(9)
(14)
143 elastic stage

355
(13)
(16)
(17)
(18)
1345
133 coupled masonry
305
120 uncoupled masonry
402
602 542 965355 = 61 (coupled)
93355 = 575
694
(uncoupled)
554
506
477
(19)
(14)
419
356
(13)
(18)
359
324
346 795355 = 44
Note: In all theoretical formulas the average compressive strength fm and the average shear strength in the horizontal direction
fvm were used instead of the characteristic values fk and fvk. A probability of 5% and a variation coefficient of 10% were assumed
fvm = 0377 N/mm2 for masonry panel made of solid bricks
fvm = 0198 N/mm2 for masonry panel made of cellular concrete blocks
For compressive strength
fm = 659 N/mm2 for solid bricks
fm = 230 N/mm2 for cellular concrete blocks
ftm = 007 N/mm2 tensile strength of masonry
Also note that the experimental values of the stiffness K are for the left-hand horizontal action and the mean value of the
horizontal force.
Table 6. Theoretical and experimental results
&
The energy dissipated by the composite system

increases by 575% to 723% compared with the whole
structural system and the capacity to dissipate seismic
energy is very satisfactory.
& The maximum strength of the RC frame with infill is
assumed to occur at the drift at which the first cracks
appear (052% to 070% of the maximum horizontal
force) after which the shear strength increases slowly,
with a slope similar to that of the RC frame without
infill.
& From these data, it appears that the analysed system
is a wall-equivalent dual system.
& Some negative influences of the masonry infill on the
RC frame, including the increase of the shear force
and the real length of the columns and beams, should
be taken into account by designers.
(b) Good agreement between the available theoretical
formulas and the experimental results at the SLS has
been obtained for the horizontal force and the structure

stiffness.
& For the reference RC frame only one theoretical
formula was used for the stiffness and horizontal
force. The agreement with experimental values is very
good (the obtained differences were 5% and 139%,
respectively).
& The stiffness of the masonry panel made of solid bricks
shows good agreement between experimental results
and a theoretical value given by only one formula.
& The average value of the horizontal force F (VR)
obtained using six different theoretical formulas for
the masonry panel made of solid bricks is in good
agreement with the experimental values for both
coupled and uncoupled masonry.
& For the masonry panel made of cellular concrete
blocks, the agreement between experimental results
and theoretical values (21%) is not very satisfactory.
837

masonry infill
(c) The experimental results have been used to calculate a

very important parameter for the seismic behaviour of
structures: the dissipated energy. This parameter was
obtained from tests conducted at the SLS. The energy dissipated by the composite system is 5575% higher than
that of the reference frame.
(d) Further studies are necessary to continue the experimental and theoretical investigations of other variables,
including: spans and levels of RC frames; other types of
infill masonry; the type of coupling between RC frame
and masonry panel in all cycles of the test procedure; and
tests at the ULS.
Chrysostomou CZ (1991) Effects of Degrading Infill Walls on the
Acknowledgement
The authors are grateful for the scientific support received
from the PhD School of the University Politehnica of
Timisoara.
REFERENCES
Abrams DP (ed.) (1994) Proceedings from the National Center
for Earthquake Engineering Research Workshop on Seismic

Response of Masonry Infill, San Francisco, CA, USA,
Technical Report NCEER-94-0004.
ACI (American Concrete Institute) (2001) ACI T1.1-01:
Acceptance criteria for moment frames based on structural
testing. Reported by ACI innovation task group 1 and
collaborators. ACIFarmington Hills, MI, USA.
ASRO (Asociatia de Standardizare din Romnia) (2006)
SR EN 1992-1-1: Eurocode 2: Design of concrete
structures Part 1-1: General rules and rules for buildings.
Asociatia de Standardizare din Romnia, Bucharest,
Romania (in Romanian).
Asteris PG (2003) Lateral stiffness of brick masonry infilled
plane frames. Journal of Structural Engineering 129(8):
10711079.
Asteris PG, Antoniou ST, Sophianopoulos DS and
Chrysostomou CZ (2011) Mathematical macromodeling of
infilled frames: state of the art. Journal of Structural
Engineering, American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE)
137(12): 15081517.
Asteris PG, Giannopoulos IP and Chrysostomou CZ (2012)
Modeling of infilled frames with openings. Open
Construction and Building Technology Journal 6: 8191.
Asteris PG, Cotsovos DM, Chrysostomou CZ, Mohebkhah A and
Al-Chaar GK (2013) Mathematical micromodeling of
infilled frames: state of the art. Engineering Structures 56:

19051921.
BSI (2004) BS EN 1998-1:2004: Eurocode 8: Design of
structures for earthquake resistance Part 1: General rules,
seismic actions and rules for buildings. BSI, London, UK.
Cavaleri L and Papia M (2003) A new dynamic identification
technique: application to the evaluation of the equivalent
strut for infilled frames. Engineering Structures 25(7):
889901.
838
Nonlinear Seismic Response of Two-Dimensional Steel

Frames. PhD thesis, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY, USA.
Chrysostomou CZ and Asteris PG (2012) On the in-plane
properties and capacities of infilled frames. Engineering
Structures 41: 385402.
Crisafulli FJ (1997) Seismic Behaviour of Reinforced Concrete
Structures with Masonry Infills. PhD thesis, Department of
Civil EngineeringUniversity of Canterbury, Christchurch,
New Zealand.
Crisafulli FJ, Carr AJ and Park R (2000) Analytical modelling of
infilled frames structures-a general review. Bulletin of the
New Zealand Society for Earthquake Engineering 33(1):
3047.
Dhanasekar M and Page AW (1986) The influence of brick
masonry infill properties on the behaviour of infilled
frames. Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers,
Part 2 81(4): 593605.
Dolsek M and Fajfar P (2008) The effect of masonry infills on
the seismic response of a four-storey reinforced concrete
frame-a deterministic assessment. Engineering Structures
30(7): 19912001.
El-Dakhakhni WW, Elgaaly M and Hamid AA (2003) Three-strut
model for concrete masonry-infilled steel frames. Journal of
Structural Engineering 129(2): 177185.
Fardis MN (ed.) (1996) Experimental and Numerical
Investigations on the Seismic Response of RC Infilled
Frames and Recommendations for Code Provisions.
Laboratorio Nacional de Engenharia Civil, Lisbon,
Portugal, ECOEST/PREC8 Rep. No. 6.
FEMA (Federal Emergency Management Agency) (1998) FEMA
306: Evaluation of Earthquake Damaged Concrete and
Masonry Wall Buildings. Basic Procedures Manual.
Applied Technology Council (ATC-43 Project), Redwood
City, CA, USA.
Griffith M (2008) Seismic Retrofit of RC Frame Buildings
with Masonry Infill Walls: Literature Review and
Preliminary Case Study. JRC Scientific and Technical
Reports, Luxembourg.
MDRAP (Ministerul Dezvoltarii Regionale si Administratiei Publice)
(2013) CR6-2013: Design Code for Masonry Structures.

Ministerul Dezvolta rii Regionale si Administratiei Publice,
Bucharest, Romania (in Romanian).
Mehrabi AB, Benson Shing P, Schuller MP and Noland JL (1994)
Performance of Masonry Infilled RC Frames under In-Plane
Lateral Loads. University of Colorado, Boulder, CO,
USA, Structural Engineering and Structural Mechanics
Research Series.
MLPAT (Ministerul Lucrarilor Publice si Amenajarii Teritoriului)
(1997) NP 007-97: Design code for reinforced concrete

frame structures. INCERC, Bucharest, Romania, Buletinul
Constructiilor, nr. 10/1997 (in Romanian).
MTCT (Ministerul Transporturilor, Constructiilor si Turismului)
(2006) P100-1/2006: Seismic design code. Part 1:

Earthquake resistant design of buildings. In INCERC,

masonry infill
Bucharest, Romania, Buletinul Constructiilor, nr. 12-13/

2006 (in Romanian).
NZSEE (New Zealand Society for Earthquake Engineering) (2006)
Assesments and Improvement of the Structural Performance
of Buildings in Earthquakes. Recommendation of a NZSEE
Study Group on Earthquake Risk Buildings, NZSEE,
Wellington, New Zealand.
Paulay T and Priestley MJN (1993) Seismic Design of Concrete
and Masonry Structures. John Wiley & Sons, New York,
NY, USA.
Priestley MJN and Calvi GM (1991) Towards a capacitydesign
assessment procedure for reinforced concrete frames.
Earthquake Spectra 7(3): 413437.
Riddington JR and Stafford Smith B (1977) Analysis of infilled
frames subject to racking with design recommendation.
The Structural Engineer 55(6): 263268.
Samanta AK (2009) On utilization of seismic resistance of
masonry infills in design of low-rise mixed RC buildings
a case study. ARPN Journal of Engineering and Applied
Sciences 9(4): 1825.
Samoila DM (2012) Behaviour of Masonry Infilled RC Frames.
PhD thesis, Technical University of Cluj-Napoca,

Cluj-Napoca, Romania (in Romanian).
Sattar S and Liel AB (2010) Seismic performance of reinforced
concrete frame structures with and without masonry infill
walls. Proceedings of the 9th US National and 10th Canadian
Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Toronto, Canada,
pp. 18641874.
SII (The Standards Institution of Israel) (1995) SI 413: Design
provisions for earthquake resistance of structures. SII,
Tel Aviv, Israel.
Stafford Smith B (1966) Behaviour of square infilled
frames. Proceedings of the American Society of
Civil Engineers, Journal of Structural Division 92(1):
381403.
Zybaczynski A (2011) Research on the Behaviour and
Calculation of Post-Elastic Reinforced Concrete Structures
under Seismic Actions. PhD thesis, Technical University
of Civil Engineering Bucharest, Bucharest, Romania
(in Romanian).
HOW CAN YOU CONTRIBUTE?
To discuss this paper, please email up to 500 words to the

editor at journals@ice.org.uk. Your contribution will be
forwarded to the author(s) for a reply and, if considered
appropriate by the editorial board, it will be published as
discussion in a future issue of the journal.
Proceedings journals rely entirely on contributions from
the civil engineering profession (and allied disciplines).
Information about how to submit your paper online
is available at www.icevirtuallibrary.com/page/authors,
where you will also find detailed author guidelines.
839

Theoretical/experimental Study of Reinforced-Concrete Frame With Masonry Infill

Transféré par

Informations du document

Titre original

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Theoretical/experimental Study of Reinforced-Concrete Frame With Masonry Infill

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Structures and Buildings

Volume 169 Issue SB11

Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers

Professor, Civil Engineering Department, Politehnica University of

Teaching Assistant, Civil Engineering Department, University of

Senior Lecturer, Civil Engineering Department, University of Oradea,

cross-sectional area of beam

modulus of rigidity of infill

Structures and Buildings

deflection at top of structure left-hand

The behaviour of RC frames with masonry infill

Figure 1. Elastic behaviour of framepanel assembly

At 5070% of the maximum value of the horizontal force,

Structures and Buildings

Figure 2. Appearance of cracks in masonry infill

Smith, 1966; Zybaczynski, 2011) (Figure 3). The geometric

For the contact zone between concrete and masonry, lc was

Figure 3. Geometric characteristics of a framepanel assembly

The width of the masonry diagonal has been estimated by

The contribution of the infill to the lateral stiffness is obtained

More complex models analysing the composite structure

The stiffness and the strength of RC frames

Structures and Buildings

The stiffness of the masonry is calculated using formulas from

The stiffness of the RC frame is calculated using the equation

According to SR EN 1992-1 (ASRO, 2006), the horizontal

The strength, expressed as the horizontal forces V of the two

where CRd,c = 018/c, 1 = 100, k 1

To calculate the strength of the masonry panel in the horizontal

The Israel norm SI 413 (SII, 1995) uses the formula

VR;m 04Am fvk

where Am is the sum of the cross-sectional area of masonry.

VR;mf 03 VR;mi

available initial shear capacity

Figure 4. Multidiagonal models

Figure 5. Equivalent diagrams for the frame with wall padding

final shear capacity

Structures and Buildings

VR;m 172Am ftm

where the tensile strength is ftm = 007 N/mm2, as these

Priestley and Calvi (1991) used a similar formula

Figure 6. Geometrical dimensions in mm of RC frames

According to Romanian norm CR-6-2013 (MDRAP, 2013),

VR;m fvm tlc

Fardis (1996) used the formula

can predict accurately the behaviour of infilled frames and give

where Dh is the energy dissipated by the structure (the area

Many experimental tests have recently been performed and

However, as it was pointed by Asteris et al. (2012, 2013)

Three important mechanical parameters are determined:

The geometrical dimensions of the RC frames are shown in

Structures and Buildings

Figure 7. RC frame reinforcement: (a) reinforcement anchors

Structures and Buildings

Figure 9. Reference frame

Figure 8. (a) Applied load model and (b) arrangement of

Figure 10. Cellular concrete blocks masonry infill

The main mechanical properties of the materials used in the

Figure 11. Masonry infill made of ceramic blocks with vertical

Structures and Buildings

Figure 12. Solid bricks masonry infill

Concrete age at tests: d

Table 1. Concrete properties