Engineering Structures 141 (2017) 144–158

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Engineering Structures
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/engstruct

An innovative seismic-resistant steel frame with reinforced concrete

infill walls
Andrea Dall’Asta a, Graziano Leoni a, Francesco Morelli b, Walter Salvatore b, Alessandro Zona a,⇑
a
School of Architecture and Design, University of Camerino, Italy
b
Department of Civil and Industrial Engineering, University of Pisa, Italy

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Steel frames with reinforced concrete infill walls (SRCW) are an interesting seismic-resistant structural
Received 27 April 2016 solution. However, an effective seismic design of SRCWs is not easy due to the current lack of specific
Revised 9 March 2017 capacity design rules that allow controlling the formation of a proper energy dissipating mechanism.
Accepted 13 March 2017
In order to overcome such an issue, a ductile design procedure is presented in this paper. The proposed
procedure leads to innovative SRCW systems where energy dissipation is expected to take place only in
the vertical elements of the steel frame, which are subjected mainly to axial forces. The non-ductile com-
Keywords:
ponents, i.e. reinforced concrete wall and steel-to-concrete connections, are expected to suffer negligible
Ductile design
Earthquake resistant systems
damage. Accordingly, the system is designed to control the formation of diagonal struts in the infill walls
Experimental tests and behaves as a lattice brace instead of a shear wall. Experimental test results and nonlinear finite ele-
Hybrid systems ment analyses are illustrated to support the developed ductile design approach and highlight the advan-
Reinforced concrete infill walls tages of SRCWs.
Ó 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction
During the two past decades increasing interest has been given
to hybrid steel and concrete structures, obtained through the com-
bination of structural elements made of reinforced concrete (RC),
steel, and composite steel-concrete, arranged to create more effi-
cient and economical seismic resistant solutions, e.g. [1–9]. Atten-
tion is here focused on hybrid steel and concrete systems made by
steel frames with reinforced concrete infill walls (SRCWs) owing to
their many advantages as seismic-resistant systems [1,7], i.e. high
initial stiffness beneficial in reducing building damage under low-
intensity earthquakes, effective damping characteristics, and
potentially easy repairs after moderate damage through the use
of epoxy resins on the cracked wall. In this way, SRCWs provide
a promising structural solution potentially able to reduce the seis-
mic risk in all its aspects, i.e., economic loss and fatalities, as for
example contemplated in recent studies [10,11] following the
2012 Emilia earthquakes in Italy and highlighting the necessity
of an adequate structural behaviour also for low-to-moderate seis-
mic events.
In SRCWs three different lateral resisting mechanisms can be
identified (Fig. 1): (1) contribution of the steel frame; (2) direct
⇑ Corresponding author at: University of Camerino, Viale della Rimembranza,
Ascoli Piceno 63100, Italy.
E-mail address: alessandro.zona@unicam.it (A. Zona).
interactions between the steel frame and the compression strut
in the RC infill walls; (3) interactions between steel frames and
the RC infill walls through friction and shear connectors. The con-
tribution of each resisting mechanism to the overall horizontal
resistance depends on the mechanical properties and geometrical
configuration of the SRCW. Accordingly, different typologies of
SRCWs can be identified depending on the beam-to-column joint
typology and to the distribution of shear studs along the interface
between the frame and the infill wall. Systems in which the beam-
to-column joint is able to transfer significant portion of the flexural
moment without important relative rotations are usually referred
to as Fully-restrained SRCWs (FSRCWs); otherwise they are
referred to as Partially-restrained SRCWs (PSRCWs) [12,13]. Inte-
gral infilled frames are characterized by connectors distributed
along the interfaces between the frames and the infill walls, while
non-integral infilled frames are not provided with connectors.
Intermediate configurations can be classified as semi-integral
infilled frames.
The seismic behaviour of SRCWs has been the object of many
theoretical and experimental studies over more than four decades.
Test results of Mallick and Severn [14] showed that the presence of
shear connectors in the corner of the steel frame prevented the
rotation of the infill walls, increased the overall stiffness, and did
not affect the lateral strength. Furthermore, integral infilled frames
exhibited shear failure of the infill walls, while non-integral infilled

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2017.03.019
0141-0296/Ó 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
 A. Dall’Asta et al. / Engineering Structures 141 (2017) 144–158
Fig. 1. SRCWs resisting mechanisms to horizontal actions.
frames were characterized by diagonal compression failure of the
infill walls. Liauw and Lee [15], Liauw [16], and Liauw and Kwan
[17] studied the influence of the shear studs distribution along
the steel frames through a series of static, dynamic, and cyclic tests
on both integral and non-integral SRCWs. Test results showed that
the presence of shear connectors along the entire interface
between steel frame and infill walls caused an increment of global
strength, stiffness, and energy dissipation capacity. In Japan, a ser-
ies of cyclic tests was carried out by Makino et al. [18] and Makino
[19] on one-third scale FSRCW specimens equipped with few studs
having the primary purpose to prevent the out-of-plane collapse of
the RC infills. These tests showed that infilled frames having col-
umns bent about their strong axis had ductile behaviour compara-
ble to that of typical bare steel frames. Tong et al. [20]
experimental investigation on PSRCWs highlighted that infill walls
tended to develop a pattern of closely-spaced diagonal cracks, prior
to any significant yield in the steel frame. The presence of reinforc-
ing cages around the headed studs helped to avoid the concrete
brittle failure modes. However, low-cycle fatigue of the headed
studs became the main failure mode. Similar results on the impor-
tance of the reinforcing cages and on the behaviour of shear studs
were obtained by Saari et al. [21]. Their experimental tests showed
that the presence of axial tension greatly reduced the strength and
deformation capacity of the studs. However, by providing confine-
ment to the studs in the form of a reinforcement cage, the full
strength and deformation capacity of the studs could be achieved.
A more recent study carried out by Sung et al. [22] investigated
PSRCW with solid infill walls and PSRCW with concealed vertical
slits. The former showed an excellent initial stiffness and strength,
a moderate deformation ductility (in the range of 4.30–4.63) and a
shear-dominated behaviour where the wall developed a resisting
mechanism made up of a series of inclined struts in compression.
The latter showed an excellent deformation capacity (ductility
ratio was approximately in the range of 5.94–7.66), a good cyclic
energy dissipation capacity, and good initial stiffness and strength,
provided mainly by the flexure-dominated behaviour of the wall
portion comprised by the concealed vertical slits. The main prob-
lem of this system dwells in the concrete crushing at the early
loading stage, thus, limiting the performance associated to the
damage limitation limit state, considered to be one of the most
important factor affecting the seismic risk of a building from an
economic point of view [23].
The review of the state of the art demonstrates how the intu-
itive idea of stiffening a steel frame with a RC infill is, in reality,
rather difficult to be applied because the actual resisting mecha-
nism is affected by many variables. Ambiguity in the definition of
the resisting mechanism is accompanied by a lack of capacity
design rules able to produce a tailored hierarchy among the struc-
tural components. This situation is reflected by design standards
providing specific design rules for SRCWs, i.e. European Eurocode
8 EN1998-1 [24]. Specifically, Eurocode 8 [24] considers SRCW sys-
tems to behave essentially as RC walls able of dissipating energy in
145
the vertical steel sections and in the vertical reinforcements of the
walls. In addition, the same detailing provisions provided for RC
walls are repeated for SRCWs except for indications on the edge
shear connections.
Refined numerical analyses carried out on SRCWs [7] designed
according to the Eurocodes pointed out an unsatisfactory brittle
behaviour due to the severe damage occurring to concrete long
before yielding of the ductile elements. The failure mechanism is
generally characterised by yielding of the steel frame concentrated
mainly in the elements near the bottom corners of the wall. The
plastic deformation on the concrete infill walls concentrates in a
diagonal path clearly highlighted by the distribution of cracking.
In addition, localized plastic deformations are also present near
the corners of the infill walls due to the forces transmitted by
the diagonal strut (Fig. 2). All these issues demonstrate how the
idea, suggested by design standards, that SRCWs may behave as
a RC shear walls is far from reality, especially for medium and high
rise buildings. The presence of boundary steel profiles leads rather
to the formation of a unique diagonal strut within the RC infill wall
contributing to the formation of a truss-like resisting mechanism.
This paper presents the outcomes of a research project aimed at
developing a novel SRCW. The system is realized in order to assure
yielding of the side steel elements by controlling the formation of
diagonal struts in the RC infill walls. It behaves as a lattice struc-
ture whose elements can be designed to produce energy dissipa-
tion at the various storeys along the building height and to
achieve the needed global ductility. A specific capacity design pro-
cedure, able to assure the desiderated energy dissipation mecha-
nism, is proposed consistently with the Eurocode 8 [24]
framework and explained in detail. Numerical models are then
adopted to better understand the global behaviour of the system
and to check the validity of the proposed design procedure. Finally,
the results of an experimental campaign on two different one-
storey specimens are illustrated to testify the effectiveness of the
design procedure and to provide insight into the influence of the
shear studs distribution on the behaviour of the proposed SRCW
system.
2. Proposed innovative SRCW system
2.1. Structural concept
As previously discussed, the behaviour of SRCWs may be very
different from that assumed in the design because the resisting
mechanism within the RC infill can only be roughly controlled.
The idea that the system behaves as a RC shear wall as a whole,
Fig. 2. Critical aspects in the behaviour of conventional SRCW systems.
146 A. Dall’Asta et al. / Engineering Structures 141 (2017) 144–158
in which vertical steel elements contribute to resist the overturn-
ing moments, acting as reinforcements, whereas the RC infill walls
have to resist the storey shear, might be far from reality especially
for medium and high rise buildings and when not encased ele-
ments are adopted. In such cases, the distribution of shear connec-
tors along the wall edge strongly affect the behaviour of the system
and the provision (usually required by design codes) that they have
to resist the storey shear to be transmitted to the RC infill wall is
not sufficient to ensure the formation of an inclined uniform com-
pression field. Slip between the steel frame and the RC infill wall, in
fact, produces a concentration of the forces at the wall corners and
failure of shear connectors or concrete crushing typically before
the yielding of the vertical elements. The basic idea of this paper
is to design a system in which the objective resisting mechanism
at the ultimate limit state is fostered by a suitable configuration
of the elements, allowing the introduction of a clear capacity
design procedure that should lead to reliable ductile structural
solutions.
The novel SRCW depicted in Fig. 3a is proposed. Because the for-
mation of a main diagonal strut within the RC infill wall cannot be
avoided when yielding of the side steel element is enforced, the
structural system should be conceived to properly control the com-
pression field in the concrete. For this purpose, joints of the steel
frame are shaped to support the diagonal strut formation, i.e. an
inclined and appropriately stiffened plate permits force exchanges
between the RC infill and the steel frame with an imposed effective
contact area (Fig. 3b). Accordingly, the infill wall, without the sharp
corners, does not need to undergo significant slip for the formation
of the diagonal strut. Shear connectors are not essential for the for-
mation of such resisting mechanism and their distribution along
the steel frame depends on two main issues further discussed in
the following paragraphs: the restraining of possible out-of-plan
overturning of the infill wall and the formation of a RC vertical
strut in compression (Fig. 3b).
The energy dissipation is attained when the dissipative fuses
placed within the steel vertical elements yield in tension; the axial
forces in compression are contrarily limited by the formation of
vertical struts that act in parallel to the compressed side steel ele-
ments (Fig. 3b).
In order to allow the replacement of damaged steel fuses after a
seismic event, they are not connected to the infill wall and suitable
end connections are realised. Therefore, the proposed SRCW sys-
tem behaves as a truss even from the very first lateral sways
and, taking advantage from the stiffness of the concrete in com-
pression and the energy dissipation capacity of the steel elements
in tension, represents a potentially efficient steel and concrete
hybrid seismic-resistant structure.
Fig. 3. (a) Innovative SRCW systems; (b) limit behaviour under seismic action of the innovative SRCW system.
2.2. Construction issues
The construction of the proposed innovative SRCW does not
involve particular difficulties in the shop prefabrication nor in
the construction site where the assembling of steel elements and
the casting of concrete wall can be carried out by means of usual
equipment and workmanship. The plan configuration of the
required SRCWs can be arranged to accommodate functional and
architectural needs, and can be effectively coupled with gravita-
tional structures provided that rigid floors are suitably connected
to them as usual in steel construction.
The steel side elements can be made up of hot rolled or hollow
profiles. As these elements act as fuses for the system, they have to
be designed in order to strictly fulfil strength verification limiting
their over-strength as well as to ensure that energy dissipation is
uniformly activated among the adopted SRCWs and along their ele-
vation. For this purpose, they could be realised with welded pro-
files using low-grade steels. As already mentioned, these
elements are not directly connected to the RC wall, the local buck-
ling is limited by the formation of RC vertical struts, and, even
though in principle no specific provisions are necessary, it is better
to assure their cross section being compact, e.g. at least class 2
according to Eurocode 3 [25].
The end connections of the ductile steel elements should be
designed to remain elastic to permit the replacement of the ductile
elements after seismic damage. End-plates connections should be
preferred and the ductile elements should be connected to the
end plate by means of full penetration welding. The adjacent ver-
tical elements to which the ductile elements are connected should
be over-strengthened; this can be assured by using a higher steel
grade or by suitably enlarging the resisting cross section that
should have width equal or greater than the infill wall thickness;
for this purpose it can be advantageous using the same profile
adopted for the horizontal beams.
Horizontal beams, including the stiffened joints and the shear
connectors, necessary for the stability of the wall during a seismic
event, can be entirely prefabricated in the shop by using hot rolled
standard steel profiles. As it is better that their width is compliant
with the wall thickness, HE series are usually preferable. However,
when the wall thickness is bigger than 300 mm (the max available
width of HE profiles), welded sections may be also adopted instead
of coupled elements.
As for the RC infill walls, detailing rules suggested by Eurocode
8 [24] are not mandatory as the system is conceived as a lattice lat-
eral resisting structure and it is not expected that energy dissipa-
tion takes place in wall critical regions. In addition to a double
skin welded mesh placed to limit crack widths and complying with
 A. Dall’Asta et al. / Engineering Structures 141 (2017) 144–158
provisions for RC walls in non-seismic areas, reinforcements must
be provided in order to prevent concrete crushing by means of a
suitable confinement action. In particular, attention must be paid
to regions in contact with the bearing plates where compression
stress diffusion takes place. For this purpose different reinforce-
ment layouts may be used as suggested in the following section.
It is important to remark that the adoption of transverse confine-
ment stirrups is possible only for thick walls due to the minimum
space required by the stirrups themselves.
Finally, shear connectors must be placed at the plates where the
wall struts interact with the steel frame with the aim of providing
out-of-plane stability. In the case in which the wall has to bear a
part of the compression, as described in the following Step 8 of
the design procedure, shear connectors must be welded to the ver-
tical elements, outside the dissipative zones, in order to transmit
forces from the frame to the wall. In this case it is important to
remark that local failure mechanisms can be characterised by split-
ting of the wall. This mechanism can be controlled with suitable
transverse reinforcements designed according to Eurocode 4 Part
2 (6.6.4 and Annex C) [26] and by adopting stud connectors with
suitable length.
3. Design of the innovative SRCW systems
3.1. Details of the design procedure
As discussed in the previous section, the proposed SRCW should
develop a resisting mechanism in which the steel elements of the
frame are subjected mainly to axial forces and the concrete walls
are characterised by the formation of diagonal struts (Fig. 3b). A
statically determinate truss model (Fig. 4a) describes such a limit
behaviour of the system. This scheme can be adopted in a force-
based procedure because the stress resultants in the elements do
not depend on the dimension of members and because a capacity
design is straightforward once the required strengths of the mem-
bers are defined. The procedure hereafter described is organized
into 9 steps and follows a capacity design path leading to systems
in which overall dissipative mechanisms can be developed.
Step 1: definition of the static equivalent lateral loads and calcula-
tion of the truss actions
A suitable distribution of lateral loads can be defined according
to Eurocode 8 [24] assuming a linear shape of the main vibration
mode. The resulting base shear is derived from the seismic mass
of the structure by considering the spectral acceleration corre-
sponding to an estimated fundamental period. As usual, the design
spectrum is reduced by a suitable behaviour factor q in order to
account for the ductility of the system while designing the struc-
ture in the linear range. To a first approximation, the behaviour
factor can be chosen as suggested for Type 1 composite walls
Fig. 4. (a) Truss model used for the determination of elements forces; (b) elastic
and plastic deformations of the SRCW; (c) material stress-strain relationship.
147
(Eurocode 8, paragraph 7.3). Once the lateral force system is
defined, forces in the elements of the lattice-like structure due to
the earthquake action can be promptly evaluated. It is worth
remembering that, being a capacity-based design, the forces eval-
uated in this step acting on the non dissipative elements, will be
suitably magnified as described in the following points.
Step 2: design of the cross sections of the steel dissipative elements
in tension
Design of the steel dissipative elements is carried out by super-
imposing tensile forces evaluated in the previous step with forces
due to gravity loads (compression forces). Due to the formation of
the diagonal strut in the RC wall, the element on the opposite side
of the wall is subjected to a compression force for which a specific
verification is carried out at Step 8 for what concern possible insta-
bility. In any case, at least class 2 sections, defined according to
Eurocode 3 [25], are to be used for these elements.
Step 3: capacity design of the connection of the ductile elements
and of the adjacent elements
The design of the connection of the ductile elements and of the
adjacent elements is performed with the formula
Rd P 1:1cov Rfy ð1Þ
suggested by Eurocode 8 (paragraph 6.5.5) [24] where cov is the
over-strength coefficient of the element with plastic resistance Rfy
of the connected dissipative member based on the design yield
stress of the material.
Step 4: calculation of geometric over-strength factors
The over-strength factor Xi for the i-th dissipative steel side ele-
ment is calculated as usual for steel structures, as suggested by
Eurocode 8 [24], by the ratio of the plastic resistance of the ductile
element, Npl,Rd,i, and its design force, NEd
Npl;Rd;i
Xi ¼ ð2Þ
NEd;i
The maximum over-strength Xi should not differ from the min-
imum value by more than 25% in order to guarantee yielding of the
edge steel elements at the different levels. The same condition is
adopted in the design of steel braced frames in order to avoid
the formation of soft-storey [24] and its influence investigated in
a number of recent studies, e.g. [27–29]. For the proposed innova-
tive SRCW, such a provision is investigated in the analyses
addressed in Section 3.2. The proposed SRCW system is less sensi-
tive to the concentration of the deformations in a single storey, i.e.
soft-storey formation, due to the presence of the non-dissipative
RC infill walls.
Step 5: calculation of axial forces in non-ductile elements by com-
bining the effects of gravity loads with those of the seismic action suit-
ably magnified
The non-ductile elements of the structure are the diagonal
struts developed in the RC infill walls and the horizontal beams.
The forces are calculated by a suitable increment of the seismic
design component, NEd,E, accounting for the material and geometric
over-strength of the ductile elements with the usual formula
NEd ¼ NEd;G þ 1:1cov XNEd;E ð3Þ
where X ¼ minfXi g and NEd,G is the axial force component due to
gravity loads.
Step 6: capacity design of the RC infill wall against concrete
crushing
This step is crucial as it assures the good performance of the
system that should not be affected by the wall failure (concrete
crushing). As previously described, bearing plates are placed at
the beam-to-column nodes to support the formation of the diago-
nal strut within the wall (Fig. 5a). A fan-shaped stress field is
expected to form at the bearing plate; the effective width of the
148 A. Dall’Asta et al. / Engineering Structures 141 (2017) 144–158
Fig. 5. (a) Diagonal struts within the infill walls; (b) compression fields involved to resist the axial force in the case lateral elements failed due to instability.
wall should be equal to the bearing plate width lb at the diagonal
ends whereas the effective width is obtained multiplying lb by a
coefficient a > 1 at mid diagonal. It is observed that in this region
of the wall the concrete stress field is also characterised by trans-
verse tension that reduces the available compression strength. The
design formula

 
f f f T2
0:85 ck tw lb ; 0:85 ck m 1  ck ðat w lb Þ
cc cc 250
P NEd;G þ 1:1cov XNEd;E
is derived from Eurocode 2 (paragraph 6.5) [30], where fck is the
characteristic compressive cylinder strength of concrete, cc is the
partial factor for concrete, tw is the infill wall thickness, m is a coef-
ficient that takes into account the influence of transverse tension.
The second value of the left term of Eq. (4), representing the
compressive strength at mid-strut, takes into consideration the
transverse tension (m = 0.6 may be assumed, as suggested by Euro-
code 2 [30]) whereas the first value, representing the compressive
strength at strut end, considers a simple compression field. The
two design parameters lb and a can be determined with an itera-
tive procedure or by imposing a tentative value for a (e.g. a = 2).
The bearing plate should then be proportioned and suitably stiff-
ened to avoid stress localization in the concrete.
The wall reinforcing bars should be checked to guarantee the
diffusive mechanism that depends on the choice of the parameter
a; for this purpose rules for partial discontinuity regions suggested
in Eurocode 2 (paragraph 6.5.2) [30] are considered. In this case,
tensile force, T, to be resisted by reinforcements is evaluated by
means of the formula


1 1
T¼ 1 N ð5Þ
4 a Ed
Fig. 6. (a) Reinforcements constituted by orthogonal rebar layout; (b) reinforcements constituted by additional stirrups.
Two different reinforcement layouts may be adopted (Fig. 6),
the former is constituted by two sets of orthogonal reinforcements
whereas the latter is constituted by a set of specific transverse
(with respect to the strut direction) reinforcements. In the first
case, vertical and horizontal reinforcements should fulfil the
conditions
Ahsl L
¼ Aslv 2 þ Ah2 ¼ ð6Þ
2 sl
Avsl H
f yd
ð4Þ
where the meaning of symbols is explained in Fig. 6 and fyd is the
design tensile strength of reinforcing bars. It is worth noting that
the first reinforcement layout (orthogonal bars, see Fig. 6a) is sim-
pler but possibly less stiff than the second (specific transverse rein-
forcements, see Fig. 6b), which instead requires a third layer of
reinforcements that can be placed only in the case of sufficiently
thick walls.
Step 7: design of the beams in tension
These elements are designed to resist the magnified tensile
axial forces calculated in step 5.
Step 8: check of side steel elements in compression and possible
design of the infill walls to assure the formation of a vertical struts
The ductile elements are checked for instability by using the
formula
Afy v
P NEd;G þ 1:1cov XNEd;E ð7Þ
cM1
where fy is the yield strength of steel, A is the area of the element
cross section, v is the reduction factor for relevant buckling mode
and cM1 is partial factor for resistance of members to instability as
defined by Eurocode 3 [25].
The effective length of the element can be selected to be equal
to the distance between the beam-to-column intersection nodes
 A. Dall’Asta et al. / Engineering Structures 141 (2017) 144–158
reduced by the real dimensions of the joint. In case the verification
is not satisfied, it is expected that the adjacent strip of the concrete
wall collaborates to bear the compression force (Fig. 5b); in such a
case, the design of the shear connection between the wall and the
frame as well as the check of the vertical strut developing in the
wall have to be carried out.
The shear connection is designed to involve an adjacent strip of
the infill wall in resisting part of the compression force. In partic-
ular, this should be able to transmit the force in excess with respect
to the bearing capacity of the ductile element given by
Afy v
tRd P NEd;G þ 1:1cov XN Ed;E 
cM1
In this case, the shear connection has to be placed at the vertical
elements outside the dissipative zone. It has to be designed by tak-
ing into account that possible splitting failure mechanisms of the
wall might occur instead of the usual failures due to concrete
crushing and stud yielding. For this purposes, and in order to avoid
the splitting failure mechanism, rules suggested by Eurocode 4 Part
2 (paragraph 6.6.4 and Annex C) [26] could be considered.
In the verification of the vertical strut developing in the wall,
this element withstands the same force calculated from Eq. (8)
and has to be suitably reinforced with confinement stirrups. The
same detailing rules suggested in Eurocode 8 (paragraph
5.4.3.4.2) [24] for RC walls might be adopted.
Step 9: calculation of the length of the dissipative elements, in order
to ensure the compliance between local and global ductility
This is the second crucial point in the design as it permits a first
control of the behaviour factor used in Step 1. The length of the dis-
sipative elements can be evaluated assuming that: (i) the system
achieves the plastic range with all the fuses simultaneously
yielded, (ii) the steel has a perfectly plastic behaviour with a fixed
ductility, and (iii) the equal displacement assumption is fulfilled.
For this purpose, the formulas derived considering this simplified
mechanisms (Fig. 4) can be adopted.
Under the hypothesis that all the fuses have the same length H0 ,
and in order to assure that the strain demand on the dissipative
elements is lower than the material ductility lm, the following for-
mula is obtained:
ðls  1Þ del L
H0 ¼ PN
ðlm  1Þ ey i¼1 ðzN  zi1 Þ
where ls is the ductility of the structure; N is the number of storeys,
del is the structure elastic displacement evaluated for the static
equivalent loading inducing the first yielding; dpl is the structure
plastic displacement.
It is worth noting that the statically determinate model
depicted in Fig. 4 can be profitably used also by considering more
sophisticated assumptions involving the behaviour of the compo-
nents. In particular, by introducing the hardening in the behaviour
of the steel, it is possible to plot a simplified capacity curve of the
system in which the development of the lateral-resisting mecha-
nism can be controlled.
3.2. Applicability of the procedure
The applicability of the proposed procedure for the design of
feasible and safe SRCWs is assessed by considering a large set of
cases defined by changing the wall aspect ratio, the number of
storeys, and the base shear. 4-storey and 8-storey SRCWs,
extracted from a regular building with interstorey height
h = 3.40 m, are considered. The mass associated to each system is
200 kN s2/m for each floor. In order to investigate whether the sys-
tem can be properly designed and at what extent the wall slender-
ness may compromise its efficiency, four different aspect ratios of
149
the wall infills are considered, namely w/h = 0.66, 1, 1.5 and 2 (w is
the wall width and h the storey height respectively); consequently,
the overall aspect ratios of the SRCWs are 0.165, 0.25, 0.375 and
0.5, for 4-storey systems, and 0.083, 0.125, 0.188 and 0.25, for 8-
storey systems, respectively. The systems are designed for three
different base shears in order to cover low, medium, and high seis-
mic intensities. The design procedure is aimed at obtaining a global
dissipative mechanism in which the lateral elements of the wall
(ductile elements) may undergo yielding at each storey; in order
to check the effectiveness of limits imposed to the over-strength
ratios for the ductile elements (see Step 4 of the design procedure),
ð8Þ four different design scenarios satisfying the condition Xmax/Xmin -
 1.25 are considered namely: (1) all the ductile elements are
designed to fulfil the optimal condition Xi = 1; (2) half of the ele-
ments are optimal and the others are such that Xi = 1.25; (3)
one-fourth of the elements are optimal and the others are such that
Xi = 1.25; and (4) one ductile element is optimal and the other
ones are such that Xi = 1.25. Steel S235 (fyk8235 MPa) is consid-
ered for the ductile elements whereas higher grades are considered
for the non-ductile elements. Concrete C35/45 (fck = 35 MPa) and
steel B450 (fyk = 450 MPa) were used for RC infill, furthermore 8-
storey systems were designed also for concretes C40/50 (fck = 40 -
MPa) and C45/54 (fck = 45 MPa). 180 cases were completely
designed but, due to space limitation, hereafter only a summary
of the outcomes is reported.
Table 1 shows the results for the 4-storey systems. The design
procedure behaves well for the selected cases with only some
problems in the case of walls with aspect ratio 0.66 designed for
the highest seismic intensity since the use of custom-fabricated
profiles would be needed for the non-ductile elements and the
shear connection is not feasible for the impossibility of fulfilling
the splitting verification. It is noted that the four scenarios
assumed for the regularity of the dissipative elements do not lead
to different results.
In the case of 8-storey systems (Table 2) a very different picture
can be observed. As expected, wall infills with aspect ratio 0.66 are
not suitable for all the three selected levels of seismicity due to the
very low overall aspect ratio 0.083. Custom-fabricated profiles
should be used at the first three storeys and the wall is involved
to resist compression axial forces in the vertical elements and
the shear connection system cannot be properly designed. Further-
ð9Þ
more, due to the concrete strength, it is not possible to proportion
the bearing plates needed to avoid the local concrete crushing and,
at the same time, to keep dimensions that may comply with those
of the connected steel elements. In the case of wall infills with
higher aspect ratio, the system can be designed only for low and
medium seismicity levels whereas for the high seismicity cases
custom-fabricated profiles would be needed. In an attempt to
understand if the problem can be overcome by considering more
resisting concretes, SRCWs are redesigned by using C40/50 and
C45/55 concrete classes. In these cases the walls with the lowest
aspect ratio cannot be properly designed.
The previous results are of course not exhaustive as the design
of such systems could be refined in real cases adopting solutions
that should be validated case-by-case. Nevertheless, they give the
overall information that a feasible design is pursuable for the wall
with overall aspect ratios higher than 0.15.
4. Validation of the design procedure
The innovative SRCW system is designed by considering an
equivalent lattice-like lateral resisting structure. Nevertheless,
the real system is characterised by the presence of the reinforced
concrete infill walls that may behave differently from simple diag-
onal struts since biaxial stress fields are expected to develop. Fur-
150 A. Dall’Asta et al. / Engineering Structures 141 (2017) 144–158

Table 1
Qualitative outcome of the design of 4-storey systems.

w [m] w/h w/htot Seismic intens. C35

Design Remarks
2.25 0.66 0.17 Low Y
Medium Y
High N P, S
3.40 1.00 0.25 Low Y
Medium Y (*)
High Y
5.10 1.50 0.38 Low Y
Medium Y
High Y
6.80 2.00 0.50 Low Y
Medium Y
High Y

Remarks: Y = the system can be properly designed.

N = the system cannot be properly designed.
P = need of non-commercial profiles.
S = shear connection not feasible with usual systems.
(*) = case analyzed numerically in Section 4.1.

Table 2
Qualitative outcome of the design of 8-storey systems.

w [m] w/h w/htot Seismic intens. C35 C40 C45

Design Remarks Design Remarks Design Remarks
2.25 0.66 0.08 Low N P,B,S,W N P,B,S,W N P,B,S,W
Medium N P,B,S,W N P,B,S,W N P,B,S,W
High N P,B,S,W N P,B,S,W N P,B,S,W
3.40 1.00 0.13 Low Y Y Y
Medium Y Y Y
High N P,B,S,W Y Y
5.10 1.50 0.19 Low Y Y (*) Y
Medium Y Y Y
High N P,B,S,W Y Y
6.80 2.00 0.25 Low Y Y Y
Medium Y Y Y
High N P,B,S,W N P,B,S,W Y

Remarks: Y = the system can be properly designed.

N = the system cannot be properly designed.
P = need of non-commercial profiles.
S = shear connection not feasible with usual systems.
B = bearing plate for the formation of the diagonal strut not feasible.
W = wall thickness higher than 300 mm.
(*) = case analyzed numerically in Section 4.1.

thermore, joints of the steel frame are not hinged but are rather
characterised by the presence of the diagonal welded plates
(placed to control the formation of the diagonal struts within the
walls) that make the joint very stiff. Models capable of reproducing
such mechanisms and experimental tests are necessary in order to
assess the actual behaviour of the proposed SRCWs. Some cases
selected from the set previously considered are analysed for this
purpose and the results obtained for one 4- and one 8-storey sys-
tem are hereafter discussed. Moreover, experimental tests on two
downscaled specimens design adopting the proposed procedure
are carried out and results detailed analyzed.
4.1. Numerical analysis
4.1.1. Cases analysed
Cases analysed are marked with asterisks in Tables 1 and 2; in
particular the 4-storey system with the wall width w = 3.40 m
under medium seismicity is considered; as for the 8-storey system,
w = 5.10 m and low seismicity are considered. Steel classes S235
and S355 are used for the ductile and non-ductile elements,
respectively. As for the walls, concretes C35/45 and C40/50 are
used for the 4-storey and the 8-storey buildings, respectively. Rein-
forcements of the walls are B450C and are made up of a double
mesh of /10 reinforcements spaced to comply with Eurocode 2
[30]; furthermore, side strips are confined with stirrups /8 suitably
spaced [24]. Shear connectors are welded to the diagonal plates
only at the steel frame joints.
Main data of the analysed cases, profiles adopted for the ductile
and non-ductile elements, thickness of the walls (tw), width of the
diagonal bearing plates (lb), as well as the over-strength factors
(coefficients X) are summarised in Tables 3 and 4. Detailing draw-
ings, not reported here due to space limitations, are available in [7].
4.1.2. Advanced model
Numerical models are developed in the software for finite ele-
ment analysis ABAQUS [31]. The geometry of the system is closely
reproduced by using shell finite elements both for the steel frame
and for the RC infill walls; in particular, 4-node linear shell ele-
ments with 5 degrees of freedom per node (reduced integration,
small membrane strains) are used. The walls are assumed to be
connected to the frame at the inclined bearing plates where stud
connectors are placed. Wall reinforcements are considered by
introducing two layers of reinforcements according to the design.
A coarse mesh (mean size of 0.5 m) is adopted for the RC walls
 A. Dall’Asta et al. / Engineering Structures 141 (2017) 144–158 151

Table 3
Data of the 4-storey system discussed.

Storey Ductile element Xi Column Beam Wall infill

0
H [mm] Profile tw [mm] lb [mm]
1 1200 HE 500 A 1.07 HE 500 B HE 260 B 260 630
2 1200 HE 320 A 1.01 HE 320 B HE 260 B 260 580
3 1200 HE 260 AA+ 1.01 HE 280 A HE 200 B 200 510
4 1200 HE 120 A 1.02 HE 200 B HE 200 B 200 310

Table 4
Data of the 8-storey system discussed.

Storey Ductile element Xi Column Beam Wall infill

H0 [mm] Profile tw [mm] lb [mm]
1 1200 HE 300 M 1.08 HE 300 M HE 300 B 300 540
2 1200 HE 280 M 1.04 HE 300 M HE 300 B 300 530
3 1200 HE 240 M 1.09 HE 300 M HE 300 B 300 500
4 1200 HE 220 M 1.09 HE 280 M HE 280 B 280 500
5 1200 HE 160 M 1.01 HE 240 B HE 240 B 240 510
6 1200 HE 120 M 1.10 HE 240 B HE 240 B 240 430
7 1200 HE 120 B 1.08 HE 160 B HE 160 B 160 480
8 1200 IPE A 120 1.00 HE 160 B HE 160 B 160 180

to avoid numerical convergence problems, whereas a more refined
mesh (average size 0.1 m) is adopted for the steel members. Repre-
sentative perspective views of one of the models are presented in
Fig. 7a.
The behaviour of the concrete is described adopting a smeared
cracking model with full shear retention. The concrete behaviour is
assumed to follow Mander’s law in compression and a linear elastic
law in tension; a softening branch is adopted after cracking to sim-
ulate the tension-stiffening effect. In particular, cracking is
assumed to occur when the stress reaches a failure surface defined
by a linear relationship between the equivalent pressure stress and
the Mises equivalent deviatoric stress. When a crack is detected, its
orientation is stored for successive calculations. Subsequent crack-
ing at the same point is restricted to being orthogonal to this direc-
tion because stress components associated with an open crack are
not included in the definition of the failure surface used for detect-
ing the additional cracks. As already mentioned, the behaviour of
cracked concrete is modelled with a strain-softening branch that
allows to simulate the interaction between reinforcements and
concrete. In particular, it is assumed a linear strain softening with
zero stress at a total strain of about 10 times the strain at tensile
failure. As for the steel, elastoplastic with hardening models are

Concrete C35/45 Steel S235

50 600

40 400

30 200

20 0

10 -200

0 -400

-10 -600
-0.001 0 0.001 0.002 0.003 0.004 -0.25 -0.15 -0.05 0.05 0.15 0.25

Steel S355 Reinforcements

600 600

400 400

200 200

0 0

-200 -200

-400 -400

-600 -600
-0.25 -0.15 -0.05 0.05 0.15 0.25 -0.25 -0.15 -0.05 0.05 0.15 0.25

(a) (b)
Fig. 7. Finite element models: (a) geometry and finite element mesh; (b) material constitutive laws.
152 A. Dall’Asta et al. / Engineering Structures 141 (2017) 144–158
considered for the reinforcements and the steel frame. The yielding
point, the material plastic hardening, and the ultimate stress for
each steel grade considered are defined according to the mechan-
ical characteristics of materials adopted in the design. The nonlin-
ear behaviour for all the materials considered is presented in
Fig. 7b.
It is worth noting that, the model adopted is aimed at investi-
gating the overall behavior of the system, with some insight in
the behaviour of steel elements and the infill wall, but is not suit-
able for capturing interface slip as well as the local behaviour of the
studs. In fact, as finite elements are simply connected in regions in
which shear studs are placed, the model is not able to describe the
deformability of the connectors but can roughly capture effects of
perfect contact in compression and damage of the concrete in
tension.
Pushover analyses are performed by considering triangular dis-
tributions of lateral forces. The loads concentrated at the reference
points located at the two ends of each beam at the floor levels and
are ramped linearly in time. To overcome numerical convergence
problems, the nonlinear solution algorithm is forced to allow more
iterations per load increment until convergence is achieved.
u = 0.044 cm
u = 0.044 cm
Fig. 8. Results for the 4-storey system (u is the horizontal displacement of the top floor): (a) yielding pattern in the steel frame, the red circles indicates the first yielding of
the elements; (b) stress field in the wall.
4.1.3. Results of the analyses
Fig. 8 shows results obtained for the 4-storey system; the yield-
ing pattern of the steel frame for three different displacements
measured at the top level is depicted in Fig. 8a. It is worth noting
that plastic strains are attained only at the ductile elements
whereas the other elements remain in their linear elastic phase.
Such behaviour fully agrees with the dissipating mechanism taken
as objective of the proposed design procedure. It is worth noting
that yielding does not occur at the last storey despite the over-
strength coefficient X is equal to 1.02; nevertheless, the develop-
ment of the plastic mechanism at the first three storeys can be
deemed very satisfactory and follows the expected sequence in
consideration of the coefficients X relevant to the first three
storeys.
The resisting mechanism adopted in the design is also corrobo-
rated by the stress field in the wall (Fig. 8b) that clearly depicts the
formation of the diagonal struts. It can also be observed that the
values of the principal stresses do not increase with the overall dis-
placement demonstrating that the wall is protected against crush-
ing due to the yielding of the side ductile elements. The same
remarks hold for the 8-storey system.
u = 0.069 cm u = 0.11 cm
(a)
u = 0.069 cm u = 0.11 cm
(b)
 A. Dall’Asta et al. / Engineering Structures 141 (2017) 144–158
A comparison between the pushover curves obtained using the
proposed design method for SRCW systems and the finite element
analysis is presented in Fig. 9. Not only the global behaviour but
also the sequence of yielding of ductile elements are well predicted
in the design phase. It is worth noting that the numerical model
exhibits an initial stiffness higher than the one predicted by the
simplified model, mainly due to the contribution of the concrete
tensile resistance. However, after the concrete cracking, the SRCW
stiffness evaluated through the refined model is very close to the
one estimated using the simplified model. Furthermore, the hard-
ening behaviour subsequent to the yielding of the ductile elements
in tension is well reproduced up to the first yielding in compres-
sion of one of the ductile element. Finally, the presence of the rein-
forcement mesh does not introduce any contribution in terms of
stiffness and strength because the stress field in the wall is mainly
characterized by the diagonal compression field.
For 8-storey systems the comparisons are still good; also in this
case the plastic mechanism develops almost completely and only
the elements at the last two levels remain in the elastic field (see
Fig. 10).
The numerical analysis presented are surely affected by some
limitations, as the simplified model of the shear connectors, the
neglect of contact issues between steel and concrete, the adoption
of shell elements with coarse mesh, etc. However, the good agree-
ment between the design procedure objectives and the results of
the refined and simplified models demonstrates that the design
procedure proposed may be suitable for dimensioning the system
elements and that the simplified lattice-like system can also pre-
dict with adequate approximation the behaviour of the structure.
4.2. Experimental assessment
Results of an experimental campaign carried out on downscaled
specimens (scaled down by 2/3 from the full scale) are presented in
order to: validate the predicted behaviour of the proposed SRCW,
evaluate possible problems related to the realization of such sys-
tem, and highlight the influence of different shear stud distribu-
tions along the steel frame perimeter. The specimens,
respectively named ‘‘1” and ‘‘2” are shown in Fig. 11 and can be
both classified as semi-integral infilled wall. Specimen 1 is charac-
terized by the presence of shear studs only in the steel frame cor-
ner zones (situation very close to a non-integral infilled wall) while
specimen 2 has shear studs distributed all along the steel frame
perimeter, excluding the dissipative zones (situation very close to
a integral infilled wall).
In both cases the RC wall is 12 cm thick and the reinforcement
layout is made up of a couple of welded steel meshes
150 mm  150 mm of diameter 8 mm bars, one for each side of
2500
First yielding at 1st floor (compression)
2000
Base Shear [kN]
1500 First yielding at 1st floor (tension)
First yielding at 4th floor (tension)
1000 First yielding at 2nd and 3rd floors
Wall cracking at 4th floor
500
Wall cracking at 1st, 2nd and 3rd floors Design method
ABAQUS
0 crack from the base of the dissipative element in tension, as illus-
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2
Top displacement [m]
Fig. 9. Capacity curves obtained for the case 4-storey system.
153
the wall, supplemental confining reinforcement in the two vertical
portions of the wall close to the dissipative elements, and open
stirrups all along the upper and lower edges of the steel frame.
The yield strength, fym, of the dissipative elements, obtained
through tensile tests on a coupon, is 243 N/mm2. The mean value
of the concrete compressive strength, obtained by two compres-
sive tests on cubic specimens (one for each wall), fcm, is 33.2 N/
mm2.
4.2.1. Test setup
The test setup is shown in Fig. 12. The SRCW specimen is bolted
to a steel base firmly connected to the strong floor. The external
force is applied by an hydraulic jack system to the upper beam of
the steel frame. The tests are carried out in displacement control
and the displacement history imposed to the jacks end is reported,
for both tests, in Fig. 13. An initial maximum displacement equal to
20 mm is imposed cyclically in order to assess a displacement duc-
tility equal at least to 3 (during the test a yield displacement equal
to about 6 mm is observed). The imposed maximum displacement
is then raised to about 30 mm.
4.2.2. Experimental results
In Fig. 14 the experimental cyclic behaviour of specimen 1 is
shown. The first loading cycle highlights a relatively ‘‘fat” hys-
teretic behaviour, while pinching phenomena, with the maximum
resistance that remains practically constant, is exhibited during the
subsequent cycles. The first semi-cycle (Fig. 14b) shows that the
system is characterized by a behaviour very close to an ideal
elastoplastic one with a displacement ductility equal, at least, to
3. At the end of the first unloading phase, the concrete wall exhibits
practically no damage, excluding a little detachment from the lat-
eral steel boundary elements. During the cyclic test, specimen 1
shows the tendency to maintain some plastic deformation in the
dissipative elements and vertical displacements (Fig. 15) are accu-
mulated in the lower interface between the steel frame and the
infill wall. No cracks are detected within the concrete wall. It can
be inferred that, mainly due to the low number of shear studs con-
necting the RC wall to the steel boundary elements, the wall
behaves as a rigid body within the steel frame, avoiding any dam-
age, except for the corner zones. The first cycles confirm so the lat-
tice brace resisting mechanism foreseen during the design of the
specimen adopting the design methodology described within this
paper. However, due to the continuous accumulation, cycle after
cycle, of the vertical displacements in the lower edge, the force
application point of the compressed concrete diagonal strut moves
from the reinforced and stiffened steel corner, to the non-
dissipative column of the steel frame, as schematically represented
in Fig. 16. The change of the force application point causes the
unforeseen and unwanted failure of the specimen due to an exces-
sive shear deformation of the non-dissipative vertical steel ele-
ment (Fig. 17a). At the same time, the spalling of the concrete on
the opposite lower corner of the infill wall and the complete
detachment of the infill wall from the steel frame occurs (Fig. 17b).
Practically no other damage is visible within the RC wall.
Specimen 2 shows an hysteretic behaviour similar to the one of
specimen 1 as can be seen in Fig. 18, with evident pinching phe-
nomena but with a higher resistance. The diffused presence of
the shear studs all along the perimeter of the steel frame allows
the transmission of horizontal forces also through shear mecha-
nism, as testified by the diffused diagonal cracking observed within
the wall (Fig. 19). The more efficient connection between the wall
and the boundary steel elements causes the propagation of a main
0.25
trated in Fig. 19, avoiding any detachment phenomena between
the RC wall and the steel frame. Specimen 2 shows, similarly to
specimen 1, the tendency to accumulate some plastic deformations
154 A. Dall’Asta et al. / Engineering Structures 141 (2017) 144–158

2500

2000

Base Shear [kN]

1500

1000

500 Design method

ABAQUS
0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5
Top displacement [m]

Fig. 10. Capacity curves obtained for the case 8F15E15W1.

Fig. 11. SRCW Steel frame specimens: (a) Specimen 1 with shear studs only in the corner; (b) Specimen 2 with shear studs all along the perimeter (excluded the dissipative
zones).

Fig. 12. Global test setup.

in the dissipative elements (Fig. 20), but the resulting vertical dis- frame. Due to the developed displacement, the vertical and hori-
placement causes the gradual opening of the main cracks instead zontal reinforcing bars crossing the main crack break (Fig. 21),
of the detachment of the wall from the lower edge of the steel causing the loss of some horizontal force carrying capacity. After
 A. Dall’Asta et al. / Engineering Structures 141 (2017) 144–158
Fig. 13. Loading history of tests on (a) Specimen 1 and (b) Specimen 2.
Fig. 14. Specimen 1: (a) cyclic force-displacement curve; (b) first loading and unloading phase.
Fig. 15. Vertical displacements of columns top recorded by sensors n.4 and n.6 (see
Fig. 15) for Specimen 1.
this break, the behaviour of Specimen 2 is very similar to Specimen
1: the RC wall acts as a rigid body within the steel frame causing a
lattice brace resisting mechanism instead of a shear wall one. The
residual resistance of Specimen 2, after the breaking of the rein-
155
forcing bars, drops to a value very close to the resistance of Speci-
men 1, see Figs. 14a and 18a, confirming the modification of the
lateral resisting mechanism. The shear studs distributed all along
the steel frame cause so an increasing of the initial lateral strength
of the system with evident advantages for the whole structure,
especially for the limitation of damages in case of low-to-
moderate intensity earthquakes.
The experimental tests confirmed that both specimens are char-
acterized by the formation of the dissipative mechanism involving
the yielding of the vertical dissipative element, as foreseen and fos-
tered in the design phase. In particular, Specimen 1 showed a lat-
tice brace resisting mechanism from the very first cycles while
Specimen 2 exhibited initially a shear wall resisting mechanism
up to the formation of the main cracks and a lattice brace resisting
mechanisms in the subsequent phase.
The experimental behavior of both specimens highlights also
the tendency of the system to accumulate vertical displacements
during the cyclic loading: in Specimen 1 at the bottom interface
between the steel frame and the RC wall while, in Specimen 2, in
the main cracks that start from the bottom of the dissipative ele-
ments ad propagate within the wall. In both cases, the presence
of such vertical displacements, caused by the tensile effect related
to the overturning moment, reduces the horizontal load carrying
capacity of the system, due to the moving of the RC truss force
application point, such as in Specimen 1, or to the tensile failure
156 A. Dall’Asta et al. / Engineering Structures 141 (2017) 144–158

Fig. 16. Specimen 1: (a) initial configuration; (b) configuration anticipating failure.

Fig. 17. Lower corners of Specimen 1 after failure: (a) shear failure of the non-dissipative zone and (b) spalling of the concrete and complete detachment by the steel frame.

Fig. 18. Specimen 2: (a) cyclic force-displacement curve; (b) first loading and unloading phase.

of the reinforcing bars and the consequent modification of the
resisting mechanism, Specimen 2. In real applications, the presence
of the gravity loads transmitted at the different levels of the struc-
ture by the floors should so bring positive effects on the resisting
system, mitigating the formation of horizontal cracks within the
wall, increasing the horizontal load carrying capacity and the re-
centering one. In system similar to Specimen 1, so characterized
by the presence of few shear studs, the vertical loads can likely
bring also to the increasing of the ductility capacity, avoiding
unwanted failure mode such as the one evidenced by the experi-
mental test on Specimen 1. Further studies are so needed to
numerically and experimentally assess the influence of the vertical
loads on both the system configurations.
 A. Dall’Asta et al. / Engineering Structures 141 (2017) 144–158 157

Fig. 19. Specimen 2: cracking (a) at the end of the first unloading phase and (b) at the end of the first cycle (red line: main crack; blue lines: diffused cracking). (For
interpretation of the references to color in this figure legend, the reader is referred to the web version of this article.)

work for seismic design is illustrated including a discussion the

Fig. 20. Vertical relative displacements of columns recorded by sensors n.4 and n.6
(see Fig. 15) for Specimen 2.
5. Conclusions
In this paper a novel SRCW is presented, conceived on the basis
of a simple statically determinate structural scheme where the RC
walls work as diagonal struts and energy dissipation occurs in the
vertical steel elements yielding in tension. A tailored capacity
design procedure developed consistently with the Eurocode frame-
various steps. Nonlinear finite element analyses are used to pre-
liminary validate the outcomes of the proposed design method
for two case studies. The adopted numerical model includes a finite
element model as well as a simpler truss model that basically pro-
vided very similar results in terms of the global behaviour of the
considered structural system. Afterwards, the behaviour of the pro-
posed system is assessed through an experimental campaign on
two downscaled specimens, characterized by a different shear stud
distribution between the RC infills and the steel frame, i.e. shear
studs only at the corners in Specimen 1, shear studs distributed
all along the non-dissipative steel boundary elements in Specimen
2. The experimental tests for both specimens highlight the forma-
tion of the dissipative mechanism involving the yielding of the ver-
tical dissipative elements, consistently with the design objectives.
Good monotonic displacement ductility and cyclic pinching phe-
nomena, a practically constant maximum resistance and a ten-
dency to accumulate tensile plastic deformation on the
dissipative elements are observed. Differences between the two
shear stud distributions involve the damage distribution and fail-
ure modalities as well as the initial lateral stiffness of the system.
Overall, both numerical and experimental results show the poten-
tialities of the proposed SRCW system and the relevant ductile
design approach for the development of more efficient steel frames
with RC infill wall in seismic areas. Further studies are, however,
needed in order to more deeply investigate the influence of differ-
ent shear studs distributions (e.g. intermediate case between Spec-

Fig. 21. Specimen 2 at the end of the test: (a) global view; (b) failure of the steel reinforcements in tension crossing the main crack.
158 A. Dall’Asta et al. / Engineering Structures 141 (2017) 144–158
imen 1 and Specimen 2) and to experimentally assess the influence
of vertical loads on the system behaviour.
Acknowledgments
Support for this research from the European Commission,
Research Fund for Coal and Steel, Steel Technical Group TGS 8
(RFSR-CT-2010-00025) and from the Italian Department of Civil
Protection within the Italian Research Project RELUIS-DPC 2014-
2018, is gratefully acknowledged.
References
[1] Morino S. Recent developments in hybrid structures in Japan: research, design
and construction. Eng Struct 1998;20:336–46.
[2] Hajjar JF. Composite steel and concrete structural systems for seismic
engineering. J Constr Steel Res 2002;58:703–23.
[3] Deierlein GG, Noguchi H. Overview of US-Japan research on the seismic design
of composite reinforced concrete and steel moment frame structures. J Struct
Eng 2004;130(2):361–7.
[4] Spacone E, El-Tawil S. Nonlinear analysis of steel-concrete composite
structures: state of the art. J Struct Eng 2004;130:159–68.
[5] Zona A, Barbato M, Conte JP. Nonlinear seismic response analysis of steel-
concrete composite frames. J Struct Eng 2008;134:986–97.
[6] El-Tawil S, Harries K, Fortney P, Shahrooz B, Kurama Y. Seismic design of
hybrid coupled wall systems: state of the art. J Struct Eng 2010;136:755–69.
[7] Dall’Asta A, Leoni G, Zona A, Hoffmeister B, Bigelow H, Degée H, Braham C,
Bogdan T, Salvatore W, Morelli F, Tsintzos P, Karamanos SA, Varelis GE, Galazzi
A, Medici E, Boni P, Innovative hybrid and composite steel-concrete structural
solutions for building in seismic area, Final Report, EUR 26932 EN, European
Commission; 2015. http://dx.doi.org/10.2777/85404.
[8] Zona A, Degeé H, Leoni G, Dall’Asta A. Ductile design of innovative steel and
concrete hybrid coupled walls. J Constr Steel Res 2016;117:204–13.
[9] Morelli F, Manfredi M, Salvatore W. An enhanced component based model of
steel connection in a hybrid coupled shear wall structure: development,
calibration and experimental validation. Comput Struct 2016;176:50–69.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.compstruc.2016.08.002.
[10] Braga F, Gigliotti R, Monti G, Morelli F, Nuti C, Vanzi I, et al. Post-seismic
assessment of existing constructions: evaluation of the shakemaps for
identifying exclusion zones in Emilia. Earthquakes Struct 2014;8:37–56.
[11] Braga F, Gigliotti R, Monti G, Morelli F, Nuti C, Vanzi I, et al. Speedup of post
earthquake community recovery. The case of precast industrial buildings after
the Emilia 2012 earthquake. Bull Earthq Eng 2014;12:2405–18.
[12] Liauw TC, Kwan KH. Plastic theory of non-integral infilled frames. Proc Inst Civ
Eng Lond UK Part 1983;2(75):379–96.
[13] Liauw TC, Kwan KH. Plastic theory of infilled frames with finite interface shear
strength. Proc Inst Civ Eng Lond UK Part 1983;2(75):707–23.
[14] Mallick DV, Severn RT. Dynamic characteristics of infilled frames. Proc Inst Civ
Eng 1968;39:261–88.
[15] Liauw TC, Lee SW. On the behavior and analysis of multi-story infilled frames
subject to lateral loading. Proc Inst Civ Eng 1977;63:641–56.
[16] Liauw TC. Test on multistory infilled frames subject to dynamic lateral loading.
ACI J 1979;76:551–64.
[17] Liauw TC, Kwan KH. Static and cyclic behaviors of multistory infilled frames
with different interface conditions. J Sound Vib 1985;99:275–83.
[18] Makino M, Kawano A, Kurobane Y, Saisho M, Yoshinaga K. An investigation for
the design of framed structures with infill walls. In: Proceedings of the seventh
world conference on earthquake engineering, vol. 4; 1980. p. 369–72.
[19] Makino M. Design of framed steel structures with infilled reinforced concrete
walls. In: Roeder CW, editor. Composite and mixed construction. New York
(NY): ASCE; 1985. p. 279–87.
[20] Tong X, Hajjar JF, Schultz AE, Shield CK. Cyclic behavior of steel frame
structures with composite reinforced concrete infill walls and partially-
restrained connections. J Constr Steel Res 2005;61:531–52.
[21] Saari WK, Hajjar JF, Schultz AE, Shield CK. Behavior of shear studs in steel
frames with reinforced concrete infill walls. J Constr Steel Res
2004;60:1453–80.
[22] Sun G, He R, Qiang G, Fang Y. Cyclic behavior of partially-restrained steel frame
with RC infill walls. J Constr Steel Res 2011;67:1821–34.
[23] Braga F, Morelli F, Salvatore W, A Macroseismic approach for the evaluation of
seismic risk. In: Kruis J, Tsompanakis Y, Topping BHV, editors. Proceedings of
the fifteenth international conference on civil, structural and environmental
engineering computing, Paper 91. Stirlingshire, UK: Civil-Comp Press; 2015.
http://dx.doi.org/10.4203/ccp.108.91.
[24] European Committee for Standardization, Eurocode 8: Design of structures for
earthquake resistance – Part 1: General rules, seismic actions and rules for
buildings. EN 1998–1, December 2004.
[25] European Committee for Standardization. Eurocode 3: Design of steel
structures – Part 1–1: General rules and rules for buildings. EN1993-1-1,
August 2005.
[26] European Committee for Standardization, Eurocode 4 – Design of composite
steel and concrete structures – Part 2: General rules and rules for bridges. EN
1994–1, January 2006.
[27] Rossi PP, Lombardo A. Influence of the link overstrength factor on the seismic
behaviour of eccentrically braced frames. J Constr Steel Res 2007;63:1529–45.
[28] Elghazouli AY. Assessment of European seismic design procedures for steel
framed structures. Bull Earthquake Eng 2010;8:65–89.
[29] Zona A, Ragni L, Dall’Asta A. Sensitivity-based study of the influence of brace
over-strength distributions on the seismic response of steel frames with BRBs.
Eng Struct 2012;37:179–92.
[30] European Committee for Standardization, Eurocode 2 – Design of concrete
structures - Part 1–1: General rules and rules for buildings. EN 1992-1-1,
November 2005.
[31] ABAQUS user’s manual, version 6.8EF-2. Providence, RI, USA: Dassault
Systèmes Simulia Corp.; 2008.