PSEUDODYNAMIC TESTING OF MASONRY INFILLED REINFORCED

CONCRETE FRAME
By S. G. Buonopane,1 Associate Member, ASCE, and R. N. White,2 Fellow, ASCE

ABSTRACT: Seismic evaluation of a two-story, two-bay reinforced concrete frame infilled with masonry was
performed by pseudodynamic testing of a half-scale specimen. The second-story infill included window openings.
The specimen was subjected to four tests of increasing magnitude based on the Taft ground motion. Explicit
numerical integration with a small time step, soft-coupled load system, and an iterative actuator control algorithm
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Indian Institute of Technology Roorkee on 07/23/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

limited the displacement errors normally associated with pseudodynamic testing of stiff structures. The final
sequence of tests produced diagonal cracking in the upper story, but primarily bed joint shear cracking in the
lower story. Relations between the type of observed cracking and story drift-story shear response are explored.
Compressive strut mechanisms are defined from the experimental values of moments and axial forces in the
frame and infill panel strains. Estimates of story stiffness from several simple strut models were found to bound
the experimentally measured values for both the first- and second-story walls prior to significant damage. Fric-
tion-based analytical estimates of panel shear strength were found to underestimate the measured strength and
to be sensitive to the assumed coefficient of friction. Available methods for estimating shear strength that neglect
infill-frame interaction were found to largely underestimate measured shear strength.

INTRODUCTION of the specimen caused by damage and degradation in the

Reinforced concrete frames infilled with unreinforced ma-
sonry form the structural system of many buildings, designed
without the benefit of up-to-date seismic design procedures
and hence vulnerable to damage during seismic events. These
reinforced concrete frames are often gravity load designed
(GLD) only, and common design practice considers the infill
a nonstructural component. Historically, such structures have
been plagued with poor performance during seismic events.
Clearly the ‘‘nonstructural’’ masonry infill can drastically alter
seismic behavior of the infilled frames. Complex interaction
between frame and infill makes lateral strength and seismic
behavior difficult to quantify, resulting in reliance on experi-
mental research and, more recently, on advanced computer
modeling. After nearly four decades of experimental research
on the performance of infilled frames, certain areas still need
further investigation, as detailed in resolutions from a technical
workshop (Abrams 1994). Among the research needs identi-
fied were (1) behavior of infills with openings; (2) effects of
infill on weak, nonductile (i.e., GLD) frames; and (3) extrap-
olation of existing knowledge to multibay, multistory frames.
The research program summarized in this paper addressed
these three specific needs through the pseudodynamic (PSD)
testing of a two-story, two-bay specimen built at half-scale
(Fig. 1). The specimen consisted of a GLD reinforced concrete
frame infilled with unreinforced concrete masonry units
(CMUs), with window openings in the second-story walls. The
masonry infill was built of 102 ⫻ 102 ⫻ 203 mm two-cell
CMU, laid with face shell mortaring and no shear connectors
between the infill and frame. The infill was unreinforced and
ungrouted, except surrounding the window openings (Fig. 1).
PSD testing provides detailed data on the behavior of the
frame and infill under seismic loading, including realistic sim-
ulation of story forces in multi-degree-of-freedom (MDOF)
structures with no assumptions necessary for seismic load dis-
tribution. PSD testing accurately captures nonlinear stiffness
1
Sr. Engr., Simpson Gumpertz & Heger, Inc., 297 Broadway, Arling-
ton, MA 02474.
2
James A. Friend Family Prof. of Engrg., School of Civ. and Envir.
Engrg., Cornell Univ., Ithaca, NY 14853.
Note. Associate Editor: Julio A. Ramirez. Discussion open until No-
vember 1, 1999. To extend the closing date one month, a written request
must be filed with the ASCE Manager of Journals. The manuscript for
this paper was submitted for review and possible publication on May 21,
1998. This paper is part of the Journal of Structural Engineering, Vol.
125, No. 6, June, 1999. 䉷ASCE, ISSN 0733-9445/99/0006-0578–0589/
$8.00 ⫹ $.50 per page. Paper No. 18447.
578 / JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING / JUNE 1999
masonry and concrete through direct measurement of story
restoring forces.
The masonry infill itself may fail in a variety of modes,
most often involving some combination of bed joint sliding,
corner crushing, and diagonal cracking. The exact mode of
failure depends upon material properties, such as compressive
strength, shear strength and coefficient of friction; geometric
constraints, such as frame-wall interface gaps or window open-
ings; and other characteristics, such as workmanship. Mehrabi
et al. (1996) discusses many of the possible failure modes in
more detail. Depending on the failure mode of the masonry,
large local forces may be applied at differing locations to the
bounding frame, imposing extreme demand on nonductile
GLD frames. Previous studies of GLD frame behavior appear
in Pessiki et al. (1990), El-Attar et al. (1997), and Beres et al.
(1996).
Among the earliest infilled frame experiments were those
performed by Wood (1958) and Benjamin and Williams (1958)
on full-scale, single-bay frames infilled with brick and clay
block. Holmes (1961) first proposed the concept of an equiv-
alent compressive strut based on a series of small and full-
scale steel frames infilled with both concrete and masonry.
Extensive experimentation during the 1960s on small-scale
frames infilled with mortar by Stafford-Smith (1966, 1967)
established the equivalent compressive strut as a practical
method for prediction of the lateral strength and stiffness of
infilled frame structures. The relations developed by Stafford-
Smith still form the basis for current, recommended analy-
ses of infilled frames [e.g. Drysdale et al. (1994) and the re-
port FEMA-273]. Unreinforced masonry contains weak shear
planes along the bed joints, which may initiate degradation
prior to diagonal crushing failures, as noted by Mainstone
(1971) and later studied in more detail by Dhanasekar and
Page (1986) through finite-element models and companion ex-
periments.
The most recent generation of experimental research has
been well documented in Angel et al. (1994), which tabulates
11 programs current at the time. These projects include various
combinations of concrete or steel frames and brick, block, or
clay tile infill tested at full and reduced scales under mono-
tonic, cyclic, and PSD loading. Angel et al. (1994) tested full-
scale, single-bay, single-story reinforced concrete frames in-
filled with brick and block under cyclic loading. Mehrabi et
al. (1996) tested a group of half-scale, single-bay, single-story
specimens infilled with both hollow and solid block, and the
concrete frames included specimens with modern seismic de-

J. Struct. Eng., 1999, 125(6): 578-589

 TABLE 1. Average Material Properties of Concrete and
Masonry

Compressive Secant
Specimen Number of strengtha modulusb
Material type specimens (MPa) (MPa)
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5)
Concrete, 4 ⫻ 8 in. 8 30.6 21,900
28 day cylinder
Concrete, 4 ⫻ 8 in. 13 40.0 25,900
15 month cylinder
Masonry single block 12 16.1 8,410
Masonry 3 course 15 10.1 7,550
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Indian Institute of Technology Roorkee on 07/23/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

prism
Mortar, 2 ⫻ 4 in. 14 13.9 12,700
type S cylinder
a
Masonry compressive strengths over net area.
b
Secant modulus to 45% of compressive strength.

FIG. 1. Elevation of Half-Scale Infill Specimen for PSD Testing
tailing and with nonductile (GLD) detailing. Another substan-
tial experimental and analytical research program is reported
in Zarnic and Tomazevic (1984, 1985), where cyclic tests were
performed on one-half and one-third scale reinforced concrete
frames infilled with brick and block. Both unreinforced and
reinforced infills were tested, as well as panels with window
and door openings. Results have been used to propose some
innovative nonlinear strut models, including multiple strut
schemes for panels with openings. Tests of unreinforced infill
at one-fourth scale in steel frames by Mosalam (1996, 1997)
include quasi-static and PSD tests on multistory, multibay
specimens and infills with window and door openings.
SPECIMEN INSTRUMENTATION AND PROPERTIES
Displacement transducers (DCDTs) mounted on an external
reference frame measured the story displacements at the center
of the interior beam-column joints and displacement at the
center of the base beam. Eighty strain gauges on the reinforc-
ing steel provided strain values for calculation of moments and
axial forces in the frame members. Three strain gauge delta
rosettes were applied on each of the first-story masonry panels
to measure principal strains and directions. Twenty DCDTs
measured total length changes across main and off diagonals
of the masonry, and across window openings. Eight additional
DCDTs positioned near the panel corners measured interface
gap openings between frame and infill. Story displacements
were applied at each story level using a 245 kN capacity, ⫾75
mm stroke hydraulic actuator. The actuators were connected
to the beam stubs through compression-only, ball-and-cup con-
nections, thereby minimizing rotational restraint and allowing
realistic reinforcing at the points of load application (Fig. 1).
An extensive materials testing program was conducted dur-
ing construction and PSD testing of the specimen, including
mix design development of the frame concrete and various
masonry tests (Buonopane 1997). Important material proper-
ties of the as-built concrete and masonry appear in Table 1.
Each CMU has a measured gross area of 17,800 mm2, net area
of 9400 mm2, and mortared thickness of 34.4 mm. All rein-
forcing steel is indicated in Fig. 1, and main longitudinal steel
has a nominal yield stress of 275 MPa.
Free vibration and static flexibility tests were performed on
the concrete frame before the infill was built and repeated
again after construction of the infill. The free vibration tests
were used to estimate modal frequencies and natural damping
ratios. Results of these preliminary tests were verified analyt-
ically where possible, and the frequencies from the free vibra-
tion tests were cross-checked by eigenvalue analysis using the
measured stiffness matrix and an estimated mass matrix. De-
tailed results of all preliminary testing appear in Buonopane
(1997).
PSEUDODYNAMIC TEST METHOD
Pseudodynamic testing combines features of quasi-static
testing, shake table testing, and numerical time history analysis
in order to realistically simulate the nonlinear behavior of
structures that exhibit varying stiffness, here caused by dam-
age incurred during the excitation. Whereas numerical simu-
lations rely on hysteretic rules to trace the changing stiffness
based on evolving system parameters, such as displacements
or interstory drifts, PSD testing accounts for the nonlinear ef-
fects through experimentally measured restoring forces. The
measured restoring forces replace the product of the stiffness
matrix and displacement vector in the equation of motion. The
remainder of the PSD algorithm follows from established nu-
merical integration techniques.
The PSD test method was first proposed and used by Jap-
anese researchers in 1975, and its mathematical formulation
and development have been reviewed in Takanashi and Na-
kashima (1987) and Mahin et al. (1989). Recent advances in
PSD-specific numerical techniques (Shing et al. 1996) and in
actuator control schemes (Seible et al. 1996) have resulted in
wider use of PSD testing for stiff, multi-story specimens.
A review of PSD literature reveals certain unique advan-
tages and disadvantages compared with quasi-static or shake
table testing. Considering first the advantages:
1. For MDOF systems, no assumptions on the distribution
of seismic forces among the DOFs need be made.
2. Effects of damage on behavior are physically modeled
with no numerical assumptions regarding degradation
necessary.
3. Controlled testing speed allows for data acquisition from
extensive instrumentation with modest electronics and
careful recording of important information such as crack
trajectories.
4. Full-scale and large specimens may be tested with equip-
ment requirements not much different than necessary for
quasi-static testing.
5. Specimen mass need not be accurately reproduced in the
lab as it is modeled numerically.
6. Unique substructure tests are possible, where part of the
prototype is built and tested in the lab, while the re-
mainder is modeled numerically within the time integra-
tion loop.
JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING / JUNE 1999 / 579

J. Struct. Eng., 1999, 125(6): 578-589

 As for disadvantages:
1. Error propagation characteristics of numerical integration
require excellent hydraulic control of actuators and tight
tolerances on experimental error in displacement and
force feedback.
2. Nonlinear behavior sensitive to strain rate cannot be re-
produced without real-time PSD testing.
3. Controlled testing speed and small integration time steps
for numerical accuracy may require excessive testing
times.
4. Test response is often specific to a particular input mo-
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Indian Institute of Technology Roorkee on 07/23/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
tion.
Of course, many of these advantages and disadvantages also
apply to one or more of the other testing methods.
Pseudodynamic Algorithm
The lumped mass matrix for PSD testing of this two-story
structure is
M= 冋5080
0
0
3330 册 kg (1)
Using this mass matrix, the expected modal frequencies during
low-level PSD testing are 13 Hz and 28 Hz. As the specimen
is damaged, the modal frequencies will approach those of the
bare frame, 3 Hz and 9 Hz. The modal damping ratios were
specified as 2% and 5% to account for only natural damping,
as PSD testing includes the effects of frictional and hysteretic
damping through the measured force feedback. Rayleigh
damping is an acceptable assumption since the system has only
two DOFs with roughly equal magnitude damping. The damp-
ing matrix was assumed constant throughout the PSD testing
sequence.
An explicit Newmark algorithm (␤ = 0, ␥ = 0.5) was used
to integrate the equation of motion, with a small time step to
ensure stability and accuracy. The application of explicit in-
tegration is limited by the stability criterion
␻n(⌬t) < 2 (2)
with ␻n the largest circular frequency of the structure. The time
step of the input record was approximately 0.0035 s, resulting
in a criterion of 0.62. Studies of error propagation in PSD tests
by Shing and Mahin (1990) for various integration methods
suggest that, for this structure and time step, explicit integra-
tion has comparable error propagation characteristics to other
more complicated integration techniques.
Soft Coupled Load System and Actuator Control
A soft coupled load system uses flexible elements in the
load chain connecting the actuator to the specimen, resulting
in actuator displacements that are significantly greater than the
corresponding specimen displacements, and it requires a spe-
cific actuator control scheme. This method, introduced at the
University of California at San Diego (Seible 1996), is briefly
reviewed here.
In PSD testing the structure must be moved to a target dis-
placement vector dictated by the numerical integration before
restoring forces can be measured, but target specimen dis-
placements from the numerical integration cannot be used di-
rectly as actuator command displacements. The actuator com-
mand displacement vector, d a, is related to the target structural
displacement vector, d s, by
d a = Qd s (3)
where Q, the displacement amplification matrix, is a measure
of relative stiffnesses of structure and load system. When the
580 / JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING / JUNE 1999
J. Struct. Eng., 1999, 125(6): 578-589
stiffness of the structure is much less than that of the load
system, Q converges to the identity matrix. Seible et al. (1996)
propose an iterative actuator control scheme:
d a(k⫹1) = d a(k) ⫹ ␰Q(d s ⫺ dˆ (k)
s
) (4)
s
where d̂ is the measured structure displacement vector at
(k)
iteration step k, and ␰ is a reduction factor to prevent over-
shooting of the target. The iteration is halted when the differ-
ence d s ⫺ d̂ s(k) falls below a tolerance level.
Seible et al. (1996) demonstrate that intentional soft cou-
pling may be used to overcome several experimental problems
typically associated with PSD testing of stiff structures. The
iteration scheme of (4), with an ideal Q, has equal convergence
rates in all modes, thereby avoiding one of the long-standing
pitfalls of PSD testing—spurious higher-mode response. Even
under laboratory conditions, an approximate Q has shown to
be extremely effective in reducing the spurious higher-mode
response that plagues so many PSD tests. In addition, the re-
duction in displacement from the actuator to the structure al-
lows movement of the structure in increments below the res-
olution limit of the actuator. Such fine displacement control
can be especially useful during preliminary testing when ex-
tremely low-level excitations are used to verify the PSD al-
gorithm and software without damaging the specimen.
The success of this control algorithm depends largely upon
the use of a well-determined matrix Q. Previously, Q has been
assembled mathematically based on independently measured
stiffnesses of the specimen and flexible load chain elements.
In the present test setup, soft coupling occurred as a result of
several flexible loading system components and also was de-
pendent upon the direction of loading; therefore, Q was de-
termined by direct measurement, accounting for flexibility dis-
tributed anywhere in the loading system, symmetric or not.
Control of the actuator displacements and measurement of
both actuator and structure displacements allow assembly of
Q based on (3). Conveniently, such measurements may be re-
corded during a typical stiffness test. For this specimen, Q
was measured before each PSD test. Typically, the plots of
actuator displacements versus structure displacements showed
both nonlinearity and asymmetry, but a reasonable linear es-
timate gave acceptable performance in the PSD tests. Before
the Taft 0.10g test
Q= 冋 4.69
⫺1.57
⫺1.24
2.52 册 (5)
while for the Taft 0.80g test
冋 册
1.73 ⫺0.30
Q= (6)
⫺0.53 1.31
showing the expected convergence of Q to the identity matrix.
Severe stiffness degradation occurred during the Taft 0.80g
test; nevertheless, the single estimated Q of (6) provided sat-
isfactory actuator control throughout that test.
PSD Displacement Errors
As pseudodynamic testing combines experimental and nu-
merical processes, error from both sources may affect results.
Experimental errors enter the numerical process through force
and displacement feedback and may rapidly build up and over-
whelm the numerical process. Errors in displacement control
may be classified as overshooting or undershooting. Over-
shooting the target displacement may cause irreversible dam-
age to the specimen which then affects the remainder of the
test. Undershooting may require excessive iterations to reach
the target displacements, resulting in testing times beyond
practical limits and in load reversals near the target displace-
 ment which may cause unrealistic cyclic damage to the spec-
imen.
Frequency spectra of displacement errors have been used as
a performance benchmark in PSD error studies wherein con-
sistent actuator overshooting causes a peak at the fundamental
frequency; undershooting, at the highest natural frequency. Re-
peated undershooting, even of small magnitude, consistently
adds energy to the system near the highest modal frequency
and leads to the spurious higher mode response (Shing and
Mahin 1987; Shing et al. 1996). However, a recent study by
Thewalt (1994), using error data from actual PSD testing,
shows that frequency spectra of displacement errors cannot
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Indian Institute of Technology Roorkee on 07/23/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

accurately distinguish between under- and overshooting. Ex-
amination of the experimental error data from these PSD tests
(Buonopane 1997) supports this conclusion. Undershoot errors
consistently occurred more frequently and with greater mag-
nitude, yet the error frequency spectra showed varied distri-
butions including nearly uniform and peaks near high or low
modal frequencies. No direct relationship between peaks in the
error frequency spectra and the occurrence or magnitude of
under- or overshooting errors was observed.
Displacement Control Tolerances
The actuator control algorithm of (4) prevents time integra-
tion from proceeding unless a certain predefined tolerance
level is met. With a tight tolerance band, experimental dis-
placement errors entering the numerical integration must be
small. Even for actuator control which consistently under-
shoots to protect the specimen from unintended damage, a
tight tolerance apparently can limit excessive energy addition
and maintain cumulative error within acceptable bounds.
Table 2 lists the tolerances used in the final sequence of
PSD testing. The measured displacement is considered ac-
ceptable if it is within the specified tolerance above or below
the target displacement. Tolerance expressed as a percentage
of maximum measured displacement allows for comparison
across the tests of different excitation levels and to tests by
other researchers. For instance, results reported by Seible et
al. (1996) show percentages of about 0.5% to 1.0% for tests
on a five-story masonry structure. In the Taft 0.35g test the
tolerance was extremely low relative to peak displacement,
and at several time steps the control algorithm failed to con-
verge within the iteration limit. In these unconverged steps,
the maximum error carried forward in the numerical integra-
tion was about 1.4% of peak displacement, a level sufficiently
low to not adversely affect the remainder of the test. This
testing program, using tight actuator tolerances with a soft
coupled load system and actuator control scheme, suggests
PSD error propagation can be confined within acceptable
bounds by practical means.
RESULTS OF PSEUDODYNAMIC TESTING
The Taft-Lincoln School S69E record of the event at Kern
County, California, on July 20, 1952, was selected as the
TABLE 2. Actuator Control Tolerances and Displacement Er-
rors
Tolerance as
Test Tolerance Maximum percentage Maximum
PGA semibandwidth displacement of maximum error
(g) (⫻10⫺3 mm) (mm) displacement (⫻10⫺3 mm)
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5)
0.10 1.850 0.213 0.87 1.850
0.35 1.850 2.121 0.09 29.21
0.55 9.40 5.090 0.18 9.40
0.80 19.05 11.834 0.16 19.05
FIG. 2. Taft Response Spectrum (Scaled to PGA of 1.0g)
ground motion for this series of PSD tests. The Taft response
spectrum in Fig. 2 (scaled to a peak ground acceleration of
1.0g) shows that the trend of the spectrum rises between the
fundamental period of the undamaged specimen (0.076 s) and
the bare frame (0.302 s). Thus, damage to the infilled frame
will increase the seismic demand on the structure. Since the
specimen is half scale, the time scale of the input motion is
compressed by a factor of 公0.5; all times cited refer to this
compressed time scale.
Verification with Low-Level Excitation
A low-level excitation with the Taft ground acceleration
scaled to a peak ground acceleration (PGA) of 0.10g was used
to verify the accuracy and stability of the PSD algorithm. Story
drift–story shear plots showed that the structure remained es-
sentially undamaged, with hysteresis similar in magnitude to
that observed during preliminary static testing. No visible
cracking was observed. Numerical simulation with a bilinear
stiffness model and no degradation was used to verify the re-
sults of the Taft 0.10g test. Measured and bilinear displacement
time histories for both stories for 4 s of strong motion exci-
tation show good correspondence between the measured and
bilinear cases, with most local extremes reproduced very
closely (Fig. 3). Hysteretic behavior and the frequency spectra
also showed good agreement. The primary conclusion from
the bilinear modeling is that experimental errors in displace-
ment and force feedback, present in the low-level test but not
in the bilinear model, have been controlled and reduced to the
point which they do not significantly affect the performance
of the PSD test.
Final Pseudodynamic Tests
The final pseudodynamic testing sequence subjected the
specimen to a series of three additional Taft excitations of PGA
0.35g, 0.55g, and 0.80g. The Taft 0.35g excitation tested the
behavior of the PSD control algorithm with nonlinear stiffness
caused primarily by separation between infill and frame. Sev-
eral of the DCDTs positioned to measure relative movement
of frame and infill exhibited gap-opening behavior.
The final tests at 0.55g and 0.80g produced significant dam-
age and degradation of the infill and frame, comparable to that
which might occur during major seismic events, such as a
maximum considered earthquake. The ‘‘NEHRP recom-
mended provisions’’ (1997) map spectral acceleration contours
for a seismic event with 2% probability of occurrence in 50
years (2,500 year return) for 0.2 and 1.0 s period structures.
Spectral accelerations in the Los Angeles area generally range
from 1.50g to 2.50g; in the San Francisco area, from 1.50g to
2.00g. The peak contour surrounding Charleston, South Car-
olina, is 1.50g; the New Madrid area, 3.00g. From the re-
sponse spectrum (Fig. 2), the spectral acceleration at a period
of 0.2 s (about midway between the undamaged infilled frame
and bare frame periods) for a Taft 0.55g excitation is 1.9g,
and for a Taft 0.80g excitation is 2.8g. Thus the final two PSD
JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING / JUNE 1999 / 581

J. Struct. Eng., 1999, 125(6): 578-589

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Indian Institute of Technology Roorkee on 07/23/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
FIG. 3. Measured and Bilinear Displacement Time Histories for Taft 0.10g Excitation
FIG. 4. Normalized Deflected Shapes at Peak First-Story Dis-
placements
tests are reasonable representations of the spectral accelera-
tions currently believed to be expected in major seismic events
in vulnerable areas of the United States.
Fig. 4 summarizes the story drift behavior of the infilled
frame for increasing levels of excitation, showing normalized
displaced shapes of the structure at the times of peak first-
story displacement. During the first three tests, the interstory
drifts are about equal in each story, but the window openings
in the upper walls make them less stiff. Therefore, relative to
story stiffness, the first three excitations impose greater drift
demand on the second story. In the final 0.80g test, the demand
on the lower story exceeded its capacity and a rapid loss of
stiffness allowed for the soft first-story response.
Infill Cracking and Hysteretic Behavior
The final crack patterns resulting from the Taft 0.55g and
0.80g tests are shown in Fig. 5, and the story drift–story shear
relations are given in Figs. 6 and 7. During the Taft 0.55g test,
582 / JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING / JUNE 1999
J. Struct. Eng., 1999, 125(6): 578-589
the second story developed major diagonal cracks from win-
dow corners to panel corners in both directions. The majority
of this cracking occurred relatively early in the record, yet the
second story carried story shears as large as 53 kN even after
cracking. After forming, the diagonal crack pattern stabilized
and did not produce excessive drift or strength degradation.
The Taft 0.55g test also exhibits nonlinearity caused by open-
ing and closing of gaps between frame and infill. Gap instru-
mentation on the west walls measured clearly visible openings
as large as 1.0 mm at one location and other gaps over 0.2
mm. Cubic backbone curves, fit to the story drift–story shear
relations, showed that the small displacement story stiffnesses
of the specimen were significantly less than those of the un-
damaged specimen and approached those of the bare frame.
The first-story small displacement stiffness was 20.5 kN/mm;
the second story, 5.1 kN/mm. Once the structure had displaced
sufficiently to close the gaps and produce contact between the
frame and infill, the stiffness increased sharply in response to
the strut action induced in the infill.
In the final test of Taft 0.80g, minor additional cracking
occurred in the second story, which carried still greater story
shears as large as 89 kN. The first story, however, exhibited
severe cracking, and a detailed history of the crack formation
appears in Buonopane (1997). The first, and largest, peak of
the ground acceleration occurs at 2.63 s, yet it caused no major
damage to the specimen, with only minor extension of existing
cracks in both the first and second stories. Major bed joint
shear cracking occurred at 3.31 and 5.45 s and is reflected in
Fig. 7 by drops in first-story shear as the bed joint fractured
and slipped. Once the slip was limited by the bounding frame,
the story shear increased beyond the initial bed joint cracking
load. Other minor occurrences of cracking did not produce
such noticeable effects in the shear-drift plot, but contributed
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Indian Institute of Technology Roorkee on 07/23/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
FIG. 5. Final Crack Patterns
to the gradual accumulation of damage, causing significant
seismic demand during later portions of the ground record. For
instance, an excitation peak of about 70% of the PGA (at 9.44
s) resulted in a drift of 7 mm, only slightly less than the max-
imum for the entire record, and a story shear of about 111 kN,
also near the maximum.
The hysteretic energy was calculated from the area enclosed
by each cycle in the story shear–drift plot, and may be con-
sidered as a measure of damage to the specimen. Fig. 8 shows
the cumulative hysteretic energy dissipation for each story
from the Taft 0.55g test. Table 3 lists the total hysteretic energy
levels and percentages in each story for each test. During the
Taft 0.55g test, the second story suffered significant diagonal
cracking, yet showed no appreciable change in relative story
hysteretic energy dissipation from the previous lower level
tests. The large increase in relative hysteretic energy dissipa-
tion in the first story during the Taft 0.80g test correlates with
the masonry damage characterized by extensive bed joint
cracking.
Interaction of Infill and Frame
Moments and axial forces in the frame columns were com-
puted from the strains recorded by pairs of strain gauges
mounted on the reinforcing steel. Fig. 9 shows moment and
axial force diagrams for the Taft 0.55g test at the time of
maximum base shear (6.52 s). Moments and axial forces are
given as percentages of pure moment capacity (8810 kN-mm)
or compression capacity (730 kN). Story forces and displace-
ments are indicated in the figure.
In the second story, the column on the loaded side (east)
exhibited large moments and a reversal of sign at the mid-
height location. The relatively large slope of the moment dia-
gram over the upper half of the column suggests a substantial
J. Struct. Eng., 1999, 125(6): 578-589
FIG. 6. Taft 0.55g Story Drift–Story Shear Relations
shear force on the column from interaction of the frame and
infill. Such a shear force would be caused by the formation of
a compressive strut originating near the loaded corner of the
panel and sufficiently inclined to pass below the window open-
ing. Fig. 10 suggests a possible strut mechanism that produces
column moments consistent with those measured. Note that
the maximum moment will occur in the upper half of the col-
umn and may be significantly greater than that measured at
midheight. The interaction force will have some varied distri-
bution, rather than the assumed uniform distribution, so other
possible moment diagrams exist. Measurements of column
moments at many locations or direct measurement of inter-
action bearing pressures would be needed to define more ac-
curately the nature of the interaction forces. The off-diagonal
strut mechanism shown in Fig. 10 is similar to secondary struts
proposed by Mainstone (1971) and Mander et al. (1993) to
model infill walls in which severe main diagonal compressive
strut damage had occurred near the center of the panel. Here
the window opening causes formation of the struts along the
off-diagonals in the undamaged panel.
The formation of the effective strut is also supported by the
presence of relatively uniform axial tension in the second-story
loaded side (east) column, caused by the vertical component
of force from the effective strut. In the first-story column, the
axial force is substantially increased by the addition of tension
from strut action in the first-story panel. Because of separation
of the infill and frame, the column at the unloaded side (west)
carries comparatively little compression, as such compression
is more efficiently transferred diagonally through strut action
in the wall. Thus the overturning moment caused by the lateral
JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING / JUNE 1999 / 583
 TABLE 3. Total Story Hysteretic Energies

Total hysteretic
PGA energy First-story Second-story
(g) (N-m) percentage percentage
(1) (2) (3) (4)
0.10 6.67 63 37
0.35 399 65 35
0.55 1593 66 34
0.80 7129 81 19
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Indian Institute of Technology Roorkee on 07/23/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

FIG. 7. Taft 0.80g Story Drift–Story Shear Relations

FIG. 9. Frame Forces for Taft 0.55g Test at Time of Maximum

Base Shear (6.52 s)

FIG. 8. Cumulative Hysteretic Energy for Taft 0.55g Test

FIG. 10. Possible Second-Story Strut Mechanism

loads is counteracted by a moment-couple formed from axial
tension in the loaded side column and compression in the ma-
sonry infill.
Column moments and axial forces in the loaded side of the
second story remained qualitatively similar throughout all four
tests, increasing in magnitude with increasing excitation. Thus,
even significant diagonal cracking, which occurred during the
Taft 0.55g test, did not prevent load transfer through strut ac-
584 / JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING / JUNE 1999
tion. Triangular portions of the wall adjacent to the window
openings remained almost entirely free of bed joint cracking
(Fig. 5); thus compressive struts could develop at these loca-
tions with little or no relative horizontal sliding of masonry
courses. The maintained presence of strut action and lack of
sliding failures help to explain the stable diagonal crack pat-

J. Struct. Eng., 1999, 125(6): 578-589

 tern, as well as the minimal loss of shear and drift capacity of
the second story.
Fig. 11 shows force diagrams for the Taft 0.80g test at the
time of peak first-story displacement (10.76 s). After substan-
tial separation of infill and frame, the first-story column on the
unloaded side (east) shows a moment diagram similar to that
of a bare frame. That is, the moments are primarily a function
of the first-story displacement, with minimal effect from in-
teraction with the infill. In the Taft 0.80g test, shear cracking
occurred at the top of the center column because of the ex-
tremely large moment gradient. Substantial bed joint sliding
in the upper courses of the masonry, and even spalling of some
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Indian Institute of Technology Roorkee on 07/23/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
the top of the column will tend to increase the local shear. The
shear capacity of the column, neglecting any reduction caused
by axial tension, may be estimated at 33 kN according to ACI
318-95.
Infill Panel Strains
Strain gauge rosettes placed at the center of each lower-story
masonry panel revealed the presence of large principal com-
pressive strains (Table 4), along with tensile strains of consid-
erably less magnitude, supporting the idealization of the panel
as a compressive strut. The inclination of the compressive

blocks directly adjacent to the column, allowed a significant
shear to develop over a relatively short portion of the column.
The top moment is 1160 kN-mm (132%) and the midheight
moment, 730 kN-mm (83%). Estimating the magnitude of
shear as the change in moment over half the column height
(630 mm) gives a shear of 30 kN. The actual shear will prob-
ably be larger than this value as lateral interaction force near
strain field consistently fell between 40⬚ and 45⬚ below hori-
zontal, compared with the main diagonal angle of about 37⬚.
The compressive strains generally increased with increasing
PGA. However, for the Taft 0.80g test at 4.66 s (peak base
shear) the east panel had a negligible increase in strain over
the Taft 0.55g test, while the west panel had a significant in-
crease. This difference between the east and west panels may
be due to the state of cracking at 4.66 s. At this time the east
wall had major bed joint failures near the top and bottom of
the panel, whereas the west wall had only one such failure
near the bottom. The ability of the east panel to develop a
significant corner-to-corner force was severely reduced by hor-
izontal slip along the cracked bed joints, caused by the hori-
zontal component of the strut force itself. The strut resistance
lost in the east panel may have been compensated by higher
strain in the less damaged west panel.
For the Taft 0.80g test at 10.76 s (peak first-story displace-
ment), severe damage had occurred in both first-story masonry
panels, including several full-width bed joint cracks as well as
numerous diagonal and stepped cracks. The increase in first-
story drift seen in the story drift–story shear plot may be as-
sociated with the failure of the infill to mobilize an effective
compressive strut mechanism because of the extensive damage
and many prominent horizontal slip planes.

Effective Strut Models

The experimental data reviewed in the previous sections
have suggested that strut mechanisms might serve as accept-
able idealizations for certain features of the observed infill be-
havior. For unreinforced masonry, compressive strut models
have the potential to model the initial stiffness and low-level
behavior of the infill before significant bed joint cracking.
Hendry (1990) relates the effective strut width, w, to the con-
tact lengths by
1
w= 兹␣ 2h ⫹ ␣ 2L (7)
2
where the vertical contact length, ␣ h, is (Drysdale et al. 1994)

␣h =
␲
2冑 4 4Ec Ic h
E m t sin 2␪
(8)

FIG. 11. Frame Forces for Taft 0.80g Test at Time of Maximum A similar expression gives the horizontal contact length, ␣ L.
First-Story Displacement (10.76 s) Based on an assumed strut width, the axial strut stiffness is

TABLE 4. Infill Panel Principal Compressive Strains and Angles

East wall principal West wall principal
PGA Time Base shear compressive strain East wall compressive compressive strain West wall compressive
(g) (s) (kN) (microstrain) strain inclination (microstrain) strain inclination
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7)
0.10 2.65 9.5 18 40⬚ 15 43⬚
0.35 4.63 44.0 106 44⬚ 72 41⬚
0.55 6.52 93.8 213 42⬚ 187 40⬚
0.80 4.66 122.7 215 45⬚ 370 41⬚
0.80 10.76 71.5 107 41⬚ 104 28⬚

JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING / JUNE 1999 / 585

J. Struct. Eng., 1999, 125(6): 578-589

 ks = (wtE m)/d. The contact lengths for a first-story panel of this
specimen are ␣ h = 542 mm and ␣ L = 1605 mm, based on material
properties from Table 1, dimensions from Fig. 1, and transformed
moments of inertia of the beam and column of 97 ⫻ 106 mm4
and 27 ⫻ 106 mm4, respectively. By (7) the strut width would be
847 mm (40% of the panel diagonal length); the axial stiffness
would be 104.5 kN/mm. Incorporating two such struts into a
beam-element frame model results in a first-story lateral stiffness
of 149 kN/mm. The measured lateral stiffness of the first story,
assuming shear building behavior, was 85.1 kN/mm; therefore this
strut idealization results in a stiffness of 175% of the measured
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Indian Institute of Technology Roorkee on 07/23/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

value.
Paulay and Priestley (1992) recommend a conservatively high
strut width of one-fourth of the panel diagonal length, resulting
in a 527 mm wide strut and a story lateral stiffness of 108 kN/
mm (127% of measured). FEMA-273 recommends a strut width
of

冉 冊
⫺0.4
⫺0.4 ␲h
w = 0.175rinf (␭ 1 hcol) = 0.175d (9)
2␣ h

which gives a strut width of 220 mm (10% of the panel di-

agonal) and a lateral story stiffness of 51.8 kN/mm (61% of
measured). The strut width provided by (7) largely overesti-
mates the measured stiffness, while a strut width of one-fourth
the diagonal length provides perhaps a reasonable and conser-
vative overestimate of the measured stiffness. The FEMA-273
method, however, largely underestimates the measured stiff-
ness. An underestimate of strut stiffness may be unconserva-
tive when the frame-strut model is more flexible resulting in
a lower seismic demand, and when less of the total load is
distributed to the infill strut resulting in an underestimate of
the force demand on the infill. However, a more flexible
frame-strut model may result in larger story drifts, and there-
fore greater deformation demand on the infill, consistent with
the FEMA-273 classification of infill panels as a deformation-
controlled component. Note also that for strut widths that are
proportional to diagonal length, the axial strut stiffness be-
comes independent of diagonal length.
The second-story stiffness may be estimated by dividing
each infilled bay into two half panels, resulting in ␣ h = 563
mm and ␣ L = 1318 mm. The equivalent strut width is 717 mm
(50% of diagonal) by (7), and the axial stiffness is 131.1 kN/
mm. Incorporating four struts into a frame model gives a sec-
ond-story lateral stiffness of 101 kN/mm, 240% of the mea-
sured stiffness of 42.0 kN/mm. A strut width of one-fourth the
length of the half-panel diagonal results in a strut width of 355
mm and a lateral story stiffness of 64 kN/mm (152% of mea-
sured). Both of these methods overestimate lateral stiffness.
The FEMA-273 equation results in a strut width of 150 mm
(11% of diagonal) and a lateral story stiffness of 36 kN/mm
(86% of measured), again underestimating the stiffness.
The stiffness reduction caused by window openings can also
be estimated by applying a reduction factor to the full-panel
stiffness, based on the relative area of window opening to infill
panel. Both experiments and numerical studies have shown a
wide range of stiffness reduction factors, dependent upon both
overall size and location of the opening. Finite-element studies
by Mosalam (1996) determined stiffness reduction factors for
square, centrally placed window openings covering various
percentages of total panel area. With a window area of 8% of
panel area in this specimen, the reduction factor is about 0.85.
Since the full-panel geometry of the second-story panel is
identical to that of the first, the second-story stiffness would
be estimated as 85% of 149 kN/mm, or 127 kN/mm (175%
of measured), also a large overestimate.
Strut forces can be directly estimated from experimentally
measured frame forces by assuming a reasonable geometric
586 / JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING / JUNE 1999
FIG. 12. Assumed Strut Configurations and Forces
strut configuration and applying horizontal equilibrium. Fig. 12
shows possible strut configurations for first- and second-story
infills. All struts are assumed to carry equal loads. For the Taft
0.35g test at the time of peak base shear (4.63 s), the total
base shear was 44.0 kN; a first-story horizontal strut compo-
nent RH = 22.0 kN per strut. For the corresponding axial strut
force, Rs = 27.4 kN, the average axial stress may be approx-
imated as 1.51 MPa, over a strut width of 527 mm and mor-
tared thickness of 34.4 mm. Dividing the stress by the masonry
modulus of 7550 MPa results in an average axial strain of 200
microstrain, which causes a total change in length of 0.35 mm
along the main diagonal. Measured main diagonal shortenings
were 0.36 mm (east panel) and 0.18 mm (west panel), sug-
gesting that, through diagonal strut action, the panels carry
unequal forces and that the west panel (opposite the point of
load application) carries significantly less force than the east
panel. Similar results were observed for second-story struts.
Infill Shear Behavior
For unreinforced masonry walls, sliding shear failures of
bed joints may significantly alter the nature of interaction be-
tween frame and infill, reducing the effectiveness of main di-
agonal struts and producing large local forces on frame mem-
bers. Shear strength in masonry is typically modeled with the
Mohr-Coulomb relation
␶ = ␶ 0 ⫹ ␮␴ (10)
In lieu of actual material test data, Paulay and Priestley (1992)
cite an average value for cohesive strength, ␶ 0, of 3% of the
masonry compressive strength, f m⬘ , and a typical range for the
coefficient of friction, ␮, of 0.3 to 1.2. Paulay and Priestley
(1992) argue that almost all of the clamping force across po-
tential sliding planes is provided by the vertical component of
the strut force. Interface gaps between the frame and infill will
exist because of initial construction and lengthening of the
tension column, thus preventing transfer of gravity loads from
higher stories through the masonry panels. The average shear
stress to cause sliding is

J. Struct. Eng., 1999, 125(6): 578-589

 Vb 0.03 f ⬘m
fv = = (11)
Lt 1 ⫺ ␮ tan ␪
A coefficient of friction of 0.89 has been measured experi-
mentally by Mehrabi et al. (1994) using identical CMU to
those of this specimen and comparable mortar. For this spec-
imen, (11) gives a first-story lateral strength of 105 kN. As-
suming nearly all of the story shear is carried by the masonry
infill before significant bed joint sliding, the average shear
stress would be 0.905 MPa. The PSD experiments showed
significant bed joint cracking at lower story shears. The Taft
0.55g test caused the first bed joint crack at a story shear of
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Indian Institute of Technology Roorkee on 07/23/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
about 90 kN (average shear stress of 0.774 MPa). Far more
extensive damage occurred during the Taft 0.80g test, where
many bed joints cracked with story shears in the range of 65
to 110 kN (average shear stresses of 0.559 to 0.945 MPa). The
first-story shear strength was about 120 kN or 1.031 MPa,
114% of the strength calculated by (11).
Other methods available for determining the shear strength
of unreinforced masonry, such as FEMA-273, ‘‘NEHRP rec-
ommended provisions’’ (1997), and ACI 530-95, do not ac-
count for additional lateral strength caused by the interaction
of the frame and infill, but rather consider only the cohesive
bond of the bed joints. FEMA-273 allows an average shear
strength of 0.190 MPa (27 psi) for running bond masonry in
good condition when no in-place shear tests are available. For
ungrouted, running bond masonry, both ACI 530-95 and
NEHRP limit shear stress to 0.260 MPa (37 psi) based on a
parabolic stress distribution, corresponding to a limiting av-
erage stress of 0.173 MPa (25 psi). These shear strengths are
much less than the measured value of 1.031 MPa, showing
that the diagonal compression induced by frame-infill inter-
action can produce a significant increase in friction-based
shear strength. ACI 530-95 and NEHRP allow an increase in
shear strength caused by gravity load compression. This in-
crease is not appropriate for infill frames since nearly all grav-
ity load will be carried through the frame.
Friction-based formulations for lateral strength of unrein-
forced masonry infill can show extreme sensitivity to the as-
sumed coefficient of friction. Fig. 13 shows this dependence
of lateral shear strength determined by (11) for this specimen
over a typical range of values of the coefficient of friction.
Previous research has shown that such sensitive dependence
on the coefficient of friction exists even in more advanced
analytical models for lateral strength of infilled frames. As-
suming a lower bound for the coefficient of friction, or ne-
glecting the contribution of friction altogether, can be a con-
servative assumption that may be acceptable for analysis or
design. In fact, Paulay and Priestley (1992) recommend ne-
glecting the shear-friction contribution to lateral strength, with
frame capacity based strictly on assumed locations of plastic
hinging caused by infill interaction. However, for more accu-
rate assessment of existing structures better estimation of ␮
and more advanced analytical models would be desirable. Un-
fortunately, published material test data for coefficients of fric-
tion are scarce, and those that are available show large vari-
ation and strong dependence upon type of block and mortar
(Hendry 1990). Even with the experimentally measured value
of ␮ available here, predicted and measured shear strengths
differed by 14%.
CONCLUSIONS
This PSD experimental program was intended to provide
new behavioral information on multistory, GLD reinforced
concrete frames with openings in some of the unreinforced
infill panels. The results of the experiment were used to assess
the ability of some simple analytical strut and shear models to
predict basic stiffness and strength properties of the specimen.
J. Struct. Eng., 1999, 125(6): 578-589
FIG. 13. Dependence of Masonry Shear Strength on Coeffi-
cient of Friction
An explicit PSD testing algorithm proved successful in con-
junction with a soft coupled load system with an iterative ac-
tuator control algorithm. The displacement control matrix nec-
essary for the actuator control scheme was measured directly
and found to provide excellent control even with substantial
stiffness degradation of the specimen. No spurious higher
mode response, often associated with PSD testing of stiff
structures, was observed. Displacement errors analysis verified
that error frequency spectra are not, in fact, reliable measures
of performance. Further study of PSD testing errors will be
needed to determine meaningful performance indicators, and
should be based on increasingly available data from actual
PSD tests.
The PSD tests revealed that the ability of the structure to
resist lateral loads without excessive drift by mobilizing and
maintaining effective compressive strut action was closely re-
lated to the type of cracking. The stepped crack pattern that
formed in the second story stabilized and did not allow large
drifts. In contrast, the first-story infill deteriorated with long
bed joint cracks, causing a soft story response. The sliding
failures of the masonry have the potential to cause brittle fail-
ures, such as column shear cracking, especially in GLD con-
crete frames.
The difference in crack patterns and associated hysteretic
behavior between the two stories suggests different strut mech-
anisms may be needed to capture each type of behavior. The
first-story infill behavior can be characterized by a main di-
agonal strut at low force levels. For higher force levels, bed
joint sliding reduces the effectiveness of main diagonal struts
and allows large drifts to occur. Strut mechanisms that form
in the lower story panels are affected in configuration and
capacity by the numerous shear failure planes that develop as
the infill is damaged. In the second story, the window openings
forced compressive struts to form inclined at steep angles to
pass below the openings. The large inclination of the strut
provides enough normal force on the bed joints to prevent
widespread cracking. The bed joint cracking that does occur
is almost entirely above or below the window openings where
normal forces are low. Thus it could be conjectured that win-
dow openings in unreinforced masonry infills lead to a more
desirable cracking pattern than the extensive bed joint cracking
that occurs in full-panel infills.
Existing estimates for average shear strength that account
for only cohesive bond were found to severely underestimate
JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING / JUNE 1999 / 587
 the shear strength, or even initial cracking stress, of this spec-
imen. An analytical approximation for lateral shear strength
that includes the effects of friction and infill-frame interaction
was found to underestimate the experimental shear strength,
when using a measured value for the coefficient of friction.
Further, such formulations are extremely sensitive to the se-
lected value of coefficient of friction, and no good guidelines
exist for determination of the coefficient of friction without
extensive material tests. For unreinforced masonry infill,
where lateral shear strength plays a determining role in overall
behavior, research should be focused on better understanding
of the shear-friction behavior.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Indian Institute of Technology Roorkee on 07/23/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Several currently available simple strut models were found
to bound widely the measured initial stiffnesses for both the
first story and the second story, with window openings. Strut
models for panels with openings should recognize the geo-
metric constraints and boundary conditions imposed by the
openings. In order to extend strut models beyond the low-level
range, certain nonlinear properties must be incorporated, in-
cluding nonlinear shear behavior. Further, the progression of
cracking may impose changing boundary conditions, requiring
adapted strut configurations in the nonlinear range.
Recommendations for Analysis and Design
Based on the results of this experiment and review of some
simple analytical techniques proposed by others, several rec-
ommendations are offered for analysis and design of unrein-
forced masonry, infilled frames.
A range of strut widths from one-sixth to one-fourth of the
panel diagonal length will probably bound the true stiffness,
although the widths predicted by (7) and (9) should be con-
sidered for comparison. Since the lateral stiffness of a typical
infilled frame structure will be dominated by the contribution
of the diagonal struts, seismic demand may be highly depen-
dent on the assumed strut width. An underestimate of strut
width may result in less force being transferred to the masonry,
affecting the prediction of cracking or crushing.
For panels with openings, a multiple strut configuration
should be used which recognizes the boundary conditions im-
posed by the openings. Again, strut widths of between one-
sixth and one-fourth of the strut diagonal lengths will likely
bound the true stiffness.
Infill shear strengths based on cohesive bond alone (e.g.
FEMA-273, ACI 530, NEHRP) are extremely conservative, as
they do not account for the shear-friction contribution pro-
duced by the compressive strut action. Potential shear-friction
contributions from gravity load should not be used to increase
the shear strength as gravity load will be carried by the bound-
ing frame.
Infill shear-friction models that account for strut action [e.g.
(11)] should be used only with a lower-bound coefficient of
friction. A value of 0.30 is currently accepted as appropriate.
Measured coefficients of friction from masonry unit testing
should be used only with extreme caution and a close exam-
ination of the sensitivity of shear strength to the coefficient of
friction.
The localized forces applied to the bounding frame by the
deteriorating masonry should be accounted for by estimating
locations of plastic hinging in the frame members and calcu-
lating the lateral force associated with such a frame failure
mode. For conservative design, the lateral strength of the
frame with assumed hinge locations should be greater than the
shear strength of the infill, including interaction effects.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The financial support of the National Center for Earthquake Engi-
neering Research (NCEER), with primary funding from the National Sci-
588 / JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING / JUNE 1999
J. Struct. Eng., 1999, 125(6): 578-589
ence Foundation and the state of New York, is gratefully acknowledged.
The first writer acknowledges additional financial assistance provided as
a part of an ACI-WR Grace Fellowship. The experimental work for this
research was conducted in the George Winter Laboratory for Structural
Engineering at Cornell University with the assistance of laboratory man-
ager Timothy K. Bond. Prof. Khalid Mosalam of the University of Cal-
ifornia at Berkeley also made available the benefit of his research and
experience in pseudodynamic testing.
APPENDIX I. REFERENCES
Abrams, D. P., ed. (1994). ‘‘Proceedings from the NCEER Workshop on
Seismic Response of Masonry Infills.’’ Tech. Rep. NCEER-94-0004,
Nat. Ctr. for Earthquake Engrg. Res., State University of New York at
Buffalo.
Angel, R., Abrams, D., Shapiro, D., Uzarski, J., and Webster, M. (1994).
‘‘Behavior of reinforced concrete frames with masonry infills.’’ Struct.
Res. Ser. No. 589, UILU-ENG-94-2005, Dept. of Civ. Engrg., Univer-
sity of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign, Ill.
Benjamin, J. R., and Williams, H. A. (1958). ‘‘The behavior of one-story
brick shear walls.’’ J. Struct. Div., ASCE, 84(4), 1–30, paper 1723.
Beres, A., Pessiki, S. P., White, R. N., and Gergely, P. (1996). ‘‘Impli-
cations of experiments on the seismic behavior of gravity load designed
RC beam-to-column connections.’’ Earthquake Spectra, 12(2), 185–
198.
‘‘Building code requirements for masonry structures.’’ (1995). ACI Stan-
dard 530-95, American Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills, Mich.
‘‘Building code requirements for structural concrete.’’ (1995). ACI Stan-
dard 318-95, American Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills, Mich.
Buonopane, S. G. (1997). ‘‘Seismic evaluation of a masonry infilled re-
inforced concrete frame by pseudodynamic testing,’’ MS thesis, School
of Civ. and Envir. Engrg., Cornell University, Ithaca, N.Y.
Dhanasekar, M., and Page, A. W. (1986). ‘‘The influence of brick masonry
infill properties on the behaviour of infilled frames.’’ Proc., Instn. Civ.
Engrs., 81(2), 593–605.
Drysdale, R. G., Hamid, A. A., and Baker, L. R. (1994). Masonry struc-
tures: Behavior and design. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, N.J.
El-Attar, A-G., White, R. N., and Gergely, P. (1997). ‘‘Behavior of gravity
load design reinforced concrete buildings subjected to earthquakes.’’
ACI Struct. J., 94(2), 133–145.
Hendry, A. W. (1990). Structural masonry. MacMillan Education, Ltd.,
London.
Holmes, M. (1961). ‘‘Steel frames with brickwork and concrete infilling.’’
Proc., Instn. Civ. Engrs., 19, 473–478.
Mahin, S., Shing, P. B., Thewalt, C. R., and Hanson, R. D. (1989). ‘‘Pseu-
dodynamic test method—Current status and future directions.’’ J.
Struct. Engrg., ASCE, 115(8), 2113–2128.
Mainstone, R. J. (1971). ‘‘On the stiffnesses and strengths of infilled
frames.’’ Proc., Instn. Civ. Engrs. Suppl., 57–89.
Mander, J. B., Nair, B., Wojtkowski, K., and Ma, J. (1993). ‘‘An experi-
mental study on the seismic performance of brick-infilled steel frames
with and without retrofit.’’ Tech. Rep. NCEER-93-0001, Nat. Ctr. for
Earthquake Engrg. Res., State University of New York at Buffalo.
Mehrabi, A. B., Shing, P. B., Schuller, M. P., and Noland, J. L. (1994).
‘‘Performance of masonry infilled R/C frames under in-plane lateral
loads.’’ Res. Series No. CU/SR-94/6. Dept. of Civ., Envir., and Arch.
Engrg., University of Colorado, Boulder.
Mehrabi, A. B., Shing, P. B., Schuller, M. P., and Noland, J. L. (1996).
‘‘Experimental evaluation of masonry-infilled RC frames.’’ J. Struct.
Engrg., ASCE, 122(3), 228–237.
Mosalam, K. M. (1996). ‘‘Experimental and computational strategies for
the seismic behavior evaluation of frames with infill walls,’’ PhD the-
sis, School of Civ. and Envir. Engrg., Cornell University, Ithaca, N.Y.
Mosalam, K. M., White, R. N., and Gergely, P. (1997). ‘‘Static response
of infilled frames using quasi-static experimentation.’’ J. Struct. Engrg.,
ASCE, 123(11), 1462–1469.
‘‘NEHRP guidelines for the seismic rehabilitation of buildings.’’ (1997).
FEMA-273, Building Seismic Safety Council, Washington, D.C.
‘‘NEHRP recommended provisions for seismic regulations for new build-
ings and other structures.’’ (1997). Building Seismic Safety Council,
Washington, D.C.
Paulay, T., and Priestley, M. J. N. (1992). Seismic design of reinforced
concrete and masonry buildings. Wiley, New York.
Pessiki, S. P., Conley, C. H., Gergely, P., and White, R. N. (1990). ‘‘Seis-
mic behavior of lightly-reinforced concrete column and beam-column
joint details.’’ Tech. Rep. NCEER-90-0014, Nat. Ctr. for Earthquake
Engrg. Res., State University of New York at Buffalo.
Seible, F., Hegemier, G. A., and Igarashi, A. (1996). ‘‘Simulated seismic
laboratory load testing of full-scale buildings.’’ Earthquake Spectra,
12(1), 57–86.
 Shing, P. B., and Mahin, S. (1987). ‘‘Cumulative experimental errors in ds = target structural displacement vector;
pseudodynamic tests.’’ Earthquake Engrg. Struct. Dyn., 15, 409–424. d̂ s = measured structural displacement vector;
Shing, P. B., and Mahin, S. (1990). ‘‘Experimental error effects in pseu- Ec = elastic modulus of concrete;
dodynamic testing.’’ J. Engrg. Mech., ASCE, 116(4), 805–821. Em = elastic modulus of masonry;
Shing, P. B., Nakashima, M., and Bursi, O. S. (1996). ‘‘Application of
pseudodynamic test method to structural research.’’ Earthquake Spec-
f ⬘m = masonry prism compressive strength;
tra, 12(1), 29–56. f␯ = masonry shear strength
Stafford Smith, B. (1966). ‘‘Behavior of square infilled frames.’’ J. Struct. h = height of infill panel;
Div., ASCE, 92(1), 381–403. Ic = moment of inertia of column;
Stafford Smith, B. (1967). ‘‘Methods for predicting the lateral stiffness ks = axial stiffness of diagonal strut;
and strength of multi-storey infilled frames.’’ Build. Sci., 2, 247–257. L = length of infill panel;
Takanashi, K., and Nakashima, M. (1987). ‘‘Japanese activities on on- M = mass matrix;
line testing.’’ J. Engrg. Mech., ASCE, 113(7), 1014–1032. Q = displacement amplification matrix;
Thewalt, C. R. (1994). ‘‘Performance parameters for pseudodynamic
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Indian Institute of Technology Roorkee on 07/23/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

RH = horizontal component of strut force;

tests.’’ J. Struct. Engrg., ASCE, 120(9), 2768–2781. RS = strut force;
Wood, R. H. (1958). ‘‘The stability of tall buildings.’’ Proc., Instn. Civ.
Engrs., 11, 69–102.
RV = vertical component of strut force;
Zarnic, R., and Tomazevic, M. (1984). ‘‘Study of the behaviour of ma- t = mortared thickness of masonry;
sonry infilled reinforced concrete frames subjected to seismic load- Vb = lateral shear strength of a panel;
ing—Part one.’’ Rep., Institute for Testing and Research in Materials w = width of diagonal strut;
and Structures, Ljubljana, Yugoslavia. ␣h = vertical contact length;
Zarnic, R., and Tomazevic, M. (1985). ‘‘Study of the behaviour of ma- ␣L = horizontal contact length;
sonry infilled reinforced concrete frames subjected to seismic load- ␤ = Newmark-beta integration parameter;
ing—Part two.’’ Rep., Institute for Testing and Research in Materials ␥ = Newmark-beta integration parameter;
and Structures, Ljubljana, Yugoslavia. ⌬t = time step;
␪ = strut inclination;
APPENDIX II. NOTATION ␮ = coefficient of friction;
␰ = actuator command displacement reduction factor;
The following symbols are used in this paper: ␴ = bed joint normal stress;
␶ = bed joint shear stress;
d = length of diagonal strut; ␶0 = bed joint cohesive stress; and
d a = actuator command displacement vector; ␻n = circular frequency of highest mode.

JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING / JUNE 1999 / 589

J. Struct. Eng., 1999, 125(6): 578-589