Arabian Journal for Science and Engineering

, Volume 44, Issue 5, pp 4309–4324 | Cite as

Effect of Masonry Infill Wall Configuration and Modelling Approach on the Behaviour of RC Frame Structures

  • Kamaran Mohammed Kareem
  • Esra Mete GüneyisiEmail author
Research Article - Civil Engineering


The masonry infill walls influence substantially the response of reinforced concrete (RC) buildings under lateral loading due to their contribution to strength and stiffness. In the literature, there are several approaches for modelling the infill walls. However, they provide different results. In this study, the equivalent diagonal strut model was used. The basic parameter of this strut is its equivalent width. In the first stage of the study, various equations available in the literature for determining the width of the compressed diagonal strut were compared. Among them, Paulay and Priestley relation which gives approximately average value was selected for modelling the masonry infill walls. In the second stage of the study, a sensitivity analysis was performed by considering 2-, 4-, 6- and 8-storey RC bare frames and those with infill walls. Four different infill wall frame configurations, namely fully infilled frame, fully infilled-except first storey frame, interior bay infilled frame and interior bay infilled-except first storey frame, were adopted. Single-strut and three-strut models for simulating wall panels were used in all infilled frames. Thus, a total of 36 different RC frame models were evaluated through the nonlinear pushover analysis in order to appraise the infill wall effect on the overall response of the case study frame buildings. The analysis of the results indicated that the arrangement of the infill panels over the elevation of the frame remarkably influenced the performance of structures. Moreover, the serious capacity degradation was observed especially for the case of infills discontinued at the ground level.


Equivalent diagonal strut Lateral load Masonry infill wall Nonlinear analysis Reinforced concrete frame 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Davis, R.; Krishnan, P.; Menon, D.; Prasad, A.: Effect of infill stiffness on seismic performance of multi-storey RC framed buildings in India. In: 13th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Vancouver, BC, Canada (2004)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Crisafulli, F.J.; Carr, A.J.: Proposed macro-model for the analysis of infilled frame structures. Bull. N. Z. Soc. Earthq. Eng. 40(2), 69–77 (2007)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Dorji, J.; Thambiratnam, D.P.: Modelling and analysis of infilled frame structures under seismic loads. Open Constr. Build. Technol. J. 3, 119–126 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Wakchaure, M.R.; Ped, S.P.: Earthquake analysis of high rise building with and without in filled walls. Int. J. Eng. Innov. Technol. (IJEIT) 2, 89–94 (2012)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Uva, G.; Porco, F.; Fiore, A.: Appraisal of masonry infill walls effect in the seismic response of RC framed buildings: a case study. Eng. Struct. 34, 514–526 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Wood, R.H.: The stability of tall buildings. Proc. Inst. Civ. Eng. 11(1), 69–102 (1958)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Agrawal, N.; Kulkarni, P.B.; Raut, P.: Analysis of M asonry infilled RC frame with & without opening including soft storey by using equivalent diagonal strut method. Int. J. Sci. Res. Publ. 3(9), 1–8 (2013)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Korkmaz, K.A.; Demir, F.; Sivri, M.: Earthquake assessment of R/C structures with masonry infill walls. Int. J. Sci. Technol. 2(2), 155–164 (2007)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Mallick, D.V.; Severn, R.T.: The behaviour of infilled frames under static loading. Proc. Inst. Civ. Eng. 38(4), 639–656 (1967)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Dhanasekhar, M.; Page, A.W.: The influence of brick masonry infill properties on the behaviour of i nfilled frames. Proc. Inst. Civ. Eng. 81(4), 593–605 (1986)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Papia, M.: Analysis of infilled frames using a coupled finite element and boundary element solution scheme. Int. J. Numer. Methods Eng. 26(3), 731–742 (1988)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    El Haddad, M.H.: Finite element analysis of infilled frames considering cracking and separation phenomena. Comput. Struct. 41(3), 439–447 (1991)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    May, I.M.; Naji, J.H.: Nonlinear analysis of infilled frames under monotonic and cyclic loading. Comput. Struct. 38(2), 149–160 (1991)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Lotfi, H.R.; Shing, P.B.: Interface model applied to fracture of masonry structures. J. Struct. Eng. 120(1), 63–80 (1994)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Mehrabi, A.B.; Shing, P.B.: Finite element modeling of masonry-infilled RC frames. J. Struct. Eng. 123(5), 604–613 (1997)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Lourenço, P.B.; Rots, J.G.: Multisurface interface model for analysis of masonry structures. J. Eng. Mech. 123(7), 660–668 (1997)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Van Zijl, G.P.: Modeling masonry shear-compression: role of dilatancy highlighted. J. Eng. Mech. 130(11), 1289–1296 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Samoilă, D.M.: Analytical modelling of masonry infills. Acta Tech. Napoc. Civ. Eng. Archit. 55(2), 1–10 (2012)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Perera, R.: Performance evaluation of masonry-infilled RC frames under cyclic loading based on damage mechanics. Eng. Struct. 27(8), 1278–1288 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Chrysostomou, C.Z.: Effects of degrading infill walls on the nonlinear seismic response of two-dimensional steel frames. Ph.D. thesis, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY (1991)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Saneinejad, A.; Hobbs, B.: Inelastic design of infilled frames. J. Struct. Eng. 121(4), 634–650 (1995)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Buonopane, S.G.; White, R.N.: Pseudodynamic testing of masonry infilled reinforced concrete frame. J. Struct. Eng. 125(6), 578–589 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Asteris, P.G.; Chrysostomou, C.Z.; Giannopoulos, I.; Ricci, P.: Modeling of infilled framed structures. In: Papadrakakis, M., Fragiadakis, M., Plevis, V. (eds.) Computational Methods in Earthquake Engineering, Computational Methods in Applied Sciences, vol. 30, pp. 197–224. Springer, Dordecht (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    FEMA 356: Prestandard and commentary for the seismic rehabilitation of building. Federal Emergency Management Agency, Washington, DC (2000)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Computers and Structures Inc.: SAP 2000 Advanced 14.0.0., Structural Analysis Program Manual, Berkeley, CA (2011)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Thiruvengadam, V.: On the natural frequencies of infilled frames. Earthq. Eng. Struct. Dyn. 13(3), 401–419 (1985)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Reflak, J.; Fajfar, P.: Elastic analysis of infilled frames using substructures. In: Proceedings of 6th Canadian Conference on Earthquake Engineering. University of Toronto Press, Toronto, pp. 285–292 (1991)Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Andreaus, U.; Cerone, M.; D’Asdia, P.; Iannozzi, F.: A finite element model for the analysis of masonry structures under cyclic actions. In: Proceeding of the Seventh International Brick and Masonry Conference, Vol. 1, pp. 479–488 (1985)Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Chrysostomou, C.Z.; Gergely, P.; Abel, J.F.: Nonlinear seismic response of infilled steel frames. In: Tenth World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Madrid, Spain (1992)Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Smith, B.S.; Carter, C.: A method of analysis for infilled frames. Proc. Inst. Civ. Eng. 44, 31–48 (1969)Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Paulay, T.; Priestley, M.J.N.: Seismic Design of Reinforced Concrete and Masonry Buildings. Wiley, New York (1992)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Kaushik, H.B.; Rai, D.C.; Jain, S.K.: A rational approach to analytical modeling of masonry infills in reinforced concrete frame buildings. In: Proceedings of the 14th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, pp. 12–17 (2008)Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Holmes, M.: Steel frames with brickwork and concrete infilling. Proc. Inst. Civ. Eng. 19(4), 473–478 (1961)Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Mainstone, R.J.; Weeks, G.A.: The influence of bounding frame on the racking stiffness and strength of brick walls. In: Proceedings of the 2nd International Brick Masonry Conference, Building Research Establishment, Watford, England, pp. 165–171 (1970)Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Mainstone, R.J.: Supplementary note on the stiffness and strengths of infilled frames. Current Paper CP 13/74. Building Research Station, Garston, Watford, UK (1974)Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Abdul-Kadir, M.R.: The structural behaviour of masonry infill panels in framed structures. Ph.D. thesis, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh (1974)Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Klingner, R.E.; Bertero, V.V.: Infilled Frames in Earthquake Resistant Construction, Report EERC 76-32. Earthquake Engineering Research Center, University of California, Berkeley, CA (1976)Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Durrani, A.J.; Luo, Y.H.: Seismic retrofit of flat-slab buildings with masonry infills. Technical Report, National Center for Earthquake Engineering Research, Buffalo, NY, pp. 1–8 (1994)Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Papia, M.; Cavaleri, L.; Fossetti, M.: Infilled frames: developments in the evaluation of the stiffening effect of infills. Structural Engineering and Mechanics, Vol. 16. Techno Press, Korea (2003)Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    FEMA 306: Evaluation of Earthquake Damaged Concrete and Masonry Wall Buildings: Basic Procedures Manual, Federal Emergency Management Agency, Washington, DC (1998)Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Porco, G.; Uva, G.; Porco, F.: Reliability analysis for non standard masonry systems under seismic loading. Paper No. 1601. In: 13th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Vancouver, BC, Canada, August 1–6 (2004)Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Uva, G.; Raffaele, D.; Porco, F.; Fiore, A.: On the role of equivalent strut models in the seismic assessment of infilled RC buildings. Eng. Struct. 42, 83–94 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Panagiotakos, T.B.; Fardis, M.N.: Seismic response of infilled RC frames structures. In: 11th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Acapulco (1996)Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    Bertoldi, S.H.; Decanini, L.D.; Gavarini, C.: Telai tamponati soggetti ad azioni sismiche, un modello semplificato: confronto sperimentale e numerico. Atti del 6 Convegno Nazionale ANIDIS, vol. 2, Perugia, 13–15 Ottobre, pp. 815–824 [in Italian] (1993)Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    Dolsek, M.; Fajfar, P.: Simplified non-linear seismic analysis of infilled reinforced concrete frames. Earthq. Eng. Struct. Dyn. 34, 49–66 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Dolsek, M.; Fajfar, P.: The effect of masonry infills on the seismic response of a four-storey reinforced concrete frame-a deterministic assessment. Eng. Struct. 30, 1991–2001 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    FEMA 440: Improvement of Nonlinear Static Seismic Analysis Procedures, Applied Technology Council (ATC-55 Project) (2005)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© King Fahd University of Petroleum & Minerals 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Kamaran Mohammed Kareem
    • 1
    • 2
  • Esra Mete Güneyisi
    • 1
    Email author
  1. 1.Department of Civil EngineeringGaziantep UniversityGaziantepTurkey
  2. 2.Department of Building and Construction EngineeringUniversity of HalabjaHalabjaIraq

Personalised recommendations