See

discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/310674375

Numerical modelling of out-of-plane response

of infilled frames: State of the art and future
challenges for the equivalent strut...

Article in Engineering Structures · February 2017

DOI: 10.1016/j.engstruct.2016.10.012

CITATION READS

1 270

4 authors:

Panagiotis G Asteris L. Cavaleri

School of Pedagogical & Technological Educ… Università degli Studi di Palermo
98 PUBLICATIONS 840 CITATIONS 74 PUBLICATIONS 410 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Fabio Di Trapani Athanasios K. Tsaris

Politecnico di Torino School of Pedagogical & Technological Educ…
40 PUBLICATIONS 128 CITATIONS 7 PUBLICATIONS 16 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Green Binder Materials for Civil Engineering and Architecture Applications View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Fabio Di Trapani on 24 November 2016.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file. All in-text references underlined in blue are added to the original document
and are linked to publications on ResearchGate, letting you access and read them immediately.
 Engineering Structures 132 (2017) 110–122

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

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

Review article

Numerical modelling of out-of-plane response of infilled frames: State of

the art and future challenges for the equivalent strut macromodels
P.G. Asteris a, L. Cavaleri b,⇑, F. Di Trapani b, A.K. Tsaris a
a
Computational Mechanics Laboratory, School of Pedagogical & Technological Education, Heraklion, GR 14121 Athens, Greece
b
Dipartimento di Ingegneria Civile, Ambientale, Aerospaziale, dei Materiali (DICAM), University of Palermo, 90128 Viale delle Scienze, Palermo, Italy

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

Article history: Infill-frame interaction constitutes a still open question both in research and in practicing engineering.
Received 18 September 2015 Computational models used to predict this interaction are, in most cases, addressing the estimation of
Revised 3 October 2016 the response of the infilled frames when subjected to actions parallel to their plane. However, the obser-
Accepted 11 October 2016
vation of the post-earthquake damage has demonstrated that infills, weakened by the in-plane actions,
may fail out-of-plane increasing the risks associated to the earthquake scenarios. In spite of this, different
studies have shown that infills, if properly designed and supported by the frame, exhibit a significant
Keywords:
strength and displacement capacity when called to resist to out-of-plane actions, offering the possibility
Infilled frames
Masonry
to develop an arching mechanism in their deformed configuration. The prediction of the combined in-
In-plane plane out-of-plane response prefigures the new goal of the seismic assessment of masonry infilled
Out-of-plane frames.
Arching action This paper presents an in-depth literature review of the capacity models developed for the prediction of
Seismic response the out-of-plane response of infilled frames, from the first flexural based computational models to the
models implementing the arching action theory in their formulation. A comparison between the results
obtainable is provided in order to compare the models reliability against the results of different experi-
mental tests. A final discussion is devoted to the effectiveness the recent integrated in-plane/out-of-plane
macromodels used in 3D structural models. A new promising approach, based on the use nonlinear fiber-
section elements, is also outlined providing a numerical testing of the capacity of such elements to nat-
urally account for the out-of-plane arching mechanism.
Ó 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Contents

1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 111
2. Models for prediction of the out-of-plane capacity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 111
2.1. Flexural action based models . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 111
2.2. Arching action based models . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 112
3. In-plane/out-of-plane interaction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 115
4. Integrated macromodels . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 117
5. New perspectives for fiber macromodels . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 119
5.1. Coupling of axial load and bending moment in fiber-section elements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 119
5.2. Proposed application . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 120
5.3. Testing the out-of-plane response of fiber-section diagonal struts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 120
6. Conclusions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 121
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 122

⇑ Corresponding author.
E-mail address: liborio.cavaleri@unipa.it (L. Cavaleri).

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2016.10.012
0141-0296/Ó 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
 P.G. Asteris et al. / Engineering Structures 132 (2017) 110–122
1. Introduction
The interaction between masonry infills and framed structures
(reinforced concrete or steel) has been studied for 60 years because
of its recognized fundamental role in seismic performance of con-
structions. Predictive models are nowadays constantly updated as
is their implementation in the most recent and powerful FE analy-
sis programs. In this time frame, the majority of the studies con-
cerning the behavior of infilled frames have regarded the in-
plane (IP) interaction as of major relevance in the overall response.
Infills produce a large increase of stiffness with respect to the one
owned by the bare structures and substantially modify their
dynamic response [1,2]. A simultaneous increase of strength is also
recognized and is accompanied by a significant modification of the
collapse modalities involving overall the structural complex [3–5].
Equivalent strut macromodels [6–13] comprise the most effec-
tive way to practically include in structural models the strengthen-
ing and stiffening effects provided by the infills, overcoming the
large computational effort required by the refined FE micromodels
[14–17]. Despite this, equivalent struts are purely phenomenologi-
cal models. They don’t reproduce exactly the physics of the original
systems and, because of this, they may neglect important informa-
tion such as the local shear transfer in contact regions [18,19].
The large number of experimental and analytical studies carried
out to understand and predict the in-plane behavior of the infilled
frames is not accompanied by as many studies investigating the
out-of-plane (OOP) response of infills. However, this constitutes a
quite relevant issue influencing seismic assessment of construc-
tions and safety of people. During earthquakes, infills are in fact
subjected to inertial forces normal to their plane which, in depen-
dence of the infills characteristics and the damage produced by the
simultaneous in-plane actions, may cause their collapse out of
plane and constitute a further risk for the populations involved.
In other cases, the out-of-plane collapse may occur as a conse-
quence of a prior in-plane damage experienced by the infills in pre-
vious earthquakes. Because of their in-plane stiffness, masonry
infills attract a large amount of shear action. A typical x-pattern
of cracks may occur even after moderate earthquakes, weakening
infills and making them vulnerable to possible further shakings
involving their out-of-plane capacity. Nevertheless, it is also true
that if infills are not too slender and the boundary frame is ade-
quately stiff, they can exhibit a significant strength and displace-
ment capacity against actions normal to their plane.
Several studies have in fact demonstrated that masonry infills
when subjected to OOP actions can resist even to large loads by
the development of a resisting arching mechanism (Fig. 1a). More-
over the typical crack patterns observable after OOP experimental
tests (Fig. 1b) suggest that the behavior of the infill, restrained by
Fig. 1. Out-of-plane mechanism: (a) Development of the arching effect for OOP actions; (b) Typical OOP cracking pattern.
111
the surrounding frame, can be assimilated to that of a plate. The
arching effect has therefore a 2-way generation.
Despite the fact that most theories agree in recognizing the
aforementioned out-of-plane behavior for the infilled frames, their
results are often conflicting. In most cases this may be justified by
substantially different choices in the reference experimental
programs.
With the scope to provide an outline of the literature models
available for the prediction of the out-of-plane behavior of masonry
infills, this paper presents a thorough state-of-the-art review high-
lighting from time to time the progress achieved in the characteri-
zation of the response. The literature review starts from the first
computational models on the determination of the ultimate load,
based on the simple flexural capacity of the panels, covering up to
those including arching mechanism and two-way action.
A reliability comparison is also provided for the most prominent
models presented, testing their capacity to predict the results
obtained against different experimental tests. The issues related
to reciprocal in-plane out-of-plane damaging are also discussed
by presenting the results of massive experimental campaigns.
The most recent developments provide the integration of interact-
ing IP-OOP macromodels in 3D structural models. The features of
the very recent 3D macromodels are presented, highlighting their
qualities and limitations.
Considering the results of the experimental and analytical
research works presented, the paper finally outlines the future per-
spectives in using macromodels for the simulation of the combined
IP-OOP response. From the mathematical formulation of nonlinear
fiber-section elements, a possible way to overcome the limits con-
tradistinguishing the previous models is presented. The capacity of
fiber elements to develop the out-of-plane arching mechanism is
finally tested numerically on a reference infilled frame.
2. Models for prediction of the out-of-plane capacity
2.1. Flexural action based models
The out-of-plane capacity of the infills is generally measured by
the maximum uniform lateral pressure causing the collapse of the
panel. The majority of the analytical formulations appearing in the
literature are devoted to the research of this value. The first solu-
tions for the determination of the maximum lateral pressure were
derived from Timoshenko theory [20]. Considering linearly elastic,
isotropic, homogeneous material having a given tensile strength ft,
the maximum lateral pressure qu could be calculated as
ft
qu ¼
h2 ð1Þ
6b1 t
112 P.G. Asteris et al. / Engineering Structures 132 (2017) 110–122
in which b1 is a coefficient depending on the aspect ratio of the
panel and its restrain conditions. However, the application of linear
elasticity largely overestimated the stiffness, being the actual
behavior strongly nonlinear by the initial loading steps.
Other researchers [21–25] proposed methods that included the
two way action, using the modified yield – line analysis. Among
these, Haseltine [22,23] developed a theory deriving the maximum
load by the flexural tensile strength fkx orthogonal to the bed joints
as follows
f kx
qu ¼
2
6a ht
where a is a bending coefficient based on the panel shape and
restraint conditions (0.081 for the test panels). The authors sug-
gested the use of two design safety factors, the first (cm ) related
to the materials, taking values between 2.5 and 3.5; the second
(cf ) taking values between 1.1 and 1.4. Hendry et al. [24,25] pro-
posed to evaluate the coefficients giving the effective bending
moment on a strip of panel having unit length. Moreover, their
model accounted the major out-of-plane strength given by com-
pression level r0 acting on the panel. The expression for the deter-
mination of the maximum lateral pressure was the following
r0
q u ¼ 8
2
h
t increase to lateral loads but pointed out that the interface condition
The actual limit of the approaches described up to here lied in con-
sidering the flexural regime as the one governing the problem. As a
consequence, the tensional limitation was necessarily attributed to
the tensile strength or flexural tensile strength. However, the exper-
imental evidence revealed that the predominant resisting mecha-
nism was due to the arching action arising after the cracking of
the panel and suggested to follow new way for the formulation of
the analytical models.
2.2. Arching action based models
Based on the experimental observations several authors started
to investigate the arching mechanism developed by the infills
beyond the cracking deflection. After the first crack, two masonry
segments rotating as rigid bodies about their supported ends
Fig. 2. The arching mechanism: (a) Physical scheme; (b) Idealized 3 pins arch
mechanism.
generate a diffusive region involving a compressive stress field
(Fig. 2a). A reasonable computationally equivalent scheme
(Fig. 2b) is a three pin arch whose failure is achieved for crushing
of masonry, or, because of the snap through by the surrounding
frame.
The first studies by McDowell et al. [26,27] regarded the one-
way behavior of a masonry strip having rigid supports at the ends.
The two segments of the strip could rotate up to the achievement
of the masonry crushing. Based on this, the determination of the
ultimate capacity according to McDowell et al. theory was
ð2Þ 0
f
qu ¼ c
m2 ð4Þ
2 ht
The coefficient c depends on the thickness and the h/t ratio. For h/t
in the order of 10 the coefficient c is about 1. The expression for the
estimation of the ultimate load (Eq. (4)) maintained the same typol-
ogy of those previously reported, however the compressive strength
of masonry (fm0 ) appeared for the first time instead of tensile
strength. Because of this, a larger ultimate load could be predicted
by Eq. (4). Several theories based on these assumptions followed.
Monk [28] developed procedures for blast design of unreinforced
masonry infills. He revealed that effective design on masonry infills
could be achieved considering arching action theory. Other studies
ð3Þ (Thomas [29]) confirmed the considerable post-crack strength
between the masonry panel and its surrounding frame played a sig-
nificant role (West et al. [30]).
Besides arching action, the two-way action had also to be con-
sidered in the models. In consideration of this, Lefter and Colville
[31] and Dawe and Seah [32] developed strength theories based
on virtual work principle including both arching and two-way
action. In the study by Dawe and Seah the influence of the supports
deformability was also included. Their analytical formulation was
derived after a comprehensive experimental campaign on steel
frames infilled by hollow concrete block masonry (Fig. 3). The test
program involved also masonry infills with openings and having
different contact condition with the frame, in order to study the
possible failure mechanisms. The tests were carried out subjecting
the panels to a uniform out-of-plane pressure exerted by an airbag
and simulating the inertial forces.
The analytical model provided by the subdivision of the panel
into horizontal and vertical strips, hypothesized each time the dif-
ferent failure mechanisms. The mode associate to the lowest
capacity was assumed as the governing one.
The results of the experimental tests (Fig. 4) showed a significant
influence of the boundary condition. Fully restrained panels showed
Fig. 3. Detail of specimens used in [32].
 P.G. Asteris et al. / Engineering Structures 132 (2017) 110–122 113

In the previous equations, the ultimate load qu is expressed in kPa,

while l and h are the panel length and height (mm), E and G are the
frame Young’s modulus and shear modulus, Ic and Ib are the
moments of inertia of beams and columns and Jc and Jb are the tor-
sional constants of columns and beams, respectively. The ultimate
load depends on the frame flexibility by the coefficients a and b
(mainly relevant for steel frames) and parabolically increases with
the thickness of the panel.
One of the most comprehensive experimental analytical stud-
ies was carried out by Angel [33], and Abrams et al. [34]. The
authors tested eight full-scale reinforced concrete frames infilled
with two types of masonry (brick masonry and concrete unit
masonry). In the tests, a previous in-plane damage was given to
the specimens by a cyclic loading up to the achievement of a fully
cracked condition. Then, the out-of-plane load was applied by
inflating an airbag. At the end of the tests, the specimens were
repaired by a cement plaster with an embedded wire mesh fixed
with steel bolts. The specimens were retested in order to evaluate
the effectiveness of the reinforcement. The specimens’ arrange-
ment is illustrated in Fig. 5, while the results of certain tests
are reported in Fig. 6.
The tests revealed that if the panel is adequately supported at
all edges, the crack pattern and deformed shape of the infills is sim-
Fig. 4. Effect of boundary conditions on the OOP response (Dawe and Seah [32]).
ilar to yield line patterns 2-way slabs. The arching action was
reduced for infill panels having a large slenderness ratio, as well
as the ultimate load, however a relevant role was also played by
an ultimate load capacity 4–5 times higher than the capacity of the compressive strength of masonry.
infills with gaps or where the slipping of the interfaces occurred. The in-plane loading cycles reduced the out-of-plane strength.
The following empirical expressions for the evaluation of the The extent of the OOP capacity reduction depended on the amount
ultimate load were finally determined: of damage previously experienced by the specimen. Regarding the
0:75 2
effectiveness of the repairing procedure, it was found that the
0 2:5
qu ¼ 4:5ðf m Þ t a=l ðpanels supported on 3 sidesÞ ð5Þ repaired panels increased the ultimate capacity by a factor of (as
high as) five and that their final strength did not depend on the
0 0:75 2 2:5 2:5
qu ¼ 4:5ðf m Þ t ða=l þ b=h Þ ðpanels supported on 4 sidesÞ damage accumulated.
Still, in Ref. [33] the authors developed a methodology based on
ð6Þ
the arching theory for a strip of infill between two rigid supports.
where: Two failure modes were identified; one caused by the crushing
1 0:25 of masonry because of the arching action occurring in the case of
a ¼ ðEIc h2 þ GJc thÞ 6 50 ð7Þ low h/t ratios, the other was the snap through of the panel. A crit-
h
ical slenderness ratio distinguishing the two possible failure modes
1 2 0:25 was determined. According to this formulation, the ultimate out-
b¼ ðEIb l þ GJb tlÞ 6 50 ð8Þ of-plane load could be evaluated as follows:
l

Fig. 5. Design details of specimens used in Angel [33].

114 P.G. Asteris et al. / Engineering Structures 132 (2017) 110–122

Fig. 6. Results of the out-of-plane tests of some specimens (Angel [33]).

0
f FEMA 273 [41] and 356 [36] make use of a simplified and more
qu ¼ 2
hm R1 R2 k ð9Þ
practice version of Eq. (9). In the code it is stated that if arching
t
action are to be considered, the lower bound OOP strength of an
where the coefficients R1, R2 and k account for the effect of in-plane infill panel, can be determined as follows
prior loading, the flexibility of the boundary conditions, the slender- 0
ness ratio, respectively, and assume the following expressions: 0:7f m k2
qu ¼
h ð16Þ
       D=2Dcr t
h h h
R1 ¼ 1:08 þ 0:015 þ 0:00049 þ 0:000013
t t t where k2 depends on h/t ratio as reported in Table 1. A plot of k2 val-
ð10Þ ues is represented in Fig. 7 where a possible best fitting equation is
also provided.
According to the code, the arching action can be considered only
R2 ¼ 0:357 þ 2:49  1014 EI 6 1:0 ð11Þ
if the panel is in full contact with the surrounding frame, the frame
components have sufficient stiffness and strength to resist thrust-
k ¼ 0:154 e0:0985ðh=tÞ ð12Þ ing forces transmitted by the infill, the h/t ratio is less than or equal
to 25. If it is not possible to consider the arching action, the lower
In the previous equations, D is the maximum in-plane inter-storey
bound of the out-of-plane strength shall be limited by the lower
drift experienced by the infilled frame, Dcr the cracking drift and EI
bound masonry flexural tension strength. FEMA code also provides
the flexural stiffness of the smallest member constituting the sur-
the following expression to determine mid-height deflection nor-
rounding frame. The expression provided in Eq. (9) has been taken
mal to the plane Dinf of the infill, normalized by the infill height:
as reference with small changes by FEMA 306 [35] and FEMA 356 [36].


A further analytical method including the two-way action was Dinf 0:002 ht
developed by Bashandy et al. [37] and Klingner et al. [38]. The ¼ qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi

2ffi ð17Þ
h
study extended a previous formulation proposed by Cohen and 1 þ 1  0:002 ht
Laing [39]. The following expression was provided for the evalua-
tion of the ultimate load The analytical models presented in this section depend on different
     geometrical and mechanical parameters. Among these, the major
8 xy v l role is played by the h/t ratio and the compressive strength of
qu ¼ Myv ½ðl  hÞ þ h  lnð2Þ þ Myh ln l ð13Þ
2
h l xyh l  h=2 masonry fm0 . In Fig. 8a and b a comparison (ultimate load vs. h/t
ratio) between the models by Angel [33], Dawe and Seah [32],
where Myv and Myh are calculated as Klingner et al. [38] and FEMA 356 is proposed for two different val-
0 0 ues of compressive strength. The geometrical configuration of the
0:85f m 0:85f m
M yv ¼ ðt  xyv Þ2 ; Myh ¼ ðt  xyh Þ2 ð14Þ specimens by Angel [33] (Fig. 5) was assumed as reference for the
4 4
comparisons. The elastic Young moduli of concrete and masonry
and xyv and xyh are the ultimate out displacements achieved by the infills were set equal to 25,000 MPa and 4000 MPa respectively.
panel, evaluated as For all the models analyzed, the ultimate out-of-plane load
0
capacity rapidly decreased with increasing the h/t ratio. For all
tf the cases, the FEMA model gave the most conservative predictions.
xy v ¼  m ;
1000Em 1  pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
h The models by Angel and Dawe and Seah provided similar results
2 2
2 ðh=2Þ þt up to a slenderness of 15. Beyond this point the second model esti-
0
tf m mated the largest values even in comparison with the model by
xyh ¼   ð15Þ Klingner et al. which was generally the less conservative.
1000Em 1  pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
l
2 2 The reliability of the above models to predict the ultimate load
2 ðl=2Þ þt
has been investigated by comparing the results obtained from
Em being the modulus of elasticity of masonry expressed in MPa. A experimental tests carried out by different authors. The experi-
dissertation about the reliability of some of the previously reported mental data were taken by Angel [33], Dawe and Seah [32] and
approaches has been carried out by Flanagan and Bennett [40]. Flanagan and Bennett [42] and comprised both reinforced concrete
 P.G. Asteris et al. / Engineering Structures 132 (2017) 110–122 115

Table 1 on the possibility to account for both the prior in-plane damage
Values of k2 coefficient for fixed h/t ratios (FEMA 356 [36]). and the frame flexibility. The model by Dawe and Seah included
h/t 5 10 15 25 moreover the effect of the torsional stiffness on the ultimate load.
k2 0.129 0.060 0.034 0.013 The latter was the most reliable on average (as also confirmed in
[42]), however its predictive capacity has shown to be lower for
infills having a severe in-plane prior damage (e.g. S18 [42]).

3. In-plane/out-of-plane interaction

The combined IP-OOP response of the infilled frames consti-

Fig. 7. FEMA 356 k2 – (h/t) points and possible best fitting curve.
and steel frames with thin and thick infills. The main features of
the specimens are reported in Table 2.
The results of the comparisons are reported in Table 3 and
graphically represented in Fig. 9a. As expected the FEMA model
generally underestimates the ultimate load, especially for the
lower slenderness values. All the models are generally affected
by a large prediction error for slender panels. This is probably
due to the fact that for the highest values of the h/t ratio, the arch-
ing mechanism (on which their formulation is based on) no longer
governs the response. As it can be observed in Fig. 9b, the percent-
age error tends to be reduced when the h/t ratio decreases. For
slenderness ratios up to 20, the percentage error is generally not
greater than ±50%. The models by Angel [33] and Dawe and Seah
[32] have proved to be the most reliable for all the slenderness’ val-
ues considered. For the Angel model, the major accuracy depended
tutes a further issue of major relevance. Because of the spatial vari-
ability of the ground motion infills are called to simultaneously
resist to in-plane and out-of-plane actions. A reciprocal damage
occurs because of this interaction. Besides the experimental results
provided in [33,34] (Fig. 6) where infills were tested out-of-plane
after several in-plane cycles, the effect of the combined IP-OOP
action was massively faced in the experimental works by Flanagan
and Bennet [42] and Komaraneni and Rai [43]. The first study
regarded steel frames infilled with clay tile units having thickness
ranging between 100 and 330 mm (Fig. 10a). The authors provided
3 different kinds of cyclic tests: out-of-plane loading after in-plane
loading; in-plane loading after out-of-plane loading and combined
in-plane out-of-plane loading. For all cases considered, the infills
have demonstrated to possess a significant stability even though
large damage occurred. In particular, the out-of-plane response
resulting in after in-plane loading showed a significant loss of stiff-
ness not followed in the same manner by strength decay (Fig. 10b).
A relevant amount of out-of-plane resistance was maintained even
after large deflections of the panel. The in-plane tests after out-of-
plane loading showed that if the out-of-plane damage was severe
enough the diagonal cracking limit state no longer occurred. This
produced a reduction of the in-plane stiffness without a significant
loss in strength. In the combined test, specimens were subjected to
a sequence of simultaneous in-plane and out of plane loads. Also,
in this, the infills behave in a stable manner maintaining an in
plane strength of 4–5 times the one of the bare frame and a suffi-
cient residual out-of-plane capacity.
Komaraneni and Rai [43] investigated three half scaled frames
infilled with clay bricks having slenderness ratios 11 and 22.7.
The testing method involved successive application of out-of-
plane and in-plane loading. The in-plane loads were applied by a
servohydraulic jack (Fig. 11a) while the out-of-plane action was
simulated by a shake table placed the base of the specimen
(Fig. 11b).
The tests started with OOP shake table motion of increasing
level. Then, a quasi-static cyclic loading was applied. In-plane

250 250
FEMA 356 FEMA 356
Angel (1994) Angel (1994)
200 200 Dawe & Seah (1989)
Dawe & Seah (1989)
Klingner et al. (1996) Klingner et al. (1996)

150 150
qu [kPa]
qu [kPa]

100 f'm=4 MPa 100 f'm=8 MPa

50 50

0 0
0 10 20 30 40 0 10 20 30 40
h/t h/t

(a) (b)
Fig. 8. Comparison of qu vs. h/t curves by different models with: (a) fm0 = 4 MPa; (b) fm0 = 8 MPa.
116 P.G. Asteris et al. / Engineering Structures 132 (2017) 110–122

Table 2
Geometrical and mechanical features of the specimens used for the comparisons.

Specimen Infill type Frame type Type of test l (mm) h (mm) Em (MPa) fm0 (MPa) h/t t (mm)
2 [33] Brick Reinforced concrete IP: cyclic OOP: Monotonic 2440 1630 8040 11.5 34.2 47.6
3 [33] Brick Reinforced concrete IP: cyclic OOP: monotonic 2440 1630 5208 10.13 34.2 47.6
6 [33] Brick Reinforced concrete IP: cyclic OOP: monotonic 2440 1630 2136 4.6 16.6 98.4
WE4 [32] Concrete units Steel IP: no 3600 2800 17,575 14.1 20 140
OOP: monotonic
S18 [42] Clay tile Steel IP: no 2240 2240 5000 5.0 11.2 200
OOP: cyclic

Table 3
Results of the experimental analytical comparisons and error percentages.

Experimental FEMA 356 Angel [33] Dawe and Seah [32] Klingner et al. [38]
Spec. qu [kPa] qu [kPa] Error [%] qu [kPa] Error [%] qu [kPa] Error [%] qu [kPa] Error [%]
2 [33] 4.2 2.23 47% 0.75 82% 6.34 +51% 0.37 91%
3 [33] 5.98 1.96 67% 0.66 89% 5.76 4% 0.24 96%
6 [33] 12.4 5.12 59% 7.65 38% 13.66 +10% 11.14 10%
WE4 [32] 11.9 7.21 39% 12.72 +7% 10.11 15% 25.74 +116%
S18 [42] 27.4 14.3 48% 28.83 +5% 37.41 +37% 41.15 +50%

100

50
Error [%]

-50

-100

0 10 20 30 40
h/t

(a) (b)
Fig. 9. Comparison between experimental results and analytical predictions by different models: (a) ultimate load; (b) percentage error.

Fig. 10. Experimental tests by Flanagan and Bennett [42]: (a) Detail of the specimen (dimensions in mm); (b) Comparison between the out of plane response with and
without prior in-plane loading.

and out-of-plane loads were alternated according to the scheduling
reported in Fig. 12a up to the failure. In Fig. 12b the cracking pat-
terns recognized at 1% drift and in correspondence of the failure,
are reported. The results of the tests confirmed what has been
already highlighted by the previous experimental studies (e.g.
[33,34,42]). Infills, even though slender, possess a significant
residual strength against OOP action that is often underestimated
by analytical models (as also noticeable by Fig. 9b). On the other
hand, the experimental evidence has demonstrated that the OOP
failure may occur because of the instability caused by the large
out-of-plane deflection rather than by an actual loss of strength
capacity.
 P.G. Asteris et al. / Engineering Structures 132 (2017) 110–122
Fig. 11. Komaraneni and Rai [43] tests set-up and instrumentation: (a) Devices for
the application of in-plane action; (b) Devices for the application of out-of-plane
action.
4. Integrated macromodels
The above described empirical and mechanical models for the
prediction of the out-of-plane capacity of masonry infill panels,
have found only a limited application. Their use was in fact
reduced to post-processing verifications, not providing any inte-
gration in structural models used for seismic simulations.
Only recently, with the large use of time history analyses for the
assessment of seismic response, the need for the definition of
integrated 3D in-plane/out-of-plane macromodel arose. The main
goal was the updating of current in-plane equivalent strut
Fig. 12. Komaraneni and Rai [43] experimental tests: (a) Loading schedule; (b) Cracking patterns at 1% drift and failure.
117
macromodels to the possible simultaneous prediction of IP and
OOP response and the reciprocal interaction. For different reasons,
the braced strut configuration, conceived to well simulate the in-
plane response, was not easy to be updated. The main difficulties
regarded the inclusion of the 2-way arching action considering
the mutual IP-OOP interaction.
To circumvent these limitations, Hashemi and Mosalam [44,45]
proposed a 3D strut-and-tie (SAT) macro-model, where the arching
action was accounted by shifting the midspan joint of each strut
normally to the plane of the infill (Fig. 13a). The model was com-
posed of 8 compression-only resistant struts having a specified
stress-strain law. The midspan joints were connected by a rigid
link resisting only in tension.
The calibration of the models regarded the definition of a failure
surface representing the reciprocal in-plane out-of-plane damag-
ing status (Fig. 13b). The definition of this interaction curve was
carried out numerically by a refined FE model (Fig. 14a) consider-
ing the results of in-plane pushover analyses for different levels of
a constant force acting out of plane (Fig. 14b).
In two further works, Kadysiewski and Mosalam [46] and Mos-
alam and Günay [47] provided a substantially different approach
proposing a fiber-section interaction model. The latter consisted
of a single strut (Fig. 15a) reacting both in tension and compres-
sion. The identification of the strut was carried out based on the
reproduction of IP behavior in terms of stiffness and strength and
of the OOP response by imposing the same natural frequencies
estimated for the infill wall. The combined IP-OOP behavior was
included considering the following expression for the definition
of the interaction surface, which resulted to be suitable if com-
pared with the numerical and analytical results presented in [43]
(Fig. 15b):
 32  32
PN PH
þ 6 1:0 ð18Þ
PN0 PH0
In the Eq. (18) PN and PN0 represented the OOP capacity in the pres-
ence and absence of the IP force respectively and PH and PH0 the
capacity in the presence and absence of the OOP force respectively.
Once determined, the interaction curve, the calibration of the
strut is investigated at the level of the fibers of the cross sections
by defining a corresponding axial-load out-of-plane bending-
moment (P-M) diagram (Fig. 16a). The maximum OOP bending
moment is the one associated to the ultimate pure OOP load esti-
mated for the infill. The properties of the fibers (assumed having
an elastic-perfectly plastic behavior) are thus defined with a differ-
ent weight inside the cross-section and symmetrically with respect
to the vertical axis (y) (Fig. 16b). The characteristics of the i fibers
are assigned in terms area Ai, distance from the y axis zi, yielding
strength fyi and yielding strain eyi by a specified calculation proce-
dure in order to match the reference IP-OOP failure surface, defined
by Eq. (18).
118 P.G. Asteris et al. / Engineering Structures 132 (2017) 110–122

Fig. 13. Hashemi and Mosalam [44,45] SAT macromodel: (a) Scheme of the model; (b) IP-OOP interaction surface.

Fig. 14. Hashemi and Mosalam [44,45] Calibration of the SAT macromodel: (a) IP pushover curves for different values; (b) FE model.

Fig. 15. Kadysiewski and Mosalam [46] model: (a) Scheme of the model; (b) IP-OOP interaction curve.

The two models previously described, represent a step forward
in integrating the OOP models in 3D seismic analyses of building.
The current limitations in their use stem first from a difficult cali-
bration which comes from the uncertainties related to the actual
properties of the infill-frames system assemblage. Second, both
models do not account explicitly for the arching action. In particu-
lar, the SAT model provides the out-of-plane capacity by the
shifting of the midspan joint. This requires a further calculation
process and the need to use 8 struts for each frame. On the other
hand, the model by Kadysiewski and Mosalam, despite reducing
the number of the elements, provides a single strut macromodel
resisting both in tension and compression. This configuration is
not consistent with the actual physics of the system and affects
the distribution of the internal forces in the frame. Moreover the
 P.G. Asteris et al. / Engineering Structures 132 (2017) 110–122 119

Fig. 16. Kadysiewski and Mosalam [46] model: (a) Axial-load out-of-plane bending (P-M) diagram; (b) Layout of the fibers of the strut cross section.

calibration of the model is based on the hypothesis of elastic- 5.1. Coupling of axial load and bending moment in fiber-section
perfectly plastic behavior of the fibers. Although this assumption elements
strongly reduces the number of parameters needed for the identi-
fication process, no cracks may occur along the elements. Arching Considering a generic (linear or nonlinear) beam-column ele-
action has to be thus included fictitiously within the cross-section ment (Fig. 17), having the nodal end forces and displacements
fibers properties. As a final consequence, the choice of such consti- described by the vectors U e and P e (Eq. (19)), and the displace-
tutive law for the struts also involves the unpredictability of any ments field described by the vector uðxÞ (Eq. (20)) containing the
loss of bearing capacity beyond peak value both for in-plane and displacement functions u(x) and v(x).
out-of-plane response.
In conclusion, although integrated IP-OOP macromodels devel- U e ¼ ½U 1 ; . . . ; U 6 T ; P e ¼ ½P 1 ; . . . ; P6 T ð19Þ
oped up to the current days represent a new frontier for seismic
simulation they need further refinements and experimental valida- uðxÞ ¼ ½uðxÞ; v ðxÞT ð20Þ
tion to prove their effectiveness and reliability.
The displacement field is approximated by choosing the shape func-
tions providing a linear and cubic expression of u(x) and v(x) respec-
5. New perspectives for fiber macromodels tively. The displacement field vector uðxÞ is therefore linked to the
nodal displacements through the shape function matrix N U ðxÞ as
From the considerations made above, it emerges clearly that  
integrated macromodels, used for the simulation of in-plane and uðxÞ
uðxÞ ¼ ffi N U ðxÞU e ð21Þ
out-of-plane response, besides other aspects, need to account for v ðxÞ
the arching action in proper way. In fact, those described above,
The generic section deformation vector ee ðxÞ along the element is
use fictitious expedients to simulate the out-of-plane resistance
therefore defined as
of the infills (e.g. shifting of the mid-span nodes, weighted calibra-
    " # " #
tion of the cross-section fibers). A very attractive perspective may
e0 u0 ðxÞ
d
dx
0  uðxÞ  d
dx
0
come from the use of distributed plasticity fiber-section elements e ðxÞ ¼
s
¼ ¼ ffi N U ðxÞU e
used as diagonal struts, as a solution to directly account for the j v 00 ðxÞ 0 d2
dx2
v ðxÞ 0 d2
dx2
arching action. Such elements are in fact particularly suitable for ð22Þ
the purpose as they can compute the flexural capacity of a masonry
beam (arching mechanism) because of coupling between axial load If one defines the matrix of the shape functions for the sections
and bending moment occurring after the cracked stage. deformations BðxÞ as follows
In the following, a baseline is drawn, first highlighting the ana- " d
#
dx
0
lytical reasons supporting the possible use of nonlinear fiber sec- BðxÞ ¼ N U ðxÞ ð23Þ
d2
tion elements in reproducing explicitly the arching mechanism. 0 dx2
Then numerical simulations are carried out in order to actually test
this capacity. then the generic section deformation vector assumes the expression
 
e0
es ðxÞ ¼ ffi BðxÞU e ð24Þ
j
which expresses the approximation that, along the element, the
axial deformation and the curvature are constant and linear,
respectively.
The section forces ss(x) are related to the section deformation
through the section stiffness matrix, which, in the linear elastic
case, is a diagonal matrix uncoupling the axial force and bending
moment (Eq. (25)).
    
NðxÞ s EAðxÞ 0 e0
ss ðxÞ ¼ ¼ k ðxÞes ðxÞ ¼ ð25Þ
MðxÞ 0 EIðxÞ j
In case of nonlinear elements the same constitutive relationship can
Fig. 17. End forces and displacements in a generic beam-column element. be rewritten at a generic load step by substituting the section elastic
120 P.G. Asteris et al. / Engineering Structures 132 (2017) 110–122

stiffness matrix with the fiber section tangent stiffness matrix kT ðxÞ
s
P e ¼ K eT U e ð31Þ
as follows
    which expresses also a coupling of the nodal forces through the full
NðxÞ s e0 s matrix K eT .
ss ðxÞ ¼ ¼ kT ðxÞ ¼ kT ðxÞes ðxÞ ð26Þ
MðxÞ j
This time the tangent stiffness matrix is a full matrix that couples 5.2. Proposed application
the section forces N(x) and M(x) (Eq. (27))
s s In consideration of the theoretical evidence previously high-
NðxÞ ¼ kT;11 e0 þ kT;12 j
ð27Þ lighted, the fiber-section elements could be thought to be used
s s
MðxÞ ¼ kT;21 e0 þ kT;22 j as equivalent struts instead of standard elements. A possible mod-
elling approach may consider a couple of diagonals divided each
This is also reflected in nodal forces of the element that can be cal-
one by a mid-span joint (Fig. 18).
culated by the principle of virtual displacements
The diagonals are constituted by nonlinear fiber-section ele-
Z L
T T ments characterized by an assigned concrete-type constitutive
dU e P e ¼ des ðxÞss ðxÞdx ð28Þ law. In this way the out-of-plane cracking of the cross-sections
0
along the element will be recognized as well as the shifting of neu-
and accounting Eq. (24) in Eq. (28) the nodal forces can be tral axis. This will automatically account for arching mechanism
expressed as because of the mathematical formulation previously described.
Z L In the framework of a future development of this conceptual
s
Pe ¼ BT ðxÞkT ðxÞBðxÞU e dx ð29Þ approach, special care has to be devoted to the structural identifi-
0
cation of the cross-section of the equivalent struts. In fact while the
In Eq. (29) the tangent stiffness matrix of the beam-column element arching action can be naturally accounted by the fiber elements,
can be recognized as the equivalent struts have to provide a simultaneous matching of
Z L the in-plane and out-of-plane strength and stiffness.
s
K eT ¼ BT ðxÞkT ðxÞBðxÞdx ð30Þ Finally with the purpose of fully responsive 3D modelling,
0
potential local shear failure of column ends because of the local
and the expression of the element end forces can be rewritten as increase of shear demand has to be included. As also suggested
by different authors (e.g. Shing and Stavridis [48]) this can be easily
done by placing eccentrically the diagonal struts and implement-
ing shear hinges at the ends of the columns to recognize shear fail-
ure if it occurs.
The results of preliminary numerical out-of-plane tests for the
potential application of fiber-section equivalent struts are shown
in following section.

5.3. Testing the out-of-plane response of fiber-section diagonal struts

In this section it is tested the capacity of a fiber-section diagonal

strut inserted in a frame, to develop out-of-plane resistance
because of the coupling of axial load and bending moment which
results by the arching mechanism.
Numerical tests were carried out using the OpenSees [49] plat-
Fig. 18. Possible application of fiber section elements to simulate IO-OOP form software. The reference infilled frame is illustrated in Fig. 19
interaction. together with the scheme adopted for the model. Two different

Fig. 19. Reference infilled frame for numerical testing of the diagonal strut: (a) Solid scheme with real dimensions; (b) Scheme of the model.
 P.G. Asteris et al. / Engineering Structures 132 (2017) 110–122
Table 4
Geometric and material properties for the equivalent fiber-section diagonal.
w (mm) t (mm) fm0 (MPa)
900 150–250 3.40
(a)
Fig. 20. Out-of-plane response of a fiber-section masonry diagonal: (a) OOP fore vs. OOP displacement; (b) Axial force vs. OOP displacement; (c) Mid-span moment vs. OOP
displacement.
possible thicknesses (150 and 250 mm) were hypothesized. The
width of the cross-section of the equivalent strut (w = 900 mm)
was evaluated according to the expression proposed in [12]. The
fibers of the diagonal struts were modelled with a parabolic-
linear tension softening masonry law having the stress and strain
limits are reported in Table 4. The tests consisted in pushing out-
of-plane the mid-span node of one diagonal strut and monitoring
the results OOP resistance and the internal forces of the strut.
The results are shown in Fig. 20. For both the tests it can be
observed a significant capacity of the diagonal strut to develop
out-of-plane resistance (Fig. 20a) which, in particular, increases
more than proportionally when reducing the slenderness ratio.
This is consistent with the findings of all the aforementioned stud-
ies. The diagonal has no tensile strength, hence it would not have
flexural capacity without the simultaneous presence of the axial
force arising in post-cracked stage. Fig. 20b and c shows the inter-
nal forces developed at the ends of the diagonal. As it can be
observed axial load and bending moment are simultaneously pre-
sent during the entire loading path. This gives the diagonal the
capacity to resist in flexure up to the crushing of the outer masonry
fibers, as it really occurs in real experimental tests.
121
fmu (MPa) emo emu
2.00 0.0010 0.008
(b)
(c)
6. Conclusions
This paper has presented a thorough review of the existing
models for the prediction of the out-of-plane capacity of infill
walls. The review involved a comprehensive presentation of mod-
els, spanning a time frame of about 60 years, starting from the
early flexural based models and reaching up to the recent IP-OOP
integrated macromodels, which are able to simulate arching action
and reciprocal IP-OOP damaging. Finally a proposal from a litera-
ture review of the different analytical and experimental studies
and from the comparison of the most prominent capacity models
the following main conclusions may summarize the current
state-of-the art:
 Infilled frames possess a non-negligible capacity to resist
against out-of-plane actions and also have significant displace-
ment capacity after the cracked stage.
 The overall out-of-plane response of infill walls depends on the
compressive strength of masonry rather than tensile strength;
 The arching mechanism dominates the response but its extent
depends of the flexibility of the boundary frame.
122 P.G. Asteris et al. / Engineering Structures 132 (2017) 110–122
 The infill restrained by the frame behaves as plate. The final
capacity is therefore influenced by a two-way arching action.
 The out-of-plane capacity rapidly decreases with increasing the
slenderness ratio of the wall.
 The arching action based models are affected by a large predic-
tive error in the case of slender infills. The formula proposed by
FEMA for the prediction ultimate load is conservative in general.
 Infills weakened by in-plane actions are able to maintain a suf-
ficient residual strength against out-of-plane actions. Their fail-
ure is mainly due to the loss of stability caused by the large OOP
deflections.
 Available integrated macromodels can be used for the analysis
of complex 3D models, however they cannot account explicitly
for the arching action and need a proper calibration to get reli-
able results.
A possible solution to overcome the current limitations of the
available 3D integrated macromodels is proposed in the paper. This
is the use of nonlinear fiber-section elements which are directly
able to reproduce the OOP arching mechanism as they can account
for coupling between axial-load and bending moment in their
mathematical formulation. Numerical tests carried out on a frame
with a fiber-section diagonal have demonstrated the suitability of
these elements to naturally develop out-of-plane resistance and
displacement capacity. However this constitutes only a conceptual
framework needing an in-depth structural identification investiga-
tion and experimental validation.
Finally to be used as comprehensive structural analysis tools,
this model, as well as all 3D structural models presented should
account for potential shear failure because of the local infill-
frame interaction.
References
[1] Papia M, Cavaleri L, Fossetti M. Infilled frames: developments in the evaluation
of the stiffening effect of infills. Struct Eng Mech 2003;16(6):675–93.
[2] Fiore A, Netti A, Monaco P. The influence of masonry infill on the seismic
behaviour of RC frame buildings. Eng Struct 2012;44:133–45.
[3] Fiore A, Spagnoletti G, Greco R. On the prediction of shear brittle collapse
mechanisms due to the infill-frame interaction in RC buildings under pushover
analysis. Eng Struct 2016;121:147–59.
[4] Dolšek M, Fajfar P. The effect of masonry infills on the seismic response of four
storey reinforced concrete frame – a deterministic assessment. Eng Struct
2008;30(7):1991–2001.
[5] Fiore A, Porco F, Raffaele D, Uva G. About the influence of the infill panels over
the collapse mechanisms active under pushover analyses: two case studies.
Soil Dynam Earthq Eng 2012;39:11–22.
[6] Stafford Smith B. Behaviour of the square infilled frames. Struct Div (ASCE)
1966;92(1):381–403.
[7] Stafford Smith B, Carter C. A method for analysis for infilled frames. Proc. of
Institution of Civil Engineers. Paper No.7218:31–48;1969.
[8] Mainstone RJ. On the stiffness and strength of infilled frames. Proc Inst Civil
Eng, Suppl (IV) – Lond, Paper No. 7360S:57–89; 1971.
[9] Mainstone RJ. Supplementary note on the stiffness and strength of infilled
frames Current Paper CP 13/74. UK: Building Research Station; 1974.
[10] Cavaleri L, Di Trapani F. Cyclic response of masonry infilled RC frames:
experimental results and simplified modelling. Soil Dynam Earthq Eng
2014;65:224–42.
[11] Campione G, Cavaleri L, Macaluso G, Amato G, Di Trapani F. Evaluation of
infilled frames: an updated in-plane-stiffness macro-model considering the
effects of vertical load. Bull Earthq Eng 2015;13(8):2265–81.
[12] Asteris PG, Cavaleri L, Di Trapani F, Sarhosis V. A macro-modelling approach
for the analysis of infilled frame structures considering the effects of openings
and vertical loads. Struct Infrastruct Eng 2016;12(5):551–66.
[13] Di Trapani F, Macaluso G, Cavaleri L, Papia M. Masonry infills and RC frames
interaction: literature overview and state of the art of macromodeling
approach. Eur J Environ Civil Eng 2015;19(9):1059–95.
[14] Asteris PG. Lateral stiffness of brick masonry infilled plane frames. J Struct Eng
(ASCE) 2003;129(8):1071–9.
[15] Mehrabi AB, Shing PB. Finite element modelling of masonry-infilled RC frames.
J Struct Eng 1997;123(5):604–13.
[16] Lofti HR, Shing PB. An appraisal on smeared crack models for masonry shear
wall analysis. Comput Struct 1991;41(1):413–25.
View publication stats
[17] Asteris PG, Cotsovos DM, Chrysostomou CZ, Mohebkhah A, Al-Chaar GK.
Mathematical micromodeling of infilled frames: state of the art. Eng Struct
2013;56:1905–21.
[18] Doudoumis IN. Finite element modelling and investigation of the behaviour of
elastic infilled frames under monotonic loading. Eng Struct 2007;29
(6):1004–24.
[19] Cavaleri L, Di Trapani F. Prediction of the additional shear action on frame
members due to infills. Bull Earthq Eng 2015;13(5):1425–54.
[20] Timoshenko S, Woinowsh-Krieger S. Theory of plates and shells. McGraw-Hill;
1959.
[21] Drysdale RG, Essawy AS. Out-of-plane bending of concrete block walls. J Struct
Div, Am Soc Civil Eng 1988;114(STl):121–33.
[22] Haseltine BA. Design of laterally loaded wall panels. Proceedings of the British
Ceramic Society, vol. 5(24). UK: Load Bearing Brickwork. Stoke-on-Trent;
1976. p. 115–26.
[23] Haseltine BA, West HWH, Tutt JN. Design of walls to resist lateral loads. Struct
Eng 1977;55(10):422–30.
[24] Hendry AW. The lateral strength of unreinforced brickwork. Struct Eng
1973;51(2):43–50.
[25] Hendry AW, Kheir AMA. The lateral strength of certain brickwork panels. In:
Proceedings of the fourth international brick masonry conference, Brugge,
Belgium; 1976.
[26] McDowell EL, McKee KE, Sevin E. Arching action theory of masonry walls. Proc
Am Soc Civil Eng, J Struct Div 1956;82(ST2):915/1–915/18.
[27] McDowell EL, McKee KE, Sevin E. Discussion of arching action theory of
masonry walls. Proc Am Soc Civil Eng, J Struct Div 1956:1067/27–40.
[28] Monk CB. Resistance of structural clay masonry to dynamic forces. Research
Report No. 7. Structural Gay Products Research Foundation, Geneva, Illinois;
November 1958.
[29] Thomas EG. The strength of brickwork. Struct Eng 1953;31(Part 2):35–41.
[30] West HWH, Hodgkinson HR, Web WF. Lateral load test on walls with different
boundary conditions. In: Proceedings of third international brick masonry
conference, Essen, Germany; 1973.
[31] Lefter J, Colville J. Reinforcing existing buildings to resist earthquake forces. In:
Proceedings of CENTO symposium on earthquake engineering and engineering
seismology. Ankara, Turkey: Middle East Technical University; November
1974.
[32] Dawe JL, Seah CK. Out-of-plane resistance of concrete masonry infilled panels.
J Can Soc Civil Eng 1989;16(6):854–64.
[33] Angel R. Behavior of reinforced concrete frames with masonry infill walls PhD
thesis. Illinois: University Illinois at Urbana-Champaingn; 1994.
[34] Abrams DP, Angel R, Uzarski J. Out-of-plane strength of unreinforced masonry
infill panels. Earthq Spect 1996;12(4):825–44.
[35] FEMA 306. Evaluation of earthquake damaged concrete and masonry wall
buildings: basic procedures manual, Washington DC; 1998.
[36] FEMA 356. Prestandard and commentary for the seismic rehabilitation of
buildings, Washington DC; 2000.
[37] Bashandy T, Rubiano NR, Klingner RE. Evaluation and analytical verification of
infilled frame test data. US Army Construction Engineering Research
Laboratories CECER-CT-BAA, Seismic Structural Engineering (FM-4),
Engineering and Material Division, Champaign, IL; 1995.
[38] Klingner RE, Rubiano NR, Bashandy TR, Sweenwy SC. Evaluation and analytical
verification of shaking table data from infilled frames. Part 2: out of plane
behaviour. In: Proc. 7th North Am. masonry conference. Boulder,
Colorado: Masonry Society; 1996.
[39] Cohen E, Laing E. Discussion of ‘‘Arching action theory of masonry walls”, by EL
McDowell, KE McKee, E Sevin. J Struct Div (ASCE) 1956;82(5):1067/28–40.
[40] Flanagan RD, Bennett RM. Arching of masonry infilled frames: comparison of
analytical methods. Pract Periodicals Struct Des Constr (ASCE) 1999;4:105–10.
[41] FEMA 273. Nehrp guidelines for the seismic rehabilitation of buildings,
Washington DC; 2000.
[42] Flanagan RD, Bennet RM. Bidirectional behavior of structural clay tile infilled
frames. J Struct Eng (ASCE) 1999;125(3):236–44.
[43] Komaraneni S, Rai DC. Seismic behavior of framed masonry panels with prior
damage when subjected to out-of-plane loading. Earthq Spect 2011;27
(4):1077–103.
[44] Hashemi A, Mosalam KM. Shake-table experiment on reinforced concrete
structure containing masonry infill wall. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn
2006;35:1827–52.
[45] Hashemi A, Mosalam KM. Seismic evaluation of reinforced concrete buildings
including effects of masonry infill walls PEER Report. Berkeley: University of
California; 2007.
[46] Kadysiewski S, Mosalam KM. Modeling of unreinforced masonry infill walls
considering in-plane and out-of-plane interaction PEER Report 2008/
102. Berkeley: University of California; January 2009.
[47] Mosalam KM, Günay S. Progressive collapse analysis of RC frames with URM
infill walls considering in-plane/out-of-plane interaction. Earthq Spect
2015;31(2):921–43.
[48] Shing PB, Stavridis A. Analysis of seismic response of masonry-infilled RC
frames through collapse. ACI Struct J 2014. Special Paper: 297-7.
[49] McKenna F, Fenves GL, Scott MH. Open system for earthquake engineering
simulation. Berkeley: University of California; 2004.