See

discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/273629383

A macro-modelling approach for the analysis of

infilled frame structures considering the effects
of openings and vertical loads

ARTICLE in STRUCTURE AND INFRASTRUCTURE ENGINEERING · APRIL 2015

Impact Factor: 1.45 · DOI: 10.1080/15732479.2015.1030761

READS

175

4 AUTHORS, INCLUDING:

Panagiotis G Asteris Fabio Di Trapani

School of Pedagogical & Technological Educ… Università degli Studi di Palermo
65 PUBLICATIONS 489 CITATIONS 23 PUBLICATIONS 34 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Vasilis Sarhosis
Newcastle University
24 PUBLICATIONS 67 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

All in-text references underlined in blue are linked to publications on ResearchGate, Available from: Fabio Di Trapani
letting you access and read them immediately. Retrieved on: 11 March 2016
This article was downloaded by: [Universita di Palermo], [Fabio Di Trapani]
On: 28 April 2015, At: 07:27
Publisher: Taylor & Francis
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House,
37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Structure and Infrastructure Engineering:

Maintenance, Management, Life-Cycle Design and
Performance
Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/nsie20

A macro-modelling approach for the analysis of infilled

Click for updates
frame structures considering the effects of openings
and vertical loads
a b c d
Panagiotis G. Asteris , Liborio Cavaleri , Fabio Di Trapani & Vasilis Sarhosis
a
Computational Mechanics Laboratory, Department of Civil Engineering, School of
Pedagogical & Technological Education, 141 21Heraklion, Athens, Greece
b
Dipartimento di Ingegneria Civile, Ambientale, Aerospaziale e dei Materiali (DICAM),
University of Palermo, Palermo, Italy
c
Dipartimento di Ingegneria Civile, Ambientale, Aerospaziale e dei Materiali (DICAM),
University of Palermo, Palermo, Italy
d
School of Civil Engineering, Cardiff University, Cardiff, CF23 3AA, UK
Published online: 28 Apr 2015.

To cite this article: Panagiotis G. Asteris, Liborio Cavaleri, Fabio Di Trapani & Vasilis Sarhosis (2015): A macro-
modelling approach for the analysis of infilled frame structures considering the effects of openings and vertical
loads, Structure and Infrastructure Engineering: Maintenance, Management, Life-Cycle Design and Performance, DOI:
10.1080/15732479.2015.1030761

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15732479.2015.1030761

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) contained
in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no
representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the
Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, and
are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and
should be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for
any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever
or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of
the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic
reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any
form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://
www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions
 Structure and Infrastructure Engineering, 2015
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15732479.2015.1030761

A macro-modelling approach for the analysis of infilled frame structures considering the effects
of openings and vertical loads
Panagiotis G. Asterisa*, Liborio Cavalerib1, Fabio Di Trapanic2 and Vasilis Sarhosisd3
a
Computational Mechanics Laboratory, Department of Civil Engineering, School of Pedagogical & Technological Education, 141 21
Heraklion, Athens, Greece; bDipartimento di Ingegneria Civile, Ambientale, Aerospaziale e dei Materiali (DICAM), University of
Palermo, Palermo, Italy; cDipartimento di Ingegneria Civile, Ambientale, Aerospaziale e dei Materiali (DICAM), University of Palermo,
Palermo, Italy; dSchool of Civil Engineering, Cardiff University, Cardiff, CF23 3AA, UK
(Received 26 July 2014; final version received 11 November 2014; accepted 30 December 2014)
Downloaded by [Universita di Palermo], [Fabio Di Trapani] at 07:27 28 April 2015

During the last decades, several macro-models have been proposed for the modelling of the infill panels’ contribution to the
lateral strength of frames. Despite all this effort, a robust model, which takes into account the influence of the vertical load, is
not yet available. Furthermore, the influence of the very common case of infill walls with openings, such as windows and
doors, has been neglected in all the code provisions that have been published so far. In this paper, an updated macro-model,
based on the equivalent pin-jointed diagonal compressive strut, is presented. The proposed macro-model is able to represent
the stiffening effect of the infill panel with openings by taking into account both the size of the opening and the vertical load
acting on the frame. Detailed and in-depth parametrical investigation, based on finite element analysis, shows that the
proposed mathematical macro-model can be used as a reliable and useful tool for the determination of the equivalent
compressive strut width since it accounts for a large number of parameters, which are not generally accounted for by the
already available models in the literature.
Keywords: infilled frames; equivalent strut; masonry; finite element analysis; opening effect; vertical load effect

List of symbols kc : column axial stiffness

Ab : beam cross sectional area kb : beam axial stiffness
Ac : column cross sectional area kd : strut axial stiffness
 i:
D lateral stiffness of infilled frame l: infill length
Di : lateral stiffness of frame with diagonal equivalent l0 : frame length
pin jointed strut ‘v : opening length
Df : contribution of frame to lateral stiffness Di r: w/d reduction factor due to opening
Dd : contribution of infill to lateral stiffness Di t: strut thickness
d: strut length w: strut width
Ed : infill diagonal elastic modulus aw : area of opening to area of infill
Ef : frame concrete elastic modulus b, c, g: parameters defining a w/d ¼ f(l *) function
Fv : vertical load dp1p2 : interstory displacement of the scheme in
Fs : axial force in the diagonal strut of the scheme in Figure A1
0
Figure A2(a) dp1p2 : interstory displacement of the scheme in
F ub : axial force in the upper beam of the scheme in Figure A2(a)
00
Figure A2(a) dp1p2 : interstory displacement of the scheme in
F rc : axial force in the left column of the scheme in Figure A2(b)
Figure A2(a) dx ; dy : horizontal and vertical displacements of the upper
h: infill height left corner of the scheme in Figure A2(a)
h0 : frame height dp1 : elongation of the upper beam of the scheme in
hv : opening height
FigureA2(a) evaluated at the middle span
Ib: moment of inertia of beam cross section
dp : interstory displacement of the scheme in
Ic: moment of inertia of column cross section
Figure B1
k: w/d amplification factor due to vertical load

*Corresponding author. Email: panagiotisasteris@gmail.com

q 2015 Taylor & Francis
 2 P.G. Asteris et al.
*
dp : lateral displacement of the scheme in Figure B2.
Dd: elongation of the diagonal strut of the scheme in
Figure A2(a)
1v : dimensionless vertical load
l *: parameter defining the mechanical characteristics
of an infilled frame
n d: diagonal infill Poisson ratio
nf: concrete Poisson ratio
u: equivalent diagonal strut slope
j: opening ratio (height of opening to height of infill
or length of opening to length of infill)
Downloaded by [Universita di Palermo], [Fabio Di Trapani] at 07:27 28 April 2015
1. Introduction
The complex interaction between an infill and a surround-
ing structural frame has become increasingly apparent since
the early fifties. Over the last decades, a plethora of
experimental investigations have been carried out in an
attempt to understand the effects of infill walls on the
structural response of frame structures. Reviews of the
testing and modelling of masonry infilled frames, up to the
late 1990s, have been published by Moghaddam and
Dowling (1987) and Madan, Reinhorn, Mander, and Valles
(1997). Furthermore, an extensive and in-depth state-of-
the-art report on the analysis of masonry infilled frames can
be found in Crisafulli, Carr, and Park (2000), Asteris,
Antoniou, Sophianopoulos, and Chrysostomou (2011),
Chrysostomou and Asteris (2012) and Asteris, Cotsovos,
Chrysostomou, Mohebkhah, and Al-Chaar (2013). Recent
advances in research (Asteris, 2003; Asteris et al., 2011;
Baran & Sevil, 2010; Buonopane & White, 1999; Ellul &
D’Ayala, 2012; Cavaleri, Fossetti, & Papia, 2005; ;
Sarhosis, Tsavdaridis, & Giannopoulos, 2014; Stavridis &
Shing, 2010; Willam, Citto, & Shing, 2010; Zhao, Wu,
Kong, & Chen, 2011) manifest a strong interaction between
the infill masonry wall and the surrounding frame.
Currently, publications such as Federal Emergency
Management Agency (FEMA-273) and Applied Technol-
ogy Council (ATC-40) contain provisions for the
calculation of stiffness of solid infilled frames mainly by
modelling infill as a ‘diagonal strut’. However, such
provisions are not provided for infilled frames with
openings and there are limited studies on the influence of
vertical loads on the lateral stiffness of masonry infilled
frames. The lateral stiffness of an infilled frame depends
on the geometrical and mechanical properties of the
masonry infill wall and surrounding frame; the frame to
masonry infill wall stiffness ratio as well as the interaction
between the infill panel and the surrounding frame. Among
these factors, the level of vertical load transferred from the
frame to the infill and the presence of openings has to be
taken into account in the analysis (NCEER, 1994).
Stafford Smith (1968) has investigated the influence of
a uniformly distributed vertical load observing a
considerable increase in the lateral stiffness and lateral
strength. More recently, Papia, Cavaleri, and Fossetti
(2004) studied the mechanical behaviour of RC frames
infilled with brick masonry walls and observed a similar
effect. Furthermore, Cavaleri et al. (2005) carried out an
experimental campaign on infilled reinforced concrete
frames observing also the effect of vertical loads
transferred from frame to infill: specimens with infills
perfectly in contact with frames were tested and compared
with specimens where the infill upper bond was not in
contact with the frame upper beam, representing these two
configurations two possible realistic cases due to the
executive techniques adopted by masons. It has to be noted
that, with respect to the production of the specimens whose
infills were perfectly in contact with the surrounding
frames, no special recommendations were given to the
masons in order be sure to obtain systems consistent with
those obtained in practice. The tests showed that for the
infilled frames with infills perfectly in contact with the
frame upper beam a stiffness can be obtained double with
respect to the one obtainable for infilled frames whose
infill is not in contact with the frame upper beam.
Stafford Smith (1968) and Valiasis and Stylianidis (1989)
considered the vertical load effect to be conservative and did
not take it into account, among the affecting variables, in their
evaluation of the cross-section of the equivalent strut.
Nonetheless, while this conclusion can be valid for a simple
frame, it may not be conservative for complex structures such
as the partially infilled frame structures.
In addition, according to Mosalam, White, and
Gergely (1997) and Holmes (1961), infill panels contain-
ing openings will normally be characterised by a reduced
stiffness and strength when compared to the fully infill
panels. The effect of openings on the masonry infill panels
has also been studied experimentally. Mallick and Garg
(1971) carried out studies on the position of the opening.
Next year, Liauw (1972) undertook several experiments
and proposed a simplified model. Also, Schneider, Zagers,
and Abrams (1998) investigated the case of large windows
on the behaviour of infilled steel frames. Also,
Mohebkhah, Tasnimi, and Moghadam (2007) studied the
behaviour of steel infilled frames with openings.
More recently, Kakaletsis and Karayannis (2007)
conducted an experimental programme to investigate the
effect of window and door openings on the hysteretic
characteristics of infilled RC frames in order to better
understand the relative merits of the position of the window
and door openings in the frame. Furthermore, Kakaletsis
and Karayannis (2008, 2009) and Kakaletsis (2009)
investigated experimentally the compressive strength, the
modes of failure, the stiffness as well as the energy
dissipation of infilled RC frames containing openings and
subjected to cyclic loading.
Moreover, Mosalam et al. (1997) carried out a series of
experimental tests on gravity load-designed steel frames
 Structure and Infrastructure Engineering
with semi-rigid connections infilled with unreinforced
masonry walls subjected to cyclic lateral loads. The
experimental tests were conducted to evaluate the effects
of the relative strength of the concrete blocks and mortar
joints, the number of bays, and the opening configuration
of the infill on the performance of single-story reduced-
scale infilled frames. A simple iterative FEM model was
proposed by Achyutha, Jagadish, Rao, and Rahman (1986)
to investigate the mechanical behaviour of infilled frames
containing openings with or without stiffeners around the
openings. These results demonstrated that when the
percentage of window opening is greater than 50%, the
contribution of the infill panels can be neglected.
Asteris (2003) proposed graphs to estimate the stiffness-
Downloaded by [Universita di Palermo], [Fabio Di Trapani] at 07:27 28 April 2015
reduction factor corresponding to the size and location of the
opening. These analytical results demonstrated that for the
samples considered, a 20–30% opening reduces the stiffness
of the solid-infilled frame by about 70–80%. Tasnimi and
Mohebkhah (2011) studied the behaviour of steel frames
with masonry-infill panels by examining six full-scale one-
story, one-bay specimens with central openings. Cyclic tests
demonstrated that partially infilled frames do not always
increase the ductility of the frames, since ductility depends
on the failure mode of the infill material. Moreover, a relation
to determine the equivalent strut’s width-reduction factor has
been proposed.
The effects of windows and door openings including
their position on the stiffness and on the strength of infilled
frames have mainly been taken into consideration by
reduction factors which apply to stiffness and strength of the
current equivalent strut defined for a whole wall panel (i.e.
without any openings) (Al-Chaar, 2002; Al-Chaar, Lamb, &
Abrams, 2003; Asteris, 2003; Mondal & Jain, 2008; Papia,
Cavaleri, & Fossetti, 2003; Tasnimi & Mohebkhah, 2011).
For the aforementioned studies, the contribution of the
vertical loads to the strength of the infill wall panels is not
taken into account, thus leading to inaccurate results and
manifesting that the influence of the vertical load is a critical
parameter, which affects the contact lengths (Figure 1)
between the infill wall and the surrounding frame.
Figure 1. Effect of vertical load on the frame infill contact region under lateral load.
3
In this paper, an analytical equation for the
determination of the reduction factor of the infill wall
(equivalent compressive strut) stiffness, taking into
account the percentage opening of the infill wall (area of
opening to the area of infill wall) as well as the vertical
load distribution, is proposed. The proposed method is
based on previous work of Asteris (2003) (to take into
account the effect of the openings) and that of Amato,
Cavaleri, Fossetti, and Papia (2008, 2009) for taking into
account the vertical loads. To validate the proposed
equation, an in-depth analytical investigation using a
micro-modelling finite element (FE) analysis was
conducted. The numerical procedure provides the ‘exact’
response of a series of infilled frames under horizontal and
vertical loads by modelling the compressive stress
transmitted by the frame to the infill through contact
surface elements governed by the Coulomb friction law.
The term ‘exact’ refers to an infill, which is modelled by a
detailed FE micro-modelling approach to the regions in
which frame and infill transmit compressive stress to each
other (contact surface elements).
2. Identification of the width of an equivalent strut
The cross-section of the pin-jointed strut equivalent to an
infill can be obtained by imposing the initial lateral stiffness
of the infilled frame (Figure 2(a)) to be equal to the initial
stiffness of the equivalent braced frame (Figure 2(b)).
Denoting D  i the stiffness of the actual system (Figure 2(a))
solved by the FE Method (micro-modelling approach), and
Di the stiffness corresponding to the simplified model
(Figure 2(b)), their equivalence can be written as:
 i:
Di ¼ D ð1Þ
In order to separate the contribution to the stiffness given by
the infill and by the frame, the simplified model in Figure 2
(a) can be decomposed in the schemes in Figure 3(b),(c)
(providing, respectively, the contribution of the equivalent
strut and of the bare frame).
 4 P.G. Asteris et al.

(a) (b)

d
hv h' h h'
v

Figure 2. An infilled frame under horizontal load: (a) actual system; (b) macro-model.

Therefore, the lateral stiffness Di of the simplified discussed by Cavaleri, Papia, Macaluso, Di Trapani, and
model (Figures 2(a) and 3(a)) can be obtained as the sum Colajanni (2014) on the basis of the experimental studies
Downloaded by [Universita di Palermo], [Fabio Di Trapani] at 07:27 28 April 2015

of the stiffness Df of the bare frame (Figure 3(c)) and of
the stiffness Dd of the pin jointed braced frame in Figure 3
(b), that is:
Di ¼ Dd þ Df :
For the scheme in Figure 3(b), the lateral stiffness Dd can
be calculated as follows (see Appendix A):
kd cos2 u
Dd ¼
1 þ ðkd =kc Þsin2 u þ ð1=2Þðkd =kb Þcos2 u
where kd , kc and kb are the axial stiffness of the diagonal
strut, column and beam, respectively:
Ed tw E f Ac
kd ¼ ; kc ¼ ; kb ¼
d h0
In Equation(4), Ed and Ef are the Young’s modulus of
the infill along the diagonal direction and the Young’s
modulus of the concrete of which the frame is made; t, w
and d are, respectively, the thickness, the width and the
length of the infill; Ac and A are the column and beam
cross-sectional areas; the angle u defines the diagonal
direction of the strut; and h0 and l0 are the height and the
length of the infill frame (all the above parameters are
explained in Figure (2)).
The Young’s modulus of the infill along the diagonal
can be estimated by combining the masonry elastic moduli
along the horizontal and vertical directions as suggested in
(Jones, 1975), or by using the simplified approach
reported in (Cavaleri, Di Trapani, Macaluso, & Papia,
2012). The lateral stiffness Df corresponding to the frame
(Figure 3(c)), for the case of columns having the same
cross-section, can be estimated using the following
ð2Þ expression (see Appendix B):


24Ef I c l0 I c 21
Df ¼ 1 þ ; ð5Þ
h0 h0 I b
: ð3Þ
where I c and I b are the moments of inertia of column and
beam sections, respectively. In the case where columns are
of different cross-sections, a mean value of their axial
stiffness can be used.
E f Ab
0 : ð4Þ
‘ 3. Infilled frame stiffness and equivalent strut cross-
section
For the evaluation of the lateral stiffness by means of the
micro-modelling approach, the FE program SAP2000
V14.0,P2000 V14.0,P2000 has been used. Both the frame
and the infill have been modelled using four node plane
stress solid elements assuming elastic, isotropic and
homogeneous elastic materials behaviour. The frame –
infill interactions have been modelled using interface
elements acting only in compression (zero tensile strength).
The axis of the interface elements was inclined with respect
to the interface itself in such a way to produce a shear force
component (that is a Coulomb friction force). The
inclination of the interface elements was fixed in such a

(a) δp=1 (b) δp=1 (c) δp=1

p Dd /2 p Dd /2 Df /2 p Df /2
Di /2 Di /2
p p p

d d
h' h' h'

Di /2 Di /2 Dd /2 Dd /2 Df /2 Df /2
θ

Figure 3. Decomposition of the macro-model in two schemes based on the principle of superposition.
 Structure and Infrastructure Engineering
way that the ratio between the normal and the shear stresses
was 0.45 (Coulomb friction coefficient). However,
different studies (e.g. Asteris, 2008; Fiore, Netti, &
Monaco, 2012) show that friction arising in interfaces is
not decisive for the overall response. On the other hand, it is
not simple to fix a realistic value of the friction coefficient.
For example, in Papia et al. (2003) and in Saneinejad and
Hobbs (1995) the value 0.45 has been assigned for the
friction coefficient without an experimental evidence while
in Fiore et al. (2012) a parametric study has been preferred
and carried out assigning values in the range 0 –0.4.
The mechanical characteristics of interface elements
have been calibrated in a way to simulate the presence of a
mortar having a fixed elastic modulus in compression. The
Downloaded by [Universita di Palermo], [Fabio Di Trapani] at 07:27 28 April 2015
zero tensile strength assumption enables the simulation of
the detachment between the frame and the infill. Because
the interaction between the frame and the infill is strictly
associated with the frame to infill contact length, which is
influenced by the vertical load, the model allows the
evaluation of the system’s lateral stiffness D  i in relation to
the vertical load itself.
By substituting the value of Di obtained from Equation
(2) in Equation (1), one obtains:
 i ¼ Dd þ Df :
D ð6Þ
Furthermore, by substituting Equation (3) in Equation (6),
the ratio w=d can be expressed as a function of the lateral
 i of an infilled frame given by the FE model
stiffness D
previously described and the bare frame stiffnessDf :


21
w  i 2 Df
D  i 2 Df h 0 2 1 kc
D material implies that the rigidity modulus is obtained as
¼ 12 0 þ : ð7Þ
d Ed t cos2 u kc ‘2 2 kb
From Equation (7), the ratio of the width of the equivalent
pin-jointed diagonal strut to the length of the diagonal strut
(w/d) can be calculated. Then each different value
(calculated as w/d) can be associated to a different value
of a parameter (named l * ) synthetically which represents
the mechanical characteristics of the infilled frame from
which that value of w/d has been obtained. The objective
here is to define, by a number of structural analyses, a
function w=d ¼ f ðl * Þ which can take into account the
influence of the vertical loads and the size of the openings.
This approach was for the first time suggested by
Stafford Smith (1968) and proposed successively in
different forms by different authors (e.g. Papia et al.,
2003) in order to obtain a tool for the identification of
equivalent struts. In the case discussed here, a new
function for the width of the equivalent diagonal strut
(s) is proposed which is capable to represent the
stiffening effect of the infill panel with openings by
taking into account both the size of the opening and
the vertical load acting on the frame. By running a
number of simulations for infilled frames characterised
5
by different mechanical and geometrical values and
different loading conditions, a set of points, represent-
ing the global frame – infill behaviour (l * ) and the
characteristics of each equivalent strut (w/d), can be
obtained from which it is possible to define the
function w=d ¼ f ðl * Þ mentioned before; this approach
will be described in the next sections.
In agreement with the conclusions of Papia et al.
(2003), the parameter l * has been taken as:

0 
Ed th0 h 2 1 Ac ‘0
l* ¼ 0 þ ð8Þ
E f Ac ‘ 2 4 ‘ b h0
4. Numerical investigation
The numerical analysis, based on the FE model described
before, was carried out for different values of mechanical
and geometrical properties of an infilled frame and for four
vertical load levels. For each analysis, the lateral stiffness
D i of the system was calculated as the ratio between the
applied horizontal load and the interstory average
displacement. The horizontal and vertical forces acting on
the frame were applied on the initial and final section of the
upper beam at middle depth, while the vertical load was
concentrated on the top nodes of the upper beam-column
joints. Values of the elastic modulus Ef of the RC frame
were varied from 10,000 to 25,000 MPa while the Poisson’s
ratio kept constant and equal to nf ¼ 0.15. The diagonal
elastic modulus Ed was in the range 3000 – 10,000 MPa and
the diagonal Poisson ratio nd was set equal to 0.2.
The use of an elastic homogeneous model for the infill
G ¼ Ed/[2(1 þ nd)] and for the case in question, because
of the value assumed for nd, G ¼ 0:41Ed . This assumption
is consistent with the experimental results of different
authors. For example, Cavaleri et al. (2012) carried out an
experimental campaign on different types of infill
materials measuring elastic and rigidity moduli. Also,
Ismail, Petersen, Masia, and Ingham (2011) after
conducting an experimental campaign found similar
results, while similar experimental results were obtained
by Bosiljkov, Totoev, and Nichols (2005).
The values chosen for the elastic moduli of the frame
concrete and of the infill materials are consistent with
those experimentally obtainable. More specifically, the
lower bond of the range for the elastic moduli of the
concrete refers to existing structures featured by degraded
materials, more times obtained in laboratory during
compressive tests. In contrast, the upper bond refers to
the value of a good normal strength concrete. Referring to
the elastic characteristics of infills, an extended exper-
imental campaign is discussed by Cavaleri et al. (2014)
regarding different type of infills showing values of the
diagonal elastic moduli and Poisson ratio consistent with
the values considered herein.
 6 P.G. Asteris et al.
The interface elements used to model the interaction
between the surrounding frame and infill panel were
calibrated in such a way that they were equivalent to a
continuous layer of mortar with elastic modulus in
compression equal to 3000 MPa. In details the elastic
modulus of the interface elements (having unitary cross-
section) was fixed to be equal to the product of the elastic
modulus of mortar by the area of the frame – infill interface
between two consecutive interface elements.
Two different values of the aspect ratio l=h, namely
1.00 and 2.00, were investigated. Different dimensions for
the openings (centred and homothetic with respect of the
boundary of the infill) were considered. The size of each
opening was defined by the dimensionless parameter
Downloaded by [Universita di Palermo], [Fabio Di Trapani] at 07:27 28 April 2015
j ¼ hv,/h ¼ ‘v,/‘, hv and ‘v being the dimensions of the
opening itself, see Figure (2). The analyses were repeated
for four dimensionless vertical load levels, namely 1v has
been taken equal to 0, 0.00016, 0.00032 and 0.00080
where 1v is defined as:
Fv
1v ¼ : ð9Þ
2Ac Ef
where Ac is the mean cross section area of the columns and
Fv the total vertical load acting on the frame.
In Figures 4 and 5, where strongly amplified and
qualitative deformed shape of infilled frames are inserted,
the influence of the lateral load and the size of the opening
to the contact lengths (beam-infill and column-infill) is
clearly depicted. Especially, the greater the opening size,
the greater the beam-infill and column-infill contact
Figure 4. Qualitative infilled frame deformed shape under lateral load for different opening extensions for l=h ¼ 1 (modelling by SAP
2000 under the hypothesis of elastic behaviour of the materials).
length. In agreement with previous experimental (Stafford
Smith, 1968) and analytical (Asteris, 2003) work, large
openings have, as a result, the curvature of the infill to
follow the curvature of the frame. In Figure 6, the results
of the numerical investigation in the case of the aspect
ratio of infills, l=h ¼ 1, are inserted showing the
correlation between the dimensionless width of the
equivalent strut and the parameter l * . Figure 7 refers to
the case where l=h equals to 2.
From the analysis of the results, it has been found that
the effect of vertical loads reduces as the ratio between the
dimensions of the opening and the dimensions of the infill
increases. This is proved by the fact that for a fixed l * the
values of w/d correspond to different levels of the vertical
load which tends to become similar. Furthermore, it can be
observed that as the area of openings increases, the
variation of w/d varying the characteristics of the infilled
frames (i.e. l * ), becomes smaller.
Figure 8 depicts the reduction factor (r) of w/d
against the opening ratio j for square infills (‘=h ¼ 1)
and rectangular infills (‘=h ¼ 2) without vertical loads
(1v ¼ 0). From Figure 8 and for low values of j ¼ hv /
h ¼ ‘v /‘ (i.e. up to 0.2), the reduction factor r is close to
1, while for values of j greater than 0.2 a reduction of
the dimensionless strut width is obtained. Also, for the
values of the opening ratio contained in the range 0.6– 1
a variability for the reduction factor r can be obtained by
the numerical analyses for an assigned j (e.g., for j ¼
0:6 and l=h ¼ 1, the reduction factor r varies in the
range 0.1 –0.2). Considering the contained range of
 Structure and Infrastructure Engineering 7
Downloaded by [Universita di Palermo], [Fabio Di Trapani] at 07:27 28 April 2015

Figure 5. Qualitative infilled frame deformed shape under lateral load for different opening extensions for l=h ¼ 2 (modelling by SAP
2000 under the hypothesis of elastic behaviour of the materials).

0.50 0.50
ξ=0 /h=1.0 ξ=0.2 /h=1.0
0.45 0.45
0.40 0.40
0.35 0.35
0.30 0.30
w/d
w/d

0.25 0.25
0.20 0.20
0.15 0.15
0.10 0.10
0.05 0.05
0.00 0.00
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 0 2 4 6 8 10 12
λ* λ*
0.50 0.50
ξ=0.4 /h=1.0 Analytical curves ξ=0.6 /h=1.0 Numerical results
0.45
εv=0.0008 0.45
εv=0.0008
0.40 εv=0.00032 0.40
εv=0.00032
0.35 εv=0.00016 0.35 εv=0.0016
0.30
εv=0 0.30
εv=0
w/d

w/d

0.25 0.25
0.20 0.20
0.15 0.15
0.10 0.10
0.05 0.05
0.00 0.00
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 0 2 4 6 8 10 12
λ* λ*

Figure 6. Values of w/d varying the vertical load and the opening ratio: experimental points and fitting curves for l=h ¼ 1.
 8 P.G. Asteris et al.

0.50 0.50
ξ=0 /h=2.0 ξ=0.2 /h=2.0
0.45 0.45
0.40 0.40
0.35 0.35
0.30 0.30
w/d

w/d
0.25 0.25
0.20 0.20
0.15 0.15
0.10 0.10
0.05 0.05
0.00 0.00
Downloaded by [Universita di Palermo], [Fabio Di Trapani] at 07:27 28 April 2015

0 2 4 6 8 10 0 2 4 6 8 10
λ* λ*
0.50 0.50
Analytical curves Numerical results
ξ=0.4 ξ=0.6 /h=2.0
0.45 /h=2.0 εv=0.0008 0.45
εv=0.0008
0.40 εv=0.00032 0.40 εv=0.00032
0.35 εv=0.00016 0.35 εv=0.0016
εv=0 εv=0
0.30 0.30
w/d

0.25 0.25
w/d

0.20 0.20
0.15 0.15
0.10 0.10
0.05 0.05
0.00 0.00
0 2 4 6 8 10 0 2 4 6 8 10
λ* λ*

Figure 7. Values of w/d varying the vertical load and the opening ratio: experimental points and fitting curves for l=h ¼ 2.

(a) 1.50 (b) 1.50

1.25 1.25
Proposed model Proposed model
1.00 1.00

0.75 0.75
r

Numerical results
Numerical results
0.50 0.50

0.25 εv=0.0 0.25

εv=0.0
/ h=1.0 / h=2.0
0.00 0.00
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0
ξ ξ

Figure 8. Reduction factor (numerical points and fitting curve) of the dimensionless strut width (w/d) varying the opening ratio j: (a)
square infills and (b) rectangular infills.
 Structure and Infrastructure Engineering 9

values of r for an assigned j and that this fact is more 1.60

prevalent for high values of the opening ratio j, when an Analytical prediction
error on the evaluation of r is not relevant because infills 1.40 (λ*=11.4)
have not much significant effect on the behaviour of
1.20 Analytical prediction
frames, the results can be fitted by a curve r ¼ r(j):
(λ*=0.70)
1.00
r ¼ 1 þ 0:24j 2 4:23j 2 2 2:6j 3 þ 12:73j 4 2 7:15j 5 ;
ð10Þ

rkγ
0.80
Numerical results
where it is important to note that Equation (10) does not 0.60
depend on the aspect ratio l=h. 0.40
In Figures 9 and 10, the reduction factor of the
dimensionless strut width due to openings is combined 0.20 εv=0.00016
with the amplification factor (k) due to vertical loads. The / h=1.0
Downloaded by [Universita di Palermo], [Fabio Di Trapani] at 07:27 28 April 2015

numerical results show that it is not possible to add the 0.00

effects of openings and vertical loads since there is an 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0
interaction between the two phenomena which controls the ξ
behaviour. As a consequence, the resulting amplification/ 1.60
reduction factor is obtained as a nonlinear function of r and Analytical prediction
1.40 (λ*=11.4)
k as it will be discussed below.
1.20 Analytical prediction
(λ*=0.70)
5. Model for the identification of the equivalent strut 1.00
Results of numerical investigations presented here, show
rkγ

0.80
that the loss of stiffness due to the openings and the gain of Numerical results
stiffness due to vertical loads can be correlated with the 0.60
characteristics of an infilled frame (l * ). The results show
that the effects of openings and vertical loads depend on 0.40
the parameter j defining the size of the opening: j ¼ hv / εv=0.00032
0.20
h ¼ ‘v /‘, the parameter l * characterising the infilled
/ h=1.0
frame, and the parameter 1v characterising the level of 0.00
vertical loads defined in Equation(9). Imposing that the 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0
Equation (7) assumes the form: ξ

 1.60
w l
¼ r·g0 ðkÞ·g00 ·g000 ðl * Þ: ð11Þ
d h 1.40
Analytical prediction
(λ*=11.4)
where r is the reduction factor 0 , r , 1 taking the 1.20 Analytical prediction
openings in the infills into account, while k is the (λ*=0.70)
amplification factor taking the effect of the vertical load 1.00
into account in absence of openings, the problem is to find Numerical results
rkγ

0.80
an expression for the functions g0 ðkÞ; g00 ðl=hÞ; g000 ðl * Þ: This
problem can be solved by observing the results of the 0.60
numerical investigation.
In Papia et al. (2003) it has been proved that the 0.40
function g000 ðl * Þ can be expressed as:
0.20 εv=0.0008
c / h=1.0
g000 ðl * Þ ¼ : ð12Þ 0.00
ðl * Þb 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0

where: ξ

Figure 9. Reduction factor of w/d due to openings combined

c ¼ 0:249 2 0:0116 nd þ 0:567n 2d ; ð13Þ with the amplification factor due to vertical loads for different
levels of vertical loads (numerical points and fitting curves) for
b ¼ 0:146 þ 0:0073 nd þ 0:126n 2d : ð14Þ l=h ¼ 1.
 10 P.G. Asteris et al.

1.60 The numerical investigation carried out in this work

Analytical prediction
showed that there is a non-linear relationship between the
1.40 (λ*=11.4) parameters k and r. Therefore, the following equation can
be used:
1.20 Analytical prediction
(λ*=0.70)
l h
1.00
r·g0 ðkÞ·g00 ¼ rk g ð15Þ
h l
rkγ

0.80
Numerical results
0.60
where

0.40 k ¼ ½1 þ ð18l * þ 200Þ1v  ð16Þ

0.20 εv=0.00016
/ h=2.0 and
Downloaded by [Universita di Palermo], [Fabio Di Trapani] at 07:27 28 April 2015

0.00
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 0:5r
ξ g¼1þ : ð17Þ
ðh=‘Þ4
1.60
Analytical prediction
1.40 (λ*=8.60)
Equation (16) for k was previously proposed by Amato
et al. (2009) for the case of infills without opening and
1.20 Analytical prediction verified for square infilled frame, whereas here it is
(λ*=0.30)
proposed for square and rectangular infills in general.
1.00
In Figures 9 and 10, it is important to note that the
proposed analytical Equation (15) fits the numerical
rkγ

0.80 Numerical results

results. Equation (15) takes into account the variation of
0.60 the dimensionless width due to l * for a high value of the
opening ratio (i.e. close to 1) and neglects the influence of
0.40
l * for the lowest values of j where the influence of the
0.20 εv=0.00032 infills themselves becomes negligible.
At this point, the strong interaction between openings
/ h=2.0
0.00 and vertical loads is expressed by the exponent g applied
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 to the parameter k. In fact, while k was generated to take
ξ the influence of vertical loads into account, g depends on
1.60
the reduction factor r that, conversely, was generated to
take the influence of openings into account. Considering
Analytical prediction Equations (16) and (17) allows one to conclude that if
1.40
(λ*=8.60)
there are no vertical loads the following equation is valid:
1.20 Analytical prediction
(λ*=0.30)
1.00 k g ¼ k: ð18Þ
rkγ

0.80 Numerical results

The above formulation is an extension of the one proposed
0.60 by Amato et al. (2009).
In Figure 11, the values assumed by k g varying the
0.40 vertical loads and the opening ratio can be observed,
evidencing vertical loads seems to assume a stronger role
0.20 εv=0.0008
in the case of square infills.
/ h=2.0 Equation (15) for the reduction factor r can be
0.00
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0
considered as an updating of the expression proposed by
Asteris (2003), Asteris, Giannopoulos, and Chrysostomou
ξ
(2012), Asteris et al. (2013). However, as concluded by
Figure 10. Reduction factor of w/d due to openings combined Asteris (2003), the reduction factor r here proposed does
with the amplification factor due to vertical loads for different not depend on the aspect ratio of infills but assumes lightly
levels of vertical loads (numerical points and fitting curves) for different values especially for the cases of low levels of the
l=h ¼ 2. opening ratio.
 Structure and Infrastructure Engineering 11

1.50 1.50
/ h=1.0 r=1.0 / h=1.0
r=1.0
r=0.90 r=0.90
1.40 r=0.50 1.40 r=0.50
r=0.15 r=0.15

1.30 1.30
kγ

kγ
1.20 1.20

1.10 1.10

ε =0 ε =0
v v
1.00 1.00
0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0 8.0 9.0 10.0 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0 8.0 9.0 10.0
Downloaded by [Universita di Palermo], [Fabio Di Trapani] at 07:27 28 April 2015

λ∗ λ∗

Figure 11. Values assumed by k g for varying aspect ratio, vertical loads and opening ratio.

Asteris (2003) proposed the following expression for In Figure 12, a comparison between the function (10) and
the calculation of r: the function (21) is presented evidencing that the two
proposals converge for the highest values of j. Hence, the
r ¼ 1 2 2a0:54
w þ aw ;
1:14
ð19Þ differences result from the low values of j.
A similar comparison was carried out with the results
where aw is the infill wall opening ratio (area of opening to of the study presented by Papia (1988) that calculated the
the area of infill wall), that is give by: reduction of lateral stiffness of infilled frames with
openings, but without vertical loads, by using the
lv ·hv
aw ¼ : ð20Þ Boundary Element approach for the modelling of the
l·h infill and the Timoshenko beam model for the frame
By considering Equation (20), Equation (19) can be members. This comparison showed that results obtained
rewritten as: by Papia are consistent with those presented in Figure 8 in
terms of strut width reduction factor.


 As a further test a comparison was done between the
lv ·hv 0:54 lv ·hv 1:14
r ¼122 þ stiffness of the simplified frame-strut model of a real
l·h l·h
infilled frame, obtained by substituting infills with an
¼ 1 2 2ðjÞ1:08 þ ðjÞ2:28 : ð21Þ equivalent strut having the characteristics given by the
procedure above proposed, and the stiffness of the above
real infilled frame, experimentally obtained. In details the
1.2 results derived from an experimental campaign on infilled
Asteris 2003 frames with openings subjected to vertical and lateral loads
r 1 propose dmodel available in (Kakaletsis & Karayannis, 2007) were used.
The experimental programme consisted of testing
0.8 eight single-story, one-bay, 1/3-scale specimens of
reinforced concrete frames. One of these specimens,
0.6 differently from the others, was characterised by a window
in a centred position with respect to the vertical boundaries
0.4 of the infill. Although the specimen experimented is not
exactly of the type studied here (indeed the window is
0.2 square while the infill is rectangular) the comparison has
anyhow been performed. The geometrical characteristics
0 of the infilled frame in question are inserted in Figure 13.
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 The beam and the column cross sections were 100 mm
ξ £ 200 mm and 150 mm £ 150 mm, respectively.
Figure 12. Comparison between the proposed analytical The experimental elastic modulus of the masonry infill
expression of the reduction factor r and that obtained from was 670.3 MPa for the case parallel to the hollows and
Asteris (2003). 660.66 MPa for the case perpendicular to the hollows. The
 12 P.G. Asteris et al.
Downloaded by [Universita di Palermo], [Fabio Di Trapani] at 07:27 28 April 2015
Figure 13. Geometrical characteristics of the specimen considered for comparison obtained from (Kakaletsis & Karayannis, 2007).
experimental shear modulus was 259.39 MPa. The value
of the elastic modulus of the concrete used for making the
frame is not declared. While comparing the elastic moduli
and the rigidity moduli a value of Poisson ratio n ¼ 0.25
can be hypothesised. Further an elastic module of concrete
equal to 30,000 MPa has been fixed. For this system an
increment of the initial lateral stiffness of 6.26 kN/mm due
to infill has been measured.
Considering the characteristics above reported the
parameter l* for this system, using Equation (8), assumes
the value 0.046. Now, the value of w/d can be calculated
via Equation (11). Finally, using Equation (3) the
contribute of the infill to the initial stiffness can be
obtained and compared with the experimental one. In this
case the increment of initial stiffness due to infill is
estimated equal to 7.9 kN/mm, close to the value obtained
experimentally.
6. Conclusions
Masonry infill wall panels within a framed structure
strongly affect its structural response under horizontal
actions and seismic loads. Recent developments have
shown that such interaction can be expressed by replacing
the characteristics of the panel with that of an equivalent
diagonal compressive strut. Furthermore, research has
shown that there are several parameters influencing the
definition of the diagonal strut and its equivalent width.
The latter depends on the degree of coupling between
geometrical and mechanical features of the surrounding
frame and masonry infill.
In this paper, an analytical expression for the
determination of the equivalent strut width, and therefore
of its stiffness, has been proposed by means of an extensive
numerical investigation which was carried out using a series
of FE models. Specifically, the derived expression is a
function of a stiffness reduction factor which takes into
account the effect of the vertical load acting on the frame, the
infill aspect ratio, the opening percentage and the
geometrical – mechanical characteristics of the infilled
frame. Note that the presented study refers to the generic
frame of multi-story multi-bay framed structures and aims to
substitute each infill with an equivalent strut for a simplified
structural analysis.
From the present study the following conclusions can
be drawn:
. The amount of the opening affects the deformed
shape of the infilled frame. The greater the size of
the opening, the greater the beam-to-infill and
column-to-infill contact length.
. The effect of vertical loads on the stiffness of the
dimensionless strut width is significant for fully
infilled panels and almost negligible for infill panels
with large openings.
 Structure and Infrastructure Engineering
. The proposed reduction factor of the dimensionless
strut width is independent of the infill panel length-
to-height aspect ratio.
. The variables of the proposed analytical expression
for the determination of the equivalent strut width
are dependant on each other and their relationship is
nonlinear; this is a result of the complex infill-frame
interaction.
. The proposed expression is a reliable tool for the
determination of the equivalent compressive strut
width because it simultaneously accounts for a large
number of parameters, which are not, in general,
been taken into account by the existing models in
the literature.
Downloaded by [Universita di Palermo], [Fabio Di Trapani] at 07:27 28 April 2015
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.
Notes
1. Email: liborio.cavaleri@unipa.it
2. Email: fabio.ditrapani@unipa.it
3. Email: sarhosisv@cardiff.ac.uk
References
Achyutha, H., Jagadish, R., Rao, P.S., & Rahman, S. (1986).
Finite element simulation of the elastic behaviour of infilled
frames with openings. Computers and Structures, 23,
685– 696. doi:10.1016/0045-7949(86)90077-5
Al-Chaar, G. (2002). Evaluating strength and stiffness of
unreinforced masonry structures, ERDC/CERL TR-02-1,
US Army Corps of Engineers, Construction Engineering
Research Laboratories.
Al-Chaar, G., Lamb, G.E., & Abrams, D.P. (2003). Effects of
openings on structural performance of unreinforced masonry
infilled frames. Proceedings, 9th North American Masonry
Conference, Clemson University, Canada.
Amato, G., Cavaleri, L., Fossetti, M., & Papia, M. (2008). Infilled
frames: Influence of vertical loads on the equivalent
diagonal strut model. Proceedings of 14th World Conference
on Earthquake Engineering, Beijing, China, Paper 05-01-
0479.
Amato, G., Fossetti, M., Cavaleri, L., & Papia, M. (2009). An
updated model of equivalent diagonal strut for infill panels.
Proceedings of Eurocode 8, Perspectives from the Italian
standpoint Workshop. Napoli, Italy, 119– 128.
Applied Technology Council (ATC) (1996). Seismic evaluation
and retrofit of concrete buildings. Volumes 1 and 2, Report
No. ATC-40, Redwood City, CA, USA.
Asteris, P.G. (2003). Lateral stiffness of brick masonry infilled
plane frames. ASCE Journal of Structural Engineering, 129,
1071 – 1079. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9445(2003)129:8
(1071)
Asteris, P.G. (2008). Finite element micro-modeling of infilled
frames. Electronic Journal of Structural Engineering, 8, 1–11.
Asteris, P.G., Antoniou, S.T., Sophianopoulos, D.S., &
Chrysostomou, C.Z. (2011). Mathematical macromodeling
of infilled frames: State of the art. ASCE Journal of
13
Structural Engineering, 137, 1508 – 1517. doi:10.1061/
(ASCE)ST.1943-541X.0000384
Asteris, P.G., Cotsovos, D.M., Chrysostomou, C.Z., Mohebkhah,
A., & Al-Chaar, G.K. (2013). Mathematical micromodeling
of infilled frames: State of the art. Engineering Structures,
56, 1905– 1921. doi:10.1016/j.engstruct.2013.08.010
Asteris, P.G., Giannopoulos, I.P., & Chrysostomou, C.Z. (2012).
Modeling of infilled frames with openings. Open Construc-
tion and Building Technology Journal, 6, 81 – 91. doi:10.
2174/1874836801206010081
Baran, M., & Sevil, T. (2010). Analytical and experimental
studies on infilled RC frames. International Journal of
Physics and Sciences, 5, 1981– 1998.
Bosiljkov, Z., Totoev, Y.Z., & Nichols, J.M. (2005). Shear
modulus and stiffness of brickwork masonry: An exper-
imental perspective. Structural Engineering and Mechanics,
20, 21 – 43. doi:10.12989/sem.2005.20.1.021
Buonopane, S.G., & White, R.N. (1999). Pseudodynamic testing
of masonry infilled reinforced concrete frame. ASCE Journal
of Structural Engineering, 125, 578– 589. doi:10.1061/
(ASCE)0733-9445(1999)125:6(578)
Cavaleri, L., Di Trapani, F., Macaluso, G., & Papia, M. (2012).
Reliability of code-proposed models for assessment of
masonry elastic moduli. Ingegneria Sismica, 1, 38 – 59.
Cavaleri, L., Fossetti, M., & Papia, M. (2005). Infilled frames:
developments in the evaluation of cyclic behaviour under
lateral loads. Structural Engineering and Mechanics, 21,
469– 494. doi:10.12989/sem.2005.21.4.469
Cavaleri, L., Papia, M., Macaluso, G., Di Trapani, F., & Colajanni,
P. (2014). Definition of diagonal Poisson’s ratio and elastic
modulus for infill masonry walls. Materials and Structures,
47, 239– 262. doi:10.1617/s11527-013-0058-9
Chrysostomou, C.Z., & Asteris, P.G. (2012). On the in-plane
properties and capacities of infilled frames. Engineering
Structures, 41, 385–402. doi:10.1016/j.engstruct.2012.03.057
Crisafulli, F.J., Carr, A.J., & Park, R. (2000). Analytical
modelling of infilled frame structures – a general review.
Bulletin of New Zealand Society of Earthquake Engineering,
33, 30 – 47.
Ellul, F., & D’Ayala, D. (2012). Realistic FE models to enable
push-over non linear analysis of masonry infilled frames. The
Open Construction and Building Technology Journal, 6,
213– 235. doi:10.2174/1874836801206010213
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) (1997).
NEHRP guidelines for the seismic rehabilitation of buildings.
FEMA-273, 1997. Washington, DC, USA.
Fiore, A., Netti, A., & Monaco, P. (2012). The influence of
masonry infill on the seismic behaviour of RC frame
buildings. Engineering Structures, 44, 133 –145. doi:10.
1016/j.engstruct.2012.05.023
Holmes, M. (1961). Steel frames with brickwork and concrete
infilling. ICE Proceedings, 19, 473– 478. doi:10.1680/iicep.
1961.11305
Ismail, N., Petersen, R.B., Masia, M.J., & Ingham, J.M. (2011).
Diagonal shear behaviour of unreinforced masonry wallettes
strengthened using twisted steel bars. Construction and
Building Materials, 25, 4386 –4393. doi:10.1016/j.conbuild-
mat.2011.04.063
Jones, R.M. (1975). Mechanics of composite materials. Tokio:
McGraw-Hill.
Kakaletsis, D. (2009). Masonry infills with window openings and
influence on reinforced concrete frame constructions. WIT
Transactions on the Built Environment, 104, 445– 455.
Kakaletsis, D., & Karayannis, C. (2007). Experimental
investigation of infilled R/C frames with eccentric openings.
 14 P.G. Asteris et al.
Structural Engineering and Mechanics, 26, 231– 250. doi:10.
12989/sem.2007.26.3.231
Kakaletsis, D., & Karayannis, C. (2008). Influence of masonry
strength and openings on infilled R/C frames under cycling
loading. Journal of Earthquake Engineering, 12, 197– 221.
doi:10.1080/13632460701299138
Kakaletsis, D., & Karayannis, C. (2009). Document experimental
investigation of infilled reinforced concrete frames with
openings. ACI Structural Journal, 106, 132– 141.
Liauw, T.C. (1972). An approximate method of analysis for
infilled frames with or without opening. Building Science, 7,
233– 238. doi:10.1016/0007-3628(72)90004-7
Madan, A., Reinhorn, A.M., Mander, J.B., & Valles, R.E. (1997).
Modeling of masonry infill panels for structural analysis.
ASCE Journal of Structural Engineering, 123, 1295– 1302.
doi:10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9445(1997)123:10(1295)
Mallick, D.V., & Garg, R.P. (1971). Effect of openings on the
Downloaded by [Universita di Palermo], [Fabio Di Trapani] at 07:27 28 April 2015
lateral stiffness of infilled frames. ICE Proceedings, 49,
193– 209. doi:10.1680/iicep.1971.6263
Moghaddam, H.A., & Dowling, P.J. (1987). The state-of-art in
infilled frames. ESEE Research Report 87-2, Imperial
College of Science and Technology, London.
Mohebkhah, A., Tasnimi, A.A., & Moghadam, H.A. (2007). A
modified three-strut (MTS) model for masonry-infilled steel
frames with openings. Journal of Seismology and Earth-
quake Engineering, 9, 39 –48.
Mondal, G., & Jain, S.K. (2008). Lateral stiffness of masonry
infilled reinforced concrete (RC) frames with central opening.
Earthquake Spectra, 24, 701– 723. doi:10.1193/1.2942376
Mosalam, K.M., White, R.N., & Gergely, P. (1997). Static
response of infilled frames using quasi-static experimentation.
ASCE Journal of Structural Engineering, 123, 1462–4169.
doi:10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9445(1997)123:11(1462)
NCEER (1994). Workshop on Seismic response of masonry infills.
Technical Report NCEER-94-0004, San Francisco, CA, USA.
Papia, M. (1988). Analysis of infilled frames using a coupled
finite element and boundary element solution scheme.
International Journal for Numerical Methods in Engineer-
ing, 26, 731– 742. doi:10.1002/nme.1620260315
Papia, M., Cavaleri, L., & Fossetti, M. (2003). Infilled frames:
developments in the evaluation of the stiffening effect of
infills. Structural Engineering and Mechanics, 16, 675–693.
doi:10.12989/sem.2003.16.6.675
Papia, M., Cavaleri, L., & Fossetti, M. (2004). Effect of vertical
loads on lateral response of infilled frames. Proceedings of
13th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering,
Vancouver, Canada, No. 2931.
Saneinejad, A., & Hobbs, B. (1995). Inelastic design of infilled
frames. ASCE Journal of Structural Engineering, 121,
634– 650. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9445(1995)121:4(634)
SAP2000 V14.0 (2009). Computers and structures Inc, Berkley,
CA, USA.
Sarhosis, V., Tsavdaridis, K., & Giannopoulos, G. (2014).
Discrete Element Modelling of masonry in-filled steel
frames with multiple window openings subjected to lateral
load variations. Open Construction and Building Technol-
ogy Journal, 8, 93 – 103. doi:10.2174/1874836801
408010093
Schneider, S.P., Zagers, B.R., & Abrams, D.P. (1998). Lateral
strength of steel frames with masonry infills having large
openings. ASCE Journal of Structural Engineering, 124,
896– 904. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9445(1998)124:8(896)
Stafford Smith, B. (1968). Model tests results of vertical and
horizontal loading of infilled frames. Proceedings of
American Concrete Institute, 65, 618– 625.
Stavridis, W., & Shing, J.P. (2010). Finite-element modeling of
nonlinear behavior of masonry-infilled RC frames. ASCE
Journal of Structural Engineering, 136, 285–296. 10.1061/
(ASCE)ST.1943-541X.116.
Tasnimi, A.A., & Mohebkhah, A. (2011). Investigation on the
behavior of brick-infilled steel frames with openings,
experimental and analytical approaches. Engineering Struc-
tures, 33, 968– 980. doi:10.1016/j.engstruct.2010.12.018
Valiasis, T.N., & Stylianidis, K.C. (1989). Masonry infills in R/C
frames under horizontal loading, experimental results.
European Earthquake Engineering, 3, 10 – 20.
Willam, K.J., Citto, C., & Shing, P.B. (2010). Recent results on
masonry infill walls. Advanced Materials Research, 133-
134, 27 – 30. 10.4028/www.scientific.net/AMR.133-134.27.
Zhao, M., Wu, M., Kong, J., & Chen, W. (2011). Study on finite
element model of infilled walls of steel frames. Advanced
Materials Research, 250-253, 2424– 2427. 10.4028/www.
scientific.net/AMR.250-253.2424.
Appendix A
Verification of Equation (3)
In this appendix verification of Equation (3), that calculates the
stiffness Dd of the scheme shown in Figure 3(b), is provided.
In order to calculate the stiffness Dd, the interstory displacement
referred to the middle span of the beams is first calculated under a
unitary shear force in agreement to the scheme shown in
Figure A1. The inverse of the above displacement is the searched
stiffness.
The response of the above scheme can be obtained by the two
schemes shown in Figure A2 (principle of superposition). Hence,
the interstory displacement dp1p2 can be expressed as:
0 00
dp1p2 ¼ dp1p2 þ dp1p2 ; ðA1Þ
0 00
where dp1p2 and dp1p2 are the mean interstory displacements
evaluated in the middle span of the beams as shown respectively
in Figures A2(a),(b).
Response of the scheme shown in Figure A2(a)
By observing Figure A2(a) one obtains:
0
dp1p2 ¼ dx þ dp1 ; ðA2Þ
δp1p2
1/2 p1 1/2
p1
d
h' Dd=1/δp1p2
1/2
p2 θ
p2
Figure A1. Scheme for the evaluation of the contribution Dd of
the equivalent strut to the total stiffness of infilled frame.
 Structure and Infrastructure Engineering 15

(a) δ'p1p2 (b) δ''p1p2

δx
1/2 δy p1
1/2
p1 p1

d d
h' h'

θ 1/2 p2 θ
p2 p2

Figure A2. Equivalent stress states based on the principle of superposition.

Downloaded by [Universita di Palermo], [Fabio Di Trapani] at 07:27 28 April 2015

00
where dp1 is the elongation of the upper beam evaluated at the downer beam evaluated in the middle span dp1p2 can be expressed
middle span. The axial forces interesting the members of the as:
scheme shown in Figure A2(a) have the values listed below: l0 =2 1 l0
d00p1p2 ¼ F db ¼ ðA9Þ
Ec Ab 4 Ec Ab
F s ¼ 1= cos u ðcompressiveforceinthediagonalstrutÞ

F ub ¼ 1=2 ðtensileforceintheupperbeamÞ ðA3Þ

Overall response
F rc ¼ tan u ðtensileforceintheleftcolumnÞ By considering what has been described above, Equation (A1)
can be rewritten as:
.

Considering the deformed shape, the variation of length Dd 1 d h0 1 l0
dp1p2 ¼ 2
þ sin2
u þ2 ; ðA10Þ
of the diagonal strut can be expressed as: cos u Ed wt Ef Ac 4 Ef Ab

Dd ¼ dx cos u 2 dy sinu: ðA4Þ which, by taking into account Equation (4), becomes:


Further to this length variation, caused by the force Fs, can be 1 1 2 1 11
written as: dp1p2 ¼ þ sin u þ : ðA11Þ
cos 2 u kd kc 2 kb
d 1 d Finally, the stiffness Dd is obtained from:
Dd ¼ F s ¼ ; ðA5Þ
Ed tw cos u Ed tw
1 kd cos 2 u
where the meaning of the symbols has been before explained. Dd ¼ ¼ : ðA12Þ
dp1p2 1 þ ðkd =kc Þsin u þ ð1=2Þðk
2
d =kb Þ cos
2u
On the other hand, the vertical displacement dy , correspond-
ing to the elongation of the left column, can be expressed as:

h0 h0
dy ¼ Frc ¼ tanu : ðA6Þ Appendix B
Ef Ac Ef Ac
Verification of Equation (5)
Combining Equations (A4) – (A6) leads to:
In this appendix verification of Equation (5), that calculates the

 2 stiffness Df of the scheme, shown in Figure 3(c), is provided.
1 d sin u 0
dx ¼ þ h : ðA7Þ In order to calculate the stiffness Df, the interstory displacement
cos 2 u Ed tw Ef Ac referred to the middle span of the beams is first calculated under a
unitary shear force in agreement to the scheme shown in
By considering the expression of the force Fub that interests the Figure B1. The inverse of the above displacement is the searched
upper beam (Equation (A3)), the elongation dp1 appearing in stiffness.
Equation (A2) can be simply expressed as: Due to the antisymmetry in the load the axial forces in the
beams are zero; also, for the same reason, the scheme shown in
l0 =2 1 l0 Figure B2 gives half of the interstory displacement given by the
dp1 ¼ F ub ¼ ðA8Þ *
Ef Ab 4 Ef Ab scheme shown in Figure B1 (dp ¼ 1=2 dp ).
Referring to Figure B2 and applying the virtual work
principle leads to:
0 0
hð =2 lð =2
Response of the scheme shown in Figure A2(b) 1 * 1 1 x 1 h0 1 h0 x
d ¼ x· dx þ x· dx: ðB1Þ
For the equilibrium of the system, the axial force Fdb interesting 2 p 2 2 Ef I c 2 l0 2 l0 Ef I b
the downer beam is equal to 1/2, therefore the elongation of the 0 0
 16 P.G. Asteris et al.

Df=1/δp
Solving* Equation (B1) with respect to the horizontal displace-
1 /2
ment dp leads to:
1 /2 p


* h0 l0 I c
p dp ¼ 1þ 0 ; ðB2Þ
48Ef I c h Ib

h' thus, finally:


24Ef I c
* l0 I c 21
1/2 1/2 Df ¼ 1=2dp ¼ 1þ 0 : ðB3Þ
h0 h Ib

Figure B1. Deformed shape of the bare frame.

Downloaded by [Universita di Palermo], [Fabio Di Trapani] at 07:27 28 April 2015

h' /4 x 0
δ*p Df=1/2δ*p
p M(x)=0.5(h'/ ')x p
1 /2 1 /2

h' /4
h'/2 h'/2
M(x)=0.5x
δp x
0

/2 /2

Figure B2. Equivalent schemes for the evaluation of the contribution to the stiffness Df of the bare frame: (a) deformed shape; (b)
bending moment diagram.