Engineering Structures 191 (2019) 179–193

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

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

Effect of concrete masonry infill walls on progressive collapse performance T

of reinforced concrete infilled frames
Jun Yua,b, Yi-Ping Gana,b, Jun Wuc, , Hao Wud
⁎

a
Key Laboratory of Ministry of Education for Geomechanics and Embankment Engineering, Hohai University, Nanjing 210098, China
b
College of Civil and Transportation Engineering, Hohai University, Nanjing 210098, China
c
School of Urban Railway Transportation, Shanghai University of Engineering Science, Shanghai 201620, China
d
Research Institute of Structural Engineering and Disaster Reduction, College of Civil Engineering, Tongji University, Shanghai 200092, China

ARTICLE INFO ABSTRACT

Keywords: In practice, infilled frame is a common structure but the contribution of infill walls is typically ignored in
Progressive collapse previous research on progressive collapse. To this end, numerical models based on solid-element are employed to
Reinforced concrete investigate the behavior of reinforced concrete (RC) frames with concrete masonry infill walls under a middle
Infill walls column removal scenario (CRS). The numerical models of bare and infilled frames are initially validated through
Numerical study
previous experimental results. Then the numerical models are used to illustrate the effects of infill walls on the
Load transfer mechanism
Column removal scenario
load transfer mechanisms of the frames under a CRS and the interaction between infill walls and frame members.
Thereafter, the size effect of the frame models is discussed and the numerical models are further extended to
study the effects of pertinent geometric parameters on the progressive collapse behavior, including the height of
partial-height infill walls, the opening position and area of wall panels as well as the number of stories. The
results indicate that the load transfer mechanism of a two-story infilled frame in a middle CRS is the frame action
provided by frame members and the truss mechanism provided by the interaction of infill walls and surrounding
frame members, in which the latter remarkably enhances the initial structural stiffness and peak resistance. For
the multi-story infilled frame with opening in which the geometric and mechanical properties are identical in
each story, the load transfer mechanism is basically independent of the number of stories, whereas for the frame
with full-height infill walls, the composite effect of multi-story walls is evident, increasing the peak structural
resistance. Therefore, if each full-height infill wall is simplified into equivalent strut models in structural ana-
lysis, the results are underpredicted but on the safe side.

1. Introduction regimes [12–16]. In addition, a lot of numerical studies have been

Over the last decade, disproportionate or progressive collapse of
buildings after suffering accidental loads, has attracted a great many
research interests and governmental concerns, but most research works
are concentrated on framed structures. To avoid the difficulties to
specify accidental loads, the progressive collapse performance or ro-
bustness of structures are alternatively investigated by single column
removal scenarios (CRS). A great many experiments have been con-
ducted to investigate the structural behavior of reinforced concrete
(RC) single-story beam-column assemblies [1–7] or frames [8–10], and
multi-story planar RC frames [11] under a CRS. Moreover, the analy-
tical and experimental studies have correlated the quasi-static struc-
tural resistance to the nonlinear dynamic performance of RC structures
subjected to progressive collapse, since the RC structures have the
identical load transfer mechanisms and failure modes in both loading
conducted to elucidate the effects of pertinent parameters on perfor-
mance of RC sub-structures through high fidelity modeling with solid
elements [17,18] or of global structures through macro-modeling with
fiber elements and even refined with component-based joint models
[19–23] under CRS.
In the engineering practice, infill walls are widely used but they are
typically regarded as secondary structural or non-structural elements.
Therefore, their contribution on structural resistance are ignored in the
above-reviewed works. Recently, the effect of infill walls on progressive
collapse behavior of RC frames starts to attract more attentions. Sasani
[24] tested the response of a six-story infilled RC frame under a two
adjacent exterior CRS, and found that three-dimensional Vierendeel
action of the frames with the contribution of infill walls is identified as
the major mechanism for redistributing loads in the structure. Stinger
and Orton [25] tested a series of three 1/4 scaled two-bay by two-story

⁎
Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: yujun@hhu.edu.cn (J. Yu), cvewujun@sues.edu.cn (J. Wu).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2019.04.048
Received 23 February 2019; Received in revised form 15 April 2019; Accepted 15 April 2019
Available online 25 April 2019
0141-0296/ © 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
J. Yu, et al. Engineering Structures 191 (2019) 179–193

frames under a middle CRS, and reported that partial-height infill walls T-beams, diagonal struts or columns depending on the opening posi-
in the second story slightly increased structural resistance in the com- tions. Eren et al. [39] investigated the progressive collapse resistance of
pressive arch phase. This is mainly because the partial-height infill the multi-story frame with full-height infill walls, each of which was
walls was only 31.7% the net ceiling height. Li et al [26] and Shan et al. modeled by two cross diagonal struts, and mainly focused on the sen-
[27] investigated the effect of full-height infill walls and infill walls sitivity to the span length, the story height and the mechanical prop-
having opening on the structural behavior of RC frames under a middle erties of infill walls.
CRS through testing three 1/3 scaled four-bay by two-story RC frame In summary, the currently limited data is mainly about the single-
specimens. Moreover, Qian and Li [28] tested three 1/4 scaled two-bay story infill walls in CRS, and the validity of implementing the macro-
by three-story infilled RC frames under a penultimate interior CRS with model of single-story infill wall in the multi-story one is not guaranteed.
one side of the specimens restrained and the other side free. Brodsky The opening of the infill walls remarkably affects the progressive col-
and Yankelevsky [29] tested seven 1/2 scaled infilled frames units lapse resistance and failure modes of the infilled frames, resulting in
under an exterior CRS, and investigated the effects of column related difficult to set up a universal macro-modeling for different opening
stiffness, reinforcement details of frame members, masonry block type configurations. Moreover, besides the resistance and the failure modes
and infill construction method. All the three series of tests [26–29] of infilled frames, it is of interest to know the interaction of wall panels
indicate that infill walls with concrete masonry units (CMU) sub- and surrounding frame members in a CRS. Therefore, to overcome the
stantially improved the peak structural resistance and initial stiffness shortcomings of the macro-modeling and to shed more light on the
against progressive collapse, changed the failure modes of frames and interaction between the wall panel and the frame members, high fide-
acted as equivalent compressive struts. Different from the tests [25–28], lity three-dimensional numerical (i.e. micro-) modeling approach is
in which solid CMU were used to comprise infill walls after construction employed in this paper, in which both RC members and infill walls are
of the frames and the walls were reinforced by tie bars, Brodsky and modeled with solid elements, and the mortar joints are explicitly con-
Yankelevsky [29] used hollow CMU and autoclave-cured aerated CMU sidered using contact algorithm. Moreover, only solid concrete masonry
to infill the frames and built infill walls before casting columns, and infill walls, which are constructed after the frames, are concerned in
found that masonry block type and column shear connectors have a this paper. The numerical models are validated by previous experi-
major effect on failure mode of infilled frames. mental results, and then used to illustrate the load transfer mechanisms
Most of the above mentioned tests were conducted in static-in- in the infilled frames under a CRS and conduct parametric studies about
determinate systems, and thus it was unable to fully demonstrate the the geometric properties of the frames, such as opening position and
load transfer paths through the infill walls and the interaction between area as well as the number of stories. The numerical results can be used
the frame members and walls panels. Moreover, the infill walls involve to prove the validity of the macro-modeling for different cases and also
a great many parameters and the corresponding experimental data so to provide an approach for quick assessment of peak progressive col-
far is still very limited. Therefore, it is imperative to employ numerical lapse resistance of multi-story infilled frames.
analysis to improve the understanding of the effect of infill walls on
progressive collapse performance of infilled frames.
2. Validation of numerical models of infilled RC frames
The numerical modeling techniques for infill walls can be divided
into two categories: macro- and micro-modeling. The macro-modeling
2.1. Overview of the reference experiments
mainly focuses on the function of the walls in load transfer and thus
directly simplifies the infill wall into equivalent compression struts
The three-dimensional numerical models of the RC frames with
[30]. Then three vital questions have to be solved, including: de-
different infill walls were built up and validated by the experiments
termining the width of the strut, the number of the struts and the
conducted by Li et al. [26] and Shan et al. [27]. During their tests, the
corresponding constitutive relationship [31]. However, it should be
progressive collapse resistance and the corresponding failure modes
pointed out that the proposal of equivalent strut model is based on the
were demonstrated through testing three 1/3 scaled two-story four-bay
failure mode of diagonal corner crushing or cracking of infill walls, and
RC frames, one of which was a bare frame whereas the other two were
the macro-modeling ignores the interaction between the wall panels
the same frame with full-height infill walls and the infill walls having
and the surrounding frame members. In fact, there are five possible
opening, respectively.
failure modes of a unit infill wall confined by frame members [32], and
The test set-up is shown in Fig. 1. Each frame specimen was con-
the failure modes of infill walls in a multi-story frame may be different
nected to the strong floor through the anchored foundation beam. At
from those in a single story. Therefore, it will be short of confidence to
the beginning of the test, the removed middle column was replaced by a
apply a pre-assumed macro-model if the failure mode of infill walls are
hand jack. Thereafter, the hydraulic jack applied a constant load at the
unknown in advance for a loading scenario. On the contrary, the micro-
top of the second-story middle column and the hand jack provided the
modeling needs to set up a model of the entire wall and consider the
corresponding reaction to keep force equilibrium so that only the
geometric and material characteristics of masonry units and mortar
middle column was in axial compression. Then, the hand jack was
[33]. The procedure of micro-modeling is not affected by the experi-
gradually unloading, and the unequal load applied by the two jacks was
mental failure modes. As a result, many researchers value the super-
increasing and working as a net load to the frame specimen, resulting in
iority of micro-modeling and use it to simulate the development of
cracks in walls and the failure modes under seismic actions [34,35], as
well as the failure process and response of infill walls under blast loads
[36,37]. These numerical studies are concentrated on some specific
failure details, which cannot be simulated by macro-modeling.
In the field of progressive collapse, Li et al. [26] numerically in-
vestigated the effects of mortar joint strength through solid-element-
based models after their tests. However, the macro-modeling is pre-
ferred due to its advantages in computational efficiency. Shan et al.
[27] employed four-strut models to represent the infill walls with
opening and study the effect of compressive strength of strut. Tsai and
Huang [38] numerically explored the effect of three types of infill walls
having opening rate of 60% on the progressive collapse resistance of
planar frame, and the infill walls were replaced by equivalent inverted Fig. 1. Test set-up for bare and infilled frame specimens (unit: mm) [26,27].

180
J. Yu, et al.
Fig. 2. Geometric dimensions and reinforcement detailing of frame specimens (unit: mm) [26,27].
the middle column moving down and the entire specimen deforming.
The quasi-static push-down loading process continued with the dis-
placement control at the top of the middle column until the complete
failure of the frame specimen.
Fig. 2 demonstrates the geometric dimensions of the frame speci-
mens and reinforcement detailing of the beams and columns. Note that
the two infilled frames are shown together due to symmetry. Except the
infill walls, all the three specimens shared the same frame dimensions.
The height of first story and second story was 1.4 m and 1.1 m, re-
spectively. The span length for all the beams was 1.7 m. The RC beam
section was 150 mm in depth and 100 mm in width, while the RC
column section was 200 mm by 200 mm. The infill walls, composed of
solid concrete masonry units (CMU) and mortar, were connected to the
surrounding columns by tie bars with spacing of 146 mm. For the walls
with opening, a lintel was provided at the top of each opening to sup-
port the upper CMU. More details about the specimens can refer to the
references [26,27].
2.2. Numerical modeling
The high-fidelity three-dimensional numerical modeling of the
above frames are achieved through commercial software LS-DYNA, and
thus the micro-modeling technique of infill walls is used. The numerical
models were validated by the above experimental results. All the three
specimens are modeled in half due to symmetry to improve
Fig. 3. Numerical modeling information of the specimens with infill walls.
181
Engineering Structures 191 (2019) 179–193
computational efficiency, as illustrated in Fig. 3. Note that the con-
nection between CMU and mortar is represented by contact models
with half mortar thickness assigned to each neighboring CMU.
2.2.1. Element types
In the finite element model, as illustrated in Fig. 3, concrete of the
frame members and CMU are modeled using 8-node solid elements with
reducing integration scheme. Based on the mesh sensitivity analysis, the
mesh dimensions for RC beams and columns are
25 mm × 12.5 mm × 12.5 mm and 25 mm × 25 mm × 12.5 mm, re-
spectively. The mesh size is 8–16 mm for CMU. Moreover, the dimen-
sions of the elements in the interior spans are smaller than those in the
exterior spans. All steel reinforcement is represented by 2-node Hughes-
Liu beam elements with dimensions ranging from 12.5 mm to 25 mm. In
the current study, the major concern is the contribution of infill walls
and the presence of the walls also affects the locations of severe
cracking along RC beams. Therefore, to keep the objectivity, there is no
bond-slip modeling specified at any local region, and perfect bond is
assumed. Reinforcing bars are connected to concrete using the keyword
*CONSTRAINED_LAGRANGE_IN_SOLID.
2.2.2. Boundary conditions and loading approach
During the referred tests, the first story columns of each frame were
monolithically cast with a foundation beam, as indicated in Fig. 1,
which was anchored into the strong floor of the laboratory. As the
J. Yu, et al.
foundation beam was quite large and stiff, it was not modeled in the
current study. Instead, the nodes at the bottom ends of the columns of
each frame are directly fixed in all the translational degree of freedoms,
as the restraint conditions indicated in Fig. 3. Meanwhile, at the sym-
metric plane of the model, which is located at the center of the middle
column, all the nodes were constrained to not allow the translational
movement in y-direction.
The push-down loading scheme is achieved by defining a velocity-
time curve for a rigid plate seated on top of the second story middle
column. The velocity initially increases with time and then stays con-
stant to represent loading with displacement-control. Moreover, as the
self-weight of the CMU infill walls is considerable, it is applied before
the push-down analysis and maintains constant during the push-down
analysis.
2.2.3. Material models
Continuous surface cap model (CSCM) was developed to represent
concrete behavior under low to intermediate impact loading, such as
elastic-plastic performance, shear dilatation, damage-based softening
and rate effects [40]. The original CSCM model requires a series of
input parameters to define elastic properties, strength surface, cap lo-
cation, shape and hardening, damage evolution as well as rate effects.
Equipped with a default subroutine based on the stress-strain re-
lationship defined by CEB-FIP concrete model [41], the simplified
version only needs inputting unconfined compressive strength fc,
maximum aggregate size Ag, erosion criterion and units to auto-
matically generate the other parameters, but it only works for fc be-
tween 28 MPa and 58 MPa.
Previous research has indicated that CSCM model is able to accu-
rately predict quasi-static structural behavior of RC beam-to-column
assemblages and beam-slab substructures under CRS [18,42]. There-
fore, CSCM model is eventually employed for concrete and CMU. The
unconfined compression strength of concrete in the first and the second
story was 41.3 MPa and 31.8 MPa, respectively. Moreover, the fracture
energy is a critical parameter to define the softening behavior of con-
crete. The work [42] suggests that elastic modulus could be adjusted to
make the peak stress correspond to 2000 micro strain, and the com-
pressive fracture energy Gfc and shear facture energy Gfs can take 50Gft
and 0.5Gft, respectively. In accordance with the afore-mentioned re-
finement, the uniaxial stress-strain relationship of concrete is shown in
Fig. 4.
Li et al. [26] conducted compression tests on CMU with a dimension
of 63.5 mm × 130 mm × 63.5 mm in accordance with Chinese stan-
dard “Test methods for concrete block and brick” [43], and obtained
the compressive strength of 22.6 MPa, corresponding to the peak load
186 kN (=22.6 MPa × 63.5 mm × 130 mm). Note that the unconfined
Fig. 4. Uniaxial stress-strain curve of concrete.
182
Engineering Structures 191 (2019) 179–193
compressive strength input to the CSCM model should be the com-
pressive strength determined from a standard cylinder test with dia-
meter of 150 mm and height of 300 mm. Therefore, the masonry
strength cannot be directly used, and it needs a calibration. To this end,
a numerical model of single prism CMU block is built for compression
loading, and a compressive strength fc-c smaller than 22.6 MPa is input
for a trial computation. If the computational load-bearing capacity is
not equal to 186 kN, the input value of fc-c is adjusted for a second
round calculation. Through this trial-and-error method, eventually the
compressive strength of fc-c should take 18 MPa when using CSCM
model for CMU.
A bilinear elastic plastic-hardening model with keyword
*Mat_Plastic_Kinematic is used for steel reinforcement, and the tensile
and compressive branches are assumed symmetrical. The yield strength
of the reinforcing bars with diameter of 8 mm and 4 mm is 415 MPa and
235 MPa, respectively. The ultimate tensile strength of them is 588 MPa
and 322 MPa, respectively, with corresponding ultimate strain of 0.18
and 0.31, respectively. When the strain exceeds the ultimate strain, the
elements of reinforcement will be eroded.
2.2.4. Contact modeling for masonry joints
In high-fidelity modeling, the physical presence as well as the me-
chanical behavior of infill walls should be considered through micro-
models. There are three strategies typically used for micro-models of
infill walls [33]. In the first strategy, masonry wall is modeled as one-
phase material, in which masonry units, mortar and the unit-mortar
interface are smeared out in homogeneous continuum. In the second
strategy, masonry wall is modeled as two-phase material, in which a
half mortar joints are assigned to the neighboring masonry units to form
expanded units represented by continuum elements whereas the be-
havior of the mortar joints and the unit-mortar interface is lumped in
discontinuum elements described by interface elements or contact in-
terfaces. In the third strategy, masonry wall is modeled as three-phase
material, in which masonry units and mortar joints are represented by
continuum elements whereas the unit-mortar interface is modeled by
discontinuum elements. These three methods sequentially become more
accurate at the cost of more computational time. To optimize the ac-
curacy and the running time, the second strategy is eventually em-
ployed.
The CMU-mortar interface has some cohesion or strength prior to
failure, and thereafter the CMU and the mortar joints can slide along
each other at the interfaces to provide friction. Therefore, tiebreak-
based contact model [40,44] is used to represent the CMU-mortar in-
terface. The interface cohesion depends on the normal and the shear
failure strengths of the interface. The failure criterion of the interface is
given as follows:
2 2
| n| | s|
+ 1
NFLS SFLS (1)
where σn and σs are the normal and the tangential shear stresses acting
at the interface, respectively; NFLS and SFLS are the normal and the
shear failure strength, respectively. Under compression, the node stress
at the contact interface is linearly proportional to the node distance.
When Eq. (1) is satisfied, the cohesive failure occurs at the CMU-mortar
interface and the contact interface downgrades to the automatic contact
surface to surface, in which axial compression prevents the invasion of
elements in the two neighboring expanded units and the friction still
works at the interface. If the contact interface fails in tension, the
neighboring elements at the both sides of the interface are able to de-
tach.
In LS-DYNA, the tiebreak-based contact is achieved at the
interface of CMU-mortar using keyword *CONTACT_AUTOMATIC_
SURFACE_TO_SURFACE_TIEBREAK (CASTST), as indicated in Fig. 3.
Moreover, Eq. (1) is used as the failure criterion in CASTST with the
combination of different OPTION values, including 2, 3 and 6 [40].
J. Yu, et al.
1.0 Removal of tensile spring
Damage
scale factor
Opening distance
(a) Damage model after tiebreak contact
Failure 1.08
1.50
No failure
(b) Failure criterion for tiebreak contact
Fig. 5. Contact model with tiebreak.
Using OPTION = 6, the stress of contact interface linearly reduces to
zero until the crack width reaches a specified δc after the cohesive
failure, as demonstrated in Fig. 5(a). When OPTION = 2, damage
evolution is not considered [44]. Since the value of δc is very random,
or when it is not greater than 0.1 mm, the discrepancy between using
OPTION = 6 and 2 is very small. Therefore, in the current study OP-
TION = 2 is used. Based on Chinese standard “Code for design of ma-
sonry structures” [45], the static coefficient takes 0.7.
The critical parameters NFLS and SFLS should be determined by
tests. Li et al. [26] conducted the double shear tests of masonry as
shown in Fig. 6, and obtained the shear strength of the CMU-mortar
interface equal to 1.08 MPa. In accordance with the Chinese standard
[45], the tensile strength can approximately equal the shear strength.
However, when the shear strength of the CMU-mortar interface took
1.08 MPa, the peak capacity of the numerical structural resistance of
the RC frame with full-height infill walls was much lower than the
experimental result. This suggests that the shear strength obtained from
double shear tests under unconfined conditions underestimated the real
shear strength of contact interface in the condition that the infill walls
are confined by surrounding frame members. Therefore, the RC frame
with full-height infill walls is used to calibrate the shear strength of
contact interface, and it is found that the experimental and the nu-
merical result agree well when the SLFS is increased to around 1.5 MPa,
as shown in Fig. 7(b). Moreover, this value is used to validate the nu-
merical model of the RC frame with infill walls containing openings.
Accordingly, the tiebreak failure criterion of the CMU-mortar interface
is represented by Fig. 5(b).
183
Engineering Structures 191 (2019) 179–193
Plastering mortar
Masonry
Fig. 6. Scheme of double shear tests for masonry.
2.3. Validation of the numerical models
Fig. 7 demonstrates that the numerical and experimental structural
resistance of the three frame specimens agree very well both in the
trend and peak resistance. Note that the peak resistance of the RC frame
with full-height infill walls (FHIW) was used to calibrate the shear
strength of the CMU-mortar interface. Moreover, Fig. 8 shows that the
movement of the frame ends predicted by the numerical models are
very similar to the experimental results, i.e., the exterior column moved
out first and then moved in, indicating the mobilization of compressive
arch action and catenary action of beams, respectively.
Fig. 7(a) shows that the structural resistance of the bare frame at
different deformation stages can be accurately presented by the nu-
merical model, such as softening, re-ascending, and sudden drop due to
bar fracture. However, for the infilled frames, the randomness of the
quality and the craftsmanship of mortar joints made the numerical
models very difficult to precisely predict the wall cracking as well as its
development. Even so, the numerical models are still able to capture the
primary characteristics of the corresponding structural resistance, such
as overall trend, initial stiffness, peak capacity and decrease of re-
sistance due to wall failure. Although the numerical model of the RC
frame with infill walls having openings (IWHO) overpredicted the peak
capacity, the relative error is less than 10%.
CSCM is unable to track cracks, but the cracks can be equivalently
demonstrated by effective plastic strains because the wider cracks result
in larger plastic strains [8]. The crack patterns of RC frames can ap-
proximately be represented by the contour of effective plastic strains.
Fig. 9 compares the experimental and numerical crack patterns of the
frames at different deformation stages. The crack initialization and
distribution as well as the eventual failure modes at both the beams and
the wall panels predicted by the numerical results are very similar to
those of experimental results, suggesting the validity of the numerical
models. It should also be pointed out that the presence of infill walls
affects the stress distribution along the beams and results in more cracks
at small deformation stage.
In summary, the comparisons of the structural resistance and the
lateral displacement at the exterior joints as well as the failure modes of
the frames indicate that the numerical models are valid and reasonable
to represent the progressive collapse performance under a middle CRS.
In the next section, these models will be used to illustrate the load
transfer mechanisms of frames against progressive collapse and ex-
tended to study the effects of concerned parameters on the progressive
collapse performance.
J. Yu, et al. Engineering Structures 191 (2019) 179–193

Fig. 7. Comparisons of numerical and experimental resistances of frame spe-

cimens under a middle column removal scenario.

Fig. 8. Comparisons of numerical and experimental horizontal displacement of

3. Load transfer mechanisms
In the progressive collapse tests through push-down loading ap-
proach, the internal forces of structural members which can be used to
illustrate the load transfer mechanisms, cannot be directly obtained
frame specimens under a middle column removal scenario (positive value in-
dicating moving outwards and negative value indicating moving inwards; EJ
representing exterior joint).

184
J. Yu, et al.
Fig. 9. Comparisons of numerical and experimental failure modes (at small deformation stage, the bare frame, the frame with FHIW and the frame with IWHO
displace 14.9 mm, 8.3 mm and 14.9 mm, respectively).
from the tests due to the static-indeterminate test set-up. However, the
beauty of the numerical models is that they can help to shed light on the
load transfer mechanisms in resisting progressive collapse. Fig. 10 de-
monstrates the development of axial forces along the beams in the three
frames. Due to the presence of the infill walls, the axial force along the
beam is not uniform and hence axial forces are extracted at three sec-
tions, which are denoted in Fig. 11.
In the bare frame, the first story beam above the removed column
develops large axial compression prior to the middle column displace-
ment of 200 mm, and thereafter develops axial tension until failure,
suggesting the sequential mobilization of compressive arch action and
185
Engineering Structures 191 (2019) 179–193
catenary action. In comparison, the axial force of the second story beam
is small and the beam is mainly in flexural action. This difference is
attributed to that the boundary restraints at the second story beam are
weaker than those at the first story beam. Due to the development of
axial tension, at the ultimate stage, the cracks at the first story beam are
more extensive than those at the second story beam, as shown in
Fig. 9(b).
For the infilled frames under a middle CRS, the gravity load redis-
tribution can be achieved through the frame action of beams and the so-
called truss mechanism through the interaction between the infill walls
and the frame members. Typically, the latter mechanism is more
J. Yu, et al.
Fig. 10. Axial forces mobilized in beams above the removed column.
dominant, resulting in much larger initial structural stiffness and peak
resistance. The corresponding truss mechanism of the two infilled
frames are elucidated in Fig. 11.
Fig. 11(a) demonstrates that at small deformation stage of the frame
with FHIW, the applied vertical load is mainly transferred through axial
compression along the diagonal of each wall panel because the stiffness
of the wall panels is much larger than that of the beams. As the diagonal
involves a large part of the wall panel, the force equilibrium is provided
186
Engineering Structures 191 (2019) 179–193
by two trusses, namely, truss 1 and 2. Due to symmetry, truss 1 in-
dicated in Fig. 11(a) actually is only a half of the primary truss, in
which the two first story beams work as a tension chord. Truss 2 in-
volves the second story beam and the side column. Such truss me-
chanisms make both the first and the second story beams in tension, as
shown in Fig. 10(b), and hence result in more intensive cracks along the
beams compared with the ones in the bare frame, as shown in Fig. 9(a).
With increasing the displacement, the infill walls start to fail in a brittle
J. Yu, et al.
Fig. 11. Load transfer mechanisms in the infilled frames (the left part of each figure indicating the truss mechanisms).
way, and the diagonal compression through the wall panels and the
corresponding truss mechanisms lose functions, reducing the tension of
the beams, in particular for the first story beams, as shown in Fig. 10(b).
Moreover, the mobilization of compressive arch action along the first
story beams per se decreases the beam axial tension as well. At the large
deformation stage, the primary diagonal part of the wall panels fails,
and the residual infill walls remain in two triangular shapes, which
function as small compression struts and form two new trusses (namely,
3 and 4) with frame members, as indicated in Fig. 11(b). This makes the
axial tension restart to increase along the both the first and second story
beams, and the mobilization of catenary action at the first story beams
also increases the beam axial tension. Note that the presence of residual
infill walls affects the locations of beam plastic hinges.
The transition of load transfer mechanisms in the frame with IWHO
is similar to that with FHIW. However, as shown in Fig. 11(a), the
opening makes the diagonal compression transfer along the opening
perimeters and weakens the development of diagonal compression and
the corresponding truss mechanisms. Due to the weaker truss me-
chanisms, the axial tension of the beams is smaller than the counterpart
with FHIW. At the large deformation stage, the first story beams still
develop significant catenary action.
The interaction between the infill walls and the beams could result
in the various axial forces at different sections along a beam.
Consequently, the axial force at three sections of each beam is in-
vestigated. The axial force, denoted as Na-b, indicates axial force of
section b at a-th story beam. Fig. 10(b) demonstrates that before the
displacement of 200 mm, N1-1 (i.e., the axial force at section 1) equals
N1-2 along the first story beam, whereas after the displacement of
250 mm, N1-2 is almost equal to N1-3. Along the second story beam, N2-2
equals N2-3 first and later gets closer to N2-1. This is mainly because of
the shear stress (or friction) at the interfaces between the beams and the
infill walls. At the small deformation stage, the shear stress distribution
is concentrated at the ends of diagonal axial compression zone, as in-
dicated in Fig. 11(a), whereas at the large deformation stage, the shear
stress is shifted to the ends of the remaining walls, i.e. the interfaces
around the far end of the second story beam and the near end of the first
187
Engineering Structures 191 (2019) 179–193
story beam, as indicated in Fig. 11(b).
In comparison, the opening changes shear stress distribution at the
small deformation stage, as compared in Fig. 11(a). This is because the
CMUs at the top and the bottom of the opening are detached with the
beams with increasing the vertical displacement. Moreover, the shear
stresses are always concentrated at the interfaces around the far-end of
the second-story beam and the near-end of the first-story beam at large
deformation stage, as shown in Fig. 11(b). As a result, N1-2 is always
close to N1-3 but smaller than N1-1.
In summary, for a two-story infilled frames, both the first and
second story beams are more in tension due to truss mechanism and
catenary action. The axial forces at the beam sections far away from the
diagonal compression strut of wall panel (N1-1 and N2-3) are always
larger than those at the beam sections near the ends of the strut (N1-3
and N2-1).
4. Comparison of scaled and prototype frame failure modes
The validated numerical models are based on 1/3 scaled frames. It is
concerned whether the scale factor of 1/3 will introduce any size effect
under CRS so that the prototype and model frames fail in different
modes. Therefore, the numerical models of prototype infilled frames are
established and used for push-down analysis. In the prototype frames,
the height of first story and second story is 4.2 m and 3.3 m, respec-
tively, and the span is 5.1 m. The geometric dimensions of beam and
column sections and CMU as well as reinforcement detailing are shown
in Fig. 12. The material properties of concrete are the same as the re-
ferred tests, and all steel reinforcement has the characteristic yield
strength of 400 MPa, the tensile strength of 540 MPa and the ultimate
strain of 0.18. Fig. 13 shows the structural resistance curves of three
prototype infilled frames, in which the frame with FHIW and IWHO are
the prototype infilled frames corresponding to the validated numerical
models. It can be seen that the resistance pattern is similar to that of the
scaled models. Moreover, the comparisons of Fig. 14 and Fig. 9 suggest
both the prototype and scaled frames develop similar crack patterns and
fail in similar modes. Therefore, the size effect is insignificant and the
J. Yu, et al. Engineering Structures 191 (2019) 179–193

Fig. 12. Geometric dimensions and reinforcement detailing of RC members and masonry in prototype building (unit: mm).

Fig. 13. Structural resistance of prototype infilled RC frames.

scaled models will be extended for parametric studies for saving com-
putational time.

5. Parametric studies

In practice, the configuration and layout of infill walls are very

flexible due to architecture demands. Therefore, the geometric prop-
erties of infill walls, such as the partial-height infill walls and the walls
with openings, are the primary concern. Moreover, the referenced tests
only consider one-story infill walls, but in practice the multi-story infill
walls are very common. It is imperative to understand whether the load
transfer mechanism in the one-story infill walls is the same as that in
the multi-story infill walls, which can quantify the validity of macro-
modeling approach of multi-story infill walls.

5.1. Height of partial-height infill walls

Fig. 15 shows the structural resistance and the failure modes of RC

frames with partial-height infill walls (PHIW) having different height hi.
The wall height hi is normalized by net height (H) of the story. That is,
hi/H = 0 indicates the bare frame, hi/H = 100% denotes the FHIW and
the values between 0 and 100% corresponds to the PHIW. Fig. 15 de-
monstrates no matter how high the infill walls are, all the walls above
the removed column fail in diagonal splitting due to compression and
crushing at the corners, which is similar to that of the FHIW. The failure
modes indicate the load transfer mechanism of the frame with PHIW
against progressive collapse is through diagonal compression, equiva-
lently represented by a diagonal strut. With increasing the wall height,
the peak resistance of the infilled frames increases as well. This is be-
cause the cross-sectional dimensions of the equivalent strut increases
and the inclination angle of the strut with respect to the vertical line
becomes smaller, making the diagonal compression more effectively
used for resisting vertical load. Consequently, the peak resistance in-
creases more and more evidently with increasing wall height. For
Fig. 14. The numerical failure modes of prototype infilled RC frames.
example, when hi/H increases from 0 to 30.8%, the peak resistance
increases by 35%; when hi/H increases from 61.5 to 100%, the peak
resistance increases by 219%. Note that the increase of the wall height
also enhances the structural stiffness, and decreases the displacement
corresponding to the peak resistance.
5.2. Effect of opening locations
The infill wall openings are used for windows or doors depending on
the architecture requirements. The locations and the areas of the
openings are determined by four parameters ht, hb, bl and br, as in-
dicated in the inset of Fig. 16, provided that the overall dimension of
the wall is B in width and H in height. In this section, Case5, in which

188
J. Yu, et al. Engineering Structures 191 (2019) 179–193

Table 1
Numerical cases for investigating the effects of the locations and areas of the
wall openings.
Model bl/B br/B ht/H hb/H Ao/A Ko Fo Fo/F Fp Fp/Fo

Case1 0.36 0.36 0.31 0.31 0.10 21.7 81.8 0.531

Case2 0.36 0.36 0.23 0.23 0.15 17.8 70.7 0.459
Case3 0.36 0.36 0.23 0.00 0.21 12.2 61.5 0.399
Case4 0.27 0.27 0.31 0.31 0.17 16.7 76.4 0.496
Case5 0.27 0.27 0.23 0.23 0.24 11.8 56.6 0.368
Case6 0.27 0.27 0.23 0.00 0.35 8.5 50.3 0.327
Case7 0.18 0.18 0.31 0.31 0.24 9.5 61.8 0.401
Case8 0.18 0.18 0.23 0.23 0.34 6.6 49.0 0.318
Case9 0.18 0.18 0.23 0.00 0.49 5.4 42.5 0.276
Case11* 0.23 0.23 0.23 0.15 0.34 8.1 49.0 0.318 49.9 1.02
Case12* 0.23 0.23 0.23 0.23 0.29 9.8 55.4 0.360 51.3 0.93
Case13* 0.27 0.27 0.23 0.15 0.28 10.2 51.5 0.334 51.9 1.01
Case14* 0.32 0.32 0.23 0.15 0.22 12.6 57.3 0.372 56.7 0.99
Case15* 0.32 0.32 0.23 0.23 0.20 15.2 63.5 0.412 60.8 0.96
Case16* 0.36 0.36 0.23 0.15 0.17 15.7 62.7 0.407 66.5 1.06
Case17* 0.32 0.32 0.31 0.23 0.17 17.4 70.2 0.456 66.5 0.95
Fig. 15. Structural resistance of frames with partial-height infill walls. Case18* 0.32 0.32 0.31 0.31 0.14 19.2 80.9 0.525 74.0 0.91
Case19* 0.36 0.36 0.31 0.23 0.13 19.9 78.8 0.512 78.5 1.00
Case21# 0.27 0.27 0.23 0.23 0.24 99.2 498 0.415 424.5 0.85
the opening is located at the center, is used as a reference to investigate
Case22# 0.27 0.27 0.23 0.00 0.35 78.1 432 0.360 385.5 0.89
the effects of the wall locations. In the other four cases, namely, Case 5-
Case5-T 0.27 0.27 0.00 0.46 0.24 14.1 65.5
T, Case 5-B, Case 5-L and Case 5-R, the openings are located at the top,
Case5-B 0.27 0.27 0.46 0.00 0.24 16.0 67.8
bottom, left and right, respectively. All the five cases have the same Case5-L 0.14 0.41 0.23 0.23 0.24 13.6 62.5
opening area. The corresponding parameters to characterize the loca- Case5-R 0.41 0.14 0.23 0.23 0.24 12.4 67.8
tions are listed in Table 1.
Fig. 16 indicates that the structural resistance with the opening at Notes: Ko is the initial structural stiffness; Fo is the first peak resistance of frame
the center of each wall panel derives the relatively smallest peak with IWHO; F is the peak resistance of frame with FHIW, equal to 154 kN and
1200 kN for the scaled and the prototype frame, respectively; Fp is the predicted
structural resistance, around 10.4% to 19.8% lower than the other four
peak resistance of frame with IWHO.
cases. Previous research has shown that the force transfer through an
infill wall with an opening can be equivalently represented by four
improved around 10%∼20%. Besides the locations, the effect of the
struts (or three struts) [27,46], and the inclination and the cross-sec-
opening area could be more significant.
tional area of each strut depends on the opening location and area in a
Fig. 17 demonstrates the structural resistance of nine RC frames
given wall panel. Therefore, the variation of opening position changes
with infill walls having different openings, namely, Case 1 to 9, in
both the inclination and the cross-sectional area of equivalent struts,
which b and h are the width and height of the opening, respectively,
further affecting the structural resistance. The results listed in Table 1
and Ao and A represent the opening area and the full-height wall area.
shows that the initial structural stiffness of Case 5-T and -B are greater
The ratio of Ao to A, namely, opening ratio, denotes the relative area of
than that of Case 5-L and –R, suggesting that at the beginning stage of
the opening. It is seen that the opening mainly affects the peak struc-
progressive collapse, the top and the bottom struts play a more domi-
tural resistance at small deformation stage. For any given b, the struc-
nant role.
tural stiffness and the peak resistance diminish with increasing h.
Likewise, for a given h, the peak resistance decreases with increasing b,
5.3. Effect of the opening area such as the comparisons of Case 1, 4 and 7. The peak resistance of the
nine cases are listed in Table 1. Moreover, Case 5 and 7 have the same
The previous section suggests moving the opening location from the opening area but different peak resistance, indicating that the shape of
center to the four sides, the progressive collapse peak resistance can be the opening affects the structural resistance as well but the significance
is much less than the area per se.
Due to the presence of infill walls, the displacement corresponds to
peak resistance is small, which can be approximately assumed to be in
the elastic stage. The corresponding dynamic load amplification factor
is taken as 2 when converting static resistance into dynamic capacity as
progressive collapse is a dynamic process in nature. However, in
practice, due to the diversity of opening sizes, it is more time-con-
suming to determine the peak resistance of frame with IWHO than that
of frame with FHIW. To this end, based on the above conclusions (peak
resistance increases with the decrease of the opening area), the re-
lationship between the peak resistance of frame with IWHO Fo and the
corresponding frame with FHIW F is established through a reduction
factor R, as indicated in Eq. (2)

Fo = R × F (2)

Reduction factor R is determined by a curve fitting based on the

relationship of peak resistance ratio Fo/F and opening ratio Ao/A of
Case 1–9. The regressed formula is given by Eq. (3) with relevant
Fig. 16. Effect of wall opening locations on the structural resistance of infilled
coefficient of 0.99.
RC frames.

189
J. Yu, et al. Engineering Structures 191 (2019) 179–193

Fig. 18. Structural resistance of multi-story infilled RC frames.

large openings is not considered for progressive collapse resistance.

To verify the effectiveness and accuracy of Eqs. (2) and (3), another
nine cases, namely Case 11*–19*, are analyzed with numerical mod-
eling and Eq. (2), and the results are listed in Table 1. It is found that
the results predicted by Eq. (2) are very similar to the numerical results,
and the average error of the nine cases is only 3.9%.
In addition, the prototype frames of previous cases are analyzed to
verify Eq. (2). To consider the effect of opening ratio, one frame with
FHIW and the other two frames with IWHO (for windows and doors,
respectively) are analyzed, as shown in Fig. 13. The latter two cases are
denoted as Case21# and 22#, respectively, and the dimensions of the
openings are seen in Table 1. The frame with FHIW attains the peak
resistance of 1200 kN. The black points in Fig. 13 represent the pre-
dicted peak resistance by Eq. (2) in accordance with the corresponding
opening ratio, and the predictions are 14.8% and 10.8% lower than the
peak resistance of numerical results, respectively, suggesting that Eq.
(2) is quite reasonable and on the safe side.

Fig. 17. Effect of opening area on the structural resistance of infilled RC frames.
5.4. Effect of Multi-story infill walls

In accordance with FEMA356 [30], each infill wall of a multi-story

2
Ao A Ao 3
R=1 5.3 + 14.9 o 14.5 , for Ao 0.5A
A A A (3) frame works in the same load transfer mechanism as that of the infill
wall in a single-story infilled frame under seismic actions, equivalently
Eq. (3) is valid only for Ao < 0.5A. If Ao > 0.5A, R can be con- represented by diagonal struts. Can this link between the multi-story
servatively taken as 0. That is, the contribution of infill walls with very and single-story frame apply under dominant gravity loads? To answer

190
J. Yu, et al.
Fig. 19. Stress contours of multi-story frames with FHIW at different deformation stages.
this question, the load transfer mechanism of multi-story infilled RC
frames against progressive collapse is studied in this section.
Fig. 18 demonstrates the structural resistance of different infilled
frames with increasing stories. The multi-story infilled frame models
are built on top of two-story infilled frame models in accordance with
validated cases. Note that, except the first story, all the rest stories
contain infill walls and have the same geometric and mechanical
properties.
Fig. 18(a) shows that increasing stories with FHIW significantly
improves the progressive collapse resistance of the frames. In parti-
cular, the structural capacities of each frame at the displacement of
7 mm and 29 mm, which correspond to the peak resistance of the two-
story and the five-story infilled frames, respectively, are denoted by
solid dots and hollow dots. At the displacement of 7 mm, the increment
of structural resistance due to adding one infilled story is very constant,
which is close to the peak resistance of the two-story infilled frame. This
is because at this displacement, the load transfer mechanism in each
infilled story is mainly through diagonal compression of the infill walls
above the removed column, as illustrated in Fig. 19(a), and the infill
walls contribute the majority of the structural resistance. However, at
the displacement of 29 mm, the increment of structural resistance due
to including one more infilled story becomes more evident. This is as-
cribed to the fact that at the displacement of 29 mm, as elucidated in
Fig. 19(b), the diagonal compression of each wall panel is shifted to a
steeper composite diagonal compression of inter-story walls, further
improving the progressive collapse peak capacity. Fig. 18(b) demon-
strates that the contribution of each increased story with IWHO to the
structural resistance is similar. This is because the load transfer me-
chanism through the infill walls of each story is basically independent
191
Engineering Structures 191 (2019) 179–193
of the number of stories at both small and large displacements, as il-
lustrated in Fig. 20(a) and (b). The load transfer path is the diagonal
compression struts around the opening. Therefore, the peak structural
resistance of the multi-story frames with IWHO can be estimated by Eq.
(4).
Pn = (n 1) × P2 (4)
where n denotes the number of stories with n ≥ 2; P2 is the peak
structural resistance of the two-story frame with IWHO.
In summary, the load transfer path in the frames with IWHO is
basically independent of the number of stories, but the frames with
FHIW tend to form an inter-story load transfer path with increasing the
number of stories. If each story of FHIW is assumed to transfer the load
in the same way as the two-story frame, the corresponding peak re-
sistance could be considerably underestimated, which is on the safe
side. For example, the inter-story load path of the five-story frame in-
creases the peak resistance from 608kN to 818kN, as indicated in
Fig. 18(a). Therefore, in macro-modeling of infill walls, the strut models
at each story can be implemented for conservatism, and the peak re-
sistance of the frames with FHIW can be estimated by an equation in the
form of Eq. (4) but P2 should be replaced by the peak structural re-
sistance of the two-story frame with FHIW.
6. Conclusions
In this paper, high-fidelity finite element numerical models are
utilized to study the effect of concrete masonry infill walls on the
progressive collapse performance of reinforced concrete (RC) infilled
frames under a middle column removal scenario (CRS). After detailed
calibration of material and model parameters, the numerical models of
J. Yu, et al.
Fig. 20. Stress contours of multi-story RC frames with IWHO at different deformation stages.
bare and infilled frames are initially validated through existing ex-
perimental results. Then the numerical models are used to illustrate the
effects of infill walls on the load transfer mechanisms of the frames
under a middle CRS. After the confirmation of no significant size effect
using 1/3 scaled frames, the numerical models of scaled frames are used
for parametric studies to save computational time. The concerned
parameters include the height of partial-height infill walls, the opening
position and area as well as the number of stories. Based on the nu-
merical results, the approach to quickly assess the peak resistance of
multi-story frames is proposed. The main conclusions of this study are
as follows:
(1) Under a middle CRS, the load transfer mechanism of RC bare frames
is the compression arch action and catenary action of the first-story
beams and the flexural action of the rest beams, whereas for the
infilled RC frames, the primary load transfer mechanism is “truss
mechanism” due to the interaction between the infill walls and the
surrounding frame members, and the secondary load transfer me-
chanism is the similar to the ones of the bare frame. The truss
mechanism could remarkably enhance the initial structural stiffness
and the peak resistance, but the presence of infill walls also affects
the locations of plastic hinges in the beams.
(2) The shear stress at the interface of infill walls and frame members is
locally distributed but could shift location depending on the failure
of the wall panels, which results in the various axial forces at dif-
ferent sections. However, the axial forces at the beam sections far
away from the diagonal compression strut of wall panel (N1-1 and
N2-3) are always larger than those at the beam sections near the
strut ends (N1-3 and N2-1).
(3) For the frames with partial-height infill walls, the wall panels fail in
192
Engineering Structures 191 (2019) 179–193
diagonal splitting due to large diagonal compression. With in-
creasing the wall height even up to the full-height walls, the peak
structural resistance increases faster and faster due to the change of
diagonal compression strut width and inclination of the strut.
(4) For the frames with infill walls having opening (IWHO), the
structural resistance with the opening at the wall center are around
10.4–19.8% lower than the ones with opening at the perimeters.
Moreover, the opening shape also slightly affects the peak re-
sistance. However, the peak resistance is considerably reduced with
increasing opening area. To quickly assess the peak resistance of
frames with IWHO, the peak resistance of the corresponding frames
with full-height infill walls (FHIW) can be multiplied by a reduction
factor, which is a function of opening ratio of the wall panels.
(5) For multi-story frames with IWHO which have the same member
and wall dimensions at each story, the load transfer mechanism is
independent of the number of stories. However, for multi-story
frames with FHIW, the load is mainly transferred with a diagonal
axial compression strut at each wall panel, but with increasing
displacement, the composite effect of multi-story walls is more
evident due to a diagonal compression strut across multi-stories,
resulting in much larger peak resistance. Therefore, the assumption
of the similar load transfer mechanism at each infilled story will
underpredict the peak resistance. Moreover, based on the afore-
mentioned conservative assumption, the peak-resistance of multi-
story infilled frames can be estimated by Eq. (4).
Acknowledgement
The authors appreciate the financial support by the National Natural
Science Foundation of China (No. 51408189); Natural Science
J. Yu, et al.
Foundation of Jiangsu Province of China (No. BK20180073); the
Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities (No.
2019B12814) and Qinglan Project. Moreover, the authors thank Prof. Li
Shuang of Harbin Institute Technology and Dr. Shan Sidi of
Northeastern University, China, for sharing their valuable experimental
data.
References
[1] Su Y, Tian Y, Song X. Progressive collapse resistance of axially-restrained frame
beams. ACI Struct J 2009;106:600–7.
[2] Qian K, Li B. Performance of three-dimensional reinforced concrete beam-column
substructures under loss of a corner column scenario. J Struct Eng
2013;139:584–94.
[3] FarhangVesali N, Valipour H, Samali B, Foster S. Development of arching action in
longitudinally-restrained reinforced concrete beams. Constr Build Mater
2013;47:7–19.
[4] Yu J, Tan KH. Structural behavior of reinforced concrete beam-column sub-
assemblages under a middle column removal scenario. J Struct Eng
2013;139:233–50.
[5] Yu J, Tan KH. Experimental and numerical investigation on progressive collapse
resistance of reinforced concrete beam column sub-assemblages. Eng Struct
2013;55:90–106.
[6] Kang S-B, Tan KH. Behaviour of precast concrete beam–column sub-assemblages
subject to column removal. Eng Struct 2015;93:85–96.
[7] Kang S-B, Tan KH, Yang E-H. Progressive collapse resistance of precast beam–-
column sub-assemblages with engineered cementitious composites. Eng Struct
2015;98:186–200.
[8] Lew HS, Bao Y, Sadek F, Main JA, Pujol S, Sozen MA. An experimental and com-
putational study of reinforced concrete assemblies under a column removal sce-
nario. NIST Technical Note 1720: National Institute of Standards and Technology,
U.S. Department of Commerce; 2011. p. 106.
[9] Lim NS, Tan KH, Lee CK. Experimental studies of 3D RC substructures under ex-
terior and corner column removal scenarios. Eng Struct 2017;150:409–27.
[10] Yu J, Tan KH. Structural behavior of reinforced concrete frames subjected to pro-
gressive collapse. ACI Struct J 2017;114:63–74.
[11] Yi WJ, He QF, Xiao Y, Kunnath SK. Experimental study on progressive collapse-
resistant behavior of reinforced concrete frame structures. ACI Struct J
2008;105:433–9.
[12] Izzuddin BA, Vlassis AG, Elghazouli AY, Nethercot DA. Progressive collapse of
multi-storey buildings due to sudden column loss – Part I: simplified assessment
framework. Eng Struct 2008;30:1308–18.
[13] Kai Q, Li B. Dynamic performance of RC beam-column substructures under the
scenario of the loss of a corner column—experimental results. Eng Struct
2012;42:154–67.
[14] Yu J, Rinder T, Stolz A, Tan KH, Riedel W. Dynamic progressive collapse of an RC
assemblage induced by contact detonation. J Struct Eng 2014;140. 04014014-
(1–13).
[15] Pham AT, Tan KH. Experimental study on dynamic responses of reinforced concrete
frames under sudden column removal applying concentrated loading. Eng Struct
2017;139:31–45.
[16] Yu J, Yin C, Guo Y. Nonlinear SDOF model for progressive collapse responses of
structures with consideration of viscous damping. J Eng Mech 2017;143:04017108.
[17] Bao YH, Kunnath SK, EI-Tawil S, Lew HS. Macromodel-based simulation of pro-
gressive collapse: RC frame structures. J Struct Eng 2008;134:1079–91.
[18] Pham AT, Tan KH, Yu J. Numerical investigations on static and dynamic responses
of reinforced concrete sub-assemblages under progressive collapse. Eng Struct
2017;149:2–20.
[19] Bao Y, Lew H, Kunnath S. Modeling of reinforced concrete assemblies under
column-removal scenario. J Struct Eng 2014;140:04013026.
193
Engineering Structures 191 (2019) 179–193
[20] Li Y, Lu X, Guan H, Ye L. Progressive collapse resistance demand of reinforced
concrete frames under catenary mechanism. ACI Struct J 2014;111:1225–34.
[21] Yu J, Tan KH. Numerical analysis with joint model on RC assemblages subjected to
progressive collapse. Mag Concr Res 2014;66:1201–18.
[22] Feng D-C, Wu G, Lu Y. Numerical investigation on the progressive collapse behavior
of precast reinforced concrete frame subassemblages. J Perform Constr Facil
2018;32:04018027.
[23] Feng DC, Wang Z, Wu G. Progressive collapse performance analysis of precast re-
inforced concrete structures. Struct Des Tall Special Build 2019;28:1588.
[24] Sasani M. Response of a reinforced concrete infilled-frame structure to removal of
two adjacent columns. Eng Struct 2008;30:2478–91.
[25] Stinger SM, Orton SL. Experimental evaluation of disproportionate collapse re-
sistance in reinforced concrete frames. ACI Struct J 2013;110:521–9.
[26] Li S, Shan S, Zhai C, Xie L. Experimental and numerical study on progressive col-
lapse process of RC frames with full-height infill walls. Eng Fail Anal
2016;59:57–68.
[27] Shan S, Li S, Xu S, Xie L. Experimental study on the progressive collapse perfor-
mance of RC frames with infill walls. Eng Struct 2016;111:80–92.
[28] Qian K, Li B. Effects of Masonry Infill Wall on the performance of RC frames to resist
progressive collapse. J Struct Eng 2017;143.
[29] Brodsky A, Yankelevsky DZ. Resistance of reinforced concrete frames with masonry
infill walls to in-plane gravity loading due to loss of a supporting column. Eng Struct
2017;140:134–50.
[30] Federal Emergency Management Agency. FEMA. Prestandard and commentary for
the seismic rehabilitation of buildings. Report no. FEMA 356. Washington(DC):
FEMA; 2000.
[31] Uva G, Raffaele D, Porco F, Fiore A. On the role of equivalent strut models in the
seismic assessment of infilled RC buildings. Eng Struct 2012;42:83–94.
[32] Eldakhakhni WW, Elgaaly M, Hamid AA. Three-strut model for concrete masonry-
infilled steel frames. J Struct Eng 2003;129:177–85.
[33] 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.
[34] Koutromanos I, Stavridis A, Shing PB, Willam K. Numerical modeling of masonry-
infilled RC frames subjected to seismic loads. Comput Struct 2011;89:1026–37.
[35] Yuen YP, Kuang JS. Nonlinear seismic responses and lateral force transfer me-
chanisms of RC frames with different infill configurations. Eng Struct
2015;91:125–40.
[36] Wei X, Stewart MG. Model validation and parametric study on the blast response of
unreinforced brick masonry walls. Int J Impact Eng 2010;37:1150–9.
[37] Michaloudis G, Gebbeken N. Modeling masonry walls under far-field and contact
detonations. Int J Impact Eng 2019;123:84–97.
[38] Tsai M-H, Huang T-C. Progressive collapse analysis of an RC building with exterior
partially infilled walls. Struct Des Tall Special Build 2013;22:327–48.
[39] Eren N, Brunesi E, Nascimbene R. Influence of masonry infills on the progressive
collapse resistance of reinforced concrete framed buildings. Eng Struct
2019;178:375–94.
[40] Murray YD. Users Manual for LS-DYNA Concrete Material Model 159. Colorado:
APTEK, Inc.; 2007. p. 92.
[41] CEB. CEB-FIP model code 1990. Thomas Telford; 1991.
[42] Yu J, Luo L, Li Y. Numerical study of progressive collapse resistance of RC beam-
slab substructures under perimeter column removal scenarios. Eng Struct
2018;159:14–27.
[43] Administration Standardization. Test methods for concrete block and brick GB/
T4111-2013. China; 2013.
[44] Bala S. Tiebreak Contact in LS-DYNA. http://blog2.d3view.com/tiebreak-contact-
in-ls-dyna/ [accessed June 25, 2014].
[45] Ministry of Housing and Urban–Rural Development. Code for design of masonry
structures GB50003-2011. Beijing, China; 2011.
[46] Tasnimi AA, Mohebkhah A. Investigation on the behavior of brick-infilled steel
frames with openings, experimental and analytical approaches. Eng Struct
2011;33:968–80.