Engineering Structures

Effect of partial infill walls on collapse behavior of reinforced concrete frames

ABSTRACT
The main objective of the study is to investigate the effect of partial infill walls on collapse
mechanism of reinforced concrete (RC) frames using finite element models and experimental data.
The modeling methods are described in detail and are validated by quasi-static experiments
conducted on two RC frame specimens with and without partial infill walls under column removal
scenarios. Parametric analyses are performed to investigate the effects of partial infill wall type,
dimensions of the opening, and strength of the mortar joints and masonry. The numerical results show
that different infill wall configurations have distinct influence on the collapse behavior of RC frames in
terms of load distribution, resistance force and failure mode. The infill parts surrounding the opening
significantly influence the applied vertical load in the compressive stage, and the infill parts on both
sides of the opening influence the flexural response of beams in damaged bays. The increases of the
strength of bed joints and masonry are shown to increase the applied vertical load. Finally, a
simplified analytical method is proposed to efficiently estimate the collapse resistance force of RC
frames with different types of partial infill walls in order to facilitate the structural engineers.

1. Introduction
Progressive collapse can be described as a phenomenon of partial or total collapse of a
structure initiated by the local damage of one or several primary structural members caused by
abnormal loads. After failures of one or several structural members, the loads need to be transferred
to neighboring structural members through alternative load paths. However, if the other structural
members are not designed by considering the potential redistributed loads, the initial limited damage
will spread as the capacities of surrounding structural members are reached, eventually resulting in
collapse of the structure, and possibly leading to casualties and property loss. Many notorious
collapse events have been reported, such as the collapse of Ronan point building caused by gas
explosion in London, UK in 1968, and the collapse of Murrah Federal Building caused by truck
bombing in Oklahoma City, USA in 1995, the collapse of World Trade Center caused by plane
crashes and fires in New York City, USA in 2001, the collapse of Rana Plaza building caused by
improper use in 2013 (Bangladesh), and the collapse of Plasco building caused by fire in 2017 (Iran).
In an effort to better understand collapse behavior of structures, a large number of experimental [1-4],
numerical [5-7] and analytical [8,9] studies have been carried out. Nonetheless, very few of them have
considered the effect of infill walls under column removal scenarios, even though infill walls have been
proved to play a key role and significantly alter the mechanical behavior and collapse mode of frame
structures as observed in seismic response analyses [10,11].
Li et al. [12] carried out a quasi-static experiment on a 1/3 scaled four-bay-by-two-story
reinforced concrete (RC) frame specimen with full-height infill walls under column removal scenario.
They indicated that the infill walls drastically changed the collapse resistance force, stiffness, ductility,
and failure mode of the RC frame. Brodsky and Yankelevsky [13] performed a series of experiments
on collapse of RC frames, and identified three typical failure modes of the frame with fullheight infill
walls following the removal of a supporting column. The collapse experiments on three 1/4 scaled RC
frame specimens with fullheight infill walls by Qian and Li [14] also confirmed that ignoring the
contribution of full-height infill walls to the collapse behavior of RC frames in designs may yield
inaccurate estimations of strength, stiffness and failure modes. Li et al. [15] proposed a modified
three-strut model to predict the mechanisms of RC frames with full-height infill walls under column
removal scenario. Eren et al. [16] demonstrated that the RC frames with full-height infill walls provide
three times higher collapse resistance than the counterpart bare frames, regardless of the assumed
span length and story height. The above-mentioned studies described the importance of full-height
infill walls on the collapse behavior of RC frames. However, very limited research has been conducted
to investigate the effect of partial infill walls on the collapse performance of RC frames.
Sasani [17] exploded two adjacent columns in the first story of an actual RC frame with partial
infill walls (Hotel San Diego) in a field experiment. They reported that the partial infill walls significantly
reduce the maximum vertical deformation of the RC frame at the top of the removed columns. Morone
and Sezen [18] physically removed three columns from an actual RC building and developed a
simplified model to predict dynamic response of the building. Shan et al. [19] conducted a collapse
experiment on a 1/3 scaled RC frame with partial infill walls under quasi-static loads. They showed
that the openings in the infill wall significantly affect the infill wall contribution, and the RC frame with
partial infill walls has a different failure mode compared to the bare frame and the frame with full-
height infill walls with identical design details [12]. It should be noted that the experimental studies
[12,19], however, only included window-type walls. In practical, many different types of partial infill
wall configurations are also widely used, while the interaction behavior between the RC frame and
infill walls is significantly affected by different types of partial infill walls. The results obtained from the
frame with window-type infill walls may not be applicable for the frames with other types of partial infill
walls. In addition, the characteristics of stress distribution in specimens cannot be clearly observed in
experimental studies.
Generally, the laboratory experiments are too complicated, costly and time-consuming to
investigate the effects of many different parameters, while the finite element methods can be adopted
to alleviate this problem and simulate the behavior of RC frames with infill walls [20-22]. In finite
element modeling, the effects of mortar joints are often modeled by interface elements, in which
several failure criteria can be defined and implemented to reproduce tension and shear damages in
mortar joints [20-22]. These finite element models have been shown to provide satisfactory prediction
for the RC frames with infill walls with different geometric and material properties. Nevertheless, most
of these models were only calibrated for lateral loads applied in seismic experiments, whereas their
effectiveness for the collapse studies have not been investigated. Up to now, there is a notable lack of
available information in the literature with respect to the finite element modeling approaches for
collapse analysis of RC frames with partial infill walls.
In this study, finite element models are employed to investigate the collapse mechanisms of
RC frames with partial infill walls. By using ABAQUS programs [23], the modeling approaches are
illustrated in detail, and are validated by comparing the numerical results with collapse experimental
data obtained from two RC frame specimens in the laboratory. A parametric study is performed to
investigate the effects of partial infill wall types, dimensions of opening as well as critical material
properties on the collapse behavior. Finally, a simplified analytical method is proposed to estimate the
collapse resistance force of RC frames with typical types of partial infill walls. The present
investigation not only enables to clearly observe the stress distribution in structures during the
collapse process, but also systematically evaluate the collapse mechanisms of RC frames with
different types of partial infill walls and various material properties. Moreover, the proposed analytical
methods may assist the structural engineers in determining the collapse resistance force of RC
frames with partial infill walls with good accuracy and efficiency.

2. Experimental work
Fig. 1 shows the 1/3 scaled four-bay-by-two-story RC frame with partial infill walls designed in
accordance with Chinese building codes [24-26]. The peak design ground accelerations of the
prototype RC

frame under frequent and rare earthquakes are 18 and 125 cm/s2 , respectively. The class Ⅱ site is
adopted in the design according to GB 50011-2010 [25]. To mimic the in-situ concrete casting
sequence in practical construction, the foundation, the first story and the second story were casted at
three different times. The compressive strength of concrete was 35.8 MPa for the foundation, 41.3
MPa for the first story, 31.8 MPa for the second story and lintel beams, respectively. The concrete
clear cover over rebars is 15 mm in all of the frame components. The mean material properties of all
rebars and stirrups of the specimen are shown in Table 1. The masonry infill walls consisted of
masonry units with dimensions of 130 63.5 63.5 × × mm and 63.5 63.5 63.5 × × mm. The mean
compressive strength of masonry units was measured as 22.6 MPa. The measured mean
compressive strength of masonry infill walls was 12.8 MPa, and shear strength between the units at
the interface was 1.08 MPa. The strength of masonry infill walls was determined by a series of
material tests on the masonry prism samples, which consisted of a stack of masonry units and mortar
joints. It should be pointed out that the bed joints between RC beams and the top of infill panels may
be constructed with lower quality compared with other joints, due to the construction limitations in the
laboratory as well as in practical situations. It is difficult to place mortar into the gap between the
bottom of RC beams and the top layer of the masonry units.
The collapse process was simulated by applying a quasi-static vertical load (P) on the top of
the middle column under displacement control, as indicated in Fig. 1. The applied vertical load was
measured by using of two load cells installed above and below the middle column, therefore the
applied vertical load equals to the collapse resistance force. The vertical displacement of the middle
column was measured by relative displacement meters and linear variable differential transformers
(LVDT) installed vertically above it. The horizontal displacements of surrounding columns were
measured by LVDTs installed horizontally on the beam-column joints. A bare frame with the identical
design details and material properties was also constructed and tested for comparison purposes.
Details of the experiments were reported previously [12,19].

3. Finite element numerical analysis

The finite element models of the experimental specimens are developed using
ABAQUS/Explicit program [23], with an aim to investigate the collapse mechanism of RC frames with
partial infill walls and the analytical method proposed later in the study. A schematic view and mesh of
the finite element model are shown in Fig. 2. Considering the symmetry of the specimen, only half of
the specimen is modeled and analyzed to save computation time. The columns in the first story are
assumed to be fixed at the base, and the middle column is constrained to only allow vertical
displacement, while all of the frame members are constrained to prevent out-of-plane movements.
Nonlinear explicit dynamic analysis is adopted to simulate the quasi-static loading scheme and to
obtain a better numerical convergence. Large displacement-finite strain formulation is utilized to
account for geometric nonlinearity in the model. The dead load of the specimens defined by the
gravitational acceleration is applied in the finite element model within 0.5 s, and kept constant for 0.5 s
to mitigate the dynamic vibration. Subsequently, the 500 mm monotonically increasing vertical
displacement is slowly applied on the middle column with a linear loading step to mitigate the dynamic
effects [23]. The kinematic energy of the specimen is monitored during the analysis in order to ensure
its influence remains negligible.

3.1. Modeling method for concrete

The concrete is modeled using 3D-Stress solid element in ABAQUS/ Explicit program [23].
The Concrete Damaged Plasticity (CDP) model is adopted for concrete material, with compressive
stress-strain relationship assumed to follow the Kent-Scott-Park constitutive model [27,28] as defined
in Eqs. (1)–(3). The stress-strain curves of concrete are shown in Fig. 3(a)

where c is the concrete compressive strain, c is the compressive stress, f c ' is the compressive
strength, 0 is the compressive strain corresponding to the compressive strength f c ' and is set equal
to 0.002 K, u is the ultimate strain, u is the residual compressive stress at the ultimate strain, K is a
parameter to account for the increase in compressive strength due to lateral confinement, s is the
ratio of stirrup volume to core concrete volume, and fys is the yield strength of stirrups. In the finite
element model, the value of K can be set as 1, since the strength increase of core concrete is
considered by the presence of the stirrups. When 0 < c u, c decreases following a straight line from f c
' to u. According to the experimental results, the residual compressive stress u and ultimate strain u
for concrete are set to 0.2f c ' and 0.006, respectively.
The tensile stress-strain relationship of concrete is assumed to include two straight lines: the
stiffening branch until reaching tensile strength and the softening branch until reaching ultimate strain.
The tensile strength f t of concrete is assumed to be 0.6228 × f c ' [29]. In order to avoid convergence
issues during the numerical calculations, the residual tensile stress of concrete and is set to 0.1 f t.
The tensile strain at the tensile strength cr is calculated as f E/t in this study, while the ultimate strain
is assumed to be 6 cr[30]. The initial material modulus of elasticity E is derived from the Kent-Scott-
Park model [27,28] and can be calculated as E = 2(fc’/εo).
The yield surface and flow rule of the CDP material model in ABAQUS/Explicit program [23]
are determined by following parameters: the dilation angle, eccentricity, the ratio of initial equibiaxial
compressive yield stress to initial uniaxial compressive yield stress ( b c 0 0 / ), the ratio of the second
stress invariant on the tensile meridian to that on the compressive meridian ( K ), and viscosity
parameter. According to experimental results [31,32] and numerical values used in Refs. [22,33],
those values are assumed equal to 30, 0.1, 1.16, 0.6667 and 0 in this study, respectively.

3.2. Modeling method for rebars and stirrups

The truss element in ABAQUS/Explicit [23] is adopted to model the rebars and stirrups, and is
embedded into the concrete body. The mechanical behavior of rebars and stirrups is simulated by bi-
linear material model, and the fracture is simulated by suddenly dropping the stress to 5 MPa when
the stress exceeds the fracture strain. The residual stress is assumed to be 5 MPa rather than 0 MPa
in order to avoid numerical convergence issues.
3.3. Modeling method for infill walls
Masonry units are modeled using the 3D-Stress solid elements, and the mortar joints are
simulated using zero-thickness cohesive elements. Each masonry unit is expanded in the horizontal
and vertical directions by the half mortar thickness as shown in Fig. 2, so that the expanded masonry
units are contacted and interacted with each other through cohesive elements. No horizontal cohesive
element is created between the bottom of RC beams and the top of masonry infill wall in the finite
element model in order to represent potential low construction quality of mortar and weaker
connection between them. The compressive strength of the masonry units is set as the compressive
strength of masonry infill walls. The sliding failure or tension cracking of mortar joints occurs when
shear or tensile stress exceeds their strength limits. The tensile strength of mortar joints is assumed
equal to the shear strength [26] (1.08 MPa in this study). The general contact is utilized to model the
interactions between masonry units and also between frame members and masonry infill panels
subsequent to the failure of cohesive elements. “Hard contact” is utilized for the normal interaction,
and “Penalty formulation” with a friction coefficient of 0.7[26] is adopted for the tangential interaction.
The material model used for the masonry units is the same as that used for concrete material
model, so that the stress-strain relationship of masonry units can be determined by Eqs. (1)–(3). The
compressive strength f cm ' is assumed equal to the compressive strength of masonry infill wall (12.8
MPa). According to the experimental results, u is set to 0.1f c ' and u is set to 0.0055. The modulus of
elasticity of masonry units Em is calculated from Eq. (4) [34]

The tensile strength f tm is assumed to be 10% of the corresponding compressive strength of

masonry units [35], which is 2.26 MPa in this study. The stress-strain relationship for the masonry
units is shown in Fig. 3(b).

3.4. Validation of FE model

The calculated applied vertical load versus vertical displacement of the bare frame and the
frame with partial infill walls are compared with the experimental results in Fig. 4. Section OA in the
figure is the initial stage corresponding to mostly elastic behavior. Section AB refers to the
compressive stage characterized by plastic behavior or formation of plastic hinges when yielding of
rebars occurs in the beams. It is worth noting that the yield moment of the beams is calculated as 4.36
kN m [1], which corresponds to 23.25 kN vertical load applied on the bare frame. The compressive
stage of the frame with partial infill walls starts

when major cracks are formed in the partial infill walls. A drop was observed in the applied vertical
load of the frame with partial infill walls at the end of the initial stage. After this point, the slope of the
applied vertical load versus vertical displacement curve gradually decreases. Section BC can be
considered as catenary stage, in which the catenary action forming in the beams in the damage bays.
As can be seen in Fig. 4, the FE models give relatively accurate prediction of the
experimental behavior in the initial stage and compressive stage. In FE models, the bare frame and
the frame with partial infill walls reach their maximum vertical load carrying capacity in the
compressive stage at 33.5 kN and 51.6 kN, which is approximately 1% different from the experimental
response. It should be mentioned that a sudden drop in the calculated vertical load resistance beyond
the initial stage occurs in the frame with partial infill walls (approximately 17.1 kN drop at the vertical
displacement of 18.7 mm). However, the measured applied vertical load only has a small drop
(approximately 3.2 kN drop at the vertical displacement of 12.8 mm) beyond the initial stage.
It is worth noting that the discrepancy between the calculated and experimental results is
large during the catenary stage. However, this variation is not critical for this research because the
main objective of this paper is to model the contribution of partial infill walls, which is captured very
well prior to development of catenary action. The contribution of partial infill walls to the total response
is very limited or almost zero during the catenary stage. The poor comparison of measured and
calculated response in the catenary region is mainly due to the limitations of the FE model in
capturing the reinforced concrete frame response, which includes inability to accurately represent
plastic behavior of cracked concrete and large slip between the reinforcing bars and concrete. In this
research, perfect bond had to be assumed between rebar and concrete in the FE model.
Fig. 5 compares the calculated and measured horizontal displacement of beam-column joints
in the columns adjacent to the middle column. The positive and negative values shown in the figure
represent the outward and inward displacements, respectively. It is clear from the figure that FE
models predict the horizontal displacements well in the initial and compressive stages. The horizontal
displacements in the catenary stage, however, are not captured well. The failure modes of the frame
specimens observed in experiments and simulated by the finite element models are compared in Figs.
6 and 7. As shown in the figures, the major cracks in the infill walls, the plastic hinge positions in the
beams and the overall damage patterns are simulated well.
Based on the above comparisons, it can be concluded that the proposed finite element
models can be relatively accurate in predicting the applied vertical loads, deformations and failure
modes of the bare frame and the frame with partial infill walls before the catenary stage. Relying on
these comparisons, a series of parametric analyses are conducted next to investigate the effect of
partial infill walls on the collapse mechanism of RC frames.

3.5. Parametric analysis

Parametric analysis is performed to study the effects of the design and material parameters
on the collapse behavior of frames with partial infill walls. The design parameters considered in this
study include the type of partial infill walls and the dimensions of the opening. In terms of the material
parameters, the compressive strength of masonry infill walls and the strength of the mortar joints are
considered.

3.5.1. Typical partial infill walls

In this section, the collapse mechanism of the tested RC frame specimen with four typical
partial infill walls are investigated. Characteristics and dimensions of the four typical infill walls
analyzed in this study are shown in Fig. 8. The openings in the door-type wall, window-type wall and
wing-type wall are located in the middle of the infill wall.
The deformed shapes of the frame with typical partial infill walls are shown in Fig. 9. The
plastic hinge positions of the bare frame and the frame with parapet-type walls are located in the
beam ends in the damaged bays (bays B and C) (Failure mode I). However, due to the bracing effects
of the partial infill walls on the left and right sides of the opening, the damage of the frame with door-
type walls, window-type
walls, and wing-type walls are different. The plastic hinge positions in the beams are concentrated in
the beam ends as well as near the corners of openings of the infill walls along the length of the beams
(Failure mode II).
The calculated applied vertical load-vertical displacement curves are shown in Fig. 10. For
comparison purposes, the response of the bare frame is also included. It can be seen that RC frames
behave almost linearly in the initial stage. As the vertical displacement increases, the applied vertical
load of the frames gradually increases or maintains almost constant until the end of the compressive
stage. After this point, due to the catenary action developed in the beams in damaged bays, the
applied vertical load of the frames increases again and achieves their maximum values. Thereafter,
several sudden drops occur in applied vertical load of frames due to the fracture of rebars in beams.
Fig. 10 and Table 2 show that the larger opening percentage in the infill walls (the ratio
between opening area to the infill panel area) generally results in a larger reduction in the vertical load
resistance both in the initial stage and compressive stage. Nevertheless, this reduction is not
proportional to the opening percentage. In fact, the variation in the applied vertical load resistance
highly depends on the loading mechanism of the infill parts surrounding the opening, rather than
merely on the opening percentage. The reasons are discussed in detail in the following sections.
Fig. 11 illustrates the compressive principal stress tensors for the typical partial infill walls in
bay B of the frames during the initial stage. The directions of the compressive principal stresses show
the compressive stress paths developed in the infill wall under collapse scenario. In each case, the
infill wall behaves as several almost distinct solid parts, and the compressive principal stresses
develop along the diagonal region of each solid part, as indicated by thick grey arrows in the figure.

3.5.2. Dimensions of opening

In order to investigate the effect of dimensions of the window-type opening on the collapse
mechanism of the frames with partial infill walls, the applied vertical load of the finite element models
with different height and length of the opening are compared in Fig. 12. The study is performed on the
window-type opening since other types of opening can be seen as special cases by change of the
dimensions of window-type opening. Therefore, the parametric analysis results obtained from window-
type opening can also be used to predict the behaviors of other types of opening under column
removal scenarios.
Fig. 12(a) shows that the smaller opening height, corresponding to taller infill part above and
below the opening, increases the applied vertical load of the frames in both initial and compressive
stages. In the compressive stage, infill wall is split into distinct infill parts, and the collapse resistance
force is highly dependent on the resistance of the infill parts above and below the opening. The taller
infill parts with larger compressive region increases the compressive capacity of these infill parts,
resulting in a larger collapse resistance force in the compressive stage as shown in Fig. 12(a).
Fig. 12(b) shows the effect of the length of opening on the
progressive resistance force of the frame with window-type walls. It is evident that increasing
the length of the opening significantly reduces the applied vertical load in the compressive
stage. With increasing the length of the opening, the length of the infill parts on the left and
right sides of the opening decreases and the plastic hinge positions of the beams are closer
to the beam ends, resulting in a longer deformed region along the length of beams in the
damaged bays. Since the bending moment capacity is kept constant along the beam, the
beam resistance is reduced with a longer deformed region. Comparison of Fig. 12(a) and (b)
show that the effect of the opening length on the collapse resistance is more significant than
that of the opening height.
It should be noted that the applied vertical load of the bare frame and the frame with
parapet-type walls are close to each other in the compressive stage (see Table 2). This
phenomenon is similar to the conclusion drawn from the collapse tests in Ref. [36]. Since no
infill part exists on the left and right sides of the opening, the constraints to
Fig. 10. Applied vertical load versus vertical displacement of the middle column for RC
frames with typical partial infill walls.

Table 2
Comparison of the simulation results for the RC frames with typical infill walls.

Note: Failure mode I denotes the plastic hinge positions in the beams located at the beam
ends, as indicated in Fig. 6. Failure mode II denotes the plastic hinge position in the beams
located at the beam ends and nearby the corners of openings, as indicated in Fig. 7.
the parapet-type walls are significantly reduced. Therefore, the resistance of the parapet-
type walls is greatly lost after cracking in the compressive stage. As a result, the RC frame
with parapet-type walls and bare frame exhibit similar vertical load resistance and failure
mode (failure mode I). As discussed above, the collapse resistance force is correlated with
dimensions of the opening, rather than just the opening percentage.

3.5.3. Strength of the mortar joints

The strength of the mortar joints in the infill wall may vary depending on the
construction technics, and the quality and amount of aggregate, sand, water and cement in
the mortar. The interface properties between mortar and masonry unit also have significant
influences on the strength of the mortar joints. The effect of the strength of the mortar joints
on the strength and deformation capacity of the frame with window-type walls are presented
in Fig. 13. As the strength of the bed joints increases, the strength of the frame increases in
both initial and compressive stages. The increase in the strength of bed joints improves
integrity of the infill parts above and below the opening, resulting in increases in applied
vertical load in the initial and compressive stages, respectively. Fig. 13(b) shows the strength
of cross joints, however, has virtually no influence on the applied vertical load in the initial
and compressive stages.

3.5.4. Compressive strength of masonry infill wall

The influence of variation in the compressive strength of masonry infill wall on the
frame with partial infill walls is presented in Fig. 14.The figure indicates that the applied
vertical loads in the initial and compressive stages increase as the strength of masonry infill
wall increases. That is because the higher masonry infill wall strength improves the strength
of infill parts above and below the opening, resulting in increases in the applied vertical
loads.

4. Proposed analytical method

 With an aim to estimate the collapse resistance force of frames with different types of
partial infill walls and further simplify the calculation procedure for practical engineers, a
relatively accurate simplified analytical method is proposed in the following sections using
equivalent compressive diagonal strut concept [37-39].
It is worth noting that structures may suffer unexpected deformations during its
service life due to small seismic excitations and wind loads, etc. Therefore, large cracks may
develop in the infill walls and the applied vertical load in the initial stage may widely vary in
practical situations. In addition, it should be noted that the frame might reach a larger applied
vertical load in the catenary stage than that in the compressive stage. However, the applied
vertical load in the catenary stage highly depends on several factors, such as the variation of
lateral stiffness of the frame, rebar anchorage quality, beam-column joint detailing and
tension capacity of beams in damaged bays. Therefore, the catenary response may vary
from one structure to another and is difficult to accurately predict. Consequently, it may be
unreliable to adopt the maximum applied vertical loads in the initial and catenary stages as
the design strength for collapse assessment. Infill parts above and below the opening
developed their peak strength in the compressive stage, as indicated by Shan et al. [19]. In
Ref. [19], the response of the same frame specimen was simulated by using compressive
strut model, and the struts representing the infill parts above and below the opening were
found to develop their peak strength in the in the compressive stage as in this study.
Therefore, the collapse resistance forces of the frames in the compressive stage are chosen
for design, and can be predicted by combining the resistance of the beams in the damaged
bays associated with formation of plastic hinges and the resistance of the infill parts above
and below the opening.

4.1. Resistance provided by beams

Plastic hinges gradually develop at the ends of the deformed regions of the beams in
each story in damaged bays, when the plastic moment capacity of the cross-section is
reached, typically after the initial stage. Considering the bracing effect of the infill parts on
the left and right sides of the opening, the resistance provided by the beams in the damaged
bays can be obtained from Eq. (5)

where nb is the number of stories in damaged bays (above the damaged column), Mp is the
plastic moment capacity of the beam cross section, and Ld is clear span of the deformed
region in beams. In this study, nb is 2, Mp is calculated as 4.34 kN·m, and Ld is determined
considering the length of infill parts on the left and right sides of the opening. The plastic
hinges and deformed regions of beams in frames with different types of infill walls are shown
in Fig. 15 with 1 blue dots and brown lines, respectively.

4.2. Resistance provided by infill parts above and below the opening
The behavior of the infill parts above and below the opening can be analyzed as an
equivalent diagonal compressive strut [34] as shown
Fig. 11. Maximum compressive stress tensors in the frame with typical partial infill walls in
bay B during the initial stage.

Fig. 12. Effect of dimensions of the opening on the applied vertical load of the frame with
window-type walls.

with green lines in Fig. 15. According to MSJC [33], the width of equivalent strut ai
representing one solid infill part can be calculated as

where ti is the thickness of infill parts, θi = arctan ( H i / LI ¿ , H i and Li are the height and
length of the infill parts, respectively, E fc is the modulus of elasticity of the frame members,
and I col is the moment of inertia of column section. It should be noted that the width of
equivalent strut ai is proposed assuming the diagonal region of the infill part is confined on
both sides by the frame members. Considering only one side of the diagonal region of the
infill part above and below the opening is confined by a frame member, the effective width of
the diagonal compressive strut wi is assumed as a i/2 . The estimation of effective width of
diagonal compressive struts has also been illustrated in detail in Refs. [15,19]. In this study,
the effective width wi of the infill parts above or below the door-type opening and the
window-type opening is calculated as 55.3 mm. The resistance force provided by the infill
parts above and below the opening can be determined from Eq. (8)

in which ni is the number of infill parts above and below the opening. It is worth noting that
the resistance provided by the parapet-type walls can be assumed to be zero, as discussed
in Section 3.5.2.

4.3. Validation of the proposed method

The method proposed above is utilized here to evaluate the collapse

Fig. 13. Effect of strengths of mortar joints on the applied vertical load of the frame with
window-type walls.

Fig. 14. Effect of strength of masonry on the applied vertical load of the frame with window-
type walls.

resistance forces of a frame with four typical types of partial infill walls modeled shown in
Fig. 8. Table 3 compares the results calculated from the proposed method and from the FE
models. The results of the FE models are determined from the maximum applied vertical
load in the compressive stage. As shown in the table, the applied vertical loads of the frames
with door-type, window-type and parapet-type walls compare with the finite element results
with a maximum error of approximately 11%. Conservative estimation of applied vertical load
of the frame with wing-type walls and the frame with parapet-type walls is attributed to the
compressive arch action developed in the beams in damaged bays.
The compressive arch actions in beams in the frame with typical infill walls are shown
in Fig. 16. In the frame with wing-type walls, the compressive arch action is developed in the
beams in the damaged bays with increasing vertical displacement, resulting in a beneficial
resultant resisting force in the compressive stage (see Fig. 16(a)). The beneficial
compressive arch action was also illustrated in detail by Li et al. [15] and Shan et al. [19]. In
the window-type walls, due to the strut action of the infill parts above and below the opening
(see Fig. 16(b)), tension forces are developed in the beams in the damaged bays, and the
compressive arch action in these beams is significantly reduced. In fact, the compressive
arch action in these beams could only be developed when infill parts above and below the
opening are greatly damaged after the compressive stage. Similar phenomenon was also
illustrated by Li et al. [15]. The research on the magnitude of the contribution of beneficial
compressive arch action, however, is still ongoing and beyond the scope of this study. As a
result, the proposed analytical method underestimates the resistance of the frame with wing-
type walls, whereas gives good predictions for the resistance of the frame with window-type
walls and the frame with door-type walls. Since the parapet-type walls are greatly damaged
after cracking, the beneficial arch action is developed in the surrounding beams during
compressive stage. As a result, the proposed analytical method underestimates the
resistance of the frame with parapet-type walls. Nevertheless, the conservative estimation
obtained from the proposed analytical method is acceptable for practical purposes.
Table 4 compares the resistance forces of the RC frames with window-type walls for
the various dimensions of central openings obtained from the proposed analytical method
and FE models. The proposed analytical method predicts the resistance forces well when
the range for the opening height is between 219 mm and 804 mm (approximately 20% to
80% of the wall height), and when the range for the opening length varies from 136 mm to
1227 mm (approximately 10% to 80% of the wall length).

5. Conclusions
A finite element model is developed in this study with an aim to investigate the
collapse mechanisms of RC frames with partial infill walls. The accuracy of the finite element
model is verified using the experimental data. Parametric analyses are performed to
determine the effects of partial infill wall type, opening dimensions and critical material
properties on the collapse behavior of infilled frames. A simplified analytical method is
proposed to evaluate the collapse resistance of RC frames with various types of partial infill
walls. The conclusions drawn from this study are summarized below.

(1) Partial infill walls play a key role in the behavior of a RC frame when one of the
columns is removed from the frame. Different types of partial infill walls distinctly
affect the collapse mechanism of the frames by changing the applied vertical load,
failure mode and stress distribution.
(2) The infill parts surrounding the opening are shown to have significant influence on
the magnitude of applied vertical load in the compressive stage. The infill parts on the
left and right sides of the opening affect the plastic hinge position of the beams in
damaged
Fig. 15. Plastic hinges, deformed regions and equivalent compressive struts in the
compressive stage.

Table 3
Comparison of resistance forces from the proposed analytical method and FE models of the
RC frames with typical partial infill walls.

Notes: R FE indicates the resistance force in the compressive stage obtained from the finite
element models.

bays.
(3) The applied vertical loads of RC frames with partial infill walls in the initial and
compressive stages increase as the strength of bed joints or the strength of masonry
infill walls increases. The strength of cross joints, however, have virtually no influence
on the applied vertical load.
(4) (4) In order to practically improve collapse resistant performance of the frame with
partial infill walls, it is recommended to ① increase the bending capacity of the
beams around the corners of the opening; ② construct the infill walls with high
strength mortar and masonry, and ③ design the partial infill walls with appropriate
opening dimensions.
 (5) (5) The proposed simplified analytical method, which considers both of the
contributions from the beams and infill walls, can be used to estimate the collapse
resistance force of the RC frame with partial infill walls with good accuracy and
efficiency in the practical evaluation of structures having collapse potential.

Fig. 16. Compressive arch action in the frames with typical infill walls.

Table 4
Comparison of resistance forces from the proposed analytical method and FE models of the
RC frames with window-type walls with different opening dimensions.

Acknowledgments
 This research is jointly supported by the Fundamental Research Funds for the
Central Universities (No. N160103002, N170108029), China Postdoctoral Science
Foundation (No. 2018 M631807), National Natural Science Foundation of China (Grant No.
51578202), National Natural Science Foundation of Liaoning (No. 201702281). The research
funds above are greatly appreciated by the authors.
Part of this research was conducted during the visits of the first and third authors to
The Ohio State University (OSU). The first author acknowledges the financial support
provided by the China Scholarship Council (File No. 201306120170) for his 18-month visit to
OSU. The third author’s one-year visit to The Ohio State University was partially funded by
the Scientific and Technological Research Council of Turkey. This study was also partially
supported by the Ohio Supercomputer Center through an allocation of computing time.

References
[1] Yi WJ, He QF, Xiao Y, Kunnath SK. Experimental study on progressive collapseresistant
behavior of reinforced concrete frame structures. ACI Struct J 2008;105(4):433–9.
[2] Song BI, Sezen H. Experimental and analytical progressive collapse assessment of a
steel frame building. Eng Struct 2013;56:664–72.
[3] Stathas N, Bouslas SN, Pallos X, Strepelias E, Fardis MN. Tests and simple models of
RC frame subassemblies for postulated loss of column. J Struct Eng 2018;144(2).
04017195-1-14.
[4] Akah E, Wood C, Li K, Sezen H. Experimental investigation of collapse performance of a
steel frame building for disproportionate collapse. Eng. J. 2018;55(3):143–59.
[5] Brunesi E, Parisi F. Progressive collapse fragility models of European reinforced concrete
framed buildings based on pushdown analysis. Eng Struct 2017;152:579–96.
[6] Song BI, Giriunas KA, Sezen H. Progressive collapse testing and analysis of a steel
frame building. Journal Constructional Steel Research 2014;94:76–83.
[7] Brunesi E, Nascimbene R. Extreme response of reinforced concrete buildings through
fiber force-based finite element analysis. Eng Struct 2014;69:206–15.
[8] Weng J, Lee CK, Tan KH, Lim NS. Damage assessment for reinforced concrete frames
subject to progressive collapse. Eng Struct 2017;149:147–60.
[9] Xiao H, Hedegaard B. Flexural, compressive arch, and catenary mechanisms in
pseudostatic progressive collapse analysis. J Perform Constr Facil 2018;32(1). 04017115-1-
14.
[10] Zhai CH, Kong JC, Wang XM, Chen ZQ. Experimental and finite element analytical
investigation of seismic behavior of full-scale masonry infilled RC frames. J Earthquake Eng
2016;20(7):1171–98.
[11] Bolis V, Stavridis A, Preti M. Numerical investigation of the in-plane performance of
masonry-infilled RC frames with sliding subpanels. J Struct Eng 2017;143(2). 04016168-1-
18. [12] Li S, Shan SD, Zhai CH, Xie LL. Experimental and numerical study on progressive
collapse process of RC frames with full-height infill walls. Eng Fail Anal 2016;59:57–68.
[13] 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.
[14] Qian K, Li B. Effects of masonry infill wall on the performance of RC frames to resist
progressive collapse. J Struct Eng 2017;143(9). 04017118-1-17.
[15] Li S, Kose MM, Shan S. Sezen H., Modeling methods for collapse analysis of reinforced
concrete frames with infill walls. J Struct Eng 2019;145(4). 04019011- 1-12.
[16] 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.
[17] Sasani M. Response of a reinforced concrete infilled-frame structure to removal of two
adjacent columns. Eng Struct 2008;30(9):2478–91.
[18] Morone DJ, Sezen H. Simplified collapse analysis using data from reinforced concrete
building experiment. ACI Struct J 2014;111(4):925–34.
[19] Shan SD, Li S, Xu SY, Xie LL. Experimental study on the progressive collapse
performance of RC frames with infill walls. Eng Struct 2016;111:80–92.
[20] Mohyeddin A, Goldworthy HM, Gad EF. FE modelling of RC frames with masonry infill
panels under in-plane and out-of-plane loading. Eng Struct 2013;51:73–87.
[21] Liu Y, Chen X. A finite element study of the effect of vertical loading on the in-plane
behavior of concrete masonry infills bounded by steel frames. Eng Struct 2016;117:118–29.
[22] Nasiri E, Liu Y. Development of a detailed 3D FE model for analysis of the in-plane
behavior of masonry infilled concrete frames. Eng Struct 2017;143:603–16.
[23] ABAQUS V6.14 [Computer software]. Paris, Dassault Systems (DS), 2014.
[24] GB50010-2010. Code for design of concrete structures. Ministry of Housing and Urban
Rural Development, China, 2010.
[25] GB50011-2010. Code for seismic design of building. Ministry of Housing and Urban
Rural Development, China, 2010.
[26] GB50003-2011, Code for design of masonry structures. Ministry of Housing and Urban
Rural Development, China, 2011.
[27] Kent DC, Park R. Flexural members with confined concrete. J Struct Div
1971;97(7):1969–90.
[28] Scott BD, Park R, Priestley MJN. Stress-strain behavior of concrete confined by
overlapping hoops at low and high strain rates. ACI Struct J 1982;79(1):13–27.
[29] Yassin MHM. Nonlinear analysis of prestressed concrete structures under monotonic
and cyclic loads. Berkeley: University of California; 1994. PhD Dissertation.
[30] Crisafulli FJ. Seismic behaviour of reinforced concrete structures with masonry infills.
University of Canterbury; 1997. PhD Dissertation.
[31] Kupfer H, Hilsdorf HK, Rusch H. Behavior of concrete under biaxial stresses. J Proc
1969;66(8):656–66.
[32] Jankowiak T, Lodygowski T. Identification of parameters of concrete damage plasticity
constitutive model. Found Civil Environ Eng 2005;6:53–69.
[33] Eladly MM. Numerical study on masonry-infilled steel frames under vertical and cyclic
horizontal loads. J Constr Steel Res 2017;138:308–23.
[34] Masonry Standards Joint Committee (MSJC) of the Masonry Society. Building code
requirements for masonry structures (TMS 402-11/ACI 530-11/ASCE 6-11) and specification
for masonry structures (TMS 602-11/ACI 530.1-11/ASCE 5-11) and companion
commentaries. American Society of Civil Engineers, Reston, VA, 2011.
[35] Mohyeddin A, Goldsworthy MH, Gad FE. FE modeling of RC frames with masonry infill
panels under in-plane and out-of-plane loading. Eng Struct 2013;51:73–87.
[36] Stinger SM, Orton SL. Experimental evaluation of disproportionate collapse resistance
in reinforced concrete frames. ACI Struct J 2013;110(3):521–9.
[37] Holms M. Steel frames with brickwork and concrete infilling. Ice Proc 1961;19(4):473–8.
[38] Liauw TC, Kwan KH. Nonlinear behaviour of non-integral infilled frames. Comput Struct
1984;18(3):551–60.
[39] Flanagan RD, Bennett RM. In-plane behavior of structural clay tile infilled frames. J
Struct Eng 1999;125(6):590–9.