366 Int. J. Masonry Research and Innovation, Vol. 5, No.

3, 2020

Presentation and validation of a specific RBSM

approach for the meso-scale modelling of in-plane
masonry-infills in RC frames

Giuseppina Uva*
Department Dicatech,
Politecnico di Bari,
Via E. Orabona 4, 70126 Bari, Italy
Email: g.uva@poliba.it
*Corresponding author

Vito Tateo and Siro Casolo

Department ABC,
Politecnico di Milano,
Piazza Leonardo da Vinci, 32, 20133 Milano, Italy
Email: vito.tateo@polimi.it
Email: siro.casolo@polimi.it

Abstract: In the last few years, the scientific community has been strongly
involved in the development of approaches able to incorporate the contribution
of infill walls in seismic vulnerability analysis of infilled RC framed buildings.
The detailed meso-scale modelling of panels within global models as an
alternative to equivalent strut models is still a challenge because of the
difficulties in controlling constitutive parameters and the high computational
effort. The potential of rigid body and spring models (RBSMs) in this field
is investigated by exploiting a specific code for the nonlinear analysis of
in-plane masonry with an efficient computational management. The reference
benchmark is an infilled one-bay one-storey frame that was subjected to cyclic
tests within an experimental campaign and has been here modelled by RBSM,
performing a set of numerical parametrical analyses under lateral loads. A good
general matching of results and effective computational performance have been
found.

Keywords: masonry infill; infilled RC frames; rigid body and spring model;
RBSM; pushover analysis; in-plane mechanisms.

Reference to this paper should be made as follows: Uva, G., Tateo, V. and
Casolo, S. (2020) ‘Presentation and validation of a specific RBSM approach for
the meso-scale modelling of in-plane masonry-infills in RC frames’,
Int. J. Masonry Research and Innovation, Vol. 5, No. 3, pp.366–395.

Biographical notes: Giuseppina Uva is an Associate Professor of Structural

Engineering at the Department of Civil Engineering, Land, Building and
Chemistry of Polytechnic of Bari, Italy, where she teaches Design of Structures
for Earthquake Resistance. Her research activity is mainly focused in the field
of earthquake engineering, seismic risk and vulnerability analysis of masonry
and RC structures.

Copyright © 2020 Inderscience Enterprises Ltd.

 Presentation and validation of a specific RBSM approach 367

Vito Tateo obtained his Master’s in Structural Engineering with honours in

2018 at the Politecnico di Bari, and is now a PhD student at Politecnico di
Milano (PhD, ABC). His research interests are focused on the development of
computational methods for structural analysis, and in particular, on the
refinement of RBS models for the analysis of masonry structures accounting
for texture effects and orthotropic behaviour.

Siro Casolo is a Full Professor of Structural Mechanics at the Politecnico di

Milano, where he teaches Mechanics of Solids. His main research interests are
focused on the computational mechanics of solids, rigid body-spring models
and peridynamics, with applications to the masonry and structural glass.

This paper is a revised and expanded version of a paper entitled ‘RBSM

approach for the quasi-static analysis of infill panels under later loads:
an application’, presented at 10th International Masonry Conference, Milan,
Italy, 9–11 July 2018.

1 Introduction

In the seismic design of buildings, infill walls have been traditionally considered as
non-structural elements and most of the building codes of the past allowed to neglect
their stiffness and strength contribution in the analyses. It is commonly believed that this
is a conservative assumption with regard to structural safety. Nevertheless, depending on
the geometrical features of the panels, on their mechanical parameters and regularity of
their distribution in plan and in elevation, this interaction may lead to unexpected
collapse mechanisms such as soft storey, weak storey failure mechanisms, local failures
induced by captive columns (Figure 1).

Figure 1 (a) Collapse mechanisms in ‘captive’ columns (1972 Nicaragua Earthquake,

Managua) (b) Soft storey mechanism at the first level in a RC building in L’Aquila
(2009 earthquake) (see online version for colours)

(a) (b)

Source: (a) nvlpubs.nist.gov/nistpubs/Legacy/TN/nbstechnicalnote807.pdf

(b) Photo by the authors
368 G. Uva et al.

In the most recent seismic codes (Ministero Italiano delle Infrastrutture e dei Trasporti,
2018; CEN, 2005), there is a specific attention to the verification of non-structural
elements against brittle out of plane collapse. With regard to in-plane response, it is
highlighted that if infill walls are not separated from frames with appropriate joints able
to avoid in-plane interaction, and at the same time, prevent out of plane mechanisms, they
actually participate with their stiffness and strength to the lateral resistance of the
building. Anyway, the opportunity of considering their contribution into the structural
model in terms of stiffness and strength shall only be considered if it has negative effects
on the building’s safety. Otherwise, in general, they might be represented only in terms of
mass. This approach is justified by the modern design philosophy, which is attentive to
the principles of the capacity design and related construction details, as well as to the
requirements of morphological and structural regularity.
In the case of existing RC buildings, especially those designed for vertical loads only
and according to obsolete code provisions, the common practice was to build infill panels
in strict adherence with RC elements – columns and beams – without the interposition
of appropriate joints. The consequence, as clearly shown by the observation of the
post-earthquake response of existing infilled RC framed buildings and of recurring
damage mechanisms, is that infill walls participate with their stiffness and strength to the
lateral resistance and can significantly affect the seismic performance of buildings both in
terms of demand and capacity (Cosenza, 2000; Dizhur et al., 2016; Blasi et al., 2018a,
2018b).
It has been observed that the presence of correctly and regularly placed infill walls
contributes to reduce maximum displacements under seismic actions and increase the
overall resistance, at least for events of medium-low intensity. On the other hand, a
non-uniform distribution in plan and elevation can induce negative effects, promoting the
development of additional torsional actions and causing a local increase of stresses or
ductility demand, with consequent premature collapses local [such as shear collapses in
captive columns – Figure 1(a)] or global [such as soft storey mechanisms – Figure 1(b)].
The effects induced, anyway, are variable and difficult to forecast, depending on the
distribution of the infill panels and the interaction between panels and RC frames (Negro
and Colombo, 1997).
In the last decades, the role of infill walls in the seismic structural response of
RC buildings has been widely investigated by many research studies both from an
experimental and a numerical point of view. Anyway, almost 40 years of experience,
have not provided fully satisfactory models and results (Biondi et al., 2000; Mohyeddin
et al., 2017; De Risi et al., 2018; Tarque et al., 2015; Uva et al., 2012a; Porco et al.,
2015). The response of the infill-frame system is governed by many factors, and it is
particularly difficult to perform a reliable identification of the characteristic mechanical
parameters in the real situations, because of the heterogeneity of the constituents (mortar
and blocks) and the uncertainty about the correct execution.
The great variability exhibited by the behaviour of infilled frames, in particular, has
stimulated researchers to investigate the interaction between masonry infill panels and
RC frames by means of experimental tests performed on models subjected to cyclical
tests (in real or reduced scale), such as those reported in Mehrabi et al. (1996), Calvi and
Bolognini (2001), Lee and Woo (2002) and Colangelo (2005). An extensive database of
experimental tests about infilled RC frames typical of Italian and Mediterranean RC
building stock can be found in De Risi et al. (2018). The results of these experimental
studies have pointed out an increase in stiffness and strength and also in the dissipative
 Presentation and validation of a specific RBSM approach 369

capacity of the structure. For example, Figure 2 reports the results of the laboratory tests
carried out by Pujol and Fick (2010) on a full-scale three-storey RC structure. The
response of the bare frame (light grey) is plotted together with that of the infilled frame
(dark grey), allowing to clearly notice the above-mentioned effects. These aspects
have a direct influence on the structural seismic response (especially for medium-low
earthquakes, as previously mentioned) but also on the seismic action itself, since the
change in stiffness modifies the natural periods, and therefore the dynamic response of
the building. It should be observed, anyway, that experimental studies have revealed a
great variability of the results, confirming the difficulty of appraising the influence of
these factors on the structural response, especially when reduced scale models are used.

Figure 2 Results of the laboratory tests on a full-scale three-storey RC structure by Pujol and
Fick (2010)

Note: In light grey, the response of the bare frame, and in dark grey, the response of the
infilled frame.
When masonry materials are involved, on the other hand, the dispersion of experimental
data is a well-known problem, which severely reflects on the possibility of deriving
reliable numerical models and results.
With regard to theoretical and numerical modelling, the scientific and technical
framework sees the proposal of different approaches for the incorporation of infill panels
in the structural models, as it will be briefly discussed in Section 2. These approaches can
be roughly classified into two categories: detailed modelling of panels at the meso-scale;
simplified or phenomenological modelling (macro-modelling) by means of simpler
structural elements having an equivalent behaviour (the well-known ‘equivalent strut’
approach).
The first category directly inherits the merits and drawbacks of masonry models, and
despite the potential accuracy and insight of the analyses, involves complexity of the
constitutive models, great computational effort, dispersion of input data and results.
The second category has been very successful, in the last few years, and has seen the
370 G. Uva et al.

development of a lot of research studies aimed at providing a good description of the

main global effects without excessively increasing the computational effort, and possibly,
exploiting widely adopted software environments (Uva et al., 2012a; Aiello et al., 2017;
Di Trapani et al., 2018; Ricci et al., 2018; Gentile et al., 2019).
The crucial point of this second approach is the choice of the specific strut model and
the related geometrical and mechanical parameters that provide the equivalence in terms
of strength and stiffness. It is not possible to find a univocal approach in the literature but
there are a lot of proposals, each based on its own analytical formulation and parameters’
calibration and leading to very different results (Di Trapani et al., 2015; Amato et al.,
2009; Uva et al., 2012b). For each case study, the appropriate model should be chosen by
identifying the strut’s parameters through specific experimental tests on masonry infills.
However, this is not an easy task, since it is well known that experimental
characterisation of masonry is affected by a high dispersion of results and would require
a good statistical basis. Of course, it is expensive to perform every time a wide
experimental campaign on ‘non-structural’ elements, and in fact, in the practice, it is
rarely done.
Most of numerical and practical case studies are referred to a few existing research
works that, however, are based on limited and heterogeneous datasets, on a quite small
number of experimental data or on a numerical-basis only (De Risi et al., 2018). After all,
for the infill panels, the selection of mechanical and geometrical parameters of the
equivalent struts is typically based on the literature. Then, parametric analyses should be
performed for properly taking into account uncertainty. It is worth mentioning, anyway,
that the drawbacks previously outlined are partially balanced by the agility of the
equivalent strut approach that easily allows the execution of several sensitivity analyses
for appraising the dispersion of results and the statistical management of results. These
reasons explain the cautiousness shown by the current technical standards that, while
recognising the importance of the theme, do not provide restrictive indications, but
merely suggest a critical assessment of individual situations.
This research study has the goal of defining an operating framework for modelling
the interaction of masonry infill panels with the RC frames at the meso-scale and
appraising non-structural damage and local interaction effects with the structural RC
elements and nodes. Moreover, there are some configurations that are not comprised
some cases are not included in the standard application range of simplified equivalent
struts and it is mandatory to adopt models at a higher resolution scale. In the paper, it is
proposed an implementation of a computational rigid body and spring model (RBSM),
previously successfully developed by Casolo (2004) and Casolo and Peña (2007) for
masonry structures and briefly described in Section 3, for modelling the interaction of
infill UR panels and RC frames. Such a model combines the accuracy of a rational
mechanical basis, in which all the relevant nonlinear, hysteretic and damage phenomena
are included, and the computational effectiveness of a parsimonious discrete approach. Its
application in several fields has shown to be effective and fruitful, and the idea is that it
can represent a promising alternative to the present equivalent-strut methods, improving
the mechanical insight into the actual failure modes of the panels, but still keeping a good
computational performance. Furthermore, this case of study offers the opportunity of
applying the RBSM approach to a complex problem modelling not only the masonry, but
also the RC frame and the interface between the two components, that is crucial in order
to reproduce the real state of stress in the infill panel, that in the experimental test brought
 Presentation and validation of a specific RBSM approach 371

to a diagonal crack in the panel. The use of RBSM approach in this new field can
represent a potentially effective solution.
In order to investigate the possibility of RBSM applied to infilled frame structures,
a reference experimental test has been selected (Section 4), defining the mechanical
parameters of the RBSM model based on the experimental values, and performing
parametric analysis for reproducing the skeleton curves of the structural responses and
the corresponding deformed configurations and failure modes of the panels, as provided
by the damage parameters of the RBSM model, comparing the numerical outputs and the
experimental results (Section 5).

2 Reference scientific framework about the modelling of infill masonry

walls: a brief overview

The scientific literature about the seismic analysis of existing RC framed buildings
proposes several approaches for taking into account the contribution of masonry infill
panels in the global response and can be divided into two classes.
The first class is that of macro-modelling approaches, in which the frame-infill
interaction is simulated by defining a simplified heuristic models, for which the solution
is straightforward. The most popular among them is the so-called method of the
‘equivalent strut’, based on the experimental observation that under horizontal actions the
compressive stress follows the diagonal path and then the panel can be replaced by a
diagonal strut having suitable geometrical and mechanical characteristics related to the
properties of the panel (Mainstone, 1974; Smith, 1966; Smith and Carter, 1969). The
fundamental parameters of the methods are represented by the geometric features of the
strut (length dW, thickness tW and width bW), the stiffness, the hysteretic constitutive law
FW – d which governs the nonlinear cyclic behaviour of the panel (Figure 3). In its first
form, the approach is only able to represent the effect of the infill panels, whereas the
local interaction at the interface with RC structural elements (especially near the nodes) is
neglected. Depending on the objectives of the analysis, it is possible to use more than
one strut (Figure 4) to consider the local shear effects in the structural elements,
highlighting possible brittle behaviours.

Figure 3 Macro-modelling approaches: the equivalent strut model

372 G. Uva et al.

Figure 4 Equivalent model with, (a) a single strut (b) two struts (c) three struts
Shear plastic hinge Primary Strut: As/2

z/3 z/2

Strut: As Bending plastic hinge Struts: As/2 Secondary Struts: As/4

(a) (b) (c)

Another important aspect is related to the definition of the hysteretic law of the
equivalent struts. In some proposals, the law is expressed in terms of axial strain/stress
(Crisafulli, 1997), whereas in other formulations, regardless of the geometrical and
mechanical characteristics of the infill, a predominant failure mode (usually, crushing at
the centre or at the corners of the panel) is a-priori defined (Panagiotakos and Fardis,
1996). Anyway, it should be pointed out that crushing is only one of the possible failure
modes of the infill panel, and it should be first necessary to evaluate the ultimate load
associated to each of the possible failure, and then to calculate the strength of the panel as
the minimum of these loads (Bertoldi et al., 1993). There is an extensive literature in this
field that shows the interest of the scientific community for the topic but reveals also that
there is a great variability of the results depending on the formulation and application
of the proposed procedures (Di Trapani et al., 2015; Uva et al., 2012b). Anyway, an
undoubted advantage of the method is the limited computational effort, because there is
only one strut (at the maximum 3) for each panel (Figure 4), and this almost does not
affect the computational effort compared to the case of the bare RC frame. After all, the
single strut model provides a good compromise between simplicity, flexibility and
accuracy and has become a standard in practical numerical applications, even if it should
be observed that the sometimes it is not so immediate to give a physical interpretation to
the results. In particular, as already observed in the previous section, the following
aspects introduce severe source of uncertainty and can compromise the reliability of the
model:
 The identification of the geometrical and mechanical features of the equivalent strut
is difficult because of the extreme abstraction of the model, and lack of a direct
physical correspondence with the actual panel-frame system.
 In the case of panels with openings, the idea of realistically representing the failure
mechanisms with a single strut is barely acceptable and should be replaced by a
proper multiple strut configuration that recognises the geometric constraints and
boundary conditions imposed by openings (Buonopane and White, 1999). A
common choice, however, is to use a single strut model – as for solid panels –
artificially reducing the strut’s area, in order to fit the decrease of stiffness and
strength that is experimentally observed. This solution leads to acceptable results in
 Presentation and validation of a specific RBSM approach 373

terms of global response, whereas the phenomenology at the base of the strut is
completely altered: the presence of an opening induces in the panel a stress
distribution very far from the idea of the equivalent single diagonal strut (Durrani
and Luo, 1994; Asteris et al., 2015).
 Results are very sensitive to the specific model adopted for the strut (depending on
the peculiar parameters of the formulation, such as type of failure mechanisms
included: geometry, strength, etc.).
 Regarding the mechanical parameters of masonry, it is well-known that experimental
characterisation is affected by high dispersion and would require a good statistical
basis. In the case of infills, things get even worse, since mechanical tests for the
qualification of materials are almost never performed. The real problem is not the
dispersion of data, but total lack of data: so, literature values must be used, and
uncertainty grows bigger.
The second class of models for taking into account the contribution of masonry infill
panels in the global response is aimed at providing a detailed description of both RC
and infill masonry panels in the nonlinear field by means of proper discretisation
techniques, and is oriented to the local evaluation of the interaction of the elements
within the frame-infill system (Riddington and Smith, 1977). Usually referred to as
‘micro-modelling’, it will be here defined ‘meso-modelling’ approach, in accordance
with the accepted definitions of the computational mechanics of masonry structures.
Meso-modelling approaches consider the composite nature of masonry by modelling
in detail blocks and mortar joints and explicitly considering their different mechanical
properties. The analysis becomes quite complex, as a result of the kinematic induced by
horizontal joints, that represent the weak point of the panel (Crisafulli et al., 2000). A
very refined approach would consist in modelling both blocks and mortar layers, and
additionally introducing interface elements between each block-joint contact surface.
Alternatively, it is possible to condense the mortar behaviour into interface elements
between two adjacent blocks (i.e., neglecting the thickness of the joints).
Regarding the numerical approach, continuum or full discrete approaches can be
applied, i.e., finite element methods (FEM) or distinct element methods (DEM). In both
cases, it is necessary to know the actual distribution of blocks that shall be reproduced in
the numerical model, and to properly characterise the mechanical nonlinear behaviour of
blocks and mortar/interfaces. This framework requires an intensive effort both in the
phase of model definition and in the numerical analyses. Finally, it must be remembered
that the mechanical behaviour of masonry materials is affected by strong scattering
and uncertainty (especially in the case of existing structures), and this fact can only be
managed by performing extensive sensitivity analyses and statistical processing of
results.
In conclusion, if the objective is to assess failure conditions and post-elastic response
of a whole building, the task becomes unfeasible. A more practical approach is
represented by continuous methods, in which the composite nature of masonry is
neglected and an equivalent continuum is defined by proper homogenisation techniques.
It is very common in the field of masonry structures, because is computationally
less expensive. Anyway, the homogenisation process is affected by uncertainty about
masonry materials, as well.
374 G. Uva et al.

3 RBSM meso-scale approach

Within the framework of meso-scale models, an alternative option between FEM

continuum models combined with homogenisation techniques and full discrete models is
represented by RSBMs (Kawai, 1978). The development of RBSM for modelling
masonry structures, since the first proposals and furtherly refinements (Casolo, 2004,
2006, 2009) has shown to be capable of describing the nonlinear, hysteretic response of
masonry and reproducing the failure mechanisms of masonry panels.
In the last few years, from the early developments and applications, RBSM
approaches have gained increasing popularity in the field of seismic analysis of masonry
structures, thanks to the balance between computational efficiency and mechanical
insight. In fact, it has been fruitfully applied for modelling the behaviour of masonry
structures both in-plane and out-of-plane, allowing to perform the vulnerability
assessment for whole masonry buildings (Casolo et al., 2012, 2013, 2018; Casolo and
Uva, 2010, 2013). Thanks to the road mapped out by the scientific community and to the
recent progresses achieved (Casolo and Uva, 2018), it seems that RBSM is going to
become an alternative standard to software based on the continuum approach or
equivalent frame models also in the professional practice, and these approaches are being
progressively incorporated also into popular software environments (Pantò et al., 2017;
Bertolesi et al., 2018).
The rigid body spring model is based on the idea of describing the masonry (intended
as a composite heterogeneous material) through a mesh of rigid plane elements having a
dimension larger than a minimum representative volume element (RVE) and connected
by elastic-plastic springs (Casolo, 2009).
In the case of in-plane behaviour, as shown in Figure 5, the connection between each
pair of rigid elements occurs by means of two axial springs (indicated with Kx or Ky,
depending on the direction) arranged along each of the common sides between the blocks
at a distance equal, respectively, to bx and by, and a shear spring (Kh, Kv, depending on the
orientation of the side) positioned in the middle of the side of the element.

Figure 5 Scheme of a regular masonry texture and an example of the unit cell consists of
four rigid blocks connected by elastic-plastic springs (see online version for colours)

The distance of the two axial springs is a function of the microstructure and of the
dimension of the rigid element. As demonstrated in Casolo (2006), in order to describe
 Presentation and validation of a specific RBSM approach 375

the texture effect, masonry should be modelled as a micropolar material. In the RBSM,
the micropolar in-plane bending stiffness (for each of the two directions) can be
calibrated by properly varying the distance between the two axial springs that, combined,
form the micro-couple.
The RBSM separates the axial and shear response by considering two different
springs at each side of the rigid elements. In this way, the numerical solution is
uncoupled, reducing the computational effort. Nevertheless, the friction effect related to
the presence of mortar joints is relevant, in masonry: this is taken into account by
assuming for the shear spring a Coulomb-like criterion in which the normal stress is
directly given by the solution of the axial springs. Each type of spring is associated to a
force that can be related to the stress components of a Cosserat continuum (Casolo,
2006). A peculiar aspect is that the stress tensor can be non-symmetric, and therefore the
shear stress components τ12 and τ21 can be different one from the other. In the following,
this will be exploited by assigning a different value to the cohesion and to the internal
friction in the Mohr-Coulomb criterion for the horizontal and vertical joints.
In brief, the springs’ constitutive laws include the peculiar aspects of the
phenomenological response of masonry under cyclic loading:
 very low tensile strength
 progressive mechanical degradation
 dependence of the shear strength on the vertical compression stress
 significant post-elastic orthotropy combined with texture effects
 significant amount of energy dissipation during repeated cycles of loading.
In this work, only monotonic numerical simulations have been performed, and therefore
the constitutive information required for springs is the skeleton curve, which has the
qualitative piecewise linear form depicted in Figure 6. The points defining the different
segments should be properly defined according to materials and masonry texture, basing
on specific experimental dataset, literature and code references. For the numerical
benchmark here developed, the definition of the parameters that identifies the different
characteristic points for RC/masonry elements will be discussed in Section 6.

Figure 6 Piecewise linear constitutive response for (a) axial and (b) shear springs of the RBSM

(a) (b)
–/+ –/+ –/+
Note: The points E , Y and U define, respectively, the elastic limit, the yielding,
and the residual strength.
376 G. Uva et al.

Figure 7 Geometry and reinforcement details of the RC frames used for experimental tests

Source: From Calvi and Bolognini (2001)

 Presentation and validation of a specific RBSM approach 377

4 The reference experimental test

In order to appraise the performance and effectiveness of the rigid body and spring
approach for modelling the interaction between RC frames and masonry infill walls, the
experimental campaign reported in Calvi and Bolognini (2001) has been chosen as a
reference benchmark. In this experimental research work, several real scale samples of
infilled RC one-bay one-storey frames were tested under cyclic loadings in order to
evaluate the seismic response under in-plane actions. The experimental campaign
involved the so-called ‘weak’ infill made of hollow clay blocks, which are very common
in southern Europe. In particular, the aim of the research was to evaluate the effect of
the introduction of reinforcements, but some unreinforced masonry frames were
preliminarily tested.
The setup of the tests provides a RC frame with a span of 4.20 m and a height of
3.00 m, with 30 cm × 30 cm columns and a beam of 70 cm × 25 cm. The infill walls have
dimensions of 4.20 m × 2.75 m and a total thickness of 13.5 cm. It should be noted that
all the structural RC elements were designed in accordance with the requirements of EC8
according to the high ductility class of EC8, fully applying the capacity design rules.
Therefore, possible brittle shear mechanisms are excluded, critical sections are well
confined and plastic hinges’ activation is provided in the beams. In each test, a vertical
load of about 400 KN simulating the weight of three overlying stores was preliminary
applied and that kept constant. In Figure 7, the setup of the experimental campaign is
synthetically reported.
Firstly, the response of the bare frame was experimentally characterised under
cyclical lateral loads increased until a maximum value of the inter-storey drift of 3.6%.
Subsequently, different infilled configurations of the same frame, considering
unreinforced masonry and different kinds of reinforcements, were tested for a maximum
lateral drift of 1.2%. Overall, beside the bare frame test, eight cyclic tests were
performed, of which two regarded the configuration including the presence of plain,
unreinforced hollow clay blocks. Of these two tests, respectively labelled as #2 and #6 in
the report by Calvi and Bolognini (2001), the second one has been considered for the
numerical simulations discussed in the next section.

5 Application of RBSM approach to the analysis of infilled RC frames

under lateral loads

5.1 Data about materials’ parameters (concrete, blocks, mortar and wallettes)
In this paragraph, the main data about the materials used in the preparation of the tests of
Calvi and Bolognini (2001) are reported and commented, as determined by the authors.
RC frames were built by using a concrete with a characteristic cubic compressive
strength Rck = 25 MPa and steel with a characteristic yield strength fyk = 500 MPa. The
parameters were characterised by compression tests on cylindrical concrete samples and
tensile tests on steel bars (resulting average values are reported in Tables 1 and 2).
Regarding to the experimental characterisation of infill materials, tests were carried out
on 20 specimens consisting in wallettes (800 mm × 800 mm × 120 mm) made by
hollow bricks and mortar. The geometrical and mechanical parameters of the constituents
378 G. Uva et al.

(blocks and mortar) are reported in Tables 3 and 4. Sub-groups of these 20 walletes were
subjected to different kind of tests: compressive loading parallel to blocks’ holes;
compressive loading perpendicular to blocks’ holes, diagonal loading. The results in
terms of compressive strength, tensile strength, Young’s modulus and shear modulus are
reported in Table 5.
Table 1 Mean compressive strength of concrete

Results of tests on concrete

Mean compressive strength – fcm (MPa)
Columns Beams
29.32 34.56
Source: Calvi and Bolognini (2001)
Table 2 Results of tensile tests on steel rebars

Results of tests on steel rebars

2
 (mm) Area (mm ) Yield strength (MPa) Ultimate tensile strength (MPa)
7.94 49.51 557 630
12.08 114.64 575 686
15.82 196.68 555 647
22.45 395.83 561 670
Source: Calvi and Bolognini (2001)
Table 3 Geometrical and mechanical parameters of hollow clay blocks

Hollow clay blocks

Nominal size (length × width × height) 245 × 115 × 245 (mm)
Average weight per unit 34.8 N
Void ratio 60%
Strength parallel to the holes (MPa) 15.4 MPa (c.o.v.* = 0.12)
Strength perpendicular to the holes (MPa) 2.8 MPa (c.o.v.* = 0.16)
Note: *Coefficient of variation, defined as the ratio between standard deviation and mean
value.
Source: Calvi and Bolognini (2001)
Table 4 Mechanical parameters of the mortar used for the infill walls, evaluated on specimens
having dimension 40 mm × 40 mm × 40 mm

Mortar strength
Tensile strength (MPa) Compressive strength (MPa)
0.42 5.54
Source: Calvi and Bolognini (2001)
It is interesting to observe that the results provided by the tests for measuring
the compressive strength parallel to the holes are quite different depending on the
construction procedure. In particular, the wallettes were built in two ways: by arranging
bricks with horizontal holes or with vertical holes. In the first case, the compressive
strength (parallel to the holes) is much lower, as it can be seen by comparing the second
 Presentation and validation of a specific RBSM approach 379

and third rows of Table 5. This circumstance can be explained by the fact that, in this
constructive procedure, little mortar is placed over the vertical joints, reducing the
effective area and thence the resistance. Anyway, this way of building infill panels is by
far the most used all over Europe, and in fact is the one adopted for constructing the walls
tested in Calvi and Bolognini (2001). Therefore, in Table 5, the relevant reference values
for the benchmarks are those of second and third rows. Another worth observation is that
the strength perpendicular to the holes (row 3) is only slightly lower than the parallel one.
Table 5 Results of compressive tests on infill masonry specimens (small size wallettes)

Average values and coefficients of variation obtained from tests on infill wallettes
fm,av c.o.v. Em,ave c.o.v.
Construction with vertical holes – 3.97 MPa 0.18 5,646 MPa 0.47
load parallel to the holes
Construction with horizontal holes 1.11 MPa 0.12 991 MPa 0.43
– load parallel to the holes
Load perpendicular to the holes 1.10 MPa 0.38 1,873 MPa 0.43
ft,ave (R) c.o.v. fv0,ave c.o.v. G c.o.v.
Diagonal load 0.15 MPa 0.25 0.09 MPa 0.25 1,039 0.36
Notes: By considering different directions of the load with respect to the position of the
blocks’ holes.
fm,av: Average compressive strength of masonry, Em,av: average Young’s modulus,
evaluated in the range between 10%–40% of the ultimate strength, ft,ave (R): average
tensile strength, obtained according to the Rilem recommendations, fv0,ave: average
tensile strength under zero vertical load, G: average shear modulus, measured
between 10% and 40% of the strength, and c.o.v.: coefficient of variation.
Source: Calvi and Bolognini (2001)

5.2 RBSM modelling of the benchmark tests and parametrical analyses

RBSM simulations have been performed for two of the tests included in the experimental
campaign described in the previous Section: the test on the bare frame and the test #6 on
the plain infilled frame (i.e., with no reinforcement). As previously mentioned, the
numerical simulations performed in this work are only monotonic ones, since the
objective was to perform a preliminary appraisal of the capability of the RBSM approach.

5.2.1 Bare frame

The first numerical simulation has been performed to calibrate the response of the RC
bare frame against the reference experimental test, in which three cycles of horizontal
displacements varying between pre-defined target drifts (according to the sequence
reported in Table 6) were applied at the top of the frame.
Table 6 Sequence of target drifts applied for the cycles of the bare frame test

Drift targets (maximum displacement = 10.8 cm)

Test
0.1% 0.4% 1.2% 3.6% 0.4%
Bare frame N. of cycles 3 3 3 3 3
Source: Calvi and Bolognini (2001)
380 G. Uva et al.

Figure 8 shows the mesh adopted for the discretisation of the RC frame. It was defined as
a direct consequence of the mesh of the inner panel, in order to guarantee the alignment
of the elements and coincidence of the nodes: columns are meshed into 2 × 6 elements
(each element is 15 cm × 45.67 cm); beam is meshed into 9 × 2 elements (each element is
46.56 cm × 12.5 cm).

Figure 8 RBSM numerical simulation of the cyclic test on bare frame: deformed shape at
3.6% drift (see online version for colours)

The mechanical parameters that define the skeleton response of RBSM springs for
concrete (see Figure 6) were preliminarily identified basing on available data on concrete,
through the homogenisation of the sectional properties. In particular, for axial springs, the
confinement contribution of stirrups was considered by adopting Mander (1988) law.
Several numerical simulations were performed by varying the RBSM parameters of
the springs to obtain the best fitting of the envelope of the experimental cycles, allowing
to tune-up the parameters (final values are shown in Table 7).
Table 7 Parameters defining the points of the skeleton curve for the RC springs in the RBSM
after calibration

Axial RC springs Shear RC springs

–3
Point ε (× 10 ) σ (MPa) Point ε (× 10–3) τ (MPa)
Tension E 0.119 3.40 E 0.10 1.50
S 4.00 20.00 Y 0.20 2.50
Compression E– –0.973 –28.00 U 0.40 2.50
–
Y –3.00 –35.00 S 1.00 0.20
U– –5.00 –40.00
S– –10.00 –0.50

The numerical ‘pushover’ was carried out by applying an increasing displacement at the
top of the frame until a maximum drift of 1.8% (about 5.4 cm). This drift value, even if
lower than the experimental one, can be considered relevant enough for the target
benchmark (RC frame with unreinforced masonry infill), that provided a 1.2% maximum
drift, corresponding to a close-to-collapse limit state for the panel. In this situation, RC
elements are far from the peak point (found for a drift of about 3%).
In Figure 9, the results of this numerical pushover test on the bare frame model is
shown in terms of displacement-force diagram (the red curve corresponds to the response
 Presentation and validation of a specific RBSM approach 381

in terms of base shear, which is slightly lower of the applied force – blue curve – because
of the viscous damping considered by the software). It can be seen that the numerical
response reproduces well the envelope curve of the experimental cycles.

Figure 9 RBSM numerical simulation of the cyclic test on bare frame: comparison between the
response curve of the RBSM under monotonic lateral loading (top displacement vs.
base shear) and the result of the experimental test (see online version for colours)

The deformed shape of the RBSM mesh (left) also shows a good agreement with the
experimental evidence: the plastic deformations of the springs are localised at the end of
the beam, as it can be expected in consequence of the capacity design of the RC frame.

5.2.2 Unreinforced masonry infill frame

Assuming for RC elements the parameters previously calibrated, the model for the
simulation of test #6 (unreinforced infill) was implemented. The infill wall was
discretised into a 9 × 6 mesh (each element is 46.56 cm × 45.67 cm) (Figure 10).
As for RC elements, it is necessary to define the constitutive response of axial and
shear springs by proper skeleton curves (Figure 6).
Some preliminary comments should be provided about the choice of the model’s
parameters for the masonry infill. The reference experimental basis for the identification
of UR masonry parameter is given by the results of characterisation tests reported in
Par. 5.1: compressive strength, tensile strength, elastic moduli (Tables 5 and 6).
Regarding the axial springs (for the symbols’ meaning, see Figure 6), the points E+
in tension and Y– in compression – representing, respectively, the peak tensile and
compressive strength – have been fixed once for all in accordance with the experimental
dataset of Table 5. For completely defining the behaviour, the other points of the
post-elastic branch must be defined, for which standard tests on masonry do not provide
direct information. It has been therefore necessary to resort to the scientific literature in
which similar RBSMs were developed and calibrated (Casolo, 2004, 2006). Table 8
reports the complete list of parameters adopted for the skeleton curve of the axial springs
of masonry elements.
382 G. Uva et al.

Figure 10 Mesh of the reference infilled RC frame test in the RBSM (see online version
for colours)

Table 8 Parameters defining the points of the skeleton curve for the axial springs of infilled
masonry elements in the RBSM

Horizontal axial springs Vertical axial springs

Point (vertical edges) (horizontal edges)
ε (× 10–3) σ (MPa) ε (× 10–3) σ (MPa)
+
Tension E 0.151 0.15 0.080 0.15
+
S 10.00 0.075 10.00 0.075
Compression E– –0.742 –0.74 –0.390 –0.73
–
Y –1.60 –1.00 –0.80 –1.00
U– –3.00 –1.10 –3.00 –1.10
–
S –5.00 –0.18 –5.00 –0.18

Regarding shear springs, which are crucial for the response to lateral loads, it was
decided to perform a parametrical analysis in order to assess the influence of the
main parameters and identify an interval of confidence of the results. This choice was
suggested, first of all, by the fact that in the referenced experimental campaign the
number of tests performed on wallettes was quite small, as typically happens for obvious
budget reasons. Overall, the samples tested were only 20, that is to say, five samples per
each kind of parameter to be determined, which is not sufficient for a good statistical
knowledge. The results are characterised by a significant dispersion, as the same authors
of the experimental research pointed out when discussing the high values of the
coefficients of variation (see Tables 3 and 4). The confidence interval, in this case, is
significantly wide.
 Presentation and validation of a specific RBSM approach 383

The dispersion about experimental materials’ data, after all, is typically encountered
in the field of masonry. Of course, this is serious drawback for the numerical modelling,
which is remarkably sensitive to the assumptions of mechanical parameters. It is
precisely in order to overcome these problems that sensitivity analysis is strongly
recommended. It is worth mentioning that the execution of parametric analyses in a
statistic perspective requires the availability of an effective computational tool, able to
perform a great number of nonlinear dynamic analyses for many variations of the
mechanical parameters. This possibility is offered by the RBSM framework, which is at
the same time parsimonious and mechanically coherent.
In order to setup the analyses on a parametrical basis, a proper range of variation was
chosen for the RBSM parameters that govern the shear strength through a Mohr-Coulomb
criterion: τ12max, τ21max. The values of the friction angle for the vertical and horizontal
shear springs (φ12, φ21) were fixed assuming for horizontal springs the value suggested
by the Italian code (φ21 = 0.4), and half of this one for vertical springs (φ12 = 0.2),
considering that head joints are usually almost dry.
The choice of the variation range for the shear strength values under zero normal
stresses is crucial for the analyses. This is the parameter for which identification is more
difficult and affected by uncertainty. The first important question is about the type of
experimental test that should be appropriately used to measure the difference of shear
response along the two principal directions.
Table 9 Variation ranges assumed for the mechanical properties of the infill and ariation of the
constitutive law with the tangential strength (see online version for colours)

Case name τ12,max (MPa) φ12 τ21,max (MPa) φ21

Infilled frame-1 0.1 0.4 0.3 0.2
Infilled frame-2 0.2 0.4 0.3 0.2
Infilled frame-3 0.3 0.4 0.3 0.2
Infilled frame-4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.2

Besides the friction effect, also the value fvk0 is affected: the shear strength parallel to
the bed joints mainly depends on the mortar properties, while the shear strength
perpendicular to the bed joints is affected by the bond pattern. Clearly, the standard
384 G. Uva et al.

diagonal compression test, which is however the only one used in the practice, is not able
to account for these effects, whereas an effective alternative test setup could be the
Iosipescu one (Casolo et al., 2019). Against this background, it is evident that the
application of an advanced numerical model in which orthotropy must be considered
cannot be simply based on a few diagonal tests. At most, this can represent a suggestion
for the initial value of the successive parametric variations, that we performed by
adopting the ranges reported in Table 9.
For the definition of these variation ranges, we used as a starting point the wallettes’
diagonal tests, combining it with the indications provided by the Italian Building Code
(NTC 2018 – §11.10, which are summarised in Table 10).
Table 10 Values of characteristic shear strength of masonry walls under zero normal stresses
according to Italian Building Code – Par. 11.10

fvk0 (MPa)
Type of Ordinary mortar Lightweight
Mortar class [MPA]
block (joint thickness ≥ 0.5 mm ≤ 3 mm) mortar
Brick M10–M20 0.30 0.30 0.15
M2.5–M9 0.20
M1–M2 0.10
Source: Ministero Italiano delle Infrastrutture e dei Trasporti (2018)
It can be observed that, depending on the mortar class, fvk0 varies among
0.10–0.20–0.30 MPa, and the lowest value matches the average value of wallettes’
diagonal tests. These are the first three value assumed in Table 9. A fourth case has been
added by increasing the maximum value of fvk0 (in both directions) up to 0.4 MPa, with
the aim of evaluating how the response of the model changes passing from a very weak
masonry to a very strong one. It is worth observing, finally, that the value of
fvk0, corresponding to the vertical direction (τ21,max) is always higher, to consider the
interlocking effect.
In Table 9, the constitutive laws implemented in the horizontal shear springs in
correspondence of the four parametric cases are shown.
The parameters defining the orthotropic elastic response of the infill in the
elastic range have been fixed for all cases: E11 = 996 MPa, E22 = 1,873 MPa and
G12 = 1,000 MPa. Also, for all springs, the values of the normal strength in compression
and tension have been univocally fixed respectively to 1.1 MPa and 0.15 MPa, according
to the experimental values. At the contact perimeter between the mesh of the RC frame
and those of the infill, specific interface elements have been set, with a shear strength of
0.05 MPa.
Table 11 Sequence of target drifts applied for the cycles of the unreinforced masonry infilled
frame

Drift targets (maximum displacement = 3.6 cm)

Test
0.1 0.4 1.2
Infilled frame (unreinforced) N. of cycles 3 3 3
Source: Calvi and Bolognini (2001)
 Presentation and validation of a specific RBSM approach 385

The numerical response of the benchmarks, for the different set of parameters, has been
evaluated by imposing a maximum top displacement of 3.6 cm, consistently with the
maximum reached during the experimental cycles (Table 11).

Figure 11 The four cases considered for the parametric analysis: plot of the numerical response
curve (top displacement vs. base shear) obtained for the four RBSM under monotonic
lateral loading compared with the experimental cyclic response of test #6 of Calvi and
Bolognini (2001) (see online version for colours)

Figure 12 Experimental damage patterns reported for test #2 after three cycles at the target drifts
0.2% and 0.4% (see online version for colours)

Source: From Calvi and Bolognini (2001)

386 G. Uva et al.

Figure 13 Evolution of the deformed configuration of the models ‘infilled-1’ and ‘infilled-2’ for
increasing target drifts (0.1%, 0.2%, 0.3% and 0.4%) (see online version for colours)
Infilled frame‐1 Infilled frame‐2

δ = 0.1%

δ = 0.2%

δ = 0.3%

δ = 0.4%

5.3 Results of the analyses and discussion

Figure 11 shows the response curves obtained for the four RBSM (Table 9) under
monotonic lateral loading in terms of top displacement vs. base shear compared with the
experimental cyclic response of the URM infilled frame test #2 of (Calvi and Bolognini,
2001). The curve of the bare frame is also reported in Figure 11. In all the four RBSMs,
the increase of stiffness related to the presence of the infill panel is well evident and the
initial elastic stiffness is accurately reproduced. Some significant differences, instead, are
observed regarding the peak resistance. As expected, a strength increase is exhibited by
 Presentation and validation of a specific RBSM approach 387

all models, even if only for the cases 3 and 4 (that correspond to the higher values of the
shear strength) the peak is comparable to the experimental one (with an error of 10% and
20%, respectively). Anyway, the RBSM was able to capture the typical response of the
infilled frame characterised by strength increase at low displacement values and strength
drop at larger displacements, after the collapse of the masonry panel, where the response
curve tends to rejoin with that of the bare frame.

Figure 14 Evolution of the deformed configuration of the models ‘infilled-3’ and ‘infilled-4’ for
increasing target drifts (0.1%, 0.2%, 0.3% and 0.4%) (see online version for colours)
Infilled frame‐3 Infilled frame‐4

δ = 0.1%

δ = 0.2%

δ = 0.3%

δ = 0.4%

Instead, a critical aspect is that the formation of the compressed strut is not clearly
identified, and this is the main reason for which the peak of strength provided by the
numerical simulations is lower than the experimental one. Actually, there are some
388 G. Uva et al.

limitations related to the topology of the springs presently implemented in the RBS
formulation: in particular, the absence of diagonal springs does not allow to fully capture
the development of damage/resisting mechanisms in the 45 direction. This aspect can
also be noticed by analysing the damage patterns provided by the numerical simulations
that are now compared with the experimental one and critically discussed.
Figure 12 shows the damage reported in Calvi and Bolognini (2001) for the
experimental test #2 at two target drifts, 0.2% and 0.4%. These displacements are quite
far from the maximum but nevertheless allow to clearly see the progressive formation of
cracks more than 2 mm wide and the development of the main resisting mechanism of the
diagonal compressed strut. At the 0.4% drift, a further horizontal cracking mechanism is
triggered, together with the crushing of the upper row of bricks, at the interface with the
RC beam.
The results of the numerical RBSM analyses in terms of deformed configuration and
strain maps are presented in Figures 13–17.
In Figures 13 and 14, the deformed configuration of the four models (infilled-1, 2, 3
and 4) for four increasing target drifts (0.1%, 0.2%, 0.3% and 0.4%) is plotted, whereas
Figure 15 shows in more detail the deformed shapes together with the strain maps at the
final drift.

Figure 15 Deformed configuration of the four numerical RBSMs of the infilled RC frame at the
maximum drift 0.4% (displacement = 36 mm) (see online version for colours)

Infilled frame‐1 Infilled frame‐2

Infilled frame‐3 Infilled frame‐4

Looking at the figures that depict the deformed configurations, it is important to keep in
mind that the elements of the mesh – i.e., the rigid elements of the model – do not have
any relationship with the individual masonry blocks, since the approach is not a full
discrete one like that of DEM (Lemos, 2019) but provides a discretisation of an
equivalent continuum. Hence, the analysis of the deformed configurations cannot indicate
 Presentation and validation of a specific RBSM approach 389

the physical location and extent of cracks, but rather identify the areas of greater
deformations, where huge slips or detachments are happening.

Figure 16 Plot of the strain maps in the springs for the models 1 and 2 at the maximum target
drift (see online version for colours)

Note: From top to bottom, the rows depict the strain in the horizontal axial springs (ε11),
in the vertical axial springs (ε22), in the horizontal shear springs (ε21) and in the
vertical shear springs (ε12).
390 G. Uva et al.

Figure 17 Plot of the strain maps in the springs for the models 3 and 4 at the maximum target
drift (see online version for colours)

Note: From top to bottom, the rows depict the strain in the horizontal axial springs (ε11),
in the vertical axial springs (ε22), in the horizontal shear springs (ε21) and in the
vertical shear springs (ε12).
When comparing numerical and experimental results, therefore, we will cross-reference
this information with that provided by the strain maps, in order to provide a more precise
picture of the predicted damage frame. More in detail, for the four models, Figures 16
and 17 presents the maps of the strains in the axial and shear springs, that in RBSM are
an immediate measure of the level of damaged attained: ε11 is the strain in the horizontal
axial springs, ε22 is the strain in the vertical axial springs, ε21 is the strain in the horizontal
shear springs and ε12 is the strain in the vertical shear springs.
 Presentation and validation of a specific RBSM approach 391

The analysis of the deformation and strain maps point out that the occurrence of the
following phenomena in the four models:
 Failure of the upper row of elements at the interface with the beam, with detachment
of the infill masonry panel from the columns at the upper left corner and lower right
corner. The strain maps show that shear strains are greater at the interface between
the panel and columns (damage in the horizontal axial and shear springs). These
aspects of the damage mechanisms are consistent with the experimental evidence,
that shows the detachment between frame and panel.
 Shear damage in the entire panel, more concentrated at the centre;.
 Horizontal cracking at the top and bottom parts of the panel.
Anyway, it can be observed a difference of the damage mechanisms between the models
1–2 and the models 3–4. In the first two (Figure 15), the formation of one compressive
bands can be observed in the ε22 map (Figure 16, dashed lines), but this is a secondary
mechanism, whereas the prevailing failure mode is a shear sliding one. In the models 3
and 4, that correspond to the case in which the strength fvk0 (cohesion) is the same in
the vertical and in the horizontal direction, instead, the extent of compressive strains
along two diagonal bands (Figure 17, dashed lines) is greater, while shear strains ε12 are
smaller.
These qualitative observations are coherent with the damage states observed during
the reference experimental tests. Of course, the comparison cannot be considered
exhaustive, since the numerical simulation has considered only a monotonic load history.

6 Final remarks

The research work has been driven by the objective of providing an effective framework
for the detailed modelling of infilled frames at the meso-scale. Modelling the interaction
of masonry infill panels with RC frames has become nowadays an indispensable issue for
properly assessing seismic vulnerability of existing RC buildings. While equivalent strut
approaches are effective and useful for global analysis, at a more detailed level, it can be
necessary to appraise non-structural damage and local interaction effects with structural
RC elements and nodes. Moreover, there are some configurations that are not covered in
the standard application range of simplified equivalent strut models, and it is mandatory
to adopt models at a higher resolution scale.
These are the reasons why we have decided to test the implementation of a
computational RBSM, previously successfully developed for masonry structures, for
modelling the interaction of infill UR panels and RC frames. This approach has proved to
be numerically efficient for analyses in the nonlinear field – especially dynamic ones –
thanks to the reduced number of degrees of freedom that are involved. At the same time,
it is capable to offer a truly rational mechanical insight into the nonlinear response of
masonry, including the development of damage and the description of the hysteretic
response under dynamic loads. These features are crucial if the objective is a perform a
large number of nonlinear dynamic analyses, in view of a probabilistic approach in terms
of the hazard and of the mechanical parameters that characterise the model. The
excessive computational effort is a great obstacle in the field of masonry structures’
392 G. Uva et al.

analysis, and also in those problems where it is necessary to model the contribution of
infill panels on the global seismic response that are the object of the paper.
The use of RBSM approach, therefore, can represent a potentially effective solution,
whose prospects and potential have been investigated in the paper, by implementing the
approach for a reference experimental benchmark.
The results are at the moment limited to the simulation of a nonlinear static loading
test. The prediction of the main qualitative pattern of damage can be considered quite
good, also considering that it is possible to fill a gap of information about the local
damage frame by using very parsimonious analyses. The matching with the experimental
response curve is not so satisfactory, pointing out some weak points of the RBSM
formulation that are partially already known, but showed to be particularly critical
within this specific application context. It will be particularly important, in the future
developments, to face and overcome these drawbacks, but a fruitful and promising
perspective, according to the authors, is indicated by this preliminary investigation.

Acknowledgements

The research presented in this article was partially funded by the Italian Department of
Civil Protection in the framework of the national project DPC-ReLUIS 2014-2018.

References
Aiello, M.A., Ciampoli, P.L., Fiore, A., Perrone, D. and Uva, G. (2017) ‘Influence of infilled
frames on seismic vulnerability assessment of recurrent building typologies’, Ingegneria
Sismica, Vol. 34, No. 4, pp.58–80.
Amato, G., Cavaleri, L., Fossetti, M. and Papia, M. (2009) ‘An updated model of equivalent
diagonal strut for infill panels’, in Cosenza, E. (Ed.): Eurocode 8 Perspectives from the Italian
Standpoint Workshop, Doppiavoce, Napoli, pp.119–128.
Asteris, P.G., Cavaleri, L., Di Trapani, F. and Sarhosis, V. (2015) ‘A macro-modelling approach
for the analysis of infilled frame structures considering the effects of openings and vertical
loads’, Structure and Infrastructure Engineering: Maintenance, Management, Life-cycle
Design and Performance, DOI: 10.1080/15732479.2015.1030761.
Bertoldi, S.H., Decanini, L.D. and Gavarini, C. (1993) ‘Telai tamponati soggetti ad azioni sismiche,
un modello semplificato: confronto sperimentale e numerici’, Atti del 6° Convegno Nazionale
ANIDIS, Perugia, 13–15 October, in Italian, Vol. 2, pp.815–824.
Bertolesi, E., Milani, G. and Casolo, S. (2018) ‘Homogenization towards a mechanistic rigid body
and spring model (HRBSM) for the non-linear dynamic analysis of 3D masonry structures’,
Meccanica, Vol. 53, No. 7, pp.1819–1855.
Biondi, S., Colangelo, F. and Nuti, C. (2000) La risposta sismica dei telai con tamponature
murarie, in Italian, CNR-Gruppo Nazionale per la Difesa dai Terremoti, Roma.
Blasi, G., De Luca, F. and Aiello, M.A. (2018a) ‘Brittle failure in RC masonry infilled frames:
the role of infill overstrength’, Engineering Structures, Vol. 177, pp.506–518.
Blasi, G., Perrone, D. and Aiello, M.A. (2018b) ‘Fragility functions and floor spectra of RC
masonry infilled frames: influence of mechanical properties of masonry infills’, Bulletin of
Earthquake Engineering, Vol. 16, No. 12, pp.6105–6130.
Buonopane, S.G. and White, R.N. (1999) ‘Pseudodynamic testing of masonry infilled reinforced
concrete frame’, Journal of Structural Engineering, Vol. 125, No. 6, pp.578–589.
 Presentation and validation of a specific RBSM approach 393

Calvi, G.M. and Bolognini, D. (2001) ‘Seismic response of reinforced concrete frames infilled with
weakly reinforced masonry panels’, Journal of Earthquake Engineering, Vol. 5, No. 2,
pp.153–185.
Casolo, S. (2004) ‘Modelling in-plane micro-structure of masonry walls by rigid elements’,
International Journal of Solids and Structures, Vol. 41, No. 13, pp.3625–3641.
Casolo, S. (2006) ‘Macroscopic modelling of structured materials: relationship between orthotropic
Cosserat continuum and rigid elements’, International Journal of Solids and Structures,
Vol. 43, Nos. 3–4, pp.475–496.
Casolo, S. (2009) ‘Macroscale modelling of microstructure damage evolution by a rigid body and
spring model’, Journal of Mechanics of Materials and Structures, Vol. 4, No. 3, pp.551–570,
DOI: http://10.2140/jomms.2009.4.551.
Casolo, S. and Peña, F. (2007) ‘Rigid element model for in-plane dynamics of masonry walls
considering hysteretic behaviour and damage’, Earthquake Engineering and Structural
Dynamics, Vol. 36, No. 8, pp.1029–1048.
Casolo, S. and Uva, G. (2010) ‘Out-of-plane seismic response of masonry façades some
comparisons among full dynamic and pushover analysis [Risposta sismica fuori del piano di
facciate in muratura: Confronto tra analisi dinamiche non-lineari e analisi pushover]’,
Ingegneria Sismica, Vol. 27, No. 3, pp.33–54.
Casolo, S. and Uva, G. (2013) ‘Nonlinear analysis of out-of-plane masonry façades: full dynamic
versus pushover methods by rigid body and spring model’, Earthquake Engineering and
Structural Dynamics, Vol. 42, No. 4, pp.499–521, DOI: 10.1002/eqe.2224.
Casolo, S. and Uva, G. (2018) ‘A specific out-of-plane model for the dynamic analysis of masonry
façades and estimation of cumulative seismic damage’, Procedia Structural Integrity, Vol. 11,
pp.20–27, DOI: 10.1016/j.prostr.2018.11.004.
Casolo, S., Biolzi, L., Carvelli, V. and Barbieri, G. (2019) ‘Testing masonry blockwork panels
for orthotropic shear strength’, Construction and Building Materials, Vol. 214, pp.74–92,
DOI: 10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2019.04.116.
Casolo, S., Milani, G., Naliato, A. and Tralli, A. (2012) ‘Seismic assessment of a medieval
masonry tower in Northern Italy by limit, nonlinear static, and full dynamic analyses’,
International Journal of Architectural Heritage, Vol. 6, No. 5, pp.489–524.
Casolo, S., Porco, F. and Uva, G. (2013) ‘An analytical approach for assessment of the effects of
infill panels in RC frames’, 4th ECCOMAS Thematic Conference on Computational Methods
in Structural Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, Kos Island, Greece, 12–14 June.
Casolo, S., Tateo, V. and Uva, G. (2018) ‘RBSM approach for the quasi-static analysis of
infill panels under later loads: an application’, Paper presented at the Proceedings of the
International Masonry Society Conferences, No. 222279, pp.771–784.
CEN (2005) Eurocode 8: Design of Structures for Earthquake Resistance. Part 1: General Rules,
Seismic Actions and Rules for Buildings, Brussels.
Colangelo, F. (2005) ‘Pseudo-dynamic seismic response of reinforced concrete frames infilled with
nonstructural brick masonry’, Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics, Vol. 34,
No. 10, pp.1219–1241.
Cosenza, E. (2000) Il comportamento sismico di edifici in c.a. progettati per carichi verticali,
Gruppo Nazionale per la Difesa dai Terremoti (GNDT), Roma.
Crisafulli, F.J. (1997) Seismic Behaviour of Reinforced Concrete Structures with Masonry Infills,
PhD thesis, Department of Civil Engineering, University of Canterbury.
Crisafulli, F.J., Carr, A.J. and Park, R. (2000) ‘Analytical modelling of infilled frame structures – a
general review’, Bulletin of the New Zealand Society for Earthquake Engineering, Vol. 33,
No. 1, pp.30–47.
De Risi, M.T., Del Gaudio, C., Ricci, P. and Verderame, G.M. (2018) ‘In-plane behaviour and
damage assessment of masonry infills with hollow clay bricks in RC frames’, Engineering
Structures, Vol. 168, pp.257–275.
394 G. Uva et al.

Di Trapani, F., Macaluso, G., Cavaleri, L. and Papia, M. (2015) ‘Masonry infills and RC
frames interaction: literature overview and state of the art of macromodeling approach’,
European Journal of Environmental and Civil Engineering, Vol. 19, No. 9, pp.1059–1095,
DOI: 10.1080/19648189.2014.996671.
Di Trapani, F., Shing, P.B. and Cavaleri, L. (2018) ‘Macroelement model for in-plane and
out-of-plane responses of masonry infills in frame structures’, Journal of Structural
Engineering, Vol. 144, No. 2, Article number 04017198.
Dizhur, D., Ingham, J., Griffith, M., Biggs, D. and Schultz, A. (2016) ‘Performance of unreinforced
masonry and infilled RC buildings during the 2015 Gorkha, Nepal earthquake sequence’,
Brick and Block Masonry: Trends, Innovations and Challenges – Proceedings of the 16th
International Brick and Block Masonry Conference, IBMAC 2016, pp.2399–2408.
Durrani, A.J. and Luo, Y.H. (1994) ‘Seismic retrofit of flat-slab buildings with masonry infills’,
Proc. of the NCEER Workshop on Seismic Response of Masonry Infills, Report NCEER-94-
0004, 1 March, pp.1/3–8.
Gentile, R., Pampanin, S., Raffaele, D. and Uva, G. (2019) ‘Non-linear analysis of RC
masonry-infilled frames using the SLaMA method: part 1 – mechanical interpretation of the
infill/frame interaction and formulation of the procedure’, Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering,
Vol. 17, No. 6, pp.3283–3304, DOI: 10.1007/s10518-019-00580-w.
Kawai, T. (1978) ‘New discrete models and their application to seismic response analysis of
structures’, Nuclear Engineering and Design, Vol. 48, No. 1, pp.207–229.
Lee, H. and Woo, S. (2002) ‘Effect of masonry infill on seismic performance of a 3-storey
RC frames with non-seismic detailing’, Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics,
Vol. 31, No. 2, pp.353–378.
Lemos, J.V. (2019) ‘Discrete element modeling of the seismic behavior of masonry construction’,
Buildings, Vol. 9, No. 2, DOI: 10.3390/buildings9020043.
Mainstone, R.J. (1974) Supplementary Note on the Stiffness and Strength of Infilled Frames,
Current paper CP13/74, Build. Res. Establishment, London.
Mander, J.B., Priestley, J.N. and Park, R. (1988) ‘Theoretical stress-strain model for confined
concrete’, Journal of Structural Engineering, Vol. 114, No. 8, pp.1804–1826, ASCE.
Mehrabi, A.B., Shing, P.B., Schuller, M.P. and Noland, J. (1996) ‘Experimental evaluation of
masonry-infilled RC frames’, Journal of Structural Engineering, Vol. 122, No. 3, pp.228–237.
Ministero Italiano delle Infrastrutture e dei Trasporti (2018) Decreto Ministeriale 17 gennaio
2018 – “Norme tecniche per le costruzioni”, Gazzetta Ufficiale No. 42, Suppl. Ordinario,
20 February.
Mohyeddin, A., Dorji, S., Gad, E.F. and Goldsworthy, H.M. (2017) ‘Inherent limitations and
alternative to conventional equivalent strut models for masonry infill-frames’, Engineering
Structures, Vol. 141, pp.666–675.
Negro, P. and Colombo, A. (1997) ‘Irregularities induced by non-structural masonry panels in
framed buildings’, Engineering Structures, Vol. 19, No. 7, pp.576–585.
Panagiotakos, T.B. and Fardis, M.N. (1996) ‘Seismic response of infilled RC frames structures’,
Proc. of 11th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Acapulco, Paper No. 225.
Pantò, B., Cannizzaro, F., Caliò, I. and Lourenço, P.B. (2017) ‘Numerical and experimental
validation of a 3D macro-model for the in-plane and out-of-plane behavior of unreinforced
masonry walls’, International Journal of Architectural Heritage, Vol. 11, No. 7, pp.946–964.
Porco, F., Fiore, A., Uva, G. and Raffaele, D. (2015) ‘The influence of infilled panels in
retrofitting interventions of existing reinforced concrete buildings: a case study’, Structure
and Infrastructure Engineering, Vol. 11, No. 2, pp.162–175, DOI: 10.1080/15732479.2013.
862726.
Pujol, S. and Fick, D. (2010) ‘The test of a full-scale three-story RC structure with masonry infill
walls’, Engineering Structures, Vol. 32, No. 10, pp.3112–3121.
 Presentation and validation of a specific RBSM approach 395

Ricci, P., Di Domenico, M. and Verderame, G.M. (2018) ‘Empirical-based out-of-plane URM infill
wall model accounting for the interaction with in-plane demand’, Earthquake Engineering and
Structural Dynamics, Vol. 47, No. 3, pp.802–827.
Riddington, J.R. and Smith, B.S. (1977) ‘Analysis of infilled frames subject to racking with design
recommendations’, The Structural Engineer, Vol. 55, No. 6, pp.263–268.
Smith, B.S. (1966) ‘Behaviour of square infilled frames’, Journal of Structural Division, Vol. 92,
No. ST1, pp.381–403, ASCE.
Smith, B.S. and Carter, C. (1969) ‘A method of analysis for infilled frames’, Proceedings of the
Institution of the Civil Engineers, Vol. 44, pp.31–48.
Tarque, N., Candido, L., Camata, G. and Spacone, E. (2015) ‘Masonry infilled frame structures:
state-of-the-art review of numerical modelling’, Earthquakes and Structures, Vol. 8, No. 1,
pp.225–251.
Uva, G., Porco, F. and Fiore, A. (2012a) ‘Appraisal of masonry infill walls effect in the seismic
response of RC framed buildings: a case study’, Engineering Structures, Vol. 34, pp.514–526.
Uva, G., Raffaele, D., Porco, F. and Fiore, A. (2012b) ‘On the role of equivalent strut models in
the seismic assessment of infilled RC buildings’, Engineering Structures, Vol. 42, pp.83–94,
DOI: 10.1016/j.engstruct.2012.04.005.