Engineering Structures 197 (2019) 109435

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

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

Innovative decoupling system for the seismic protection of masonry infill T

walls in reinforced concrete frames
Marko Marinkovića, , Christoph Butenwegb
⁎

a
Department of Engineering Mechanics and Theory of Structures, Faculty of Civil Engineering, University of Belgrade, Bulevar kralja Aleksandra 73, 11000 Belgrade,
Serbia
b
CWE – Center for Wind and Earthquake Engineering, RWTH Aachen University, Mies-van-der Rohe-Straße 1, 52074 Aachen, Germany

ARTICLE INFO ABSTRACT

Keywords: Reinforced concrete frame structures with masonry infills often exhibit serious damage after earthquake events,
Infill masonry as the infills are generally installed without additional constructive measures in contact to the reinforced con-
Reinforced concrete frame crete frame. The masonry infills constructed in this way experience an unplanned interaction with the sur-
Earthquake rounding RC frame and thus become part of the horizontal load-bearing system with in-plane loading. This
INSYSME
interaction combined with seismically induced loads perpendicular to the infill panel often leads to total col-
Isolating element
INODIS
lapses of the masonry infills and heavy damages to the RC frames. This fact was the motivation to develop an
Decoupling innovative system for decoupling the RC frame and the masonry infill with a special profile made of elastomeric
cellular material within the collaborative European research project INSYSME (Innovative Systems for
Earthquake Resistant Masonry Enclosures in Reinforced Concrete Buildings). The profile allows relative dis-
placements between the RC frame and the masonry infill and serves at the same time as a support for out-of-
plane loads. The article first explains the design and installation of the system and provides an overview of the
load bearing capacities determined through small specimen tests on the system components. Subsequently,
fundamental experimental investigations on traditional and decoupled RC frames infilled with high thermal
insulating clay bricks for separate and combined in-plane and out-of-plane loading are presented. Based on a
detailed evaluation and comparison of the test results, the performance and effectiveness of the developed
system are illustrated.

1. Introduction
Modern multi-storey buildings are often constructed with RC
frames, as they excellently meet all requirements of modern, trans-
parent architecture and provide a great flexibility in terms of space
utilisation. The building closure and interior walls of the RC frame
structures are preferably infilled with non-load bearing masonry since
this established and robust wall construction method fulfils all nor-
mative requirements in terms of sound isolation, thermal insulation and
fire protection. In addition, interior non-load bearing infills walls can
simply be removed and relocated in existing buildings, if the usage
requirements change. In general, masonry infills are designed as non-
load bearing masonry and, being non-load bearing components, are not
taken into account in the structural design of the building. Masonry
infills are traditionally installed with full contact with the RC frame,
whereby the connection joints between the infill and framework are
either filled in with mortar or fast-curing installation foam. Since RC
frames in earthquake regions are usually designed with higher ductility,
they undergo large displacements under horizontal loading which lead
to a rapid activation of the significantly stiffer infills. This activation
generates an undesired interaction between the frame and the infill and
results in an unplanned participation of the masonry infills in the load
transfer. If the masonry infills in the ground plan and elevation are
irregularly arranged, torsional effects can cause high additional in-
plane loads in the infills. In addition to the in-plane loads, the infills are
also subjected to out-of-plane loads due to seismic inertia forces.
Depending on the spatial effect of the earthquake action, the in-plane
and out-of-plane loads may occur independently or in combination.
Recent earthquakes in Kocaeli (Turkey, 1999), Christchurch (New
Zealand, 2011) and the Italian earthquake series in L'Aquila (2009),

⁎
Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: mmarinkovic@grf.bg.ac.rs (M. Marinković), butenweg@lbb.rwth-aachen.de (C. Butenweg).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2019.109435
Received 8 February 2019; Received in revised form 14 June 2019; Accepted 22 July 2019
Available online 02 August 2019
0141-0296/ © 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
M. Marinković and C. Butenweg
Fig. 1. Damage to masonry infill walls: (a) Emilia Romagna (2012) and (b) L’Aquila (2009) [1].
Emilia Romagna (2012) and Central Italy (2016) have impressively
demonstrated the high vulnerability to damage of traditional masonry
infills. Fig. 1 illustrates the damage patterns of two infill walls, made of
hollow bricks, caused by the earthquakes in L’Aquila (2009) and Emilia
Romagna (2012).
The proportion of observed damage on traditional infill walls under
earthquake loading initiated numerous research projects with intensive
experimental and numerical studies of the seismic behaviour of RC
frames with masonry infills during the last decades. The behaviour of
masonry infills under in-plane loading was investigated by Mehrabi
et al. [2], Al-Chaar et al. [3], Stylianidis [4], Hak et al. [5], Morandi
et al. [6] and others. The studies showed that the behaviour of masonry
infills for in-plane loads can be described by four failure modes: com-
pression failure in the corners or in the middle of the infill, shear failure
due to sliding at the mid-height of the wall along a mortar joint and
diagonal tensile failure. Additionally, the sliding failure can cause
brittle shear failures of the columns, which can lead to partial or total
building collapses. The behaviour of infill walls under out-of-plane
loading was analysed by McDowell et al. [7], Dawe and Seah [8], Angel
et al. [9], Vougioukas [10], Asteris et al. [11] and Walsh et al. [12],
among others. The investigations identified the tilting of the entire
panel out of the frame as a global failure mode. Further typical failure
modes occur according to the yield line theory with respect to the
support boundary conditions. The interaction between in-plane and
out-of-plane loading was investigated in detail by Flanagan and Bennett
[13], Kadysiewski and Mosalam [14], Furtado et al. [15] and Yuen
et al. [16]. Furthermore, the influence of prior damage due to in-plane
loads on the out-of-plane load-bearing capacity was analysed by Angel
et al. [9], Calvi and Bolognini [17,18], Kadysiewski und Mosalam [14],
Pereira et al. [19], da Porto et al. [20], Furtado et al. [15,21] and Ricci
et al. [22]. All these investigations of consecutive and simultaneous in-
plane and out-of-plane loading resulted in a significant reduction of the
out-of-plane load bearing capacity. Consequently, the separated de-
termination of the in-plane and out-of-plane load-bearing capacities
that is currently incorporated in codes seems not sufficient. Some recent
researches (Bolis et al. [23]; Milanesi et al. [24]; Blasi et al. [25])
thoroughly investigated the local effects on RC frames induced by
masonry infills, which are shown to be important for taking them into
account.
The number of research projects and the recurring examples of
seismic damage illustrate the difficulty of designing traditional masonry
infill walls in full contact with the RC frame to be resistant to earth-
quakes. For this reason, various solution strategies were developed to
increase the seismic safety of masonry infilled RC frames. These stra-
tegies can be classified into the three approaches shown in Fig. 2, as
classified by Morandi et al. [39].
2
Engineering Structures 197 (2019) 109435
The basic idea of the first approach is to significantly increase the
load-bearing capacity of the masonry infill with a rigid connection to
the frame (Fig. 2a). Braga et al. [26] added additional reinforced con-
crete elements to divide and stabilize the infill panels, Calvi and Bo-
lognini [17] strengthened the infill through steel reinforcements in the
bed joints and mesh reinforcement on the infill surfaces, and da Porto
et al. [20], Silva et al. [27], and Vintzileou et al. [28] proposed addi-
tional horizontal and vertical reinforcement bars in the masonry infills.
Valluzzi et al. [29], da Porto et al. [30] and Akhoundi et al. [31] tested
the use of plaster reinforcements made of textile meshes, while El-Da-
khakhni [32] and Ozkaynak et al. [33] applied plaster reinforcements
made of fibreglass and carbon fibres. Such solutions with plaster re-
inforcements made of textile meshes or made of fibreglass and carbon
fibres are sometimes adopted as strengthening technique in existing
buildings. All these reinforcement measures significantly improve the
load-bearing and deformation capacities of the masonry infills. How-
ever, it should be noted that the reinforced masonry infills become part
of the horizontal bracing system and can no longer be regarded as a
non-load-bearing wall. Thus, the flexibility of use is lost and the ma-
sonry infills must be designed for seismic forces. In addition, the ac-
ceptance of these measures in practice is rather low as they quickly
become unattractive and uneconomical in comparison to a reinforced
concrete solution due to the amount of required manual construction
work.
Another approach for improving the seismic behaviour is to increase
the deformation capacity of the masonry infill wall by means of special
construction measures in the wall (Fig. 2b). Mohammadi and Akrami
[34,35] integrated a horizontal sliding plane consisting of two pre-
stressed steel plates which allows the control of the maximum seismic
in-plane forces by friction. Preti et al. [36,37] developed a solution
consisting of several horizontal sliding surfaces in the wall which si-
multaneously transfers the out-of-plane forces by lateral shear con-
nectors. A comparable approach is proposed by Verlato et al. [38] and
Morandi et al. [39], who developed special horizontal sliding surfaces
and connection elements with new and durable materials. Vintzileou
et al. [28] and Preti and Bolis [40], on the other hand, pursued an
approach in which the wall is subdivided by vertical sliding surfaces
allowing the individual wall sections to rotate independently. In this
proposed solution, the out-of-plane loads are transferred in vertical
direction through shear connectors to the frame transom. The described
solutions improve the deformation capability of the masonry infill and
thus significantly reduce the potential damage. The efficiency of the
systems strongly depends on a high-quality installation of the sliding
surfaces, whose robustness still needs to be proven in practical appli-
cations. In case of window and door openings, the proposed systems
must be supplemented by further edge profiles to provide reliable
M. Marinković and C. Butenweg
Fig. 2. Approaches to improve the behaviour of masonry infilled frames under earthquake loading.
Fig. 3. Details of the INODIS decoupling system.
boundary conditions [39].
The third approach for improving the seismic behaviour of masonry
infilled RC frames is to decouple the frame and the masonry infill so
that deformations of the frame do not generate any stresses in the
masonry infill (Fig. 2c). The simplest option for decoupling the frame
and the infill is the arrangement of surrounding gaps that have to be
filled with soft material for reasons of fire protection and sound in-
sulation. In this case, steel L- or U profiles can be installed on the frame
to provide supports for the transfer of out-of-plane loads. Aliaari and
Memari [41] showed that this type of decoupling significantly reduces
damage to the infill. The approach to insert cellular materials between
the RC frame and the infill wall was first tested by Tsantilis and Tri-
antafillou [42,43]. Their tests showed highly reduces damages of the
infill walls under in-plane loading conditions. Out-of-plane loading was
not covered by their study, but the authors pointed out the importance
of consideration. Kuang and Wang [44] investigated a solution with
gaps between the infill and columns in which out-of-plane failure is
prevented by additional steel anchors. The anchors are inserted in the
bed joints of the masonry infill and rigidly connected to the frame. The
presented decoupling solutions are rarely used in practice so far, as they
are uneconomical due to the high material and installation costs of the
system components even though the benefits of decoupling have been
proven beyond a doubt.
3
Engineering Structures 197 (2019) 109435
Section A-A
Section B-B
Section C-C
DIN EN 1998-1-1 provides in Section 4.4.3.2 [45] interstory drift
limits for the definition of damage damage-limitation states, that can be
used as an orientation for the requirements of the presented three basic
approaches (Fig. 2). Since the standard does not provide any specific
and mandatory constructive rules or verification concepts to meet these
requirements, they are usually ignored in the construction practice.
Common practise in many countries is to build up the masonry infills
without any additional measures, resulting in the high vulnerability to
seismic damage observed after earthquakes (Ricci et al. [46], Manfredi
et al. [47]). This situation can only be improved by developing effective
and practical solutions.
The article presents a novel decoupling system for the earthquake
resistant connection of masonry infills in RC frames, which was de-
veloped within the framework of the collaborative European research
project INSYSME (INSYSME Project [48]) and patented Europe-wide
(Patent [49]). The behaviour of the newly developed system is in-
vestigated on a RC frame infilled with high thermal insulating clay
bricks for separate and combined in-plane and out-of-plane loads. The
effectiveness of the decoupling system is demonstrated by comparison
with the test results of traditionally infilled RC frames.
M. Marinković and C. Butenweg
2. Description and design of the decoupling system
The objective of the project INSYSME was the development of a new
decoupling system for the improvement of the seismic safety of ma-
sonry infills. The requirements for the new system to be developed were
a high level of earthquake resistance for separate, sequential and
combined in-plane and out-of-plane loads, a simple installation at the
construction site, universal applicability on various types of bricks and
high cost effectiveness.
In order to meet these requirements, the decoupling of infill and
frame was chosen as the appropriate solution approach, since in-
creasing of the load-bearing capacity of the masonry infill with addi-
tional reinforcement and special connection elements is uneconomical
and represents a fundamental change of the traditional building tech-
nique with masonry towards RC construction. Furthermore, reinforce-
ment of the masonry infill contradicts the use of modern energy-effi-
cient bricks with high percentage of voids and low strength values.
Fig. 3 shows the conceptual design of the developed system INODIS
(Innovative Decoupled Infill System) with special decoupling elements
between masonry infill and RC frame. The basic concept of the new
system is the arrangement of elastomeric cellular material with a U-
shaped cross section along the columns and the top beam, which are
moved onto plastic profiles that are connected to the RC frames by
nailing or screwing. The U-Profile consists of a web with lower stiffness
and lateral flanges with higher stiffness to compensate in-plane de-
formations of the frame while simultaneously providing support con-
ditions to prevent out-of-plane movements of the masonry infill. The U-
Profile consists of two layers made of elastomeric cellular material,
glued together to obtain the desired height of the profile. The backside
of the web is glued to the smooth side surfaces of the bricks during the
construction of the wall. The U-Profiles along the columns are installed
with an initial space between the web and the plastic profile to delay
the contact to the RC frame in case of in-plane deformations. A strip
made of elastomeric cellular material with a much higher stiffness
consisting of three strips is placed at the base of the wall. The outer
strips are glued to the bottom row of bricks and the middle strip is glued
to the RC bottom beam. This arrangement allows upward movements,
but prevents at the same time out-of-plane displacements of the infill at
the bottom. Sliding surfaces, placed between the U-Profile and the
frame with the plastic profiles, minimize the transfer of shear forces to
the masonry infill due to friction. The installation of the special shaped
elastomeric cellular material is intended to delay the activation of the
infill and thus to reduce the membrane stresses in the masonry infill. By
varying the stiffness and thickness, the U-Profile can be designed in
such a way that no damage occurs in the masonry infill below the de-
sign value of the interstory drift. At the same time, the elastomeric
cellular material should prevent stresses localisation with brittle fail-
ures of the bricks and columns in the corner areas and contribute to
uniform energy dissipation at wall and building level with their vis-
coelastic material behaviour.
The steps required to install the system are shown in Fig. 4. In the
first step, the plastic profile is attached to the frame with screws or nails
using a screwdriver or a nail gun. In the next two steps, the sliding
surfaces are glued on the plastic profiles and concrete frame and the
preassembled U-Profile is pushed on the plastic profile. In the fourth
step, a strip made of elastomeric cellular material is installed at the
bottom. First the middle strip is glued to the bottom beam. Thereafter
the outer strips are inserted and glued to the bottom row of bricks when
bricking up of the infill starts.
In the fifth step the infill wall is bricked up as usual, whereby the
bricks at the end of each row are glued to the U-Profile. In the final step,
the last row of bricks can be installed and glued to the U-Profile at the
top beam. After performing the steps described, the system is installed
and fully functional. The installation steps of the INODIS system clari-
fies that the traditional building technique for constructing the infill
wall remain almost unchanged in addition, the system is simple, can be
4
Engineering Structures 197 (2019) 109435
installed quickly and appears sufficiently robust for use on construction
sites.
3. Experimental tests
3.1. Characterization of the materials used
The infill masonry is composed of high thermal-insulating clay
bricks [50]. The bricks are jointed by thin-bed mortar in the bed joints,
whereas the head joints are not mortared as usual in practise. In the
case of the traditional infills, general purpose mortar is used for height
compensation at the bottom, to connect the bricks to the columns and
to fill the remaining gap between the uppermost row of bricks and the
top beam. The remaining gap at the top has been completely filled with
mortar to provide a full contact between the masonry infill and the RC
frame. The material properties and strengths of the infill are determined
by means of standardised small specimen tests on bricks, mortar and
masonry and summarised in Table 1. The small specimen tests are
carried out according to DIN EN 772 [51] for the clay bricks, DIN EN
1015 [52] for the mortar and DIN EN 1052 [53] for the determination
of the material properties and strength parameters of the masonry. The
tests were carried out with the required number of specimens in the
codes. Detailed information on the small specimen tests are provided in
Fehling et al. [54,55]. The frame is constructed with concrete of
strength class C30/37 and reinforcing steel B500B with high ductility.
Detailed information on the reinforcement arrangement in columns and
beams are provided in Butenweg et al. [56].
Table 2 specifies the material characteristics of the elastomeric
cellular material, which has hyperelastic behaviour, used for the IN-
ODIS system as provided by the producer [57]. The elastomeric cellular
material RF 400 is used as the web of the U-Profile and is glued directly
to the bricks. RF 510 is used for the flanges of the U-Profile, and RF 570
for the connection to the bottom beam. The webs and flanges of U-
Profile are glued together with the glues G1 or G2 (BSW [57]), both
single-component glues. In addition, the colours of the elastomeric
cellular materials are indicated, as these colours are further used in the
following technical drawings and diagrams.
In addition, monotonic and cyclic compression tests with a de-
formation rate of 0.4 mm/s were carried out for the three types of
elastomeric cellular material. Material samples with the dimensions of
250 × 250 mm are loaded via a steel pressure plate.
Fig. 5a shows the test setup and the already compressed elastomeric
cellular material RF 510 during the monotonic compression test. The
resulting stress-strain curves for three types of elastomeric cellular
materials under monotonic loading are shown in Fig. 5b. It can clearly
be seen that the stiffening effect starts rather late at strain levels of more
than 0.4%.
Fig. 6a shows the stress-strain curves under the cyclic loading pro-
tocol depicted in Fig. 6b. The load is applied in three cycles with tri-
angular shape and deformation rate of 0.4 mm/s. The stress-strain
curves have a small offset at the horizontal axes due to the testing
equipment used for the compression tests on such a soft materials. The
stress-strain curves of the three types of elastomeric cellular materials
show again increasing stiffness’s at higher compressive strains. Fur-
thermore, the curves mirror well the hyperelastic material behaviour of
the elastomeric cellular materials, with energy dissipation under cyclic
loading.
The material properties of the plastic profile for the connection with
the U-Profile are listed in Table 3. The plastic profiles are connected to
the RC frame by using M16 screw anchors according to the approval Z-
14.4-517 (Hilti concrete screw HUS [58]). For the sliding surfaces, a
double-layer sliding foil with PTFE sliding pads and a coefficient of
friction between 0.02 and 0.1 was used.
M. Marinković and C. Butenweg Engineering Structures 197 (2019) 109435

Step 1: Plastic profiles Step 2: Sliding surfaces Step 3: Elastomeric U-Profile

Step 4: Elastomer at the bottom Step 5: Brick laying Step 6: Top row of bricks
Fig. 4. Working steps for installation of the INODIS system.

Table 1
Mean values and coefficient of variation (c.o.v.) of the material properties and strengths.
Brick Dimensions L/T/H [mm] Compressive strength f [N/mm2] Modulus of elasticity E [N/mm2] Voids [%] Gross dry density [kg/m3]
250/365/249 vertical longitudinal vertical longitudinal 62.3 553
6.3 4.8 10,710 8360 (0.74%) (1.3%)
(19.5%) (11.5%) (13%) (12.5%)

Mortar Mortar type Compressive strength fm [N/mm2] Modulus of elasticity Em [N/mm2] Flexural tensile strength fmt,flex [N/mm2]
Thin layer mortar 15.7 (12.7%) 8121.5 (9.8%) 3.67 (10.5%)
General purpose mortar 8.9 (14.5%) 9787.0 (14.1%) 2.47 (7.5%)

Masonry Joint tensile bond strength fw [N/ Compressive strength fm [N/mm2] Modulus of elasticity Em [N/mm2] Flexural strength [N/mm2]
mm2]
0.19 3.1 4870 parallel to the bed Perpendicular to the bed
(22.8%) (18.7%) (17.9%) joints: fxk1 joints: fxk2
0.23 (8.95%) 0.14
(11.5%)

NOTE: c.o.v. is given in the brackets.

Table 2 U-Profile forming of a gap. In this case, the flanges of the profiles are
Static and dynamic modulus of elasticity of the applied elastomeric cellular eccentrically loaded by the out-of-plane actions.
materials (BSW [57]). The load bearing capacity of the U-Profile and the adhesive bond to
Elastomer Static modulus of elasticity Dynamic modulus of Colour the brick was investigated experimentally on a single brick for the
[N/mm2] elasticity [N/mm2] connection situations to the column and the top beam of the RC frame.
In the experimental setup, the U-Profiles are glued on both sides of the
RF 400 0.6 – 1.0 1.2 – 2.0 grey
brick and subjected to the shear load via a load distribution plate. Fig. 7
RF 510 1.1 – 1.7 2.2 – 3.7 beige
RF 570 2.6 – 2.9 5.3 – 6.5 pink shows the test setup for the connection to the columns in which the U-
Profiles are glued to the smooth side surfaces of the bricks. The U-
Profile is installed with an initial space of 7.5 mm between the flange
3.2. Load bearing capacity test on the U-Profile made of elastomeric cellular and the plastic profile to postpone the in-plane activation of the infill.
materials Fig. 8 depicts the test setup for the connection to the top beam with the
U-profiles glued to the perforated sides of the bricks, in which the clay
The U-Profile is subjected to shear and bending forces due to the brick with a thickness of 365 mm protrudes outwards over the column
out-of-plane seismic loading acting on the masonry infill. Therefore, it that has a dimension of 250/250 mm. As in the wall tests, the U-Profiles
is required to design the U-Profile in such a way that these forces can be and bricks are glued together using the single-component glues G1 or
safely transferred to the circumferential plastic profile via the lateral G2.
flanges of the U-Profile. In case of simultaneous in-plane and out-of- For each installation situation, a total of four tests are conducted
plane loading various loading conditions can arise as a result of the without any prestress. Different levels of gapping between the outer
relative in-plane deformation of the RC frame. The decisive loading concrete plates and the flanges of the U-Profiles are investigated to
conditions for the U-Profile occur when the RC frame separates from the cover the decisive load conditions under combined in-plane and out-of-

5
M. Marinković and C. Butenweg
Fig. 5. (a) Test setup with compressed specimen and (b) stress-strain diagrams for monotonic loading.
Fig. 6. (a) Stress-strain diagrams for cyclical loading and (b) corresponding load protocols.
plane loading. Fig. 9 shows, that the gapping is simply realized by
placing wooden plates with sliding surfaces on both sides on top of the
flanges. The introduction of the gaps leads to a reduction of the contact
length between the plastic profile and the flanges of the U-Profile.
Table 4 summarises the load bearing capacities achieved in each
test. In none of the tests a failure of the glued joint or the U-Profile
appeared, as the failure always occurred in the clay bricks before. The
smallest shear force of 3.8 kN is obtained for the connection situation at
the top beam with a maximum gap of 15 mm and a reduced contact
length of 10 mm (Test B3). Assuming a four-sided load transfer of the
out-of-plane loads, this leads to an ultimate out-of-plane surface load of
23.0 kN/m2 for the infilled RC frame with an infill panel area of 7 m2
described in the following sections. This results in a maximum attain-
able acceleration of 11.5 g related to a density of 5.5 kN/m3 for the
applied clay brick. This capacity corresponds to lower limit value, since
the calculation is based on the minimum experimental shear force ob-
tained for a gap of 15 mm. The small specimen tests on the connections
made of elastomeric cellular materials clearly show the potential of the
newly developed connection to ensure a load transfer under combined
in-plane and out-of-plane loading. This is confirmed by almost linear
load-displacement curves up to the maximum load-bearing capacity
that was limited by the brick failure. The load-bearing capacity can
therefore be further increased by using bricks with higher strengths.
Fig. 10 shows an example of the load transfer and deformation of
Table 3
Material characteristics of the plastic profile.
Material Density [g/cm3] Modulus of elasticity E [N/mm2]
Plastic profile (PVC-CAW) 1.44 3300
6
Engineering Structures 197 (2019) 109435
the connection between infill and column for a gap of 10 mm at three
load levels. Although the deformations increase strongly with in-
creasing load levels, they reverse immediately after unloading due to
the hyperelastic behaviour of the elastomeric cellular materials.
3.3. Cyclic tests on infilled frame
The experimental study consists of four cyclic shear wall tests
summarised in Table 5. In test A, a reinforced concrete bare frame is
subjected to in-plane loading (IP) in order to determine the load bearing
capacity without the influence of masonry infill walls. The tests BI and
BIO are carried out on traditionally infilled frames with rigid contact
between the infill panel and the RC frame, as all surrounding gaps were
completely filled with mortar. In the test BI, the frame is subjected to
sequentially applied in-plane and out-of-plane loading (IP - OOP -IP). At
first the load is applied in in-plane direction, then in out-of-plane di-
rection and finally the load is applied again in in-plane direction. In the
test BIO, the in-plane and out-of-plane loading is applied simulta-
neously (OOP + IP). The test DIO is carried out on the infilled RC frame
with the INODIS decoupling system and includes both separate, se-
quential and simultaneous application of the in-plane and out-plane
loading conditions (IP + OOP). A comparison and interpretation of the
experimental results for the various loading and boundary conditions
are performed on the basis of a detailed evaluation of the results.
Yield stress [N/mm2] Strain at yield stress [%]
5.27 4
M. Marinković and C. Butenweg Engineering Structures 197 (2019) 109435

Fig. 7. Test setup for the connection of the U-Profile to the columns.

Fig. 8. Test setup for the connection of the U-Profile to the top beam.

3.3.1. Test setup

Fig. 9. Arrangement of the U-Profile with wooden plate and sliding surfaces.
Fig. 11 shows the test-setup which is especially designed to simulate
combined in-plane and out-of-plane loading by means of hydraulic
cylinders acting in wall direction and airbags applying the loads in out-
of-plane direction. Two hydraulic cylinders, each with a maximum
force of 400 kN, apply the vertical forces to the columns of the RC frame
via a steel load application beam to simulate the loads from higher
storeys. Elastomer plates (l/w/t = 250/250/4 mm) are placed under
the steel load application beam and on top of the columns to transfer
the vertical load from the beam directly into the columns. The in-plane
load is applied with a horizontal cylinder providing a maximum force
of ± 320 kN and a maximum stroke of ± 150 mm. Just like the ver-
tical load, the horizontal force is applied at the top of the frame via the
steel load application beam. The load-bearing beam at the bottom is
rigidly connected to the span field by strong anchors to prevent up-
lifting. The out-of-plane loading is applied by means of four airbags,
which allow the application of surface loads up to 50 kN/m2. Fig. 11b
shows that the airbags are installed on the inside of the infill wall in

Table 4
Load bearing capacities of the U-Profile for different gaps and contact lengths.
Test Connection Gap [mm] Contact length Glue Maximum shear force Ultimate out-of-plane
[mm] V [kN] surface load [kN/m2]

C1 Column 0 30 G1 8.50 51.4

C2 Column 10 20 G1 8.00 48.4
C3 Column 20 10 G1 4.92 29.7
C4 Column 15 15 G1 5.15 31.1
B1 Beam 10 15 G2 4.33 26.2
B2 Beam 0 25 G1 5.57 33.7
B3 Beam 15 10 G1 3.80 23.0
B4 Beam 7.5 17.5 G1 5.40 32.6

7
M. Marinković and C. Butenweg Engineering Structures 197 (2019) 109435

d = 10.5 mm (2.5 kN) d = 22.7 mm (4.5 kN) d = 28.3 mm (5.4 kN)

Fig. 10. Deformation of the U-Profile with a gap of 10 mm (C2) at three different load levels.

Table 5
Test programme with boundary conditions and loading.
A: Bare frame BI: Infilled frame BIO: Infilled frame DIO: Infilled frame with INODIS decoupling system

IP IP - OOP - IP OOP + IP IP + OOP

Fig. 11. (a) View of the test set-up and (b) section A-A (Butenweg et al. [56]).

such a manner that they push the wall from the inside to the outside.
The airbags are placed between the infill panel and a stiff rear wall,
which is connected to the RC frame by threaded rods. The threated rods
are provided with a pretension force of 5 kN to ensure a continuous
contact between the infill and the airbags.
3.3.2. Test specimen
The layout of the RC frame with infill masonry and the integrated
INODIS system is shown in Fig. 12. The RC frame is designed as an
external frame in a representative five-storey building in accordance
with DIN EN 1992-1-1 [59] and DIN EN 1998-1 [44] in ductility class L
for the lowest German earthquake zone. Fig. 12 shows that the

8
M. Marinković and C. Butenweg Engineering Structures 197 (2019) 109435

Fig. 12. RC infilled frame for the DIO test with the INODIS decoupling system.

Fig. 13. Measurement points on the RC frame with infill panel and INODIS system (Butenweg et al. [56]).

monolithic brick with a thickness of 365 mm protrudes over the column
dimensions (250/250 mm) by 115 mm. This corresponds to the real
installation situation, as the requirements for thermal insulation can
only be verified with high thermal insulating bricks of relatively large
wall thicknesses in combination with insulation material to be applied
on the outer faces of the columns and slabs. The tests are carried with
identical reinforced concrete frames to ensure a comparability of the
tests results.
3.3.3. Measurement parameters and measurement points
The measurement points on the RC frame and the infill are shown in
Fig. 13 on the example of the DIO test. The horizontal and vertical
displacements of the RC frame are recorded at the top and bottom of the
frame by the inductive displacement transducers W1 to W9, attached to
the steel measuring frame independently of the test specimen. Fur-
thermore, the out-of-plane displacements are measured on the frame
and in the centre of the wall by the inductive displacement transducers
W11–W15. Additionally, two tension cable potentiometers, S3 and S4,
measure the displacements along the diagonals of the wall. The frame
displacements are measured at the points 1000–1010 and the infill
displacements at the points 2000–2030, both recorded by an in-
dependent optical measurement system, whereby the measurement
point markers are attached to the test specimen. The optical system
works with two cameras to record simultaneously in- and out-of-plane
displacements.
The total load applied in out-of-plane direction is continuously
monitored during the test execution by measuring the forces in the
threaded rods to the rear. The corresponding measurement points at the

9
M. Marinković and C. Butenweg
Fig. 14. Load protocol of the test A.
Fig. 15. Hysteresis curves end envelope curve for the applied in-plane load (A).
top and bottom beam are indicated with the numbers 1–10.
Additionally, the forces and displacements of all hydraulic cylinders are
measured by integrated measuring sensors. The specimen was painted
in white colour for a better monitoring of the crack propagation
(Fig. 12).
3.3.4. Test procedure
At the beginning of the test the force in two vertical hydraulic cy-
linders is raised to 200 kN per cylinder. This vertical load level is
continuously controlled and kept constant during the entire test. The
Fig. 16. (a) Final crack pattern in the frame corner and (b) at the base of the columns.
10
Engineering Structures 197 (2019) 109435
Fig. 17. Load protocol for sequential in- and out-of-plane loading of the test BI.
Fig. 18. Hysteresis curves and envelope curve of the first and second in-plane
loading phase (BI).
horizontal in-plane load is applied as a displacement controlled with a
sinusoidal load function. The duration of each load cycle is 60 s and the
displacements can be gradually increased up to the maximum interstory
drift of 3.5%, related to a total storey height of 2.75 m. The maximum
interstory drift of 3.5% is the limitation of the experimental test set-up.
Three load cycles are carried out at each load level. The out-of-plane
load is controlled through the pressure in the airbags by means of a
pneumatic manually operating system. This system ensures a constant
and uniformly distributed pressure on the infill panel through the air-
bags. The pressure is additionally controlled by force transducers
M. Marinković and C. Butenweg
Fig. 19. Side view of the out-of-plane displacements at the end of the all three
loading phases of the BI test.
mounted on the threaded rods. The out-of-plane load is applied in
several steps, whereby the time sequence varies as the pressure has to
be adjusted by hand when wall displacements occur.
4. Results of the infilled frame tests
4.1. Test A
Test A is performed on the RC bare frame up to the maximum in-
terstory drift of 3.5% by the cyclic sine function as illustrated in Fig. 14.
On each amplitude level, three load cycles are executed.
Fig. 15 shows the resulting hysteresis curves with a maximum
horizontal force of 120 kN at a drift of 2%. Thereafter, the restoring
forces decrease to about 90 kN at the maximum drift of 3.5% in positive
and negative direction. The hysteresis curves are stable and the stiffness
decreases gradually. The behaviour of the RC frame is ductile and the
maximum displacement capacity has not been reached at the maximum
drift of 3.5% limited by the experimental setup.
Fig. 16 shows, that the non-linear behaviour is characterized by
cracking and yielding of the reinforcing steel in the corners and at the
base of the frame.
4.2. Test BI
Fig. 17 shows the loading protocol of the test BI with sequential in-
plane and out-of-plane loading phases. The test starts with the appli-
cation of cyclic in-plane displacements up to an interstory drift of
1.25%, followed by a stepwise out-of-plane loading and unloading up to
an equivalent surface load of 3 kN/m2. Finally, a sinusoidal in-plane
load up to a maximum interstory drift of 2.1% is applied.
Fig. 18 shows the hysteresis curves and the load-displacement en-
velope curve for the first and the second in-plane loading phases.
During the first in-plane loading phase, the infill behaviour is almost
Fig. 20. Damages at the top of the infill: (a) damaged mortar joint on the outer side and (b) splitting of the uppermost bricks on the inner side.
11
Engineering Structures 197 (2019) 109435
linear up to a load of 110 kN at an interstory drift of 0.06%. A reduction
in stiffness occurs in the further cycles due to the propagation of initial
cracks, visible on the inner side of the wall. In the subsequent load
cycles of the first in-plane loading phase the horizontal force increases
up to 225 kN at an interstory drift of 1.25%. Stepped cracks along the
diagonals of the wall and bed joint opening are already apparent at this
load level.
The evaluation of the optical measurement points on the infill de-
monstrates that out-of-plane displacements already started to occur
during the first in-plane loading phase. This effect is a result of the
recurring eccentric loading of the infill masonry wall which protrudes
over the column dimensions by 115 mm (Fig. 12). The eccentricity
causes an alternating rotation which successively leads to increasing
out-of-plane movements. Fig. 19 shows the out-of-plane displacements
for five vertical sections along the height of the wall after completion of
the first in-plane loading phase with displacements between 7.5 and
14 mm at the top of the infill wall. The subsequent out-of-plane load
phase enhances the out-of-plane displacements up to 62 mm at the top
of the wall in the final load cycle with a maximum surface load of 3 kN/
m2. The displacement distributions of both loading phases clearly show
a titling of the wall out of the RC frame.
The reason for the increasing out-of-plane displacements clarifies
the inspection of the upper connection joint between the infill wall and
the RC frame. The joint shows a pre-damage of the mortar caused by the
previous in-plane load cycles and the joint is only partly filled with
mortar (Fig. 20a). The resulting incomplete contact closure prevents the
formation of the necessary arching effect which leads to significantly
higher stresses on the bricks in the reduced contact areas, leading to
local failures caused by cracking and splitting of the bricks on the inner
side of the infill wall (Fig. 20b). The result of the damages is an im-
mediate enhancing of the tilting effect under out-of-plane loading.
In the second in-plane loading phase, the sinusoidal load has been
applied up to an interstory drift of 2.1% and a corresponding horizontal
force of 180 kN is activated. The maximum horizontal force in the po-
sitive load direction is 240 kN at an interstory drift of 1.5%. The da-
mage pattern on the outer side of the wall exhibits stepped cracks along
the bed and head joints (Fig. 21a) as well as failures of the masonry
brick outer shells on the inner side of the wall, concentrated in the
upper part of the wall (Fig. 21b). The test was aborted due to the ra-
pidly increasing out-of-plane displacements at the top of the infill wall
(Fig. 19).
4.3. Test BIO
In the test BIO, combined in-plane and out-of-plane loads are ap-
plied (Fig. 22). The test starts with the application of an out-of-plane
surface load of 5 kN/m2. This load is kept constant during the test ex-
ecution, only in the last cycle the load is reduced to 2.5 kN/m2 to avoid
a sudden collapse of the infill panel in out-of-plane direction.
M. Marinković and C. Butenweg
Fig. 21. (a) Damage of the outer side of the wall and (b) inner side of the wall at the end of the test.
Fig. 22. Load protocol for the combined in- and out-of-plane loading of the test
BIO.
Fig. 23. Hysteresis curves and envelope curve for combined in-plane and out-
of-plane load (BIO).
Simultaneously an increasing sinusoidal in-plane loading up to a max-
imum interstory drift of 1.0% is applied.
Fig. 23 depicts the resulting hysteresis curves with a maximum
horizontal force of 225 kN at an interstory drift of 0.65%. The hor-
izontal forces decrease severely during the following load cycles and a
progressive tilting movement of the infill panel takes part. The tilting
movement (Fig. 24a) is initiated by a combined friction and brick
failure in the contact areas between the top and bottom beams of the
frame and the infill panel. During the in-plane load cycles, continuous
manual adjustments of the pressure in the airbags are necessary due to
the substantial out-of-plane movement of the wall. Following in-plane
cycles lead to the further damage and increasing out-of-plane dis-
placements. Finally, the test was aborted to avoid a complete out-of-
12
Engineering Structures 197 (2019) 109435
plane collapse of the infill.
Fig. 24b illustrates the increase of the out-of-plane displacements
throughout the in-plane load cycles with a side view for a vertical
section in the centre of the wall along the height. If the interstory drifts
are small, the deformed shape of the infill corresponds to the bending
line of a single span beam with formation of a stable arching effect in
vertical direction. With increasing in-plane drifts, the arching effect is
substantially decreased due to the loss of the support conditions and the
infill reacts with sudden and rapid increase of out-of-plane displace-
ments. The bending line now corresponds to a tilting movement of the
infill superimposed with a rigid body movement caused by the loss of
the support condition at the base of the wall as well. The test was
aborted as the wall deformations uncontrollably increased. The ob-
served unfavourable interaction of combined in-plane and out-of-plane
loading due to gapping effects between the masonry infill and the RC
frame confirmed the expectation of Paulay and Priestley [60] that a
substantial reduction of the out-of-plane capacity will take part due to
unstable and changing boundary conditions.
Fig. 25a shows the final damage pattern on the outer side of the
infill wall characterised by joint openings and highly pronounced out-
of-plane displacements. Fig. 25b shows the corresponding damage
pattern on the inner side with the concentrated failures of the outer
shells of the bricks along the upper joint and clearly visible out-of-plane
displacements in a large area of the infill panel.
4.4. Test DIO
In the test DIO, in-plane and out-of-plane loads are applied ac-
cording to the loading protocol shown in Fig. 26. The loading protocol
can be divided into the five phases as described in Table 6.
The hysteresis curves and the envelope of the cyclic load-displace-
ment curve of the first loading phase are shown in Fig. 27. The hys-
teresis curves are stable and no damage occurs in the infill panel up to
an interstory drift of 1.25%. In addition, the envelope of the cyclic load-
displacement curve of the bare frame (Test A) and the contribution
curve of the infill pane determined as the difference of the two envel-
opes are included. The curve of the infill contribution clarifies a low
activation of the infill wall up to a drift level of 1.25%, with a relatively
small shear force of 20.6 kN.
In the second loading phase, a uniformly distributed out-of-plane
load of 5 kN/m2 is applied via the airbags. The resulting out-of-plane
displacements for five vertical sections along the height of the wall after
completion of the first loading phase are shown in Fig. 28. The max-
imum displacements occur at the top of the wall due to the lower
stiffness of the U-Profile in comparison to the stiffness of the three strips
made of RF 570 at the bottom of the wall (Table 2). The result of the
wall inspection was that neither the infill wall nor the connections
M. Marinković and C. Butenweg Engineering Structures 197 (2019) 109435

Fig. 24. (a) Deformation of the wall at the end of the test and (b) side view of the out-of-plane displacements for combined loading for the vertical section in the
centre of the wall along the height.

Fig. 25. (a) Damage of the outer side of the wall and (b) inner side of the wall at the end of the test.

Fig. 26. Loading protocol for the in-plane drift and out-of-plane pressure applied in the test DIO.

13
M. Marinković and C. Butenweg Engineering Structures 197 (2019) 109435

Table 6
Load phases of the loading protocol for the test DIO.
Phase 1 IP: Increasing in-plane sinusoidal load up to a maximum interstory drift of 1.25%.
Phase 2 OOP: Application of an out-of-plane load of 5 kN/m2.
Phase 3 IP + OOP: Increasing sinusoidal in-plane loading up to a maximum interstory drift of 1.0% combined with constant out-of-plane loading of 1.5 kN/m2.
Phase 4 IP + OOP: Increasing in-plane sinusoidal loading up to a maximum interstory drift of 1.8% and out-of-plane loading varying from 2.5 to 5.0 kN/m2.
Phase 5 IP + OOP: Increasing in-plane sinusoidal in-plane loading starting with increasing interstory drifts from 1.0% to 3.25%. The out-of-plane loading starts at an initial load
of 6.25 kN/m2 and is then reduced to 1.5 kN/m2 and kept constant.

Fig. 27. Hysteresis curves and envelope curve of the first loading phase (DIO), Fig. 30. Hysteresis curves for the first and third loading phase (Test DIO).
envelope curve of the bare frame (A) and contribution of the infill panel.

Fig. 31. Hysteresis curves and envelope curve of the fourth loading phase
Fig. 28. Side view of the out-of-plane displacements of the wall in the second (DIO), envelope curve of the bare frame (A) and contribution of the infill panel.
loading phase at the maximum out-of-plane surface load of 5 kN/m2.

Fig. 29. Side view of the out-of-plane displacements of the wall at the end of
the second loading phase after relieve of the out-of-plane surface load of 5 kN/
m2.
made of elastomeric cellular materials showed any damage under the
applied out-of-plane loading.
Fig. 29 shows that the wall returns to the initial position after the
system has been relieved and only minor deformations remain, which
lie within the tolerance range of the fitting inaccuracies of the con-
necting U-Profile. The reason for this favourable behaviour is the
Fig. 32. Out-of-plane displacements for the vertical section at the centre of the
wall along the wall height for interstory drifts from 0.5% to 1.8%.
hyperelastic material behaviour of the surrounding connections made
of elastomeric cellular materials.
In the third loading phase an increasing sinusoidal in-plane loading
up to a maximum interstory drift of 1.0% combined with constant out-
of-plane loading of 1.5 kN/m2 is applied. The resulting hysteresis curves
for the first and third loading phase in Fig. 30 shows similar resulting
hysteresis curves for the two phases without a strong influence of the

14
M. Marinković and C. Butenweg
Fig. 33. Top view of the out-of-plane displacements for the horizontal section
at half wall height for interstory drifts from 0.5% to 1.8%
Fig. 34. Damage of the infill in the fourth loading phase at an interstory drift of
1.8%
Fig. 35. Deformation of the frame with the compressed diagonal, detachment
and detected cracks.
simultaneous out-of-plane loading. The third loading phase was also
completed without any visible damages of the infill wall and connec-
tions made of elastomeric cellular materials.
The fourth loading phase includes an increasing sinusoidal in-plane
loading up to a maximum interstory drift of 1.8% in combination with
an out-of-plane loading varying from 2.5 to 5.0 kN/m2. The resulting
hysteresis curves and the load-displacement envelope curve are pre-
sented in Fig. 31. In addition, the load-displacement envelope curve of
15
Engineering Structures 197 (2019) 109435
the bare frame (Test A) and the load contribution curve of the infill wall
calculated as the difference of the two envelope curves are shown. The
contribution curve shows again a relatively small shear force of 30.7 kN
at an interstory drift of 1.5%. This confirms that the infill wall is only
activated to a small extent even under combined loading conditions at
large interstory drifts.
The resulting out-of-plane displacements are shown in Fig. 32 for
the vertical section at the centre of the wall along the wall height for
interstory drifts from 0.5% to 1.8%, with simultaneously applied out-of-
plane load. In addition, Fig. 33 depicts the top view of the out-of-plane
displacements for the horizontal section at half wall height. The out-of-
plane displacement curves in both diagrams show up to an interstory
drift of 1.5% a rigid body movement of the wall with small displace-
ments arising in the circumferential connection made of elastomeric
cellular materials. A further increase of the interstory drift up to 1.8%
results is a growth of the out-of-plane displacements due to the for-
mation of cracks in the wall. After complete unloading, a part of the
displacements caused by the crack formation remains in the wall, but
the deformations in the elastomeric cellular materials with hyperelastic
behaviour are largely reversible.
The reason for the rapidly increasing out-of-plane displacements at
an interstory drift of 1.8% is caused by the crack propagations along the
bed joints, opening of head and bed joints and tension failure in the clay
bricks. Fig. 34 shows the damage pattern with two main cracks which
appeared during the movement of the RC frame towards the right. The
first crack propagates in horizontal direction along the bed joint above
the third row of bricks from the bottom and shows bed joint opening
and closing effects during the cyclic loading. The second crack propa-
gates in vertical direction along the third row of bricks from the right
through the dry head joints and some bricks with tension failure.
Fig. 35 illustrates the deformation of the RC frame towards the
right, the resulting detachments areas between the infill wall and the
RC frame at the opposite corners and the formation of the diagonal
compression strut. Fig. 36a shows the detachment areas on the example
of the gap formation in the corner of the frame, while Fig. 36b shows
the uplift at the base of the wall at an interstory drift of 1.8%. The gap
formation in the unloaded corners of the frame (Fig. 35), which was
measured continuously during of the test using LVDTs (Fig. 13), re-
sulted in maximum values of 17 mm in top corners and 6 mm in lower
column sections, while the uplift at the bottom reached maximum value
of 10 mm. The crack formation starts with the horizontal crack caused
by the loss of the boundary conditions in the lower left corner of the
frame, which increases the bending stresses until the flexural strength
parallel to the bed joints is reached. In the next load cycle towards the
right, the vertical crack appears in the upper right corner due to the
detachment between the infill wall and the RC frame. This results in an
exceedance of the flexural strength perpendicular to the bed joints and
to the formation of the crack. The horizontal and the vertical cracks are
not running over the wall length respectively height, as the lower right
corner is part of the compression strut and compressed during the
movement towards the right. A complete movement of the infill wall
out of the RC frame does not take part due to the circumferential
support provided by the elastomeric cellular materials. In spite of the
crack formation, the wall stays firmly in the frame.
The fifth loading phase starts with an initial out-of-plane loading of
6.25 kN/m2 and is then reduced and kept constant with of 1.5 kN/m2.
At the same time, an in-plane sinusoidal loading with increasing in-
terstory drifts from 1.0% to 3.25% is applied. Fig. 37 shows the final
damage pattern of the infill wall after the fifth load phase and un-
loading.
Fig. 38 shows the hysteresis curves and envelope curve for the fifth
loading phase up to the maximum interstory drift of 3.25% in com-
parison to the load-displacement envelope curve of the bare frame (Test
M. Marinković and C. Butenweg Engineering Structures 197 (2019) 109435

Fig. 36. (a) Gap formation in the corner of the frame und (b) Uplift at the base of the wall.

Fig. 39. Comparison of the hysteresis curves for the first loading phase in the
tests BI and DIO.

Fig. 37. Damage distribution of the infilled RC frame after completion of the
fifth loading phase.

Fig. 40. Envelope curves of the tests A, BI and DIO and contribution curves for
the tests BI and DIO for interstory drifts up to 1.25%

Fig. 38. Hysteresis curves and envelope curve of the fifth loading phase (DIO)
and envelope curve of the bare frame test (A).

A). The comparison of the two envelopes shows once again that even in
the range of larger interstory drifts, the load-bearing contribution of the
infill remains relatively small. At the end of the fifth loading phase, the
contribution of the infill wall is only 30 kN in positive and 34 kN in
negative loading direction. It is obvious, that the envelope curves of the
infilled RC frame and the bare frame are close to each other. Further-
more, the hysteresis curves are characterized by stable and continuous
energy dissipation under the cyclic loading and unloading of the cir-
cumferential U-Profile. The crack formation processes in the wall are
not visible in the hysteresis curves due to the effective decoupling by
Fig. 41. Hysteresis curves for test BIO and the third, fourth and fifth loading
means of the connection made of elastomeric cellular materials. phases of the test DIO.

16
M. Marinković and C. Butenweg
Fig. 42. Envelopes for the tests A, BIO and for the third, fourth and fifth loading
phases of the DIO test together with contribution curves for the tests BIO and
DIO.
Fig. 43. Load-displacement curves of the out-of-plane displacements at the
centre of the wall for the second loading phase of the BI and DIO test.
Fig. 44. Side view of the out-of-plane displacements at the maximum surface
loads in the second loading phase of the BI and DIO test.
5. Comparison of infills with and without installation of the
INODIS system
5.1. Behaviour under pure in-plane loading
The behaviour under in-plane loading is compared for the first
loading phases in the tests BI and DIO. The hysteresis curves in Fig. 39
show that the infill wall with the INODIS system exhibits a much lower
stiffness, which leads to a significantly lower shear force of 130 kN in
comparison to 225 kN for the traditionally infilled frame at the max-
imum drift of 1.25%. Further important differences can be derived by
analysing more detailed the hysteresis curves: The hysteresis curves of
the traditional system are pinched with decreasing stiffness in each
cycle, while the innovative system provides stable wide loops and
17
Engineering Structures 197 (2019) 109435
Fig. 45. Load-displacement curves of the out-of-plane displacements at the
centre of the wall for the test BIO and third and fourth loading phase of the test
DIO.
Fig. 46. Side view of the out-of-plane displacements for 5 kN/m2 out-of-plane
surface load and interstory drifts of 1.0% (BIO) and 1.8% (DIO).
Fig. 47. Initial stiffness of the test specimens A, BI, BIO, DIO.
energy dissipation with an almost constant stiffness in all cycles.
Fig. 40 shows the load-displacement envelope curves of the hys-
teresis curves of the tests A, BI and DIO together with the contribution
curves for the tests BI and DIO. The comparison of the envelope curves
shows clearly the effectiveness of the installed decoupling system. The
total maximum shear force is reduced from 225 kN to 130 kN and the
contribution of the infill is substantially decreased from 115 kN to
20 kN at the maximum drift 1.25%. This confirms that the activation of
the infill is shifted to higher drift levels since the circumferential de-
coupling system absorbs the imposed deformation of the RC frame.
5.2. In-plane behaviour under combined in-plane and out-of-plane loading
The advantage of the proposed decoupling system illustrates Fig. 41
through the comparison of the hysteresis curves under combined in-
M. Marinković and C. Butenweg
Fig. 48. Change of the lateral stiffness for the specimens A, BI, BIO, DIO as a
function of the drift.
plane and out-of-plane loading for the test BIO and the third, fourth and
fifth loading phases of the test DIO. The comparison clarifies that the
maximum displacement capacity is already reached at a drift of 1.0%,
since the load-transferring infill exhibits a brittle behaviour, which is
characterized by extremely pinched hysteresis curves with decreasing
stiffness. In contrast to this, the system DIO with the integrated system
INODIS achieves a maximum interstory drift of 3.25% with wide hys-
teresis curves and a moderate loss of stiffness in the range of higher
interstory drifts.
The comparison of the envelope curves of the tests A, BIO, and DIO
in Fig. 42 illustrates the advantages of the proposed decoupling system
more precisely. The curves show that the envelopes of the tests A and
DIO are very close to each other and that the infill wall is only slightly
activated due to the circumferentially placed U-Profile. Furthermore,
the contribution curve of the system DIO shows that the participation of
the infill wall to the load transfer starts delayed at an interstory drift of
0.6%. At this drift, the traditional infill in the test BIO has almost
reached its maximum load.
5.3. Out-of-plane behaviour during the out-of-plane loading phase
Fig. 43 shows the load-displacement curves in the centre of the wall
for the out-of-plane loading in the second loading phase of the BI and
DIO test. It is important to point out that for both traditional infill (BI)
and infill with INODIS system (DIO), the out-of-plane load was applied
as a second loading phase after the first phase of in-plane loading
reaching 1.25% of drift. The out-of-plane load in the test BI was applied
in eight increasing cycles and in the DIO in one cycle. The ultimate out-
of-plane load of 3 kN/m2 was reached in the test BI in the eighth cycle,
Fig. 49. Equivalent viscous damping up to 1.25% drift (a) for the specimens A, BI and DIO and (b) for the specimens BIO and DIO subjected to in- and out-of plane
loading.
18
Engineering Structures 197 (2019) 109435
while in the test DIO the ultimate load was not reached under the out-
of-plane load of 5 kN/m2.
Another significant difference is the resulting out-of-plane dis-
placements which are more than five times greater in case of the tra-
ditional infill. Fig. 44 shows the out-of-plane displacements for five
vertical sections along the height at the maximum surface loads (BI:
3 kN/m2, DIO: 5 kN/m2) of the second loading phases in the tests BI and
DIO. The diagram shows clearly the tilting movement of the traditional
infill with out-of-plane displacements up to 100 mm at the top of the
wall, while the displacements in the test DIO are still negligible.
5.4. Out-of-plane behaviour under combined in-plane and out-of-plane
loading
Fig. 45 shows the load-displacement curves for the test BIO and the
third and fourth loading phases of the test DIO for combined in-plane
and out-of-plane loading. In the test BIO, a constant out-of-plane load of
5 kN/m2 in combination with an increasing sinusoidal in-plane load up
to an interstory drift of 1.0% is applied. In the test DIO, the out-of-plane
load varies between 2.5 and 5.0 kN/m2, whereby the maximum in-
terstory drift is 1.8%. The comparison of the results shows that the
displacements in the test DIO are five times smaller. Furthermore, the
load-displacement curve of the test BIO shows a rapidly decreasing
load-bearing capacity, since the wall moves out of the RC frame, while
the system DIO can transfer the surface load under combined loading
without any crack formation up to this point.
Fig. 46 shows the side view of the displacements of both tests for an
out-of-plane load of 5 kN/m2 and interstory drifts of 1.0% (BIO) and
1.8% (DIO). The deformation shape of the traditional infill corresponds
to a rigid body movement superposed with a tilting effect and leads to
displacements up to 120 mm at the top of the wall. In contrast, the
displacements in the test DIO are significantly smaller and no out-of-
plane movement of the wall takes place, although the applied interstory
drift is greater by a factor of 1.8.
5.5. Initial stiffnesses of the investigated systems
Fig. 47 shows the initial stiffness of the test specimens A, BI, BIO,
and DIO. The stiffnesses of the test specimens A and DIO are very close
to each other, since the infill is not initially activated due to the in-
stalled decoupling system. The initial stiffnesses of the traditional in-
filled frames are much higher, as the infill wall fully participates to the
shear transfer. The difference in the stiffness between the specimens BI
and BIO results from the out-of-plane loading, which generates a
membrane state of stress that leads to a stiffening effect of the infill
wall.
Fig. 48 shows the change of stiffness with increasing interstory
M. Marinković and C. Butenweg
Table 7
Damage distribution, in-plane forces, drifts and out-of-plane displacements of the tests BIO and DIO.
Test First visible cracks Maximum in-plane load
FIP = 92.0 kN IP Drift = 0.05% FIP = 225 kN
BIO
FIP = 145.0 kN IP Drift = 1.8% FIP = 150 kN
DIO
drifts. While the stiffnesses of the bare frame A and the infilled RC
frame DIO with the INODIS system decrease slowly, the stiffness of the
traditional infill drops rapidly down with increasing interstory drifts.
In order to characterise the damping behaviour of the tested infilled
frames, the equivalent viscous damping ξeq ratio was calculated for each
load cycle with the following equation:
Ediss
eq = imum displacement corresponds to a drift of 3.25%. The damage pat-
+
2 (Esto + Esto)
where Ediss is the dissipated energy calculated as the sum of the area
enclosed by the hysteretic loop of each cycle and Esto
+
, Esto are the stored
energies of each cycle, in which signs + and − indicate the positive
and negative elastic branch, respectively. The equivalent viscous
damping is calculated as the average of the three load cycles applied on
each displacement level. Fig. 49a shows the equivalent viscous damping
for pure in-plane loading during the first phases of the DIO, BI and A
test up to a drift of 1.25%. The DIO specimen shows a 30% higher
damping in comparison to the BI specimen at 1% of drift, although the
DIO infill panel didn’t experience any damage in contrast to the cracked
BI specimen. This can be explained by the positive effect of the elas-
tomeric cellular material, which also lead to an almost two times higher
damping in comparison to the bare frame. The comparison of the
equivalent viscous damping (Fig. 49b) for simultaneously applied in-
plane and out-of-plane loading confirms once again the beneficial effect
of the INODIS system on the damping behaviour. The equivalent
damping functions shown in Fig. 49 starts at a drift of 0.1%, since the
rather low damping values at very small drifts are not of interest.
5.6. Interpretation and discussion of the results
The experimental results are summarized in Table 7 for the ex-
perimental tests BIO and DIO. For each of the tests the damage dis-
tribution, the in-plane forces, the drifts and the out-of-plane displace-
ments for five vertical sections along the height at the initiation of first
visible cracks, the maximum load and maximum displacement are
presented.
In the test BIO first stepped cracks along the diagonals and in the
corner areas already appear at an in-plane drift of 0.05%, the maximum
load of 225 kN is reached at 0.65% drift and the maximum displace-
ment corresponds to a drift of 1%. During the increase of the in-plane
drift the crack pattern expands by joint openings, tension failures of
bricks and failures of the connecting bricks in contact to the RC frame.
It can also be clearly seen that the masonry infill moves more and more
out of the frame and performs a tilting movement. It can be
Engineering Structures 197 (2019) 109435
Maximum in-plane displacement
IP Drift = 0.65% FIP = 96 kN IP Drift = 1.00%
IP Drift= 1.8% FIP = 135 kN IP Drift = 3.25%
summarized, that the behaviour of the traditional infilled RC frame BIO
under combined loading conditions is neither controllable nor pre-
dictable. Thus, the use of traditional systems in earthquake prone re-
gions is critical.
In the test DIO first visible cracks arise at an in-plane drift of 1.8%,
which is about two times the maximum drift of the traditional system.
The maximum load of 150 kN is reached at 1.8% drift and the max-
(1)
tern of the infill is less pronounced and characterized by few cracks. A
movement of the infill wall out of the frame does not take part due to
the support provided by the circumferential U-Profile. In summary, the
behaviour of the test specimen DIO with the INODIS system shows a
high in-plane displacement capability and is able to fulfil all require-
ments at damage limitation and ultimate limit state according to
Eurocode 8 [61].
6. Summary
The article presents the newly developed system INODIS
(Innovative Decoupled Infill System) for a simple and effective decou-
pling of infill masonry in RC frames. The system was developed within
the framework of the collaborative European research project
INSYSME. The basic concept of the new system is the arrangement of
the elastomeric cellular materials with hyperelastic behaviour with a U-
shaped cross section along the columns and the top beam, which are
glued to the outer bricks and moved onto plastic profiles that are con-
nected to the RC frames by nailing or screwing. The effectiveness of the
system is illustrated by means of a comparison of traditional and de-
coupled infilled RC frames under separate and combined loading con-
ditions. The wall tests are conducted using a special test setup which
allows at the same time the application of vertical and horizontal loads
to the RC frame via hydraulic actuators and out-of-plane surface loads
in the infill wall via airbags.
The detailed comparison of the tests results of traditional and de-
coupled infilled RC frames shows that the seismic behaviour of infilled
reinforced concrete frames can be significantly improved by the in-
stallation of the system INODIS. The system delays the in-plane acti-
vation of the infill, reduces the stresses and the damage in the infill
walls and allows large interstory drifts of more than 3%. Furthermore,
sequential and combined in-plane and out-of-plane loads can be safely
transferred by the U-Profile connection. Further advantages of the
system are the prevention of stress concentrations in the contact areas
to the frame, the higher energy dissipation due to the viscoelastic
19
M. Marinković and C. Butenweg
behaviour of the elastomeric cellular materials and the universal ap-
plicability on different types of bricks. The system also simplifies the
design process for the RC frame since unfavourable interactions that
causes damage do not need to be taken into account any more.
The next steps for the further development of the system are the
derivation of a practical design concept, the application of different
types of glues and their durability, the optimization of material con-
sumption, the improvement of the construction process as well as the
investigations of sound isolation and fire protection aspects.
Furthermore, it is planned to investigate the effectiveness of the pro-
posed solution in case of openings and to study the behaviour under
real dynamic loading conditions by shaking table tests. Finally, it will
be necessary to check and improve the economic feasibility of the so-
lution through the use of alternative and sustainable decoupling ma-
terials.
Acknowledgement
The authors gratefully acknowledge the financial support from the
“Arbeitsgemeinschaft Mauerziegel im Bundesverband der Deutschen
Ziegelindustrie e.V” and express their special thanks to Dr. Udo Meyer
for his valuable suggestions and support during the execution of the
European project INSYSME. Furthermore, we would like to thank Prof.
Ekkehard Fehling, Dr. Thomas Hahn and M.Sc. Thomas Pfetzing from
Kassel University for the execution of the experimental tests, discus-
sions and excellent cooperation.
Appendix A. Supplementary material
Supplementary data to this article can be found online at https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2019.109435.
References
[1] Dazio A, Beyer K, Braune F, Fritsche S, Mittaz X. Das Mw= 6.3 Erdbeben von
L’Aquila am 6. April 2009 – Bericht der SGEB-Erkundungsmission, 15-18. April
2009 (No. EPFL-REPORT-147524).
[2] Mehrabi AB, Benson Shing P, Schuller MP, Noland JL. Experimental evaluation of
masonry-infilled RC frames. J Struct Eng 1996;122(3):228–37.
[3] Al-Chaar G, Issa M, Sweeney S. Behavior of masonry-infilled nonductile reinforced
concrete frames. J Struct Eng 2002;128(8):1055–63.
[4] Stylianidis KC. Experimental investigation of masonry infilled RC frames. Open
Construct Build Technol J 2012;6(1):194–212.
[5] Hak S, Morandi P, Magenes G. Prediction of inter-storey drifts for regular RC
structures with masonry infills based on bare frame modelling. Bull Earthq Eng
2017;16(1):397–425.
[6] Morandi P, Hak S, Magenes G. Performance-based interpretation of in-plane cyclic
tests on RC frames with strong masonry infills. Eng Struct 2018;156:503–21.
[7] McDowell EL, McKee KE, Sevin E. Arching action theory of masonry walls. J Struct
Div 1956;82(ST2). 915/1–915/18.
[8] Dawe JL, Seah CK. Out-of-plane resistance of concrete masonry infilled panels. Can
J Civ Eng 1989;16(6):854–64.
[9] Angel R, Abrams D, Shapiro D, Uzarski J, Webster M. Behavior of Reinforced
Concrete Frames with Masonry Infills. Civil Engrg. Studies 1994; Structural
Research Series No. 589, UILU-ENG-94-2005, Dept. of Civil Engineering, University
of Illinois at Urbana Champaign.
[10] Vougioukas E. Out-of-plane response of infill masonry walls. Open Construct Build
Technol J 2012;6(Suppl 1–M20):325–33.
[11] Asteris PG, Cavaleri L, Di Trapani F, Tsaris AK. Numerical modelling of out-of-plane
response of infilled frames: State of the art and future challenges for the equivalent
strut macromodels. Eng Struct 2017;132:110–22.
[12] Walsh KQ, Dizhur DY, Giongo I, Derakhshan H, Ingham JM. Effect of boundary
conditions and other factors on URM wall out-of-plane behaviour: design demands,
predicted capacity, and in situ proof test results. SESOC J 2017;30(1):57.
[13] Flanagan RD, Bennett RM. Bidirectional behavior of structural clay tile infilled
frames. J Struct Eng 1999;125(3):236–44.
[14] Kadysiewski S, Mosalam KM. Modeling of Unreinforced Masonry Infill Walls
Considering In-Plane and Out-of-Plane Interaction, Pacific Earthquake Engineering
Research Center 2009; PEER Report 2008/102, University of California, Berkley.
[15] Furtado A, Rodrigues H, Arêde A. Modelling of masonry infill walls participation in
the seismic behaviour of RC buildings using OpenSees. Int J Adv Struct Eng (IJASE)
2015;7(2):117–27.
[16] Yuen TY, Kuang JS, Ali BSM. Assessing the effect of bi-directional loading on
nonlinear static and dynamic behaviour of masonry-infilled frames with openings.
Bull Earthq Eng 2016;14(6):1721–55.
20
Engineering Structures 197 (2019) 109435
[17] Calvi GM, Bolognini D. Seismic response of reinforced concrete frames infilled with
weakly reinforced masonry panels. J Earthquake Eng 2001;5:153–85.
[18] Calvi GM, Bolognini D, Penna A. Seismic performance of masonry-infilled RC
frames: Benefits of slight reinforcements, Sísmica - 6o Congresso Nacional de
Sismologia e Engenharia Sísmica, 2004, Lisboa.
[19] Pereira MP, Pereira MN, Ferreira JD, Lourenço P. Behavior of damaged masonry
infill panels in RC frames subjected to out of plane loads. Archit Civil Eng Environ
2012;5(3):83–98.
[20] da Porto F, Guidi G, Dalla Benetta M, Verlato N. Combined in-plane/out-of-plane
experimental behaviour of reinforced and strengthened infill masonry walls. .
Proceedings of the 12th Canadian Masonry Symposium. British Columbia:
Vancouver; 2013.
[21] Furtado A, Rodrigues H, Arêde A, Varum H. Experimental evaluation of out-of-
plane capacity of masonry infill walls. Eng Struct 2016;111:48–63.
[22] Ricci P, Di Domenico M, Verderame GM. Experimental assessment of the in-plane/
out-of-plane interaction in unreinforced masonry infill walls. Eng Struct
2018;173:960–78.
[23] Blasi G, De Luca F, Aiello MA. Brittle failure in RC masonry infilled frames: the role
of infill overstrength. Eng Struct 2018;177:506–18.
[24] 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.
[25] Milanesi RR, Morandi P, Magenes G. Local effects on RC frames induced by AAC
masonry infills through FEM simulation of in-plane tests. Bull Earthq Eng
2018:1–28.
[26] Braga F, Manfredi V, Masi A, Salvatori A, Vona M. Performance of non-structural
elements in RC buildings during the L’Aquila, 2009 earthquake. Bull Earthq Eng
2011;9(1):307–24.
[27] Silva L, Vasconcelos G, Lourenço P, Akhoundi F. Experimental evaluation of a
constructive system for earthquake resisting masonry enclosure walls.
In Proceedings of the 16th International Brick and Block Masonry Conference
(IBMAC 2016), 2016, Padova, Italy.
[28] Vintzileou E, Adami CE, Palieraki V. In-plane and out-of-plane response of a ma-
sonry infill divided into smaller wallettes. In Proceedings of the 16th International
Brick and Block Masonry Conference (IBMAC 2016), 2016, Padova, Italy.
[29] Valluzzi MR, Da Porto F, Garbin E, Panizza M. Out-of-plane behaviour of infill
masonry panels strengthened with composite materials. Mater Struct
2014;47(12):2131–45.
[30] da Porto F, Guidi G, Verlato N, Modena C. Effectiveness of plasters and textile re-
inforced mortars for strengthening clay masonry infill walls subjected to combined
in-plane/out-of-plane actions/Wirksamkeit von Putz und textilbewehrtem Mörtel
bei der Verstärkung von Ausfachungswänden aus Ziegelmauerwerk, die kombi-
nierter Scheiben-und Plattenbeanspruchung ausgesetzt sind. Mauerwerk
2015;19(5):334–54.
[31] Akhoundi F, Vasconcelos G, Lourenço P, Silva LM, Cunha F, Fangueiro R. In-plane
behavior of cavity masonry infills and strengthening with textile reinforced mortar.
Eng Struct 2018;156:145–60.
[32] El-Dakhakhni WW. Experimental and analytical seismic evaluation of concrete
masonry-infilled steel frames retrofitted using GFRP laminates. Ph.D. thesis.
Philadelphia: Drexel Univ; 2002.
[33] Ozkaynak H, Yuksel E, Yalcin C, Dindar AA, Buyukozturk O. Masonry infill walls in
reinforced concrete frames as a source of structural damping. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn
2014;43(7):949–68.
[34] Mohammadi M, Akrami V. An engineered infilled frame: behavior and calibration. J
Constr Steel Res 2010;66(6):842–9.
[35] Mohammadi M, Akrami V, Mohammadi-Ghazi R. Methods to improve infilled frame
ductility. J Struct Eng 2011;137(6):646–53.
[36] Preti M, Bettini N, Plizzari G. Infill walls with sliding joints to limit infill-frame
seismic interaction: large-scale experimental test. J Earthquake Eng
2016;16(1):125–41.
[37] Preti M, Migliorati L, Giuriani E. Experimental testing of engineered masonry infill
walls for post-earthquake structural damage control. Bull Earthq Eng
2015;13(7):2029–49.
[38] Verlato N, Guidi G, da Porto F, Modena C. Innovative systems for masonry infill
walls based on the use of deformable joints: combined in-plane/out-of-plane tests.
In Proceedings of the 16th International Brick and Block Masonry Conference,
2016, Padova, Italy.
[39] Morandi P, Milanesi RR, Magenes G. Innovative solution for seismic-resistant ma-
sonry infills with sliding joints: in-plane experimental performance. Eng Struct
2018;176:719–33.
[40] Preti M, Bolis V. Masonry infill construction and retrofit technique for the infill-
frame interaction mitigation: test results. Eng Struct 2017;132:597–608.
[41] Aliaari M, Memari AM. Analysis of masonry infilled steel frames with seismic iso-
lator subframes. Eng Struct 2005;27:487–500.
[42] Tsantilis AV, Triantafillou TC. Innovative seismic isolation of masonry infills using
cellular materials at the interface with the surrounding RC frames. Eng Struct
2018;155:279–97.
[43] Tsantilis AV, Triantafillou TC. Innovative seismic isolation of masonry infills in steel
frames using cellular materials at the frame-infill interface. J Earthquake Eng
2018:1–18.
[44] Kuang JS, Wang Z. Cyclic load tests of RC frame with column-isolated masonry
infills. In of the 2nd European Conference on Earthquake Engineering and
Seismology, 2014, Istanbul, Turkey.
[45] DIN EN 1998-1: Eurocode 8: Auslegung von Bauwerken gegen Erdbeben – Teil 1:
Grundlagen, Erdbebeneinwirkungen und Regeln für Hochbauten; Deutsche Fassung
EN 1998-1:2004 + AC:2009, Dezember 2010.
M. Marinković and C. Butenweg
[46] Ricci P, De Luca F, Verderame GM. 6th April 2009 L’Aquila earthquake, Italy: re-
inforced concrete building performance. Bull Earthq Eng 2011;9(1):285–305.
[47] Manfredi G, Prota A, Verderame GM, De Luca F, Ricci P. 2012 Emilia earthquake,
Italy: reinforced concrete buildings response. Bull Earthq Eng 2014;12(5):2275–98.
[48] INSYSME Project. Retrieved from http://www.insysme.eu/, 2017.
[49] Patent No. 17156977.5: Erdbebensicherer Anschluss eines Ausfachungsmauerwerks
and eine Rahmenstruktur, 20.09.2018.
[50] Bellenberg: MZ 70: Optimum für enrgieeffizientes Bauen, Ziegelwerk Bellenberg,
http://www.ziegelwerk-bellenberg.de, 10.01.2019.
[51] DIN EN 772, Teile 1-21: Prüfverfahren für Mauersteine, Deutsche Fassungen EN
772, Teil 1 – Mai 2016.
[52] DIN EN 1015, Teile 3, 7, 11, Prüfverfahren für Mörtel für Mauerwerk, Deutsche
Fassungen EN 772, Teil 3 – Mai 2007.
[53] DIN EN 1052, Teile 1, 2, 3, 5: Prüfverfahren für Mauerwerk, Deutsche Fassung EN
1052-2, Teil 1 – Dezember 1998.
[54] Fehling E, Ismail M, Meyer U, Samaan S. Flexural strength of vertically perforated
thermal insulating clay unit masonry. Proceedings of the 16th International Brick
and Block Masonry Conference, 2016, Padova, Italy.
[55] Fehling E, Ismail M, Samaan S, Meyer U. Flexural tensile tests with vertically
21
Engineering Structures 197 (2019) 109435
perforated clay unit masonry with thin layer mortar/Biegezugversuche an
Planziegelmauerwerk. Mauerwerk 2015;19(5):355–62.
[56] Butenweg C, Marinković M, Salatić R. Experimental results of reinforced concrete
frames with masonry infills under combined quasi-static in-plane and out-of-plane
seismic loading. Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering, 1–26. Bull Earthq Eng
2019;17(6):3397–422.
[57] BSW. Vibration Technology Tech. Details - Regufoam Vibration Isolation, 2019.
[58] Eta-10/0005: Nr. Z-14.4-517: Hilti Betonschraube HUS: Betonschraube zur
Verwendung als Mehrfachbefestigung für nichttragende Systeme in Beton und in
vorgespannten Hohlkammerdecken, Deutsches Institut für Bautechnik, 10.05.2016.
[59] DIN EN 1992-1-1: Eurocode 2: Bemessung und Konstruktion von Stahlbeton- und
Spannbetontragwerken – Teil 1-1: Allgemeine Bemessungsregeln und Regeln für
den Hochbau; Deutsche Fassung EN 1992-1-1:2004 + AC:2010, Januar 2011.
[60] Paulay T, Priestley MJN. Seismic Design of Reinforced Concrete and Masonry
Buildings. New York, NY, USA: John Wiley and Sons Inc.; 1992.
[61] CEN Eurocode 8 – design of structures for earthquake resistance, Part 1: General
rules, seismic actions and rules for buildings. EN 1998-1. Brussels, Belgium: ECS;
2004.