Engineering Structures 101 (2015) 591–608

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

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

A simplified procedure for Nonlinear Static analysis of masonry infilled

RC frames
Enzo Martinelli ⇑, Carmine Lima, Gaetano De Stefano
Department of Civil Engineering, University of Salerno, 84084 Fisciano, SA, Italy

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Masonry walls are widely adopted in existing Reinforced Concrete (RC) structures, either as external infill
Received 24 October 2014 or as internal partitions. Although their mechanical contribution is usually neglected in structural anal-
Revised 23 May 2015 ysis and design, they significantly affect the seismic response of RC frames. This paper proposes a simpli-
Accepted 15 July 2015
fied procedure based on NonLinear Static (NLS) analysis for evaluating the seismic response of masonry
infilled RC frames. NonLinear Time History (NLTH) analyses are firstly carried out for understanding the
actual seismic response of such frames. To this end, an ‘‘equivalent-strut’’ model available in the scientific
Keywords:
literature is considered for simulating the nonlinear response of masonry walls under the cyclic actions
RC frames
Masonry infill
induced by seismic shakings. Then, based on the results of such NLTH analyses, the aforementioned sim-
Nonlinear analysis plified NLS procedure is formulated by unveiling a stable correlation between the observed dynamic
N2 Method response quantities and a simple scalar parameter that can be easily determined through two NLS anal-
yses carried out on the infilled frame and the corresponding bare one. A statistical description of the accu-
racy and reliability of the proposed method is finally proposed.
Ó 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction results of an extensive parametric study employing a SDOF, aimed

Masonry walls are widely adopted in existing Reinforced
Concrete (RC) structures, both as external infill and internal parti-
tions. Although they clearly interact with the main structural
members and, hence, they influence the seismic response of RC
frames, the mechanical contribution of masonry infill walls are
generally neglected in practice-oriented structural analyses [1].
Actually, simulating the actual dynamic behaviour of these compo-
nents and evaluating their influence on the global seismic response
of RC structures received a great attention by the scientific com-
munity [2–4]: nevertheless, no procedure was established so far
for taking into account the contribution of masonry infills in
practice-oriented seismic analyses of RC frames.
As a matter of fact, NonLinear Static (NLS) analysis is nowadays
a common tool for evaluating the seismic response of both new
and existing structures [5]. Although it is generally carried out on
bare frame models, a recent contribution was proposed in the sci-
entific literature for determining the seismic response of masonry
infilled RC frames by means of NLS analyses [6]. In fact, it is based
on formulating a specific R–l–T relationship, developed from the
⇑ Corresponding author at: Department of Civil Engineering, University of
Salerno, via Giovanni Paolo II, 132 – 84084 Fisciano, SA, Italy. Tel.: +39 089 964098.
E-mail addresses: e.martinelli@unisa.it (E. Martinelli), clima@unisa.it (C. Lima),
gaetano.destefano@gmail.com (G. De Stefano).
at determining the inelastic demand spectra of structures whose
capacity curve is characterised by a significant softening branch
[7], induced by the progressive damage affecting the masonry
walls during the seismic excitation [8]. In principle, such a relation-
ship was intended at replacing the simpler one that, within the
framework of the N2 Method, can be applied to structures charac-
terised by the substantially bilinear capacity curves generally
obtained from NLS analysis of bare RC frames [9]. Although this
method generally results in accurate predictions of the actual seis-
mic response of infilled RC frames (at least in the case of regularly
distributed walls), its analytical definition of the aforementioned
relationship R–l–T is formally complicated and based on several
parameters whose determination is not generally straightforward.
Moreover, in the case of ‘‘weak’’ infills, the aforementioned proce-
dure [6] does not clearly reduce (as it should be expected in prin-
ciple) to the one defined in the N2 Method [9] based on
well-established principles (i.e., the so called ‘‘equal displacement
rule’’, for medium-to-long period structures) and adopted in the
most up-to-date seismic codes [10].
Significant improvements were recently proposed about assess-
ing the seismic capacity of infilled frames using the Capacity
Spectrum Method (CSM) and the Coefficient Method [11].
Moreover, a systematic parametric comparison between the pre-
dictions of ductility demand obtained by applying the

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2015.07.023
0141-0296/Ó 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
592 E. Martinelli et al. / Engineering Structures 101 (2015) 591–608
aforementioned CSM and the N2 Method was also presented [12].
However, the effort towards formulating a simpler, accurate and
reliable procedure for determining the seismic response of
masonry infilled RC structures by means of NLS analysis is still a
relevant challenge: it would be desirable that this procedure could
be clearly based on an extension of the currently adopted (and val-
idated) relationships employed in NLS analyses of bare frames,
such as those assumed as part of the aforementioned N2 Method
[9,10].
Therefore, this paper presents a possible extension of the N2
Method to structures with masonry infill walls. Particularly, it
explains the conceptual genesis of the proposed procedure and
describes the ‘‘inductive process’’ followed by the Authors in for-
mulating the present proposal based on the results of a parametric
study. The monotonic and cyclic response of infill walls is simu-
lated through the attractive and computationally convenient
approach based on the ‘‘equivalent strut’’ concept [13], widely
accepted and validated in the scientific community. Particularly,
a recent proposal is considered herein for determining the equiva-
lent strut parameters depending on the actual geometric and
mechanical properties of masonry walls, and taking into account
the effect of openings within masonry walls. Various relevant
parameters, such as the number of storeys, the distribution of walls
within the frame, the wall properties and the level of the seismic
excitation are taken into account in this analysis. The actual seis-
mic response of the frames under consideration was determined
through NonLinear Time-History (NLTH) analyses intended as ‘‘nu-
merical experiments’’ and aimed at unveiling the role of infill walls
on the global structural response: the ratio between the displace-
ment demand obtained for the infilled frame and the one deter-
mined for the corresponding bare one is particularly scrutinised.
Then, the results of NLTH analyses are considered for calibrating
a simplified procedure based on the results of NonLinear Static
(NLS) analyses carried out on both the infilled and the bare frames.
These analyses were carried out for two levels of seismic intensity
(PGA = 0.10g and PGA = 0.35g): on the one hand, it should be noted
that the validation of the proposed method is bounded within the
aforementioned seismic intensity levels, albeit, on the other hand,
they are certainly representative of the actions to be considered for
serviceability and ultimate limit state checks in medium-to-high
seismic hazard regions of Europe.
The paper is organised as follows. Section 2 outlines the
State-of-the-Art on ‘‘equivalent-strut’’ models available in the lit-
erature and provides the details about the one adopted in
Section 3 for performing NLTH analyses of both bare and infilled
frames. Then, Section 4 reports the formulation of the proposed
method based on NLS analyses and Section 5 outlines a statistical
beam
uts
l str
na
go
dia
column
masonry
beam
ts
s tru
n al
go
column
dia
masonry
EQUIVALENT STRUT MODEL
Fig. 1. Modelling masonry infill with equivalent diagonal struts (on the left) and 2D continuum model (on the right).
assessment of its accuracy. The key findings of this study are finally
summarised in Section 6.
2. Modelling masonry infill walls in RC frames
Several modelling options are available in the scientific litera-
ture and can be nowadays considered for simulating the mechan-
ical behaviour of masonry infill walls: they range between the
simplest ‘‘equivalent strut’’ models (macro-models), whose first
conceptual definition dates back to the 1960s [13], to more recent
and refined 2D/3D continuum models (Fig. 1), often formulated
within the framework of the Finite Element Method (FEM). While
the latter are not taken into account herein, the former are more
often employed in global analyses, as they are less computationally
demanding. However, defining their geometric parameters (i.e. the
width and depth of the diagonal strut and the equivalent nonlinear
behaviour of the masonry infill) is not straightforward, especially
when openings, such as doors or windows, are present in the wall.
Therefore, recent studies are available in the literature for describ-
ing the influence of relevant parameters, such as the vertical loads
acting on the frame [14], the elastic modulus and Poisson’s ratio of
infill masonry walls [15].
A thorough discussion about the aforementioned models is
beyond the scopes of this paper and can be found in another arti-
cle recently published by the same Authors [8]. Although alterna-
tive solutions based on adopting a variable number of struts for
simulating the mechanical response of walls are actually avail-
able in the literature [16], the analyses presented in this paper
are based on employing just two diagonal equivalent struts,
which can carry loads only in compression as defined in a recent
study [17]. This model defines the stiffness and the strength of
the infill according to the horizontal direction and then the
force–displacement envelope of the diagonal placed between
the beam–column joints have to be transformed to the direction
of the diagonal.
Hence, the infill walls are macro-modelled herein by means of a
tri-linear relationship representing the horizontal force–displace-
ment behaviour of masonry infill walls. The initial stiffness R1 of
the curve represented in Fig. 2 is defined as follows [17]:
Gw tw lw
R1 ¼ ð1Þ
hw
in which Gw is the shear modulus of the masonry infill, while tw, lw
and hw are the thickness, the length and the height of the masonry
wall, respectively. The maximum strength Fm is defined according
to a proposal available in the literature [17]:
beam
column
column
column
FE 2d elements
beam
column
column
column
FE 2d elements
FINITE ELEMENT (FE) MODEL
 E. Martinelli et al. / Engineering Structures 101 (2015) 591–608 593

F
F δ

dia
Fm go
na
ls
tru
ts

R2

hw
hv
Fy

R3 lv

R1 Fu = 0
δy δm
δ
lw
Fig. 2. Force–displacement relationship of the diagonal strut measured in the
horizontal direction [17]. Fig. 3. Geometrical parameters involved in the definition of the homothetic
parameter a.

 qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
f ws t w lw
F m ¼ 0:818 1 þ C 2I þ 1 ;
CI
lw
C I ¼ 1:925 ; ð3Þ
hw
where fws is the shear strength of masonry, obtained from diagonal
compressive tests.
The force Fy at the onset of cracking is assumed to be equal to
0.6 Fm, whereas the maximum horizontal displacement dm is
defined starting from different limitations of the storey drift. In
particular, the maximum force Fm is reached at a storey drift of
0.2% for short walls, 0.15% for long walls with a window and
0.10% for walls with a door opening.
The (negative) stiffness R3 of the post-peak softening branch is
derived by arbitrarily considering the displacement at collapse
equal to 5 dm and the residual strength Fu equal to zero.
Furthermore, the role of openings is taken into account by intro-
ducing the following k0 parameter defined as follows [18]:
1:5 lv
k0 ¼ 1  ¼ 1  1:5  a P 0
lw
where lv is the horizontal length of the opening in the wall under
consideration. For the sake of simplicity, and in line with the main
objectives of this paper, only window openings in homothetic trans-
formation with the dimensions of walls are considered in this
study: thus, their size is identified by the following dimensionless
parameter [18]:
a ¼ hv =hw ¼ lv =lw :
that corresponds to an opening of around 67% of the solid walls
ð2Þ
above which the mechanical contribution of the infill wall can be
neglected due to its extremely weak expected response.
Finally, the definition of the cyclic response of the ‘‘equivalent
strut’’ model utilised in this paper is described into details in
Section 3.1 and validated with reference to experimental results
available in the literature.
3. Parametric analysis
A parametric study based on several NLTH analyses performed
on RC infilled and bare structures is presented in this section with
the aim of investigating the influence of masonry infills on the glo-
bal seismic response of RC frames. These NLTH analyses are pri-
marily considered as a ‘‘numerical’’ experimental campaign
aimed at ‘‘observing’’ the ‘‘actual’’ structural response of both bare
and masonry infilled structures.
Hence, the NLTH analyses lead at quantifying the f ratio defined
as follows, for each one of the frames under consideration
ð4Þ
DNLTH
top;infill
f ¼ ; ð8Þ
DNLTH
top;bare
where DNLTH
top is the top displacement obtained through NLTH analy-
ses and the subscripts ‘‘bare’’ and ‘‘infill’’ refer to the ‘‘bare’’ and ‘‘in-
filled’’ frames, respectively.
ð5Þ 3.1. The structures selected for the parametric analysis

where hv and hw and the heights of opening and wall, respectively
(Fig. 3).
It is worth highlighting that further proposals are available in
the literature for simulating the effect of more general sizes and
positions of openings within the masonry walls [19,20].
However, the reduction factor k0 is considered herein for both
strength and initial stiffness R1, which can be easily quantified as
follows [17]:
G w t w lw
R1;0 ¼ k0 ; ð6Þ
hw
F m;0 ¼ k0  F m :
According to Eq. (4), a can range between 0 for which k0 = 1 and cor-
responds to infill walls without openings, and 0.667 for which k0 = 0
Two-, four- and six-storey 3D frames were defined by means of
a simulated design procedure based on codes and practices
adopted in Italy in the 1960s and 1970s of the past century
[21,22]. Typical details for gravity load design only (i.e. smooth
bars, medium-to-low concrete compression strength, hooks and
largely spaced stirrups) were taken into account. In the design,
infills were considered for their gravitational mass only. Fig. 4
reports the key dimensions in plan of the two structural scheme
under consideration in which three bays were along the y-direc-
tion, whereas three and five bays were considered along the
x-direction. The storey height was assumed equal to 3.50 m.
Moreover, the dimensions and the longitudinal reinforcement of
ð7Þ
the columns are shown in Fig. 4.
Table 1 reports the key information about geometry and rein-
forcement details of the beams. Transversal reinforcement
594 E. Martinelli et al. / Engineering Structures 101 (2015) 591–608

Fig. 4. Structural shape of the RC frames under consideration and column sections.
 E. Martinelli et al. / Engineering Structures 101 (2015) 591–608 595

Table 1 consisted of 8 mm diameter stirrups spaced at 15 cm at the ends

Geometric dimensions and longitudinal reinforcement in beams. and 25 cm in the middle, while 8 mm diameter stirrups were uni-
ID sect. B (cm) H (cm) As,top As,bottom formly spaced at 20 cm in columns. The floors were made with a
1 30 50 2£16 2£16 24 cm thick one-way ribbed concrete slab with hollow lightweight
2 30 50 5£16 2£16 brick, according to the common practice of the time.
3 30 50 3£16 2£16 Table 2 reports the distribution of the columns identified in
4 30 50 6£16 2£16 Fig. 4 within the analysed six-storey structure. The frames with
5 30 50 4£16 2£16

Table 2
Distribution of the columns within the structures.

Column Transverse section size (cm2)

1st storey 2nd storey 3rd storey 4th storey 5th storey 6th storey
b1 30  40 30  40 30  30 30  30 30  30 30  30
b2 30  50 30  40 30  30 30  30 30  30 30  30
b3 30  50 30  50 30  40 30  30 30  30 30  30
b4 30  60 30  50 30  40 30  30 30  30 30  30
c1 30  40 30  40 30  30 30  30 30  30 30  30
c2 30  60 30  50 30  40 30  30 30  30 30  30
c3 30  60 30  50 30  40 30  30 30  30 30  30
c4 30  60 30  50 30  40 30  30 30  30 30  30
c5 35  60 30  60 30  50 30  40 30  30 30  30
c6 35  60 30  60 30  50 30  40 30  30 30  30

three bays five bays

variable number of storeys from two to six

Type A

variable number of storeys from two to six

Type B

variable number of storeys from two to six

Type C

Fig. 5. Distribution of masonry walls in the sample structures.

596 E. Martinelli et al. / Engineering Structures 101 (2015) 591–608

four and two storeys were obtained by duly removing the lower
floors from the six-storey ones.
Concrete cubic strength Rcm = 25 MPa (fcm = 20.75 MPa) and
reinforcement steel type AQ40 with fsm = 220 MPa (smooth bars)
were adopted in order to simulate the behaviour of structural
materials in typical existing buildings designed in Europe in the
past decades [21,22]. In the following, the configurations without
masonry infills are denoted as ‘‘bare structure’’.
Masonry infills were supposed to be made of artificial blocks of
expanded clay with a normal wall thickness tw = 30 cm. The
following mechanical properties were taken into account:
– average compression strength fm = 4.00 MPa;
– average shear strength fv0 = 0.30 MPa;
– normal elastic modulus Ew = 3600 MPa;
– shear modulus Gw = 1080 MPa;
– specific weight c = 8.00 kN/m3.
The loads were determined according to Eurocode 1 [23] by
taking into account the self-weight of the structural RC elements,
permanent loads on the floors equal to 5.16 kN/m2 and variable
loads equal to 3.50 kN/m2 for congregation areas. Moreover, a
distributed permanent load equal to 7.20 kN/m was applied on
the external beams in order to simulate infills. According to
Eurocode 1 [23], the masses equal to 205.90 kN s2/m and
167.73 kN s2/m were assumed for the intermediate and the roof
floors of the 3-bays structure, respectively, while floor masses
equal to 348.43 kN s2/m and 295.59 kN s2/m were evaluated for
intermediate and roof floors of the 5-bays structures, respectively.
Then, infilled frames were analysed and three different
distributions of masonry walls were investigated (Fig. 5). Since
the influence of infills on the global response of structures can be
significantly affected by openings (e.g. windows or doors), opening
ratios as defined in Eq. (5) ranging between 0 and 0.60 were
considered [18].
Two Linear Elastic Design Spectra (LEDS) were considered for a
Soil Category A as required for ordinary buildings by EN 1998 [10]
for spectra type A in order to simulate seismic actions. Although
very high values of peak acceleration (0.3–0.65g) were recorded
in recent earthquakes [24], accelerations equal to 0.10g and
0.35g were considered. As a matter of fact, these two levels of shak-
ing intensity are intended at reproducing the seismic input which
has to be considered for serviceability and ultimate limit states in
medium-to-strong seismic areas, according to the European and
Italian codes [10,25].
NonLinear Time-History (NLTH) analyses were carried out on
the aforementioned structures; two sets of seven unscaled natural
accelerograms were selected from the European Strong Motion
Database [26] by considering the two target LEDS described above.
Fig. 6 shows the LEDS and the spectra of the natural accelerograms
used in this research, while details about the natural accelero-
grams are reported in Tables 3 and 4. Moreover, Fig. 7 represents
a matrix of the analysed structures.
The structures described above were modelled in OpenSEES
[27]. The nonlinear behaviour of beams and columns was simu-
lated by employing force-based distributed plasticity elements by
using ‘‘nonlinear beam column’’ elements available in the software
library [27]. Concrete01 model was employed for modelling both

6.0 20.0
000234ya EQ:108 000055xa EQ:34
18.0
5.0 006115ya EQ:2029 000055ya EQ:34
006326ya EQ:2142 16.0 000287xa EQ:146
4.0 006335xa EQ:2142 14.0 004674xa EQ:1635
Sa,e [m/s2]

Sa,e [m/s2]

006335ya EQ:2142 12.0 004674ya EQ:1635

006336xa EQ:2142 006349xa EQ:2142
3.0 10.0
006342xa EQ:2142 006349ya EQ:2142
Average Spectrum 8.0 Average Spectrum
2.0 6.0
Target spectrum 0.10g Target Spectrum 0.35g

1.0 4.0
2.0
0.0 0.0
0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50 3.00 3.50 4.00 0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50 3.00 3.50 4.00
T [s] T [s]

Fig. 6. Elastic design and natural spectra.

Table 3
Key parameters of the natural accelerograms compatible with the LEDS 0.10g.

Waveform ID Station ID Earthquake name Date Mw Fault Epicentral PGA_X (m/s2) PGA_Y (m/s2) PGV_X (m/s) PGV_Y (m/s)
Mechanism distance
(km)
6342 ST2556 South Iceland 21/06/2000 6.4 Strike slip 20 1.0426 0.8446 0.0941 0.1217
(aftershock)
6336 ST2563 South Iceland 21/06/2000 6.4 Strike slip 24 1.1132 0.5434 0.1083 0.0409
(aftershock)
6335 ST2557 South Iceland 21/06/2000 6.4 Strike slip 15 1.2481 1.1322 0.1659 0.1083
(aftershock)
234 ST68 Montenegro 24/05/1979 6.2 Thrust 30 0.6669 0.7541 0.0445 0.0649
(aftershock)
6326 ST2496 South Iceland 21/06/2000 6.4 Strike slip 14 1.7476 1.1423 0.0966 0.1765
(aftershock)
6115 ST1320 Kozani 13/05/1995 6.5 Normal 17 2.0388 1.3962 0.0854 0.0656
6335 ST2557 South Iceland 21/06/2000 6.4 Strike slip 15 1.2481 1.1322 0.1659 0.1083
(aftershock)
Mean: 6.38 19.28 1.3007 0.9921 0.1087 0.0980
 E. Martinelli et al. / Engineering Structures 101 (2015) 591–608 597

Table 4
Key parameters of the natural accelerograms compatible with the LEDS 0.35g.

Waveform ID Station ID Earthquake name Date Mw Fault Epicentral PGA_X (m/s2) PGA_Y (m/s2) PGV_X (m/s) PGV_Y (m/s)
mechanism distance
(km)
55 ST20 Friuli 06/05/1976 6.5 Thrust 23 3.4985 3.0968 0.2061 0.3262
4674 ST2486 South Iceland 17/06/2000 6.5 Strike slip 5 3.1176 3.3109 0.6122 0.2377
4674 ST2486 South Iceland 17/06/2000 6.5 Strike slip 5 3.1176 3.3109 0.6122 0.2377
55 ST20 Friuli 06/05/1976 6.5 Thrust 23 3.4985 3.0968 0.2061 0.3262
6349 ST2558 South Iceland 21/06/2000 6.4 Strike slip 5 7.2947 8.218 0.4557 0.9202
(aftershock)
287 ST93 Campano Lucano 23/11/1980 6.9 Normal 23 1.3633 1.7756 0.2056 0.3044
6349 ST2558 South Iceland 21/06/2000 6.4 Strike slip 5 7.2947 8.218 0.4557 0.9202
(aftershock)
Mean: 6.54 12.71 4.1693 4.4324 0.3934 0.4675

Fig. 7. Matrix of the analysed structures.

cover and core concrete (Fig. 8a), while Steel01 stress–strain law
with 1% symmetric hardening was adopted for rebars [27]
(Fig. 8b). Both mechanic and geometrical nonlinear effects were
considered by means of the ‘‘P-Delta geometric transformation’’
command implemented in OpenSEES [27].
Truss elements were employed for representing the ‘‘equivalent
struts’’ which are intended to simulate the behaviour of masonry
infills: they were supposed to sustain only compressive (negative)
axial forces according to the model proposed by Dolsek and Fajfar
[17]. Nonlinear cyclic behaviour was defined through the so-called
‘‘Pinching 4’’ material model available in OpenSEES [27]. Fig. 9a
depicts the static behaviour of the diagonal truss for increasing val-
ues of the opening ratio defined by Eq. (5), whereas Fig. 9b shows a
possible cyclic response of the modelled equivalent strut.
The cyclic response of the truss element adopted in NLTH anal-
yses was carefully calibrated by considering some experimental
results available in the scientific literature [28]. Particularly, the
cyclic force–displacement response observed in the experimental
tests carried out on four specimens, originally referred to as I1,
I2, I5 and I6, were considered for this calibration. Table 5 reports
the numerical values of the parameters adopted for describing
the response of the truss elements via the aforementioned
‘‘Pinching4’’ material model and Fig. 10 highlights the significant
level of accuracy achieved by the adopted model in terms of
strength and stiffness values, and their degradation under cyclic
actions.
3.2. Nonlinear Time History analysis (NLTH)
The two sets of seven natural accelerograms mentioned in the
previous section were used as input signals in NonLinear
Time-History (NLTH) analyses carried out on the aforementioned
structures. Moreover, the investigation was extended to two-,
four- and six-storey frames with three and five bays with the dis-
tribution of masonry infills reported in Fig. 5 and opening ratios a
equal to 0.00, 0.20, 0.40 and 0.60. However, only analysis in
x-direction were performed for the sake of brevity. Fig. 11 depicts
the cyclic response of a truss element intended at simulating an
infill wall located at the first storey of a Type A
three-bay-four-storey frame with opening ratio a = 0.00. The cyclic
behaviour of the truss observed through NLTH analysis clearly
demonstrates that the truss element only responds in
compression.
598 E. Martinelli et al. / Engineering Structures 101 (2015) 591–608

stress
f sm=220MPa

stress
ε cu=0.0036 ε co=0.0022
strain Es=210000MPa

strain

f cm,u=18.39MPa
f sm=220MPa
f cm=20.75MPa

(a) (b)
Fig. 8. Materials.

-600 -600
a=0.00 Cyclic behaviour
-500 a=0.20 -500
Static envelope
Axial Force [kN]

Axial Force [kN]

-400 a=0.40 -400

a=0.60
-300 -300

-200 -200

-100 -100

0 0

10.00 0.00 -10.00 -20.00 -30.00 10 0 -10 -20 -30

Axial displacement [mm] Axial displacement [mm]
(a) (b)
Fig. 9. Static and cyclic behaviour of the diagonal truss.

Table 5
Numerical values of the parameters adopted for describing the response of the truss via the ‘‘Pinching4’’ material model.

Calcarenite masonry Floating point values defining force (in N) and deformation points on the positive response envelope
infilled frame I1–I2 $ePf1 $ePf2 $ePf3 $ePf4 $ePd1 $ePd2 $ePd3 $ePd4
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.06e4 1.00e3 5.00e3 5.01e3
Floating point values defining force (in N) and deformation points on the negative response envelope
$eNf1 $eNf2 $eNf3 $eNf4 $eNd1 $eNd2 $eNd3 $eNd4
17,2469 28,7449 0.0 0.0 1.06e4 1.00e3 5.00e3 5.01e3
Clay tile masonry Floating point values defining force (in N) and deformation points on the positive response envelope
infilled frame I5–I6 $ePf1 $ePf2 $ePf3 $ePf4 $ePd1 $ePd2 $ePd3 $ePd4
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.65e4 1.00e3 5.00e3 5.01e3
Floating point values defining force (in N) and deformation points on the negative response envelope
$eNf1 $eNf2 $eNf3 $eNf4 $eNd1 $eNd2 $eNd3 $eNd4
14,4874 24,1457 0.0 0.0 1.65e4 1.00e3 5.00e3 5.01e3
Common to all Floating point value defining $rDispP $fFoceP $uForceP $rDispN $fFoceN $uForceN
specimens I1–I2–I5–I6 unloading and reloading 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
branches
Floating point values controlling cyclic $gK1 $gK2 $gK3 $gK4 $gKLim
degradation model for unloading stiffness 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0
degradation
Floating point values controlling cyclic $gD1 $gD2 $gD3 $gD4 $gDLim
degradation model for reloading stiffness 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 1.0
degradation
Floating point values controlling cyclic $gF1 $gF2 $gF3 $gF4 $gFLim
degradation model for strength degradation 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001 1.0
Floating point value used to define maximum energy dissipation under cyclic loading $gE 10e8
String to indicate type of damage (option: ‘‘cycle’’, ‘‘energy’’) $dmgType Cycle
 E. Martinelli et al. / Engineering Structures 101 (2015) 591–608 599

Calcarenite masonry 250 Clay tile masonry 250

infilled frame 200 infilled frame 200
150 150
100 100
50 50
0 0
-14 -12 -10 -8 -6 -4 -50
-2 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 -14 -12 -10 -8 -6 -4 -50
-2 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
-100 -100 simulation
simulation
-150 -150
test I1 test I5
-200 -200
test I2 test I6
-250 -250

Fig. 10. Simulated and experimental cyclic response of the infilled frames tested by Cavaleri et al. [28].

gravitational loads only and, then, characterised by a limited lat-

-600
eral capacity provided by the main structural members.
-500 Based on the results summarised in Table 6, the f ratio (Eq. (8))
was evaluated and reported in Table 7 for each structure and the
-400
two ground motion intensity levels considered in this study.
force [kN]

-300 As demonstrated in Table 7, the f ratio is mainly affected by two

key ‘‘parameters’’:
-200

-100 – the masonry infill opening ratio a or, in a more general sense,
the actual strength/stiffness of the masonry walls;
0

100
15 10 5 0 -5 -10 -15
Table 6
deformation [mm] Top displacement demand (in cm) of the analysed structures by NLTH analysis.

Fig. 11. Cyclic response of the infill resulting from NLTH analysis. Storey Structure 3 bays 5 bays
0.10g 0.35g 0.10g 0.35g
DNLTH
top ðcmÞ DNLTH NLTH
top ðcmÞ Dtop ðcmÞ DNLTH
top ðcmÞ
The results in terms of top absolute displacement demands
2 Bare 2.2 11.3 2.2 11.9
DNLTH
top were evaluated as the average of the maximum response Infilled a = 0.60 1.3 10.2 1.4 10.0
obtained from the seven accelerograms [10]: particularly, Table 6 Type A a = 0.40 0.4 7.9 0.3 8.1
reports the numerical average values of the maximum response a = 0.20 0.3 4.1 0.2 4.3
a = 0.00 0.2 1.3 0.1 1.0
obtained for the two seismic intensities. Furthermore, the values
Infilled a = 0.60 1.6 10.9 1.9 10.3
of Table 6 are graphically represented in Fig. 12. Type B a = 0.40 0.7 9.3 0.7 9.7
It is worth highlighting that no brittle failure mechanism was a = 0.20 0.4 6.6 0.6 7.5
considered in these NLTH analyses. Therefore, they provide an esti- a = 0.00 0.3 4.8 0.4 3.9
mation of the seismic demand without considering the possibility Infilled a = 0.60 1.8 10.5 1.8 10.9
Type C a = 0.40 1.7 10.3 1.7 10.7
of shear failure of members and joints: the occurrence of brittle or
a = 0.20 1.7 10.3 1.7 10.7
ductile failure could be detected in post-processing the analysis a = 0.00 1.7 10.3 1.7 10.7
results by checking the force demand in members and joints and 4 Bare 4.2 16.9 4.1 15.9
comparing it to the corresponding capacity, as usual in Infilled a = 0.60 2.0 14.1 1.9 12.4
practice-oriented analyses. Type A a = 0.40 1.1 9.8 1.1 10.4
As expected, NLTH analyses pointed out that top displacement a = 0.20 0.9 9.7 0.7 8.6
a = 0.00 0.8 8.5 0.5 6.3
are generally (even significantly) smaller in infilled frames than
Infilled a = 0.60 2.2 14.6 2.2 13.8
in bare ones (Fig. 12). Particularly, Table 6 shows that the DNLTH
top val- Type B a = 0.40 1.8 11.6 1.9 11.7
ues are higher for the bare structures and reduces with the opening a = 0.20 1.4 9.6 1.6 10.9
a = 0.00 1.4 8.9 1.5 10.2
ratio a defined by Eq. (5). This is an expected effect due to the
Infilled a = 0.60 2.3 14.2 2.2 13.7
structural contribution of masonry infills to the lateral capacity Type C a = 0.40 1.9 12.5 1.8 11.3
of the structure. However, it should be clear that the results a = 0.20 1.9 12.5 1.8 11.3
reported in Table 6 cannot be merely summarised by claiming that a = 0.00 1.9 12.5 1.8 11.3
the masonry infill walls play a ‘‘beneficial’’ effect on the seismic 6 Bare 6.3 19.9 5.9 19.4
response of RC frames. This is generally true in terms of displace- Infilled a = 0.60 3.1 16.2 2.9 16.8
ment demand, but cannot be extended to the other aspects of Type A a = 0.40 1.9 11.7 1.8 13.6
a = 0.20 1.7 10.6 1.2 11.7
the structural response. In fact, the internal distribution of forces
a = 0.00 1.4 10.6 1.1 11.4
as well as the total force transferred to foundations can be signifi- Infilled a = 0.60 3.6 17.1 3.7 17.6
cantly different (and often higher) than the corresponding values Type B a = 0.40 2.2 13.7 2.3 15.0
determined for a bare RC frame. A thorough discussion about these a = 0.20 2.2 11.2 2.2 14.5
a = 0.00 2.3 12.7 2.2 11.9
effects and the general importance of considering masonry infills
Infilled a = 0.60 3.4 16.0 3.2 17.1
in simulating the seismic behaviour of RC frames is already avail- Type C a = 0.40 2.0 13.1 1.8 14.4
able in the recent scientific literature [8]. The influence of masonry a = 0.20 2.0 11.4 1.9 13.1
infill walls is especially relevant for structures designed for a = 0.00 2.0 10.8 1.9 10.9
600 E. Martinelli et al. / Engineering Structures 101 (2015) 591–608

3,00 16,00
bare Type A Type B Type C bare Type A Type B Type C
14,00
2,50
12,00

ΔtopNLTH [cm]
ΔtopNLTH [cm]

2,00
10,00
1,50 8,00
6,00
1,00
4,00
0,50
2,00
Two-storey (0,10g) Two-storey (0,35g)
0,00 0,00
a = 0.00 a = 0.20 a = 0.40 a = 0.60 a = 0.00 a = 0.20 a = 0.40 a = 0.60
(a) (b)
5,00 20,00
4,50 bare Type A Type B Type C bare Type A Type B Type C
4,00 16,00
3,50
ΔtopNLTH [cm]

ΔtopNLTH [cm]
3,00 12,00
2,50
2,00 8,00
1,50
1,00 4,00
0,50
Four-storey (0,10g) Four-storey (0,35g)
0,00 0,00
a = 0.00 a = 0.20 a = 0.40 a = 0.60 a = 0.00 a = 0.20 a = 0.40 a = 0.60
(c) (d)
8,00 24,00
bare Type A Type B Type C bare Type A Type B Type C
7,00
20,00
6,00
ΔtopNLTH [cm]

ΔtopNLTH [cm]

16,00
5,00
4,00 12,00
3,00
8,00
2,00
4,00
1,00
Six-storey (0,10g) Six-storey (0,35g)
0,00 0,00
a = 0.00 a = 0.20 a = 0.40 a = 0.60 a = 0.00 a = 0.20 a = 0.40 a = 0.60
(e) (f)
Fig. 12. Results of NLTH analyses in terms of top absolute displacement demands for the two seismic intensities.

– the seismic intensity level or, in a more general sense, the actual
stress level achieved in the masonry wall described by its non-
linear elastic-softening force–displacement curve (Fig. 11).
Particularly, the values of f tend to the unit in the case of ‘‘weak’’
masonry walls and ‘‘high’’ seismic intensity (i.e. a = 0.60 at peak
ground acceleration 0.35g). On the contrary, the lowest values of
the f ratio are achieved for ‘‘strong’’ masonry walls and ‘‘low’’ seis-
mic intensity (i.e. a = 0.00 at peak ground acceleration 0.10g). The
extreme values achieved by the f ratio are highlighted in bold in
Table 7.
4. Formulation of the proposed procedure
NonLinear Static (NLS) analyses can be carried out on the same
set of frames, in both bare and infilled configurations, to under-
stand the influence of masonry walls on the resulting shape of
the capacity curves. This section summarises the results of such
analyses (see Section 4.1), compares them with the ones obtained
from the NLTH analyses reported in Section 3 (see Section 4.2) and
proposes a scalar ‘‘shape’’ parameter to simply describe the afore-
mentioned effects of masonry infills (see Section 4.3). The correla-
tion emerging between this parameter and the infilled-to-bare
displacement ratio f is the main finding of this paper and repre-
sents the pivot of the proposed simplified procedure for analysing
masonry infilled RC frames via NLS analyses: such a procedure is
finally summarised in Section 4.4.
4.1. NonLinear Static analysis (NLS)
NLS (pushover) analyses are proposed with the aim of unveiling
possible correlations between the value of the f ratio and the
‘‘shapes’’ of the two capacity curves obtained for the infilled and
the bare structures; they were performed on the structures
described in Section 3.1 and led to obtaining their capacity curves.
According to EN 1998 [10] provisions, two different horizontal
force distributions were applied and increased for performing
pushover analyses. Particularly, a distribution proportional to the
shape of the first mode (called ‘‘modal’’ in the following) and one
proportional to the masses (denoted ‘‘uniform’’ in the following)
 E. Martinelli et al. / Engineering Structures 101 (2015) 591–608 601

Table 7 40%
Values of f ratio obtained from NLTH analysis. Infill A a=0.00
35%
Storey Structure 3 bays 5 bays Infill A a=0.20
30%
Infill A a=0.40
0.10g f 0.35g f 0.10g f 0.35g f

Vb / W [%]
25% Infill A a=0.60
2 Infilled Type A a = 0.60 0.61 0.90 0.64 0.84
20% Bare structure
a = 0.40 0.17 0.70 0.13 0.68
a = 0.20 0.13 0.36 0.08 0.36 15%
a = 0.00 0.11 0.12 0.06 0.08
Infilled Type B a = 0.60 0.74 0.96 0.84 0.86 10%
a = 0.40 0.31 0.82 0.34 0.81 5%
a = 0.20 0.20 0.59 0.26 0.63
a = 0.00 0.16 0.43 0.18 0.33 0%
Infilled Type C a = 0.60 0.83 0.93 0.81 0.92 0.00% 0.50% 1.00% 1.50% 2.00%
a = 0.40 0.79 0.91 0.78 0.90 Δtop / H [%]
a = 0.20 0.79 0.91 0.78 0.89
a = 0.00 0.79 0.91 0.78 0.89 Fig. 14. Capacity curves of the four-storey five-bay structure derived for the modal
4 Infilled Type A a = 0.60 0.47 0.84 0.46 0.78 distribution.
a = 0.40 0.27 0.58 0.26 0.65
a = 0.20 0.21 0.58 0.17 0.54
a = 0.00 0.18 0.51 0.13 0.40
Infilled Type B a = 0.60 0.53 0.86 0.55 0.87 30%
a = 0.40 0.43 0.69 0.47 0.73 Infill A a=0.0
a = 0.20 0.33 0.57 0.40 0.68 25% Infill A a=0.2
a = 0.00 0.33 0.53 0.37 0.64 Infill A a=0.4
Infilled Type C a = 0.60 0.54 0.84 0.53 0.86 20%

Vb / W [%]
Infill A a=0.6
a = 0.40 0.46 0.74 0.45 0.71
a = 0.20 0.45 0.74 0.45 0.71 15% Bare
a = 0.00 0.45 0.74 0.45 0.71
10%
6 Infilled Type A a = 0.60 0.49 0.82 0.48 0.87
a = 0.40 0.30 0.59 0.30 0.70
5%
a = 0.20 0.26 0.53 0.20 0.60
a = 0.00 0.23 0.53 0.19 0.59
0%
Infilled Type B a = 0.60 0.57 0.86 0.62 0.91
0.00% 0.50% 1.00% 1.50% 2.00%
a = 0.40 0.35 0.69 0.39 0.78
a = 0.20 0.35 0.56 0.37 0.75 Δtop / H [%]
a = 0.00 0.36 0.64 0.38 0.61
Infilled Type C a = 0.60 0.53 0.81 0.53 0.88 Fig. 15. Capacity curves of the six-storey five-bay structure derived for the modal
a = 0.40 0.32 0.66 0.31 0.74 distribution.
a = 0.20 0.31 0.57 0.32 0.68
a = 0.00 0.32 0.54 0.32 0.56

The values of the top displacement demand of the RC bare

were taken into account [10]. Then, Figs. 13–15 depict the capacity
curves derived by applying the ‘‘modal’’ distribution to the bare
and infilled (Type A) two-, four- and six-storey five-bay frames,
respectively, with increasing opening ratios a. It shows the signif-
icant variation in terms of both lateral stiffness and maximum
strength induced by openings of increasing dimensions. The repre-
sentations of the capacity curves obtained for the other structures
and load patterns under investigation are herein omitted for sake
of brevity.
70%
60%
50%
Vb / W [%]
frames were obtained by applying the well-known N2 Method
[9]. Table 8 reports the displacement demand derived for the anal-
ysis of the bare structures by applying the standard N2 Method [9]
for the two distributions of forces mentioned above and the two
seismic intensities under investigation.
4.2. Considerations about the results of NLTH and NLS analyses
The first comparisons can be carried out for the bare structures
in terms of displacement demand evaluated through the
well-known N2 Method [9] and the NLTH analysis. Particularly,
Fig. 16 shows the comparison between the results obtained
through NLS analyses and the corresponding ones derived by
NLTH ones. In this comparison, the displacement demand obtained
Infill A a=0.00 from NLS analysis was obtained as the maximum value between
Infill A a=0.20 the ones achieved for the uniform and modal load pattern. As
Infill A a=0.40 expected, the results reported in Fig. 16 show that the top displace-

Infill A a=0.60 ment demands evaluated through NLS and NLTH analyses are in
40%
Bare structure good agreement for the bare structures and the accuracy of the
30% N2 Method for RC bare structures was demonstrated. Moreover,
the number of bays of the structures, generally, does not affect
20%
the displacement demand. Hence, the following identity, generally
10% accepted in the common practice (at least for regular frames) is
0% assumed in the following of this study:
0.00% 0.50% 1.00% 1.50% 2.00%
Δtop / H [%] DNLTH NLS
top;bare ¼ Dtop;bare : ð9Þ

Fig. 13. Capacity curves of the two-storey five-bay structure derived for the modal In other words, it is once again confirmed that the N2 Method leads
distribution. to an accurate estimation of the displacement demand of bare RC
602 E. Martinelli et al. / Engineering Structures 101 (2015) 591–608

Table 8
Top displacement demand (in cm) of the bare structures by N2 Method.

Storey Horizontal pattern 3 bays 5 bays

0.10g DNLS
top;bare ðcmÞ 0.35g DNLS
top;bare ðcmÞ 0.10g DNLS
top;bare ðcmÞ 0.35g DNLS
top;bare ðcmÞ

2 ‘‘modal’’ 2.5 9.1 2.4 9.0

‘‘uniform’’ 2.2 8.0 2.2 7.8
4 ‘‘modal’’ 4.8 17.4 4.4 16.6
‘‘uniform’’ 4.0 14.7 3.7 14.2
6 ‘‘modal’’ 6.5 24.3 6.1 23.8
‘‘uniform’’ 5.0 17.4 4.9 17.4

frames (and, then, of their ‘‘performance point’’ on the capacity
curves determined by NLS analyses).
Therefore, a direct estimation of the corresponding displace-
ment that would be obtained on the corresponding infilled struc-
ture can be, in principle, determined as follows:
correlation between f and some relevant parameters related to the
seismic response of the structure as simulated by NLS analyses.
Particularly, the following parameter a can be defined by consider-
ing the ‘‘shape’’ of the two capacity curves corresponding to the
infilled frame and the corresponding bare one (Fig. 17):

Dtop;infill ¼ DNLTH NLS

top;infill ¼ f  Dtop;bare ; ð10Þ ANLS
bare
a¼ ; ð11Þ
ANLS
infill
once a possible correlation between f and the key structural param-
eters were possibly unveiled.
where ANLS NLS
bare and Ainfill are the areas beneath the two aforementioned
capacity curves, up to a displacement equal to the displacement
4.3. Definition of a ‘‘shape’’ parameter for the capacity curves
demand of the bare structure DNLStop;bare determined through the N2

The observations highlighted at the end of Section 3.2 about the Method [9].
general trends of the f ratio can be now turned into a quantitative Actually, the parameter a ranges between 0 and 1: values of a
close to 0 can be achieved for ‘‘strong’’ masonry walls and ‘‘low’’
seismic actions, while values close to the unit correspond to
‘‘weak’’ masonry infills and ‘‘high’’ seismic actions. Moreover, dif-
25
N2-Method 2-storeys ferent values of a can be determined for a given structure (whose
Bare Structures behaviour with and without infills is captured by the two different
20 3-storeys capacity curves schematically depicted in Fig. 17) depending on
the expected seismic demand level. Fig. 18 shows that two differ-
4-storeys
ent values of a can be determined for the two values of displace-
ΔtopNLS [cm]

15
3-bays ment demand, ideally identified with the values DNLS top;bare

5-bays
determined through the NLS analysis (and the N2 Method) on
10 the bare frame for the two design spectra corresponding to the
Earthquake two intensity levels of seismic shaking considered in this study.
intensity
5 Table 9 reports the a values determined for all the structures
0.10g
analysed in Section 3.2 by assuming the displacement demands
0.35g DNLS
top;bare summarised in Table 8.
0
0 5 10 15 20 25
The values of a reported in Table 9 are in a one-to-one corre-
spondence with the ones determined for the f ratio in Table 7.
ΔtopNLTH [cm]
Moreover, it is easy to understand that a and f are clearly corre-
Fig. 16. Top displacement demand of the bare structures: NLTH vs. NLS analysis.
lated as shown by Fig. 19 for the two-storey frames and

Infilled structure Infilled structure

Bare structure Bare structure
Seismic demand of Seismic demand of
the bare structure the bare structure
NLS
Ainfill

NLS
Abare
NLS NLS
top,bare Δ top,bare Δ top
(a) (b)
Fig. 17. Defining the areas under the capacity curves of both infilled (a) and bare (b) structure.
 E. Martinelli et al. / Engineering Structures 101 (2015) 591–608 603

40% Pn 2
ðf  f Þ  ðai  aÞ
35% Δtop,bare
NLS,0.10g
Δtop,bare
NLS,0.35g
Infilled R2 ¼ P i¼1 i 2 P ð12Þ
n   n ða  a  Þ2
30% Bare i¼1 f i  f i¼1 i
Vb / W [%]

25%
in which f and a
 are the average values of the f and a parameters,
20% respectively, evaluated on the basis of the n frames under investiga-
15% tion. On the basis of its definition, the coefficient of determination
10% can assume values ranging between 0 and 1, denoting values of
R2 close to the unit if a linear correlation can be defined between
5%
f and a with good agreement.
0% Fig. 22 depicts the f  a comparison charts obtained for the
0.00% 0.20% 0.40% 0.60% 0.80%
structures under consideration. The coefficient of determination
Δtop / H [%] is also shown therein. Particularly, Fig. 22a shows the bunch of
points of coordinates (a, f) grouped according the number of stor-
Fig. 18. Definition of the areas under the capacity curves for the two-storey
structure. eys of the analysed structures. Values of R2 equal to 0.892, 0.924
and 0.918 were obtained for the two-, four- and six-storey struc-
tures, respectively. In Fig. 22b the comparison between f and a is
discriminated in respect to the distribution of infill within the RC
Figs. 20 and 21 for four- and six-storey structures, respectively. frames and values of R2 ranging between 0.854 for structures
Indeed, the bunch of (a, f) points represented within the aforemen- Type A and 0.937 for the configuration Type C can be observed.
tioned figures are clearly grouped around the bisector segment. Fig. 22c shows the bunch of points of coordinates (a, f) grouped
Furthermore, quantitative parameters can be introduced for according the opening. Finally, the comparison reported in
quantifying the correlation between f and a. Such a parameter is Fig. 22d highlights the high linear correlation between f and a for
the so-called coefficient of determination R2 providing a measure both low and strong earthquakes.
of the linear correlation that characterises the two key parameters Fig. 23 shows the comparison between f and a obtained for all
under investigation and is defined as follows: the structures and a coefficient of determination R2 equal to

Table 9
Values of the a parameter obtained from NLS analysis.

Storey Structure 3 bays 5 bays

0.10g 0.35g 0.10g 0.35g
Modal Uniform Modal Uniform Modal Uniform Modal Uniform
2 Infilled Type A a = 0.60 0.45 0.46 0.81 0.82 0.48 0.46 0.82 0.83
a = 0.40 0.21 0.21 0.63 0.63 0.21 0.21 0.63 0.62
a = 0.20 0.14 0.14 0.51 0.50 0.14 0.14 0.51 0.49
a = 0.00 0.10 0.10 0.36 0.35 0.10 0.10 0.36 0.34
Infilled Type B a = 0.60 0.52 0.52 0.84 0.85 0.58 0.59 0.87 0.88
a = 0.40 0.26 0.26 0.68 0.68 0.31 0.31 0.73 0.72
a = 0.20 0.18 0.18 0.57 0.57 0.22 0.22 0.63 0.61
a = 0.00 0.14 0.14 0.39 0.41 0.18 0.18 0.46 0.46
Infilled Type C a = 0.60 0.67 0.70 0.89 0.92 0.69 0.73 0.91 0.93
a = 0.40 0.63 0.68 0.88 0.91 0.65 0.71 0.90 0.92
a = 0.20 0.62 0.68 0.88 0.91 0.65 0.71 0.90 0.92
a = 0.00 0.62 0.68 0.88 0.91 0.65 0.71 0.90 0.92
4 Infilled Type A a = 0.60 0.48 0.46 0.84 0.82 0.48 0.46 0.84 0.81
a = 0.40 0.24 0.24 0.60 0.67 0.24 0.22 0.69 0.63
a = 0.20 0.18 0.18 0.55 0.60 0.17 0.17 0.49 0.57
a = 0.00 0.12 0.12 0.45 0.49 0.11 0.12 0.42 0.48
Infilled Type B a = 0.60 0.55 0.53 0.86 0.85 0.61 0.59 0.89 0.87
a = 0.40 0.30 0.28 0.76 0.70 0.34 0.32 0.76 0.74
a = 0.20 0.21 0.21 0.58 0.64 0.24 0.24 0.55 0.64
a = 0.00 0.16 0.16 0.48 0.54 0.21 0.21 0.48 0.56
Infilled Type C a = 0.60 0.55 0.55 0.87 0.85 0.54 0.54 0.86 0.85
a = 0.40 0.37 0.41 0.70 0.77 0.33 0.37 0.61 0.71
a = 0.20 0.36 0.40 0.70 0.77 0.32 0.36 0.61 0.71
a = 0.00 0.36 0.40 0.69 0.77 0.31 0.35 0.61 0.71
6 Infilled Type A a = 0.60 0.49 0.46 0.84 0.77 0.49 0.47 0.84 0.78
a = 0.40 0.24 0.22 0.67 0.53 0.23 0.22 0.61 0.56
a = 0.20 0.17 0.15 0.50 0.41 0.17 0.16 0.47 0.44
a = 0.00 0.12 0.12 0.42 0.37 0.12 0.11 0.42 0.35
Infilled Type B a = 0.60 0.56 0.53 0.87 0.81 0.62 0.61 0.89 0.85
a = 0.40 0.30 0.27 0.69 0.61 0.34 0.34 0.75 0.65
a = 0.20 0.21 0.20 0.52 0.49 0.26 0.26 0.61 0.55
a = 0.00 0.18 0.18 0.44 0.40 0.24 0.24 0.47 0.46
Infilled Type C a = 0.60 0.52 0.49 0.85 0.80 0.51 0.50 0.85 0.80
a = 0.40 0.28 0.28 0.63 0.58 0.27 0.28 0.63 0.61
a = 0.20 0.22 0.24 0.43 0.47 0.21 0.22 0.51 0.53
a = 0.00 0.21 0.23 0.43 0.47 0.19 0.21 0.40 0.43
604 E. Martinelli et al. / Engineering Structures 101 (2015) 591–608

1.00 1.00
Two-storey Two-storey
frames: f-α frames: f-α
0.80 relationship in 0.80 relationship in
respect to the respect to the
distribution of opening ratios
infills 0.60
0.60 a=0.00 3-bays
Type A 3-bays a=0.00 5-bays

f
f

Type A 5-bays a=0.20 3-bays

0.40 0.40
a=0.20 5-bays
Type B 3-bays
a=0.40 3-bays
Type B 5-bays 0.20
0.20 a=0.40 5-bays
Type C 3-bays a=0.60 3-bays
Type C 5-bays a=0.60 5-bays
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00 0.00 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00
α α
(a) (b)

1.00 1,00
Two-storey Two-storey
frames: f-α frames: f-α
0.80 relationship in 0,80 relationship in
respect to the respect to the
seismic horizontal
intensity pattern
0.60 0,60
modal
f
f

0.10g 3-bays
3-bays
0.40 0,40
modal
0.10g 5-bays
5-bays
uniform
0.20 0.35g 3-bays 0,20
3-bays
uniform
0.35g 5-bays
5-bays
0.00 0,00
0.00 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00 0,00 0,20 0,40 0,60 0,80 1,00
α α
(c) (d)
Fig. 19. f  a relationship for the two-storey structures.

1.00 1.00
Four-storey Four-storey
frames: f-α frames: f-α
0.80 relationship in 0.80 relationship in
respect to the respect to the
distribution of opening ratios
infills
0.60 0.60 a=0.00 3-bays
Type A 3-bays a=0.00 5-bays
f
f

Type A 5-bays a=0.20 3-bays

0.40 0.40
Type B 3-bays a=0.20 5-bays
a=0.40 3-bays
Type B 5-bays
0.20 0.20 a=0.40 5-bays
Type C 3-bays a=0.60 3-bays
Type C 5-bays a=0.60 5-bays
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00 0.00 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00
α α
(a) (b)

1.00 1,00
Four-storey Four-storey
frames: f-α frames: f-α
0.80 relationship in 0,80 relationship in
respect to the respect to the
seismic horizontal
intensity pattern
0.60 0,60
modal
f

0.10g 3-bays
f

3-bays
0.40 0,40
0.10g 5-bays modal
5-bays
0.20 0.35g 3-bays uniform
0,20
3-bays
0.35g 5-bays uniform
0.00 5-bays
0,00
0.00 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00 0,00 0,20 0,40 0,60 0,80 1,00
α α
(c) (d)
Fig. 20. f  a relationship for the four-storey structures.
 E. Martinelli et al. / Engineering Structures 101 (2015) 591–608 605

1.00 1.00
Six-storey Six-storey
frames: f-α frames: f-α
0.80 relationship in 0.80 relationship in
respect to the respect to the
distribution of opening ratios
infills
0.60 0.60 a=0.00 3-bays
Type A 3-bays a=0.00 5-bays

f
f

Type A 5-bays a=0.20 3-bays

0.40 0.40
Type B 3-bays a=0.20 5-bays
a=0.40 3-bays
Type B 5-bays
0.20 0.20 a=0.40 5-bays
Type C 3-bays a=0.60 5-bays
Type C 5-bays a=0.60 3-bays
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00 0.00 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00
α α
(a) (b)
1.00 1,00
Six-storey Six-storey
frames: f-α frames: f-α
0.80 relationship in 0,80 relationship in
respect to the respect to the
seismic horizontal
intensity pattern
0.60 0,60
f modal
f

0.10g 3-bays
3-bays
0.40 0,40
modal
0.10g 5-bays
5-bays
uniform
0.20 0.35g 3-bays 0,20
3-bays
uniform
0.35g 5-bays
5-bays
0.00 0,00
0.00 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00 0,00 0,20 0,40 0,60 0,80 1,00
α α
(c) (d)
Fig. 21. f  a relationship for the six-storey structures.

Dtop;infill ¼ a  DNLS
top;bare ð14Þ
0.884 was observed. On the basis of the qualitative and quantita-
tive observations explained above, the f  a relationship was
approximated through the following linear law: obtained by introducing the analytical correlation (13) within
the Eq. (10).
f ðaÞ ¼ a: ð13Þ
5. Further considerations about the accuracy of the proposed
4.4. Outline of the proposed procedure simplified procedure

The correlation between the parameters f and a emerged at the
end of Section 3 and the other observations pointed out by the
results of the parametric analysis reported therein directly lead
to the proposed procedure for determining the seismic response
of masonry infilled RC frames. Particularly, this procedure is based
on the following operational steps:
1. performing two NLS analyses on both the masonry infilled
structure and the corresponding bare one according to the cur-
rent code provisions [10,25];
The results obtained by applying the proposed procedure on the
structures under investigation are presented herein and compared
with the ones obtained through NLTH analyses.
According to EN 1998 [10] provisions, the displacement
demand of the structures evaluated through NLS analysis was
taken equal to the maximum value between the ones obtained
applying the two different horizontal force distributions ‘‘modal’’
and ‘‘uniform’’. Hence, Fig. 24 shows the comparison between the
(average of seven) displacement demand values determined by
means of the top displacement Dtop;infill ¼ DNLTH
top;infill obtained through

2. determining the performance point of the bare structure NLTH analyses (x-axis) and the corresponding value determined
DNLS for the earthquake of interest through the N2 via the proposed procedure based on NLS analyses and described
top;bare
in Section 4. The four charts reported in Fig. 24, in which the results
Method [9];
were grouped for highlighting the influence of the parameters
3. evaluating the areas under the capacity curves of both the
affecting the response of the masonry infilled structures under
infilled ANLS NLS
infill and the bare Abare structures, up to a displacement consideration, clearly confirm the high level of correlation between
equal to the demand DNLS
top;bare determined at the point 2; the numerical results estimated via NLTH analysis and the corre-
4. evaluating the parameter a by applying Eq. (11); sponding ones derived by Eq. (14). Moreover, the significant level
5. evaluating the displacement capacity Dtop;infill of the infilled of accuracy of the proposed procedure is demonstrated. Fig. 25 out-
structure by means of the simple equation: lines this comparison and reports the value R2 = 0.934 obtained for
606 E. Martinelli et al. / Engineering Structures 101 (2015) 591–608

1.00 1.00
2-storeys Type A

0.80 4-storeys 0.80 Type B

0.60 6-storeys 0.60 Type C

f

f
2 2
R =0.892 R =0.854
0.40 (2-storeys) 0.40 (Type A)
2 2
R =0.924 R =0.866
0.20 (4-storeys) 0.20 (Type B)
2 2
R =0.918 R =0.937
(6-storeys) (TypeC)
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00 0.00 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00
α α
(a) (b)
1.00 1.00
a=0.00
0.10g
a=0.20
0.80 0.80
a=0.40
0.35g
0.60 a=0.60 f 0.60
f

2
R =0.786 2
0.40 (a=0.00) 0.40 R =0.887
2
R =0.875 (0.10g)
(a=0.20)
0.20 R2=0.921 0.20 2
(a=0.40) R =0.763
R2=0.809 (0.35g)
0.00 (a=0.60) 0.00
0.00 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00 0.00 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00
α α
(c) (d)

Fig. 22. Coefficient of determination R2 of the f  a relationship.

the coefficient of determination. Particularly, the comparison chart
in Fig. 25 demonstrates the very good agreement between the
numerical results estimated via NLTH analysis and the correspond-
ing ones derived by the proposed NLS procedure.
Furthermore, in order to provide a quantitative measure of the
accuracy of the proposed procedure, the distribution of the ratio x
between the displacement demand obtained by the proposed pro-
cedure and the NLTH analyses was investigated:
Finally, with the aim of providing Readers with a measure, that
could be directly employed in simplified reliability analyses to take
into account the so-called ‘‘epistemic uncertainty’’ [29], the follow-
ing reliability factor bD intended at covering the aforementioned
uncertainties was evaluated as the standard deviation of the natu-
ral logarithm of the ratio x [30]:
bD ¼ rðln xÞ: ð16Þ

DNLS
top;infill 1.00
x¼ : ð15Þ
DNLTH
top;infill
structures
0.80 as a whole
Moreover, the relevant statistical parameters (i.e., average value l
and standard deviation r) of the x ratio were determined and 0.60
Fig. 26 shows its cumulative distribution of frequency.
f

The numerical values reported in Fig. 26 demonstrate that the

proposed procedure is rather accurate, being the median value of 0.40
2
R =0.884
the distribution of x rather close to the unit; moreover the standard
(structures
deviation r = 0.323 demonstrates the medium-to-low values of 0.20 as a
uncertainties introduced by the proposed simplified procedure. whole)
Particularly, it leads to slightly conservative estimation of the dis-
placement demand, as clearly pointed out by the median value 0.00
0.00 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00
^
x = 0.926, slightly lower than the unit. As a further measure of
α
the accuracy achieved by the proposed procedure, it is worth high-
lighting that the average error, in terms of the same displacement Fig. 23. Coefficient of determination R2 of the f  a relationship for all the
ratio defined in Eq. (15) is 0.972. structures under consideration.
 E. Martinelli et al. / Engineering Structures 101 (2015) 591–608 607

25.00 25.00
2-storeys Type A

20.00 4-storeys 20.00 Type B

Δtop,infillNLS [cm]
Δtop,infillNLS [cm]

15.00 6-storeys 15.00 Type C

2 2
R =0.953 R =0.940
10.00 (2-storeys) 10.00 (Type A)
2 2
R =0.979 R =0.932
5.00 (4-storeys) 5.00 (Type B)
2 2
R =0.957 R =0.935
(6-storeys) (TypeC)
0.00 0.00
0.00 5.00 10.00 15.00 20.00 25.00 0.00 5.00 10.00 15.00 20.00 25.00
Δtop,infillNLTH [cm] Δtop,infillNLTH [cm]
(a) (b)

25.00 25.00
a=0.00
0.10g
a=0.20
20.00 20.00
a=0.40
Δtop,infillNLS [cm]

Δtop,infillNLS [cm]
0.35g
15.00 a=0.60 15.00

2
R =0.961
2
10.00 (a=0.00) 10.00 R =0.854
2
R =0.967 (0.10g)
(a=0.20)
5.00 R2=0.923 5.00 2
(a=0.40) R =0.796
R2=0.935 (0.35g)
0.00 (a=0.60) 0.00
0.00 5.00 10.00 15.00 20.00 25.00 0.00 5.00 10.00 15.00 20.00 25.00
Δtop,infillNLTH [cm] Δtop,infillNLTH [cm]
(c) (d)
Fig. 24. Accuracy of the proposed method and coefficients of determination R2.

25.00
1.00
0.90
structures 0.80
20.00 as a whole
0.70
Δtop,infillNLS [cm]

0.60
Pr(xi)

15.00 0.50
xˆ = 0.926
0.40
95%=1.286
5%=0.652

10.00 0.30
2
R =0.934 0.20
(structures 0.10 σ =0.323
5.00 as a
0.00
whole) 0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00
x
0.00
0.00 5.00 10.00 15.00 20.00 25.00
Fig. 26. Cumulative distribution of the actual-to-predicted top displacement ratio.
Δtop,infill NLTH [cm]

Fig. 25. Accuracy of the proposed method and coefficients of determination R2 for
all the structures under consideration. 6. Conclusions

This paper presented the complete ‘‘inductive process’’ that led

the Authors to formulate a novel procedure for predicting the seis-
Fig. 27 reports the value of the reliability index bD and the lines cor- mic response of masonry infilled RC frames. This procedure is
responding to 16% and 84% percentiles evaluated by considering all based upon the execution of two pushover analyses carried out
the analysed cases as a whole. The value of bD = 0.261 confirms the on the infilled and bare frames and the determination of a dimen-
accuracy of the proposed NLS method as a significant number of sionless parameter which is intended at quantifying the actual
points are close to the equivalence segment. contribution of masonry infill walls to the lateral response of RC
608
25.00
Δtop,infillNLS eβD
20.00
Δtop,infillNLS [cm]
15.00
Δtop,infillNLS e-βD
10.00
5.00
0.00
0.00 5.00 10.00 15.00 20.00
Δtop,infill NLTH [cm]
Fig. 27. Reliability index and 16% and 84% percentiles.
frames: it is used for reducing the displacement demand deter-
mined on the bare frame and determining the performance point
on the pushover curve of the infilled one.
In the Authors’ opinion, simplicity is one of the key attractive
features of the proposed procedure, which is based on performing
two NLS static analyses on a nonlinear model of the structure with
and without taking into account the masonry walls: Section 4.4
resumes its five operational steps. It is worth highlighting that
the proposed method was calibrated for seismic signals whose
PGA ranges between 0.10g and 0.35g: although this range is
deemed representative of medium-to-high hazard regions in
Europe, a wider validation is needed for the method to be applied
in case of higher seismic hazard levels.
However, in spite of its simplicity, the proposed procedure
demonstrated its accuracy on a wide set of structures with differ-
ent number of storeys, bays and distributions of the masonry infills
throughout the RC frame. Moreover, due to the simple analytical
definitions adopted within this procedure, it clearly reduces to
the N2 Method in the case of either ‘‘weak’’ masonry infills and/or
‘‘high’’ level of seismic excitation.
Finally, since it is based on NLS analyses and the well-known N2
Method, the procedure can be considered as fully compliant with
the Codes of Standards currently in force in Europe, either for
designing new RC structures or retrofitting existing ones in seismic
areas. It is nonetheless worth highlighting that, beyond the funda-
mental mechanical bases that can be figured out in a possible rela-
tionship between the displacement of a bare frame and the one
obtained on the corresponding infilled frame, the proposed corre-
lation has to be intended as a mainly empirical finding, whose cal-
ibration could be further enhanced with reference to a wider
parametric field (e.g. a wider range of seismic intensities).
Acknowledgements
This study is part of the DPC-ReLUIS 2014-2018 Research Project,
Line–General Themes/Territorial Themes–RC Constructions (WP3).
The Authors wish to acknowledge the ReLUIS Consortium for the
financial support of this research.
E. Martinelli et al. / Engineering Structures 101 (2015) 591–608
References
structures [1] Penelis GG, Kappos AJ. Earthquake-resistant concrete structures. 1st
as a whole ed. Abington, Oxon (UK): Taylor & Francis; 1997.
[2] Kakaletsis DJ, Karayannis CG. Influence of masonry strength and openings on
infilled R/C frames under cyclic loading. J Earthquake Eng 2008;12(2):
197–221.
[3] Koutromanos I, Stavridis A, Shing PB, Willam K. Numerical modeling of
βD = 0.261 masonry-infilled RC frames subjected to seismic loads. Comput Struct
2011;89:1026–37.
[4] Karayannis C, Favvata M, Kakaletsis D. Seismic behaviour of infilled and pilotis
Avg
RC frame structures with beam–column joint degradation effect. Eng Struct
(structures
2011;33:2821–31.
as a [5] Uva G, Porco F, Fiore A. Appraisal of masonry infill walls effect in the
whole) seismic response of RC framed buildings: a case study. Eng Struct 2012;34:
514–26.
[6] Dolsek M, Fajfar P. Simplified non-linear seismic analysis of infilled reinforced
25.00 concrete frames. Earthquake Eng Struct Dynam 2005;34:49–66.
[7] Dolsek M, Fajfar P. Inelastic spectra for infilled reinforced concrete frames.
Earthquake Eng Struct Dynam 2004;33:1395–416.
[8] Lima C, Martinelli E, De Stefano G. Seismic response of infilled RC frames:
practice-oriented models and open issues. Earthq Struct 2014;6(4):
409–36.
[9] Fajfar P. Capacity spectrum method based on inelastic demand spectra.
Earthquake Eng Struct Dynam 1999;28:979–93.
[10] European Committee for Standardization C.E.N. Eurocode 8: Design of
Structures for Earthquake Resistance. EN 1998-1-6:2005, Brussels (BE).
[11] Favvata MJ, Naoum MC, Karayannis CG. Limit states of RC structures with first
floor irregularities. Struct Eng Mech 2013;47(6):791–818.
[12] Martinelli E, Faella C. Nonlinear static analyses based on either inelastic or
elastic spectra with equivalent viscous damping: a parametric comparison.
Eng Struct 2015;88:241–50.
[13] Smith BS. Behaviour of square infilled frames. J Struct Div 1966;92(1):
381–403.
[14] Campione G, Cavaleri L, Macaluso G, Amato G, Di Trapani F. Evaluation of
infilled frames: an updated in-plane-stiffness macro-model considering the
effects of vertical loads. Bull Earthq Eng 2014. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/
s10518-014-9714-x.
[15] Cavaleri L, Papia M, Macaluso G, Di Trapani F, Colajanni P. Definition of
diagonal Poisson’s ratio and elastic modulus for infill masonry walls. Mater
Struct 2014;47:239–62.
[16] Cavaleri L, Di Trapani F. Prediction of the additional shear action on frame
members due to infills. Bull Earthq Eng 2014. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/
s10518-014-9668-z.
[17] Dolsek M, Fajfar P. The effect of masonry infills on the seismic response of a
four storey reinforced concrete frame – a deterministic assessment. Eng Struct
2008;30(11):1991–2001.
[18] Papia M, Cavaleri L, Fossetti M. Infilled frames: developments in the evaluation
of the stiffening effect of infills. Struct Eng Mech 2003;16(6):675–93.
[19] Kakaletsis D, Karayannis C. Experimental investigation of infilled R/C frames
with eccentric openings. Struct Eng Mech 2007;26(3):231–50.
[20] Asteris PG. Lateral stiffness of brick masonry infilled plane frames. J Struct Eng
ASCE 2003;129(8):1071–9.
[21] Regio Decreto 16/11/1939 n. 2229. Norme per la esecuzione delle opere in
conglomerato cementizio semplice ed armato (in Italian); 1939.
[22] Santarella L. Prontuario del Cemento Armato (in Italian), XXV Edizione, Hoepli,
Milano (Italy); 1966.
[23] European Committee for Standardization C.E.N. Eurocode 1: Actions on
structures. EN 1991-1-6:2005, Brussels (BE).
[24] Aybige A, Malagnini L, Sabetta F. Characteristics of the string ground motions
from the 6 April 2009 L’Aquila earthquake, Italy. Soil Dynam Earthq Eng
2010;30:320–35.
[25] Ministerial Decree. Nuove norme tecniche per le costruzioni (in Italian).
Ordinary Supplement n. 30 to the Italian Official Journal of 04 February 2008;
2008.
[26] Iervolino I, Galasso C, Cosenza E. REXEL: computer aided selection for code-
based seismic structural analysis. Bull Earthq Eng 2010;8(2):339–62.
[27] Mazzoni S, McKenna F, Scott MH, Fenves GL, et al. OpenSEES Open System for
Earthquake Simulation, Command Language Manual. Pacific Earthquake
Engineering Research Center; 2007.
[28] Cavaleri L, Fossetti M, Papia M. Infilled frames: developments in the evaluation
of cyclic behaviour under lateral loads. Struct Eng Mech 2005;21(4):469–94.
[29] Cornell CA, Jalayer F, Hamburger RO, Foutch DA. Probabilistic basis for the
2000 SAC/FEMA steel moment frame guidelines. J Struct Eng
2002;128(4):526–33.
[30] Pinto PE, Giannini R, Franchin P. Seismic reliability analysis of structures. Pavia
(Italy): IUSS Press; 2004.