Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering

, Volume 13, Issue 5, pp 1425–1454 | Cite as

Prediction of the additional shear action on frame members due to infills

  • Liborio CavaleriEmail author
  • Fabio Di Trapani
Original Research Paper


Infill masonry walls in framed structures make a significant contribution to the response under seismic actions. With special regard to reinforced concrete (RC) structures, it is known that internal forces modifications caused by the frame–infill interaction may be not supported by the surrounding frame because of the additional shear forces arising at the ends of beams and columns. Such additional forces may lead to the activation of brittle collapse mechanisms and hence their prediction is basic in capacity assessment, especially for structures that disregard the details for seismic zones. In this paper a parametric study is carried out addressed to the prediction of the shear forces mentioned before. The results of this study can be used as a support when the simplified model is adopted consisting in the substitution of infill with an equivalent pin jointed concentric strut, because in this case the structural analysis fails in the prediction of the shear forces in question. Through the paper, in which existing RC infilled frames designed only for vertical loads are discussed, analytical laws, depending on the level of the axial force arising in a concentric strut equivalent to infill, are proposed, the above analytical law allowing to correct the local shear forces in the frame critical sections, which are not predictable in the case of substitution of infill with an equivalent concentric strut.


Infilled frames Masonry infills Local shear effects Micromodel Equivalent strut 



This study was sponsored by ReLUIS, Rete di Laboratori Universitari di Ingegneria Sismica, Linea 2, Obiettivo 5: Influenza della Tamponatura sulla Risposta Strutturale.


  1. Amato G, Fossetti M, Cavaleri L, Papia M (2008) An updated model of equivalent diagonal strut for infill panels. In: Proceedings of Eurocode 8 perspectives from Italian standpoint, workshop. Napoli, ItalyGoogle Scholar
  2. Asteris PG (2003) Lateral stiffness of brick masonry infilled plane frames. J Struct Eng ASCE 129(8):1071–1079CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Asteris PG (2008) Finite element micro-modeling of infilled frames. Electron J Struct Eng 8:1–11Google Scholar
  4. Asteris PG, Antoniou ST, Sophianopoulos DS, Chrysostomou CZ (2011) Mathematical macromodeling of infilled frames: state of the art. J Struct Eng ASCE 137(12):1508–1517CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Asteris PG, Cotsovos DM (2012) Numerical investigation of the effect of infill walls on the structural response of RC frames. Open Constr Build Technol J 6(1):164–181CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Asteris PG, Cotsovos DM, Chrysostomou CZ, Mohebkhah A, Al-Chaar GK (2013) Mathematical micromodeling of infilled frames: state of the art. Eng Struct 56:1905–1921CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Cavaleri L, Di Trapani F (2014) Cyclic response of masonry infilled RC frames: experimental results and simplified modeling. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 65:224–242. doi: 10.1016/j.soildyn.2014.06.016 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Cavaleri L, Di Trapani F, Macaluso G, Papia M (2012) Reliability of code proposed models for assessment of masonry elastic moduli. Ing Sismica 29(1):38–59Google Scholar
  9. Cavaleri L, Di Trapani F, Macaluso G, Papia M, Colajanni P (2014) Definition of diagonal Poisson’s ratio and elastic modulus for infill masonry walls. Mater Struct 47:239–262CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Cavaleri L, Fossetti M, Papia M (2005) Infilled frames: developments in the evaluation of cyclic behavior under lateral loads. Struct Eng Mech 21(4):469–494CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Cavaleri L, Papia M (2003) A new dynamic identification technique: application to the evaluation of the equivalent strut for infilled frames. Eng Struct 25:889–901CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Chiou YJ, Tzeng JC, Liou YW (1999) Experimental and analytical study of masonry infilled frames. J Struct Eng ASCE 125(10):1109–1117CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Chrysostomou CZ, Asteris PG (2012) On the in-plane properties and capacities of infilled frames. Eng Struct 41:385–402CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Crisafulli FJ, Carr AJ (2007) Proposed macro-model for the analysis of infilled frame structures. Bull N Z Soc Earth Eng 40(2):69–77Google Scholar
  15. Crisafulli FJ, Carr AJ, Park R (2000) Analytical modelling of infilled frames structures: a general review. Bull N Z Soc Earth Eng 33(1):30–47Google Scholar
  16. D.M. LL. PP. 14 Gennaio 2008. Nuove norme tecniche per le costruzioniGoogle Scholar
  17. Doudoumis IN (2007) Finite element modelling and investigation of the behaviour of elastic infilled frames under monotonic loading. Eng Struct 29(6):1004–1024CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Eurocode 8 Design of structures for earthquake resistance—Part 1: General rules, seismic actions and rules for buildings. European Committee for Standardization, BrusselsGoogle Scholar
  19. FEMA 356 (2000) Prestandard and commentary for the seismic rehabilitation of buildings. Federal Emergency Mnagement Agency, WashingtonGoogle Scholar
  20. Fiore A, Netti A, Monaco P (2012) The influence of masonry infill on the seismic behavior of RC frame buildings. Eng Struct 44:133–145CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Ghosh AK, Made AM (2002) Finite element analysis of infilled frames. J Struct Eng ASCE 128(7):881–889CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Holmes M (1961) Steel frames with brickwork and concrete infilling. In: Proceedings of Institute of Civil Engineering, Paper No. 6501, pp 473–478Google Scholar
  23. Korkmaz SZ, Kamanli M, Korkmaz HH, Donduren MS, Cogurcu MT (2010) Experimental study on the behaviour of nonductile infilled RC frames strengthened with external mesh reinforcement and plaster composite. Nat Hazards Earth Syst Sci 10:2305–2316CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Koutromanos I, Stavridis A, Shing PB, Willam K (2011) Numerical modeling of masonry-infilled RC frames subjected to seismic loads. Comput Struct 89(11–12):1026–1037CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Mallick DV, Severn RT (1967) The behaviour of infilled frames under static loading. Proc Inst Civ Eng 38:639–656CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Mehrabi AB, Shing PB (1997) Finite element modelling of masonry-infilled RC frames. J Struct Eng ASCE 123(5):604–613CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Mehrabi AB, Shing PB, Schuller MP, Noland JL (1996) Experimental Evaluation of Masonry-Infilled RC Frames. J Struct Eng ASCE 122(3):228–237CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Papia M, Cavaleri L, Fossetti M (2003) Infilled frames: developments in the evaluation of the stiffening effect of infills. Struct Eng Mech 16(6):675–693CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Saneinejad A, Hobbs B (1995) Inelastic design of infilled frames. J Struct Eng ASCE 121(4):634–650CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Shing PB, Mehrabi AB (2002) Behaviour and analysis of masonry-infilled frames. Prog Struct Eng Mater 4(3):320–331CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Shing PB, Stavridis A (2014) Analysis of seismic response of masonry-infilled RC frames through collapse. ACI Struct J Spec Pap 297:1–20Google Scholar
  32. Stavridis A, Shing PB (2010) Finite-element modeling of nonlinear behavior of masonry-infilled RC frames. J Struct Eng ASCE 136(3):285–296CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Dipartimento di Ingegneria Civile, Ambientale, Aerospaziale e dei Materiali (DICAM)Università degli Studi di PalermoPalermoItaly

Personalised recommendations