A novel macromodel for prediction of shear failure in columns of masonry infilled RC frames under earthquake loading

  • Syed Humayun Basha
  • Hemant B. KaushikEmail author
Original Research


Columns of masonry infilled reinforced concrete frames are prone to shear failure due to the detrimental effect of infill under lateral earthquake loads. This effect is catastrophic in ground storey columns, where the shear force demand is very high. The primary objective of the study is to understand the applicability of the codal recommendations to estimate the shear demand on the columns realistically, and propose an alternative solution for prediction of shear failure of columns by improving the existing macro-modelling techniques. Half-scaled specimens of masonry infilled RC frames tested in an experimental study were considered to evaluate the proposed improvements. Applicability of the improved macromodel was also verified with the results obtained in other past experimental studies. The proposed simplified analytical modelling technique can be used for practical engineering purposes to assess the shear failure of columns and can be utilized for designing or strengthening the shear deficient columns in such frames.


Masonry infilled RC frames Column shear failure Macromodel Seismic design 



The authors acknowledge the financial assistance provided by the Ministry of Human Resource Development (MHRD), Government of India, in the doctoral research work of the first author.


  1. Al-Chaar G (2002) Evaluating strength and stiffness of unreinforced masonry infill structures, Construction Engineering Research Laboratory, Engineering Research and Development Center, US Army Corps of Engineers, ERDC/CERL TR-02-01Google Scholar
  2. Al-Chaar G, Issa M, Sweeney S (2002) Behavior of masonry–infilled nonductile reinforced concrete frames. J Struct Eng 128(8):1055–1063CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Amato G, Cavaleri L, Fossetti M, Papia M (2008) Infilled frames: influence of vertical load on the equivalent diagonal strut model. In: 14th World conference on earthquake engineering, Beijing, China, Paper 05-01-0479Google Scholar
  4. Amato G, Fossetti M, Cavaleri L, Papia M (2009) An updated model of equivalent diagonal strut for infill panels. In: Proceedings of the Eurocode 8, perspectives from the Italian standpoint workshop. Doppiavoce Editor. Napoli, Italy, pp 119–128Google Scholar
  5. American Concrete Institute (ACI) (2008) Building code requirements for structural concrete. ACI 318Google Scholar
  6. ASCE (2013) Seismic evaluation and retrofit of existing buildings, ASCE/SEI 41-13. Reston, VA, USAGoogle Scholar
  7. Asteris PG (2003) Lateral stiffness of brick masonry infilled plane frames. J Struct Eng 129(8):1071–1079CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Asteris PG, Cotsovos DM (2012) Numerical investigation of the effect of infill walls on the structural response of RC frames. Open Construc Build Technol J 6(1):164–181CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Asteris PG, Antoniou ST, Sophianopoulos DS, Chrysostomou CZ (2011) Mathematical macromodeling of infilled frames: state of the art. J Struct Eng 137(12):1508–1517. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Asteris PG, Cotsovos DM, Chrysostomou CZ, Mohebkhah A, Al-Chaar GK (2013) Mathematical micromodelling of infilled frames: state of the art. Eng Struct 56:1905–1921CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Asteris PG, Cavaleri L, Di Trapani F, Sarhosis V (2016) A macro-modelling approach for the analysis of infilled frame structures considering the effects of openings and vertical loads. Struct Infrastruct Eng 12(5):51–566CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. ASTM (2012) Standard test method for compressive strength of masonry prisms. Masonry test methods and specifications for the building industry, ASTM C1314-12, ASTM International, USAGoogle Scholar
  13. Basha SH, Kaushik HB (2015) Evaluation of non-linear material properties of fly ash brick masonry under compression and shear. J Mater Civ Eng 27(8):04014227(1–11).
  14. Basha SH, Kaushik HB (2016a) Behavior and failure mechanisms of masonry-infilled RC frames (in low-rise buildings) subject to lateral loading. Eng Struct 111:233–245CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Basha SH, Kaushik HB (2016b) Suitability of fly ash brick masonry as infill in reinforced concrete frames. Mater Struct 49(9):3831–3845. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Bose S, Rai DC (2016) Lateral load behavior of an open-ground-story RC building with AAC infills in upper stories. Earthq Spectra 32(3):1653–1674. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Buonopane SG, White RN (1999) Pseudo dynamic testing of masonry infilled reinforced concrete frame. J Struct Eng 125(6):578–589CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Bureau Indian Standards (BIS) (1987) Indian standard code of practice for structural use of unreinforced masonry, IS 1905, 2nd Revision, New Delhi, IndiaGoogle Scholar
  19. Bureau of Indian Standards (BIS) (1993) Indian standard ductile detailing of reinforced concrete structures subjected to seismic forces–code of practice, IS 13920. New Delhi, IndiaGoogle Scholar
  20. Bureau of Indian Standards (BIS) (2000) Indian standard plain and reinforced concrete–code of practice, IS 456, 4th Revision. New Delhi, IndiaGoogle Scholar
  21. Bureau of Indian Standards (BIS) (2002) Indian standard criteria for earthquake resistant design of structures. Part 1: general provisions and buildings, IS 1893. New Delhi, IndiaGoogle Scholar
  22. Campione G, Cavaleri L, Macaluso G, Amato G, Di Trapani F (2015) Evaluation of infilled frames: an updated in-plane-stiffness macro-model considering the effects of vertical loads. Bull Earthq Eng 13:2265–2281CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Cavaleri L, Di Trapani F (2014) Cyclic response of masonry infilled RC frames: experimental results and simplified modeling. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 65:224–242CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Cavaleri L, Di Trapani F (2015) Prediction of the additional shear action on frame members due to infills. Bull Earthq Eng 13(5):1425–1454CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Cavaleri L, Fossetti M, Papia M (2005) Infilled frames: developments in the evaluation of cyclic behaviour under lateral loads. Struct Eng Mech 21(4):469–494CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Cavaleri L, Papia M, Macaluso G, Di Trapani F, Colajanni P (2014) Definition of diagonal Poisson’s ratio and elastic modulus for infill masonry walls. Mater Struct 47(1–2):239–262CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Cavaleri L, Di Trapani F, Asteris PG, Sarhosis V (2017) Influence of column shear failure on pushover based assessment of masonry infilled reinforced concrete frame structures: a case. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 100:98–112CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Celarec D, Dolšek M (2013) Practice-oriented probabilistic seismic performance assessment of infilled frames with consideration of shear failure of columns. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 42(9):1339–1360CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Celarec D, Ricci P, Dolšek M (2012) The sensitivity of seismic response parameters to the uncertain modelling variables of masonry-infilled reinforced concrete frames. Eng Struct 35:165–177CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Choudhury T, Kaushik HB (2018) Seismic fragility of open ground storey RC frames with wall openings for vulnerability assessment. Eng Struct 155:345–357CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Chrysostomou CZ, Asteris PG (2012) On the in-plane properties and capacities of infilled frames. Eng Struct 41:385–402CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Chrysostomou CZ, Gergely P, Abel JF (2002) A six-strut model for nonlinear dynamic analysis of steel infilled frames. Int J Struct Stab Dyn 2(3):335–353CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Crisafulli FJ, Carr AJ (2007) Proposed macro-model for the analysis of infilled frame structures. Bull NZ Soc Earthq Eng 40(2):69–77Google Scholar
  34. CSI (2015) Structural analysis program (SAP2000)—advanced, static and dynamic finite element analysis of structures. Computers and Structures Inc., BerkeleyGoogle Scholar
  35. D’Ayala D, Worth J, Riddle O (2009) Realistic shear capacity assessment of infill frames: comparison of two numerical procedures. Eng Struct 31(8):1745–1761CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Decanini LD, Fantin GE (1987) Modelos simplificados de la mampostería incluida en porticos. Características de rigidez y Resistencia lateral en astado límite. Jornadas Argentinas de Ingeniería Estructural III, Asociacion de Ingenieros Estructurales, Buenos Aires, Argentina 2:817–836 (in Spanish) Google Scholar
  37. Decanini LD, Liberatore L, Mollaioli F (2014) Strength and stiffness reduction factors for infilled frames with openings. Earthq Eng Eng Vib 13(3):437–454CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Di Trapani F, Macaluso G, Cavaleri L, Papia M (2015) Masonry infills and RC frames interaction: literature overview and state of the art of macromodeling approach. Eur J Environ Civ Eng 19(9):1059–1095. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Durrani AJ, Luo YH (1994) Seismic retrofit of flat-slab buildings with masonry infills. Technical Report NCEER-94-0004 (edited by D.P. Abrams), Buffalo, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  40. El-Dakhakhni WW, Elgaaly M, Hamid AA (2003) Three-strut model for concrete masonry-infilled steel frames. J Struct Eng 129(2):177–185CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. European Committee of Standardization (CEN) (2004) Design of structures for earthquake resistance—part 1: general rules, seismic actions and rules for buildings. EN 1998-1, Eurocode 8. BrusselsGoogle Scholar
  42. Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) (1998) Evaluation of earthquake damaged concrete and masonry wall buildings: basic procedures manual. FEMA-306, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  43. Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) (2000) Prestandard and commentary for the seismic rehabilitation of buildings. FEMA-356, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  44. Fiore A, Netti A, Monaco P (2012) The influence of masonry infill on the seismic behaviour of RC frame buildings. Eng Struct 44:133–145CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Fiore A, Spagnoletti G, Greco R (2016) On the prediction of shear brittle collapse mechanisms due to the infill-frame interaction in RC buildings under pushover analysis. Eng Struct 121:147–159. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Flanagan RD, Bennett RM (1999) In-plane behaviour of structural clay tile infilled frames. J Struct Eng 125(6):590–599CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Flanagan RD, Bennett RM (2001) In-plane analysis of masonry infill materials. Pract Periodical Struct Des Construc 6(4):176–182CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Ghosh AK, Amde AM (2002) Finite element analysis of infilled frames. J Struct Eng 128(7):881–889CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Hamburger RO, Chakradeo AS (1993) Methodology for seismic capacity evaluation of steel frame buildings with infill masonry walls. In: Proceedings of the national earthquake conference. Memphis, TN, USA, pp 173–182Google Scholar
  50. Hendry AW (1998) Structural masonry, 2nd edn. Macmillan Press, LondonCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Holmes M (1961) Steel frames with brickwork and concrete infilling. Proc Inst Civ Eng 19(4):473–478Google Scholar
  52. Kaushik HB, Rai DC, Jain SK (2006) Code approaches to seismic design of masonry-infilled reinforced concrete frames: a state-of-the-art review. Earthq Spectra 22(4):961–983. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Kaushik HB, Rai DC, Jain SK (2007) Stress–strain characteristics of clay brick masonry under uniaxial compression. J Mater Civ Eng 19(9):728–739CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Kaushik HB, Rai DC, Jain SK (2009) Effectiveness of some strengthening options for masonry-infilled RC frames with open first story. J Struct Eng 135(8):925–937CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Klingner RE, Bertero VV (1978) Earthquake resistance of infilled frames. J Struct Div 104(ST6):973–989Google Scholar
  56. Koutromanos I, Stavridis A, Shing PB, Willam K (2011) Numerical modeling of masonry-infilled RC frames subjected to seismic loads. Comput Struct 89:1026–1037CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Liauw TC, Kwan KH (1984) Nonlinear behaviour of nonintegral infilled frames. Comput Struct 18:551–560CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Maidiawati, Sanada Y (2016) R/C frame–infill interaction model and its application to Indonesian buildings. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 46(2):221–241CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Mainstone RJ (1971) On the stiffness and strength of infilled frames. Proc Inst Civ Eng 49(2):57–90Google Scholar
  60. Mander JB, Priestley MJN, Park R (1988) Theoretical stress–strain model for confined concrete. J Struct Eng 114:1804–1826CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Masonry Standards Joint Committee (MSJC) (2013) Building code requirements and specifications for masonry structures. Farmington Hills, MIGoogle Scholar
  62. Mehrabi AB, Shing PB (1997) Finite element modeling of masonry-infilled RC frames. J Struct Eng 123(5):604–613CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Mehrabi AB, Shing PB, Schuller MP, Noland JL (1996) Experimental evaluation of masonry-infilled RC frames. J Struct Eng 122(3):228–237CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Milanesi RR, Morandi P, Magenes G (2018) Local effects on RC frames induced by AAC masonry infills through FEM simulation of in-plane tests. Bull Earthq Eng. Google Scholar
  65. Mohammadi M, Nikfar F (2013) Strength and stiffness of masonry-infilled frames with central openings based on experimental results. J Struct Eng 139(6):974–984CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Mondal G, Jain SK (2008) Lateral stiffness of masonry infilled reinforced concrete (RC) frames with central opening. Earthq Spectra 24(3):701–723CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. NCEER (1994) Workshop on “Seismic response of masonry infills”. Technical report NCEER-94-0004, San FranciscoGoogle Scholar
  68. 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
  69. Papia M, Cavaleri L, Fossetti M (2004) Effect of vertical loads on lateral response of infilled frames. In: 13th World conference on earthquake engineering, Vancouver, Canada, No. 2931Google Scholar
  70. Paulay T, Priestley MJN (1992) Seismic design of reinforced concrete and masonry buildings. Wiley, New YorkCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Penava D, Sigmund V, Kožar I (2016) Validation of a simplified micromodel for analysis of infilled RC frames exposed to cyclic lateral loads. Bull Earthq Eng 14:2779–2804. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Shing PB, Stavridis A (2014) Analysis of seismic response of masonry-infilled RC frames through collapse. ACI Struct J Special Paper 297-7Google Scholar
  73. Smith BS (1966) Behaviour of the square infilled frames. J Struct Div Proc ASCE 91(ST1):381–403Google Scholar
  74. Smith BS, Carter C (1969) A method of analysis for infilled frames. Proc Inst Civ Eng 44(1):31–48Google Scholar
  75. Smyrou E, Blandon C, Antoniou S, Pinho R, Crisafulli F (2011) Implementation and verification of a masonry panel model for nonlinear dynamic analysis of infilled RC frames. Bull Earthq Eng 9:1519–1534. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Sucuoğlu H, Siddiqui U (2014) Pseudo-dynamic testing and analytical modeling of AAC infilled RC frames. J Earthq Eng 18(8):1281–1301CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Tasnimi AA, Mohebkhah A (2011) Investigation on the behavior of brick-infilled steel frames with openings, experimental and analytical approaches. Eng Struct 33(3):968–980CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Thiruvengadam V (1985) On the natural frequencies of infilled frames. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 13(3):401–419CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. Wood RH (1978) Plasticity, composite action and collapse design of unreinforced shear wall panels in frames. ICE Proc 65:381–411Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.College of Civil EngineeringHuaqiao UniversityXiamenChina
  2. 2.Department of Civil EngineeringIndian Institute of Technology GuwahatiGuwahatiIndia

Personalised recommendations