Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering

, Volume 14, Issue 12, pp 3529–3546 | Cite as

Seismic response of masonry-infilled steel frames via multi-scale finite-element analyses

  • Federico Margiacchi
  • Luca Salvatori
  • Maurizio OrlandoEmail author
  • Mario De Stefano
  • Paolo Spinelli
Original Research Paper


Effects of masonry infills on the seismic vulnerability of steel frames is studied through multi-scale numerical modelling. First, a micro-modelling approach is utilized to define a homogenized masonry material, calibrated on experimental tests, which is used for modelling the nonlinear response of a one-story, single span, masonry-infilled portal under horizontal loads. Based on results of the micro-model, the constitutive behavior of a diagonal strut macro-element equivalent to the infill panel is calibrated. Then, the diagonal strut is used to model infill panels in the macro-scale analysis of a multi-span multi-story infilled moment-resisting (MR) steel frame. The seismic vulnerability of the MR frame is evaluated through a nonlinear static procedure. Numerical analyses highlight that infills may radically modify the seismic response and the failure mechanism of the frame, hence the importance of the infill correct modelling.


Masonry infill Steel frames Multi-scale simulations Equivalent strut Parametric analyses Seismic vulnerability Soft story 



Federico Margiacchi thankfully acknowledges the support and suggestions of Prof. Dr.-Ing. Wolfhard Zhalten and Dr.-Ing. Renato Eusani during his internship at EZI Ingenieurgesellschaft mbH, Solingen, Germany.


  1. Andreini M, De Falco A, Giresini L, Sassu M (2014) Structural damage in the cities of Reggiolo and Carpi after the earthquake on May 2012 in Emilia Romagna. Bull Earthq Eng 12(5):2445–2480CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. ANSYS Inc. (1998) ANSYS v.11.0 manual, Canonsburg (PA)Google Scholar
  3. ASCE (2000) Prestandard and Commentary for the Seismic Rehabilitation of Buildings, prepared for the SAC Joint Venture, published by the Federal Emergency Management Agency, FEMA-356, Washington (DC)Google Scholar
  4. Asteris PG, Antoniou ST, Sophianopoulos DS, Chrysostomou CZ (2011a) Mathematical macro-modelling of infilled frames: state-of-the-art. J Struct Eng ASCE 137(12):1508–1517CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Asteris PG, Chrysostomou CZ, Giannopoulos IP, Smyrou E (2011b) Masonry infilled reinforced concrete frames with openings. In: Proceedings of the third international conference on computational methods in structural dynamics and earthquake engineering (COMPDYN 2011), Corfu, GreeceGoogle Scholar
  6. Barua HK, Mallick SK (1977) Behaviour of mortar infilled steel frames under lateral load. Build Environ 12(4):263–272CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Beconcini ML, Croce P, Pellegrini D (2007) Comportamento meccanico di tamponamenti in blocchi di laterizio rettificati e giunti sottili. L'Industria dei Laterizi 106:248–261 (in Italian)Google Scholar
  8. Berti M, Salvatori L, Orlando M, Spinelli P (2016) Unreinforced masonry walls with irregular opening layouts: reliability of equivalent-frame modelling for seismic vulnerability assessment. Bull Earthq Eng. doi: 10.1007/s10518-016-9985-5 Google Scholar
  9. Betti M, Bartoli G, Orlando M (2010) Evaluation study on structural fault of a Renaissance Italian palace. Eng Struct 32(7):1801–1813CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Betti M, Orlando M, Vignoli A (2011) Static behaviour of an Italian Medieval Castle: damage assessment by numerical modelling. Comput Struct 89(21–22):1956–1970CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Caliò I, Pantò B (2014) A macro-element modelling approach of infilled frame structures. Comput Struct 143:91–107CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. CEN (Comite´ Europe´en de Normalisation) (2003) Eurocode: design of structures for earthquake resistance—part: general rules, seismic actions and rules for buildings. Comite´ Europe´en de Normalisation, BrusselsGoogle Scholar
  13. Chiostrini S, Vignoli A (1996) Ultimate strength evaluation of unreinforced masonry buildings via numerical simulations. In: Proceedings of the eleventh world conference on earthquake engineering, Acapulco, MexicoGoogle Scholar
  14. Chrysostomou CZ (1991) Effects of degrading infill walls on the nonlinear seismic response of two-dimensional steel frames. PhD Thesis, Cornell University, Ithaca (NY)Google Scholar
  15. Chrysostomou CZ, Asteris PG (2012) On the in-plane properties and capacities of infilled frames. Eng Struct 41:385–402CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 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
  17. Crisafulli FJ, Carr AJ, Park R (2000) Analytical modelling of infilled frame structures—a general review. Bull NZ Soc Earthq Eng 33(1):30–47Google Scholar
  18. CSI, SAP2000 V-16 (2013) Integrated finite element analysis and design of structures basic analysis reference manual. Computers and Structures Inc., BerkeleyGoogle Scholar
  19. Dawe JL, McBride RT (1985) Experimental investigation of the shear resistance of masonry panels in steel frames. In: Proceedings of the seventh brick masonry conference, Melbourne, Australia, pp 791–801Google Scholar
  20. 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
  21. Dowell RK, Seible FS, Wilson EL (1998) Pivot hysteretic model for reinforced concrete memers. ACI Struct J 95:607–617Google Scholar
  22. El-Dakhakhni WW, Elgaaly M, Hamid AA (2003) Three-strut model for concrete masonry-infilled frames. J Struct Eng 129(2):177–185CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. FEMA 306 (1999) Evaluation of earthquake damaged concrete and masonry wall buildings—basic procedures manual, prepared by the Applied Technology Council (ATC-43), Washington (DC)Google Scholar
  24. Giresini L, Fragiacomo M, Lourenço PB (2015) Comparison between rocking analysis and kinematic analysis for the dynamic out-of-plane behavior of masonry walls. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 44(13):2359–2376CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Holmes M (1961) Steel frames with brickwork and concrete infilling. Proc Inst Civ Eng 19:473–478Google Scholar
  26. Klingner RE, Bertero VV (1978) Earthquake resistance of infilled frames. J Struct Div ASCE 104(6):973–989Google Scholar
  27. Liauw TC, Kwan KH (1984) Nonlinear behaviour of non-integral infilled frames. Comput Struct 18:551–560CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Liauw TC, Lo CQ (1988) Multibay infilled frames without shear connectors. J Am Concr Inst 85(4):423–428Google Scholar
  29. Mainstone RJ (1971) On the stiffnesses and strengths of infilled frames. Proc Inst Civ Eng suppl iv:57–90Google Scholar
  30. Mallick DV, Garg RP (1971) Effect of openings on the lateral stiffness of infilled frames. Proc Inst Civ Eng 49:193–209Google Scholar
  31. Mehrabi AB, Shing PB, Schuller MP, Noland JL (1996) Experimental evaluation of masonry infilled RC frames. J Struct Eng ASCE 3:228–237CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Mochizuki S (1988) Inelastic behavior of framed shear wall governed by slip failure of wall panel. In: Proceedings of the ninth world conference on earthquake engineering, Tokyo-Kyoto, Japan, pp 505–510Google Scholar
  33. Moghaddam HA (2004) Lateral load behavior of masonry infilled steel frames with repair and retrofit. J Struct Eng 130(1):56–63CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Moghaddam HA, Dowling PJ (1987) The state of the art in infilled frames. ESEE research report no. 87-2, Imperial College of Science and Technology, Civil Eng. Department, London (UK)Google Scholar
  35. Orlando M, Salvatori L, Spinelli P, De Stefano M (2016) Displacement capacity of masonry piers: parametric numerical analyses versus international building codes. Bull Earthq Eng 14(8):2259–2271. doi: 10.1007/s10518-016-9903-x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Panagiotakos TB, Fardis MN (1996) Seismic Response of Infilled RC Frame Structures. In: Proceedings of the eleventh world conference on earthquake engineering, Acapulco, MexicoGoogle Scholar
  37. Salvatori L, Marra AM, Bartoli G, Spinelli P (2015) Probabilistic seismic performance of masonry towers: general procedure and a simplified implementation. Eng Struct 94:82–95CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Thiruvengadam V (1985) On the natural frequencies of infilled frames. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 13(3):401–419CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Willam KJ, Warnke EP (1975) Constitutive model for the triaxial behaviour of concrete. In: Proceedings of the IASBE seminar on concrete structures subjected to triaxial stresses. International Association for Bridge and Structural Engineering 19, pp 1–30Google Scholar
  40. Wood RH (1978) Plasticity, composite action and collapse design of unreinforced shear wall panels in frames. ICE Proc 65:381–411Google Scholar
  41. Zucchini A, Lourenço PB (2007) Mechanics of masonry in compression: results from a homogenisation approach. Comput Struct 85(3–4):193–204CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.DICeAUniversity of FlorenceFlorenceItaly
  2. 2.DIDAUniversity of FlorenceFlorenceItaly

Personalised recommendations