Abstract
This paper presents a mechanical model developed for the simulation of the monotonic behaviour of Steel frames with Reinforced Concrete infill Walls (SRCW). In particular, it deals with a specific typology of SRCW, obtained from the classical one through the interposition of dissipative elements in the columns and by stiffening and shaping the steel frame’s corners in a way to prevent the brittle failure of the concrete in compression. This system has demonstrated in past researches to be able to overcome the typical problems of SRCWs and to assure, through a capacity design approach, a global ductile behavior. The selection of the main components to be included in the model is carried out on the base of the analysis of the available experimental tests and of the results of accurate 3D Finite Element model analyses. The behaviour of each component is represented though consolidated models present in the current stateoftheart and, where necessary, calibrated using the results of the experimental and numerical analyses. The capacity of the proposed mechanical model in representing the global behaviour of the SRCWs is finally demonstrated comparing the results in terms of force–displacement curves with the ones obtained through the refined 3D Finite Element models.
Introduction
The effects of the interaction between steel or reinforced concrete (r.c.) frames with the infill panels, being the latter made by masonry or reinforced concrete, have being studied by several researchers in the last decades (Caprili et al. 2012; Ju et al. 2012; Faraji Najarkolaie et al. 2017; Milanesi et al. 2018; Ricci et al. 2018; Elwardany et al. 2019) together with the possibility of improving this structural interaction (Preti et al. 2012; Morandi et al. 2018; Marinković and Butenweg 2019; Tsantilis and Triantafillou 2020).
Following the same principles, Steel frames with Reinforced Concrete infill Wall (SRCWs) are an hybrid structural system recently and specifically developed to exploit both the high lateral stiffness of the r.c. wall in the inplane direction and the potential high dissipative capacity of the steel frames (Morino 1998; Hajjar 2002; Zona et al. 2008), aiming therefore at low or null damage for service level limit states and moderate damage for higher action levels (Braga et al. 2019). Moreover, they are characterized by an easy repair after moderate damage using epoxy resins on the cracked wall. The effective dissipative capacity of SRCWs can be severely reduced by a not optimized collaboration between the concrete wall and the steel frames that can lead to unfavorable resisting mechanisms and to severe early damage of the concrete wall (Dall’Asta et al. 2015, 2017; Cao et al. 2020). To overcome such limitations and aiming at fully exploiting the potentialities of SRCWs, the study of Dall’Asta et al. (2017) proposed a new dissipative version of the SRCW together with the associated capacity design method, characterized by the presence of steel dissipative elements placed within the steel columns, see Fig. 1, where most of the energy dissipation shall take place.
However, several past studies demonstrated, both experimentally and numerically, that the resisting mechanism of dissipative (Morelli et al. 2019) and traditional SRCWs (Liauw and Lee 1977; Liauw 1979; TeChang and KwokHung 1984; Liauw and Kwan 1985a; Pallarés et al. 2020a, b) is strongly influenced in the inplane loading direction by the effectiveness of shear studs distribution, proposing to divide them into three categories: the integral, nonintegral and semiintegral infill frames. In the first case the shear studs are distributed all along the steel frame, in the second the influence of shear studs, if there are any, is completely negligible, and the last case represents an intermediate situation. No relevant studies have been performed in the outofplane direction or on the inplane/outofplane interaction of such systems due the common approach of using the SRCWs as bracing systems for which the outofplane influence can be neglected. For all the three categories described, the advantages derive, indeed, from the composite actions developed between the infilled panels and the frames (Liauw and Kwan 1985b) resulting mainly in an increased stiffness and strength of the structures due to the inplane bracing action of the panels and an increased ductility and energy dissipation due to the structural interface between the frame and the infill walls. The same authors showed that among the three different types of infilled frames the integral infilled frames provide higher stiffness, strength and ductility.
Morelli et al. (2019) studied the influence of the shear studs on the dissipative SRCW proposed by Dall’Asta et al. (2017) through detailed finite element models, showing that also in the case of dissipative SRCW, the integral, nonintegral and semiintegral infill frames are characterized by deep differences, both in terms of global capacity and of failure mechanism. These studies showed that assumption of a resisting mechanism based simply on the formation of a diagonal strut, neglecting the influence of the shear studs distribution (Dall’Asta et al. 2017), leads to the underestimation of the resistance of integral and semiintegral infill frames. Moreover, the failure mechanisms for these two categories are different from the one associated to the formation of the diagonal strut.
It is so necessary to develop design tools able to foresee, in simple ways, the effective resisting mechanism and the associated resistance of the dissipative SRCW that cannot be treated as nonintegral infill frames. Considering the scope of developing tools that aim at supporting the design phase of dissipative SRCW, it is straightforward that complex finite element model should be avoided.
The present paper illustrates and discusses the development of a component based mechanical model able to represent the monotonic behaviour of dissipative SRCWs. The related resisting mechanisms are so identified assessing the global resistance to horizontal actions by defining the mechanical behaviour of each single component. This model would be extremely useful for the design of the dissipative SRCW system through the conscious dimensioning of its main resisting mechanisms.
Indeed, while component based mechanical models are hardly used to represent the behavior of the whole building, they can be used in the predesign phase to define the global mechanical characteristics of the dissipative SRCWs (e.g. initial stiffness and yielding force) to be included in an equivalent global model allowing the estimation of the forces acting on the structural elements. The componentbased model can be then used to assess the local forces acting on the single components of the SRCWs, allowing their correct dimensioning and, eventually, the update of the global model.
To develop the component based mechanical model, firstly, numerical analyses are carried out adopting a 3D refined Finite Element (FE) model. These analyses, together with the experimental results described in (Dall’Asta et al. 2015 and Morelli et al. 2019), allow to identify the components needed for the development of the mechanical model. The behaviour of each component is then represented by force–displacement laws already present in the technical and scientific literature and, where necessary, calibrated on the base of the experimental and numerical results. The single components are then organized together in a global mechanical model; its validity is assessed comparing the global behavior, in terms of stiffness and resistance to the horizontal loads, with the results obtained experimentally and through the 3D refined finite element models. Figure 2 schematically resumes the methodology followed. For the development of the whole component based mechanical model a total of 11 different SRCWs configurations are considered, including the 2 experimentally tested in (Dall’Asta et al. 2015), the 6 numerically studied in (Morelli et al. 2019) and further 3 new configurations, covering therefore all the possible main shear studs distributions for the SRCW systems.
Review of the mechanical behaviour of dissipative SRCWs and identification of the resisting mechanisms
2.1 Review of the studies on of the dissipative SRCWs
The mechanical behaviour of dissipative SRCWs is strongly influenced by the disposition of the shear studs (Dall’Asta et al. 2017; Morelli et al. 2019). These studies analyzed numerically and experimentally two configurations of dissipative SRCW system, one representative of an integral infill frame and one of a nonintegral infill frame, and 6 configurations representative of semiintegral frames only through numerical models. Figure 3 shows these 8 dissipative SRCW configurations.
The configurations referred in the cited studies as “configuration 1” and “configuration 2” and hereafter respectively named SRCW1 and SRCW2, can be respectively seen as an example of nonintegral and integral infill frames and can be assumed as the two boundary situations within which all the other configurations are included. Indeed, as Fig. 4a shows, the force–displacement curves related to cases referred as SRCWa to SRCWf in Fig. 3 are included in the fuse delimited by the two forcedisplacements curves of SRCW1 and SCRW2. Analogously, the failure mode of those two configurations can be threated, even if with some approximations, as the two boundary possibilities: the rigid rotation of the infill wall within the steel frame up to the failure in compression of the concrete as experienced by SRCW1; the initial reaction mainly associated to the shear stiffness of the infill wall up to the failure of the wall itself due to combined tensileshear forces, as experienced by SRCW2. The approximation is mainly related to the presence of few shear studs in SRCW1 introducing a supplemental source of resistance due to the pullout effect that should not be present into an actual nonintegral infill frame (Liauw and Kwan 1985a). However, considering that a limited number of shear studs are necessary to avoid the rigid outofplane falling of the infill wall, the SRCW1 can be reasonably treated as the lower boundary case.
Definition of a detailed finite element model
Aiming at individuating the resisting mechanisms that contribute to the global resistance, detailed 3D FE models of the boundary cases SRCW1 and SRCW2 are prepared. To this end, the indications contained in the research of Morelli et al. (2019), that already analyzed the possible approaches for the accurate Finite Element modelling of dissipative SRCWs, are used with limited different modelling choices to improve the precision of the model. The detailed 3D FE models are developed in Abaqus (ver.6.14) (Hibbitt Karlson and Sorensen 2012) using shell elements for the steel profiles (external frame and dissipative elements), solid elements for the concrete of the infill wall and beam elements for the steel reinforcing bars and studs embedded within the infill wall. The degrees of freedom of the embedded elements, rebars and studs, are constrained to the interpolated values of the degrees of freedom of the host region (concrete wall). The use of embedded elements provides the highest quality of approximation but it is hindered with high computational cost (Markou and Papadrakakis 2012) and neglects the slip phenomena between the bar and the hosting concrete. The contact between the shell elements representing the steel frame profiles and the solid element of the wall is defined as a “surface to surface contact” with a “penalty tangential behaviour”, see Abaqus (ver.6.14) user manual (Hibbitt Karlson and Sorensen 2012). The value of the friction coefficient between the two materials is strongly influenced by the corrosion level of the steel surface and the cracking conditions of the concrete (Cairns et al. 2007) and, within the present research, it was assumed a value of 0.45, as suggested by Baltay and Gjelsvik (1990). A tetrahedral linear mesh with reduced integration (C3D4R Abaqus elements) with maximum dimension of 30 mm, Fig. 5a, is used for the solid model of the concrete of the infill wall instead of 50 mm sized hexahedral one suggested in (Morelli et al. 2019) to increase the reliability of the model for the detailed representation of the concrete cracks propagation.
The stress–strain relationship of the concrete is modeled following the indications of the Model Code 2010 (Fib 2013), expressed in equation for the concrete in compression and in Eq. (2) for the concrete in tension. The meaning of the symbols is graphically explained in Fig. 5b and c, while Table 1 reports the numerical values of the adopted parameters.
The value of the factor of degradation in tension, β, is calibrated on the base of the studies described in (Lee and Fenves 1998) in which a similar concrete grade was subjected to experimental tensile tests. The concrete material is then defined using the Concrete Damage Plasticity Model (CDPM) (Lubliner et al. 1989), already used in several other studies (Nana et al. 2017; Behnam et al. 2018) and assuming a dilatation angle of 36°, an eccentricity of 0.1, a value of f_{b0}/f_{c0} = 1.16 and a value of 2/3 for the parameter K (Morelli et al. 2019). This CDPM allows the definition of a viscosity parameter that fosters the numerical convergence of the material. As observed in the studies of (Michał and Andrzej 2015) this parameter has a significative influence on the stress distribution within the concrete. Therefore, preliminary parametric analyses, carried out varying the value of this parameter, are executed to evaluate the optimal values in terms of reliability of the results and convergence capacity. The pushover, static, analyses are executed applying an increasing horizontal displacement to the top beam of the steel frame, restraining the outofplane movements in order to correctly represent the experimental test setup.
Figure 6 reports, for the SRCW1 configuration, the experimental force–displacement curves and the numerical ones obtained varying the viscosity coefficient and the analysis’s increment size.
The same modelling approach is used to build the refined 3D FE models for the following 5 configurations:

the SRCW1 and 2, already described in Fig. 3. These configurations are used to calibrate and validate the 3D refined FE models and to individuate the main mechanisms contributing to the global resistance of the SRCW system, as described in this paragraph.

The SRCW0, characterized by the absence of shear studs. This configuration is used to study and better understand the influence of the pure contact between the steel frame and the reinforce concrete (r.c.) infill wall and to calibrate some of the components associated to this mechanism, as described in the calibration paragraph.

The SRCWg and h configurations, representing two further possible distributions of shear studs and completing therefore the set proposed by (Morelli et al. 2019). They are used to validate the results of the mechanical model, as described in the paragraph dedicated to the validation of the model.
The results already obtained by (Morelli et al. 2019) on the configurations SRCW atof, see Fig. 3, are used to calibrate some of the components defining the mechanical model.
Figure 7 shows the global view of the 3D refined FE model and summarizes the configurations modelled in the present research (SRCW 0to2 and of SRCWg and h configurations).
The SRCW1 and SRCW2 3D refined FE models are subjected to an imposed horizontal displacement applied to the top beam of the frame while all the displacement in the outofplane direction are constrained, reproducing the experimental test configuration described in (Dall’Asta et al. 2015). The numerical and experimental behaviors are compared in terms of global force–displacement curves, see Fig. 8, and of cracking pattern, see Fig. 9. These figures testify the capacity of the developed 3D refined FE models of representing the experimental results in both aspects, even if some difference can be noticed in the force–displacement curves for the higher displacements in configuration SRCW1. The same modelling approach is used to model the SRCW0 and SRCW hg configurations for the calibration and validation of the component based mechanical model described in the following paragraphs.
Individuation of the single mechanisms contributing to the global resistance
To better understand the mechanical behaviour of the two SRCW boundary cases, SRCW1 and SRCW2, necessary to figure out the mechanisms present in all the configurations considered within this research, it is useful to deeply analyze the distribution of internal forces/stresses within the steel frame and the r.c. infill wall and the field of internal displacements when the external horizontal force (or the imposed displacement) increases. As already noted in (Morelli et al. 2019), the global force–displacement curves associated to both the boundary configurations SRCW1 and SRCW2 are well approximated by a trilinear curve, and to each branch of these trilinear curves it is associated a different behaviour of the SRCW. The Fig. 10 shows the trilinear approximation for both configurations and individuates some significative points on the curves used in the following as reference points to describe the distribution of internal forces/stresses and the field of internal displacements. The definition of these points, together with a general description of the status of the steel frame and of the infill wall are reported in Table 2 and in Table 3 respectively for the configurations SRCW1 and SRCW2.
Analyzing first the configuration SRCW1, for a low level of the imposed displacement Δ (before reaching the point “1” of Fig. 10a and of Table 2), the forces are transferred from the top beam to the base of the systems also through a shear mechanisms. After reaching the imposed displacement associated to point “1”, the contribution in shear becomes practically negligible and the wall movement consists almost of a pure rotation. This can be seen analyzing the field of internal horizontal and vertical displacement and individuating the center of rotation of the infill wall (as the point characterized by null displacements). Figure 11 shows this field of displacement for an imposed displacement of 0.1 mm (considered sufficiently small) and of 0.5 mm (associated to point “1”). Initially the horizontal displacements are one order of magnitude higher than the vertical ones. When the imposed horizontal displacement Δ increases, reaching values close to 0.5 mm, the order of magnitude of vertical and horizontal displacements becomes almost the same and the center of rotation shifts horizontally in the direction of the applied force, modifying the deformation field of the infill wall from a shear one to the one associated to a rotation around the bottom corner in compression.
When the external imposed displacement reaches the point “1”, the infill wall starts to crack, see Fig. 12a, the shear mechanism completely loses its efficacy and the main resistance is based on a strut & tie mechanism. Indeed, it is possible to individuate a diagonal portion of the infill wall that works in tension thanks to the presence of the shear studs placed in the four corners of the steel frame and the opposite diagonal of the infill wall working in compression thanks to the direct contact between the steel frame and the infill wall, see Fig. 12b. The rotation of the infill wall determines a wider contact zone in bottom corner respect to the opposite top corner of the steel frame, inducing the development of a further resisting mechanism not directly related to the strut & tie one. Indeed, the portion of the column close to the frame corner where the center of rotation lies (the bottom right corner in Fig. 12b) tends to oppose the rotation of the infill wall through its bending stiffness and the pressure applied by the concrete to the steel column has approximately a triangular distribution, as shown in Fig. 12cd. This last observation is needed in the later part of the research when defining the equivalent stiffness of the described resisting mechanism.
The strut & ties mechanism and the one opposing the rotation of the infill wall through the bending resistance of the steel column continue to contribute to the global behaviour even for higher values of the imposed horizonal displacement Δ, even when the dissipative element placed within the column starts to yield (point “2” of Fig. 10a and of Table 2) or reaches the complete plasticization (point “3”) and the system develops its maximum resistance. Together with the spreading of the dissipative element plasticization, also the yielding of the reinforcing bars starts in correspondence of the wall corners (bottom left and top right corners of Fig. 12ab) and spreads into wider zones involving a higher number of rebars section. The failure of the system is then reached either for the pullout of the bottom corner of the concrete in tension or due to excessive compression of the other bottom corner as already observed experimentally and reported in Fig. 9a.
The configuration SRCW2 has a similar behavior, even if the presence of a higher number and more distributed shear studs determines a higher contribution in shear of the infill wall and the development of further resisting mechanisms. For the lower level of the external imposed displacement Δ, before reaching the point “1” of Fig. 10b and of .
Table 3, the resistance of the system is mainly guaranteed by the shear resisting mechanism: the horizontal displacements are far higher than the vertical ones for small imposed horizontal displacement (Δ = 0,1 mm) and the center of rotation lays in the middle of the infill wall, see Fig. 13a. The imposed displacement Δ for which the shear mechanism loses its efficacy, determining a displacement field more similar to a rotation and the shifting of the center of rotation more close to the bottomright corner, is practically the same of the one obtained for the SRCW1 configuration, but the presence of a higher number and more distributed shear studs allows the shear mechanism to offer an higher contribution in terms of stiffness and resistance to the global behavior, as resulting from the comparison of the resistances shown in Fig. 10a and b.
Once the imposed displacement Δ exceed the value associated to point “1”, the infill wall starts to crack and due to the presence of diffused shear studs, the main crack generates in correspondence of the bottom part of the dissipative element in tension and its pattern is firstly horizontal. Once the crack crosses the concrete zone characterized by a higher number of vertical rebars (point “2”), the pattern deviates, the crack propagates diagonally (point “3”) and the vertical rebars close to the dissipative element in tension start to yield, see Fig. 14b and d. Increasing the imposed displacement, the dissipative element in tension also starts to yield (point “4”) and reaches the complete plasticization (point “5”) Fig. 14e. Finally, the crack continues to spread again with a horizontal pattern, the portion of the infill wall positioned over the crack continues to rotate determining the plasticization of further rebars, ideally located on the diagonal in tension formed within the infill wall, see Fig. 14g.
After the first phase associated to the cracking of the infill wall, also in the SRCW2 configuration the resistance of the system can be associated to a strut and tie mechanism, where the strut in compression forms practically in the same way seen for the SRCW1 configuration, see Fig. 15a. The infill wall part in tension, on the contrary, is wider and has a more complex behaviour due to the presence of more numerous and more spread shear studs and it is possible to individuate two different ties in tension. The first one to form is a vertical tie, close and working in parallel to the dissipative element in tension, see Fig. 15b. Its resistance is mainly associated to the global resistance of the vertical rebars positioned in the infill wall vertical edges. The second r.c. tie is a diagonal one, similar to the one individuated in the SRCW1 configuration, but wider and involving a higher number of rebars present within the wall, Fig. 15c.
Finally, also in the SRCW2 configuration, the lower part of the steel column reacts to the rotation of the infill wall with a mechanisms similar to the one represented in Fig. 12b for the configuration SRCW1. However, considering that the portion of infill wall effectively rotating in the configuration SRCW2 is smaller (only the part over of the main crack), this contribution can be considered negligible, as testified by the comparison between the global force–displacement curves of Fig. 16, obtained considering or neglecting the contact forces in the bottom part of the column.
Analytical definition and calibration of the components
On the base of the observation made on the distribution of stresses and deformations through the numerical analysis on the two boundary configurations SRCW1 and SRCW2, the single components contributing to the global resisting mechanism can be represented in the mechanical model shown in Fig. 17a. Figure 17b reports the simplified mechanical model in the case of the configuration SRCW0, obtained from the one associated to SRCW1 and SRCW2 and removing the components directly related to the presence of the shear studs. This last model is used to calibrate the components related to the diagonal strut.
Configurations SRCW1 and SRCW2 can, on the contrary, be represented by the same mechanical model assuming that the single components have different behaviour depending on the number and disposition of shear studs.
With reference to the numbering of the elements shown in Fig. 17a–b, Table 4 reports a summary description of the single components, together with the type of element adopted for the building of the mechanical model in OpenSEES (Mazzoni et al. 2007) and the source for the definition of the generalized force–displacement relationship. Some of these relationships were already defined in the scientific and technical literature, while others needed a specific calibration through the numerical 3D models.
Analytical definition of the single components
Components 1 and 2
The components 1 and 2 in Table 4 represent respectively the steel frame (beams and columns) and the steel dissipative elements, realized by tubular elements, included within the columns. The numerical and experimental analyses have demonstrated that the former remains in the elastic field besides a small portion close to the center of rotation of the infill wall that can experience plastic deformation. The contribute of this small portion is taken under consideration in the mechanical model through the component 3 of Table 4 representing the contact between the infill wall and the frame. Therefore, the component 1 is represented by linear elastic beam elements whose stiffnesses are derived directly from the geometry and mechanical characteristics of the steel profiles adopted. The steel fuses, on the contrary, go in the plastic field due to the combined axialshearbending actions associated to the rotation of the infill wall. Their contribution is taken into account in the OpenSEES model through a nonlinear beam element (nonlinear beamcolumn (Mazzoni et al. 2007)) with a fiber section and an elasticperfectly plastic stress–strain law, with a yielding strength f_{ym} = 243 N/mm^{2} as obtained experimentally in (Morelli et al. 2019).
Component 3
The mechanism deriving from the contact between the infill wall and the exterior frame, named as component 3 in Table 4, depends on the flexural stiffness of the portion of the column that opposes the rigid rotation of the infill wall. This component is present, or significant, only when the collapse mechanism foresees the rigid rotation of the whole wall and its action is assimilable to an elastoplastic spring opposing the rotation of the wall. The initial stiffness, k_{3}, of the equivalent spring representing the component 3 depends on the distribution of the contact stresses and on the position of the spring itself in the mechanical model. To be consistent with the organization of the mechanical model shown in Fig. 17, the component is represented by a linear spring located horizontally at the level of the imposed displacement and the resultant stiffness k_{3} is evaluated to assure an equivalent stabilizing moment M_{3} as the one offered by the wallframe contact mechanism. Analyzing the contact pressures acting on the steel column of the configuration SRCW1, Fig. 18, it can be seen that the main pressures are applied to the bottom of the column itself and, to simplify all the calculation without losing in accuracy, they can be approximated with a linear distribution characterized by the same overturning moment.
Adopting this linear distribution and following the scheme reported in Fig. 19, the equivalent spring stiffness can be therefore evaluated as:
Component 4
The component 4 derives from the contact between the infill wall and the steel frame and represents the formation of a concrete diagonal strut between two opposite angles of the frame itself. The initial idea about the global resistance of the SRCW system was originally based on the development of this mechanism and it is therefore present in all its possible configurations. Some hypothesis about the possible shape and the design of the concrete diagonal strut were provided in (Dall’Asta et al. 2017) but without supplying detailed information about the transverse section of the diagonal strut (only supposing that a fanshaped stress fields are expected to form at the bearing plates). Considering that the components 1 to 4 are the only ones needed to complete the proposed mechanical model of the configuration SRCW0, that model is used to calibrate the value of α_{m} used to obtain the mean value of the width of the diagonal strut from the bearing plate width L_{b}, see Fig. 20. The optimal value of α_{m} deriving from such calibration is equal to 1.13.
Component 5
The component 5 represents the effects of diagonal and vertical ties forming within the infill wall thanks to the connection offered by the presence of the shear studs and it is not therefore, for example, present in the mechanical model of the configuration SRCW0. The effectiveness of this component depends on the position of the shear studs, being more effective when the shear studs are placed closer to the corners of the steel frames, and it is strictly related to the formation of the cracking pattern and to the resisting mechanism. As depicted in the previous section, the distribution of the tensile stresses within the r.c. wall is very different in the case of the two boundary configurations SRCW1 and SRCW2. In the former, they are mainly present in the diagonal of the wall while in the latter there is a significant presence of tensile stresses also in the of the r.c. wall portion placed close to the edge of the steel frame in tension.
The influence of the different zones in which the shear studs can be placed is not completely independent, and it is rather difficult to assign them a precise and unique contribution on the determination of the cracking formation and propagation and, therefore, of the equivalent tie. It is however possible to make the following deductions, based also on the results obtained in (Morelli et al. 2019):

Configurations SRCWb and d develop a cracking pattern similar to the one of the boundary case SRCW2, with an initial horizontal crack that goes down approximately at 45° after crossing the concrete zone, close to the steel column, reinforced with vertical rebars.

Configurations SRCWa, c and f have a cracking pattern similar to the one of the boundary case SRCW1, with a cracking pattern that involves mainly the bottom corner in tension.

Configuration SRCWe has a cracking pattern that does not resemble none of the boundary cases SRCW1 or SRCW2 and therefore the simplified model would be very different from the other cases. The analysis of this specific case is not in the objectives of the present research and will be therefore not analyzed in the following.
Considering the groups of shear studs already proposed in (Morelli et al. 2019) and represented in Fig. 21, the C1, C2 and C3 shear studs groups are the ones that influence the most the behaviour of the SRCWs since the group C4 is closer to the center of rotation and therefore its influence is almost negligible in the cracking formation and propagation. It becomes relevant only in the case of the SRCWe configuration where, due to the absence of the C1 and C2 groups, C3 together with C4 have a significant influence on the global behavior. In general, it can be noted that the contemporary presence of at least the C1 and C3 shear studs groups is required to develop a cracking pattern similar to the boundary case SRCW2.
Depending on the shear studs disposition, therefore, component 5 can be characterized by the presence of different r.c. ties. In the case of absence of shear studs (SRCW0 configuration), the component 5 is not present considering that no direct tensile forces can be generated by the steel frame–r.c. wall interaction, see Fig. 22a. In the general case (configurations SRCW 1 and 2 and configurations SRCW ad and SRCWf), the component 5 can be modelled with a vertical tie and a diagonal tie, which represent the tensile resistance of the rebars within the wall, and a cornerlink, which represent the local behaviour of the shear studs, see Fig. 22b.
Considering the case of complete connection between the steel frame and the r.c. infill wall (configuration SRCW2, see Fig. 22b), the component 5 can be represented by the system of springs shown in Fig. 23a that takes into account the main possible failure mechanisms of the connection between the r.c. wall and the steel frame provided by the shear studs and of the r.c. ties developed within the wall. The force–displacement behaviour of each of these springs can be derived from the provisions of the Eurocode 2–part 4 (EN 1992–4:2018) and the InFaSo Design Manual (Kuhlmann et al. 2014), see Fig. 23b. All the calculation regarding the force–displacement curves for the springs of the component 5 are resumed in the Appendix 1.
The standard identifies three types of possible failures in tension (for C2, C3, C4 groups), each of them represented by a single spring in Fig. 23a: failure of the Stud (S), Pullout of the stud (P), failure for the formation of the Concrete Cone (CC). The last of them does not necessary lead to the failure of the subsystem if there are steel rebars crossing the cracks. The stiffness and resistance of the mechanism associated to the presence of these steel rebars depends on their quantity and their anchoring type and their contribution is represented in Fig. 23a by the springs named RS/RB that consider the resistance of the Rebars (RS) themselves and of their bonding (RB).
For the subsystem working in shear (as C1 group), Eurocode 2–part 4 (EN 1992–4:2018) indicates that the global resistance of the mechanism associated shall be evaluated as the lower between the resistance associated to the failure of the Stud (S) and the one associated to the pryout of the concrete (CP); the edge failure mechanism suggested by the Code is not applicable to the particular geometry of the SRCWs. The RB components can be considered as rigid, considering that each resisting bar belongs to an electrowelded steel mesh or is anchored in a concrete zone confined by closed stirrups.
The activation of the different springs represented in Fig. 23a or the activation of only a part of them depends on the cracking pattern associated to the global resisting mechanism that is, in turn, influenced by the shear studs distribution, as already discussed at the beginning of the present paragraph. On the base of the observation made about the formation of the cracking pattern, the following indications can be given:

Configurations SRCWb and d develop a cracking pattern similar to the one of the boundary case SRCW2, therefore both the C1 and C2 subsystems activate and the component 5 assumes the aspect of Fig. 24a.

Configurations SRCWa, c and f have a cracking pattern more similar to the one of the boundary case SRCW1 and, therefore, for these configurations it can be assumed that only the C1 subsystem activate and the component 5 assumes the aspect of Fig. 24b.
Component 6
The component 6 represents the shear behaviour of the r.c. infill wall and, similarly to the component 5, its effectiveness depends strongly by the number and disposition of the shear studs, because they influence the portion of r.c. effectively connected to the steel frame. The phenomena inducing the interaction in shear of the r.c. wall with the steel frame is very complex and an exact theoretical approach goes beyond the objectives of the present research. It is however possible to consider the contribution in shear of the shear wall through a simplified approach and focusing it into a single spring, see spring “6” in Fig. 17, characterized by an elastoplastic behavior. The contribution in shear of the wall can be, indeed, considered as linear elastic for low levels of forces. After the first cracking takes place, it can be reasonably assumed that the wall loses its monolithic behaviour and the contribution in stiffness of the wall in shear drops to a negligible value and the strut and tie mechanisms give a predominant contribution.
Considering the rather complex interaction among the different zones in which the shear studs can be positioned, a fullcomprehensive definition of this component is not feasible in reliable terms with the few results available on the dissipative SRCW system. However, it is possible to calibrate the stiffness of the spring “6” depicted in Fig. 17 on the base of the force–displacement curves obtained through the 3D numerical models for all the configurations considered in Fig. 3 besides the SRCWe.
Therefore, the initial stiffness K_{6} and the maximum force F_{6} of the spring representing the component 6 can be calculated as expressed in Eqs. (4) and (5), as represented in Fig. 25:
where b_{w}, t_{w}, h_{w} are respectively the length, thickness and height of the r.c. infill wall, G is the transversal elastic modulus of the concrete, δ_{6,y} is the displacement of the steel frame top beam for which the cracking starts and k_{st} is a coefficient that depends on the distribution of the shear studs.
Table 5 reports the values of δ_{6,y} obtained by the 3D refined numerical models as the values associated to the first cracking of the infill wall and of k_{t} as the value that allows the mechanical model to best approximates the refined numerical force–displacement curves, see Figs. 26 and 27.
Table 5 shows that, for the cases considered, a mean value of δ_{6,y} = 0.5 mm can be considered as constant for all the configuration.
To predict the contribution of the component 6 in configurations with a shear studs distribution different from the one assumed in the previous paragraph, it is convenient to search the contributions k_{t,Ci} that each specific group of shear studs supplies to the global stiffness k_{t}. This searching is done minimizing the mean error on the values of k_{t} reported in Table 5 and obtaining therefore the following values of k_{t,Ci} reported in Table 6.
Validation of the proposed mechanical model
The proposed mechanical model is validated comparing the global force–displacement curves with the ones obtained through the refined 3D numerical models. The SRCWs configurations adopted for the validation are shown in Table 7. The concrete class and its mechanical characteristics are assumed equal to the ones adopted in the SRCW1 and 2 configurations.
On the base of what assumed and obtained in the previous paragraphs, and in particular of the observations highlighted for the component 5 regarding the influence of the shear studs distribution on the cracking pattern, the two SRCW configurations SRCWg and h adopted for the assessment of the mechanical model will be characterized by cracking patterns respectively similar to the boundary case SRCW2 and SRCW1. Indeed, the configuration SRCWg has both the C1 and C3 shear studs groups, while the SRCWh lacks the C1 group. Consequently, for both cases the mechanical model will be similar, see Fig. 28, with the only difference laying in the component 5 and therefore in the absence of the subsystem C1 in the SRCWh configuration.
Even if the two SRCW configurations, g and h, do not include all the possible combinations of shear studs’ disposition for the component 5, their models, and therefore their validation, involves all the components calibrated in the present research.
The analyses on the refined 3D numerical models confirm the assumed crack patterns, as depicted in Fig. 29, and the effectiveness of the mechanical model in assessing the global force–displacement curves is testified by Fig. 30.
The comparison of the force–displacement curves obtained through the mechanical model and the refined one shows the capacity of the former in representing the global behavior of the dissipative SRCWs. Some differences can be seen for the SRCWg configuration, in particular to the g2 case in terms of postelastic stiffness. This deviation can be attributed to the more widely extended diffusion of cracks that involves a greater number of rebars in the later stage of the global resisting mechanism.
Conclusions
The paper presents a proposal for a componentbased mechanical model of dissipative Steel frames with Reinforced Concrete infill wall (SRCWs). The mechanical model is developed on the base of both experimental and numerical results obtained in past researches and considers the possible resisting mechanisms contributing to the monotonic global behaviour of the system in terms of stiffness and strength.
To have a reliable mean for calibrating and assessing the proposed mechanical model, first of all a refined 3D finite element model is developed on the base of the indications of past researches and calibrated on the base of the available experimental results.
The componentbased mechanical model considers 6 types of resisting mechanisms and associate to each of them a specific component, whose monotonic behaviour is derived from the current technical standard provisions or technical literature and, where necessary due to the lack of specific indications, calibrated on the base of the experimental tests and of the results of the 3D refined finite element models.
The typology and disposition of the single components of the mechanical model are strongly influenced by the cracking pattern of the infill wall and, consequently, by the type of failure of the system. The present paper proposes, on the base of the analysis of the experimental and numerical results already present in the scientific literature, a way to foresee the cracking pattern of the infill wall and, consequently, to define the componentbased model. The results obtained show a good agreement with the ones derived from the 3D refined finite element models both in terms of initial stiffness and resistance and the mechanical model can be regarded as a useful tool for the design and verification of dissipative SRCWs.
There are, however, still some issues to be solved in the proposed model, mainly inherited from the limitations of the experimental tests. First, the model can represent only the monotonic behavior, while the seismic action induces cyclic forces. Further experimental and numerical studies would be, however, required to calibrate the cyclic behavior of each component of the mechanical model and the development of refined 3D FE models is very challenging due to high nonlinearity sources, included the stiffness and resistance degradations effects. The model still does not consider the presence and variation of vertical loads acting on the wall. Moreover, the influence of the infill wall concrete strength on the component 6, the one considering the contribution of the infill wall in shear, should be further deepened. Finally, the model is currently unable to supply, as most of the componentbased models, information about the ductility capacity of the single component and of the global system.
Data availability
All data generated or analysed during this study are included in this published article.
Code availability
Available upon request.
References
Baltay P, Gjelsvik A (1990) Coefficient of friction for steel on concrete at high normal stress. J Mater Civ Eng 2:46–49
Behnam H, Kuang JS, Samali B (2018) Parametric finite element analysis of RC wide beamcolumn connections. Comput Struct 205:28–44. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compstruc.2018.04.004
Braga F, Gigliotti R, Laguardia R (2019) Intervention cost optimization of bracing systems with multiperformance criteria. Eng Struct 182:185–197. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2018.12.034
Cairns J, Du Y, Law D (2007) Influence of corrosion on the friction characteristics of the steel/concrete interface. Constr Build Mater 21:190–197. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2005.06.054
Cao WL, Wang RW, Yin F, Dong HY (2020) Seismic performance of a steel frame assembled with a CFSTbordered composite wall structure. Eng Struct 219:110853. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2020.110853
Caprili S, Nardini L, Salvatore W (2012) Evaluation of seismic vulnerability of a complex RC existing building by linear and nonlinear modeling approaches. Bull Earthq Eng 10:913–954. https://doi.org/10.1007/s1051801193294
Dall’Asta A, Leoni G, Morelli F et al (2017) An innovative seismicresistant steel frame with reinforced concrete infill walls. Eng Struct 141:144–158. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2017.03.019
Dall’Asta A, Leoni G, Zona A, et al (2015) Innovative hybrid and composite steelconcrete structural solutions for building in seismic area, Final Report, EUR 26932 EN. European Commission, Brussels
Elwardany H, Seleemah A, Jankowski R, Elkhoriby S (2019) Influence of soil–structure interaction on seismic pounding between steel frame buildings considering the effect of infill panels. Springer, Netherlands
EN 1992–4:2018 Eurocode 2  Design of concrete structures  Part 4: Design of fastenings for use in concrete
Faraji Najarkolaie K, Mohammadi M, Fanaie N (2017) Realistic behavior of infilled steel frames in seismic events: experimental and analytical study. Bull Earthq Eng 15:5365–5392. https://doi.org/10.1007/s105180170173z
Fib (2013) Model code for concrete structures 2010. Wilhelm Ernst & Sohn, Berlin. ISBN: 9783433030615
Hajjar JF (2002) Composite steel and concrete structural systems for seismic engineering. J Constr Steel Res 58:703–723. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0143974X(01)000931
Hibbitt Karlson and Sorensen (2012) ABAQUS Theory Manual, version 6.12
Ju RS, Lee HJ, Chen CC, Tao CC (2012) Experimental study on separating reinforced concrete infill walls from steel moment frames. J Constr Steel Res 71:119–128. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcsr.2011.10.004
Kuhlmann U, Wald F, Hofmann J, Bečková Š, Gentili F, Gervásio H, Henriques J, Krimpmann M, Ožbolt A, Ruopp J, Schwarz I, Sharma A, Simoes da Silva L, van Kann J (2014) Design of steeltoconcrete joints design manual II. European Convention for Constructional Steelwork, Prague. ISBN 9789291471195
Lee J, Fenves GL (1998) Plasticdamage model for cyclic loading of concrete structures. J Eng Mech 124:892–900. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)07339399(1998)124:8(892)
Liauw TC, Kwan KH (1985a) Static and cyclic behavior of multistory infilled frames with different interface conditions. J Sound Vib 99:275–283. https://doi.org/10.1016/0022460X(85)903633
Liauw TC (1979) Tests on multistory infilled frames subject to dynamic lateral loading. ACI J 76:551–564
Liauw TC, Kwan KH (1985b) Static and cyclic behaviours of multistorey infilled frames with different interface conditions. J Sound Vib 99:275–283. https://doi.org/10.1016/0022460X(85)903633
Liauw TC, Lee SW (1977) On the behaviour of multistorey infilled frames subject to lateral loading. Proc Inst Civ Eng 63:641–656. https://doi.org/10.1680/iicep.1977.32593
Lubliner J, Oliver J, Oller S, Onate E (1989) A plasticdamage model for concrete. Int J Solids Struct 25:299–326
Marinković M, Butenweg C (2019) Innovative decoupling system for the seismic protection of masonry infill walls in reinforced concrete frames. Eng Struct 197:109435. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2019.109435
Markou G, Papadrakakis M (2012) An efficient generation method of embedded reinforcement in hexahedral elements for reinforced concrete simulations. Adv Eng Softw 45:175–187. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.advengsoft.2011.09.025
Mazzoni S, McKenna F, Scott MH, et al. (2007) Open system for earthquake engineering simulation (OpenSEES), OpenSEES Command Language Manual, Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research (PEER) Center, 2007
Michał S, Andrzej W (2015) Calibration of the CDP model parameters in Abaqus. In: The 2015 World Congress on Advances in Structural Engineering and Mechanics (ASEM15). Incheon, Korea, August 25–29, 2015
Milanesi RR, Morandi P, Magenes G (2018) Local effects on RC frames induced by AAC masonry infills through FEM simulation of inplane tests. Bull Earthq Eng 16:4053–4080. https://doi.org/10.1007/s1051801803535
Morandi P, Milanesi RR, Magenes G (2018) Innovative solution for seismicresistant masonry infills with sliding joints: inplane experimental performance. Eng Struct 176:719–733. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2018.09.018
Morelli F, Mussini N, Salvatore W (2019) Influence of shear studs distribution on the mechanical behaviour of dissipative hybrid steel frames with r.c. infill walls. Bull Earthq Eng 17:957–983. https://doi.org/10.1007/s1051801804759
Morino S (1998) Recent developments in hybrid structures in Japan–research, design and construction. Eng Struct 20:336–346. https://doi.org/10.1016/S01410296(97)000229
Nana WSA, Bui TT, Limam A, Abouri S (2017) Experimental and numerical modelling of shear behaviour of fullscale RC slabs under concentrated loads. Structures 10:96–116. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.istruc.2017.02.004
NTC (2018) NTC 2018, Decreto Ministeriale 17/1/2018Aggiornamento delle Norme tecniche per le costruzioni. Ministry of Infrastructures and Transportations, Gazzetta Ufficiale S.O. no.42 on 20/2/2018 (2018)
Pallarés L, Agüero RamonLlin A, MartíVargas JR, Pallarés FJ (2020a) Behaviour of headed studs subjected to cyclic shear in steel frames with reinforced concrete infill walls. Constr Build Mater. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2020.120018
Pallarés L, Ramada JR, Pallarés FJ et al (2020b) Monotonic shear strength of headed studs in reinforced infill walls. Eng Struct 205:110045. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2019.110045
Preti M, Bettini N, Plizzari G (2012) Infill walls with sliding joints to limit infillframe seismic interaction: largescale experimental test. J Earthq Eng 16:125–141. https://doi.org/10.1080/13632469.2011.579815
Ricci P, Di Domenico M, Verderame GM (2018) Experimental assessment of the inplane/outofplane interaction in unreinforced masonry infill walls. Eng Struct 173:960–978. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2018.07.033
TeChang L, KwokHung K (1984) Nonlinear behaviour of nonintegral infilled frames. Comput Struct 18:551–560. https://doi.org/10.1016/00457949(84)900701
Tsantilis AV, Triantafillou TC (2020) Innovative seismic isolation of masonry infills in steel frames using cellular materials at the frameinfill interface. J Earthq Eng 24:1729–1746. https://doi.org/10.1080/13632469.2018.1478347
Zona A, Barbato M, Conte JP (2008) Nonlinear seismic response analysis of steelconcrete composite frames. J Struct Eng 134:986–997. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)07339445(2008)134:6(986)
Acknowledgements
Support for this research from the European Commission, Research Fund for Coal and Steel, Steel Technical Group TGS 8 (RFSRCT201000025) and from the Italian Department of Civil Protection within the Italian Research Project RELUISDPC 20142018 is gratefully acknowledged. The Authors are grateful for the efforts and detailed work made by the anonymous Reviewers that helped in significantly improving the quality of the paper.
Funding
Open access funding provided by Università di Pisa within the CRUICARE Agreement.. The research leading to these results received funding from the European Commission, Research Fund for Coal and Steel, Steel Technical Group TGS 8 under Grant Agreement No RFSRCT2010–00025 and from the Italian Department of Civil Protection within the Italian Research Project RELUISDPC 2014–2018.
Author information
Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflicts of interest
The authors declare they have no financial interests.
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Appendices
Appendix 1–evaluation of the component 5
The force–displacement relationships of Fig. 22b can be analytically evaluated following the provisions of the Eurocode 2 – part 4 (EN 1992–4:2018) and of the InFaSo Design Manual (Kuhlmann et al. 2014).
Studs Failure (Scomponent)
The behaviour is assumed to be elasticperfectly plastic and the yielding force and elastic stiffness are evaluated as follows:
where

∅_{h} = 19 mm is the diameter of studs

n_{h} is the number of shear studs

E_{s} = 210,000 MPa is the elastic modulus for studs

h_{ep} = 180 mm is the effective studs’ height

fy,s = 500 MPa is the yield strength for studs.
The yielding displacement can be derived as:
Concrete Cone Failure (CCcomponent)
The concrete cone failure mechanism has a rigid—linear softening behavior, which depends on the number of the studs (n_{h}), the strength of each concrete cone (F_{CC}°) individually considered and on various geometric factors which are considered by means of the φcoefficients defined according to Eurocode 2—part 4 (EN 1992–4:2018):
where

φ_{A,N} considers of the mutual overlap of the cones and the proximity to the edges

φ_{S,N} considers of the disturbance of the stresses distribution due to the proximity of edges

φ_{RE,N} considers the effect of dense reinforcement between which the studs are located

φ_{M,N} considers of the effect of compressive forces between fixture and concrete in cases of bending moments

φ_{EC,N} considers of eccentricity of loads application.
The strength of each concrete cone F_{CC}° can be derived from the following relation:
where

f_{ck,cube} is the concrete cube strength

k_{1} depends to the cracked condition of concrete: k_{1} = 10.3 was assumed as average value between the cracked (k_{1} = 8.9) and uncracked (k_{1} = 12.7) values.
The negative stiffness of the backbone phase can be evaluated as:
Finally, the ultimate displacement, which corresponds to zero residual strength condition is equal to:
Pullout failure (Pcomponent)
Following the InFaSo Design Manual (Kuhlmann et al. 2014) the pullout mechanism can be defined as rectangularparabolic curve. To simplify the mechanical behaviour it was defined as a trilinear curve, in which the plastic branch is perfectly coincident with the rectangularparabolic curve. The first significant point is defined by the following force–displacement
where A_{h} = 511 mm^{2} is the studs head area minus the stud’s area and k_{p} = 0.0131. The second significant point is defined from:
where F_{P} = n_{h}•p_{uk}•A_{h} and p_{uk} = 12•f_{ck,cube}.
Pryout failure (CPcomponent)
The pryout failure mechanism is analogous to the concrete cone failure, the maximum strength (rigid) can be derived from the following equation:
where k_{8} = 2 (h_{ep} > 60 mm).
Reinforcements failure (RS_{1}, RS_{2}, RS_{3}component)
Following the suggestions of InFaSo Design Manual (Kuhlmann et al. 2014) the reinforcement behaviour could be defined by a rectangularparabolic curve. In this research it was simplified and modelled as elasticperfectly plastic, where the yielding point is individuated by the following equations:
where n_{s} is the number, ∅_{s} the diameter and f_{y,r} (= 391.5 MPa) the yielding strength of rebars. For the RS_{2}component, which has a local influence, the number of rebars can be obtained considering the bars that intersect the 45°inclined cones from the head of the studs. In case of RS_{1} and RS_{3}component, whose have a wider influence, the number of rebars was obtained through the observation of numerical model results obtained from the configurations SRCW1 and SRCW2.
The following tables resume the numerical values obtained for the component 5 in the validation phase for the SRCWg and SRCWh configurations.
SRCW2like macromodels  

Vertical tie  Vertical reinforcement rebars  \({n}_{s}\)  2  \({\varnothing }_{s}\)  8 mm 
6  6 mm  
Rebars Failure 
\({F}_{y,RS1}=105.705\) kN \({\delta }_{y,RS1}=0.35\) mm (assumed from the numerical results obtained from the SRCW2 FE model, see Fig. 15)  
Concrete Cone Failure 
\({{F}_{y,CC}}^{^\circ }=143.323\) kN \({n}_{h}=2\) \({\varphi }_{A,N}=0.143\) \({\varphi }_{S,N}=0.9\) \({\varphi }_{EC,N}=1\) \({\varphi }_{RE,N}=1\) \({\varphi }_{m,N}=1\) \({F}_{max,CC}=32.792\) kN  
Concrete PryOut Failure  \({F}_{CP}=49.056\) kN  
Total Yielding Force  \({F}_{RS1+CP}=154.761\) kN  
Diagonal tie  Horizontal reinforcement rebars  \({n}_{s}\)  7  \({\varnothing }_{s}\)  6 mm 
Vertical reinforcement rebars  \({n}_{s}\)  7  \({\varnothing }_{s}\)  6 mm  
Total Rebars Area (diagonal)  224 mm^{2}  
Rebars Failure 
\({F}_{RS3}=137.167\) kN \({\delta }_{y,RS3}=2\) mm (assumed from the numerical results obtained from the SRCW2 FE model, see Fig. 15) 
SRCW1like macromodels  

Corner link  Concrete Cone Failure  \(F_{y,CC}^{^\circ } = 143.323\) kN  
\(n_{h} = 3\)  
\(\varphi_{A,N} = 0.075\)  
\(\varphi_{S,N} = 0.8\)  
\(\varphi_{EC,N} = 1\)  
\(\varphi_{RE,N} = 1\)  
\(\varphi_{m,N} = 1\)  
\(F_{max,CC} = 25.798\) kN  
Studs Failure  \(n_{h} = 3\)  
\(F_{y,S} = 425.293\) kN  
\(K_{S} = 992.351\) kN/mm  
\(\delta_{y,S} = 0.43\) mm  
PullOut Failure  \(n_{h} = 3\)  
\(\delta_{1P} = 0.01\) mm  
\(\delta_{2P} = 0.08\) mm  
\(F_{P} = 610.747\) kN  
\(F_{1P} = 98.377\) kN  
\(F_{2P} \cong 184.046\)  
Horizontal reinforcement rebars  \(n_{s}\)  8  \(\emptyset_{s}\)  6 mm  
Vertical reinforcement rebars  \(n_{s}\)  2  \(\emptyset_{s}\)  8 mm  
2  6 mm  
Total Rebars Area (diagonal)  271 mm^{2}  
Rebars  \(F_{RS2} = 106.103\) kN  
\(\delta_{y,RS} = 0.10\) mm 
Rights and permissions
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
About this article
Cite this article
Morelli, F., Panzera, I. & Salvatore, W. Mechanical model of steel frames with reinforced concrete infill walls. Bull Earthquake Eng 19, 2125–2160 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10518021010664
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
Keywords
 Mechanical model
 SRCW
 Infill wall
 Componentbased model