Skip to main content

Experimental Evaluation of Reinforced Concrete Frames with Unreinforced Masonry Infills under Monotonic and Cyclic Loadings


Despite numerous studies on seismic performance of masonry infilled reinforced concrete frames have been conducted, experimental study on effect of type of lateral load on masonry infilled reinforced concrete frames is sparse. This paper investigates the seismic performance of masonry infilled reinforced concrete frames with different aspect ratios subjected to monotonic and cyclic loadings. Six half-scale, single-storey, single-bay frame specimens designed according to code provisions commonly adopted in Malaysia were tested. Behaviours of frames were assessed based on observed failure modes, strength, stiffness, ductility and energy dissipation capacity. Experimental result reveals that typical infilled frame in Malaysia has high tendency to fail under shear on columns. Type of loading does not affect strength of both bare frames and infilled frames. However, the drift to reach peak strength drops about 40–52% for infilled frames subjected to cyclic loading as compared to monotonic loading. Initial stiffness of infilled frames is found elevated with slower stiffness degradation under the influence of cyclic loading. Ductility of infilled frames subjected to cyclic loading is 48% higher than those subjected to monotonic loading, regardless of aspect ratio. A total of 84% increase in energy dissipation is observed with 60% of increment in bay length.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9
Fig. 10
Fig. 11
Fig. 12
Fig. 13
Fig. 14


  1. 1.

    Marsono AKB, Balasbaneh AT (2015) Combinations of building construction material for residential building for the global warming mitigation for Malaysia. Constr Build Mater 85:100–108.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. 2.

    Verderame GM, Luca DF, Ricci P, Manfredi G (2011) Preliminary analysis of a soft-storey mechanism after the 2009 L’Aquila earthquake. Earthq Eng Struct D 40(8):925–944.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. 3.

    Li B, Wang Z, Mosalam KM, Xie H (2008) Wenchuan earthquake field reconnaissance on reinforced concrete framed buildings with and without masonry infill walls. In: The 14th world conference on earthquake engineering, Beijing, China, 12–17 November 2008, pp 1–8

  4. 4.

    Hermanns L, Fraile A, Alarcón E, Álvarez R (2014) Performance of buildings with masonry infill walls during the 2011 Lorca earthquake. Bull Earthq Eng 12(5):1977–1997.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. 5.

    Luca DF, Verderame GM, Gómez-Martínez F, Pérez-García A (2014) The structural role played by masonry infills on RC building performances after the 2011 Lorca, Spain, earthquake. Bull Earthq Eng 12(5):1999–2026.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. 6.

    Chintanapakdee C, Ruangrassamee A, Lukkunaprasit P (2014) Performance of masonry-infilled RC buildings in the M6.0 Mae Lao earthquake on May 5, 2014. In: Proceedings of the 10th Pacific conference on earthquake engineering building an earthquake-resilient Pacific, Sydney, Australia, 6–8 November 2015, pp 1–8

  7. 7.

    Masi A, Chiauzzi L, Santarsiero G, Manfredi V, Biondi S, Spacone E, Gaudio DC, Ricci P, Manfredi G, Verderame G (2016) Seismic response of RC buildings during the Mw 6.0 August 24, 2016 Central Italy earthquake: the Amatrice case study. Bull Earthq Eng 17(10):5631–5654.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. 8.

    Alih SC, Vafaei M (2019) Performance of reinforced concrete buildings and wooden structures during the 2015 Mw 6.0 Sabah earthquake in Malaysia. Eng Fail Anal 102:351–368.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. 9.

    Negro P, Verzeletti G (1996) Effect of infills on the global behaviour of R/C frames: energy considerations from pseudodynamic tests. Earthq Eng Struct D 25(8):753–773.<753:AID-EQE578>3.0.CO;2-Q

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. 10.

    Erdem I, Akyuz U, Ersoy U, Ozcebe G (2006) An experimental study on two different strengthening techniques for RC frames. Eng Struct 28(13):1843–1851.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. 11.

    Murty C, Brzev S, Faison H, Irfanoglu A, Comartin C (2006) The seismic performance of reinforced concrete frame buildings with masonry infill walls. In: Report No. WHE-2006-03, Earthquake Engineering Research Institute, New York: McGraw-Hill Professional

  12. 12.

    Alwashali H, Sen D, Jin K, Maeda M (2019) Experimental investigation of influences of several parameters on seismic capacity of masonry infilled reinforced concrete frame. Eng Struct 189:11–24.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. 13.

    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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. 14.

    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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. 15.

    FEMA 306 (1998) Evaluation of earthquake damaged concrete and masonry wall buildings. Applied Technology Council, Washington, DC

    Google Scholar 

  16. 16.

    Eurocode 8 (2004) Design of structures for earthquake resistance, part 1: general rules, seismic actions and rules for buildings, EN 1998-1-2004. CEN European Committee for Standardization, Brussels

    Google Scholar 

  17. 17.

    Hak S, Morandi P, Magenes G, Sullivan TJ (2012) Damage control for clay masonry infills in the design of RC frame structures. J Earthq Eng 16(sup1):1–35.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. 18.

    Hak S, Morandi P, Magenes G (2018) Prediction of inter-storey drifts for regular RC structures with masonry infills based on bare frame modelling. Bull Earthq Eng 16(1):397–425.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. 19.

    Thomas F (1953) The strength of brickwork. Struct Eng 31(2):35–46

    Google Scholar 

  20. 20.

    Ockleston A (1955) Load tests on a three storey reinforced concrete building in Johannesburg. Struct Eng 33:304–322

    Google Scholar 

  21. 21.

    Smith BS, Carter C (1969) A method of analysis for infilled frames. Proc Inst Civ Eng 44(1):31–48.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. 22.

    Fiorato AE, Sozen MA, Gamble WL (1970) An investigation of the interaction of reinforced concrete frames with masonry filler walls. In: Report No. UILU-ENG 70–100, Department of Civil Engineering, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign

  23. 23.

    Mainstone R, Weeks G (1970) The influence of a bounding frame on the racking stiffnesses and strengths of brick walls. In: Proceeding of the 2nd international Brick Masonry conference, Stoke-On-Trent, United Kingdom, 12–15 April 1970. pp 165–171

  24. 24.

    Al-Chaar G, Issa M, Sweeney S (2002) Behavior of masonry-infilled nonductile reinforced concrete frames. J Struct Eng 128(8):1055–1063.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. 25.

    Centeno J (2009) In-plane shake table testing of gravity load designed reinforced concrete frames with unreinforced masonry infill walls. Master Thesis, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada

  26. 26.

    Dukuze A, Dawe JL, Seah CK (1994) Behaviour of unreinforced masonry panels infilling RC frames: preliminary results. In: 10th International brick and Block Masonry conference, Calgary, Canada, 5–7 July 1994. pp 1067–1078

  27. 27.

    Chiou YJ, Tzeng JC, Liou YW (1999) Experimental and analytical study of masonry infilled frames. J Struct Eng 125(10):1109–1117.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. 28.

    Bertero V, Brokken S (1983) Infills in seismic resistant building. J Struct Eng 109(6):1337–1361.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. 29.

    Zarnic R, Tomazevic M (1985) Study of the behaviour of masonry infilled reinforced concrete frames subjected to seismic loading. In: Proceeding of the 7th international Brick Masonry conference, Melbourne, Australia, 17–20 February 1985

  30. 30.

    Mehrabi AB, Benson Shing P, Schuller MP, Noland JL (1996) Experimental evaluation of masonry-infilled RC frames. J Struct Eng 122(3):228–237.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. 31.

    Cavaleri L, Fossetti M, Papia M (2005) Infilled frames: developments in the evaluation of cyclic behaviour under lateral loads. Struct Eng Mech 21(4):469–494.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. 32.

    Kakaletsis DJ, Karayannis GC (2009) Experimental investigation of infilled reinforced concrete frames with openings. ACI Struct J 106(2):132–141.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. 33.

    Zovkic J, Sigmund V, Guljas I (2013) Cyclic testing of a single bay reinforced concrete frames with various types of masonry infill. Earthq Eng Struct D 42(8):1131–1149.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. 34.

    Essa ASAT, Badr MRK, El-Zanaty AH (2014) Effect of infill wall on the ductility and behavior of high strength reinforced concrete frames. HBRC J 10(3):258–264.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. 35.

    Mansouri A, Marefat MS, Khanmohammadi M (2014) Experimental evaluation of seismic performance of low-shear strength masonry infills with openings in reinforced concrete frames with deficient seismic details. Struct Des Tall Spec Build 23(15):1190–1210.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. 36.

    Chiou TC, Hwang SJ (2015) Tests on cyclic behavior of reinforced concrete frames with brick infill. Earthq Eng Struct D 44(12):1939–1958.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. 37.

    Zhai C, Kong J, Wang X, Chen Z (2016) Experimental and finite element analytical investigation of seismic behavior of full-scale masonry infilled RC frames. J Earthq Eng 20(7):1171–1198.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. 38.

    Teguh M (2017) Experimental evaluation of masonry infill walls of RC frame buildings subjected to cyclic loads. Proced Eng 171:191–200.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. 39.

    Basha SH, Kaushik HB (2016) Behaviour and failure mechanisms of masonry-infilled RC frames (in low-rise buildings) subjected to lateral loading. Eng Struct 111:233–245.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. 40.

    Verderame GM, Ricci P, Risi DMT, Gaudio DC (2019) Experimental assessment and numerical modelling of conforming and non-conforming RC frames with and without infills. J Earthq Eng.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. 41.

    Magenes G, Calvi GM (1992) Cyclic behaviour of brick masonry walls. In: Proceedings of the 10th world conference on earthquake engineering, Balkema, Rotterdam, 19–24 July 1992, pp 3517–3522

  42. 42.

    Tomaževič M, Lutman M, Petković L (1996) Seismic behavior of masonry walls: experimental simulation. J Struct Eng 122(9):1040–1047.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. 43.

    Wilding BV, Dolatshahi KM, Beyer K (2017) Influence of load history on the force-displacement response of in-plane loaded unreinforced masonry walls. Eng Struct 152:671–682.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. 44.

    Hughes T, Kitching N (2000) Small scale testing of masonry. In: Proceedings of the 12th international Brick and Block Masonry conference, Madrid, Spain, 25–28 June 2000. pp 893–902

  45. 45.

    BS En12390-3:2009 (2009) Testing hardened concrete—part 3: compressive strength of test specimens. British Standards Institution, London

    Google Scholar 

  46. 46.

    BS En12390-13:2013 (2013) Testing hardened concrete—part 13: determination of secant modulus of elasticity in compression. British Standards Institution, London

    Google Scholar 

  47. 47.

    BS En ISO 6892-1 (2016) Metallic materials—tensile testing part 1: method of test at room temperature. British Standards Institution, London

    Google Scholar 

  48. 48.

    BS En772-1:2011+A1:2015 (2015) Method of test for masonry units—part 1: determination of compressive strength. British Standards Institution, London

    Google Scholar 

  49. 49.

    ASTM C 109/C 109M-07 (2007) Standard test method for compressive strength of hydraulic cement mortars (Using 2-in. or [50-mm] cube specimens). American Society for Testing and Materials International, West Conshohocken, PA

  50. 50.

    ASTM C 1314-14 (2014) Standard test method for compressive strength of masonry prisms. American Society for Testing and Materials International, West Conshohocken

    Google Scholar 

  51. 51.

    ASTM E 111-04 (2004) Standard test method for Young’s modulus, tangent modulus, and chord modulus. American Society for Testing and Materials International, West Conshohocken

    Google Scholar 

  52. 52.

    ASTM E 519-10 (2010) Standard test method for diagonal tension (shear) in masonry assemblages. American Society for Testing and Materials International, West Conshohocken

    Google Scholar 

  53. 53.

    British Standards Institution (2002) BS EN 1052-3:2002. Methods of test for masonry—part 3: determination of initial shear strength. BSI, London

    Google Scholar 

  54. 54.

    Alecci V, Fagone M, Rotunno T, Stefano SM (2013) Shear strength of brick masonry walls assembled with different types of mortar. Constr Build Mater 40:1038–1045.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  55. 55.

    Furtado A, Rodrigues H, Arêde A, Varum H (2020) Mechanical properties characterization of different types of masonry infill walls. Front Struct Civ Eng 14:411–434.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  56. 56.

    Knox C, Dizhur D, Ingham J (2018) Experimental study on scale effects in clay brick masonry prisms and wall panels investigating compression and shear related properties. Constr Build Mater 163:706–713.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  57. 57.

    Singhal V, Rai DC (2014) Suitability of half-scale burnt clay bricks for shake table tests on masonry walls. J Mater Civ Eng 26:644–657.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  58. 58.

    Mohammed A, Hughes T, Mustapha A (2011) The effect of scale on the structural behaviour of masonry under compression. Constr Build Mater 25(1):303–307.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  59. 59.

    ASTM E 564-06 (2006) Standard practice for static load test for shear resistance of framed walls for buildings. American Society for Testing and Materials International, West Conshohocken

    Google Scholar 

  60. 60.

    ASTM E 2126-09 (2009) Standard test methods for cyclic (reversed) load test for shear resistance of vertical elements of the lateral force resisting systems for buildings. American Society for Testing and Materials International, West Conshohocken

    Google Scholar 

  61. 61.

    Smith BS (1967) Methods for predicting the lateral stiffness and strength of multi-storey infilled frames. Build Sci 2(3):247–257.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  62. 62.

    Krawinkler H (2009) Loading histories for cyclic tests in support of performance assessment of structural components. In: 3rd International conference on advances in experimental structural engineering, San Francisco, United States, 15–16 October 2009, p 10

Download references


The authors wish to express gratitude to Universiti Sains Malaysia for the financial support under Research University Grant (Grant no. 1001. PAWAM. 8014107) to this study.


This research is funded by Universiti Sains Malaysia under Research University Grant (Grant no. 1001. PAWAM. 8014107).

Author information




Both authors have co-authored the manuscript entitled “Experimental evaluation of reinforced concrete frames with unreinforced masonry infills under monotonic and cyclic loadings”. Each authors of the aforementioned manuscript have made substantial contributions to conception and design, or acquisition of data, or analysis and interpretation of data, as well as drafting the manuscript or revising it critically for important intellectual content.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Tze Liang Lau.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Van, T.C., Lau, T.L. Experimental Evaluation of Reinforced Concrete Frames with Unreinforced Masonry Infills under Monotonic and Cyclic Loadings. Int J Civ Eng 19, 401–419 (2021).

Download citation


  • Infilled frame
  • Reinforced concrete
  • Seismic response
  • Unreinforced masonry
  • Monotonic loading
  • Cyclic loading