Engineering Structures 29 (2007) 449460

www.elsevier.com/locate/engstruct

An experimental study on reinforced concrete partially infilled frames

ur Anil , Sinan Altin
Ozg
Department of Civil Engineering, Gazi University, Maltepe, Ankara 06570, Turkey
Received 7 January 2006; received in revised form 14 May 2006; accepted 16 May 2006
Available online 24 July 2006

Abstract
Strengthening of reinforced concrete frames by cast-in-place reinforced concrete infills is commonly used in practice. Sometimes, window
or door openings have been left in the infill wall due to architectural necessities during the strengthening of RC framed buildings. But behavior
of partially infilled reinforced concrete frames under lateral cyclic loads is not known fully. The purpose of this research is to investigate the
behaviour of ductile reinforced concrete (RC) frames strengthened by introducing partial infills under cyclic lateral loading. One-bay, one-story,
1/3 scale nine test specimens were constructed and tested under reversed cyclic loading. Aspect ratio of the infill wall (lw / h w , where lw = infill
length, h w = infill height) and its placement configurations were the parameters of the experimental study. Test results indicated that partially
infilled RC frames exhibited significantly higher ultimate strength and higher initial stiffness than the bare frame (frame with no infill). While
the aspect ratio of the infill wall was increased, the lateral strength and the rigidity were increased significantly. In addition to these variables, it
has been seen that the connection between frames and infills also affected the behavior of infilled frames. Specimens with partial infill walls both
connected to the column and beams of the frame showed the most successful behavior.
c 2006 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Reinforced concrete frame; Partially infilled; Strengthening; Cyclic loading; Seismic behavior

1. Introduction
Strengthening of existing reinforced concrete framed
buildings for improving seismic resistance is a challenging
engineering problem. Many of the existing buildings are found
to have inadequate strength, ductility, or stiffness, because they
were designed and built when modern seismic requirements
did not exist. Various strengthening techniques such as addition
of infill walls, various precast panel walls, steel bracings, and
concrete jacketing of frame members or a combination of them
are being used for such buildings in practice. The basic aim of
strengthening techniques is to upgrade strength, ductility and
stiffness of the member and/or the structural system as a whole.
If the number of members to be strengthened is limited and
the structures drift requirements are satisfied, strengthening
of members will be sufficient. But in some cases, only
strengthening of members may not be enough and appropriate,
since the structure may have stiffness problems. In such cases,
increasing the lateral stiffness of the structure by introducing
Corresponding author. Tel.: +90 3122317400x2215; fax: +90 3122319223.

Anil).
E-mail address: oanil@gazi.edu.tr (O.
c 2006 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
0141-0296/$ - see front matter
doi:10.1016/j.engstruct.2006.05.011

shear walls into the structures system offers a practical

solution. In some instances, introducing new shear walls
into an existing structure may present serious architectural
and constructional problems. Usually it is more practical to
create structural walls by introducing reinforced concrete infill
panels in the existing frames. In selecting the locations
of these infills, the engineer should consider the structural
requirements as well as the architectural restrictions. In the
past research, which is related to reinforced concrete infilled
frames in the literature, many different type infill wall and
infill reinforcement arrangements were studied. In addition,
many different types of connections of infill wall to surrounding
frame were also studied, such as shear keys, dowels and
chemical anchors [115]. In these studies one-bay one-story
infilled frames and one-bay two-story infilled frames were
tested under monotonic or cyclic lateral loading. Test results
indicated that an infill wall increased the lateral load capacity of
the frame and reduced the lateral drift at failure. The researches
showed that the following were affected on behavior of infilled
frames significantly; (a) properties of infill and frame such as
the ratio of column flexural reinforcement, column and beam
stirrups ratio, concrete compression strength, infill material

 Anil, S. Altin / Engineering Structures 29 (2007) 449460

O.

450

Notation
bw
db
fc
f sy
f su
hw
lw
h
v

thickness of infill
dowel reinforcement diameter
compression strength of concrete
yield strength of reinforcements
ultimate strength of reinforcements
height of infill wall
length of infill wall
sectional area horizontal reinforcement ratio of
infill
sectional area vertical reinforcement ratio of infill

type such as masonry brick or reinforced concrete, etc., (b)

type and effectiveness of connections made between the infill
and frame members, (c) infill reinforcement arrangements.
Infills improve the behavior of the reinforced concrete frames
significantly under lateral loads. But it should be noted that
the dynamic characteristics of the existing building may change
completely. Feasibility studies on different methods of seismic
upgrading were also performed [16,17]. It has been concluded
that the simplest and the most effective way of improving the
behavior of such buildings, in which unsatisfactorily seismic
behavior was inherent in the structural system, is to provide an
adequate number of structural infill walls. Such infill walls not
only increase the lateral stiffness significantly but also relieve
the existing frames from carrying large lateral forces.
All reviewed experimental studies at the literature were
investigated fully infilled reinforced concrete bare frames. But
sometimes reinforced concrete infills do not fill the entire
frame openings due to architectural necessities, such as window
and/or door openings. Partially infilled reinforced concrete
frames, which are designed similar to shear walls, are expected
to behave like shear walls (cast in monolithically) under seismic
load. Some past experimental studies investigated the behaviors
of precast reinforced concrete walls and slender shear walls
with one opening under lateral loads, and effects of various
reinforcement arrangements on their behaviors [1824]. But no
experimental studies were encountered in the literature about
behavior of the partially infilled reinforced concrete frames
that were utilized frequently for strengthening purposes under
seismic load. The fact that there was insufficient knowledge
about the behaviors of partially infilled reinforced concrete
frames under lateral loads raised the necessity of experimental
studies on these subjects.
The objective of this paper is to report an experimental
investigation on partially infilled reinforced concrete frames
under reversal cyclic load. The strength, stiffness, energy
dissipation capacity and failure mechanisms of one-bay onestory RC frames with cast in place RC partial infills were
investigated. Experimental parameters that were studied in this
research were the ratio of infill length to infill height (lw / h w ),
and arrangement of the infill at frame opening. The results of
these tests are presented and discussed in this paper [25].

Fig. 1. Dimensions and reinforcement details of test frame.

2. Experimental work
2.1. Description of test specimens and material properties
In the conducted experimental study, nine specimens were
manufactured and tested. The test frame was a 1/3 scale,
one-bay, one-story ductile RC frame. During design phase of
the frames, weak-column, strong-beam connections that are
encountered frequently in practice are taken into account. The
properties of the test specimens are summarized in Table 1.
Geometrical dimensions and reinforcement of all specimen
frames were selected to be the same. Dimensions and
reinforcement details of the test frames are shown in Fig. 1.
The columns and beam were constructed with dimensions
100 150 mm and 150 300 mm, respectively. In columns
four 10 mm diameter deformed bars were used as longitudinal
reinforcement. Plain bars with a diameter of 6 mm spaced at
80 mm were used as closed ties in columns. Stirrups were
spaced at 40 mm at the end section of columns. Eight deformed
bars with a diameter of 8 mm were used as longitudinal
reinforcement in beams. Plain bars with diameter of 4 mm
spaced at 40 mm were used as closed ties in beams.
Reinforcement ratios of infill reinforcement and dowels
used in specimens were summarized in Table 2. Orthogonal
reinforcement for the infill wall consisted of 6 mm plain
bars. The reinforcement was placed on both faces of the wall.
The sectional area ratio of the vertical and horizontal wall
reinforcement was the same in both directions (h = v =
0.009). An edge member is manufactured at the free end of
infill with 130 50 mm dimensions for all specimens. In an
edge member four 6 mm diameter plain bars were used as
longitudinal reinforcement. Plain bars with a diameter of 4 mm
spaced at 50 mm were used as closed ties in an edge member.

 Anil, S. Altin / Engineering Structures 29 (2007) 449460

O.

451

Table 1
Properties of test specimens
Specimen no: (1)

Infill panel

f C (MPa)
lw (mm) (3)

h w (mm) (4)

lw / h w (5)

Frame (6)

Infill (7)

21.8

1300

750

1.73

25.3

25.3

1300

750

1.73

24.2

20.7

325

750

0.43

22.5

20.1

650

750

0.87

24.3

22.5

975

750

1.30

20.0

22.0

2 487.5

750

1.30

20.1

22.8

650

750

0.87

23.9

25.3

Configuration (2)

(continued on next page)

 Anil, S. Altin / Engineering Structures 29 (2007) 449460

O.

452
Table 1 (continued)
Specimen no: (1)

Infill panel

f C (MPa)

Configuration (2)

lw (mm) (3)

h w (mm) (4)

lw / h w (5)

Frame (6)

Infill (7)

1300

750

1.73

22.9

22.1

1 Infill thickness bw = 50 mm.

2 lw = Infill length, h w = Infill height.
3 Black marks indicate infills.
Table 2
Infill reinforcement and dowels
Specimen no: (1)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9

Infill
#-Bar diameter/Spacing (mm)
Horizontal (2)

6 6/140
6 6/140
6 6/140
6 6/140
6 6/140
6 6/140
6 6/140
6 6/140

Vertical (3)

Dowels
Bar diameter/Spacing (mm)
Horizontal (4)

Vertical (5)

9 6/140
9 6/140
2 6/65
5 6/122
7 6/140
4 6/112
5 6/92
9 6/140

10/150
10/150
10/150
10/150
10/150
10/150
10/150

10/163
10/130
10/173
10/211
10/179
10/173
10/163

Notes: 1Infill reinforcement has been placed at both of the infill faces.
2Each dowel consisted of one bar centered at the face of the member applied.

Connection between the frame and the infill was achieved

by using dowels that were placed in the holes drilled into
inner faces of the frame members, and fixed by epoxy for
all specimens that were strengthened with reinforced concrete
infills. Deformed reinforcement bars with a diameter 10 mm
were used as dowel reinforcement for all specimens. Ratio
of the horizontal and vertical dowel reinforcement were
approximately equal to the ratio of the infills horizontal and
vertical reinforcements. Dowels were placed equidistant from
each other along the columns and beams of specimens from
which the infills were connected. Anchorage lengths of dowels
were 80 mm, 150 mm and 200 mm for columns, beam and
foundation, respectively. Bonding lengths of the dowels into
the infills were 250 mm. Each dowel consisted of one bar
centered at the face of the frame members. The specimens were
cast horizontally on the laboratory floor. Firstly specimens
bare frames were cast and 28 days cure time was applied.
Then dowels were anchored to the bare frames. After that the
mould of the infill wall was prepared on to the horizontally
placed bare frame and reinforcements of infill wall were placed.
Finally concrete of the infill wall was cast horizontally by
applying vibrations with vibrators to distributing the concrete
evenly. After curing of the infill wall was completed, the
specimens were lifted from the laboratory floor to the vertical
position and were tested vertically. Prior to casting of infill wall,
rough surfaces were created at the frameinfill interface for
better bonding. A roughing process was applied all along the

connection surfaces of the infill and specimen frame. Notches

with 3 to 5 mm depth were made by using a mechanical grinder
on the concrete surface homogeneously. As a typical example,
the details of infill reinforcement and arrangement of dowels
are given for Specimen 5 in Fig. 2.
The height and thickness of reinforced concrete infills in all
specimens were h w = 750 mm and bw = 50 mm, respectively.
In the experimental study, the length of the infill wall was
chosen as 25%, 50%, 75% and 100% of the frame span in the
specimens. Therefore four different aspect ratios of the infill
wall were used. First two specimens were designed as reference
specimens. Specimen 1 was a bare frame, and Specimen 2 was
a monolithic specimen in which infill was cast together with the
frame. Infill of the strengthened Specimen 3 was cast separately
and covered the entire frame opening. Other specimens were
strengthened with partial reinforced concrete infills. Infills of
Specimen 4, 5, and 6 are constructed similar to a wing wall
and connected to both beam and column of the frame. Sizes of
the wing walls of Specimen 4, 5, and 6 were 325 750 mm
(lw / h w = 0.43), 650 750 mm (lw / h w = 0.87), and 975
750 mm (lw / h w = 1.30), respectively. Specimen 7 had two
487.5 750 mm (lw / h w = 1.30) symmetrical wing walls that
are connected to beam and columns of the specimen. The infill
panel of Specimen 8 was connected only to the beams of the
frame and was constructed at the center of the frame opening.
Infill size of Specimen 8 was 650 750 mm (lw / h w = 0.87).
There was a symmetrical window opening that is constructed

 Anil, S. Altin / Engineering Structures 29 (2007) 449460

O.

453

Fig. 3. Test setup, loading system and instrumentation.

Fig. 2. Details of infill reinforcement and dowels, Specimen 5.

Table 3
Properties of reinforcing bars
Bar diameter (mm) (1)

f sy (MPa) (2)

f su (MPa) (3)

Type (4)

4
6
8
10
16

326
427
592
475
425

708
489
964
689
683

Plain
Plain
Deformed
Deformed
Deformed

just under the beam of the frame at the infill of Specimen 9.

Size of the opening was 325 433 mm. The concrete strength
of the test frame and the infill wall were approximately 23 MPa
on the day of testing. Properties of reinforcements used in this
study are listed in Table 3.
2.2. Testing procedure and instrumentation
The schematic representation of test setup, loading system,
and instrumentation is shown in Fig. 3. The testing system
consisted of strong floor, reaction wall, loading equipment,
instrumentation, and data acquisition system. The specimens
were built on stiff reinforced concrete base beams and bolted
to the rigid floor. Specimens were tested under reversed cyclic
lateral loading simulating seismic action. Lateral load was
applied to specimens at the beam level, using a hydraulic jack
with a load cell. No axial load was applied to any of the
specimens. In the experiments, in both forward and backward
cycles loading history was divided into two parts. Firstly,
load control was used until reaching the ultimate load and
then displacement control was applied. The load level was

maintained in the elastic range for the first few cycles. In further
cycles, load was increased beyond the ultimate load level. After
reaching maximum load carrying capacity, loading applied with
similar drift increments up to 4.44% drift. A last cycle was
done for determining residual stresses for all specimens and
experiments were finalized at 7.00% drift ratio.
The specimens were instrumented with LVDTs (linear
variable differential transformers) to measure story displacements, infill shear displacements, and column curvatures. During the tests, story displacements and the lateral loads were
monitored. In the infilled specimens, average shear deformations of the walls were calculated by using diagonally placed
displacement transformers measurements. After each cycle,
new initiated cracks and crack propagation were marked on the
specimens and failure mechanisms were observed.
3. Experimental results
3.1. Specimen behaviors and failure mechanisms
The loaddisplacement hysteretic curves that were observed
during testing are illustrated in Fig. 4. Specimens load carrying
capacities were named as ultimate load. Ultimate loads of the
specimens were equal to maximum load values except for
Specimen 1. The ultimate load of Specimen 1 was taken as the
load at which longitudinal column reinforcements yielded. As
indicated in these figures, the addition of RC infill significantly
reduced the lateral drift and increased strength and stiffness of
the specimens. In general, the story drift ratios of specimens
that were strengthened with infills were between 0.57% and
1.57% at ultimate load. The largest story drift ratio (1.57%) was
obtained from Specimen 4 among all infilled specimens. This
value was 21% larger than the bare frames story drift ratio.
The measured story drift ratios of Specimen 5 and 6 at ultimate
load that are strengthened with wing infill wall were less than
that of Specimen 3, which was strengthened with infilled wall
without opening. Connection between infill and frame affected
story drift ratio significantly. The story drift ratio of Specimen
8, which was strengthened with infill connected to beams only,
was more than twice the story drift ratio of Specimen 5, which
was strengthened with the same sized infilled wing wall. The

454

Anil, S. Altin / Engineering Structures 29 (2007) 449460

O.

Fig. 4. Loaddisplacement hysteresis curve of specimens.

story drift ratio of Specimen 7, which was strengthened with

two wing walls, was more than one and a half times the story
drift ratio of Specimen 6, which was strengthened with one
wing wall. Test results are summarized in Table 4.
The photographs of specimens after failure are given in
Fig. 5. Specimen 1 failed due to column mechanism and
monolithically cast in place Specimen 2 failed by developing
shear sliding above the foundation beam. All partially infilled
specimens failed due to crushing of infill concrete and reaching
the ultimate load carrying capacity. Specimen 4, among all

specimens strengthened with infills, exhibited the largest story

drift ratio and the lowest stiffness. Infill and adjacent column
of Specimen 4 behaved together quite similar to a frame
column. Specimen 4 failed due to crushing of infill and adjacent
column concrete just above the foundation beam. The frame
beam of Specimen 4 at which flexible behavior dominated was
cracked among all specimens strengthened with infills. Infill
wall increased the flexural capacity of column. Induced shear
force on frame beam due to increase at flexural capacity caused
initiation of shear cracks. Slipping was not observed at the

 Anil, S. Altin / Engineering Structures 29 (2007) 449460

O.

455

Fig. 4. (continued)

Table 4
Summary of test results
Specimen no: (1)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9

Forward cycles
Ultimate load (kN)
(2)

Drift ratio at max. load

(%) (3)

*
(4)

Backward cycles
Ultimate load (kN)
(5)

Drift ratio at max. load

(%) (6)

*
(7)

Mode of failure (8)

24.6
351.0
247.9
88.6
150.3
193.8
155.9
126.4
173.1

1.33
0.57
0.78
1.27
0.59
0.74
1.15
1.28
0.69

1.00
14.27
10.08
3.60
6.11
7.88
6.34
5.14
7.04

26.3
323.0
226.0
98.1
150.1
185.4
150.9
131.3
179.5

1.31
1.10
0.73
1.57
0.65
0.74
1.18
1.23
0.79

1.00
12.28
8.59
3.73
5.71
7.05
5.74
4.99
6.83

Column mechanism
Shear sliding
Web crushing
Column failure
Web crushing
Web crushing
Web crushing
Web crushing
Short column failure

* Ratio of ultimate lateral load of infilled frame to that of bare frame.

dowels, which were anchored to the frames up to the maximum

load for any specimen. These results showed that adequate
detailing and proper construction of steel dowels were achieved.
It is important to note that the success of connections of infills
to the frame members with dowels depends on the quality of
the workmanship. Only the infill of Specimen 8 was separated
from the frame. After maximum load was reached, cracks
originated up to maximum story drift ratio caused lost bonding

forces of dowels and separation of infill from the frame beams.

Specimen 9, which was strengthened with infill at which the
window opening was reserved, exhibited a different behavior
among all specimens strengthened with infills. First, infills at
both sides of the window opening were crushed. Since story
height was dropped half of the original infilled frame height,
the specimen failed due to shear failure of the column in further
cycles.

456

Anil, S. Altin / Engineering Structures 29 (2007) 449460

O.

Fig. 5. Photographs of test specimens after failure.

(a) Specimen 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 7.

(b) Specimen 1, 2, 3, 8, 9.
Fig. 6. Loaddisplacement envelope curve of specimens.

4. Discussion of test results

4.1. Strength and stiffness
Response envelopes for specimens shown in Fig. 6
were plotted by connecting the peak points of lateral
load displacement hysteretic curves for each specimen.
Response envelope curves showed the strength and stiffness
characteristics of the specimens and also their general behavior.
In general, strengthened infilled specimens showed varying
strengths ranging from bare frame behavior to monolithically
infilled frame behavior. Specimen 3 appeared at the upper
limit and Specimen 4 was found at the lower limit up to

story drift ratio of 1.00% measured within infilled frames.

Behavior of Specimen 4 was observed to be quite similar to
the bare frames behavior among infilled specimens. In general,
infills improved the stiffness and strength of the bare frames
significantly for all specimens. As can be seen from Fig. 6,
when the aspect ratios of infill walls increased, the strength and
stiffness of the specimen significantly increased as well, while
the displacement capacities decreased. Quite different patterns
of behavior were observed for specimens with the same ratios
of infill length to infill height due to differences in arrangements
of infill and infillframe connections (e.g. Specimens 6 and
7, Specimens 5 and 8). The stiffness and the strength of

 Anil, S. Altin / Engineering Structures 29 (2007) 449460

O.

457

Table 5
Stiffnesses of test specimens
Specimen no: (1)

Initial (kN/mm) (2)

At ultimate load (kN/mm) (3)

Ratioa
(4)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9

4.5
212.8
159.6
21.1
49.2
77.2
64.8
46.7
91.6

2.2
68.4
35.3
6.9
27.8
29.1
15.1
11.9
24.9

47.29
35.47
4.69
11.93
17.16
14.40
10.38
20.36

a Ratio: stiffness of infilled frame/stiffness of bare frame, at ultimate load.

Specimen 6, which was strengthened with single wing wall,

were higher than those of Specimen 7. The stiffness and the
strength of Specimen 8, which was strengthened with infill wall
that was connected only to the beams, were less than those of
Specimen 5. Although Specimen 9, which was strengthened
with infill at which window opening reserved, had the largest
infill area within partially infilled frames, it behaved almost like
Specimen 7. All specimens, except the bare frame, exhibited
approximately the same strength at 1.33% story drift ratio.
After that displacement value, all infilled specimens displayed
similar behavior for all cycles.
As seen from Table 4, the strengths of all infilled frames
were significantly higher than that of the bare frame. The ratios
of the strength of the infilled frame to the strength of the bare
frame varied between 3.73 and 10.08. The ratios of the strength
of the partially infilled frame to the strength of the bare frame
varied between 3.73 and 7.88. The strength of Specimen 4 that
was strengthened with the smallest infill was 3.73 times the
strength of the bare frame. The more the aspect ratio (lw / h w )
of the wing wall that was connected to column and beam of
the frame increased, the more the strength was observed to
increase in partially infilled frames. Specimen 6 with one wing
wall displayed 20% more strength than Specimen 7 with two
wing walls among the specimens that had the same ratio of
infill length to infill height. Among the specimens with aspect
ratio of 0.50, Specimen 8 exhibited less strength than Specimen
5 with wing wall. Higher strength was observed in specimens
that were strengthened with infills connected to columns of the
specimens. The monolithically infilled specimens strength was
found to be largest among all infilled specimens. Specimen
3, which was strengthened with an infill without opening,
showed 29% less strength than the monolithically infilled
specimen. Specimen 9, which is strengthened by infill with
window opening, displayed approximately half the strength of
the monolithically infilled specimen. Specimen 9 exhibited 8%
less strength than Specimen 6 and 15% greater strength than
Specimen 7.
The stiffnesses of test specimens are shown in Table 5. The
specimens initial stiffness and the stiffness at the ultimate load
were listed in this table. Initial stiffness was calculated as the
initial slope of load displacement curve in the first forward
half cycle. The stiffness at the ultimate load was evaluated as
the average of the slopes of linear lines connecting the peak

loads with the origin of load displacement curves in forward

and backward half cycles.
Specimen 3, which was strengthened with an infill without
opening, had the largest stiffness among all infilled specimens.
Specimen 4 had the smallest stiffness among all infilled
specimens. As can be seen from Table 5, the ratios of infilled
frame initial stiffness to bare frame initial stiffness varied
between 4.69 and 35.47. As the aspect ratio of the infill
increased, the stiffness significantly increased for the wing
walled specimens. The stiffness of Specimen 6 with one wing
wall was greater than the stiffness of Specimen 7 with two wing
walls. The ratio of initial stiffness of Specimen 6 was 17.16,
and the corresponding ratio for Specimen 7 was 14.40, 16%
less than that for Specimen 6. Similar behavior was observed
for Specimen 5 and 8 that had the same aspect ratios. Although
Specimen 4 exhibited the smallest stiffness among all infilled
specimens, the ratios of Specimen 4s stiffness at initial and
maximum load were observed to be 4.69 and 3.81 times greater
than that of the bare frames stiffnesses, respectively. Specimen
9, which was strengthened by infill with window opening,
exhibited the same stiffness as Specimen 5 at maximum load.
4.2. Energy dissipation capacities of specimens
The energy dissipation was determined by calculating the
areas inside the hysteretic loaddisplacement loops for each
cycle. The cumulative energy dissipated was calculated as the
sum of the area enclosed by all previous hysteresis loops.
The cycles after reaching 2% story drift ratios were not
considered for calculating the energy dissipation values, since
the load carrying capacities of the specimens were decreased,
significantly. Comparing the hysteretic characteristics of the
specimens was used to normalize parameters, because imposed
displacements were not the same for loading cycles for all
specimens. Energy dissipation values were plotted against
the corresponding normalized cumulative displacement values.
Cumulative displacement values were evaluated by successive
summation of peak displacements each cycle. Then these values
were normalized by the measured yield displacements. The
yield displacements were taken to be the displacements at
the ultimate loads level. The variation of cumulative energy
dissipation characteristics of the test specimens are shown in
Fig. 7.

 Anil, S. Altin / Engineering Structures 29 (2007) 449460

O.

458

Fig. 8. IDARC-2D model of Specimen 5.

Fig. 7. Energy dissipation capacity of test specimens.

It is apparent from Fig. 7 that the monolithically infilled

specimen dissipated the largest amount of energy with respect
to other specimens. Among all infilled specimens, Specimen
3 dissipated the largest amount of energy. Energy dissipated
by Specimen 3 was 35% less than the monolithically infilled
specimen. All partially infilled frames absorbed approximately
the same amount of cumulative energy. Although Specimen 4
had the lowest energy dissipation capacity among Specimens
4, 5 and 6 with wing infill walls, Specimen 4 absorbed two
times more energy than the bare frame energy dissipation
capacity. Specimen 5 and Specimen 6 absorbed almost the same
amount of energy; however Specimen 5 had more ductility than
Specimen 6. Specimen 7 with two wing walls and Specimen
6 absorbed almost the same amount of energy, but Specimen
7 had more ductility than Specimen 6. Specimen 8, which
was strengthened with infill wall connected only to the beams,
exhibited much lower ductility and absorbed less energy than
Specimen 5 with wing wall.
5. Analytical study
The load displacement behavior of the test specimens was
evaluated by using the nonlinear pushover software namely
IDARC-2D [26]. Pushover analyses simulated the nonlinear
lateral loaddisplacement relationship of the test specimens
analytically. The analytical model for Specimen 5 was given
in Fig. 8 as an example. the beam of the frame was modeled
as two pieces and was connected to the middle axis of infill
wall. Parts of the beam that was connected to infill wall were
modeled as rigid elements. In the model of the specimens, the
RC infills in the frame were simulated as shear walls. The
three parameter Park model was used as a hysteretic model.
Incorporated stiffness degradation, strength degradation, and
slip control parameters are taken into account in the hysteretic
model parameters. In this model it was assumed that there was
no slip, low level strength deterioration, and high level stiffness
degradation. The lateral loads were increased step by step until
the system reached failure. The experimental hysteretic shear
load versus story drift curves and analytical pushover curves
for the specimens are shown in Fig. 4. The analytical models

adequately simulated the behavior of the infilled test specimens

until the story drift was around 1%. The analytical response
envelopes showed that infilled specimens initial stiffnesses
were evaluated slightly greater than the experimental values.
However, the decrease in the stiffness due to cyclic loading
could not be well simulated.
Investigation on the analytical load displacement curves
showed that they successfully simulated the experimental
load carrying capacities. But analytically calculated initial
stiffnesses were slightly greater than the experimental results.
In addition there were differences between the part of the
analytical and experimental load displacement curves after the
ultimate load was reached and the load started to decrease. The
authors thought that one of the main reasons of difference in
analytical and experimental initial stiffnesses was due to the
difference in the application method of loading. While cyclic
loading was applied during experiments, on the other hand
load was increased monotonously up to failure in the analytical
approach. This difference in application of loading affected the
initial stiffnesses of the analytical and experimental results.
The IDARC-2D software did not include the elements that
were crushed under compression and cracked under tension
for modeling concrete members. Due to this reason the losses
at the load carrying capacities after reaching ultimate load
capacity cannot be simulated well with the analytical model.
The loses at load carrying capacity after reaching ultimate
load was modeled by using empirical multiplication parameters
of the hysteretic model description with the IDARC-2D
software.
The values obtained from pushover analysis and the ratios
of experimental ultimate load and initial stiffness values
to analytical ones are summarized in Table 6. The lateral
load capacities of infilled specimens were simulated with
great success. The ratios of ultimate load measured in
infilled specimens to analytical values were between 0.97
and 1.19. The initial stiffnesses calculated from pushover
analysis were greater than the experimental values for all
specimens. Initial stiffnesses obtained from experiments to
analytical values changed between 0.80 and 0.95 for infilled
specimens.

 Anil, S. Altin / Engineering Structures 29 (2007) 449460

O.

459

Table 6
Comparison of analytical and experimental results
Specimen no: (1)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9

Ultimate load (kN)

Experimental (2)

Analytical (3)

Ratioa (4)

Initial stiffness (kN/mm)

Experimental (5)

Analytical (6)

Ratioa
(7)

26.30
351.00
247.90
98.10
150.30
193.80
155.90
131.30
179.50

25.60
363.00
252.30
82.19
153.40
190.80
157.50
128.30
173.70

1.03
0.97
0.98
1.19
0.98
1.02
0.99
1.02
1.03

4.50
212.80
159.60
21.10
49.20
77.20
64.80
46.70
91.60

5.10
225.70
167.40
26.50
55.62
84.71
68.99
52.55
103.69

0.88
0.94
0.95
0.80
0.88
0.91
0.94
0.89
0.88

a Ratio of experimental results to that of analytical values.

6. Conclusions
In this study, the behavior of partially infilled concrete
frames under cyclic loads was investigated experimentally.
One-bay, one-story partially infilled reinforced concrete frames
are tested under reversed cyclic loading simulating seismic
action. Based on the test results, the following conclusions were
drawn;
(1) Strengthening of reinforced concrete frames with partially
reinforced concrete infills increased the strength and
stiffness of the bare frame substantially. Strengthening
using infills as a wing wall was found to be an effective
technique. Although Specimen 4 was strengthened with the
smallest wing wall (lw / h w = 0.43), the infill and column
of Specimen 4 behaved together quite similar to a flexible
frame column among all infilled specimens, and improved
the strength of the bare frame 3.73 times. The strengths
of bare frames were improved 3.73 to 7.37 times, when
strengthened with wing walls. While increasing aspect
ratios of the wing infill walls (lw / h w ), specimen stiffnesses
and strengths were also increased.
(2) Arrangement of infill inside the frame opening, and
connection between infill and frame influenced the strength
and stiffness of the specimen. Arrangement of the infill as a
wing wall at which both column and beam of the frame was
connected to the infill improved the strength and stiffness
behavior. Specimen 6 with one wing wall showed 20%
more strength than Specimen 7 with two wing walls, even
though both of the specimens infills had the same aspect
ratios. Although the infills in both of the specimens had
the same aspect ratios, Specimen 8, which was strengthened
with infill connected only to the beams of the frame, showed
13% less strength than Specimen 5 with the wing wall.
(3) The window opening that was reserved on Specimen
9s infill yielded a short column behavior. Specimen
3, which was strengthened with infill without opening,
displayed 28% greater strength than Specimen 9, which
was strengthened with an infill with window opening. The
window opening that was reserved on the infill caused a
significant drop in strength, stiffness and energy dissipation
capacity.
(4) In general, reinforced concrete infilled specimens showed
brittle behavior. Specimens exhibited significant strength

(5)

(6)

(7)

(8)

degradation after crushing of the infill concrete. The

degradation was more apparent in specimens with higher
aspect ratios of the wing wall. After the maximum load,
specimens gained a subtle amount of ductility under further
cycles.
Aspect ratio of infill seems to influence story drift ratio
of the specimens. Use of infills as wing walls yielded
higher stiffnesses in comparison to the bare frame. Initial
stiffnesses of the specimens with wing walls are found to
be 4.6917.16 times higher than the bare frames stiffness.
In general the infilled specimens dissipated more energy
than the bare frame. The monolithically infilled specimen
showed 7 times more energy dissipation capacity than
the bare frame. In addition, the monolithically infilled
frames energy dissipation capacity displayed 1.5 to 2.6
times greater than those of the specimens with wing walls.
The lower infill aspect ratio was used; the lower energy
dissipation capacity of the infilled frame was observed.
The edge members at the free end of the infill in partially
infilled specimens restrained the propagation of shear
cracks. Stirrups in the edge members improved the shear
strength of the infill, and as a result, shear failure of the
infill was avoided.
Analytical studies were performed to understand the
behaviour of the infilled specimens. the IDARC-2D
program successfully simulated the ultimate strengths,
although its pushover analysis resulted in slightly higher
initial stiffnesses for the infilled specimens than the
experimental values.

References

[1] Ersoy U, Uzsoy

S. The behavior and strength of infilled frame. TUBITAK
MAG-205 report. Ankara (Turkey); 1971. 95 pp. [in Turkish].
[2] Higashi Y, Kokusho S. The strengthening method of existing reinforced
concrete buildings. Honolulu (Hawaii): US Japan Cooperative Research
Program in Earthquake Engineering; 1975.
[3] Higashi Y, Endo T, Shimuzu Y. Effects on behavior of reinforced concrete
frames by adding shear walls. In: Proceedings of the third seminar on
repair and retrofit of structures. 1982.
[4] Higashi Y, Endo T, Shimuzu Y. Experimental studies on retrofitting of
reinforced concrete building frames. In: Proceedings of the eight world
conference on earthquake engineering, vol. 1. 1984. p. 47784.
[5] Klingner RE, Bertero VV. Infilled frames in earthquake-resistant
construction. Report no. UCB/EERC-76/32. Berkeley: Earthquake
Engineering Research Center, University of California; 1976.

460

Anil, S. Altin / Engineering Structures 29 (2007) 449460

O.

[6] Klingner RE, Bertero VV. Earthquake resistance of infilled frames.

ASCE, Journal of Structural Division 1978;104(ST6):97387.
[7] Kahn LF, Hanson RD. Infilled walls for earthquake strengthening. ASCE,
Journal of Structural Division 1979;105(ST2):28396.
[8] Axley JW, Bertero VV. Infill panels: Their influence on seismic response
of buildings. Report no. UCB/EERC-79/28. Berkeley: Earthquake
Engineering Research Center, University of California; 1979.
[9] Axley JW. Modeling the stiffness contribution of infilled panels to framed
structures by a constraint approach. In: Proceedings of the 7th WCEE, vol.
4. 1980. p. 24951.
[10] Sugano S. Aseismic strengthening of existing reinforced concrete
buildings. In: Proceedings of the first seminar on repair and retrofit
of structures. US/Japan Cooperative Earthquake Engineering Research
Program; 1980.
[11] Aoyama H, Kato D, Katsumata H, Hosokawa Y. Strength and behavior
of postcast shear walls for strengthening of existing R/C buildings. In:
Proceeding of eight world conference on earthquake engineering, vol. 1.
1984. p. 48592.
[12] Liauw TC, Kwan KH. Unified plastic analysis for infilled frames. ASCE,
Journal of the Structural Division 1985;111(7):142749.
[13] Altn S. Strengthening of R/C frames with R/C infills. Unpublished
doctoral dissertation thesis in civil engineering. Middle East Technical
University; 1990.
[14] Altn S, Ersoy U, Tankut T. Hysteretic response of reinforced concrete
infilled frames. ASCE, Journal of Structural Engineering 1992;118(8):
213350.
[15] Phan LT, Lew HS. Strengthening methodology for lightly reinforced
concrete frames. Paper no. 1896. In: Proceedings of the 11th WCEE.
1996.
[16] Miller JT, Reaveley LD. Historic hotel Utah remodel and seismic upgrade.
In: Sabnis GM, Shroff AC, Khan LF, editors. Seismic rehabilitation of
concrete structures, SP-160. Farmington Hills (MI): American Concrete
Institute; 1996. p. 11530.

[17] Gregorian ZB, Gregorian GB. Seismic upgrading of hospital building

No. 6 and 7, VA Medical Center, Bedford, Mass. In: Sabnis GM,
Shroff AC, Khan LF, editors. Seismic rehabilitation of concrete structures,
SP-160. Farmington Hills (MI): American Concrete Institute; 1996.
p. 13147.
[18] Yoichi H, Toneo E, Masamichi O. Experimental study on strengthening
reinforced concrete structure by adding shear wall. In: Proceeding of the
7th WCEE, vol. 7. 1980. p. 17380.
[19] Taylor CP, Cote PA, Wallace JW. Design of slender reinforced concrete
walls with openings. ACI Structural Journal 1998;95(4):42033.
[20] Sittipunt C, Wood SL. Improving the cyclic response of slender structural
walls by changing the orientation of the web reinforcement. ACI
Structural Journal 1995;92(6):74567.
[21] Sittipunt C, Wood SL. Improving the cyclic response of slender structural
walls by changing the orientation of the web reinforcement. PEER report
1999/10. Berkeley (Maui, HI): Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research
Center, University of California; 1999. p. 32332.
[22] Kato D, Kabesayasawa T, Otani S, Aoyama H. Earthquake resistant
design of shear walls with one opening. ACI Structural Journal 1995;
92(4):495500.
[23] Kato D, Noda H, Sugishita Y. Strength and deformation capacity of
cantilever structural walls with openings. PEER report 1999/10. Berkeley
(Maui, HI): Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center, University
of California; 1999. p. 31122.
[24] Chai YH, Hutchinson TC. Reversed cyclic lateral response of lightweight
concrete precast wall panel tests. Sacramento (CA): University of
California, Davis, ZFA Structural Engineers; 2001.
Strengthening of reinforced concrete frames by reinforced
[25] Anl O.
concrete infill with openings. Unpublished doctoral dissertation thesis in
civil engineering. Gazi University; 2002 [in Turkish].
[26] IDARC-2D V 4.0. A program for the inelastic damage analysis of
buildings. Developed by Valles RE, Reinhorn AM, Kunnath SK, Li C,
and Madan A. Technical report NCEER-96-0010. 1996.