Computers and Structures 143 (2014) 91107

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Computers and Structures

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/compstruc

A macro-element modelling approach of Inlled Frame Structures

Ivo Cali , Bartolomeo Pant
Dipartimento Ingegneria Civile e Architettura, University of Catania, Italy

a r t i c l e

i n f o

Article history:
Received 23 October 2013
Accepted 9 July 2014
Available online 12 August 2014
Keywords:
Inlled Frame Structures (IFS)
Masonry Inlled Reinforced Concrete frame
(MIRC)
Macro-element approach
Discrete element approach
Seismic vulnerability
Micro-models

a b s t r a c t
In this paper a macro-modelling approach for the seismic assessment of Inlled Frame Structures (IFS) is
presented. The interaction between frame and inll is simulated through an original approach in which
the frame members are modelled by means of lumped plasticity beamcolumn elements while the inlls
are described by plane macro-elements. The reliability of the approach is evaluated by means of nonlinear analyses, performed on inlled masonry reinforced concrete structures, for which experimental
results are available in literature. The proposed computational strategy is intended to provide a
numerical tool suitable for the design and the vulnerability assessment of IFS.
2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction
Inlled Frame Structures (IFS) represent a high percentage of
existing and new buildings in many seismically prone areas around
the world. These mixed structural systems are governed by the
interaction between frame and inll wall. The frame can be built
with different materials: reinforced-concrete, steel or wood, while
the inll wall can be of unreinforced masonry or concrete. Masonry
Inlled Reinforced Concrete frames (MIRC) are, at present, widely
adopted for the construction of new buildings as well as structural
retrotting strategy of medium and low-rise buildings. Existing
masonry inlled frame buildings are often difcult to be classied
since, in many cases they are the result of low-engineered structures built before the emanation of seismic codes and conceived
to resist only gravity loads [1]. Currently, new inlled frame buildings are mainly concentrated in several regions around the world
which are often characterised by a high-density population, since
this structural typology represents a rapid and low cost building
strategy [2]. A large number of buildings are built with masonry
inll walls for non-structural reasons, since the role of inll is
associated with architectural needs. In these cases the structural
contribution of masonry inll panels is generally neglected in the
structural analyses, leading to a signicant inaccuracy of the
prediction of lateral stiffness, strength and ductility capabilities
Corresponding author. Address: Dipartimento Ingegneria civile e Architettura
DICAR, University of Catania, Viale Andrea Doria, 6, 95125 Catania, Italy.
Tel.: +39 (0)95 738 2255; fax: +39 (0)95 738 2249.
E-mail address: icalio@dica.unict.it (I. Cali).
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.compstruc.2014.07.008
0045-7949/ 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

of the structure. As highlighted by many authors [1,3,4], ignoring

the role of frame-inll panel interaction is not always safe, resulting in a possible change of the seismic demand due to the modication of the fundamental period of the mixed structural system.
Furthermore, the presence of inll walls can modify the stiffness
and ductility distribution along the structure causing local collapses, during seismic events, ignored at the structural design
phase.
The ability to assess the seismic behaviour of IFS is of crucial
importance and several contributions have been provided in the
last ve decades by many researchers by means of both numerical
and experimental investigations. The highly nonlinear masonryinll response and the ever-changing contact condition along the
frame-inll interfaces make the simulation of the nonlinear behaviour of an entire inlled frame building a challenging problem. A
detailed simulation of the complex nonlinear behaviour of inlled
frames requires the rigours use of expensive computationally nonlinear nite element models, capable to reproduce the nonlinear
degrading behaviour of the inll masonry and the complex interaction between the frame and the embraced inll. Rened nite element numerical models [2,5,6], such as the smeared cracked and
discrete crack nite element models, able to predict the complex
non-linear dynamic mechanical behaviour and the degradation of
the masonry media, require sophisticated constitutive laws and
huge computational resources. As a consequence these numerical
approaches are, at present, unsuitable for practical application
and extremely difcult to apply to large structures. On the other
hand, in order to estimate the seismic vulnerability of an existing
building and to assess whether the structure requires a seismic

92

I. Cali, B. Pant / Computers and Structures 143 (2014) 91107

upgrade, a structural engineer needs simple and efcient numerical tools, whose complexity and computational demand must be
appropriate for practical engineering purposes. For these reasons,
in the last six decades, many authors have developed simplied
or alternative methodologies for predicting the nonlinear seismic
behaviour of IFS. According to the classication proposed by Asteris et al., in a recent comprehensive review of existing mathematical
macro-models of inlled frames [7], the current numerical
approaches can be classied in two main categories, macro- and
micro-models. The macro-models try to grasp the global behaviour
of the Inlled Frame Structures without claiming to obtain a
detailed nonlinear response and to describe all the possible modes
of local failure. On the contrary, the micro-models are conceived
for a detailed behaviour simulation of the inlled frame trying to
encompass all the possible modes of collapse due to different
damage scenarios in the masonry inll and the surrounding frame.
Rened micro-models can also be useful for validating and
calibrating simplied approaches in those cases in which experimental results are unavailable. The most commonly used macromodel practical approach is the so called diagonal strut model,
according to this approach the inlled masonry is represented by
a diagonal bar under compression. The rst who suggested the
possibility of considering the effect of the inll as an equivalent
diagonal bracing was Polyakov [8]. This suggestion was taken up
by Holmes [9], who modelled the inll by an equivalent pinjointed diagonal strut made of the same material with the same
thickness as the inll panel and a width equal to one-third of the
inll diagonal length. This so called one-third rule was suggested
as being applicable irrespective of the relative rigidities of the
frame and the inll. Many authors [1020] suggested alternative
proposals, for the evaluation of the equivalent strut width. Some
of these studies provide analytical expressions, which encompass
the presence of openings in the inll or analyse special layouts
such as the case in which inll and frame are not bonded together
[17].
In the last two decades some authors highlighted the limit of
using a single strut-element for modelling the complex nonlinear
behaviour of IFS and proposed more complex macro-element with
the aim to obtain a better description of the effect of inll on the
surrounding frame. Thiruvengadam [21], with the aim to evaluate
frequencies and modes of vibrations of IFS, proposed a multiple
strut model, wherein the inlls are represented by a set of equivalent multiple struts. The model is able to account for the frameinll separation and inll openings and was also included in
FEMA-356 [22]. Subsequently, a number of researchers proposed
the multi-strut approach for modelling both the linear and nonlinear behaviour of IFS [2330]. The main advantage of the multiplestrut models, despite the increase in complexity, is the ability to
represent the actions in the frame more accurately; a comprehensive description of the multiple strut models is reported in the
review paper [7].
In this paper an alternative innovative approach for the simulation of the seismic behaviour of Inlled Frame Structures, suitable
both for research and current engineering practice applications, is
presented. In this approach, the inlled wall is modelled by means
of a discrete element, originally conceived for the simulation of the
nonlinear response of masonry building [31,32], while the reinforced concrete frame is modelled by means of inelastic beamcolumn elements, in which the plastic hinges can originate in
different positions along the beam-span. The computational cost
of the proposed numerical approach is greatly reduced in comparison to that involved in nonlinear nite element simulations,
which require nite element modelling of both the frame and
the inll. The basic macro-element, adopted for the simulation of
the inlled masonry, consists of an articulated quadrilateral,
with rigid edges, in which two diagonal springs govern the

shear-diagonal behaviour. The exural and shear-sliding behaviour

is governed by discrete distributions of springs on the sides of the
quadrilateral that govern the interaction with the adjacent
elements. The calibration of the model requires few parameters
to dene the masonry material based on results from current
experimental tests. The equivalence between the masonry portion
and the macro-element is based on very simple physical considerations [32] and the interpretation of the numerical results is
straightforward and unambiguous. This novel approach has been
recently successfully applied to mixed reinforced concretemasonry structures in the academic context [3338,52] thus
conrming that it can be considered as a low cost computational
tool suitable for the investigation of the nonlinear structural
behaviour where the seismic capacity results from the interaction
between masonry and reinforced concrete.
In Section 2 a detailed description of the proposed macro-model
approach is provided and the required ber calibration procedures
are described in detail. The capability of the model to simulate the
complex interaction between the inll and the surrounding frame
is outlined in Section 3, where the typical failure mechanism of
inlled frames and its macro-element modelling are considered.
In the numerical applications (Section 4), the proposed
approach is adopted for the simulation of the nonlinear response
of masonry inlled frame for which experimental results are available from previous studies listed in the literature. In the same section the inuence of the model discretization and the ability of the
model of taking into account the presence of openings through a
simple a macro-element discretization is highlighted.
2. The inlled frame model
In the present study, the complex nonlinear behaviour of
Inlled Frame Structures is analysed according to a hybrid
approach in which the surrounding frame is modelled using concentrated plasticity beamcolumn elements while the nonlinear
response of the inll is simulated by means of a plane discrete element recently proposed by the authors [32] which has been implemented in a software used both for research and engineering
practice [39]. In the following it is claried how the beamcolumn
element and the discrete-element contribute to provide a reliable
simulation of the nonlinear behaviour of Inlled Frame Structures.
2.1. The discrete-element for modelling masonry inll
Masonry inll is modelled by means of a macro-element,
recently introduced by Cali et al. [32], conceived for the simulation of the nonlinear in-plane behaviour of unreinforced masonry
walls. This element is characterised by a simple mechanical
scheme, Fig. 1, constituted by an articulated quadrilateral with
rigid edges connected by four hinges and two diagonal nonlinear
springs. Each side of the quadrilateral can interact with other elements or supports by means of a discrete distribution of nonlinear
springs, denoted as interface. Each interface is constituted by n
nonlinear orthogonal springs, perpendicular to the panel side, and
an additional longitudinal spring, parallel to the panel edge. In spite
of its simplicity, such a basic mechanical scheme is able to simulate
the main in-plane failures of a masonry wall portion subjected to
in-plane horizontal and vertical loads.
These well-known collapse mechanisms, namely the exural
failure, the diagonal shear failure and sliding shear failure, are
roughly represented in Fig. 2 where the typical crack patterns,
together with the qualitative kinematics of the masonry portion,
are also sketched.
Fig. 3 shows how the proposed plane macro-element allows a
simple and realistic mechanical simulation of the corresponding

93

I. Cali, B. Pant / Computers and Structures 143 (2014) 91107

(a)

(b)

Fig. 1. The basic macro-element for the masonry inll: (a) undeformed conguration; and (b) deformed conguration.

q
F

(a)

(b)

(c)

Fig. 2. Main in-plane failure mechanisms of a masonry portion. (a) exural failure; (b) shear-diagonal failure; and (c) shear-sliding failure.

(a)

(b)

(c)

Fig. 3. Simulation of the main in-plane failure mechanisms of a masonry portion by means of the macro-element. (a) exural failure; (b) shear-diagonal failure; and (c) shearsliding failure.

failure mechanisms. The exural failure mode, sketched in Fig. 2a.,

is associated with the rocking of the masonry panel in its own
plane; the activation of this collapse mode is governed by the interface orthogonal springs, Fig. 3a. The diagonal-shear failure mode,
shown in Fig. 2b, is related to the loss of bearing capacity of the
masonry panel due to excessive shear and to the consequent formation of diagonal cracks along the directions of the principal
compression stresses; this mechanism is controlled by the diagonal nonlinear links, Fig. 3b.
The shear-sliding failure mode is characterised by the sliding of
the masonry panel in its own plane. In this case the loss of bearing

capacity is associated to the formation of cracks parallel to the bedjoints, Fig. 2c; this mechanism is governed by the sliding spring of
the interface, Fig. 3c.
According to the proposed discrete element approach, a
masonry macro-element is modelled by an equivalent mechanical
scheme in which the physical role of each component is simple and
unambiguous [32].
Each discrete element exhibits three degrees-of-freedom, associated with the in-plane rigid-body motion, plus a further degreeof-freedom, needed for the description of the shear deformability.
The deformations of the interfaces are associated to the relative

94

I. Cali, B. Pant / Computers and Structures 143 (2014) 91107

motion between corresponding panels, therefore no further

Lagrangian parameters have to be introduced in order to describe
their kinematics.
In Fig. 4 a typical discretization of an inlled frame with and
without a central door opening is shown. Namely Fig. 4(a, d) refer
to the geometrical layouts of the inlled frames, Fig. 4(b, e) report
the corresponding discretization according to the basic needed
mesh while the representations of Fig. 4(c, f) are relative to a more
rened mesh. The use of a more rened mesh is not mandatory
however, in some cases, can provide more accurate results and a
better description of the collapse mechanism. This aspect is particularly important in the modelling of inlled frames since it allows
a better description of the inlled masonry also in the presence of
window or door openings and in some cases can lead to more accurate modelling of the inlled frame, as described in the subsequent
paragraphs.
It is worth to notice that each macro-element inherits the plane
geometrical properties of the corresponding modelled masonry
portion avoiding any effective dimension denition of the element,
as required by the simplied models based on equivalent strut element approach.
The efcacy of the masonry inll model relies on a suitable
choice of the mechanical parameters of the macro-element
inferred by an equivalence between the masonry media and a reference continuous model characterised by simple but reliable constitutive laws. This equivalence is based on a straightforward
calibration procedure that exploits the main mechanical parameters of the masonry only, according to an orthotropic homogeneous
medium, as highlighted in the following.

In reference [32] a detailed description of the calibration of the

model for unreinforced masonry structures is reported, here the
calibration procedure is specialised for a typical masonry-frame
layouts, as reported in Figs. 4 and 5. The deformability of the inll
along the horizontal and vertical directions are concentrated in the
nonlinear links of the vertical and horizontal interfaces. Consistently with a ber calibration approach, the stiffness calibration
of the panel is simply obtained by assigning to each link the axial
rigidity of the corresponding masonry strip. Each masonry strip is
identied by its inuence area and the half dimension of the panel
in the direction perpendicular to the interface, Fig. 5.
With reference to a single orthotropic panel, the initial stiffness,
the compression and tensile yielding strengths and the corresponding ultimate displacements are derived by the mechanical
material properties of the masonry in horizontal and vertical directions as reported in the Table 1, with reference to a simple elastoplastic behaviour with limited deformability.
In Table 1, Eh and Ev are the Youngs modulus in horizontal and
vertical direction of the homogenised orthotropic masonry media;
rhc, rvc and rht, rvt are the corresponding compressive and tensile
yielding stresses, ehcu, evcu and ehtu, evtu are the ultimate compressive and tensile strains; s is the thickness of the masonry inll
and kh and kv are the distance between two nonlinear links in
the vertical and horizontal interfaces.
Also in presence of openings the calibration of the macro-elements is simple and straightforward. In Fig. 4df it is shown how
a central opening can be represented through two different mesh
discretizations. It is worth noticing that only the link associated
to interfaces between elements have to be calibrated. As an example, in Fig. 5df a simple case of a partially inlled frame, in which
the opening is adjacent both to a column and to a portion of the
beam, is represented. In this case the expressions reported in
Table 1 have to be referred to the actual size of the masonry
macro-element, furthermore in the horizontal direction only the
nonlinear links of the column-panel interface have to be considered and calibrated.
The collapse behaviour of the panel is dealt with by different
criteria in compression and in tension. Precisely, once the compressive ultimate displacement is reached, the spring is removed from
the model and the relevant reaction is applied as an external force
loading the corresponding elements. On the other hand, when the
tensile limit displacement is attained, although the reaction is

2.1.1. Calibration of the interface orthogonal springs

Since the masonry is considered as a homogeneous medium its
global behaviour should be ascribed to the exural and shearing
characteristics of a nite portion of an orthotropic inelastic continua. As mentioned before, the exural behaviour is governed by
the interface orthogonal springs connecting the panel to adjacent
elements. Each spring is calibrated by adopting a specic constitutive law for the masonry media, according to a ber modelling
approach. The orthotropic nature of the masonry is simply considered by calibrating separately the horizontal and vertical interfaces
according to the mechanical properties of the corresponding
directions.

(a)

(d)

(b)

(e)

(c)

(f)

Fig. 4. Modelling of inlled frame with and without a central door opening. (a, d) the geometrical layout; (b, e) model corresponding to the basic mesh; (c, f) model
corresponding to a more rened mesh resolution.

95

I. Cali, B. Pant / Computers and Structures 143 (2014) 91107

H/2

L/2

(a)

(b)

(c)
v '

L'

H/2

H
L'/2

v'

(d)

(e)

(f)

Fig. 5. Fiber calibration of the orthogonal springs of masonry-frame interfaces.

Table 1
calibration of the orthogonal spring of masonry-frame interfaces.
Initial elastic stiffness

Tensile yielding force

Compression ultimate displacement

Tensile ultimate displacement

Orthogonal springs in the vertical interfaces (Fig. 5b)

F hcy skh rhc
K hp 2 Eh kh s

Compression yielding force

F hty skh rht

uhcu 2L ehcu

uhtu 2L ehtu

Orthogonal springs in the horizontal interfaces (Fig. 5a)

F v cy skv rv c

F v ty skv rv t

uv cu H2 ev cu

uv tu H2 ev tu

K v p 2 EvHkv s

again re-distributed to the corresponding elements, the link is not

removed from the model, since it will be able to bear further compressive loads once the contact with the corresponding panel will
be restored.

2.1.2. Calibration of the sliding springs of the interface

The longitudinal spring governs the sliding-shear failure by
considering the potential sliding between two adjacent elements.
The characteristics of this spring depend on the effective contact
surface between the adjacent elements. When the contact zone
between the elements is zero the sliding spring is no longer active.
The sliding springs have been modelled by means of a rigid-plastic
constitutive behaviour which is governed by a MohrCoulomb
yielding surface, sliding occurs in particular when the force in
the nonlinear link reaches its limit value, Flim, which is given by
the expression:

F lim c l

rm Ao

in which c is a cohesion parameter and l is the friction coefcient;

rm is the current average value of the compressive stresses acting
on the interface and Ao is the effective contact area of the two adjacent elements. The sliding behaviour that can occur between the
inll and the adjacent frame has to be characterised by specic values of the cohesion and the friction coefcient which, in general, are
not coincident with the values associated to the masonry media, in
which the brick texture plays an important role.

2.1.3. Calibration of the diagonal springs

Shear failure is the most common type of masonry collapse
when the inlled frame is subjected to action in its own plane, this
is aided by the kinematic constraint exerted by the surrounding
frame. In the macro-element model the shear failure collapse is
controlled by the diagonal springs [32] according to a suitable
yielding criteria. As highlighted in reference [40], two fundamentally different hypotheses, which lead to similar results, have been
developed in order to model the shear failure mechanism. In the
rst case, which has been accepted by Eurocode 6 (Design of
masonry structures) [41], the shear strength is dened according
to a Mohr Coulomb law

F m fmo lc

rn

where fmo is the shear strength associated to a zero value of compression strength, lc is a friction coefcient, dening the contribution of compressive stresses, rn is the value of the average
compressive stress. Values for fmo and lc should be determined by
experimental test [4244]. It is worth highlighting that this criterion is the same suggested for the description of the sliding-shear
failure, although characterised by appropriate values of fmo and lc
that in general do not coincide with the corresponding values that
govern the sliding-shear failure.
Alternative theories associate the diagonal shear failure to the
principle tensile stresses that develop in the wall when subjected
to vertical loads and increasing horizontal forces. The most
adopted criterion based on this assumption is the well known
Turnsek and Cacovic criterion [42] in its modied form [44] that

96

I. Cali, B. Pant / Computers and Structures 143 (2014) 91107

takes into account the inuence of the geometry of the wall and
the distribution of action at maximum resistance. The latter criterion can be expressed as

f
fv t
b

r
rn
1
ft

beam/column internal degrees of freedom

beam/column external degrees of freedom

v1
3

where fv is the average shear stress in the wall attained at the maximum resistance, ft is the tensile strength of masonry, b is the shear
stress distribution factor (depending on the geometry of the wall
and on the value of the ratio between the vertical N and horizontal
H load), rn is the average compression stress due to vertical load N.
In the initial linear elastic range, the calibration of the diagonal
springs is simply obtained by enforcing an elastic equivalence
between the panel and the corresponding masonry wall, which is
considered as a pure shear deformable homogeneous plate, as
reported in reference [32]. The ultimate shear load and the corresponding displacement of each diagonal spring are therefore
derived by the knowledge of the mechanical material properties
of the masonry by means of the adopted shear resistance criteria
[32]. Since the macro-element must incorporate the mechanical
property of the nite portion of the modelled masonry wall, the
ultimate shear displacement of the element is directly associated
to the ultimate shear generalized deformability of the homogenised masonry media. The latter value can be evaluated experimentally or can be obtained from technical codes. The ultimate
displacement of the wall can be associated with a specic value
of the ultimate angular deformation which is dependent on the
particular masonry media.
The post-yielding behaviour of each nonlinear link can be characterised according to different constitutive models, as shown in
the numerical applications reported in Section 4.
2.2. The interacting beam column element
For mixed masonry-reinforced concrete structures, beamcolumn lumped plasticity elements are included in the model. The
interaction between the frame elements, along the entire length,
with the adjacent masonry is modelled by means of the interfaces
of the macro-elements.
The frame element interacts with the masonry panels by means
of nonlinear-links distribution along the macro-element interfaces.
Each interface, as those between masonry panels, is constituted by
n orthogonal and a single longitudinal nonlinear links. In Fig. 6 the
degrees of freedom which govern the interaction between a panel
and an adjacent beam element are indicated; upk (k = 1. . .4) are the
four degrees of freedom that describe the kinematic of the macroelement, u1, v1, /1, u2, v2, /2 are the degrees of freedom of the beam
ends, while voj, /oj (j = 1. . .n) and um are the degrees of freedom
associated to the nonlinear links of the interface. For the evaluation
of the nonlinear behaviour of the frame element it has been
assumed that plastic hinges can occur in each sub-beam element
between two nonlinear links. This latter assumption provides a
reliable frame element model since it is able to embed the occurrence of plastic hinges at different positions and it is consistent
with the adopted level of inll discretization. The inelastic behaviour of the frame element, concentrated at plastic hinges is governed by the interaction of the axial force and two exural
moments consistent with the yield surfaces of the concrete cross
sections. In the application developed in this work the yield
surfaces have been evaluated according to a standard approach,
modelling the inelastic behaviour of beam cross sections consistent
with an inelastic-perfectly plastic behaviour [45]. Once the constitutive laws have been dened, both force and displacement controlled load processes can be performed according to procedures
currently used in nite element analysis [45,46].

u1
1

vo1

von

vo2

o1

o2

k1

k2
rigid edge

on

um

kn-1

ks

v2
2
u2

kn

up3

up2

up4

up1
Fig. 6. Qualitative representation of an interface between a beam column and the
adjacent macro-elements and the corresponding degrees of freedom.

3. The typical failure mechanism of inlled frames and its

macro-element modelling
Inlled frames exhibit a highly nonlinear inelastic behaviour as
a result of the interaction between the masonry inll panel and the
surrounding frame. The most important factors contributing to the
nonlinear behaviour are: cracking and crushing of the masonry,
cracking of the concrete, yielding of the reinforcing bar, local bond
slip, degradation of the bond friction mechanism at the panelframe interface associated to a variation along the contact length.
Macro-models, due to their simplicity, cannot accurately represent
all the various failure mechanisms of inlled frame.
Numerous experimental and numerical studies have identied
many complicated failure mechanisms due to the framepanel
interaction [3,7]. According to the classication reported in the
recent state of art review by Asteris et al. [7], these different failure
mechanisms can be classied as an out-of plane buckling mode or
one of four distinct in-plane modes.
The Diagonal Compression Buckling mode (DCB) is associated
with the crushing of the inll within its central region due to
out-of-plane buckling of the inll. This failure mode mainly happens in slender inlls and cannot be directly controlled through
the in-plane response of the proposed macro-element approach.
Several analytical models have been introduced to represent the
out-of-plane behaviour of inll panels during seismic events. The
majority of experimental data suggest that after the initial cracking
of the URM inll wall, the out-of-plane strength depends upon the
compressive strength of the masonry, not upon its tensile strength,
due to the arching action of the inll wall. Recently Kadyiewski and
Mosalam [47] proposed an alternative model that considers both
the in-plane and out-of-plane behaviour consisting of two beam
column elements with a node at mid-span used to account for
out-of-plane inertial forces.
The in-plane modes are qualitatively represented in Fig. 7
together with their equivalent macro-element representations,
according to two different levels of discretization. The Corner
Crushing mode (CC), Fig. 7a1 is associated with the crushing of
the inll in at least one of its loaded corners. This failure mechanism generally occurs in presence of weak masonry inll panel surrounded by a frame with weak joints and strong members [7,29].
In Fig. 7a2 and a3 simplied representations of the kinematic

97

I. Cali, B. Pant / Computers and Structures 143 (2014) 91107

(a1)

(b1)

(c1)

(d1)

(a2)

(b2)

(c2)

(d2)

(a3)

(b3)

(c3)

(d3)

Fig. 7. Qualitative representation of the in-plane collapse mode and its equivalent macro-element discretization. (a) Corner Crushing (CC) mode, (b) Diagonal cracKing (DK)
mode, (c) Sliding Shear (SS) mode, and (d) Frame Failure (FF) mode.

associated to the proposed formulation, corresponding to the two

different mesh resolutions, are reported. The same gure highlights how the Corner Crushing of the inll can be controlled by
the deformation of the nonlinear links of frame-panel interfaces.
The Diagonal cracKing mode (DK) corresponds to a shear diagonal collapse and manifests by cracking along the compressed
diagonal of the inll, Fig. 7b1. The activation of this failure mode
is governed by the diagonal nonlinear links of the macro-elements
as qualitative reported in Fig. 7b2 and b3. This is a common mechanism that is often associated with damage within the frame.
The Sliding Shear (SS) mode is associated to the sliding shear
failure through bed joints, this mechanism generally happens in
the case of inll with weak mortar joints surrounded by a strong
frame, Fig. 7c1. If the inll is modelled by only one element, this
behaviour can also be captured by an appropriate calibration of
the diagonal links of the macro-element which aims to control
both the DK and SS failure modes at the macro-scale as qualitatively reported in Fig. 7c2. When the inll is modelled as a mesh
of macro-elements, this mechanism is mainly controlled by the
nonlinear links, along the horizontal interfaces between adjacent
masonry elements [32]. In Fig. 7c3 a simplied qualitative representation of the kinematic associated to this failure mechanism is
reported.
The Frame Failure mode (FF) is seen in the form of a distribution
of plastic hinges producing a mechanism in the frame, as in
Fig. 7d1; this mode occurs in weak frame and strong inll. Fig. 7d2
and d3 report a qualitative representation of the collapse mechanism associated to the two considered mesh discretizations, it
can be observed as a rened mesh can allow a better representation of the collapse mechanism. Further details on the capability
of the present approach to provide a satisfactory simulation of
the collapse behaviour of inlled frames are reported in Section 4.

It is worth noting that all the considered basic mechanisms can

occur under different combinations and can involve low or heavy
damage in the surrounding frame. The proposed approach is able
to identify combined mechanisms and the simultaneous presence
of damage corresponding to different failure modes.
4. Numerical applications
In this section the proposed model is employed to simulate the
nonlinear response of masonry inlled frame for which experimental results are available from previous studies reported in the literature. In particular, the results of the following two different
experimental programs have been taken into account:
A research program, performed by the Construction Engineering
Research Laboratory (Champaign USA), aimed to investigate the
seismic vulnerability of masonry-inlled non-ductile reinforced
concrete frames (designed to resist gravity loads) [48].
An experimental campaign, carried out at the University of Colorado, devoted to the seismic assessment of reinforced concrete
frames designed in accordance with the Uniform Building Code
[3,49,50].
4.1. Simulation of experimental results of non-ductile RC inlled
frames
The rst experimental program, under consideration, was performed at the Construction Engineering Research Laboratory, at
Champaign (Illinois) to determine the seismic vulnerability of
existing dormitory-type buildings, constructed during the 1950s
and 1960s in the USA. The research investigated the structural

98

I. Cali, B. Pant / Computers and Structures 143 (2014) 91107

behaviour of non-ductile RC frames fully inlled with masonry

panels. The term non-ductile, as used in the reference paper [48],
refers to the RC bare frames based on reinforcement details typical
of structures designed to resist gravity loads without taking into
account seismic actions. In the experimental campaign, ve halfscale models were tested, all subjected to lateral, in-plane monotonic loading. The ve models were all single-storey RC frames of
single-, double- or triple-bay construction. In the following, the
results of a single-bay inlled frame are considered, the detailed
model congurations and the material properties of the considered
specimen are reported in the reference paper [48].
Fig. 8 shows the layout corresponding to the geometrical characteristics and the reinforcement of the inlled frame. The input
data, assumed in the numerical simulations, refer to a homogenised representation of the inll. The stress/strain relationship
for concrete in compression is assumed to be of parabolic type
up to the strain eco and of rectangular type up to the ultimate strain
ecu. The stress/strain relationship for steel has been taken as that of
elastic-perfectly plastic.
The properties of the nonlinear links that govern the behaviour
of the macro-element discretization of the masonry inll have
been evaluated according to the straightforward calibration procedure reported in Section 2.
The proposed model has been implemented in the software
3DMacro [39], and used for the numerical simulations presented
in this section. The reliability of the latter implementation, for
the seismic assessment of Unreinforced Masonry Building (URM),
has been recently investigated, also by other authors [51] where
different structural component models for URM have been compared. Further validations both for unreinforced and conned
masonry structures are reported in [3238,52].
The input parameters required for calibrating the reinforced
concrete frame and the discrete element are reported in Tables 2
and 3 respectively, according to the failure criteria considered in
Section 2.
The rst numerical application analyses the behaviour of the
basic single-bay frame without considering masonry inll contribution. Fig. 9 reports the comparison between the experimental
and numerical results relative to the bare RC frame. A good agreement can be observed between experiment and simulation both in
terms of the capacity curve and the collapse mechanism, the latter
is associated to the activation of plastic hinges in column ends.
The results relative to the single-bay RC inlled frame are
reported in Fig. 9b, where the base shear versus the top horizontal
displacement is reported. The continuous line is relative to the
experimental results while the dashed lines refer to the numerical
simulation; the latter has been performed by considering a 3  3
macro-elements discretization. The agreement between experimental and numerical results, at least in terms of maximum base
shear force and top displacements, can be considered satisfactory.

A further investigation of the role of the frame and the inll during the interaction is conducted in Fig. 10. In Fig. 10a the contributions of the inll and the interacting frame to the base shear are
reported together with the total base shear, already displayed in
Fig. 9b. Furthermore, in Fig. 10b a comparison of the monotonic
nonlinear response of the frame in bare and interacting conditions
is reported. It is interesting to observe how the contribution of the
frame increases when it interacts with the inll.
The shear sliding properties, reported in Table 3, have been chosen by assuming typical values of brick masonry media. However,
with the aim to investigate the role of the cohesion and the friction
angle, which control the shear sliding properties, in Fig. 11 the base
shear versus the top displacement has been evaluated for different
value of the cohesion c and friction angle l, it can be observed a
very small sensitivity to the friction angle and a low dependence
on the cohesion.
In Fig. 12b the damage scenario predicted by the model corresponding to the ultimate value of drift of 2.86%, is compared to
the corresponding damage crack patterns obtained experimentally
[48], as shown in Fig. 12a. It is worth to notice that, due to their
simplicity, macro-elements provide a simplied representation of
failure mechanisms for inlled frame. With reference to the comparison reported in Fig. 12a and b it has to be considered that at
the base of the column there is the overlapping of steel reinforcement, as detailed in [48]. This overstrength can partly justify the
difference between numerical and experimental collapse simulations, since the experiment does not show any hinge at the base
of the left column, provided by the numerical simulation, which
is instead collocated in the middle.
The used representation in the interface allows the distinction
of the reactive compressive zone from the cracked one due to tensile forces; diagonal bars inside a panel indicate the yielding of the
diagonal springs. It is worth noting how the proposed approach is
able to grasp the distribution of damage on both the inll and the
surrounding frame.
In Fig. 12c and d the exural moment distribution in the frame,
corresponding to the values of drift 0.55% and 2.86%, are reported.
These further representations show how the proposed approach
provides a simulation of the complex interaction between frame
and inll, characterised by continuous variation of the contact zone
with redistributions of internal forces both in the inll and the surrounding frame.
4.2. Simulation of experimental results of RC inlled frames designed in
accordance with the UBC
To investigate the performance of masonry-inlled RC frames
subjected to in-plane lateral loads, a comprehensive study was
carried out at the University of Colorado. The results and major
conclusions of this study, obtained from the experimental
4 #3 203 6 ga./12.7mm

127

457

457

127

5 #3
197

76

S5

S6

S7

S8

1327

6 ga./12.7mm

S2

S3

S4

203

381

76 S1

381 203

1829

203 381

610

Fig. 8. Layout corresponding to (a) the geometrical characteristics and (b) the typical geometrical reinforcing, from reference [48].

99

I. Cali, B. Pant / Computers and Structures 143 (2014) 91107

Table 2
Case study 1. Mechanical characteristics of concrete and steel.
Concrete

Steel
3

E (MPa)

rc (MPa)

rt (MPa)

ec0 (%)

ecu (%)

w (kN/m )

E (GPa)

fy (MPa)

eu (%)

29,992

38.50

1.50

0.20

0.35

25

200

377

10

Table 3
Case study 1. Mechanical characteristics of masonry inll.
w
(kN/m3)

E
(MPa)

rc

rt

(MPa)

(MPa)

18

2500

5.00

0.15

k (cm)
10

Flexural

G (MPa)

fv0 (MPa)

lc

1000

0.30

0.15

Shear diagonal

(horizontal)

Shear sliding

(vertical)

c (MPa)

c (MPa)

0.30

0.4

0.7

0.5

investigation conducted on twelve one-half-scale frame specimens, are summarised in the paper by Mehrabi et al. [50] and
reported in more details in [49]. The study focused on RC frames
designed in accordance with code provisions, with and without
the consideration of strong earthquake loadings. A six-storey,
three-bay, reinforced concrete moment-resisting frame was
selected as a prototype structure. The design loads complied with
the specications of the Uniform Building Code (UBC) (1991).
Two types of frames were considered: (i) a weak frame, representative of existing reinforced concrete structures not designed
to resist to earthquake loadings; (ii) a strong frame, designed
for Seismic Zone 4 according to the UBC. In the present study the
results of a loaded specimen designed for Seismic Zone 4 are

considered. All the details of the considered specimen, identied

in the reference works by the number 7, are reported in the studies
[3,49,50]. Here, for the sake of comprehensiveness, the layout of
the frame, together with IFS geometrical and reinforcing characteristics, are displayed in Fig. 13.
The considered specimen is characterised by a strong frame
with a strong solid type masonry inll and possesses an aspect
ratio, h/L, equal to 2/3, where h is the height and L is the width
of the inll. The ultimate resistance and failure were dominated
by the Corner Crushing of the inll at a displacement of approximately 130 mm, and internal crushing at around 180 mm. In spite
of the presence of a strong panel, no shear failure was observed in
the columns. The aim of simulating the nonlinear cyclic experimental behaviour, by means of the adoption of simple constitutive
laws, has been pursued by means of the following assumptions for
the reinforced concrete frame and the inlled masonry. The nonlinear cyclic behaviour of the reinforced concrete has been modelled
according to a bilinear-envelope Takeda scheme [53] as reported in
Table 4.
For the simulation of the cyclic degrading hysteretic behaviour
of the masonry inll, subjected to a combination of vertical loads
and to a sequence of lateral load reversals, the use of an idealised
bi-or tri-linear resistance envelope is recommended [40]. Here,
the shear-diagonal behaviour of the masonry inll has been modelled by means of an idealised bi-linear envelope, consistent with
the approach reported in [32] for unreinforced masonry, whose relevant parameters are summarised in Table 5, these have been chosen by considering the experimental data reported in [3], which
also contain the results of shear sliding experimental tests. The
parameter Ko represents the initial slope of the idealised envelope,
in the post-yielding behaviour, the kinematic hardening (or softening) is governed by the parameter a, that is given by

where Hmax is the resistance at the elastic limit, Hdmax is the resistance at the ultimate displacement and dHmax and dmax are the corresponding displacements of the envelope curve.
The unloading stiffness has been expressed according to the following simple expression

40

100

base shear [KN]

base shear [KN]

Hd max  Hmax
dmax  dH max

30
20
10

75
50
25
0

0
0

10

20

30

40

10

20

30

top displacement [mm]

top displacement [mm]

(a)

(b)

Fig. 9. Numerical simulation of experimental tests on the (a) bare frame and (b) inll frame.

40

100

I. Cali, B. Pant / Computers and Structures 143 (2014) 91107

60

80

base shear [KN]

base shear [KN]

100

60
40
20

40

20

0
0

10

20

30

40

10

20

30

top displacement [mm]

top displacement [mm]

(a)

(b)

40

80

80

60

60

40

20

base shear [KN]

base shear [KN]

Fig. 10. Masonry and frame contribution to base shear.

40

20

0
0

top displacement [mm]

10

10

top displacement [mm]

Fig. 11. Base shear versus top displacement for different values of the shear sliding paramenters.

(a)

(c)

(b)

(d)

Fig. 12. Collapse behaviour. Damage scenario: (a) experimental test, (b) numerical model; Flexural moment distribution in the frame for different values of drift: (c) 7.5 mm,
and (d) 40 mm.

101

I. Cali, B. Pant / Computers and Structures 143 (2014) 91107

F2

F1

F1

F2

152

2 #5

420

360

229

420

Lateral force

92

230

203

203

92

1422

8 #5

4 #6
203

4 #4

6 #5

203
254

254
254 178

178 254

2133

280

430

280

Fig. 13. Layout corresponding to (a) the geometrical characteristics and (b) the typical geometrical reinforcing, from reference [3].
Table 4
Case study 2. Mechanical characteristics of concrete and steel.
E (MPa)

rc (MPa)

rt (MPa)

ec0 (%)

ecu (%)

w (KN/m3)

Concrete
18,670

25.46

1.00

0.20

0.35

25

E (GPa)

fy (MPa)

eu (%)

Steel
200

420

10

Ku Ko

KI
Ko

b
5

where Ko is the initial stiffness, KI is the value of the stiffness that is

obtained by connecting the point corresponding to the current
Table 5
Case study 2. Mechanical characteristics of masonry inll.
Flexural

Shear diagonal

w (kN/
m3)

E
(MPa)

rc

rt

(MPa)

(MPa)

k
(cm)

18

2100

5.00

0.15

10

G
(MPa)

fv0
(MPa)

lc

750

0.70

0.40

(horizontal)

Shear sliding

(%)
7.5

0.8

(vertical)

c (MPa)

c (MPa)

0.2

0.8

0.4

0.8

Cyclic behaviour

plastic deformation with the origin of the axes and b is a real number that can assume a value in the range 01. The re-loading stiffness Kr, in the cyclic behaviour, has been set by returning to the
point which corresponds to the maximum reached plastic
deformation.
The exural behaviour is governed by the orthogonal interface
springs. These have been calibrated according to an elastic-perfectly-plastic constitutive law, with different tensile and compressive limits, as specied in Table 5, and an unloading stiffness
expressed according to Eq. (5) with b = 0.8. Furthermore, the ductility of the orthogonal springs has been considered innite in compression and equal to 1.5 under tensile actions.
Fig. 14 reports the comparisons between the experimental and
numerical results in terms of base shear versus the top displacement.
In Fig. 15 a comparison between the experimental observed failure
mechanism and the simplied numerical prediction, is reported.
Fig. 16 reports, separately, the contributions of the interacting
frame and of the inll obtained by the numerical simulation. It
can be observed how the inll is characterised by a strong degrading behaviour, that has been controlled simply by setting the
parameters of the assumed constitutive law, consistent with a bilinear degrading envelope.
The low contribution of the inll, after several cyclic loads, and
its brittle behaviour is consistent with the actual failure mechanism, reported in the Fig. 15a, in which the masonry inll appears
severely damaged.
Keeping in mind that both the reinforced concrete and the
masonry inll have been calibrated according to very simple constitutive laws, by observing the maximum reached forces and the
exhibited hysteretic behaviour, the agreement between the experimental and numerical results can be considered satisfactory.

base shear [KN]

I. Cali, B. Pant / Computers and Structures 143 (2014) 91107

base shear [KN]

102

displacement [mm]

displacement [mm]

(a)

(b)

Fig. 14. Base-shear versus top displacement: (a) experimental results; and (b) numerical simulations.

base shear [KN]

base shear [KN]

Fig. 15. Collapse behaviour. Damage scenario: (a) experimental test, and (b) numerical model.

top displacement [mm]

top displacement [mm]

(a)

(b)

Fig. 16. Contribution of interacting frame (a) and inll masonry panel (b).

The choice of a simple constitutive law is justied by the goal

of proposing a method suitable for practical applications and
based on a limited number of parameters, however the proposed
model is able to account for more complex constitutive
behaviours.
4.3. Inuence of the model discretization: from macro- to micromodeling
In the considered approach each macro-element inherits the
geometry of the masonry portion that represents, this aspect constitutes a great advantage that is not common to all the simplied
approaches based on a macro-element discretization.

Furthermore the consistent geometry of the element allows an

easy implementation of openings in the inlls and permits the
implementation of models characterised by different level of discretization according to different mesh resolutions and to the
ne-tuning of nonlinear links of the interfaces, this latter associated to the distance between the NLinks k.
In Fig. 18 the results of push-over-analyses, performed on the
non-ductile model considered in Section 4.2, associated to different
mesh resolutions are reported. Further four different mesh resolutions have been considered whose increasing computational cost is
summarised in Table 6.
Mesh A corresponds to the basic mesh size in which the inll is
modelled by a single macro-element. Mesh B and D represent more

103

I. Cali, B. Pant / Computers and Structures 143 (2014) 91107

Table 6
Computational resources associated to the considered discretizations.

A
B
C
D
M

Number of elements

Number of degrees of freedom

Panels

Frames

Panels

Frames

Total

1
4
9
16
143

3
6
9
12
40

4
16
36
64
572

6
15
24
33
117

10
31
60
97
689

Flexural

Shear diagonal

Shear sliding

rened mesh resolutions in which the inll is represented by 2  2

and 4  4 macro-elements respectively while the 3  3 mesh, considered in the simulation reported in Section 4.1, has been identied as C.
Mesh M is relative to a detailed model in which each discreteelement corresponds to a single brick and is assigned to represent
both the brick and the mortar joints properties according to the
correspondence reported in Fig. 17a and b. In Fig. 17cf a shrink
representation of the macro-element is reported, although the element-interfaces have zero thickness, with the aim to show the
nonlinear links of the interfaces. In the same gures it is highlighted how the nonlinear links are delegated to represent the
mortar joints and the deformability of bricks by indicating the corresponding inuence area.
The parameters used in the micro-model rened simulation are
summarized in Table 7.
This micro-element application shows the capability of the discrete element to be used on a different scale, versus a micro-model
representation.
From Fig. 18 it can be observed a small sensitivity to the mesh
size and very good agreement between the micro and macromodel numerical simulations. It is worth highlighting that, to the
author knowledge, this is the rst simplied approach that can
be used both at macro- and micro-scale.

Masonry portion

w (kN/m3)

E (MPa)

rc (MPa)

rt (MPa)

18

2500

5.00

0.15

G (MPa)

fv0 (MPa)

1500

Linear elastic

lc
Linear elastic

(horizontal)

(vertical)

c (MPa)

c (MPa)

0.30

0.4

0.7

0.5

100

base shear [KN]

Mesh

Table 7
Mechanical characteristics of micro model.

75

50

25

0
0

10

20

30

40

top displacement [mm]

Fig. 18. Inuence of the mesh discretization of single-bay RC inlled frame; base
shear as a function of the top horizontal displacement.

Furthermore the micro-model approach can also be used for

validating and better calibrating the macro-model parameters,
which is a great advantage.
In Fig. 19 simplied representations of the damage scenarios
corresponding to the mesh A, B, D, M are reported. All the simulations show collapse mechanisms which produce a shear-diagonal

Micro Model discretization

Mechanical scheme

(a)

(b)

(c)

Diagonal Springs

Longitudinal Springs

Orthogonal Springs

(d)

(e)

(f)

Fig. 17. The micro-model discretazation. (a) The geometrical layout; (b) the discretization; (c) the mechanical representation; (d) the inuence area of the diagonal springs;
(e) the inuence areas of the longitudinal springs, and (f) the inuence area of orthogonal springs.

104

I. Cali, B. Pant / Computers and Structures 143 (2014) 91107

Fig. 19. Inuence of the mesh discretization of single-bay RC inlled frame; Simplied representations of the damage scenario predicted numerically.

80

base shear [KN]

base shear [KN]

80

60

40

20

60

40

(1)
20

0
0

10

20

30

40

10

20

30

40

top displacement [mm]

top displacement [mm]

(2)

d1

d2

d3

(3)

w1

w2

w3

Fig. 20. Inuence of openings in the macro-model numerical simulation of single-bay RC inlled frame; (1) base shear as a function of top displacement; (2) damage scenario
in the presence of door openings; and (3) damage scenario in the presence of windows openings.

105

I. Cali, B. Pant / Computers and Structures 143 (2014) 91107

Table 8
Geometrical characteristics of the openings.

ao = bo/bi
ko = ho/bo

d1

d2

d3

w1

w2

w3

1/3
2

1/2
1.5

3/5
1

1/3
1

1/2
2/3

3/5
1/2

failure with damage on the frame. In particular, the micro-model

simulation provides results in better agreement with the experimental damage scenario reported in Fig. 12a.
4.4. Modelling of openings in the masonry inlls

80

80

60

60

base shear [KN]

base shear [KN]

As highlighted in the previous paragraph, since each discreteelement is assigned to represent the nonlinear behaviour of the
corresponding macro-portion, as in a nite element simulation,
this approach allows a simple modelling in the presence of
openings.

Although this important feature should require an extensive

investigation and a possible validation with experimental results,
in this context, for the sake of conciseness, it is shown how the proposed approach leads to a straightforward and reliable modelling
of openings in the Inlled Frame Structures.
With reference to the RC masonry inlled frame analysed in
Section 4.1, the inuence of a central door and window openings
in the masonry inll are examined.
The rst investigation, reported in Fig. 20, analyses the reduction of the base shear due to the presence of central door or window openings, of various dimensions, characterised by a width bo
and a height ho. Each geometrical layout is identied by the ratio
ao = bo/bi, between the width bo of the opening and the width bi
of the inll, and the aspect ratio ko = ho/bo, as reported in Table 8.
The results are expressed in terms of base shears as function of
the top displacements and are compared with the corresponding
values of the bare frame and of the inlled frame without
openings.

40

20

40

20

0
0

10

20

30

40

10

20

30

top displacement [mm]

top displacement [mm]

(a)

(b)

40

Fig. 21. Comparison between micro- and macro-model simulations in terms of base shear versus top displacement; (a) door openings; and (b) windows openings.

Fig. 22. Comparison between micro- and macro-model simulations in terms of collapse mechanisms; (a) door openings; and (b) windows openings.

106

I. Cali, B. Pant / Computers and Structures 143 (2014) 91107

With the aim to obtain a numerical validation of the obtained

results, Fig. 21 reports a comparison, in terms of base shear as a
function of top displacement, between the macro- and the micromodel simulations with reference to the cases identied as d2
and w2. Furthermore, Fig. 22 reports a simplied representation
of the corresponding collapse mechanisms. A strong correlation
between the basic macro-model and the rened micro-model predictions can be observed.
5. Conclusions
Inlled Frame Structures represent a high percentage of existing
and new buildings in many seismically prone areas around the
world. These composite structural systems are governed by the
interaction between frame and inll walls. The high nonlinear
response of the masonry inll and the ever-changing contact conditions along the frame-inll interfaces make the simulation of the
nonlinear behaviour of an inlled frame building a challenging
problem currently involving many research groups worldwide.
In this context, an alternative innovative approach for the simulation of the seismic behaviour of Inlled Frame Structures, suitable
both for research and current engineering practice applications, is
presented in this paper. In this approach, the inlled wall is modelled by means of an innovative discrete element, originally conceived for the simulation of the nonlinear response of
Unreinforced Masonry Building [32], while the reinforced concrete
frame is modelled by means of inelastic beamcolumn elements in
which the plastic hinges can form at different positions along the
beam-span. The computational cost of the proposed numerical
approach is signicantly lower in comparison to the nonlinear nite
element modelling, which requires both discretization of the frame
and the inll. Furthermore, the adopted strategy, based on a combination of nite element and macro-element discretization, offers
many advantages with respect to the existing simplied methods
in which the contribution of the inll is represented by one or more
diagonal struts. The equivalence between the masonry portion and
the macro-element is based on very simple physical considerations
founded on a ber element calibration [32] and the interpretation
of the numerical results is simple, straightforward and unambiguous. Since each discrete-element is assigned to represent the nonlinear behaviour of the corresponding macro-portion, as in a nite
element simulation, this approach allows a simple modelling
including the presence of openings and can be used on different
scales, from macro- to micro-modelling, although its use has been
conceived in the context of macro-elements. The effectiveness of
the proposed modelling strategy has been evaluated by means of
nonlinear monotonic and cyclic static analyses performed on RC
masonry inlled frame which have been the object of theoretical
and experimental research. The results seem to indicate that the
proposed approach can be adequate for seismic assessments and
the design of Inlled Frame Structures since it requires very low
computational resources, allows easy interpretation of results and
provides satisfactory accuracy.
Acknowledgement
This research has been supported by the Italian Network of
Seismic Engineering University Laboratories (ReLUIS).
References
[1] Buonopane SG, White RN. Pseudodynamic testing of masonry inlled
reinforced concrete frame. J Struct Eng 1999;125(6):57889.
[2] DAyala D, Worthb J, Riddle O. Realistic shear capacity assessment of inll
frames: comparison of two numerical procedures. Eng Struct 2009;31:
174561.

[3] Mehrabi A, Benson Shing P, Schuller M, Noland J. Experimental evaluation of

masonry-inlled RC frames. J Struct Eng 1996;122(3):22837.
[4] Madan A, Reinhorn AM, Mander JB, Valles RE. Modeling of masonry inll
panels for structural analysis. J Struct Eng 1997;123(10):1295302.
[5] Singh H, Paul DK, Sastry VV. Inelastic dynamic response of reinforced concrete
inlled frame. Comput Struct 1998;69:68593.
[6] Asteris PG. Finite element micro-modeling of inlled frames. Electron J Struct
Eng 2008;8:111.
[7] Asteris PG, Antoniou ST, Sophianopoulos D, Chrysostomou CZ. Mathematical
macromodeling of inlled frames: state of the art. J Struct Eng (ASCE)
2011;137(12):150817.
[8] Polyakov SV. On the interaction between masonry ller walls and enclosing
frame when loading in the plane of the wall. In: Translation in earthquake
engineering. San Francisco: Earthquake Engineering Research Institute; 1960.
p. 3642.
[9] Holmes M. Steel frame with brickwork and concrete inlling. Reader in civil
engineering. Inst Technol, Bradford 1961;19(4):4738.
[10] Smith BS. Behavior of square inlled frames. J Struct Div 1966;92(1):381403.
[11] Smith BS, Carter C. A method of analysis for inlled frames. ICE Proc, Inst Civil
Eng 1969;44(1):3148.
[12] Mainstone RJ, Weeks GA. The inuence of bounding frame on the racking
stiffness and strength of brick walls. In: Proceedings of 2nd Int. brick masonry
conf., building research establishment, Watford, England; 1970. p. 16571.
[13] Mainstone RJ. On the stiffnesses and strengths of inlled frames. ICE Proc, Inst
Civil Eng 1971;4:5790.
[14] Abdul-Kadir MR. The structural behaviour of masonry inll panels in framed
structures. PhD thesis. Edinburgh: University of Edinburgh UK; 1974.
[15] Bazan E, Meli R. Seismic analysis of structures with masonry walls. In:
Proceedings of 7th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, vol. 5.
International Association of Earthquake Engineering (IAEE), Tokyo; 1980. p.
63340.
[16] Tassios TP. Masonry inll and RC walls (an invited state-of the-art report). In:
Proceedings of 3rd international symposium on wall structures, centre for
building systems, research and development, Warsaw, Poland; 1984.
[17] Liauw TC, Kwan KH. Nonlinear behaviour of nonintegral inlled frames.
Comput Struct 1984;18:55160.
[18] Decanini LD, Fantin GE. Modelos simplicados de la mampostera incluida en
porticos. Caractersticas de rigidez y resistencia lateral en astado lmite.
Jornadas Argentinas de Ingeniera Estructural III, Asociacion de Ingenieros
Estructurales, Buenos Aires, Argentina 1987; 2:817836 (in Spanish).
[19] Paulay T, Pristley MJN. Seismic design of reinforced concrete and masonry
buildings. New York: Wiley; 1992. pp. 744.
[20] Durrani AJ, Luo YH. Seismic retrot of at-slab buildings with masonry inlls.
In: Proceedings of NCEER workshop on seismic response of masonry inlls,
National Center for Earthquake Engineering Research (NCEER), Buffalo, NY;
1994.
[21] Thiruvengadam V. On the natural frequencies of inlled frames. Earthquake
Eng Struct Dyn 1985;13(3):40119.
[22] FEMA. Prestandard and commentary for the Seismic Rehabilitation of
Buildings. FEMA-356, Washington, DC; 2000.
[23] Syrmakezis CA, Vratsanou VY. Inuence of inll walls to RC frames Response.
In: Proceedings of 8th European conference on earthquake engineering,
European Association for Earthquake Engineering (EAEE), Istanbul, Turkey;
1986. p. 4753.
[24] Chrysostomou CZ. Effects of degrading inll walls on the nonlinear seismic
response of two-dimensional steel frames. PhD thesis. Ithaca: Cornell
University, NY; 1991.
[25] Saneinejad A, Hobbs B. Inelastic design of inlled frames. J Struct Eng
1995;121(4):63450.
[26] Chrysostomou CZ, Gergely P, Abel JF. A six-strut model for nonlinear
dynamic analysis of steel inlled frames. Int J Struct Stab Dyn 2002;2(3):
33553.
[27] El-Dakhakhni WW. Non-linear nite element modeling of concrete masonryinlled steel frame. MS thesis. Philadelphia: Drexel University, Civil and
Architectural Engineering Dept; 2002.
[28] El-Dakhakhni WW, Elgaaly M, Hamid AA. Finite element modeling of concrete
masonry inlled steel frame. In: Proceedings of 9th Canadian masonry
symposium, National Research Council (NRC), Ottawa, Canada; 2001.
[29] El-Dakhakhni WW. Experimental and analytical seismic evaluation of concrete
masonry-inlled steel frames retrotted using GFRP laminates. PhD thesis.
Philadelphia: Drexel Univ; 2002.
[30] Crisafulli FJ, Carr AJ. Proposed macro-model for the analysis of inlled frame
structures. Bull New Zealand Soc Earthquake Eng 2007;40(2):6977.
[31] Cali I, Marletta M, Pant B. A simplied model for the evaluation of the
seismic behaviour of masonry buildings. In: Proceedings of the 10th
international conference on civil, structural and environmental engineering
computing. Stirlingshire, UK: Civil-Comp Press 2005, Paper 195.
[32] Cali I, Marletta M, Pant B. A new discrete element model for the evaluation
of the seismic behaviour of unreinforced masonry buildings. Eng Struct
2012;40:32738.
[33] Cali I, Cannizzaro F, DAmore E, Marletta M, Pant B. A new discrete-element
approach for the assessment of the seismic resistance of composite reinforced
concrete-masonry buildings. In: Proceedings of AIP (American Institute of
Physics); 2008. p. 832839.
[34] Nucera F, Santini A, Tripodi E, Cannizzaro F, Pant B. Inuence of geometrical
and mechanical parameters on the seismic vulnerability assessment of

I. Cali, B. Pant / Computers and Structures 143 (2014) 91107

[35]

[36]

[37]

[38]

[39]

[40]

[41]

[42]

conned masonry buildings by macro-element modeling. In: Proceedings of

15th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering 2428 September 2012.
Nucera F, Tripodi E, Santini A, Cali I. Seismic vulnerability assessment of
conned masonry buildings by macro-element modeling: a case study. In:
Proceedings of 15th world conference on earthquake engineering 2428
September 2012.
Marques R, Lourenco PB. Pushover seismic analysis of quasi-static tested
conned masonry buildings through simplied model. In: Proceedings of the
15th international brick and block masonry conference, Florianopolis; 2012.
Marques R, Lourenco PB. A model for pushover analysis of conned masonry
structures: implementation and validation. Bull Earthquake Eng
2013;11:213350.
Marques R. New methodologies for seismic design of unreinforced and
conned masonry structures. PhD thesis. Guimares: University of Minho;
2012. <http://www.civil.uminho.pt/masonry>.
3DMacro. Il software per le murature (3D computer program for the seismic
assessment of masonry buildings). Gruppo Sismica s.r.l., Catania, Italy. Release
3.0, March 2014. <http://www.3dmacro.it>.
Tomazevic M. Earthquake-Resistant Design of Masonry Building. Series on
Innovation in Structures and Construction Vol. 1. Series Editor: A.S. Elnashai
& P.J. Dowling. London: Imperial College Press; 2006.
Eurocode 6: Design of masonry structures, Part 11: General rules for
buildings. Rules for reinforced and unreinforced masonry. ENV 1996-1-1:
1995 (CEN, Brussels, 1995).
Turnsek V, Cacovic F. Some experimental result on the strength of brick
masonry walls. In: Proceedings of the 2nd international brick masonry
conference. Stoke-on-Trent; 1971. p. 14956.

107

[43] Corradi M, Borri A, Vignoli A. Experimental study on the determination of

strength of masonry walls. Constr Build Mater 2003;17:32537.
[44] Turnsek V, Sheppard P. The shear and exural resistance of masonry walls. In:
Proceedings of international research conference on earthquake engineering,
IZIIS, Skopje; 1981. p. 51773.
[45] Jirasek M, Bazant Z. Inelastic analysis of structures. Wiley; 2001.
[46] Zienkiewicz OC, Taylor RL. The nite element method vol. 2 Solid Mechanics
(fth edition), Butterworth Heinemann; 2000.
[47] Kadysiewski S, Mosalam KM. Modeling of Unreinforced Masonry Inll Walls
Considering In-Plane and Out-of-Plane Interaction. PEER Report 2008/102,
Berkeley; 2009. pp. 144.
[48] Al-Chaar G, Issa M, Sweeney S. Behavior of masonry-inlled nonductile
reinforced concrete frames. J Struct Eng 2002;128(8):105563.
[49] Mehrabi AB, Shing PB, Schuller MP, Noland JL. Performance of masonry-inlled
R/C frames under in-plane lateral loads. Struct Eng and Struct Mech res series,
Report CD/SR-94/6; 1994. pp. 237.
[50] Mehrabi AB, Shing PB. Finite element modeling of masonry-inlled RC frames.
J Struct Eng 1997;123(5):60413.
[51] Marques R, Loureno PB. Possibilities and comparison of structural component
models for the seismic assessment of modern unreinforced masonry buildings.
Comput Struct 2011;89:207991.
[52] Marques R, Loureno PB. Unreinforced and conned masonry buildings in
seismic regions: validation of macro-element models and cost analysis. Eng
Struct 2014;64:5267.
[53] Takeda T, Sozen MA, Nielsen NN. Reinforced concrete response to simulated
earthquakes. J Struct Div 1970;96(12):255773.