See

discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/305872918

Experimental tests on masonry infilled gravity

and seismic-load designed RC frames:
Proceedings of the 16th International...

Conference Paper June 2016

DOI: 10.1201/b21889-180

CITATION READS

1 94

4 authors:

Gerardo Mario Verderame Paolo Ricci

University of Naples Federico II University of Naples Federico II
147 PUBLICATIONS 1,158 CITATIONS 59 PUBLICATIONS 465 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Carlo Del Gaudio Maria Teresa De Risi

University of Naples Federico II University of Naples Federico II
21 PUBLICATIONS 40 CITATIONS 27 PUBLICATIONS 56 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Vulnerability assessment of RC buildings View project

Advanced nonlinear modelling and performance assessment of masonry infills in RC buildings under
seismic loads: the way forward to design or retrofitting strategies and reduction of losses View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Maria Teresa De Risi on 11 August 2016.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Experimental tests on masonry infilled gravity- and seismic-load
designed RC frames
G.M. Verderame, P. Ricci, C. Del Gaudio & M.T. De Risi
Department of Structures for Engineering and Architecture, University of Naples Federico II, Naples, Italy

ABSTRACT: The present study reports results of pseudo-static experimental tests on one-storey one-bay Re-
inforced Concrete (RC) frames with and without masonry infill walls. Four specimens were tested, two de-
signed for Gravity Loads only according to Italian technical code provisions in force during 1970s-90s (GLD),
and two designed for Seismic Loads according to current code provisions (SLD). Specimens were built in 1:2
scale and tested with and without infill walls, made up of 80mm thick hollow clay units typical of light non-
structural masonry. Test setup was designed in order to reproduce the behaviour of the frames under seismic
action, thus avoiding any direct interaction between setup elements used for imposing lateral displacement
and beam-column joints. SLD frames, which were designed according to capacity design principles (i.e.
strength hierarchy rule between elements and failure modes), showed a ductile behaviour, as expected. The
presence of the infill wall led to a stiffness and strength increase in the global response of the frame, without
affecting the response of RC elements. Brittle failure mechanisms played a key role in the response of GLD
frames, due to local interaction between infill wall and RC elements and to beam-column joint behaviour, in
specimen with and without infill wall respectively.

1 INTRODUCTION lete seismic codes are widespread in Italian and

During last decades, a growing attention has been
addressed to the behaviour of masonry infill walls in
Reinforced Concrete (RC) buildings under seismic
action. The damage to these elements largely affects
the functionality losses and the repair costs of build-
ings. On the other side, their presence significantly
affects the structural response, reducing the period of
vibration, increasing the base shear capacity, poten-
tially changing the building collapse mechanism, and
leading to possible brittle failure mechanisms in
joints and columns due to local interaction between
panels and the adjacent structural elements in exist-
ing non-ductile buildings.
In the design process of new buildings, the pres-
ence of non-structural masonry infill elements is not
usually taken into account explicitly. On the contra-
ry, Damage Limitation performance objectives are
addressed controlling the damage to infill panels
through IDR limits (Ricci et al., 2016).
In existing RC buildings, structural deficiencies
under seismic action, due to the absence of adequate
seismic details and design not complying with mod-
ern earthquake engineering principles, can lead to a
behaviour characterized by low local and global duc-
tility under severe earthquakes. RC buildings de-
signed for gravity loads only or according to obso-
Mediterranean building stock. RC elements in such
buildings do not possess adequate seismic details
(e.g., inadequate overlapping of longitudinal rein-
forcement, low transverse reinforcement ratio, inef-
fective anchorage of transverse reinforcement), po-
tentially leading to a limitation in ductile
deformation capacity of the elements (Bikinis and
Fardis, 2010). The absence of capacity design in
shear for such elements can lead to a further de-
crease in deformation capacity due to a flexure-shear
interaction failure (Elwood and Moehle, 2005).
Beam-column joints also represent a critical issue;
again, the lack of capacity design principles leads to
a low shear strength of the joint, potentially leading
to a shear failure that limits the deformation capacity
of adjoining beams and/or columns (Park and
Mosalam, 2013; Celik and Ellingwood, 2008). Such
remarks are supported by post-earthquake observed
damage, in Mediterranean area, such as Turkey 1999
(EERI, 2000), LAquila 2009 (Ricci et al., 2011),
Lorca 2011 (De Luca et al., 2014), and by numerical
and experimental literature studies.
Several experimental studies investigated the
seismic behaviour of RC frames with infills. Most of
these studies focused the attention on the behaviour
of the panel, that is, the failure mode, the evolution
of damage with increasing displacement demand,
and, of course, the stiffness and strength contribution
to the response of the frame (e.g., Liauw and Kwan,
1984; Stylianidis, 1985; Pires and Carvalho, 1992;
Colangelo, 2003, 2005; Calvi and Bolognini, 2001;
Bergami, 2007). Few studies investigated the effects
of interaction between panel and surrounding ele-
ments resulting in brittle failure mechanisms such as
shear failure in RC columns (Mehrabi et al., 1996;
Al-Chaar et al., 2002; Basha and Kaushik, 2016).
However, modelling failure mode of panel and
surrounding RC members, depending on stiffness
and strength characteristics of elements, is a very
challenging issue; some authors have made some at-
tempt in this direction (e.g., Mehrabi et al., 1994) but
further investigation is certainly needed. The specific
issue of shear failure modelling in non-ductile RC
frames due to local interaction with infill elements
has been investigated with different approaches,
from FEM-based micro-modelling to simplified
lumped plasticity-based macro-modelling (e.g.,
DAyala et al., 2009; Jeon et al., 2015; Celarec and
failure mechanism. These data can provide a useful
support for a comparison with more or less simpli-
fied nonlinear modelling, from FEM-based micro-
modelling to macro-modelling.
2 EXPERIMENTAL PROGRAM
2.1 Test specimens
One-storey one-bay RC frames (scale 1:2) were
tested. Total bay length and storey height were equal
to 2.30m and 1.60m, respectively. Corresponding
clear dimensions were 2.10m and 1.35m. Transverse
section dimensions of columns and beams were
2020cm and 2025cm, respectively. Deformed bars
were used for longitudinal and transverse reinforce-
ment. Column bases were fixed in a 4060390cm
stiff foundation block.
6@150mm

300
6@50mm

425
Dolek, 2012).

250
In this study, the results of an experimental cam-
paign on one-storey one-bay frames (scale 1:2) rep-
resentative of the existing and new building stock

1475

2400
1350
6@150mm

are presented. Frames were designed for gravity

loads only according to code provisions representa-
tive of 1970s-90s, or for seismic loads according to
current code provisions. Frames were tested both

500

500
with and without the presence of infills, in order to
investigate the influence of such (non-structural) el- 700 200 2100 200 700

ements on global and local behaviour of the frames. 800 2300 800

Experimental results show that the post-elastic (a)

behaviour of gravity-load designed specimens was 6@50mm 6@100mm 6@50mm

controlled by brittle failure mechanisms. In the bare

300

425
specimen, the expected base shear strength was at-

250
6@50mm
tained, but post-elastic deformation capacity was
limited by failure of beam-column joints after flex-
ural yielding in beams. In the infilled specimen, fail- 1475

2400
1350

ure was due to shear failure at the top of the columns 6@100mm

due to local interaction with infill panel. In seismic-

load specimens, as expected, the application of ca- 6@50mm

pacity design principles (including strength hierar-

500

500

chy) led to a ductile, flexure-controlled post-elastic

behaviour, with plastic hinges at beams ends and at 700 200 2100 200 700

columns base, with or without the presence of the 800 2300 800

infill panel. The evolution of damage to the infill el-

ements is reported and described, too.
As previously highlighted, in literature only few
experimental campaigns allowed observing a shear
failure due to local interaction between the infill
panel and the adjacent RC columns, and even less
with a masonry panel made of hollow clay units,
which can be considered as typical of light non-
structural masonry in European and Mediterranean
countries. In this study, such a failure mechanism is
investigated in detail, for instance providing local
measurements on the evolution of crack width, thus
allowing analysing the onset and evolution of the
(b)
Figure 1. Geometry and reinforcement details of GLD (a) and
SLD (b) specimens.
GLD specimens were designed in order to be rep-
resentative of the bottom storey of a five-storey
gravity load designed RC frame, according to Italian
technical codes in force between 1970s and 1990s
(D.M. 30/05/1972; D.M. 14/02/92). In beams, longi-
tudinal reinforcement was made of (3+3) 10mm di-
ameter bars. 6 mm diameter stirrups spaced at 15cm
were used as transverse reinforcement; stirrup spac-
ing complied with the lower limit provided by the
adopted code. In columns, eight 8mm bars were used
as longitudinal reinforcement, uniformly distributed
along the section perimeter, corresponding to a rein-
forcement ratio equal to =1.01%, very close to code
prescriptions and design practice at the time. Trans-
verse reinforcement was made of 6mm diameter stir-
rups spaced at 15cm, resulting in a transverse rein-
forcement ratio equal to sw=0.19%. Longitudinal
and transverse reinforcements were anchored with
90-degree hooks. The length of the hook was equal
to ten times the bar diameter for stirrups. No trans-
verse reinforcement was adopted in beam-column
joints, consistent with code provisions.
SLD specimens were designed according to the
current Italian technical code (D.M. 14/01/2008). In
beams, longitudinal reinforcement was made of
(3+3) 10mm diameter bars. 6mm diameter stirrups
spaced at 10cm and 5cm were used as transverse re-
inforcement in central and end regions. In columns,
eight 12mm bars were used as longitudinal rein-
forcement, uniformly distributed along the section
perimeter. As in beams, transverse reinforcement
was made of 6mm diameter stirrups spaced at 10cm
and 5cm in central and end regions. Transverse rein-
forcement was anchored with 135-degree hooks. 6
mm diameter stirrups spaced at 5cm were adopted as
transverse reinforcement in beam-column joints.
Geometry and reinforcement details are shown in
Figure 1.
Four specimens were tested, two GLD and two
SLD, with and without infill panel. They are identi-
fied as GB, GI-80, SB and SI-80 (G=Gravity load
designed; S=Seismic load designed; B=Bare frame;
I=Infilled frame; 80=infill panel thickness, in mm).
The 80 mm thick infill panels are intended to rep-
resent 160 mm thick panels in scale 1:2. Note that,
due to technical difficulties in realizing full-scaled
units, only thickness was scaled, and the two remain-
ing dimensions of the units were not scaled. Com-
monly available units were used, as in other litera-
ture studies (e.g., Pires and Carvalho, 1992;
Colangelo, 2005).
From a theoretical standpoint, this could affect
the behaviour of the masonry panel, influencing the
damage propagation and the failure mode. To the
best of the authors knowledge, no specific investi-
gation has been carried out regarding the influence
of possible size-effects due to the dimensions of
units on the behaviour of masonry infilled RC
frames.
As far as the mechanical properties of the mason-
ry infill material are concerned, several formulations
are available providing the strength of the material
depending on the strength of mortar and units
(Biondi et al., 2000). Some of these formulations
consider geometrical parameters as the slenderness
of the panel and the ratio between the thickness of
mortar joints and the unit dimensions in the plane of
the wall. Nevertheless, both of them, in our case, do
not change with the scaling of the specimens.
More generally, as far as the experimental inves-
tigation of scaled masonry structures is concerned,
the well-known size-effect problem has been studied
comparing the behaviour of walls constructed with
the same mortar and units but with different global
dimensions. For instance, Laureno (1997), based on
the numerical investigation of the behaviour of ma-
sonry structures by means of FEM analyses, showed
a significant dependence of the structural response
on the global dimensions, as expected; nevertheless,
no significant change due to the size of the units was
found.
2.2 Material properties
Concrete compressive strength for each specimen
was evaluated on three 151515cm cubic samples
of the casted concrete. Mean value of 28-day cylin-
drical strength is reported in Table 1.
Commercial typology of reinforcing steel is
B450C (D.M. 14/01/2008), i.e., class C reinforce-
ment with fyk=450 MPa according to Annex C provi-
sions of Eurocode 2 (CEN, 2004). Table 2 reports
mechanical properties, namely yield strength (fy), ul-
timate strength (ft) and hardening ratio (ft/fy). Yield
strength is similar to that of FeB44K steel commer-
cial typology used in Italy during the period of inter-
est (Verderame et al., 2012).
Table 1. Properties of concrete.
__________________________________________________
Specimen Cylindrical compressive strength
(fc)
__________________________________________________
MPa
__________________________________________________
GB 21.6
GI-80 22.7
SB 21.7
SI-80 21.3
__________________________________________________
Table 2. Properties of reinforcing steel.
__________________________________________________
diameter yield strength ultimate strength hardening ratio
() (fy) (ft) (ft/fy)
__________________________________________________
mm MPa MPa -
__________________________________________________
6 507 572 1.13
8 586 648 1.11
10 490 572 1.17
12 481 576 1.20
__________________________________________________
Hollow clay units with cement mortar was used
as infill material. Dimensions of units were
25025080(thickness) mm, with 10 holes per unit
(see Figure 2) resulting in 66.3% void ratio. The cat-
egory of the mortar was M15. Flexural and compres-
sive strength of mortar were evaluated on three
4040160 mm samples, according to EN 1015-
11:2007 (see Table 3). Mechanical properties of in-
fill material were evaluated by means of wallette
tests. Two compression tests were carried out on
three-course masonry prisms, one perpendicular and
one parallel to the holes, and one diagonal shear test
was carried out on a five-course masonry prism.
Tests for determining the compressive and the shear
strength were carried out according to Standards
ASTM C1314-11 and ASTM E519-07, respectively.
Resulting strength values are reported in Table 3.
Such values are quite similar to the values obtained
by other Authors on masonry specimens with units
and mortar quite similar to the present study (e.g.,
Colangelo, 2005).
Figure 3. Test setup.
Table 3. Properties of infill materials.
__________________________________________________
Mortar Flexural strength [MPa] 3.94 Test setup was designed in order to avoid any di-
Compressive strength [MPa]
__________________________________________________ 14.03
rect interaction between setup elements and beam-
Units Dimension [mm] 25025080 column joints, in order to reproduce the actual be-
Void ratio [%] 66.3
__________________________________________________ haviour of the frame under seismic action. To this
Masonry wallette Dimension [mm] 77077080 end, the actuator was connected to the midspan of
(three course) Compressive strength
(// to holes) [MPa] 4.88
the beam through steel profiles connected to a 60mm
Compressive strength diameter steel rod passing through a transverse hole
( to holes) [MPa] 3.19
__________________________________________________
in the beam.
Masonry wallette Dimension [mm] 1285128580 Linear Variable Displacement Transducers
(five course) Shear strength [MPa] 0.36
__________________________________________________
(LVDTs) were used to measure crack width and de-
formations at different locations, namely at columns
and beams ends (along external longitudinal rein-
forcement layers) and across joint panels. Wire po-
tentiometers were placed along infill panel diagonals
in infilled specimens GI-80 and SI-80.
Different loading protocols were used for bare
and infilled specimens (see Table 4). In infilled spec-
250

imens, lower amplitude displacement cycles were

imposed in the earlier stages of loading in order to
analyse with higher accuracy the damage to infill
panels at low drift demand.

Table 4. Nominal displacement loading protocols.

__________________________________________________
Cycle Drift [%]
__________________________________________________
80 250
Bare specimens Infilled specimens
__________________________________________________
Figure 2. 25025080 mm hollow clay unit.
I 0.30 0.01
II 0.70 0.02
III 1.10 0.15
2.3 Test setup IV 2.40 0.50
V 3.30 0.90
Figure 3 shows the test setup. The foundation block VI 4.40 1.30
of the specimen was anchored to the strong floor by VII 5.30 1.70
VIII 2.00
means of vertical post-tensioned steel rods connect- IX 2.40
ed to stiff steel profiles. The lateral load was applied X 3.00
by means of a hydraulic actuator (load capacity=300 XI 3.60
__________________________________________________
kN; stroke=250mm) in displacement control. The
actuator was fixed to a steel reaction wall anchored
to the strong floor. The vertical load on columns was 3 ANALYSIS OF RESULTS: GLD FRAMES
applied by hydraulic jacks, in load control. The ver-
tical load was constant during each test and corre- 3.1 Bare specimen (GB)
sponding to an axial load ratio equal to 0.10. Figure 4 reports the lateral load-drift response of
specimen GB. First appreciable decrease in lateral
stiffness was observed during cycle II
(drift=0.30%) for a lateral load equal to 17 kN,
with initial stiffness equal to 15.4 kN/mm. First no-
ticeable cracking was observed at beams ends dur-
ing cycle II (drift=0.70%), following first noticea-
ble decrease in lateral stiffness. During cycle III
(drift=1.10%), approaching the expected yielding
strength (see Figure 4), hairline diagonal cracking
developed in joint panels and flexural cracking in
columns was visible; major decrease in lateral stiff-
ness was observed. During cycle IV (drift=2.40%), (a) (b)
flexural cracks at beams ends and at columns base
widened; at the same time, major diagonal cracking
in joint panels was observed (see Figure 5a); the
specimens reached its peak lateral load, in both di-
rections, during this cycle (+74.2/-76.2 kN).

150
(c) (d)
shear failure
Figure 5. Damage to beam-column joint region in specimen GB
100 of joint
at drift 2.40% (a), 3.30% (b), 4.40% (c), 5.30% (d).
lateral load [kN]

50 expected yielding
0 Figure 6 reports the lateral load-drift response of
-50
-100
-150
-6.0 -4.0 -2.0 0.0
drift [%]
Figure 4. Lateral load-drift response of bare specimen GB.
During next cycles, lateral load-displacement re-
sponse showed severe softening; widening of diago-
nal cracks in joints was observed, up to severe dam-
age and concrete spalling in panel (see Figure 5b-d),
together with increase in flexural demand at the base
of columns, resulting in concrete cover spalling and
longitudinal bar buckling. The test was terminated at
cycle VII (drift=5.30%), when significant shear
sliding initiated along diagonal cracks in joints, as
highlighted by vertical displacement in columns
(evaluated from the data on elongation of the hy-
draulic jacks used to apply the axial load, which are
not reported herein for the sake of brevity), thus
highlighting the potential for an imminent joint axial
failure, that is, for the loss of vertical load carrying
capacity. The corresponding step is highlighted in
Figure 4 by means of a red circle. During this cycle,
lateral load dropped at 58% and 61% of peak
strength, in positive and negative direction respec-
tively.
Based on the observed damage and lateral load-
drift response, post-elastic response was controlled
by brittle failure of joints following flexural yielding
of beam.
3.2 Infilled specimen (GI-80)
specimen GI-80. Specimen GI-80 exhibited an ini-
expected yielding tial, uncracked stiffness of about 220 kN/mm. First
appreciable decrease in stiffness was observed dur-
ing cycle II (drift=0.02%), with a lateral load about
equal to 50% of the maximum; at the same drift first
visible detachments between the panel and the sur-
2.0 4.0 6.0
rounding frame were observed. During cycle III
(drift=0.15%), minor but visible cracks occurred
along mortar bed joints and units close to panel cor-
ners and along panel diagonal; a further decrease in
lateral stiffness was observed. During cycle IV
(drift=0.50%), diagonal cracking in panel devel-
oped, and shear cracking initiated at the top of RC
columns; peak lateral load (136.6 kN) was attained
in positive direction, and a substantial stiffness de-
crease was observed in negative direction. Diagonal
shear cracks in columns developed during cycle V
(drift=0.90%), and significant damage to individual
units, at the center of the panel, was observed; peak
lateral load (140.1 kN) was attained in negative di-
rection, and lateral load started to decrease in posi-
tive direction. During cycle VI (drift=1.30%) indi-
vidual units failed and severe widening of diagonal
shear cracks took place; severe intra-cycle drop of
lateral strength was observed (Figure 6).
 150 The evolution of the above-mentioned diagonal
top column cracks at the top of the columns can be analyzed
shear cracking
100 based on measurement data provided by the LVDTs.
expected yielding (bare frame) In particular, the horizontal component of crack
lateral load [kN]

50 width (wbc) is evaluated as reported in Figure 8.

top column
shear failure
0 Table 5. Evolution of damage in infilled specimen GI-80.
__________________________________________________
top column Cycle Drift [%] Damage description
shear failure __________________________________________________
-50 I 0.01 No damage
II 0.02 First visible detachments
-100 III 0.15 Cracking initiates at panel corners and
top column along diagonal (see Figure 7)
shear cracking IV 0.50 Diagonal cracking develops; shear cracking
-150 initiates at RC column top
-2.0 -1.0 0.0 1.0 2.0 (see Figure 7)
drift [%] V 0.90 Shear cracking at RC column top develops;
Figure 6. Lateral load-drift response of infilled specimen GI- significant damage to individual units
80. (see Figure 7)
VI 1.30 Failure of individual units
Negative direction Positive direction (see Figure 7)
VII 1.70 Stirrup opening in RC column and
significant sliding along shear crack
(see Figure 7)
__________________________________________________
0.50%

D
wc
LVDT#1J

beam
q LVDT#2J
0.90%

Db

Dc
wc
w wbc= (dLVDTi )/cosq
wbc
Dc= Db-wbc
column

Figure 8. Instrumentation layout and derivation of displacement

measures for left joint in specimen GI-80.
1.30%

The evolution of wbc during the is reported in

Figure 9, together with the lateral load. In the same
Figure, load Cycles are marked by means of vertical
dashed lines.
As shown in Figure 9, first appreciable crack
opening is observed in Cycle IV (drift=0.5%), when
1.70%

the lateral load reaches for positive drift (or ap-

Figure 7. Evolution of damage in infilled specimen GI-80.
During cycle VII (drift=1.70%), lateral load
dropped at 46% and 68% of peak strength, in posi-
tive and negative direction respectively i.e. below
the expected flexural yielding strength of the bare
frame (see Figure 6), thus further supporting the hy-
pothesis of a global softening controlled by shear
failure in columns. The test was terminated after
opening of the stirrup at the top of the columns,
which led to the activation of a significant sliding
along diagonal cracks due to failure in restrain action
on longitudinal reinforcement.
proaches for negative drift) the maximum value thus
starting to degrade, as shown in Figure 6. During fol-
lowing cycles, softening in the response is associated
to progressive crack opening. A sudden, further in-
crease in such opening is observed at drift = -1.5%
(Cycle VII, 2nd negative sub-cycle) and +1.3% (Cy-
cle VII, 1st positive sub-cycle) for left and right col-
umn, respectively. In Figure 6 such critical steps,
which can be considered as corresponding to the ac-
tivation of shear failures, are highlighted by means
of red circles. In fact, in the lateral load-drift re-
sponse, a sudden drop in lateral load (drift=-1.5%)
and the initiation of a plateau behavior (drift=+1.3%)
were observed, respectively; moreover, for left col-
umn at this step visible stirrup opening was ob-
served. Furthermore, at critical drifts -1.5% and
+1.3% sudden downward vertical displacements of
columns took place, too, highlighting the initiation
of a significant sliding along diagonal shear cracks.
25
drift=0.02% 0.5% 0.9%
horizontal crack width [mm]
20
15
10
5 expected yielding
0
200 0 5000
150
100
lateral load [kN]
50
0
-50
-100
-150
-200
0 5000
Figure 9. Evolution of the horizontal component of crack width
(wbc) and lateral load with test step in Specimen GI-80.
4 ANALYSIS OF RESULTS: SLD FRAMES
4.1 Bare specimen (SB)
In this Section, lateral load-displacement response
of specimen SB is illustrated and the evolution of
observed damage with increasing imposed displace-
ment is described. Figure 10 shows lateral force-drift
relationship of the specimen.
First appreciable decrease in lateral stiffness was
observed during cycle I (drift=0.30%) for a lateral
load equal to 27 kN, with initial stiffness equal to
about 17 kN/mm. First noticeable cracking was ob-
served at beams ends during cycle II
(drift=0.70%), following first noticeable decrease
in lateral stiffness. During cycle III (drift=1.10%),
beam cracking developed and flexural cracking at
columns ends was visible. During cycle IV
(drift=2.40%), a significant decrease in lateral
stiffness is observed at drift=-1.15% (with lateral
load equal to about -90 kN), and the widening of
flexural cracks at beams ends and at columns base
is observed. Therefore, this condition can be identi-
fied with the formation of a plastic mechanism in-
volving beams ends and columns base. The speci-
men reached the peak lateral load, in both directions,
during this cycle (+97.7/-97.9 kN).
During next cycles, lateral load-displacement re-
sponse is quite stable, with progressive increase in
crack width at beams ends and columns base. Dur-
ing cycle VI (drift=4.40%), with increasing flexural
demand at the base of columns, concrete cover spall-
ing is observed. The test was terminated at cycle VII
(drift=5.30%), with significant crack opening a
beam/joint interface; during this cycle, lateral load
1.3% 1.7%
dropped to 84% and 82% of peak strength, in posi-
tive and negative direction respectively.
200
150
expected strength
100
lateral load [kN]
50
0
10000 15000 20000 25000
step [-] -50
expected yielding
-100 expected strength
-150
-200
-6.0 -4.0 -2.0 0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0
drift [%]
Figure 10. Lateral load-drift response of bare specimen SB.
10000 15000 20000 25000
step [-] 4.2 Infilled specimen (SI-80)
In the following, the lateral load-drift response of
specimen SI-80 is illustrated and the evolution of
observed damage with increasing imposed displace-
ment is described. Figure 11 reports the lateral load-
drift response of specimen SI-80.
Specimen SI-80 exhibited an initial, uncracked
stiffness very similar to the specimen GI-80. First
visible detachments between the panel and the sur-
rounding frame were observed during cycle I
(drift=0.01%). First appreciable decrease in stiff-
ness was observed during cycle III (drift=0.15%),
with a lateral load about equal to 2/3 of the maxi-
mum. At the same drift minor but visible cracks oc-
curred along mortar bed joints and units close to
panel corners and along panel diagonal (see Figure
12). During cycle IV (drift=0.50%) vertical cracks
at the end of beam developed. During cycle V
(drift=0.90%) a significant damage to individual
units, at the panel corner, was observed (see Figure
12); peak lateral load was attained in positive and
negative direction, equal respectively to +151.3 and -
158.6 kN. At the same drift, sliding of top infill
course can be noted, leading to sliding shear failure
of the whole row.
During cycle VIII (drift=2.0%), lateral load
dropped to 67% and 62% of peak strength in posi-
tive and negative direction respectively. At the same
drift significant damage to individual units, at the
panel corner, was observed (Figure 12). During next
cycles, the lateral load is about constant, slightly
lower than 100kN; at the same time, a progressive
increase in crack width at beams ends and columns
base is observed (Figure 12).
 200 according to an older Italian technical code in order
to be representative of existing RC buildings con-
150
structed between 1970s and 1990s (GLD), and to the
expected strength (bare frame) current Italian seismic technical code (SLD), respec-
100
lateral load [kN]

expected yielding (bare frame) tively.

50 Post-elastic behaviour of GLD specimens was
0 controlled by brittle failure mechanisms. n the bare
specimen, brittle failure mechanisms were observed
-50 in beam-column joints, with softening in global lat-
-100 eral force-displacement response associated to major
diagonal cracking in joint panels, up to a sudden in-
-150 crease in vertical displacement of the top of the col-
-200 umns, highlighting the potential for an imminent
-4.0 -3.0 -2.0 -1.0 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 joint axial failure. In the infilled specimen diagonal
drift [%] cracking developed in the panel since very low drift
Figure 11. Lateral load-drift response of infilled specimen SI- values (i.e., between 0.15 and 0.50%). A drop in lat-
80. eral force associated to the development of severe
diagonal cracking at the top of the columns was ob-
Table 6. Evolution of damage in infilled specimen SI-80.
__________________________________________________ served, followed by an abrupt increase in vertical
Cycle Drift [%] Damage description
__________________________________________________ displacement of the top of the columns highlighting
I 0.01
First visible detachments again the potential for an imminent axial failure.
II - 0.02 The observation of the local behaviour showed the
III 0.15
Cracking initiates at panel corners and
along diagonal (see Figure 12)
evidence of a shear failure due to the local interac-
IV 0.50 Cracks in beam tion between RC columns and infill panel.
V 0.90 Failure of individual units at panel corner In SLD specimens, as expected, a ductile, flexure-
(see Figure 12) controlled post-elastic behaviour was observed, with
VI 1.30 - or without the presence of the infill panel.
VII 1.70 - The reported results can provide useful insights
VIII 2.00 Drop of lateral load
IX 2.40 Development of plastic collapse
into the response of infilled RC frames, with empha-
mechanism sis on the typical failure modes of substandard exist-
X 3.00 - ing RC buildings. As a matter of fact, experimental
XI 3.60 -
__________________________________________________ investigation on brittle failure mechanisms and local
interaction phenomena between structural and non-
structural elements is of a primary importance in the
study of the seismic response of this kind of build-
ings, due both to the limited availability of such data,
and to the key role played by these phenomena, as
0.15%

0.90%

demonstrated by recent post-earthquake damage ob-

servation.

6 REFERENCES

Al-Chaar G., Issa M., Sweeney S., 2002. Behavior of masonry-

infilled nonductile reinforced concrete frames. ASCE Jour-
2.00%

3.00%

nal of Structural Engineering, 128(8), 1055-1063.

Figure 12. Evolution of damage in infilled specimen SI-80.
5 CONCLUSIONS
In this paper, pseudo-static cyclic experimental tests
on gravity- and seismic-load designed RC frames
with and without masonry infill were shown. Tests
were carried out on scale 1:2 specimens, designed
ASTM, 2007. ASTM E519-07 Standard test methods for di-
agonal tension (shear) in masonry, American Society of
Testing and Materials, West Conshohocken, PA.
ASTM, 2011. ASTM C1314-11 Standard test methods for
compressive strength of masonry prisms, American Society
of Testing and Materials, West Conshohocken, PA.
Bergami A.V., 2007. Implementation and experimental verifi-
cation of models for nonlinear analysis of masonry infilled
r.c. frames. Ph.D. Thesis, Universit degli Studi ROMA
TRE, Rome, Italy.
Biondi S., Colangelo F., Nuti C., 2000. La risposta sismica dei
telai con tamponature murarie, CNR-Gruppo Nazionale per
la Difesa dai Terremoti, Roma, Italy. (in Italian)
Biskinis D.E., Fardis M.N., 2010. Flexure-controlled ultimate
deformations of members with continuous or lap-spliced
bars. Structural Concrete, 11(3), 127-138.
Calvi G.M., Bolognini D., 2001. Seismic response of rein- Environmental, and Architectural Engineering, University
forced concrete frames infilled with weakly reinforced ma- of Colorado at Boulder, Boulder, CO, USA.
sonry panels. Journal of Earthquake Engineering, 5(2), 153- Mehrabi A.B., Shing P.B., Schuller M.P., Noland J.L., 1996.
185. Experimental evaluation of masonry-infilled RC frames.
Celarec D., Dolek M., 2012. Practice-oriented probabilistic ASCE Journal of Structural Engineering, 122(3), 228-237.
seismic performance assessment of infilled frames with con- Park S., Mosalam K.M., 2013. Simulation of Reinforced Con-
sideration of shear failure of columns. Earthquake Engineer- crete frames with nonductile beam-column joints. Earth-
ing and Structural Dynamics, 42(9), 1339-1360. quake Spectra, 29(1), 233-257.
Celik O.C., Ellingwood B.R., 2008. Modeling beam-column Pires F., Carvalho E.C., 1992. The behaviour of infilled rein-
joints in fragility assessment of GLD RC frames. Journal of forced concrete frames under horizontal cyclic loading.
Earthquake Engineering, 12(3), 357-381. Proceedings of the 10th World Conference on Earthquake
CEN, 2004. European standard EN1992-1-1. Eurocode 2: De- Engineering, July 19-24, Madrid, Spain.
sign of concrete structures - Part 1-1: General rules and Ricci P., De Luca F., Verderame G.M., 2011. 6th April 2009
rules for buildings. Comit Europen de Normalisation, LAquila earthquake, Italy: reinforced concrete building
Brussels. performance. Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering, 9(1),
Colangelo F., 2003. Experimental evaluation of member-by- 285-305.
member models and damage indices for infilled frames. Ricci P., De Risi M.T., Verderame G.M., Manfredi G., 2016.
Journal of Earthquake Engineering, 7(1), 25-50. Procedures for calibration of linear models for damage limi-
Colangelo F., 2005. Pseudo-dynamic seismic response of rein- tation in design of masonry-infilled RC frames. Earthquake
forced concrete frames infilled with non-structural brick Engineering and Structural Dynamics, DOI:
masonry. Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics, 10.1002/eqe.2709
34(10), 1219-1241. Stylianidis K.C., 1985. Experimental investigation of the be-
D.M. 14/02/1992. Norme tecniche per lesecuzione delle opere haviour of the single-story infilled R.C. frames under cyclic
in cemento armato normale e precompresso e per le struttu- quasi-static horizontal loading (parametric analysis). Ph.D.
re metalliche. Pubblicate sul Suppl. Ord. alla G.U. Thesis, University of Thessaloniki, Thessaloniki, Greece.
18.3.1992, n. 65. (in Italian) Verderame G.M., Ricci P., Esposito M., Manfredi G., 2012.
D.M. 30/05/1972 Norme tecniche alle quali devono uniformar- STIL v1.0 Software per la caratterizzazione delle proprie-
si le costruzioni in conglomerato cementizio, normale e pre- t meccaniche degli acciai da c.a. tra il 1950 e il 2000. Re-
compresso ed a struttura metallica. Pubblicate sul Suppl. LUIS, http://www.reluis.it/
Ord. alla G.U. 22.7.1972, n. 190. (in Italian)
D.M. 14/01/2008. Approvazione delle nuove norme tecniche
per le costruzioni. G.U. n. 29 del 4/2/2008. (in Italian)
DAyala D., Worth J., Riddle O., 2009. Realistic shear capacity
assessment of infill frames: Comparison of two numerical
procedures. Engineering Structures, 31(8), 1745-1761.
De Luca F., Verderame G.M., Gmez-Martnez F., Prez-
Garca A., 2014. The structural role played by masonry in-
fills on RC building performances after the 2011 Lorca,
Spain, earthquake. Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering,
12(5), 1999-2026.
EERI, 2000. 1999 Kocaeli, Turkey earthquake reconnaissance
report. Earthquake Spectra, 16(S1), 237-279.
Elwood K.J., Moehle J.P., 2005. Drift capacity of Reinforced
Concrete columns with light transverse reinforcement.
Earthquake Spectra, 21(1), 71-89.
EN 1015-11:2007, Methods of test for mortar for masonry
Part 11: Determination of flexural and compressive strength
of hardened mortar.
Jeon J.S., Park J.H., DesRoches R., 2015. Seismic fragility of
lightly reinforced concrete frames with masonry infills.
Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics, 44(11),
1783-1803.
Basha S.H., Kaushik H.B., 2016. Behavior and failure mecha-
nisms of masonry-infilled RC frames (in low-rise buildings)
subject to lateral loading. Engineering Structures, 111, 233-
245.
Loureno P.B., 1997. Two aspects related to the analysis of
masonry structures: size effect and parameter sensitivity.
Report No. 03.21.1.31.25. Delft University of Technology,
Delft, Netherlands.
Liauw T.C., Kwan K.H., 1984. Nonlinear behaviour of non-
integral infilled frames. Computers and Structures, 18(3),
551-560.
Mander J.B., Priestley M.J.N., Park R., 1988. Theoretical
stress-strain model for confined concrete. ASCE Journal of
Structural Engineering, 114(8), 1804-1826.
Mehrabi A.B., Shing P.B., Schuller M.P., Noland J.L., 1994.
Performance of masonry infilled R/C frames under in-plane
lateral loads. Report No. CU/SR-94/6. Department of Civil,

View publication stats