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

net/publication/279549780

Proposed macro-model for the analysis of infilled frame structures

Article  in  Bulletin of the New Zealand Society for Earthquake Engineering · June 2007
DOI: 10.5459/bnzsee.40.2.69-77

CITATIONS READS
205 1,590

2 authors:

Francisco Crisafulli Athol Carr

National University of Cuyo University of Canterbury
45 PUBLICATIONS   1,264 CITATIONS    180 PUBLICATIONS   3,088 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

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

Hysteretic Response of Steel Plate Shear Walls View project

Seismic Modelling of RC Shear Walls with shear-flexure-axial interaction - New damping models for non-linear dynamic analyses. View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Francisco Crisafulli on 24 August 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 PROPOSED MACRO-MODEL FOR THE ANALYSIS OF INFILLED FRAME STRUCTURES

Francisco J. Crisafulli 1 and Athol J. Carr 2

ABSTRACT

Reinforced concrete frames infilled with masonry panels constitute an important part of the high-risk structures
in different regions of high seismicity. In some developing countries, they are still used as main structural system
for low to medium rise buildings. Consequently, reliable methods to analyse infilled frames are required in order
to reduce the loss of life and property associated with a possible structural failure.

The equivalent strut model, proposed in the 1960s, is a simple procedure to represent the effect of the masonry
panel. Several improvements of the original model have been proposed, as a result of a better understanding of
the behaviour of these structures and the development of computer software. This paper presents a new macro-
model for the evaluation of the global response of the structure, which is based on a multi-strut formulation,.
The model, implemented as 4-node panel element, accounts separately for the compressive and shear behaviour
of masonry using a double truss mechanism and a shear spring in each direction. The principal premises in the
development of the model are the rational consideration of the particular characteristics of masonry and the
adequate representation of the hysteretic response. Furthermore, the model is able to represent different modes
of failure in shear observed for masonry infills. The comparison of analytical results with experimental data
showed that the proposed model, with a proper calibration, is able to represent adequately the in-plane response
of infilled frames.

1. INTRODUCTION techniques to be properly considered in the modelling.

Furthermore, some mechanical properties are difficult to define
Infilled frames are complex structures which exhibit a highly
accurately, especially those of masonry and of the panel-frame
nonlinear inelastic behaviour. The most important factors
interfaces. These facts complicate the analysis of infilled frames
contributing to this behaviour arise from material nonlinearity,
and represent one of the principal reasons to explain why infill
namely, (i) cracking and crushing of the masonry panel, (ii)
panels has been considered as "non-structural elements", despite
cracking of the concrete, yielding of the reinforcing bars and local
their strong influence on the global response.
bond slip in the surrounding frame, and (iii) degradation of the
bond-friction mechanism and variation of the contact length along
Different modelling techniques have been used for the analysis of
the panel-frame interfaces. Geometric nonlinear effects can also
infilled frames, which can be divided into two main groups: (i)
occur in infilled frames, especially when the structure is able to
local or micro-models and (ii) simplified or macro-models,
resist large horizontal displacements. However, these effects do
Crisafulli, et al., 2000. The first group involves the models in
not present any particularity and can be considered in the analysis
which the structure is divided into numerous elements (usually of
using the same methodologies applied to reinforced concrete or
different types) to take account of the local effects in detail,
steel structures. The nonlinear effects mentioned above introduce
whereas the second group includes simplified models based on a
analytical complexities which required sophisticated computational

1
Facultad de Ingeniería, Universidad Nacional de Cuyo. Mendoza, Argentina. E-mail:[email protected]
2
Department of Civil Engineering, University of Canterbury. Christchurch, New Zealand.

BULLETIN OF THE NEW ZEALAND SOCIETY FOR EARTHQUAKE ENGINEERING, Vo. 40, No 2, June 2007.
physical understanding of the behaviour of the infill panel. In the following the diagonal directions of the panel must be considered
later case, a few elements are used to represent the effect of the to represent approximately the effect of the masonry infill. It is
masonry infill as a whole. Both types of models present usually assumed that the diagonal struts are active only when
advantages and disadvantages, and the selection of the more subjected to compressive forces. However, compression-only
adequate option depends on the characteristics of each case. The elements are not available in common elastic computer programs.
typical example of the macro-model for infilled frames is the In this case, it is recommend the use of tension-compression truss
diagonal strut model, see Fig. 1 (a), developed several decades ago members in both directions with half of the equivalent strut area in
based on the analytical work conducted by Polyakov (as reported each diagonal direction. The use of this simplified model results in
by Mallick and Severn, 1967). Later, Holmes, 1961, proposed significant changes in the internal forces in the surrounding frame,
that the equivalent diagonal strut should have a width equal to one especially the axial forces in the columns (tensile forces decrease,
third of the length of the panel and Stafford Smith, 1962, whereas compressive forces increase). The assumption of a
improved the approach based on experimental data. This task was compression-only strut is acceptable on the basis that the bond
continued by many other researchers, who refined the model, strength at the panel-frame interfaces and the tensile strength of
mainly by considering several struts to represent the panel (a more the masonry are very low. Tensile forces, therefore, can be
complete description can be found elsewhere, Crisafulli, 2000). transferred through the interfaces only for small levels of seismic
excitation. This consideration may not be valid when either shear
In order to analyse large structures or complete buildings, it seems connectors are used at the interfaces or the masonry panel is
that a simple, but physically reasonable model constitutes the best reinforced with horizontal or vertical bars. Refined models,
alternative. Consequently, this paper presents the development however, can consider the tensile behaviour, which usually does
and implementation of a macro-model for the representation of the not affect significantly the results.
masonry panel in infilled frames. This model considers a multi-
strut formulation, which can be useful when the objective of the
analysis focuses on the global response of the structure. (a) Model A (b) Model B

z/3
2. PRELIMINARY STUDY A ms /2
A ms
A preliminary study was conducted to investigate the limitations of A ms /2
the single strut model and the influence of different multi-strut
models on the structural response of the infilled frame. The study
focussed on the lateral stiffness of the structure and on the actions (c) Model C
induced in the surrounding frame. Fig. 1 illustrates the three strut
z/ 2

models considered in the study, which are referred as Model A, B A ms /4

and C, respectively. The total area of the equivalent masonry
strut, Ams, was the same in all the cases. It was assumed in Model
A ms /2
C that the sectional area of the central strut was the double of that A ms /4
corresponding to the off-diagonal struts. The separation between
the struts in Models B and C was adopted as a fraction of the
contact length, z, defined by Stafford Smith, 1966, Figure 1. Strut models considered in the preliminary study.

It must be noted that the models shown in Fig. 1 are valid for Numerical results obtained from the strut models A, B and C were
static analysis because the struts are located in order to represent compared with those corresponding to a refined finite element
the diagonal compressive field that develops in the panel. When model (FEM) implemented with the program ABAQUS. The
the structure is subjected to cyclic or dynamic loading, the general characteristics of this model are described by Crisafulli,
diagonal struts should change according the direction of the 1997. The lateral stiffness of the structure was similar in all the
loading. cases considered, with smaller values for models B and C. It must
be noted that, for the multi-strut models, the stiffness may
The use of only one diagonal strut resisting compressive and significantly change depending on the separation between struts.
tensile forces cannot describe properly the internal forces induced Fig. 2 compares the bending moment diagrams obtained from one
in the members of the frame. In this case, at least two struts typical example according to the different models used in this
study. Model A underestimates the bending moment because the the failure theory proposed by Mann and Müller (1982) or by
lateral forces are primarily resisted by a truss mechanism. On the Crisafulli et al. (1995) and (2002). After this preliminary study,
other hand, Model B leads to larger values than those the failure of masonry can be adequately considered in the model
corresponding to the finite element model. A better approximation using a proper combination of strut and shear springs.
is obtained from Model C, although some differences arise at the The failure due to crushing of the masonry at the corners is
ends of both columns. Similar conclusions can be drawn regarding uncommon for infilled reinforced concrete frames, although it has
the shear forces. The maximum axial forces in the frame members been observed in infilled steel frames. In this case, the
are approximately equal in all the models, even though the surrounding frame is more flexible and the contact length between
variation of the axial forces along the columns shows some the panel and the frame is smaller. This situation can be also
discrepancy at the top end of the tension column and at the bottom represented with the triple strut model illustrated in Fig. 3, in
end of the compression column. which the central strut is divided into two elements with different
areas, in order to consider approximately the increase of axial
stresses occurring in the corners of the panels. It is worth noting
that this idea is presented here in a general sense. The practical
application of this model requires further research in order to
FEM investigate the values of the area and length of the reduced
Model A element of the central strut.
Model B
Model C

Reduced element

Figure 2. Bending moment diagrams obtained from A ms /4

different models .
A ms /2
It can be concluded that the single strut model, despite its
A ms /4
simplicity, can provide an adequate estimation of the stiffness of
the infilled frame and the axial forces induced in the frame
members by lateral forces. However, a more refined model,
Model C, is required in order to obtain realistic values of the
bending moments and shear forces in the frame. Figure 3. Multi-strut model proposed to represent the
crushing of the masonry at the corners of the panel.

3. FAILURE MODES OF THE MASONRY PANEL

4. PROPOSED MACRO-MODEL
According to the literature, the most common types of failure are:
• shear failure due to debonding of the mortar-brick interfaces 4.1 General description of the model
(shear-friction failure), which can occur following a stepped A new macro-model is proposed in this paper in order to represent,
cracking pattern or by horizontal sliding along a mortar joint, in a rational but simple way, the effect of masonry infill panels.
• diagonal tension failure of the masonry units, as a result of a The model is implemented as a 4-noede panel element which is
combination of compressive and shear stresses in the connected to the frame at the beam-column joints. Internally, the
masonry, and panel element accounts separately for the compressive and shear
• crushing of the masonry at the corners due to high behaviour of the masonry panel using two parallel struts and a
compressive stresses, Crisafulli, 1997. shear spring in each direction, see Fig. 4. This configuration
allows an adequate consideration of the lateral stiffness of the
Macro-models, due to their simplicity, cannot represent precisely panel and of the strength of masonry panel, particularly when a
all the different types of failure observed for masonry panels. For shear failure along mortar joints or diagonal tension failure is
this reason, a preliminary study should be conducted before expected. Furthermore, the model is easy to apply in the analysis
modelling the structure in order to estimate the expected mode of of large infilled frame structures. The main limitation of the
failure of the masonry panel. This can be achieved by applying model results from its simplicity, since the panel is connected to
the beam-column joints of the frame it is not able to predict equivalent width of the masonry strut. Additional experimental
properly the bending moment and shear forces in the surrounding and analytical research is required in order to develop a more
frame. rational procedure which be able of taking into account the shear
response of the infill panel not only in terms of strength but also in
It is assumed in the model that the stiffness of the shear spring, ks, terms of stiffness.
is equal to a fraction, γs, of the total stiffness of the masonry strut
Ams E m The axial stiffness of each strut, kai, accounts for the remaining
ks = γ s cos 2 θ (1)
dm fraction (1-γs) of the total stiffness which is assigned to two struts
where Ams is the total area of the equivalent strut (defined by with equal area, see Fig. 1 (b):
several researchers based on experimental and analytical data, see
Crisafulli, 1997), Em is the elastic modulus of masonry and dm is (1 − γ s ) Ams Et
k ai = (2)
the diagonal length of the masonry panel. The term cos θ is 2 2 dm
introduced to express the stiffness in the horizontal direction, where Et is tangent modulus of the masonry defined according to
being θ the inclination of the diagonal of the infill panel. The an adequate hysteretic model for masonry. This is required in
factor γs usually varies from 0.50 to 0.75, according to the results order to conduct nonlinear dynamic analyses of infilled frames
obtained by the authors when calibrating the model. subjected to earthquakes. In the proposed model, the response of
the axial struts is represented according to a hysteretic stress-strain
relationship developed by Crisafulli, 1997. The axial force and the
axial displacement in the strut are related to the stress and strain of
the masonry according to basic relationships of the structural
hz

shear spring analysis.

The area of the equivalent strut, Ams, can decrease as the lateral
displacement of the structure, and consequently the axial
displacement of the strut, increases. This is due to the reduction of
the contact length between the panel and the frame, and due to the
masonry strut
cracking of the masonry infill. It is assumed in the proposed model
hz

that the area of the equivalent varies as a function of the axial

displacement ∆a, following the criterion illustrated in Fig. 5. The
Figure 4. Proposed multi-strut model (only the struts and variation of the strut area Ams is introduced in the model to gain
shear spring active in one direction are represented). generality, even though there is insufficient information to
estimate the practical values of this variation. According to
The hysteretic response of the shear spring is modelled following experimental results reported by Decanini and Fantin (1986) the
an elasto-plastic rule with variable shear strength. The shear equivalent width of the strut decreases by about 20% to 50% due
strength of the spring is controlled by a shear-friction mechanisms to cracking of the masonry panel. However, these values were
which can be adequately represented by the Mohr-Coulomb derived under the assumption that the modulus Et remains
criterion. Therefore, the strength is evaluated considering two constant, whereas the proposed model considers a variable
different stages, namely, (i) elastic response before the bond-shear modulus, which decreases as the axial compressive strain
strength is reached, and (ii) sliding, in which the strength depends increases. The main advantage of this approach is that the user
on the compressive force of the struts. In the latter case, the shear can control the variation of the stiffness and the axial strength of
strength is limited in order to avoid large values due to high axial the masonry strut
forces in the struts.

The evaluation of the stiffness of the shear spring considered in

the model, based on Eq. (1), does not reflect the actual shear
behaviour of the masonry panel, but represents a practical
approach which leads to adequate values of the lateral stiffness of
the infilled frame. In this way, it is possible to use the existing
empirical expressions proposed for the calculation of the
 (a) Truss mechanism 3
v
4

Strut area
f E
E
ϕ u

3 4
A ms1

hz
hz
1 2

A ms2 internal dummy

node (2 dof)

θ2 θ1
a2 a1 Axial displacement
1E
Figure 5. Variation of the strut area considered in the
internal node external node
2 E
(3 dof) (3 dof)
model.

The response in the initial stage is primarily controlled by the shear (b) Shear behaviour
v
3E
4
spring and the bending moments and shear forces in the frame are
f
E u
similar to those obtained from the triple-strut model (Model C, Fig. 4
yo4
I
3I
1). After the shear strength is reached and sliding starts, the x o4

mechanisms changes resulting in a significant increase of the

actions induced in the frame.

4.2 Formulation of the model 1I

The practical implementation of the proposed model requires the 2I
yo1

use of several spring elements and beam or beam-column 1E

x o1
elements to represent the masonry panel and the surrounding 2E
frame. In order to simplify the application of the proposed model,
Figure 6. Proposed 4-node panel element.
from the user point of view, a 4-node panel element has been
The vertical separation of both struts, hz, varies between z/3 and
formulated and implemented in the structural program
z/2, being z the contact length between the panel and the frame
RUAUMOKO (Carr, 2002). In this way, the user only needs to
(Stafford Smith, 1966):
define the characteristics of the masonry infill as a whole element,
π
whereas the program evaluates internally the properties of the z= h (3)
2 λh
struts and the shear spring. Fig. 6 illustrates the main
where h is the storey height,
characteristics of the proposed panel element.

E m t sin θ
λh = h 4 (4)
4 E c I c hm

t is the masonry thickness, Ec is the elastic modulus of the

concrete, Ic is moment of inertia of the columns and hm is the
height of the masonry panel.

Three different sets of nodes are considered for the development

of the panel element, namely, external nodes, internal nodes and
dummy nodes. The external nodes are those connected to the
principal structure, whereas the internal nodes are defined by a
horizontal and a vertical offset, xoi and yoi respectively, measured
from the external node i. This is intended to represent the
reduction of the dimensions of the panel due to the depth of the
frame members. Three degrees of freedom, the translations u and the strut referred to the global system, θi, see Fig. 6 (a):
v and the rotation θ, are considered in each of the external and
internal nodes. Four dummy nodes, with 2 translational degrees of [Q ]A = [− cos θ i − sin θ i cos θ i sin θ i ] (7)
freedom per node, are required to define the end of the strut
members which is not connected to the corners of the panel. The
formulation of the stiffness matrix and the nodal forces of the The second transformation relates the displacements u and v at
panel element is conducted considering the equilibrium and both ends of the strut with the global displacements, u, v and ϕ , at
compatibility equations between the forces and displacement of the internal nodes of the panel element. It must be noted that each
the different coordinates systems. These relationships, derived strut has one end connected to a dummy node and the other end
from the principle of Virtual Displacement (Livesly,1975), connected directly to an internal node (see Fig. 7). Therefore the
indicate that if a transformation matrix [Q] relates the second transformation needs to be formulated in tow steps. The
displacements {u}A and {u}B expressed in two different systems first step considers the relationship between the displacements at
of rectangular coordinates, the transpose of this matrix, [Q] , also
T the internal dummy node j and the adjacent internal nodes m and
transforms the nodal forces {F}B to {F}A. It can be shown that n:
the stiffness matrix in the coordinates system “B” is equal to the
double product of the matrix [Q] applied to the stiffness matrix in  um 
v 
the coordinates system “A”:  m
u j  ϕ m 
  = [Q ]ID   (8)
{u}A = [Q ] {u}B , {F }B = [Q ]T {F }A (5a) v j  D  un 
 vn 
 
ϕ n  I
[K ]B = [Q ]T [K ]A [Q ] (5b)

where the sub-indexes D and I refers to dummy and internal

These relationships are successively applied to transform the nodes, respectively. The matrix [Q]ID (2x6) can be formulated
structural parameters of each strut and spring of the model to the using interpolation functions which relates the displacements u
global system of coordinates, associated with the external nodes of and v corresponding to a point located at a distance s from the
the panel element. internal node. It is found (Crisafulli, 1997) that the terms of this
matrix are:
4.3 Axial behaviour of the struts
Eq. (2) gives the axial stiffness of each strut in local coordinates, Q(1,1)ID = Q1 cos2 θE + Q5 sen2 θE
that is referred to the axial displacement. Consequently, a series of Q(1,2)ID = Q(2,1)ID = (Q1 - Q5) cos θE sen θE
transformation are required to obtain the stiffness matrix in global
Q(1,3)ID = Q2 cos θE
coordinates and related to the displacements of the external nodes
Q(1,4)ID = Q3 cos2 θE + Q6 sen2 θE
of the panel element. This process is developed according to the
Q(1,5)ID = Q(2,4)ID = (Q3 - Q6) cos θE sen θE (9)
structural concepts presented in Section 4.2, and comprises three
Q(1,6)ID = Q4 cos θE
transformations, which are described in the following paragraphs.
Q(2,2)ID = Q1 sin2 θE + Q5 cos2 θE
Each transformation will be referred using the sub-index A, B and
Q(2,3)ID = Q2 sin θE
C.
Q(2,5)ID = Q3 sin2 θE + Q6 cos2 θE

The first transformation required in the analysis relates de axial Q(2,6)ID = Q4 sin θE

displacement of the strut, ∆a, to the horizontal and vertical

displacements, u and v, at the ends j and k of the strut: where θE is the inclination of the edge (see Fig. 7),
Q 1 = 1 – 3 χ2 + 2 χ3
Q2 = (χ – 2 χ2 + χ3) LE
u j 
v  Q3 = 3 χ2 - 2 χ3 (10)
 j
∆ a = [Q ]A   (6) Q4 = (– χ2 + χ3) LE
u k 
vk  Q5 = 1 – χ
Q5 = χ
LE is the length of the edge and χ = s/LE.
where de matrix [Q]A is defined as a function of the inclination of
 where the matrix [Q]EI is a function of the horizontal and vertical
offsets, xom and yom, corresponding to node m, see Fig. 6 (b):
nE n I

internal node
1 0 − yom 
= 0 1 xom 
internal dummy
j node [Q ]EI (14)
θE 0 0 1 
E

1
L

The transformation indicated by Eq. (14) need to be applied three

times, since each strut is related to three external nodes. For
mI
s

example, the strut 1 in Fig. 6(b) contributes to the external nodes

k I
1, 2 and 4. Therefore, the complete transformation is:
mE
k
E
 um  um 
Figure 7. Detail of one edge of the panel element. v  v 
 m  m
ϕ m  ϕ m 
At the other end (node k) the strut is directly connected to an    
 un   un 
internal node and no special calculations are required for the  v n  = [Q ]C  vn  (15)
second step in this transformation. Based on this consideration, ϕ n  ϕ n 
   
and taking into account Eq. (8), the relationship between the  uk   uk 
displacement at u and v at the end of the strut and the global v  v 
 k   k 
displacements at the three internal nodes (represented by sub- ϕ k  E ϕ k  I
index I) related to the strut is:
where the transformation matrix is:
 um 
v 
 m 1 0 − yom 0 0 0 0 0 0 
ϕ m  0 0 
u j     1 xom 0 0 0 0 0
   un  0 0 
v j  
0 1 0 0 0 0 0

  = [Q ]B  vn  (11)
1 0 − yon
u k  ϕ n  0 0 0 0 0 0 
v    [Q ]C = 0 0 0 0 1 xon 0 0 0  (16)
 k  uk   
v  0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 
 k  0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 − yok 
ϕ k  I  
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 xok 
0 1 
 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
where the matrix [Q]B includes the transformation defined by Eq.
(11):
The complete procedure for the formulation of the stiffness matrix
can be summarized in the following steps:
  0 0 0
  
QID
 0 0 0
[Q ]B = (12) a) Select the active struts in the model (1 and 3, or 2 and 4)
0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0
  depending on the direction of the loading.
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0
The final transformation relates the displacements of the internal b) Evaluate the axial stiffness of the strut i, kai, using Eq. (2).
nodes to the displacement of the external nodes. This relationship
for one node is given by: c) Calculate the stiffness matrix referred to the global
displacements u and v at both ends of the strut, according to
u  u  Eqs. (5b) and (7):
   
 v  = [Q ]EI v (13)
ϕ  ϕ 
 I  E [K i ]A = [Q ]TA k ai [Q ]A (17)
 (4 x 4) (4 x 1) (1 x 4) that the implementation of the proposed model in a panel element
allows the calculation of the axial forces in the struts to be used for
d) Calculate the stiffness matrix of the strut referred to the three
evaluating the strength of the shear spring. This inter-relationship
internal nodes (with three degrees of freedom at each node, u,
between different members is not possible to be considered in
v and ϕ), considering Eqs. (5b) and (12)
most of the existing programs for structural analysis.
[K i ]B = [Q ]B
T
[K i ]A [Q ]B (18)
(9 x 9) (9 x 4) (4 x 4) (4 x 9) The stiffness of the spring and the shear force are associated with
the horizontal displacement, u, of the two diagonally opposite
e) Calculate the stiffness matrix of the strut referred to the three nodes (nodes 1and 3 or 2 and 4, depending on the loading
external nodes (with three degrees of freedom at each node, u, direction). Consequently, the stiffness matrix of the shear spring
v and ϕ), based on Eqs. (5b) and (16) related to the displacements of the internal nodes n and k is:
[K i ]C = [Q ] T
C [K i ]B [Q ]C (18)
(9 x 9) (9 x 9) (9 x 9) (9 x 9)  ks 0 0 −k s 0 0
 0 0 0
 0 0 0
f) Assemble the terms of the matrix [Ki]C into the matrix of the  0 0 0 0 0 0
[K s ] =   (20)
panel element, [Kp], (12 x 12), taking into account the nodes − ks 0 0 ks 0 0
related to the strut. In the case of the strut 1, which is related  0 0 0 0 0 0
 
to the external nodes 1, 2 and 4, the contribution of this strut  0 0 0 0 0 0
to the total stiffness matrix is:
where the term ks is defined by Eq. (1). The only transformation
* * * * * * 0 0 0 * * * required in this case is that given by Eqs. (13) and (14), which
* * * * * * 0 0 0 * * * relate the internal nodes to the external nodes:

* * * * * * 0 0 0 * * *
 
* * * * * * 0 0 0 * * *  un   un 
* * * * * * 0 0 0 * * * v  v 
   n  n
* * * * * * 0 0 0 * * * ϕ n  ϕ n 
[K ] =
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
(19)   = [Q ]D   (21)
   uk   uk 
p

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0  vk   vk 
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0    
 ϕ k  E ϕ k  I
* * * * * * 0 0 0 * * *
 
* * * * * * 0 0 0 * * *
where the transformation matrix is:
* * * * * * 0 0 0 * * *

1 0 − yon 0 0 0 
0 xon 0 
where the symbol * indicates a nonzero term in the matrix,  1 0 0
0 0 1 0 0 0 
which is obtained from matrix [Ki]C. [Q ]D =  (22)
0 0 0 1 0 − yok 
0 0 0 0 1 xok 
g) Repeat the same process for the second strut in the model in  
0 0 0 0 0 1 
order to complete the stiffness matrix of the panel element.

A similar process of successive transformations should be applied

Based on Eq. (5b), the stiffness matrix of the shear spring related
in order to assemble the vector of nodal forces (12 terms), based
to the external to two external nodes of the panel is:
on Eq. (5a).
[K s ]D = [Q ]D
T
[K s ] [Q ]D (23)
4.4 Shear behaviour of the spring (6 x 6) (6 x 6) (6 x 6) (6 x 6)

The consideration of the shear behaviour of the panel element is

simpler, since only one spring element is used. This spring is Finally, the terms of the matrix [Ks]D need to be added to the total
connected to two diagonally opposite internal nodes depending on stiffness matrix [Kp] considering that the shear spring is connected
the direction of the shear force, see Fig. 6(b). It is worth noting to nodes 1and 3 or 2 and 4, depending on the loading direction.
 with the axial cyclic behaviour of masonry were adopted from
tests of the materials.
5. CONSIDERATIONS FOR 3-D MODELS
Fig. 8 compares experimental and analytical results in the range of
In the last years there has been a significant increase in both the
small displacement in order to observe clearly the response in the
power of computers and the capacity of the software available for
initial stage. The force level at which shear cracking occurs
structural analysis. As a result, today is possible to perform the
according to the analytical procedure, 59.8 kN, agrees very well
nonlinear analysis of complete structures using 3D models.
with the measured value equal to 65.0 kN. The overall theoretical
response is compared in Fig. 9 with the strength envelope
The strut model (single or multi-strut) has been developed and
measured during the test, indicating that the proposed model can
used to evaluate the in-plane behavior of masonry infills, however,
estimate the lateral resistance of the infilled frame and the strength
the out-of-plane response cannot be adequately represented
degradation observed for large displacements. In addition, the
because the infill behaves as an unreinforced slab. When
failure mechanism is properly represented, being the analytical
implementing the proposed model in a 3-D computer program the
model capable of describing the shear cracking of the masonry
following considerations should be taken inot account. The
panel and the yielding of the tension column of the frame.
masonry panel in the model should be a plane panel (in the
undeformed state). This means than the four nodes of the panel
The proposed model has been also implemented in the program
should be in a plane. If the panel is not plane, other effects can be
SeismoStruct (SeismoSoft, 2006) and numerical results were
important (shell or membrane behavior), which are not considered
compared to experimental data by Smyrou et al. (2006), showing
in the model presented here. When the direction normal to the
the accuracy of the model to evaluate the nonlinear response of the
panel coincides with one of the global axes (e.g. the axis Z), the
structure. Furthermore, they conducted an interesting sensitivity
solution is simple. It must be consider that the stiffness matrix of
analysis to evaluate the relative importance of the parameters used
the panel (12 x 12) contributes only to the 12 global degrees of
in the model to represent the cyclic response of masonry.
freedom in the plane of the panel (XY). In this case, the
displacements along Z and the rotations about X and Y should be
7. CONCLUSIONS
ignored, because the model is not able to represent the out-of-
plane behavior. This paper describes a refined macroscopic model for infilled
frames, in which the principal premises are the rational
A more precise representation of the spatial behavior of the infill consideration of the particular characteristics of masonry and the
frame will require the consideration of the out of plane response. adequate representation of the hysteretic response.
For example, the panel can be considered as a “slab”, but this
behavior probably degrades rapidly as the displacement increases. Since shear failure of the masonry is the most common type of
This complex representation of the infill panel exceeds the scope failure observed in the masonry panel, a multi-spring model is
of the strut model, which is applied as a simplified representation. developed to represent specifically this situation. The model
For a more refined modeling, the use of 2-D or 3-D nonlinear accounts separately for the compressive and shear behaviour of
finite elements to represent the entire panel could be a proper masonry using a double truss mechanism and a shear spring in
solution. each direction. This concept is implemented in a 4-node panel
element which is being incorporated in the computer program
6. NUMERICAL EXAMPLES RUAUMOKO (Carr, 2000).

The proposed model was applied to represent the response of a

The comparisons between experimental data obtained by the
infilled frame tested at the University of Canterbury under vertical
authors and other researchers and analytical results indicate that
and cyclic lateral loading, in which a shear failure occurred
the cyclic response of infilled frames can be properly represented
(Crisafulli, 1997). Using the computer program RUAUMOKO
by the proposed model. This, however, requires a fine calibration
(Carr, 2000), the lateral and vertical forces were applied in
of the model, which is usually achieved after several adjustments,
successive increments, in which the mechanical properties of the
particularly the parameter defining the hysteretic behaviour of
structure were updated according to the strains and displacements
masonry. The need of these adjustments indicates that the detail
induced in the different components of the model in the previous
prediction of the real cyclic response of infilled frames is still a
step. The separation of the struts was adopted as hz = 0.23 m,
difficult task.
which is equivalent to z/2. The properties of the model associated
Recommendations are also given for the analysis of infilled frames
when failure due to crushing of the corners is expected in the
masonry panels. Further research is required in order to 9. REFERENCES
implement this model.
ABAQUS: Theory Manual and User's Manual, Hibbitt, Karlsson
& Sorensen Inc.
80 Carr, A. J. (2002) RUAUMOKO: Inelastic Dynamic Analysis,
Shear cracking
60
of the panel Department of Civil Engineering, University of Canterbury.
Crisafulli, F. J. (1997) Seismic Behaviour of Reinforced Concrete
Structures with Masonry Infills, PhD Thesis, Department of
Shear force (kN)

40

20 Civil Engineering, University of Canterbury, 404 p.

Crisafulli, F. J., Carr, A. J. y Park, R. (2000) "Analytical
Modelling of Infilled Frame Structures - A General Review".
0

Test
Bulletin of the New Zealand Society for Earthquake
Nonlinear static analysis
-20

Engineering, Vol. 33, No. 1, pp 30-47.

Crisafulli, F., Carr, A. y Park, R.(2002) "Rational Evaluation of
-40
-0.4 -0.2 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8
Lateral displacement (mm) the Lateral Strength of Infilled Frames", 7th National
Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Boston, USA.
Figure 8. Comparison between experimental and analytical Decanini, L. D. and Fantin, G. E. (1986) "Modelos simplificados
data in the range of small displacements. de la mampostería incluida en pórticos. Características de
rigidez y resistencia lateral en estado límite" (in spanish),
Jornadas Argentinas de Ingeniería Estructural, Buenos Aires,
Argentina, Vol. 2, pp. 817-836.
120
Yielding of the
80 tension column Holmes, M. (1961) "Steel Frames with Brickwork and Concrete
Infilling", Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers,
Lateral force (kN)

Vol. 19, pp. 473-478.

40

0 Livesly, R. K. (1975) Matrix Methods of Structural Analysis,

Test
Second Edition, Pergamon Press, 277 p.
Mallick, D. V. and Severn, R. T. (1967) "The Behaviour of
-40

Nonlinear static
-80 analysis Infilled Frames under Static Loading", Proceedings of the
Institution of Civil Engineering, Vol. 38, pp. 639-656.
-120
-20 -15 -10 -5 0 5 10 15 20 Mann, W. and Müller, H. (1982) "Failure of Shear-Stressed
Lateral displacement (mm) Masonry - An Enlarged Theory, Tests and Application to
Shear Walls", Proceedings of the British Ceramic Society,
Figure 9. Comparison between experimental and analytical Vol. 30, pp. 223-235.
data in the range of small displacements. Stafford Smith, B. (1962) "Lateral Stiffness of Infilled Frames",
Proceedings of the American Society of Civil Engineering,
Journal of Structural Division, Vol. 88, No. ST6, pp. 183-
8. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS 199.
The authors express their deepest gratitude to Professor Robert Stafford Smith, B. (1966) "Behaviour of Square Infilled Frames",
Park for his invaluable guidance and continuous support. Thanks Proceedings of the American Society of Civil Engineering,
are also given to Dr. José I. Restrepo for his useful advice and Journal of Structural Division, Vol. 92, No. ST1, pp. 381-
interest in this research programme. 403.
SeismoSoft (2006), SesimoStruct – A Computer Program for the
This investigation was conducted as part of the PhD thesis of the Static and Dynamic Analysis of Framed Structures,
first author. The scholarship provided by the Ministry of External http://www.seismosoft.com.
Relations and Trade of New Zealand and the financial assistance Smyrou, E., Blandon-Uribe, C., Antoniou, S., Pinho, R. And
given by the Facultad de Ingeniería, Universidad Nacional de Crowley, H. (2006) “Implementation and Verification of a
Cuyo, Argentina, are gratefully acknowledged. Masonry Panel Model for Nonlinear Pseudo-Dynamic
 Analysis of Infilled RC Frames, Proceedings of the First
European Conference on Earthquake Engineering and
Seismology. Geneva, Switzerland.

View publication stats