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

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

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-

(b)
ements is reported and described, too. Figure 1. Geometry and reinforcement details of GLD (a) and
As previously highlighted, in literature only few SLD (b) specimens.
experimental campaigns allowed observing a shear
failure due to local interaction between the infill GLD specimens were designed in order to be rep-
panel and the adjacent RC columns, and even less resentative of the bottom storey of a five-storey
with a masonry panel made of hollow clay units, gravity load designed RC frame, according to Italian
which can be considered as typical of light non- technical codes in force between 1970s and 1990s
structural masonry in European and Mediterranean (D.M. 30/05/1972; D.M. 14/02/92). In beams, longi-
countries. In this study, such a failure mechanism is tudinal reinforcement was made of (3+3) 10mm di-
investigated in detail, for instance providing local ameter bars. 6 mm diameter stirrups spaced at 15cm
measurements on the evolution of crack width, thus were used as transverse reinforcement; stirrup spac-
allowing analysing the onset and evolution of the ing complied with the lower limit provided by the
adopted code. In columns, eight 8mm bars were used the wall. Nevertheless, both of them, in our case, do
as longitudinal reinforcement, uniformly distributed not change with the scaling of the specimens.
along the section perimeter, corresponding to a rein- More generally, as far as the experimental inves-
forcement ratio equal to =1.01%, very close to code tigation of scaled masonry structures is concerned,
prescriptions and design practice at the time. Trans- the well-known size-effect problem has been studied
verse reinforcement was made of 6mm diameter stir- comparing the behaviour of walls constructed with
rups spaced at 15cm, resulting in a transverse rein- the same mortar and units but with different global
forcement ratio equal to sw=0.19%. Longitudinal dimensions. For instance, Laureno (1997), based on
and transverse reinforcements were anchored with the numerical investigation of the behaviour of ma-
90-degree hooks. The length of the hook was equal sonry structures by means of FEM analyses, showed
to ten times the bar diameter for stirrups. No trans- a significant dependence of the structural response
verse reinforcement was adopted in beam-column on the global dimensions, as expected; nevertheless,
joints, consistent with code provisions. no significant change due to the size of the units was
SLD specimens were designed according to the found.
current Italian technical code (D.M. 14/01/2008). In
beams, longitudinal reinforcement was made of
(3+3) 10mm diameter bars. 6mm diameter stirrups 2.2 Material properties
spaced at 10cm and 5cm were used as transverse re- Concrete compressive strength for each specimen
inforcement in central and end regions. In columns, was evaluated on three 151515cm cubic samples
eight 12mm bars were used as longitudinal rein- of the casted concrete. Mean value of 28-day cylin-
forcement, uniformly distributed along the section drical strength is reported in Table 1.
perimeter. As in beams, transverse reinforcement Commercial typology of reinforcing steel is
was made of 6mm diameter stirrups spaced at 10cm B450C (D.M. 14/01/2008), i.e., class C reinforce-
and 5cm in central and end regions. Transverse rein- ment with fyk=450 MPa according to Annex C provi-
forcement was anchored with 135-degree hooks. 6 sions of Eurocode 2 (CEN, 2004). Table 2 reports
mm diameter stirrups spaced at 5cm were adopted as mechanical properties, namely yield strength (fy), ul-
transverse reinforcement in beam-column joints. timate strength (ft) and hardening ratio (ft/fy). Yield
Geometry and reinforcement details are shown in strength is similar to that of FeB44K steel commer-
Figure 1. cial typology used in Italy during the period of inter-
Four specimens were tested, two GLD and two est (Verderame et al., 2012).
SLD, with and without infill panel. They are identi-
fied as GB, GI-80, SB and SI-80 (G=Gravity load Table 1. Properties of concrete.
__________________________________________________
designed; S=Seismic load designed; B=Bare frame; Specimen Cylindrical compressive strength
I=Infilled frame; 80=infill panel thickness, in mm). (fc)
__________________________________________________
The 80 mm thick infill panels are intended to rep- MPa
__________________________________________________
resent 160 mm thick panels in scale 1:2. Note that, GB 21.6
due to technical difficulties in realizing full-scaled GI-80 22.7
units, only thickness was scaled, and the two remain- SB 21.7
ing dimensions of the units were not scaled. Com- SI-80 21.3
__________________________________________________
monly available units were used, as in other litera-
ture studies (e.g., Pires and Carvalho, 1992; Table 2. Properties of reinforcing steel.
__________________________________________________
Colangelo, 2005). diameter yield strength ultimate strength hardening ratio
From a theoretical standpoint, this could affect () (fy) (ft) (ft/fy)
__________________________________________________
the behaviour of the masonry panel, influencing the mm MPa MPa -
__________________________________________________
damage propagation and the failure mode. To the 6 507 572 1.13
best of the authors knowledge, no specific investi- 8 586 648 1.11
gation has been carried out regarding the influence 10 490 572 1.17
of possible size-effects due to the dimensions of 12 481 576 1.20
__________________________________________________
units on the behaviour of masonry infilled RC
frames. Hollow clay units with cement mortar was used
As far as the mechanical properties of the mason- as infill material. Dimensions of units were
ry infill material are concerned, several formulations 25025080(thickness) mm, with 10 holes per unit
are available providing the strength of the material (see Figure 2) resulting in 66.3% void ratio. The cat-
depending on the strength of mortar and units egory of the mortar was M15. Flexural and compres-
(Biondi et al., 2000). Some of these formulations sive strength of mortar were evaluated on three
consider geometrical parameters as the slenderness 4040160 mm samples, according to EN 1015-
of the panel and the ratio between the thickness of 11:2007 (see Table 3). Mechanical properties of in-
mortar joints and the unit dimensions in the plane of 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
3.2 Infilled specimen (GI-80)
0 Figure 6 reports the lateral load-drift response of
specimen GI-80. Specimen GI-80 exhibited an ini-
-50 expected yielding tial, uncracked stiffness of about 220 kN/mm. First
appreciable decrease in stiffness was observed dur-
-100 ing cycle II (drift=0.02%), with a lateral load about
equal to 50% of the maximum; at the same drift first
-150 visible detachments between the panel and the sur-
-6.0 -4.0 -2.0 0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0
drift [%]
rounding frame were observed. During cycle III
Figure 4. Lateral load-drift response of bare specimen GB. (drift=0.15%), minor but visible cracks occurred
along mortar bed joints and units close to panel cor-
During next cycles, lateral load-displacement re- ners and along panel diagonal; a further decrease in
sponse showed severe softening; widening of diago- lateral stiffness was observed. During cycle IV
nal cracks in joints was observed, up to severe dam- (drift=0.50%), diagonal cracking in panel devel-
age and concrete spalling in panel (see Figure 5b-d), oped, and shear cracking initiated at the top of RC
together with increase in flexural demand at the base columns; peak lateral load (136.6 kN) was attained
of columns, resulting in concrete cover spalling and in positive direction, and a substantial stiffness de-
longitudinal bar buckling. The test was terminated at crease was observed in negative direction. Diagonal
cycle VII (drift=5.30%), when significant shear shear cracks in columns developed during cycle V
sliding initiated along diagonal cracks in joints, as (drift=0.90%), and significant damage to individual
highlighted by vertical displacement in columns units, at the center of the panel, was observed; peak
(evaluated from the data on elongation of the hy- lateral load (140.1 kN) was attained in negative di-
draulic jacks used to apply the axial load, which are rection, and lateral load started to decrease in posi-
not reported herein for the sake of brevity), thus tive direction. During cycle VI (drift=1.30%) indi-
highlighting the potential for an imminent joint axial vidual units failed and severe widening of diagonal
failure, that is, for the loss of vertical load carrying shear cracks took place; severe intra-cycle drop of
capacity. The corresponding step is highlighted in lateral strength was observed (Figure 6).
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.
 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-

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
Figure 7. Evolution of damage in infilled specimen GI-80. to progressive crack opening. A sudden, further in-
crease in such opening is observed at drift = -1.5%
During cycle VII (drift=1.70%), lateral load (Cycle VII, 2nd negative sub-cycle) and +1.3% (Cy-
dropped at 46% and 68% of peak strength, in posi- cle VII, 1st positive sub-cycle) for left and right col-
tive and negative direction respectively i.e. below umn, respectively. In Figure 6 such critical steps,
the expected flexural yielding strength of the bare which can be considered as corresponding to the ac-
frame (see Figure 6), thus further supporting the hy- tivation of shear failures, are highlighted by means
pothesis of a global softening controlled by shear of red circles. In fact, in the lateral load-drift re-
failure in columns. The test was terminated after sponse, a sudden drop in lateral load (drift=-1.5%)
opening of the stirrup at the top of the columns, and the initiation of a plateau behavior (drift=+1.3%)
which led to the activation of a significant sliding were observed, respectively; moreover, for left col-
along diagonal cracks due to failure in restrain action umn at this step visible stirrup opening was ob-
on longitudinal reinforcement. served. Furthermore, at critical drifts -1.5% and
+1.3% sudden downward vertical displacements of
columns took place, too, highlighting the initiation ing is observed. The test was terminated at cycle VII
of a significant sliding along diagonal shear cracks. (drift=5.30%), with significant crack opening a
beam/joint interface; during this cycle, lateral load
25
drift=0.02% 0.5% 0.9% 1.3% 1.7%
dropped to 84% and 82% of peak strength, in posi-
horizontal crack width [mm]

tive and negative direction respectively.

20
200
15
150
10
expected strength
100

lateral load [kN]

5 expected yielding
50
0
0
200 0 5000 10000 15000 20000 25000
step [-] -50
150
expected yielding
100
lateral load [kN]

-100 expected strength

50
-150
0
-50 -200
-100 -6.0 -4.0 -2.0 0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0
drift [%]
-150
Figure 10. Lateral load-drift response of bare specimen SB.
-200
0 5000 10000 15000 20000 25000
step [-] 4.2 Infilled specimen (SI-80)
Figure 9. Evolution of the horizontal component of crack width
(wbc) and lateral load with test step in Specimen GI-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-
4 ANALYSIS OF RESULTS: SLD FRAMES ment is described. Figure 11 reports the lateral load-
drift response of specimen SI-80.
4.1 Bare specimen (SB) Specimen SI-80 exhibited an initial, uncracked
In this Section, lateral load-displacement response stiffness very similar to the specimen GI-80. First
of specimen SB is illustrated and the evolution of visible detachments between the panel and the sur-
observed damage with increasing imposed displace- rounding frame were observed during cycle I
ment is described. Figure 10 shows lateral force-drift (drift=0.01%). First appreciable decrease in stiff-
relationship of the specimen. ness was observed during cycle III (drift=0.15%),
First appreciable decrease in lateral stiffness was with a lateral load about equal to 2/3 of the maxi-
observed during cycle I (drift=0.30%) for a lateral mum. At the same drift minor but visible cracks oc-
load equal to 27 kN, with initial stiffness equal to curred along mortar bed joints and units close to
about 17 kN/mm. First noticeable cracking was ob- panel corners and along panel diagonal (see Figure
served at beams ends during cycle II 12). During cycle IV (drift=0.50%) vertical cracks
(drift=0.70%), following first noticeable decrease at the end of beam developed. During cycle V
in lateral stiffness. During cycle III (drift=1.10%), (drift=0.90%) a significant damage to individual
beam cracking developed and flexural cracking at units, at the panel corner, was observed (see Figure
columns ends was visible. During cycle IV 12); peak lateral load was attained in positive and
(drift=2.40%), a significant decrease in lateral negative direction, equal respectively to +151.3 and -
stiffness is observed at drift=-1.15% (with lateral 158.6 kN. At the same drift, sliding of top infill
load equal to about -90 kN), and the widening of course can be noted, leading to sliding shear failure
flexural cracks at beams ends and at columns base of the whole row.
is observed. Therefore, this condition can be identi- During cycle VIII (drift=2.0%), lateral load
fied with the formation of a plastic mechanism in- dropped to 67% and 62% of peak strength in posi-
volving beams ends and columns base. The speci- tive and negative direction respectively. At the same
men reached the peak lateral load, in both directions, drift significant damage to individual units, at the
during this cycle (+97.7/-97.9 kN). panel corner, was observed (Figure 12). During next
During next cycles, lateral load-displacement re- cycles, the lateral load is about constant, slightly
sponse is quite stable, with progressive increase in lower than 100kN; at the same time, a progressive
crack width at beams ends and columns base. Dur- increase in crack width at beams ends and columns
ing cycle VI (drift=4.40%), with increasing flexural base is observed (Figure 12).
demand at the base of columns, concrete cover spall-
 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.

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
Figure 12. Evolution of damage in infilled specimen SI-80. 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
5 CONCLUSIONS TRE, Rome, Italy.
Biondi S., Colangelo F., Nuti C., 2000. La risposta sismica dei
In this paper, pseudo-static cyclic experimental tests telai con tamponature murarie, CNR-Gruppo Nazionale per
on gravity- and seismic-load designed RC frames la Difesa dai Terremoti, Roma, Italy. (in Italian)
with and without masonry infill were shown. Tests Biskinis D.E., Fardis M.N., 2010. Flexure-controlled ultimate
deformations of members with continuous or lap-spliced
were carried out on scale 1:2 specimens, designed 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