Journal of Earthquake Engineering

ISSN: 1363-2469 (Print) 1559-808X (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/ueqe20

Effect of Infills on Seismic Performance of

Reinforced Concrete Frame structures—A Full-
Scale Experimental Study

Gaochuang Cai & Qiwang Su

To cite this article: Gaochuang Cai & Qiwang Su (2017): Effect of Infills on Seismic Performance
of Reinforced Concrete Frame structures—A Full-Scale Experimental Study, Journal of Earthquake
Engineering, DOI: 10.1080/13632469.2017.1387194

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/13632469.2017.1387194

Published online: 27 Nov 2017.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 96

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=ueqe20
JOURNAL OF EARTHQUAKE ENGINEERING
https://doi.org/10.1080/13632469.2017.1387194

Effect of Infills on Seismic Performance of Reinforced Concrete

Frame structures—A Full-Scale Experimental Study
Gaochuang Caia,b and Qiwang Suc
a
School of Natural and Built Environment, Queen’s University Belfast, Belfast, UK; bUniversité de Lyon, Ecole
Nationale d’Ingénieurs de Saint-Etienne (ENISE), Laboratoire de Tribologie et de Dynamique des Systèmes
(LTDS), Saint-Etienne Cedex 2, France; cSchool of Civil Engineering, Southwest Jiaotong University, Chengdu,
China

ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

The wall collapse-initiated disaster in infilled reinforced concrete (RC) Received 29 Nov 2016
frame structures has been increasingly concerned by research com- Revised 12 Jul 2017
munity recently. This paper studies the seismic performances of a Accepted 05 Aug 2017
bare RC frame and three RC frames infilled by different lightweight KEYWORDS
materials in full scale under cyclic loads, including hollow bricks, Lightweight Infills; Wall
gypsum blocks, and autoclaved lightweight concrete panels. The Collapse; Seismic
main studied performances include lateral resistance capacity, stiff- Assessment; Skeleton Curve;
ness, wall damage, ductility, and energy dissipation capacity of the Failure Mode
frames. Based on the experimental results and literature research, this
paper discusses ideal infill materials for RC frame structures and
skeleton curve of the frames.

1. Introduction
Masonry infills are commonly used in RC frame structures for certain building functions
such as protection and separation that have a significant influence on seismic behavior of
frame structures. In theory, masonry infills provide a diagonal strut action to help the
frame to resist the lateral deformation and axial loads at early stage, and most of the action
usually disappear at large deformation for their diagonal cracks and damages, shown in
Fig. 1(a). However, due to discreteness of masonry units and weak bond between the units
or the units and connection steel, the over-damage of wall such as collapse leads to further
serious disaster to the users and possession of the structures at the stage of large lateral
deformation (see Fig. 1(b)). Though the type or size of infills is one of the key parameters
that are difficult to be quantified and generalized during design of infilled frame, the study
on the collapse resistance behavior of infills in RC frame is significant. It is also dangerous
to high-rise buildings because large collapse damage of infilled wall may change dynamical
response characteristics of the structures. The typical units of infills include masonry solid
bricks (MSBs) such as clay brick or concrete block, masonry hollow bricks (MHBs), and
others such as lightweight building materials [Costa et al., 2008; Lignos, 2008] or RC slabs/
wall, based on the reports from CEB [1996] and other studies [e.g. Kakaletsis and
Karayannis, 2008; Su et al. 2016].

CONTACT Qiwang Su sucai_2016@126.com Southwest Jiaotong University, School of Civil Engineering, Chengdu,
610031 China.
Color versions of one or more of the figures in the article can be found online at www.tandfonline.com/UEQE.
© 2017 Taylor & Francis Group, LLC
2 G. CAI AND Q. SU

(a) Strut action of infills at early stage (b) Damage of infills in the 2008 (c) Ideal damage of MSB-
Sichuan earthquake infilled frame

1 1
Behavior of infilled frame

Lateral force Lateral force

2

2 Wall damage ratio Frame-1

Frame-2
1 Ideal frame
Infills stop working
2
Stiffness: K1>>K2 Drift ratio
Wall damage Energy dissipation
(d) Deformation, lateral resistance and energy dissipation of infilled frames

Figure 1. The strut action and damage of infill in rc frame structures.

Since 1980, a number of researchers have performed the studies on structural design
and strengthening method of RC frames infilled by masonry wall, which is attributed to
the fact that the frame structures have caused high-risk disasters to the people during
earthquake [e.g. Mehrabi et al., 1996; Yanez et al. 2004; Kakaletsis and Karayannis, 2007;
Kakaletsis and Karayannis, 2008; 2009; Kakaletsis, 2009; Cheng, 2010; Mansouri et al.,
2014]. Their results indicated that masonry infills have a significant influence on the
seismic performance of infilled RC frames, especially in terms of failure mechanism and
energy dissipation. This is usually attributed to the additional diagonal bracing action of
infills to RC frame at early stage [Kakaletsis and Karayannis, 2007; Kakaletsis and
Karayannis, 2008]. According to the results [e.g., Mehrabi et al., 1996; Shing and
Mehrabi, 2002; Dafnis et al., 2002; Guo et al., 2008; Haldar et al., 2013], the seismic
behavior and failure mechanisms of infilled RC frames were explained clearly. Figure 1(c)
shows an ideal damage of infills in a MSB-infilled frame structure at ultimate status.
Sucuoğlu and Siddiqui [2014] considered that infills in contact with the frame may impose
unexpected demands on the boundary members, particularly frame columns. This effect
degree of infills is related to their self-properties and should be considered in design.
On the other hand, in China, among previous test studies, most of tested RC frames
were infilled by strong masonry wall consisting of MSBs such as clay MSBs. However,
Ye et al. [2008] reported that a great number of infilled RC frames using MSBs have
severely damaged or totally collapsed during the 2008 Great Sichuan earthquake (8.0Ms,
China) most of which had presented an obvious strong-beam-weak-column failure
feature. Figure 1(b) shows an actual damage situation of an infilled masonry wall in a
typical RC frame that was reported in depth in the field earthquake survey performed
by Ye et al. [2008]. These damages attracted many concerns from research community
 JOURNAL OF EARTHQUAKE ENGINEERING 3

for that they usually bring numerous insecure issues and request high expenditure for
their repairing or demolition post earthquake. Besides, in order to avoid the occurrence
of strong-beam-weak-column failure in infilled RC frames subjected to earthquake
loads, Chinese seismic design code [GB50011-2010 2010] reconsidered the design
requirement of infilled RC frames by introducing a moment amplification factor for
the distribution of calculation bending moment in joint region. The design moment of
columns is calculated firstly per the stiffness ratio of beam to column in the joint and
then is increased by multiplying the amplification factor ranging from 1.4 to 1.7. On the
other hand, the secondary disasters caused by dropped masonry units in RC frames
have attracted many concerns and also should be effectively controlled. This draws a
reconsideration for the ideal infill units in RC frame structures in research community.
The contribution of large stiffness infill materials such as MSBs to the capacity and
energy dissipation of infilled frame is important to small or moderate earthquake as
shown in Fig. 1(d), however, the wall damage and collapse of the frame is also large.
This kind of damages in the infilled frames is more important to the users and
procession of the structure under a moderate intensity earthquake rather than under
severe intensity ones [Tasligedik et al., 2011; Hak et al., 2012; Sucuoğlu, 2013; Sucuoğlu
and Siddiqui, 2014]. Meanwhile, the presence of infill walls significantly influences the
behavior of RC buildings such as added infills will certainly reduce the natural vibration
period of frame [Perrone et al., 2016] and have also affected negatively its boundary
members such as frame columns. In theory, an ideal infilled frame should provide large
lateral deformation resistance and absorb more earthquake energy but also control the
damage level of infills and its disadvantage to main frame members, as shown in Fig. 1
(d). Studies shown that the frames with lightweight brick well-connected with frame
beams/columns are more beneficial to wall collapse control and energy dissipation [Su
and Cai et al., 2016]. These well-connected masonry units can stop lateral resistance via
limited and appropriate-shaped damages but still connected by reinforcements to
prevent total collapse of wall. These implied that a new construction trend for
masonry-infilled frame structures that MSBs might be replaced gradually by some
lightweight materials such as hollow blocks or slabs that will be considered as more
reasonable infills for RC frame structures because of their self-advantages such as low
weight and good heat insulation properties and appropriate loss strut action at mod-
erated or large deformation. Sucuoğlu and Siddiqui [2014] tested two RC frames infilled
by Autoclaved Aerated Concrete (AAC) masonry blocks through pseudo-dynamic test
and indicated that the AAC block wall did not modify the deformation response of the
RC frames significantly. However, shear transferred from infills must be considered in
boundary column design, which even the shear is much less compared to clay brick
infills. Therefore, to make an ideal frame presented as Fig. 1(c), the used infills should
keep their positive influence on lateral resistance at the early stage and control the
negative effect of infills to frame and prevent large wall collapse during the later stage of
an earthquake. However, lightweight materials also have their disadvantages that need
to be concerned. For example, gypsum blocks are light-weight good-fire resistance
material and have good machineable and decorative property, but they also have
high-brittle properties. Autoclaved lightweight concrete (ALC) blocks or slabs have
good strength and fire resistance; however, the materials usually have high water-
absorbing property and volumetric shrinkage.
4 G. CAI AND Q. SU

On the other hand, existing limit experimental investigations have majorly focused on
RC frames using MSBs or the studied frames infilled by lightweight materials such as
plaster block or gypsum block and ALC slabs usually applied steel frames [Gad et al., 1999;
Jiang et al., 2004; Tasnimi and Mohebkhah, 2011] or circular filled tube frame [Wang
et al., 2014]. Li and Xing [1990] indicated that the frames infilled by gypsum blocks and
using lightweight steel braces presented a good-coordinated deformation behavior and
wall collapse resistance. Jiang et al. [2004] also illustrated that although the main damage
of infill units is still shear and compressive damage, the closely spaced concrete frames
infilled by gypsum blocks presented a good seismic performance. Besides, Wang et al.
[2014] reported that concrete-infilled steel tubular frames infilled by ALC panels improved
seismic behavior and structural ductility of frame structures. In many countries of the
world, however, RC frame is still main structural type for multi-story buildings. As a
result, the studies focusing on effects of the strength and other properties of lightweight
masonry infill units on the seismic behavior of infilled RC frames are imperative and
significative. In addition, to simulate the seismic behavior of RC frames infilled by
masonry wall, mainly including their strength, capacity skeleton curve and hysteretic
behavior, some calculation models and numerical analysis models have been developed
[Panagiotakos and Fardis, 1994; Decanini et al., 2004; Sassun et al., 2016]. A comprehen-
sive review on the numerical models was reported by Crisafulli et al. [2000]. Decanini
et al. [2004] indicated that the failure mechanism of infill in frame affects significantly the
peak strength of skeleton curve, which was mainly divided into four types: (a) compres-
sion at the center of the panel, (b) compression of corners, (c) sliding shear failure and (d)
diagonal tension. However, as the summary reported by Sassun et al. [2016], these models
had just been discussed through the frames (almost non-full scale) using limited kinds of
masonry units that include only hollow (hole ratio approx. 50%) or solid clay brick/
concrete block.
Up until now, moreover, just limited experimental studies focused on seismic
behavior of RC frames infilled by lightweight materials [Yáñez et al., 2004; Kakaletsis
and Karayannis, 2007; Kakaletsis and Karayannis, 2008; 2009; Penna et al., 2008;
Cheng, 2010; Siddiqui et al., 2015; Mansouri et al., 2014; Sucuoğlu and Siddiqui,
2014; Perrone et al., 2016], in particular lacks of investigations of large-scale RC
frame [Su and Cai et al., 2016]. Due to the stiffness ratio of masonry infills to RC
frame reduces generally with dimension of test frame specimen, the reproducibility of
laboratorial results of small-scale infilled RC frames is affected and doubted in prac-
tical structures. Therefore, in order to understand clearly the effect of lightweight
infills on the seismic behavior of RC frames, this paper studies three full-scale infilled
RC frames and a reference bare frame. In summary, the main objectives of this study
are concluded as follows,

(1) To investigate comprehensively the seismic behavior and failure mechanisms of

full-scale RC frames infilled by lightweight infills;
(2) To discuss the effects of the infills on seismic behaviors of the RC frames under
seismic loads, in particular in terms of lateral resistance capacity and wall collapse;
(3) To comprehensively provide application recommendation of typical lightweight
masonry units in RC frames located at seismic zones;
 JOURNAL OF EARTHQUAKE ENGINEERING 5

2. Experimental programs
A number of studies [e.g. Mehrabi et al., 1996; Shing and Mehrabi, 2002; Dafnis et al.,
2002; Guo et al., 2008; Haldar et al., 2013] have been performed and explained the
effect of MSBs on the seismic behavior of infilled RC frames and discussed the strength,
deformation, and failure mechanism of the frames. However, the current study aims to
research the seismic behavior of RC frames infilled by some commercially available
lightweight infills and to concern the collapse damage of the infills in frame caused by
seismic action. As a reference specimen, a full-scale bare RC frame was used which has
same concretes and reinforcement arrangements as the ones in infilled frames. The
comparative analyses between the infilled RC frames using these lightweight material
and MSBs will be provided by analyzing existing research database and the present
study.

2.1. Test specimens

Four full-scale bare/infilled RC frames were tested in the present study under a combined
constant axial load and reversed cyclic loading. The dimensions of all specimens were
designed according to Chinese current seismic design code [GB50011-2010, 2010]. Each of
these specimens had a same RC beam and two-column system with a story height of 3.45
meter (m) and a width of 4.0 meter (m). The design stiffness ratio (per length) of column
to beam of the frames is 0.94. The dimensions and reinforcement details of the frames are
illustrated in Fig. 2 and summarized in Table 1, respectively. Frame-B/MHB/PB/ALC
specimen represents bare RC frame and the frames infilled by MHBs, Gypsum/plaster
blocks and ALC panels, respectively.
The geometric dimensions and arrangement of reinforcements of RC frame beams and
columns are identical in all specimens. The cross-section of RC frame columns is 400
millimeter (mm) ×400mm, while the one of the RC beam (T-section) is 200mm×450mm,
as shown in Fig. 2(b). Six 16mm-diameter and four 16mm-diameter steel rebars were
applied in the frame columns and beams as longitudinal reinforcements, respectively.
Deformed rebars with a diameter of 8 mm were used in RC frame columns and beams as
transverse reinforcements. They were arranged with a spacing of 200 mm and 100 mm in
middle no-plastic and plastic hinge (500 mm from both ends) regions of the columns and
beams, respectively. The frames infilled by MHBs and gypsum blocks used an ordinary
Portland cement mortar with a same strength and thickness (7–10 mm). The aspect ratios
of infilled walls of all specimens are 1.16 meaning the lengths of the walls are 1.16 times
their height. In addition, a larger cross-section and stronger base RC beam was designed at
the bottom of infilled walls with a dimension of 500mm×600mm, as shown in Fig. 2 (a)
and (b). In the frame infilled by MHBs, five connection-rebars (length = 700mm, dia-
meter = 8mm, spacing = 500mm) were placed between MHBs and each frame column.
For specimen Frame ALC, the connection steels were set between ends of slab with frame
beams. To simulate more actual structural conditions, a 1000mm width RC slab with a
thickness of 100mm was constructed above the upper RC frame beam in each of the
specimen. Minimum volume carrying and constructional reinforcements per Chinese
construction guidance [GB 50010-2010, 2010] were arranged in RC slabs, as the section
B-B shown in Fig. 2.
6 G. CAI AND Q. SU

units: mm

units: mm
(a) Frame-B (b) Details of sections

(c) Frame-MHB (d) Frame-PB (e) Frame-ALC

Figure 2. Dimension details and reinforcement arrangement of test specimens.

Table 1. Details of test specimens.

Frame column Wall units
Sectional Sectional Type of
Specimens fc’ (MPa) height (m) length (m) the infills Height (m) Length (m) Width (m)
Frame-B 33.5 0.4 0.4 No – – –
Frame-MHB 0.4 0.4 Hollow bricks 0.2 0.24 0.11
Frame-PB 0.4 0.4 Gypsum block 0.5 0.7 0.2
Frame-ALC 0.4 0.4 ALC panel 3.0 0.6 0.1

2.2. Material properties

Table 2 shows the main physical and mechanical properties of all used materials that were
measured according to relevant Chinese test standards, for example, GB/T 50081-2002
[2002] and GB/T 50129-2009 [2009]. Figure 3 shows the detailed geometric dimension of
used masonry units in the infilled frames. Besides, same strength ordinary Portland cement
mortars were used to connect the infill units in all infilled frames that have an average
compressive strength of 5.62MPa and tensile strength of 0.45MPa. The fiber-reinforced
gypsum/plaster block (PB) and ALC panel used in the study both meet current building
industry standards: the JC/T698-2010 [2010] and the GB15762-2008 [2008] respectively.
 JOURNAL OF EARTHQUAKE ENGINEERING 7

Table 2. Main properties of materials applied in the study.

Types Main properties Units Measurement C.O.V
Concrete Compressive strength MPa 33.5 4.5
elasticity modulus MPa 30000 –
Mortar Compressive strength MPa 5.62 1.25
Tensile strength MPa 0.45 –
Thickness mm 7.0–10.0 –
MHB Length/width/height mm 240/200/110 –
Compressive strength (L to holes, in plane) MPa 4.2 0.97
Compressive strength (L to holes, out plane) MPa 3.5 0.77
Void ratio % 47.85 –
Average weight per unit N 49.6 –
Steel reinforcement Longitudinal, in columns or beam
Diameter mm 16 –
Yielding strength MPa 420 –
Transverse, in columns or beam
Diameter mm 8 –
Yielding strength MPa 480 –
Gypsum block Volume density kg/m3 555–563 –
Compressive strength (L to holes, in plane) MPa 2 0.32
Compressive strength (L to holes, out plane) MPa 1.5 0.23
Elasticity modulus MPa 6500 –
Minimum thickness of between holes mm 19.3–21.5 –
Smoothness mm 0.1–0.2 –
Aerated Light-weight Concrete panel (ALC) Volume density kg/m3 950–960 –
Compressive strength MPa 5 0.9
elasticity modulus MPa 17500 –
Smoothness mm 1 –

(a) MHB (b) PB (c) ALC (d) Details of block

Figure 3. Details of applied masonry units.

2.3. Test setup and instrumentations

The details of test setup, loading system, and instrumentations applied in the study are
illustrated in Fig. 4. The bottom RC frame base beam of each of frame specimens was
firstly anchored on a strong RC floor through some high strength steel bolts, and two
linear variable differential transducers (LVDTs) are used to monitor the possible slipping
of the beam during the test. All specimens were tested under a combined lateral cyclic and
constant axial loading, as shown in Fig. 4. A reverse lateral cyclic load was applied at the
upper RC frame beam of each of specimens using a hydraulic jack with a maximum
capacity of 2500kN and was controlled and monitored by a load cell, as shown in Fig. 4.
Two constant axial loads were applied on the top of two columns by two hydraulic jacks
with a maximum capacity of 1000kN, as shown in Fig. 4. The applied axial load in each
column was designed as 570kN, about 11% of the nominal axial load capacity of the frame
8 G. CAI AND Q. SU

Strong steel
Reaction wall
columns

6
5.0
3.5
Axial actuator 4
2.

Top drift ratio R (%)

2 1.5
0.75
0.25
0
Lateral actuator 0.5
Axial actuator 1.0
-2
2.0
3.0
-4
4.0
Load protocol
-6

Figure 4. Set-up and load protocol.

columns (i.e., f’c Ag, where, fc’ is concrete compressive strength and Ag is gross cross
section area). The two axial loads were also monitored via two independent cells to keep
them constant as the designed one. During the testing, the lateral load and displacement of
RC frames were monitored by using several load cells and some LVDTs, while the strain
situation of longitudinal steel was recorded via several stain gauges in each frame column.

2.4. Loading and test procedure

To utilize results obtained from quasi-static cyclic loading tests on structural frames for a
general performance evaluation, it is necessary to establish reasonable loading history that
is able to capture the critical issues of capacity and seismic demands. Every excursion in
inelastic range causes usually a cumulative damage in RC structural elements.
Furthermore, the emphasis is focused on the large inelastic excursions since they cause
generally large damage and can lead fast to ultimate limit states during loading program.
Therefore, similar to Chinese seismic test method [JGJ/T 101-2015, 2015] and as shown in
Fig. 4, a multiple reversed cyclic lateral loading was performed after a constant axial load
(0.11f’cAg) was applied at two frame columns. For obtaining the first shear cracking of the
frames, the controlling of lateral reverse loading at initial stage was designed as a force-
controlled type until the first target drift ratio of 0.25% was reached. On the other hand,
the number of the inelastic excursions increases with a decrease in the period of structural
system, the rate of increase being very high for short period systems. Thus, in order to
draw conclusions for the ultimate limit state, after the drift ratio of frame exceeds 0.25%, a
displacement-controlled loading program with three full loading cycles at each level with
constantly increasing displacement per step has been chosen as shown in Fig. 4. The
designed target drift levels are drift ratios of ±0.5%, ±0.75%, ±1%, ±1.5%, ±2%, ±2.5%,
±3%, and ±3.5%. Meanwhile, the primary test observations were recorded carefully during
test including the crack development and collapse of masonry walls, the cracking and
 JOURNAL OF EARTHQUAKE ENGINEERING 9

damage of RC beams/columns, the yielding of reinforcement, hysteretic and post-peak

behavior of frame. In the study, all tests are to end if one of the following situations
occurs: (1) the drift ratio of frame reaches 4% for the safety; (2) the infilled frame no
longer resists axial load any more.

3. Experimental results and observations

3.1. Test observations and hysterestic behavior
Lateral load–displacement hysteretic curves of each of tested specimens are shown in Fig. 5,
which are very important terms to assess seismic behavior of the structures. Results show
that MHB infills have a significant influence on the seismic performance of infilled RC
frames at early stage. There is an obvious increase in the lateral resistance capacity and
stiffness of the frame at early stage. It should be noted that even though the positive
improvement is temporary, it is also very helpful for RC frame structure to resist a moderate
earthquake (before ultimate drift ratio of 1%). The positive effect of MHB also was reflected
in the increase in the lateral stiffness and energy dissipation of the RC frame. When the
diagonal strut action of the infill disappeared or weakened largely, however, the positive
effect of infills decreases sharply with lateral displacement. It is attributed to the fact that the
infill improved effectively the lateral resistance capacity of RC frame through a diagonal
strut action of infilled walls until emergence of obvious diagonal connected cracks. After the
drift ratio of 1.5, the seismic behavior of the frame decreases but is similar to the one of the

600 600
(0.38, 522.2)
Frame-B
400 400 Frame-MHB
(1.73,
Lateral froce (kN)

179.82)
Lateral froce (kN)

200 200

0 0

-200 -200
(-1.63, -
-400 219.58) -400 (-0.23, -
591.3)

-600 -600
-5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5
Drift ratio (%) Drift ratio (%)
600 600

Frame-PB 400 Frame-ALC

400
(0.47, 237)
Lateral froce (kN)

(2.88, 214)
Lateral froce (kN)

200 200

0 0

-200 -200
(-0.71, -271) (-2.89, -230)
-400 -400

-600 -600
-5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5
Drift ratio (%) Drift ratio (%)

Figure 5. Hysteretic behavior of the tested frames.

10 G. CAI AND Q. SU

bare frame. On the other hand, comparing with MHB, PB in the RC frame has relative weak
diagonal strut action, and low ultimate strength and self-stiffness. However, the fill still
improved the lateral resistance capacity of the RC frame before drift ratio of 1.5–2.0%
comparing with the bare frame. Besides, the frame infilled by ALC panels presents a similar
hysteretic behavior but has a more stable lateral resistance capacity development comparing
with bare frame. The lateral displacement at ultimate state was improved and higher than
others reported in this study. It should be noted that if the infilled RC frame using MHBs is
designed according to the maximum lateral resistance before main diagonal cracking of
infill, the failure of the frame could be very brittle and dangerous during a moderate
earthquake. Therefore, the drift ratio of 1%–1.5% can be considered as a critical lateral
deformation level of the RC frames fully infilled by MHBs or PBs.

3.2. Damage development of infilled frames

The cracking development of infilled and RC frame was recorded carefully during testing
and is shown in Fig. 6, in terms of the damage status of specimens at some representative

Drift ratio 0.25% Drift ratio 1.0% Drift ratio 3.0% Drift ratio 3.50%

Frame-MHB Drift ratio=0.75% Frame-MHB Drift ratio=1.5% Frame-MHB Drift ratio=2.0% Frame-MHB Drift ratio=3.0%

Frame-PB Drift ratio=0.75% Frame-PB Drift ratio=1.5% Frame-PB Drift ratio=2.0% Frame-PB Drift ratio=3.0%

Frame-ALC Drift ratio=0.75% Frame-ALC Drift ratio=1.5% Frame-ALC Drift ratio=2.0%

Drift ratio=2.0%,Collapse ratio=0.5% Frame-ALC
Drift Drift ratio=3.0%
ratio=3.0%,Collapse ratio=2.67%

Frame-B, Drift ratio=4% Frame-MHB, Drift ratio=4% Frame-PB, Drift ratio=4% Frame-ALC, Drift ratio=4%

Figure 6. Crack and damage development of the tested frames (rest four will be added tomorrow).
 JOURNAL OF EARTHQUAKE ENGINEERING 11

target drift ratio. The nonlinear behavior of the fully infilled frame was initiated after the
cracking of the infilled wall, which is same as the results reported by Kakaletsis and
Karayannis [2009]. Generally, these cracks were observed in diagonal strut zone in the
frame uses brick or block-type units. The following sections introduce each specimen,
summarily and respectively. These describe the average values of drift ratio, lateral force,
and others all that are obtained from both loading directions.

(1) Specimen frame-b (bare frame)

As shown in Fig. 6, at drift ratio of 0.25%, the first flexural crack was confirmed at the
bottom of RC frame beam and presented an extensional trend to the upper RC slab. The
cracks of the beam developed further, and several new cracks were found at the bottom
plastic hinge zones of two frame columns at drift ratio of 0.5%. With the increase of drift
ratio, several cracks were observed at the upper plastic hinge zones of frame columns, and
the flexural cracks of the upper frame beam extended further, widened, and developed
into flexural-shear cracks simultaneously. In addition, quite a few horizontal cracks were
confirmed at the bottom zones of two beam-column joints, and concrete crushing was
found at the plastic hinge zones of the frame beam. When drift ratio of frame reached
1.25%, severe buckling of longitudinal rebar in the columns initially was observed and the
concretes located at the ends of columns crushed as well. These damages and cracks
developed further to the hinge zones of the frame columns. After drift ratio of 3.0%, the
cover concrete at the bottom of upper RC beam started to spall which makes some
reinforcing rebars expose, and the longitudinal reinforcements in the beam and columns
both fractured during this lateral deformation.

(2) Specimen frame-MHB

The first shear crack of the RC frame columns in this specimen was observed at drift ratio
of 0.048%. With the increase of lateral deformation, the diagonal cracks and wall damages
developed further, and several new cracks were confirmed at the corner zones of the infill,
frame beam, and base beam. At drift ratio of 2.0%, the obvious strut action of the infill
almost disappeared after some serious diagonal damages such as large-area wall collapse
and connected cracks between the mortars. With the lateral deformation development, the
above damage continued increasing and extended outside the main diagonal zones such as
at the bottom of the frame beam, which led to the wall collapse increasing sharply. From
drift ratio of 2.0%, besides, the cracking of the frame beam also increased and extended to
the joint zone of the frame, and the flexural and shear cracks of frame columns were
developed into serious status such as spalling of concrete cover.

(3) Specimen frame-PB

Because PB is more brittle, at drift ratio of 0.18%, the initial cracks were confirmed at the
frame beam bottom and developed quickly at upper corner zone. When drift ratio reaches
0.25%, a few shear cracks occurred at the middle region of wall. The cracks at four corner
zones fast developed into vertical cracks until the bottom of infill wall with a same
direction as the frame columns’ since drift ratio of 0.5%. Subsequently, some collapse
12 G. CAI AND Q. SU

damages of wall were observed at or near four corner zones, in particular at the confluence
zone of vertical and horizontal cracks. At the same time, some horizontal flexural cracks
were confirmed at the frame columns and the vertical crack/collapse in wall developed
further into larger damage to form a cut-through crushed zones with the increase of drift
ratio (since 1.25%). Then, the damages continued increasing, and the horizontal cracks at
the upper end of wall developed into a connected crack for lateral moving at drift ratio of
2.5%. As there is not obvious extending for the wall collapse, the lateral deformation was
resisted by the frame columns that lead to the more spalling of concrete cover at the
bottom end of columns and some of their reinforcements arrived yielding status at drift
ratio of 1.25%. The fracture of longitudinal reinforcing in the two frame columns was
confirmed at drift ratio of 3.0%, after which a serious deformation and damage was
confirmed at this frame.

(4) Specimen frame-ALC

Before drift ratio of 0.25%, the damage of the frame concentred in the cracks and low-
degree moving between the ALC panels, and between frame beam and the upper of
infilled wall. At drift ratio of 0.5%, a few cracks occurred at the bottom of frame beam
and the both ends of frame columns and extended into a crushing status at drift ratio of
1.0%. At this time, some concretes at the ends of ALC panels were crushed into spalling.
Subsequently, some more obvious moving actions were confirmed between ALC panels
accompanying with the development of above cracks, and lateral deformation was resisted
mainly by frame because of the moving between ALC panels. When drift ratio reached
1.75%, the concrete spalling zones of at the ends of ALC panels extended further and
connected into some continuous zones under the bottom of the frame beam. At drift ratio
of 2.0%, the mortar between ALC panels started to be crushed more for the larger moving
of the panels. Since drift ratio of 2.5%, the seismic effects and damages to the frame mainly
were reflected in terms of cracking and spalling of concrete cover in frame columns and
beams and at the end of ALC panels. At the end of testing, drift ratio of 3.0%, the frame
joints presented a serious diagonal cracking damage meaning lateral deformation of the
frame was resisted mainly through the plastic deformation of RC frame.

3.3 Envelop curve of displacement-force

Figure 7 shows envelop curve of each specimen that was obtained from the first hysteretic
loop at each load level. The result shows that the initial stiffness of the specimen using
MHB is significantly higher than the ones of other infilled frames, which is explained by
the fact that the brittle damage of gypsum block at early stage and the slip or moving
action between ALC panels reduce these infills’ diagonal action. Due to the collapse zone
of PB wall is the vertical zone closed to each frame column instead of the diagonal zone of
wall, the effect of infill on lateral resistance capacity of RC frame is longer than the MHB
infilled frames. The frame using gypsum blocks provides a similar lateral resistance force
to the one of the bare frame for the large collapse damage of the infilled wall, but is lower
than the one of the specimen Frame-ALC. Therefore, although the slip moving action
between ALC panels makes the specimen Frame-ALC present a low initial stiffness and
lateral resistance capacity comparing with the ones of frames using MHBs and PBs, it can
 JOURNAL OF EARTHQUAKE ENGINEERING 13

600
Frame-ALC
400 Frame-PB
Fame-MHB

Lateral froce (kN)

Frame-B
200

-200

-400

-600
-4.0 -3.0 -2.0 -1.0 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0
Drift ratio (%)

Figure 7. Envelop curves of the tested frames.

resist effectively wall collapse damage that guarantees the frame provide a stable post-peak
behavior. The force-deformation relations of all infilled frames are close to the one of bare
frame from drift ratio of 1.5–1.75%, which means the infills stop resisting lateral deforma-
tion from this drift ratio and absorb earthquake energy through more damages or large
slip moving between infills.

3.4 Collapse of infilled masonry wall

During an earthquake, large-area collapse damage of infilled wall in RC frame structures is
a very serious secondary disaster to the users and their property of buildings. This type of
damages usually is caused by these infills’s low strengths and bad deformation capacities
when the lateral displacement of RC frame is large. Figure 6 shows the damage develop-
ment of all tested frames as drift ratio. In this figure, the deep color area represents the
crushed area in push/pull directions. As reported by Su et al. [2016], in order to evaluate
the damage development quantitatively, a wall collapse ratio γ was proposed and given as,
Acp
γ¼  100% (1)
Ap
Acp is the collapsed and crushed area of infilled wall as the shadow areas shown in Fig. 6. It
was obtained by calculating the experimental photograph areas of crushed and collapsed
bricks or panels; Ap is the total inside area of infilled wall. As plotted in Fig. 8, the wall
collapse of the frame infilled by MHBs and gypsum blocks significantly increase as lateral
displacement before drift ratio of 2.0% was reached. During this stage, the damage of the
infilled wall developed sharply at main diagonal strut region or corner zones of the walls.
A similar development was found in the frame using MHB with 25.7% of opening ratio
[Su and Cai et al., 2016].
For brittle infills such as MHB and PB blocks, in theory, the higher strength of infill will
accelerate their damage at later stage of deformation. The result of cracking development
indicates the damage of specimen Frame-PB concentred on the four corners of the wall,
while the damage of the Frame-ALC focuses on mortar layer and compressive crush
14 G. CAI AND Q. SU

Figure 8. Development of wall collapse ratio of infilled frame with story drift ratio.

damage of ALC panels. Due to the compressive strength of gypsum block is small, the
high compression in the corner zones of Frame-PB caused by lateral deformation of the
beam and column leads to more corner crack and collapse in the wall. Figure 8 also proves
that the damage development of the specimen Frame-ALC is more stable and lower
significantly than the others. Before the end of testing, the collapse ratio of the Frame-
ALC was controlled effectively fewer than 2.5% the total area of wall, which just is 1/10 of
the one in Frame-PB. For MHB has higher strength and stiffness, the collapse damage of
specimen Frame-MHB focused on the diagonal strut zones and the bottom zone of frame
beam, which leads to the highest and fastest wall collapse ratio. This can be explained by
the fact that the compressive behavior of bricks at corner zone of wall is transferred at
diagonal direction as a result of high compressive strength of MHB and bond condition
from mortar at early stage.

3.5 Ductility, stiffness, and energy dissipation

Ductility, stiffness, and energy dissipation capacity are three important factors to evaluate
the seismic behavior of RC structural members. Ductility is defined as deformation ability
of members without rapid/obvious decrease in resistance strength of RC members.
Stiffness is one of important indices to evaluate the capacity of RC members to resist
deformation and to effectively perform the global elastic analysis of RC elements. Energy
dissipation capacity of RC elements reflects their ability to covert/absorb earthquake
energy caused by underground vibration, which can be realized usually through sacrificing
the inelastic damage of structural members or applying damping devices. Referring to
Figure 9, the detailed definitions and descriptions of the above indices can be concluded as
below.

(1) Initial stiffness

The initial stiffnesses discussed in the present study include initial elastic deformation
stiffness Kint and nominal initial stiffness Ky, both of which are related to the two forces
to the ensuing structural deformations [Paulay and Priestley, 1992]. In this paper, the
 JOURNAL OF EARTHQUAKE ENGINEERING 15

Kint

Lateral force
Ky (
Vmax u , 0.85Vmax) Ki
Vi,max
B
Vy

The dissipated energy at ith cycle:

Ei=Area of Zone ABDF
A
th
i cycle F y’
y
O C Displacement
E max u i,max

Rres,i
y’=(4/3) y

Note: All parameters are mean values

D calculated from both directions

Figure 9. Definition of equivalent viscous damping coefficient.

stiffnesses Kint and Ky are taken as the force/displacement ratios when the lateral
displacement of frame are 0.33 times measured yielding displacement (Δy) and 1.0
Δy, respectively.

(2) Ductility indices

According to previous studies, there are many methods to define the ductility of RC
members, for instance, geometric graphic method, and equivalent elastoplastic energy
method such as 0.75–0.85 ultimate lateral force (Vmax) method. In the present study,
taking the yielding displacement Δy of frame as the measured displacement correspond-
ing to 0.75Vmax and using maximum lateral displacement (Δmax) and ultimate displace-
ment (Δu) corresponding to 85%Vmax [Paulay and Priestley, 1992; Pam et al., 2001;
Memon and Sheikh, 2005; Osorio et al., 2014], the ductility of the infilled frame is
calculated as:
Δmax Δu
μmax ¼ ; μu ¼
Δy 0 Δy0

(3) Inter-story drift ratio

The ultimate inter-story drift ratio δu is one of the important parameters to measure the
maximum displacement at failure, Δu, in relation to element’s height, l. It can be used to
control the extent of (non-)structural damage in a building and is calculated as follows,
Δu
δu ¼ ð%Þ (3)
l
16 G. CAI AND Q. SU

(4) Total dissipated energy

When RC members are subjected to cyclic flexural loading, the dissipated energy (Ei)
during ith cycle is computed as its encapsulated area as shown in Fig. 9. The
total dissipated energy (ET) adopted by this paper is defined as the sum of all
dissipated energies until the lateral force of specimen reduces to 80%Vmax or when
the longitudinal reinforcement of column starts to rupture which is obtained experi-
mental observations through monitoring the strain of the reinforcement, which is
given by,

X
n
ET ¼ Ei (4)
i¼1

Table 3 gives the results of all above mentioned indices of the four tested frame specimens.
The main conclusions can be drawn as follows,

(a) The addition of infilled lightweight materials has a significant influence on the
initial stiffness and ultimate strength of RC frames. The enhancement amplitude of
initial stiffness increases with the self-strength of the infills. The specimen Frame-
ALC presents similar effect on the strength and initial stiffness comparing with the
bare frame; however, the effect is smaller. A similar observation was confirmed in
the terms of the yielding stiffness of the frames.
(b) Using MHB and PB in the infilled masonry wall, RC frame can obtain higher lateral
resistance force at early stage, in particular high strength brick MHBs. Besides,
though the ALC panels increase the initial stiffness of RC frame, the lateral
resistance capacity of this frame is still close to the bare frame that is attributed
to the slipping between ALC panels.
(c) According to this study, PB blocks and ALC panels both can make the RC frame
obtain a good ductility, especially ALC panels that can freely move to absorb the
earthquake energy at the large deformation.
(d) Though MHB wall has a positive influence on the lateral resistance of the RC
frame just before a drift ratio of 1.0%, this enhancement effective is still very
helpful for the frame structures located at low intensities earthquake zone with a
low or moderate degree of ground vibration. But at design stage, the maximum
lateral resistance of the frames using lightweight materials at drift ratio of 1.0–
1.5% is not recommended as a design ultimate strength of the structural
elements.

Table 3. Summary of the experimental results of the frames.

Spe Vmax Kint Ky Δy Δmax Δu μmax μu δu ET
cimens kN kN/mm kN/mm mm mm mm – – % kN.mm Mean heq*
Frame-B 199.70 12.21 8.37 17.89 55.63 121.26 2.33 3.60 3.76 333812 0.118
Frame-MHB 556.80 71.45 57.54 7.25 9.95 11.90 1.03 1.23 0.37 466244 0.170
Frame-PB 254.00 40.64 10.28 17.25 25.88 86.25 1.50 5.00 2.50 342551 0.139
Frame-ALC 222.00 17.80 8.93 17.25 86.25 >138 5.00 >8 4.00 286178 0.128
* up to drift ratio of 3.5%
 JOURNAL OF EARTHQUAKE ENGINEERING 17

(5) The development of energy dissipation capacity

To evaluate the energy dissipation capacity of all tested RC frames in detail, as shown in
Fig. 9, an equivalent viscous damping coefficient heq proposed by Jacobsen [1960] was
applied in this study and defined as,

1 Frctional work area 1 Ei

heq ¼ ¼ ðAreaBOCþAreaDOEÞ (5)
2π Work area under skeleton 2π
2

Figure 10 presents the development of equivalent viscous damping coefficients of all test
frames with lateral drift ratio, while Table 3 lists the mean value of the factor of the frame
before drift ratio of 3.5%. Results indicate that the use of infills has a significant influence
on the energy dissipation capacity of RC frames. Besides, comparing with bare frame, an
obvious increase in the factor heq is confirmed in the RC frame infilled by MHBs. This is
explained by the fact that these infills provided a strong diagonal strut action for RC
frame, especially at the initial stage, for example, before drift ratio of 1.5%. However, said
as previously, this short term diagonal strut action absorbed large earthquake energy
which expresses mainly in terms of large wall collapse damage. At the later stage of
loading, the increase of energy dissipation of Frame-MHB is from the accumulation of
damage of the frame at early stage comparing with the bare frame. On the other hand, the
type of infills also affects the energy dissipation behavior of RC frame. The reason why
Frame-ALC can absorb higher earthquake energy before drift ratio of 1.5% is mainly
caused by the resistance of lateral deformation of the infill before the large moving
between infill and frame/infill and. This also makes the frame present similar energy
dissipation behavior with frame using MHB and PBs, relevant strong infill unit. For the
frame using PBs, due to their fast brittle damage at early stage, its energy dissipated is
smaller than the one of Frame-MHB and decreases sharply at beginning as well.
Furthermore, the heq value of the infilled frames decreases sharply from drift ratio of
0.5% to 1.5%, which implies that most of collapse damages or damage caused by slipping
of the infilled walls occur in this stage. As described previously, the behavior of the frames
infilled by PB and ALC panels is very similar to the bare frame after drift ratio of 1.5%–
2.0%; therefore they present a stable energy dissipation capacity with lateral deformation
that is similar to the ones in bare frame.

Figure 10. Equivalent viscous damping coefficient vs. drift ratio.

18 G. CAI AND Q. SU

(6) Lateral residual deformation

The lateral residual deformation is defined as a plastic lateral displacement/drift ratio of RC
members when external loading action is removed such as after earthquake (see Fig. 9). Lateral
residual deformation represents the self-resilience capacity of RC members subjected to lateral
reverse loads and affects subsequent repair and strengthening of structures significantly. In
this study, residual drift ratio (Rres) was defined as a drift ratio when lateral force equals to zero
at certain hysteretic load-displacement loop (first loop for certain target drift ratio). All results
were taken as the mean values obtained from two directions, as shown in Fig. 9. As shown in
Fig. 11, the residual drift ratios of all tested frames increase stably with target drift ratio of
loading. Comparing with the bare frame and frame using ALCs, the other two infilled frames
present a higher residual deformation. Specimen Frame-ALC has a very similar residual
deformation development with lateral displacement, which is attributed to moving between
infill and frame, and between the infills as well. At large displacement such as from drift ratio
of 2.0%, the Frame-PB specimen shows a higher residual deformation. It is because the
masonry units have been crushed completely near to both sides since drift ratio 2.0% that
then makes the frame continue to be hindered by meddle masonry infills. For the Frame-
MHB, a large degree or near completed diagonal crack has been formed at this time, which
leads to the frame continuously develop as the same rate before. As a whole, the residual drift
ratio of the filled frame by MHB or PB is from 60% to 80% of the ones of each target hysteretic
loop, while the values of other two frames range from 41% to 50%.
Figure 12 shows the development of the lateral secant stiffness of all test frames as their
target drift ratio. Main experimental observations can be concluded as follows.

(7) Lateral secant stiffness degradation vs. drift ratio

(a) As infills provide strong strut action, the RC frames infilled by MHB and PBs can
obtain high initial stiffness, which is about 4 times the one of bare frame at early stage.
(b) From drift ratio of 1.0–1.5%, the lateral secant stiffnesses of all RC frames degrade
tardily and stably with lateral displacement. This can be attributed to the fact that

3.0
Fame-PB
Frame-ALC
2.5 Frame-MHB
Residual drift ratio Rres (%)

Frame-B
2.0

1.5

1.0

0.5

0.0
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0
Drift ratio (%)

Figure 11. Development of residual deformation of frames.

 JOURNAL OF EARTHQUAKE ENGINEERING 19

80

Development of scant stiffness

70
Frame-PB
60 Frame-ALC
Frame-B
50 Frame-MHB

(kN/mm)
40
30
20
10
0
-4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4
Drift ratio (%)

Figure 12. Lateral secant stiffness development with lateral deformation.

the main diagonal cracks of infilled wall were formed usually in the frames from
drift ratio of 1.0–1.5%.
(c) All tested frames presented similar lateral secant stiffness (6-7kN/mm) when their
story drift ratios exceeded 1.0–1.5%. The similarity degree of the stiffnesses
increases with the lateral displacement of frame, such as their value is almost
same from drift ratio of 2.5%.
(d) Comparing specimens Frame-PB and Frame-MHB, the frame infilled by ALC panel
has a small lateral stiffness at early stage. This is attributed to the fact that the slip
behavior between the panels weakens the resistance of infill to lateral deformation
that then reduces the strut action of whole infill.

4. Discussion and recommendations

4.1 Failure modes and deformation mechanism of wall
The experimental observations and the results plotted in Fig.6 indicate that the infilled RC
frame using MHB has a strong-column-weak-beam failure feature, while the bare frame
presents a strong-beam weak column failure mode. The resistance of the infill at early
stage protected frame columns to some extent, and the large wall collapse reduces the
negative effect of wall to columns, both of which are beneficial to change the failure
mechanism of the infilled frames. This is also attributed to the fact that the infills disperse
seismic effects to whole frame that makes the force and deformation of the frame trend to
a uniform distribution status. In the frames using MHBs, the plastic damage initially
concentred on the two ends of upper RC beams, and a few cracks were observed in the
frame columns at early stage. With the increase of lateral displacement of infilled RC
frame, the fracture of reinforcing rebars was confirmed at the ends of RC beams (the
strain of longitudinal rebars is suddenly zero). Compared to the infills using MSBs in
previous studies [Tong and Qian 1985], the infilled wall using MHBs is peculiar prone to
produce higher energy dissipation such as the present study. As a consequence, the infills
made of MHBs may have a better priority to avoid a strong-beam-weak-column damage
in practical RC frame structures. The use of MHBs is very beneficial and effective to
20 G. CAI AND Q. SU

Beam Beam Beam

5 1 9 9 9
9 3+9 A
2 2 A 3+9
A
5
A
2 7 3 A
5 5 10
C A A

4 4 2 99
B A 3+9
B 99 3+9
8 9 9
Frame-MHB Frame-PB Frame-ALC

Damages 6. Collapse for over large SCSs CSs-Connection steels; Key point:
Cracks
1. Crushed (no CSs) 7. Collapse for over short LCSs DS-diagonal strut; Damages : Main resistance system;
2. Protection from CSs 8. Protect from SWI; A. Diagonal cracks;
SCSs-spacing of CSs;
3. Major damages of DS 9. Damage from compressive; B. Slip-shear cracks;
LCSs-length of CSs; 1+3+4 RC frame;
4. Extended damage of DS 10. Damage from slip/moving C. Others
5. Damage for DS and no CSs compressive SWI-self-weight of
infills;

Gypsum block

Frame-MHB Frame-PB
Frame-ALC

Figure 13. Possible damages in strong-column-weak-beam infilled rc frame systems.

enhance the collapse resistance capacity of RC frames, which has been also verified in a
field disaster investigation [Ye et al., 2008]. The diagonal strut action of infill (see Fig. 13,
Zones 2–4) and insufficient connection steel rebars (see Fig. 13, Zones 1, 5, and 7) are two
major reasons of the damages of infilled wall using MHBs.
About the frame infilled by gypsum blocks, the main reasons for the damage are the
compressive damage of two “gypsum block columns” (Zones 5 and 9 in Fig. 13) near to
the frame columns. The damage of the two masonry columns is started from the four
corner zones of the frame. Because the compressive resistance of the block is small, in
these corner zones, the compressive behavior caused by the lateral deformation of frame
columns and beam is higher than other places. The block cannot resist high compression
so that the compressive behavior is transferred into the bottom of wall, which forms a
classical damage of a low strength masonry column. The diagonal crack is still presented
in this frame, however, the diagonal action is small because the block damages too fast.
However, because of two gaps/damaged masonry columns near to the frame columns, the
damage of the infill is not obvious and focuses on the compressive behavior of the ends.
When the two masonry columns completely damage, with the increase of deformation, the
strut effect of the blocks appears in the internal masonry infill zone to resist new lateral
deformation, at large level. Because of this, according to the crack distribution in this
frame (see Fig. 6), the failure mode of the frame is not changed and is considered as more
close to strong beam weak column. However, the two frame columns still presented a
prefect flexural deformation and uniform cracking distribution until drift ratio of 3.0%,
which means the frame can resist safely a very strong earthquake action.
For the frames infilled by ALC panels, due to the slip or moving behavior between two
panels, the main damage of the masonry wall is compressive damage at the end of each
panel, in particular the ones near the frame columns or beams. Each panel presents
 JOURNAL OF EARTHQUAKE ENGINEERING 21

different level diagonal strut action to resist deformation, while the ones near to frame
columns have a higher damage than others, as shown in Figs. 6 and 13. The other panels
majorly resist compressive behavior from the both frame beams. This compressive damage
might be connected to a small damage zone caused by reversed seismic lateral effects, in
form of collapse of concrete cover. At large deformation, the moving between two panels
also could lead to concrete collapse damage. Comparing with other masonry wall, the ALC
wall presents an excellent resistance to wall collapse damage and then in effect reduces the
secondary disaster to the users of the structures. On the other hand, for the failure mode
of this frame, due to the moving between panels, the resistance of panels to axial
compressive action and vertical action from lateral deformation, the cracking distribution
at the frame joints still is more obvious than the ones in Frame-MHB (see Fig. 6) meaning
its failure mode is near to strong beam weak column failure. However, until drift ratio of
3.0%, the lateral resistance capacity of the frame did not present significant strength
degradation, and its ductility and residual deformation presented an obvious superiority
than others.

4.2 Proposal for lateral resistance of RC frames infilled by lightweight materials

Until now, limited calculation models and FEM analysis methods have been proposed to
predicate the lateral stiffness and resistance capacity of infilled frame [Mehrabi et al., 1996;
Decanini et al., 2004]. In order to reasonably design the RC frame infilled by MHBs, the
following sections focus on the investigations of the feasibility of existing predication
models of lateral stiffness and strength capacity of the infilled frames.
Mehrabi et al. [1996] have reported that two simple load resistance mechanisms were
used to evaluate the interaction degree between RC frame and infills, which are flexural
mechanism (Ff) of bare frame and sliding shear failure resistance (Fw) of infills. As these
methods were developed from RC frames infilled by weak panels, it is potential suitable to
the infilled frame using hollow bricks as MHBs and PBs used the present study have a high
void ratio. With respect to the flexural mechanism of bare RC frame, considering the effect
of plastic hinge deformation on the effective calculation height of frame columns, the
study proposes a horizontal resistance model using effective calculated height in each
frame column, which is given by,
2Mu
Ff ¼ Hc  (6)
2  Lp

In this equation, Mu is the ultimate flexure strength of RC column; Hc is the net height of
frame columns and Lp is the plastic hinge length of frame column which is taken as 50%
the cross-sectional height of column.
On the other hand, though Decanini et al. [2004] proposed different calculation models
for the equivalent compressive strength corresponding different failure mechanism of
masonry infills, Sassun et al. [2016] compared the mechanical properties of masonry per
the four failure modes but using hollow bricks or blocks and indicated the equivalent
compressive strength ratio between the diagonal compressive and sliding of the bed joints
or corner crush modes is small and varies from 1.3 to 1.5. Meanwhile, based on the Mohr-
Coulomb criterion and an assumption that the vertical resistance actions of infill and
frame are distributed according to their stiffness ratios, as well as considering the effect of
22 G. CAI AND Q. SU

connection steel, the lateral resistance from the MHB infilled masonry wall is considered
as 1.2 times the sliding shear failure resistance Fw proposed by Mehrabi et al. [1996],
which is given as Eq. (7). Therefore, according to the study of equivalent compressive
strength of infills conducted by Sassun et al. [2016], the contribution of masonry wall to
the lateral peak strength of the frames infilled by weak hollow blocks is 0.8 time Fw. For
the fame infilled by lightweight panels, considering the slipping between the panels, the
paper introduces the effect of infills in the lateral resistance of the frame via a simplified
increase factor, 1.1. Therefore, the frames infilled by the three typical lightweight materials
tested in the current paper are given by Eqs. (8) to (10).

Fw ¼ 1:2ð50Aw þ 0:9Pw Þ (7)

where Pw is the vertical load of infill, in pounds. Aw is the horizontal cross-sectional area
of infills, in square inches.

For the RC frames infilled by strong hollowblocks ðe:g: MHBÞ : F ¼ Ff þ 1:2Fw (8)

For the RC frames infilled by weak hollow blocksðe:g: PBÞ : F ¼ Ff þ 0:8Fw (9)

For the RC frames infilled by lightweight solid panels : F ¼ 1:1Ff (10)

To evaluate the proposed models, some existing experimental studies were collected and
used. Comparative results plotted in Fig. 14 indicate that the proposed models evaluate the
lateral resistance capacity of the RC frames infilled by hollow bricks and lightweight
materials with a good agreement. However, more experimental studies were expected in
the future for the proposal.

600
Mehrabi et al. 1996 (MHB)
Experimental lateral strength (kN)

500 Mansouri et al. 2014 (MHB)

Frame-MHB
400 Frame-PB
Frame-ALC
300 Frame-B

200

100

Calculated lateral strength (kN)

Figure 14. Comparison between experimental and calculated lateral resistance forces.
 JOURNAL OF EARTHQUAKE ENGINEERING 23

4.3 A simplified skeleton model

As reported previously, several researchers [Panagiotakos and Fardis, 1994; Decanini
et al., 2004; Sassun et al., 2016] have developed some skeleton curve models to
simulate the seismic behavior of infilled RC frame. However, very limited data has
been used to discuss the models, in particular full-scale frames infilled by lightweight
materials such as the PB block and ALC panels. The models developed by
Panagiotakos and Fardis [1994] and Decanini et al. [2004] are typical tri-linear curve
models, and the obvious differences are focused on the following (a) peak strength of
infilled frame and the drift of frame at the strength; (b) the lateral residual strength of
infilled frame. Sassun et al. [2016] compared the two models and indicated that the
Decanini et al. model is more advantageous in the predication of peak strength and
modified the lateral drift levels of frame corresponding to the lateral peak strength
states and damage state as well that are calibrated to experimental results. However, as
the observations in the current paper (see Fig. 7), with the decrease of the stiffness of
infill, the ratio of residual strength to peak strength increase. For example, the ratio in
Frame-MHB is 0.35 which is same as the proposed by Decanini et al. [2004] and
Sassun et al. [2016], while the ratio in Frame-PB ranges from 0.7 to 0.75. But Fig. 7
shows the lateral strength of all block-infilled frames after drift ratio of 1.0% is stable
until drift ratio of 3% and is very close to the peak strength of the bare RC frame
regardless of the type of infill block.
According to the above analyses and the proposed models in Section 4.2, with the
consideration of the complicated calculation progress of the three existing models
[Panagiotakos and Fardis, 1994; Decanini et al., 2004; Sassun et al., 2016], a simplified
skeleton curve model is proposed for the infilled frame using typical lightweight
materials. This model considers the infill will stop working as its strut action com-
pletely or most completely at drift ratio of 1.0%. The maximum lateral resistance force
is reached when lateral deformation is at drift ratio of 0.5% to 0.8% in experiment, but
for the simple calculation, this model uses drift ratio of 0.5%, which is similar the
levels proposed by Decanini et al. [2004] and Sassun et al. [2016]. The maximum
lateral can be calculated using the above proposal for lateral force, Eq. (8)–Eq. (10) for
different type of infills. After drift ratio of 1.0%, the lateral resistance force decreases to
the ultimate strength of bare RC frames, that is, without any contribution from
masonry infills. The details of the proposed skeleton curve are presented in Fig. 15,
which is very similar to the idealized force–displacement relationship for an infilled
RC frame reported by Dolšek and Fajfar [2005]. The comparison results plotted in
Fig. 16 show that the proposed skeleton curve model has a good agreement with the
experimental results.

4.4 Summaries for the RC frames filled by MHBs/PBs or ALC panels

In summary, the use of lightweight materials such as ALC panels is helpful to improve the
total seismic performance of RC frames that is attributed to its small self-weight and
second disasters caused by wall damages. However, there are still several careful concerns
that should be noted carefully, as follows,
24 G. CAI AND Q. SU

Capacity of infilled frame

Infills stop working

Lateral force
Capacity of bare frame VBF

90% VBF

1.0% 3.0%
0.5-0.8% Drift ratio

Figure 15. Simplified capacity model for frame infilled by typical lightweight materials.

600 600
Frame-B
Fame-MHB
400 Model 400
Lateral froce (kN)

Model
Lateral froce (kN)

200 200

0 0

-200 -200

-400 -400

-600 -600
-4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4
Drift ratio (%) Drift ratio (%)
600 600
Frame-PB Frame-ALC
400 400 Model
Lateral froce (kN)
Lateral froce (kN)

Model
200 200

0 0

-200 -200

-400 -400

-600 -600
-4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4
Drift ratio (%) Drift ratio (%)

Figure 16. Comparison between test result and model of envelop curve of the frames.

(a) When RC frame is infilled fully by MHBs, the maximum lateral resistance capacity
before the formation of main diagonal cracks cannot be considered as design
ultimate strength for the frames. This is explained by that the subsequent main
diagonal cracks of infills could reduce sharply the lateral resistance of infilled frame,
which possibly leads to a sudden loss of diagonal strut effect to the main frame.
(b) Based on the test results reported in current paper, as shown in Fig. 17 (a), the main
features of studied lightweight material infills and masonry solid bricks in frame
structures are concluded as,MSB: high self-weight and strength, high collapse,
increase seismic response; negatively affect column failure mode; bad to mage-
 JOURNAL OF EARTHQUAKE ENGINEERING 25

earthquake but good to small/moderate earthquake;MHB: moderate strength, hav-

ing strong diagonal strut effect but also causes high wall collapse ratio; positively
affect column failure mode; good to mage-earthquake but bad to small/moderate
earthquake;PB: high wall collapse and weak diagonal strut effect caused by weak
self-strength; no effect to failure mode; not good to earthquakeALC panel: small
wall collapse; small effect on failure mode; good to small/moderate earthquake;
moderate resistance to mage-earthquake comparing MHBs and MSBs.
(c) Lightweight concrete panel type infill such as ALC panel presents a significant
excellent wall-collapse resistance and has a relevant reasonable and stable lateral
resistance mechanism and capacity during an earthquake, as shown in Fig. 17 (b, c).
Meanwhile, the frame also can effectively control the collapse damage of infillings
via slipping between two ALC panels.
(d) In the capacity of energy dissipation, the infills with relative high strut effect
such as MHB resist lateral force effectively and also prevent the lateral resilience
of frame columns that helps the frame to absorb more earthquake energy. For
the infills PB and ALC, they also help to resist lateral force with frame columns,
but their fast broken or slipping action is beneficial to the resilience of the
columns.

Lateral force ratio V/VB Lateral force ratio

4 1
0.8
3
0.6
2 Frame MHB Frame MHB
0.4
1 Frame PB Frame PB
0.2
Frame ALC Frame ALC
0 0

Wall collapse area Energy dissipation ratio Wall collapse ratio Energy dissipation ratio
(m2) (Mean heq/Mean heqB)

(a) Direct comparisonof behavior of infilled frames (b) Relative behavior of the infilled frames
(Comparing with the specimen Frame MHB)

Control the seismic response of structures

(4: Good control; 1: Bad control)
4

1 Change of the failure

Good to mage-earthquake mode of structure
(1: Bad; 4: Very good) 0
(4: Good; 2: No change;
1: Bad)

MSB
MHB
PB
ALC
Good to small or moderate earthquake
(1: Bad; 4: Very good)
(c) Tested light-weight materials vs. ideal infills

Figure 17. Summary for the frames infilled by typical lightweight materials.
26 G. CAI AND Q. SU

(e) The damage control of infilled wall in RC frame structures is very significant during
a moderate intensities earthquake [Sucuoğlu, 2013], which means the reasonable
selection of infill is very important during these buildings. According to this study
and literature research, we consider that an ideal infill should meet the following
key points: 1) it should be light-weight and can be connected with frame; 2) it
should absorb certain earthquake energy via part plastic damage or slipping action
which does not affect its connection with frame under moderate earthquake; 3) it
should not affect the designed failure mode of the main frame which can be realized
through controlled damage and more slipping action such as the frame infilled by
ALC panels in the present paper. Through comparative study in this research, the
tested ALC panel is recommended to use in frame structures.

5. Conclusions
This paper has studied the effect of infills on seismic performance of RC frame via
investigating three full-scale RC frames infilled by some typical lightweight materials
and a reference bare frame. Meanwhile, a simplified strength model has been developed
for the RC frames infilled by these lightweight materials as well. The main conclusions can
be drawn as,

(a) The infill made of MHBs had a significant influence on the seismic behavior of
infilled RC frame before the development of main diagonal cracks (drift ratio 1.0%–
1.5%), including ultimate strength, stiffness, energy dissipation, ductility, failure
mode, and so on. Due to the moving action between ALC panels, the frame using
ALC panels presented similar hysteretic behavior to the bare frame. The specimen
using PBs presented a middle level of hysteretic behavior between the frame using
MHB blocks and ALC panels. For all infilled frames, after the strut action of fills
disappeared completely or largely, the frames showed a similar resistance level of
bare frame.
(b) The main damage of the frames infilled by MHBs, PBs and ALC panels are mainly
from plastic damage of diagonal wall, heavy damage of two masonry columns and
the moving action between panels, respectively. Through free moving between ALC
panels, the RC frame controlled its wall damage post-seismic well.
(c) The energy dissipation is peculiar prone to produce in the infilled wall using MHBs
that protects frame beams and columns to some extent through large wall damage,
comparing with the ones in other infilled frames. The infill, MHB, is an ideal
material to the infilled frames which may subject to mega-earthquake.
(d) For residual deformation, due to the hindering of infill, Frame-MHB and Frame-PB
both have a higher residual deformation before 1.5% of drift ratio. However, after
then, for Frame-MHB dissipated more earthquake energy via losing more wall
damages and the middle wall in Frame-PB still work as small strut, the frame
presents a higher residual deformation. Through some moving actions between
ALC panels, the frame infilled by the panels controlled its residual deformation
well.
 JOURNAL OF EARTHQUAKE ENGINEERING 27

(e) From drift ratio of 1.0–1.5%, the lateral secant stiffnesses of all infilled RC frames
degrade tardily and stably with lateral displacement. This can be attributed to the
fact that the main diagonal cracks of these infilled walls were formed usually from
this drift ratio. After this, all the test frames have similar lateral secant stiffness.
Similarly, the moving action between panels makes the lateral stiffness of the frame
decrease.
(f) The papers developed a simplified strength model for the RC frames infilled by
lightweight materials based experimental analyses and literature studies. Using the
proposed lateral force model, a simplified skeleton curve model was proposed to
simulate the force-displacement relationship of the infilled frames. The comparative
results show that the proposed skeleton curve model evaluates the experimental
results well.

In summary, the reasonable selection of infills is very important to RC frame structures,

because large wall damage means the change of dynamic behavior of structural story, not
only the second disaster to the users and possession of structures. The use of lightweight
materials such as ALC panels is helpful to improve the total seismic performance of RC
frames, both strength and ductility, which is attributed to its small self-weight and second
disasters caused by wall damages etc. Though the lightweight infill ALC panels is not
effectively to promote the more safe failure mode of main frame, they affected slightly
boundary frame members especially frame columns, and the frame still can safely resist
strong earthquake action until drift ratio of 3.0% and has small wall collapse damage and
residual deformation. Compared to other three materials in the current paper, ALC is
more close to the ideal infill for frame structures.

Acknowledgment
The authors would like to express their gratitude to the supports from Department of Housing and
Urban and Rural Construction of Sichuan (China), Sichuan Architectural Design and Research
Institute (China), China Southwest Architectural Design and Research Institute Corp. Ltd.,
Chengdu Architectural Design and Research Institute and Chengdu No. 4 Construction
Engineering Company.

References
Cheng, J. T. (2010). “Experimental study and analysis of the infilled frame with openings,” Ph.D.
Dissertation, Su Zhou University of Science and Technology in China, Su Zhou. [in Chinese]
Comite Euro- international du Beton (CEB). (1996) RC Frames under Earthquake Loading: State of
the Art Report, Tomas Telford, London, UK, 231–284.
Costa, A. A., Penna, A., Magenes, G. and Galasco, A. (2008). “Seismic performance assessment of
Autoclaved Aerated Concrete (AAC) masonry buildings,” Proc. 14th World Conference on
Earthquake Engineering, Beijing, China, paper ID (pp. 05–04)
Crisafulli, F. J., Carr, A. J. and Park, R. (2000) “Analytical modelling of infilled frame structures - A
general review,” Bulletin of the New Zealand Society for Earthquake Engineering 33(1), 30–47.
Dafnis, A., Kolsch, H. and Reimerdes, H. G. (2002) “Arching in masonry walls subjected to
earthquake motions,” Journal of Structural Engineering 128(2), 153–159.
Decanini, L., Mollaioli, F., Mura, A. and Saragoni, R. (2004). “Seismic performance of masonry
infilled RC frames,” 13th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, No.165, Vancouver.
28 G. CAI AND Q. SU

Dolšek, M. and Fajfar, P. (2005) “Simplified non-linear seismic analysis of infilled reinforced
concrete frames,” Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics 34(1), 49–66.
Gad, E. F., Chandler, A. M., Duffield, C. F. and Stark, G. (1999) “Lateral behavior of plasterboard-
clad residential steel frames,” Journal of Structural Engineering 125(1), 32–39.
GB 50010-2010. (2010) Code for Design of Concrete Structures, Ministry of Housing and Urban–
Rural Development of the People’s Republic of China, Beijing, China. In Chinese.
GB/T 50081-2002. (2002) Standard for Test Method of Mechanical Properties on Ordinary Concrete,
China architecture & building Press, Beijing. In Chinese.
GB/T50129-2009. (2009) Standard for Test Method of Basic Mechanics Properties of Masonry, China
architecture & building Press, Beijing. In Chinese.
GB15762-2008. (2008) Autoclaved Aerated Concrete Slabs, China architecture & building Press,
Beijing, 2010. In Chinese.
GB50011-2010. (2010) Code for Seismic Design of Buildings, Press, Beijing. In Chinese.
Guo, Z., Wu, Y. and Huang, Q. (2008). “Research and development in seismic behavior of infilled-
frame structures,” Journal of Earthquake Engineering and Engineering Vibration 6, 024. In Chinese.
Hak, S., Morandi, P., Magenes, G. and Sullivan, T. J. (2012) “Damage control for clay masonry
infills in the design of RC frame structures,” Journal of Earthquake Engineering 16(supp.1), 1–35.
Haldar, P., Singh, Y. and Paul, D. K. (2013) “Identification of seismic failure modes of URM infilled
RC frame buildings,” Engineering Failure Analysis 33, 97–118.
Jacobsen, L. S. (1960). “Damping in composite structures,” Proceedings of the 2nd world conference
on earthquake engineering. No2.1029-1044.
JC/T698-2010. (2010) Gypsum Blocks, Chinese building materials industry standard, Beijing. In
Chinese.
JGJ/T 101-2015. (2015) Specification for Seismic Test of Building, Chinese building materials
industry standard, Beijing. In Chinese.
Jiang, X. L., Liu, K., Gu, Y., Deng, Y. and Cui, X. (2004). “Experimental research on behavior of
closely spaced concrete frames fiber reinforced plasterboard under low cyclic loading,” Journal of
Building Structures 4, 007. In Chinese.
Kakaletsis, D. (2009) “Analytical modeling of masonry infills with openings,” Structural Engineering
and Mechanics 31(4), 423–437.
Kakaletsis, D. and Karayannis, C. (2007) “Experimental investigation of infilled R/C frames with
eccentric openings,” Structural Engineering and Mechanics 26(3), 231–250.
Kakaletsis, D. J. and Karayannis, C. G. (2008) “Influence of masonry strength and openings on
infilled R/C frames under cycling loading,” Journal of Earthquake Engineering 12(2), 197–221.
Kakaletsis, D. J. and Karayannis, C. G. (2009) “Experimental investigation of infilled reinforced
concrete frames with openings,” ACI Structural Journal 106(2), 132–141.
Li, G. Q. and Xing, Y. X. (1990). “Test results and earthquake-resistance reliability analysis of frame
buildings with gypsum partition board,” Earthquake Engineering and Engineering Vibration 10
(1), 89–98. In Chinese.
Lignos, D. (2008). “Sidesway collapse of deteriorating structural systems under seismic excitations,”
Ph.D. thesis, ProQuest. pp324–325.
Mansouri, A., Marefat, M. S. and Khanmohammadi, M. (2014) “Experimental evaluation of seismic
performance of low-shear strength masonry infills with openings in reinforced concrete frames with
deficient seismic details,” The Structural Design of Tall and Special Buildings 23(15), 1190–1210.
Mehrabi, A. B., Shing, P. B., Schuller, M. P. and Noland, J. L. (1996) “Experimental evaluation of
masonry-infilled RC frames,” Journal of Structural Engineering, 122(3), 228–237.
Memon, M. S. and Sheikh, S. A. (2005) “Seismic resistance of square concrete columns retrofitted
with glass fiber-reinforced polymer,” ACI Structural Journal 102, 5.
Osorio, L. I., Paultre, P., Eid, R. and Proulx, J. (2014) “Seismic behavior of synthetic fiber-reinforced
circular columns,” ACI Structural Journal 111, 1.
Pam, H. J., Kwan, A. K. H. and Islam, M. S. (2001) “Flexural strength and ductility of reinforced
normal-and high-strength concrete beams,” Proceedings of the ICE-Structures and Buildings 146
(4), 381–389.
 JOURNAL OF EARTHQUAKE ENGINEERING 29

Panagiotakos, T. B. and Fardis, M. N. (1994). Proposed Nonlinear Strut Models for Infill Panels. 1st
Year Progress Report of HCM-PREC8 Project, University of Patras.
Paulay, T. and Priestley, M. J. N. (1992) Seismic Design of Reinforced Concrete and Masonry
Buildings, Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, INC., pp. 768.
Penna, A., Magenes, G., Calvi, G. M. and Costa, A. A. (2008). “Seismic performance of AAC infill
and bearing walls with different reinforcement solutions,” Proc. 14th International Brick-Block
Masonry Conference (IB2MAC), Sydney, CD-ROM paper no: 194
Perrone, D., Leone, M. and Aiello, M. A. (2016) “Evaluation of the infill influence on elastic period
of existing RC frames,” Engineering Structures 123, 419–433.
Sassun, K., Sullivan, T. J., Morandi, P. and Cardone, D. (2016) “Characterising the in-plane seismic
performance of infill masonry,” Bulletin of the New Zealand Society for Earthquake Engineering 49, 1.
Shing, P. B. and Mehrabi, A. B. (2002) “Behaviour and analysis of masonry-infilled frames,” Progress
in Structural Engineering and Materials 4(3), 320–331.
Siddiqui, U. A., Sucuoglu, H. and Yakut, A. (2015) “Seismic performance of gravity-load designed
concrete frames infilled with low-strength masonry,” Earthquakes and Structures 8(1), 19–35.
Su, Q. W., Cai, G. C., et al. (2016) “Seismic behaviour of full-scale hollow bricks-infilled RC frames
under cyclic loads,” Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering, 1–32. online available. DOI: 10.1007/
s10518-016-0074-6.
Sucuoğlu, H. (2013) “Implications of masonry infill and partition damage in performance percep-
tion in residential buildings after a moderate earthquake,” Earthquake Spectra 29(2), 661–667.
Sucuoğlu, H. and Siddiqui, U. A. (2014) “Pseudo-dynamic testing and analytical modeling of AAC
infilled RC frames,” Journal of Earthquake Engineering 18(8),1281–1301. DOI: 10.1080/
13632469.2014.932723.
Tasligedik, A. S., Pampanin, S. and Palermo, A. (2011). “Damage mitigation strategies of ‘non-
structural’ infill walls: concept and numerical-experimental validation program,” Proc. 9th Pacific
Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Auckland, New Zealand.
Tasnimi, A. A. and Mohebkhah, A. (2011) “Investigation on the behavior of brick-infilled steel
frames with openings, experimental and analytical approaches,” Engineering Structures 33(3),
968–980.
Tong, Y.S., & Qian, G.F. (1985) “Deformation behaviour and load capacity of reinforced concrete
frames with brick filler walls.” Journal Xi’an Institute Metallurgy Construction Engineering 17(2),
1–21. In Chinese.
Wang, B., Wang, J. F., Wang, X. Q., et al. (2014) “Experimental study on seismic behavior of
concrete-filled steel tubular frames with ALC wall panels,” Chinese Journal of Building Structures
34(Suppl.1), 147–153. In Chinese. DOI: 10.14006/j.jzjgxb.2013.s1.023.
Yáñez, F., Astroza, M., Holmberg, A. and Ogaz, O. (2004). “Behavior of confined masonry shear
walls with large openings,” Proceedings of the 13th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering,
Vancouver, Canada, Paper. No. 3438.
Ye, L. P., Qu, Z., Lu, X. and Feng, P. (2008). “Collapse prevention of building structures: a lesson
from the Wenchuan earthquake,” Journal of Building Structures 4(007), 1–9. In Chinese.