CD02-002

DESIGN OF MASONRY INFILLED REINFORCED CONCRETE

FRAMES IN DIFFERENT SEISMIC CODES
T. Mahdi1 and M. Khorramiazar2
1
Assistant Professor, Building and Housing Research Centre, Tehran, Iran
2
Expert, Building and Housing Research Centre, Tehran, Iran

ABSTRACT
Masonry infilled reinforced concrete frames are among the most widely used types
of buildings in Iran. In the past, masonry infill walls have often been treated as
nonstructural elements in buildings, and their effects are not included in the
analysis and design procedure. Furthermore, the interaction between infill and
frame is usually ignored in the design procedure. Past experience has shown that
infill walls have significant positive or negative effects on the global behavior of
buildings and, therefore, should be addressed appropriately. This paper reviews and
compares analysis and design provisions of this system in various seismic design
codes and identifies the most important issues that are related to it. Stiffness,
strength, natural period, response reduction factor, irregularities, and effect of
openings are among the items discussed in this paper.

Keywords: infill, concrete frame, seismic design, design codes, masonry

1. INTRODUCTION
Unreinforced masonry (URM) infill panels are widely used throughout the world,
including seismically active regions. They are usually used as interior partitions
and external walls in concrete frames, but they are treated as nonstructural
elements and not included in the analysis and design procedure. Such a simplified
design approach does not predict the level at which the damage in the infill panel
occurs, on the other hand it does not consider the global and local effects of having
these stiff and brittle elements coupled with the primary lateral load-resisting
system [1]. However, and contrary to common practice, field experience and
experimental investigations [1-4] show that infill walls, if effectively confined by
the frame, are remarkable in increasing the initial stiffness, strength and energy
dissipation of RC (reinforced concrete) frames, especially if the structural system
itself has little engineered earthquake resistance.
Typically, MI (masonry infill) walls are made of brittle materials that lose capacity
in a rapid manner. Accordingly, the combined effect of brittleness and high
stiffness has a negative implication on the seismic performance of the bounding
frames. In particular, loss of integrity of the infills in the ground storey may
produce a soft storey and trigger global collapse [5]. Furthermore, if infills are non-
uniformly distributed in planes or in elevation, inelastic deformation demands will
concentrate in the part of the building which has more sparse infills (i.e., to the
 202 / Design of Masonry Infilled Reinforced Concrete…. –––––––––––––––––––––––––

“flexible” side of a building asymmetrically infilled in plan, or to the “weak” or

“soft” storey of the infilled frame) [5]. Generally, improper arrangement of infill
walls causes a significant increase in the demand forces on the diaphragm and
collector elements (adjacent beams and columns) that results in brittle shear
failures, short column phenomena, and torsional response to the translational
horizontal components of the seismic action. In such cases, both the frame and the
floor system should be adequately designed for such increase in the demand forces.
From the structural point of view, the structural response of infilled frames depends
on numerous parameters. Overall geometry of infills, dimensions of concrete
members, the variability of mechanical properties of infill and concrete members,
reinforcement conFigure urations, the relative frame to infill stiffness, location and
dimension of openings, distribution of MI walls throughout the story and
construction details are some of these important parameters. Although, a large
amount of research related to infilled frame structures has been conducted, some
uncertainties still remain. One important source of uncertainty is the type of
interaction between the infill and the frame. The interaction between the frame and
the infill panel sometimes changes the structural response significantly.
This paper reviews and compares analysis and design provisions related to infilled
RC frames in seismic design codes. In designing RC frames, in general, infills can
be grouped into two categories: isolated infills and shear infills. However, few
seismic codes specify recommendations on isolated infills. When ductile RC
frames are designed to withstand large displacements without collapse, masonry
infills should be isolated from the confining frame by sufficient gaps at the top and
on both sides. The isolation (gaps) between the infill and the frame must be greater
than any possible deformation expected by the frame, thus prohibiting any
infill/frame interaction. These infills are not considered as structural elements. In
this manner, MI walls do not affect the frame performance and frame
displacements are not restrained. Another advantage of the isolated MI is that the
walls remain undamaged, thereby reducing post-earthquake repair costs. In the
following sections, some of the important issues discussed in the seismic codes are
reviewed.

2. INATURAL PERIOD
Natural periods of vibration of buildings depend upon their mass and lateral
stiffness. Presence of non-isolated MI walls in buildings increases both the mass
and stiffness of buildings. Consequently, the natural period of an MI-RC frame is
normally lower than that of the corresponding bare frame.
All seismic codes rely heavily on empirical formulae for the natural period for
estimating design seismic force. However, few codes specify formulae for MI-RC
frames. The comparison of these formulae for different structural systems is given
in Table 1. Beside empirical formulae, most seismic standards recommend the use
of Rayleigh formula for natural period [6, 10], or other general dynamic methods.
According to Crowley and Pinho [11], the use of uncracked section in the
computation of elastic natural periods of RC structures is inadequate because it
would lead to an underestimation of the displacement demands. Cracking of critical
 –––––––––––––––––––––––– 3rd International Conference on Concrete & Development / 203

elements such as beams generally occurs under gravity loading alone, and even in
those cases where cracking is not found to have occurred before the design seismic
level of excitation, it will occur early on in the response to excitation and thereafter
the stiffness will reduce rapidly. As a result, many seismic codes like IS 2800
provides provisions for calculations of natural periods based on effective
stiffnesses [6]. Others like NEHRP 2003 [9] and EC8 [10] have based their
equations on the measured periods of buildings during earthquakes where at least a
limited amount of cracking of the MI-RC frame occurred. On the other hand, the
optional use of T = 0.1N, given by NEHRP 2003 [9] and many other codes, has
been found inadequate for MI-RC frames [12]. More details about this subject can
be found in Reference [13].

Table 1: Natural period in different codes

ASCE-06 [8]
Structural
IS 2800 [6] UBC 97[7] & NEHRP EC8 [10]
type
2003 [9]
Steel
moment-
resisting 0.08(H)0.75 0.0853(hn)0.75 0.0724(hn)0.8 0.085(H)0.75
frames

RC
moment-
0.07(H)0.75 0.0731(hn)0.75 0.0466(hn)0.9 0.075(H)0.75
resisting
frames
Steel moment
frames: 0.0743(hn)0.75/
For structures 0.8*.08(H)0.75 0.075(H)0.75/
Ac - (see note no.2 )
with MI walls Concrete (see note no.1) Ac
moment frames:
0.8*0.7(H)0.75
[ ]
1- A c = ∑ A e 0.2 + (D e / h n ) 2
Ac is the combined effective area, in m2, of the MI shear walls in the first story of
the structure.
Ae is the minimum cross-sectional area in any horizontal plane in the first story of
the building, in m2. De is the length, in m, of the wall e in the first story in the
direction parallel to the applied forces. hn is the cross-sectional depth in m above
the base to Level n. De/hn should not exceed 0.9.
2- A c = ∑ [A i (0.2 + (l wi / h )) 2 ]
Ac is the total effective area, in m2, of the MI shear walls in the first story of the
structure.
Ai is the effective cross-sectional area of the wall i in the first story of the building,
in m2. Lwi is the length, in m, of the wall i in the first story in the considered
direction, and h is the cross-sectional depth in m. lwi/h should not exceed 0.9.
 204 / Design of Masonry Infilled Reinforced Concrete…. –––––––––––––––––––––––––

3. RESPONSE REDUCTION FACTOR

The response reduced factor (R) is an empirical factor intended to account for
damping, overstrength, and the ductility inherent in the structural system at
displacements great enough to surpass initial yield and approach the ultimate load
displacement of the structural system [9]. The (R) values, contained in most
seismic codes are largely based on engineering judgment of the performance of the
various materials and systems in past earthquakes [9]. Furthermore, it is difficult to
compare (R) values given in different codes since they use different design
philosophies and safety and load factors. Therefore, (R) values need to be
compared for different building systems within a particular code only. (R) value for
MI-RC frames is generally less than that for bare frames, thus most codes require
MI-RC frames to be designed for higher force levels than the corresponding bare
frames (about 1.15 to 3.0 times). Comparison of the response reduction factors for
different structural systems is given in Table 2.

Table 2: Response reduction factor in different codes

Lateral Allowable Stress Ultimate Strength
Resisting IS 2800 UBC 94 UBC97 New American EC8 [10]
System [6] [14] [7] Codes [8,9 & 15]
CSMF1 10 12 8.5 8 4.5αu/α1
CIMF2 7 8 5.5 5 3αu/α1
3
COMF 4 5 3.5 3 -
4
CSMF1 + SMW 5.5
10 8 5.5 28
MI Walls IMW5 4
CIMF2 + IMW5 3.5
77 7 4.2 28
MI Walls OMW 3 6

COMF3 +
- 6 4.2 - -
MI Walls
1. CSMF = Concrete Special Moment Resisting Frame
2. CIMF = Concrete Intermediate Moment Resisting Frame
3. COMF = Concrete Ordinary Moment Resisting Frame
4. SMW = Special Masonry Shear Wall
5. IMW = Intermediate Masonry Shear Wall
6. OMW = Ordinary Masonry Shear Wall
7. This reduction factor is for buildings without infill. For infilled frames, natural
period is calculated according to table 1
8. This is for RC frames with MI in contact with the frame

4. LATERAL LOAD SHARING BETWEEN INFILL AND FRAME

The RC frame and MI walls must resist the prescribed lateral seismic force in
accordance with their relative rigidities considering fully the interaction of the
 –––––––––––––––––––––––– 3rd International Conference on Concrete & Development / 205

walls and the RC frames as a single system. This analysis must be made in
accordance with the principles of structural mechanics considering the relative
rigidities of the elements and torsion in the system. Deformations imposed upon
members of the RC frame by their interaction with the MI walls must be
considered in this analysis [9]. According to most codes, the frame alone is
required to be designed to independently resist full vertical loads and at least 25%
of the design seismic forces [6, 9, and 13]. MI walls, which are normally very stiff
initially, attract most of the lateral forces, but may fail prematurely because of the
brittle behavior. In such cases, RC frames must have sufficient backup strength to
avoid the collapse of the structure. Accordingly, EC8 [10] puts more strict
regulations by requiring that RC frames need to resist at least 50-65% of the total
lateral loads in addition to the full vertical loads.

5. PLAN IRREGULARITIES
A building may have a symmetrical geometric shape without re-entrant corners or
wings but still be classified as irregular in plan because of distribution of mass (i.e.,
asymmetric placement of MI walls) or vertical, seismic-force-resisting elements
[9]. According to EC8 [10], slight plan irregularities may be taken into account by
doubling the accidental eccentricity. In case of severe plan irregularities, due to
excessive unsymmetrical placement of MI walls, three-dimensional analysis is
required considering stiffness distribution related to the uncertain position of MI
walls.

6. VERTICAL IRREGULARITIES
Vertical irregularities are introduced into MI-RC frames due to reduction or
absence of MI walls in a particular story compared to adjacent stories, e.g.,
buildings with parking space in the first story and MI walls on upper stories. In
general, this gives rise to mass, stiffness, and strength irregularities along the
height of buildings. Vertical irregularities in the bottom stories make the beams and
columns of those stories more susceptible to damage or failure [9]. Open ground
story buildings have consistently shown poor performance during past earthquakes
across the world.
According to IS: 1893 [16], all the columns of the soft/weak storey should be
designed for 2.5 times the seismic demand. On the other hand, EC8 [10]
recommends an increase in the resistance of columns of soft stories by a factor η
that is given by:
ΔVRW
η = 1+
∑ VED
≤ q (Units: ΔVRW , ∑ VED in N) (1)

where q is the response reduction factor given in Table-2, ΔVRW is the total
reduction in lateral resistance of MI walls in a story compared to the story above,
and ∑ VED is the sum of seismic shear forces acting on all structural vertical
elements of the story concerned. The design forces are not required to be increased
 206 / Design of Masonry Infilled Reinforced Concrete…. –––––––––––––––––––––––––

if the factor η is less than 1.1.

7. STRENGTH OF MASONRY INFILL

In designing infill panels, simple analytical tools that encompass the wide variety
of possible failure mechanisms of infilled frames should be developed to assist in
the design and performance evaluation of these structures. Although strength of MI
walls does not have any direct implications on the ultimate strength of ductile RC
frames; in some cases, failure modes of MI walls control the failure modes of non
ductile RC frames. Many formulae had been developed in the past [17-19],
however, these have only been reflected recently in seismic design codes. In cases
where the infill component controls the stiffness, FEMA 306 [20] and NZSEE [21]
specify four inplane modes of failures, namely, sliding shear failure, compression
failure, diagonal tension failure of panel and general shear failure of panel. On the
other hand, panel strength in FEMA 356 [22] is given by the shear sliding (bed-
joint) strength only with no enhancement for axial stress.

8. STIFFNESS OF MASONRY INFILL

The stiffness of any structure generally affects both forces and displacements. For
calculation of design seismic force, the use of a lower estimate of the stiffness
leads to unconservative results. On the other hand, controlling the drift
requirements under seismic loads, it is unconservative to make a higher estimate of
stiffness. Hence, some standards have suggested the use of two different analytical
models for buildings:
a. the model to be used for calculation of design seismic force should include all
stiffness contributions, including those of nonstructural members.
b. the model to be used for drift calculation should include all possible
contributions to flexibility and should not include stiffness contributions of
members that cannot be relied upon to provide stiffness at large displacements,
such as MI walls.
For example, to calculate forces in the structure, NEHRP 2003 [9] has suggested
the use of the natural periods given in Table-1. However, to prevent the use of a
flexible frame, an upper bound on the value of natural period that can be used to
calculate the design force has been specified. On the other hand, most seismic
codes including NEHRP 2003 [9] put lower bound on the overall seismic design
force. For determining the story drift limits, NEHRP 2003 has permitted the use of
computed natural periods without using the upper limit [9].
MI walls are laterally much stiffer than RC frames, and therefore, the initial
stiffness of the MI-RC frames largely depends upon the stiffness of MI walls.
Accordingly, it is quite important to have a reliable method to estimate the stiffness
of the infill. For global building analysis purposes, the compression struts
representing infill stiffness of solid infill panels may be placed concentrically
across the diagonals of the frame, effectively forming a concentrically braced
frame system. This model has been adopted by many seismic codes [10, 20-22] and
is based on the work of Mainstone [23]. In this model, however, the forces imposed
 –––––––––––––––––––––––– 3rd International Conference on Concrete & Development / 207

on columns and beams of the frame by the infill are not represented. To account for
these effects, compression struts may be placed eccentrically within the frames [21-
22]. If the analytical models incorporate eccentrically located compression struts as
shown in Figure (1), the results should yield infill effects on columns directly.
Diagonally concentric equivalent struts may also be used to incorporate infill panel
stiffnesses into analytical models for perforated infill panels (e.g., infills with
window openings). Analysis of local effects, however, must consider various
possible stress fields that can potentially develop within the infill. As an alternative
to the approach described above, FEMA 356 [22] suggests the use of multiple
compression struts, as have been proposed by Hamburger [24].

Figure 1. Modeling the adverse effect of an infill panel on the performance of the
perimeter frame showing (a) the placement of the strut, and (b) the moment pattern
on the columns

9. EFFECT OF OPENINGS IN MASONRY INFILL ON STRENGTH

Presence of openings in MI walls changes the actual behavior of RC frames because
of reduction in lateral strength and stiffness. Such infills pose the hazard of out-of-
plane collapse. Hence, it is best to avoid situations that lead to infill panels of large
width or height [16]. Unfortunately, there is little information on the effects of
openings on the strength and stiffness of MI-RC frames in seismic codes [13].
The effect of opening in the infill wall is to reduce the lateral stiffness and strength
of the frame. This can be represented by a diagonal strut of reduced width. The
reduction factor is defined as ratio of reduced strut width to strut-width
corresponding to fully infilled frame. Using IS: 1893 [16], equation for the
reduction factor ρw is given as:
ρw = 1− 2.5Ar, ρw ≥0 (2)

where, Ar is the opening area ratio, which is the ratio of face area of opening to the
face area of infill. On the other hand, NZSEE [21] specifies different reduction
factor λopening based on the width of opening measured across a horizontal plane
Lopening and given by Equation (3):
 208 / Design of Masonry Infilled Reinforced Concrete…. –––––––––––––––––––––––––

1.5 Lopening
λopening = 1 − , λopening ≥ 0 (3)
Linf
According to EC 8 [10], large openings are required to be framed with RC
elements across the full length and thickness of walls. Vertical RC elements of at
least 150 mm dimension are required at both sides of any opening larger than 1.5
m2 area .Longitudinal steel in the element shall not be less than 300 mm2 or 1% of
the cross-sectional area of the element. Shear reinforcement in the form of stirrups
of at least 5 mm diameter is required with a minimum spacing of 150 mm [10].

10. OUT-OF-PLANE STRENGTH OF MASONRY INFILLS

During earthquakes, MI walls are subjected to high in-plane shear forces because
of their high initial stiffness. Tension cracks are formed along the loaded diagonal
in MI walls, which causes reduction in their lateral strength. In addition,
connection between the RC frame and MI wall is generally weak and MI wall may
get separated from RC frames during the in-plane or out-of-plane ground motion,
and thus become susceptible for collapse in the out-of-plane direction. However,
such an out-of-plane collapse is not common for walls of low slenderness value
and for well-confined masonry infill walls. From the above statements, it is clear
that isolated infill walls are more susceptible to collapse than shear infill walls in
the out-of-plane direction.
Different seismic codes require that nonbearing wall panels that are attached to or
enclose the structure be designed to resist the inertial forces and to accommodate
movements of the structure resulting from lateral forces [6, 9] or temperature
change [9]. This is particularly important for systems composed of brittle materials
or materials with low flexural strength [9]. Once masonry walls crack, continued
shaking can easily cause collapse in the heavy infill blocks and pose a serious life
safety threat to building inhabitants. Furthermore, panel support systems often lack
redundancy and failure of a single connection can have catastrophic consequences.
In recognition of this, different codes require fasteners to be designed for
approximately 4 times the required panel force and that the connecting member be
ductile [6, 9]. This is intended to ensure that the energy absorption takes place in
the connecting member and not at the connection itself and that the more brittle
fasteners remain essentially elastic under seismic loading [9].
The out of plane strength of MI walls has been given by many seismic codes [20-
22]. On the other hand, EC8 [10] suggests several preventive measures to avoid
brittle failure, premature disintegration, and out-of-plane failure of masonry infill
walls during earthquakes, especially for slender walls (ratio of the smaller in length
or height to thickness greater than 15). The measures includes providing light wire
meshes adequately anchored on masonry infill walls and on RC frames, wall ties
fixed to columns and cast into bedding planes of masonry, and concrete posts and
belts across the panels and through the full thickness of the masonry infill. On the
other hand, FEMA 356 [22] suggests that MI panels not in tight contact with
perimeter frame members should be restrained for out-of-plane forces. This may be
accomplished by installing steel angles or plates on each side of the infills, and
 –––––––––––––––––––––––– 3rd International Conference on Concrete & Development / 209

welding or bolting the angles or plates to the perimeter frame members.

11. LOCAL EFFECTS DUE TO MASONRY INFILLS

Presence of infills modifies and magnifies the shear demands on the frame members
by shortening the distance between in-span plastic hinges (Figure 1). The shear
demand will be a maximum when flexural plastic hinges form at each end of this so-
called "short column". EC8 [10] requirements for local effects are as follows:
1) Because of the particular vulnerability of the infill walls of ground floors, a
seismically induced irregularity is to be expected there and appropriate
measures should be taken. If a more precise method is not used, the entire
length of the columns of the ground floor should be considered as the critical
length and confined accordingly.
2) If the height of the infills is smaller than the clear length of the adjacent
columns, as shown in Figure (2), the following measures should be taken:
a) The entire length of the columns (Lceffi) is considered as critical region and
should be reinforced with the amount and pattern of stirrups required for
critical regions;
b) The consequences of the decrease of the shear span ratio of those columns
should be appropriately covered. In this calculation the clear length of the
column Lcl should be taken equal to the length of the column not in contact
with the infills.
c) The transverse reinforcement to resist this shear force should be placed
along the length of the column not in contact with the infills and extend
along a length hc (dimension of the column cross-section in the plane of the
infill) into the column part in contact with the infills.
d) If Lceffi, the length of the column not in contact with the infills is less than
1.5 hc, the shear force should be resisted by diagonal reinforcement.
3) Where the infills extend to the entire clear length of the adjacent columns, and
there are masonry walls on only one side of the column (e.g. corner columns),
the entire length of the column should be considered as a critical region and be
reinforced with the amount and pattern of stirrups required for critical regions.

Figure 2. The effect of partial infills on frame performance

 210 / Design of Masonry Infilled Reinforced Concrete…. –––––––––––––––––––––––––

4) The length, of columns Lcl over which the diagonal strut force of the infill is
applied, should be verified in shear for the smaller of the following two shear
forces:
a) The horizontal component of the strut force of the infill, assumed to be
equal to the horizontal shear strength of the panel, as estimated on the basis
of the shear strength of bed joints; or
b) The shear force computed in accordance with Equation (4), depending on
the ductility class.

V = γRd ((MRd,c1 + MRd,c2)/ Lcl) (4)

where Lc1 is the contact length (Lceff or Lceff1), and γRd is an overstrength factor.

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

In the present paper, design provisions for MI-RC in different seismic codes are
reviewed. Taking the current practices into consideration, these provisions provide
a good base for design and construct masonry infill panels. However, major issues
in various seismic codes need further attention. These issues can be summarized as
follows:
Natural Period: Empirical estimation of natural period addresses very simple and
regular MI-RC frames. Because of practical reasons, most RC buildings become
irregular when masonry infill walls are added in RC frames. Therefore, most of the
empirical equations may not estimate the natural periods of such buildings with
sufficient accuracy.
Weak and Soft Stories: Design of weak/soft-story frame members is done in
different seismic codes based on empirical or semi-empirical relations. Very
limited literature is available in support of these relations. Hence there is an urgent
need for more research in this area.
Strength and stiffness of MI-RC frame: In calculating the strength and the
stiffness of MI-RC frames, many simplified assumptions are used. Neglecting the
effect of nonstructural components and the presence of openings in masonry infill
walls are some examples of such simplifications. The current ‘state-of-the-art’
method used to account for infill panels is to model an equivalent strut to represent
the stiffness of the panels. It has been reported that this model give good results
within the linear range. However, using these models beyond the mortar cracking
or failure of the infill walls needs further studies. Furthermore, results from
experimental and finite element investigations suggest a strong interaction between
in-plane and out-of-plane capacities of the infill walls. Neglecting this interaction
may lead to unconservative seismic risk evaluation. Accordingly, reflecting these
issues in the new editions of seismic codes is of high priority.
Response Reduction Factor: There is no consensus in various seismic codes on
values of response reduction factor, which reflects that more research is needed on
reliable estimation of strength and ductility of such buildings.
Irregularities: Sesmic codes address the problems associated with plan and
vertical irregularities in MI-RC frames in different ways. However, in case of
 –––––––––––––––––––––––– 3rd International Conference on Concrete & Development / 211

severe irregularities in plan due to the unsymmetrical arrangement of the infills,

spatial models need to be specified for the analysis of the structure, including, if
necessary, a sensitivity analysis regarding the position and the stiffness of the
infills.
Local effect: Local effects that occurred due to the frame-infill-interaction need to
be taken into account. Efficient strengthening methods of nonductile columns need
to be specified in seismic codes in order to avoid irreparable damage and
catastrophic failure of the structure.

REFERENCES
1. Hashemi, A. and Mosalam, K. M., Shake-table experiment on reinforced
concrete structure containing masonry infill wall, Earthquake Engineering and
Structural Dynamics, 2006, Vol.35, pp. 1827-1852.
2. Fardis M.N., Design provisions for masonry-infilled RC frames, 12th World
Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Auckland, NZ, 2000, Paper No. 2553.
3. Negro P., and Verzeletti, G., Effect of Infills on the Global Behaviour of R/C
Frames: Energy Considerations from Pseudodynamic Tests, Earthquake
Engineering and Structural Dynamics, 1996, Vol. 25, pp. 753-773.
4. Bertero, V.V., and Brokken, S., Infills in Seismic Resistant Building, Journal of
Structural Engineering, ASCE, 1983, Vol. 109, No. 6, pp. 1337-1361.
5. Fardis, M. N., Seismic Design Issues for Masonry-Infilled RC Frames, 1st
European Conference on Earthquake Engineering and Seismology, Geneva,
Switzerland, Paper No. 313, 2006.
6. Building & Housing Research Center, Iranian Code of Practice for Seismic
Resistant Design of Buildings, Standard No.2800, BHRC-PN 374, Tehran,
1999.
7. International Conference of Building Officials (ICBO), Uniform Building
Code-Structural Engineering Design provisions, Vol.2, Whittier, California,
1997.
8. American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE), Minimum Design Loads for
Buildings and Other Structures, ASCE/SEI 7-05, Reston, Virginia, 2006.
9. BSSC, NEHRP Recommended Provisions for Seismic Regulations for New
Buildings and Other Structures (FEMA 450), Building Seismic Safety Council,
National Institute of Building Sciences, Washington, D.C., 2004.
10. CEN, Eurocode 8 - Design of Structures for Earthquake Resistance - Part 1:
General rules, UNI EN 1998-1:2005, Brussels, 2004.
11. Crowley, H. and Pinho, R., Simplified Equations for Estimating the Period of
Vibration of Existing Buildings”, 1st European Conference on Earthquake
Engineering and Seismology, Geneva, Switzerland, Paper No. 1122, 2006.
12. Jain, S. K., Saraf, V. K. and Mehrotra, B., Experimental Evaluation of
Fundamental Period of Reinforced Concrete Framed Buildings with Brick
Infills, Journal of Structural Engineering, 1997, Vol. 23, No. 4, pp. 189-196.
13. Kaushik, H. B., Rai, D. C. and Jain, S. K., Code Approaches to Seismic Design
of masonry-Infilled Reinforced Concrete Frames: A State-of-the-Art Review,
Earthquake Spectra, 2006, Vol. 22, No. 4, pp. 961-983.
 212 / Design of Masonry Infilled Reinforced Concrete…. –––––––––––––––––––––––––

14. International Conference of Building Officials (ICBO), Uniform Building

Code-Structural Engineering Design Provisions, Volume 2, Whittier,
California, 1994.
15. US Army Corps of Engineers, Seismic Design for Buildings, Washington, UFC
3-310-04, Department of Defence, USA, 2007.
16. Jain, S. K. and Murty, C. V. R., Proposed Draft Provisions and Commentary on
Indian Seismic Codes IS 1893 (Part 1), Document No.: IITK-GSDDMA-EQ05-
V4.0 and IITK-GSDMA-EQ15-V3.0, Indian Institute of Technology, Kanpur,
India.
17. Stafford-Smith B and Carter C., A Method of Analysis for Infilled Frames,
Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers, 1969, Vol. 44, pp. 31-48.
18. Saneinejad A, and Hobbs B., Inelastic Design of Infilled Frames, Journal of
Structural Engineering, ASCE, 1995, Vol. 121, No. 4, pp. 634-650.
19. Paulay, T. and Priestley, M. J. N., Seismic Design of Reinforced Concrete and
Masonry Buildings, John Wiley & Sons, NY, 1992.
20. ATC, Evaluation of Earthquake Damaged Concrete and Masonry Wall
Buildings-FEMA306, Applied Technology Council, Redwood City, California,
1998.
21. NZSEE, Assessment and Improvement of the Structural Performance of
Buildings in Earthquakes, New Zealand Society for Earthquake Engineering,
2006.
22. ASCE, Prestandard and Commentary for the Seismic Rehabilitation of
Buildings-FEMA356, American Society of Civil Engineers, Reston, Virginia,
2000.
23. Mainstone, R. J., On the Stiffness and Strength of Infilled Frames, Current
Paper CP 2/72, Building Research Station, Garston, United Kingdom, 1971.
24. Hamburger, R. O., Methodology for Seismic Capacity Evaluation of Steel-
Frame Buildings with Infill Unreinforced Masonry, Proceedings of 1993
National Earthquake Conference, Central U.S. Earthquake Consortium, 1993,
Memphis, Tennessee, Vol. II, pp. 173-191.