Proc. Instn Cio. Engrs, Part 2,1986,81, Dec.

, 593-605

GINEERING
UCTURAL
9061 PAPER

GROUP

The influence of brick masonry infill properties

on the behaviourof infilled frames
M. DHANASEKAR, BE, MTech*
A. W. PAGE, ASTC, BE, PhD, MIE(Aust)*
The influenceof brick masonry infill properties on the behaviour of infilled frames is studied,
using a finite element model to simulate the behaviour
of infilled frames subjectedto racking
loads. The finite element program incorporates a material model for the infill brick masonry
which includes appropriate elastic properties, inelastic stress-strain relations and a failure
surface. The program is capable of simulating progressive cracking and final failure of the
infill. The model is verified by comparison with racking tests on infilled frames. It is then used
to carry out a more extensive study of the influence of infill properties on the failure loads
and failure modes of the panels. It is shown that the behaviourof the composite frame not
of the frame and the infill and the frame geometry, but is
only depends on the relative stiffness
also critically influencedby the strength propertiesof the masonry (in particular the magnito the compressive strength).
tude of the shearand tensile bond strengths relative
Young's modulusof elasticity of brick masonry
normal stresses perpendicular and parallel
to the bed joint
shear stress on the bed joint
stress levelsat which the inelastic strains attain a significant value
dimensionless constants
normal strains perpendicularand parallel to the bed joint
shear strain along the bed joint
Poisson's ratioof brick masonry
relative stiffness parameter
height of infill
thickness of infill
angle between the infill diagonal
and horizontal
elastic modulusof surrounding frame
second momentof area of the frame member

Introduction
Brick masonry is commonlyusedas
infill inframedstructures.Althoughthe
masonry significantly enhances both the stiffness and strength of the frame, its
contribution is often not considered on account of the lack of knowledge of the
composite behaviour of the frame and theinfill. One of the difficulties in predicting
the behaviour of the composite frame is the realistic stress analysisof the masonry
infill which is in a state of biaxial stress. The in-plane deformation and failure of
masonry is influenced by the properties of its components, the bricks and the
Written discussion closes 16 February 1987; for further details
see p. ii.
* Department of Civil Engineering and Surveying,The Universityof Newcastle, New South
Wales, Australia.
593

D H A N A S E K A RA N DP A G E

mortar. The influenceof the mortar jointsis particularly significant as these joints
act as planesof weakness.
2. This Paper describes theuse of finite element techniques to assess the contribution of the infill tothebehaviour
of infilled frames. A previouslyreported
material model-3 (which includes the influence
of the mortar joints) is incorporated into an incremental, iterative
finite element program capableof simulating
racking tests on infilled frames. With increasing racking load, the finite element
model can reproduce the progressive separation of the wall and its surrounding
frame, the non-linear deformation characteristics
of the infill masonry and the
progressive failure of the infill. This progressive failure typically takes place as
or a crushing failure near
either a shearing typeof failure down the panel diagonal,
the loaded or reaction corners.
3. The influence of the properties of the masonry infill on the behaviour of
infilled frames is assessed by means of a parametric study. It is shown that the
behaviour of the composite frame not only depends on the relative
stiffness of the
frame and the infill and the frame geometry, butis also critically influencedby the
magnitudes of the shear and tensile bond strengths relative to the compressive
strength of the masonry.

The behaviourof frames with brick masonry infill

4 . Whenarackingload(with
or withoutverticalloading) is appliedtoan
infilled frame, the frame usually separates from the infill at a low loadlevel at the
unloaded corners, and the load is transferred by diagonal strut action within the
masonry (see Fig. 1).This diagonal strut action results in zones of high compressive stress near the loaded and reaction corners, and shear and normal stresses on
the jointing planes in the interior of the panel. As the racking load is increased,
furtherseparation of theframeand
infill occurs, with contact finallybeing
restricted to regions adjacent to the loaded corners. At higher loads, a local shear
failure usually occurs near the centre
of the panel, with the failure then progressing
towards the loaded and reaction corners. The final failure mode of the masonry
depends on the relative stiffness of the frame and the infill. When the frame is
flexible, a corner crushing failureis observed. For stiffer frames, failure occurs as a
continuous pathof sliding and cracking of the infill down the loaded diagonal.
5. A number of experimentshavebeencarried
out on model and
full-scale
infilled frames over the past three decades4-I6
in an attempt to assess the contribution of the brick masonry infill to the behaviour of composite frames. The contribution was found to be substantial and to depend on the relative stiffness of the
frame and the infill. To allow for the effects of varying frame stiffness, Stafford( I h ) defined as
Smith has suggested the use of a relative stiffness parameter
E , t sin 28

( 4 E , I h )

in which E , , t and h are the Youngs modulus, thickness and height of the brick
masonry infill, E , and I are the Youngs modulus and moment of inertia of the
frame member, and8 is the angle between theinfill diagonal and the horizontal. It
has been shown that the strength of the infill decreases as I h increases (that is, as
the frame becomes more
flexible).
6. Incontrastwiththeexperimentalinvestigations,onlylimitedtheoretical
studieshavebeenperformedonthebehaviour
of frameswithbrickmasonry
594

BRICK MASONRY INFILL

Racklng
load

Dlagonal tension
failure

Separation of frame
and Dane1

Compression diagonal

Fig. 1. Behaviour of injilledframes subjected to racking loads

infill.17-22 In almost all these studies, the infill was assumed to be elastic and
isotropic. The influence of the directional properties of masonry as well as its
non-linear deformation characteristics have therefore been
not considered.
7. ThisPaperdescribestheapplicationto
thisproblem of a realisticfinite
element model for masonry. The material model usedin the finite element analysis
is comprehensive and accounts for non-linear deformation characteristics as well
of the infill.
as the influence
of the mortar joints on the behaviour

Material model
8. A comprehensive, macroscopic material model for brick masonry has been
derived from a large numberof biaxial tests onhalf-scale, solid clay brick masonry
panels.23*2 4 A total of 186 panels, each 360 mm square, was tested with the prime
aim of establishing a failure criterion for brick masonry under biaxial stress. The
panels were tested
under
biaxial
compression<ompression
and
tensioncompression.Theloadwasincreasedmonotonically
in allcases.Ineach
test
average strains over270 mm gauge lengths (incorporating a numberof bricks and
joints) were also recorded. From the experimental data, deformation characteristics and afailure surface were established.
Deformation characteristics
9. Thedeformationcharacteristicsconsist
of both elasticpropertiesand
inelasticstress-strainrelations.Intheelasticrange,thebrickmasonryunder
595

D H A N A S E K A R A N D PAGE

consideration was found tobe isotropic on average.' Average values of 5700 MPa
for Young's modulus and 0.19 for Poisson's ratio were found to be reasonably
representative of the behaviour.
10. In the inelastic range, however, the behaviourwas found to be significantly
influenced by the orientation of the mortar joints to the applied stresses.' From
the non-linear segments of the stress-strain curves of the biaxial compressioncompression tests, relatively simple inelastic stress-strain relations were derived

in which the superscript p denotes plastic and the subscripts n and p refer
to
directions normal and parallel to the bed jointing planes. The constants B,, Bp
and B, havebeen taken as 7.3 MPa, 8.0 MPa and 2.0 MPa respectively, and
indicatethe stress levels at which theplasticstrainsbecomesignificant.The
average values of the constants nn , np and n, are 3.3, 3.3 and 4.0 respectively. The
variability in the data does not warrant more complex relations.

Failure surface
11. The mode of failure of solid brick masonry under biaxial stress depends on
both the state of stress and the orientation of the stresses to the jointing planes.If
is tensile, failure occurs
one or both of the principal stresses at a particular location

Fig. 2. Failure surface for brick masonry in on,op, T space

596

B R I C KM A S O N R YI N F I L L

in a plane (or planes) normal to the surface of the wall with the joints playing a
significantrole. If both principal stresses are compressive,theinfluence of the
joints is less significant and failure usually occurs by spalling or splitting of the
panel in a plane parallel to the surface of the wall. In general, therefore, failure
must be expressed in termsof the principal stressesat a point andtheir orientation
to the bed joints.An alternative formulation is to define the failure surfacein terms
of stresses normal andparallel to the bedjointing planes (normalstress U " , parallel
stress np,and shear stress T). A failure surface in this form has been derived from
thebiaxial tests3 The surface, consisting of threeintersectingellipticcones,
is
shown in Fig. 2. The three elliptic cones do not exactly correspond to the various
modes of failure. However, the two endcones correspond approximately totensile
bond and compressionfailures, and the bulk of the intermediate cone corresponds
to a combined shear and compression
failure.

Finite element model

12. An iterativenon-linearfiniteelementmodelincorporatingthematerial
model described above has been developed with a view to analysing framed structures with brick masonry infiILz5 As the emphasis in the studyis on the failure of
the infill, the surrounding frame is assumed to remain elastic. The mortar joint
between the infill and the frame is modelled using one-dimensional joint elements.
These elements can simulate the progressive separationof the frame and the infill,
as well as shearfailure in the joint, as the loadis progressively increased. If failure
occurs under combined shear and compression, the element is assigned a limited
residual shear stiffness to simulate frictional forces.
13. In the finite element model, the loads are applied incrementally.
At each
increment of load, two sets of iterations are performed: one allows for material
non-linearity; the other accounts for progressive local failure.
At a given load level,
iterationcontinuesuntiltheunbalancednodal
forces associated with material
non-linearityare less than a prescribedtolerance limit. The stresses arethen
checked for violation of the failure criterion. If failure is indicated, the stiffness
coefficients are reduced to avalue appropriate to the mode of failure and the
problem re-solved. Once convergence has been achieved, a further increment
of
load is applied and theprocess repeated. Loading continues until the solution
fails
of the infill.
to converge, indicating failure

Verification of the finite element model

14. Several half-scale infilled framesweretested to check the validity of the
finite element model described in the previous section. A range of frame stiffness
and panel geometries was chosen to produce the various modesof failure typical
for infilled frames. The results have been reported previously.26. 2 7 In all cases,
good agreement was obtained between theory and experiment. In the following,
only the results of two of the infilled frame tests relevant to the ensuingdiscussion
are presented. The twoframes exhibited the twotypical modes of failure (one failed
by diagonal splitting, the other
by corner crushing), and are thusideally suited as a
basis forthe parametric studieswhich follow.
Frame tests
15. Of the two frames, one was squareandtheotherrectangular.Inboth
infilled frames, theframemembers
consisted of lightgaugechannelsections
welded back to back to form an I section 51 mm deep with a flange width of
597

DHANASEKARANDPAGE

50 mm. The squareinfilled frame (frame # l), with brickwork panel'dimensions of

1030 mm long X 995 mm high, was tested with the brick masonry still moist and
at an age of 28 days. The rectangular frame (frame
#2), with brickwork panel
dimensions of 1495 mm long X 995 mm high, was tested with the brick masonry
dry at anage of 105 days. (Previous tests on moist and dry specimensof the brick
masonry had revealed that the shear and tensile bond strengths of the dry, older,
masonry were approximately 75% greater than the moist, younger,specimens. In
contrast, the compressive strength remained unchanged). Both
infilled frameswere
tested under a monotonically increasing racking load until failureof the masonry
infill occurred. Frame # 1 failed along the loaded diagonal in a
series of steps
along the bed and header joints. Failure originated near the centre of the panel

-.-

60-

Flnlle element model

Experimental

2 40-

v'

o
/
'
P'

d
Q'

,d

Deflexlon: mm

(4
100o
-0-

Experimental
Finite element model

80 -

P/
Z
1

o/*

60-

U
0
-

O/*

.'

"f

.-C

5m

d"

.l

40-

o./

LT

d
cm/

20-

f
OO

oY/

1 .o

2.0
Deflexion- mm

3 .O

(W

Fig. 3. Observed and predicted load-deflexion curves for infilled frames: (a) frame
# 1;(b)yrume # 2
598

B R I C KM A S O N R YI N F I L L

and then progressed towards the loaded and reaction corners. Frame
# 2 (with
infill possessing higher bond strength),
failed by local crushingof the masonry near
the loaded corner.

Comparison ofpredictedand observed performance

16. Bothtests were simulatedusingthepreviouslydescribedfiniteelement
model with 5 kN loading increments. For frame # 1, the original material model
was used. For frame # 2, the failure characteristics were modified to allow for the
increased shear andtensile bond strengths.
17. Theobservedandpredicted
load-deflexion curvesforthetwo
infilled
frames arecompared in Fig. 3. Itcan be seen thatthe finiteelementmodel
satisfactorily reproduces the loadcleflexion behaviour of the infilled frames. For
frame # 1, the behaviour is markedly non-linear,with the slope of the curve being
similar tothat of thebareframeoncesubstantialcracking
of the infill has
occurred. (For purposes of these analyses, the ultimate loadis taken as the load at
which the infill has failed.) It is also significant to note from the curve that appreciable shear stresses are still being transmitted across the failure planes even when
cracking has progressed completely down the panel diagonal. Frame # 2 did not
exhibit significant non-linear behaviour as failure occurred suddenly
by corner
crushing. Frame # 1 failed in a stepped manner from the loaded to the reaction
corner. Good agreement was obtained between the observed and predicted failure
pattern. For frame # 2, failure was confined to a local area near the loaded corner
of the infill (under the action of biaxial compressive stresses). The location and
extent of the failure zone was againin good agreement with those predicted by the
analysis.
18. The predicted and observed failure loads also agreedwell. The experimental ultimate loads for panels # 1 and # 2 were 45 kN and 85.5 kN respectively;
the corresponding ultimate loads predicted
by the finite element analysis were
43 kN and 85 kN. Satisfactory agreement was also obtained between the observed
and predicted brick masonry infill strains and frame bending moments. Detailed
results of these comparisons have been reported elsewhere.26.

Parametric studyof brick masonry properties

19. As a result of the good agreement between predicted and observed performance, the finite element model was used to carry out a more extensive ofstudy
the relative importance of the parameters used to define the material model. The
study also helpstoestablishthemasonrypropertieswhichhaveasignificant
influence onthebehaviour
of practical infilled frames. Theparametricstudy
involved the analysisof the two previously describedinfilled frames, with progressive variations in the parameters defining the material model
for the masonryinfill.
20. The following parameters were varied: the elastic properties (Eband v ) ; the
constants of the inelastic stress-strain equations ( B , , B , , B , , n, , n, and n J ; and
the compressive strength and the shear
and tensile bond strengths (thatis, varying
the size and shape of the failure surface). Only one parameter was modified at a
time.
Influence of masonry elastic properties
21. The elastic properties of the masonry would be expected t o have a significant influenceon the behaviourof infilled frames, as they directly
affect the relative
stiffness of the infill and its surrounding frame. In addition to the load-deflexion
599

DHANASEKARANDPAGE

Table 1. Influence of the elastic properties of brick masonry on the

ultimate strengthof the infill
~~

Elastic properties
E , , MPa

0.10

I "

Frame # 2

Frame # l
load, kN

5700
57007
5700

Ratio* Ultimate
load, kN

46
43
40

1.07

43
43
43

1 .00 85
1 .00
l .00

Ratio* Ultimate

1.12
95
1.oo
85 1
65 0.93 0.76
1. O o
1.00
85
0.94
80

* Ratio = ultimate load/ultimate loadfor original material model.

t Original material model.
characteristics,theultimateloadandfailuremode
of the infill couldalso be
affected. This can be seen
with reference to equation(l),where the relative stiffness
parameter Ih is proportional to
A summary of theresults of theanalyses is
contained in Table 1. In all cases, failure occurred by diagonal cracking for frame
# 1 and corner crushing for frame
# 2. It can be seen that variations inE , do have
some influence on the racking strength, but the influence
is not strong for most
cases. The infill stiffness has a greater influence on the failure load when failure
occurs by corner crushing. In this case, a 100% increase in E , resulted in a 24%
decrease in the ultimate load. The influence
of Poisson's ratio was not
significant.
22. The loaddeflexion curves obtained from the analysis
of frames # 1 and
# 2 with varying E , values are given in Fig. 4. The curves are given only up to the
ultimate load of the masonry infill. The curve for the bare frame is also shown for
each case. Curves for changes in Poisson's ratios are not shown, as variations in
this parameterwerefoundto
beinsignificant.Thecurvesshowtheexpected
influence of masonry stiffness. Comparisons with the curve for the bare frame in
each case highlights the contributionof the infill to the overall frame
stiffness, with
even a very flexible infill making a significant contribution. Comparisons of the
lateral frame deflexion at a load corresponding to approximately
half the ultimate
load for each frame are shown in Table 2. At this load level, all load-deflexion
curves are still linear. It can be seen that the influence of infill stiffness on lateral
deflexion is significant. For example, halving the value of E , resulted in a 64%
increase in deflexionfor frame # 2.

Table 2. Lateral frame deflexions at a racking load approximately halj

the ultimate load for varying E ,

Elastic modulus

1
0,5E,
2.0Eb

~~~

Frame # 1

Deflexion,
mm

Ratio*

Deflexion,
mm

Ratio*

1.64
1.62 1.38 0.72
1 .00
1 .00 0.52 0.99
0.69
0.56 0.29
0.68

* Ratio = lateral deflexion/lateral deflexionfor E ,

600

Frame #2

5700 MPa.

BRICK MASONRY INFILL

./.

-0

2
I

40-

m
0-

v0-

E, 2850 MPa
E, 5 7 0 0 MPa
E,. 11400 MPa

Bare frame

10

2 .o
Deflexlon: mm
(a)

3.0

1O O r

Deflexion: mm
(b)

Fig. 4. Load-deflexioncurves
for infilled frameswith
stiffness: (a)frame # 1; (b)frame # 2

varying brick masonry

Influence of the constantsof the inelastic stress-strain equations

23. The influence of the constantsB,, B,, B,, nn, np and n, of equations (2), (3)
and (4) was studied by varying the value of the constants one at a time. In each
case, a value double and half the original value was adopted. Racking tests for
both frames # 1 and # 2 were simulated. For completeness, an analysis assuming
elastic-brittle behaviour was also performed. The values used in the analyses are
3. Forthe infilled framesconsidered,variationsinthe
summarizedinTable
inelastic constants were found to have no influence on either the load-deflexion
behaviour or theultimate load of the infill, with all the non-linear behaviour being
caused by progressive cracking. This was confirmed by the elastic-brittle analysis
which gave identical results. The insensitivity of these parameters could be partly
attributable to the nature of the test, as the bulk of the infill panel is in a state of
is
biaxialtension+ompression
(for thisstressstate,elastic-brittlebehaviour
60 1

D H A N A S E K A RA N DP A G E

Table 3. Constants of the inelastic stress-strain equations used in the

parametric study
(elastic-brittle behaviour: E , = 5700 MPa; v = 0.19)
Factor

B , , MPa

0.5

3.65
7.30
14.60

1.0*

2.0

B , , MPa

B , , MPa

1 .00
2.00

4.00
8.00

n,
1.65
3.30
6.60

n,

np

1.65
6.60
4.00

2.00
4.00
3.30
8.00
16.00

* Original constants.
assumed in the material model). This insensitivity of the inelastic constants may
not be as apparent for cases in which larger areas of the wall are in a state of
biaxial compression.

Influence of masonry compressive strength

24. The influenceof masonry compressive strength on the behaviour of infilled
frames was studiedby increasing and decreasing the original compressive strength
by 20%. This was achieved by modifying the cone of the failure surface (Fig. 2)
correspondingtocompression
failure andreanalysingthetwo
infilled frames.
Changes in the compressive strength of the masonry did not influence the loaddeflexion behaviour of either of the infilled frames. The failureof the infill of frame
# 1 was also unaffected, as its mode
of failurewas one of diagonal cracking.
However, for frame # 2 (when failure occurred by corner crushing), variations in
compressivestrengthhasadirectinfluence.
A reduction of 20% inmasonry
strength resulted in a corresponding reduction of 18% in the capacity of the infill.
An increase of 20% in masonry strength produced an increasein ultimate load of
12%. Strengthening of the infill can also influence the mode of failure. For frame
# 2, with the increased compressive strength, corner crushing failure was accompanied by some shear failureat the centreof the panel. This suggests that a further
increase in compressive strength (without a corresponding increase in bond stress)
would inhibit corner crushing and cause failure to occur by diagonal cracking at
only marginally increased loads.
Table 4. Influence of bond strength on the failure of brick masonry
injill
Analysis

It

Tensile bond
strength,
MPa

Shear bond
strength,
MPa

Ultimate load,

0.40
0.00

0.30
0.30

0.80
0.40
0-40
0.80
0.20

0.15
0.60
0.60
0.15

43
10
63
16
15
75

* l . Diagonal cracking;2. Corner crushing.

t Original material model.

602

kN

12

Mode of
failure,
MPa*
1
1

0.30

1
1
2
1

B R I C KM A S O N R YI N F I L L

*Or

1
z

,q

!i401
a

Deflexlon: mm

Fig. 5. Load-deflexion curves for injilledframes with brick masonryof varying bond
strength
Influence of the shearand tensile bond strengthof the masonry
25. For frame # 1, the tensile and shear bond strengths of the masonry were
variedbothindependentlyandtogether,
while holdingalltheothermaterial
of
propertiesconstant.Thecasesconsidered,theultimateloadandthemode
failure for each analysis are summarized in Table 4. The load-deflexion curves for
the analyses are shown in Fig. 5. It can be seen that the load-deflexion curves are
coincident until cracking of the masonry infill commences. The level at which this
reduction in stiffness occurs varied markedly, and is directly related to the bond
strengths. The ultimate load of the infill is also significantly affected in all cases.
The mode of failure remained the same except for analysis # 6 . In this case, the
increased shear and tensile bond strength was sufficient to prevent a diagonal
shear failure and thus to precipitate corner crushing
failure.
26. It can be concluded, therefore, that accurate definitionof the bond properties of the infill is required if realistic predictions of infilled frame behaviour areto
be made, as variations
in bond strengths can affect both the stiffness and the
strength of the composite frame. It is significant to note that most of the previous
studies of infilled frame behaviour have not considered the influenceof the tensile
and shear bond strength on the behaviour
of the composite frame.

Summary and conclusions

27. Theresultsfromalargenumber
of biaxialtestson
half-scale brick
masonry panels have been used to establish representative stress-strain relations
and failure criteria for solid brick masonry. These properties have been expressed
in terms of stress and strain components related to the jointing directions, and
have been used to formulate an iterative finite element model for the analysis of
603

DHANASEKARANDPAGE
brick masonry. The incremental finite element model is able to reproduce the
non-linear behaviour caused by material non-linearity and progressive failure. The
adequacy of the finite element model has been verified by comparison with the
results of racking tests onsteel frameswith brick masonry infill.
28. A detailed parametric study of the influence of brick masonry properties
on thebehaviour of infilled framessubjected to rackingloadsusingthefinite
element model has revealed the following.
(a) The modulus of elasticity of the infill masonry significantly influences the

load4eflexion characteristics of the composite frame, and to a lesser

extent can influence its ultimate strength. The influence of variations in
Poissons ratio is insignificant.
(b) For a racking test (where the bulk of the masonry is in a stress state of
biaxial tension-compression), the influence of the inelastic deformation
characteristics of the masonry is insignificant. Elastic-brittle material
characteristics were found satisfactorily to reproduce the behaviour in
this case.
(c) Variations in masonry compressive strength do not influence the racking
capacity of infilled frames when failure occurs
by shearing down the
paneldiagonal. If failureoccurs
by cornercrushing,theultimate
strength is influenced by changesin compressive strength. A progressive
increaseinmasonrycompressivestrengthforpanels
which fail by
corner crushing will eventually cause the mode of failure to change to
one of diagonal shearing.
(6) The tensile and shear bond strengths of the masonry critically influence
the load-deflexion behaviour, the ultimate load and, in extreme cases,
the modeof failure of the infilled frame. Realistic methods of analysis of
infilled frames must therefore consider these parameters as well as the
relative frame-wall stiffness and frame geometry.

Acknowledgements
29. The contribution of Mr P. W. Kleeman, Senior Lecturer, Department of
Civil Engineering and Surveying, University of Newcastle to this research work is
gratefullyacknowledged. Part of the researchwasfundedby
theAustralian
Research Grants Scheme.
References
1. DHANASEKAR
M,, PAGEA. W. andKLEEMANP. W. The elasticproperties of brick
masonry. I n t . J .Masonry Constr., 1982,2, No. 4, 155-160.
2. DHANASEKAR
M,, KLEEMAN
P. W. and PAGEA. W. Biaxial stress-strain relationships for
brick masonry. J . Struct. Diu. Am. Soc. Cio. Engrs, 1985,111, May, No.ST5,1085-1100.
3. DHANASEKAR
M,, PAGEA. W. and KLEEMAN
P. W. The failure of brick masonry under
biaxial stresses.Proc. Instn Ciu. Engrs, Part 2,1985,79, June, 295313.
4. THOMAS
K. The strength of brickwork. Struct. Engr, 1953,31, No. 2 , 3 5 4 6 .
5. WOODR. H. The stability of tall buildings. Proc. Instn Ciu. Engrs, 1958,11,69-102.
6. BENJAMIN
J. R. and WILLIAMS
H. A. The behaviour of one storey brick shear walls. J .
Struct. Diu. Am. Soc. Cio. Engrs, 1958,84, No. ST4, 1-30.
7. HOLMES
M. Steel frames with brickwork and concrete tilling. Proc. Instn Ciu Engrs, 1961,
19,473478.
8. HOLMES
M. Combined loadingson infilled frames. Proc. Instn Ciu. Engrs, 1963,25, No. 5,
31-38.

604

BRICKMASONRY

INFILL

9. STAFFORD-SMITH
B. Lateral stiffnessof infilled frames. J . Struct. Diu. Am. Soc. Ciu. Engrs,
1962,88, NO.ST6,183-199.
10. STAFFORD-SMITH
B. Behaviour of squareinfilledframes. J . Struct. Diu. Am. Soc. Ciu.
Engrs, 1966,92, No. STl, 381403.
11. STAFFORD-SMITHB. Methods of predicting the lateral stiffness and strength
of multistorey infilled frames.Bldg Sci., 1967,2,247-257.
12. STAFFORD-SMITHB. and CARTER C.
A method of analysis for infilled frames. Proc. Instn
Ciu. Engrs,Part 2, 1969,44,3 148.
13. SIMMS
L. G. The behaviour of no-fines concrete panels as theinfill in reinforced concrete
frames. Ciu. Engng Publ. Wks Rec.,1967,62, No. 736,1245-1250.
14. MAINSTONE R.
J. and WEEKSG. A. The influence of a bounding frame on the racking
stiffness and strengthsof brick walls. Proc. 2nd Int. Con$ on Brick Masonry, Stoke-onTrent, 1970,16>171.
15. MAINSTONEJ.R.
On the stiffness and strengthsof infilled frames. Proc. Instn Ciu. Engrs,
1971, Suppls, 57-90.
16. KADIRM.R. and HENDRYA.W.Thebehaviourofbrickworkinfilledframesunder
(S), 1975, No. 24,6577.
racking load.Proc. Er. Ceram. Soc., Load Bearing Brickwork
17. MALLICK
D. V. and SEVERN R.
T. The behaviour of infilled frames under static loading.
Proc. Instn Ciu. Engrs,1967,38,639-656.
18. RIDDINGTON J. R. and STAFFORD-SMITH B. Analysis of infilled frames subject
to racking
with design recommendations.Struct. Engr, 1977,55, No. 6,263-268.
19. KINGG. J. W. and PANDEY P. C.The analysis of infilled frames using finite elements.
Proc. Instn Ciu. Engrs,Part 2, 1978,65,749-760.
20. WOOD R.H. Plasticity, composite action and collapse designof unreinforced shear wall
panels in frames.Proc. Instn Cio. Engrs,Part 2, 1978,65,381411.
21. LIAUWT. C. and KWANK. H. Non-linear analysis of multistorey infilled frames. Proc.
Instn Ciu. Engrs,Part 2, 1982,73,441-454.
22. DAWEJ. L. and YONG T.C.Aninvestigationoffactorsinfluencingthebehaviourof
masonry infill in steel frames subjectedto in-plane shear. Proc. 7th Int. Con$ on Brick
Masonry, Melbourne, 1985,803-814.
23. PAGE
A. W. The biaxial compressive strength of brick masonry. Proc. Instn Ciu. Engrs,
Part 2,1981,71,893-906.
24. PAGE
A. W. The strength of brick masonry under biaxial tensionxompression. Int. J .
Masonry Constr., 1983,3, No. 1 , 2 6 3 1 .
25. PAGE
A. W., KLEEMAN
P. W. and DHANASEKAR
M. An in-plane finite element model for
brick masonry. Proc. of Structural Engineering Congress, 1985. American Society of

Civil Engineers, Chicago, Sept.,

1985.
26. DHANASEKAR
M,, PAGEA. W. and KLEEMAN
P. W. Behaviour of brick masonry under
biaxial stress with particular reference to infilled frames. Proc. 7th Int. Cont on Brick
Masonry, Melbourne, 1985,815824.
27. DHANASEKAR
M., PAGE
A. W. and KLEEMANW.
P.The influence ofmasonry infill on the
behaviour of structural frames. Proc. Concrete '85, Institution of Engineers, Australia,
Brisbane, Oct., 1985.

605