Effectiveness of Some Strengthening Options for

Masonry-Infilled RC Frames with Open First Story

Hemant B. Kaushik1; Durgesh C. Rai2; and Sudhir K. Jain, M.ASCE3

Abstract: Strengthening of masonry-infilled reinforced concrete RC frame buildings with an open first story is needed because of the
inherent irregularity in such buildings resulting in their poor performance as observed during several past earthquakes. In the present
study, several strengthening schemes were evaluated for their effectiveness in improving the performance of such buildings, based on
nonlinear analyses of typical RC frames. Instead of using predetermined multiplying factors for designing the first-story members for
higher forces as recommended in some national codes, a rational method was developed for the calculation of the required increase in
strength of open first-story columns. Other strengthening schemes studied were providing additional columns, diagonal bracings, and
lateral buttresses in the open first story. Code methods were found to increase only lateral strength and not the ductility of such frames;
whereas, some of the alternate schemes studied were found to improve both lateral strength and ductility for improved seismic
performance.
DOI: 10.1061/ASCE0733-94452009135:8925
CE Database subject headings: Reinforced concrete; Masonry; Frames; Seismic effects; Ductility.

Introduction
In several countries, it is common to leave the first story of
masonry-infilled reinforced concrete RC frame buildings open
primarily to generate parking space i.e., masonry infill walls are
present in all but the first story. As a result, severe vertical ir-
regularities are created in such buildings, which have consistently
performed extremely poorly during past earthquakes AIJ 1995;
Jain et al. 2002; Kaushik and Jain 2007; Dolek and Fajfar 2001.
In most cases, first-story columns were either damaged severely
or failed completely, thereby damaging the buildings. Strengthen-
ing of open first story is recommended by national codes of a few
countries: IndiaIS 1893 BIS 2002, IsraelSI 413 SII 1995,
and Bulgaria Bulgarian Seismic Code 1987. These codes require
the open-story beams and columns to be designed for higher
forces obtained by multiplying the design seismic forces with
predetermined factors varying from 2.1 to 3.0. In addition, provi-
sions in Eurocode 8 CEN 2003 for RC buildings with a soft first
story require that the first-story columns be designed for 1.54.68
times the design seismic forces depending upon several param-
eters. However, in Eurocode 8, the natural period of buildings is
calculated using empirical expressions that use a cross-sectional
area of infills in the first story. In case of open first-story frames,
the cross-sectional area of infills in the first story is zero because
of absence of infills in the first story; therefore, the empirical
expressions for the calculation of natural periods cannot be used
for such buildings, and it may be inferred that buildings with open
first-storey are not anticipated by Eurocode 8 Kaushik et al.
2006.
Past researchers have demonstrated advantages of providing
masonry infills in RC buildings and recommended several design
strategies for open first-story buildings, for example, providing
confining reinforcement in the whole unsupported length of first-
story columns, increasing strength and stiffness of first-story
members, capacity design, and providing additional members in
the first story Das and Nau 2003; Fardis et al. 1999; Negro and
Colombo 1997; Selvakoodalingam et al. 1999.
In the present study, analytical investigations were carried out
to evaluate the effectiveness of several strengthening schemes in
improving the strength and ductility of open first-story RC
frames. For the purpose, pushover analyses of typical RC frames
were carried out using SAP 2000 Structural Analysis Program
2004. In place of using code-specified predetermined multiplying
factors, a rational method was developed in the present study to
calculate the required increase in the strength of the first-story
columns.

1
Assistant Professor, Dept. of Civil Engineering, Indian Institute of
Technology Guwahati, Guwahati 781039, India. E-mail: hemantbk@
iitg.ernet.in
2
Associate Professor, Dept. of Civil Engineering, Indian Institute of
Technology Kanpur, Kanpur 208016, India corresponding author.
E-mail: dcrai@iitk.ac.in
3
Professor, Dept. of Civil Engineering, Indian Institute of Technology
Kanpur, Kanpur 208016, India. E-mail: skjain@iitk.ac.in
Note. This manuscript was submitted on March 21, 2007; approved
on March 17, 2009; published online on July 15, 2009. Discussion period
open until January 1, 2010; separate discussions must be submitted for
individual papers. This paper is part of the Journal of Structural Engi-
neering, Vol. 135, No. 8, August 1, 2009. ASCE, ISSN 0733-9445/
2009/8-925937/$25.00.
Frame Considered in the Study
A typical four-story RC frame Fig. 1 was designed for the most
critical load combination using the relevant Indian Standards and
using the prevalent design philosophy of not including strength
and stiffness of infills in design process. Columns were assumed
to be fixed at the base. Grades of concrete and steel assumed were
M25 cube strength f ck of 25 MPa and modulus of elasticity Ec of
25,000 MPa and Fe415 yield strength f y of 415 MPa, respec-
tively. Live loads considered on the frame were 2.0 kN/ m2 at all
floor levels and 0.75 kN/ m2 at the roof level; only 25% of live
loads were considered in load combinations involving earthquake

JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING ASCE / AUGUST 2009 / 925

Downloaded 21 Jul 2009 to 125.20.8.163. Redistribution subject to ASCE license or copyright; see http://pubs.asce.org/copyright
Fig. 1. Details of the four-story RC building considered in the present study: a plan of the building; b elevation of the frame and section
properties of RC members

loads. Self-weight of 220-mm-thick burnt clay brick masonry in- to one-half of the average plastic hinge length l p from the member
fills 18 kN/ m3 was included in the seismic weight calculations. ends; l p was calculated using the following expression Paulay
The calculated design seismic base shear, corresponding lateral and Priestley 1992
forces on the frame, and designed RC sections are shown in Fig.
1 and calculations are summarized in Table 1. l p = 0.08L + 0.022db f y m 1

where L = length of member in m; db = diameter of longitudinal

Mathematical Models for Reinforced Concrete
Members and Masonry Infills
Parameters used for modeling RC and masonry infill members of
the frame along with their nonlinear material models used in
pushover analyses are discussed in this section.
Reinforced Concrete Members
Plasticity in RC members was assumed to be lumped at probable
locations. Plastic hinges were assumed to form at a distance equal
steel in m; and f y = yield strength of longitudinal steel in MPa.
Plastic hinges that generally develop are those corresponding to
flexure and shear. Flexural hinge properties involve axial force
bending moment interaction P M as the failure envelope and
bending momentrotation M as the corresponding load de-
formation relation. On the other hand, shear hinge properties in-
volve shear forceshear deformation relation V .
P M interaction properties for RC columns were developed
using the work of Dasgupta 2000, who used the stress-strain
model for confined concrete developed by Razvi and Saatcioglu
1999, and the stress-strain curves for reinforcement bars were

Table 1. Calculation of Design Seismic Base Shear for the Frame Using IS 1893 BIS 2002

Design seismic base shear, VB = ZI S a W Sa/g

2R g SDS 0.60
Z = 0.24 (Zone factor for seismic zone IV)
I = 1.0 (Importance factor for general residential buildings)
2R = 10.0 (Response reduction factor for ductile RC frames) SD1 0.33
Sa/g = Spectral acceleration for 5% damping and 0.24
medium soil (SPT blow count between 10 and 30)
SDS = Design spectral acceleration at short periods
0.10 0.55 1.00 Ta , s
SD1 = Design spectral acceleration at 1 s period
Seismic weight of frame, W = 1 640 kN (weight density of RC = 25 kN/m3)
0.09 H
Natural Period, Ta = = 0.42 s (height of frame H = 14.0 m, width of frame d = 9.0 m)
d
VB = 98.4 kN
Vertical distribution of design seismic shears
2
Level Wi (kN) hi (m) Wi hi2 (kNm ) Qi (kN) Wi hi2 (kN)
Qi = VB n
Roof 329 14.0 64 484 42.5
3 437 10.8 50 972 33.6 W j h2j
j =1
2 437 7.6 25 241 16.7
Wi, Wj, and hi, hj = seismic weight and
1 437 4.4 8 460 5.6
height of ith or jth storey, respectively,
1 640 - 149 157 98.4 n =number of stories.

926 / JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING ASCE / AUGUST 2009

Downloaded 21 Jul 2009 to 125.20.8.163. Redistribution subject to ASCE license or copyright; see http://pubs.asce.org/copyright
 Axial Force
Tension Bending Moment Shear Force
Bending Pt Mu Vu
Moment, M0 M My
M2 b M3
Pb Balanced 0.2Mu
Point Rotation Shear
y u 1.5u - 2.0u Deformation
Pc
Compression

(a) P-M (b) M- (c) V-

Fig. 2. Typical hinge properties assigned to RC members of the frame

obtained experimentally ultimate strain 14.5%, ultimate stress Masonry Infills

1.25f y. Strength and deformation properties for the M
model were calculated using a simplified method in which the
bending moment diagram of a member under lateral forces are
assumed to vary linearly Park and Paulay 1975; Das and Murty
2004. And if the point of contraflexure is in the midspan, a mem-
ber fixed at both ends can be replaced by an equivalent cantilever
of half span with a concentrated load at its tip. The M relation-
ship for the linear distribution of moments was obtained using the
moment-curvature relationship of the section. The ultimate rota-
tion values given in FEMA 356 FEMA 2000 were simplified
and taken as 1.52.0 times the rotation corresponding to the maxi-
mum moment capacity for the section.
Strength characteristics of the shear hinge V model for
RC members were calculated using the relevant Indian Standards.
The shear failure of RC members was considered to take place
when the shear strength of the section was reached, and the fail-
ure was assumed to be force-controlled because of the associated
brittleness. Typical hinge properties for RC members are shown
in Fig. 2 and values calculated for sections used in this study are
given in Table 2.
Extensive research has been carried out in the past on analytical
modeling of masonry infills, for example, Stafford-Smith 1962,
Madan et al. 1997, Crisafulli et al. 2000a, Asteris 2003, etc.
Based on these studies, it was observed that masonry infills can
be conveniently modeled as compressive diagonal struts. In the
present study, masonry infills were modeled using three compres-
sive struts along the loaded diagonals Fig. 3. Three-strut models
were also proposed by several researchers in the past Gergely et
al. 1994; Crisafulli et al. 2000b; El-Dakhakhni et al. 2003. In
case of frames with full height masonry infills, FEMA 356 also
recommends evaluating the effect of strut compression forces ap-
plied to the columns and the beams, eccentric from the beam-
column joint. The elastic modulus of masonry Em MPa was
taken from past experimental study as Em = 550f m , where f m is the
masonry prism strength in MPa Kaushik et al. 2007. It was
reported that specimens with strong frames and strong panels ex-
hibited both better lateral load resistance and energy dissipation
capacity performance than those with weak frames and weak pan-

Table 2. Calculated Plastic Hinge Properties for RC Members of the Frame

Flexural hinge
properties Story P kN M y kN/m y rad Mu / My u / y
M columns I 752 124 0.0040 1.05 44.5
II 569 100 0.0023 1.05 55.4
III 361 77 0.0017 1.05 78.3
IV 155 59 0.0014 1.05 94.6
M beams I 181 0.0012 1.05 21.9
II 149 0.0010 1.05 28.2
III 120 0.0008 1.05 32.8
IV 70 0.0004 1.05 55.7
Properties Story Pb kN Pc / Pb Pt / Pb M o kN/m Mb / Mo
P M columns I 735 3.5 1.1 91 1.4
II 759 3.1 0.8 70 1.6
III 773 2.9 0.5 49 1.9
IV 773 2.9 0.5 49 1.9
Shear hinge Shear hinge
properties Story Vu kN properties Story Vu kN
V columns I 500 V beams I 291
II 492 II 286
III 481 III 280
IV 470 IV 267

JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING ASCE / AUGUST 2009 / 927

Downloaded 21 Jul 2009 to 125.20.8.163. Redistribution subject to ASCE license or copyright; see http://pubs.asce.org/copyright

m/2 Db
m =
m/2
Ic = moment of inertia of
ws/2
dw
ws/4
hm
hm = height of masonry,
t = thickness of masonry,
bc
ws=dw/4
Fig. 3. Details of the three-strut model for masonry infills in RC
frame
els Mehrabi et al. 1996. In the present study, this effect was
studied by considering three mortar grades in masonry infill con-
struction: weak 1:0:6, intermediate 1:0.5:4.5, and strong
1:0:3 by varying cement-lime-sand ratio.
The width of compressive struts ws was considered as one-
fourth of the diagonal length dw of the infill Paulay and Priestley
1992. The thickness of struts was taken as the actual thickness of
walls 220 mm. The width of the diagonal strut was taken as
one-eighth of the diagonal length of the wall, and the width of
off-diagonal struts as one-half the width of the diagonal strut Fig.
3. The off-diagonal struts were connected to the columns at the
center of the distance known as the vertical length of contact
between the infill and column m Stafford-Smith and Carter
1969. The horizontal length of contact between the infill and
beam was taken the same as the vertical contact length because
varying the horizontal contact length was found not to affect the
results significantly. Plastic hinges dissipative zones were as-
sumed to develop at the center of the struts and the length of
dissipative zones was considered as three-fourths of the strut
length. Compressive stress-strain curves of masonry obtained by
Kaushik et al. 2007 were simplified and assigned as axial hinge
properties to the struts Fig. 4.
Strengthening Schemes Studied
Nonlinear pushover analyses of the frame shown in Fig. 1 were
carried out by considering bare frame BF, open first-story frame
OFS, and frame strengthened using several strengthening
schemes SS including those prescribed in various national
codes. Frames analyzed in the present study are shown in Table 3
and discussed in the following sections.
Capacity Curves for Different Frames
4 Ec I c hm
Ten Inelastic Stages were suggested on pushover curves to facili-
Em t sin ( 2 )
4
2
tate the description of the behavior of different members of the
column section, frame at various stages: 1 PC1: plastic hinges develop in the
first-story columns; 2 PB1: plastic hinges develop in the first-
= angle of inclination of the story beams; 3 PCB2: plastic hinges develop in columns and/or
diagonal strut with the
horizontal beams in upper stories; 4 PW1: dissipative zones develop in
infills in the first story; 5 PW2: dissipative zones develop in
infills in upper stories; 6 FC1: failure of the first-story columns;
7 FB1: failure of the first-story beams; 8 FCB2: failure of the
columns and/or beams in upper stories; 9 FW1: failure of the
first-story infills; and 10 FW2: failure of infills in upper stories.
Capacity curves obtained for the frames analyzed in the present
study are discussed in the following sections.
Bare Frame
This frame represents the most currently used common practice of
not including the strength and stiffness of masonry infills in the
analysis and design procedure. The capacity curve obtained by the
pushover analysis of the frame is shown in Fig. 5a. Linear be-
havior was observed in different members of the frame up to a
base shear of about 17% seismic weight and up to a roof displace-
ment corresponding to 0.4% drift. Nonlinearity was observed to
be well distributed along the height of the frame. Failure of the
frame was found to take place due to the flexural failure of first-
story columns at the ultimate lateral load corresponding to 18%
seismic weight and lateral drift of 5.3%. Failure of the first-story
columns was observed because the frame was designed as a weak
column-strong beam frame system to reflect the current design
practice adopted by designers in India as well as in many other
countries.
Open First-Story Frame
In this case, stiffness and strength of masonry infills were consid-
ered in the upper stories; however, the first story of the frame was
kept open, i.e., without masonry infills. The capacity curve shows
linear behavior up to base shear corresponding to 16% seismic
weight and up to lateral drift of 0.3% Fig. 5b. The lateral
strength of the open first-story frame was found to be that corre-
sponding to about 20% seismic weight at about 3.5% lateral drift.
Most of the lateral deformations were found to be accumulated at
the soft and weak first story because of the presence of heavy
mass on upper stories and the absence of infills in the first story.
Therefore, force demand on first-story columns and beams be-

8
Simplified model used in analysis
Stress Weak Intermediate Strong
E m = 550 f m' in terms (1:0:6) (1:0.5:4.5) (1:0:3)
6 Stress Stress Stress
of f m'
Stress, MPa

1:0.5:4.5 (MPa) Strain (MPa) Strain (MPa) Strain

4 mortar 0.33 1.4 0.0009 2.2 0.0005 2.4 0.0005
0.75 3.1 0.0021 4.9 0.0015 5.6 0.0014
2 1:0:6 mortar
0.90 3.7 0.0029 5.9 0.0021 6.7 0.0020
1:0:3 mortar 1.00 4.1 0.0036 6.6 0.0030 7.5 0.0025
0 0.50 2.6 0.0059 3.3 0.0061 3.7 0.0045
0.000 0.002 0.004 0.006 0.008 0.20 - - 1.3 0.0080 1.5 0.0053
Strain

Fig. 4. Simplified compressive stress-strain curves for masonry Kaushik et al. 2007

928 / JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING ASCE / AUGUST 2009

Downloaded 21 Jul 2009 to 125.20.8.163. Redistribution subject to ASCE license or copyright; see http://pubs.asce.org/copyright
Table 3. Different Frames and Strengthening Schemes Studied

(a) BF: (b) OFS: (c) SS1: (d) SS2:

Bare Frame
Strength and stiffness of
infills ignored in all
stories
Open-First Storey Frame
Strength and stiffness of
infills considered in all
but first-storey
Fully-Infilled Frame
Strength and stiffness
of infills considered in
all stories
Code-Prescribed Method
OFS + first-storey
members designed for
higher forces using
code-specified factors

(e) SS3, SS4:
Improvement over SS2
OFS + first-storey
columns designed for
higher forces using code-
factors (SS3), and using a
rational method (SS4)
(f) SS5a, SS5b:
Extra Columns
OFS + Extra columns
provided in alternate
bays (SS5a), and all
bays (SS5b) of the open
first-storey
(g) SS6a, SS6b: (h) SS7:
Diagonal Braces Lateral Buttresses
OFS + Diagonal braces OFS + Lateral
provided in alternate buttresses provided in
bays (SS6a), and all the open first-storey
bays (SS6b) of the
open first-storey

came excessively high under increasing lateral deformation, and
failure of the frame took place by flexural and shear failure of
first-story beams and columns. There was an insignificant effect
of mortar grade used on the capacity of the frame, which is gov-
erned by flexural capacity of open-story columns.
Strengthening Scheme 1 SS1: Fully Infilled Frame
Infill walls provide a main energy dissipation mechanism in struc-
tures subjected to the design earthquake provided weak stories are
avoided Michailidis et al. 1996. In SS1 stiffness and strength of

Fig. 5. Pushover curve and plastic hinge locations for: a bare frame; b open first-story frame; c fully infilled frame SS1; and d frame
strengthened using the national code method SS2

JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING ASCE / AUGUST 2009 / 929

Downloaded 21 Jul 2009 to 125.20.8.163. Redistribution subject to ASCE license or copyright; see http://pubs.asce.org/copyright
Table 4. Cross Section and Plastic Hinge Properties for the First-Story Members for SS2
Properties Storey+ P (kN) My (kNm)
M-
Flexural Hinge
I 1 880 400
Columns
M-
I - 510
Beams
Properties Storey +
Pb (kN) Pc/Pb
P-M
I 1 680 3.2
Columns
Properties Storey +
Vu (kN)
Hinge
Shear
V-
I 683
Columns
+
values for other stories remains the same as given in Table 2
masonry infills was considered in all stories; therefore, a large
increase in lateral strength and stiffness of the frame was ob-
served. However, the lateral strength of the frame reduced drasti-
cally after failure of infills in the first story Fig. 5c. A
significant variation was observed in the capacity curves when
different mortar grades were used in masonry. The performance
of the frames was quite similar in nature when intermediate
1:0.5:4.5 and strong 1:0:3 mortar was used, with a difference
that the frame was more flexible when intermediate mortar with
lime was used. This is also evident from Fig. 4, which shows that
the masonry prisms constructed using intermediate mortar exhib-
ited the most flexible behavior. For uniformity, the performance
will be discussed for the frame with strong masonry infills only.
First, inelastic activity was observed at a very high lateral load
corresponding to 70% seismic weight; however, the correspond-
ing drift level was only 0.1%, indicating a very strong and stiff
system. The failure of some of the first-story infills took place at
a base shear corresponding to 130% seismic weight and only
0.6% drift, and therefore, a large drop was observed in lateral
strength. This indicates the brittleness associated with the fully-
infilled frame systems. After the failure of a significant amount of
infill walls in the frame, lateral load behavior was observed to be
quite similar to that of the bare frame. It was noted that the pres-
ence of infills in the first story prevents premature failure of first-
story columns.
Strengthening Scheme 2 SS2: National Code
Prescribed Method
Indian seismic code BIS 2002 requires members of the open
first story to be designed for 2.5 times the design seismic forces.
Eurocode 8 CEN 2003 recommends increasing the design forces
for the soft first-story columns by 1.5 to 4.68 times depending
upon several factors. Israeli seismic code SII 1995 also recom-
mends increasing design forces for members of open first story
and also for one adjacent story above by 2.13.0 times the actual
design forces, depending on the ductility level of the building.
According to the Bulgarian Seismic Code 1987, the seismic
design forces for soft story in masonry-infilled RC frames are
required to be increased by two times the corresponding design
forces for a regularly infilled frame, and by three times the design
seismic forces for a regular bare frame.
The effectiveness of these strengthening schemes, in which the
lateral strength of the columns and the beams of the open first
story are required to be increased using predetermined multiply-
ing factors, was evaluated considering an average representative
multiplying factor of 2.5. Reinforcement details and plastic hinge
930 / JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING ASCE / AUGUST 2009
Downloaded 21 Jul 2009 to 125.20.8.163. Redistribution subject to ASCE license or copyright; see http://pubs.asce.org/copyright
y (rad) Mu/My u/y 10Y@100
3 legged
0.0025 1.05 25.3
450 10 20Y
450
0.0010 1.05 19.1
Column
Pt/Pb Mo (kNm) Mb/Mo
10Y@115
1.0 282 1.5
600
Properties Storey +
Vu (kN) 10 22Y
V- 400
I 540
Beams Beam
properties of the improved sections are given in Table 4. Similar
to the case of OFS, it was observed that mortar grade used in
upper-story masonry has a negligible effect on the lateral capacity
of the frame. Therefore, the pushover curve for the frame with
infills constructed using only 1:0:3 grade of mortar is shown in
Fig. 5d.
Elastic behavior was observed up to a base shear correspond-
ing to about 40% of seismic weight and 0.15% drift. The lateral
strength of the frame was found to increase significantly to about
50% seismic weight; however, corresponding lateral drift reduced
to only 1.6%. The collapse mechanism of the strengthened frame
did not alter when compared with the nonstrengthened open first-
story frame. Plastic hinges were observed to be concentrated in
only first-story columns due to their increased stiffness and the
frame failed by flexural failure of these columns. Plastic hinges
were not observed in first-story beams; therefore, it is necessary
to ascertain if there is any advantage to increasing the design
forces for open first-story beams.
Strengthening Scheme 3 SS3: Open First-Story
Columns Designed for 2.5 Times
In the case of the frame strengthened using SS2, it was observed
that plastic hinges developed in only the first-story columns.
Therefore, increasing the strength of first-story beams may exert
additional force demands on the first-story columns, whose
strengths were also increased by using a predetermined multiply-
ing factor. This has been observed by Fardis and Panagiotakos
1997 as well, after studying a similar clause in an older version
of Eurocode 8 for buildings with severe vertical irregularities. The
new version of Eurocode 8 CEN 2003 requires that lateral
strength of only the first-story columns be increased.
Following the above arguments, in SS3 only columns of the
first story were designed for 2.5 times the seismic design forces.
The frame members remained under elastic limit up to a base
shear corresponding to about 40% seismic weight and lateral drift
of 0.15% Fig. 6a. Plasticity developed in most RC members of
the open first story and infills in the second story at a base shear
of about 43% seismic weight and 0.2% lateral drift. However,
lateral deformability was reduced significantly due to shear fail-
ure of the first-story beams at 1.1% lateral drift. Thus, another
scheme was studied in which the first-story beams were provided
with confining shear reinforcement to improve their ductility. For
this purpose, shear strength of the beams in the open first story
was also increased by 2.5 times. Although lateral strength of this
frame was not observed to be improved significantly Fig. 6b,
Fig. 6. Pushover curves and plastic hinge locations for the frames used in SS3effect of improving ductility of first-story beams: a without
providing confining steel in first-story beams; b providing confining steel in first-story beams
substantial improvement was observed in its lateral deformability
1.7% drift. Failure of the frame was found to take place due to
flexural failure of the first-story columns.
Strengthening Scheme 4 SS4: Proposed
Improvement over Code Prescribed Methods
It was observed in SS2 and SS3 that increasing the strength of
first-story members by any arbitrary amount does not improve
performance of such buildings as desired, especially the ductility.
A method was developed in the present study to evaluate the
amount by which the lateral strength of the open first-story col-
umns should be increased to take care of the severe vertical ir-
regularities. If infills were provided in the first story, their lateral
strength can be calculated using axial strength Ps of diagonal
struts in all bays of the first story Fig. 7
nb
Ps = f m
i=1
wsiti N 2
where nb = number of bays in the building along the considered
direction and wsiti = total cross-sectional area of struts in mm2 in
the ith bay. The horizontal component of Eq. 2, i.e., Ps cos
gives the total lateral strength or the total lateral resistance offered
by masonry infills in the first story.
However, it seems to be too conservative to consider the full
prism strength of masonry in the calculation of its lateral resis-
tance. It was already observed in SS1 fully infilled frame that
the full strength of the first-story infills was effective for very low
lateral deformations and the masonry cracks soon after. It is im-
possible to avoid the formation of cracks in masonry considering
its high initial stiffness. However, the cracking in a controlled
manner can dissipate a significant amount of energy. The main
objective of strengthening the open-story frames is to improve the
Pscos
Ps
Fig. 7. Calculation of lateral strength of masonry-infill walls
JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING ASCE / AUGUST 2009 / 931
Downloaded 21 Jul 2009 to 125.20.8.163. Redistribution subject to ASCE license or copyright; see http://pubs.asce.org/copyright
deformability rather than seeking significant improvement in lat-
eral strength. Therefore, it was considered appropriate to use a
dependable strength of infills as 0.5 f m in the calculation of
their lateral strength. Thus, lateral resistance Hs offered by infills
in the first story can be calculated as
Ps
Hs = cos 3
2
In the absence of infills in the first story of buildings, Hs will
be the deficit in lateral strength of the first story. This deficit must
be calculated by considering the same type and thickness of infills
in the first story as are present in the upper stories. The amount by
which the strength of only the open first-story columns is required
to be increased can be calculated as
Hs + Vcol
= 4
Vcol
where = factor by which design forces for open first-story col-
umns are required to be increased and Vcol = summation of shear
strength, in N, of all columns in the first story by considering
concrete contribution and overstrength in the reinforcing bars. For
the frame considered in the present study, comes out to be 1.84
Table 5. The shear strength and ductility of the first-story beams
must also be improved by using the factor and by providing
confining shear reinforcement. Table 6 gives section and plastic
hinge properties of the first-story members.
The pushover curve obtained by nonlinear analysis of SS4
shows linear behavior up to the base shear of about 32% seismic
weight and 0.1% drift, after which flexural hinges developed in
the first-story members of the frame Fig. 8a. Nonlinearity was
observed in members of the upper stories including masonry in-
fills at about 1.4% lateral drift. Lateral strength was found to be
that corresponding to 34% seismic weight and corresponding lat-
eral drift about 1.8%. At the same lateral deformation, failure of
the frame took place by flexural failure of a few columns in the
first story. Although nonlinearity was observed in upper-story
members of the frame as well, the strengthened columns of the
Table 5. Calculation of the Multiplying Factor
Calculated Equation
Input quantities quantity used
= 7.5 MPa, nb = 3, wsi = 1,200 mm, ti = 220
fm Ps = 5,940 kN 2
= 55.7 Hs = 1,673 kN 3
Vcol = 4 500= 2,000 kN for four columns = 1.84 4
Fig. 8. Pushover curve and plastic hinge location for frames strengthened using: a SS4proposed modification to the national code prescribed
method; b SS5providing extra columns; c SS6providing diagonal bracings; and d SS7providing lateral buttresses
open first story underwent maximum damage as compared to
other members of the frame due to their increased stiffness.
From the above observations, it is clear that the national code
prescribed methods and the proposed modifications cannot im-
prove lateral deformability of the open first-story frames; only
lateral strength of such frames can be improved by designing the
open first-story members for higher forces. In the following sec-
tions, more strengthening schemes are investigated, which intend
to improve strength as well as ductility of such frames.
Strengthening Scheme 5 SS5: Providing Additional
Columns in Open First Story
Additional columns were provided in the open first story such that
strength of the first story was increased by 1.84 times as calcu-
lated in SS4; three additional columns were provided in the first
story four existing columns 1.84= 7.36 7 columns. Instead
of creating extra joints in first-story beams, joints were created in
the extra columns themselves Table 3. Size, reinforcement, and
plastic hinge properties of extra columns were kept identical to
that of the first-story columns. The shear strength and ductility of
the first-story beams was improved by providing confining shear
reinforcement as in SS4. In this way, weak links were created in
the extra columns and damage was expected to be concentrated in
them. For comparison, two configurations were studied: 1
SS5atwo extra columns provided in first story alternate bays;
2 SS5bthree extra columns provided in first story each bay.
In both the frames, flexural hinges developed in the first-story
columns including the extra columns at 0.2% lateral drift Fig.
8b. Nonlinearity was found to be distributed in members of the
upper stories earlier in SS5b as compared to that in SS5a. The
lateral strength of the frame used in SS5b 65% of seismic
weight was found to be about 30% higher than that of the frame
strengthened using two extra columns, SS5a 50% of seismic
weight. On the other hand, the lateral drift of the frame strength-
932 / JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING ASCE / AUGUST 2009
Downloaded 21 Jul 2009 to 125.20.8.163. Redistribution subject to ASCE license or copyright; see http://pubs.asce.org/copyright
ened using SS5b 2.9% was found to be marginally less than
that in SS5a. Failure of both the frames took place due to flexural
failure of extra columns.
Strengthening Scheme 6 SS6: Providing Diagonal
Bracings in Open First Story
Lateral load performance of the frame strengthened using RC
diagonal bracings in the first story was studied for the following
two cases: 1 SS6aproviding diagonal bracings in alternate
bays, and 2 SS6bproviding diagonal bracings in all the three
bays. These diagonal braces were not designed formally because
strength of such braces is usually very high and strength of the
first story was required to be increased by only 1.84 times. There-
fore, the size of section, reinforcement, and plastic hinge proper-
ties of bracings were kept identical to that of the already existing
first-story columns. In addition, the shear strength and ductility of
the first-story beams was improved by providing confining shear
reinforcement.
It was observed that there was an insignificant difference in
lateral strength of the frames strengthened using SS6a and SS6b;
however, a substantial difference was observed in their lateral
deformability Fig. 8c Although plastic hinges were found to
develop in all the first-story members columns, diagonal braces,
and beams, failure of plastic hinges was found to be concentrated
in upper story members. The worst affected members were infills
in upper stories because of their high lateral stiffness and brittle
characteristics. Significant nonlinearity was also observed in
upper-story beams. The ultimate strength of the frame was found
to be that corresponding to 155% seismic weight at 0.6% lateral
drift. This was followed by compressive failure of infills in upper
stories evident from a drastic reduction in lateral strength. Subse-
quently, the frame used in SS6a failed due to flexural failure of
first-story beams at about 1.8% drift. On the other hand, the frame
used in SS6b failed due to flexural failure of first-story beams and
Table 6. Cross Section and Plastic Hinge Properties for the First-Story Members for SS4
Properties Storey+ P (kN) My (kNm)
M-
I 1 384 327
Flexural Hinge
Columns
M-
I - 181
Beams
Properties Storey+ Pb (kN) Pc/Pb
P-M
I 1 768 2.8
Columns
Properties Storey+ Vu (kN)
Hinge
Shear
V-
I 652
Columns
+
values for other stories remains the same as given in Table 2
second-story columns at drift of about 2.5% 40% more drift
than that observed in the case of SS6a. Interestingly, the columns
and diagonal braces in the first story of the frame did not fail.
Strengthening Scheme 7 SS7: Providing Lateral
Buttresses in Open First Story
The effectiveness of providing RC lateral buttresses in the open
first story was evaluated by pushover analyses. These buttresses
are subjected to high axial forces based on their inclination with
the frame. For simplicity, the size of the section, reinforcement
details, and plastic hinge properties of the buttresses were kept
identical to that of the columns in the first story. The shear
strength and ductility of the first-story beams were improved by
providing confining shear reinforcement as done in SS4. Eight
frames with different inclination of buttresses with ground b
= 45 71 were analyzed to find the most effective angle at
which such buttresses can be provided in the considered frame.
As expected, it was observed that the lateral strength of frames
increases with decreasing inclination from ground. The highest
lateral strength and deformability was observed when buttresses
were provided at 45 and 60, respectively.
In the present study, RC lateral buttresses provided at 60 in-
clination from the ground were selected for strengthening the
frame because of highest deformability and significantly higher
lateral strength exhibited by this frame. Linear behavior of the
frame was observed up to base shear corresponding to about 60%
seismic weight and 0.09% drift, after which nonlinearity devel-
oped in masonry infills in the second story Fig. 8d. At the
lateral drift of about 0.2%, flexural hinges were found to develop
in several first-story columns including buttresses, upper-story
columns, and upper-story masonry infills. The lateral strength of
the frame was found to that corresponding to 130% seismic
weight at 3.2% drift. At the same lateral drift, several infill walls
in second story and beams in the first story failed. Failure of
buttresses and columns in the open first story of the frame was not
observed, although plastic hinges developed in most of these first-
story members at an early stage.
Comparison of Performance of Various Frames
The performance of various frames studied was also assessed by
comparing their respective capacity curves with the demand
curves obtained by using the response spectra given in the Indian
Seismic Code BIS 2002. The acceleration-displacement-
response-spectra ADRS curves thus obtained were normalized
Downloaded 21 Jul 2009 to 125.20.8.163. Redistribution subject to ASCE license or copyright; see http://pubs.asce.org/copyright
y (rad) Mu/My u/y 10Y@100
3 legged
0.0021 1.05 30.8
450
6 20Y
450
0.0012 1.05 38.1
Column
Pt/Pb Mo (kNm) Mb/Mo
0.6 185 1.8 10Y@100
450
6 20Y
Properties Storey+ Vu (kN)
300
V-
I 415 Beam
Beams
with the weight and height of the building, and the resulting
curves and performance points obtained using capacity spectrum
method are plotted in Fig. 9. On the other hand, pushover curves
obtained by nonlinear analyses of frames for 1:0:3 mortar grade
strengthened using various schemes are compared in Fig. 10a,
and the resulting strength and deformation characteristics are
given in Table 7. The performance of the frame strengthened
using SS2 national code method and SS3 modified national
code method based on past literature was found to be quite simi-
lar; therefore, response of only SS2 is compared. In addition, the
performance points obtained for various frames are compared in
Fig. 10b. Various properties of different frames are compared in
the following section.
Yield Lateral Force and Yield Lateral Roof
Displacement
Yield lateral force for the frame considered in SS7 with lateral
buttresses was found to be comparable with that of the frame
used in SS6b with three extra columns, but it was about 1.52
times more than that observed in the case of the frame used in
SS4 and SS5. Yield lateral force for the frame in SS7 was also
found to be comparable with that of the frame used in SS1 fully
infilled frame; however, yield displacement for SS7 was only
about 50% of that observed in SS1. Yield lateral forces in the case
of the frames used in SS2 and SS3 were about 6070% of that
observed in the case of SS1. Yield lateral displacement in the case
of the frames used in SS2 and SS3 was observed to be in the same
range as in the case of SS1. The yield lateral roof displacement in
the frame used in SS5b was found to be about two-thirds of that
shown by the frame in SS5a. On the other hand, yield displace-
ment was almost similar for the two cases.
Lateral Strength and Deformability
Lateral strength of the braced frame SS6 was found to be maxi-
mum among all the frames used in different strengthening
schemes four times more than that in case of SS4, two
times more than that of the frame used in SS5b, 20% more than
that of the frame in SS7, and 20% more than that of SS1. The
frames used in SS5b and SS7 were found to undergo maximum
lateral displacement, except the fully infilled frame SS1 in
which the ultimate roof displacement at failure was found to be
identical to that of the bare frame. Lateral roof displacement at
failure of the frame in SS7 was found to be about 30% more than
that of the frame used in SS6b, but only about 10% more than that
of the frame used in SS5b. Therefore, performance of the frame
JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING ASCE / AUGUST 2009 / 933
 Fig. 9. Comparison of capacity curves with expected demand curves for different frames

used in SS7 was much better than that shown by the frame in
SS6. On the other hand, performance of the frame in SS5b seems
to be comparable with that of the frame used in SS7, based on
almost identical lateral deformation capacity.
It was observed that by designing the open first story RC
members of the frame for 2.5 times the design seismic forces, the
lateral strength of open first-story frames was increased by about
2.5 times. However, the lateral drift corresponding to the ultimate
load was significantly reduced to 1.6%, which was even less than
one-half the values observed in the open first-story frame. The
capacity curves obtained for the frames in SS2 and SS3 were
quite similar: there was a marginal reduction in lateral strength of
the frame in SS3 as compared to that of the frame in SS2. On the
other hand, the lateral displacement capacity of the frame in SS3
was marginally higher than that of the frame in SS2. Although,
the lateral strength of the frame in SS4 proposed modification to
the national code methods was about 30% lower than that used in
SS2, lateral deformability was about 10% more. Therefore, there

934 / JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING ASCE / AUGUST 2009

Downloaded 21 Jul 2009 to 125.20.8.163. Redistribution subject to ASCE license or copyright; see http://pubs.asce.org/copyright
 Fig. 10. Comparison of: a pushover curves for different frames; b performance points obtained for different frames

appears to be no distinct advantage to designing the open first-
story beams for increased forces. However, sufficient confining
shear reinforcement is required to be provided in these beams to
improve their ductility and shear strength, and thus to prevent
their premature shear failure.
Failure Pattern
As expected, the behavior of the bare frame was flexural in nature
because of the absence of brittle masonry infills. In comparison, a
mixed response was observed in the case of the open first-story
frame; failure took place because of the failure of RC members in
flexural and shear mode. The lateral load carrying capacity of the
frame used in SS1 fully infilled frame was found to reduce
drastically after the failure of masonry infills in the first and upper
stories. After this, the lateral load behavior of the fully infilled
frame became just like a bare frame. In the case of the frame
strengthened using SS2 national code method, nonlinearity was
found to be concentrated in the open first-story columns because
of increased stiffness of these columns, and the failure of the
frame took place by flexural failure of the first-story columns.
The failure of the frame in SS3 only first-story columns de-
signed for 2.5 times took place at a very low lateral drift by shear
failure of first-story beam, when the first-story beams were pro-
vided with normal shear reinforcement. However, when sufficient
confining shear reinforcement was provided in these beams, flex-
ural failure of first-story columns took place at significantly
higher lateral deformation. In comparison to SS2, plasticity was
observed to be distributed in the second-story of the frame as well
as in the case of SS3. The frame strengthened using SS4 failed
due to flexural failure of columns in the first-story. Nonlinearity
was also observed in several RC and masonry members in the
first and upper stories.
The frames with extra columns in the open first story SS5
failed due to flexural failure of the extra columns in the first story.
In addition, plastic hinges were found to develop in several upper-
story members of the frames. On the other hand, in the case of the
frame strengthened using diagonal bracings and lateral buttresses
in the open first story, flexural failure of the first-story beams and
second-story columns, and compression failure of masonry infills
in the second-story were observed to be the cause of failure. In-
terestingly, columns, bracings, and lateral buttresses in the first-
story did not fail. Nevertheless, performance of all the frames
strengthened using additional elements in the open first story was
found to be significantly better than that exhibited by the methods
in which open first-story members were designed for higher
forces.
Performance Points
The performance point represents the maximum structural dis-
placement expected for the demand earthquake ground motion.
Fig. 9 shows the normalized ADRS curves and performance
points obtained for the different frames, in addition to the modal
parameters used in developing the ADRS curves, and Fig. 10b
compares performance points for all the frames. It was observed
that the strengthening schemes, SS4 proposed modification and
SS5a two additional columns, exhibit maximum lateral dis-
placement under the action of demand earthquake ground motion.
On the other hand, the lateral displacement exhibited by the

Table 7. Characteristics of Pushover Curves for Different Frames Studied

Ki = F y / y dr = 100 u / H
Scheme Fy kN y m kN/m Fu kN u m d = u / y Fu / VB % Ta S
SS1 1,110 0.02 57,100 2,200 0.08 6 22.6 0.6 0.28
SS2 690 0.02 34,500 800 0.23 11 8.1 1.6 0.39
SS3 650 0.02 30,700 790 0.24 11 8.0 1.7 0.42
SS4 500 0.02 30,000 600 0.25 15 5.7 1.8 0.42
SS5a 500 0.02 25,000 800 0.44 21 8.3 3.1 0.43
SS5b 650 0.02 31,500 1,100 0.41 20 10.9 2.9 0.38
SS6a 850 0.01 70,000 2,400 0.07 5 24.8 0.5 0.24
SS6b 950 0.01 73,500 2,600 0.08 6 26.0 0.6 0.22
SS7 1,000 0.01 85,500 2,100 0.45 38 21.8 3.2 0.23
Note: VB = 98.4 kN, H = 14 m; Fy = strength corresponding to first yielding; y = lateral roof displacement corresponding to Fy; Ki = initial stiffness;
Fu = ultimate lateral strength; u = lateral roof displacement corresponding to Fu or point at which significant strength degradation has started;
d = displacement ductility; dr = % drift corresponding to u; and Ta = natural period of vibration obtained using SAP2000.

JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING ASCE / AUGUST 2009 / 935

Downloaded 21 Jul 2009 to 125.20.8.163. Redistribution subject to ASCE license or copyright; see http://pubs.asce.org/copyright
schemes SS1 fully infilled, SS6 diagonal bracings, and SS7
lateral buttresses was significantly less about one-third than
that exhibited by SS4 and SS5a. This is quite obvious because of
the high lateral stiffness of these frames due to the presence of
infills, bracings, and lateral buttresses, respectively, in the first
story. The demand lateral displacement for the remaining schemes
SS2, SS3, and SS5b falls in between but closer to that for SS4
and SS5a. The strengthening scheme SS5, in which additional
columns were used in the open first story, may be considered as
the best strengthening method for the given frame because of
good balance shown between the increase in lateral strength as
well as ductility. On the other hand, the scheme SS7 in which
additional lateral buttresses were provided in the open first story
may be a good alternative for strengthening such systems because
of the large increase demonstrated in the lateral load carrying
capacity of the frame.
Summary and Conclusions
In the present study, the effectiveness of several strengthening
schemes in improving the performance of open first-story RC
frames was evaluated using pushover analyses of typical frames.
The strengthening schemes recommended in a few national codes
SS2 were found to be ineffective in improving the lateral de-
formability of such frames because of the use of predetermined
multiplying factors for increasing the lateral strength. In addition,
it was observed that beams in the open first story are not required
to be designed for higher forces. However, these beams are re-
quired to be provided with sufficient confining shear reinforce-
ment to improve their ductility and shear strength. A rational
method was developed in the present study for the calculation of
the required increase in lateral strength of the first-story columns
and shear strength of the first-story beams SS4. The method
takes into account the dependable strength of infills and available
lateral strength of the open first story. Although, lateral strength of
the frame used in SS4 was quite less than that of the frame used
in SS2, ductility of the frame used in SS4 was significantly
higher.
Several additional strengthening schemes were suggested to
improve the lateral load capacity of such buildings. The strength-
ening schemes in which extra columns SS5 and lateral but-
tresses SS7 were provided in the open first story were found to
be significantly more effective in improving both lateral strength
and ductility of such frames. When diagonal braces were used
SS6, a huge increase in lateral strength and stiffness of the
frame was observed; however, an abrupt reduction in lateral
strength was observed after the failure of second-story infills.
Similarly, in the case of the fully infilled frame SS1, an abrupt
reduction in lateral strength was observed after the failure of first-
story infills. Therefore, the ductility of the frames strengthened
using SS1 and SS6 was found to be significantly lower than that
of the frames strengthened using SS5 and SS7.
Primary conclusions of the present study are 1 lateral load
performance especially ductility of the open first-story RC
frames cannot be improved by using code-specified strengthening
schemes, i.e., by designing the first-story members for higher
forces; and 2 the performance of such frames can be signifi-
cantly improved by providing additional columns and lateral but-
tresses in the open first story.
936 / JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING ASCE / AUGUST 2009
Downloaded 21 Jul 2009 to 125.20.8.163. Redistribution subject to ASCE license or copyright; see http://pubs.asce.org/copyright
Acknowledgments
The writers acknowledge the financial assistance provided by the
Ministry of Human Resource Development MHRD, Govern-
ment of India, in the research work.
References
Architectural Institute of Japan AIJ. 1995. Preliminary reconnais-
sance report of the 1995 Hyogoken-Nanbu earthquake. Tokyo.
Asteris, P. G. 2003. Lateral stiffness of brick masonry infilled plane
frames. J. Struct. Eng., 1298, 10711079.
Bulgarian Seismic Code. 1987. Code for design of buildings and struc-
tures in seismic regions. Bulgarian Academy of Science Committee
of Territorial and Town System at the Council of Ministers, Sofia,
Bulgaria.
Bureau of Indian Standards BIS. 2002. Indian standard criteria for
earthquake resistant design of structures. Part 1: General provisions
and buildings. IS 1893, Fifth Revision, New Delhi, India.
Crisafulli, F. J., Carr, A. J., and Park, R. 2000a. Analytical modeling of
infilled frame structuresA general review. New Zealand Nat. Soc.
Earthquake Eng. Bull, 331, 3047.
Crisafulli, F. J., Carr, A. J., and Park, R. 2000b. Capacity design of
infilled frame structures. Proc., 12th World Conf. on Earthquake En-
gineering CD-ROM, Auckland, New Zealand, Paper 0221.
Das, D., and Murty, C. V. R. 2004. Brick masonry infills in seismic
design of RC framed buildings. Part 2: Behavior. Indian Concr. J.,
788, 3138.
Das, S., and Nau, J. M. 2003. Seismic design aspects of vertically
irregular reinforced concrete buildings. Earthquake Spectra, 193,
455477.
Dasgupta, P. 2000. Effect of confinement on strength and ductility of
large RC hollow sections. MTech thesis, Dept. of Civil Engineering,
Indian Institute of Technology Kanpur, Kanpur, India.
Dolek, M., and Fajfar, P. 2001. Soft storey effects in uniformly in-
filled reinforced concrete frames. J. Earthquake Eng., 51, 112.
El-Dakhakhni, W. W., Elgaaly, M., and Hamid, A. A. 2003. Three-
strut model for concrete masonry-infilled steel frames. J. Struct.
Eng., 1292, 177185.
European Committee of Standardization CEN. 2003. Design of struc-
tures for earthquake resistance. Part 1: General rules, seismic actions
and rules for buildings. prEN1998-1, Eurocode 8, Brussels, Belgium.
Fardis, M. N., Negro, P., Bousias, S. N., and Colombo, A. 1999. Seis-
mic design of open-storey infilled RC buildings. J. Earthquake Eng.,
32, 173197.
Fardis, M. N., and Panagiotakos, T. B. 1997. Seismic design and re-
sponse of bare and masonry-infilled reinforced concrete buildings.
Part II: Infilled structures. J. Earthquake Eng., 13, 475503.
FEMA. 2000. Prestandard and commentary for the seismic rehabilita-
tion of buildings. FEMA 356, Washington, D.C.
Gergely, P., White, R., and Mosalam, K. 1994. Evaluation and model-
ing of infilled frames. Proc., NCEER Workshop on Seismic Response
of Masonry Infills, National Center for Earthquake Engineering Re-
search, Buffalo, N.Y., 1.511.56.
Jain, S. K., Lettis, W. R., Murty, C. V. R., and Bardet, J. P., ed. 2002.
Bhuj, India earthquake of January 26, 2001 reconnaissance report.
Earthquake Spectra, 18S1, 149185.
Kaushik, H. B., and Jain, S. K. 2007. Impact of great December 26,
2004 Sumatra earthquake and tsunami on structures in Port Blair. J.
Perform. Constr. Facil., 212, 128142.
Kaushik, H. B., Rai, D. C., and Jain, S. K. 2006. Code approaches to
seismic design of masonry infilled reinforced concrete frames: A state-
of-the-art review. Earthquake Spectra, 224, 961983.
Kaushik, H. B., Rai, D. C., and Jain, S. K. 2007. Stress-strain charac-
teristics of clay brick masonry under uniaxial compression. J. Mater.
Civ. Eng., 199, 728739.
Madan, A., Reinhorn, A. M., Mander, J. B., and Valles, R. E. 1997.
Modeling of masonry infill panels for structural analysis. J. Struct.
Eng., 12310, 12951302.
Mehrabi, A. B., Shing, P. B., Schuller, M. P., and Noland, J. L. 1996.
Experimental evaluation of masonry infilled RC frames. J. Struct.
Eng. 1223, 228237.
Michailidis, C. N., Kappos, A. J., and Stylianidis, K. C. 1996. Irregu-
larities in the seismic response of R/C buildings due to the presence of
masonry infills. Proc., 1st Int. Symp. Earthquake Resistant Engineer-
ing Structures 96, Computational Mechanics Publications, U.K.
Negro, P., and Colombo, A. 1997. Irregularities induced by nonstruc-
tural masonry panels in framed buildings. Eng. Struct., 197, 576
585.
Park, R., and Paulay, T. 1975. Reinforced concrete structures, Wiley,
New York.
Paulay, T., and Priestley, M. J. N. 1992. Seismic design of reinforced
concrete and masonry buildings, Wiley, New York.
Razvi, S., and Saatcioglu, M. 1999. Confinement model for high
strength concrete. J. Struct. Eng., 1253, 281289.
Selvakoodalingam, B., Perumal Pillai, E. B., and Govindan, P. 1999.
Strengthening of RC infilled frame with opening. Concr. Int.,
2111, 3742.
Stafford-Smith, B. 1962. Lateral stiffness of infilled frames. J. Struct.
Div. 88ST6, 183199.
Stafford-Smith, B., and Carter, C. 1969. A method of analysis of in-
filled frames. Proc. Inst. of Civ. Eng. (UK) 44, 3148.
Standards Institution of Israel SII. 1995. Design provisions for earth-
quake resistance of structures. SI 413, Tel-Aviv, Israel.
Structural analysis program (SAP2000)Advanced, static and dynamic
finite element analysis of structures. 2004. Computers and Struc-
tures, Inc., Berkeley, Calif.

JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING ASCE / AUGUST 2009 / 937

Downloaded 21 Jul 2009 to 125.20.8.163. Redistribution subject to ASCE license or copyright; see http://pubs.asce.org/copyright