ACI STRUCTURAL JOURNAL
Title no. 107-S46
Transverse Resistance of Masonry Infills
by Hassan Moghadam and Nabi Goudarzi
In this paper, a confined infill panel previously experimented under
out-of-plane loading is modeled and analyzed by the dynamic
explicit method (DEM). This method is shown to have a good estimation
of the experimental results, and is thus adopted to investigate the
out-of-plane behavior of an infill model. Based on the analytical
results, the stress distribution of an infill panel prior to and after
cracking, and the effect of an arching mechanism on post-cracking
behavior, is studied. A semi-empirical relationship is accordingly
developed for predicting the transverse resistance of masonry
infills due to one-way arching action, which accounts for the
effects of the boundary frame stiffness, the masonry modulus of
elasticity, and the infill slenderness ratio on the transverse strength.
The theory also considers two distinct failure modes: boundary
crushing and transverse instability. The relationship is shown to
have good precision in predicting a large number of experimental
results reported in the literature.
Keywords: arching action; masonry infill; out-of-plane failure; transverse
resistance.
INTRODUCTION
Masonry infill panels have been long known to affect the
strength, stiffness, and ductility of structures.1 During the
last 50 years, extensive research has been carried out to
evaluate the in-plane behavior of infilled frames.2,3 The
critical loads for infill masonry walls subjected to earthquake
motions, however, are the out-of-plane forces.4 Therefore,
they must have sufficient out-of-plane stability to ensure
both life safety of the occupants and good seismic performance.4
Masonry infills that are tightly fitted between supports or
separated from one support only by a small gap can display
high resistance to out-of-plane forces in comparison to
cantilevered walls.4 The improved load-bearing capacity
results from the development of arching action in flexure,4
which becomes more prominent after cracking.5
Arching action in masonry walls and reinforced concrete
(RC) slabs has been studied by a number of researchers from
1956 onwards.6 In their experimental investigations on the
effect of boundary condition, West et al.7 illustrated that the
cracking pattern of transversely loaded infills resembles the
yield lines in RC slabs. Anderson6 developed a theory for
predicting the precracking and post-cracking behavior of
one-way spanning unreinforced masonry panels subjected to
transverse loading. He investigated the effects of arching
action, slenderness ratio, moisture movement strains, abutment
stiffness, and material properties on the out-of-plane strength
of confined panels. Dawe and Seah5 conducted experiments
on masonry infills with steel frames, examining the effects of
boundaries, the slenderness, and the aspect ratio of the infill
panels. Angel et al.8 carried out a similar experimental
investigation and proposed a semi-empirical relationship
that accounts for the arching effect. Klingner et al.9 further
developed the method suggested by Eremin et al.,10 taking
into account the two-way arching action and estimating the
transverse strength as a function of the transverse displacement
ACI Structural Journal/July-August 2010
TECHNICAL PAPER
of an infill panel. Flanagan and Bennett11 examined the
relationships proposed by Angel et al.,8 Dawe and Seah,5
and Klingner et al.9 with their experimental results12 and
concluded that the relationship presented by Dawe and Seah5
was relatively more accurate.
Galati et al.13 conducted experiments on one-way spanning
masonry panels with simple and fixed supports, in which
one-way arching was developed under transverse loading. In
these experiments, the in-plane reaction forces at the
supports resulting from the arching thrust were measured. In
this paper, the results of these experiments are used to verify
the analytical model. The analytical results are then used to
derive a semi-empirical relationship for the evaluation of the
transverse strength of infill panels. This relationship
accounts for the effects of the panel slenderness, the stiffness
of the boundary supports, and the properties of the masonry
material. The effects of initial gaps and strains due to
shrinkage are ignored in the developed theory herein. It is
shown that the analytical results from this relationship are in
good agreement with the experimental results reported in
the literature.
RESEARCH SIGNIFICANCE
To gain a better understanding of the arching effect on the
transverse strength of infills, a one-way confined masonry
panel was analyzed using the dynamic explicit method
(DEM). Based on the analytical results, the transverse
behavior and the stress distribution of the infill due to
arching action was investigated. Moreover, the effects of
boundary supports, properties of the masonry material, and
the slenderness ratio of the panel on the transverse behavior
are studied and a theory is developed for the estimation of the
transverse strength of infills. The developed theoretical
relationship, while being simple, shows good agreement
with a large number of previous experimental results.
PREVIOUS EXPERIMENTAL INVESTIGATION
The results of a test carried out by Galati et al.13 were used
to verify the analytical model. The test setup is shown in Fig. 1.
The specimen, denoted as CL0, is a clay masonry wall with
a nominal dimension of 1.22 x 0.61 x 0.95 m (48 x 24 x 3.75 in.),
height, width, and thickness, respectively. To reproduce the
real boundary conditions when the wall is restrained inside
an RC frame, and to separate the two reaction forces (shear
and in-plane load at the support), four RC members, denoted
as top and bottom in Fig. 1, were used. The bottom members
provided the vertical reaction, and the top members resisted
the horizontal load created by the arching effect. High-
ACI Structural Journal, V. 107, No. 4, July-August 2010.
MS No. S-2009-297.R1 received September 1, 2009, and reviewed under Institute
publication policies. Copyright © 2010, American Concrete Institute. All rights reserved,
including the making of copies unless permission is obtained from the copyright proprietors.
Pertinent discussion including author’s closure, if any, will be published in the May-June
2011 ACI Structural Journal if the discussion is received by January 1, 2011.
1
Hassan Moghaddam is a Professor in the Civil Engineering Department at Sharif
University of Technology, Tehran, Iran. He received his BSc from Sharif University of
Technology and his MSc and PhD from Imperial College, London, UK. His research
interests include optimum design theory; seismic design of infilled frames; dynamic
analysis of nonlinear systems; and seismic behavior of steel, concrete, masonry structures,
and bridges.
Nabi Goudarzi is an MSc Graduate Student of earthquake engineering in the Civil
Engineering Department at Sharif University of Technology. He received his BSc in
civil engineering from Iran University of Science and Technology (IUST), Tehran,
Iran. His research interests include repair and retrofit of masonry, concrete, and
steel structures.
Fig. 1—Test setup scheme by Galati et al.13
Fig. 2—Modeling of Specimen CL0 tested by Galati et al13:
(a) analytical model; and (b) masonry behavior in model.
Fig. 3—Comparison of analytical and experimental results:
(a) out-of-plane load versus midspan deflection; and (b)
thrust force versus out-of-plane load.
strength steel rods were used to tie down these members to a
rather stiff steel supporting frame. The masonry panels were
subjected to two-point loads, as shown in Fig. 1. The loads
were applied by two 50.8 x 609.6 x 12.7 mm (2 x 24 x 0.5 in.)
steel plates of 203.2 mm (8 in.) apart to the external face of
the wall. Two load cells were used to measure the in-plane
and the out-of-plane loads. A horizontal load of 2.9 kN/m
(200 lb/ft) was applied before testing to sustain the panel
in place.
2 ACI Structural Journal/July-August 2010
Table 1—Material properties of experiment by
Galati et al.13 and modified infill
Characteristics Test Specimen CL013 Modified infill
Modulus of elasticity, MPa (ksi) 12,825 (1860)* 2000 (290)
Compressive strength, MPa (psi) 17.1 (2480) 5 (725)
Tensile strength, MPa (psi) 0.3 (43.5)† 0.3 (43.5)
Mortar compressive strength, MPa (psi) 7.6 (1100) —
*
Experimental data not available. Taken as 750fm.
†Experimentaldata not available.
ANALYTICAL INVESTIGATION
DEM was employed for the nonlinear analysis of the infill
specimen in Fig. 1, using ABAQUS Version 6.5.1. In addition
to material and geometrical nonlinearities, this method is
capable of solving problems with complex contact interaction—
including discontinuities and sliding—between many
independent bodies.14 DEM uses a central difference rule to
integrate the equations of motion explicitly through time,
using the kinematic conditions at one increment to calculate
the kinematic conditions at the next increment.14
A fine mesh of hexagonal solid elements was used in the
analysis. The mortar layers were modeled as very thin cohesive
elements14 of 1 mm (0.0394 in.) thickness. The material
properties obtained by tests (Table 1) were used in the
model. The following parabolic stress-strain relationship
suggested by Hendry15 is used for the brickwork material
ε 2
---- ----- – ⎛ -----⎞
f = 2ε (1)
fm εm ⎝ ε m⎠
where f and ε are the compressive stress and strain, respectively,
and εm is the strain corresponding to the ultimate stress
(Fig. 2) that can be obtained from the prism test.
The supports and the sides of the masonry panel were in
close contact in the model, with no penetration and cohesion,
and the coefficient of friction was defined as 0.7.
The modeled panel shown in Fig. 2(a) is subjected to the
point loads identical to the method used in the experiment.
To eliminate the dynamic effects of DEM, the load was
applied at a very slow rate.
As shown in Fig. 3(a), the analytical load-deflection curve
is in good agreement with the experimental results. The
descending branch of the analytical curve, however, which
shows post-failure behavior of the infill, is unsmooth. This is
because when crushing occurs at the supports, more iterations
are needed for numerical convergence of the analytical
results. This does not affect the accuracy of the developed
theory herein, however, because it is based on the ascending
branch of the analytical curve, which is steady and reliable
and displays the prefailure behavior of the infill.
In Fig. 3(b), the analytical curve of the in-plane thrust
force versus the transverse load is compared with the
experimental results. The results indicate that the analytical
thrust force is slightly larger than the measured value, and
this difference increases with the transverse load. It is
noticeable that the thrust force is influenced by the rigidity
of the supports against in-plane movement. As shown in
Fig. 1, the supporting members of the test setup are tied
down to the floor by steel rods. The precompression of these
rods, which affects the rigidity of the supports, is unknown.
It should be also noted that the thrust forces are generally
several times greater than the transverse loads and, hence,
are more sensitive to the assumptions and idealizations of the
analytical model. These could justify the discrepancy
between analytical and experimental results in Fig. 3(b).
After verifying the model, it was employed to investigate the
effect of arching in infills more thoroughly. The infill panel in
Fig. 2(a) was turned into a vertical position, and was subjected
to a transverse uniform load. The supports were considered
to be fully fixed. The material properties were chosen
according to common masonry properties in Iran (Table 1).

ANALYTICAL RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Effect of arching action
The analytical results indicate that transverse failure
gradually occurs in the following stages: a) interface
cracking; b) midheight cracking; and c) boundary crushing.
Before the occurrence of the interface cracking, the panel Fig. 4—Stress distribution along thickness of panel: (a) out-
behaves like a fixed end flexural beam and, as shown in of-plane load versus midspan deflection; and (b) thrust
Fig. 4(a), the compressive and tensile stresses vary linearly force versus out-of-plane load.
through the thickness of the wall. Once the interface
cracking occurs, the tensile stress at the supports vanishes,
and the compressive stress concentrates on a narrow area of
approximately 1/8 of the panel thickness. At this stage, as
depicted in Fig. 4(a), the stress distribution becomes
nonlinear at the supports, but remains linear at midheight.
Finally, as the load increases, tensile cracks appear at the
midheight of the wall, where the tensile stress vanishes and
the compressive stress increases, spreading linearly over
60% of the panel thickness. Based on the analytical results,
the stress distribution along the thickness of the panel after
midheight cracking is idealized, as shown in Fig. 5. As
displayed in this figure, the maximum compressive stress at Fig. 5—Idealized stress distribution along thickness of panel.
the supports (σs) is double the maximum compressive stress
at the midheight (σmid). At the end of this stage, σs reaches deflection at the midheight (Δh), that is, d decreases as Δh is
the compressive strength fm, and the boundary crushing occurs. increased. Thus, the deflection of the panel adversely affects
After the midheight cracking, as shown in Fig. 4(b), the its transverse resistance. Using the idealized stress distribution
compressive forces at the midheight and the supports of the in Fig. 5 and considering the effect of Δh as shown in Fig. 4(b),
infill make a force couple that results in a resisting moment d can be obtained as follows.
against the applied moment, caused by the transverse
loading. This is known as arching action, where the material does d = t – 0.2t – 0.09365t – Δ h = 0.706t – Δ h (4)
not require tensile strength for sustaining the transverse loads.
Using the idealized stress distribution shown in Fig. 5, the
The experimental deflected forms of one-way spanning
thrust force can be evaluated as
masonry walls demonstrate that, after cracking, the wall
develops into two straight limbs, which confirms that the
F th = 0.5σ mid ( 0.6t )l = 0.3σ mid tl = 0.15σ s tl (2) effect of bending along the wall may be ignored.6 Therefore,
the transverse deflection of an infill panel can be idealized,
When σs reaches fm, crushing occurs at the boundaries of as shown in Fig. 6. It can be seen that the thrust forces result
the masonry panel along the supports. This failure mode is in the shortening of the infill panel which, in turn, results in
called boundary crushing and the equivalent transverse load further deflection until the two pieces of the panel come into
qcr is herein called ultimate transverse strength. If σs is contact and jam. Based on the geometrical compatibility
substituted with fm in Eq. (2), the thrust force causing given in Fig. 6, the transverse deflection due to arching (Δh)
boundary crushing can be calculated. In Table 2, the thrust can be calculated with respect to the vertical deformation of
forces predicted by Eq. (2) are compared with the results of the panel (Δv) as follows
the experimental and theoretical investigations of
Anderson.6 The table depicts that Eq. (2) has an average error t 2 Δv ⁄ 2 λ
of 30% as compared with Anderson’s experimental results. - ⇒ Δ h = --- Δ v
---------- = --- = ----------- (5)
h⁄2 λ Δh 4
Now q can be found by solving the following equation of
moment equilibrium about Point A in Fig. 4(b)
where λ is the slenderness ratio (h/t) of the panel and Δv is
2
the sum of the total height-wise deformation of the infill
∑ M A = 0 ⇒ qlh
---------- = F th d (3) and the supports.
8 Figure 7(a) illustrates the distribution of the compressive
strains at the leeward and windward faces of the infill under
where d is the arm of the thrust force couple. As shown in a transverse load of 30 kPa (626 lb/ft2). As shown in this
Fig. 4(a), d is inversely proportional to the transverse figure, on the leeward face of the panel, the compressive

ACI Structural Journal/July-August 2010 3

Table 2—Comparison of experimental results with proposed relationship and theory developed by Anderson6
Experimental data Anderson6 Proposed relation
fm, MPa Em , MPa t, mm h, m K, kN/mm Fth , kN/m qr , kPa Fth, kN/m qr , kPa Fth , kN/m qr , kPa
Wall no. (psi) (ksi) (in.) (ft) λ (kip/in.) (kip/ft) (lb/ft2) (kip/ft) e* (lb/ft2) e,* % (kip/ft) e,* % α (lb/ft2) e,* %
9.7 9000 100 1.80 60 102.6 19.8 176.3 29.6 145.5 20.3
3 18.0 72 49 42 0.120 2
(1407) (1305) (3.94) (5.91) (343) (7.0) (414) (12.1) (618) (10.0) (423)
9.7 9000 100 1.80 60 125.9 22.9 176.3 29.3 145.5 20.3
4 18.0 40 28 16 0.120 11
(1407) (1305) (3.94) (5.91) (343) (8.6) (478) (12.1) (612) (10.0) (423)
4.1 1500 100 1.80 60 56.3 10 51.3 10.7 61.5 8.7
5
(595) (218) (3.94) (5.91) 18.0 (343) (3.9) (209) (3.5)
9
(223)
7
(4.2)
9 0.720 (182) 13

4.1 1500 100 1.80 60 48.6 7.8 51.3 10.7 61.5 8.7
6
(595) (218) (3.94) (5.91) 18.0 (343) (3.3) (163) (3.5)
6
(223)
37
(4.2)
27 0.720 (182) 12

6 7500 102.5 1.80 17.6 75 215.2 35.4 225.2 36.7 92.3 14.7
7 5 4 57 0.176 58
(870) (1088) (4.04) (5.91) (428) (14.7) (739) (15.4) (766) (6.3) (308)
9.7 9000 100 3.60 120 152.6 5.51 176.3 5.52 145.5 4.1
8
(1407) (1305) (3.94) (11.81) 36.0 (685) (10.4) (115) (12.1)
16
(115)
0
(10.0)
5 0.480
(86)
25

7.5 9000 140 3.60 120 247.4 12.8 208.3 13 157.5 8.1
9
(1088) (1305) (5.51) (11.81) 25.7 (685) (17.0) (267) (14.3)
16
(272)
2
(10.8)
36 0.343 (169) 37

4.1 1500 100 3.60 36.0 120 34.4 1.32 51.3 1.82 54.4 1.2
10 49 38 58 2.880 11
(595) (218) (3.94) (11.81) (685) (2.4) (28) (3.5) (38) (3.7) (24)
3.3 1500 150 3.60 120 86.2 4.53 78.8 5.57 74.3 3.8
11
(479) (218) (5.91) (11.81) 24.0 (685) (5.9) (95) (5.4)
9
(116)
23
(5.1)
14 1.920
(80)
15

3.2 1500 100 1.80 80 38.8 7.2 48.8 9.65 48.0 7.3
12
(464) (218) (3.94) (5.91) 18.0 (457) (2.7) (150) (3.3)
26
(202)
34 (3.3) 24 0.960 (152) 1

7.6 9000 100 1.80 18.0 600 141.5 28 115.0 24 114.0 18.9
13 19 14 19 1.200 32
(1102) (1305) (3.94) (5.91) (3426) (9.7) (585) (7.9) (501) (7.8) (395)

14 7.7 11,000 100 1.80 330 187.7 30.5 268.8 52.2 115.5 19.1
(1117) (1595) (3.94) (5.91) 18.0 (1884) (12.9) (637) (18.4)
43 (1090) 71
(7.9)
38 0.540 (399) 37

6.1 7500 102.5 1.80 600 224.4 41.8 225.2 43.8 93.8 16.1
15
(885) (1088) (4.04) (5.91) 17.6 (3426) (15.4) (873) (15.4)
0
(915)
5
(6.4)
58 1.405 (335) 62

3.2 1500 140 1.80 12.9 600 86.3 23.7 66.5 20 67.2 15.6
16 23 16 22 5.143 34
(464) (218) (5.51) (5.91) (3426) (5.9) (495) (4.6) (418) (4.6) (325)
Average 23.6 23 30.4 25
*e
is error value.

Fig. 6—Idealized transverse behavior of infill panel: (a)

undeformed shape; (b) shortening caused by thrust forces;
(c) jamming; and (d) development of arching.

strains are concentrated on the boundary segments, which

rapidly decrease by getting distance from the supports along Fig. 7—In-plane compressive strain distribution: (a) analytical
the height of the panel. Based on the analytical results in strain distribution; and (b) idealized strain distribution for
Fig. 7(a), the compressive strains are considered to have a top half of panel.
bilinear distribution on the leeward face and a linear
distribution on the windward face as shown in Fig. 7(b). The
relations shown in this figure are derived from analytical
results. The in-plane compressive strains result in a shortening Using the relations in Fig. 7(b) and substituting εs with εm,
of the panel, which can be calculated by using the idealized Δv,inf at boundary crushing is calculated as
strain distribution in Fig. 7(b)16 as follows.
fm fm
Δ v, inf = 0.265ε m h = 0.265 --------
- h = 0.265n ------h (7)
Δ v, inf =
∫ ε v ⋅ dh = 2 × [ 0.5 ( ε a′ + ε s ) × ( 0.0625h ) ] (6) E sec Em

+ 2 × [ 0.5ε mid × ( 0.417h ) ] where

4 ACI Structural Journal/July-August 2010

 Em
n = --------
- (8)
E sec

Em is the masonry modulus of elasticity and Esec is the

secant modulus of elasticity, as shown in Fig. 2(b). There are
several methods of determining Em from the masonry
compressive stress-strain curve; therefore, n depends on the
standard method chosen to determine Em. In this study, the
most convenient value of n is found to be 1.5. Therefore

fm
Δ v, inf = 0.4 ------h (9)
Em
Fig. 8—q – σs curves for Tests 4 and 8 of Table 3.
The total shortening can then be obtained by adding the
deformation of supports to Δv,inf
transverse load reaches a maximum value before the thrust
F th force has reached a value to cause crushing failure.6 This
Δ v = Δ v, inf + ------
- (10) failure mode, known as transverse instability, results from
K large transverse deflection of the panel.
This phenomenon can be addressed with a simple and
where K is the stiffness of the supports. By using Eq. (2) at approximate approach by assuming a linear stress-strain
σs = fm, the total shortening at ultimate transverse load is behavior for the masonry. Hence, Eq. (15) can be rewritten
in the following form by substituting qcr with q and fm with σs.
0.15 f m
Δ v = ⎛ 0.4 + ----------⎞ ------h (11)
⎝ α ⎠ Em 2
σs 2
qλ = 0.85σ s – ⎛ 0.12 + 0.045
-------------⎞ ------λ
2
(16)
⎝ α Em ⎠
where α is the ratio of the support stiffness to the vertical
in-plane stiffness of the panel.
Equation (16) shows a parabolic relation between uniform
transverse load q and the associated compressive stress at the
K supports (σs), which means that there are two modes of
α = ---------------------- (12)
( E m tl ⁄ h ) transverse failure. The first mode is boundary crushing that
occurs when σs reaches fm and q reaches qcr. The second
In an infilled frame with a fixed base, K is the stiffness of mode is transverse instability, which occurs when q reaches
the top beam, which is found to give the most accurate the maximum value qmax, before the boundary crushing occurs.
results when considered as a fixed-end beam, therefore Figure 8 demonstrates q-σs curves for two tested infills:
one with boundary crushing failure mode and the other with
transverse instability. The details of the tests are given in
384E f I b
K = ------------------
- (13) Table 3. As shown in this figure, in test No. 8, q reached the
3
l maximum value at σsmax < fm, which means that the infill
lost its transverse resistance due to large deformation rather
Substituting Eq. (11) into Eq. (5), the transverse deflection than boundary crushing. Based on Eq. (16), the maximum
of the panel is determined as value of q is reached when σs reaches σsmax, which can be
specified as follows.
0.0375 f m
Δ h = ⎛ 0.1 + ----------------⎞ ------λh (14) ∂q- = 0 ⇒ σ max = -----------------------------------------
0.425E m
⎝ α ⎠ Em ------- - (17)
s
∂σ s ⎛ 0.12 + 0.045 ⎞ 2
------------- λ
The arm of the thrust force couple can now be obtained by ⎝ α ⎠
substituting Eq. (14) into Eq. (4). Further, by incorporating
Eq. (2) at σs = fm and Eq. (4) into Eq. (3), the following Therefore, the maximum transverse load qmax is obtained
relationship is obtained to calculate the ultimate transverse by substituting σs in Eq. (16) with σsmax given by Eq. (17).
strength of infills in relation to the panel slenderness ratio,
the compressive strength, and elasticity modulus of the 0.18E m
masonry and the boundary stiffness. q max = -----------------------------------------
- (18)
⎛ 0.12 + 0.045 -------------⎞ λ
4
⎝ α ⎠
2
q cr λ 0.045 f m 2
------------- = 0.85 – ⎛ 0.12 + -------------⎞ ------λ (15)
fm ⎝ α ⎠ Em To consider both transverse failure modes of infill panels, the
transverse strength should be determined as the minimum of qcr
Transverse instability of infills and qmax obtained from Eq. (15) and (18), respectively.
If the stiffness of the boundaries or the infill is extremely
low or the panel is excessively slender, it is possible that the qr = min(qcr , qmax) (19)

ACI Structural Journal/July-August 2010 5

Table 3—Comparison of experimental results with proposed relationship and other relations
Experimental data Angel et al.8 Dawe and Seah5 Klingner et al.9 Proposed relation
fm, MPa Em, MPa t, mm h, m l, m qr , kPa qr, kPa *
e , qr , kPa *
e, qr , kPa *
e, K, kN/mm qr , kPa e,*
No. (psi) (ksi) (in.) (ft) (ft) λ (lb/ft2) (lb/ft2) % (lb/ft2) % (lb/ft2) % (kip/in.) α (lb/ft2) %
Flanagan12
2.29 5040 330 2.2 2.2 39.5 53.38 52.67 57.25 3765 41.95
Frame 22 1 6.8 (809) (1093) 35 33 44 2.26 6.2
(332) (731) (13) (7.22) (7.22) (1079) (1172) (21,500) (876)
5.59 5300 195 2.2 2.2 11.5 26.6 45.86 32.44 43.61 808
Clay tile Frame 18 2 72 21 63 0.78 34.89 31
(811) (769) (7.68) (7.22) (7.22) (545) (939) (664) (893) (4612) (729)
5.59 5300 93 2.2 2.2 8.1 6.38 7.43 5.47 819 7.39 8.8
Frame 25 3
(811) (769) (3.66) (7.22) (7.22) 24 (166) (131)
21
(152)
8.2
(112)
32
(4677)
1.66 (154)

Fricke 4.3 5000 195 3.7 8.5 18.8 6.1 11.09 5.92 12.98 234
Clay tile 4 81 2.9 112 0.10 8.29 35
et al. 17 (624) (725) (7.68) (12.1) (27.9) (125) (227) (121) (266) (1335) (173)
11.6 7848 46 1.6 2.4 8.19 3.14 6.77 7.18 320 4.56
Brick Angel11 5
(1684) (1139) (1.81) (5.25) (7.87) 35.3 (168) (64.3)
61
(138)
17
(147)
12
(1825)
0.59
(95)
44

Dawe and Seah5

30.5 24,600 190 2.8 3.6 14.7 22.3 89.20 300 39.12 139.3 76
0.01 25.76
WE1 6 75 525 15
(4427) (3570) (7.48) (9.18) (11.8) (457) (1827) (801) (2854) (432) (538)
28.1 23,000 190 2.8 3.6 19.2 80.00 36.23 128.0 76
WE2 7
(3338) (7.48) (9.18) (11.8) 14.7 (393) (1638) 316 88 566 0.01 25.70 33
Concrete (4078) (742) (2621) (432) (537)
masonry 22.7 13,800 140 2.8 3.6 11.2 28.72 16.97 32.94 75 9.69
infill in WE4 8
(3295) (2002) (5.51) (9.18) (11.8) 20 (229) (588)
156
(347)
51
(675)
194
(429)
0.03 (202) 13
steel
frame WE8 9
27.4 16,200 140 2.8 3.6 20 13.4 34.36
156
19.42
44
38.29
185
75
0.03 9.80 26
(3977) (2351) (5.51) (9.18) (11.8) (274) (704) (398) (579) (429) (205)
20.2 15,600 90 2.8 3.6 31.1 7.8 5.45 6.39 3.73 75
WE5 10 30 18 52 0.04 2.51 67
(2932) (2264) (3.54) (9.18) (11.8) (160) (112) (131) (76.4) (430) (52)
18
Frederiksen
13.5 12,000 29.5 0.7 0.5 27.6 18.04 34.64 28.16 15.95 42.20 1001
3.99 19.15
E82 6 11 (1959)
(1742) (1.16) (2.29) (1.64) 23.3 (565) (369)
2.04 30
(577) (327) (5716) (400)
10.6 11,000 29.5 0.7 0.5 18.6 14.09 23.54 14.09 1001 15.27
F86 1 12 (1538)
(1597) (1.16) (2.29) (1.64) 23.3 (381) (288) 24.24 (482)
26.58 (288) 24.24
(5716)
4.35 (319) 17.9

21.5 11,000 34 0.7 0.5 20.2 49.3 44.82 9.09 53.01 25.03 49.24 1003
3.78 39.28
F90 1 13 7.53 20
(3120) (1597) (1.34) (2.29) (1.64) (1010) (918) (1085) (513) (5730) (820)
21.5 11,000 30.1 0.7 0.5 35.5 30.60 41.76
17.65 13.10
1006
F90 2 14 (3120)
(1597) (1.18) (2.29) (1.64) 22.8 (727) (627) 13.79 4.28 29.70
(268) 63.10
16
(855) (5743) (620)
Clay 15.5 11,000 29.5 0.7 0.5 31.7 20.72 31.39 14.41 1001 21.44
F90 3 15 (2250)
brick (1597) (1.16) (2.29) (1.64) 23.3 (649) (424) 34.64 (643)
0.99
(295) 54.55 (5716)
4.35 (448) 32
infills in
steel 16 12,000 31 0.7 0.5 22.2 32.9 25.11 23.66 35.38 19.47 40.83 997
3.78 24.80
E90 1 16 7.53 24
frames (2322) (1742) (1.22) (2.29) (1.64) (674) (514) (724) (398) (5695) (518)
16.5 12,000 30.4 0.7 0.5 25.3 24.33 34.66
36.99 17.94
1002
F91 1 17 (2395)
(1742) (1.20) (2.29) (1.64) 22.6 (518) (498) 3.85 3.87 24.49
(710) (367) 29.08 (5724) (511) 3.2
21.2 14,000 30.4 0.7 0.5 35.2 31.15 41.90
19.05 20.58
1002
F91 2 18 (3077)
(2032) (1.20) (2.29) (1.64) 22.6 (721) (638) 11.50 3.32 31.02
(858) (421) 41.52 (5724) (648) 11.9
21.2 14,000 30.4 0.7 0.5 40.2 31.16 41.88 20.62 1002 31.02
F91 3 19 (3077)
(2032) (1.20) (2.29) (1.64) 22.6 (823) (638) 22.48 (858)
4.17
(422) 48.72 (5724)
3.32 (648) 22.8

26.6 12,000 31.1 0.7 0.5 22.2 40 41.67 4.17 51.95

29.87 14.76 63.10
988
3.73 38.13 4.66
E91 1 20
(3861) (1742) (1.22) (2.29) (1.64) (819) (853) (1064) (302) (5640) (796)
Average 70.7 25.7 112 23.4
*
e is error value.

COMPARISON OF PREDICTED AND substantial development of two-way arching action, whereas

EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS
In Tables 2 and 3, the theoretical results developed in this
paper are compared with the experimental and theoretical
results reported in the literature and it is shown that the
proposed theory has good precision in estimating the
transverse strength of infills. As it is seen in these tables, the
analytical results based on the proposed relationship are
conservative, in most cases. The mean error values are 25%
and 23.4% for the tests reported in Table 2 and 3, respectively.
However, the estimated transverse strength for Test No. 10
of Table 3 is 1/3 of the experimental strength. In this test, it
is noticeable that the vertical edges were restrained from
slipping and no slippage at frame to infill interface occurred
in the experiment.5 Therefore, the error can be due to the
the proposed theory is based only on one-way arching.
CONCLUSIONS
Based on the analytical investigation of the transverse
behavior of one-way confined masonry panels, the following
conclusions are drawn:
1. The transverse strength of infills is significantly
increased by arching action. This mechanism becomes more
pronounced after midheight cracking, where the transverse
loads are in equilibrium merely with the compressive
stresses at the supports and the midheight.
2. Out-of-plane deflection of an infill is inversely proportional
to the modulus of elasticity of the infill and the stiffness of the
boundary frame. Thus, infills with strong masonry material and
rigid supports have a small out-of-plane deflection.

6 ACI Structural Journal/July-August 2010

 3. It is shown that the beneficial effect of arching 2. Moghaddam, H. A., “Lateral Load Behavior of Masonry Infilled Steel
decreases with the increase of transverse deflection. Thus, if Frames with Repair and Retrofit,” Journal of Structural Engineering,
ASCE, V. 130, No. 1, Jan. 2004, pp. 56-63.
the masonry material is weak or the supports are rather flexible,
3. Moghaddam, H. A., and Dowling, P. J., “The State of the Art in
more transverse deflection occurs and the arching cannot be Infilled Frames,” ESEE Research Report No. 87-2, Civil Engineering
developed efficiently. Department, Imperial College, London, UK, Aug. 1987.
4. A relationship is developed for the estimation of the 4. Dafnis, A.; Kolsch, H.; and Reimerdes, H. G., “Arching in Masonry
transverse strength of infills, which allows for the rigidity of Walls Subjected to Earthquake Motions,” Journal of Structural Engineering,
the bounding frame, the properties of the masonry material, ASCE, V. 128, No. 2, Feb. 2002, pp. 153-159.
and the slenderness ratio. The relationship considers two 5. Dawe, J. L., and Seah, C. K., “Out-of-Plane Resistance of Concrete
Masonry Infilled Panels,” Canadian Journal of Civil Engineering, V. 16,
distinct modes of failure: boundary crushing, which is when Dec. 1989, pp. 854-864.
crushing occurs at the supports of the infill, and transverse 6. Anderson, C., “Arching Action in Transverse Laterally Loaded
instability, which is due to excessive transverse deflection. Masonry Wall Panels,” The Structural Engineer, V. 62B, No. 1, Mar. 1984,
pp. 12-23.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS 7. West, H. W. H.; Hodgkinson, H. R.; and Web, W. F., “Lateral Loading
The authors wish to express their gratitude and sincere appreciation to J. G. Test on Walls with Different Boundary Conditions,” Proceedings of 3rd
Tumialan for providing valuable information about his experiments during International Brick Masonry Conference, Essen, Germany, 1973, pp. 180-186.
this study. 8. Angel, R.; Abrams, D. P.; Shapiro, D.; Uzarski, J.; and Webster, M.,
“Behavior of Reinforced Concrete Frames with Masonry Infills,” Structural
Research Series 589, PhD thesis, Department of Civil Engineering, University
NOTATION of Illinois, Urbana, IL, 1994.
d = arm of thrust force couple (Fig. 4(a))
Ef = modulus of elasticity of bounding frame of infill 9. Klingner, R. E.; Rubiano, N. R.; Bashandy T. R.; and Sweeney, S. C.,
Em = modulus of elasticity of masonry prism “Evaluation and Analytical Verification of Shaking Table Data from
Esec = secant modulus of elasticity of masonry prism, as defined in Infilled Frames. Part 2: Out-of-Plane Behavior,” Proceedings of 7th North
Fig. 2(b) American Masonry Conference, 1996, pp. 521-532.
Fth = thrust force due to arching action 10. Eremin, A. A.; Cohen, E.; and Laing, E., Discussion of “Arching
fm = compressive strength of masonry prism Action Theory of Masonry Walls,” Journal of the Structural Division,
h = infill height ASCE, V. 82, No. ST5, Sept. 1956, Paper 1067, pp. 27-40.
Ib = moment of inertia of beam of infilled frame 11. Flanagan, R. D., and Bennett, R. M., “Arching of Masonry Infilled
K = stiffness of supports Frames: Comparison of Analytical Methods,” Practice Periodical on Structural
l = infill length Design and Construction, V. 4, No. 3, Aug. 1999, pp. 105-110.
q = uniform transverse load 12. Flanagan, R. D., and Bennett, R. M., “Bidirectional Behavior of
qcr = ultimate transverse strength of infill due to boundary crushing Structural Clay Tile Infilled Frames,” Journal of Structural Engineering,
qmax = maximum transverse load (Fig. 8) ASCE, V. 125, No. 3, Mar. 1999, pp. 236-244.
qr = transverse strength of infill
13. Galati, N.; Tumialan, J. G.; Nanni, A.; and La Tegola, A., “Influence
t = infill thickness
of Arching Mechanism in Masonry Walls Strengthened with FRP Laminates,”
α = stiffness ratio, as defined in Eq. (12)
Third International Conference on Composites in Infrastructure (ICCI
Δh = out-of-plane displacement due to arching action
2002), San Francisco, CA, June 10-12, 2002, 11 pp. (CD-ROM)
Δv = total height-wise deformation of infill and supports
Δv,inf = shortening of panel 14. “ABAQUS Version 6.8,” Dassault Systemes Simulia Corp., 2008.
ε = compressive strain of masonry prism 15. Hendry, A. W.; Sinha, B. P.; and Davies, S. R., Design of Masonry
εm = compressive strain in masonry associated to fm (Fig. 2(b)) Structures, third edition, Taylor & Francis, 1997, 271 pp.
εv = height-wise compressive strain of infill 16. Goudarzi, N., and Moghaddam, H. A., “Transverse Retrofit of
λ = slenderness ratio of infill (h/t) Infilled Frames with FRP,” MSc thesis, Civil Engineering Department,
σmid = compressive stress at midspan of infill Sharif University of Technology, Tehran, Iran, Jan. 2009.
σs = compressive stress at supports of infill 17. Fricke, K. E.; Jones, W. D.; and Huff, T. E., “In-Situ Lateral Load
σsmax = compressive stress at supports of infill associated to qmax (Fig. 8) Testing of an Unreinforced Masonry Hollow Clay Tile Wall,” Proceedings
of 6th Canadian Masonry Symposium, University of Saskatchewan, Saskatoon,
REFERENCES SK, 1992, pp. 519-530.
1. El-Dakhakhni, W. W.; Hamid, A. A.; and Elgaaly, M., “Strength and 18. Frederiksen, V. T., “Membrane Effect in Laterally Loaded Masonry
Stiffness Prediction of Masonry Infill Panels,” Proceedings of 13th World Walls: A Second Order Phenomenon,” Proceedings of 6th Canadian
Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Vancouver, BC, Canada, Aug. 1-6, Masonry Symposium, University of Saskatchewan, Saskatoon, SK,
2004, Paper No. 3089. 1992, pp. 537-547.

ACI Structural Journal/July-August 2010 7