Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 109 (2018) 209–221

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/soildyn

Base-isolation systems for the seismic retrofitting of r.c. framed buildings T

with soft-storey subjected to near-fault earthquakes
⁎
Fabio Mazza , Mirko Mazza, Alfonso Vulcano
Dipartimento di Ingegneria Civile, Università della Calabria, Rende, Cosenza, Italy

A R T I C LE I N FO A B S T R A C T

Keywords: More studies are needed to evaluate the effectiveness of the base-isolation in seismic retrofitting of reinforced
R.c. framed structures concrete (r.c.) framed structures in the case of masonry infills (MIs) not uniformly distributed in elevation.
Nonlinear modelling of masonry infills Moreover, amplification of the inelastic demand is generally expected for base-isolated structures located in a
Elastomeric and sliding bearings near-fault area, in the event of long-duration velocity pulses. In order to understand the nonlinear seismic
Near-fault earthquakes
behaviour of masonry-infilled base-isolated r.c. framed structures, first a six-storey r.c. framed building is pri-
Nonlinear dynamic analysis
marily designed (as fixed-base) in compliance with a former Italian seismic code, for a medium-risk zone. Then it
is retrofitted by the insertion of a base-isolation system with elastomeric and sliding bearings to meet the re-
quirements of the current Italian code, in a high-risk seismic zone. Failure mechanisms of totally and partly
infilled structures are compared by considering three structural models: (i) bare structure with nonstructural
MIs; (ii) infilled structure with in-elevation uniform distribution of structural MIs; (iii) infilled structure with in-
elevation uneven distribution of structural MIs. Nonlinear dynamic analysis of the original (fixed-base) and
retrofitted (base-isolated) structures is carried out by a lumped plasticity model describing the inelastic beha-
viour of the r.c. frame members, while nonlinear force-displacement laws are considered for the elastomeric and
sliding bearings. A pivot hysteretic model is assumed to predict the nonlinear force-displacement law of the
equivalent diagonal strut adopted for modelling the MIs. Finally, near-fault ground motions with significant
horizontal pulses are selected and scaled on the basis of the design hypotheses adopted for the test structures.

1. Introduction
The beneficial influence of regularly distributed masonry infills
(MIs), reducing the deformation demand and enhancing the energy
dissipation capacity of the bare structure, is not generally taken into
account in the seismic assessment of existing buildings [1]. However,
irregularities in elevation due to soft-storeys or unsymmetrical layout of
the masonry infills can produce significant variations in stiffness,
strength and mass distribution of reinforced concrete (r.c.) framed
buildings, as well as producing unfavourable local failure mechanisms
[2]. Specifically, soft-storeys may be responsible for the concentration
of inelastic demand in a part of the superstructure, with adverse effects
on the structural response locally. During the earthquake in L′Aquila
(April 6th, 2009) a large number of buildings suffered severe damage or
collapse related to the influence of different failure modes of the MIs
[3]. Many models with different degrees of discretization and accuracy
have been proposed in the literature to reproduce the in-plane non-
linear seismic behaviour of the MIs [4]. Finite element formulations
based on plasticity-based continuous interface models to reproduce the
shear sliding of masonry mortar have been developed, allowing for a
detailed description of the nonlinear response of the MIs [5,6]. On the
other hand, the key features of the inelastic response without detailed
information about local phenomena can be obtained by replacing the
infill panel with an equivalent diagonal strut model without tension
[7,8], that may also be generalized for infilled frames with openings [9]
and to account for the interaction between the infill panel and the
frame [10,11].
To mitigate the detrimental effects of MIs and retrofit the building,
base-isolation systems can be inserted in the framed structure. Base-
isolation ensures a considerable reduction of the horizontal seismic
loads transmitted to the superstructure. Different base-isolation strate-
gies or their combinations can be used [12–21]: i) increasing the fun-
damental vibration period of the structure, to shift it in the range of low
spectral accelerations; ii) limiting the maximum force transmitted by
sliders to the superstructure, depending on their friction coefficient.
Therefore, the isolation systems are usually made with elastomeric
bearings (e.g. high-damping-rubber bearings, HDRBs), sometimes cou-
pled in hybrid combination with flat steel-PTFE sliding bearings (SBs),

⁎
Corresponding author.
E-mail address: fabio.mazza@unical.it (F. Mazza).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soildyn.2018.02.025
Received 13 October 2017; Received in revised form 4 February 2018; Accepted 17 February 2018
0267-7261/ © 2018 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
F. Mazza et al.
List of acronyms
MI masonry infill
HDRB high-damping-rubber bearing
SB sliding bearing
FPB friction pendulum bearing
EBI structure elastomeric-base-isolated structure
EFBI structure elastomeric-friction-base-isolated structure
FPBI structure friction-pendulum-base-isolated structure
BF bare frame
FB fixed-base
TIF totally infilled frame
PIF partly infilled frame
PIF.1 partly infilled frame with soft-storey at the first level
PIF.1_2 partly infilled frame with soft-storey at the first two levels
PIF.1_2_3 partly infilled frame with soft-storey at the first three le-
vels
FB.BS_IR FB bare-structure with irregular in-elevation distribution
of MIs
EBI.BS_IR EBI bare-structure with irregular in-elevation distribution
of MIs
EFBI.BS_IR EFBI bare-structure with irregular in-elevation dis-
tribution of MIs
FPBI.BS_IR FPBI bare-structure with irregular in-elevation dis-
tribution of MIs
or curved friction pendulum bearings (FPBs). It is worth noting that in
the case of an in-parallel combination of HDRBs and SBs (i.e. EFBI
structure) or FPBs acting alone (i.e. FPBI structure), the base-isolated
structure behaves as a fixed-base structure in the horizontal direction
until the friction threshold of the SBs or FPBs is not exceeded. A con-
siderable increase of deformability of an isolated structure, in com-
parison with that of the corresponding fixed-base structure, may lead to
an amplification in the structural response under near-fault (NF)
ground motions. The features of earthquakes recorded in proximity to
the source can be significantly different from those observed for far-
fault ground motions [22–25], highlighting sometimes two-sided ve-
locity pulses without permanent ground displacement (i.e. forward di-
rectivity effects) and other times one-sided velocity pulses generating
permanent ground displacement (i.e. fling-step effects). In particular,
the frequency content of the motion transmitted by the isolators to the
superstructure can become critical for the superstructure when the
pulse intensity is such that the superstructure undergoes plastic de-
formations; an amplification in the structural response is also possible
due to the long duration of the pulse [26–28]. A different approach is
that of using isolators in combination with supplemental viscous
dampers arranged at the isolation level. This solution is favourable to
controlling the isolator displacement and base shear, but it does not
guarantee a better performance of the superstructure in all the cases
because an increase of the contribution of higher vibration modes is
expected [29]. Specifically, the contribution of the modal coupling
terms due to isolator damping becomes the dominant term when the
supplemental viscous damping in the isolation system increases, so
inducing an increase of floor accelerations and interstorey drift of the
superstructure [30]. Moreover, designing the supplemental dampers to
control the isolator displacement with reference to a very strong and
very rare earthquake, it may happen that, under a more probable lower-
level earthquake, the isolation will be so heavily damped that the base
isolation becomes practically ineffective [30].
The aim of the present work is to investigate the nonlinear seismic
behaviour of masonry-infilled base-isolated r.c. framed structures sub-
jected to NF ground motions. As far as current seismic classification in
Italy, a considerable step ahead has been carried out and a new clas-
sification is adopted so that some medium-risk zone is promoted to
210
Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 109 (2018) 209–221
FB.IS_IR FB infilled-structure with irregular in-elevation distribu-
tion of MIs
EBI.IS_IR EBI infilled-structure with irregular in-elevation distribu-
tion of MIs
EFBI.IS_IR EFBI infilled-structure with irregular in-elevation dis-
tribution of MIs
FPBI.IS_IR FPBI infilled-structure with irregular in-elevation dis-
tribution of MIs
FB.BS_R FB bare-structure with regular in-elevation distribution of
MIs
EBI.BS_R EBI bare-structure with regular in-elevation distribution of
MIs
EFBI.BS_REFBI bare-structure with regular in-elevation distribution
of MIs
FPBI.BS_RFPBI bare-structure with regular in-elevation distribution
of MIs
FB.IS_R EBI infilled-structure with regular in-elevation distribution
of MIs
EBI.IS_R EBI infilled-structure with regular in-elevation distribution
of MIs
EFBI.IS_R EFBI infilled-structure with regular in-elevation distribu-
tion of MIs
FPBI.IS_R FPBI infilled-structure with regular in-elevation distribu-
tion of MIs
high-risk zone [31]. Therefore, a six-storey r.c. framed building falling
within this category is designed (as fixed-base) in compliance with a
former Italian seismic code [32] for a medium-risk zone, is then ret-
rofitted by the insertion of a base-isolation system to meet the re-
quirements of the current Italian code [31] in a high-risk seismic zone.
In detail, elastomeric (i.e., HDRBs) and friction (i.e. steel-PTFE sliders,
SBs, or pendulum bearings, FPBs) bearings are considered. Besides the
(fixed-base) primary structure, three cases of base-isolation are studied:
HDRBs acting alone (i.e. the EBI structure); in-parallel combination of
HDRBs and SBs (i.e. the EFBI structure); FPBs acting alone (i.e. the FPBI
structure). The EBI, EFBI and FPBI base-isolation systems are designed
assuming the same values of the fundamental vibration period and
equivalent viscous damping ratio in the horizontal direction. In order to
investigate the influence of MIs on the nonlinear seismic response of the
original and retrofitted structures, three layouts of MIs are considered
for the superstructure: (i) bare structure, considering only the mass
contribution of nonstructural MIs; (ii) regularly infilled structure, with
in-elevation uniform distribution of structural MIs; (iii) irregularly in-
filled structure, with soft-storeys at the lowest levels of the super-
structure. It should be noted that the bare structure is adopted to
highlight the lack of adequate modelling considered in the actual Eur-
opean design practice where masonry infills are commonly treated, in
the seismic design, as nonstructural elements and considered only in
terms of masses and vertical loads. A simplified diagonal pin-jointed
strut model reacting only in compression takes into account the in-
plane failure modes that can occur in the infill panels when subjected to
seismic loading [33]: namely, compression at the center, compression
at the corners, shear sliding and diagonal tension. A pivot hysteretic
model is adopted to predict the nonlinear force-displacement law of the
equivalent diagonal strut, based on geometrical rules that define
loading and unloading branches of the unsymmetrical tension-com-
pression behaviour of the infill walls [34]. Then, nonlinear dynamic
analysis of the original (fixed-base) and retrofitted (base-isolated)
structures is carried out assuming a lumped plasticity model to describe
the inelastic behaviour of the r.c. frame members and nonlinear force-
displacement laws for elastomeric and flat or curved sliding bearings.
Near-fault earthquakes with significant horizontal pulses are selected
from the Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research center database [35]
F. Mazza et al. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 109 (2018) 209–221

and scaled on the basis of the design hypotheses adopted for the test Table 1
structures. Mechanical properties of the masonry infills (units in MPa, apart from ν).

fwh fwv fwu fws Ewh Ewv G ν

2. Fixed-base original building
1.11 1.50 0.25 0.31 991 1873 1089 0.20

A six-storey residential building with r.c. framed structure, whose

symmetric plan is shown in Fig. 1, is considered as the primary struc-
ture. Masonry infills are considered as nonstructural elements regularly
distributed in the corner bays of the perimeter frames (Fig. 1a).
Two in-elevation configurations are considered: i) totally infilled
frames (TIFs), with a regular distribution along the building height
(Fig. 1b); ii) partly infilled frames (PIFs), with soft-storey at the first
(Fig. 1c), the first two (Fig. 1d) and the first three (Fig. 1e) levels of the
superstructure. Note that infill walls with openings are not taken into
account. The infill typology selected for this study consists of two leaves
of clay horizontal hollowed bricks, with a thickness of twe = 12 cm
(exterior) and twi= 8 cm (interior), which are fully in contact with the
surrounding frame.
The infill mechanical properties are presented in Table 1 [2]: fwh
and fwv, compression strengths in the horizontal and vertical directions;
fwu, sliding shear resistance of the mortar joints; fws, shear resistance
under diagonal compression; Ewh and Ewv, secant moduli of elasticity in
the horizontal and vertical directions; G, shear modulus; ν, coefficient
of Poisson.
A simulated design of the original framed building is carried out to

Fig. 1. Original (fixed-base) structure (units in cm).

211
F. Mazza et al.
comply with the ultimate limit states, in accordance with the former
Italian code (DM96, [31]), for a medium-risk seismic region (seismic
coefficient: C=0.07) and a typical subsoil class (main coefficients: re-
sponse spectrum factor, R=1; subsoil factor, ε = 1; structural factor,
β = 1). The gravity loads for the r.c. framed structure are represented
by a dead load of 4.2 kN/m2 on the top floor and 5.0 kN/m2 on the
other floors, and a live load of 2.0 kN/m2 on all the floors; an average
weight of about 2.7 kN/m2 is considered for the masonry infill walls
(both leaves). Concrete cylindrical compressive strength of 25 N/mm2
and steel reinforcement with yield strength of 375 N/mm2 are con-
sidered. The geometric dimensions of the lateral, interior and central
frames are shown in Fig. 1, while cross section of beams (i.e. deep and
flat) and columns (i.e. corner, perimeter and central) are presented in
Table 2. The design is carried out to comply with the ultimate limit
states. Detailing for local ductility is also imposed to satisfy minimum
conditions for the longitudinal bars of the r.c. frame members: for the
beams, a tension reinforcement ratio nowhere less than 0.37% is pro-
vided and a compression reinforcement not less than half of the tension
reinforcement is placed at all sections; for a section of each column a
minimum steel geometric ratio of 1% is assumed, with the minimum
reinforcement ratio corresponding to one side of the section equal to
0.35%.
Finally, the fundamental vibration periods and effective masses,
expressed as a percentage of the total mass (mtot) of the building, along
the in-plan X and Y principal directions are presented in Table 3, with
reference to three structural models: i) bare frame (BF); ii) totally in-
filled frame (TIF); iii) partly infilled frame (PIF). Specifically, the ex-
pression proposed in [36] is used to evaluate the width (bw) of the di-
agonal strut, with length dw and total thickness tw (= twe + twi),
equivalent to the masonry infill panel:
bw / d w = K1/(λh) + K2 (1)
where the parameters K1 and K2 are defined as functions of the product
λh (see Table 4), h being the centerline height of a frame storey and λ a
dimensionless relative stiffness parameter [37].
3. Retrofitted base-isolated buildings
To attain performance levels imposed by the current Italian code
(NTC08, [31]), in a high-risk seismic zone (peak ground acceleration on
rock, ag = 0.262 g at the life-safety limit state) with medium subsoil
class (class C, site amplification factor, S = 1.319), three in-plan con-
figurations of elastomeric and sliding (flat or curved) bearings are used
to retrofit the original (fixed-base) framed building: (a) EBI structure,
with elastomeric bearings acting alone (i.e. HDRBs type 1 in Fig. 2a);
(b) EFBI structure, with an in-parallel combination of elastomeric (i.e.
HDRBs type 2) and friction (i.e. steel-PTFE sliding bearings, SBs)
bearings shown in Fig. 2b; (c) FPBI structure, with friction pendulum
bearings (i.e. FPBs in Fig. 2c) acting alone.
The floor level placed above the base-isolation system is char-
acterized by rigid beams, with a cross section of 50 × 100 cm2, and
mass of 511 t. Thus, a total mass of 2145 t is considered for the base-
isolated structures. The base-isolation systems are designed on the same
values of the fundamental vibration period (i.e. T1H = 2.5 s) and
equivalent viscous damping ratio (i.e. ξH = 18%), corresponding to the
(horizontal) design spectral displacement equal to 23.33 cm at the
NTC08 collapse limit state. It should
The design of the twenty HDRBs type 1 of the EBI structure shown in
Fig. 2a, which are simply assumed with the same dimensions so as to
obtain greater torsional stiffness, is carried out in line with the pre-
scriptions imposed by NTC08 at the collapse limit state. A value of the
stiffness ratio of the isolation system, defined as the ratio between the
vertical (KV0) and horizontal (KH0) nominal stiffnesses of the HDRBs,
αK0 = 800 is considered. A shear modulus G= 0.4 MPa and a volu-
metric compression modulus Eb = 2000 MPa are assumed for the
elastomer. The HDRBs fulfill the verifications regarding the maximum
212
Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 109 (2018) 209–221
shear strains: i.e. γtot≤ 5 and γs≤ 2, where γtot and γs represent the total
shear strain and the shear strain of the elastomer due to seismic dis-
placement, respectively. Moreover, the compression axial force (P) on
the HDRB does not exceed the corresponding critical buckling axial
force (Pcr) divided by a safety coefficient equal to 2.0, while the max-
imum allowable tensile stress (σtu) is assumed as 2 G(=0.8 MPa). The
base isolation system properties are presented in Table 5: i.e. the hor-
izontal (KH0) and vertical (KV0) nominal stiffnesses and the corre-
sponding equivalent damping coefficients (CH and CV), assuming an
equivalent viscous damping ratio in the vertical direction, ξV, equal to
5%; diameter of the isolator (D); the total thickness of elastomer (te);
primary (S1) and secondary (S2) shape factors. The results of the ver-
ifications for the HDRBs are also reported in Table 5. It is worth noting
that the buckling threshold is resulted the most restrictive while no
tensile axial loads are found. The design of the EFBI structure is carried
out in order to increase the secondary shape factor of the HDRBs type 2
compared to HDRBs type 1, so as to obtain that the maximum total
shear strain affects their dimensions. To this end, the arrangement of
elastomeric and sliding bearings includes four interior and two peri-
meter SBs. This solution corresponds to a value 0.44 of the nominal
sliding ratio αS0(=FS0/FS0, max ) of the SBs under gravity loads, defined
as the sliding force (FS0) of the entire sliding system divided by the
maximum sliding force (FS0, max ) corresponding to a sliding bearing
below each column of the test structure. It should be noted that the
choice of elastomeric bearings for the isolators n. 8 and n. 13 depends
on their tributary area for gravity loads greater than that corresponding
to lateral and corner isolators. Specifically, the selection of sliding
bearings for the central isolators is not preferred, because it corresponds
to an increased value of the nominal sliding ratio αS0 producing
structural behaviour in the horizontal direction ever-closer to that of a
fixed-base structure, but an adequate torsional stiffness during the
sliding phase is obtained placing twelve elastomeric bearings along the
perimeter. In so doing, a suitable amount of shear force is provided by
the HDRBs. The same nominal stiffness ratio adopted for the EBI
structure (i.e. αK0 =800) is assumed in this case for the HDRBs type 2.
Equivalent viscous damping ratios ξH,HDRBs = 11.6% and ξH,SBs = 6.4%
are evaluated for the elastomeric and sliding bearings, respectively,
referring to the horizontal spectral displacement at the collapse limit
state (Sd=23.33 cm) and considering the gravity loads and a dynamic-
fast sliding friction coefficient μ = 4.2%. It should be noted that the
same rubber material (i.e. G = 0.4 MPa) is also adopted for the HDRBs
type 2, assuming different dimensions from those of the HDRBs type 1
(see Table 6) to take account of different damping ratio. More specifi-
cally, the following expression of the equivalent viscous damping is
adopted for the in-parallel combination of HDRBs and SBs:
Wh,HDRBs + Wh,SBs ξH ,HDRBs⋅Ws,HDRBs + ξH ,SBs⋅Ws,SBs
ξH = =
4π (Ws,HDRBs + Ws,SBs) Ws,HDRBs + Ws,SBs (2)
where Ws,HDRBs and Ws,SBs are the strain energies at the secant stiffness
corresponding to the design displacement, while Wh,HDRBs and Wh,SBs
represent the hysteretic energies in a cycle of motion. The equivalent
viscous damping ratio of the HDRBs type 2 in the vertical direction is
assumed ξV = 5%. Finally, main properties of the HDRBs type 2 are
Table 2
Cross section of r.c. frame members (units in cm).
Column Beam
Storey Corner Perimeter Interior Deep Flat
6 30 × 30 30 × 30 30 × 30 30 × 45 40 × 25
5 30 × 35 30 × 40 40 × 40 30 × 45 40 × 25
4 30 × 40 30 × 50 50 × 50 30 × 50 50 × 25
3 30 × 40 30 × 50 50 × 50 30 × 55 50 × 25
2 30 × 50 30 × 60 60 × 60 40 × 60 60 × 25
1 30 × 50 30 × 60 60 × 60 40 × 70 60 × 25
F. Mazza et al. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 109 (2018) 209–221

Table 3 Table 6
Dynamical properties of the fixed-base structure (mtot = 1634 t). Properties for the fourteen HDRBs type 2 acting in-parallel with six SBs (units in kN, cm
and s).
Case T1,X (s) T1,Y (s) me1,X me1,Y
KH0 KV0 CH CV
BF 0.763 0.624 77.2% mtot 76.0% mtot
TIF 0.645 0.557 78.9% mtot 77.5% mtot 8.49 6789 0.81 3.24
PIF.1 0.664 0.568 81.5% mtot 79.7% mtot D te S1 S2
PIF.1_2 0.685 0.575 82.4% mtot 80.2% mtot 62 14.5 13.0 4.32
PIF.1_2_3 0.706 0.586 81.6% mtot 79.7% mtot γs γtot (Pcr/P)min (σt/σtu)max
1.61 4.68 2.13 1.0

Table 4
Numerical values of the K1 and K2 parameters [37]. presented in Table 6. It is noteworthy that the design of the HDRBs type
2 has been limited by the condition imposed on the maximum tensile
λh < 3.14 3.14 < λh < 7.85 λh > 7.85 stress (i.e. (σt/σtu)max). The alternative of using twenty FPBs acting
K1 1.3 0.707 0.47 alone, with the same effective radius of curvature (R) of the sliding
K2 0.178 0.01 0.04 interface, is also taken into account in the design of the FPBI structure
shown in Fig. 2c. In detail, the in-plan distribution of maximum axial
load capacity (PEd) is assumed so as to obtain six types of FP bearings
characterized by a same value of the dynamic-fast sliding friction
coefficient (i.e. μmax=4.2%). The FP system is designed at the collapse
limit state, requiring the fulfilment of the provisions imposed by
NTC08: i.e. maximum compression axial load of the FP bearing (Psd)
less than its capacity (PEd); maximum horizontal displacements less
than the spectral value; absence of uplift of the FPs. More specifically, a
constant value of the ratio Psd/PEd (i.e. 0.53) is assumed for all FPBs, so
as to obtain the dynamic-fast friction coefficient μmax = 4.2% through
an experimental law for low-type friction [15]:
μmax = 2.5(Psd/ PEd )−0.834 (3)

4. Nonlinear modelling of masonry infills

Failure mechanisms of totally and partly infilled structures are

compared by substituting the MIs of the lower storeys of the test
structure with glass windows and following a change in the use of these
floors from residential to office. A simplified diagonal pin-jointed strut
model reacting only in compression (Fig. 3a), having inclination θ with
respect to the horizontal direction, takes into account the in-plane
failure modes that can occur in the infill panels when subjected to
seismic loading. Thus, four failure modes are considered, with the
corresponding equivalent compressive strengths [36] for diagonal
compression
1.16⋅fwv ⋅ tan θ
σw1 = ,
K1 + K2⋅λh (4)
crushing in the corners in contact with the frame
1.12⋅fwv ⋅ sin θ⋅ cos θ
σw2 = ,
K1⋅(λh)−0.12 + K2⋅(λh)0.88 (5)
sliding shear along horizontal joints
(1.2⋅ sin θ + 0.45⋅ cos θ)⋅fwu + 0.3⋅σv
Fig. 2. Base-isolated retrofitted structures. σw3 = ,
bw /d w (6)

Table 5 and diagonal tension

Properties for the twenty HDRBs type 1 acting alone (units in kN, cm and s).
0.6⋅ sin θ⋅fws + 0.3⋅σv
σw 4 =
KH0 KV0 CH CV bw /d w (7)

6.77 5420 0.97 7.69 where σv is the vertical compression stress due to gravity loads. Then,
D te S1 S2 the maximum lateral strength of the strut is evaluated as
70 22.6 13.24 3.05
γs γtot (Pcr/P)min (σt/σtu)max Fw = σw, min⋅bw⋅tw⋅ cos θ (8)
1.03 3.34 2.0 0
where
σw, min = min{σw1, σw2, σw3, σw 4} (9)
represents the most probable failure mode.
As shown in Fig. 3b, the skeleton curve of the lateral force-

213
F. Mazza et al. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 109 (2018) 209–221

Fig. 3. Nonlinear modelling of a masonry infill panel.

interstorey drift (F-Δ) law considers three linear branches, depending FwRS = 0.7⋅FwFC (14a)
on parameters α, β and ξ [38], where storey displacement coincides
with the infill displacement. In detail, the first ascending branch cor- 1 ⎛ FwFC ξΔwFC ⎞
ΔwRS = ln ⎜ ⋅e , ξ = 0.02
⎟

responds to the uncracked stage, until the attainment of point C char- ξ ⎝ FwRS ⎠ (14b)
acterized by
with a residual stiffness
FwC = α⋅Fw , α = 0.4 (10a)
F − FwRS ⎞
k w3 = tan ⎛ wFC
⎜ ⎟
ΔwC = FwC / k w1, k w1 = Ewθ⋅bw⋅tw⋅cos2 θ / d w (10b) ⎝ ΔwFC − ΔwRS ⎠ (15)
with the diagonal elastic modulus Finally, a pivot hysteretic model is adopted to predict the nonlinear
−1 force-displacement law of the equivalent diagonal strut (Fig. 3b), based
cos4 θ sin4 θ 1 2ν ⎞ ⎤
Ewθ = ⎡ + + cos2 θ⋅sin2 θ ⎛ − ⎜ ⎟ on geometrical rules that define loading and unloading branches cor-
⎢ Ewh Ewv ⎝G Ewv ⎠ ⎥ (11)
⎣ ⎦ responding to the unsymmetrical tension-compression behaviour of the
The second ascending branch represents the post-cracking phase up masonry infills [39]. The cyclic behaviour can be described by primary
to the attainment of point FC, corresponding to the full development of and pinching pivot points, which are governed by four parameters (α1,
the cracking α2, β1 and β2) when the strength envelope, without tension resistance,
is defined. Simplifications of the pivot model can be adopted when
FwFC = Fw (12a) applied to masonry infills [34]. Specifically, α1 and β1 are assumed
equal to zero because MIs do not contribute in tension, while β2 = 0 is
ΔwFC = ΔwC + (FwFC − FwC )/ k w2 (13b)
also considered to take into account that stiffness at load reversal is
with the horizontal stiffness negligible until the whole plastic deformation previously accumulated
is not recovered. Therefore, the hysteretic law is governed by parameter
k w2 = β⋅k w1, β = 0.15 (13)
α2(= 0.25) describing a fundamental pivot (FP) point as function of the
Finally, the third descending branch describes the post-peak cracking resistance (FwC).
strength deterioration of the infill up to the attainment of the residual Monotonic constitutive laws of the perimeter masonry infills (MIs),
values of strength and displacement (point RS) representing a conven- for the six levels of the test structure, are plotted in Fig. 4 for the X and
tional collapse point of the infill panel Y directions, respectively. It should be noted that the three fundamental

Fig. 4. Monotonic curves for the masonry infills (MIs) of the test structure.

214
F. Mazza et al. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 109 (2018) 209–221

Table 7 describe the base-isolation systems, assuming: i) an in-parallel combi-

Properties for the twenty FPBs acting alone (units in kN and cm).
FPB R Psd
1,5,16,20 216 515
2,4,17,19 216 974
3,18 216 1029
6,10,11,15 216 1020
7,9,12,14 216 1458
8,13 216 1547
points (i.e. C, FC and RS shown in Fig. 3b) of each curve are char-
acterized by values of the horizontal strength and displacement in the X
direction lower than those in the Y direction. Moreover, different
monotonic curves are obtained along the building height for a same
infill typology, as function of clear dimensions of the panels.
5. Numerical results
To investigate the influence of an in-elevation irregular distribution
of MIs, the nonlinear seismic analysis is carried out on three config-
urations of the superstructure: (i) bare structure (BS), but accounting
for the mass contribution of nonstructural MIs; (ii) infilled structure
with in-elevation regular structural MIs (IS_R); (iii) infilled structure
with in-elevation irregular structural MIs (IS_IR). The original (i.e.
fixed-base: FB) and retrofitted (i.e. base-isolated: EBI, EFBI and FPBI)
buildings are modelled and analyzed by the structural analysis program
SAP 2000 [40]. In order to take into account the nonlinear behaviour of
the framed structure, a one-component lumped plasticity model with an
elastic (central) beam and two inelastic rotational end-hinges re-
presents the flexural behaviour of beams and columns. The plastic
hinges are evaluated on the basis of the material and r.c. cross-section
properties, assuming a five-point moment-plastic rotation law to re-
present: no deformation before yielding, yielding, ultimate capacity,
residual strength and failure. Specifically, plastic hinge for major axis of
bending only or for axial load and bending moment around the two
principal axes are considered for beams or columns, respectively. Ac-
cording to the Rayleigh hypothesis, the damping matrix of the structure
(superstructure) is assumed as a linear combination of the mass and
stiffness matrices, assuming an equivalent viscous damping ratio equal
to 5% (or 2%) with reference to the vibration periods of the fixed-base
structure (or base-isolated structures) corresponding to the high-parti-
cipation modes with components prevailing in the X (i.e. T1X) and Y
(i.e. T1Y) directions. This assumption is suitable for base-isolated
structures due to the high value of the effective modal mass excited by
each of these two modes. Moreover, a somewhat higher value of the
damping ratio is achieved for the third and fourth modes of the fixed-
base structure, while the higher frequency modes, which do not con-
tribute significantly to the dynamic response, are practically eliminated
due to their high damping ratio. The simplified diagonal pin-jointed
strut model previously described is considered for an infill panel, which
takes into account the in-plane failure modes that can occur. More
precisely, the response of a diagonal strut is simulated by a trilinear law
and suitable hysteretic properties. Finally, link elements are adopted to
nation of linear spring and viscous dashpot, both in the horizontal and
vertical directions, for the elastomeric bearings; ii) velocity-dependent
PEd
friction properties for the flat (i.e. R→∞) and curved (i.e. R = 216 cm)
970 sliding bearings, with post-slip stiffness in the shear directions related
1839 to the pendulum radius of the slipping surfaces and gap behaviour in
1941
the axial direction for tensile loads. Moreover, the rigid-plastic beha-
1926
2753 viour of the sliding bearings is described by a smooth hysteretic model
2920 with biaxial interaction [41]. At any given moment during an earth-
quake, the axial load acting on elastomeric and sliding bearings can be
modified. It is worth noting that the fluctuation in the bearing axial
load produces changes in friction force in the sliding bearings. The
friction coefficient is based on an exponential law, which attains the
value μmax or μmin, respectively, at very high or very low sliding velo-
city. The nonlinear seismic analysis is carried out assuming μmax/μmin
= 2.5 and a rate parameter α = 5.5 s/m, depending on experimental
results available in literature [42]. Further details can be found in
previous work [14,16].
Amplification in the inelastic demand of the superstructure is gen-
erally expected for new base-isolated structures subjected to near-fault
(NF) ground motions [15–18,26,43]. However, additional study is re-
quired to evaluate the influence of irregular masonry infills on the
nonlinear seismic behaviour of r.c. framed structures retrofitted with a
base-isolation system and located near active faults. To this end, the In-
Spector software [44] is adopted for a computer aided selection of
seven real spectrum-compatible near-fault earthquakes selected from
the Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research center database [35].
However, only near-fault records whose spectrum matches the NTC08
design spectrum at the life-safety (LS) limit state to a certain value of
the root mean square difference, are considered (Table 7)
2
N
1 S real (Ti ) SaNTC 08 (Ti ) ⎞
Drms = ∑ ⎜⎛ PGA
a
− ⎟
N i=1 ⎝ real PGANTC 08 ⎠ (16)
expressed as a function of the normalized spectral ordinate of accel-
eration at a vibration period Ti (i = 1.. N) of the NTC08 target (i.e. at
the life-safety, LS, limit state) and selected real motion, N being the
number of vibration periods used in the calculation. Parameter Drms
supplies a quantitative evaluation of the similarity between the fre-
quency contents of the real and NTC08 spectra: i.e. lower values of Drms
(e.g. less than 0.2) correspond to a closer match between the shape of
the selected and target spectra. Then, the selected NF earthquakes are
scaled on the basis of the design hypotheses adopted for the test
structures. To this end, the modified acceleration spectrum intensity is
evaluated by integration of the spectral values of the acceleration in a
suitable range of vibration periods [45], where the lower limit accounts
for the higher modes to structural response while the upper limit con-
siders the lengthening of period due to nonlinear structural behaviour.
In Table 8, the main data of the NF earthquakes are presented: earth-
quake location, date, recording station, magnitude, peak ground ac-
celeration in the horizontal directions (PGAH1 and PGAH2) and corre-
sponding Drms values, scale factor. Finally, mean elastic response
spectrum of two horizontal components of acceleration for the selected
near-fault earthquakes is compared in Fig. 5 with the corresponding

Table 8
Main data of the selected near-fault earthquakes.

Earthquake Date Station Mw PGAH1 PGAH2 Drms,H1 Drms,H2 SF

Chi-Chi 20/09/99 TCU068 7.3 0.512 g 0.371 g 0.0385 0.0517 0.60

Northridge 17/01/94 Newhall 6.7 0.419 g 0.357 g 0.0507 0.0272 0.90
Sup. Hills 24/11/87 Parachute 6.4 0.432 g 0.384 g 0.0676 0.0133 0.39
Cape Mend. 25/04/92 Petrolia 7.1 0.585 g 0.662 g 0.024 0.0195 0.70
Kobe 16/01/95 Takatori 6.9 0.618 g 0.671 g 0.0706 0.0524 0.31
Tabas 16/09/78 Tabas 7.7 0.854 g 0.862 g 0.0159 0.0152 0.50
Erzincan 13/03/92 Erzincan 6.7 0.496 g 0.387 g 0.0098 0.0535 0.50

215
F. Mazza et al.
Fig. 5. Mean acceleration (elastic) response spectrum of the scaled near-fault ground
motions.
target NTC08 design response spectrum at the LS limit state and cor-
responding lower (-10%) and upper (+30%) bounds.
Firstly, storey damage of the superstructure for the original (i.e.
fixed-base, FB) and retrofitted (i.e. EBI, EFBI and FPBI) structures is
plotted in Figs. 6 and 7, for irregular (i.e. partly infilled frames with
soft-storey at the first level, PIFs.1) and regular (i.e. totally infilled
frames, TIFs) in-elevation distribution of the MIs, respectively. In detail,
the maximum interstorey drift ratio, defined as maximum drift (Δ)
Fig. 6. Storey drift ratio for the original (fixed-base) and retrofitted (base-isolated) structures with partly infilled frames: (a, b) bare structures; (c, d) infilled structures.
216
Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 109 (2018) 209–221
divided by the storey height (h), is plotted for all storeys and in both
principal directions of the building plan. The drift ratio thresholds re-
lated to different damage levels of r.c. elements, in the case of ductile
structural systems, are also checked [46]: i.e. light to moderate damage,
Δ/h < 1%; severe damage up to partial collapse, 1%≤ Δ/h≤ 3%; col-
lapse, Δ/h > 3%. The results discussed below are obtained as the
maximum of those obtained for each of the seven pairs of accel-
erograms (PGAH1 and PGAH2 acting together), which are scaled to
match the NTC08 response spectrum at the site in question. As ex-
pected, the original (fixed-base) structure suffers moderate-to-severe
damage, highlighting an irregular vertical distribution of drift ratio,
characterized by higher values at the lower storeys. Interestingly, the
pulse-type nature of the selected near-fault ground motions can induce
irreparable damage also at the lower storeys of the retrofitted (base-
isolated) test structures. Moreover, near-fault effects are more evident
in the in-plan X direction (Fig. 6a,c and Fig. 7a,c), characterized by flat
beams in the interior frames, than in the Y one (Fig. 6b,d and Fig. 7b,d).
Seismic isolation in the X direction is less effective than in the Y di-
rection because it is characterized by a fundamental vibration period of
the fixed-base structure greater than in the Y direction, with a further
increase because the contribution of MIs to the lateral stiffness is not
considered (Fig. 6a,b). It is worth noting that MIs are more protective in
the infilled base-isolated structures (i.e. the IS_IR and IS_R models in
Figs. 6c,d and 7c,d, respectively), while the bare base-isolated struc-
tures (i.e. the BS_IR and BS_R models in Figs. 6a,b and 7a,b, respec-
tively), where the MIs are assumed as nonstructural elements (con-
sidering their mass only), are the most vulnerable. This behaviour
emphasizes that the increase of lateral stiffness due to the insertion of
F. Mazza et al.
Fig. 7. Storey drift ratio for the original (fixed-base) and retrofitted (base-isolated) structures with totally infilled frames: (a, b) bare structures; (c, d) infilled structures.
the MIs produces both reduction of seismic loads in the base-isolated
structures, due to the increase of the fundamental vibration period,
accompanied by a significant enhancement of the energy dissipation
capacity. The irregular distribution of masonry infills (i.e. the PIFs.1
cases) is responsible for the concentration of inelastic demand in the
soft-storey of the original and retrofitted structures, especially for the
IS_IR models in Fig. 6c,d. On the other hand, a regular in-elevation
distribution of the MIs (i.e. the TIFs cases) induces drift ratio values in
the bare structures (i.e. the BS_R models in Fig. 7a,b) greater than those
in the infilled structures (Fig. 7c,d).
Afterwards, similar graphs are plotted in Fig. 8, where the storey
damage of the infilled structures is presented for three different in-
elevation irregular distributions of MIs.
Specifically, detrimental effects of soft-storey at the first (i.e. PIF.1),
the first two (i.e. PIF.1_2) and the first three (i.e. PIF.1_2_3) storeys of
the superstructure are investigated. As can be observed, the behaviour
of the fixed-base (original) structures is typically governed by the soft-
storey developing in the bottom storeys (Fig. 8a,b), which significantly
increases the inter-storey drift values leading to the formation of local
failure mechanisms at the soft-storeys. In the base-isolated structures,
irregular arrangement of the MIs induces an increase of structural da-
mage for an increasing number of storeys where the formation of a soft-
storey mechanism occurs (Figs. 8c-8h). Moreover, the pulse-type nature
of the near-fault ground motions is also responsible for the amplifica-
tion and concentration of inelastic demand in the lower storeys of the
superstructure while the upper storeys remain substantially elastic.
Finally, base-isolation by elastomeric bearings (Fig. 8c,d) is more ef-
fective than seismic retrofitting of the fixed-base structure obtained by
217
Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 109 (2018) 209–221
the other base-isolations systems (Figs. 8e-8h).
Next, to compare the response of the base-isolation systems in the
cases considered above (EBI, EFBI, FPBI structures), the maximum
horizontal deformation (uH,I) of the isolation systems is plotted in
Fig. 9. Note that the in-elevation distribution (see PIFs.1 and TIFs cases
in Figs. 9a,b and 9c,d, respectively) and modelling of MIs (BS and IS
models) do not significantly influence the maximum deformation of the
base-isolation systems because the conventional collapse point of many
infill panels is already reached. Moreover, the FPBI structures show
higher values of maximum horizontal displacement than those observed
for the EBI and EFBI ones, even exceeding the NTC08 design threshold.
Similar results are also shown in Fig. 10 where the horizontal dis-
placement of the base-isolation systems is plotted as a function of an
increasing number of soft storeys for the infilled structures with in-
elevation irregular structural MIs (i.e. PIF.1, PIF.1_2 and PIF.1_2_3).
Curves representing histories of the drift ratio at the first storey are
plotted in Fig. 11 for the original and retrofitted structures subjected to
the horizontal components of the Chi-Chi near-fault earthquake. More
specifically, curves for partly (PIFs.1) and totally (TIFs) infilled frames
are compared for the IS_IR (Fig. 11a,b) and IS_R (Fig. 11c,d) models of
MIs.
During the nonlinear dynamic analyses, a significant different drift
response is observed between the fixed-base and base-isolated struc-
tures. In particular, all the examined base-isolation systems are found to
be effective for the vibration control in the case of regular in-elevation
distribution of MIs (Fig. 11c,d), while severe (Fig. 11a) and moderate
(Fig. 11b) damage is highlighted in the case of a soft first-storey of the
superstructure. Moreover, the EFBI.IS_R structure (Fig. 11c,d) shows
F. Mazza et al. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 109 (2018) 209–221

Fig. 8. Storey drift ratio for the original (fixed-base) and retrofitted (base-isolated) structures with a soft-storey at the first (PIF.1), the first two (PIF.1_2) and the first three (PIF.1_2_3)
storeys of the superstructure.

218
F. Mazza et al.
Fig. 9. Horizontal displacement of the base isolation systems for the retrofitted (base-isolated) bare and infilled structures: partly (a, b) and totally (c, d) infilled frames.
the highest maximum value of drift ratio at the first storey. This may be
due to an insufficient restrain by the restoring force of the elastomeric
isolators.
Finally, time histories of the drift ratio at the first storey are plotted
in Fig. 12 (X direction) and 13 (Y direction) for the fixed-base (Figs. 12a
and 13a) and base-isolated (Figs. 12b-12d and Figs. 13b-13d) struc-
tures, hypothesizing a soft-storey at the first, the first two and the first
three levels of the superstructure. It is interesting to note that the as-
sumption of an open-storey at the second (PIF.1_2) and third level
(PIF.1_2_3) of the fixed-base structure produces a lower value of the
storey drift at the first level than that observed for the PIF.1. This be-
haviour can be interpreted observing that, for an increasing number of
soft-storeys, the mass of the building diminishes but its deformability
increases so producing an increase of the fundamental vibration periods
(see Table 3) with a reduction of the seismic loads. On the other hand, a
slight increase of storey drift at the first level of the base-isolated
Fig. 10. Horizontal displacement of the base isolation systems for the retrofitted (base-isolated) infilled structures with a soft-storey at the first (PIF.1), the first two (PIF.1_2) and the first
three (PIF.1_2_3) levels of the superstructure.
219
Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 109 (2018) 209–221
structures generally occurs for an increasing number of soft-storeys.
6. Conclusions
The influence of masonry infills on the seismic performance of r.c.
framed buildings has been investigated. To this end, the nonlinear dy-
namic response of fixed-base structures with and without a soft-storey,
retrofitted with a base-isolation system in order to attain the perfor-
mance levels imposed by the current Italian code in a high-risk seismic
zone, has been studied under near-fault ground motions. A six-storey
r.c. framed building has been considered as test structure, comparing
three structural configurations: bare structure with nonstructural MIs
(BS case); totally infilled structure, with regular distribution of MIs
(IS_R case); partly infilled structure, with irregular in-elevation dis-
tribution of MIs (IS_IR case). A no-tension equivalent strut model, with
a pivot hysteretic model to simulate the nonlinear force-displacement
F. Mazza et al.
Fig. 11. Time-history of the drift ratio at the first storey for the original (fixed-base) and
retrofitted (base-isolated) structures: partly (a, b) and totally (c, d) infilled frames.
law in compression, is adopted for modelling the MIs. Besides the ori-
ginal FB existing structure, three base-isolation systems are designed:
HDRBs acting alone (EBI structure); an in-parallel combination of
HDRBs and SBs (EFBI structure); FPBs acting alone (FPBI structure).
Moreover, irregularly infilled structures with a soft-storey at the first,
the first two and the first three levels of the superstructure are also
compared.
The original FB structure suffers moderate-to-severe damage,
highlighting an irregular vertical distribution characterized by higher
values at the lower storey. The pulse-type nature of the selected near-
fault ground motions can induce irreparable damage also at the lower
storeys of the retrofitted (base-isolated) structures. However, the EBI,
EFBI and FPBI isolation systems are effective for the vibration control in
the case of regular in-elevation distribution of the MIs, while irrepar-
able damage occurs in the case of a soft first-storey of the super-
structure. More specifically, storey damage highlights the fact that MIs
are protective in the IS_R and IS_IR infilled structures subjected to near-
fault earthquakes, while the BS_R and BS_IR bare structures are char-
acterized by the highest values of the drift ratio. Irregular in-elevation
distribution of MIs (PIFs cases) is responsible for concentration of in-
elastic demand in the soft-storey of the base-isolated structures, espe-
cially when the IS model is considered.
Detrimental effects of irregular vertical distribution of MIs are also
investigated for an increasing number of soft-storeys. In the base-iso-
lated structures, irregular arrangement of the MIs induces an increase of
structural damage for increasing number of levels where the formation
of soft-storey response mechanisms is verified. The pulse-type nature of
the near-fault ground motions is also responsible for the concentration
of inelastic demand in the lower storeys of the superstructure while the
upper storeys remain substantially elastic. Note that the assumption of
an open storey at the second and third levels of the fixed-base structure
220
Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 109 (2018) 209–221
Fig. 12. Time-history of the drift ratio at the first storey, for the original (fixed-base) and
retrofitted (base-isolated) structures: soft-storey at the first (PIF.1), the first two (PIF.1_2)
and the first three (PIF.1_2_3) storeys of the superstructure (X direction).
produces a value of drift at the first level lower than that observed for
the case of first soft-storey, while a slight increase of drift at the first
storey of the base-isolated structures generally occurs for an increasing
number of soft-storeys.
The in-elevation distribution (i.e. PIFs and TIFs cases) and model-
ling (i.e. BS and IS models) of MIs produces do not significantly influ-
ence the maximum horizontal displacement at the isolation level.
Similar results are also obtained by plotting the maximum horizontal
displacement of the base-isolation systems as a function of an increasing
number of soft-storeys. Besides, the deformation of the FPBI isolation
system is greater than that observed for the EBI and EFBI structures,
even exceeding the design spectral displacement at the NTC08 collapse
limit state. Finally, base-isolation with elastomeric bearings (EBI
structures) is shown to be more effective for the seismic retrofitting of
the fixed-base structure than other base-isolation systems (EFBI and
FPBI structures).
The following resumptive conclusions can be drawn. A regular
distribution of MIs is fundamental in order to obtain a good perfor-
mance of r.c. framed structure retrofitted with base-isolation systems in
the near-fault area, because it increases stiffness of the superstructure
making base-isolation more effective. The assumption of bare frame
model for the base-isolated structure corresponds to worse performance
than infilled one under near-fault ground motions, translating struc-
tural response in an unrealistic heavy damage. Moreover, MIs not well
distributed allow the formation of soft stories and heavy damage is to
be expected in the base isolated structures subjected to near-fault
earthquakes.
F. Mazza et al.
Fig. 13. Time-history of the drift ratio at the first storey, for the original (fixed-base) and
retrofitted (base-isolated) structures: soft-storey at the first (PIF.1), the first two (PIF.1_2)
and the first three (PIF.1_2_3) storeys of the superstructure (Y direction).
Acknowledgements
The present work was financed by Re.L.U.I.S. (Italian network of
university laboratories of earthquake engineering), in accordance with
“Convenzione D.P.C.–Re.L.U.I.S. 2017, Research line PR6, Isolation and
Dissipation”.
References
[1] Decanini LD, Liberatore L, Mollaioli F. Damage potential of the 2009 L′Aquila, Italy,
earthquake. J Earthq Tsunami 2012;6(3):1–32.
[2] Hak S, Morandi P, Magenes G, Sullivan TJ. Damage control for clay masonry infills
in the design of rc frame structures. J Earthq Eng 2012;16(S1):1–35.
[3] Braga F, Manfredi V, Masi A, Salvatori A, Vona M. Performance of non-structural
elements in RC buildings during the L′Aquila, 2009 earthquake. Bull Earthq Eng
2011;9(1):307–24.
[4] Liberatore L, Noto F, Mollaioli F, Franchin P. A comparative assessment of strut
models for the modelling of in-plane seismic response of infill walls. In: Proceedings
of the 6th ECCOMAS Thematic Conference on Computational Methods in Structural
Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, COMPDYN 2017, Rhodes Island, Greece:
2:3255–3268.
[5] Shing PB, Mehrabi AB. Behaviour and analysis of masonry-infilled frames. Progress
Struct Eng Mater 2002;4(3):320–31.
[6] Liberatore L, Bruno M, AlShawa O, Pasca M, Sorrentino L. Finite-discrete element
modelling of masonry infill walls subjected to out-of-plane loads. In: Proceedings of
the 7th European Congress on Computational Methods in Applied Sciences and
Engineering, ECCOMAS 2016, Crete Island, Greece: 2016. 3:5219–5229.
[7] Stafford Smith B. Lateral stiffness of infilled frames journal of structural division.
ASCE 1962;88(6):183–99.
[8] Mainstone RJ. On stiffness and strength of infilled frames. Proc. Inst.Civ. Eng.
1971;7360:57–90.
[9] Decanini LD, Liberatore L, Mollaioli F. Strength and stiffness reduction factors for
infilled frames with openings. Earthq Eng Eng Vib 2014;13(3):437–54.
[10] Thiruvengadam V. On the natural frequencies of infilled frames. Earthq Eng Struct
Dyn 1985;31(2):44–6.
[11] Crisafulli FJ. Seismic behaviour of reinforced concrete structures with masonry
infills, Crisafulli FJ. Seismic behaviour of reinforced concrete structures with
221
Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 109 (2018) 209–221
masonry infills, Ph.D. Thesis, University of Canterbury, Christchurch, New Zealand;
1997., University of Canterbury, Christchurch, New Zealand; 1997.
[12] Sorace S, Terenzi G. Analysis, design, and construction of a base-isolated multiple
building structure. Adv Civil Eng 2014;2014:1–13.
[13] Sorace S, Terenzi G. Seismic performance assessment and base-isolated floor pro-
tection of statues exhibited in museum halls. Bull Earthq Eng 2015;13:1873–92.
[14] Mazza F. Seismic demand of base-isolated irregular structures subjected to pulse-
type earthquakes. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 2017. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.soildyn.
2017.11.030.
[15] Mazza F, Mazza M, Vulcano A. Nonlinear response of r.c. framed buildings retro-
fitted by different base-isolation systems under horizontal and vertical components
of near-fault earthquakes. Earthq Struct 2017;12:135–44.
[16] Mazza F. Lateral-torsional response of base-isolated buildings with curved surface
sliding system subjected to near-fault earthquakes. Mech Syst Signal Process
2017;92:64–85.
[17] Mazza F, Mazza M. Nonlinear seismic analysis of irregular r.c. framed buildings
base- isolated with friction pendulum system under near-fault excitations. Soil Dyn
Earthq Eng 2016;90:299–312.
[18] Mazza F, Mazza M. Sensitivity to modelling and design of curved surface sliding
bearings in the nonlinear seismic analysis of base-isolated r.c. framed buildings. Soil
Dyn Earthq Eng 2017;100:144–58.
[19] Sorace S, Terenzi G. A viable base isolation strategy for the advanced seismic ret-
rofit of an R/C building. Contemp Eng Sci 2016;7(17):817–34.
[20] Foti D, Catalan Goni A, Vacca S. On the dynamic response of rolling base isolation
systems. Struct Control Health Monit 2013;20(4):639–48.
[21] Menga N, Foti D, Carbone G. Evaluation and improvement of the design of RLRB
rolling devices for seismic isolation. Meccanica 2017;52(11–12):2807–17.
[22] Chioccarelli E, Iervolino I. Near-source seismic demand and pulse-like records: a
discussion for L′Aquila earthquake. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 2010;39(9):1039–62.
[23] Diaferio M, Foti D. Mechanical behavior of buildings subjected to impulsive mo-
tions. Bull Earthq Eng 2016;14(3):849–62.
[24] Foti D. Local ground effects in near-field and far-field areas on seismically protected
buildings. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 2015;74:14–24.
[25] Diaferio M, Foti D. On the nonlinear behavior of r.c. buildings in near-field areas.
Int J Math Models Methods Appl Sci 2015;9:607–13.
[26] Mazza F, Vulcano A. Effects of near-fault ground motions on the nonlinear dynamic
response of base-isolated r.c. framed buildings. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn
2012;41:211–32.
[27] Mazza F. Torsional response of fire-damaged base-isolated buildings with elasto-
meric bearings subjected to near-fault earthquakes. Bull Earthq Eng
2017;15(9):3673–94.
[28] Mazza F. Residual seismic load capacity of fire-damaged rubber bearings of r.c.
base-isolated buildings. Eng Fail Anal 2017;79:951–70.
[29] Mazza F, Vulcano A. Nonlinear response of rc framed buildings with isolation and
supplemental damping at the base subjected to near-fault earthquakes. J Earthq Eng
2009;13(5):690–715.
[30] Kelly JM. The role of damping in seismic isolation. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn
1999;29:3–20.
[31] DM96. Norme tecniche per le costruzioni in zone sismiche e relative istruzioni.
Italian Ministry of Public Works, D.M. 16-01-1996 and C.M. 10-04-1997; 1996.
[32] NTC08 (2008). Technical Regulations for the Constructions. Italian Ministry of the
Infrastructures, D.M. 14-01-2008.
[33] Papia M, Cavaleri L, Fossetti M. Infilled frames: developments in the evaluation of
the stiffening effect of infills. Struct Eng Mech 2003;16(6):675–93.
[34] Cavaleri L, Di Trapani F. Cyclic response of masonry infilled RC frames: experi-
mental results and simplified modelling. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 2014;65:224–42.
[35] PEER. Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center database, 2008. 〈http://
ngawest2.berkeley.edu〉.
[36] Bertoldi SH, Decanini LD, Gavarini C. Telai tamponati soggetti ad azione sismica, un
modello semplificato: confronto sperimentale e numerico, 6° Convegno Nazionale
ANIDIS, Perugia. Italy 1993:815–24.
[37] Stafford Smith B. Behaviour of square infilled frames. J Struct Div
1966;92(1):381–403.
[38] Cavaleri L, Papia M, Macaluso G, Di Trapani F, Colajanni P. Definition of diagonal
Poisson's ratio and elastic modulus for infill masonry walls. Mater Struct
2014;47:239–62.
[39] Dowell RK, Seible F, Wilson EL. Pivot hysteresis model for reinforced concrete
members. Acids Struct J 1998;95(5):607–17.
[40] CSI Computers and Structures. SAP2000 v19 Integrated Finite Element Analysis and
Design of Structures, Berkeley; 2017.
[41] Mokha AS, Constantinou MC, Reinhorn AM. Verification of friction model of teflon
bearings under triaxial load. J Struct Eng ASCE 1993;119(1):240–61.
[42] Cardone D, Gesualdi G, Moratti D. Restoring capability of friction pendulum seismic
isolation systems. Bull Earthq Eng 2015;13:2449–80.
[43] Foti D. Response of frames seismically protected with passive systems in near-field
areas. Int J Struct Eng 2014;5(4):326–45.
[44] Acunzo G, Pagliaroli A, Scasserra G. In-Spector: un software di supporto alla sele-
zione di accelerogrammi naturali spettrocompatibili per analisi geotecniche e
strutturali. 33° Convegno Naz GNGTS, 25-27 novembre, Bologna 2014;2:107–14.
[in Italian].
[45] Mazza F, Labernarda R. Structural and non-structural intensity measures for the
assessment of base-isolated structures subjected to pulse-like near-fault earth-
quakes. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 2017;96:115–27.
[46] Ghobarah A. On drift limits associated with different damage levels. In: Proceedings
of the International Workshop on Performance-Based Seismic Design: Concepts and
Implementation, Bled, Slovenia, (2004).