buildings

Article
Structural Resistance of Reinforced Concrete
Buildings in Areas of Moderate Seismicity and
Assessment of Strategies for Structural Improvement
David Dominguez-Santos 1 , Pablo Ballesteros-Perez 2 ID
and Daniel Mora-Melia 1, * ID

1 Departamento de Ingeniería y Gestión de la Construcción, Facultad de Ingeniería, Universidad de Talca,

Casilla 747, Talca, Chile; ddominguez@utalca.cl
2 School of Construction Management and Engineering, University of Reading, Whiteknights,
Reading RG6 6AW, UK; p.ballesteros@reading.ac.uk
* Correspondence: damora@utalca.cl; Tel.: +56-75-2201-3786

Received: 28 July 2017; Accepted: 3 October 2017; Published: 13 October 2017

Abstract: Moderate magnitude seismic events have occurred during the last decade in non-seismic
areas and have highlighted that many existing buildings do not sufficiently resist these types of events.
The objective of this work is to illustrate that most buildings dating from 2002–2010 constructed
from wide beams, which were designed to previous earthquake resistance codes, do not offer a
satisfactory seismic behaviour, and to identify which structural attributes can best help alleviate this
problem. In this work the effect of a real earthquake of medium magnitude (Lorca, 2011) on buildings
of three, five and eight stories with unidirectional frames of wide-beam concrete was assessed.
The methodology included non-linear static (pushover) analyses and dynamic response simulations
with the aim to understand the effect on the seismic performance of changing some of the geometrical
and material parameters. Maximum displacements and capacity curves for the top floor of a set of
representative buildings were evaluated and compared. In particular, capacity curves obtained from
non-linear static (pushover) analysis are compared for different building configurations, as well as
the maximum displacements obtained through non-linear dynamic analysis. This paper highlights
the seismic vulnerability of buildings constructed between 2002 and 2010 and the results indicate
that a higher density of infill walls (walls whose bricks are not part of the main structure) is the
feature that most significantly improves the seismic behaviour of the structures analysed. Moreover,
counterintuitively, incorporating stronger concrete and reinforcing steel and using alternative column
arrangements only have a small positive effect on the seismic behaviour of these types of buildings.

Keywords: wide beams; Lorca earthquake; seismic vulnerability; pushover analysis; dynamic
response; reinforced concrete

1. Introduction
Moderate magnitude seismic events (5.5–6.5 degrees Richter) occurring during the last decade in
areas classified as “non-seismic” (those where seismic events higher than 4.0 degrees Richter are not
expected) have demonstrated that the design of many existing buildings is insufficient to resist these
types of events. Some examples are the destruction of many buildings and the corresponding loss of
human life in cities such as Vrancea in 2004 [1], L’Aquila in 2009 [2,3], the Balkan region in 2010 [4]
and Lorca in 2011 [5,6], highlight the poor structural performance of these buildings in earthquakes of
medium magnitude.
In terms of legislation, it was envisaged that the Eurocodes would serve as a basis for structural
design in the European Union. Of these, Eurocode 8 (EC 8) [7] applies to the design and construction
of buildings and civil engineering works in seismic regions. Since its publication in 1998, adherence to

Buildings 2017, 7, 89; doi:10.3390/buildings7040089 www.mdpi.com/journal/buildings

Buildings 2017, 7, 89 2 of 17

EC 8 recommendations has progressively become more widespread, and some European countries
(e.g., Spain, Italy and France) have reviewed their national seismic codes accordingly.
However, the recent catastrophic outcomes after medium magnitude seismic events have been
enough to prompt reconsideration of many previous studies on seismic vulnerability, forcing a change
of paradigm in the way buildings are constructed and raising the question of whether the current
seismic codes are sufficiently reliable. As a result, some seismic codes have been updated to include
new design elements such as energy dissipaters, base isolators, additional walls and stiffeners.
All the same, during the period 2002 to 2010, construction costs were considered more important
than quality in a number of European countries, and many buildings were thus built in an
unsatisfactory manner. In this study, the vulnerability of some of the buildings constructed from 2002 to
2010 is evaluated. Particularly, the seismic behaviour of reinforced concrete elements in these buildings
is studied by means of non-linear static (pushover) and dynamic analyses. This strategy, despite good
enough for providing a first approximation, also exhibits some limitations. These limitations are the
practical difficulty of calibrating the results with experimental tests and the sometimes difficult to
ascertain non-linear performance of structures [8,9].
This work is the continuation of other studies concerning vulnerability analysis of buildings
constructed at the end of the 20th century (e.g., [10,11]). The results of the analyses performed in this
research show that most 2002–2010 buildings with wide beams built following previous earthquake
resistance codes do not offer a satisfactory performance in a seismic event. However, the introduction
of infill walls can substantially improve the seismic behaviour of these structures.

2. Background
The observed damage to buildings caused by earthquakes highlights that the vulnerability of
constructed buildings needs to be assessed. In recent years, different methods for evaluating the
seismic vulnerability of buildings have been developed. Some of them are based on professional
experience, and others compare the structural behaviour predicted by static and dynamic analyses [10].
Alam et al. [12] have compared a number of existing seismic vulnerability assessment techniques for
buildings using a multi-criteria decision-making tool. In addition, much progress has been made in
the technical and scientific evaluation of structural reinforced concrete (RC) buildings by means of
empirical and mechanical methods [13]. The procedures used are either linear or non-linear, and static
or dynamic, according to the specific aspect to be analysed.
Previous analytical methods developed with a similar aim to this study include: Freeman et al.’s
non-linear static analysis [14]—a method embedded in ATC-40 [15]; Priestley et al.’s method [16];
and the method developed by Fajfar and Fischinger [17] which is currently used in EC 8 [7]. This study
will make use of dynamic analyses based on a recorded seismic event. This approach has been
used by many researchers previously because the damage predicted is very close to that observed in
real buildings.
There are a number of complementary approaches that have not been used in this research, but that
might be considered for future complementary analyses. For instance, some authors have employed
vulnerability curves based on intensity and damage probability matrices [18] and structural damage
assessment as measured by the index developed by Park and Ang [19]. Rossetto and Elnashai [20]
have proposed vulnerability functions for European RC buildings based on empirical evidence. Other
authors have used deterministic methods to predict damage and the structural behaviour of buildings.
Monte Carlo simulations have also been employed (e.g., [21–23]). Vargas et al. [24] have assessed
the vulnerability of reinforced concrete 2D frames using a probabilistic approach that considered a
stochastic risk analysis (Risk–EU methodology). Meanwhile, Vielma-Perez et al. [25] have carried
out non-linear analyses of reinforced concrete structures using the finite element method, obtaining
damage thresholds and analysing inter-story drift. Their analyses predicted the stages of damage
using analytical approaches based on performance, involving the probabilistic methods for assessing
seismic vulnerability included in FEMA 440 [26].
Buildings 2017, 7, 89 3 of 17

3. Materials and Methods

3.1. Methodology Outline

In this work, optimal earthquake-resistant construction strategies are proposed for a representative
set of buildings. These were determined by varying the mechanical characteristics of the structural
materials employed—concrete and steel—and by adding infill walls, which are structurally
independent from the main building structure of columns and beams, to different parts of the building.
Maximum displacements and capacity curves obtained for the top floor of a set of representative
buildings were evaluated and compared. In particular, the capacity curves from the non-linear static
(pushover) analyses were compared and maximum displacements from non-linear dynamic analysis
were examined. For the dynamic analyses, comparisons were made for a moderate magnitude ground
motion based on data from the Lorca earthquake.
The structures analysed were buildings with one-way slabs and wide beams as this design of
building is abundant in many European countries [10]. This type of building is characterised by its
capacity for rapid construction and the simplicity of resources required, factors directly related to its
relatively low cost of construction. There are other designs available for low-height buildings [27],
such as those employing confined masonry instead of reinforced concrete, but these configurations
are not common in the regions under consideration (the south-west European countries which are
characterised as moderately seismic, e.g., France, Spain and Italy).
Traditionally, the almost total absence of earthquake-proof structural elements and/or resistant
configurations in the building types common in European non-seismic areas has made it necessary to
incorporate infill walls, normally brick-based, to mitigate the risk of potential earthquake damage [10].
This is the reason why infill walls have been included in the analyses in this study. The seismic
performance of each design will be assessed as it relates to the number and layout of infill walls in
the building, the properties of the materials used in the structure and the economic aspects of the
design. Recommendations for future constructions will be proposed based on the findings of this study.
The results of the analyses will be compared with those from previous studies (e.g., [10,13,28,29]).

3.2. Representative Earthquake

For this work, the earthquake in Lorca was used as a representative medium intensity seismic
event. It was after the impact of this earthquake that seismic vulnerability studies became more
important in Spain [30,31] and other European areas where buildings have similar structures, e.g.,
France [32,33] and Italy [34,35].
The Lorca earthquake occurred on 11 May 2011 at 18:47 local time, 2 km northwest of the
town of Lorca. It was one of the most destructive earthquakes ever recorded in Spain despite its
moderate magnitude of Mw = 5.1 according to the Geological and Mining Institute of Spain 2011,
or Mw = 5.3 to 5.4 according to other seismological centres. Its severity has been attributed to its
limited hypo-central depth (approximately 1000 m) and the very short distance between its epicentre
and Lorca’s town centre.
Figure 1a,b show the accelerograms of the horizontal components from the most severe recordings
of the event. The data indicate that the quake had an impulsive character, especially in the North–South
component [28].
For the North-South component, the dimensionless Manfredi’s index [36] was ID = 2.57, whereas
for the East-West component it was ID = 3.53. Manfredi’s index quantifies the presence of velocity
pulses, i.e., impulsive records with directivity effects caused by the proximity of a fault. The index is
defined as the ratio between the integral of the square of the acceleration over the total duration, and
the product of the maximum values of the acceleration and speed. Generally, it is considered that ID
values below 10 correspond to impulsive events, usually caused by the proximity of a fault, which is
why the recording from Lorca is considered impulsive in both directions.
Lorca. It was one of the most destructive earthquakes ever recorded in Spain despite its moderate
magnitude of Mw = 5.1 according to the Geological and Mining Institute of Spain 2011, or Mw = 5.3 to
5.4 according to other seismological centres. Its severity has been attributed to its limited hypo-central
depth (approximately 1000 m) and the very short distance between its epicentre and Lorca’s town centre.
Figure 1a,b show the accelerograms of the horizontal components from the most severe
Buildings 2017, 7, 89 4 of 17
recordings of the event. The data indicate that the quake had an impulsive character, especially in
the North–South component [28].

Buildings 2017, 7, 89 4 of 17
(a) (b)

(c)

Figure 1.1. Accelerogram

Figure Accelerogram and
and response
response spectra
spectra from
from Lorca
Lorca (11
(11 May
May 2011);
2011); (a)
(a)North–South
North–South direction
direction
(NS);(b)
(NS); (b)East–West
East–Westdirection
direction(EW);
(EW);(c)
(c)Comparison
Comparisonofofresponse
responsespectra.
spectra.

For the North-South component, the dimensionless Manfredi’s index [36] was ID = 2.57,
The Arias intensity is a measure of seismic hazard and relates seismic oscillations to the damage
whereas for the East-West component it was ID = 3.53. Manfredi’s index quantifies the presence of
caused to a building’s infrastructure. The Arias intensity of the Lorca earthquake was 0.527 for the
velocity pulses, i.e., impulsive records with directivity effects caused by the proximity of a fault. The
North–South component and 0.117 for East-West component.
index is defined as the ratio between the integral of the square of the acceleration over the total
Figure 1c shows a comparison between the response spectra in both directions (North–South
duration, and the product of the maximum values of the acceleration and speed. Generally, it is
and East–West) with a spectrum defined according to the Spanish Earthquake design code NCSE02
considered that ID values below 10 correspond to impulsive events, usually caused by the proximity
for the seismic acceleration of Lorca (ab = 0.12 g) with hard ground. In the figure, Sa is the absolute
of a fault, which is why the recording from Lorca is considered impulsive in both directions.
acceleration. It is immediately clear from the earthquake records that both components of the measured
The Arias intensity is a measure of seismic hazard and relates seismic oscillations to the damage
earthquake (especially the North–South) exceed the requirements of NCSE02 for almost all periods
caused to a building’s infrastructure. The Arias intensity of the Lorca earthquake was 0.527 for the
of interest.
North–South component and 0.117 for East-West component.
Figure 1c shows
3.3. Representative a comparison between the response spectra in both directions (North–South
Buildings
and East–West) with a spectrum defined according to the Spanish Earthquake design code NCSE02
Forseismic
for the this study, buildingsof
acceleration of Lorca
three, (a
five and eight stories were considered. The dimensions adopted
b = 0.12 g) with hard ground. In the figure, Sa is the absolute
were selected based
acceleration. on a preliminary
It is immediately clearstatistical
from theanalysis of datarecords
earthquake from a survey of projects
that both with similar
components of the
characteristics and the opinions of experts who have recent experience in the
measured earthquake (especially the North–South) exceed the requirements of NCSE02 for construction industry.
almost
The survey of
all periods results were verified in accordance with on-site regulations. The constructional features
interest.
and structural layouts of the buildings are described in detail Figure 2 and later in Table 1; they all
correspond to buildings
3.3. Representative with wide beams.
Buildings
The wide beam building design has been widely used in Spain, Italy and France because of its
For this study, buildings of three, five and eight stories were considered. The dimensions
ease of installation, it saves time and money because of its one-level formwork, and the ease of disposal
adopted were selected based on a preliminary statistical analysis of data from a survey of projects
of existing facilities in the suspended ceiling [11]. This system is used in buildings that do not require
with similar characteristics and the opinions of experts who have recent experience in the
long spans between columns (5–6 m or less), such as residential, administrative or small business
construction industry. The survey results were verified in accordance with on-site regulations. The
buildings and/or in locations where high seismic capacity is not required. However, previous studies
constructional features and structural layouts of the buildings are described in detail Figure 2 and
have proven the poor performance of this structural form during earthquakes [11], which supports
later in Table 1; they all correspond to buildings with wide beams.
deeper investigation of the seismic response of this type of building, particularly with a rectangular
The wide beam building design has been widely used in Spain, Italy and France because of its
(not square) configuration as studied here.
ease of installation, it saves time and money because of its one-level formwork, and the ease of
For the structural designs analysed, the requirements of the Spanish Code EHE-08 [37] were
disposal of existing facilities in the suspended ceiling [11]. This system is used in buildings that do
considered. These RC codes have specific sections related to seismic assessment. In addition, the
not require long spans between columns (5–6 m or less), such as residential, administrative or small
recommendations of seismic codes from other European countries (e.g., France and Italy) were used to
business buildings and/or in locations where high seismic capacity is not required. However,
previous studies have proven the poor performance of this structural form during earthquakes [11],
which supports deeper investigation of the seismic response of this type of building, particularly
with a rectangular (not square) configuration as studied here.
For the structural designs analysed, the requirements of the Spanish Code EHE-08 [37] were
 Buildings 2017, 7, 89 5 of 17

complement the Spanish codes. It is worth noting that in recent years most European countries have
been adapting their national codes to reflect the current European codes (Eurocodes). Therefore, this
study can be considered representative of a significant percentage of existing buildings in the region
under study.
Buildings 2a–c
Figure 2017, 7,show
89 the structural diagrams for the three heights of building with rectangle-based 5 of 17

configurations considered in this study. In these buildings, the ground floor height is 4 m, and the
Figure 2a–c show the structural diagrams for the three heights of building with rectangle-based
upperconfigurations
floor heightsconsidered are 3 m. The configurations are regular and symmetrical with the length in the
in this study. In these buildings, the ground floor height is 4 m, and the
X direction
upper floor double the length
heights are 3 m.in theconfigurations
The Y direction. are Theregular
façadesandare symmetrical
symmetrical withtwo-to-two.
the length in Figure
the X 2d
Buildings 2017,
showsdirection
that7, 89
in the transverse direction edge5 ofbeams
17
double the length in the Y(perpendicular
direction. The façades to the frames) there aretwo-to-two.
are symmetrical on the2dwalls,
Figure
with ashows widththat equal
in theto that of the direction
transverse columns.(perpendicular to the frames) there are edge beams on the
Figure 2a–c show the structural diagrams for the three heights of building with rectangle-based
walls, with
Figure
configurations
a widthin
2e shows
considered
equal
details toofthat
this study. a Inofthese
nodethecommonly
columns.
buildings, the foundgroundbetween beams
floor height is 4 and
m, andjoists
the in buildings in
non-seismic
upper Figure
floor heights 2e shows
European
are 3 m. The details
countries of [11].
a nodeare
configurations commonly
With this and
regular found
type of between
node, with
symmetrical beams
the overlap
the and joists
length in thein
bars X buildings
ensure in
continuity
between
direction non-seismic
double the European
the joists for negative
length countries
in the Y moments [11]. The
direction. With thisfor
butfaçades
not type of node,
positive
are thetwo-to-two.
moments.
symmetrical overlap
Figurebars2eensure
Figurealso continuity
2d contains details
shows between
that in thethe joists for
transverse negative
direction moments but
(perpendicular to not
the for positive
frames) there moments.
are edge Figureon2ethealso contains
beams
of a slab with semi-resistant joists in the transverse direction, and a 60 cm separation between beam
details
walls, with of a slab
a width equal with semi-resistant
to that of the columns.joists in the transverse direction, and a 60 cm separation between
axes. In this study, the slabs were assumed to contain 5 mm reinforcing steel bars or welded steel
beam2eaxes.
Figure shows In details
this study, the slabs
of a node were assumed
commonly found betweento contain
beams 5 mm
and reinforcing steel bars
joists in buildings in or welded
meshes. steelThese
non-seismic meshes.
European
were located
These inlocated
were[11].
countries
the 5 cmthe
Withinthis
thick
5 cm
type
compression
ofthick
layer orbars
node,compression
the overlap layer
in the
or in
ensure
topthe
layer and were
top layer
continuity
assumed
and were
to spread
betweenassumed loads
the joists evenly
to for
spread across
negative the
loadsmoments whole slab
but not
evenly across surface.
thefor
wholepositive For the
slab moments. analysis,
surface. For Figure it was assumed
it was assumed thatwas a
2e also contains
the analysis, that there
5 cm
details ofthick
a slab
there layer
was with of concrete
a 5semi-resistant
cm thick layer covering
joists the steel
in the transverse
of concrete reinforcement
coveringdirection,
the steel and bars.
a 60 cm separation
reinforcement bars. between
beam axes. In this study, the slabs were assumed to contain 5 mm reinforcing steel bars or welded
steel meshes. These were located in the 5 cm thick compression layer or in the top layer and were
assumed to spread loads evenly across the whole slab surface. For the analysis, it was assumed that
there was a 5 cm thick layer of concrete covering the steel reinforcement bars.

(a) (b) (c)

(a) (b) (c)

(d) (e)

Figure 2. Structural and construction details of buildings with wide beams considered; (a) 3 Storey
Figure 2. Structural and construction details of buildings with wide beams considered; (a) 3 Storey
building; (b) 5(d)Storey building; (c) 8 Storey building; (d) Plan type
(e) of building considered; (e) Waffle
building; (b) 5 Storey building; (c) 8 Storey building; (d) Plan type of building considered; (e) Waffle
slab detail.
Figure
slab 2. Structural and construction details of buildings with wide beams considered; (a) 3 Storey
detail.
building; (b) 5 Storey building; (c) 8 Storey building; (d) Plan type of building considered; (e) Waffle
The most important characteristics of the building models used in this study of seismic
slab detail.
behaviour
The are summarised
most important in Table 1.ofThe
characteristics the materials
building used
modelsfor used
the structural models
in this study without behaviour
of seismic walls
areThe were
most
summarisedHA-25 concrete
important
in and B-500-S
characteristics
Table 1. The ofsteel.
the Properties
materials building for these
used formodels
the materials
used
structuralin this were
models obtained
studywithout
of seismicfrom [38].
walls wereTheHA-25
behaviourstructure
are of each building
summarised in Tableassessed
1. The is denoted
materials by two
used for numbers
the andmodels
structural a symbol in column
without walls 1 of Table 1:
concrete and B-500-S steel. Properties for these materials were obtained from [38]. The structure of
the first
were HA-25 number
concrete andindicates the number
B-500-S steel. of stories;
Properties the
for these second number
materials represents
were obtained from the
[38].span
The between the
each building assessed is denoted by two numbers and a symbol in column 1 of Table 1: the first
structurecolumns
of each in metresassessed
building (equal in both directions);
is denoted and theand
by two numbers symbol specifies
a symbol whether
in column 1 of the
Tablecross-sections
1: of
number
the firstthe indicates
number thesquare
indicates
pillars were number
the number ofofstories;
(indicated by ■)
stories; the
the second
orsecond number
number
rectangular represents
represents
(▐). With thethe the between
span spanbeams,
rectangular between
the thethe columns
longest
in metres
columns column(equal
in metres in both
(equal
dimension inwasdirections);
both and
indirections);
line with andthe
the thesymbol
framesymbol specifieswhether
specifies
direction. whether thethe cross-sections
cross-sections of of the pillars
the pillars
were were square
square (indicated
(indicated by by ■) or
) or rectangular (( ▐ ).
rectangular ). With
Withthethe
rectangular beams,
rectangular the longest
beams, the longest column
column dimension was Table
in line1.with the frame
Structural direction.
details and fundamental periods of buildings considered.
dimension was in line with the frame direction.
Table 1. Structural details and fundamental periods of buildings considered.
 (a) (b) (c)

Buildings 2017, 7, 89 6 of 17

Table 1. Structural details and fundamental periods of buildings considered.

(d) (e)
(d) (e)
Structural and construction details of buildings with wide beams considered; (a) 3 Storey
Columns Column Fundamental Period (s)
b) 5 Storeyand
Structural building; (c) 8 Storey
construction building;
details (d) Plan
of buildings type
with of building
wide considered;
beams considered; (a)(e)3 Waffle
Storey
Height Wide Beams Weight (Frame Direction/in the Transversal Frame Dir.)
Building
b) 5 Storey building; (c) 8 Storey building; (d) Plan type of building considered; (e) Waffle Upper Floor
Ground Floor
(m) (cm2 ) (kN)
Buildings 2017, 7, 89 (cm2 ) (cm2 ) “Without Walls” “−Walls” 6“+Walls”
of 17
t important characteristics of the building models used in this study of seismic
3–5– 10 35 × 35 35 × 35 40 × 30 11725 1.041/0.914 0.211/0.209 0.140/0.139
t summarised in Table 1. Theofmaterials
important characteristics 3–6–used
the building for the10
models structural models
used in this without
35 study
× 35 walls
of seismic 35 × 35 40 × 35 14170 1.162/1.016 0.232/0.230 0.153/0.153
oncrete and B-500-S
summarised steel.
in Table Properties
1. The for
materials these
used
5–5– materials
for the were
structural
16 obtained
models
45 × from [38].
without
45 The
walls35 × 35 40 × 30 19542 1.551/1.376
Columns Fundamental 0.342/0.340
Period (s) 0.228/0.227
ch building assessed is denoted by
oncrete and B-500-S steel. Properties 5–6– two numbers
for these and
materials
Building a symbol in column
were obtained
16 Height 45 1 of Table
from [38]. The
× 45 1:
Column
35 × 35 Upper Wide
40 × Beams
35 Weight
23617 (Frame 1.731/1.534 0.377/0.375
Ground Floor Direction/in the Transversal Frame 0.250/0.249
Dir.)
er
chindicates
building the number
assessed of stories;
is denoted bythe
twosecond
8–5–  number
numbers and25arepresents
(m) inthe
symbol span
column
55 55 between
× (cm 12 of Tablethe
1:
35Floor
× 35(cm )
2 (cm
40 × 30)
2 (kN)
31267 3.108/3.071 0.547/0.546 0.361/0.361
)
etres (equal in
er indicates theboth directions);
number andthe
of stories; the symbol
second
8–6– specifies
 number whetherthe
25represents thespan
55 ×cross-sections
55 between the of
35 × 35 40 × 35 37787 3.576/3.446 0.602/0.601 0.397/0.397
“Without Walls” “−Walls” “+Walls”
e square
etres (indicated
(equal by ■) or rectangular
in both directions); and the ( ▐ ). With
symbol
8–5– the
25 rectangular
specifies whether 80 beams,
the 30 the longest
×cross-sections of
40 × 30 40 × 30 29704 4.927/1.845 0.538/0.520 0.354/0.348
3–5–■ 10 35 × 35 35 × 35 40 × 30 11725 1.041/0.914 0.211/0.209 0.140/0.139
esion was (indicated
square ■) frame
in line withbythe 8–6–( ▐ ). With the
direction.
or rectangular 25 rectangular 80beams,
× 30 the longest 40 × 30 40 × 35 35898 5.481/2.073 0.592/0.572 0.389/0.383
3–6–■ 10 35 × 35 35 × 35 40 × 35 14170 1.162/1.016 0.232/0.230 0.153/0.153
sion was in line with the frame direction.
5–5–■
Table 1. Structural details and fundamental periods 16 considered.45 × 45
of buildings 35 × 35 40 × 30 19542 1.551/1.376 0.342/0.340 0.228/0.227
5–6–■
Table 1. Structural details and fundamental periods 16 considered.45 × 45
of buildings 35 × 35 40 × 35 23617 1.731/1.534 0.377/0.375 0.250/0.249
In the buildings with 5 m span supports between frames, the plan dimensions were 15 × 30 m2 .
8–5–■ 25 55 × 55 35 × 35 40 × 30 31267 3.108/3.071 0.547/0.546 0.361/0.361
8–6–■ 25 55 × 55 35 × 35 40 × 35 37787 3.576/3.446 0.602/0.601 0.397/0.397
In the buildings with a 6 m span, the plan dimensions were 18 × 36 m2 . Columns 3 and 4 in Table 1
8–5–▐ 25 80 × 30 40 × 30 40 × 30 29704 4.927/1.845 0.538/0.520 0.354/0.348
contain the cross-sectional dimensions of the columns on the ground and upper floors, respectively.
8–6–▐ 25 80 × 30 40 × 30 40 × 35 35898 5.481/2.073 0.592/0.572 0.389/0.383

The columns were sized as follows: in buildings with square columns, the minimum column 2size was
In the buildings with 5 m span supports between frames, the plan dimensions were 15 × 30 m .
35 × 35Incm and the ground floor column cross-sections increased by 10 cm in both axes each time
the buildings with a 6 m span, the plan dimensions were 18 × 36 m2. Columns 3 and 4 in Table 1
the building
contain height increased by
the cross-sectional 3 levels.ofInthe
dimensions buildings
columns on with
the rectangular
ground and upper columns,
floors, the minimum size
respectively.
was 40 × The30columns
cm, and thesized
were length of the major
as follows: axis increased
in buildings with squareby 20 cm the
columns, each time the
minimum building
column size height
increasedwasby353×stories
35 cm and the ground
while the lengthfloor of
column cross-sections
the minor increased constant.
axis remained by 10 cm in both axes each time
Thethe building
fifth column height increased
of Table by 3 levels.
1 shows In buildings withdimensions
the cross-sectional rectangular columns,
of the wide the minimum
beams assumedsize for
was 40 × 30 cm, and the length of the major axis increased by 20 cm each time the building height
each building. The sixth column of Table 1 represents the weight of each building and was calculated
increased by 3 stories while the length of the minor axis remained constant.
using the G +The 0.3fifth
Q approach according
column of Table 1 shows to the
ECcross-sectional
8. Finally, columns
dimensionsseven to nine
of the wide contain the fundamental
beams assumed for
periods each
of the buildings
building. based
The sixth on the
column number
of Table of existing
1 represents infill walls
the weight of eachpresent
buildingin andthewas
layout.
calculated
Theusing
initialthecharacteristic
G + 0.3 Q approachstrength of the concrete
according to EC 8.was fck =columns
Finally, 250 kg/cm seven2 (for HA-25
to nine concrete)
contain the and
the steelfundamental
elastic limit periods
was fof the
= buildings
5000 kg/cm 2
based (for
on the
B number
500-S of existing infill walls present in the layout.
steel).
yk
The initial characteristic strength of the concrete was fck = 250 kg/cm2 (for HA-25 concrete) and
In practice, the layouts of infill walls2 (partition walls, enclosures and walls of stairwells and
the steel elastic limit was fyk = 5000 kg/cm (for B 500-S steel).
elevators) are quite varied, both in their distribution and connection to the main structure, and with
In practice, the layouts of infill walls (partition walls, enclosures and walls of stairwells and
regards elevators)
the materials employed
are quite (perforated
varied, both masonry orand
in their distribution hollow bricks).
connection In main
to the this study, theand
structure, contribution
with of
the hollow bricks
regards thegenerally used for (perforated
materials employed the interior walls and
masonry the inner
or hollow surfaces
bricks). of the the
In this study, enclosure (ventilated
contribution
façade) of
to the
the hollow
structural bricks generallywere
response used neglected,
for the interior
givenwalls
theandhighthefragility
inner surfaces
of these of the
bricksenclosure
[39].
(ventilated façade)
Consequently, onlytothethe structural response were
walls constructed neglected,
from given the
perforated high were
bricks fragility of these bricks
assumed [39].
to contribute to
Consequently, only the walls constructed from perforated bricks were assumed to contribute to
the structural response of the buildings. In this paper, three scenarios were considered: no infill walls
the structural response of the buildings. In this paper, three scenarios were considered: no infill
(“without walls”),
walls (“without lowwalls”),
density low ofdensity
infill walls (“−
of infill walls”)
walls and high
(“−walls”) density
and high of infill
density walls
of infill walls(“+
(“+walls”);
Figure 3walls”);
describesFigurethe3 location of the
describes the walls
location of assumed for the latter
the walls assumed for the two
latterscenarios.
two scenarios.

(a) (b)

Figure 3. Locations of the infill walls (shaded in black colour) within the building structures
Locations(a)of“−Walls”;
Figure 3.considered; the infill(b)
walls (shaded in black colour) within the building structures considered;
“+Walls”.
(a) “−Walls”; (b) “+Walls”.
The “without walls” case can be taken to represent either a building under construction
The(comprising
“withoutframes
walls” with beams,
case can columns
be taken andto
slabs) or administrative
represent either a buildings
buildingand small construction
under shops
which have hollow brick walls or infill walls separated from the main structure. The enclosures in
(comprising frames with beams, columns and slabs) or administrative buildings and small shops
these buildings would be curtain walls made from a material that is extraordinarily fragile and
which have
wouldhollow
thus notbrick wallstoor
contribute theinfill wallsresponse
structural separated
of thefrom the main structure. The enclosures in
building.
these buildings would be curtain walls made from a material that is extraordinarily fragile and would
thus not contribute to the structural response of the building.
Buildings 2017, 7, 89 7 of 17

The low- and high-density masonry wall infill cases can be assumed to represent residential
buildings, small shops and administrative buildings. In these cases, a “ventilated façade” is included
made of a double layer of bricks separated by an air chamber with 5 cm thick insulation. The outer
bricks were assumed to be 12 cm thick and perforated, whereas the inner bricks were 7 cm thick and
hollow. A single layer cement mortar with exterior finishing and gypsum interior finishing was also
included. However, as discussed earlier, the contribution of hollow bricks is considered negligible due
to their fragility, and the building’s structural resistance therefore relies purely on the perforated brick
walls in its structure. It is worth noting that these brick walls are separate from the main structure
of beams and columns. For the analysis, the same wall layout is assumed for all floors, and the wall
heights were equal to the clearance height between stories.
Finally, because the models analysed were intended to represent residential, administrative and
small shop buildings, live loads of 2 kN/m2 [38] were applied to all floors except the top floor, where a
1 kN/m2 load corresponding to a roof inclined at more than 20◦ was added. Also, an overhead load of
1 kN/m2 was included to represent internal partitions [38], and a linear load of 7 kN/m [38] was used
to represent the weight of the perforated bricks with existing coverings located in the enclosures and
the core communications areas (elevators and stairs).

4. Analysis
This section describes the modelling approach used for simulating the seismic behaviour of the
representative buildings in the non-linear static (pushover) and dynamic analyses. The analyses were
performed using the structural analysis software Seismostruct v.7.0.2 developed by the Company
Seismosoft® (Pavia, Italy)[40] which is based on the finite element method. This software can be
used to estimate the displacement of spatial frames under static and dynamic loads and can take into
account non-linear material behaviour across the geometry. Particularly, large deformations were
taken into account through P-Delta. In the subsequent sections, the different model elements and the
analysis approaches will be described.

4.1. Main Frame Modelling

The main frame was modelled using beam elements [41,42]. The structural elements (columns
and beams), cross-sections, and constitutive materials were specified. The concrete was modelled
as per the recommendations proposed in [43], and the behaviour of the steel reinforcing bars was
represented using Ferrara’s bilinear model [44].
In particular, the columns, beams and joists were represented by nonlinear beam elements [45],
where the non-linearities were concentrated in plastic hinges located within 15% of the total element
length [42]. Following the method used by Scott and Fenves [42], ref. [46] the joints/connections
between the columns and the wide beams were assumed to be rigid, and the hysteretic behaviour
of the stress distribution was modelled by using fibres which were defined based on the material
properties and shape of the structural elements (each element section was discretised into 300 fibres).
The analysis results were compared to the experimental results available in Benavent-Climent et al. [29]
and satisfactory agreement was obtained.
The slabs were modelled as rigid diaphragms [47], with movements restricted to the Z plane
(X and Y directions). Arguably, use of rigid truss elements is preferred over a rigid diaphragm
constraint, however, this work has preferred rigid diaphragms for simplicity of calculation and shorter
processing time. In fact, the results of both models should not vary significantly, because the analysed
structures represent simple geometries. Furthermore, loads were only considered on beams or linear
horizontal elements, but never on the slabs.
The tolerances used for the displacements and rotations were of the order of 10−5 . A maximum
number of 300 iterations was deemed sufficient for the calculations.
For the numerical analysis, the Newmark-β method [48] was used. This method can be considered
as a generalisation of the linear acceleration method and is a numerical integration technique which is
 Buildings 2017, 7, 89 8 of 17

Buildingsused
widely 2017,for
7, 89numerical evaluation of the dynamic response 8 of 17
of structures. In this method, the factors
, 89 8 of 17
Beta (β) and Gamma (γ) are coefficients that depend on the natural frequency (w) and the damping
) and the damping (( frequency
Ϛ )) of
of the
(w) and thethis
thestructure.
structure.For
damping
For this work,
work,
(Ϛ)
the of the
values
the of structure.
valuesβ =of0.25
β =and
For
0.25
this
0.5 γwork,
γ =and the values of β = 0.25 and γ = 0.5
= 0.5 were used, as with these values
s with these values the were used, as with these values the Newmark-β method is implicit and unconditionally stable [49].
the Newmark-β
Newmark-β method
method is implicit andand
is implicit unconditionally
unconditionally stablestable
[49]. [49]. Finally, Rayleigh damping of 4%
eigh damping of 4% Finally,
for mode Rayleigh
1 and 6%damping
for mode of
2 4%
(30) for
was mode 1
assumed. andBoth 6% for
values mode 2 (30) was assumed. Both values
for mode 1 and 6% for mode 2 (30) was assumed. Both values correspond to standard values typical of
correspond
o standard values typical to standard
of a reinforced values
concrete typicalAsofthe
structure. a reinforced
building is concrete
not structure. As the building is not
a reinforced concrete structure. As the building is not symmetrical the same value has not been used
the same value has symmetrical
not been usedthe in mode
same 1valueand mode
has not 2, since
beenthe rigidity
used in both
in mode 1 and mode 2, since the rigidity in both
in the
mode
not the same. Finally,directions
1 and
method
mode 2,combination
since the rigidity in both directions is not the same. Finally, the method for
is for
notmodal
the same. Finally,used the in the analyses
method for modalwas thecombination used in the analyses was the
modal
adratic combination (CQC) combination
method used
with a damping in the analyses
of 0.04. was the complete quadratic combination (CQC) method with
complete quadratic combination (CQC) method with a damping of 0.04.
a damping of 0.04.
puts included the maximum base shear forces, the seismic forces applied and the
The outputs included the maximum base shear forces, the seismic forces applied and the
eformations of the buildings, The taking
outputs intoincluded
account both the elastic
maximum base deformation.
and plastic shear forces, the seismic forces applied and the
maximum deformations of the buildings, taking into account both elastic and plastic deformation.
ese results, a numbermaximum
of performance criteria were
deformations of defined. For example,
the buildings, takinga into
criterion for both elastic and plastic deformation.
account
m deformation of each To obtain was these results,based a number
on theofof performance ofcriteria were defined. For example, a criterion for
To material
obtain theseadopted results, a number traditional
performancelaws criteria
elasticity
were defined. For example, a criterion for
ance of the materials. the
The maximum deformation
maximumdeformation
strain for concreteof each material
cracking was
was taken adopted
to be 0.0001, based on the traditional laws of elasticity
the maximum of each material was adopted based on the traditional laws of elasticity
cover peeling −0.002,and the resistance
for concrete of the materials.
core crushing −0.006, forThe maximum
yielding strain for concrete cracking was taken to be 0.0001,
of the steel
and the resistance of the materials. The maximum strain0.0025
for concrete cracking was taken to be 0.0001,
ure of the steel 0.06. Infor concrete
addition, cover
criteria peeling
based −0.002,
on rotation andforcurvature
concretewere coreemployed
crushing −0.006, for yielding of the steel 0.0025
for concrete cover peeling −0.002, for concrete core crushing −0.006, for yielding of the steel 0.0025
tational capacity wasand defined followingofMergos
for fracture the steeland0.06.
Kappos [50] and the
In addition, shear based
criteria capacityon rotation and curvature were employed
rocode 8.
and for fracture of the steel 0.06. In addition, criteria based on rotation and curvature were employed
where the rotational capacity was defined following Mergos and Kappos [50] and the shear capacity
majority of this work,where a 2Dthe rotational
model was usedcapacity was defined following Mergos and Kappos [50] and the shear capacity
following Eurocode 8. due to the symmetry of the structure to
mputational effort. Thefollowing Eurocode
results from the 2D8. simulations were compared with the results
For the majority of this work, a 2D model was used due to the symmetry of the structure to
lyses, and similar resultsFor werethe majority
obtained. of this work,
Therefore, the 3D a 2D model
models was used
were only usedfor due to the symmetry of the structure to
decrease computational effort. The results from the 2D simulations were compared with the results
ore accurate results for the time-history
decrease computationaldynamiceffort.
analyses.
The results from the 2D simulations were compared with the results
from 3D analyses, and similar results were obtained. Therefore, the 3D models were only used for
from 3D analyses, and similar results were obtained. Therefore, the 3D models were only used for
l Modelling obtaining more accurate results for the time-history dynamic analyses.
obtaining more accurate results for the time-history dynamic analyses.
ll walls were modelled by including “infill panel” elements that connected adjacent
4.2.Infill
4.2. InfillWall
WallModelling
Modelling
e 4 shows the strut and tie model used for the discretisation of masonry elements. In the
ement is defined by four nodes, as recommended
Theinfill
infill walls were by Crisafulliby
modelled [51]. The model
including can be
“infill panel” elements that connected
The walls were modelled by including “infill panel” elements that connected adjacentadjacent
floors.
resent the nonlinearfloors.response of
Figure infill
4 panels
shows thein frame
strut and structures
tie model and it
used has
for been
the discretisation of masonry elements. In the
Figure 4 shows the strut and tie model used for the discretisation of masonry elements. In the figure,
d by Piestley et al. [52]figure,
in the Seismosoft ® software.
the element is defined by four nodes, as recommended by Crisafulli [51]. The model can be
the element is defined by four nodes, as recommended by Crisafulli [51]. The model can be used to
used to the
represent represent the response
nonlinear nonlinear of response of in
infill panels infill
framepanels in frame
structures and itstructures and it has been
has been implemented by
implemented by Piestley et al. [52]
® in the
Piestley et al. [52] in the Seismosoft software. Seismosoft ® software.

bw= strut length; dw= strut thickness

(a) (b)
Infill wall model: element definition and displacements (a) and distribution of stresses (b).
bw= strut length; dw= strut thickness
e 4, the four internal nodes are used to represent the contact points between the frame
(the widths and heights of the columns and beams (a) are estimated). The four outer (b)
des represent the contact lengths
Figure4.4.between
Infillwall
wallthemodel:
frameelement
elements and theand
definition wall. Internal
displacements (a)and
anddistribution
distributionofofstresses
stresses(b).
(b).
Figure Infill model: element definition and displacements (a)
nsformed into applied forces on the four outer nodes, which are defined in the software
ckwise sequence.
In Figure 4, the four internal nodes are used to represent the contact points between the frame
safulli approach can be usedIn Figure
to model4, the
thefour
shearinternal
strengthnodes
of a are used masonry
confined to represent
wall.the contact points between the frame and
and the wall (the widths and heights of the columns and beams are estimated). The four outer
ic on the right in Figure 4 shows
the wall the distribution
(the widths and heights of theofprincipal stresses
the columns andbeams
and strainsare estimated). The four outer fictitious
fictitious
ain diagonal of the masonry
nodes greatest
wall. The the
represent the occur
strains
contact lengths between
at the centre
the frame elements and the wall. Internal
nodes represent contact lengths between theofframe
the panel,
elements and the wall. Internal forces are
forces are
y it is modelled withtransformed transformed
a spring. The into
strains into applied
are compressive forces on the four outer nodes, which are defined in the software
applied forces oninthe the four
upperouter
half of the wall
nodes, which are defined in the software in an
n the lower half. in an anti-clockwise sequence.
anti-clockwise sequence.
The Crisafulli approach can be used to model the shear strength of a confined masonry wall.
The schematic on the right in Figure 4 shows the distribution of the principal stresses and strains
along the main diagonal of the masonry wall. The greatest strains occur at the centre of the panel,
which is why it is modelled with a spring. The strains are compressive in the upper half of the wall
and tensile in the lower half.
Buildings 2017, 7, 89 9 of 17

The Crisafulli approach can be used to model the shear strength of a confined masonry wall.
The schematic on the right in Figure 4 shows the distribution of the principal stresses and strains along
the main diagonal of the masonry wall. The greatest strains occur at the centre of the panel, which is
why it is modelled with a spring. The strains are compressive in the upper half of the wall and tensile
in the lower half.
This model can only be used to describe the most common failure modes where the left side of
Figure 4 represents the failure of the connecting struts, while the right side represents failure by shear.
Incorporating a model describing all types of masonry failure would be impractical because of the
complexity involved.
The brick strength was assumed to be fb = 12 MPa, according to the standard typologies of bricks
defined in [38], whereas the failure strength of the mortar was fm = 8 MPa. The general formulation to
evaluate the characteristic compressive strength of a masonry section fk is given in Eurocode 6 [53] as:

fk = K × fα β
b × fm (1)

where K, α and β are parameters which depend on the type of material, the percentage of holes
(grouping) and the filling of the joints. In particular, the value of K is related to the type of brick and the
kind of jointing. For the type of brick considered in this work, K = 0.45, α = 0.7 and β = 0.3, as specified
in Eurocode 6 [53]. Hence, according to equation (1), fk was taken to be 4.781 MPa. The axial and shear
elastic moduli were calculated using the formulations in Eurocode 6 to be E = 500·fk = 2391 MPa and
G = 0.4·E = 956 MPa.
For modelling the brick walls, three parameters needed to be considered: the initial (elastic)
stiffness, the shear strength and the compression resistance of the struts. Values for these parameters
were obtained using the formulations described by Mostafaei and Kabeyasawa [54]. The initial stiffness
was taken to be twice the final stiffness, which is calculated as the ratio between the final resistance
over the final displacement. The wall resistance and stiffness were determined using the methodology
described by Dominguez [11] and the details of the connecting struts and cables as modelled in
Mostafaei and Kabeyasawa [54] (see Figure 4).
The height (z) of the connecting struts in contact with the columns was determined from
the expressions found in [55], and the equivalent strain modulus was obtained following the
recommendations in Eurocodes 6 [53] and 8 [7]. The area of the contact surface between the connecting
strut and the wall (Aw = 0.13 m2 ) was calculated as the product of the panel thickness and the
equivalent connecting strut width (bw ), which was taken to be 25% of the panel diagonal length.
Furthermore, the Coulomb approach as described in the ACI 530-88 standard was used for obtaining
the friction and cohesion coefficients for the brick mortar.
The parameters used for discretising the shear curve for the hysteretic masonry model for the
connecting struts were obtained from other parameters that take into account the shear resistance from
adherence, the maximum shear resistance as described in [54], and the friction coefficient as defined
in ACI 530-88 [56]. The surface area of the connecting strut was calculated from the effective width,
as described in [54].
Finally, the thickness of each wall was taken to be 12 cm (equal to the perforated brick thickness),
and the wall-frame contact length was set at 1/3 of the effective contact length (z) defined in [57].

5. Results

5.1. Non-Linear Static (Pushover) Analysis

A pushover analysis aims to calculate the maximum horizontal load (base shear force) that a
structure can withstand. A triangular load distribution was assumed for the calculations in this study.
The load was proportionally increased by a factor (λp ) until structural instability was reached. At this
point, a response control was introduced based on a node displacement increment; in this case, the
node was located on the upper-most floor.
Buildings 2017, 7, 89 10 of 17

Figure 5 shows the capacity or “pushover” curves for the range of building structures described
in Table 1 constructed from H-25 concrete (25 MPa) and B-500-S corrugated reinforcing steel. There are
two columns in Figure 5: the one on the left shows the maximum upper floor displacements in the
Buildings 2017, 7, 89 10 of 17
frame direction, and the column to the right shows the corresponding displacements in the transverse
direction. Curves are shown for all three types of infill wall layouts as explained earlier (without walls,
Figure 6 illustrates the capacity or pushover curves for the 5–5–■ and 5–6–■ buildings described
−walls, +walls).
in Table 1 for a number of combinations of concrete and steel material properties corresponding to
Figure 6 illustrates the capacity or pushover curves for the 5–5– and 5–6– buildings described
H-30 (30 MPa) and H-35 (35 MPa) concrete and B-400-S and B-600-S reinforcing steel. Similar to
in Table 1 for a number of combinations of concrete and steel material properties corresponding to H-30
Figure 5, the two columns show maximum upper floor frame and transverse direction
(30 MPa) and H-35 (35 MPa) concrete and B-400-S and B-600-S reinforcing steel. Similar to Figure 5,
displacements.
the two columns show maximum upper floor frame and transverse direction displacements.

Figure 5. Capacity curves of buildings with H-25 (25 MPa) concrete and B-500-S steel.
Figure 5. Capacity curves of buildings with H-25 (25 MPa) concrete and B-500-S steel.
Buildings 2017, 7, 89 11 of 17
Buildings 2017, 7, 89 11 of 17

Figure
Figure 6. 6. Capacitycurves
Capacity curvesofofbuildings
buildings5–5–
5–5–■ 5–6–■made
 and 5–6– madefrom
fromvarious
variouscombinations
combinationsof of
H-25,
H-25,
H-30
H-30 andand
H35H35 concreteand
concrete andB-400-S,
B-400-S,B-500-S
B-500-Sand
and B-600-S
B-600-S steel.
steel.

Figures 5 and 6 above show the static “non-linear” behaviour of buildings with and without
Figures 5 and 6 above show the static “non-linear” behaviour of buildings with and without
walls. It is evident from the figures that increasing the strength of the concrete and steel has little
walls. It is evident from the figures that increasing the strength of the concrete and steel has little effect.
effect. Notably, for both the buildings “with walls” in both directions (where the overall building
Notably,
behaviourfor both
is welltherepresented
buildings “with walls”
by these in bothand
elements) directions (where thedirection
in the transverse overall building behaviour
for the buildings
is well represented
“without by thesethe
walls” (where elements) and inare
model results thedominated
transverse by direction for the buildings
the bi-articulated elements “without
due to walls”
the
(where
lack of continuity of the reinforcement in the lower part of the structure), the results are very similar. of
the model results are dominated by the bi-articulated elements due to the lack of continuity
the reinforcement
In particular, in ittheis lower partthe
clear that of existence
the structure),
of wallsthemainly
resultsaffects
are verythesimilar.
initial parts of the curves,
andInsignificantly
particular, itincreases
is clear that the existence
the initial stiffness.ofThis
walls mainlyisaffects
increase shownthe initial
in the parts
higher of the
initial curves,
slope and
of the
significantly
curves andincreases
the higher the initial
maximum stiffness.
base This
shearincrease is shown axis)
force (ordinate in thewhen
higherwalls
initialareslope of the curves
included. The
and the highershear
maximum maximum force basein theshear force (ordinate
direction axis) when
of the frames in thewalls are included.
buildings “without Thewalls”
maximum is
approximately
shear force in the twice
direction the of
maximum
the frames base shear
in the force in“without
buildings the transverse
walls”direction. This difference
is approximately twice the
reduces as
maximum walls
base shearareforce
introduced.
in the transverse direction. This difference reduces as walls are introduced.
Moreover, the maximum
Moreover, the maximum displacements displacements occuroccur inin the
the taller
taller buildings,
buildings,especially
especiallyinin the
thedirection
direction
transverse to the frames, due to the greater number of plastic hinges generated
transverse to the frames, due to the greater number of plastic hinges generated in the structure before in the structure
before Finally,
collapse. collapse.it Finally,
is necessaryit is necessary
to emphasiseto emphasise the early
the early failure failure
of the of in
walls thethe
walls in the structures.
structures. Wall failure
is associated with the discontinuities in the curves for the buildings with walls. Oncewalls.
Wall failure is associated with the discontinuities in the curves for the buildings with all ofOnce all
the walls
of the walls have failed, the curves for the buildings with walls become similar to the curves for the
have failed, the curves for the buildings with walls become similar to the curves for the buildings
buildings without walls.
without walls.
Buildings 2017, 7, 89 12 of 17

Buildings 2017, 7, 89 12 of 17
In the same manner, both figures show how the capacity curves decay, mainly due to the
breakage of masonry walls. These elements are both stiff and fragile and thus tend to break at the
sameIntime.the same
It is manner,
for this bothreasonfigures
thatshow how the
the decay of capacity
the capacity curvescurves
decay,ismainly duevery
initially to theabrupt.
breakage In
of masonry
addition, walls.
it is clearThese
that the elements are bothand
initial stiffness stiffthe
andmaximum
fragile and basethus tendforce
shear to break at the
increase same time.
significantly
It is for
with thethis reasonofthat
number the decay
walls. Once the of the capacity
walls curves
collapse, theiscurves
initially very
tend toabrupt.
follow In theaddition,
behaviour it isofclear
the
that the initial
buildings withoutstiffness
walls.and the maximum base shear force increase significantly with the number of
walls.It Once
should thebewalls
noted collapse,
that thethe curves tend
behaviour to follow without
of buildings the behaviour walls is of far
themore
buildings without
ductile that thatwalls.
of
It should be
the buildings withnoted thatThis
walls. the behaviour
can be seen of buildings
by comparing without thewalls
lengthsis far
ofmore ductile that
the capacity curvesthat at
of the
buildings with walls.
point of collapse. ThisThis can be
increase inseen by comparing
ductility is due to the thenumber
lengths of the capacity
joints that are curves
formed.at the Forpoint
designof
collapse.
purposes,This the increase
ultimateindisplacement
ductility is due oftothethestructure
number of is joints
normally that are formed.
defined as For
the design
displacementpurposes, at
which
the the base
ultimate shear forceof
displacement decreases by 20%
the structure from thedefined
is normally maximum. as theIn displacement
this case, the decay at which of the base
force decreases
shear force prior to collapse
by 20% occurs
from the in maximum.
buildings which In thisdo case,notthe have
decaywalls, in other
of the words
base shear it affects
force prior
only
to the structural
collapse occurs in elements
buildings (columns
which do andnot beams).
have walls, in other words it affects only the structural
The (columns
elements use of wide andbeams
beams). and slabs with joists creates structures which are very rigid in their
transverse
The use direction.
of wideItbeamsis therefore evident
and slabs withthat withcreates
joists this type of structure
structures which it isare
necessary
very rigid to consider
in their
seismicallydirection.
transverse induced It damage.
is thereforeThe evident
main types of damage
that with this type induced
of structureby seismic events come
it is necessary from
to consider
excessive flexure
seismically induced of the columnsThe
damage. andmain
beams, as well
types as from strut
of damage induced compression
by seismic in the infillcome
events walls.from
For
this reason,
excessive using of
flexure brick
thewalls
columnsin both
anddirections
beams, asincreases
well as from the building’s overall structural
strut compression in the infillresistance
walls.
andthis
For stiffness.
reason, The contribution
using brick wallsofinthese
both walls is particularly
directions increases the significant
building’s foroverall
shorterstructural
buildings. resistance
and stiffness. The contribution of these walls is particularly significant for shorter buildings.
5.2. Dynamic Analysis
5.2. Dynamic Analysis
Non-linear dynamic analyses [45,58,59] were performed in discrete time following Newmark’s
Non-linear
method [48] as discusseddynamic analyses
above. The [45,58,59]
time period were (Δt)performed
used inin the discrete
analyses time
was following
0.005 s to Newmark’s
match the
method [48] as discussed above. The time period (∆t) used
data from the Lorca earthquake register for the two directions (X, Y). The structure in the analyses was 0.005 s to match the
buffer
data from theas
(understood Lorca earthquake
the visual register for
representation the two
model useddirections (X, Y). The structure
by the “Seismostruct” software buffer (understood
to represent the
as
structure of the building) was represented by the Rayleigh model (Chopra) with a damping factorthe
the visual representation model used by the “Seismostruct” software to represent the structure of of
building)
5%, an average was represented
value of ourby twothemodes
Rayleigh modelvalues
damping (Chopra) (4%with and a6%) damping
which has factor of used
been 5%, an inaverage
diverse
value
studies ofconducted
our two modes damping
in recent yearsvalues
for this(4%typeandof6%) which has been used in diverse studies conducted
building.
in recent years for this type of building.
Figure 7 shows the displacement of the upper floor from the time-history responses of the 5–5–
■ andFigure
5–6–■7buildings,
shows the displacementtoofthe
corresponding theNorth–South
upper flooracceleration
from the time-history
data shownresponses
in Figure 1. ofThis
the
5–5–  and 5–6–  buildings, corresponding to the North–South
accelerogram was chosen as it was the most severe. The building structures were selected for thisacceleration data shown in Figure 1.
This accelerogram was chosen as it was the most severe. The
analysis as they were deemed to be the most representative of real-life settings. The dynamic building structures were selected for
this analysis
responses foras they
both wereofdeemed
types buildingtowere be the most representative
calculated using the initial of real-life settings. properties
set of materials The dynamic for
responses for both types of building were calculated using the initial
H-25 concrete and B-500-S steel reinforcement. The left column of Figure 7 shows the upper-floor set of materials properties for H-25
concrete
building and B-500-S steel in
displacements reinforcement. The left column
the frame direction, and the of Figure
right 7column
shows the upper-floor
shows building
the transverse
displacements
displacements.in the frame direction, and the right column shows the transverse displacements.

Figure 7. Dynamic response of buildings 5–5– and 5–6– (HA-25 and B-500-S) to a seismic event
Figure 7. Dynamic response of buildings 5–5–■ and 5–6–■ (HA-25 and B-500-S) to a seismic event
based on Lorca’s earthquake register (11th May 2011).
based on Lorca’s earthquake register (11th May 2011).
Buildings 2017, 7, 89 13 of 17

Buildings 2017, 7, 89 13 of 17
Figure 8 shows the dynamic response [60] of the 5–5– and 5–6– buildings with a range
of materials
Figureproperties
8 shows theused for the
dynamic constituent
response parts.
[60] of the 5–5–■ Concrete
and 5–6–■ characteristic
buildings with resistances
a range of of
fck =materials
300 kg/cm 2 (H-30)used
and for
fck the
= 350 2
kg/cm parts.
(H-35), and steel elastic limits of fyk =of4000 2
properties constituent Concrete characteristic resistances fck =kg/cm
300
(B 400-S) 2
kg/cmand fyk and
2 (H-30) = 6000
fck =kg/cm
350 kg/cm (B2 (H-35),
600-S) and
weresteel
used for this
elastic limitsset
of of
fyk analyses. The
= 4000 kg/cm same
2 (B typology
400-S) and fyk of
brick= walls, symmetric
6000 kg/cm plantwere
2 (B 600-S) layoutused(“− walls”
for andof“+walls”),
this set analyses. Theheights
same(totypology
avoid the of “short column”
brick walls,
symmetric
effect), plant layout
brick resistance (fb(“−walls”
= 12 MPa) andand
“+walls”),
mortarheights (to avoid
resistance (fm =the8 “short column”
MPa) were effect), as
assumed brick
in the
resistance
initial (fb = 12 MPa) and mortar resistance (fm = 8 MPa) were assumed as in the initial analyses.
analyses.

Figure
Figure 8. Response
8. Response of of buildings5–5–
buildings 5–5–■ and 5–6–
 and 5–6–■
built
builtwith
withvarious
variouscombinations of H-25,
combinations H-30
of H-25, and and
H-30
H35 and B-400-S, B-500-S and B-600S.
H35 and B-400-S, B-500-S and B-600S.

The results in Figures 7 and 8 show that the difference in the dynamic response of the 5-storey
The results
building in Figures
without walls is7 not
andsignificant
8 show that the different
when difference in the and
concrete dynamic response are
steel strengths of the 5-storey
used as
building
evidenced by the similarity in the maximum displacements calculated. On the other hand, used
without walls is not significant when different concrete and steel strengths are the as
evidenced
increasebyinthe
thesimilarity in the maximum
distance between columns indisplacements calculated.
the buildings without On
walls the to
leads other hand,
a small the increase
increase in
thedistance
in the maximumbetween
displacement of thein
columns frames in both directions.
the buildings without walls leads to a small increase in the
maximum displacement of the frames in both directions.
Buildings 2017, 7, 89 14 of 17

These maximum displacements are very small for the cases with walls, and virtually the same
behaviour is seen in both directions. As mentioned before, when there are walls, the strength of the
buildings relies on the walls and not on the structural elements of the frames.
Comparing the results for the maximum displacements in the pushover analyses with those
obtained in the dynamic calculations, it is possible to conclude that the buildings would not have
collapsed during the Lorca earthquake, regardless of whether they contained any walls. In the dynamic
analyses, the maximum displacement of the buildings without walls was less than 0.4 m, meaning
they would have only reached the plastic regime and would not have collapsed, as can be seen by the
capacity curves from the non-linear “push-over” static calculations. The buildings’ resistance improves
with the inclusion of walls, and the displacements are practically zero throughout the analysis.

6. Conclusions
After careful interpretation of the results from the analyses carried out in this study, the following
practical conclusions can be drawn:
The inclusion of brick walls substantially improves buildings’ seismic resistance, especially for
short buildings. In addition, the inclusion of a higher number of walls in the layout significantly
reduces a building’s fundamental period. This is related to the associated mass increase, but also to the
increase in stiffness. As the interception of the capacity curve with the demand spectrum corresponds
to a point with a larger acceleration demand, larger loads are experienced by the structure. Therefore,
on the one hand, the inclusion of walls significantly increases the stiffness and reduces the fundamental
period of a building in both directions, as can be seen in Table 1, but on the other hand, the walls also
increase the mass of the building, leading to an increase in the seismic forces. In medium and short
buildings, this effect is not as significant as the increase in stiffness caused by the walls, so overall the
building’s resistance will be improved by the addition of walls. However, this is not as clear cut for
taller buildings, as the mass increases to a greater extent, and the stiffness may decrease due to the
greater height of the building.
Reducing the span between columns can improve a building’s performance when there are no
additional walls. The use of rectangular columns does not significantly improve a building’s resistance,
rather the structure becomes more fragile and rigid. In particular, the building’s response in the
direction of the shorter column dimension diminishes, increasing the structure’s fragility.
When higher strength concrete is used, there are only meaningful resistance improvements in
buildings without walls because with walls, the building’s behaviour is dominated by the walls rather
than the structural framework. Similarly, an increase in the elastic limit of the reinforcing steel does not
have a significant effect on the building’s behaviour. Therefore, the maximum displacements measured
when the material properties are changed only have significant variations in buildings without walls.
The inclusion of a small quantity of infill walls almost doubles the resistance of the buildings
considered and reduces the maximum displacements of the upper floor by 70% (at least in the case of
the dynamic study under loading from the Lorca earthquake in the North-South direction). Comparing
the cases with the higher density of infill walls (“+walls”) and the lower density infill walls (“−walls”),
the resistant capacity is doubled as the additional walls are added and the upper floor maximum
displacements are reduced by 25%.
During the static loading, the brick walls failed before the structural elements (beams and
columns). In some capacity curves, the building’s resistance increases as more infill walls are included.
Once the walls are broken, the capacity curves tend towards those of the buildings without walls (it is
thus concluded that the behaviour of the infill walls is independent from the main structure).
In summary, this study has made contributions on two fronts. First, it has found that the use of
high strength concrete and steel in the types of building considered only slightly improves seismic
resistance, especially in buildings with infill walls. The effect is more significant in the direction
transverse to the frames where there is no continuity of the reinforcement at the bottom of the
structural elements. The overall effect is that the frames turn into articulated structures.
Buildings 2017, 7, 89 15 of 17

Second, this work shows how the use of brick walls can improve the seismic behaviour of buildings
with less than eight stories. In addition, the use of beams in both directions rather than prefabricated
elements (joists) can improve the structural behaviour of buildings. It should be noted that the
proposed recommendations are suitable for buildings in regions with low-to-moderate seismicity.
Finally, regarding the effect of the bond between the walls and the frame on the overall
effectiveness of the walls, it is important to highlight that the walls are not anchored to the structure,
but are separated, so they are considered as independent elements in the behavior of the structure.
The union of both elements would lead to a greater complexity in the structural modeling of the
buildings, giving rise to the generation of confined walls, which is outside the objectives of this work.

Acknowledgments: This research was funded by the Chilean CONICYT grant under the program: FONDECYT
Initiation for Research in 2014 (Project folio 11140128).
Author Contributions: All authors contributed extensively to the work presented in this paper.
David Dominguez-Santos contributed to the research, modelling, data analysis and manuscript writing.
Pablo Ballesteros-Perez contributed to the modeling, the manuscript writing and the manuscript review.
Daniel Mora-Melia contributed to the literature review, the data analysis, the manuscript writing and
manuscript review.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References
1. Milsom, J. The Vrancea seismic zone and its analogue in the Banda Arc, eastern Indonesia. Tectonophysics
2005, 410, 325–336. [CrossRef]
2. Chiarabba, C.; Amato, A.; Anselmi, M.; Baccheschi, P.; Bianchi, I.; Cattaneo, M.; Cecere, G.; Chiaraluce, L.;
Ciaccio, M.G.; de Gori, P. The 2009 L’Aquila (central Italy) M(W)6.3 earthquake: Main shock and aftershocks.
Geophys. J. Int. 2009, 36, L18308.
3. Gigantesco, A.; Mirante, N.; Granchelli, C.; Diodati, G.; Cofini, V.; Mancini, C.; Carbonelli, A.; Tarolla, E.;
Minardi, V.; Salmaso, S. Psychopathological chronic sequelae of the 2009 earthquake in L’Aquila, Italy.
J. Affect. Disord. 2013, 148, 265–271. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
4. Abolmasov, B.; Jovanovski, M.; Feri, P.; Mihali, S. Losses due to historical earthquakes in the Balkan region:
Overview of publicly available data. Geofizika 2011, 28, 161–181.
5. Escobedo, A. Damage assessment on building structures subjected to the recent near-fault earthquake in
Lorca (Spain). In Proceedings of the 15th World Conference On Earthquake Engineering, Lisbon, Portugal,
24–28 September 2012.
6. López-Comino, J.-A.; de Lis Mancnilla, F.; Morales, J.; Stich, D. Rupture directivity of the 2011, Mw 5.2 Lorca
earthquake (Spain). Geophys. Res. Lett. 2012, 39. [CrossRef]
7. European Committee for Standardization. Eurocode 8: Design of Structures for Earthquake Resistance— Part 1:
General Rules, Seismic Actions and Rules for Buildings; European Committee for Standardization: Brussels,
Belgium, 2004.
8. López-López, A.; Tomás, A.; Sánchez-Olivares, G. Behaviour of reinforced concrete rectangular sections
based on tests complying with seismic construction requirements. Struct. Concr. 2016, 17, 656–667. [CrossRef]
9. López-López, A.; Tomás, A.; Sánchez-Olivares, G. Influence of adjusted models of plastic hinges in nonlinear
behaviour of reinforced concrete buildings. Eng. Struct. 2016, 124, 245–257. [CrossRef]
10. López-Almansa, F.; Domínguez, D.; Benavent-Climent, A. Vulnerability analysis of RC buildings with wide
beams located in moderate seismicity regions. Eng. Struct. 2013, 46, 687–702. [CrossRef]
11. Dominguez, D.; Almansa, F.L.; Climent, A.B. Comportamiento, para el terremoto de Lorca de 11-05-2011,
de edificios de vigas planas proyectados sin tener en cuenta la acción sísmica. Inf. Constr. 2014, 66 (In Spanish).
[CrossRef]
12. Alam, N.; Alam, M.S.; Tesfamariam, S. Buildings’ seismic vulnerability assessment methods: A comparative
study. Nat. Hazards 2012, 62, 405–424. [CrossRef]
13. Calvi, G.M.; Pinho, R.; Magenes, G.; Bommer, J.J.; Crowley, H. Development of seismic vulnerability
assessment methodologies over the past 30 years. Earthquake 2006, 43, 75–104.
Buildings 2017, 7, 89 16 of 17

14. Freeman, S.A.; Nicoletti, J.P.; Tyrrell, J.B. Evaluations of existing buildings for seismic risk—A case study of
Puget Sound naval shipyard, Bremerton, Washington. In Proceedings of the US National Conference on
Earthquake Engineering, Ann Arbor, MI, USA, 18–20 June 1975; pp. 113–122.
15. Comartin, C.D.; Rojahn, C.; Niewiarowski, R.W. Seismic Evaluation and Retrofit of Concrete Buildings; California
Seismic Safety Commission: Sacramento, CA, USA, 1996; ATC-40.
16. Calvi, G.M.; Priestley, N. Design and Assessment of Bridges. In Advanced Earthquake Engineering Analysis;
Pecker, A., Ed.; Springer: Berlin, Germany, 2007; pp. 155–179.
17. Fajfar, P.; Fischinger, M. N2—A method for non-linear seismic analysis of regular buildings. In Proceedings
of the 9th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Tokyo, Japan, 2–9 August 1988; pp. 111–116.
18. Churilov, S.; Dumova-Jovanoska, E. In-plane shear behaviour of unreinforced and jacketed brick masonry
walls. Soil Dyn. Earthq. Eng. 2013, 50, 85–105. [CrossRef]
19. Ghosh, S.; Datta, D.; Katakdhond, A.A. Estimation of the Park-Ang damage index for planar multi-storey
frames using equivalent single-degree systems. Eng. Struct. 2011, 33, 2509–2524. [CrossRef]
20. Rossetto, T.; Elnashai, A. A new analytical procedure for the derivation of displacement-based vulnerability
curves for populations of RC structures. Eng. Struct. 2005, 27, 397–409. [CrossRef]
21. Haldar, A.; Mahadevan, S. Probability, Reliability, and Statistical Methods in Engineering Design; John Wiley:
Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2000.
22. Kroese, D.P.; Brereton, T.; Taimre, T.; Botev, Z.I. Why the Monte Carlo method is so important today. Wiley
Interdiscip. Rev. Comput. Stat. 2014, 6, 386–392. [CrossRef]
23. Casas, J.R.; Wisniewski, D.F.; Cervenka, J.; Plos, M. Safety and Probabilistic Modelling: Background Document
D4.4; Sustainable Bridges–VI Framework Program: Brussels, Belgium, 2007.
24. Vargas, Y.F.; Pujades, L.G.; Barbat, A.H.; Hurtado, J.E. Incremental dynamic analysis and pushover analysis.
A probabilistic comparison. In Computational Methods in Stochastic Dynamics; Springer: Berlin, Germany, 2011.
25. Vielma-Perez, J.C.; Barbat, A.H.; Oller, S. Curvas de fragilidad y matrices de probabilidad de daño de
edificios de concreto armado con ductilidad limitada. Rev. Desastr. Nat. Accid. Infraestruct. Civ. 2007, 7,
273–286. (In Spanish)
26. Applied Technology Council. Improvement of Nonlinear Static Seismic Analysis Procedures; ATC-55 Project;
Federal Emergency Management Agency: Washington, DC, USA, 2005.
27. Marques, R.; Lourenço, P.B. Unreinforced and confined masonry buildings in seismic regions: Validation of
macro-element models and cost analysis. Eng. Struct. 2014, 64, 52–67. [CrossRef]
28. Domínguez, D. Seismic vulnerability analysis of wide-beam buildings in Spain. In Proceedings of the 15th
World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Lisboa, Portugal, 24–28 September 2012.
29. Benavent-Climent, A.; Cahís, X.; Vico, J.M. Interior wide beam-column connections in existing RC frames
subjected to lateral earthquake loading. Bull. Earthq. Eng. 2009, 8, 401–420. [CrossRef]
30. Barbat, A.H.; Pujades, L.G.; Lantada, N. Performance of buildings under earthquakes in Barcelona, Spain.
Comput. Civ. Infrastruct. Eng. 2006, 21, 573–593. [CrossRef]
31. Barbat, A.H.; Carreño, M.L.; Pujades, L.G.; Lantada, N.; Cardona, O.D.; Marulanda, M.C. Seismic
vulnerability and risk evaluation methods for urban areas. A review with application to a pilot area.
Struct. Infrastruct. Eng. 2010, 6, 17–38. [CrossRef]
32. Guéguen, P.; Michel, C.; LeCorre, L. A simplified approach for vulnerability assessment in moderate-to-low
seismic hazard regions: Application to Grenoble (France). Bull. Earthq. Eng. 2007, 5, 467–490. [CrossRef]
33. Michel, C.; Guéguen, P.; Lestuzzi, P.; Bard, P.-Y. Comparison between seismic vulnerability models and
experimental dynamic properties of existing buildings in France. Bull. Earthq. Eng. 2010, 8, 1295–1307.
[CrossRef]
34. Mucciarelli, M.; Contri, P.; Monachesi, G.; Calvano, G.; Gallipoli, M. An empirical method to assess the
seismic vulnerability of existing buildings using the HVSR technique. Pure Appl. Geophys. 2002, 158,
2635–2647. [CrossRef]
35. Dolce, M.; Kappos, A.; Masi, A.; Penelis, G.; Vona, M. Vulnerability assessment and earthquake damage
scenarios of the building stock of Potenza (Southern Italy) using Italian and Greek methodologies. Eng. Struct.
2006, 28, 357–371. [CrossRef]
36. Manfredi, G. Evaluation of seismic energy demand. Earthq. Eng. Struct. Dyn. 2001, 30, 485–499. [CrossRef]
37. Ministerio de Fomento. Instrucción de Hormigón Estructural EHE 08; Ministerio de Fomento: Madrid, Spain,
2008. (In Spanish)
Buildings 2017, 7, 89 17 of 17

38. Ministerio de Vivienda. Documento básico. Código técnico de la edificación. Acciones en la edificación, DB-CTE-SE-AE;
Ministerio de Vivienda: Madrid, Spain, 2006. (In Spanish)
39. De Luca, F.; Verderame, G.M.; Gómez-Martínez, F.; Pérez-García, A. The structural role played by masonry
infills on RC building performances after the 2011 Lorca, Spain, earthquake. Bull. Earthq. Eng. 2013, 12,
1999–2026. [CrossRef]
40. SeismoSoft. SeismoStruct—A Computer Program for Static and Dynamic Nonlinear Analysis of Framed
Structures. Available online: http://www.seismosoft.com (accessed on 30 December 2016).
41. Zieenkiewicz, O.C.; Taylor, R.L. The Finite Element Method; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 1993.
42. Scott, M.H.; Fenves, G.L. Plastic hinge integration methods for force-based beam–column elements.
J. Struct. Eng. 2006, 132, 244–252. [CrossRef]
43. Mander, J.B.; Priestley, M.J.N.; Park, R. Theoretical stress strain model for confined concrete. J. Struct. Eng.
1988, 114, 1804–1825. [CrossRef]
44. Ferrara, E.; Bosco, M.; Ghersi, A.; Marino, E.M.; Rossi, P.P. Improvement of the model proposed by Menegotto
and Pinto for steel. Eng. Struct. 2016, 124, 442–456.
45. Spacone, E.; Filippou, F. Flexibility-based frame models for nonlinear dynamic analysis. In Proceedings of
the 11th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Acapulco, Mexico, 23–28 June 1996.
46. Scott, M.H.; Fenves, G.L.; McKenna, F.; Filippou, F.C. Software patterns for nonlinear beam-column models.
J. Struct. Eng. 2008, 134, 562–571. [CrossRef]
47. Belletti, B.; Damoni, C.; Hendriks, M.; de Boer, A. Analytical and numerical evaluation of the design shear
resistance of reinforced concrete slabs. Struct. Concr. 2014, 15, 317–330. [CrossRef]
48. Newmark, N.M. A method of computation for structural dynamics. J. Eng. Mech. Div. 1959, 85, 67–94.
49. Gavin, H. Numerical Integration for Structural Dynamics; Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering,
Duke University: Durham, NC, USA, 2001.
50. Mergos, P.E.; Kappos, A.J. Estimating fixed-end rotations of reinforced concrete members at yielding and
ultimate. Struct. Concr. 2015, 16, 537–545. [CrossRef]
51. Crisafulli, F.J.; Carr, A.J.; Park, R. Experimental response of framed masonry structures designed with new
reinforcing details. Bull. N. Z. Soc. Earthq. Eng. 2005, 38, 19–32.
52. Priestley, M.J.N.; Grant, D.N.; Blandon, C.A. Direct displacement-based seismic design. In Proceedings
of the 2005 New Zealand Society for Earthquake Engineering Conference, Wairakei, New Zealand,
11–13 March 2005.
53. European Committee for Standardization. Eurocode 6: Design of Masonry Structures; European Committee for
Standardization: Brussels, Belgium, 2005.
54. Mostafaei, H.; Kabeyasawa, T. Masonry walls on the seismic response of reinforced concrete buildings
subjected to the 2003 Bam earthquake strong motion: A case study of Bam telephone center. Earthq. Res.
Inst. Univ. 2004, 79, 133–156.
55. Priestley, M.J.N.; Paulay, T. Seismic Design of Reinforced Concrete and Masonry Buildings; Wiley: Hoboken, NJ,
USA, 1992.
56. American Concrete Institute. Building Code Requirements for Masonry Structures and Specifications for Masonry
Structures; American Concrete Institute: Farmington Hills, MI, USA, 1988.
57. Madia, F.C.A.; Parsekian, G.A. Modeling a reinforced concrete building frame with infill. In Proceedings
of the 11th North American Masonry Conference, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN, USA,
5–8 June 2011.
58. Filippou, F.C.; Ambrisi, A.D.; Issa, A. Nonlinear Static and Dynamic Analysis of Reinforced Concrete
Subassemblages; Earthquake Engineering Research Center, College of Engineering, University of California:
Oakland, CS, USA, 1992.
59. Magnusson, J.; Hallgren, M.; Ansell, A. Shear in concrete structures subjected to dynamic loads. Struct. Concr.
2014, 15, 55–65. [CrossRef]
60. Spiliopoulos, K.V.; Lykidis, G.C. An efficient three-dimensional solid finite element dynamic analysis of
reinforced concrete structures. Earthq. Eng. Struct. Dyn. 2006, 35, 137–157. [CrossRef]

© 2017 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access
article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution
(CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).