ABSTRACT The moment‐resisting reinforced concrete (RC) frame infilled with masonry walls is a common form of construction for low‐ to medium‐rise buildings. The importance of considering the infill masonry walls (IMW) in seismic analysis is accentuated due to the interaction between infills and the surrounding frame. Several analytical IMW models have been proposed to model IMW as equivalent diagonal struts, and the appropriateness of those models has been justified through experimental and numerical calibrations. However, the reliability of those analytical models is not well substantiated. Therefore, the reliabilities of five different analytical models have been evaluated herein using the First‐Order Reliability Method (FORM). The stochastic uncertainties involved in predicting the in‐plane capacities of IMW‐RC frames have been incorporated in the reliability analyses. Subsequently, reliabilities of IMW models have been ascertained using experimental data sets compiled at two different scales, namely (1) single story–single bay and (2) multistory IMW‐RC frames. 120 experimental data sets of single story–single bay IMW‐RC frames tested under in‐plane loading and three multistory IMW‐RC frames tested on shake‐tables were used to assess the reliabilities of IMW models. The results showed that the IMW models considered have predicted the in‐plane behavior of IMW‐RC frames (single or multistory) to certain levels of accuracy. The predicted reliability indices ( β values) of the models vary between 1.03 and 4.13. The reliabilities differ when different aspects of the predictions are being considered, such as peak or ultimate load and drift capacities of single story–single bay frames or base shear and story drift of multistory frames. Therefore, depending on the requirement (strength‐ or displacement‐based design), the IMW models should be selected appropriately to carry out the seismic analyses of IMW‐RC buildings.
Raheem et al. (Wed,) studied this question.