PSI - Issue 78

Adriano Andrés Del Fiol et al. / Procedia Structural Integrity 78 (2026) 1713–1720

1715

Fig. 1. Schematic representation of the experimental bare frame tested by Calvi and Bolognini (2001).

3. Numerical Modeling Strategy Three different configurations of RC frames were simulated: bare frame, masonry-infilled frame, and CLT-infilled frame. All models share the same geometry, according to the dimensions reported in Section 2. The proposed modelling approach, developed in ABAQUS (2024), includes solid continuum elements for concrete and masonry, embedded truss elements for steel reinforcement, and appropriate interaction properties for contact surfaces. 3.1. Finite Element Modelling 3.1.1. Bare Frame The RC frame geometry was modelled using three-dimensional solid elements for concrete and wire elements for the steel reinforcement, embedded in the concrete domain via the embedded region constraint. Figures 2a and 2b illustrate these two models. The mesh size of the frame was approximately 50 mm. Concrete behavior was modelled using the Concrete Damaged Plasticity (CDP) model available in the software, with stress–strain relationships derived from the Kent and Park model (Kent et al., 1971). The material properties were extracted from the experimental report. Tables 1 presents some parameters. The definition of steel reinforcement was achieved through the utilization of a bilinear elasto-plastic model with isotropic hardening.

Fig. 2. (a) RC frame model; (b) Reinforcement model.

3.1.2. Masonry Infill Panel The masonry panel was modelled as a deformable solid using three-dimensional continuum elements., directly tied to the surrounding concrete frame using tie constraints (Fig. 3a). A full contact interface with normal hard contact and