## 4 Conclusions  
In this study, structural models were created in Strand7 to simulate the impact of various seismic loads on a bare reinforced concrete frame, a traditional unreinforced masonry infilled reinforced concrete frame, and a semi-interlocking masonry (SIM) infilled reinforced concrete frame. The study considered three locations, representing low, medium, and high-risk seismic areas in Australia, as well as additional factors such as building subsoil classes and importance levels. The feasibility of utilizing SIM as a construction material was assessed based on these considerations. The analysis yielded the following key observations:  
* The assessment of the feasibility of implementing Semi-Interlocking Masonry (SIM) Panels was predicated on two primary considerations: first, whether the base shears for a given location were of sufficient magnitude to accommodate the use of the system; and second, whether the implementation of the SIM system resulted in acceptable story drift. As anticipated, traditional masonry panels demonstrated substantial base shears and minimal displacements, while SIM panels exhibited heightened displacements and reduced base shears for equivalent locations, subsoil classifications, and importance levels. * The outcomes derived from this analysis, which considered seismic forces anticipated in a low-risk seismic area in Australia, demonstrated a noteworthy reduction in base shears. The observations indicated that the base shears for low-risk seismic areas are comparatively low, posing no significant challenges for traditional masonry structures in these regions. Consequently, the utilization of SIM panels in low-risk seismic areas is deemed impractical. * The adoption of SIM panels emerges as a more practical option for regions with a medium to high seismic risk in Australia. The findings revealed the development of  
Figure 21: Variation of shear force and building drift for high-risk seismic regions: (**a**) Base shear; (**b**) Building drift. substantial base shears ranging from 120 kN to 350 kN for traditional masonry panels in a medium-risk seismic area. Such elevated base shears have the potential to induce structural damage in traditional masonry due to its inherent rigidity, leading to the appearance of structural cracks while mitigating earthquake energy. In contrast, SIM panels with an open gap exhibit a less rigid response, reducing the base shear at the ground floor column by a minimum of 61% (depending on the seismic load case). Consequently, SIM panels with an open gap prove to be more efficient in dissipating earthquake energy compared to traditional masonry, while maintaining drift ratios well below the maximum limit of 1.5%. * In the context of forces simulating those anticipated in a high seismic risk area, the utilization of the SIM system demonstrates enhanced performance during seismic events. In the high-risk seismic area, while base shears remain considerable, drift levels become particularly concerning for Type 1 SIM panels. Conversely, Type 2 SIM panels showcase improved outcomes in terms of both base shear and building drift when compared to Type 1 SIM panels. As a result, the implementation of SIM panels with a close gap is recommended for areas characterized by very high seismic risk. The study presents a novel approach to enhancing seismic resilience in multi-story buildings through the use of Semi-Interlocking Masonry (SIM) panels. By comparing the performance of traditional masonry infill panels with SIM panels under various seismic conditions, this research demonstrates the significant benefits of SIM in terms of energy dissipation and structural stability. The comprehensive analysis using Strand7 provides robust evidence supporting the feasibility and effectiveness of SIM panels. These findings offer valuable insights into the practical application of SIM as a modern construction material capable of improving building safety in seismically active regions.