# Design Proposal for Masonry Infill Walls Subject to Seismic Actions
## 4 Comparison of the Experimental Results with Design Standards
### Capacity  
Table 6 shows analytical solutions that compute the out-of-plane capacity of infill walls. In Figures 13 and 14, these solutions are compared with the experimental results obtained using the three tested models. The reinforcement in the infills of model 2 (bed joint) and model 3 (plaster) were not taken into consideration because their percentage was very  
Figure 12: Standard and experimental out-of-plane load comparison for model 3.  
low and defined only for crack control. The infill walls were separated into walls without openings (South infill walls in the longitudinal direction) and walls with openings (North walls in the longitudinal direction, and East and West walls in the transversal direction), but the walls with openings were computed as if they were solid, considering their actual weight. The load obtained experimentally, for each wall during the four stages of the tests, was calculated by adding the product of the acceleration in each accelerometer and the mass associated with it, and then plotted against the analytical values for that set. It was considered that the maximum load value obtained experimentally was the capacity of the wall, as all the infill walls of the ground floor in model 1 collapsed during the last stage, and the infill walls of model 2 were damaged beyond repair and were unable to sustain any more load. In model 3, the experimental load curve is only presented until stage 3 for the sake of comparison with the other two models, as the model had to be re-tested due to technical problems [29]. It is important to keep in mind that the out-of-plane capacity is influenced by other parameters, such as the in-plane displacements and subsequent damage, vertical loads and even the presence of reinforcement, and that infill walls have damage accumulation from one stage to the next. The infill walls with openings in the longitudinal direction presented the highest experimental force value during stage 3, which is associated with damage and loss of connection between the wall and the surrounding RC frame. Walls of higher slenderness, as the interior leaves of model 1 (thickness/height equal to 24.3), do not seem to be affected by the presence of openings, and EC6 [24] provided a very good agreement for the estimate of capacity, with only 7% error on average for all interior leaves, with and without openings. As for the exterior leaves (thickness/height equal to 18.9), EC6 [28] overestimated the capacity of the infills, on average by 46% and, as with the interior leaves, the presence of openings did not seem to affect the results. FEMA 273 (1997) presented an average error of 17% for the interior leaves and 52% for the exterior ones, while FEMA 306 (1998) presented an error of 40% and 11% for the interior and exterior leaves, respectively. All other analytical solutions presented out-of-plane capacity values with higher differences than the experimental values. Regarding the solid infill walls, MSJC [20] presented the highest values, with an error of 70% and 58% for the interior and exterior walls, respectively. The analytical solution proposed by [PERSON] et al. [11] also overestimated the experimental values by 37% and 138% for the interior and exterior infills, respectively. The recommendations from [PERSON] [15] were acceptable in the case of exterior infills, underestimating the capacity by 17%, but considerably underestimating the capacity by 56% in the case of the interior infill walls. Regarding the infill walls with openings, MSJC [20] presented the highest overestimation, 150% and 199% for interior and exterior infill walls, respectively, followed by [PERSON] et al. [11] with 47% and 171% for the interior and exterior infills walls, respectively. [PERSON] [15] presented the lowest underestimations for