## 2 Formulation of Analytical Model  
An analytical method has been developed in this study to determine the suitability of SIM panels as a replacement for URM panels. As SIM will be used as an infill panel, it is necessary to quantify the displacement and base shear capacities of the bare frame (no infill), the frame with URM panels, and the frame with SIM panels. The elevation is depicted in Figure 3, while Table 1 provides a comprehensive overview of the specific characteristics of both the bare frame and the framed structure with infill panels used in this study to establish a simplified method. The current study has considered the linear elastic behavior of the RC frame and the nonlinear (frictional sliding) behavior of the SIM panel, as discussed in Section 2.3. As this comparative study focuses on the behavior of bare frames, traditional masonry, and SIM panels, the interaction of concrete beams and frames remains consistent across all structures. While the study does not specifically address this interaction, the comparative analysis ensures a comprehensive understanding of the infill panel's demands within the broader structural context. Figure 3: Elevation of models: (**a**) Bare frame; (**b**) Masonry panels infill. It is important to highlight that the coefficients of friction for SIM panels are based on the topological and mechanical SIM bed joints, with values of 0.75 and 0.72, respectively [12]. Given the closely aligned coefficient of friction for both SIM units, the analysis in this study focuses solely on panels featuring topological SIM units, as presented in Table 1. The seismic loading configuration adhered to the standard specifications outlined in the Australian Standard AS170.4 [14], specifically following the typical loading configuration for a residential building. Analyzing the structural behavior under seismic forces poses a complex challenge due to the dynamic nature of earthquake loading. The Australian Standard provides various methods for such analyses. In this study, a simplified approach known as the 'equivalent static method' was adopted to assess the behavior of the bare frame, traditional masonry, and SIM panels. This method conceptualizes earthquake loading as a series of static loads applied to each level of the structure. While static analysis is commonly employed in preliminary structural assessments, the equivalent static method is particularly useful for comparative research, as demonstrated in this study. The base shear (V) of the structure for earthquake actions can be determined using the equivalent static method, as expressed in Equation (1) [14]. \[V=k_{p}ZC_{h}(T_{1})\frac{S_{p}}{\mu}W_{t} \tag{1}\]  
where \(k_{p}\) is the probability factor, which is a function of the design life and importance level of the structure. For this study, assuming a typical design life of 50 years, as commonly adopted in Australia [16], the probability factor is solely dependent on the importance levels. The consequences of failure corresponding to different importance levels have been adopted from AS 1170.0:2002 [17]) and are summarized in Table 2, with the assessment focusing on importance levels 2, 3, and 4 in this study. Z is the hazard factor, signifying that the geographic location of the building impacts the magnitude of static loads. Three locations, as shown in Figure 4, were chosen for this study, categorized as low-risk (Newcastle), medium-risk (Dowerin), and high-risk (Macquarie Island) seismic areas, each associated with distinct hazard design factors (Z).