## 4 Methodology
### Influence of the Presence of Infill in the Global Response  
The present part of the paper aims to study the effect of the reinforced concrete frame with infill walls with different distributions and to monitor the impact of the different distribution of these walls on the strength and ductility of the concrete frame, using a macro model to represent the infill wall in the analytical study, which facilitates the process of analysis and study of effect. This can be related to the infill arrangement in new buildings or even due to the changes that occur during the building life. The models developed as shown in Figure 5 are: (1) frame without infill (BF); (2) building with masonry infill (FF); (3-5) building with masonry infill except for the ground, second, third story (SF), (2 SF), (3 SF); (6) building completely infilled except along the first bays (RF); (7) building fully infilled except along the middle bays (MF); (8) building infilled except along the first and third bay (RLF); (9) building fully infilled except along the first and second bay (2 RF); (10) model of building filled in with masonry without infill on the 4 th, 5 th, 6 th stories (UF); (11) building model filled in with masonry without infill on the 2 nd, 4 th, 6 th stories (DF). (12) building model filled in with masonry without infill on the 1 st, 3 rd, 5 th stories (SDF); (13) model of building filled in with masonry without infill on the 2 nd, 4 th, 5 th, 6 th stories (2 DF); (14) model of building filled in with masonry without infill on the 3 rd, 4 th, 5 th stories (MHF); (15) buildings infilled randomly (MXF). \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c c c} \hline \hline
**Models** & **Base Shear (KN)** & **Ration (\%)** & \ \begin{tabular}{c} **Max Top** \\ **Displacement (m)** \\ \end{tabular}  & **Ratio (\%)** & **ISD Max (\%)** & **Ratio (\%)** & \begin{tabular}{c} **Energy** \\ **(KN.m)** \\ \end{tabular}  & **Ratio (\%)** \\ \hline BF & 196.21 & / & 0.313 & / & 0.023 & / & 91.45 & / \\ Rf = 10\% & 247.7 & 26.24\% & 0.2699 & \(-13.77\%\) & 0.02098 & \(-8.78  
Figure 5: The models with the distribution of the different infill walls. In the following, the results of the progressive pushover analyses performed, in the longitudinal X direction, on the 15 models presented in Figure 6, are presented and discussed. In addition, the evaluation of the effect of the presence of the infill and the flexible story and their height locations on the non-linear responses of reinforced concrete portal frame buildings is examined and compared. Figure 6 shows the capacity curve of the study's buildings; as a first observation, a fundamental difference can be noted directly in the structural response of the studied cases from the other cases that represent the bare frame and the infilled frame, as the lateral shift was accompanied by a deviation from centralization after the force subsides, which highlights the negative effect of the heterogeneous distribution of building walls. Figure 7a shows the structural response of the maximum ISD for each story for the cases studied and Figure 7b shows the damping plastic deformational energy in each model. It was observed that the infill walls participated in the frame's energy damping in all models. Figure 6: Pushover curves of the models studied. Figure 7: The structural response: (a) maximum ISD for each story for the cases studied; (b) plastic deformational energy in each model. A great disparity between the proportions of the ISD values in the studied models appears as a result of the heterogeneity of the distribution of the infill walls in the frame, as the maximum ISD values in the infill frame model did not exceed 0.012 m, while none of the maximum ISD values in the rest of the models were less than 0.015 m to 0.045 m, even the bare frame, which is considered the least rigid, in which the story displacements did not exceed the 0.023 m limit.