Dissertation2007 Asinari

I.U.S.S.
Istituto Universitario
di Studi Superiori
Universit degli
Studi di Pavia
EUROPEAN SCHOOL FOR ADVANCED STUDIES IN

REDUCTION OF SEISMIC RISK
ROSE SCHOOL
BUILDINGS WITH STRUCTURAL MANSONRY WALLS

CONNECTED TO TIE-COLUMNS AND BOND-BEAMS
A Dissertation Submitted in Partial

Fulfilment of the Requirements for the Master Degree in
EARTHQUAKE ENGINEERING
by
MARIANA ASINARI
Supervisor: Prof. GUIDO MAGENES, Dr. ANDREA PENNA
February, 2007
The dissertation entitled Buildings with structural masonry walls connected to tie-columns
and bond-beams, by Mariana Asinari, has been approved in partial fulfilment of the
requirements for the Master Degree in Earthquake Engineering.
Name of Reviewer 1 Prof. Guido Magenes
Name of Reviewer 2 Dr. Andrea Penna
Abstract
ABSTRACT
Confined masonry is extensively used in seismic regions around the world. Experimental data about
confined masonry are very scarce and this lack of knowledge affects the seismic safety and the design
practice of masonry structures.
This type of constructions consist basically of masonry panels confined by vertical and horizontal
elements usually of reinforce concrete. This confinement enhances greatly the connection between
structural walls, improves the stability and the strength, provides ductility under earthquake loading
and improves the integrity and containment of earthquake damage in masonry walls.
The present dissertation concerns a general review on confined masonry structures, ranging from
current and past research, taking as a reference the experimental data available in the literature. Failure
and resisting mechanisms are described. Vulnerability and experimental tests in confined masonry are
presented as well. Finally some code recommendations, of different countries, for a proper
construction and resistance verification are given.
Keywords: confined masonry; tie-columns; bond-beams; failures modes; resisting mechanisms
Acknowledgements
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I would like to acknowledge:
The financial support of the Erasmus Mundus Programme,
The help, suggestions and support of Dr. Andrea Penna and Professor Guido Magenes,
especially for founding me this research project that may help with the continuities of my studies and
professional life,
The cooperation with the available experimental data and suggestions of Professor Alfredo
Payer and Professor Carlos Prato,
The help and cooperation of Saverio,
The support and sacrifice of my parents Jos Luis and Beatriz being so far form each other for
so long,
The support and love of my sisters Cecilia and Florencia,
The comprehension, patience, support and love of Andrs,
The great and unforgettable time in Europe with my new friends from all over the world of the
meees programme: Paola, Francisco, Bin, Oil, Jessie, Rena, Nelson, Daniele, Davide x 2, Marco,
Michael and Gopal.
ii
Index
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
ABSTRACT ............................................................................................................................................i
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS....................................................................................................................ii
TABLE OF CONTENTS ......................................................................................................................iii
LIST OF FIGURES ................................................................................................................................v
LIST OF TABLES.................................................................................................................................xi
LIST OF SYMBOLS ...........................................................................................................................xiii
1. INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................................1
1.1 Objectives ..................................................................................................................................1
1.2 Description.................................................................................................................................2
1.3 Construction procedure..............................................................................................................5
1.3.1 Materials for confined masonry construction ..................................................................5
1.3.2 Construction procedure ....................................................................................................8
2. FAILURE MECHANISMS AND PERFORMANCE IN PAST EARTHQUAKES ......................12
2.1 Failure mechanisms .................................................................................................................12
2.2 Ductility ...................................................................................................................................15
2.3 Predominant design failures in confined masonry during earthquakes....................................17
2.4 Vulnerability: performance in past earthquakes ......................................................................19
3. RESISTING MECHANISMS .........................................................................................................30
3.1 Resisting mechanism ...............................................................................................................30
4. EXPERIMENTAL TESTS..............................................................................................................34
4.1 Dynamic behaviour of confined masonry buildings through shaking table tests ....................34
4.1.1 Assessment of the response of Mexican confined masonry structure through shaking
table test, Alcocer et al [27] .....................................................................................................34
4.1.2 Seismic behaviour of confined masonry, Tomazevic et al. [28]....................................39
iii
Index
4.1.3 Seismic behaviour of a three-story half scale confined masonry structure, San Bartolom
et al. [29] 48
4.1.4 Pseudo dynamic tests of confined masonry buildings, Scaletti et al. [30] .....................51
4.2 Dynamic behaviour of confined masonry panels under cyclic lateral loads............................55
4.2.1 Experimental behaviour of masonry structural walls used in Argentina, Zabala et al. [5]
55
4.2.2 Behaviour of multi-perforated clay brick walls under earthquake type loading, Alcocer
and Zepeda [31] .......................................................................................................................60
4.2.3 Experimental investigation of the seismic behaviour in full- scale prototypes of confined
masonry walls, Decanini et al. [32]..........................................................................................64
4.2.4 Influence of vertical and horizontal reinforcement: Influence of the tie-column vertical
reinforcement ratio on the seismic behaviour, Irimies [33] .....................................................70
4.2.5 Influence of openings in the behaviour of confined masonry: Behaviour of confined
masonry shear walls with large openings, Yez et al. [8]......................................................72
4.2.6 Influence of the number and spacing of confining tie-columns: Experimental evaluation
of confined masonry walls with several confining columns, Marinilli and Castilla [34] ........75
4.2.7 Experimental study on effects of height of lateral forces, column reinforcement and wall
reinforcements on seismic behaviour of confined masonry walls, Yoshimura et al. [11] .......77
4.2.8 Effects of vertical and horizontal wall reinforcement on seismic behaviour of confined
masonry walls, Yoshimura et al. [13] ......................................................................................81
4.2.9 Experimental study for developing higher seismic performance of brick masonry walls,
Yoshimura et al. [12] ...............................................................................................................83
4.2.10Experimental study on earthquake-resistant design of confined masonry structures,
Ishibashi et al. [35]...................................................................................................................86
4.3 Concluding remarks .................................................................................................................89
5. CODE RECOMMENDATIONS.....................................................................................................91
5.1 Quality of masonry ..................................................................................................................91
5.2 Classification of the structural walls........................................................................................94
5.3 Confined masonry....................................................................................................................99
5.4 Resistance verification ...........................................................................................................107
5.5 Simplified method allowed by the Argentinean code ........................................................111
5.6 Comparison between codes....................................................................................................118
5.7 Conclusions and possible topics to develop...........................................................................125
1. REFERENCES ..............................................................................................................................128
2. ANNEX .............................................................................................................................................1
iv
Index
LIST OF FIGURES
Page
Figure 1.2.1 Uses of masonry in Argentina, 1985. 1) Confined masonry and 2) RC frames with
masonry infill; Decanini, Payer and Terzariol [4]...........................................................................2
Figure 1.2.2 Solid brick masonry confined with tie-columns and bond-beams, Kuldeep Virdi [3] ........4
Figure 1.3.1 Types of masonry units, Kuldeep Virdi [3]........................................................................5
Figure 1.3.2 Determination of the mortar compressive strength, Bustos [10]........................................7
Figure 1.3.3 Typical anchorages of the reinforcing bars according to EC 6 Kuldeep Virdi [3].............8
Figure 1.3.4 Foundations construction and start of the vertical concrete columns.................................8
Figure 1.3.5 Construction of the masonry panel.....................................................................................6
Figure 1.3.6 Arrangement of vertical reinforcement in tie-columns ......................................................6
Figure 1.3.7 Position of the horizontal reinforcement ............................................................................6
Figure 1.3.8 Concrete poured against the boundaries of the masonry panel ..........................................6
Figure 1.3.9 Confined masonry walls under construction Mexico, 1993. Yoshimura et al. [11] ...........8
Figure 1.3.10 Left: confined masonry walls under construction (Jimo, P.R. China, 1999); right:
confined masonry walls under construction (El Salvador, 2001), Yoshimura et al. [12] ...............8
Figure 1.3.11 Confined masonry walls using hollow concrete block masonry units. Las Losas Project
under construction in Villahermosa, Mexico, Yoshimura, Kikuchi, Okamoto and Sanchez [13] ..9
Figure 1.3.12 Confined masonry of clay bricks deposit under construction in Crdoba, Argentina......9
Figure 1.3.13 Confined masonry of clay bricks deposit under construction in Crdoba, Argentina....10
Figure 1.3.14 Construction problems from Blondet et al. [14].............................................................11
Figure 2.1.1 Flexural failure, Zabala et al. [5] .....................................................................................13
Figure 2.1.2 Diagonal cracking under cycling loading, Zabala et al. [5]..............................................13
Figure 2.1.3 Bad connection between horizontal and vertical reinforcement, Universidad Nacional de
Crdoba [16] .................................................................................................................................14
Figure 2.1.4 Compression of the diagonal, Universidad Nacional de Crdoba [16] ............................14
Index
Figure 2.1.5 Occurrence of the different failure modes in confined masonry. a) Compression failure; b)
Diagonal crack; c) Flexural failure; Bustos [10]...........................................................................15
Figure 2.2.1 Different ductilities induced by different typologies of masonry, Bustos, Universidad
Nacional de San Juan, Argentina [10]...........................................................................................16
Figure 2.2.2 Ductile response of the confined masonry structures, Decanini and Payer [17] ..............17
Figure 2.3.1 Failure caused by insufficient anchorage of reinforcement in the confinement elements.
Examples of bad disposition of the reinforcement, Decanini and Payer [17]...............................18
Figure 2.3.2 Typical period range in confined masonry constructions. Statistic values for different
types of soils; Decanini and Payer [17].........................................................................................19
Figure 2.4.1 Damage to reinforced concrete column in confined masonry wall due to 1999 Colombia
earthquake, Yoshimura et al. [12] .................................................................................................20
Figure 2.4.2 Cracks observed in confined masonry after the Oaxaca earthquake 1999, Lpez Btiz et
al. [19] ...........................................................................................................................................21
Figure 2.4.3 Damage resulting from an inadequate distribution of the confining elements, Lpez Btiz
et al. [19] .......................................................................................................................................21
Figure 2.4.4 Damage in a hospital during the Oaxaca earthquake in Mexico, Lpez Btiz et al. [19] .22
Figure 2.4.5 Failure of a hollow concrete-block masonry wall. The hollow concrete block units are
separated from the RC confining column, Yoshimura and Kuroki [20] .......................................23
Figure 2.4.6 Damage to a confined clay-brick masonry wall in Usulutan, Yoshimura and Kuroki [20]
.......................................................................................................................................................23
Figure 2.4.7 Photograph illustrating typical damage in confined masonry, 1996 Nazca earthquake,
Loaiza and Blondet [21]................................................................................................................24
Figure 2.4.8 Undamaged recently constructed reinforced masonry dwelling in Bermejo, 60km southsoutheast of the epicenter, Rojahn, Brogan and Slemmons [22]...................................................25
Figure 2.4.9 Damage in masonry in Caucete earthquake, 1977 Argentina. Decanini, Payer and
Terzariol [4] ..................................................................................................................................26
Figure 2.4.10 Vertical and horizontal confining elements maintain the stability of the building,
Kooroush Nasrollahzadeh Nesheli [24] ........................................................................................28
Figure 2.4.11 Confined masonry wall in Iran that survive the earthquake, Usam Ghaidan [25]..........28
Figure 2.4.12 Damage to masonry building in the 1998 Mionica earthquake, Nikola Muravljov,
Radovan Dimitrijevic [26] ............................................................................................................29
Figure 3.1.1 Left: Distribution of seismic loads in the building; Right: tension originated by the
gravitational loads before the earthquake, Bustos [10] .................................................................30
Figure 3.1.2 Tensions in the confined masonry wall originated by gravitational and seismic loads
during the earthquake, Bustos [10] ...............................................................................................31
Figure 3.1.3 Resisting mechanisms, Universidad Nacional de Crdoba [16] ......................................31
vi
Index
Figure 3.1.4 Resisting mechanisms of confined masonry walls, Universidad Nacional de Crdoba [16]
.......................................................................................................................................................32
Figure 3.1.5 Non-deformable diaphragms and good connection between walls allowing the correct
distribution of the seismic action. Decanini and Payer [17]..........................................................33
Figure 3.1.6 Deformable slab and no capacity of load distribution. Consequence: An important
bending moment in wall M2 is generated. Decanini and Payer [17] ............................................33
Figure 4.1.1 Characteristics of the Specimens, Alcocer et al. [27].......................................................35
Figure 4.1.2 Reinforcement of the Specimens, Alcocer et al. [27].......................................................36
Figure 4.1.3 Final cracks patterns, Alcocer et al. [27] ...........................................................................37
Figure 4.1.4 Response envelope for M1 and M3; MCBC: Mexico City Building Code, Alcocer et al.
[27] ................................................................................................................................................37
Figure 4.1.5 Typical floor plan of prototype building, used as a basis for the design of 1:5 scale
models, Tomazevic et al. [28] .......................................................................................................40
Figure 4.1.6 Typical section prototype building, used as a basis for the design of 1:5 scale models,
Tomazevic et al. [28].....................................................................................................................40
Figure 4.1.7 Reinforcement of floor slabs and vertical and horizontal bonding elements, Tomazevic et
al. [28] ...........................................................................................................................................41
Figure 4.1.8 Earthquake simulator set-up, Tomazevic et al. [28].........................................................42
Figure 4.1.9 Left: instrumentation of models: accelerometers and LVDT-s on model M1; Right: strain
gauges on reinforcing steel of vertical confinement of model M1, Tomazevic et al. [28] ...........42
Figure 4.1.10 Left: instrumentation of models: accelerometers and LVDT-s on model M2; Right:
strain gauges on reinforcing steel of vertical confinement of model M2, Tomazevic et al. [28]..43
Figure 4.1.11 Model M1, northern side-propagation of cracks at the eastern corner, Tomazevic et al.
[28] ................................................................................................................................................44
Figure 4.1.12 Left: Model M1: middle pier after test run R200; Right: Model M1: detail of damage to
tie-column after test run R200, Tomazevic et al. [28] ..................................................................45
Figure 4.1.13 Model M1, southern side, cracks after test runs R100, R150 and R200, Tomazevic et al.
[28] ................................................................................................................................................45
Figure 4.1.14 Model M2: mechanism of collapse, Tomazevic et al. [28] ............................................47
Figure 4.1.15 Model M2: mechanism of collapse, Tomazevic et al. [28] ...........................................47
Figure 4.1.16 Geometry of the 3-storey confined masonry specimen, San Bartolom et al. [29]........48
Figure 4.1.17 Specimen after run C, San Bartolom et al. [29]............................................................50
Figure 4.1.18 Left: Total base shear force vs. displacement at level 1 in run C; Right: Lateral force in
one wall at the time of maximum base shear force at each run (A, B and C), San Bartolom et al.
[29] ................................................................................................................................................51
Figure 4.1.19 Test specimen, Scaletti et al. [30]...................................................................................51
vii
Index
Figure 4.1.20 Left: resonance curves for full scale specimen; Right: natural periods, frequencies,
damping and modal shapes; Scaletti et al. [30].............................................................................52
Figure 4.1.21 Left: input signal for PD test of half scale model; Right: input signal for PD test of full
scale model; Scaletti et al. [30] .....................................................................................................53
Figure 4.1.22 Left: base shear vs first story displacement, pseudo dynamic test of half scale model;
Right: envelopes of base shear vs first story displacement of the half scale model; Scaletti et al.
[30] ................................................................................................................................................54
Figure 4.1.23 Left: first story displacement time histories of the full scale specimen; Right: base shear
time histories of the full scale specimen, Scaletti et al. [30] .........................................................55
Figure 4.2.1 Model Dimensions, Zabala et al. [5] ................................................................................56
Figure 4.2.2 Outline of the test setup and its instrumentation, Zabala et al. [5] ....................................57
Figure 4.2.3 Shear failure in column of wall 1, Zabala et al. [5] ..........................................................58
Figure 4.2.4 Crack pattern developed in the first 4 testing walls, Zabala et al. [5] ..............................59
Figure 4.2.5 Crack pattern developed in walls 5 and 6, Zabala et al. [5] .............................................59
Figure 4.2.6 Characteristics of the specimens, Alcocer and Zepeda [31].............................................61
Figure 4.2.7 Final cracks patterns of the fourth specimens, Alcocer and Zepeda [31].........................63
Figure 4.2.8 Hysteretic curves, Alcocer and Zepeda [31] .....................................................................64
Figure 4.2.9 General dimensions of the prototypes, Decanini et al. [32] .............................................65
Figure 4.2.10 Left: Reinforcement of confined masonry of solid clay bricks; Right: reinforcement of
confined masonry of hollow clay bricks, Decanini et al. [32] ......................................................66
Figure 4.2.11 Test setup and its instrumentation, Decanini et al. [32] ..................................................67
Figure 4.2.12 Initial and ultimate cracks of the testing wall M3, Decanini et al. [32] .........................69
Figure 4.2.13 Experimental models, Irimies [33] .................................................................................70
Figure 4.2.14 Damage patterns of walls WC1, Irimies [33] .................................................................71
Figure 4.2.15 Damage patterns of walls WC2, Irimies [33] .................................................................72
Figure 4.2.16 Wall dimensions, Yez et al. [8] ..................................................................................73
Figure 4.2.17 Failure Mechanisms, Yez et al. [8].............................................................................74
Figure 4.2.18 Configuration of specimens M1, M2, M3 and M4, Marinilli and Castilla [34] .............75
Figure 4.2.19 Specimens M1 and M2 after testing, Marinilli and Castilla [34] ...................................76
Figure 4.2.20 Specimens M3 and M4 after testing, Marinilli and Castilla [34] ...................................76
Figure 4.2.21 Test setup, Yoshimura et al. [11]....................................................................................79
Figure 4.2.22 a) Specimens with aspect ratio (ho/lo) of 1.51; b) Specimens with aspect ratio (ho/lo)
of 0.84; c) Specimens with aspect ratio (ho/lo) of 0.69, Yoshimura et al. [11] ............................80
Figure 4.2.23 Crack patterns of the specimens, Yoshimura [13]..........................................................83
Figure 4.2.24 Final crack pattern, Yoshimura et al. [12] ......................................................................85
Figure 4.2.25 Specimens details, Ishibashi et al. [35] ..........................................................................87
viii
Index
Figure 4.2.26 Loading history, Ishibashi et al. [35]..............................................................................87

Figure 4.2.27 Response of specimens WW, WBW and WWW, Ishibashi et al. [35] ..........................89
Figure 5.1.1 Tests on brick piers to determine the compressive strength, Bustos [10] ........................92
Figure 5.1.2 Masonry probes under diagonal compression to determine the strength, INPRESCIRSOC 103 code [7] and Yez et al. [8]...................................................................................93
Figure 5.2.1 Confined masonry. Left: reinforce confined masonry; right: confined masonry.
Universidad Nacional de Cordoba [16].........................................................................................95
Figure 5.2.2 Different options of reinforced masonry, Decanini and Payer [17] .................................95
Figure 5.2.3 Minimum dimensions of confined masonry panels with two constraints, Universidad
Nacional de Cordoba [16] .............................................................................................................96
Figure 5.2.4 Minimum dimensions of confined masonry panels with three or more constraints,
Universidad Nacional de Cordoba [16].........................................................................................97
Figure 5.2.5 Structural walls distribution in plan, Kuldeep Virdi [3]...................................................98
Figure 5.2.6 Irregular configurations in plan should be separated in regular potions, Kuldeep Virdi [3]
.......................................................................................................................................................99
Figure 5.3.1 Detail of RC bond-beam showing splicing of re-bars at wall corners, Kuldeep Virdi [3]
.....................................................................................................................................................102
Figure 5.3.2 Dimensions recommended by INPRES-CIRSOC 103 code for tie-columns and bondbeams, Universidad Nacional de Cordoba [16] ..........................................................................102
Figure 5.3.3 Hoops in critic zones (near corners) and in normal zones, Universidad Nacional de
Cordoba [16] ...............................................................................................................................104
Figure 5.3.4 Recommended details in masonry wall connection in Argentina [16]...........................105
Figure 5.3.5 Recommended details in masonry wall to RC column connection in P.R. China,
Yoshimura et al. [12] ..................................................................................................................105
Figure 5.3.6 Construction of tie-column for confined brick masonry house, Kuldeep Virdi [3] .......107
Figure 5.5.1 Gravity loads, INPRES-CIRSOC 103 [7] ......................................................................111
Figure 5.5.2 Seismic coefficient of design, INPRES-CIRSOC 103 [7] .............................................111
Figure 5.5.3 Determination of torsion moments and shears of each story, INPRES-CIRSOC 103 [7]
.....................................................................................................................................................112
Figure 5.5.4 Determination of the elastic constants, INPRES-CIRSOC 103 [7]................................112
Figure 5.5.5 Geometric characteristics, INPRES-CIRSOC 103 [7] ...................................................113
Figure 5.5.6 Wall stiffness, INPRES-CIRSOC 103 [7]......................................................................113
Figure 5.5.7 Total design shear for each story, INPRES-CIRSOC 103 [7]........................................114
Figure 5.5.8 Design bending moment of each wall for each story, INPRES-CIRSOC 103 [7] .........114
Figure 5.5.9 Design normal resistance for each wall, INPRES-CIRSOC 103 [7]..............................115
Figure 5.5.10 Verification of shear strength, INPRES-CIRSOC 103 [7] ...........................................115
ix
Index
Figure 5.5.11 Verification of gravitational loads, INPRES-CIRSOC 103 [7]....................................116

Figure 5.5.12 Reinforcement dimensions of bond-beams, INPRES-CIRSOC 103 [7] ......................116
Figure 5.5.13 Reinforcement dimensions of tie-columns, INPRES-CIRSOC 103 [7].......................117
Figure 5.5.14 Verification of flexion and compression, INPRES-CIRSOC 103 [7] ..........................117
Index
LIST OF TABLES
Page
Table 1.3.1 Strength of the masonry units, INPRES-CIRSOC 103 [7] ..................................................6
Table 1.3.2 Typical prescribed composition and strength of general purpose mortars, Kuldeep Virdi
[3] ....................................................................................................................................................7
Table 1.3.3 Constituents of the mortar joints given by the INPRES-CIRSOC 103 [7]..........................7
Table 4.1.1 Measured response characteristics, Alcocer et al. [27].......................................................38
Table 4.1.2 Characteristic parameters of shaking-table motion recorded during individual test runs,
Tomazevic et al. [28].....................................................................................................................43
Table 4.1.3 Assumed force distribution in one specimen wall, San Bartolom et al. [29] ...................49
Table 4.1.4 Shaking table test runs, San Bartolom et al. [29].............................................................49
Table 4.1.5 First floor displacement, base shear and predominant period as a function of maximum
ground acceleration, Scaletti et al. [30].........................................................................................54
Table 4.2.1 Main features of the six tested walls, Zabala et al. [5] .....................................................58
Table 4.2.2 Measured loads and angular deformations, Decanini et al. [32]........................................68
Table 4.2.3 Properties of the system, Marinilli and Castilla [34] .........................................................77
Table 4.2.4 Test specimens, Yoshimura et al. [11]...............................................................................78
Table 4.2.5 Predicted and observed ultimate lateral strengths and failure modes, Yoshimura et al. [11]
.......................................................................................................................................................81
Table 4.2.6 List of specimens, Yoshimura et al. [13] ...........................................................................82
Table 4.2.7 Listed of the tested specimens, Yoshimura et al. [12] .......................................................84
Table 5.1.1 Values of compressive strength for different masonry units and mortar joints, INPRESCIRSOC 103 code [7] ...................................................................................................................92
Table 5.1.2 Values of shear strength for different masonry units and mortar joints, INPRES-CIRSOC
[7] ..................................................................................................................................................94
Table 5.2.1 Maximum heights and number of stories allowed by the INPRES-CIRSOC 103 code [7]
.......................................................................................................................................................97
xi
Index
Table 5.3.1 Maximum area and dimension for confined masonry panels, INPRES-CIRSOC 103 [7]
.....................................................................................................................................................100
Table 5.3.2 Recommended diameters and separation for reinforcement in tie-columns and bondbeams, Universidad Nacional de Cordoba [16] ..........................................................................103
Table 5.3.3 Recommended reinforcement for tie-columns [37].........................................................106
Table 5.3.4 Recommended reinforcement for bond-beams [37] ........................................................106
Table 5.6.1 Elastic properties of masonry given by the different codes .............................................118
Table 5.6.2 Minimum conditions for walls to be considered as load-bearing walls...........................119
Table 5.6.3 Geometric conditions for confined masonry given by the different codes, Decanini et al.
[38] ..............................................................................................................................................120
Table 5.6.4 Resistance verifications in plane given by codes.............................................................121
Table 5.6.5 Resistance verification out-of-plane and verification of the confining elements ............122
Table 5.6.6 Specifications and requirements of the confining elements.............................................123
Table 5.6.7 Specifications and requirements of reinforcement for confining elements .....................124
xii
Index
LIST OF SYMBOLS
Bc
= Cross-sectional area of the longitudinal reinforcement of tiecolumns

= Cross-sectional area of stirrups in one layer
= Cross-sectional area of the longitudinal reinforcement of bondbeams
= Total area of the transverse section of tie-columns
Bm
= Cross-section of the masonry wall
Ac
Ae
Av
Em
= Design seismic coefficient

= Projection of the compressive loads in the direction of the
masonry course for the diagonal testing
= Elastic modulus of masonry
Gm
= Shear modulus of masonry
H
Ho
Ht
Hs
L
= Height of confined masonry measured between constrains

= Height of confined masonry measured between bond-beams
= Total height of confined masonry measured from the top of the
foundation
= Horizontal seismic loads
= Length between borders of the confined masonry wall
Lo
= Length of confined masonry measured between tie-columns
Le
= Length between tie-columns of load-bearing wall

= Reinforced masonry with distributed reinforcement (mampostera
reforzada con armadura distribuida)
= Ultimate bending moment and axial loading of confined masonry
wall
= Ultimate bending moment of the confined masonry wall
= Ultimate bending moment in the vertical direction per unit of
length, in the out-of-plane verification of walls
= Gravitational loads
M.R.A.D.
Mur
Muro
Muv
N
Nu
= Vertical load applied to the masonry wall
Nuo
= Compressive strength of the wall
Nur
= Ultimate vertical load resisted by the wall

xiii
Index
P
RC
URM
Vp
Vur
'PKm
'PK
o
'mo
mo
= Compressive load for the diagonal testing

= Reinforced concrete
= Un-reinforced masonry
= Compressive stress acting in the masonry panel
= Maximum shear stress resisted by the masonry in ultimate limit
state
= Yield stress of steel

= Ductility
= Mean compressive strength of masonry units
= Characteristic compressive strength of masonry units
=Mean compressive strength generated by vertical loads on the wall
= Compressive strength of masonry
= Shear strength of masonry
= Diameter of the reinforcing steel
= Reduction factor due to the eccentricity of vertical loads and
slenderness of the confined walls
= Diagonal length
dc
= Transversal dimension of tie-column
ds
= Diameter of the reinforcing steel
eo
= Thickness of the masonry probes under diagonal compression
ea
= Accidental eccentricity due to vertical loads
ec
= Complementary eccentricity due to the slenderness effect
et
= Eccentricity at the top of the wall
e*
= Design eccentricity of load-bearing walls
= Number of stories above the analysed story
lb
= Straight anchorage length
lc
= Critical length
= Lateral gravitational load per unit area of the wall
qs
= Seismic load per unit area of the wall
se
= Spacing of stirrups
= Thickness of the masonry wall
List of symbols for chapter 5.6
Avi
Italian code
= Cross-sectional area of the i- esima longitudinal reinforcement of
tie-columns
xiv
Index
Mr
= Resisting moment of tie-columns
di
= Length between the reinforcement to the compressive
fc
fy
= height of tie-column
= Thickness
tr
= Diagonal tensile strength of masonry
= Mean compressive strength
ok
= Value that variety in function of masonry type
= Medium diagonal tension

Colombian code
Aci
Ae
= Cross-section of the masonry wall
Amd
= Effective cross-section of the masonry wall
Amv
Ast
= Cross-section of the masonry wall to determine shear strength

= Cross-sectional area of the longitudinal reinforcement of bondbeams
= Cross-sectional area of the longitudinal reinforcement
Mn
= Design bending moment of the confined masonry wall
Mu
= Ultimate bending moment of the confined masonry wall
Pnc
= Nominal compression load acting in tie-column, positive, N
Pnd
= Nominal compression load of the masonry
Pnt
= Nominal tension load acting in tie-column, negative, N
Pu
= Design compression load of the masonry wall, N
As
Puc
= Design compression load acting in tie-column, positive, N
Put
= Design tension load acting in tie-column, negative, N

= Coefficient that takes into account the slenderness of the elements
under compression
= Design shear stress resisted by the masonry, N
Re
Vn
Vnc
Vu
Vuc
b
= Nominal shear stress acting in the reinforcing concrete

= Maximum shear stress resisted by the masonry in ultimate limit
state, N
= Maximum shear stress resisted by the tie-column
= Thickness of the masonry wall, mm
fc
= Compressive strength of the concrete of confining elements
fm
fy
= Yield stress of steel, MPa
= Diagonal length, mm
xv
Index
hp
lc
= Length of confined masonry measured between tie-columns
lw
= Total length of confined masonry
= Thickness of the masonry wall
= Reduction strength coefficient

Peruvian Code
C1
= Seismic coefficient
= Axial force in tie-columns produced by the bending moment
= Total length of confined masonry
Lm
= Total length of the highest confined masonry or 0.5L
Me
= Bending moment acting in confined masonry
Ms
= Distributed bending moment per unit length
Nc
= Number of tie-columns
Pc
= Sum of the gravitational loads
Pg
= Service gravitational load
Pm
= Maximum gravitational load
Ts
= Tension force
= Importance factor
Ve
= Shear force produced by moderate earthquake in the wall
Vet
= Shear force in the wall determined in the elastic analysis
Vm
= Shear strength of the confined masonry wall
= Zone factor
= Critic dimension of the confined masonry panel
= Gross thickness of the wall
fm
= Thickness of the masonry panel
vm
= Characteristic shear strength of masonry
= Seismic load uniformly distributed
= Reduction factor of the shear strength due to slenderness effects
= Specific weight
= Maximum axial strength

Mexican Code
As
= Cross-sectional area of the longitudinal reinforcement
Asc
= Cross-sectional area of stirrups in one layer
AT
= Cross-section of the confined masonry wall

xvi
Index
FR
= Coefficient of reduction that takes into account the slenderness

and the eccentricity
= Resistance factor
Mo
= Bending moment
MR
= Bending moment applied to the plane of the wall
FE
= Axial compressive load
PR
= Design strength of the masonry wall to vertical load
Pu
= Design axial load
Q
VmR
d
d
fc
fm*
= Factor of seismic behaviour

= Design shear load of masonry, N
= Length between the reinforcement in tension and the concrete in
compression.
= Length of confined masonry measured between longitudinal
reinforcement of tie-columns
= Compressive strength of the concrete of confining elements
fy
hc
s
vm
= Spacing of stirrups
= Compressive diagonal strength of masonry
xvii
Chapter 1. Introduction
1. INTRODUCTION
1.1
Objectives
The issue of the seismic performance and safety of existing mixed masonry and reinforced
concrete buildings systems is characterized by numerous uncertainties and in some cases by a
real lack of sufficient knowledge. This statement also applies to existing codes, where scarce
or no provisions are given regarding methods of analysis and safety check criteria to be used
in practical applications. Recent code provisions such as Eurocode 8 [1] or the Annex 2 to the
OPCM 3274 [2] provide little or no guidelines to the designer, and are limited most often to
define the general principles for design.
The present dissertation concerns with a general review of the subject, ranging from current
and past research, taking as a reference the experimental data available in the literature, the
characteristics of buildings with structural masonry walls connected to tie-columns and bondbeams.
This type of buildings is characterized by the mutual interaction between masonry and tiecolumns and bond-beams, giving a composite behavior which is essentially similar to what is
now defined in modern construction as confined masonry. This type was rather common in
Italy during the first half of the past century, and is still being used nowadays in some regions
of the Italian territory, in spite of the fact that specific national code regulations are not yet
available, as a local building tradition in which the vertical tie-columns are seen as a
confinement for masonry and/or a means to carry concentrated vertical loads.
1.2
Description
The construction of confined masonry starts after the Messina earthquake in 1908 and has
become one of the most popular and inexpensive structural construction system used for
housing. With the increased popularity and availability of reinforced concrete and different
types of masonry units, this construction is common for low-rise residential buildings and
individual houses in many areas of Latin America, Indian Subcontinent and Asia as well as in
some parts of Europe. In these buildings masonry shear walls are often the only structural
element assumed to provide resistance to gravitational and seismic lateral loads. It consists
basically of masonry panels confined by vertical and horizontal elements usually of reinforced
concrete.
From the structural and seismic point of view, in Argentina and in many other countries,
masonry can generally be use in two ways for dwelling: confined or reinforced masonry and
reinforced concrete frames with masonry infill. Figure 1.2.1 shows the percentage of use of
confined masonry in relation with RC frame with masonry infill in Argentina, 1985. Almost
75% correspond to constructions of confined masonry (1), around 20% to RC frames with
masonry infill (2) and the rest to other typologies like timber and steel structures. In this
document only confined masonry is study.
The main difference between confined masonry and RC frames with masonry infill is that: in
confined masonry the confining elements are not intended or designed to perform as momentresisting frames. When such frames are constructed to resist lateral and vertical loads the
purpose of the masonry walls is only for space partitioning, and the construction system is
called masonry infilled frames. In masonry infilled frames the reinforced concrete frame
structure is constructed first and the masonry is added later between the RC members. In the
case of confined masonry, the masonry walls are load-bearing and are constructed to carry all
of the gravity loads as well as lateral loads, Kuldeep Virdi [3].
RC frame with
masonry infill
Confined masonry
Figure 1.2.1 Uses of masonry in Argentina, 1985. 1) Confined masonry and 2) RC frames with masonry
infill; Decanini, Payer and Terzariol [4]
Confined masonry is normally used in buildings up to five stories high. Reinforced concrete
confining elements are horizontal members called bond-beams and vertical members called
tie-columns. Tie-columns have a square section whose dimensions typically correspond to the
wall thickness (15cm in general). Bond-beams width is the wall thickness and the depth is
usually equal to 25cm. Typically, both tie-columns and bond-beams have a longitudinal
reinforcement ratio, based in the gross sectional area, of about 1.2%, this percentage can vary
between the different national codes.
Seismic action, represented by lateral forces applied to each floor and to the roof, is resisted
by a mechanism of walls, coupled by lintels and sills, and interconnected by the floor slabs.
Slabs are assumed to behave as non-deformable diaphragms, being able to distribute the
lateral forces to the walls, Zabala et al. [5]. The floor system generally consists of cast-inplace reinforced concrete slabs, but very often, prefabricated units are used (such us prestressed concrete joints or planks), Meli et al. [6].
The major improvements in the performance of the confined masonry building over the plain
masonry building are the following ones, Kuldeep Virdi [3]:
Enhances greatly the connection between structural walls.
Improves the stability of masonry walls.
Improves the strength of masonry walls.
Provides ductility under earthquake loading.
Improves the integrity and containment of earthquake damaged masonry walls.
Tie-columns and bond-beams confine the masonry walls to give containment after cracking as
the result of the earthquake, avoiding a brittle behavior and allowing the dissipation of energy
under earthquake loading. The confinement must be continuous as is shown in Figure 1.2.2, to
improve the connection among other walls and floor diaphragms.
Figure 1.2.2 Solid brick masonry confined with tie-columns and bond-beams, Kuldeep Virdi [3]
Confined masonry walls have limited shear strength and ductility as compared to common
reinforced concrete walls; nevertheless, typical low-cost housing buildings have good
earthquake resistance, because they have large wall densities (ratio of transverse wall areas to
a typical floor area), and because wall layout is symmetric and regular, both in plan and in
elevation.
Depending on the presence, or not, of reinforcement in the masonry panels, different
classifications of confined masonry are currently use. Confined masonry, reinforced confined
masonry and confined masonry without vertical columns is the classification used in the
masonry seismic code of Argentina (INPRES-CIRSOC 103 [7]). The difference between the
confined masonry and the reinforced confined masonry is the presence of horizontal
reinforcement in the cement mortar joints. In this kind of masonry the reinforcement does not
give much more resistance to the panel but gives more ductility and integrity. It must be
mentioned that generally in South America it is not common to use horizontal reinforcement
in confined masonry walls.
In the case of confined masonry without vertical elements, there are no tie-columns. This type
of masonry is only used for internal load-bearing walls made of solid clay bricks and in areas
of low seismic activity.
Another classification is based in the different masonry units. Masonry panels are usually
made of clay bricks, clay or concrete blocks, bonded with cement mortar.
After examining its good seismic performance, this system became popular in zones of high
seismic hazard. It must be pointed out that confined masonry has evolved essentially through
an informal process based on experience, and that it has been incorporated in formal
construction through code requirements and design procedures that are mostly rationalizations
of the established practice, even after having been validated by structural mechanics
principles and experimental evidence.
In spite of masonry experimental research programs conducted in many countries, Yes et al.
[8], the behavior of confined masonry shear walls is still not very well known.
1.3
Construction procedure
1.3.1 Materials for confined masonry construction
Masonry units
Masonry units are classified into the following types: solid, perforated unit, hollow unit,
cellular unit and horizontally perforated unit illustrated in Figure 1.3.1., Kuldeep Virdi [3].
They can be made of clay or concrete. It is forbidden the use of perforated or hollow clay
bricks in the horizontal direction because of their brittle behaviour and the difficulties to build
vertical mortar joints. Also the re-utilization of the masonry units (bricks, blocks, etc) is not
allowed by the codes.
Figure 1.3.1 Types of masonry units, Kuldeep Virdi [3]
Different test are made to each type of masonry brick. These tests consist in tension, axial
compression made with half masonry unit and water absorption. Average of the
measurements is compute and parameters like strength are given for each masonry unit.
The strength of the masonry units is given as an example in Table 1.3.1 from the Argentinean
code.
Table 1.3.1 Strength of the masonry units, INPRES-CIRSOC 103 [7]
'PK
Kg/cm
80
45
>80% gross section

>80% gross section
Solid clay brick

Solid clay brick
A
B
'PKm
Kg/cm
120
75
Hollow clay block

Hollow clay block
A
B
120
75
85
50
>60% gross section

>40% gross section
Hollow concrete block

I
II
III
65
65
50
45
45
30
>40% gross section

>40% gross section
>40% gross section
Type of masonry unit
class
Net section
Mortar
Depending on the codes of the different countries there are different specifications for the
mortar joints. According to the specification used in EC 6 [9], several types of mortar can be
used for masonry walls, Kuldeep Virdi [3]:
General purpose mortar, used in joints with thickness greater than 3mm and produced
with dense aggregate.
Thin layer mortar, which is designed for use in masonry with nominal thickness of
joints 1-3mm.
Lightweight mortar, which is made, using perlite, expanded clay, expanded shale etc.
Lightweight mortars typically have a dry hardened density lower than 1500kg/m3.
In the Table 1.3.2 below are shown typical composition of prescribed general purpose mortar
mixes and expected mean compressive strength. This table corresponds to the specifications
given in EU 6, where mortars are classified by their compressive strength, expressed as the
letter M followed by the compressive strength in N/mm, for example, M5. Prescribed
masonry mortars, additionally to the M number, will be described by their prescribed
constituents, e. g. 1: 1: 5 cement: lime: sand by volume.
Table 1.3.2 Typical prescribed composition and strength of general purpose mortars, Kuldeep Virdi [3]
In the Argentinean code values of the compressive strength of mortar joints is given after 28
days, like is illustrated in Table 1.3.3. Three categories of mortar are distinguished here: high
(H), intermediate (I) and normal (N). Also the proportions of cement, sand and hydrated lime
are given for each type of category. Test to determine the compressive strength for each kind
of mortar are made of squares of 7cm of side, Figure 1.3.2.
Figure 1.3.2 Determination of the mortar compressive strength, Bustos [10]
The strength of the mortar is increased with the increase of the cement content and a little
proportion of hydraulic lime enhances the use of the mortar for the joints.
Table 1.3.3 Constituents of the mortar joints given by the INPRES-CIRSOC 103 [7]
Type of mortar joint

High
Intermediate
Normal
Cement: hydraulic lime: sand

1:0:3
1:1/4:3
1:1/2:4
1:1:5
1:1:6
Minimum compressive strength

after 28 days (MN/m)
15
10
5
Reinforcing steel
Steel bars are used as reinforcement in confined masonry. Reinforcing steel may be assumed
to possess adequate elongation ductility and shall provide with sufficient anchorage length so
that the internal forces are well transmitted between all the members. Anchorage should be
achieved by straight anchorage, hooks, bends or loops as shown in Figure 1.3.3. Alternatively
stress transfer may be by means of an appropriate mechanical device proven by tests.
Figure 1.3.3 Typical anchorages of the reinforcing bars according to EC 6 Kuldeep Virdi [3]
1.3.2 Construction procedure

In the case of confined masonry, the masonry walls are considered as load-bearing and are
built to carry all of the gravity loads as well as lateral loads. For this reason load-bearing
masonry walls are constructed first with serrated edges and then the concrete of columns and
beams are poured against the boundaries of the masonry panel. The vertical and horizontal
confining elements are cast simultaneously with the floors, which are constructed as
reinforced concrete slab.
The steps of the construction procedure of the confined masonry are illustrated in Figure 1.3.4
to 1.3.8.
Figure 1.3.4 Foundations construction and start of the vertical concrete columns
Figure 1.3.5 Construction of the masonry panel
Figure 1.3.7 Position of the horizontal

reinforcement
Figure 1.3.6 Arrangement of vertical
Figure 1.3.8 Concrete poured against the
reinforcement in tie-columns
boundaries of the masonry panel
In order to achieve effective confinement of walls, vertical confining elements (tie-columns)

should be located at all corners and changes of wall contour, and at all joints, wall
intersections and free ends of structural walls.
The contribution of the tie-columns and bond-beams to the lateral resistance of the masonry
building is normally not taken into account for design. Consequently specific design
calculations for confining elements are not required. The amount of reinforcement in vertical
and horizontal confining elements is determined on an empirical basis. Although the tiecolumns and bond-beams do not provide frame system contribution to the wall, adequate
splicing and anchoring of re-bars is required at all joints.
Confined masonry should be constructed following simple instructions for quality of
workmanship, Kuldeep Virdi [3]:
In dry and hot climate, masonry units should be soaked in water before the
construction in order to prevent quick drying and shrinkage of cement based mortars.
Same type of masonry units and mortar should be used for structural walls in the same
storey.
Bracing walls should be constructed in the same time as the load-bearing walls.
The thickness of individual walls is kept constant from storey to storey.
In cases where general purpose mortar is going to be used, the mortar joints thickness
should be between 8 and 15mm.
From Figure 1.3.9 to Figure 1.3.13 confined masonry walls, of different types of masonry
units, under construction are showed as is the current practice in various countries.
Figure 1.3.9 Confined masonry walls under construction Mexico, 1993. Yoshimura et al. [11]
Figure 1.3.10 Left: confined masonry walls under construction (Jimo, P.R. China, 1999); right: confined
masonry walls under construction (El Salvador, 2001), Yoshimura et al. [12]
Figure 1.3.11 Confined masonry walls using hollow concrete block masonry units. Las Losas Project
under construction in Villahermosa, Mexico, Yoshimura, Kikuchi, Okamoto and Sanchez [13]
Figure 1.3.12 Confined masonry of clay bricks deposit under construction in Crdoba, Argentina
Figure 1.3.13 Confined masonry of clay bricks deposit under construction in Crdoba, Argentina
Construction problems
Most surveyed dwellings had important construction problems, mainly due to lack of
knowledge of proper building techniques, poor workmanship, or the use of materials of poor
quality. House owners and builders seem to believe that the reinforced concrete beams and
columns are the most important structural elements. Accordingly, they pay a lot of attention to
their construction. The results, however, usually tend to be poor. Concrete is prepared with
high water/cement ratio, large aggregate size, and inadequate mixing and vibration.
Aggregates are usually bought from informal quarries, where there is little or no quality
control in its cleanliness and contents of fines or organic material, or of the size of the
material. Furthermore, curing is not considered to be important: beams and columns are
seldom cured, and slabs are sometimes cured by pouring some water on the surface the day
after they are built. As a result of these poor construction practices concrete is often weak,
porous, and full of voids, Figure 1.3.14.
Because there is an understanding of the importance of reinforcement in the strength of the
structure, most elements are overly reinforced, even though steel reinforcement is expensive.
Stirrups, however, are believed to be useful only to maintain the main reinforcement in place,
and in most cases they have open hooks, or are made with small diameter rebar. In areas with
access to welding factories, it is common to find welded steel bars, instead of overlapping
rebar connections. Since safety is always a concern, many owners weld metal doors and
windows to the reinforcement of columns or beams. A common problem observed is
corrosion of the steel reinforcement. This happens because of poor quality of concrete with
small covers to protect from filtration of rain water and other atmospheric agents.
10
The bricks used to build the masonry walls are usually hand made by local artisans, because
they are significantly cheaper than industrial bricks. Furthermore, the quality of the masonry
is generally quite poor due to the mortar joints, Blondet, Dueas, Loaiza, and Flores [14].
Figure 1.3.14 Construction problems from Blondet et al. [14]
11
Chapter 2. Failure mechanisms and performance in past earthquakes
2. FAILURE MECHANISMS AND PERFORMANCE IN PAST

EARTHQUAKES
2.1
Failure mechanisms
In the event of an earthquake, apart from the existing gravity loads, horizontal loads are
imposed on walls. In these conditions, however, the un-reinforced masonry generally behaves
as a brittle material, depending on the intensity of the excitation. Hence if the state of stress
within the wall exceeds masonry strength, brittle failure occurs, followed by possible collapse
of the wall and/or of the building. Therefore one solution to make the un-reinforced masonry
walls vulnerable to earthquakes can be to confined and/or reinforced whenever is possible the
masonry panels, Kuldeep Virdi [3].
The principal failure mechanisms of confined masonry subjected to seismic actions can be
summarized as follows:
Flexural failure: this king of failure is ductile causing yielding of the vertical
reinforcement. A flexural failure would be desirable because is more ductile than a shear
failure; also the former is more simple to repair, however more research is needed to obtain
this goal. Generally first yielding occurs at the base of the tie-columns as illustrated in Figure
2.1.1.
Tie-columns and bond-beams, according to the specifications set up in EU 6, are not

considered in assessing the flexural resistance of structural walls, Tomazevic [15].
12
Figure 2.1.1 Flexural failure, Zabala et al. [5]
Shear failure: A brittle failure in the masonry is due to the shear, Figure 2.1.2. Failure
occurs when the applied loads are higher than the shear resistance of the confined masonry.
For this failure to happen the previous failure in flexure must not have occurred. This means
that it can only occur when tie-columns have higher reinforcement, when the masonry panel
has high axial load or when the masonry panel is very long. Research showed that a shear
failure is possible to occur when a strong earthquake hits a confined masonry structure, even
in the case that the structure satisfies the ideal characteristics to obtain flexural failure. The
formation and development of inclined diagonal cracks may follow the path of bed and headjoints (stepped) or may go through the bricks, depending on the relative strength of mortar
joints, brick mortar interface, and brick units.
According to the requirements of EC 6, the strength of the reinforced masonry members

should be taken into account in the design of confined masonry for seismic load. These is in
disagreement with the existing experimental evidence, that indicates that tie-columns and
bond-beams improve the lateral resistance of a plain masonry wall panel, just as they improve
its energy dissipation capacity and ductility, Tomazevic [15].
Figure 2.1.2 Diagonal cracking under cycling loading, Zabala et al. [5]
13
Insufficient anchorage of the vertical or horizontal elements: failure that occurs when
the anchorage of the reinforcement is not enough in foundations or when the reinforcement of
the horizontal elements is not well connected to the vertical confinement like is illustrated in
Figure 2.1.3.
Bond-beam
Tie-column
Figure 2.1.3 Bad connection between horizontal and vertical reinforcement, Universidad Nacional de
Crdoba [16]
Crushing of the compressed corners of the diagonal: This kind of failure generally
occurs in hollow concrete blocks and the crushing zones are situated at the ends of the
diagonal as is showed in Figure 2.1.4
Hs
Compressed
diagonal
Crushing in diagonal
corners
Figure 2.1.4 Compression of the diagonal, Universidad Nacional de Crdoba [16]
14
It is possible to estimate the theoretical flexural strength of a confined masonry wall in a

simple way, by considering the amount of column reinforcement, vertical load supported by
the wall and yield stress of the reinforcement steel. On the other hand, the cracking shear load
and the maximum shear strength of these walls are more uncertain, since they depend on
several factors like: individual brick strength, mortar and workmanship qualities, vertical
load, amount of columns reinforcement and amount of horizontal reinforcement embedded in
the masonry. In addition, the manufacturing conditions of the bricks and the walls are very
variable, causing high dispersion of the resulting mechanical properties, Kuldeep Virdi [3].
The different failures mechanisms and their occurrence are illustrated in a load vs.
deformation plot Figure 2.1.6, Bustos [10]. In this plot three fields are observed: lineal elastic
field, non linear field until the ultimate load and the last one of failure. As is observed here the
flexural failure is the desirable one, as it presents more ductility.
Load
(b)
(c)
First
crack
(a)
Figure 2.1.5 Occurrence of the different failure modes in confined masonry. a) Compression failure; b)
Diagonal crack; c) Flexural failure; Bustos [10]
2.2
Ductility
In case of the confined masonry wall system, both of the vertical and horizontal reinforcement
in masonry walls play an important role for expecting higher ultimate lateral strength and
better ductility, as shown in Figure 2.2.1. Ductility is defined as the relation between the
maximum displacement and the displacement when the first crack appears. Different levels of
ductility are achieved for different types of masonry. Un-reinforced masonry has generally
15
less ductility in comparison with the rest. When tie-columns and bond-beams are added to the
un-reinforced masonry panel more ductility is expected. In the case of reinforced confined
masonry, the reinforcement does not give much more resistance to the panel but gives more
ductility and integrity. In general the higher ductility is achieved in the case of the reinforced
masonry, where the reinforcement is distributed in the horizontal and vertical direction like is
shown in the third case of Figure 2.2.1. In this figure the graphics are only intending to
represents more less the different ductilities achieved by different configurations of masonry.
Confined masonry
Un-reinforced masonry
Reinforced masonry
Figure 2.2.1 Different ductilities induced by different typologies of masonry, Bustos, Universidad
Nacional de San Juan, Argentina [10]
For masonry structures, it should be provide adequate capacity for energy dissipation in the
inelastic field. This energy dissipation must be comparable with the seismic loads assumed in
the design. This capacity is given with the inclusion of the confinement and the reinforcement
on it. In Figure 2.2.2 is illustrated the effect of the force reduction for the inelastic response.
This reduction is given by the ductility.
16
The INPRES-CIRSOC 103 [7] code gives, for confined masonry with clay solid bricks, a
global ductility of 3 and for masonry with hollow concrete blocks a ductility of 2. From the
comparison of these two ductilities, it is known that confined masonry with clay solid bricks
have major capacity of energy dissipation. This is also verified in the experimental tests
carried out in the National University of Crdoba.
Figure 2.2.2 Ductile response of the confined masonry structures, Decanini and Payer [17]
2.3
Predominant design failures in confined masonry during earthquakes
Common failures in design that produce collapse during earthquakes, in confined masonry,
are listed below, Bustos [10]:
Missing elements of vertical confinement (tie-column).
High spaced between tie-columns producing a loss of the effect of confinement.
Wrong poured of concrete in columns.
Bad quality of the concrete in tie-columns that can produce propagation of the shear
failure from the masonry panel to the confinement columns.
Insufficient anchorage of the reinforcement of horizontal or vertical elements, Figure
2.3.1.
Excessive vertical load that produce more shear resistance in the wall but reduce the
ductility.
17
Torsion problems due to: bad distribution of the walls, in a given direction not enough
wall density, no vertical continuity in the masonry panels, and differential settlements and big
openings in the slabs.
Figure 2.3.1 Failure caused by insufficient anchorage of reinforcement in the confinement elements.
Examples of bad disposition of the reinforcement, Decanini and Payer [17]
Predominant failures have been found to occur in buildings are due to the shear and not due to
bending as expected. The reasons of the shear failure are:
The deformation due to shear failure is predominant because masonry panels have
short height and a higher moment of inertia of the transverse section.
If the effect of the transversal walls is added (including their loads) when the masonry
panel wants to flexure the transverse wall must make off with it and this is difficult to
achieve.
The bending moment at the base, associated with the static analysis, is reduced due to:
rotation of the foundations, high modes of vibration and by the interaction of slab and wall.
For this reason the conventional design showed an extra capacity in bending.
Confined masonry is very stiff system due to their large wall densities interconnected
by the floor slab, assumed to behave as non-deformable diaphragms. In addition concentrated
loads (slabs) and distributed loads (walls) are also present enhancing the stiffness of the
system. Due to these effects the accelerations of the structure are very close to the
accelerations at the ground level, Figure 2.3.2.
18
Sa/g
4) Soft clay and sand
0.9
3) Deep non-cohesive soils (H>80m)

2) Stiff soils (H<50m)
0.6
1) Rock
0.3
0.5
1.0
1.5
T (seg)
Typical period range

for masonry constructions
Figure 2.3.2 Typical period range in confined masonry constructions. Statistic values for different types
of soils; Decanini and Payer [17]
2.4
Vulnerability: performance in past earthquakes
Several studies reveal that masonry construction is the most common solution for housing
construction in Latin America. Mainly two types of masonry are used: adobe (sun-dried mud
blocks) and confined brick masonry. During the recent earthquakes analyzed, adobe
construction and un-reinforced brick masonry had the highest rate of damage or collapse, and
in general good performance was observed in confined or reinforced brick masonry housing.
The seismic behavior of confined masonry buildings has been generally satisfactory and could
be found undamaged even in the most heavily damaged areas. Nevertheless, significant
damages have been observed in near-epicentral regions during strong ground shaking, Meli et
al. [6].
A summary of observed behavior of confined masonry dwellings during past seismic events is
presented next, together with several examples of good and poor housing construction
practices.
Typically damage patterns observed are: 1) Shear diagonal failure of walls, 2) Shear and
bending failure of heads and feet of reinforced columns, 3) Separation of columns from walls,
and 4) Collapse of wood slabs, hollow brick joist slabs and brick jack arch slabs, 5) Another
main structural deficiencies for this construction type lies in the widely different wall
densities in the two orthogonal directions. This deficiency may be eliminated with appropriate
19
architectural design. This construction type is otherwise expected to demonstrate good

seismic performance.
The 25 January 1999 Colombia Earthquake
The magnitude Mw=6.2 earthquake occurred in an epicentral area near the cities of Armenia
and Pereira, with populations of 270.000 and 380.000, respectively. These were the largest
cities affected by the earthquake although other smaller cities were also severely damaged.
The total number of deaths in Armenia alone was about 1.000, and about 5.000 people were
injured in this city. Armenia was the city that suffered the highest rate of deaths and damage
in dwellings, Rodriguez and Blondet [18]. Extensive structural damage occurred in some of
the newly constructed confined masonry walls, in which adjacent masonry walls were
separated from the reinforced concrete confining columns, as shown in Figure 2.4.1.
Figure 2.4.1 Damage to reinforced concrete column in confined masonry wall due to 1999 Colombia
earthquake, Yoshimura et al. [12]
20
The 30 September 1999 Oaxaca, Mexico Earthquake
On September 30, 1999 at 11:31:00 h (local time), a magnitude Mw=7.5 earthquake occurred
with its epicenter located southeast form the city of Puerto Escondido, Oaxaca. Observations
made during a visit to the affected region on the behaviour of confined masonry showed no
structural damage, only cracks is walls as is illustrated in Figure 2.4.2 and 2.4.3. It is
estimated that 40% of the walls present diagonal cracks this is a direct consequence of
construction problems observed, like over-reinforcement and insufficient anchorage between
beams, columns, slabs and foundations, Lpez Btiz et al. [19].
Figure 2.4.2 Cracks observed in confined masonry after the Oaxaca earthquake 1999, Lpez Btiz et al.
[19]
Figure 2.4.3 Damage resulting from an inadequate distribution of the confining elements, Lpez Btiz et
al. [19]
21
Also a hospital under construction suffered damage during the 30 of September earthquake.
This building was built of a mix between confined masonry and frames of reinforced concrete
localized in the frontal and lateral parts of the construction. Both structures suffer damage as
is showed in Figure 2.4.4.
Figure 2.4.4 Damage in a hospital during the Oaxaca earthquake in Mexico, Lpez Btiz et al. [19]
The 13 January 2001 El Salvador Earthquake
The main shock of this earthquake occurred at 17:33, Saturday the 13th of January 2001. Its
Magnitude was Mw=7.6. The epicenter, 100km southwest of the city of San Miguel, El
Salvador, was located off coast of Central America, Yoshimura and Kuroki [20].
A large number of the buildings of confined masonry wall construction exist in El Salvador,
but most were not severely damaged during the earthquake. A few rare cases of damage to
confined masonry buildings show where hollow concrete block walls and clay masonry brick
walls were severely damaged. In the building shown in Figure 2.4.5, a concrete block
masonry wall has separated into parts due to shear cracking, and part of the wall has separated
from its adjacent RC confining column and overturned in the out-of-plane direction. Also,
shear cracks formed in the clay brick masonry walls of the building in Figure 2.4.6 have
penetrated the RC confining columns. This damage seems to have been caused by pounding
from a collapsed building rather than by ground shaking.
22
Figure 2.4.5 Failure of a hollow concrete-block masonry wall. The hollow concrete block units are
separated from the RC confining column, Yoshimura and Kuroki [20]
Figure 2.4.6 Damage to a confined clay-brick masonry wall in Usulutan, Yoshimura and Kuroki [20]
The 21 January 2003 Colima, Mexico Earthquake
The earthquake occurred in the coastal region of the state of Colima and had a magnitude of
about 7.6 Mw. From 13.500 dwellings reported damaged, about 2.700 collapsed. Confined
masonry dwellings suffered mostly minor damage and most damage was concentrated in
dwellings of un-reinforced masonry or adobe, Rodriguez and Blondet [18]. Only some
fissures appear in the confined masonry, this was a direct product of the bad construction of
the tie-columns and bond-beams.
23
Past earthquakes reported in Per
Damage to confined masonry in Per was reported in the following years, Loaiza and Blondet
[21]:
The 12 November 1996 Nazca, Per Earthquake: the 12 November 1996 Mw =7.7
Per subduction zone earthquake occurred off the coast of southern Peru, near the intersection
of the South American trench and the highest topographical point of the subducting Nazca
Ridge. Some damage was found in confined masonry after the earthquake. Figure 2.4.7 shows
a slender wall in the right.
The 23 June 2001 Atico, Per Earthquake: in the late afternoon of June 23, 2001, a
colossal earthquake with a magnitude of Mw=8.4 took place in the coastal waters off the
District of Arequipa and the town of Atico, Per. The magnitude of the event makes it the
largest in the world in the last 25 years. This earthquake caused nearly 2000 deaths, 3.000
injuries, 26.000 homes destroyed and 34.000 damaged homes and left 190.000 people
homeless. Confined masonry walls have generally shown a good seismic performance, and no
significant damage was found during this earthquake in Per.
Figure 2.4.7 Photograph illustrating typical damage in confined masonry, 1996 Nazca earthquake, Loaiza
and Blondet [21]
The 3 March 1985 Chile Earthquake
This was an interplate event in the subducted Nazca plate, with Mw = 7.8. Its epicenter was
located 20km from the Pacific coast of central Chile. This earthquake is considered one of the
most important experienced in Chile in the 20th century and has been compared to the great
1906 Valparaiso earthquake. Most of the severe damage occurred in adobe dwellings in rural
24
areas, particularly near Llolleo, where an acceleration record had a peak ground acceleration
of 0.67g, Rodriguez and Blondet [18].
The 23 November 1977 Caucete, Argentina Earthquake
The epicentre of the destructive San Juan, Argentina earthquake of November 23, 1977 was
located near the eastern slopes of the Andes Mountains approximately 80km northeast of the
city of San Juan, capital of San Juan province. On the basis of teleseismic and local
seismograph data, the earthquake has been assigned a magnitude of 7.4 (Ms), a depth of 30km
or less. The main shock was followed by a large aftershock sequence including at least one
magnitude 6 event and was felt throughout much of southern South America, including
Buenos Aires 950km to the southeast and Sao Paulo 2.100km to the northeast. The earthquake
caused extensive damage in the Province of San Juan, particularly in the towns of Bermejo
and Caucete, respectively located approximately 60km south southeast and 70km southwest
of the epicentre. Most notable effects of the earthquake included vast areas of liquefaction
(hundreds of square kilometers), complete or partial collapse of hundreds of adobe dwellings,
and damage to numerous cylindrical wine storage tanks. Approximately 65 persons were
killed, 284 injured and 20.000 to 40.000 left homeless, Rojahn, Brogan and Slemmons [22].
Most of the adobe dwellings and un-reinforced masonry wall buildings collapse, including the
building which housed the towns electric power generating plant. Recently constructed
reinforced and confined masonry walls buildings that where designed to resist earthquakes, on
the other hand, where not damage, Figure 2.4.8. As indicated by the bed in the center of this
photograph taken eight days after the earthquake, some residents of Bermejo chose to sleep
outdoors after the earthquake. In Figure 2.4.9 proportions of damage for different dwellings
are given.
Figure 2.4.8 Undamaged recently constructed reinforced masonry dwelling in Bermejo, 60km southsoutheast of the epicenter, Rojahn, Brogan and Slemmons [22]
25
Soil failure
Confined masonry
Un-reinforced masonry
Adobe dwellings
Collapse or strong damage
Recoverable
Damage of consideration
No significant damage
Figure 2.4.9 Damage in masonry in Caucete earthquake, 1977 Argentina. Decanini, Payer and Terzariol
[4]
26
The 1985 Mexico Earthquake
The 1985 Michoacan earthquake was the result of the subduction of the Cocos Plate under the
continent and has been classified as of the interplate type. Several reports have been published
on observed damage in structures during this earthquake. Most of these reports describe
damage in Mexico City. Little information can be found on the behavior of masonry
dwellings near the epicentral location the Pacific coast. However, it is accepted that most of
the damage occurred in Mexico City, with little or no damage in masonry dwellings in either
Mexico City or in the area near the epicenter, Rodriguez and Blondet [18].
No important damage or collapse was found in buildings of confined masonry in the city of
Mexico. In particular, no damage was found in dwellings of resent construction that follow
the code regulations. In the epicentral zone some damage was found.
The 26 December 2003 Bam, Iran Earthquake
A devastating earthquake hit the city of Bam in the south of Iran at 5:26 a.m. local time,
Friday, 26 December 2003. Based on the government of Iran's February estimate, the
earthquake caused more than 43.000 deaths, 30.000 injuries, and left 70.000 homeless. It
caused extensive damage to residential and commercial buildings and emergency response
facilities. Essential buildings usually play a very important role in emergency response, but
this was not the case in the Bam earthquake. Damage to the fire station, hospitals, and
municipal and communications buildings caused serious problems in emergency response
soon after the earthquake, Sassan Eshghi and Kiarash Naserasadi [23].
Confined masonry demonstrated good seismic performance. All structural walls of all
masonry buildings, one or two stories, irrespective of whether they are constructed with
bricks, cement blocks or stone, confining elements must be constructed. Vertical and
horizontal confining tie-columns and bond-beams provide integrity for the building and make
a seismic resistant structure. By constructing tie-columns in the main corners of the buildings,
the connection of walls at the intersections can be maintained. It should be noted that good
seismic performance of confining ties could be expected only if the ties are well executed. In
other words, the ties with poor quality of concrete are not able to develop a seismic resistant
mechanism.
In order to have a three-dimensional resisting system, tie-columns should be properly
connected at all intersection points to tie-beams. If there is no suitable detailing for
reinforcing bars in the concrete joints, the building can not stand against earthquakes.
Moreover, the distance between axes of two successive tie-columns should be limited to 5
meters. The confined masonry buildings, which did not observe the abovementioned points,
failed during the Bam Earthquake, Kooroush Nasrollahzadeh Nesheli [24].
27
Figure 2.4.10 Vertical and horizontal confining elements maintain the stability of the building, Kooroush
Nasrollahzadeh Nesheli [24]
Anothers earthquake cause: technical school at Avaj, Qasvin province is designed by

ORDENS and constructed of confined masonry walls, Figure 2.4.11. It has survived the
earthquake while a neighbouring building was totally destroyed. It has brick walls anchored to
the foundations and to the rigid floors and roof by means of tie-columns and ring beams,
Usam Ghaidan [25].
Figure 2.4.11 Confined masonry wall in Iran that survive the earthquake, Usam Ghaidan [25]
The 1998 Mionica and the 1999 Trstenik, Yugoslavia Earthquake
In the1998 Mionica (magnitude Mw=5.7) and the 1999 Trstenik (magnitude Mw=5.1),
damage to confined masonry buildings was not extensive. Figure 2.4.12 shows damage to
masonry buildings in the 1998 Mionica earthquake. A number of older un-reinforced masonry
buildings were damaged in the earthquake however confined masonry buildings performed
28
well and did not suffer any significant damage, as illustrated in the figure, Nikola Muravljov,
Radovan Dimitrijevic [26].
Figure 2.4.12 Damage to masonry building in the 1998 Mionica earthquake, Nikola Muravljov, Radovan
Dimitrijevic [26]
29
Chapter 3. Models
3. RESISTING MECHANISMS
3.1
Resisting mechanism
Under an earthquake, the walls are subjected to gravitational and seismic loads as is shown in
Figure 3.1.1. Tensions are generated in the masonry panel by the combination of the
gravitational loads and the oscillating earthquake loads. The slab acts like a rigid diaphragm
and transfer the loads directly to the walls parallels to the seismic action, M2. The inertial
forces originated in the walls perpendicular to the seismic action (M1) are also transfer to the
wall M2 in part by the slab and by the connections between the two walls.
It is observed that the resistance to the seismic loads is provided by the wall M2, parallel to
the seismic action.
Figure 3.1.1 and 3.1.2, before and during the earthquake respectively, illustrate the loads and
the tensions originated in the resisting wall M2. This masonry panel will be subjected to
flexion with compression and shear. In constructions of low height, the shear will be
predominant effort.
Rigid diaphragm
Vertical loads
Tensions originated
by gravitational
loads
Figure 3.1.1 Left: Distribution of seismic loads in the building; Right: tension originated by the
gravitational loads before the earthquake, Bustos [10]
30
Chapter 3. Models
Gravitational loads
Tensions originated by
gravitational and seismic loads
Seismic action
Approximated distribution of
shear tensions
Figure 3.1.2 Tensions in the confined masonry wall originated by gravitational and seismic loads during
the earthquake, Bustos [10]
Under these loads, confined masonry can be modeled to resist the actions in: two confining
columns (a1), two confining beams (a2) and the masonry panel can behave like two
diagonals, one in compression (a4) and the other one in tension (a3), Figure 3.1.3.
a2
Hs
Hs
a1
a1
a3
a4
a2
Figure 3.1.3 Resisting mechanisms, Universidad Nacional de Crdoba [16]
In this way two resisting mechanisms are generated: A and B, Figure 3.1.4. In the resisting
mechanism A, the diagonal is under compression. Under the action of low amplitude forces
the diagonal a3 may fail in tension, and mechanism A is the only one left to resist the seismic
loads.
31
Chapter 3. Models
RESISTING MECHANISMS
Hs/2
Hs/2
a3d
Figure 3.1.4 Resisting mechanisms of confined masonry walls, Universidad Nacional de Crdoba [16]
It is very important to remark the fact of having links between the walls panel for a good
behaviour under an earthquake action. They must perform a rigid box for an efficient load
transmission.
To materialize the previous condition it is necessary to have slabs that behave as nondeformable diaphragms and sufficient anchorage of reinforcement in the confinement
elements, Figure 3.1.5. In this way the mechanism of walls and interconnected floor slabs are
able to distribute the lateral forces to the walls parallels to the seismic action.
Figure 3.1.6 presents the consequences of a bad connection between slabs-walls and wallswalls. In this case, due to a wrong distribution of forces the panel M2 has an important
bending moment in the perpendicular direction.
32
Chapter 3. Models
Figure 3.1.5 Non-deformable diaphragms and good connection between walls allowing the correct
distribution of the seismic action. Decanini and Payer [17]
Figure 3.1.6 Deformable slab and no capacity of load distribution. Consequence: An important bending
moment in wall M2 is generated. Decanini and Payer [17]
33
Chapter 4. Experimental tests
4. EXPERIMENTAL TESTS
The results of experimental tests concerning confined masonry walls are summarized and
discussed in this chapter. Dynamic behaviour of confined masonry walls test using shaking
tables or cycling loading are described with the correspond results of cracks patterns,
hysteretic behaviour, energy dissipation, stiffness degradation and other mechanical
characteristics. Experimental tests concerning the study of the influence of openings and
distance between tie-columns in the strength of the confined masonry are given as well.
4.1
Dynamic behaviour of confined masonry buildings through shaking table tests
4.1.1 Assessment of the response of Mexican confined masonry structure through

shaking table test, Alcocer et al [27]
Little information is presently available on the response of three-dimensional confined
masonry structures subjected to controlled dynamic excitations, like those applied through
shaking tables tests.
The dynamic behaviour of two small-scale confined masonry buildings tested in shaking table
is discussed. Specimens were half-scale models of typical low-cost housing buildings of one
and three stories constructed in Mexico, hereafter referred to as M1 and M3 specimens
respectively. Models were subjected to a series of seismic motions characteristic of Mexican
subduction events recorded in the epicentral region.
Walls were made of hand-made solid clay bricks confined by reinforced concrete tie-columns
and bond-beams. In the direction of the earthquake-simulator motion (E-W), three wall axes
were built, Figure 4.1.1. The facade walls had door and window openings, whereas the middle
walls were solid. In the prototype, the middle wall axis divides two adjacent dwellings. In the
transverse direction (N-S), four walls were built to improve the gravity load distribution
among walls, and to control possible torsional deformations. Models were symmetrical and
the wall distribution was uniform over the specimen height.
34
Figure 4.1.1 Characteristics of the Specimens, Alcocer et al. [27]
Tie-column and bond-beam reinforcement was made of four longitudinal wires and hoop
reinforcements spaced at 100mm. In M3, aimed at increasing wall shear strength, controlling
damage and achieving a more stable behaviour, hoop spacing was reduced to 30mm at tiecolumns ends. Floor systems were cast-in-place reinforced concrete solid slabs supported on
bond-beams. Slabs were reinforced with 4,76mm diameter deformed wires, spaced each
150mm in both directions. The models were built on a steel platform, Figure 4.1.2.
35
Figure 4.1.2 Reinforcement of the Specimens, Alcocer et al. [27]
Two earthquake motions recorded in epicentral regions in Mexico were used as basis for the
testing program. One was the motion recorded in Acapulco, Guerrero, in April 25, 1989,
during Mw=6.8 earthquake with PGA=0.34g. The other was that recorded in Manzanillo,
Colima, in October 10, 1995, during Mw=8.0 earthquake with PGA=0.40g.
TEST RESULTS
Analysis of data confirmed that shear deformations controlled the response like is showed in
Figure 4.1.3. In M1, damage was mainly characterized by horizontal and inclined cracks. The
first inclined cracks formed near the wall center, and propagated towards the corners of tiecolumns ends, except for walls MS4 and MN4, where behavior was dominated by a shearsliding mechanism (horizontal cracks at the walls base) and inclined cracks in the lower part.
First diagonal cracking occurred at a drift ratio to 0.36%. Crack propagation into the tiecolumns ends, thus shearing off these elements, was recorded at a drift ratio to 0.67%. At the
end of the test runs, maximum recorded drift ratio was 1.83%.
In M3, damage was mainly concentrated in the first story, ground floor. In general, walls
exhibited one or two large inclined cracks at 45-deg (X-shaped). First diagonal cracks formed
at a drift ratio to 0.25%. Penetration of inclined cracking to tie-columns ends was recorded at
a drift ratio to 0.43%. A full soft-story mechanism was readily observed during test runs for
which the maximum recorded drift ratio was 1.75%.
In the second story, few horizontal cracks at the base of the walls were observed, whereas in
the third story no cracking was observed.
36
Based on the failure mode observed, the analytical model for design and assessment could be
simplified by assuming that all inelastic deformations would take place at the first story and
would be controlled by shear.
Figure 4.1.3 Final cracks patterns, Alcocer et al. [27]
Hysteretic loops were typical of confined masonry structures. The elastic limit was defined by
the occurrence of the first inclined cracking in the masonry wall; strength was achieved when
the maximum base shear was attained; and the ultimate limit state was considered at a lateral
drift ratio when 20 percent reduction in strength was recorded, Figure 4.1.4.
Figure 4.1.4 Response envelope for M1 and M3; MCBC: Mexico City Building Code, Alcocer et al. [27]
37
The measured response characteristics are shown in Table 4.1.1. Cycles within the elastic
limit experienced some hysteretic attributed to wall flexural cracking at initial stages. As it is
common in confined masonry structures, specimens attained their maximum strength at loads
higher than those associated to first inclined cracking. Specimen M1 showed stable and
symmetric loops up to large drift ratios, whereas in M3, hysteretic curves were stable and
symmetric up to the strength limit state, after which a severe strength and stiffness decay,
because of damage over the panels and at tie-columns ends, was developed. As it is customary
in shear-governed members subjected to inelastic deformations, response curves exhibited
severe pinching, especially at very large lateral drift ratios associated to failure of the
structure. In M3, at the ultimate limit state, a fast degrading process, involving sliding along
the first story inclined cracking and crushing of masonry and concrete, was clearly observed.
It was apparent that stories 2 and 3 laterally deformed very slightly, suggesting a rigid body
motion over the first story. This phenomenon led to a concentration of deformations and
damage at the first story which performed as a soft-story with shear governed mechanism.
Table 4.1.1 Measured response characteristics, Alcocer et al. [27]
Stiffness decay was observed at low drift ratios, even before first inclined cracking became
apparent. This phenomenon is attributed to incipient wall flexural cracking, and perhaps, to
some micro-cracking in masonry materials, local loss of mortar bond and adjustment of brick
position. After first inclined cracking, but before reaching strength, the decay increased with
drift ratio. At larger drift ratios, decay remained nearly constant. At this stage, stiffness decay
is associated to cracking and crushing in masonry walls and RC confinement members.
The energy dissipated during the tests was computed as the area within the hysteretic loops
from the base sheardrift relations. M1 dissipated, in absolute terms, more energy that M3;
moreover, at same drift ratios, M1 also dissipated more energy. At present, it is contended that
the failure mode of M1, characterized by shear and sliding mechanisms, contributed to the
difference in behaviour in both specimens.
38
4.1.2 Seismic behaviour of confined masonry, Tomazevic et al. [28]
Two models of a three-storey confined masonry buildings have been tested on a simple uniaxial earthquake simulator. The models have been made at 1:5 scale according to the
assumptions of the theory of complete models. Both models where identical and represented
a typical three- to four-storey house with structural walls at 5.78m in one and 4.65m distance
in the other direction, designed according to Chilean engineering practice. Since the
distribution of structural walls of the model was not symmetric in both directions, model M1
was tested in the longitudinal, whereas model M2 was tested by subjecting it to the simulated
earthquake ground motion in the transverse direction. By testing the model transversally, the
possible torsional effects have been studied.
The building was a three-storey structure, composed of ground floor and two typical storeys
with storey height 2.47m. According to the design, structural walls were built with hollow
blocks units: in the ground floor, the thickness of the walls was 17.5cm, in the upper storeys;
however, the thickness of the walls was reduced to 14cm. Lime-cement mortar in the
proportion of 1:0.25:4 (cement: lime: sand) was used to construct the walls. Vertical tiecolumns were reinforced with 48mm bars and were grouted with concrete with a
characteristic compressive strength 16MPa.
Bearing walls were supported by a continuous reinforced concrete strip foundation. Floors
were cast in situ monolithic reinforced-concrete slabs 12cm thick, roof structure was wooden.
Typical plan and vertical section of smaller, square unit, which has been used as a basis for
the design of the models, are shown in Figure 4.1.5 and Figure 4.1.6. The distribution of
confining vertical element, tie-columns can be also seen in these figures. Reinforcement of
floor slabs, tie-columns and bond-beams are illustrated in Figure 4.1.7.
39
Figure 4.1.5 Typical floor plan of prototype building, used as a basis for the design of 1:5 scale models,
Tomazevic et al. [28]
Figure 4.1.6 Typical section prototype building, used as a basis for the design of 1:5 scale models,
40
Figure 4.1.7 Reinforcement of floor slabs and vertical and horizontal bonding elements, Tomazevic et al.
[28]
Both models have been tested by subjecting them to a sequence of simulated earthquake
ground motion with increased intensity of motion during each subsequent test run, Figures
4.1.8 to 4.1.10. During the shaking-table tests, the displacement and acceleration response of
the models has been measured at three points at each storey level. The changes of strain in
vertical reinforcement of typical tie-columns have been also followed. Similar behaviour of
both models has been observed, with symmetrical amplitudes of vibration at both sides of the
41
models, despite the expected torsional behaviour in the case of the model tested transversally.
As a result of relatively high wall/floor area ratio in both directions of the tested structures,
the observed seismic resistance was very high, in both cases. However, significant strength
degradation has been observed after the attained maximum value, with increased damage to
the masonry wall and subsequent falling off of the masonry.
Simulation of seismic loads was made with the first 24 seconds of ground acceleration record
of Montenegro earthquake of April 15, 1979, N-S component of the Petrovac record, with
peak ground acceleration of 0.43g has been used for simulation of earthquake ground motion.
Several individual test runs in the shaking-table were made, the characteristic of parameters
use are described in Table 4.1.2.
Figure 4.1.8 Earthquake simulator set-up, Tomazevic et al. [28]
gauges on reinforcing steel of vertical confinement of model M1, Tomazevic et al. [28]
42
gauges on reinforcing steel of vertical confinement of model M2, Tomazevic et al. [28]
Table 4.1.2 Characteristic parameters of shaking-table motion recorded during individual test runs,
TEST RESULTS
Development of cracks and damaged propagation in the structural elements of both models
during the shaking-table tests has been inspected visually.
43
In model M1 no damage was observed after the initial phases of tests, test run R5 and R25.
The first tiny crack was at the first floor after the test run R50, the real initiation of diagonally
oriented cracks in the walls in the first storey was test run R75. The cracks were not all
oriented in the same direction. No cracks could be seen in the walls orthogonal to the
direction of seismic motion.
During the test run R100, the existing cracks propagated, Figure 4.1.11(a). In some walls, new
diagonal cracks developed, oriented in the other diagonal direction. Some horizontal cracks
have been also observed in the parapets, passing through the mortar joints.
The damage was serious during run R150, Figure 4.1.11(b). Most of the cracks passed
through mortar joints and it start the crushing of masonry units in the middle. Severe stiffness
degradation was observed as a result of damage to wall, occurred during test run R150, and,
consequently, large displacements amplitudes of vibration have been measured, no damage
has been observed to the walls, orthogonal to seismic excitation. Also, no damage has been
observed to confining elements.
Heavy damage occurred during test run R200, Figure 4.1.12 and Figure 4.1.13. In the first
floor, all the walls oriented in the direction of excitation disintegrated and fall out of the
confinement: in the middle sections of the walls, masonry units crushed, and at vertical
borders the walls separated from the confining elements. This indicates that tie-columns and
bond-beams are only active until a certain level of lateral displacements; afterwards they
cannot prevent the disintegration of the masonry, unless it is reinforced with horizontal,
mortar bed-joint reinforcement.
During test run R200, the central wall partly collapsed. Parts of the wall failed in shear, in
some parts; however, sliding shear failure was the reason of collapse.
Figure 4.1.11 Model M1, northern side-propagation of cracks at the eastern corner, Tomazevic et al. [28]
44
Figure 4.1.12 Left: Model M1: middle pier after test run R200; Right: Model M1: detail of damage to tiecolumn after test run R200, Tomazevic et al. [28]
Figure 4.1.13 Model M1, southern side, cracks after test runs R100, R150 and R200, Tomazevic et al. [28]
45
On the other hand, the behaviour of model M2 during shaking tests was basically similar as
the behaviour of model M1. Obviously, different position of the model on the platform during
testing and non-symmetry of structural system with regard to the transversal axis caused
slightly different damage propagation.
First cracks in the walls of model M2 developed during moderate excitation in the beginning
of shaking test (R25). Diagonally oriented cracks in the walls were not located symmetrically:
on the southern side of the model, cracks have occurred at the eastern part of the shear-wall.
After the run R50, the crack pattern became symmetric, since cracks in the other; previously
not damage parts of the shear-walls have been also observed. In both walls, diagonal cracks
have been oriented from the corners at the bottom to the corners at the top of the model. No
cracks have been observed in the middle part of the shear-walls.
During test run R75, the cracks propagated along the whole height of the model. In the walls
where diagonal cracks in one direction have been observed after test run R25, cracks in the
other diagonal direction have occurred. In the central shear-wall hardly visible cracks
developed in both diagonal directions.
Model M2 was seriously damaged during test run R100. A system of cracks, oriented in both
diagonal directions, developed in all elements of all shear-walls in the direction of seismic
motion. Most of the cracks passed through mortar joints and the first signs of crushing of
masonry unites have been observed in the middle.
During test run R150 the damage to model walls increased. The walls of the first and second
storey stated to falling of. Initialization of micro-concrete at the joints between vertical and
horizontal tying elements has been also observed.
The extent of damage to model M2 during test run R200 significantly changed the dynamic
characteristics of the model. Practically all walls in the first storey failed: the masonry units
crushed and the broken parts of the walls simply disintegrated and fell out, so that the model
was left standing mainly due to confining elements, without any masonry infill. The damage
in the upper storeys did not increase.
The model M2 was submitted to a repeated strong excitation R200/1. It did not cause further
increase of damage to the structure, so the model was subjected to a series of sinusoidal
motion which followed the decayed natural frequency of the masonry in the first storey,
increased immensely, the model started pounding with the rigid steel supporting structure,
fixed at a distance of about 10cm from the model to the foundation slab. As the model
consequently leaned to the steel structure, and did not fall on the opposite side, the testing was
terminated. The collapse mechanism is illustrated in Figure 4.1.14 and Figure 4.1.15.
46
Figure 4.1.14 Model M2: mechanism of collapse, Tomazevic et al. [28]
Figure 4.1.15 Model M2: mechanism of collapse, Tomazevic et al. [28]
47
4.1.3 Seismic behaviour of a three-story half scale confined masonry structure, San
Bartolom et al. [29]
In this research it was study, analytically and experimentally, the seismic behaviour of a
reduced scale model (1:2.5) through shaking table test. The walls represent one perimetric
wall of a 3-story building, made of clay masonry confined by reinforced concrete elements.
The geometry of the specimen is given in Figure 4.1.16. Reinforced concrete slabs with added
load were used in the model. The specimen weight was 57.78KN; therefore the axial stress in
the first-story walls was 0.33MPa.
Figure 4.1.16 Geometry of the 3-storey confined masonry specimen, San Bartolom et al. [29]
The masonry units were solid clay bricks of 11MPa of compressive strength. The mortar was
1:4 (Portland cement: sand) with a compressive strength of 6MPa. The concrete of the tiecolumns and bond-beams had a compressive strength of 15MPa and elastic modulus
Ec=13700MPa. The axial compression was tested with four masonry prisms and it results of
6MPa and the elastic modulus was E=1510MPa. To obtain the shear strength, four square
masonry prisms were tested to diagonal compression, giving a shear strength of 0.8MPa and a
shear modulus G=450MPa. Vertical reinforcement in each column was 4#5.5mm wire steel.
The yield stress was 220MPa and the ultimate stress was 316MPa. Horizontal reinforcement
was added in the first-story in a small ratio of 0.016% (1#1.8 every 3 layers anchorage in the
columns), even that in Per it is not common to use horizontal reinforcement in confined
masonry walls.
The specimen was design according to the Peruvian code (ININVI). Flexural and shear
capacity of the walls were computed, Table 4.1.3. The shear capacity of each wall was
evaluated using the formula (1) proposed by San Bartolom, 1990. The results of the shear
48
capacity were greater than the values associated to the yielding flexural capacity and also to
the maximum flexural capacity; therefore, a flexural failure was expected.
Table 4.1.3 Assumed force distribution in one specimen wall, San Bartolom et al. [29]
In the dynamic test the input wave was the L component of the May 31, 1970 earthquake,
recorded in Lima. The horizontal excitation was in the wall direction and the peak platform
displacement for each run is shown in Table 4.1.4.
Table 4.1.4 Shaking table test runs, San Bartolom et al. [29]
TEST RESULTS
In run A no cracking occurred. At run B a flexural crack appeared at the walls base, causing
the yield of the vertical reinforcement. The shear failure in both first-story walls occurred in
run C, at the end of the test the specimen was in an irreparable condition as is shown in Figure
4.1.17. During this run the horizontal reinforcement broke, showing that it effectively worked
under dynamic conditions, including the sliding of the upper stories across the first-story
diagonal cracks.
49
Figure 4.1.17 Specimen after run C, San Bartolom et al. [29]
First flexural crack prediction: a moment M= 31.4KN-m was obtained at the base for one
wall, while experimental result in run B was M= 32.9KN-m.
Shear strength prediction: the formula 1 was applied for the wall and the shear strength
obtained was of 22KN. This prediction is 13% less than the experimental value obtained in
run C (24.9KN), so the correlation is acceptable.
The following comments can be made:
The failure of the specimen was concentrated only at the first story, while the upper
stories the actual shear force never surpassed the theoretical shear strength, so their failure
was avoided.
Referring to the ductility factor the obtained value was 1.8, this calculated with the
shear forces obtained, Figure 4.1.18. This value is less than the Peruvian Code specification
for confined masonry Rd= 2.5, so the Code does not appear to be conservative.
The platform acceleration was 0.54g at the instant the shear failure occurred. This
value has never been recorded in Per.
The research has shown that a shear failure is possible to occur when a strong
earthquake hits a confined masonry structure, even in the case that the structure satisfies the
ideal characteristics to obtain a flexural failure. Therefore, the design process of a confined
masonry buildings should include the possibility of a shear type of failure to avoid structural
collapse.
50
Figure 4.1.18 Left: Total base shear force vs. displacement at level 1 in run C; Right: Lateral force in one
wall at the time of maximum base shear force at each run (A, B and C), San Bartolom et al. [29]
4.1.4 Pseudo dynamic tests of confined masonry buildings, Scaletti et al. [30]
Pseudo dynamic tests were carried out to investigate the behaviour of confined masonry
structures. Two-story one-bay specimens, with two parallel walls connected by stiff horizontal
slabs, were used for the tests. One full scale specimen and one half scale model were built
based on Peruvian standards for confined masonry. Figure 4.1.19 show the dimensions of the
specimens. Scale factors were 2 for displacement, 1 for acceleration as for strain, angular
distortion, stress and elastic modulus, square root of 2 for time and 4 for mass and force. The
mass of the full scale specimen was 15.26tn (including added masses of 2.54tn on each slab).
Figure 4.1.19 Test specimen, Scaletti et al. [30]
51
The materials used for the specimens were: clay bricks units laid with a 1:4 (cement: sand)
mortar. The concrete used for footings, columns and slabs had a nominal strength of 20MPa.
Columns were reinforced with 4#3 longitudinal bars and stirrups #2 at 14cm, except near the
joints, were 10cm spacing was used. The yielding stress of the steel was 410MPa.
The test program included: static test of half scale model under monotonic loading, shaking
table test of half scale model and pseudo dynamic test of one full scale specimen and one half
scale model.
Steady-state resonance test were performed using a small rotating eccentric weight exciter,
producing a horizontal sinusoidal force parallel to the walls. Figure 4.1.20 shows typical
resonance curves, obtained for the full scale model. Damping was estimated by considering
the specimen as a one degree of freedom system and using the bandwidth method. Modal
shapes were obtained from the ratios of acceleration amplitudes at resonance. Natural periods,
frequencies and percentage of critical damping of the specimens tested are also showed in
Figure 4.1.20.
Figure 4.1.20 Left: resonance curves for full scale specimen; Right: natural periods, frequencies, damping
and modal shapes; Scaletti et al. [30]
For the PD tests of the half scale model the input signal was the same used for the shaking
table test. It consisted of a series of 5Hz sine waves with different amplitudes, Figure 4.1.21.
During the first stage of the test, while the specimen had little damage, this 5Hz base motion
was equivalent to a static loading. The maximum acceleration in the input signal is 1.3g,
although the specimen failed during the stage with maximum acceleration of 1.06g. The
integration time interval was 0.004sec.
52
The full scale specimen was tested with a ground acceleration corresponding to the NO8E
component of the Lima earthquake of October 10, 1966. The test was repeated four times,
scaling the record as required to have a maximum ground acceleration of 293.6gal (original
record), 400, 800 and 1200gal. the integration time interval was 0.004sec, Figure 4.1.21.
Figure 4.1.21 Left: input signal for PD test of half scale model; Right: input signal for PD test of full scale
model; Scaletti et al. [30]
TEST RESULTS
For the half scale model thin cracks were observed at the base of the walls from the beginning
of the test. Diagonal cracks developed during the second stage and became increasingly
important after 4 seconds. A large strain increment in the longitudinal steel reinforcement of
the columns occurred at the same time. The failure mode was shear, involving both masonry
units and mortar joints. Diagonal cracks were also observed in the second level, this damage
can be related with defects on the construction in one of the walls. A plot of base shear versus
first story displacement is shown in figure 4.1. The behaviour was almost linear during the
first two stages of test, while the story drift angle was less than 1/1000. Stiffness degradation
and hysteretic were important from the third stage. The right part of Figure 4.1.22 compares
envelope curves from static and dynamic tests reported by San Bartolom et al., 1991, with
those from the PD tests. Good agreement was found between results of static and shaking
table tests. Lower values obtained in the PD tests may be due to strain rate.
53
Figure 4.1.22 Left: base shear vs first story displacement, pseudo dynamic test of half scale model; Right:
envelopes of base shear vs first story displacement of the half scale model; Scaletti et al. [30]
For the full scale model the failure mode was by shear. Cracks were noticeable in the first
story walls after the 400gal earthquake. The second story walls remained practically
undamaged. Table 4.1.5 lists maximum first floor displacement (u), maximum shear base
shear (V), and predominant response period (T) for different levels of ground acceleration (a).
Although maximum displacements and base shears correspond to only one point of each
record, their relative magnitudes and the period elongation reflect the importance of
nonlinearities in the response. The specimen failed at an average shear stress in the first level
of 0.32MPa, considerably lower than that reached by the half scale model. The allowable
design stress in the current Peruvian Code is 0.16MPa. First story displacement time histories
and base shear time histories of the full scale model are shown in Figure 4.1.23
Table 4.1.5 First floor displacement, base shear and predominant period as a function of maximum
ground acceleration, Scaletti et al. [30]
54
Figure 4.1.23 Left: first story displacement time histories of the full scale specimen; Right: base shear
time histories of the full scale specimen, Scaletti et al. [30]
4.2
Dynamic behaviour of confined masonry panels under cyclic lateral loads
4.2.1 Experimental behaviour of masonry structural walls used in Argentina, Zabala et

al. [5]
Confined masonry is extensively used in seismic regions of Argentina. Experimental data
about confined masonry built using local practice are very scarce and this lack of knowledge
affects the seismic safety and the design practice of masonry structures.
In order to obtain better knowledge about the seismic behaviour of confined masonry walls
used in the seismic region of Argentina tests were performed on six full-scale model walls at
the Earthquake Research Institute of the National University of San Juan (IDIA). The walls
were built with handmade solid ceramic bricks, 18 cm wide. Wall confinement was provided
by reinforced concrete columns, with nearly square sections, 20cm wide by the thickness of
the wall. The design of the tested models was based on the typical building layout used by the
San Juan Provincial Institute of Housing (IPV), and built with the recommendations given by
the INPRES-CIRSOC 103 code. Model dimensions are showed in Figure 4.2.1.
55
Figure 4.2.1 Model Dimensions, Zabala et al. [5]
The walls were tested under a prescribed constant vertical load and allowing free rotation of
the upper end. The vertical load was applied through a stiff steel beam by means of two
vertical servo-controlled actuators, Figure 4.2.2. The tests were performed by applying cycles
of lateral displacements at the wall head. The instrumentation consisted of one displacement
transducer controlling the horizontal displacement of the wall head, two vertical displacement
transducers at both sides of the model, two diagonal displacement transducers, three load cells
mounted in series with the hydraulic jacks and a number of strain gages applied to some
columns reinforcement bars.
56
Figure 4.2.2 Outline of the test setup and its instrumentation, Zabala et al. [5]
TEST RESULTS
Table 4.2.1 summarizes the main features of the six tested walls. The models 1 to 4 developed
the crack pattern presented in Figure 4.2.4. This pattern includes diagonal cracking of the
masonry panel and partial separation of the confinement columns. These walls clearly show a
shear failure, but sustained their strength for a displacement up to 20mm. None of these walls
reached their theoretical flexural capacity and the final state was controlled by the columns
shear strength. This is due to the fact that, under large displacements, diagonal cracking of
masonry extended to the columns, Figure 4.2.3. Compression failure never occurred.
57
Table 4.2.1 Main features of the six tested walls, Zabala et al. [5]
Notes:
(1) Considering the horizontal load applied at the horizontal actuator level, the applied vertical load and s= 420
MN/ m2 (yield stress of the steel)
(2) Vur= (0.3 +0.6 mo)Bm. Where = compressive stress, mo = diagonal shear strength of small masonry
probes. mo= 0.3 MN/ m2
(3) Additional strength due to horizontal masonry reinforcement.
Figure 4.2.3 Shear failure in column of wall 1, Zabala et al. [5]
58
Figure 4.2.4 Crack pattern developed in the first 4 testing walls, Zabala et al. [5]
Walls 5 and 6, having a shear capacity clearly larger than the flexural capacity, reached, by
hardening of the vertical reinforcement bars, strength values substantially larger than the
theoretical flexural capacity.
Under the applied displacement cycles with increasing amplitude, it was observed that these
walls (Figure 4.2.5) maintain their strength and their energy dissipation ability for larger
displacement amplitudes than walls 1 to 4. Bending-induced horizontal cracking was
observed and the separation between column and panel did not occur. The final state is
controlled again by the shear strength of the column at the joints with the confinement beams.
Figure 4.2.5 Crack pattern developed in walls 5 and 6, Zabala et al. [5]
59
The INPRES-CIRSOC building code allows a reasonable estimation of the wall strength,
based on measured strength in diagonal shear test of small masonry probes, only in the case of
lightly reinforced columns, not providing larger flexural capacity than shear capacity (See
Table 4.2.1). For larger reinforcement ratios of columns, the wall strength is controlled by the
shear strength of the confinement columns and beam joints.
The code should require the capacity design of columns and joints reinforcement, considering
the maximum expected shear force induced by the compressed masonry strut, arising from the
cracking pattern of the panel. For the used brick type, a compression failure of this strut is not
likely to occur and therefore the wall strength becomes controlled by the vertical
reinforcement of the columns. The amount of transverse reinforcement in critical zones of the
confinement columns and beams normally used in practice is insufficient in order to sustain
this shear force.
4.2.2 Behaviour of multi-perforated clay brick walls under earthquake type loading,
Alcocer and Zepeda [31]
To evaluate the behaviour and to develop analysis, design and construction guidelines of this
type of brick walls, four large-scale isolated load-bearing walls were built and tested under
constant vertical axial load and cyclic lateral loads.
Previous research conducted on this issue made clear that the mode of failure of these bricks
is quite brittle. On the other hand, its economic advantages compared to the traditional handmade bricks have made multi-perforated bricks an increasingly popular construction system
for low-cost housing.
The control specimen, N1, consisted of an un-reinforced wall panel, made of multi-perforated
bricks, confined in its vertical edges with tie-columns built within hollow clay bricks, Figure
4.2.6. In specimens N2 and N3, the minimum horizontal reinforcement ratio as required by
the Mexico City Building Code, was provided. N2 was confined with similar internal tiecolumns as in N1, whereas in N3 external reinforced concrete tie-columns were used. In
specimen N4, the horizontal reinforcement ratio was almost four times the minimum value;
internal tie-columns were built using special hollow pieces fabricated to achieve a larger tiecolumn cross sectional area.
60
Figure 4.2.6 Characteristics of the specimens, Alcocer and Zepeda [31]
TEST RESULTS
Final crack patterns and hysteretic loops are shown in Figure 4.2.7 and Figure 4.2.8
respectively. In N1, damage was mainly concentrated in two large inclined cracks that
extended into the lower ends of the internal tie-columns. After the x crack pattern was
formed, the wall lost its capacity for carrying vertical and lateral loads.
61
A more uniform distribution of cracks was observed in specimens with horizontal

reinforcement; the larger the amount, the more uniformly distributed the cracking was. Main
cracks were inclined at 45 and extended through bricks and mortar joints. At same drift
levels, crack widths in horizontally reinforced specimens (i.e. N2 to N4) were smaller than
those recorded in N1. Typically, flexural cracks formed at a drift angle of 0.09%; the x pattern
of inclined cracking was formed at 0.15%.
Model N2 abruptly failed after fracture of four horizontal wires, which led to a shear
compression failure of few multi-perforated bricks along the crack (and along the internal
compression strut), and to shearing off the lower ends of the tie-columns.
Damage in specimen N3 was concentrated in the panel with extension of some fine cracks
into the tie-column. Similarly to N2, some bricks exhibited spalling of their exterior walls
after crushing or fracture of interior walls. Specimen N4 exhibited a very uniform distribution
of fine cracks over the wall. Crushing and spalling of exterior brick walls in the second
uppermost brick course triggered the failure. Analysis of strain gages on the horizontal
reinforcement of N2 to N4 indicated that wires remained elastic only in N4.
The most severe damage in tie-columns was observed in N1, although closely spaced
crossties and hoops were placed at their ends. In the other specimens, horizontal
reinforcement better controlled the wall shear deformations and clearly improved the stability
of the behaviour after cracking, thus delaying the crack extension into the tie-columns.
The inter-story drift angle R is defined as the ratio of the applied horizontal displacement
measured at the slab level to the specimen height.
62
Figure 4.2.7 Final cracks patterns of the fourth specimens, Alcocer and Zepeda [31]
Based on the observations made during the tests, and on the analysis of the instrumentation,
the following conclusions were developed:
Masonry diagonal compressive strengths, related to design shear stresses, varied with
the amount of mortar penetration into the multi-perforated bricks. Larger strengths were
obtained with fluid mortars.
First inclined cracking occurred at a drift angle of 0.1%, disregarding the amount of
horizontal reinforcement, as well as type and detailing of the tie-columns.
Shear deformations governed wall behaviour.
As compared to walls without panel reinforcement, walls reinforced horizontally with

deformed cold-drawn small-diameter wires exhibited a superior behaviour in terms of lateral
strength, deformation and energy dissipation capacities, strength degradation, damage
distribution, and crack widths.
63
The increase in lateral strength was not linearly proportional to the amount of
horizontal reinforcement. Moreover, the mode of failure is strongly dependent on the
horizontal reinforcement ratio ph and its yield stress fyh.
The contribution of the horizontal reinforcement to the wall lateral strength was a
function of the lateral displacement and the type of tie-column.
As compared to walls with internal tie-columns, the specimen with external RC tiecolumns exhibited higher lateral strength, stiffness, energy dissipation and deformation
capacities and a more stable behaviour.
Figure 4.2.8 Hysteretic curves, Alcocer and Zepeda [31]
4.2.3 Experimental investigation of the seismic behaviour in full- scale prototypes of

confined masonry walls, Decanini et al. [32]
In this investigation test results obtained in the laboratory of the National University of
Cordoba, Argentina are presented and discussed. In this test series, 8 confined masonry panels
are subjected to the effects of horizontal loads simulating the seismic action.
Four of the masonry panels were made of solid clay brick and the rest of hollow clay bricks.
Confined masonry panel M1 was made of solid clay bricks and has not openings, M2 to M4
were made also of solid clay bricks but they present an opening in the middle of the panel. M5
and M6 were confined masonry panels made of hollow clay bricks without openings and
finally walls M7 and M8 were also of hollow clay brick but with an opening in the centre of
the panel. General dimensions of the prototypes are shown in Figure 4.2.9. They all were built
64
with the recommendations given by the INPRES-CIRSOC 103 code. The design of the tested
models was based on the typical building layout used in Crdoba.
The reinforcements used for both typologies are illustrated in Figure 4.2.10.
Figure 4.2.9 General dimensions of the prototypes, Decanini et al. [32]
65
Figure 4.2.10 Left: Reinforcement of confined masonry of solid clay bricks; Right: reinforcement of
confined masonry of hollow clay bricks, Decanini et al. [32]
The walls were tested allowing free rotation of the upper end. No vertical load was applied,
Figure 4.2.11. The tests were performed by applying cycles of lateral displacements at the
wall head. The loading device consisted in two Amsler jacks of 10tn of maximum capacity.
66
Figure 4.2.11 Test setup and its instrumentation, Decanini et al. [32]
TEST RESULTS
In Table 4.2.2, results are showed for the different models, also showing the maximum
angular deformation, first cracking, ultimate cracking and maximum load achieved in the test.
The following comments can be made:
There is not substantial difference between the levels of loads reached by the force
applied in one sense and the other of the different steps considered, although some differences
are found in the values of maximum angular deformation.
In the walls made of solid clay bricks, the loads that correspond to the ultimate
cracking are approximately twice the one that produces the initial cracking.
On the other hand, for walls made of hollow clay bricks the load that produced the
ultimate cracking is only 20% higher than the one that produced the initial cracking.
The loads that produced initial cracking of the walls with openings are half of the load
that produced the same effects in the wall without the openings.
Ultimate loads for masonry walls of solid clay bricks are 50% more than the
maximum loads for masonry walls made of hollow clay bricks, but the load that produce the
initial cracking is higher for the hollow clay bricks than for the solid clay bricks.
67
Table 4.2.2 Measured loads and angular deformations, Decanini et al. [32]
In Figure 4.2.12 final cracking pattern is showed for walls of solid clay bricks M3. The failure
mechanisms in all the cases were due to shear. The maximum shear stresses for the panels of
solid bricks were between 1.20kg/cm and 2.20 kg/cm. On the other hand for hollow bricks
this maximum shear stress was around 1.00kg/cm and 1.30kg/cm. These values are less that
the ones given by the INPRES-CIRSOC 103 code may be attributed to the poor resistance of
the mortar joints utilized in the models.
68
Figure 4.2.12 Initial and ultimate cracks of the testing wall M3, Decanini et al. [32]
The reinforcement utilized in the tie-columns was 4 8mm for the walls conformed by solid
bricks, that correspond two the minimum reinforcement recommended by the Argentinean
code for seismic zone 3 and 4. And for the hollow bricks the reinforcement of the tie-columns
was 4 6mm corresponding to seismic zones 1 and 2.
All the tests showed that the bending strength of the walls was higher than the required in this
experience. No flexural failure was registered.
The stiffness reduction consequence of the non linear behaviour of the masonry panels
observed is as follow:
Stiffness reduction in relation to the initial one:

9
Initial crack
50 to 70% of the initial stiffness
Complete crack
Maximum load
69
4.2.4 Influence of vertical and horizontal reinforcement: Influence of the tie-column

vertical reinforcement ratio on the seismic behaviour, Irimies [33]
The influence of both confining of un-reinforced masonry walls and vertical reinforcement
ration in tie-column on the seismic behaviour of the masonry walls is investigated. Three half
scale, two-story masonry walls were tested. One of them was an un-reinforced masonry wall;
and two others were confined masonry walls. The wall models were tested under reversed
lateral cyclic loading statically applied, in presence of a constant vertical force. The
experimental results indicated that the confining of an un-reinforced wall by RC tie-columns
led to the increase of the lateral resistance and to the change of failure mechanism.
Figure 4.2.13 shows the two models, W1 was an URM wall and two models were confined
masonry walls (WC1 and WC2). The difference between these last two was the amount of
vertical reinforcement. The model WC1 had 48mm steel bars and the model WC2 had
410mm steel bars. The cross section of the vertical bars in tie-columns of the WC2 model
was 1.8 times greeted than the WC1 model.
Figure 4.2.13 Experimental models, Irimies [33]
The load application and instrumentation were under reversed lateral cyclic loading statically
applied, in presence of a constant vertical force. The vertical load was applied on the top
beam by means of hydraulic jacks.
The load was distributed along the RC beam by a rigid steel beam. The level of vertical
loading provided a constant compressive stress equal to 0.4MPa, including the wall weight, at
the walls base, which is considered typical for 3 and 4 stories housing buildings in Romania.
70
TEST RESULTS
The URM specimen, W1, revealed a flexural behaviour, as expected. One single horizontal
crack in the bed joint at the models base occurred for the two loadings directions. At the
limit drift ration of 0.35%, the cracks length was about 75% of models length. The crushing
of masonry units occurred at a drift ratio of 1.0%. The test was continued up to a drift ratio of
2.8% without a severe diminution of the lateral load.
The confined specimens presented, at small displacements, only flexural cracks in tie-columns
and in first story masonry panel, Figure 4.2.14 and 4.2.15. The first major damage observed in
these specimens was a diagonal crack in the first level masonry panels developed at a lateral
load equal to about 93% maximum load in both directions. The diagonal cracks were,
generally, stair-step in mortar joints. In the WC2 model, the diagonal cracks were followed
immediately by shear cracks in the column-beam joints. In the model WC1 model, shear
cracks in joints occurred at large drift ratios, before the maximum lateral load. As the
amplitude of displacements cycles increased the shear cracks in tie-columns widened
considerably followed by large slips along the bed joints, which resulted in crushing of the
concrete and the masonry at the corners and inside the panel. There was a good bond between
the tie-column concrete and the adjacent masonry.
Figure 4.2.14 Damage patterns of walls WC1, Irimies [33]
71
Figure 4.2.15 Damage patterns of walls WC2, Irimies [33]
In the URM model the measured lateral resistance was about 54KN and was attainted after the
beginning of the masonry crushing at the corners. In the confined models the lateral resistance
was 2.2 times (WC1) and 2.7 times (WC2) higher than that of URM.
The increase of 1.8 times of vertical reinforcement amount in tie-columns led to enhance of
the lateral strength of about 20%. The lateral load reduced after the considerable opening of
shear cracks in tie-columns.
The finals conclusion leads that confining of URM wall by RC tie-columns determined both
the later strength and stiffness increase and the change of failure mechanism.
The lateral strength of confined walls increased with the increase of vertical reinforcement
amount in tie-columns. However, this increase was not proportionally. All the specimens
showed good seismic behaviour at large displacements.
4.2.5 Influence of openings in the behaviour of confined masonry: Behaviour of confined

masonry shear walls with large openings, Yez et al. [8]
Significant research has been carried out in different countries to study the behavior of
confined masonry walls. In order to study the behavior of lightly reinforced confined masonry
shear walls with openings, sixteen full-scale specimens were tested. Eight specimens were of
concrete masonry units and eight of hollow clay brick masonry units. The specimens were
designed to have shear failure with diagonal cracks in the masonry panel. The test parameters
were the masonry unit type (concrete and clay) and the size of openings (four cases).
72
All the specimens had a panel with openings of different sizes, two columns and a beam on
top. The bond pattern was of the running bond type. The openings had no special concrete
confinement elements around its borders. The hollow areas of the masonry units were not
filled with mortar or grout, except close to the openings where a vertical reinforcement bar
was placed. Figure 4.2.16 shows the dimensions of the four patterns of the specimens (there
were 2 specimens for each pattern).
Figure 4.2.16 Wall dimensions, Yez et al. [8]
The testing set up is conformed by a horizontal cyclic load applied along the axis of the top
beam, and controlled by displacement. There was no vertical load applied. Two cycles at each
deformation level were applied. During testing, the development of cracks and damage were
registered. Five levels of damage were defined: (a) first visible cracking in the columns, (b)
first visible cracking in the masonry panel, (c) beginning of diagonal cracking, (d) primary
and secondary diagonal cracking in the wall segments in both sides of the openings, and (e)
formation of the final cracking pattern.
TEST RESULS
All the specimens failed in shear. Two failure mechanisms, shown in Figure 4.2.17, appeared
with diagonal cracking and mixed cracking. The first mechanism corresponds to a diagonal
crack spanning at least half of the width of the specimen. The second mechanism corresponds
to a crack that develops horizontally and then diagonally, or vice versa, with similar spans in
each case. In both mechanisms, the cracks propagate though the mortar joint due to a low
adherence between the mortar and the masonry units. This situation appears more often in
concrete masonry unit specimens.
The first cracks appeared horizontally in the confinement columns, and in the lower courses
of the masonry panels. While the horizontal reinforcement under the openings was not
73
broken, the damage concentrated in the wall segments in both sides of the openings. In the
specimens with no horizontal reinforcement under the openings (pattern 4), the strength
degradation and the width of the cracks was notorious once the diagonal cracks reached the
vertical bar reinforcement close to the openings.
Figure 4.2.17 Failure Mechanisms, Yez et al. [8]
The load-deformation behaviour of the specimens with opening is non linear, having an initial
linear elastic zone. The load-deformation capacity depends on the inclination of the diagonal
struts that can be developed in the specimens with openings, and on the tensile capacity of the
confinement column or vertical reinforcement in the border of the opening that work as ties of
virtual strut and tie models.
The stiffness of specimens with an opening ratio of 11% of the total wall area is close to that
of the specimens without openings. The stiffness degrades markedly with the subsequent
cycles due to cracking.
The rate of the stiffness degradation is smaller as the opening size increases, especially in the
concrete masonry walls.
The shear capacity of the specimens was reached for the inter-story drift range of 2.0 to
4.0. For walls with larger openings, the maximum strength decreases and is reached for
inter-story drift larger than 4. It is conservative to consider the shear capacity proportional
to the net transverse area of walls with window openings.
The tests indicate that for these specimens with small horizontal reinforcement in the masonry
panel, the crack widths are quite large for small inter-story drift. In order to keep the crack
widths under 1.5mm, the inter-story drift ratio should be no larger than 1.0, whereas to
keep the crack widths under 3.0mm, the inter-story drift should be no larger than 2.0.
The tests also indicate that the confinement concrete frame keeps the integrity of the
specimens under inter-story drift ratios as large as 13 in spite of large damage (large crack
74
widths and large strength and stiffness degradation). It is interesting to note that this large
deformation level cannot be reached in lightly reinforced partially grouted masonry walls.
4.2.6 Influence of the number and spacing of confining tie-columns: Experimental

evaluation of confined masonry walls with several confining columns, Marinilli and
Castilla [34]
The effect of the number and spacing of confining-columns in the seismic behavior of
confined masonry walls was evaluated experimentally. A set of four full-scale confined
concrete masonry walls of the same nominal area was constructed at the IMME, to be tested
against constant vertical load and reversed cyclic lateral load. The first specimen M1
consisted of one panel and two confining-columns. The second specimen M2 consisted of
two panels and three equally spaced confining-columns. The third specimen M3 also
consisted of two panels, but the central confining-column was located at of the specimen
length. Finally, the fourth specimen M4 contained three panels and four equally spaced
confining-columns. Figure 4.2.18 shows the configuration of the four specimens. The length
and the height of the specimen were 300 and 230cm, respectively.
The basic components of the masonry walls were hollow concrete blocks, mortar and
confining elements.
Figure 4.2.18 Configuration of specimens M1, M2, M3 and M4, Marinilli and Castilla [34]
75
Each one of the walls was tested against lateral loads applied at the top of the wall. A steel
box was placed around the top beam and fastened to it with bolts, so as to ensure an adequate
distribution of the lateral loads along the wall. The loads were applied with alternating and
increasing displacement-controlled cycles until the limit state of the walls was reached. Each
cycle was repeated as many times as necessary to achieve stability in the corresponding
hysteretic loop. The lateral loads were applied using hydraulic jacks. In addition each wall
was subjected to a constant vertical load to simulate gravity effects. The vertical load was
applied with a stiff steel girder and three dead weights, weighting in total 13.8tn. To ensure a
uniform distribution of the vertical load along the wall a sand bed was placed between the
steel girder and the top of the wall.
TEST RESULTS
In Figure 4.2.19 and 4.2.20 can be seen the cracking produced during testing in Specimens
M1, M2, M3 and M4, respectively. Graded 45 cracking was found in all the masonry panels.
The cracks even propagated to all the confining-columns.
Figure 4.2.19 Specimens M1 and M2 after testing, Marinilli and Castilla [34]
Figure 4.2.20 Specimens M3 and M4 after testing, Marinilli and Castilla [34]
76
However, there are some facts to highlight: Specimen M1 suffered a horizontal crack along a
mortar joint; Specimens M2 and M4 showed a widespread cracking distribution and
Specimen M3 showed in the largest masonry panel a cracking pattern similar to that observed
in M1, while the cracking at the shortest panel was similar to that observed in M2 and M4.
Based on the results obtained, it can be said that the presence of more confining-columns at a
smaller spacing seems to spread the cracking along the masonry panels, thus improving the
damage distribution. The values contained in Table 4.2.3 show that the inclusion of confiningcolumns tends to increase the strength of the walls. It is important to remember that all the
tested walls had the same nominal transverse area and were tested against the same vertical
load.
Table 4.2.3 Properties of the system, Marinilli and Castilla [34]
From these results it may be concluded that the inclusion of more confining-columns
improves the ability of the walls to make larger incursions in the inelastic range. This can be
explained considering that less spaced confining-columns is able to perform a better
confinement of the masonry panels.
The analysis of the deformations obtained during the tests shows that the general behaviour of
the walls was governed by shear deformations, even for the specimens which deformations
are not shown herein.
The results show that the inclusion of confining-columns in walls of the same nominal
transverse area increases the initial stiffness, increases the system ductility, allows a better
damage distribution in the masonry panels in conjunction with a lesser spacing of the
confining-columns, and tends to increase the strength of the walls. Otherwise, the inclusion of
confining columns does not seem to improve the energy dissipation capacity or the equivalent
damping ratio, and decreases the equivalent ductility of the walls.
4.2.7 Experimental study on effects of height of lateral forces, column reinforcement and
wall reinforcements on seismic behaviour of confined masonry walls, Yoshimura et al. [11]
In order to investigate the effect of the height of application point of lateral loads and
reinforcing steel bars in walls and columns in improving the seismic behaviour of confined
concrete block masonry walls, an experimental research program was conducted. A total of
twelve one-half scale specimens are tested under repeated lateral loads. Specimens are tested
77
to failure with increasing maximum lateral drifts while a vertical axial load was applied and
maintained constant. The specimens adopted are two-dimensional (2D) hollow concrete block
masonry walls with different parameters such as shear span ratio, inflection point and percent
of reinforcement in confining columns and walls. All the specimens are approximately onehalf scale models of one-bay-one-story masonry walls using hollow concrete block masonry
units. The thickness of all the walls is 100mm and that confined by cast-in-place RC columns
with 100mmx100mm cross-sections along their extreme edges and T-shaped RC collar beams
along their tops, Table 4.2.4.
Table 4.2.4 Test specimens, Yoshimura et al. [11]
These specimens were tested under repeated lateral forces, and constant axial compressive
stress of 0, 0.48 and 0.84MPa respectively. The test setup adopted in the present study is
illustrated in Figure 4.2.21 Test setup consisted of steel reaction frames and two hydraulic
actuators, fixed to the frame in order to simulate the constant vertical loads and in plane
lateral repeated forces.
78
Figure 4.2.21 Test setup, Yoshimura et al. [11]
TEST RESULTS
Cracks were concentrated along the diagonals, Figure 4.2.22. However, the cracks in
specimen (1), which failed in shear, were observed to be converging towards the centre
extending through the blocks whereas in case of the specimen (2), which failed in flexural
failure mode, the cracks were observed mostly along the horizontal joint mortar.
Depending upon the modes of failure, similar crack patterns were developed in the specimens
(5) and (6) in with aspect ratio 0.84, which failed in flexure and shear failure modes
respectively. The specimens (9) and (10) (c) both failed in shear and thus showed a much
more uniform inclined cracking. At failure, the cracks penetrated into the confining columns
showing a rapid reduction in the lateral load carrying capacity of the specimens.
79
(a)
(b)
(c)
Figure 4.2.22 a) Specimens with aspect ratio (ho/lo) of 1.51; b) Specimens with aspect ratio (ho/lo) of
0.84; c) Specimens with aspect ratio (ho/lo) of 0.69, Yoshimura et al. [11]
The experimental study was conducted to investigate the seismic performance of the confined
concrete hollow block masonry walls considering the parameters such as height of inflection
point (0.67h0, 1.08h0 and 1.11h0), shear span ratio (M/Qd =0.58~1.77) for aspect ratios (1.51,
0.84 and 0.67), tensile reinforcement ratio (pt=0.04~0.29%), horizontal wall reinforcement
ratios (ph=0%, 0.08% and 0.18%) and vertical axial stress (o= 0.84 and 1.8MPa). The
present test results were also compared with the test results of the past in order to investigate
the accuracy of the terms or factors in the existing equation. Based on the observations during
tests and analysis of data, the following conclusions were arrived at: irrespective of the height
80
of point of application of lateral forces to the specimens, that is, whether the inflection point is
low or high, it may be concluded that the vertical axial load has positive effect on the value of
ultimate shear stress of the specimens. Test results are showed in Table 4.2.5.
Table 4.2.5 Predicted and observed ultimate lateral strengths and failure modes, Yoshimura et al. [11]
4.2.8 Effects of vertical and horizontal wall reinforcement on seismic behaviour of

confined masonry walls, Yoshimura et al. [13]
In order to investigate the effect of vertical and horizontal wall reinforcing methods on
seismic behaviour of confined masonry wall, eight confined masonry walls specimens with
different details in wall reinforcement, Table 4.2.6, are tested under a constant gravity load
and alternately repeated lateral forces. The test results indicate that the vertical and horizontal
wall reinforcing bars provide in confined masonry walls play an important role for developing
higher strengths and better deformability.
81
Table 4.2.6 List of specimens, Yoshimura et al. [13]
The setup adopted consists in constant gravity load applied by a hydraulic jack with a capacity
of 343KN, and alternately repeated lateral forces were applied by a double-acting hydraulic
jack with 980KN capacity. Important displacements and strains in reinforcing bars were
measured by transducers and wire strain gages, and processed simultaneously by a personal
computer.
TEST RESULTS
Summarizing the test results; in the early stage of loading up to the story drift of 0.1%, hair
cracks occurred along through the horizontal joint between bottom of masonry wall and topsurface of foundation beam for all the specimens. These cracks are caused by tensile stress
due to flexure of the masonry wall. The crack pattern is shown in Figure 4.2.23.
82
Figure 4.2.23 Crack patterns of the specimens, Yoshimura [13]
In case of the confined concrete masonry wall system, both of the vertical and horizontal
reinforcement in masonry walls play an important role for expecting higher ultimate lateral
strength and better ductility. This is because high shear stresses are induced in confined
masonry wall panels especially when the masonry walls are subjected to lateral forces and
expected to fail in brittle shear failure mode.
4.2.9 Experimental study for developing higher seismic performance of brick masonry
walls, Yoshimura et al. [12]
To investigate the effective seismic strengthening methods for masonry walls in developing
countries, a total of twenty eight un-reinforced masonry (URM) and confined masonry (CM)
walls were constructed and tested. The specimens include two-dimensional (2D) and threedimensional (3D) masonry walls with and without wall reinforcing bars or U-shaped
connecting bars, which were tested under constant gravity load and repeated lateral forces.
A total of twenty-eight un-reinforced and confined masonry wall specimens with different
wall-to-wall connection details are listed in Table 4.2.7.
83
Table 4.2.7 Listed of the tested specimens, Yoshimura et al. [12]
The test setup adopted in the present study consisted of steel testing frame and two hydraulic
actuators, fixed to the frame in order to simulate constant vertical and in plane lateral repeated
loads. The vertical load was applied to the specimens by a hydraulic jack with 2.000kN
capacity, connected to servo-impulse controller system in order to keep constant vertical load
during the test.
TEST RESULTS
The crack and crack propagation during the tests were monitored and recorded by marking the
cracks at the end of the half cycle of loading while the specimen was held at the maximum
displacement, although crack widths were not filed. The cracks were partially closed with
load reversal. The final crack patterns developed in the selected specimens are shown in
Figure 4.2.24. Almost all the confined masonry specimens in L-series (whose infliction point
is 0.67 times wall height) failed in shear mode and also sliding was recorded in some of the
84
specimens. However, the clear separation of wall from the RC confining column was not seen
in un-reinforced confined masonry specimens although the cracks were developed along the
vertical joint. On the other hand, un-reinforced confined masonry specimens in H-series
(whose inflection point is 1.1 times wall height) showed a distinct separation of wall from the
RC confining column. This type of wall separation was not seen in confined masonry
specimens provided with horizontal wall reinforcement and U-shaped connecting bars, though
few cracks were developed. All H-series specimens failed in flexure mode at first and
ultimately in either sliding or shear failure mode in some cases. Further, the un-reinforced
specimens failed in flexure, i.e. cracks developed in horizontal bed joint at the bottom course
and also in other courses on the tension side.
Figure 4.2.24 Final crack pattern, Yoshimura et al. [12]
The reinforcing steel i.e. horizontal wall reinforcement and U-shaped connecting bars used in
the specimens mentioned in this report can be seen as one of the critical parameters affecting
wall ductility. However, it was impossible to evaluate the ductility factor of the tested wall
specimens correctly because these specimens did not show the perfect elasto-plastic
behaviour. Therefore, it may be concluded that horizontal wall reinforcement and U-shaped
connecting bars improve the deformation behaviour of wall after attaining the maximum
ultimate lateral load.
Based on the observations during tests and analysis of data, the following conclusions were
obtained.
The confined masonry wall system is effective to improve the poor seismic
performance of the ordinary URM, by enhancing the lateral load carrying capacity.
85
The confined masonry wall system with connecting bars at the vertical wall-to-wall
connections as well as the horizontal wall reinforcing bars developed reasonably higher
ultimate lateral strength with the increase of vertical axial load and showed better ductility as
compared to the un-reinforced wall specimens.
The wall separation effect from the RC confining columns can be avoided by
providing the U-shaped connecting bars at the wall-to-wall or wall-to-column joints as
recommended in China.
The increase in axial stress tends to increase the lateral load carrying capacity of the
masonry walls and the observed values showed that the ultimate flexural strength could be
well predicted by the existing equation.
In brief, it can be concluded that the horizontal wall reinforcement and/or connecting bars
provided between masonry walls and RC columns play an important role to improve the poor
seismic performance in the ordinary URM and CM walls, by enhancing the ductile behaviour
to some extent and lateral load carrying capacity.
4.2.10 Experimental study on earthquake-resistant design of confined masonry structures,

Ishibashi et al. [35]
One story specimens were designed and constructed following the requirements of the
Mexico City Building Code (DDF 1987 & 1989). The experimental variable was the flexural
coupling between two wall panels having different openings between them.
Specimens are shown in Figure 4.2.25. The first specimen W-W was practically lacked of
flexural coupling, the walls were only connected through high-strength dywidag bars, that
transfer the lateral forces between them. In the second model, WBW, the walls were linked by a
cast-in-place reinforced concrete bond-beam and slab, forming a door opening. Finally the
last model WWW had a parapet between the walls, this time forming a window opening.
Specimens were 5m long and walls were 2.4m and 1.6m long separated by 1m opening. The
height of the walls was 2.5m. Walls were built with hand-made solid clay bricks. Concrete
had a compressive strength of 200kg/cm. The cement mortar joint had a ratio of 1:3 (cement:
sand), with a compressive strength of 125kg/cm. The steel reinforcement had nominal yield
strength of 4200kg/cm. Tie-columns were reinforced with 4#3 longitudinal bars and #2
hoops spaced 20cm, this space was reduce at the end of the columns were it was of 7cm.
Bond-beams were reinforced with 4#4 longitudinal bars and #2 hoops spaced 20cm.
86
Figure 4.2.25 Specimens details, Ishibashi et al. [35]
The lateral shear was applied through a static type hydraulic jack. A vertical force of 5 kg/cm
was applied to simulate the gravitational loads during the test. The alternated lateral loads
used for the test are shown in Figure 4.2.26. First test were load controlled with maximum
shears equal to 5, 10 and 18tns. In the second stage displacement controlled cycles were
applied up to 0.012.
Figure 4.2.26 Loading history, Ishibashi et al. [35]
87
TEST RESULTS
Final cracks patters are showed in Figure 4.2.27. In all the specimens damage was governed
by diagonal cracks. First cracks appeared near the corners and propagated fast to the wall
center with increasing deformation levels during the test. Almost not damage was observed in
the rest of the masonry panel. The specimen ww presented a more uniform crack distribution
tran the other models. Brick crushing occurred but not damage in the mortar. By the end of
the test few vertical cracks were observed between the wall panel edge and the tie-column.
In the models WBW and WWW diagonal cracks extended through the walls from the corners of
the opening to the diagonally opposite corner. No cracks were observed in the parapets of the
model WWW. Tie-columns present flexural cracking uniformly distributed along the height.
After diagonal cracks occurred strength and stiffness decay were observed, particularly at
large drift ratios (0.012).
Maximum measured strengths were 75% higher than the calculated capacities using code
recommended masonry strengths. Stable hysteretic loops were observed up to 0.005 drift
ratio, this limit deformation is small in comparison with well detailed RC frame or wall
structures. At larger deformations than 0.005, severe degradation was noted. Therefore, large
reductions on the elastic spectral ordinates for this type of structures cannot be justified.
Although the type of opening affected the initial stiffness of the specimens, the stiffness decay
was similar and follows a parabolic curve. A wide-column model can be used to predict the
initial stiffness of a structure.
88
Figure 4.2.27 Response of specimens WW, WBW and WWW, Ishibashi et al. [35]
4.3
Concluding remarks
Considering all the experimental tests in confined masonry listed previously some
conclusions can be pointed out:
Most of the tests presented in this chapter correspond to masonry panels subjected to
cyclic loading and few correspond to buildings subjected to shaking table tests.
The behaviour of hollow clay bricks and hollow concrete blocks is brittle in
comparison with the solid clay bricks. And in most of the test that used the two first ones
spalling was produce.
Shear failure was the predominant failure mode.
Based on the failure mode observed, the analytical model for design and assessment
could be simplified by assuming that all inelastic deformations would take place at the first
story and would be controlled by shear.
89
None of the walls reached their theoretical flexural capacity and the final state was
controlled by the columns shear strength. This is due to the fact that, under large
displacements, diagonal cracking of masonry extended to the columns.
Compression failure never occurred.
A more uniform distribution of cracks was observed in specimens with horizontal

reinforcement; the larger the amount, the more uniformly distributed the cracking was.
The mode of failure is strongly dependent on the horizontal reinforcement ratio.
The loads that produced initial cracking of the walls with openings are half of the load
that produced the same effects in the wall without the openings.
The experimental results indicated that the confining of an un-reinforced wall by RC

tie-columns led to the increase of the lateral resistance and to the change of failure
mechanism.
The inclusion of more confining-columns improves the ability of the walls to make
larger incursions in the inelastic range. This can be explained considering that less spaced
confining-columns is able to perform a better confinement of the masonry panels.
The test results indicate that the vertical and horizontal wall reinforcing bars provide
in confined masonry walls play an important role for developing higher strengths and better
deformability.
90
Chapter 5. Code recommendations
5. CODE RECOMMENDATIONS
In this chapter some recommendations given by the Argentinean (INPRES-CIRSOC 103) and
the European (EU 6 and EU 8) codes are presented and discussed. It must be pointed out that
confined masonry has evolved essentially through an informal process based on experience,
and that it has been incorporated in formal construction through code requirements and design
procedures that are mostly rationalizations of the established practice, even after having been
validated by structural mechanics principles and experimental evidence.
Finally a comparison between codes from EU, Italy, Peru, Mexico, Argentina and Colombia
are added in order to have a general view of all the recommendations existing nowadays in
confined masonry.
5.1
Quality of masonry
The strength qualities of the masonry are characterized by the following parameters:
Compressive strength, mo
Shear strength, mo
The tensile strength of the masonry due to bending in the plane of the wall is not considered.
The deformability of the masonry is defined by the followings parameters:
Elastic modulus, Em
Shear modulus, Gm
The materials used for the masonry panels were characterized by testing brick piers under
simple compression and small masonry probes under diagonal compression, according to the
INPRES-CIRSOC 103 Code [7].
91
Compressive strength
The compressive strength, measured in relation to the gross area, is a strength index of the
masonry in compression, and is useful for design and control. This index is determined by
tests at 28 days; codes also give some minimum values as indicated in Table 5.1.1.
This procedure consists in tests on bricks piers, Figure 5.1.1. In these tests the value of the
compressive strength mo is equal to the characteristic compressive strength. This value is
determined as that achieved by the 95% of the testing.
The piers must be fabricated following the procedures used in the zone where the construction
is to be located, taking into account the conditions and qualities of the masonry units used for
the construction.
Figure 5.1.1 Tests on brick piers to determine the compressive strength, Bustos [10]
Table 5.1.1 Values of compressive strength for different masonry units and mortar joints, INPRESCIRSOC 103 code [7]
Values of 'mo (MN/m)

solid clay brick class A

solid clay brick class B
Hollow clay block class A
Hollow clay block class B
Hollow concrete block class I and II
Hollow concrete block class III

High
4
2.5
3
2
3
2
Intermediate
3.5
2
2.5
1.5
2.5
1.5
Normal
3
1.5
2
1.2
1.5
1.2
Shear strength
The shear strength, measured with relation to the gross section is another strength index of the
masonry and is useful for design and control.
92
The tests, in this case, consist in small masonry probes under diagonal compression, Figure
5.1.2. This trial mix is tested after 28 days of curing.
D = 0.7 P
m = D / d . eo
Figure 5.1.2 Masonry probes under diagonal compression to determine the strength, INPRES-CIRSOC
103 code [7] and Yez et al. [8]
In these tests the value of the shear strength (mo) is taken as the characteristic shear strength,
which is determined as the value achieved by the 95% of the tests. Minimum values are
suggested code in Table 5.1.2. The shear strength is obtained by dividing the projection of the
load parallel to the rows of masonry by the respective gross section.
The r value must be at least equal to 20cm. The relation between r/d should be equal or
higher than 0.3.
93
Table 5.1.2 Values of shear strength for different masonry units and mortar joints, INPRES-CIRSOC [7]
Values of mo (MN/m)

High
Intermediate
Normal
solid clay brick class A

solid clay brick class B
0.4
0.35
0.35
0.3
0.3
0.25
Hollow clay block class A

Hollow clay block class B
0.35
0.3
0.3
0.25
0.25
0.2
Hollow concrete block class I and II

Hollow concrete block class III
0.35
0.3
0.3
0.25
0.25
0.2
Masonry deformability: elastic modulus and shear modulus
The approximated values given by INPRES-CIRSOC 103 are:
Elastic modulus:
Em = 800 'mo for dynamic loads
Em = 300 'mo for loads of large duration
Shear modulus:
Gm = 0.3 Em
5.2
Classification of the structural walls
Structural walls are classified by the INPRES-CIRSOC 103 code in:
Confined masonry, Figure 5.2.1.
Confined masonry
Confined masonry with horizontal reinforcement
Confined masonry without vertical confining elements
Reinforced masonry, Figure 5.2.2.

94
Also each of these typologies can be made of different masonry units, like: solid clay bricks,
hollow concrete blocks or hollow clay blocks.
Figure 5.2.1 Confined masonry. Left: reinforce confined masonry; right: confined masonry. Universidad
Nacional de Cordoba [16]
Figure 5.2.2 Different options of reinforced masonry, Decanini and Payer [17]
Structural walls for good seismic performance
The performance of building subject to earthquake motions is governed by the interconnectivity of structural components as well as the individual component's strength, stiffness
and ductility. Thus the details to provide good seismic resistance can be classified in two
categories:
Details for complete load path:
Provide wall to wall connection i.e. tying of walls.
Provide means for walls to foundations connection.

95
Provide connection of bond-beams to roof.
Provide connection of walls to bond-beams.
Provide stiff in their plane floors/roofs.
Details to improve structural components strength and ductility:
Improve the compressive strength of structural components.
Improve the bending strength of structural components.
Improve the shear strength of structural components.
Improve the ductility, of the structural components.
Codes give a minimum length for the masonry panel to achieve the compressive strength on
the diagonal. For this reason, to establish this condition, walls are classified into: walls with
two supports, and walls with three or more supports.
Masonry panels supported in two sides must have the minimum lengths given in
Figure 5.2.3.
constraint
Wall with two horizontal constraints
H1
La
H1
2.2
La( m)
constraint
1.5m
H1( m)
For M.R.A.D.
La 1.20m
La
Figure 5.2.3 Minimum dimensions of confined masonry panels with two constraints, Universidad
Nacional de Cordoba [16]
Masonry panels supported in three or more sides must reach the minimum lengths
given in Figure 5.2.4.
96
constraint
Wall with three or more constraints
constraint
H1
La
constraint
H1
2.6
La( m)
0.90m
H1( m)
For M.R.A.D.
La
La 0.80m
Figure 5.2.4 Minimum dimensions of confined masonry panels with three or more constraints,
Universidad Nacional de Cordoba [16]
Another condition for a good seismic performance is given by the maximum heights and
number of stories for the different classification of walls and seismic zones, Table 5.2.1.
Table 5.2.1 Maximum heights and number of stories allowed by the INPRES-CIRSOC 103 code [7]
Structural walls
Type of wall
Confined masonry
solid clay brick
Hollow clay block
Solid clay bricks
Seismic zones 1 and 2

Seismic zones 3 and 4
Maximum height maximum number Maximum height maximum number
hn (m)
of stories N
hn (m)
of stories N
12.5
4
9.5
3
Confined reinforced masonry
15.5
12.5
Reinforced masonry
15.5
12.5
Confined masonry
6.5
9.5
6.5
Reinforced masonry
12.5
9.5
Confined masonry
6.5
9.5
6.5
Reinforced masonry
12.5
9.5
(1) Unconfined masonry
3.5
_________
_________
(1) Only allowed in case of internal load-bearing walls and low seismic activity.
97
Recommendations and general principles of the structural composition according to INPRESCIRSOC 103 [7] and EU 8 [36]:
Load bearing walls are required in two orthogonal directions of the building, Figure
5.2.5.
Both directions need a minimum density of walls to resist the seismic loads.
Regular configuration, both in plan and elevation, i.e. uniform and symmetrical, as
shown in Figure 5.2.6.
It is suggested that no variations of resistance, stiffness or mass in plan and in

elevation are to be introduced.
Rigid floors should interconnect walls to ensure diaphragm action.
In constructions of two or more stories, the walls must be vertically aligned from
storey to storey.
If possible, masonry panels should be supported in all the sides.
The openings in walls, slabs and roof must be located in such way that they generate
the least possible tensions.
Stable foundation should be able to transmit the maximum seismic loads from the
superstructure to the foundation soil.
Figure 5.2.5 Structural walls distribution in plan, Kuldeep Virdi [3]
Masonry buildings with horizontal irregularities and lack of symmetry may have considerable
eccentricity between the mass centre and stiffness centre giving rise to damaging coupled
lateral/torsional response. Horizontal irregularities in the form of extensions, projections etc.
may cause stress concentration and local failures since these extensions are prone to vibrate
separately from the rest of the structure. On the other hand vertical irregularity in masonry
building may cause stress concentration at a horizontal plane that can lead to total collapse. In
order to achieve satisfactory redundancy at least to lines of load bearing walls are required in
each principal direction of the building. Lack of rigid floors will prevent proportionate load
98
transfer onto walls at each floor level as well as will not provide out of plane restraint.
Unsupported masonry walls at floor level tend to separate at corners and/or fail out of their
plane, causing collapse of floor or roof, Kuldeep Virdi [3].
Figure 5.2.6 Irregular configurations in plan should be separated in regular potions, Kuldeep Virdi [3]
Vertical regularity is achieved by uniform distribution along the height of the building
of stiffness and masses. Lack of vertical regularity may lead to horizontal plane of
weakness/stress concentration and collapse.
Mixed structural systems, such as a combination of masonry structural walls in one

level and RC frame in the next, are not allowed. For the purpose of planning flexibility it is
possible a combined system consisting of RC columns and masonry shear walls. For such
configurations the masonry bearing walls should be reinforced and the RC members should
be connected into RC floors forming frames. The vertical reinforcement of the masonry shear
wall should be anchored into the floor to ensure load transfer.
The floors are rigid in their plane providing diaphragm action and interconnected with
masonry walls. To this end the floors should be constructed in a single plane. In cases where
large openings are present in the floor, such as for stairways the contour of the opening should
be strengthened with a bond-beam. Also two-way slabs are preferred to one-way slabs, as
they distribute the vertical gravity loads more uniformly onto the masonry walls.
5.3
Confined masonry
In this section some recommendations are given for confined masonry. In these
recommendations, specifications about the maximum area of the masonry panels and the
maximum distance of panels allowed are listed according to the INPRES-CIRSOC 103.
The dimensions and the area are given depending on the thickness and the height of the panel
and the seismic zone as well, Table 5.3.1.
99
Table 5.3.1 Maximum area and dimension for confined masonry panels, INPRES-CIRSOC 103 [7]
Maximum area of the

Seismic zones
Maximum dimension of the panel (m)
masonry panel
wall thickness
wall thickness
(m)
17cm
< 17cm and 13cm
30
4.5
25
3 and 4
20
The following recommendations regarding the configuration and size of openings should be
observed according to EU 8, Kuldeep Virdi [3]:
Openings should be vertically aligned from storey to story.
The top ends of openings in the storey should be horizontally aligned.
Openings should not stop continuous RC bond-beams (at lintel and/or roof level).
Openings should be located symmetrically in the plan of the building so as not to get
in the way of the uniform distribution of strength and stiffness in two orthogonal directions.
Tie-columns and bond-beams
On the other hand, some recommendations are given for the confining elements. Thus, in case
of tie-columns, general prescriptions are as follows (INPRES-CIRSOC 103):
-
In external walls: should be located at all corners and changes of wall contour, and
at all joints, wall intersections and free ends of structural walls.
In internal walls: should be located at all corners and changes of wall contour, and
at all joints, wall intersections and free ends of structural walls.
When the masonry panels area is bigger than the maximum dimensions given in
Table 5.3.1.
Vertical confining members are also necessary at both sides of any opening.
Position of bond-beams:
-
Level of foundations.
At every floor level.

100
In roof level.
In intermediate levels when the area, the maximum dimensions or the relation between
sides is higher than the ones given in Table 5.3.1
In the case of sloping roof.
Recommendation for the confining elements
In the case of confined masonry construction bond-beams are constructed as part of the
vertical and horizontal masonry confining elements. Bond-beams should be constructed insitu from reinforced concrete and cast simultaneously with the floor slab. Bond-beams should
be cast on top of all structural walls at every floor level, Kuldeep Virdi [3].
Bond-beams are constructed because:
They conform confined masonry shear walls in combination with tie-columns.
They improve the in-plane stiffness of floors to provide diaphragm action.
They transfer the horizontal load from the diaphragm to the structural walls.
They connect the structural walls together and provide out-of-plane support.
They connect the RC tie-columns.
EC8 specifies the following minimum requirements, Figure 5.3.1:
Concrete of class 15 should be used.
Cross section size should be not less than 150x150mm.
Four mild steel re-bars with total area 240mm2.
To ensure integrity of the bond-beam the longitudinal re-bars at corners and wall
intersections should be spliced a length of 60.
Transverse reinforcement-stirrups re-bar 6 @ 200mm intervals.
101
Figure 5.3.1 Detail of RC bond-beam showing splicing of re-bars at wall corners, Kuldeep Virdi [3]
On the other hand, INPRES-CIRSOC 103 code specifies that the concrete used in the
confining elements have minimum compressive strength of 11MN/m, and the minimum
recommended content of cement in the concrete is 250kg/m.
The dimensions of tie-columns and bond-beams should have the proportions given in Figure
5.3.2. The minimum section of tie-columns can be computed with the following expression:
Bc (cm) = 0.025*Vp (kg)
Figure 5.3.2 Dimensions recommended by INPRES-CIRSOC 103 code for tie-columns and bond-beams,
102
For the determination of the reinforcement, INPRES-CIRSOC 103 gives an approximated

procedure.
Tie-columns: the total reinforcement section (Ac) of the tie-column of a given story
can be computed with the next expression:
Ac = (1 + 0.25k)*Vp*(Ho/Lo)*(1/s)
Bond-beams: the total reinforcement section (Av) of the bond-beams of a determined

story can be computed with the following expression:
Av = Vp*(1/s)
Minimum reinforcement section of tie-columns and bond-beams determined with the
expressions listed above can not be less that the minimum reinforcement section computed
with the following expressions (first one for seismic zones 1 and 2, and second expression for
seismic zone 3 and 4):
Amin = (0.25 + 0.13k)*t*(1/s)
Amin = (0.35 + 0.18k)*t*(1/s)
Minimum values are given in the Argentinean code for different types of reinforcement and
seismic zones, Table 5.3.2.
Table 5.3.2 Recommended diameters and separation for reinforcement in tie-columns and bond-beams,
Seismic
zones
1 and 2
3 and 4
Reinforcement type ADN 420 and ADM

420
Longitudinal
Hoops
Reinforcement
4 bars
diameter 4.2mm
diameter = 6mm
each 20cm
4 bars
diameter 4.2mm
diameter = 8mm
each 20cm
Reinforcement type Al 220

Longitudinal
Hoops
Reinforcement
4 bars
diameter 6mm
diameter = 8mm
each 20cm
4 bars
diameter 6mm
diameter = 10mm
each 20cm
The diameter of hoops (ds), for tie-columns, can be computed as:

ds = (0.20 + 0.1k)*se
103
In critical zones the total section of hoops (Ae), for tie-columns, in one layer is
determined by:
Ae = (0.5*Vp)/(dc*s)*se
The separation of hoops for tie-columns can not be more than half of the transversal
dimension of the column or not more than 10cm, Figure 5.3.3.
Hoops in critical zones of bond-beams are recommended to be twice the reinforcement
that corresponds to the normal zones, and the separation between them not more than 10cm.
In normal zones maximum separation can be 20cm.
Figure 5.3.3 Hoops in critic zones (near corners) and in normal zones, Universidad Nacional de Cordoba
[16]
Recommendations are also given to provide a good anchorage in the corners, Figure 5.3.4 and
connections between masonry walls panels and RC columns, Figure 5.3.5.
104
Figure 5.3.4 Recommended details in masonry wall connection in Argentina [16]
Figure 5.3.5 Recommended details in masonry wall to RC column connection in P.R. China, Yoshimura
et al. [12]
105
According to EC 8 the resistance of the RC bond-beam should not be taken into consideration
in the design calculations. Consequently there is no mandatory design through calculation for
the bond-beams. The design parameters are determined on empirical basis. In Table 5.3.3 the
reinforcement can be determined based on the seismicity of the location the number of storeys
and position for vertical confining elements and in Table 5.3.4 for bond-beams. Also Figure
5.3.6 illustrates the design and position of the reinforcement for tie-columns.
Table 5.3.3 Recommended reinforcement for tie-columns [37]
Table 5.3.4 Recommended reinforcement for bond-beams [37]
106
Figure 5.3.6 Construction of tie-column for confined brick masonry house, Kuldeep Virdi [3]
5.4
Resistance verification
The verifications in the confined masonry are the following two according to INPRESCIRSOC 103 code: one is to verify the structure when it is subjected to seismic action, and
the other one is when the masonry structure is under gravitational loads. Verification under
seismic loads must be computed for ultimate stress condition.
107
Confined masonry in-plane verification given by INPRES-CIRSOC 103
In this respect two verifications are needed:
Failure mechanism in shear
Failure mechanism in flexion with compression
The maximum shear stress resisted by the confined masonry wall (Vur) can be determined in
terms of the basic shear strength mo of the masonry and the compressive strength o
generated by the vertical loads, according to the following expression:
Vur = (0.6* mo + 0.3*o) Bm
On the other hand, the shear stress resisted by the confined masonry wall (Vur) should reach
the following condition:
Vur 1.5* mo*Bm
For the verification in bending, the ultimate resisting moment can be determined by:
Muro = Ac * s * Le
When gravitational loads are acting on the masonry wall, the ultimate resisting moment can
be determined by one of the following expression, depending on the case:
If Nu (Nuo/3) : Mur = Muro + 0.3 Nu L
or
If Nu > (Nuo/3) : Mur = (1.5*Muro + 0.15* Nuo* L)*[1-(Nu/Nu0)]

In confined masonry panels, whose height is not more than 9m or 3 stories in 1 or 2 seismic
zone, or 7m and 2 stories in seismic zones 3 and 4, and also fulfil the condition given below,
it is assumed that the confined masonry wall satisfies the verification in bending and
compression:
(Ht / L) 2.5
If the confined masonry panels are subjected to gravitational loads the following effects have
to be taken into account:
Normal stress due to vertical loads.

108
Bending moments due to the eccentricity of the load transmission, from the inter story
or roof, that supports the masonry wall in consideration.
Bending moments due to the lack of coincidence of the axis of the wall in the storey
above with that of the wall under consideration.
Slenderness effects.
Accidental eccentricity of the load, originated by construction imperfection of the wall

under consideration.
Each of the topics listed above are a required verification in the INPRES-CIRSOC 103.
The last in-plane verification is related to the vertical loads. The ultimate strength of the
confined masonry walls subjected to vertical load is determined with the following
expression:
Nur = * mo * Bm
= 1 (2 e* / t)
e* = et + ea
or
e* = 0.6 (et + ea) + ec
Verification for confined masonry given by EU 6, part 1 [9]
(1) In the verification of confined masonry members subjected to bending and/or axial
loading, the assumptions given for reinforced masonry members should be adopted. In
determining the design value of the moment of resistance of a section a rectangular stress
distribution may be assumed, based on the strength of the masonry, only. Reinforcement in
compression should also be ignored.
(2) In the verification of confined masonry members subjected to shear loading the shear
resistance of the member should be taken as the sum of the shear resistance of the masonry
and of the concrete of the confining elements. In calculating the shear resistance of the
masonry the rules for un-reinforced masonry walls subjected to shear loading should be used,
considering for lc the length of the masonry element. Reinforcement of confining elements
should not be taken into account.
109
(3) In the verification of confined masonry members subjected to lateral loading, the
assumptions set out for un-reinforced and reinforced masonry walls should be used. The
contribution of the reinforcement of the confining elements should be considered.
(1)P Confined masonry members shall not exhibit flexural cracking nor deflect excessively
under serviceability loading conditions.
(2)P The verification of confined masonry members at the serviceability limit states shall be
based on the assumptions given for un-reinforced masonry members.
Confined masonry out-of-plane verification
Confined masonry walls are subjected to loads in the direction perpendicular to its plane.
These loads are generated by the inertia due to the gravitational loads subjected to the seismic
action. The determination of these loads can be as follow:
qs = 3.5 * C * q
The ultimate bending moment originated by this loads can be computed:
Muv = qs (H/8)
110
5.5
Simplified method allowed by the Argentinean code
The code allows the use of a simplified method which assumes that in-plane wall
deformations are governed by shear, and the distribution of ultimate shear stresses across the
wall is uniform. In the annex a calculation of a building of solid clay bricks is presented to
describe with more detail the procedure.
Figure 5.5.1 Gravity loads, INPRES-CIRSOC 103 [7]
Seismic Zone
Type of masonry
Figure 5.5.2 Seismic coefficient of design, INPRES-CIRSOC 103 [7]
111
Figure 5.5.3 Determination of torsion moments and shears of each story, INPRES-CIRSOC 103 [7]
Type of brick
Type of mortar
Figure 5.5.4 Determination of the elastic constants, INPRES-CIRSOC 103 [7]
112
Considerate wall at
each floor
Contribution of transversal
walls
Figure 5.5.5 Geometric characteristics, INPRES-CIRSOC 103 [7]
Flexural
Shear
deformation dfi
deformation dci
Total deformation
Figure 5.5.6 Wall stiffness, INPRES-CIRSOC 103 [7]
113
Direction of
analysis
Distribution by
Distribution by
relative Stiffness
relative Stiffness
Figure 5.5.7 Total design shear for each story, INPRES-CIRSOC 103 [7]
Figure 5.5.8 Design bending moment of each wall for each story, INPRES-CIRSOC 103 [7]
114
Accumulated
Accumulated
slab reactions
wall weight, etc
Figure 5.5.9 Design normal resistance for each wall, INPRES-CIRSOC 103 [7]
Type of brick
Type of mortar
It must be verified that:
Figure 5.5.10 Verification of shear strength, INPRES-CIRSOC 103 [7]
115
Figure 5.5.11 Verification of gravitational loads, INPRES-CIRSOC 103 [7]
Bond-beams
Longitudinal reinforcement
Stirrups
1) Minimum diameter for stirrups = 4.2mm

2) Length in critical zones: lc = 60cm
3) Minimum longitudinal reinforcement = 48
Figure 5.5.12 Reinforcement dimensions of bond-beams, INPRES-CIRSOC 103 [7]
116
Tie-columns
Stirrups
4) Minimum diameter for stirrups = 4.2mm

5) Length in critical zones: lc = H/5 or 2dc or 60cm
6) Minimum longitudinal reinforcement = 48
Figure 5.5.13 Reinforcement dimensions of tie-columns, INPRES-CIRSOC 103 [7]
Figure 5.5.14 Verification of flexion and compression, INPRES-CIRSOC 103 [7]
117
5.6
Comparison between codes
Different recommendations are given by codes; the following tables summarized the principal
requirements for confined masonry. The majority of the codes belong to South America:
Argentina [7], Peru [41], Colombia [39] and Mexico [40]. The EuroCode [1, 9 and 36] and
the Italian code [2] are compared as well.
Table 5.6.1 gives a comparison between the elastic and shear modulus adopted by them. Table
5.6.2 gives minimum requirements for load-bearing walls. Table 5.6.3 compares different
geometrical conditions of confined masonry walls. Table 5.6.4 gives resistance verification in
plane and Table 5.6.5 out-of-plane resistance verifications. Table 5.6.6 and 5.6.7 gives
specifications and requirements for confining elements and their reinforcement.
Table 5.6.1 Elastic properties of masonry given by the different codes

Country
Argentina
EU
Name of the Code
Year
INPRES-CIRSOC 103
Normas Argentinas para construcciones
sismorresistentes - Parte III: Construcciones
de mamposteria
1983
prEN 1996-1-1, Eurocode 6:

Design of Masonry Structures,
Part 1-1: Common rules for reinforced
and unreinforced masonry structures.
1996
Norme Tecniche per le Costruzioni in

Zone Sismiche documento di studio
GNDT, Dicembre 1984.
1984
NSR-98
Titulo D: Mampostera Estructural
1998
Elastic properties of masonry

Elastic molulus E
Shear Modulus G
Dinamic loads:
Em := 800 mo
Static loads:
Em := 300 mo
G m := 0.3 E m
E: secant value of fig. 3.2

The shear modulus, G,
may be taken as 40%
of the elastic modulus, E.
is the final creep coefficient
Italy
Colombia
For different typologies

of masonry units, different
values of E
For different typologies

of masonry units, different
values of G
Concrete units:
Clay units:
Per
Normas tecnicas E.070
2006
Albaileria
Clay units:
Silico-calcareas units:
Concrete units:
Mexico
Gaceta Oficial del Distrito Federal,

6 de Octubre de 2004, No. 103-BIS. Normas
Tcnicas complementarias para diseo y
construccin de estructuras de mapostera
(Tomo I). Normas Tcnicas complementarias
para diseo por sismo (Tomo II).
2004
Concrete blocks:
Dinamic loads:
Static loads:
Adobe:
Dinamic loads:
Static loads:
118
Table 5.6.2 Minimum conditions for walls to be considered as load-bearing walls

Country
Argentina
Minimum length of
load-bearing walls
Two constrains:
H
L
2.2
L 1.5m
Minimum thickness
of the walls
t 17c m
Three or more constrains: For buildings of not more than 3m

H
height: t 13c m
2.6
L 0.90m
L
EU
tefmin( mm) 240mm
hef
15
tef
Italy
H
L
t 24cm
2.5
15
t
Colombia
t 110mm
H
t
25
Per
Seismic zone 2 and 3:
Seismic zone 1:
Mexico
t 100mm
H
t
30
119
Table 5.6.3 Geometric conditions for confined masonry given by the different codes, Decanini et al. [38]
120
Mexico
Per
Colombia
Italy
EU
Argentina
Country
)
0
M UR := A c s L e
Flexural strength
The design resistance of each

structural element evaluated with
EN 1996-1-1

EN 1996-1-1
Shear resistance of the member should Bending loading, EN 1996-1-1 for

be taken as the sum of the shear
reinforced masonry members should be
resistance of the masonry and of the adopted. Based on the strength of the
concrete of the confining elements.
masonry, only.
Rules for unreinforced masonry shouldReinforcement in compression should
be used. Reinforcement is not taken also be ignored.
into account.
V UR 1.5 mo B M
VUR := 0.6 mo + 0.3 o BM
Shear strength
:= 1
2

EN 1996-1-1
Axial loading, EN 1996-1-1 for

adopted. Based on the strength of the
masonry, only
Reinforcement in compression should
also be ignored.
NUR 2.6NU
NUR := mo BM
In-plane verification
NUo := mo BM
NUo
NU
NU >
. MUR := 1.5 MUR 0 + 0.15 NU L 1
3
NUo
NUo
NU
.M := MUR 0 + 0.3 NU L
3 UR

EN 1996-1-1
Bending and/or axial loading, EN 1996-1-1 for

adopted. Based on the strength of the
masonry, only.
Reinforcement in compression should
also be ignored.
if
if
Flexural-compressive strength
2.5
In case the above

relation is verify, walls
must verify flexion
If this relation is verify

no need to do
out-of-plane verification
d c 2 h b d c 5m
If this expresion is verify

it verify to flexural-comp
Ht
Simplify equation
for flexural-compressive
Table 5.6.4 Resistance verifications in plane given by codes
121
Mexico
Per
Colombia
Italy
EU
Argentina
Country
MUV 2.6 M UR
flexo-compresion strength
given only by tie-columns
H
M UV := q s
8
q s := 3.5 C q
Out-of-plane verification
in serviability state should
be lower than:
Verification of
Compressive diagonal
Tension
Shear
Compression
Verification of
Tie-column
Verification of
Bond-beam
Confined masonry members

shall not exhibit flexural
cracking nor deflect
excessively under serviceability
loading conditions.
Assumptions given for unreinforced masonry is used
Crack control
Table 5.6.5 Resistance verification out-of-plane and verification of the confining elements
122
Mexico
Per
Colombia
Italy
EU
Argentina
Country
Q= factor de
comportamiento sismico
dalas= bond-beams
castillos= tie-columns
Bond-beams:
vigas soleras
Tie-columns:
columnas
Bond-beams:
vigas de confinamiento
Tie-columns:
columnas de confinamiento
20m
25m
hb 4m
dc 5m
hb 4m
dc 5m
hb 4m
dc 4m
5m
6m
4m
4m
d c 1.5 H d c 35 t
Distance between bond-beams
d c 4m or
seismic Maximum Maximum diension of the panel

zone
area
17cm
< 17cm and
2
13cm
7m
4.5m
1
30m
Maximum distance between

confining elements
or d c 1.5 H
Distance between bond-beams
minimum dimension of the confining

elements: the thickness of the wall: t
d c 4m
Maximum distance between tie-columns
h b 3m
Maximum distance between bond-beams

d c 5m
d c 2 h b

Bond-beams:
horizontal confining elements
Tie-columns:
cordoli verticali
Bond-beams:
cordoli orizzontali
Bond-beams:
horizontal confining elements
Tie-columns:
vertical confining elements
Tie-columns:
vertical confining elements
Bond-beams:
vigas de encadenado
Designation of the
confining elements
Tie-columns:
columnas de encadenado
Bc := 0.025Vp
(c m2)
Minimum dimension of tie-column
Minimum section: the maximum obtained by the

following expressions:
Bond-beams must have at least the height of the

slab
For tie-columns and bond-beams:
Minimum transversal dimension of tie-columns

the thickness of the wall and the other direction
cross-sectional dimensions of confining elements

may not be less than 150mm
Bond-beams: the minimum width is the

thickness of the wall and the minimum height
15cm
cross-sectional dimensions of confining elements
may not be less than 0.02m, with a minimum
dimension in the plan of the wall of 150mm
Tie-columns:
Minimum section of confining elements
bk 11
m
MN
Minimum strength of the

concrete of the conf. Elem
Table 5.6.6 Specifications and requirements of the confining elements
123
Mexico
Per
Colombia
Italy
EU
Argentina
Country
1
s
Ho
L o s
seismic zone 3,4 > 48mm
seismic zone 1,2 > 46mm
A v := V p
A c := ( 1 + 0.25 k) V p
of confining elements
m
minimum section 0.0075B
of long. reinforcement
Bm section of the confining
element
Not less than diameter 5mm and

spaced not more than 150mm
and should be provided around the
longitudinal reinforcement
May not have a cross-sectional

area less than 300mm or than
1% of the cross-sectional area
of the confining element
Does not give any information
The ratio of the length of the wall, l,

to the greater clear height, h, of the
openings adjacent to the wall, may
not be less than a minimum value
l/h>0.3
*area of the opening35%

of the total area of the panel
*Minimum length from the vertical
edge of the vertical column to the
vertical edge of the opening: 0.90m
or 25%of the total length of the panel
All openings with an area higher
than 1.5m must be confined
Openings
or
s 200mm
t thickness of conf. element
s distance between stirrups
s 1.5 t
openings must be confined

if the widh of the opening
is more than 600mm
or 1/4 of the distance
between tie-columns
To be considered as a load-bearing
or 1.5 times the minimum dimension walls, the wall panel must not have
of the tie-column or 200mm
any opening
In high seismic zones minimum
spacing 100mm
Not less than diameter 6mm and

spaced not more than 300mm
A e := 0.5
Vp
s ec
d c s
critic
zones
s ec 10c m
s e 20cm normal zones
d s := ( 0.20 + 0.1kk) s e cm
Minimum stirrups of the

confining elements
May not have a cross-sectional

area less than 200mm or than
0.8% of the cross-sectional area
of the confining element
A min := ( 0.35 + 0.18 k) t
A min := ( 0.25 + 0.13 k) t
Minimum long. Reinfor.

of the conf. Elements
Table 5.6.7 Specifications and requirements of reinforcement for confining elements
124
5.7
Conclusions and possible topics to develop
In Table 5.6.1 the names of the different codes are given, also their year, being the oldest one
the Argentinean masonry code, 1983.
Table 5.6.1 refers to the calculation of the elastic modulus and the shear modulus. All the
codes have more less the same way to determine the shear modulus Gm, as the 40% of the
elastic modulus Em, only the Argentinean code adopts the 30% of Em. One difference in the
determination of Em is that the Argentinean and the Mexican code compute this modulus as a
function of static or dynamic loads, while the others used the type of masonry units to
difference the value of this modulus.
In Table 6.6.2 geometrical relations are given in order to consider the wall panel as a loadbearing wall. Comparing the different values given for the thickness of the walls panels it was
found that the minimum values are given by the Mexican code, 10cm, while the maximum is
given by the EU and the Italian code of 24cm. This values depend on the country may be for
the fact that the masonry units use are not the same so the thickness can vary from one
country to the other.
Only the Argentinean and the Italian codes give limitations in the relations between the height
and the length of the walls panels, being the common values approximately of 2.5. On the
other hand the relation between the height of the wall and the thickness is very low for the EU
and the Italian code (h/t = 15) in comparison with the rest of the codes that vary between 20
and 30.
Enough recommendations are given related with minimum dimensions of the wall panels and
confining elements in Table 5.6.3. The minimum distance of confining elements (tie-columns
or bong-beams) is more less the same, between 4 and 5m. This limitation is due to the fact
that the confined masonry panel can develop a compressive diagonal needed for the resisting
mechanisms.
In Table 5.6.4 and 5.6.5 expressions to compute the resistance of the wall to shear,
compression and flexion are given, in the plane of the wall and in the out-of-plane direction as
well. Verification of the confining elements is given only by the Colombian and the Peruvian
code, crack control is only analyzed in the Peruvian code. The fact that the others codes do
not give any verification for the confining elements is that the contribution of the tie-columns
and bond-beams to the lateral resistance of the masonry building is normally not taken into
account for design. Consequently specific design calculations for confining elements are not
required.
Another difference found was if the confining elements collaborate or not with the resistance
of the confined masonry wall. In the Argentinean code not contribution of the confining
elements to shear is taken into account. For the EU to compute the shear resistance of the wall
the sum of the masonry and the concrete of the confining elements is used, no collaboration of
the reinforcement is taken into account. For axial and bending resistance the reinforcement is
125
ignored as well. In the Mexican and the Argentinean code the resistance to bending is given
by the reinforcement of the confining elements.
In Table 5.6.6 and 5.6.7 the minimum sections for the confining elements are given. Only the
Argentinean and the Peruvian codes give the minimum section as function of the shear base
acting in the structure. The rest of the codes give a minimum section dimension of 200cm.
The longitudinal reinforcement is only calculated in function of the shear base by the
Colombian, Peruvian and Argentinean codes. The rest of the codes give minimum values of
longitudinal reinforcement. In the Argentinean code the amount of reinforcement depends on
the thickness of the wall and the number of stories above the analyzed one. Frequently, the
amount of reinforcement in vertical and horizontal confining elements is determined on an
empirical basis. Although the tie-columns and bond-beams do not provide frame system
contribution to the wall, adequate splicing and anchoring of re-bars is required at all joints.
In the EU6 and EU8 some differences were found. In the EU6 a percentage of 0.8% is
considered or a minimum of 200mm, while in the EU8 this percentage is 1.0% or a minimum
of 300mm. Another difference was also found in the stirrups were the EU6 has a minimum
bar diameter of 6mm each 300mm of spacing and the EU8 a minimum diameter of 5mm with
a spacing of 150mm.
Not much information was found for the openings, only limitations of section and some
recommendation codes gives when it should be necessary to confine the openings.
Summarizing, enough recommendations are given for limitation of spacing of confining
elements, where they should be positioned, and minimum dimensions. More investigations in
resistance verification should be done, with emphasis in which parts of the confined masonry
walls collaborates in the different solicitations. Also clear equation for computing this last
topic must be developed and for reinforcement as well. More specifications about minimum
section of openings must be analyzed, the same as crack control, out-of-plane verification and
control of the compressive diagonal, especially for the cases of hollow concrete masonry
units.
126
127
References
1. REFERENCES
[1]
Eurocode 8 [2005] Design of structures for earthquake resistance Part 3: Strengthening and
repair of buildings, EN 1998-3.
[2]
Allegato 2 [2005] Edifici allOrdinanza PCM 3274 e sue modifiche ed integrazioni,
[3]
Kuldeep S. Virdi, Director, Engineering Structures Research Centre, City University, London
and Mr. Rossen D. Rashkoff, http://www.staff.city.ac.uk/earthquakes/Foreword.htm
[4]
Decanini, L.D., Payer, A., Terzariol, R. [1986] Comportamiento sismorresistente de la

mampostera. Estudios experimentales y aspectos normativos para diseo, 4tas jornadas de
Sismologa e Ingeniera antissmica. An international seminar on the Chilean march 3, 1985
earthquake. April 1986, Via del Mar, Chile.
[5]
Zabala, F., Bustos J.L., Masanet, A., Santaluca J. [2004] Experimental Behaviour of
masonry structural walls used in Argentina, Proceedings of 13th World Conference on
Earthquake Engineering, Vancouver, B.C., Canada. Paper no 1093.
[6]
Meli, R., Alcocer, S.M., Leon, F., Sanchez, T.A. [1992] Experimental study on earthquakeresistant design of confined masonry structures, Proceedings of 10th World Conference on
Earthquake Engineering, Madrid, Spain.
[7]
Inpres-Cirsoc 103. [1983] Normas Argentinas para construcciones sismorresistentes, Parte

III. Construcciones de Mampostera.
[8]
Yez F., Astroza M., Holmberg A., Ogaz O. [2004] Behaviour of confined masonry shear
walls with large openings, Proceedings of 13th World Conference on Earthquake
Engineering, Vancouver, B.C., Canada. Paper no 3438.
[9]
Eurocode 6 [2004] Design of masonry structures Part 1-1: Common rules for reinforced
and unreinforced masonry structures,
[10]
Bustos, J.L. [2000] Comportamiento de la mampostera en zonas ssmicas. Ensayos,

National University of San Juan, Argentina.
[11]
Yoshimura, K., Kikuchi, K., Kuroki, M., Nonaka, H., Kim, K.T., Wangdi, R. and Oshikata, A.
[2004] Experimental study on effects of height of lateral forces, column reinforcement and
wall reinforcements on seismic behaviour of confined masonry walls, Proceedings of 13th
World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Vancouver, B.C., Canada, paper no. 1870.
128
References
[12]
Yoshimura, K., Kikuchi, K., Kuroki, M., Nonaka, H., Kim, K.T., Wangdi, R. and Oshikata, A.
[2004] Experimental study for developing higher seismic performance of brick masonry
walls, Proceedings of 13th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Vancouver, B.C.,
Canada , paper no. 1597.
[13]
Yoshimura, K., Kikuchi, K., Okamoto, T., Sanchez, T. [1996] Effects of vertical and
horizontal wall reinforcement on seismic behavior of confined masonry walls, Proceedings of
11th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Elsevier, paper no. 191.
[14]
Blondet, M., Dueas, M., Loaiza, C., Flores, R. [2004] Seismic vulnerability of informal
construction dwellings in Lima, Peru: preliminary diagnosis, Proceedings of 13th World
Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Vancouver, B.C., Canada.
[15]
Tomazevic, M. [1999] Earthquake-Resistant Design of Masonry Buildings, Series on

Innovation in Structures and Construction, Vol. 1 Imperial College Press.
[16]
Universidad Nacional de Crdoba [2002] Diseo de estructuras de Hormign Armado y

Pretensado, Captulo 10, Imprenta Cooperativa Ceicin, Crdoba, Argentina.
[17]
Decanini, L.D., Payer, A. [1982] Comentarios sobre normas para construcciones

sismoresistentes de mamposteria, Revista de Ingeniera structural, Asociacin de Ingenieros
Estructurales, vol. 1, no 1.
[18]
Rodrguez, M., Blondet, M. [2004] "Evaluation of housing losses in recent earthquakes in

Latin America, Proceedings of 13th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering,
Vancouver, B.C., Canada. Paper no 2203.
[19]
Lpez Btiz, O., Reyes Salinas, C., Durn Hernndez, R., Bitrn, D., Lermo, J. [2001] El
sismo de Oaxaca del 30 de septiembre de 1999 (Mw=7.5), Centro Nacional de prevencin de
desastres, coordinacin de investigacin, rea de ingeniera estructural y geotcnia, Mexico.
[20]
Yoshimura, K., Kuroki, M. [2001] Damage to masonry buildings caused by the El Salvador
earthquake of January 13, 2001, Journal of Natural Disaster Science, Volume 23, Number 2,
2001, pp53-63
[21]
Loaiza, C., Blondet, M. [2002] World housing encyclopedia report: Per, Earthquake
engineering research institute.
[22]
Rojahn, C., Brogan, G.E., Slemmons, D.B. Preliminary report on the San Juan, Argentina
earthquake of November 23, 1977,
[23]
Sassan Eshghi and Kiarash Naserasadi [2005] Performance of essential buildings in the Bam,
Iran, Earthquake, International Institute of Earthquake Engineering and Seismology (IIEES),
Volume 21, Issue S1, pp. S375-S393 .
[24]
Kooroush Nasrollahzadeh Nesheli [2004] Structural damage to buildings due to Bam

earthquake of December 26, 2003, Iran, Institute of Industrial Science, Volume 3, Number 4.
The University of Tokio.
[25]
Usam, Ghaidan [2002] Earthquake-resistant masonry buildings, Basic guideline for

designing schools in Iran. Unesco.
129
References
[26]
Nikola Muravljov, Radovan Dimitrijevic [2002] World housing encyclopedia report:

Yugoslavia, Earthquake engineering research institute.
[27]
Alcocer, S.M., Arias, J.G., Vzquez, A. [2004] Response assessment of Mexican confined
masonry structures through shaking table test, Proceedings of 13th World Conference on
Earthquake Engineering, Vancouver, B.C., Canada. Paper no 2130.
[28]
Tomazevic, M., Klemenc, I., Petrovic, L., Lutman, M. [1996] Seismic behaviour of confined
masonry buildings. Part one: Shaking-table tests of model buildings M1 and M2 - Test
results, A Report to the Ministry of Science and Technology of Republic of Slovenia. Grant
no. J2-5208-1502ZAG/PI-95/04, Ljubljana: National buildings and civil engineering institute.
[29]
San Bartolom, A., Quiun, D. and Torrealva, D. [1992] Seismic behaviour of a three-story
half scale confined masonry structure, Proceedings of 10th World Conference on Earthquake
Engineering, Madrid, Spain.
[30]
Scaletti, H., Chariarse, V., Cuadras, C., Cuadros G. and Tsugawa T. [1992] Pseudos dynamic
tests of confined masonry buildings, Proceedings of 10th World Conference on Earthquake
Engineering, Madrid, Spain.
[31]
Alcocer, S.M., Zepeda, J.A. Behavior of multi-perforated clay bricks walls under earthquake
clay brick walls,
[32]
Decanini, L.D., Payer, A., Serrano, C., Terzariol, R. [1985] Investigacin experimental sobre
el comportamiento sismoresistente de prototipos a escala natural de muros de mamposteria
encadenada, XXIII Jornadas Sudamericanas de Ingenieria Estructural.
[33]
Irimies, M.T. [2000] Confined Masonry walls. The influence of the tie-column vertical
reinforcement ratio on the seismic behaviour, Proceedings of 12th World Conference on
Earthquake Engineering.
[34]
Marinilli, A., Castilla, E. [2004] Experimental evaluation of confined masonry walls with
several confining columns, Proceedings of 13th World Conference on Earthquake
Engineering, Vancouver, B.C., Canada. Paper no 2129.
[35]
Ishibashi, K., Meli, R., Alcocer, S.M., Leon, F. and Sanchez, T.A. [1992] Experimental study
on earthquake-resistant design of confined masonry structures, Proceedings of 10th World
Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Madrid, Spain.
[36]
Eurocode 8 [1995] Design provisions for earthquake resistance of structures. Part 1-2:
General rules- General rules for buildings, ENV 1998-1-2: 1995 (CEN, Brussels, 1995)
[37]
Construction under seismic condition in the Balkan region, Vol. 3: Design and construction
of stone and brick masonry buildings (UNIDO/UNDP, Vienna, 1984)
[38]
Decanini, L., Liberatore, L., De Sortis, A., Benedetti, S. [2006] Esame e raffronto delle
prescrizioni di diverse normative, nazionali e internazionali, sugli edifici a struttura mista
muratura-c.a., Rete dei Laboratori Universitari di Ingegneria Sismica (RELUIS), Progetto
esecutivo 2005-2008. Progetto di ricerca N.1
[39]
NSR-98 [1998] Titulo D: Mamposteria Estructural, Colombian Code
130
References
[40]
Gaceta Oficial del Distrito Federal [2004] Normas Tcnicas complementarias para diseo y
construccin de estructuras de mampostera, Gobierno del Distrito Federal de Mxico.
Dcima cuarta poca, Tomo I, N 103-BIS.
[41]
Norma Tcnica E.070 [2006] Albailera, Peruvian Code
131
Annex
2. ANNEX
Seismic Verification of a confined masonry building following the seismic
regulation of the Argentinean Code INPRES-CIRSOC 103
Example for a masonry building, Figure 1 with the following conditions:
Seismic zone: I
Solid clay bricks, type B
Mortar joint with normal resistance
Seismic coefficient, C:
(3.1.4.2. INPRES-CIRSOC 103)
Cnm := 0.1
d := 1
C := Cnm d
C = 0.1
Seismic coefficient
Normalized seismic coefficient for masonry constructions, depends of the masonry unit
and the seismic zone, Table 1 of INPRES-CIRSOC 103

Safety factor, Part I of the INPRES-CIRSOC 103 for concrete structures
nm
Minimum conditions for load-bearing walls:
(7.4.2. INPRES-CIRSOC 103)
The minimum thickness for a load-bearing wall is 17cm except for the following cases:
b) For seismic zone 1 and 2:
It is allowed to consider like a load-bearing wall of 13cm of thickness if:
Is a wall M1 or M2
Be a construction type B or C of the part I of the INPERES-CIRSOC code
Maximum number of story 1
Maximum height 3m
In this case it can be consider like load-bearing walls those which have a thickness of 13cm,
because they present the minimum conditions described above
A1
Annex
Figure annex I Dimensions of the building
A2
Annex
Minimum length for load-bearing walls:
a) Two horizontal constrains

H
L
2.2
or
Like H= 2.6m:
For confined masonry
L 1.5
L 1.20
Concluding: to be a load-bearing wall, if it has two horizontal

constrains
L 1.5
b) Three or more constrains

H
2.6
or
L 0.90
Like H= 2.6m:
L 1.00
For confined masonry
Concluding: to be a load-bearing wall, if it has two horizontal

constrains
L 1.0
With this conditions listed above the following walls, Figure 2, that will act like load-bearing
walls were chose.
Loads:
1) Slabs
c := 2400
co := 1800
tn/m3
Concrete density
tn/m3
Cover density
ts := 0.1
cm
Slab thickness
tc := 0.15
cm
Cover thickness
A := ( 4.20 7.35) + ( 3.80 10.40)

A = 70.39
m2
Total area of the slab
Total weigh of the slab
) (
WL
A
W L := ts c + tc co
1000
W L = 35.899
tn
A3
Annex
Figure annex II Load-bearing walls
A4
Annex
2) Walls: approximation to obtain the total weighs of the walls

x-x direction:
Walls of 15cm thickness:
kg/cm2
q 15 := 240
Weigh of the 15cm walls per unit

area
h w := 2.60
Height of the walls
Lx15 := ( 2.15 + 3.35 + 2.25)
Total length in the x-x direction
Lx15 = 7.75
q 15
wxm15:= Lx15 h w
1000
tn Total weigh of the wall of 15cm thickness in the x-x direction
wxm15= 4.836

m
h w = 2.6
q 30 := 480
kg/cm2
Height of the walls
Lx30 := ( 2.15 + 3.35 + 3.40 + 3.10)
Lx30 = 12
q 30
wxm30:= Lx30 h w
1000
wxm30= 14.976
y-y direction:
Ly15 := ( 17.30)
Ly15 = 17.3
q 15
wym15 := Ly15 h w
1000
wym15 = 10.795
A5
Annex

Ly30 := ( 9.5)
Ly30 = 9.5
q 30
wym30 := Ly30 h w
1000
wym30 = 11.856
3) For this example no water tank is supposed

Total weigh
Total weigh in the x-x direction:
W x := wxm15+ wxm30+ W L
tn
W x = 55.711
Total weigh in the y-y direction:

W y := wym15 + wym30 + W L
tn
W y = 58.55
Base Shear:

x-x direction:
y-y direction:
V0x := W x C
V0y := W y C
V0x = 5.571
tn
V0y = 5.855
tn
A6
Annex
Determination of the stiffness of the walls panels: (4.2. INPRES-CIRSOC 103)

Em := 10
tn/cm2 Elastic modulus of the masonry
t30 := 0.30
t15 := 0.15
P := 1
Thickness
P h 3
h w
w
f :=
30 E J + 0.288 P E A
m
m m
J := t
h w = 2.6
Stiffness R
R :=
m
tn Applied load
P
f
Being t: thickness of the wall; d: length of the wall and J: inertia of the wall
12
Area of the wall
A m := t d
Walls
x-x direction
y-y direction
M x1
Rx1 := 1.66
tn/cm
M y1
Ry1 := 4.76
tn/cm
M y5
Ry5 := 5.32
tn/cm
M x2
Rx2 := 2.85
tn/cm
M y2
Ry2 := 3.44
tn/cm
M y6
Ry6 := 5.98
tn/cm
M x3
Rx3 := 2.50
tn/cm
M y3
Ry3 := 0.86
tn/cm
M y7
Ry7 := 0.96
tn/cm
M y4
Ry4 := 5.88
tn/cm
M y8
Ry8 := 5.32
tn/cm
Determination of the mass centre:

It is determined by the sum up of all the walls area multiplied by the distance of each one to an
arbitrary axis divided after by the total area
c :=
A m d c
At
Where: Am is the area of the wall; dc is the distance between the centre of
the wall and an arbitrary axis and At is the total area of the walls
x-x direction
y-y direction
cx := 5.93
cy := 4.34
A7
Annex
Determination of the stiffness centre:

It is determined by the sum up of all the walls area multiplied by the distance of each one to an
arbitrary axis divided after by the total area
R :=
Rw d c
Where: Rw is the stiffness of the wall; dc is the distance between the
Rt
centre of the wall and an arbitrary axis and Rt is the total stiffness of the
walls
x-x direction
Rx := 5.51
y-y direction
Distribution of the shear base:
Ry := 4.33
x-x direction
Rxt := Rx1 + Rx2 + Rx3
Rxt = 7.01
tn/cm
V0x
Vx1 := Rx1
Rxt
Vx1 = 1.319
tn
V0x
Vx3 := Rx3
Rxt
Vx3 = 1.987
tn
V0x
Vx2 := Rx2
Rxt
Vx2 = 2.265
tn
y-y direction
Ryt := Ry1 + Ry2 + Ry3 + Ry4 + Ry5 + Ry6 + Ry7 + Ry8
Ryt = 32.52
tn/cm
V0y
Vy1 := Ry1
Ryt
V0y
Vy2 := Ry2
Ryt
V0y
Vy3 := Ry3
Ryt
V0y
Vy4 := Ry4
Ryt
Vy1 = 0.857
Vy2 = 0.619
Vy3 = 0.155
Vy4 = 1.059
tn
V0y
Vy5 := Ry5
Ryt
Vy5 = 0.958
tn
tn
V0y
Vy6 := Ry6
Ryt
Vy6 = 1.077
tn
tn
V0y
Vy7 := Ry7
Ryt
Vy7 = 0.173
tn
tn
V0y
Vy8 := Ry8
Ryt
Vy8 = 0.958
tn
A8
Annex
Torsional moments of the structure:
Static eccentricity:
ex := cx Rx
ex = 0.42
ey := cy Ry
ey = 10 10
Torsional moments:
x-x direction
ly := 9.40
Maximum dimension measured in the building plane perpendicular to the

seismic action
(
)
M tx2 := ( ey 0.1 ly ) V0x
M tx1 := 2 ey + 0.1 ly V0x
M tx1 = 5.348
tnm
M tx2 = 5.181
tnm
M tx1 > M tx2
y-y direction
lx := 8.00
Maximum dimension measured in the building plane perpendicular to the

seismic action
(
)
M ty2 := ( ex 0.1 lx) V0y
M ty1 := 2 ex + 0.1 lx V0y
M ty1 = 9.602
tnm
M ty2 = 2.225
tnm
M ty1 > M ty2
Distribution of the torsional moment between the walls:
Ri d i
Mt
R d 2
i i
Ft :=
Ri: stiffness of each wall; di: distance between the walls and the
stiffness centre
x-x direction
y-y direction
M x1
M xt1 := 1.19
tn
M y1
M yt1 := 0.66
tn
M y5 M yt5 := 0.34
tn
M x2
M xt2 := 0.20
tn
M y2
M yt2 := 0.48
tn
M y6 M yt6 := 0.27
tn
M x3
M xt3 := 0.18
M y3
M yt3 := 0.07
tn
M y7 M yt7 := 0.04
tn
M y4
M yt4 := 1.02
tn
M y8 M yt8 := 0.24
tn
tn
A9
Annex
Total loads applied to the walls: Shear base + torsional moment

The torsional effect is only consider in the case that it add force to the shear base due to
translation only
x-x direction
M x1 := Vx1 + M xt1
M x2 := Vx2 + M xt2
M x3 := Vx3
M x1 = 2.509
tn
Total shear base acting in wall Mx1
M x2 = 2.465
tn
M x3 = 1.987
tn
M y1 = 0.857
tn
Total shear base acting in wall My1
M y2 = 0.619
tn
M y3 = 0.155
tn
M y4 = 1.059
tn
M y5 = 0.958
tn
M y6 = 1.347
tn
M y7 = 0.213
tn
M y8 = 1.198
tn
y-y direction
M y1 := Vy1
M y2 := Vy2
M y3 := Vy3
M y4 := Vy4
M y5 := Vy5
M y6 := Vy6 + M yt6
M y7 := Vy7 + M yt7
M y8 := Vy8 + M yt8
A10
Annex
Resistance verification: (10. INPRES-CIRSOC 103)

Shear strength:
mo := 0.25
Shear strength of the masonry Table 10 - INPRES-CIRSOC 103
Kg/m
Q := 740
o :=
MN/m2
Compressive stress due to the 85% of the vertical loads
Am
x-x direction
ox1 :=
ox2 :=
Q 2.3
ox1 = 0.493
230 15
Q 2.475
ox2 = 0.493
247.5 15
ox = 0.493
Kg/cm2
Bmx1:= 230 15
Kg/cm2
ox3 := ox2
Bmx2:= 247.5 15
Bmx3:= Bmx2
ox := ox1
kg/cm2
Shear strength:
Vur := 0.6 mo + 0.3 o Bm
Bmx1
The shear strength (Vur) of each wall must be
Vur M
higher than the acting force M
Vurx1 := 0.6 mo 10 + 0.3 ox

1000
Vurx1 = 5.686
tn
M x1 = 2.509
>
tn
VERIFY
tn
VERIFY
Bmx2
Vurx2 := 0.6 mo 10 + 0.3 ox
1000
Vurx2 = 6.118
tn
>
M x2 = 2.465
y-y direction
It can only be verify the wall with the minimum length; if that one verifies the rest also
Wall with less length My3
A11
Annex
oy3 :=
Q 1.75
ox3 = 0.493
175 15
kg/cm2
Bmy3 := 175 15
Shear strength:
Bmy3
Vury3 := 0.6 mo 10 + 0.3 oy3
1000
Vury3 = 4.326
tn
M y3 = 0.155
>
tn
VERIFY
Compressive strength:
:= 0.25
Reduction factor due to eccentricity and slenderness, determined by the
mo := 1.5
equation given in 10.4.4.2

MN/m2
Compressive strength of masonry determined by 6.1.1
Bmx1
Nurx1 := mo 10
1000
Nurx1 = 12.938
tn
>
Nx1 := 0.74 2.30 + 0.24 2.6 2.30

Nx1 = 3.137
Bmx2
tn
VERIFY
Nurx2 := mo 10
1000
Nurx2 = 13.922
tn
>
Nx2 := 0.74 2.475 + 0.24 2.6 2.475

Nx2 = 3.376
tn
VERIFY
Nx3 = 3.376
tn
VERIFY
Ny3 := 0.74 1.75 + 0.24 2.6 1.75

Ny3 = 2.387 tn
VERIFY
Bmx3
Nurx3 := mo 10
1000
Nurx3 = 13.922
tn
>
Nx3 := Nx2
Bmy3
Nury3 := mo 10
1000
Nury3 = 9.844
tn
>
All walls verify to compressive strength
A12
Annex
Flexion-compressive strength:
In part c) of the INPRES-CIRSOC 103 the verification to flexion with compression of the
wall is not necessary for those of 1 or 2 seismic zone and high less than 9m, that verify
Ht
the following condition: 2.50
Where Ht is the height of the wall and L the length of
the wall
In this case all the walls verify this condition so the verification of flexion with compression
in not necessary
(10.5. INPRES-CIRSOC 103)
Out-of-plane verification:
q := 240
Kg/m2
Weigh of the 15cm thickness wall per unit of area
q s := 3.5 C q
q s = 84
Kg/m2
Seismic load per unit length acting in the perpendicular direction of it

plane
Out-of-plane bending moment:

2
M u := q s
hw
kgm/m
M u = 70.98
Nu := 740 4.375 0.15 + 4.375 0.15 240
kg
Nu = 643.125
em :=
Mu
em = 0.11
Nu
em <
cm
t15 100
6
em = 0.11
W :=
B := 15 437.5
3
B = 6.563 10
437.5 2
15
6
4
p = 0.102
Nu Mu

B W
n = 0.094
n :=
t15 100
0.11 100
2
<
d
6
Due to this relation some part is under

compression and the rest tension
W = 1.641 10
Nu Mu
+
B W
p :=
= 2.5
a :=
a = 3.5
A13
Annex
2
max := Nu
3 a 100
max = 1.225
24.6
<
Tie-columns and bond-beams dimensions:
2.6
= 9.462
VERIFY
Tie-columns
Minimum gross section area of tie-columns
Maximum shear applied to the walls
Vp := M x1 1000
3
Vp = 2.509 10
cm2
Bm := 0.025 Vp
Bm = 62.731
cm2
Dimension of tie-columns (9.7.1. INPRES-CIRSOC 103)

Btc := 15 15
cm2
Btc = 225
Bond-beams
Dimension of bond-beams (9.7.2. INPRES-CIRSOC 103)
Bbb := 15 15
cm2 Bond-beams at the base
Bbb = 225
Bbt := 15 10
cm2 Bond-beams at the top
Bbt = 150
Tie-columns and bond-beams reinforcement:
k := 0
Number of floors above the study one
Ho := h w 100
s := 4200
Height measured between bond-beams

kg/cm2
Yield stress of the steel
A14
Annex
Minimum reinforcement given by the INPRES-CIRSOC 103 - 9.10

A min := ( 0.25 + 0.13 k) t15 100
1000
A min = 0.893
cm2
46mm
Longitudinal reinforcement: (9.11. INPRES-CIRSOC 103)

Spacing between longitudinal reinforcement: 20cm
Anchorage 60* 6mm a := 36
e := 1
cm
l := a
Splice
le := e l
le = 36
cm
M x1
Tie-columns
cm
Lx1 := 230
Yield stress of the steel
Ho 1
1000
Lx1 s
A cx1 := ( 1 + 0.25 k) M x1
Minimum reinforcement adopted:
A cx1 = 0.675
cm2
6mm = 1.13cm
46mm
Bond-beams
A bx1 :=
M x1 1000
cm2
A bx1 = 0.597

Stirrups
46mm
6mm = 1.13cm
Critic zones
Spacing
s e := 7.5
cm
Section of the reinforcement A e

A e := 0.5
M x1 s e 1000
A e = 0.149
15 s
cm2
Normal zone
s en := 15cm
d s := 0.2 15
ds = 3
mm
:= 4
mm
A15
Annex
M x2
Tie-columns
cm
Lx2 := 247.5
Ho 1
1000
Lx2 s
A cx2 := ( 1 + 0.25 k) M x2
A cx2 = 0.617
cm2
46mm
6mm = 1.13cm
Bond-beams
A bx2 :=
M x2 1000
cm2
A bx2 = 0.587
Stirrups
46mm
6mm = 1.13cm
Critic zones
Spacing
cm
s e = 7.5

A e2 := 0.5
M x2 s e 1000
A e2 = 0.147
15 s
cm2
Normal zone
s en = 0.15 m
ds = 3
ds = 3
mm
=4
mm
M x3
Tie-columns
Lx3 := 247.5
cm
Ho 1
1000
Lx3 s
A cx3 := ( 1 + 0.25 k) M x3
A cx3 = 0.497
cm2
6mm = 1.13cm
46mm
Bond-beams
A bx3 :=
M x3 1000
s
A bx3 = 0.473
cm2
2
46mm
6mm = 1.13cm
A16
Annex
Stirrups
Critic zones
Spacing
cm
s e = 7.5

A e3 := 0.5
M x3 s e 1000
A e3 = 0.118
15 s
cm2
Normal zone
s en = 0.15 m
ds = 3
ds = 3
mm
=4
mm
M y1
Tie-columns
cm
Ly1 := 382
Ho 1
1000
Lx3 s
A cy1 := ( 1 + 0.25 k) M y1
A cy1 = 0.214
cm2
46mm
6mm = 1.13cm
Bond-beams
A by1 :=
M y1 1000
cm2
A by1 = 0.204
Stirrups
46mm
6mm = 1.13cm
Critic zones
Spacing
s e = 7.5
cm

A y1 := 0.5
M y1 s e 1000
15 s
A y1 = 0.051
cm2
Normal zone
s en = 0.15 m
ds = 3
ds = 3
mm
=4
mm
A17
Annex
M y2
Tie-columns
cm
Ly2 := 322.5
Ho 1
1000
Ly2 s
A cy2 := ( 1 + 0.25 k) M y2
A cy2 = 0.119
cm2
46mm
6mm = 1.13cm
Bond-beams
A by2 :=
M y2 1000
cm2
A by2 = 0.147

Stirrups
46mm
6mm = 1.13cm
Critic zones
Spacing
cm
s e = 7.5

A y2 := 0.5
M y2 s e 1000
A y1 = 0.051
15 s
cm2
Normal zone
s en = 0.15 m
ds = 3
ds = 3
mm
=4
mm
M y3
Tie-columns
Ly3 := 175
cm
Ho 1
1000
Ly3 s
A cy3 := ( 1 + 0.25 k) M y3
A cy3 = 0.055
cm2
6mm = 1.13cm
46mm
Bond-beams
A by3 :=
M y3 1000
s
A by3 = 0.037
cm2
2
46mm
6mm = 1.13cm
A18
Annex
Stirrups
Critic zones
Spacing
cm
s e = 7.5

A y3 := 0.5
M y3 s e 1000
A y3 = 9.217 10
15 s
cm2
Normal zone
s en = 0.15 m
ds = 3
ds = 3
mm
=4
mm
M y4
Tie-columns
cm
Ly4 := 437.5
Ho 1
1000
Ly4 s
A cy4 := ( 1 + 0.25 k) M y4
A cy4 = 0.15
cm2
46mm
6mm = 1.13cm
Bond-beams
A by4 :=
M y4 1000
cm2
A by4 = 0.252

Stirrups
46mm
6mm = 1.13cm
Critic zones
Spacing
s e = 7.5
cm

A y4 := 0.5
M y4 s e 1000
15 s
A y4 = 0.063
cm2
Normal zone
s en = 0.15 m
ds = 3
ds = 3
mm
=4
mm
A19
Annex
M y5
Tie-columns
cm
Ly5 := 412.5
Ho 1
1000
Ly5 s
A cy5 := ( 1 + 0.25 k) M y5
A cy5 = 0.144
cm2
46mm
6mm = 1.13cm
Bond-beams
A by5 :=
M y5 1000
cm2
A by5 = 0.228

Stirrups
46mm
6mm = 1.13cm
Critic zones
Spacing
cm
s e = 7.5

A y5 := 0.5
M y5 s e 1000
A y5 = 0.057
15 s
cm2
Normal zone
s en = 0.15 m
ds = 3
ds = 3
mm
=4
mm
M y6
Tie-columns
Ly6 := 437.5
cm
Ho 1
1000
Ly6 s
A cy6 := ( 1 + 0.25 k) M y6
A cy6 = 0.191
cm2
46mm
6mm = 1.13cm
Bond-beams
A by6 :=
M y6 1000
s
A by6 = 0.321
cm2
2
46mm
6mm = 1.13cm
A20
Annex
Stirrups
Critic zones
Spacing
cm
s e = 7.5

A y6 := 0.5
M y6 s e 1000
15 s
A y6 = 0.08
cm2
ds = 3
mm
Normal zone
s en = 0.15 m
ds = 3
=4
mm
M y7
Tie-columns
cm
Ly7 := 175
Ho 1
1000
Ly7 s
A cy7 := ( 1 + 0.25 k) M y7
A cy7 = 0.075
cm2
46mm
6mm = 1.13cm
Bond-beams
A by7 :=
M y7 1000
cm2
A by7 = 0.051

Stirrups
46mm
6mm = 1.13cm
Critic zones
Spacing
s ec := 10
cm

A y7 := 0.5
M y7 s ec 1000
15 s
A y7 = 0.017
cm2
Normal zone
s en = 0.15 m
ds = 3
ds = 3
mm
=4
mm
A21
Annex
M y8
Tie-columns
cm
Ly8 := 412.5
Ho 1
1000
Ly8 s
A cy8 := ( 1 + 0.25 k) M y8
A cy8 = 0.18
cm2
46mm
6mm = 1.13cm
Bond-beams
A by8 :=
M y8 1000
cm2
A by8 = 0.285

Stirrups
46mm
6mm = 1.13cm
Critic zones
Spacing
s e = 7.5
cm

A y8 := 0.5
M y8 s e 1000
15 s
A y8 = 0.071
cm2
Normal zone
s en = 0.15 m
ds = 3
ds = 3
mm
=4
mm
A22
Annex
Figure annex III Reinforcement of the confined masonry panel that results from the calculation
A23
Annex
Figure annex IV Reinforcement intersection of bond-beams
A24
Annex
Figure annex V Reinforcement intersection of bond-beams with tie-columns
A25

Dissertation2007 Asinari

Caricato da

Informazioni sul documento

Titolo originale

Copyright

Formati disponibili

Condividi questo documento

Condividi o incorpora il documento

Opzioni di condivisione

Hai trovato utile questo documento?

Questo contenuto è inappropriato?

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Dissertation2007 Asinari

Caricato da

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

I.U.S.S.

EUROPEAN SCHOOL FOR ADVANCED STUDIES IN

BUILDINGS WITH STRUCTURAL MANSONRY WALLS

A Dissertation Submitted in Partial

Supervisor: Prof. GUIDO MAGENES, Dr. ANDREA PENNA

Name of Reviewer 1 Prof. Guido Magenes

Name of Reviewer 2 Dr. Andrea Penna

Keywords: confined masonry; tie-columns; bond-beams; failures modes; resisting mechanisms

I would like to acknowledge:

The financial support of the Erasmus Mundus Programme,

The help and cooperation of Saverio,

The support and love of my sisters Cecilia and Florencia,

The comprehension, patience, support and love of Andrs,

Figure 4.2.26 Loading history, Ishibashi et al. [35]..............................................................................87

Figure 5.5.11 Verification of gravitational loads, INPRES-CIRSOC 103 [7]....................................116

= Cross-sectional area of the longitudinal reinforcement of tiecolumns

= Cross-section of the masonry wall

= Design seismic coefficient

= Shear modulus of masonry

= Height of confined masonry measured between constrains

= Length of confined masonry measured between tie-columns

= Length between tie-columns of load-bearing wall

= Vertical load applied to the masonry wall

= Compressive strength of the wall

= Ultimate vertical load resisted by the wall

= Compressive load for the diagonal testing

= Yield stress of steel

= Transversal dimension of tie-column

= Diameter of the reinforcing steel

= Thickness of the masonry probes under diagonal compression

= Accidental eccentricity due to vertical loads

= Complementary eccentricity due to the slenderness effect

= Eccentricity at the top of the wall

= Design eccentricity of load-bearing walls

= Number of stories above the analysed story

= Straight anchorage length

= Lateral gravitational load per unit area of the wall

= Seismic load per unit area of the wall

= Thickness of the masonry wall

List of symbols for chapter 5.6

= Resisting moment of tie-columns

= Length between the reinforcement to the compressive

= Compressive strength of masonry

= Yield stress of steel

= Diagonal tensile strength of masonry

= Mean compressive strength

= Value that variety in function of masonry type

= Medium diagonal tension

= Total area of the transverse section of tie-columns

= Cross-section of the masonry wall

= Effective cross-section of the masonry wall

= Cross-section of the masonry wall to determine shear strength

= Design bending moment of the confined masonry wall

= Ultimate bending moment of the confined masonry wall

= Nominal compression load acting in tie-column, positive, N

= Nominal compression load of the masonry

= Nominal tension load acting in tie-column, negative, N

= Design compression load of the masonry wall, N

= Design compression load acting in tie-column, positive, N

= Design tension load acting in tie-column, negative, N

= Nominal shear stress acting in the reinforcing concrete

= Compressive strength of the concrete of confining elements

= Compressive strength of masonry