Sei sulla pagina 1di 18

1

Flexural Behavior of Confined Masonry Walls

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

Jorge Varela-Rivera,

Gamboa-Villegas c) and Adda Prieto-Coyoc d)

a) M.EERI, Luis Fernandez-Baqueiro,

b) M.EERI, Jose

This paper presents the results of a study on the flexural behavior of

confined masonry walls. Six walls were tested in the laboratory under reverse

cyclic loads. The variables studied were the wall aspect ratio and the wall axial

compressive stress. The behavior of the walls was characterized by yielding of

the longitudinal steel reinforcement followed by vertical and diagonal cracks.

The failure of the walls was associated with crushing of the concrete of the

vertical confining elements. The flexural strength increases as the wall aspect

ratio or the wall axial stress increase. The flexural strength of the walls was

validated using flexural theory. A displacement ductility capacity of 6 and a

drift ratio capacity of 1% were proposed for the walls. A hysteretic model

based on that proposed by Takeda was developed. This model represented well

the flexural behavior of the walls studied.

a) Professor, Autonomous University of Yucatan, Mexico. vrivera@correo.uady.mx

b) Professor, Autonomous University of Yucatan, Mexico. luis.fernandez@correo.uady.mx

c) Former graduate student, Autonomous University of Yucatan, Mexico. atticus_beto@hotmail.com

d) Former graduate student, Autonomous University of Yucatan, Mexico. addapc@gmail.com

Varela-Rivera - 1

17

INTRODUCTION

18 In many countries of Latin America, central and south Asia, and eastern and southern

19 Europe, confined masonry walls are widely used as a structural system (Riahi et al. 2009).

20 Confined masonry consists of an unreinforced wall panel with flexible reinforced concrete

21 confining elements around its perimeter. In this type of construction, the wall panel is

22 constructed first and later the confining elements are concrete cast. The use of confined

23 walls in Mexico is very common because of their low construction cost and ease of

24 construction. Its use in the United States of America is scarce but could increase in the

25 future.

26 The shear behavior of confined walls under in-plane lateral loads has been widely

27 studied. There are several experimental studies carried out by different authors. The main

28 variables studied are the unit type (Meli 1979, San Bartolome and Quiun 2010),

29 combination of clay and concrete units (Tena-Colunga et al. 2009), types and quantities of

30 steel reinforcement in confining elements (Treviño et al. 2004, Quiroz et al. 2014), wall

31 axial load (Urzua et al. 2001), wall aspect ratio (height over length) (San Bartolome et al.

32 1992, Perez Gavilan et al. 2015), wall openings and type of reinforcement around openings

33 (Flores et al. 2004). In general, these studies considered the shear behavior of confined

34 walls with aspect ratios smaller than or equal to one. Only one study considered wall

35 aspect ratios greater than one (Perez Gavilan et al. 2015). The walls considered by those

36 authors were constructed using clay or concrete units. The shear behavior of the walls was

37 characterized by diagonal cracks that eventually formed the traditional “X” final cracking

38 pattern. The failure of the walls was mainly associated with propagation of diagonal cracks

39 into the top and bottom ends of the vertical confining elements. The shear strength of the

40 walls was associated with the formation of the first diagonal crack. It was observed that the

41 confining elements increased the loading and deformation capacity of the walls after

42 reaching their shear strength.

43 In contrast, the flexural behavior of confined walls under in-plane lateral loads has not

44 been studied. Confined walls are mainly used for housing. In low masonry structures, the

45 wall aspect ratios tend to be smaller than or equal to one. The prescribed minimum amount

46 of longitudinal (vertical) steel reinforcement for those walls (FDG, 2004a) induce shear

Varela-Rivera - 2

47 behavior. The walls tested under those geometrical and reinforcement conditions had shear

48 failure as described before. The prescribed minimum amounts of longitudinal and

49 transverse steel reinforcement for confined walls are based on shear behavior rather than

50 flexural behavior (FDG, 2004a). For example, closely-spaced steel hoops are required at

51 the ends of vertical confining elements to retard the propagation of diagonal cracks into

52 these elements. Reduction in the amount of the longitudinal steel reinforcement below the

53 minimum might be used to induce flexural behavior. The flexural strength of walls will be

54 reduced but the shear strength will remain the same. For taller masonry structures, wall

55 aspect ratios tend to be much greater than one. In this case, the prescribed minimum

56 amount of longitudinal steel reinforcement might induce flexural behavior rather than shear

57 behavior. Flexural behavior is more desirable in seismic zones.

58 There are some studies related to the in-plane flexural behavior of other types of

59 masonry walls. In the case of reinforced walls, the main variables that have been studied

60 are the quantity and distribution of reinforcement (Yoshimura et al. 2000, Shedid et al.

61 2008), wall axial load (Tanner et al. 2005, Varela et al. 2006, Shedid et al. 2008) and wall

62 aspect ratio (Tanner et al. 2005, Varela et al. 2006). The flexural behavior of those walls

63 was, in general, characterized by flexural cracks over the wall height followed by yielding

64 of the longitudinal steel reinforcement. The failure of the walls was mainly associated with

65 crushing of the masonry or the concrete at the wall ends. Flexural strength of walls was

66 maintained over a certain maximum displacement ductility.

67 The objective of this paper is to study the flexural behavior of confined walls subjected

68 to reverse cyclic loads. As far as the authors know, there is no previous research on

69 confined walls subjected to this type of load in the literature. Results of six confined walls

70 subjected to lateral loads are presented. The variables studied were the wall aspect ratio

71 and the wall axial compressive stress. The final cracking patterns of the walls are

72 presented. The lateral load – drift ratio curves for the walls are analyzed. A discussion

73 related with flexural strength, displacement ductility and drift ratios is presented. A

74 hysteretic model is developed based on experimental data.

Varela-Rivera - 3

75

EXPERIMENTAL PROGRAM

 

76

Six full-scale confined walls were tested in the laboratory (walls M1 to M6). The study

77

variables were the wall aspect ratio (H/L) and the axial compressive stress () (Table 1).

78

Nominal dimensions of hollow clay bricks were 115 200 320 mm (thickness height

79

length). Bricks were obtained from a single batch. Walls were designed to induce

80

flexural behavior. Table 1 shows details of each confined wall. In this table, H, L and t are

81

the wall height, length and thickness, respectively. The wall height was measured up to the

82

point of load application. The cross-section dimensions of the vertical confining elements

83

were 115 115 mm (width height). The longitudinal steel reinforcement in those

84

elements consisted of a 1#3 (95 mm) bar. The corresponding steel reinforcement ratio ()

85

is included in Table 1. No transverse reinforcement was placed on the vertical confining

86

elements. Longitudinal reinforcement consisted of deformed steel bars with nominal yield

87

strength of 412 MPa. The amount of longitudinal steel reinforcement of the walls was

88

smaller than the minimum amount prescribed in the Mexico City Masonry Technical Norm

89

(FDG 2004a).

90

Table 1. Details of confined walls.

 

Wall

H

L

t

H/L





 

(m)

(m)

(mm)

MPa



M1

2.91

2.54

115

1.1

0.24

0.024

M2

2.91

1.88

115

1.5

0.24

0.033

M3

2.91

1.88

115

1.5

0.47

0.033

M4

2.91

1.22

115

2.4

0.24

0.051

M5

2.91

1.22

115

2.4

0.47

0.051

M6

2.91

1.22

115

2.4

0.71

0.051

91

92

The axial compressive strength of the concrete of the vertical confining elements was

93

determined according to NMX-C-083-ONNCCE-2002 (National Organization for Norms

94

and Certification for Construction and Buildings (ONNCCE)). The axial compressive

95

strength of the bricks was determined according to NMX-C-036-ONNCCE-2004. The

96

axial compressive strength and modulus of elasticity of the masonry were determined

97

according to NMX-C-464-ONNCCE-2010. The tensile strength of the steel longitudinal

98

reinforcement of the vertical confining elements was determined according to NMX-C-407-

Varela-Rivera - 4

99

ONNCEE-2002. Procedures presented in these norms are similar to those specified in

100

corresponding ASTM standards.

101

Walls were constructed in half running bond by a qualified worker. Brick courses were

102

laid using mortar in proportion by volume 1:3 (Portland cement: sand). Mortar was placed

103

on both the face shells and the head joints. The average thickness of the mortar joints was

104

equal to 10 mm. Construction of the walls was as follows: first, the seven bottom brick

105

courses were laid and later the corresponding part of the vertical confining elements were

106

concrete cast. Second, the last five brick courses were laid and the corresponding

107

remaining part of the vertical confining elements were cast. Finally, the top confining

108

element was cast.

109

Each confined wall was tested with constant axial load and reverse monotonic cyclic

110

lateral loads until failure. The axial load for each wall was calculated using the

111

corresponding axial compressive stress, wall length and wall thickness (Table 1). Axial

112

load was applied using a swivel beam, a spreader beam, two threaded rods and a hydraulic

113

actuator (Figure 1a). Pressure in the actuator was maintained constant during the test using

114

a mechanical load maintainer (Edison 1994). Axial load was measured using two donut

115

type load cells. This load was verified using a pressure transducer. Lateral loads were

116

applied using a steel frame, a loading steel beam, and a two-way hydraulic actuator (Figure

117

1b). Lateral load was measured using a tension-compression pin load cell. This load was

118

verified by using two pressure transducers. Wall specimens were attached to the lab

119

reaction floor.

120

Horizontal and vertical wall displacements, and shortening or lengthening of the wall

121

diagonals were measured using linear string potentiometers (SP). Relative displacements

122

between the loading beam and the wall, the wall and the wall foundation, and the wall

123

foundation and the reaction floor were measured using linear potentiometers (LP). Strain

124

gages were attached to the longitudinal steel reinforcement of both vertical confining

125

elements. Two strain gages were located at the bottom of each bar. A typical view of wall

126

instrumentation is presented in Figure 1c. In this figure, PLC and DLC refers to the pin

127

type load cell and the donut type load cell, respectively.

Varela-Rivera - 5

128

The loading history used to test the walls was based on the protocol established in the

129

Mexico City Masonry Technical Norm (FDG 2004a). This loading history has six initial

130

reverse cycles controlled by load and subsequent cycles controlled by drift ratios. The

131

maximum target load was associated with yielding of the longitudinal steel reinforcement

132

of the vertical confining elements. The target load for the first two cycles was equal to one

133

quarter of the maximum target load, the third and fourth cycles to one half of the maximum

134

target load, and the fifth and sixth cycles to the maximum target load. After that,

135

increments of drift ratios of 0.002 were applied.

136

136
136

137

137

138

Figure 1. (a) Axial load test setup, (b) lateral load test setup, and (c) typical view of wall

139

instrumentation.

140

EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS

141

The average axial compressive strength of the concrete (fc) of walls M1 to M6 was

142

equal to 17.49, 18.10, 20.00, 18.36, 22.16 and 21.23 MPa, respectively.

Corresponding

Varela-Rivera - 6

143

coefficient of variation (CV) was equal to 0.08, 0.04, 0.03, 0.08, 0.02 and 0.01,

144

respectively. The average axial compressive strength of the units (fp) was equal to 16.33

145

MPa with a CV of 0.06. The average axial compressive strength (fm) and modulus of

146

elasticity (Em) of masonry were equal to 9.08 and 5077 MPa, respectively. Corresponding

147

CV was equal to 0.04 and 0.12, respectively. The average yielding strength of the

148

longitudinal steel reinforcement was equal to 445.7 MPa with a CV of 0.02. All values

149

were calculated using gross properties of corresponding cross-sections.

150

The flexural behavior of walls was, in general, similar. First, a horizontal flexural crack

151

was observed at the joint between the first brick course and the concrete foundation

152

together with horizontal flexural cracks on the bottom part of the vertical confining

153

elements. After this, yielding of the longitudinal steel reinforcement at the bottom end of

154

both vertical confining elements was reached. As the drift ratio was increased, horizontal

155

flexural cracks propagated into the wall panel and new flexural cracks were observed along

156

the height of the vertical confining elements. Vertical cracks were observed for the walls

157

M2 to M6. A single vertical crack for the walls M2, M4 and M5 and two vertical cracks

158

for the walls M3 and M6. Diagonal shear cracks were observed on the wall panels. These

159

cracks propagated from the top part of the wall panels to the existing vertical cracks. Out-

160

of-plane buckling of one of the vertical confining elements was observed for the wall M5.

161

The failure of the walls was associated with crushing of the concrete at the bottom part of

162

the vertical confining elements. The final cracking patterns of the walls are presented in

163

Figure 2. The lateral load – drift ratio curves of the walls are presented in Figure 3.

164

165

165

Varela-Rivera - 7

166

167

168

169

170

166 167 168 169 170 Figure 2 . Final cracking patterns of walls. Varela-Rivera - 8

Figure 2. Final cracking patterns of walls.

166 167 168 169 170 Figure 2 . Final cracking patterns of walls. Varela-Rivera - 8
166 167 168 169 170 Figure 2 . Final cracking patterns of walls. Varela-Rivera - 8

Varela-Rivera - 8

171

171

172

Figure 3. Lateral load – drift ratio curves of walls.

173

DISCUSSION OF EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS

174

The experimental average flexural strengths of the walls (Me) are presented in Table 2.

175

These strengths were calculated using the corresponding positive and negative maximum

176

observed lateral loads. Table 2 shows that, as expected, for the walls with the same axial

177

compressive stress (walls M1, M2 and M4), the flexural strength of walls increases as the

178

wall aspect ratio increases. For walls with the same aspect ratio (M4 to M6), the flexural

179

strength increases as the axial compressive stress increases. The analytical flexural

180

strengths of the walls (Ma) are also presented in Table 2. These strengths were calculated

181

using flexural theory. A rectangular block was used for the compressive stresses of

182

concrete (FDG 2004b). This type of block was used because the wall neutral axis was

183

located within the height of the vertical confining element. A stress-strain relationship of

184

the steel including strain hardening was used (Rodriguez and Botero 1994). Table 2 shows

185

that there is a good agreement between analytical and experimental flexural strengths. The

186

ratio between Ma/Me varied from 0.98 to 1.06.

187

Maximum horizontal displacements (m) were selected for the walls (Table 2). These

188

displacements were limited by one of the following events: a 10% strength degradation or

189

the presence of the first diagonal crack on the wall, whichever happened first. The

190

corresponding displacement ductilities () and drift ratios () of the walls are included in

191

Table 2. The yielding displacements of the walls (y) (Table 2) were calculated using the

192

average readings of the strain gages. Table 2 shows that, for the walls with the same axial

Varela-Rivera - 9

193 compressive stress (walls M1, M2 and M4), drift ratio increases as the wall aspect ratio

194 increases. The corresponding displacement ductilities did not follow that trend because

195 walls M1, M2 and M4 had the same amount of longitudinal steel reinforcement but

196 different steel reinforcement ratios () (Table 2). For the walls with the same aspect ratio

197 (walls M4 to M6), as expected, drift ratio and displacement ductility increase as the axial

198 compressive stress decreases. The displacement ductilities of the walls varied from 6.06 to

199 14.31. The drift ratios varied from 0.96% to 2.41%. These values showed that the

200 confined walls studied had a good deformation capacity under lateral loads. The minimum

201 displacement ductility and drift ratio of the walls were about 6 and 1%, respectively. Based

202 on those minimum values, a displacement ductility capacity of 6 and a drift ratio capacity

203 of 1% are proposed for the confined walls studied. The ductility capacity of 6 is greater

204 than the value of 3.5 reported for reinforced AAC walls with flexural behavior (Varela et

205 al. 2006). The drift ratio capacity of 1% is equal to that reported for those reinforced AAC

206 walls but is greater than the values proposed for confined walls with shear behavior, 0.4%

207 and 0.6% for hollow and solid units, respectively (FDG 2004a).

208 Table 2. Experimental flexural strengths, analytical flexural strengths, drift ratios and displacement

209 ductilities of walls.

Wall

H/L



(MPa)





M

e

(kN-m)

M

a

(kN-m)

a /M e

M

m

(mm)

y

(mm)





M1

1.1

0.24

0.024

237.71

237.71

1.00

28.0

3.0

9.33

0.96

M2

1.5

0.24

0.033

151.82

158.37

1.04

51.5

3.6

14.31

1.77

M3

1.5

0.47

0.033

201.47

199.76

0.99

30.4

2.4

12.66

1.04

M4

2.4

0.24

0.051

79.33

83.90

1.06

70.0

7.9

8.86

2.41

M5

2.4

0.47

0.051

102.73

104.16

1.01

40.0

5.2

7.69

1.37

M6

2.4

0.71

0.051

130.13

126.99

0.98

30.3

5.0

6.06

1.04

210 Vertical cracks were observed for the walls M2 to M6, one for the walls M2, M4 and

211 M5 and two for the walls M3 and M6. These cracks formed on the wall side in

212 compression. The vertical cracks were, in general, located on the bottom brick courses at

213 about 150 mm from the joint between the vertical confining elements and the wall panel

214 (Figure 2). The vertical cracks were associated with the brick bond pattern used in

215 construction and the non-uniform vertical deformation along the wall length. The mortar

216 head joints of alternating end bricks were vertically aligned (Figure 2). It was observed

217 during testing that vertical cracks formed first at those head joints and then propagated into

Varela-Rivera - 10

218

219

220

221

222

223

224

225

226

227

228

229

230

231

232

233

234

235

236

237

238

239

240

241

242

the bricks. This was related to the smaller compressive strength of the mortar of joints

compared with that of the bricks. The non-uniform vertical deformation along the wall

length was caused by the difference between the modulus of elasticity of concrete and

masonry. The modular ratio between concrete and masonry was about 3. For example,

under only axial load, the axial stress on the wall is uniform but the bricks close to the

vertical confining elements tend to deform less than those located at the wall midlength.

This deformation gradient was greater for the walls with the smaller length. Wall M1 with

the largest length did not have any vertical crack. Under lateral loads, the compressive

stress increases at the corresponding wall end. Vertical cracks on walls with aspect ratios

greater than one have also been observed by other authors (Sosa 2013, Perez Gavilan

2015).

The vertical cracks divided the walls into wall segments. As the “effective” wall length

decreased, the shear strength of the walls also decreased. This strength reduction triggered

the formation of the diagonal cracks observed on the walls. Analytical shear strengths (Va)

were calculated using Equation 1 (Fernandez et al. 2014). In this equation, vm is the

average diagonal compressive strength of the masonry (shear strength) of 0.83 MPa as

reported by the manufacturer, is the inverse of the wall aspect ratio (L/H), At is the wall

cross-section area of the wall and P is the wall axial load. The values of and At were

calculated using reduced wall lengths (Lr) (Table 3). These reduced lengths were measured

before diagonal cracking. The analytical shear strengths of the walls (Va) are compared in

Table 3 with the corresponding observed lateral loads at first diagonal cracking (Ve). In this

table, P is the total axial load on the wall including wall and loading beams self-weight.

Table 3 indicates a good agreement between analytical and experimental shear strengths.

The ratio between Va/Ve varied between 0.97 to 1.07.

Table 3. Analytical and experimental shear strengths of walls.

Wall

H/L



(MPa)

L

(m)

L

r

(m)

P

(kN)

V

a

(kN)

V

e

(kN)

a /V e

V

M2

1.5

0.24

1.88

1.44

73.46

53.33

52.72

1.01

M3

1.5

0.47

1.88

1.32

121.39

62.71

64.70

0.97

M4

2.4

0.24

1.22

0.95

45.77

27.35

25.94

1.05

M5

2.4

0.47

1.22

0.95

78.79

37.25

34.72

1.07

M6

2.4

0.71

1.22

0.69

120.57

43.35

44.77

0.97

243

Varela-Rivera - 11

244

245

246

247

248

249

250

251

252

253

254

255

256

257

258

259

260

261

262

V a

0.46 αA t

v

m

0.3 P

(1)

The secant stiffness at yielding of the steel longitudinal reinforcement (Ky) of the walls

M1 to M6 was equal to 19959, 8463, 21772, 2737, 5574, and 6775 kN/m, respectively.

Each yielding stiffness was calculated using only the first positive cycles. Figure 4 shows

the normalized stiffness degradation curves for the walls as a function of the displacement

ductility. The secant stiffness (Ki) of each positive cycle was divided by the secant yielding

stiffness (Ky). Load cycles up to the values of maximum displacements were included.

Figure 4 shows that the stiffness degradation of the walls was similar. For displacement

ductilities of 2, 4, and 6, the stiffness degradation was about 45, 70, and 80%, respectively.

degrad ation was about 45, 70, and 80%, respectively. Figure 4 . Normalized stiffness degradation curves

Figure 4. Normalized stiffness degradation curves of walls.

ANALYTICAL MODELS

A hysteretic model was developed to represent the flexural behavior of the walls

(Figure 5). This model was based on that proposed by Takeda (CANNY, 1999). The

bilinear loading branch was defined by the yielding stiffness (Ky) and the post yielding

stiffness (Kpy) of the walls. The unloading branch of the model was defined by the

unloading stiffness (Ku) and the slope of the target straight line U-U´. Degradation of the

unloading stiffness (Ku) was considered as a function of the wall displacements.

Varela-Rivera - 12

263

264

265

266

267

268

269

270

271

272

273

274

275

276

277

278

279

280

281

282

268 269 270 271 272 273 274 275 276 277 278 279 280 281 282 Figure

Figure 5. Hysteretic model for walls.

The yielding stiffness of the walls (Ky) was defined by Equation 2. In this equation, is

a hysteretic parameter, Vy is the lateral load associated with yielding of the longitudinal

steel reinforcement, Gm is the shear modulus of elasticity of masonry, Ig is the gross

moment of inertia of the cross-section area, and Ag is the gross cross-section area. Values

of were back calculated for walls M1 to M6 using each corresponding experimental

secant yielding stiffness. The values of were equal to 0.36, 0.28, 0.72, 0.25, 0.51 and

0.62, respectively. For the walls with the same axial compressive stress (walls M1, M2 and

M4), the values of varied between 0.25 and 0.36 with a mean value of 0.30. For the walls

with the same aspect ratio (walls M4 to M6), the values of increase as the axial

compressive stress increases. The values of were equal to 0.25, 0.51 and 0.62,

respectively. The post yielding stiffness (Kpy) was defined as a function of the initial

yielding stiffness (Ky) (Equation 3). Values of were calculated for walls M1 to M6 using

the loading parts of the lateral load-drift ratio curves after yielding of the longitudinal steel

reinforcement. A straight line was fitted in all cases. The values of were equal to 5, 7, 4,

4, 3 and 9%, respectively. The mean value of was equal to 5%.

K

y

β

V y

3

H

3E m I g

1.2 V y H

G m A g

K

py

γK y

‐1

Varela-Rivera - 13

(2)

(3)

283

284

285

286

287

288

289

290

291

292

293

294

295

296

297

298

299

300

301

302

303

304

305

306

307

308

309

310

311

The unloading branches of the lateral load-drift ratio curves of the walls were divided in

two parts, an elastic unloading branch and a damage unloading branch. The elastic part of

the unloading stiffness (Ku) was defined by Equation 4. In this equation, is a hysteretic

parameter, Vm is the lateral force at a given load cycle and dm its corresponding

displacement. Values of were calculated for the walls M1 to M6 using the elastic

unloading parts (positive and negative) of the lateral load-drift ratio curves. The

degradation of the unloading stiffness (Ku) was considered by using different maximum

displacements (dm). A straight line was fitted in all cases. The values of were equal to

1.7, 1.6, 1.6, 1.4, 1.4 and 1.4, respectively. It was observed that the values of were

similar. The average value of was equal to 1.5. The damage part of the unloading

stiffness was defined by the slope of the target straight line U-U´ (Figure 5). This slope

(stiffness, Ku-u) was defined as a function of the yielding stiffness (Ky) (Equation 5). Values

of were calculated for walls M1 to M6 using the end points of the elastic unloading parts

(positive and negative) of the lateral load-drift ratio curves. The values of were equal to

5, 5, 7, 5, 10 and 15%, respectively. For the walls with the same axial compressive stress

(walls M1, M2 and M4), the values of were the same (5%). For the walls with the same

aspect ratio (walls M4 to M6), the values of increase as the axial compressive stress

increases. The values of were equal to 5, 10 and 15%, respectively. Pinching of the

cycles was not included in the hysteretic model because it was not observed up to the

values of maximum displacements of the walls.

K u

θ V y V m

θV y

K ye

d m

(4)

(5)

A hysteretic model was proposed for the walls with the same axial compressive stress

(walls M1, M2 and M4). The selected hysteretic parameters were = 0.3, = 5%, = 1.6

and = 5%. The experimental and analytical lateral load drift ratio curves of walls M4

and M6 are presented in Figure 6. Wall M1 and M4 had the minimum and maximum wall

aspect ratio, respectively. Experimental and analytical curves are represented by solid and

dashed lines, respectively. Figure 6 shows, in general, a good agreement between both

experimental and analytical curves up to the value of drift ratio capacity of 1%.

Varela-Rivera - 14

312

312

313

Figure 6. Experimental and analytical lateral load – drift ratio curves for walls M4 and M6.

314

CONCLUSIONS

315

Six confined masonry walls were tested in the laboratory under reverse cyclic lateral

316

loads. Walls were designed to induce flexural behavior. Based on the results obtained in

317

this work, the following conclusions are presented.

318

The flexural behavior of the walls was characterized by yielding of the longitudinal

319

steel reinforcement followed by vertical and diagonal cracks. The failure of the

320

walls was associated with crushing of the concrete at the bottom ends of the vertical

321

confining elements.

322

As expected, flexural strength of walls increases as the aspect ratio or the axial load

323

increase. Flexural strength of walls can be determined using flexural theory.

324

The confined walls studied had a good deformation capacity under lateral loads.

325

The displacement ductilities varied from 6.06 to 14.31 and the drift ratios from

326

0.96% to 2.41%. Based on the observed minimum values, a displacement ductility

327

capacity of 6 and a drift ratio capacity of 1% are proposed for the walls.

328

The vertical cracks observed on the walls caused a reduction in their shear strength.

329

Because of this reduction, diagonal shear cracks were observed in the walls.

330

Vertical cracks were associated with the brick bond pattern used in construction and

331

the non-uniform vertical deformation on the wall.

Varela-Rivera - 15

332

A hysteretic model was developed to represent the flexural behavior of the walls.

333

The model was based on that proposed by Takeda. In general, hysteretic parameters

334

depended on the wall aspect ratio and the wall axial compressive stress. The

335

proposed hysteretic model represented well the observed flexural behavior of the

336

walls studied.

337

REFERENCES

338

CANNY, 1999. A 3-Dimensional Nonlinear Static / Dynamic Structural Analysis Program,

339

Technical Manual, CANNY Structural, Vancouver, Canada.

340

Edison, 1994. Edison hydraulic Load Maintainers, Operation and Maintenance Manual. Edison

341

hydraulic load maintainers, Paradise, California, USA.

342

Flores, L. E., Mendoza J. A., and Reyes C., 2004. Ensaye de Muros de Mampostería con y sin

343

Refuerzo Alrededor de la Abertura (Testing of Masonry Structures with and without

344

Reinforcement on Openings), In Proceedings of the XIV National Congress of Structural

345

Engineering, October, 2004, Acapulco, Mexico. [in Spanish]

346

Federal District Government (FDG), 2004a. Technical Norms for the Construction and Design of

347

Masonry Structures. Federal District Official Gazette. Mexico City, Mexico. [in Spanish]

348

Federal District Government (FDG), 2004b. Technical Norms for the Construction and Design of

349

Concrete Structures. Federal District Official Gazette. Mexico City, Mexico. [in Spanish]

350

Fernandez-Baqueiro, L. E., Sosa-Moreno, M. I., and Varela-Rivera, J. L., 2014.

Resistencia en el

351

Plano de Muros de Mampostería: Efecto de la Relación de Aspecto (In-plane Strength of

352

Confined Walls: Effect of Aspect Ratio), In Proceedings of the XIV National Congress of

353

Structural Engineering, November, 2014, Puerto Vallarta, Mexico. [in Spanish]

354

Meli, R., 1979. Comportamiento Sísmico de Muros de Mampostería (Seismic Behavior of Masonry

355

Walls), Tech. Rep. Serie Azul: Instituto de Ingeniería, UNAM, No. 352, Mexico City, Mexico.

356

[in Spanish]

357

National Organization for Norms and Certification for Construction and Buildings, 2004. Norm

358

NMX-C-036-ONNCCE-2004. Construction Industry – Blocks and Bricks – Compressive

359

Strength – Test Methods. National Organization for Norms and Certification for Construction

360

and Buildings (ONNCCE), Mexico.

361

National Organization for Norms and Certification for Construction and Buildings, 2002. Norm

362

NMX-C-083-ONNCCE-2002. Construction Industry - Concrete – Determination of the

Varela-Rivera - 16

363 Compressive Strength of Concrete Cylinders. National Organization for Norms and

364 Certification for Construction and Buildings (ONNCCE), Mexico.

365 National Organization for Norms and Certification for Construction and Buildings, 2010. Norm

366 NMX-C-464-ONNCCE-2010. Construction Industry – Masonry – Determination of the

367 Compressive Strength and the Modulus of Elasticity of Masonry Prisms. National Organization

368 for Norms and Certification for Construction and Buildings (ONNCCE), Mexico.

369 National Organization for Norms and Certification for Construction and Buildings, 2002. Norm

370 NMX-C-407-ONNCCE-2002. Construction Industry – Deformed Steel Bars for Concrete –

371 Specifications and testing Methods. National Organization for Norms and Certification for

372 Construction and Buildings (ONNCCE), Mexico.

373 Perez Gavilan, J. J., Flores, L. E., and Alcocer, S. M., 2015. An Experimental Study of Confined

374 Masonry Walls with Varying Aspect Ratio, Earthquake Spectra, 31:2, 945-968.

375 Quiroz, L., Maruyama, Y., and Zavala, C., 2014. Cyclic Behavior of Peruvian Confined Masonry

376 Walls and Calibration of Numerical Model Using Genetic Algorithms, Journal of Engineering

377 Structures, 75, 561-576.

378 Riahi, Z., Elwood, K., and Alcocer, S. M., 2009. Backbone Model for Confined Masonry Walls for

379 Performance Based Seismic Design, Journal of Structural Engineering, 125:6, 644-654.

380 Rodríguez, M., and Botero, J. C., 1994. Aspectos del Comportamiento Sísmico de Estructuras de

381 Concreto Reforzado Considerando las Propiedades Mecánicas de Aceros de Refuerzo

382 Producidos en México (Fundamental Aspects of the Seismic Behavior of Concrete Structures

383 Considering Mechanical Properties of Mexican Steel Reinforcements), Tech. Rep. Instituto de

384 Ingeniería, UNAM, No. 575. Mexico City, Mexico [in Spanish].

385 San Bartolomé, A., Quiun, D., and Torrealva, D., 1992. Seismic Behaviour of a Three-Story Half

386 Scale Confined Masonry Structure, In Proceedings of Earthquake Engineering, Tenth World

387 Conference, 1992, Balkema, Rotterdam.

388 San Bartolome, A., and Quiun, D., 2010. Diseño Sísmico de Edificaciones de Albañilería Confinada

389 (Seismic Design of Confined Masonry Structures), Revista Ciencia, Mexico City, Mexico, 13:2,

390 161-185. [in Spanish]

391 Shedid, M. T., Drysdale, R. G., El-Dakhakhni, W. W., 2008. Behavior of Fully Grouted Reinforced

392 Concrete Masonry Shear Walls Failing in Flexure: Experimental Results. Journal of Structural

393 Engineering, ASCE, 134:11, 1754-1767.

394 Sosa, M., 2013.

395 Cargas Laterales en su Plano (Confined Masonry Walls Constructed with Hollow Concrete

Muros de Mampostería Confinada de Bloques Huecos de Concreto, Sujetos a

Varela-Rivera - 17

396 Blocks Subjected to In-Plane Lateral Loads). M.S. Thesis, Autonomous University of Yucatan,

397 Mexico.

398 Tanner, J. E., Varela, J. L., Klinger, R. E., and Brightman, M. J., 2005. Seismic Testing of

399 Autoclaved Aerated Concrete Shear-Walls: A Comprehensive Review, ACI Structural

400 Journal, 102:3, 374-382.

401 Tena-Colunga, A., Juárez-Ángeles A., and Salinas-Vallejos, V. H., 2009.

402 Combined and Confined Masonry Walls, Journal of Engineering Structures, 31:1, 240-259.

403 Treviño, E. L., Alcocer, S. M., Flores, L. E., Larrua, R., Zarate, J. M., and Gallegos, L., 2004.

404 Investigación Experimental del Comportamiento de Muros de Mampostería Confinada de

405 Bloques de Concreto Sometidos a Cargas Laterales Cíclicas Reversibles Reforzados con Acero

406 de Grados 60 y 42 (Experimental Study on the Behavior of Confined Walls, Reinforced with 60

407 and 42 grade Steel and Constructed with Concrete Blocks, Subjected to Reverse Cyclic Loads),

408 In Proceedings of the XIV National Congress of Structural Engineering, October, 2004,

409 Acapulco, Mexico. [in Spanish]

410 Urzua, D. A., Padilla, M. R., and Loza, J. R., 2001. Influencia de la Carga Vertical en la Resistencia

411 Sísmica de Muros de Mampostería Confinada con Materiales Pumíticos Típicos de Guadalajara

Cyclic Behavior of

412 (Influence of the Axial Load on the Strength of Confined Masonry Walls Constructed with

413 Materials from Guadalajara), In Proceedings of the XIII National Congress on Earthquake

414 Engineering, October 2001, Guadalajara, Mexico. [in Spanish]

415 Yoshimura, K., Kikuchi, K., Kuroki, M., Liu, L., and Ma, L., 2000. Effect of wall reinforcements,

416 applied lateral forces and vertical axial loads on seismic behavior of confined concrete masonry

417 walls, In Proceedings of the 12 World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, 30-January to 4-

418 February, 2000, Auckland, New Zealand.

419 Varela, J. L., Tanner, J. E., and Klinger, R. E., 2006.

Development of Seismic Force

420 Reduction and Displacement Amplification Factors for Autoclaved Aerated Concrete

421 Structures, Earthquake Spectra, 22:1, 267-286.

Varela-Rivera - 18