See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/281558055

Shear-Moment Interaction inConfined Masonry Walls: is it Worth

Considering?

Article · March 2015

CITATIONS READS

0 73

2 authors:

Juan Jose Perez-Gavilan E. Oscar Cardel

Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México
36 PUBLICATIONS   285 CITATIONS    2 PUBLICATIONS   0 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Confined Masonry Network View project

SIM Una nueva mampostería sismo resistente View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Juan Jose Perez-Gavilan E. on 07 September 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Shear-Moment Interaction inConfined Masonry Walls:
is it Worth Considering?
J. J. Perez GAVILAN
Researcher in Applied Mechanics, Instituto de
Ingeniería, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de
México C.U., Av. Universidad 3000, CP 04510,
México DF.
jperezgavilane@iingen.unam.mx
Received his Bachelor degree in Civil Engineering in
1985 and his Master Degree in Structural Engineering
in 1987 from the Faculty of Engineering, UNAM.
Received his PhD in Computational Mechanics from
the London University, UK in 2001. Teaches the
postgraduate courses in Advanced Mechanics and
the Design of Masonry Structures. He is chair of the
Mexico City code for the Design and Construction of
Masonry Structures Committee.
Abstract
Overturning moment in confined masonry walls has
shown to affect their shear cracking strength. Based
on experimental results, a new strength equation
was proposed that includes the effect of aspect ratio
and moment, increasing cracking strength for squat
walls (H/L<1) and reducing it with normalized
flexural moment on top the wall β=2Ma/VH when
in single curvature. However, the range of β and its
correlation to aspect ratio was unknown. Eighteen
typical buildings modelled with the Wide Column
Method were analysed and the value of β calculated
for each wall in their first storey. Its correlation
with aspect ratio was then investigated. Results
show that cases for which the combined values of
aspect ratio and normalized moment that lead to a
considerable reduction of cracking strength are not
rare, supporting rationale for considering the shear-
moment interaction.
Keywords: Confined masonry, shear strength, shear-
moment interaction, curvature, height/length aspect
ratio, bending moment, seismic design.
The Bridge and Structural Engineer Volume 45 Number 1 March 2015  19
O. CARDEL J.
Master student, Instituto de Ingeniería, UNAM.
Received his bachelor degree in Civil Engineering in
2011 Universidad Veracruzana, Xalapa, Ver.
1. Introduction
Confined masonry (CM) is a construction system in
which masonry walls are a built first usually with
a running bond arrangement; later, vertical and
horizontal reinforced concrete confining elements
called tie-columns and tie-beams are cast in place,
around the four sides of the walls. Tie-columns and tie-
beams are intended to confine the masonry panel, thus
enhancing wall deformation capacity and connectivity
with other walls and floor diaphragms. Confining
elements differ from typical concrete frame structures
in that they tend to have smaller cross-sectional
dimensions (Meli et al., 2011), making the walls load
bearing elements. To increase its shear strength and
displacement capacity, horizontal reinforcement may
be embedded in the mortar joints and anchored in the
tie-columns (Aguilar et al., 1996).
Confined masonry is extensively used in many
countries in Latin America, including México, Peru,
Argentina and others, the Middle East (Iran, Algeria),
some European countries (Italy, Slovenia, Serbia),
South Asia (Indonesia) and China. Recently in India
a very conscious effort to adapt CM to their design
and construction practice is in place and for the first
time a major university campus is being constructed
using this system (Jain et al. 2014).
Observed past performance of CM buildings confirms
that well built structures survived major earthquakes
without collapse and in most cases without significant
damage (Meli et al., 2011, Asinari 2007). Extensive
tests have demonstrated that when built and detailed
adequately, walls may have reasonable levels of
displacement capacity and of shear, flexural and axial
resistance (Alcocer, 1995).
Nowadays, CM is used for relatively low-rise
buildings; in México, up to five storeys and in
other countries restricted to one-or two-storey
houses (NSR/10 210). However, a policy change
in Mexico that favours vertical development of the
cities, particularly buildings for housing, is rising
the pressure for the design and construction of taller
masonry buildings, specially confined masonry
buildings, capable of resisting intense earthquake
actions. Many aspects of the design of CM in Mexico
are now being revised in order to have a more robust
code that is not limited to low-rise structures.
Recently, the effect of aspect ratio on shear strength
of CM walls was studied (Pérez Gavilán et al., 2013)
and the shear-moment interaction was investigated
through full scaled specimens subjected to constant
axial force and reversible cyclic application of shear
forces and corresponding bending moments (Manzano
et al., 2013). Based on those investigations, a new
equation for shear strength design of CM walls was
proposed that includes both the effect of aspect ratio,
which increases the cracking strength of masonry
as the aspect ratio reduces and a reduction in the
shear capacity due to increase in the aspect ratio and
normalized moment on top of the wall. Normalization
of the moment on top of the wall lead to the parameter
β=2Ma/VH, where Ma is the moment on top of the
wall, V the shear force and H the storey height.
Although the effect of normalized moment was well
established, the range of β itself is unknown for typical
masonry buildings, leaving the question of whether a
more complex expression was justified for design. To
address this issue, several masonry buildings of the
type used in Mexico, especially in Mexico City, were
analyzed using the Wide Column Method. Internal
20  Volume 45 Number 1 March 2015 The Bridge and Structural Engineer
forces and basic geometrical properties were gathered
for first storey masonry walls and the parameter β
was calculated for each load combination including
earthquake loading. The minimum and the maximum
values were registered. With the combination of
aspect ratio and β, the reduction of cracking strength
was estimated.
A brief review of the interaction problem is presented
and the proposed new equation for the Mexican code
explained, showing the expected reductions in the
cracking strength due to shear-moment interaction.
The results from the analyses are presented next so
that a clear idea of the convenience of considering the
interaction effect may be drawn.
2. Background Studies
The Mexican masonry code (NTCM 2004) shear
strength equation for CM walls, without horizontal
reinforcement is given by Eq. 1
VmR=FR (0.5v* AT+0.3P)≤FR 1.5v* AT (1)
where v* is the shear strength of the masonry as
obtained from diagonal compression tests, AT is the
gross cross-sectional area of the wall including tie-
columns, P is the axial force on the wall and FR is the
strength reduction factor. The right most term limits
the amount of axial load that may increase the wall
strength. The equation was calibrated with many full-
scaled tests of walls, usually with a height-to-length
(H/L) aspect ratio equal to one and with different
types of masonry units and mortar (Alcocer et al.,
1995; Meli, 1973). The effect of aspect ratio and the
bending moment on top of the wall are not considered.
The contribution of horizontal reinforcement will not
be discussed here.
The format of Eq. (1) is standard, the first term is
related to masonry tensile strength capacity and the
second term is the added strength due to the axial
load in the wall. Unlike many code equations that
estimate the maximum strength, Eq. (1) predicts the
cracking strength of the wall. This decision allowed
for conservative and more consistent estimations, as
fewer variables are involved and elastic behaviour
may be used to describe the wall behaviour up to
the cracking point. For example, the longitudinal
reinforcement and shear strength of the tie-columns
do not significantly affect the wall’s cracking strength
(also known as diagonal tension shear strength). The
 axial force on the wall and �� is the strength reduction NZS factor.
2004 The rightmost term16/9 7/9 of sh
Table 1. Masonry code parameters for a linear variation
limits the amount of axial load that may increase theUBC wallSDstrength.
1997 of The equation was7/3 4/3
function the aspect ratio.
calibrated with many full-scaled tests of walls, usually with a height-to-length (H/L)
Code
Table 1.mortar
Masonry code parameters � for a linear varia
aspect ratio equal to one and with different Fortypes of masonry
single�storey units
structures, and
the total moment � � ��, thus the shear span rati
MSJCfunctionSD 2011 of the aspect ratio. 16/9
(Alcocer et al., 1995; Meli, 1973). The effect of aspect ratio
�/�� � ��/�� � �/�,that and the bending moment
is, equal to the �/� aspect ratio
on top ofstrength
the wallisare not than
considered. The contribution CSAreinforcement
2004 Code study was performed 2 of the wall. �
For structur
maximum larger the cracking strength
with severalofstoreys,
horizontal
More recently,
the
NZSshear 2004are span search
ratio may be interpreted 16/9 as antoeffective aspe7
will not be discussed here. MSJC SD 2011 16/9
but only for walls with aspect ratios H/L≤1 ratio(Perez
�� /� withverify the variation
an effective
UBC 1997 �of
SDheight � �shear
�/�. strength with 7/3 aspect ratio 4
CSA 2004 2
Gavilan et al., 2013). With a database
The format of Eq. (1) is standard, the first term containing
is related and it
to masonryofCM arrived
tensile at a similar
strength
NZS conclusion (Perez Gavilan
Based on observations
For single�storey tests made2004
structures, by the
severaltotalauthors,
moment Alvarez
� �7/3
16/9
��,(1996)
thus concluded
the shear
results from
capacity and many wallsterm
the second testedisfrom different
the added countries
strength due
that cracking�/�� to theet al.,
axial
strength 2013).
load in
should Inthethat
UBC wall.
SD study
increase1997 however,
as the the
aspect ratiofratio
factor was
reduces. MoreFo
Unlike many code equations that estimate � ��/�� � �/�,that is, equal to the �/� aspect of the wall.
a back-bone model was proposed (Riahithe maximum
al., 2009).strength,
etrecently,aresearch with appliedEq. (1)
study
several was predicts
tostoreys,
the terms
performed the
therelated
to verify
shear span tothe the
ratio masonry
variation
may be strength
ofinterpreted
shear strength as with
an effe
cracking strength of the wall. This decision allowed
The results indicate that the maximum aspect shear stressfor
ratio and conservative
ratioitand the
arrived
� /�
For
with at an aand
contribution
more
single�storey
similar
effective due
structures,
conclusion
height to �axial
(Perez
�
theGavilan
�/�.load,
total moment
as shown
� � ��,
in
et al., 2013). thus
In that
consistent estimations, as fewer variables arestudy involved however,and elastic
theEq.(3)
� behaviour
factor �/��
� was�applied may
��/�� be to�the �/�,that �
terms relatedis, equaltotothe themasonry
�/� aspect ratio of t
strength
usedis, to
ondescribe
average,the 1.3 wall
timesbehaviour
the cracking up to strength
the of the point.
cracking For withexample,
several thestoreys, the shear span ratio may be interpreted
and the contribution Based on due to axial load,ofCM as shown in Eq.(3)
panels, which
longitudinal is an indication
reinforcement and shearof the contribution
strength of the tie-columns of do observations
not
ratio significantly tests made
�� /� with an effective height �� � �/�.
by several authors, Alvarez (1996) c
affecttie-columns
the wall’sand cracking strength they (alsoprovide that cracking
knownforasthediagonal tension shear strength should increase as the aspect ratio reduce
the confinement recently,aresearch � � � ��
�� study was� � �� �
performed to (3)
verify the variation of shear (3) stren
strength).The maximum strength is larger than the cracking strength Basedbut on only for
observations ofCM tests made by several authors, Alvare
seismic performance of the walls. aspect ratio and it arrived at a similar conclusion (Perez Gavilan et al., 2013).
walls with aspect ratios �/� � 1 (�erez �avilan et al., 2013). With thata cracking
database strength should increase as the aspect rati
The shear
containing results from many walls testedfrom different countries a The study
strength however,
forsquat the
walls
shear model factor
with �
�/�
strength for was� applied
1 was
squat to the
estimated terms related
relative to to
the the masonry
strength st
back-bone
recently,aresearch study was walls
performed withtoH/L<1 verify thewasvariation of sh
3. Aspect Ratio of square
was proposed (Riahi et al.,2009). The results indicate that the maximum walls and the
(�/� contribution
� 1).Theshear due
strength
stress to ofaxial load,
square as
walls shown
is well in Eq.(3)
calibrated and can be
estimated
aspect relative
ratio and ittoarrived
the strength
at a similar of square
conclusionwallsbased(H/ on
(Perez Gavilan et
is, on average, 1.3 times the cracking strengthpredicted of the panels, withwhich Eq 1. is an A indication
study variation
however, ofinthethe factorstrength
� was was
applied calculated
to the terms related to the m
It is generally accepted L=1). The strength ��of square walls � is well calibrated
the contribution of tie-columns andthat
the the shear strength
considerations
confinement they related of to
provide for
andthe
the
the relative
seismic
contribution flexural �stiffness
due �to� �� � �of
axial ��the
load, ascantilever
shown in Eq.(3) squat and (
performance reinforced square
masonry walls increases with a decrease in
of the walls. walls, Eq.(4) was and
developed can befor predicted
estimating with
� value Eq as 1. A
follows variation in the
the aspect ratio. Most codes consider this variation The shear as strength
strength forsquatwas walls with �/�
calculated �� �
based � 1�was ���estimated
� on � �� � relative to the stren
considerations
�10� � 1).The 3��10�strength �� � 3� (4)
3. Aspect Ratio of square walls (�/� of square walls is well calibrated and can
a linear function of the shear span ratio M/VL, which with � related
� to� the�A�relative flexural stiffness of the cantilever
It is generally accepted that the shear strength of reinforced predicted
masonry The wallsshear Eq 1.
100�
increases � variation
60� �� � 9 in the strength was calculated based o
squat strength
and forsquat walls with was �/� � 1 was estimated for relative to
with a decrease is issued
in theas an effective
aspect ratio. Most aspect
codesratio. Theconsiderations
consider general
this variation related
as a linear to square
the relative walls, Eq.(4)
flexural stiffnessdeveloped
of the cantilever squat and
of square walls (�/� � 1).The strength of square walls is well calibrated
function of the form of the
shear spanshear strength equations
ratio�/��,which where
isused�as can
�an besquare
�/�,� stated walls,
� �/�,
effective as �is
aspect estimating
Eq.(4)
predictedshear
ratio.was modulus,
The
with f value
developed
Eq 1. andasAfollows
for�is
estimating
the modulus
variation
� valueofaselasticity
follows
in the strength for was calculated
general form (MSJC of the shear strength equationsmasonry.
can beThe expression
stated as (MSJCcan
SD 2011, CSA2004, NZS2004, Davis 2008,considerations related to the relative be
SD simplified
2011, using as a typical value � �
flexural stiffness 2/10, and of the cantilever
�10� � 3��10� � � 3� � (4)
SA2004, NZS2004, Davis 2008, Anderson 1992) considering the effective square aspect ratio,as follows
Anderson 1992) walls, Eq.(4)
� � was�developed � �
for estimating (4)
� value as follows
100� � � 60� � � 9
� � �
�� � �� � � � �� � �� � �� �1 (2)
� 1.55 (2) � 0.2�10� � 3��10� �� � 3�
where � �� �/�,� �where �/�, �is shear ��
� modulus,
�� ��
�� w=H/L, η=G/E, �� 100� G and
�is �is the� modulus
� �shear
� 60�modulus � � 9 and E is
of elasticity for
masonry. � � by The expression can be simplified using as a typical value
(5) � � 2/10, and
e �� is the masonry Vm is the
where strength masonry
affected by a strength
factor which affected
is a linear
considering
�1.69aeffective
� 0.69
the function the modulus
of�
aspect
� 0.2of�elasticity �1
ratio,as�follows for masonry. The expression
�where
span ratio �/�� factorwithwhich
� andis� constants,
a linear function of shear
�� the strength duespan to � the axial�load
ratio � �/�,� � �/�,
canonbe simplified ���is using shear modulus, and �is the modulus of elastici
as a typical value η=2/10,
masonry.1 The expression can � 1 be simplified using as a typical value � � 2/10
all and �� the M/VL with aofand
contribution b constants, The
reinforcement. Vp the strength
values for � � due
and �toin several
and considering � the �
effective aspect ratio, as follows
considering the � effective1.55 aspect ratio,as � follows
0.2
re shown in Table 1. load on the wall and V the contribution of
the axial �
s case of reinforced masonry, �
Similar to the shear strength �� increases ��with a�decrease in
reinforcement. The values for a and
the aspect ratio.b in several codes� � � �1.69 � 0.69 � � � 1.55 0.2 � � 1 � 0.2 (5)
� �
are shown in Table 1. � � ���� 1 ��
� � �1 �1.69 � 0.69� � � 0.2 � �1 (5) (5)
� � �
  Table 1: Masonry code parameters for a linear ��
�
variation of shear strength asSimilar to theofcase
a function theof reinforced masonry, �
shear
1 strength increases
�
� 1with a decrease in
the aspect ratio.
aspect ratio
Similar to the case of reinforced masonry, shear strength increases with a decrease in
Code a b ratio. Similar to the case of reinforced masonry, shear
the aspect
strength increases with a decrease in the aspect ratio.
MSJC SD 2011 16/9 7/9
CSA 2004 2 1 4. Shear-Moment Interaction
NZS 2004 16/9 7/9
Table 1 showed that according to most international
UBC SD 1997 7/3 4/3 codes, masonry shear strength increases when the
4. Shear-Moment Interaction
shear span ratio M/VL≤1. Peru's code (E.070 2006)
Table 1 showed that according to most international codes, masonry shear stre
For single-storey structures, the total moment M=VH,
is anthe
increaseswhen interesting exception,
shear span where
ratio ���� � 1.the design
�eru�s codeshear
(E.0�0 2006) is
thus the shear span ratio is M/VL=VH/VL=H/L, that
strength iswherethe
interesting exception, presented in Eq.(6)
design shearas follows presented in Eq.(6) as follo
strengthis
is, equal to the H/L aspect ratio of the wall. For
structures with several storeys, the shear span ratio VL (6)
�� � 0.5��� � � 0.23� � � � � 1�3 � � � 1 (6)
may be interpreted as an effective aspect ratio He/L M
with an effective height He=M/V. The
The equation was equation
obtained was
from obtainedstudy
a numerical from(Zeballos
a numerical
et al., study
1992). A total of 15
Based on observations of CM tests made walls were analysed
by several using et
(Zeballos theal.,
Finite Element
1992). Method.
A total of 15Thewalls
walls were
consisted of one,
two,or three panels separated by tie-columns, and the height ranged from one to five
authors, Alvarez (1996) concluded that cracking
storeys.
analysed using the Finite Element Method. The walls
The walls were subjected to lateral loads with a triangular variation over wall
strength should increase as the aspect ratio reduces.
height. consisted
Lateral forces of one,
were scaled two, or three
to ensureequal panelsshear
average separated by different
stressesfor
wall lengths. The variation of the principal tensile stress is shown in Figure 1, together
with the variation of �.It is assumed that the cracking shear strength is directly
The Bridge and Structural Engineer associated with the maximum tensileVolume
stress. 45 Number 1 March 2015  21

The results showed an increase in tensile stressfor shorter and taller walls.
�onsequently,� reduces the wall shear strength for increasing aspect ratios. The effect
of wall height refers to increasing bending moment on the wall. It is also evident that
the effect of bending moment is more significant in slender walls than in squat walls.
 tie-columns and the height ranged from one to five
storeys. The walls were subjected to lateral loads with
a triangular variation over wall height. Lateral forces
were scaled to ensure equal average shear stresses for
different wall lengths. The variation of the principal
tensile stress is shown in Figure 1, together with the
variation of α. It is assumed that the cracking shear
strength is directly associated with the maximum
Fig. 2: Predicted shear strength reduction (α) as a fraction of
tensile stress. the nominal value for different values of normalized moment
The results showed an increase in tensile stress for β, material η and aspect ratio w: a) α versusw and b) α
shorter and taller walls. Consequently, α reduces the versus β (Manzano et al., 2013)
wall shear strength for increasing aspect ratios. The When the wall is subjected to double curvature, the
effect of wall height refers to increasing bending cracking strength is expected to increase in comparison
moment on the wall. It is also evident that the effect to the nominal strength (Eq. 1). An experimental
of bending moment is more significant in slender program was carried out to verify validity of Eq. (7)
walls than in squat walls. for single curvature walls. The results were in good
agreement with the predicted values. Three pairs of
walls were tested. In the first and second pair, walls
had an aspect ratio H/L=1. The first wall of the pair was
tested without moment on top of the wall, while the
second wall of the pair was subjected to the maximum
predefined bending moment value (Ma). The third
pair had H/L=1.54. The axial force was kept constant,
while lateral force and flexural moment were applied
Fig. 1: The effect of tensile stress and aspect ratio: a)
maximum tensile stress for walls with one, two and three using cyclic loading protocol. A detailed description
panels (M1, M2 and M3), points reflect different wall heights of the load sequence is explained in (Manzano et al.,
and b) a variation of α versus shear span ratio 2013). Table 2 shows the predicted and experimental
values for shear strength reductions.
A possible explanation for the decrease in cracking
strength due to the bending moment on top the wall
  Table 2: Shear-moment interaction results
was presented by (Manzano et al., 2013). It was
assumed that first tensile cracks in the wall depend Wall type H/L η Vc kN Ma Vc/Vn Vc/Vn
(w) kN m calc exp
on the level of lateral deformation, irrespective of
M1-1 Clay, solid 1 0.299 143.44 – 0.71 0.77
whether the deformation was caused by a lateral force M1-2 Traditional 1 0.237 118.61 176.52
a bending moment or a combination of both. Based M2-1 Clay 1 0.142 174.32 – 0.35 0.40
on this simple assumption, a cracking strength (Vc) M2-2 extruded 1 0.157 69.81 637.43

equation was derived and compared with the nominal M3-1 Clay 1.54 0.111 108.38 166.71 0.70
M3-2 extruded 1.54 0.123 79.35 254.97 0.52
cracking strength (Vn) calculated using Eq. (1) with
0.74(+) 0.73
FR=1, as shown in Eq. (7)
Note: 0.66=0.46/0.7 should be equal to 0.73=79.35/108.38
��
�
1 (7)
�� 1 � ����� � (7)
Instead of using the nominal value (Eq. 1), Vn was
�
���� ��
taken as the shear strength without bending moment
�� � 0it means that �M
When a<0 it
� causes a lateral that Ma causes
meansdisplacement a lateralopposite
in the direction from the first wall of the pair. Both walls M3-1 and
displacement
isplacement produced by the in theforce
lateral direction
�. In thatopposite to isthe
case the wall M3-2 were tested with applied bending moment, so
in double
re. When� � displacement
�1 the wall is produced
fixed (rotation
by theonlateral
top of force
the wall is restrained),
V. In that the V value is not defined as in the first two pairs;
� 0 indicates single curvature.The predictions obtainedusing Eq. (7) are n
n Figure 2.
case the wall is in double curvature. When β = –1 the however, the estimation of the shear reduction for
wall is fixed (rotation on top of the wall is restrained), M3-1 and M3-2 can be calculated. The quotient of
while β > 0 indicates single curvature. The predictions the shear strengths obtained experimentally should
obtained using Eq. (7) are shown in Figure 2. be equal to the quotient of the estimated reduction of

22  Volume 45 Number 1 March 2015 The Bridge and Structural Engineer
 Traditional 1 0.237 118.61 176.52 0.35 0.40
M2-2 extruded 1 0.157 69.81 637.43
Clay 1 0.142 174.32 -
M3-1 Clay 1.54 0.111 0.35
108.38 0.40
166.71 0.70
extruded 1 M3-2 0.157 extruded69.81 1.54 637.43 0.123 79.35 314.79 0.46
Clay 1.54 0.111 108.38 166.71 0.70 0.66(+) 0.73
extruded 1.54 0.123 79.35 314.79 0.46
Note: 0.66=0.46/0.7 should be equal to 0.73=79.35/108.38
0.66(+) 0.73
shear
6=0.46/0.7 should strengths
be�nstead
equal toof forthethose
0.73=79.35/108.38
using nominalwalls.
valueThose
(�q. 1),quotients
� � was takenareas therelative to thewithout
shear strength nominal
strength given by Eq. (1), is
bending
reported inmoment
the lastfrom
rowtheof first
Tablewall2.of the pair. Both walls M3-1mainly
and M3-2 were tested
a function of the aspect ratio and the value of
of using the nominal value (�q.
with applied 1), ��moment,
bending was taken as �
so the the shear strength without
� value is not defined as in the first two pairs;
g moment from however,
the first wall of the pair.ofBoth
the estimation wallsreduction
the shear M3-1 andfor M3-2 were
M3-1 normalized
and tested
M3-2 moment β.
can be calculated.
plied bending5. moment,
The Shear so Strength
quotient the
of the shearwith
�� value is not Interaction
defined
strengths as inexperimentally
obtained the first two should
pairs; be equal to the
To investigate the possible values of the normalized
er, the estimationquotient
of theof shear
the estimated
reductionreduction
for M3-1of shear strengths
and M3-2 canfor
bethose walls. Those quotients
calculated.
otient of the areThe
shear results
reported presented
in theobtained
strengths in
last row of previous
Table 2.
experimentally should be equal to moment
sections may be the β in real-life structures, eighteen blocks out
integrated
t of the estimated reduction into a single
of shear equation
strengths to walls.
for those estimate
Those the of eight buildings were analysed. Figure 4 shows the
quotients
orted in the last 5.rowShear Strength
of Table 2. with Interaction
cracking strength of CM walls considering the effect plan
The results presented in previous sections may be integrated into a singleequationto of each building and a few dimensions were
ofwith
estimate
Shear Strength aspect ratio and
the cracking
Interaction bending
strength of CM moment on top the
walls considering the of added
of effect to provide
aspect ratio and information on the plan size. The
bending
wall. moment
The on top of the
proposed wall. The proposed
equation(8) is equation(8)
presented is presented number
next next of storeys varied from three to six. In some
ults presented in previous sections may be integrated into a singleequationto
e the cracking strength of CM walls considering
�
�� the effect �of aspect ratio cases,
and a building consisted of several blocks and
moment on top�of ��the� �wall.
� ��0.5�
The �proposed
� � 0.3��equation(8)
� � � � �is1.5� � � �� �next
presented � (8) (8)
�� each block was analysed separately. Also, in case of
where the in
first term
�� inis parenthesis is the from
nominal repetitive modules in a block, the study was limited to
��� � � where the �first term parenthesis the nominal
� strength Eq. (1), � is(8)the factor
� ��0.5� � � � 0.3�� � � � � � 1.5� � � �� � �
obtained strength
from Eq.(5) frombyEq. �(1), f is�/�
substituting
� the for
factor
�/�� obtained from needsthea walls
.This change carefulfrom only one of those modules. Each block
explanation, and a few comments are given below. The term �� /�� reflects the
Eq. (5) by substituting H/L for M/VL. This change is effect
shown of in Figure 4, with the number of storeys
the bending
he first term in moment on topisofthe
parenthesis thenominal
wall, wherestrength from Eq. (1), � is the factor indicated in the brackets. The structural system for
d from Eq.(5)needs a careful explanation
by substituting �/� for �/�� and .This
a fewchange
comments needsarea careful
tion, and a fewgiven below.areThe
comments �term
given
� �
2M�� /H
below. � ��reflects
a Thek � term �the
� /�effect theeffectallofbuildings
of the
� reflects (9)
consisted of CM and reinforced concrete
ding moment on top of the
bending wall, where
moment 3 �
on top of� the wall, where walls. Reinforced concrete walls are identified on the
�
plans shown in Figure 4 with a slightly thicker line
2 �� � �and
is a characteristic height,�� � 3��/� �� � ��/�� are flexural and shear stiffness
�
� of inertia
�� � andI is moment
components,� is the shear factor, (9)
for the wall section. and
(9) different colour. However, those walls were not
3 �� considered in this study. Very long walls were divided
is a ofcharacteristic
Two different effects bending moment
�
height, kf=3EI/H
3
were described above,andi) forkwalls
v=GA/ κH�/� �
with 1, smaller segments for the analysis purpose.
into
yaracteristic
including inheight,�
the � 3��/� and ��aspect
� ��/�� are flexural
are flexural and shear stiffness components, κ is the shear-
� factor
� the effective ratio �/��and ii) and effect
the shearofstiffness
ents,�interaction
oment is the shear(�factor, andI is moment of inertia for the wall section.
� /�� ). In principle the effect of shear-moment interaction should be
shear
lied to walls with factorratio.
any aspect andTo I is moment
avoid of inertia
considering the effectfor of the wallmoment
bending
eferent effects
on squat section.
of
walls bending
(�/� � 1�moment were
the aspect described
ratio instead ofabove, i) for walls
the effective aspectwith
ratio�/�
in �is
� 1,
It wasin
uding verified
the � infactor
(Perezthe
Gavilan et al. aspect
effective 2014), that
ratiothe�/��and
effect of the
ii) interaction
the effectterm on
of shear-
with �/� � 1(�
interaction isTwo different
consistent with theeffects
effect causedof by bending
using �/��momentin � for were
� /�� ). In principle the effect of shear-moment interaction should be
walls with
to walls with anydescribed above,
aspect ratio. Toi)avoid
for walls with H/L<1,
considering the effect byof including
bending moment
n squat walls (�/� in the � 1� the aspect
f factor the ratio insteadaspect
effective of the effective
ratio M/VL aspectand
ratio in �is
was verified in (Perez Gavilan et al. 2014), that the effect of the interaction term on
ii) the effect of shear-moment interaction (M /H ).
ith �/� � 1 is consistent with the effect caused by using �/�� in �aforkwalls with
In principle the effect of shear-moment interaction
should be applied to walls with any aspect ratio. To
avoid considering the effect of bending moment twice
on squat walls (H/L<1) the aspect ratio instead of Fig. 3: Shear strength quotient considering the effects of
the effective aspect ratio in f is used. It was verified aspect ratio and shear-moment interaction
in (Perez Gavilan et al. 2014), that the effect of the
Each structure had one or two underground levels for
interaction term on walls with H/L<1 is consistent
car parking. To leave space for car circulation and
with the effect caused by using M/VL in f for walls
parking at underground levels, most walls were not
with H/L<1.
taken down to the foundation level. Instead, they were
Figure 3 shows the quotient of nominal shear strength, supported by deep beams at the ground floor level. For
Vm, evaluated using the new equation (8) and the the purpose of this study, all walls were considered
nominal strength, Vn obtained using Eq. (1). The fixed at the ground floor level.
curves shown in red and blue show the quotient using
Statically equivalent lateral forces corresponding to
the new equation (8) for two values of the normalized
the first vibration mode were applied at each storey
moment β=0.5 and β=1.0. The case for β=0 is shown
level in order to create internal forces with proper
with a black line.
signs to determine the curvature in the walls. Internal
forces and normalized moment β in each wall at
6. Building Analysis
the first storey level were calculated for each load
As mentioned in previous sections, the reduction in combination. The maximum and minimum values of
shear strength caused by shear-moment interaction, normalized moment were recorded for each wall.

The Bridge and Structural Engineer Volume 45 Number 1 March 2015  23

The studied buildings were located in different parts of Mexico City. The seismic zone, number of storeys and
natural vibration period in each horizontal directions for each block are summarized in Table 3.

Fig. 4: Analysed structures

24  Volume 45 Number 1 March 2015 The Bridge and Structural Engineer
 The design acceleration response spectrum is defined 7. Results
ign acceleration
The design acceleration
response spectrum
responseisspectrum
defined inisEq.(10)
defined in Eq.(10)
in Eq. (10)
The main results are presented in Figure 5, where
� � normalized moment β is plotted against the aspect
� � �� � ���������� � �� � �� � � � �� � � ��
�� �� ratio of the walls. The walls of each block studied are
��� ��� �� � � � ���� � � � �� (10) (10)
�� � �� � (10) identified with a different colour.
��� � ��� � � � �� � � ��
� � Walls with lager values of aspect ratio (H/L>1) have a
� is the
wheredesign
where
� is the
a is the
pseudoacceleration
design
design pseudoacceleration
pseudo
divided by divided
acceleration
the acceleration
divided
by the acceleration
by
of gravity, �of clear tendency to act in double curvature, as indicated
� gravity, ��
are and the acceleration
�� are characteristic
characteristic of gravity,
periods, � isperiods,
known� is T
as known
the
a and T are
seismic
as characteristic
b thecoefficient, � is an by �the
seismic coefficient, is annegative sign of the normalized moment. A
nt, and
exponent, periods,
� is theand
modal c is
� isperiod
the known
modal
for the
periodas for
thethe
structure. seismic coefficient, r is an
structure. value of β=–1 indicates that the wall have its upper
exponent and T is the modal period for the structure. end restricted for rotation (fixed). Walls with H/
.Characteristics
Table 3.Characteristics
of building blocksanalysed
of building blocksanalysed
in this studyin this study
Seismic
Block Seismic
N �� ��� N�� ��� �� ���Block
�� ��� Seismic
Block Seismic
N L<1
�� ��� N�� ����� ��� (squat
�� ��� walls) tend to act in single curvature
Zone Storey
Zone Storey Zone Storey
Zone Storey
C1 Agricola
IIId C1 6 IIId 0.35 6 0.36 Table
0.35Goya 5 CF 3:Goya
0.36 Characteristics
I5 CF 3 I 0.29 of building blocks
3 0.22 0.29 0.22analysed in this study
C2 Agricola
IIId C2 5 IIId 0.32 5 0.27 0.32
San Angel
0.27 C1 San Angel
I C1 4 I 0.32 4 0.37 0.32 0.37
C3 Agricola
IIId C3 6 IIId 0.36 6 0.31 0.36
San Angel
0.31 C2 San Angel
I C2 4 I 0.32 4 0.37 0.32 0.37
1 Calle
IIId5 C1 Block
5 IIId 0.20 5 0.30 0.20 Seismic
San Angel NI Storey
0.30 C3 San Angel C3 4 ITx (s) Ty (s)
0.33 4 0.37 Block
0.33 0.37 Seismic N Storey Tx (s) Ty (s)
2 Calle
IIId5 C2 4 IIId 0.29 4 0.17 0.29 SirioZone
0.17
CA Sirio
IIIbCA 6 IIIb 0.22 6 0.26 0.22 0.26 Zone
A GoyaI 4 CA 3 I 0.30 3 0.23 0.30 Sirio
0.23
CB Sirio
IIIbCB 6 IIIb 0.30 6 0.23 0.30 0.23
B GoyaI 4 CB Agricola
3 I 0.32 C1 3 0.22 0.32 Suiza IIId
0.22
C1 IIIaC16
Suiza 5 IIIa0.35 0.360.37 Goya
0.37 5 0.28 0.28 5 I 3 0.29 0.22
A GoyaI 5 CA 3 I 0.33 3 0.23 0.33 Suiza
0.23
C2 Suiza
IIIaC2 5 IIIa 0.40 5 0.29 0.40 0.29 CF
C GoyaI 5 CC 3 I 0.29 3 0.23 0.29 Uxmal
0.23 Uxmal
IIIb 4 IIIb 0.19 4 0.14 0.19 0.14
Agricola C2 IIId 5 0.32 0.27 San I 4 0.32 0.37
spectrumparameters
Design spectrumparameters
for various for
zones
various
in Mexico
zonesCityare
in Mexico
summarized
Cityare summarized
in Table in Table
Angel C1
4.
Agricola C3 IIId 6 0.36 0.31 San I 4 0.32 0.37
Table 4.DesignTable spectrum
4.Design spectrum
parametersparameters
for for Angel C2
seismic zones seismic
in Mexico
zonesCity
in Mexico City
Zone
Calle 5 �C1Zone �� � �� �IIId � �� �� �5 �� �
0.20 0.30 San I 4 0.33 0.37
I 0.16 I 0.040.16 0.200.04 1.350.20 1.001.35 1.00 Angel C3
II 0.32 II 0.080.32 0.200.08 1.350.20 1.331.35 1.33
IIICalle
a C2IIIa 0.100.4 0.530.10
50.4 IIId1.800.53 2.00
41.80 2.000.29 0.17 Sirio CA IIIb 6 0.22 0.26
IIIb 0.45IIIb 0.110.45 0.850.11 3.000.85 2.003.00 2.00
IIIGoya
c 4 CA
0.40 IIIc 0.100.40 1.250.10I 4.201.25 2.00
34.20 2.000.30 0.23 Sirio CB IIIb 6 0.30 0.23
IIId 0.30IIId 0.100.30 0.850.10 4.200.85 2.004.20 2.00
Goya 4 CB I 3 0.32 0.22 Suiza C1 IIIa 5 0.37 0.28
Results 7. Results
in resultsare Goya 5 CA
The main presented
resultsare in
presented
Figure 5,inwhere
FigureInormalized
5, where 3normalized
moment0.33
� ismoment0.23
plotted Suiza C2
� is plotted IIIa 5 0.40 0.29
the against
aspect ratio
the aspect
of the ratio
walls.The
of thewalls
walls.The
of eachwalls
blockstudied
of each blockstudied
are identified
arewith
identified with
ent colour. Goya 5 CC
a different colour. I 3 0.29 0.23 Uxmal IIIb 4 0.19 0.14

with �alls
lager with
values lager
of aspect
Design values ratio
of aspect
spectrum (��� �
ratio
1) have
parameters (���for
a� clear
1)various
have
tendency
a zones
cleartotendency
act
in in to act in
curvature,
double ascurvature,
indicatedasbyindicated
the negative
by thesign
negative
of the sign
normalized
of the normalized
moment. Amoment. A
f� �value of � Mexico
�1 indicates
� �1that City
indicatesare
the wall summarized
thathave
the its in end
wallupper
have Table 4. end for
its upper
restricted restricted
rotationfor rotation
�alls
(fixed).
with ���
�alls�with
1 (squat
��� walls)
� 1 (squat
tend walls)
to act in
tend
single
to act
curvature.
in single curvature.
Table 4: Design spectrum parameters for seismic
zones in Mexico City

Zone c a0 Ta Tb r
I 0.16 0.04 0.20 1.35 1.00
II 0.32 0.08 0.20 1.35 1.33
IIIa 0.4 0.10 0.53 1.80 2.00
IIIb 0.45 0.11 0.85 3.00 2.00
IIIc 0.40 0.10 1.25 4.20 2.00
IIId 0.30 0.10 0.85 4.20 2.00 Fig. 5: Scatter plot of normalized moment against aspect ratio

The Bridge and Structural Engineer Volume 45 Number 1 March 2015  25


Fig. 6: Double and single curvature in short and squat walls
Figure 6 illustrates a squat and a short wall coupled
by a horizontal floor element. For the squat wall, the
horizontal element cannot provide enough restriction
to rotation of the wall’s upper end to produce double
curvature, while this is possible in case of short
walls. This phenomenon can be explained through
bending moments. Long squat walls are subjected to
large bending moments due to their large stiffness.
The direction of those bending moments cannot be
reversed by the horizontal floor, but this is possible
for shorter walls. For that reason, long squat walls
tend to act in single curvature while short walls act in
a double curvature.
Figure 3 shows that the effect of bending moment
tends to be less important as the wall aspect ratio
reduces and it tends to be more significant for short
walls with higher aspect ratios. However, short walls
with H/L≥1.5 tend to be in double curvature, as seen
in Figure 5, with few exceptions. These exceptions
are characterized by a considerable shear strength
reduction due to the presence of bending moment on
top of the wall. For example, shear strength reduction
for a wall with H/L=1.6 and β=0.5 is 20% and for a
wall with H/L=1.70 and β=0.8, the reduction is 28%.
Many walls with 1<H/L<1.5 act in single curvature,
but in most cases normalized moment β<0.5. The
expected shear strength reduction is smaller for these
walls; for example, for a wall with H/L=1.2 and β=0.5
the expected reduction is 15.5. Walls with aspect ratio
0.5<H/L<1 are characterized by a wide range of β
values. The quotient Vc/(f . Vn) can be used to explain
the effect of shear-moment interaction for walls
26  Volume 45 Number 1 March 2015 The Bridge and Structural Engineer
with H/L<1. The effect of aspect ratio is included
in the nominal strength such that only the effect of
interaction is considered. Figure 6 shows the quotient
for different β and aspect ratio values. The quotient
is equal to Vc/Vn for walls with H/L>1, since f=1 for
H/L>1. For example, consider a wall with H/L=0.7
and β=1.5. The reduction in nominal shear strength
measured with the quotient is 21.7%; however when
β=2, the reduction is 27%.
Fig. 6: Reduction of nominal shear strength due to shear-
moment interaction, for different values of normalized
moment β and aspect ratio (H/L)
8. Conclusions
Several buildings designed and constructed in Mexico
City were analysed in this study. The aspect ratio,
along with the maximum and minimum values of
normalized bending moment were recorded for each
wall and load combination. The following conclusions
can be drawn based on the results of the study:
 The observed range of normalized moment values
is -1≤β≤2.5. The observed range is representative
of three- to six-storey structures. Larger values
can be expected for structures with a larger height
(number of storeys).
Walls with aspect ratio H/L>1.5 tend to act in

double curvature. The implication of this result
is that, for those walls, in theory, shear-moment
interaction may result in an increase in shear
strength. Due to the absence of experimental
evidence to confirm such prediction, the
design shear strength estimation for this case is
conservative, no increase in strength is considered.
 Most walls with aspect ratios in the range 1<H/
L<1.5 have normalized moments -1≤β≤0.5. When
 the normalized moment β>0, a moderate reduction
of shear strength is expected as compared with
the nominal value (on the order of 15%).
 Walls with aspect ratios in the range 0.5<H/L<1
are characterized by a wide range of β values.
The cases with large values (β>1.5) can have
significant shear strength reductions on the order
of 20 to 30%.
It appears that the assessment of shear-moment
interaction is advisable, although in most cases the
effect is moderate (less than 15%). However, cases
with large reductions (greater than 25%) are not rare
for walls with aspect ratio in the range 0.5<H/L<1.
Exceptional cases were found over the whole range
of wall aspect ratios where large normalized moments
may produce significant shear strength reductions.
The assessment of shear-moment interaction is a
design tool that may be used to detect such cases.
Further studies are necessary to determine under what
conditions walls may be subjected to large normalized
moment (β) values. Preliminary results show that
walls perpendicular to the structure’s boundary and
having one of its edges in the building’s perimeter
tend to have larger values of β.
Acknowledgements
The second author thanks the National Council for
Science and Technology (CONACYT) of Mexico’s
scholarship. Many thanks are given to the company
Jean Ingenieros and to its director M.I. Raul Jean
Perrilliat and Chief engineer Arturo Rodriguez for
providing us with all the necessary information of the
buildings used in this investigation.
References
1. Davis, C. L. (2008), Evaluation of Design
Provisions for In-plane Shear in Masonry Walls,
Master of Science Thesis, Department of Civil
Engineering, Washington State University,
Washington, USA.
2. Roberto Meli, Svetlana Brzev, et al, (2011),
Seismic Design Guide, Earthquake Engineering
Research Institute, Oakland, California, USA.
3. Asinari M.(2007), Buildings with Structural
Masonry Walls Connected to Tie-columns and
Bond-beams, Master Thesis, European School
The Bridge and Structural Engineer Volume 45 Number 1 March 2015  27
for Advanced Studies in Reduction of Seismic
Risk, ROSE School, Pavia, Italy.
4. Aguilar, G., R. Meli, R. Diaz, R. Vazquez-
del-Mercado (1996), Influence of Horizontal
Reinforcement on the Behavior of Confined
Masonry Walls, Proceedings of the Eleventh
World Conference on Earthquake Engineering,
Acapulco, Mexico, Paper no. 1380.
5. Alcocer, S.M., R. MeIi (1995), Test Program
on the Seismic Behavior of Confined Masonry
Structures, The Masonry Society Journal, The
Masonry Society, 12, 2, 68-76.
6. CSA. 2004. S304.1-04 Design of Masonry
Structures. Mississauga, Canadian Standard
Association; Ontario, Canada.
7. Alvarez, J.J. (1996) Some Topics of the Seismic
Behaviour of Confined Masonry Structures,
Proceedings of the 11th World Conference on
Earthquake Engineering, Acapulco, México,
paper 180.
8. Manzano, J J Pérez Gavilán, (2013) Shear
Moment Interaction in Confined Masonry Walls,
Paper 323, 12th Canadian Masonry Symposium
Vancouver, British Columbia.
9. Pérez Gavilán, J. J., L. E. Flores, A. Manzano,
(2014) A new shear strength design equation for
confined masonry walls: proposal to the Mexican
code, Tenth U.S. National Conference on
Earthquake Engineering, 10 NCEE Anchorage,
Alaska, paper 1162.
10. Pérez Gavilán, J. J., L. E. Flores, S. M.
Alcocer, (2014), An Experimental Study of
Confined Masonry Walls with varying Aspect
Ratio, Earthquake Spectra, http://dx.doi.
org/10.1193/090712EQS284M
11. Riahi Z., K. J. Elwood and S. Alcocer (2009),
Backbone Model for Confined Masonry Walls
for Performance-Based Seismic Design, Journal
of Structural Engineering, ASCE, DOI: 10.1061/
(ASCE) ST.1943-541X.0000012, 135: 644-654.
12. Sudhir K. Jain, Dhiman Basu, Indrajit Ghosh,
Durgesh C. Rai, Svetlana Brzev and Laxmi
Kant Bhargava, (2014), Application of confined
masonry in a major project in India, Tenth
U.S. National Conference on Earthquake
Engineering, Anchorage, Alaska.
 13. Anderson, D. L., & Priestley, M. J., (1992).
In plane strength of masonry walls. Proc. 6th
Canadian Masonry Symposium, Saskatchewan,
Sask., Canada, pp. 223−234.
14. E.070 (2006), “Norma Técnicas E.070
Abañilería”, Servicio Nacional de Normalización
Capacitación e Investigación para la Industria de
la Construcción (SENSICO), Perú.
15. NTCM (2004), Normas Técnicas
Complementarias para el Diseño y Construcción
de Estructuras de Mampostería, Gobierno del
DF, México 2004.
16. NSR-10 (2010), “Reglamento Colombiano de
Construcción Sismo Resistente”, Bogotá, D.C.,
Colombia, Ministerio de Ambiente, Vivienda y
Desarrollo Territorial.
17. NZS (2004), (4230:2004) “Design of Reinforced
28  Volume 45 Number 1 March 2015 The Bridge and Structural Engineer
View publication stats
Concrete Masonry Structures”, Wellington:
Standards Association of New Zealand.
18. MSJC SD (2011), TMS 402-11/ACI, 530-11/
ASCE 5-11, “Building Code Requirements and
Specification for Masonry Structures”, Masonry
Standards Joint Committee.
19. UBC SD (1997) “Uniform Building Code”,
Whittier, California: International Conference
of Building Officials
20. Zeballos, A., A. San Bartolomé y A. Muñoz,
(1992), Efectos de la esbeltez sobre la
resistencia a fuerza cortante de los muros de
albañilería confinada. Analisis por elementos
finitos, Blog de Angel San Bartolomé, Pontificia
Universidad Católica de Perú, http://blog.pucp.
edu.pe/media/688/20070504-Esbeltez%20-%20
Elementos%20 finitos.pdf.