Confined Masonry Buildings PDF

Lecture Handouts
Thursday,
20th Feb, 2014
Short Course on Sesimic Design of Reinforced and Confined Masonry Buildings, IIT Gandhinagar, Feb 17-21, 2014
Confined Masonry Buildings: Key Components and

Performance in Past Earthquakes
Dr. Svetlana Brzev
BCIT, Vancouver, Canada

IIT Gandhinagar, India
Short Course on Seismic Design of Reinforced and Confined Masonry Buildings

February 17-21, 2014, IIT Gandhinagar, India
Acknowledgments
Earthquake Engineering Research Institute
(SPI Projects Fund)
Maximiliano Astroza and Maria Ofelia
Moroni, Professors, Department of Civil
Engineering, Universidad de Chile
(members of the EERI team)
Roberto Meli and 12 other co-authors of
the EERIs Confined Masonry Guide
2
Topics
Confined masonry: key concepts
Lessons learned from the past
earthquakes
Why Confined Masonry?

Poor performance of unreinforced masonry and
nonductile reinforced concrete (RC) frame
construction caused unacceptably high human and
economic losses in past earthquakes
This prompted a need for developing and/or
promoting alternative building technologies
The goal is to achieve enhanced seismic performance using
technologies which require similar (preferably lower) level of
construction skills and are economically viable
CONFINED MASONRY:
an opportunity for improved seismic performance
both for unreinforced masonry and reinforced
concrete frame construction in low- and medium-rise
buildings
Confined Masonry Construction:

An Alternative to RCFrameConstruction
Confined Masonry Construction: An Alternative

to Unreinforced Masonry Construction
Confined Masonry: Beginnings

Evolved though an informal process based on its
satisfactory performance in past earthquakes
The first reported use in the reconstruction after the 1908
Messina, Italy earthquake (M 7.2) - death toll 70,000
Practiced in Chile and Columbia since 1930s and in Mexico
since 1940s
Currently practiced in several countries/regions with high
seismic risk, including Latin America, Mediterranean Europe,
Middle East (Iran), South Asia (Indonesia), and the Far East
(China).
Confined Masonry and RC Frame Construction:

Performance in Recent Earthquakes
January 2010, Haiti

M 7.0
300,000 deaths
February 2010, Chile

M 8.8 521 deaths
(10 due to confined masonry
construction)
Global Confined Masonry Initiative

An International Strategy Workshop on the
Promotion of Confined Masonry organized in January
2008 at Kanpur, India
Confined Masonry Network established as a project
of the World Housing Encyclopedia with two major
objectives:
To improve the design and construction quality of
confined masonry where it is currently in use; and
To introduce it in areas where it can reduce seismic
risk.
10
Confined Masonry Design Codes
Availableatwww.confinedmasonry.org
11
Key Components of a Confined Masonry

Building :
Masonry walls made either of clay brick or
concrete block units
Tie-columns = vertical RC confining elements
which resemble columns in reinforced concrete
frame construction.
Tie-beams = horizontal RC confining elements
which resemble beams in reinforced concrete
frame construction.
12
Components of a Confined Masonry Building:
13
ReinforcedConcreteFrameConstruction
14
Confined Masonry Construction
15
Confined Masonry versus Infilled RC frames:

-construction sequence
- integrity between masonry and frame
Confined Masonry
Walls first
Concrete later
Reinforced Concrete Infilled Frame

Concrete first
Walls later
Source: Tom Schacher
16
Confined Masonry: Construction Process
Source: Tom Schacher

17
Confined Masonry vs RC Frames with Infills Key Differences
18
A comparison: confined masonry and RC frames with

infills
Youtube videos developed by a Calpoly student, USA
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zv_q8saRZfQ
http://www.google.co.in/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=confi
ned%20masonry&source=video&cd=9&cad=rja&
ved=0CFgQtwIwCA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.y
outube.com%2Fwatch%3Fv%3D3CzSUHywREk&e
i=HkZ3UfmzE4_xrQfBzoA4&usg=AFQjCNHMmfKF
xipZBaLyxIw3jwJ4zEydEw
No. 19
Location of Confining Elements is Very

Important!
20
10
Key Elements Layout Rules
21
Typical Floor Plans Examples from Chile
Source: O. Moroni and M. Astroza

22
11
Confined Masonry Panel Under

Lateral Loading: Shear Failure
P
V
Vc
Vm
3
Vm'
2
Shear force
Vm
Vc
1
Vc
Vm'
Displacement
23
Confined Masonry Panel Under

Lateral Loading: Shear Failure
Three stages:
1- Onset of diagonal
cracking
2 Cracking propagated
through RC tie-columns
3 Failure
Note: internal stress redistribution starts at Stage 1
24
12
Confined Masonry Panel Bending

Stress Distribution
Source: EERI Guide (2011)

25
Strut-and-Tie Model for a Confined

Masonry Panel
B
no
de C
B
str
ut
tie
26
13
Seismic Design Objectives

RC confining elements must be designed to prevent
crack propagation from the walls into critical
regions of RC confining elements.
This can be achieved if critical regions of the RC
tie-columns are designed to resist the loads
corresponding to the onset of diagonal cracking in
masonry walls.
27
Mechanism of Seismic Response in a Confined

Masonry Building
Masonry walls
Critical region
Diagonal cracking
Source: M. Astroza
lecture notes, 2010
28
14
Failure Mechanism: Key Stages
Onset of
Diagonal
cracking
Damage in critical
regions
Masonry walls
29
This condition should be avoided!
30
15
Confined Masonry Construction: Toothing at

the Wall-to-Tie-Column Interface
Toothing enhances interaction between

masonry walls and RC confining elements
31
Seismic Performance
Confined masonry construction is found in
countries/regions with very high seismic risk, for
example: Latin America (Mexico, Chile, Peru,
Argentina), Mediterranean Europe (Italy, Slovenia),
South Asia (Indonesia), and the Far East (China).
In some countries (e.g. Italy) for almost 100 years
If properly built, shows satisfactory seismic
performance
EXTENSIVE ENGINEERING INPUT NOT REQUIRED!
32
16
Oaxaca quake,
September 1999
ecomn earthquake,
January 2003
33
Earthquake Performance
Confined masonry construction has been exposed to several
destructive earthquakes:
1985 Lloleo, Chile (magnitude 7.8)
1985 Mexico City, Mexico (magnitude 8.0)
2001 El Salvador (magnitude 7.7)
2003 Tecoman, Mexico (magnitude 7.6)
2007 Pisco, Peru (magnitude 8.0)
2003 Bam, Iran (magnitude 6.6)
2004 The Great Sumatra Earthquake and Tsunami, Indonesia
(magnitude 9.0)
2007 Pisco, Peru (magnitude 8.0)
2010 Maule, Chile earthquake (magnitude 8.8)
2010 Haiti earthquake (magnitude 7.0)
Confined masonry buildings performed very well in these

major earthquakes some buildings were damaged, but
no human losses
34
17
Confined Masonry Performed Very Well in Past

Earthquakes
A six-storey confined
masonry building
remained undamaged in
the August 2007 Pisco,
Peru earthquake
(Magnitude 8.0) while
many other masonry
buildings experienced
severe damage or
collapse
35
SeismicPerformanceofConfinedMasonryBuildingsin
theFebruary27,2010ChileEarthquake
Confined masonry (CM) used for construction of low-rise
single family dwellings and medium-rise apartment buildings
(up to four-story high).
CM construction practice started in the 1930s, after the 1928
Talca earthquake (M 8.0).
Good performance reported after the 1939 Chillan
earthquake (M 7.8) and this paved the path for continued use
of CM in Chile.
36
18
Confined Masonry Construction in Chile (Contd)

Good performance track record in past earthquakes based on
single family (one- to two-storey) buildings.
Three- and four-storey confined masonry buildings exposed to
severe ground shaking for the first time in the February 2010
earthquake (construction of confined masonry apartment
buildings in the earthquake-affected area started in 1990s).
Modern masonry codes first issued in 1990s prior

to that, a 1940 document Ordenanza General de
Urbanismo y Construccin had been followed
37
Low-Rise Confined Masonry Construction
Single-storey rural house
38
19
Low-Rise Confined Masonry Construction
Two-storey townhouses (semi-detached):

small plan dimensions (5 m by 6 m per unit)
39
Performance of Confined Masonry Construction

By and large, confined masonry buildings performed well in
the earthquake.
Most one- and two-story single-family dwellings did not
experience any damage.
Large majority of three- and four-story buildings remained
undamaged
A few buildings suffered severe damage, and two

three-story buildings collapsed
40
20
Damage Observations: Topics

Masonry damage (in- and out-of-plane)
RC tie-columns
Tie-beam-to-tie-column joints
Confining elements around openings
Construction materials
Collapsed buildings
41
In-plane shear failure of masonry walls at the

base level - hollow clay blocks (Cauquenes)
42
21
In-plane shear failure of masonry walls at

the base level (contd)
43
In-plane shear failure: hollow clay

block masonry
44
22
Same failure mechanism as infill masonry in

RC frames!
Diagonal Tension (INPS-2), FEMA 306 p.207
45
In-plane shear failure: clay brick masonry
46
23
Same failure mechanism as infill masonry

in RC frames!
Bed Joint Sliding (INPS-3), FEMA 306 p.208

47
Out-of-Plane Wall Damage
Damage at the
2nd floor level
An example of out-of-plane
damage observed in a threestorey building
The damage concentrated at the
upper floor levels
The building had concrete floors
and timber truss roof
The same building suffered severe
in-plane damage
48
24
Out-of-Plane Damage
(contd)
Damage at the
3rd floor level
49
Floor and Roof Diaphragms

Wood floors in single-family buildings (two-storey
high)
Concrete floors in three-storey high buildings and
up (either cast-in-situ or precast)
Precast concrete floors consist of hollow masonry
blocks, precast RC beams, and concrete overlay
(Tralix system)
50
25
Discussion on Out-of-Plane Wall Failure
Source: EERI Confined Masonry Guide

51
Tie-Column Failure
52
26
Buckling of a RC Tie-Column due to the Toe

Crushing of the Masonry Wall Panel
53
Shear Failure of RC Tie-Columns
54
27
Same failure mechanism as columns in RC

frames with infills!
Column Snap Through Shear Failure (INF1C1),

55
FEMA 306 p.211
How to prevent buckling and shear failure

of RC tie-columns?
AllsurveyedbuildingsinChilehaduniform
tiespacing200mm
Tiesize6mmtypical,insomecases4.2mm
(whenprefabricatedcageswereused)
Closer tie spacing at the ends of tie-columns
(200 mm regular and 100 mm at ends)
56
28
How to Prevent Shear Failure?

Must check shear capacity of tiecolumns!
Vp Vr/2
Vr
Vr = wall shear resistance

Same approach like RC frames with
infills!
Note: an increase of tie-column length
may be required in some cases!
57
Inadequate Anchorage of Tie-Beam

Reinforcement
58
29
Inadequate Anchorage of Tie-Beam Reinforcement

(another example)
59
Tie-Beam Connection: Drawing Detail
Tie-Beam Intersection: Plan View

60
30
Tie-beam
Tie-Column-to-Tie-Beam
Connection: Drawing Detail
(prefabricated reinforcement)
Note additional reinforcing
bars at the tie-beam-to-tiecolumn joint
Tie-column
(in this case, prefabricated

reinforcement cages were
used for tie-beams and tiecolumns)
61
Tie-Column-to-Tie-Beam Reinforcement: Anchorage
Alternative anchorage details involving 90

hooks (tie-column and tie-beam shown in an
elevation view) note that no ties in the joint
area were observed
62
31
Deficiencies in Tie-Beam-to-Tie-Column Joint

Reinforcement Detailing
63
RC Tie-Columns: Absence of Ties in the Joint

Area
64
32
Tie-column Vertical Reinforcement & Tie-Beam

Longitudinal Reinforcement
It is preferred to place beam reinforcement outside
the column reinforcement cage
NO
YES
65
Tie-Column Reinforcement:
Drawing Detail (Chile)
Note prefabricated tiecolumn reinforcement: 8
mm longitudinal bars and
4.2 mm ties at 150 mm
spacing
Additional ties to be placed
at the site per drawing
specifications
66
33
Absence of Confining Elements at the Openings
67
In-Plane Shear Cracking the Effect of

Confinement
Unconfined openings
Confined openings
68
34
Recommendation
Unconfined and confined openings - criteria specified in

the Guide
69
Building Materials: Hollow Concrete

Blocks ???
Concrete blocks are widely used for masonry
construction in North America and
The quality is very good due to advanced
manufacturing technology
Quality of blocks in other countries often not
satisfactory due to low-tech manufacturing
technology and an absence of quality control
70
35
A severely damaged confined masonry concrete

block wall in Chile
In spite of poor seismic performance, it is impossible

to avoid the use of concrete blocks for masonry
construction in many countries
71
Masonry Units Confined Masonry Guide
The guide permits the use of concrete blocks, but restricts the
percentage of perforations and minimum compressive
strength: 4 MPa (bricks) and 5 MPa (blocks-gross area)
72
36
Haiti Blocks
Block D
(215 psi)
Block C
(1000 psi)
73
Engineered Confined Masonry Buildings

Evidence of Collapse
Two 3-storey confined masonry buildings
collapsed in the February 2010 Chile earthquake
(Santa Cruz and Constitucin)
Most damage concentrated in the first storey level
74
37
Simulated Seismic Response:

Shake-Table Testing
Questions:
1. Whichanalysisapproachisabletosimulateseismicresponsein
themostaccuratemanner?
2. Whichapproachismostsuitableforpracticaldesignapplications?
Sources:
Alcocer, Arias, and
Vazquez (2004)
Juan Guillermo Arias
(2005)
75
A Possible Collapse Mechanism for Multi-storey

Confined Masonry Buildings
76
38
Seismic Performance of Confined Masonry

Buildings: Shake-Table Studies
Shake-Table Testing of a 3-storey Confined Masonry Building at UNAM,

77
Mexico (Credit: Sergio Alcocer and Juan Arias)
77
Building #1: Building Complex in Constitucin (Cerro O

Higgins)
N
C
Note a steep slope on the west

and north sides!
78
39
Three Building Blocks: A, B and C
B
damaged
C
collapsed
79
Building Plan Collapsed Building
RC Tie-Columns:
P1= 15x14 cm
P2 = 20x14 cm
P4 = 15x15 cm
P5 = 70x15 cm
P6 = 90x14 cm
80
40
Building C Collapse
Building C
collapsed at the
first floor level
and moved by
approximately
1.5 m towards
north
81
Building C Collapse (contd)
82
41
Probable Causes of Collapse

1. Geotechnical issues: a localized influence of the
unrestrained slope boundary and localized
variations in sub-surface strata caused localized
variations of horizontal (and possibly vertical)
ground accelerations
2. Inadequate wall density (less than 1% per floor)
83
Building #2: A Three-Storey Building in

Santa Cruz
84
42
Collapsed Three-Storey Building
85
Probable Causes of Collapse

Poor quality of
construction (both brick
and concrete block
masonry)
Low wall density (less
than 1% per floor)
Note: only one (out of 28) buildings in the

same complex collapsed !
86
43
Key Causes of Damage

1. Inadequate wall density
2. Poor quality of masonry materials and
construction
3. Inadequate detailing of reinforcement in confining
elements
4. Absence of confining elements at openings
5. Geotechnical issues
87
Prescriptive
international guide
endorsed by EERI
and IAEE
Available online at
www.confinedmasonry.org
88
44

Acknowledgments
Kiran Rangwani, IIT Gandhinagar, India

EERI Confined Masonry Network authors
of the confined masonry guide: Roberto
Meli and others
Topics
Part 1: Simplified Method (Svetlana Brzev)
Part 2: Wide Column Model (J.J. Perez
Gavilan)
The Simplified Method (SM)

Basedonanidealizeddistributionoflateral
seismicforcesinregularshearwallstructures
withrigiddiaphragms.
Shearstrengthofallwallsatanyfloorlevelis
requiredtoexceedtheseismicdemand
(appliedshearforceduetoearthquakeground
shaking)
Assumptions
1.It is assumed that all walls at each floor
level fail simultaneously.
2.The walls have shear-dominant behaviour
(the effect of bending is ignored).
3.The method assumes rigid diaphragm
behaviour.
4.The method ignores torsional effects.
Theoretical Background
Thegoal:
Shearstrengthofallwallsatanyfloorlevel(VR )
shouldexceedtheseismicshearforcedemand
(Vx)atthesamelevel
Seismic Shear Force Demand

Interstorey shear force Vx
Vx
SeismicForceDistributiontoIndividualWalls
Wall shear demand Vjx
SeismicForceDistributiontoIndividualWalls
k jx
k jx Dx
V jx
k jx
Vx
j 1
k jx
V jx
G FAEj A j
Hj
Vx
FAE j A j
N
AEj
Aj
j 1
Storey Shear Resistance

Wall resistance VRj
Wall cross-section Aj
Ap
Aw
Seismic load
Storey Shear Resistance

f s A j FAE
VRj
FAE
FAE
1.33
H
H
d 1.33
L
H
when
! 1.33
L
when
2
Wall Density Index (d)

One of the key indicators of seismic resistance
d
Ap
Aw
Aw
Ap
Seismic load
Wall Density Index Derivations

Goal: resistance
greater than demand
f s Aj
VR
f s Aw
j 1
VR t VB
dt
VB
Ah WT
WT
nwAp
Ah n w
fs
Wall Density Index India

Allowableshearstress
(N/mm2)
Floorweight
(kN/m2)
0.3
0.4
6.0
0.5
0.3
0.4
0.5
8.0
Numberofstoreys
SeismicZone
III
IV
1.6
2.4
3.6
3.2
4.8
7.2
4.8
7.2
10.8
1.2
1.8
2.7
2.4
3.6
5.4
3.6
5.4
8.1
1.0
1.5
2.2
2.0
2.9
4.4
2.9
4.4
6.5
2.2
3.2
4.8
4.3
6.4
9.6
6.5
9.6
14.4
1.6
2.4
3.6
3.2
4.8
7.2
4.8
7.2
10.8
1.3
2.0
2.9
2.6
3.9
5.8
3.9
5.8
8.7
Assumptions
=2.5 for confined masonry (currently not addressed by IS
1893)
= 2.5 assuming the fundamental period range from 0.1
to 0.4 sec
3.
Importance factor = 1 assuming regular importance
4.
Allowable masonry shear stress (fs): from 0.3 to 0.5 N/mm2
5.
Floor weight (w) two values: 6.0 kN/m2 (light-weight floor

structure) and 8.0 kN/m2 (heavy-weight floor structure e.g.
RC slab).
Further Reading
Attached writeup
(document) on the
Simplified Method
Seismic Design Guide
for Low-Rise Confined
Masonry Buildings,
EERI, 2011
www.confinedmasonry.org
1 Simplified Method for Seismic Design of Confined Masonry

Buildings
by Svetlana Brzev, Juan Jose Perez Gavilan, and Kiran Rangwani
1.1 Introduction
The Simplified Method (SM) can be used for quick and simple evaluation of overall seismic
resistance for confined masonry buildings. The method is not intended for design of individual walls
and it is considered as an approximate method. The SM is intended for application to regular
buildings with symmetrical wall layout where torsional effects are not significant because the method
cannot take into account additional shear stresses due to torsional effects. Due to its limitations, the
method is intended for applications to low-rise confined masonry buildings (up to three storeys
high).
A few limitations of the SM are summarized below:
1. It is assumed that all walls at each floor level fail simultaneously.
2. The walls have shear-dominant behaviour (the effect of bending is ignored).
3. The method assumes rigid diaphragm behaviour.
4. The method ignores torsional effects.
The SM has been used for seismic design of confined masonry buildings in Latin America for
several decades. For example, the SM has been included in the Mexico City Masonry Code (NTCM) since 1977. However, Mexican experience shows that the method has been misused, in the
sense that it has been applied to structures that do not comply with its requirements (in some
cases). For that reason, the revised Mexican Masonry Code NTC-M (to be issued in 2014) will no
longer include SM as the method which can be solely used to design a confined masonry building.
However, the SM has been recognized as a simple means for evaluating approximate lateral
resistance of a masonry structure, thus the SM will still be used for checking the required minimum
seismic resistance of confined masonry buildings (although detailed analysis and design will be
performed using other methods).
This paper presents the key concepts of the SM, including the requirements for its application,
theoretical basis, and the wall density index.
1.2 Requirements for the SM Application

There are eight requirements related to the SM application. The method can be safely applied
provided that the building under consideration complies with these requirements. The requirements
are summarized next.
1. Wall distribution must be uniform over the building height.
2. The distribution of walls in plan must be as symmetric as posible, but some assymetry is
allowed.
The walls should be laid symmetrically with respect to two orthogonal axes in plan. This requirement
is met when the torsional static eccentricity at level j (esj) does not exceed ten per cent of the floor
dimension (Bi) measured perpendicular to the direction of analysis, that is,
esj d 0.1B j
1-1
Figure 1-1. Definition of static eccentricity (esj) at interstorey level j.
The static eccentricity is given by (Figure 1-1):

N
x F
i
e sj
AEi
Ai
d 0.1B j
i 1
AEi
Ai
i 1
where
xi = the distance from the shear center (center of mass) to the axis of the wall parallel to the
analysis direction
Ai = cross-sectional area of the wall i (including RC tie-columns)
FAEi = the effective area factor for wall i

N = total number of walls at level j
3. There are at least two lines of walls in each orthogonal direction of the building plan, and
the walls along each line extend over at least 50% of the building dimension in the
direction of analysis at each storey level.
This requirement is illustrated in Figure 1-2 and it is intended to provide adequate torsional
resistance.
L1
Analysis
Direccin
Direction
del
anlisis
L3
L2
L 1+L2 t0.5L
L 3 t0.5L
Figure 1-2. At least two parallel lines of walls are required in each plan direction.
1-2
4. At least 75% of the building weight is supported by confined masonry walls.

At each floor level, including the foundation level, at least 75 percent of vertical gravity loads are
resisted by continuous walls that are inter-connected through monolithic slabs or other systems with
adequate shear resistance. This requirement warranties that loadbearing walls compose the main
structural system.
5. Floors and roofs must act as rigid diaphragms.
In general, reinforced concrete floors and roofs can be treated as rigid diaphragms, provided that
transverse walls are not too far apart and that the wall thickness is sufficiently large. Reinforced
concrete slabs should be minimum 10 cm thick.
6. The plan aspect ratio of a building should not exceed two (L/W d 2.0).
The ratio of length to width (L/W) of the building plan should not be greater than 2.0 to reduce
chances for flexible diaphragm amplification in RC slab systems (see Figure 1-3).
7. The ratio of the height of the building and the shorter plan side should not exceed 1.5
(H/W d 1.5).
This requirement limits the possibility of significant overturning moments and second order effects
(P-') (see Figure 1-3).
8. The building should not be higher than three storeys or 9 meters, whichever is smaller.
The SM is intended for seismic design of low-rise confined masonry buildings. Current Mexican
masonry code (NTC-M 2004) permits the application of this method to buildings of 13 m height or
maximum 5 storeys. However, some Mexican masonry experts suggest to restrict the application of
the SM to low-rise buildings (three-storey high or less).
Figure 1-3. Building dimensions.
1.3 Theoretical Background

The SM is based on an idealized distribution of lateral seismic forces in regular shear wall structures
with rigid diaphragms. The method compares the shear strength of all walls at any floor level (VR )
and the seismic shear force demand (Vx) at the same level, that is,
VR t V x
(1)
1-3
Note that VR depends on the sum of cross-sectional areas of all walls at level x and their shear
strength or allowable shear stress (which depends on the type of masonry used). On the other
hand, the shear force demand Vx depends on applied seismic forces at the same level x in the
building.
The interstorey shear force at level x is calculated as the sum of all forces above that level, as
follows:
n
VX
(2)
i x
where
n = total number of floors
x = interstorey level under consideration
Note that is seismic inertial force at floor i which is determined in accordance with Indian
Standard IS 1893 (Cl. 7.7), as follows (see Figure 1-4):
Qi
VB
Wi hi
(3)
W h
j
2
j
j 1
where
Qi = lateral design force for floor i ,
Wi = weight for floor i

hi = height of floor i measured with respect to the base of the building
Figure 1-4. Seismic force distribution up the building height.
1-4
Design base shear force ( VB ) is determined from the following equation (IS 1893 Cl. 7.5.3):
VB
Ah WT
(4)
where (IS 1893 Cl. 6.4)
Ah
Z I Sa
2R g
(5)
= the zone factor (IS 1893 Table 2), Z 2 is the Design Basis Earthquake (the 2 in the
denominator is the Maximum Earthquake reduction factor)
= the importance factor (IS 1893 Table 6)
= the response reduction factor ( I R d 1.0 )
I
R
S a g = the average response acceleration (IS 1893 Cl 6.4.5), based on natural period of the
structure, and
= the total weight of the structure for seismic analysis (IS 1893 Cl. 7.4)
WT
Consider an n-storey confined masonry building subjected to applied seismic force (interstorey
shear force) Vx at level x. Due to force Vx , the floor and all walls at that level experience uniform
lateral displacement Dx (rigid diaphragm assumption). Let us assume that there are N walls at level
x. Each wall j at level x (denoted by subscript jx) resists a fraction of the interstorey shear force Vx
in proportion to its stiffness , as follows,
N
Vx
V jx
j 1
jx
Dx
(6)
j 1
hence
Dx
Vx
(7)
k jx
j 1
The equation for internal shear force in wall j at level x (spring force) is as follows
V jx
k jx Dx
k jx
N
k jx
Vx
(8)
j 1
Basically, internal force in a wall (e.g. Vjx) is proportional to its stiffness relative to the total stiffness
of all walls at the level under consideration.
1-5
Figure 1-5. Seismic force distribution to individual walls at a storey level considering rigid diaphragm
and ignoring torsional effects.
The SM is intended for seismic design of low-rise wall buildings, and it is assumed that wall
deformation is governed by shear, thus the stiffness equation is as follows
k jx
G FAEj A j
Hj
(9)
where
G = shear modulus of the wall material (e.g. masonry)
A j = cross-sectional area of wall j at level x
FAE j = lateral strength reduction factor for wall j at level x

H j = height of wall j at level x
Note that FAE depends on the wall height/length (H/L) ratio, where H is the clear wall height and L
is the wall length. Since slender walls (H/L>1.33 aspect ratio) can undergo larger lateral
1-6
deformations (drift) at failure compared to squat walls, FAE factor is applied to these walls, as
follows:
FAE
F AE
1.33
H
H
d 1.33
L
H
when
! 1.33
L
when
2
Therefore, shear force resisted by wall j at level x is equal to
V jx
Vx
FAE j A j
N
AEj
(10)
Aj
j 1
The lateral load resistance at level x can be determined as the sum of the wall resistances projected
in the direction where seismic loading is being considered. An individual wall resistance can be
estimated as follows:
VRj
f s A j FAE
(11)
where f s is the allowable shear stress for specific type of masonry units and mortar. Indian masonry
design standard IS 1905 (Cl. 5.4.3) prescribes the following equation for shear stress in
unreinforced masonry walls:
fS
0.1 0.2 f d d 0.5 (N/mm2)
(12)
where is compressive stress due to dead loads in N/mm2

The above equation assumes that the masonry mortar is not leaner than Grade M1 (mortar
designations are included in IS 1905 Table 1). As IS 1905 refers to allowable stresses no load
factors should be used. An average compressive stress due to gravity loads in walls at level x can
be estimated as follows
Wx
(13)
Ax
where Ax is the total cross-sectional area of walls at the floor level being studied, and Wx is the
fd
accumulated weight above interstorey x, that is,

N
Ax
i 1
(assuming N walls at level x)

and
n
Wx
i x
(considering n floors in total)
1-7
1.4 Wall Density Index

Wall density is a key indicator of safety for low-rise confined masonry buildings subjected to seismic
and gravity loads (EERI, 2011). Evidence from past earthquakes shows that confined masonry
buildings with adequate wall density were able to resist the effects of major earthquakes without
collapse.
The wall density is quantified through the wall density index, d , which is equal to
Aw
Ap
(14)
where
Ap = area of the building floor plan, as shown in Figure 1-6, and
Aw = the cross-sectional area of all walls in one direction, that is, a product of the wall length and
thickness. It is not necessary to deduct the area of tie-columns and the area of voids in hollow
masonry units for the Aw calculations.
It is very important to note that the wall cross-sectional area should be disregarded in the Aw
calculation in the following cases:
a) walls with openings, in which the area of an unconfined opening is greater than 10% of
the wall surface area, and
b) walls characterized by the height-to-length ratio greater than 1.5.
The d value should be determined for both directions of the building plan (longitudinal and
transverse).
Ap
Aw
Seismic load
Figure 1-6. Wall density index: parameters (EERI, 2011)

The SM is intended to verify the overall seismic resistance of a building. For that reason, we need to
compare the seismic base shear force and the shear resistance (capacity) at the base level of the
building, that is,
VR t VB
(15)
The total shear resistance at the base of the building can be calculated as follows:
N
VR
V
j 1
Rj
( f
A j FAE )
j 1
1-8
The above equation can be simplified if we assume that the walls have H/L ratio less than 1.33, thus
FAE 1 . Also, allowable shear stress ( f s ) is constant. Therefore,
N
f s Aj
VR
f s Aw
(16)
j 1
Where Aw denotes the sum of cross-sectional areas for all walls at the base level of the building.
On the other hand, the seismic base shear force is equal to
Ah WT
VB
where
WT
nwAp
where
w = average weight of floor or roof per unit area (N/m2)
Ap = building plan area (m2)
Thus
Ah n w Ap
VB
(17)
Let us compare shear strength (equation 16) with the seismic base shear force (equation 17), as
follows:
f s Aw t Ah n w Ap
thus
Aw Ah n w
t
Ap
fs
(18)
The above relation can be expressed in terms of the wall density index (d), as follows
dt
Ah n w
fs
(19)
The minimum wall density index, d, required for a given building can be determined by applying the
Simplified Method outlined in this paper. Equation (19) can be used to find the required wall density
index for a building, given masonry properties ( f s ), number of storeys ( n ), estimated weight ( w ),
and seismic design parameters for the building site and structural system ( Ah ). In the absence of
detailed design calculations, minimum recommended values for wall density index in India are
summarized in Table 1.
Note that the following assumptions have been made regarding the design parameters for the
seismic coefficient Ah :
1. =2.5 for confined masonry (currently not addressed by IS 1893)
2.
= 2.5 assuming the fundamental period range from 0.1 to 0.4 sec
1-9
3. Importance factor = 1 assuming regular importance

In terms of the allowable masonry shear stress ( f s ), the range from 0.3 to 0.5 N/mm2 was
considered in Table 1. Two values for floor weight ( w ) were considered: 6.0 kN/m2 (light-weight
floor structure) and 8.0 kN/m2 (heavy-weight floor structure e.g. RC slab).
Table 1. Wall Density Index d (%) for each direction of the building plan
Allowable shear
stress
f s (N/mm2)
Floor
weight
w (kN/m2)
0.3
0.4
6.0
0.5
0.3
0.4
8.0
0.5
Number of
storeys
Seismic Zone
III
IV
1
2
3
1
2
3
1
2
3
1
2
3
1
2
3
1
2
3
1.6
3.2
4.8
1.2
2.4
3.6
1.0
2.0
2.9
2.2
4.3
6.5
1.6
3.2
4.8
1.3
2.6
3.9
2.4
4.8
7.2
1.8
3.6
5.4
1.5
2.9
4.4
3.2
6.4
9.6
2.4
4.8
7.2
2.0
3.9
5.8
3.6
7.2
10.8
2.7
5.4
8.1
2.2
4.4
6.5
4.8
9.6
14.4
3.6
7.2
10.8
2.9
5.8
8.7
Example 1: CALCULATION OF THE REQUIRED WALL DENSITY INDEX FOR A GIVEN

BUILDING
Consider a confined masonry residential building built using 230 mm thick clay brick masonry walls
and Type M1 mortar. Assume a heavy floor and roof system for this building ( w of 8.0 kN/m2).
Consider allowable shear stress f s of 0.5 N/mm2. The building is located in seismic zone V of India.
Find the required wall density index for this building for the following two cases:
a) single-storey building, and
b) two-storey building.
SOLUTION:
Find the seismic coefficient ( ):
1-10
Z I Sa
= 0.18
2R g
where
= 0.36 (Zone V)
Ah
=1
=2.5
= 2.5
a) Single-storey building
The required wall density index (d) can be found from equation (19) as follows
dt
Ah n w
fs
0.18 u1u 8
0.5
2.88 | 2.9%
b) Two-storey building
The required wall density index (d) can be found from equation (19) as follows
dt
Ah n w
fs
0.18 u 2 u 8
5.76 | 5.8%
0.5
Note that the obtained wall density index values, that is, 2.9 and 5.8% for single-storey and twostorey building respectively, are the same as shown in Table 1 for the same design parameters.
References
EERI (2011). Seismic Design Guide for Low-Rise Confined Masonry Buildings, Earthquake
Engineering Research Institute, Oakland, California (www.confinedmasonry.org).
IS 1905 (2002). Indian Standard Code of Practice for Structural Use of Unreinforced Masonry (Third
Revision), IS 1905:1987, Bureau of Indian Standards, New Delhi, India.
IS 1893 (2005). Indian Standard Criteria for Earthquake Resistant Design of Structures, Part 1
General Provisions and Buildings (Fifth Revision), IS 1893 (Part 1):2002, Edition 6.1 (2005-01),
Bureau of Indian Standards, New Delhi, India.
NTC-M (2004). Normas Tcnicas Complementarias para Diseo y Construccin de Estructuras de
Mampostera (Technical Norms for Design and Construction of Masonry Structures), Mexico D.F. (in
Spanish and English).
SMiE (2011). Gua para el Anlisis de Estructuras de Mampostera, J.J. Prez Gaviln E. (Editor),
Sociedad Mexicana de Ingeniera Estructural, Mexico, pp.114 (in Spanish).
1-11
Tena-Colunga, A., and Cano-Licona,J. (2010). Simplified Method for the Seismic Analysis of
Masonry Shear-Wall Buildings, Journal of Structural Engineering, ASCE, Vol. 136, No. 5, pp. 511520.
1-12
AnalysisofConfinedMasonryBuildings:
Part2

Widecolumn
Effectivewidth
Modellingparapets
hinge
Modellingin3D
Modellingexample
Axis1
Axis2
AxisA
AxisB
AxisC
Sections
Finalmodel
Finiteelements
FE Axis1
FE Axis2
FE Axis3
FE AxesAandC
FE AxesB
Floor
Diaphragmcanbemodelledasrigidinitsplane
UsingSAP2000,selectallthenodesatthelevel
floor,thenuseConstraint,Diaphragmoption.
Reducesalldegreesoffreedomintheplaneof
thefloortojust3:twodisplacementsintheplane
ofthefloorandarotationaboutanaxisthatis
perpendiculartotheplane.
Outofplanedegreesoffreedomarepreservedin
eachnode.
10
Numericalexperiments
Controlsections
11
Referencemodel
Forthecomplete
setofnumerical
experimentssee
Taveras 2008
Rigidelements
shownwiththicker
lines
M1FR1
M1FR2
M1FR3
M1FR4
12
Shearforce
Controlsection
Shear
LargeerrorshowupusingmodelFR3
ModelM1FR1seemstobemoreconsistent.
Allmodelsgivegoodresultsfortotalshearin
sectionsS1andS2(M1FR4theworst)
Forthewallsegmentsaroundthewindows
largererrorswerefound.
Leftsegmentsunderestimatedtheshearforce
andtherightsegmentsoverestimateit
13
Moment
Controlsection
Moment
LargeerrorswerefoundusingmodelFR3.This
resultisattributedtothefactthatthemodel
doesnottakeintoaccountthefirstparapet
connectedtothefoundation(asiscurrentlyin
theNTCM)
ModelMFR4seemstobethemoreconsistent,
followedbyMFR1
Allmodelsgivegoodresultsforcomplete
sectionsS1andS2,however,forthecontrol
sectionsinthewallsegmentstothesideofthe
windowsconsiderableerrorswerefound
14
Axialforce
Controlsection
Newrecommendation
Therecommendationtakesintoaccountnumericalexperimentsforcouplingwalls
notshownintheprecedingslides
15
Sections
Walldivisionformodelling
H/Lhavinganderrorequalto20%
Fixed
cantilever
G=0.4E
1.632
1.915
DividingisokifL/H>1.4
G=0.2E
1.155
1.354
16
Finite
elements
M1EF1
M1EF3
M1EF2
M1EF4
Tiecolumnsare
includedasframe
elements
Theframeelements
shouldfollowthe
discretizationofthe
grid
Sameeffectivewith
asinwidecolumns
modelsshouldbe
used
33
Shearforce
Controlsection
MoreconsistentthanFRmodels
17
Shear
Errorswereupto12%,smallerthanwithFR
models
ModelM1EF2seemstobemoreconsistent
Finiteelementmodelsappearmorerobustas
theycanrecovertheshearforcesinthewall
segmentsatbothsidesofthewindows.
Moment
Controlsection
18
Moment
Errorslessthan35%wereobtainedwithallmodels
Inallcontrolsectionsthemodelthatproducedthe
bestresultsistheonewithcoarsestgird(M1EF1)
Itseemsthatbecausetheframeandfiniteelements
arenotcompatible,regardingtherotationaldegreesof
freedom,anerrorisalwaysincluded,thatmaygrowas
thegridissubdivided
Whencontinuallysubdividingthemesheventually
thereisconvergenceondisplacements,buttoawrong
value
Axialforce
Controlsection
19
Axialforce
Axialforceappearstobeverydifficultto
recoveraccurately,speciallyinthewall
segmentsateachsideofthewindows
Inallcontrolsectionsthemodelthat
producedthebestresultsistheonewith
coarsestgird(M1EF1)
Height(m)
Displacements
Displacements(cm)
FR3,whichdonotconsidertheparapetoffirstflooroverestimatesthedisplacements
40
Considerably.FR4arequitegood,andwithFEmodelsare,ingeneral,largerthanexpected
20
Summary/comments
Widecolumnmodels(FR)cannotdealwithcomplexforce
transmissiontheydowellforuniformframesandwallswithno
windows
Notshownabove,howeverbyenforcingtheflatsectioninwallsin
3Dsometimesgivesunexpectedeffects,forexamplewhen
modellingTshapedwalls,theeffectoftheflangeisexaggerated
whenconsideringanalysisinthedirectionoftheweb.Aneffective
flangewidthshouldbeconsideredbutFRmodelscant.FEmodels
intheotherhandaremuchmoreflexibleanddonotimpose
artificialhypothesis
Tiecolumnsshouldbemodelled.
Incasetiecolumnsarenotincludedinthemodel,onemayexpect
asimilardistributionsofforcesinthewalls,however,the
displacementsaremuchlargerandtheperiodisincreased,
consequentlythedesignwillbeconservative,aslargerperiod
usuallymeanslargershearforces,formasonrystructures.
Parapetsplayanimportantroleonthebehaviourofaframewith
windows,theyshouldbemodelled,speciallytheoneofthefirst
floor.
FEvsFR
Finiteelementmodels
Aremorerobust
Themodelpreparationistimeconsuminganderror
prone.
Ittakemuchtimetorecovertheelementforcesfor
thedesign
Widecolumnmodels
Givegoodresultsforshearandarelessaccuratefor
momentandaxialforces,speciallyaroundwindows
Modelsarerelativelysimpletoprepare
Recoveringoftheelementforcesisimmediate
21
Questions?
22
Example:SeismicAnalysisofa
MediumriseConfinedMasonryBuilding

Analysisexample
Parameters
Verticalloads
NTCcodespecifiesandextra0.4kN/m2toaccountfor
Nonuniformthicknessoftheslabplusthemortarused
Forthefloortiling
Wallweight
Tiecolumns,tiebeamsandbeam
Loadsfordynamicanalysis
Detailedroofloadsshouldbecalculated,including
watersealantmaterials
ForSAPonlyfloorloadshouldbespecified,allothersare
selfweightcalculatedbytheprogram
Approximateperiod
Fundamentalperiod(Cl.7.6.2)
0.09
0.09
5.0 6.0
0.18 s
5moverallbuildingheight
6mplandimension
Periodapproximation
Usingtheapproximationderivedwhenweobtainedtheseismicforces
2
so
Thereisnoneedtoknow
, we are interested in the shape only
Stiffness
12
12
Approximatedperiods
Axis1
Releases(pinned
connection),only
infirstfloor
parapets
Widecolumns
Axis2
Sectionincludes
Slabeffective
widthandtie
beamifany
Axis3
Transformed
sectionincludes
parapet,slab
effectivewidth
Andtiebeam
Section
includes
slabeffective
widthandtie
beamifany
Rigidelements(R)
Materialforrigidelements
AxisA
AxisB
AxisC
Sectionproperties
C1
C2
C3
C5
C4
T1
T2
T3
T4
cm2
cm4
cm4
1650
935859
55000
10443
348090 1.71E+08
8114 93238972
270472
1257
41903
41903
6857 59727593
228569
6554 16549003 2020344
1076
44262
436671
500
26042
16667
1652
54597 1569563
cm4
220000
1282365
1081887
167610
914277
664446
94315
16667
81463
10
Mode1Tx=.0835
Tx approx.=0.0653
Mode2Ty=.0781
Tx approx.=0.0574
11
Finalremarks,widecolumn
Advantages
Usingwidecolumnmethodforanalysisissimple
andstraightforward
Canbetimeconsuming
Canretrievedirectlytheelementforcesfor
design
Disadvantages
Enforcesplanesectionswhichisnotalwaysa
goodhypothesisspeciallyin3Dandlongwalls
Questions?
12
28-02-2014

Acknowledgement
Structural Designer and Architect involved
in the project
Short Course on Seismic Design of

Reinforced and Confined Masonry Buildings
28-02-2014
Building Layout
Housing Type-1

28-02-2014
Design Unit
Preliminary Checking for Confining

Elements

28-02-2014
Preliminary Checking
Building Dimension
Along x-direction: 12.43m
Along y-direction: 10.86m
Floor area: 134.99m2

Confined Wall Length
X-direction: 24.78m
Y-direction: 27.53m
Confined Wall area

X-Direction: 24.78 x 0.23 = 5.699m2
Y-Direction: 27.53 x 0.23 = 6.332m2
Preliminary Checking
Wall Density
X-direction: (5.699/134.99 ) x 100 % = 4.22%
Y-direction: (6.332/134.99 ) x 100 % = 4.69%
Ahmedabad (Zone III)
PGA: 0.16g
Campus sight: Moderately Stiff SoilType-B
Number of story: 3
Minimum Required Wall Density: 3%

Hence, Wall Density Check is OK for
both X and Y Directions

28-02-2014
EERI Guidelines on Wall Density
Design Base Shear Calculation

28-02-2014
Lumped Mass Calculation

Slab Load
Ground Floor Load, kN/m Floor Area,m
3.75
116.45
150thk slab
1
116.45
Floor Finish
2
116.45
Live Load
0
0
Sunk Load
0
0
Water proofing Load
Total
Load,kN
436.6875
116.45
232.9
0
0
786
First Floor Load, kN/m Floor Area,m Load,kN

3.75
116.45
436.6875
150thk slab
Floor Finish
116.45
116.45
Live Load
116.45
232.9
Sunk Load
Water proofing Load
0
786
Total
Gravity Load Calculation

Second Floor
150thk slab
Floor Finish
Live Load
Sunk Load
Water proofing Load
Total

Load,
kN/m
3.75
1
1.5
0
1.5
Floor Area,m
116.45
116.45
116.45
0
116.45
Load,kN
436.6875
116.45
174.675
0
174.675
902
28-02-2014
Gravity Load..
Wall
Thickness, m Length, m
Ground floor
First floor
Second floor
Parapet
Total Load
Total Wall load
0.23
0.23
0.23
0.23
55.69
55.69
55.69
51.68
Height,
Thickness, Length, Height,
Load, kN
Load, kN
m
m
m
m
3.15
807
0.115
0
3.15
0
3.15
807
0.115
0
3.15
0
3.15
807
0.115
0
3.15
0
1
238
0.115
0
0
0
2659
0
2658.57kN
Total Weight of Building, kN
5133
kN
Seismic Weight and Base Shear

Live Load
Lump Mass,
(25%) Wall Load
kN
Height, m WiHi
Qi, kN
58.23
806.95
1418.31
3.15 14073.19 24.58
58.23
806.95
1418.31
6.3
56292.75 98.33
122256.4
Slab Over Second
727.81
0.00
641.20
1369.01
9.45
2
213.54
192622.3
4205.64
6
Total Seismic Weight of Building with Reduced
Live Load , kN
4206 kN
Lump Mass
Slab Over Ground
Slab Over First
Dead
Load
553.14
553.14
Base Shear Calculation

Zone Factor, Z
Importance Factor, I
Response Reduction Factor, R
Sa/g
Ah
Base Shear Vb

0.16
1
2.5
2.5
0.08
336.45
kN
28-02-2014
Design of A Typical Wall Along XDirection
Checking Against Gravity Load

Load Consideration
Slab Thickness
Self Wt.
Live load For room
Live load for corridor
Live load on terrace floor
Floor Finish
Water Proofing on terrace

0.15
3.75
2
0
1.5
1
1.5
m
kN/m
kN/m
kN/m
kN/m
kN/m
kN/m
28-02-2014
Gravity Check
Load on wall
slab load on typical floor
load from bedroom,kN/M
load from master bedroom,kN/M
slab load on terrace floor
load from bedroom,kN/M
load from master bedroom,kN/M
LIVE LOAD
2.58
2.58
8.06
8.06
1.94
1.94
3.15
3.15
3.15
Thickness with
plaster
0.25
0.25
0.25
47.25
0.23
kN/m
Height
Self Weight of Wall

Height of ground floor including plinth, m
Height of First floor, m
Height of second floor, m
Wall Thickness considered to resist load
Wall wt.
Total Load on wall
Stress Check at Plinth
DEAD LOAD
6.14
6.14
102.13
0.44
15.75
15.75
15.75
kN/m
N/mm
Gravity Check
Length of Wall
Thickness of wall
3.88
0.23
m
m
Area of wall
0.8924 m
Slenderness
Check
Height of Floor
Thickness of Wall
H/T
L/T
For Whichever is Less Slenderness
Stress Reduction Factor for slenderness as per
Table 9 IS 1905
3.15
0.23
13.70
16.87
13.70
m
m
0.72
Permissible compressive
stress as per Report of IITK
For ordinary Masonry
Permissible compressive stress with cement :

lime: sand mortar (1:1:6) as per Report of IITK
Allowable stress with stress reduction factor
as per IIK-Recommendation
Stress Check at Plinth

0.44
1.83
N/mm
1.318
N/mm
N/mm (OK)
28-02-2014
Check Against Shear

Permissible Shear strength as
per Report of IITK
0.5MPa
0.1 + 0.35 = 0.2
0.125fm = 0.35
Minimum of
0.2
N/mm
Calculation for % lateral force distribution
Length of wall
Thickness of Wall
Height of wall
Inertia of Wall
Total length of wall
% Partcipation of Wall
Area Of Wall
Section Modulus of Wall, Z
3.88
0.23
3.15
1.12
24.78
15.66
0.89
0.58
m
m
m
m
m
%
m
m
Shear Check
Base Shear and Overturning Moment

Floors
Slab over Second
Slab over First
Slab Over Ground
Total Over Turning Moment
Total Base Shear in wall
Shear stress at Base, MPa
Story
Force, kN
213.54
98.33
24.58
Force in
Wall, kN
33.44
15.40
3.85
52.68
0.06
Height, Moment @ Base

M, kN-m
m
9.45
315.97
6.3
96.99
3.15
12.12
425.09
Mpa
Amplification due to Shear stress at base = 1.2*0.6=0.72

torsion (20%)
Mpa. AND SAFE

10
28-02-2014
Check for Tension in Wall

Stress Check
(P/A)+(M/Z)
Load P
Moment, M
Lever Arm
Coupling Force
Allowable Stress(0.6fy as per IITGn
recommendation)
Ast(r)=force/stress
Ast provided 4 no. 16 dia mi. as per
mexican code
Moment Capacity of Boundary Element
Ast Provided in Each Boundary Element
Allowable Stress(0.6fy as per IITGn
recommendation)
Allowable Axail force Cap. Of Each
Boundary Element
Moment Capacity of Boundary Element
351
425.09
3.88
109.56
kN
kN-m
m
kN
300
N/mm2
3.65
cm2
cm2
cm2
300
240
931.2
OK
N/mm2
kN
kN-m
NO MOMENT TRANSFERRED TO WALL-HENCE NO TENSION IN WALL
Tension Check
Stress in WALL
Total Vertical Load,P
Total Moment transferred to Wall(M-Mb)
P/A + M/Z
P/A - M/Z

351
0.00
0.39
0.39
KN
kN-m
N/mm2
N/mm2
OK
OK
11
28-02-2014
Questions?

12

Confined Masonry Buildings PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Confined Masonry Buildings PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Lecture Handouts

Confined Masonry Buildings: Key Components and

BCIT, Vancouver, Canada

Short Course on Seismic Design of Reinforced and Confined Masonry Buildings

Why Confined Masonry?

Confined Masonry Construction:

Confined Masonry Construction: An Alternative

Confined Masonry: Beginnings

Confined Masonry and RC Frame Construction:

January 2010, Haiti

February 2010, Chile

Global Confined Masonry Initiative

Confined Masonry Design Codes

Key Components of a Confined Masonry

Components of a Confined Masonry Building:

Confined Masonry Construction

Confined Masonry versus Infilled RC frames:

Reinforced Concrete Infilled Frame

Source: Tom Schacher

Confined Masonry: Construction Process

Source: Tom Schacher

Confined Masonry vs RC Frames with Infills Key Differences

A comparison: confined masonry and RC frames with

Location of Confining Elements is Very

Key Elements Layout Rules

Typical Floor Plans Examples from Chile

Source: O. Moroni and M. Astroza

Confined Masonry Panel Under

Confined Masonry Panel Under

Confined Masonry Panel Bending

Source: EERI Guide (2011)

Strut-and-Tie Model for a Confined

Seismic Design Objectives

Mechanism of Seismic Response in a Confined

Failure Mechanism: Key Stages

This condition should be avoided!

Confined Masonry Construction: Toothing at

Toothing enhances interaction between

Confined masonry buildings performed very well in these

Confined Masonry Performed Very Well in Past

Confined Masonry Construction in Chile (Contd)

Modern masonry codes first issued in 1990s prior

Low-Rise Confined Masonry Construction

Single-storey rural house

Low-Rise Confined Masonry Construction

Two-storey townhouses (semi-detached):

Performance of Confined Masonry Construction

A few buildings suffered severe damage, and two

Damage Observations: Topics

In-plane shear failure of masonry walls at the

In-plane shear failure of masonry walls at

In-plane shear failure: hollow clay

Same failure mechanism as infill masonry in

Diagonal Tension (INPS-2), FEMA 306 p.207

In-plane shear failure: clay brick masonry

Same failure mechanism as infill masonry

Bed Joint Sliding (INPS-3), FEMA 306 p.208

Out-of-Plane Wall Damage

Floor and Roof Diaphragms

Discussion on Out-of-Plane Wall Failure

Source: EERI Confined Masonry Guide

Buckling of a RC Tie-Column due to the Toe

0.1 0.2 f d d 0.5 (N/mm2)