Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
net/publication/316716493
CITATIONS READS
0 1,386
1 author:
Ajay Chourasia
Central Building Research Institute
40 PUBLICATIONS 34 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:
Development of a technology for optimal extraction of locked-up coal from underground mines using artificial pillars (DeCoalArt). Project No: ESC0105 View project
All content following this page was uploaded by Ajay Chourasia on 07 May 2017.
FOREWORD
Most of the low-to-medium rise buildings in many countries, including India, are of unreinforced
masonry (URM), which is know for its poor seismic performance. Moreover, the brick masonry
construction in India shows a large variability as compared to those in developed countries.
These contrasting difference pose challenge and call for improved technologies for masonry
construction.
In contrast, Confined Masonry (CM), comprising of masonry panels embraced with lightly
reinforced concrete elements, is expected to have better seismic performance. However, CM
potentialities are yet to be fully exploited in Indian context. To do so, CSIR-CBRI has performed
extensive R& D on seismic performance of confined masonry building and conducted full-
scale test on CM model. The information is utilized to develop design features along with its
economic aspects and a comparison with already available test data of URM and RM models.
The primary Indian codes do not provide approach to the design of confined masonry
buildings, especially when subjected to vertical and lateral loads such as earthquake. This
document of “Design guidelines for confined masonry buildings” is one of the milestone in
introducing modern concept of engineered confined masonry so that benefits of seismic
resistant, durable and economical masonry construction can be pronoted. The design
provisions of these guidelines follow principles of allowable stress design, which is consistent with
the design philosophy of IS:1905. It is believed that for the first time in the country the engineered
approach to design of confined masonry is being attempted; a more reliable, familiar and
tested allowable stress design procedure will be followed in years to come.
The efforts put by Dr Ajay Chourasia and his team to come out with a publication is praise
worthy. I hope the contents of the book will be able to create better understanding towards
cost-effective-seismic resistant confined masonry construction amongst professionals and it
will go a long way towards our dream to have earthquake resilient India.
(Dr N. Gopalakrishnan)
Tel : (+91) 1332 272243 (O) Fax : (+91) 1332 272272, 272543
Website : www.cbri.res.in E-mail : director@cbri.res.in, director@cbrimail.com
i
Design Guidelines for Confined Masonry Buildings
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
This design guideline on confined Masonry building is based on the extensive experiences
gained while working on research programme on Performance Evaluation of Confined
Masonry Buildings under Cyclic Loads at CSIR-Central Building Research Institute (CBRI),
Roorkee. Under this programme extensive study on characterization of masonry and its
constituents, with reference to material available in Roorkee; interaction between brick and
mortar; experimental and numerical evaluation to study behaviour of full-scale confined
masonry buildings subjected to lateral loads were performed.
This document is primarily concerned with the use of confined masonry for enhanced load
carrying capacity and improved seismic performance. The structural adequacy of confined
masonry depends upon a number of factors, among which mention may be made of
quality and strength of masonry units and mortars, workmanship, methods of bonding,
slenderness of wall, eccentricity in the loading, position and size of openings in walls,
location of cross walls, and various load combinations for the structural analysis etc. The
guideline addresses the requirements related to the geometrical details of building
components, reinforcement in reinforced concrete element and its detailing for various
level of performance. It is assumed that design of confined masonry building is done by
qualified engineer and execution is carried out as per the recommendations made in this
document read with other relevant codes, under the directions of an experience supervisor.
In the development of this document reference is made to several literature (as given in
References). All these references are mentioned in appropriate places and are greatfully
acknowledged. Special thanks are due to Prof. C.V.R. Murty, Prof. S.K. Bhattacharyya, Prof
N.M. Bhandari and Prof. Pradeep Bhargava, whose extraordinary pedagogic skills guided
me in this research programme and in developing these guidelines. I also acknowledge the
financial support by CSIR under 12th five year plan in the early stages of this project and in
enthusiastic support received from my colleagues Dr Shantanu Sarkar, Jalaj Parashar,
Shubham Singhal, Sugam Kumar, Neelam, Shermi C., Nishat Parvez and entire CSIR-CBRI
family.
At last but not the least, I sincerely acknowledge the encouragement and support being
provided by Dr N. Gopalakrishnan, Director, CSIR-CBRI in bringing out this document. I am
also grateful to him for reposing faith in me and giving me freedom, independence and
opportunity to work.
Ajay Chourasia
ii
Design Guidelines for Confined Masonry Buildings
Contents
iii
Design Guidelines for Confined Masonry Buildings
iv
Design Guidelines for Confined Masonry Buildings
v
Design Guidelines for Confined Masonry Buildings
List of Figures
Figure 1.1 Typical confined masonry building .......................................................................................................................... 2
Figure 1.2 Cracking behaviour and performance of URM and CM wall panel (Gouveia et al. 2007)...................6
Figure 1.3 Flexural failure of CM wall panel- (Zabala et al. 2004). ........................................................................... 6
Figure 1.4 Failure mechanisms due to opening in CM wall (Yanez et al. 2004). ................................................... 8
Figure 1.5 Performance of confinement configuration around opening (Rai, D. 2014). ............................................ 8
Figure 1.6 Tie-column reinforcement detailing- reduced tie spacing at end region (Brzev, S. 2007)................... 9
Figure 1.7 Response of CM walls under lateral loading (a) Lateral load-displacement Envelope (b) Final crack
patterns of wall MV1 and MV5 (San Bartolome et al. 1994)................................................................. 10
Figure 1.8 Crack pattern of CM wall for different arrangements of confining elements (Rai, D. 2014). .............11
Figure 1.9 EffectofreinforcementinCMwalls (Aguilar etal.1996). ...................................................................... 12
Figure1.10 Toothing in confined masonry walls.......................................................................................................... 13
Figure 2.1 Seismic Zone Map of India ........................................................................................................................ 18
Figure 2.2 Building Shape ............................................................................................................................................. 19
Figure 2.3 Wall distribution along two directions in plan.......................................................................................................20
Figure 2.4 Plan layout of CM building ......................................................................................................................... 20
Figure 2.5 Vertically continuity of walls at different storeys .................................................................................................20
Figure 2.6 Length to width ratio of CM building ........................................................................................................ 21
Figure 2.7 Locations of openings in CM buildings.................................................................................................... 21
Figure 2.8 Length of openings in CM buildings......................................................................................................... 22
Figure 2.9 Masonry bond in brickwork of CM buildings ........................................................................................................22
Figure 3.1 Nomenclature for design of confined masonry building ...............................................................................37
Figure 3.2 Computation of wall density in principal direction............................................................................................38
Figure 3.3 Wall panel divided into piers...................................................................................................................... 39
Figure 3.4 Torsion due to eccentricity ........................................................................................................................................41
Figure 3.5 Response spectra for 5% damping.......................................................................................................... 42
Figure 3.6 Storey Shear Distribution along building height .................................................................................................42
Figure 3.7 Wall Subjected to Axial and Out-of-Plane Loads ...............................................................................................45
Figure 3.8 Anchorage of longitudinal bars of tie beaminto tie column at end span ........................................ 46
Figure 3.9 Detailing of tie beam for CM building ..................................................................................................... 47
Figure3.10 Detailing of tie column for CM building ................................................................................................... 48
Figure3.11 Stirrup with a cross-tie .................................................................................................................................. 49
Figure 3.12 Alternative foundation systems for confined masonry building ....................................................................49
Figure 4.1 Structural details of a full-scale confined masonry building model ...........................................................54
Figure 4.2 Lateral cyclic displacement time histories...........................................................................................................56
Figure 4.3 Final crack pattern in walls of CM building model ................................................................................. 58
Figure 4.4 Hystertic curve for CM building model. .................................................................................................................60
Figure 4.5 Stiffness degradation of CM building in cyclic loading ...................................................................................61
Figure 4.6 Drifft of CM building at different control points...................................................................................................62
Figure 4.7 Resistance curve of different masonry system: Base shear coefficient- Storey drift relationship......64
vi
Design Guidelines for Confined Masonry Buildings
vii
Design Guidelines for Confined Masonry Buildings
List of Tables
Table 2.1 Seismic Zone Factor ........................................................................................................................................ 18
Table2.2 Range of Compressive Strength of Burnt SolidClay BricksinIndia........................................................... 23
Table 2.3 Mix Proportions and Strength of Mortars for Masonry............................................................................................24
Table 2.4 Permissible Tensile Stress for Masonry........................................................................................................... 25
Table 3.1 Maximum Slenderness Ratio for a Load Bearing Wall...........................................................................................38
Table 3.2 Stress Reduction Factor (ks) for Slenderness Ratio and Eccentricity ................................................................44
Table 4.1 Description of confined masonry building model .................................................................................................52
Table.4.2 Comparision of lateral resistance, deformation at control point of for different masonry building
systems .............................................................................................................................................................. 61
Table 4.3 Comparision of drift, ductility and seismic behaviour factors for different masonry building model...63
Table 4.4 Comparision of input and cumulative dissipated energy for different masonry building model.........63
Table 4.5 Base shear coefficient and Behaviour factor for different masonry system. ................................................64
Table 4.6 Behaviour factor in terms of ductility for different masonry systems.................................................................66
Table5.1 BuildingGeometryof CMBuilding. ............................................................................................................... 70
Table 5.2 Material Properties for CM Building .............................................................................................................................70
Table 5.3 Seismic Parameters for Design of CM Building ........................................................................................... 70
Table 5.4 Stiffness of wall panels..................................................................................................................................... 72
Table 5.5 Centre of Stiffness of wall panels................................................................................................................... 73
Table 5.6 Centre of Mass of wall panels ....................................................................................................................... 74
Table 5.7 Torsional Stiffness of wall panels..................................................................................................................... 75
Table 5.8 Force Distribution in wall Panels..................................................................................................................... 77
Table 5.9 Overturning and Resisting Moments...........................................................................................................................78
Table 5.10 Compressive Stress in Wall Panels ............................................................................................................... 79
Table 5.11 Tensile Stress in Wall Panels........................................................................................................................... 81
Table 5.12 Shear Stress in Wall Panels............................................................................................................................. 82
Table 5.13 Check for Out-of-Plane Stability of Wall Panels......................................................................................................84
Table 5.14 Comparative Summary for Wall Panel AC1 upto 4-Storey CM Building.......................................................87
Table 5.15 Comparative Summary for Wall Panel CE3 upto 4-Storey CM Building........................................................91
Table 5.16 Summary of Design Parameters for Different Storey of CM Building. .............................................................95
Table 5.17 Schedule of Reinforcement for Bond-Beams .................................................................................................... 100
Table 5.18 Schedule of Reinforcement for Tie-Columns. ....................................................................................101
viii
Design Guidelines for Confined Masonry Buildings
List of Photographs
ix
Design Guidelines for Confined Masonry Buildings
Glossary
1. Base Dimension: Base dimension of the building along a direction is the dimension at its base
along that direction.
2. Base Shear: Base Shear is an estimate of the maximum expected lateral force that will occur
due to seismic ground motion at the base of a structure.
3. Building Height: It is the difference in levels between its base and its highest level.
4. Centre of Mass: The point through which the resultant of the masses of a system acts. This point
corresponds to the centre of gravity of masses of system.
5. Centre of Stiffness: The point through which the resultant of the restoring forces of a system acts.
6. Confined Masonry: Confined Masonry construction consists of masonry walls (made of either
clay brick or concrete block units) and horizontal and vertical reinforced concrete confining
members built on all four sides of a masonry wall panel.
7. Confining Elements: Confining elements (bond beams and tie columns) provide restraint to
masonry walls and protect them from complete disintegration even in major earthquakes.
These elements resist gravity loads and have important role in ensuring vertical stability of a
building in an earthquake.
8. Design Lateral force: It is the horizontal seismic force that shall be used to design a structure.
9. Design Eccentricity: It is the value of eccentricity to be used at floor in torsion calculations for
design.
10. Design Horizontal Acceleration Coefficient: It is a horizontal acceleration coefficient that shall
be used for design of structures.
11. Eccentricity: It is the distance between centre of mass and centre of rigidity of floor.
12. Masonry: An assemblage of masonry units properly bonded together with mortar.
13. Masonry Units: Individual units which are bonded together with the help of mortar to form a
masonry element, such as wall, column, pier and buttress.
14. Masonry Walls: Masonry walls transmit the gravity load from the slab(s) above down to the
foundation. The walls act as bracing panels, which resist horizontal earthquake forces. The
walls must be confined by concrete tie-beams and tie-columns to ensure satisfactory
earthquake performance.
15. Response Reduction Factor: It is the factor by which the actual base shear force, that would be
generated if the structure were to remain elastic during its response to the Design Basis
Earthquake (DBE) shaking, shall be reduced to obtain the design lateral force.
16. Seismic Weight: It is the total dead load plus appropriate amounts of specified imposed load.
17. Slenderness Ratio: Ratio of effective height or effective length to effective thickness of a
masonry element.
x
Design Guidelines for Confined Masonry Buildings
18. Structural Response Factor: It is a factor denoting the acceleration response spectrum of the
structure subjected to earthquake ground vibrations, and depends on natural period of
vibration and damping of the structure.
19. Wall Density: Wall density can be defined as the total cross-sectional area of all walls in one
direction divided by the total floor area.
20. Zone Factor: It is a factor to obtain the design spectrum depending on the perceived
maximum seismic risk characterized by Maximum Considered Earthquake (MCE) in the zone in
which the structure is located.
xi
Design Guidelines for Confined Masonry Buildings
Notation
Ah Design horizontal acceleration coefficient
Ap Plan area of floor
Ast Area of reinforcement
Asv Area of stirrups
Aw Cross-sectional area of wall
b Column dimension
B Width of beam
bi Floor plan dimension perpendicular to the direction of force
Base dimension of the building at the plinth level along the
d
considered direction of the lateral force
D Depth of beam
Lateral dimension of column in the direction under
D’ consideration
deff Effective depth of beam
edi Design eccentricity
edx Design eccentricity in X direction
edy Design eccentricity in Y direction
Em Young’s modulus of masonry
emin Minimum eccentricity
ex Static eccentricity in X direction
ey Static eccentricity in Y direction
fb Compressive strength of brick
fck Concrete grade
fg Safety factor for gravity load
fs Safety factor for seismic load
F Seismic load per unit area of wall panel
Flxi Force due to uniform lateral translation in X direction
Flyi Force due to uniform lateral translation in Y direction
fm Compressive strength of masonry
fmo Compressive strength of mortar
Ftxi Force due to torsion in X direction
Ftyi Force due to torsion in Y direction
fy Steel grade
H Height of building
hc Height of Column
hi Height of floor level measured from base
ho Height of opening
hw Height of wall
I Importance factor
k Number of storeys above the analysed story
Kc Stiffness of cantilever pier
Kf Stiffness of fixed pier
ks Stress reduction factor
xii
Design Guidelines for Confined Masonry Buildings
Kt Torsional stiffness
Kw Stiffness of wall panel
Kx Total stiffness in X direction
Kxi Stiffness of individual wall panels in X direction
Ky Total stiffness in Y direction
Kyi Stiffness of individual wall panels in Y direction
L Unsupported length of column
lb Length of beam
lc Length of column
lo Length of opening
lw Length of wall panel
lx Length of wall in X direction
Lx Length of slab in X direction
ly Length of wall in Y direction
Ly Length of slab in Y direction
M Moment due to total lateral force acting on wall panel
Mo Overturning moment
Mr Resisting moment
ms Mass of slab
Mu Ultimate bending moment due to seismic load
Mu’ Moment in column
n Number of longitudinal bars
ns Number of stories in the building
p Percentage of steel in column
Pcomp Ultimate compressive strength of wall due to gravity load
Pi Total lateral force acting on wall panel i
Pu Total factored load acting on column
Pxi Total force acting on wall panel in X direction
Pyi Total force acting on wall panel in Y direction
Qi Design lateral force at floor i
Qix Design lateral force in X direction
Qiy Design lateral force in Y direction
R Response reduction factor
S Section modulus
Sa/g Average response acceleration coefficient
SR Slenderness ratio
Sv Spacing of stirrups
T Design period of building
tc Thickness of column
TL Total gravity load acting on wall panel
tb Thickness of beam
to Thickness of opening
ts Thickness of slab
xiii
Design Guidelines for Confined Masonry Buildings
tw Thickness of wall
Vb Base shear
V us Shear to be resisted
w Weight of unit area of floor system
W Seismic weight of the building
Wd Wall density
wi Weight of wall i
Wi Seismic weight of the ith floor
Xcm Centre of mass in X direction
Xcs Centre of stiffness in X direction
Xi Centroidal distance of wall panel in X direction
X’i Distance of wall panel from centre of stiffness in X direction
Xs Centroidal distance of slab in X direction
Ycm Centre of mass in Y direction
Ycs Centre of stiffness in Y direction
Yi Centroidal distance of wall panel in Y direction
Y’i Distance of wall panel from centre of stiffness in Y direction
Ys Centroidal distance of slab in Y direction
Z Zone factor
ρc Density of concrete
ρm Density of masonry
σb Bending stress
σd Compressive stress due to dead load on wall panel
σdl Compressive stress due to dead and live load on wall panel
σt Tensile stress
τc Design shear strength of concrete
τt Permissible tensile stress for masonry
τu Permissible shear stress in N/mm2
τv Nominal shear stress
Bar diameter
xiv
Design Guidelines for Confined Masonry Buildings
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
1.1 BACKDROP
Since the dawn of civilization, masonry has been and still is the most commonly used material in
building industries, primarily for low rise buildings. The success of brick masonry is mainly due to
its durability, excellent fire resistance, acoustic and thermal insulation characteristics and
relative simple in realization and cost. However, masonry elements suffer from a few
drawbacks as well. Some of these include distinct directional (orthotropic) properties; poor
strength of masonry units and mortar; non-uniform thickness of mortar joints, low interfacial
bond strength between brick and mortar, arrangement of bricks, state of bricks before casting,
curing, workmanship etc. It is not surprising that masonry is the material of choice for residential
construction in many parts of the world, in spite of the associated difficulties.
Like most building materials, masonry has its weaknesses, leading to poor performance
during seismic events. Unreinforced masonry (URM) buildings, in particular, have proven to
be vulnerable in seismic events, with significant building damage and numbers of fatalities
world- wide. Experience reveals that masonry constructions remain susceptible to
earthquake forces due to various reasons. A few of them may be listed as lack of integral
action between bricks and mortar; inadequate strength against out-of-plane forces, low
tensile and shear strength of masonry, relatively heavy mass and varying construction
practices. It is essential to enhance the seismic resistance of masonry system by providing
suitable features so as to overcome the inherent deficiencies. To upgrade the seismic
performance of URM systems, different reinforcing measures were adopted and eventually
led to the development of reinforced masonry (RM) and confined masonry (CM) systems.
Low-to-medium rise buildings (up to 4 storeys) are the frequent typology for housing, in
developing countries all over the world. The key requirement for sustainable building
construction demands fulfilment of functional, structural, societal, economical and
environmental criterion. Unreinforced masonry was historically, and is actually, the structural
solution that best addresses these requirements. The occurrence of recent earthquakes in
India, even in moderate seismicity zones, highlighted the consequences of poorly built
masonry structures, comprising around 85% of existing building stock in India. The seismic
action needs to be adequately considered combining sustainability, earthquake resistance
and cost-effectiveness, and on these counts confined masonry (CM) appears to be the best
alternative for low-medium rise buildings.
1
Design Guidelines for Confined Masonry Buildings
due to concrete shrinkage, the connection between masonry and concrete is very
effective, which behaves in unison as a whole up to large deformation levels under lateral
loads.
Slab
Masonry Wall
Tie Column
Bond Beam
Opening
Plinth Beam
The structural components of a typical confined masonry building (Figure 1.1) encompasses
followings:
Foundation, the elements from soil to ground level, responsible for transmitting load from
structure to the underlying soil
Plinth beam, element transmits vertical and horizontal loads from wall to the foundation. In
addition, it protects the walls from settlement and rising of moisture into walls due to
capillary action.
Masonry walls, elements transmit vertical and horizontal loads from the slabs above to the
foundation. In confined masonry construction, such masonry wall panels are confined by
means of RC elements at periphery. The earthquake performance of CM buildings largely
depends on the shear resistance of masonry walls. Preferably, toothed edges are left on
each side of the wall having projection upto 40mm to achieve full concrete filling in the
teeth space. Instead of teething or in addition to teething, horizontal dowels may be used
at the wall- column interface.
2
Design Guidelines for Confined Masonry Buildings
Confining elements- RC tie columns and bond beams, offers confinement to masonry walls,
as a result higher strength, integrity and stability is achieved in in-plane and out-of-plane,
even during major ground motions. Tie columns are not expected to sustain significant
gravity loads; hence, these elements are smaller in size.
RC Floor and roof slabs, distributes both vertical and horizontal loads to the walls.
Photo 1.1 Good performance of Confined Masonry construction in Earthquakes (a) Six-storey
confined masonry building in Ica, 2007 Peru Earthquake (EERI, 2007); (b) No Damage to
confined masonry buildings, while collapse of other masonry buildings in El Salvador,
2001 San Salvador Earthquake (EERI 2001); (c) Six-storey confined masonry building
remained undamaged in 2007 Pisco (Peru) Earthquake (Blondet, 2007)
3
Design Guidelines for Confined Masonry Buildings
Photo 1.2 Damage to confined masonry buildings (a) In Llolleo, 1985 Chile Earthquake
(Moroni, Gomez, and Astroza, 2003); (b) In El Salvador, 2001 San Salvador Earthquake
(Yoshimura and Kuroki 2001); (c) In Mexico, 2003 Colima earthquake (EERI, 2003); (d) In
Mexico, 1999 Tehuacan Earthquake (EERI, 1999); (e) Collapse of Confined masonry with soft
stories, relevant irregularities and bad detailing in 2007 Pisco (Peru) Earthquake (EERI, 2007); (f)
In Banda Aceh, Indonesia, Tsunami-induced out-of-plane failure of masonry walls at the
ground floor level after 2004 Great Sumatra earthquake (Boen, 2005).
Occurrence of cracks/failure usually initiates at the centre of the wall or at stretched corner
or in the more compressed corner of pier. The first mechanism is governed by compressive
strength of masonry and tensile yielding of longitudinal bars, and is characterized by the
early appearance of crack in joint under tension stress state, followed by a second limit
state characterized by crushing of compressed toe of masonry wall. This is the preferred
failure mode for CM, since the failure mechanism is ductile and effective in dissipating
earthquake- induced energy once the yielding of vertical reinforcement takes place.
On the contrary, shear failure, which is a common type of failure in masonry, involves
stepped cracking at horizontal and vertical joints; or bricks diagonal cracking passing
through masonry units and joints, which takes place before the wall reaches its full flexural
capacity.
4
Design Guidelines for Confined Masonry Buildings
Due to the dominant presence of diagonal cracks, this mode is also known as diagonal
tension failure, which is generally brittle and sudden in nature.
The other type of shear failure mechanism comprises sliding along bed joints with an almost
horizontal cracking. The mechanism may take place in CM walls subjected to low gravity
loads with relatively higher seismic shear forces. These cracks may be found at lower masonry
courses in low-rise buildings or at upper storeys in medium rise buildings having higher
acceleration levels.
The nature of the stresses developed in the masonry unit and mortar under uni-axial
compression significantly depends on its relative elastic modulus. In case of stiffer bricks
than the mortar (), usually the case in western countries, mortar at the bed joint have
tendency to expand laterally more than brick units. However, mortar is confined laterally at
the brick mortar interface by the bricks; therefore, shear stresses at the brick mortar
interface result in an internal state of stress consisting of tri-axial compression in mortar and
bilateral tension coupled with axial compression in brick. The failure in masonry occurs once
the tensile stress in the brick exceeds its ultimate tensile strength. In Indian scenario, mortar is
stiffer than bricks (Eb,<Emo), tending bricks under triaxial compression state-of-stress while
mortar is subjected to bilateral tension with uniaxial compression. This characteristic of
masonry largely affects the failure mode of CM panel. To ensure adequate bond/shear
strength of CM masonry panel, rich mortar and bricks without smooth surface are
recommended by Mercado (2004).
5
Design Guidelines for Confined Masonry Buildings
Photo 1.3 Collapse of a confined masonry building in Santa Cruz (Chile Earthquake 2010) at
ground floor level- exterior walls are of hollow concrete blocks, and the interior
ones using hand-made solid clay bricks (EERI, 2010)
Figure 1.2 Cracking Behaviour and Performance of URM and CM Wall Panel (Gouveia et al. 2007)
6
Design Guidelines for Confined Masonry Buildings
The stiffness reduction in relation to the initial stiffness at initial crack, complete crack and
maximum load of CM walls panels was observed in the range of 50-70%, 20-30% and 5-20%
respectively. At a situation, where low tie column longitudinal reinforcement, high panel
aspect ratio, low axial load and low bond strength prevail, the CM may leads to predominance
of flexural deformations with horizontal bending cracks at lower courses of the panel. At this
instant, the stiffness is mainly provided by confining elements, at a slow rate of stiffness
degradation (Ishibashi et al. 1992) and restrain the drift capacity of CM walls to some
reasonable degree (Alcocer et al. 1996) with adequate amount of reinforcement in tie-
column. At large deformation, usually the damage sequence follows- masonry crushing at
middle of the panel; concrete cracking and crushing; and buckling of longitudinal bars at tie
column ends (Tomazevic et al. 1997; Alcocer et al. 2004). These cracks are further extended
into tie columns ends at large deformation levels (Zabala et al. 2004), as illustrated at Figure 1.3.
The result showed that such provisions performed superior than the other confinement
configurations (Figure 1.5) and assisted in uniform distribution of cracks which led to
significantly enhanced strength, deformability and more stability to response curve.
7
Design Guidelines for Confined Masonry Buildings
8
Design Guidelines for Confined Masonry Buildings
The ductile detailing, i.e. closely spaced lateral ties with adequate (75 mm long-135o) hooks
at end region and junctions of confining element is suggested as the cracks in masonry
penetrates into these sections at large drift, which in turn delays the final collapse of the
walls (Photo 1.4). In general, the detailing of reinforcement in confining elements in almost
all codes (INN-1997; NSR-1998; Eurocode 8-2002; NTC-M: 2004) is uniform; with a minimum of
6 mm diameter transverse reinforcement spaced between 150 to 200 mm (s), and the same
is reduced to half at ends, as illustrated at Figure 1.6.
Photo 1.4 (a) Plastic hinge formation in a confined wall (Aguilar, 2001)
(b) Shear failure in tie-column (Zabala, 2004)
Figure 1.6 Tie-Column Reinforcement Detailing- Reduced Tie Spacing at End Region
(Brzev, S. 2007)
On the other hand, if a wall is subjected to a higher vertical load, the masonry panel mainly
slides, and consequently the reinforcement bars of the tensioned column do not yield and
the ultimate strength is mainly associated with the dowel action of the reinforcement bars of
the compressed column. Figure 1.7 (San Bartolome et al. 1994), illustrates results of lateral
cyclic tests on solid clay brick CM walls, a drop in load-displacement envelope is identified,
may be due to brittleness of masonry units, concurrently with diagonal cracking,
subsequently tie- columns plays the main role for the response. The lateral load reduces
after considerable opening of shear cracks in tie-columns (Irimies, M.T. et al. 2000). When
robust units are used a mixed pattern with stepped and horizontal cracks are expected,
because the tie-column is stressed along the full height. Thereby RC tie-columns have a very
important effect on the reserve strength, ductility and stability of walls after diagonal
cracking (Zepeda et al. 2000).
9
Design Guidelines for Confined Masonry Buildings
Figure 1.7 Response of CM Walls under Lateral Loading (a) Lateral Load-Displacement
Envelope (b) Final Crack Patterns of Wall MV1 and MV5 (San Bartolome et
al.1994)
10
Design Guidelines for Confined Masonry Buildings
Under lateral load, confined masonry walls acts as a shear wall due to composite action
between wall and tie-column, resulting into delayed out-of-plane failure and safely sustaining
large in-plane drifts. Moreover, CM wall with continuous sill and lintel bands performed
superior than other confinement configurations which assisted in uniform distribution of cracks
(Figure 1.8) leading to significantly enhanced strength and deformability. At the same time, it is
pointed out that placing tie-columns too close (less than 3.0 m) would not be economically
viable proposition and calls for better planning of building layout (Photo 1.7).
Figure 1.8 Crack Pattern of CM Wall for Different Arrangements of Confining Elements
(Rai, D. 2014)
11
Design Guidelines for Confined Masonry Buildings
It is also noted that the increase in strength of CM wall is not linearly proportional to the
amount of horizontal reinforcement. Moreover, the mode of failure is strongly dependent on
the horizontal reinforcement ratio “” and its yield stress “”. In the event of over-reinforced
CM wall, the brittle failure is expected, while for walls with insufficient reinforcement,
occurrence of rebar failure usually near shear cracks and in mid-zone of walls, at maximum
strain, leads to sliding of upper stories over these cracks (Alcocer et al. 1996). Alcocer et al.
(1996), considers the masonry and rebar characteristics and prescribes the upper limit of ,
where and , is the masonry compressive strength and yield strength of horizontal
reinforcement. The optimum horizontal reinforcement ratio of 0.01% was found to be
adequate in masonry walls.
12
Design Guidelines for Confined Masonry Buildings
Photo 1.8 Flexural failure of a confined wall with (a) horizontal cracking and (b) separation of
tie-column (c) a typical failure mode in masonry in-fill frame mechanism
(Yoshimura, K. et al. 2004)
Alternative approaches to achieve better interaction between masonry wall and tie-column
are:
1. Providing 40mm toothing in confined masonry walls along heights at edges
2. Providing 400mm long - 8mm dia bar in mortar joint at every 5 course or 400mm vertically (Fig.
th
13
Design Guidelines for Confined Masonry Buildings
thereby affecting strength characteristics adversely and likely to fail in flexural mode (San
Bartolome 2004; Yoshimura et al 2004), hence it is preferred to maintain the aspect ratio of CM
wall panel between 0.8 to 1.2.
(a)
(b)
(c)
Photo 1.9 Storey failure mechanism of confined masonry buildings (a) 3-storeyed-using solid
burnt clay brick units (Tomazevic et al. 1996) (b) 4-storeyed-using Autoclaved
Aerated Concrete (AAC) units showing cracks at damage limit (red), maximum
resistance (green) and ultimate state (blue) (c) Damage to first floor walls of 4-storey
building at ultimate state (Tomazevic et al. 2011)
14
Design Guidelines for Confined Masonry Buildings
Similar response was observed by Tomazevic et al. (1996, 2011) through unidirectional shake-
table tests on one-to-four storey scale-down CM building models having different material
characteristics, different sections of confining elements and asymmetric wall distribution in
both the directions. In all the cases, typical storey mechanism, governed by diagonal shear
failure of ground floor walls was observed (Photo 1.9). As a result of high wall density ratio,
high seismic resistance was noticed. Also, significant strength degradation was observed on
attainment of maximum value with increased damage to masonry wall at ground storey,
separating from wall confining elements at interface. This point out that tie-columns and
bond- beams are only active up to certain level of lateral displacement, beyond which
unable to prevent disintegration of masonry, unless it is reinforced with continuous horizontal
bed-joint reinforcement. The frequency measurements at the end of each run showed
decay in first natural frequency, even in the case of no visible damage in the walls,
attributing to micro- cracks in masonry and minor adjustments in units.
Similarly, full-scale single storey confined masonry building was tested at CSIR-CBRI (India)
and the results were compared with unreinforced and reinforced masonry buildings having
similar geometrical and material properties. The detailed experimental plan, results and
discussion thereof is given at Chapter 4.
1.7 SCOPE
The objective of this document is to understand the behaviour of confined masonry
construction under seismic conditions and recommend design guidelines for confined
masonry buildings with explanatory design example. This document gives the
recommendations for structural design aspect of confined masonry building constructed
with solid bricks / blocks, materials to be used, maximum permissible stresses and method of
design. The document is divided into five chapters. In Chapter 1, a comprehensive overview
of confined masonry construction; behaviour and failure pattern of confined masonry in
past earthquake is given. Chapter 2 deals with the planning aspects of confined masonry
buildings in seismic regions along with characteristics of material to be used for the
construction. Chapter 3 contains the guidelines for design of confined masonry buildings in
seismic regions. This would be very useful resource for design engineers and architects,
academics, code development institutions for design of confined masonry buildings. In
contrast, Chapter 4 describes the cyclic quasi-static test procedure adopted for full-scale
test of single storey confined masonry building and compares the seismic performance of
CM with previously tested URM and RM models having similar geometry and material
configuration. Finally, Chapter 5 illustrates the design example of confined masonry
residential building in seismic zone IV of India along with its cost aspects.
15
Design Guidelines for Confined Masonry Buildings
CHAPTER 2
PLANNING ASPECTS
2.1 PURPOSE
The problem of earthquake resistant construction of masonry buildings has attracted the
attention in recent years. As a solution, confined masonry has emerged as a promising cost-
effective construction technique for low-to-medium rise construction in seismic regions. As an
alternative to the prevalent prescriptive procedures for seismic design of CM buildings, these
Guidelines may be used as a basis for the seismic design of individual CM buildings; or a basis
for development and adoption of future Building Code provisions governing the design of CM
buildings.
If properly designed and executed, the Guidelines are intended to result in CM buildings
that are capable of achieving the seismic performance objectives for Occupancy
Category II buildings (life safety and collapse prevention in the event of severe earthquake)
intended by ASCE 7, having capabilities as under:
Withstand Maximum Considered Earthquake shaking, as defined in ASCE 7/IS-1893, with low
probability (on the order of 10%) of either total or partial collapse;
Withstand Design Earthquake shaking, having an intensity two thirds that of Maximum
Considered Earthquake shaking without generation of significant hazards to individual lives
through design measures intended to assure that non-structural components and systems
remain anchored and secured to the structure and that building drifts are maintained at
levels that will not create undue hazards; and
Withstand relatively frequent, more moderate-intensity earthquake shaking with limited
damage.
Alternatively, individual users may adapt and modify these Guidelines to serve as the basis for
designs intended to achieve higher seismic performance objectives. These Guidelines are
intended to serve as a reference source for design engineers, building officials, and developers
of building codes and standards.
17
Design Guidelines for Confined Masonry Buildings
18
Design Guidelines for Confined Masonry Buildings
2.4.1 Building Shape: The confined masonry building should be regular in plan and
elevation. The building shapes like U, L, Y etc., should be discouraged as these shape of
buildings will have higher chances of damage due to stress concentrations at corners. The plan
configuration should be simple and symmetrical to minimize the effect of torsion. Unsymmetrical
plan has considerable eccentricity which results in torsion.
19
Design Guidelines for Confined Masonry Buildings
2.4.2 Wall Distribution: More-or-less uniform wall cross-sectional area in both the direction in
plan of a CM building will ensure adequate shear resistance of masonry walls.
2.4.3 Symmetrical Walls: The walls should be built more-or-less symmetrical in plan in both
the directions. The re-entrant corners in one direction should not exceed 25% of the overall
configuration of the building in the corresponding direction.
2.4.4 Vertical Discontinuity: To achieve adequate seismic load path in lateral load resisting
elements, all the walls of a CM building should be continuous in elevation upto foundation
20
Design Guidelines for Confined Masonry Buildings
2.4.5 Slender Plan : Slender plan dimension of a building results into formation excessive
torsion at far ends of wall, hence length to width ratio of building in plan should be limited to
four.
2.4.6 Symmetrical Openings: Openings tend to reduce shear resistance of walls. Large
number of openings will lead to more damage during an earthquake. Wherever it is necessary
to provide opening (doors and windows) in walls, it should be positioned vertically on each floor
along with confining elements around the openings.
2.4.7 Wall Opening Proportions: The length of the opening in walls shall not be larger
than the half length of the wall as openings reduce the wall's stiffness and thus weaken the
walls. Otherwise special lintel beam required for large openings and tie-columns shall be
placed at both sides of any large opening in order to enable the diagonal strut action.
21
Design Guidelines for Confined Masonry Buildings
2.4.8 Masonry Bond: To fulfill the requirements of excellent masonry work, Flemish Bond in
brickwork is preferred in contrast to other bond systems.
22
Design Guidelines for Confined Masonry Buildings
2.5 MATERIALS
The seismic resistance of the confined masonry building depends upon the strength and quality
of materials used. Building materials used in confined masonry construction are same as in
masonry and reinforced concrete buildings. Strength requirements of various building
materials are described below.
Table 2.2 Range of Compressive Strength (fb) of Burnt Solid Clay Bricks in India
2.5.2 Mortar
Mortar is a homogeneous mixture, produced by proper mixing of cement, water and
materials such as sand, to the required consistency for use in building construction together
with masonry units. Requirements of a good mortar for masonry are strength, workability,
water retentivity and low drying shrinkage.
23
Design Guidelines for Confined Masonry Buildings
Different types of mortars (H1, H2, M1, M2,) based on mix proportions can be adopted for
confined masonry construction as mentioned in Table 2.3 (IS: 2250: 2000).
2.5.3 Masonry
Masonry construction refers to construction of buildings with individual units, which are often
laid in and bound by mortar. Cement mortar or grout holds the masonry units together.
Quality of masonry used in confined masonry buildings has a significant impact on its seismic
performance and thus, masonry strength requirements shall be in accordance with the
standards given in this section.
24
Design Guidelines for Confined Masonry Buildings
Permissible
Mortar Tensile Stress Description
Grade (N/mm2)
M1 0.07 Bending in vertical direction where tension developed is
normal to bed joints.
M1 0.14 Bending in the longitudinal direction where tension
developed is parallel to bed joints, provided crushing
strength of masonry units is not less than 10 N/mm .
2
The three modes of shear failure in walls, are diagonal, along the bed joints or in the form of stair-
step cracks through bed and head joints. Weak masonry units in wall results in diagonal failure,
while sliding failure along bed joints occur due to low compressive stress. The stair-step cracks
through bed and head joints are due to low mortar strength. The permissible shear stress
calculated on the area of bed joint, shall not exceed the value obtained by the expression
given below, subject to a maximum of 0.5 N/mm .
2
τu = 0.1 +
d is compressive stress due to dead load. Self weight of the wall panel and slab dead load
shall be considered while calculating dfor shear stress calculation
2.5.4 Concrete
The minimum M 20 grade of concrete shall be used for bond beams, tie columns and
other reinforced concrete elements in confined masonry buildings.
Portland cement is preferred for concrete. It must be kept dry and bags unopened until
required to use.
Sand and aggregates used in concrete must not contain mud or other organic materials.
River sand is preferred over sea beach sand as beach sand contains high levels of sodium
chloride.
Potable water shall be used in concrete. Impure water contains various salts such as sodium
chloride, sulphur, magnesium, potassium etc. which makes concrete brittle and can result in
corrosion of reinforcement bars.
2.5.5 Steel
The minimum Fe 415/Fe 500 grade of steel shall be used for bond beams, tie columns and
other reinforced concrete elements of confined masonry buildings.
Rusty or corroded reinforcement shall not be used.
Do not reuse old or bent reinforcement bars.
25
Design Guidelines for Confined Masonry Buildings
Step 1: Excavate according to required foundation depth/width along the walls of the building
and lay 100 mm thick PCC as levelling course.
Ground Level
PCC
Step 2:Cast footing beneath the walls and tie-columns. Prepare reinforcement cage for tie-
columnsupto the roof level.
Reinforcement for
Tie-Columns
Ground Level
Footing
PCC
26
Design Guidelines for Confined Masonry Buildings
Step 3: Construct brick masonry foundation wall upto the plinth level leaving apart the column
spaces with mm groove at wall ends.
Reinforcement for
Tie-Columns
Footing
PCC
Step 4:Prepare formwork for tie columns upto the plinth level.
Reinforcement for
Tie-Columns
Formwork for
Tie-Columns upto
Plinth Level Plinth Level
Footing
PCC
27
Design Guidelines for Confined Masonry Buildings
Step 5: Cast tie-columns from foundation level upto the plinth level along with the plinth
beam.
Reinforcement for
Tie-Columns
Tie-Columns Casted
Plinth Level
Plinth Beam Casted
GroundLevel
Step 6: Construct masonry walls above plinth level uptothe sill level.
Reinforcement for
Tie-Columns
Masonry Wall
upto Sill Level
Sill Level
Plinth Level
Ground Level
Plinth Beam
28
Design Guidelines for Confined Masonry Buildings
Reinforcement for
Tie-Columns
Formworkfor Tie-Columns
Support for
Sill Level Formwork
Plinth Level
Ground Level
Step 8: Cast tie-columns from plinth level upto the sill level and beam at sill level if any.
Reinforcement for
Tie-Columns
Beam Casted at
Sill Level
Tie-Columns
Casted till Sill Level
Sill Level
PlinthLevel
Ground Level
29
Design Guidelines for Confined Masonry Buildings
Reinforcement for
Confining Elements
around all Openings
Reinforcement for
Tie-Columns
Masonry Wall
upto1.2 m Level
Sill Level
Plinth Level
Ground Level
Step 10: Prepare formwork for tie-columns above the sill levelupto 1.2 m.
Reinforcement for
Tie-Columns
Masonry Wall
Formwork for
Tie-Column
30
Design Guidelines for Confined Masonry Buildings
Step 11: Cast tie-columnsupto 1.2 m level from the previous casting.
Tie-Columns Casted
upto 1.2 m Level
Sill Level
Plinth Level
Step 12: Construct masonry walls upto the lintel level starting from the last stretcher.
Masonry Wall
Lintel Level upto Lintel Level
Sill Level
Plinth Level
Ground Level
31
Design Guidelines for Confined Masonry Buildings
Step 13: Prepare formwork for tie columns upto the lintel level.
Tie-Column
Formwork upto
Lintel Level
Lintel Level
Support for
Formwork
Sill Level
Plinth Level
Ground Level
Step 14: Cast tie-columns upto the lintel level from the previous casting along with the lintel
beam.
Lintel Beam
Casted
Tie-Columns
Casted upto Lintel
Level
Lintel Level
Sill Level
Plinth Level
Ground Level
32
Design Guidelines for Confined Masonry Buildings
Confining Elements
around Openings
are Casted
Confining Elements
Lintel Level around Openings
are Casted
Sill Level
Plinth Level
Ground Level
Masonry Wall
upto Roof Level
Roof Level
Lintel Level
Sill Level
Plinth Level
Ground Level
33
Design Guidelines for Confined Masonry Buildings
Step 17: Prepare formwork for tie columns upto the slab level.
Tie-Column
Formwork upto
Roof Level
Roof Level
Plinth Level
Ground Level
Step 18: Cast tie-columns upto the roof level from the previous casting.
Tie-Columns Casted
upto Roof Level
Roof Level
Lintel Level
Sill Level
PlinthLevel
GroundLevel
34
Design Guidelines for Confined Masonry Buildings
Confining Elements
around Openings
are Casted
Confining Elements
around Openings
Roof Level are Casted
LintelLevel
Sill Level
Plinth Level
GroundLevel
Slab Casted
Sill Level
PlinthLevel
GroundLevel
35
Design Guidelines for Confined Masonry Buildings
CHAPTER 3
DESIGN OF CONFINED MASONRY BUILDINGS
3.0 INTRODUCTION
The basic requirements for seismic design of buildings i.e. simplicity, symmetry, material
properties etc., given in various codes including the Indian standards (IS: 4326- 2013; IS: 1893-
2002; IS: 13920-2016; IS: 1905-1987; IS: 456- 2000) are applicable for confined masonry buildings
as well. However a proper design philosophy is not stated in the Indian standards. In this section,
a simplified procedure for analysis and design of confined masonry building is described. The
design philosophy of confined masonry addresses the basic requirements i.e. life safety and
collapse prevention. Broadly, the design procedure for confined masonry building
encompasses:
Planning of building i.e. symmetry in plan and elevation, placement of bond beams and
tie-columns at appropriate locations and its size, confirming the general guidelines for
confined masonry (Figure 3.1).
Selection of appropriate physical properties of brick units, mortar, concrete,
reinforcement etc.
Calculation of loads i.e. dead load, live load and seismic loads as per relevant
standards. Further detailed calculation includes computation of building weight, base
shear; distribution of design lateral force; computation of equivalent wall stiffness,
centre of mass and stiffness of the building, eccentricity, computation of torsional
stiffness; and seismic forces distribution in individual walls.
Checks for various parameters such as wall density, in-plane stability (compressive
stress, tensile stress and shear stress), overturning, out-of-plane stability for individual wall
panels.
Design and detailing of bond-beam and tie-column.
37
Design Guidelines for Confined Masonry Buildings
The basic assumptions made for analysis and design of confined masonry are:
The building walls are analysed as panels.
In-plane and out-of-plane behaviour of wall is considered independently.
The foundation system shall be governed by local site conditions.
S.R. =
CM buildings with sufficient wall density performed well during the major earthquakes in
contrast to CM buildings with relatively low wall density. Primarily, a minimum 2% wall density
is required for CM buildings located in seismic zone II and III, while for building in seismic
zones IV and V, the minimum requirements are 4% and 5% respectively, in each principal
direction. These wall densities are 33% higher, if hollow concrete blocks are used in CM
construction.
38
Design Guidelines for Confined Masonry Buildings
Alternatively, from compressive stress considerations, wall density shall satisfy the following
equation.
fg w ns
Wd ≥
Pcomp
Similarly, wall density shall be checked from shear consideration by the relationship -
Ah f s w n s
Wd ≥
τu
Where,
Ah = Design horizontal acceleration coefficient
fg = Safety factor for gravity load (shall be taken as 2.33)
fs = Safety factor for seismic load (shall be taken as 1.6)
w = Weight of unit area of floor system (also includes self weight of walls)
ns = Number of stories in the building
Pcomp = Average compressive strength of wall due to gravity load
u = Shear strength of masonry
39
Design Guidelines for Confined Masonry Buildings
Em tw
Kf=
Stiffness for Pier, hw 3
hw
+3
lw lw
Where, Em = 456 fm
1
Kw =
1 1 1
+ +
K1 K2 +K3 K4
Where K1, K2, K3 and K4 are the stiffness of different piers. The stiffness of wall panels in X and Y
directions are added separately to obtain building stiffness in both the directions.
3.2.2 Torsion
3.2.2.1 Centre of Stiffness and Centre of Mass
Masonry buildings with horizontal irregularities and lack of symmetry may have considerable
eccentricity. It arises when centre of stiffness and centre of mass do not coincide with each
other. Eccentricity gives rise to torsion which needs to be considered in seismic analysis of
confined masonry buildings.
(w Y ) + (w Y ) + ⋯ + (w Y ) + (m Y )
Y =
(w + w + ⋯ + w ) + m
Where X1, X2, …..,Xn and Y1, Y2, …..,Yn are centroidal distance of wall panels in X and Y direction
respectively and w1, w2, ….,wn are weight of individual wall panels. X s and Ys are centroidal
distance of slab in X and Y direction respectively and ms is weight of slab.
40
Design Guidelines for Confined Masonry Buildings
K = K Y′ + K X′
Where X'i and Y'i are distances of wall panels from centre of stiffness in X and Y direction
respectively.
3.2.2.3 Eccentricity
Eccentricity is the difference in centre of mass and centre of stiffness.
ex = Xcm − Xcs
ey = Ycm – Ycs
or ex - 0.05bi
Design eccentricity is to be calculated in both the directions according to the floor plan
dimension perpendicular to the direction of force (b i). The maximum (edi) among both the
directions shall be considered is designs.
41
Design Guidelines for Confined Masonry Buildings
Z I Sa
Ah =
2Rg
Zone factor (Z) shall be taken as 0.1, 0.16, 0.24 and 0.36 for seismic zones II, III, IV and V
respectively. The importance factor (I) shall be taken as 1.5 for important or community
buildings and 1.0 for all other buildings. The response Reduction Factor (R) for a confined
masonry building shall be taken as 2.5. Average Response Acceleration Coefficient (Sa/g)
can be obtained through Fig. 3.5. The time period of the building is estimated using following
empirical relationship:
0.09 H
T=
√d
42
Design Guidelines for Confined Masonry Buildings
2
Wi hi
Design Lateral Force, Qi = 2 Vb
∑ Wi hi
Thus, the total force i.e. algebraic sum of force due to lateral translation and torsion, is
considered for evaluating wall panels for its in-plane safety.
Total Force, Pi = Fli + Fti (to be calculated for each wall panels in both X and Y directions)
Pcomp = ks x fm
ks is stress reduction factor based on slenderness ratio and eccentricity as per Table 3.2. Wall
panel is considered to be safe in compression if following criteria is fulfilled:
Pcomp ≥ 2.6σdl
σdl Is stress generated due to vertical loading (dead + live) on the wall panel. Self weight of
wall panel and load from the slab (dead + live) shall be considered while calculating σ dl.
43
Design Guidelines for Confined Masonry Buildings
Table 3.2 Stress Reduction Factor (ks) for Slenderness Ratio and Eccentricity
*Linear interpolation can be done to obtain the required value. In special cases, the
eccentricity of loading lies between l/3 and l/2 of the thickness of the member, the stress
reduction factor should vary linearly between unity and 0.20 for slenderness ratio of 6 and 20
respectively. Slenderness ratio of a member for sections within l/8 of the height of the member
above or below a lateral support may be taken as 6.
Pi x hw
Where, Moment due to total lateral load acting on wall panel, M = and
2
2
tw x lw
Section Modulus, S=
6
Tensile stress shall be less than the permissible value as prescribed in Table 2.4.
44
Design Guidelines for Confined Masonry Buildings
σd
τu = 0.1 +
6
While the actual shear stress of CM wall panels are calculated at sill level by the following
expression:
Pi
τu ≥
Aw
T.L.= Self weight of wall panel+ Load coming on wall panel from the slab
For safety in overturning, >1
45
Design Guidelines for Confined Masonry Buildings
The lateral seismic load acting of CM wall panels can be calculated as:
Seismic load per unit area of the wall panel, F = A h x m x tw
2
F x hw
Ultimate Bending Moment per unit length of wall panel, Mu = 8
Mu
Bending Stress, σb =
S
Section Modulus per unit length of wall panel, S= t 2/6
Actual Stress = σb − σdl
To check wall for out-of-plane action, actual stress should be less than the tensile stress.
Figure 3.8 Anchorage of Longitudinal Bars of Tie Beam into Tie Column at End Span
46
Design Guidelines for Confined Masonry Buildings
The first stirrup shall be provided at a distance of 50 mm from face of the column. The
typical ductile detailing of reinforcement in bond beam is shown in Figure 3.9
By following above requirements, the bond beams are designed considering lateral load
acting on the wall panel.
Pi
Area of steel in bond beam is given by, Ast = fy
The minimum diameter of stirrups shall be 6 mm. Stirrups shall meet the following
requirements for spacing:
Maximum spacing of deff/2 at the mid-span.
At the either ends, over a length of 2deff from column inner face, spacing shall be kept
minimum of deff/4 or 8 times the diameter of the longitudinal bar. But in no case, it shall be
less than 100 mm
Spacing between stirrups shall be calculated as minimum of the followings -
0.87 fy Asv
Sv =
0.4 x B
= 0 . 75 D
= 300 mm
47
Design Guidelines for Confined Masonry Buildings
Tie columns should be located at all corners and wall intersections of structural walls.
At mid height of tie-column, spacing of stirrups shall not exceed half the least lateral
dimension of the column.
Special confining reinforcement shall be provided at either ends of the column over a
maximum length of larger lateral dimension of the member, l c/6, and 450 mm (Figure
3.10a).
The spacing of stirrups in special confining reinforcement shall not exceed l/4 of minimum
member dimension. But in no case it shall be less than 75 mm nor more than 100 mm (Figure
3.10).
Around the openings i.e. window, a nominal reinforcement as detailed in Figure 3.10 (c)
shall be provided.
Cross ties or a pair of over lapping stirrups shall be provided wherever parallel legs of stirrups
are spaced at a distance of more than 300 mm c/c as shown in the Figure 3.11.
(a)
Figure 3.10 Detailing of Tie Column for CM Building
48
Design Guidelines for Confined Masonry Buildings
3.8 FOUNDATION
The foundation system applicable for CM buildings shall be governed by the local site
conditions. However, some of the important points to be considered are:
The foundations shall be laid on hard and well compacted strata.
The selection of type of foundation shall be as per local site condition, practices and may be
designed accordingly. A typical RC strip footing is shown in Figure 3.12a.
Foundation for CM buildings on clayey soil, under reamed cast-in-situ pile foundations can
be adopted as given in Figure 3.12 b.
(a) (b)
RC Strip Footing Pile Foundation
Figure 3.12 Alternative Foundation System for Confined Masonry Building
49
Design Guidelines for Confined Masonry Buildings
CHAPTER 4
EXPERIMENTAL STUDY ON CONFINED MASONRY
4.1 BACKDROP
Masonry, a material as old as the civilizations, has record of good performance and lasting
qualities, however, due to relatively low capacity in tension and shear it performs poorly in
seismic events. The future of masonry in buildings is limited unless improvisations of its seismic
resistant features are incorporated. The consistent development in masonry construction has
evolved various techniques namely unreinforced masonry (URM), reinforced masonry (RM)
and confined masonry (CM). Also, a large departure in material properties of masonry in
Indian context is observed as compared to US and European countries. Confined masonry, a
structural system, consists of normal masonry wall panels strengthened by confining lightly
reinforced-concrete elements at all intersections and periphery. The confining feature in
masonry is achieved by its sequence of construction, in which reinforcement is erected from
foundation and masonry walls are constructed prior to casting of columns, forcing the wall and
concrete element to be an integral unit. The area of steel in RC elements is determined on the
basis of height and size of building, with no contribution in load resistance (EC 8, 2004). It is well
understood that CM performed well in past earthquakes, worldwide. These issues attract the
interest for experimental studies on full-scale CM, and compare the performance with URM
and RM buildings with similar configurations. Hence, there is a need of an integrated
approach to reliably investigate the seismic characteristics and performance of complex
structures under controlled cyclic lateral load to study the behaviour of full-scale masonry
buildings, confined masonry in particular. The chosen test building comprised mostly of the
typical features commonly existing in practice in India viz. openings for door/windows,
door/window frame, a few walls with opening / without openings, prevailing construction
practices etc., for realistic estimation of different parameters.
51
Design Guidelines for Confined Masonry Buildings
Experimental investigation was carried out on a single storey, full-scale confined masonry building
subjected to uni-directional reversed cyclic lateral displacements with increasing amplitudes at a
very low frequency. Photo 4.1 shows a view of tested URM, RM and CM buildings, while the
structural details of these buildings are given in Table 4.1.
Photo 4.1 Full-scale masonry building models (a) Un-reinforced masonry (URM) (b) Reinforced
masonry (RM) with RC band and corner vertical reinforcement (c) Confined masonry
(CM)
52
Design Guidelines for Confined Masonry Buildings
ISOMETRIC VIEW
(b) Plan
53
Design Guidelines for Confined Masonry Buildings
The model had opening in walls, a door (0.8mx2.01m) on out-of-plane wall (wall-3) and a
window (0.75mx1.22m) at in-plane wall (wall-2), placed at centre of the respective panel. The
top of the openings were placed at same level, so as to have continuous bond-beam at lintel
level, aligning with the practice being commonly adopted in Indian construction and culture.
The full-scale building model was constructed in Heavy Testing Laboratory of CSIR-CBRI,
Roorkee, India. As the building model was built on strong floor of the laboratory, it was not
provided with traditional style of foundation system. However, RC beams of size 230x150mm
under the wall were first cast on strong floor and adequately fastened against horizontal
sliding/overturning with the help of nut and bolt arrangement.
Although, it is more appropriate to perform such tests on a shake table to obtain more realistic
experimental information about seismic performance, however, to take advantage of some
of the merits associated with quasi-static test (QST) and the resource constraints, the QST test
procedure was adopted. This method was economical and commonly adopted for obtaining
test data on inelastic behavior of specimen wherein prescribed displacement or load histories
are imposed. The prescribed displacement histories are particularly important in assessing
inelastic behavior of structure by subjecting a set of cyclic displacement histories of increasing
amplitude at a very low frequency. These tests provide the reverse character of the load that
distinguishes dynamic response to unidirectional static load. As the load application points are
fixed, the moments and shear forces are always in phase, which cannot be achieved in
dynamic response.
54
Design Guidelines for Confined Masonry Buildings
Photo 4.2 Stages of construction of a full-scale confined masonry building model (a)
Construction of masonry wall with provision of reinforcement in tie-column (b)
Providing shuttering on two faces of tie-column (c) Casting of tie-column followed
by subsequent masonry (d) Provision of keys in masonry and concrete for better
bonding at interfac (e) Subsequent shuttering of tie column (f) Completed confined
masonry model
Photo 4.3 Arrangement of actuator and lateral cyclic displacement distributing system for
QST on CM building
55
Design Guidelines for Confined Masonry Buildings
The displacements of a test structure during the test are controlled by means of actuator
controller system during the tests, which respond to the difference between the command
signal and the measured displacement. The swivel head of actuator was connected to
grillage load distributing system which pushes or pulls the test structure and its base is fixed to
the RC reaction wall at 3.0m above floor level i.e. at roof level of masonry building. The desired
displacement history was programmed as input to the actuator. Photo 4.3 shows a view of
arrangements of actuator and the loading system for reversed cyclic lateral displacement
application on confined masonry building model.
To acquire the data during uni-directional lateral cyclic test, LVDTs were deployed to
measure the deformation at appropriate locations of the confined masonry building. Ten
LVDTs were placed to measure local displacement and to track in-plane rotational
movement of test structure at roof level. An independent support system from test structure
was fabricated using slotted angles to mount the LVDTs and was fixed to the strong floor. To
measure displacement of the CM building, as a response, when subjected to reversed
cyclic lateral displacements, LVDTs were mounted at appropriate locations.
The model was instrumented using LVDTs and Dial gauges to measure displacements,
flexural and shear deformations, base uplift, and relative sliding.
56
Design Guidelines for Confined Masonry Buildings
crack in masonry walls, its propagation and implication of such cracks on the distribution of
forces were studied. To facilitate comparison among masonry construction systems, different
damage states i.e. elastic (crack) limit, maximum resistance and ultimate failure were
considered as important performance milestones. The control points were derived by bilinear
idealization of experimental lateral load-displacement envelope data. The elastic crack limit
state, was described at initiation of first significant crack in mortar joint which changes initial
stiffness, resolute by lateral load (Hcr) and displacement (dcr). Maximum lateral load (Hmax)
and corresponding displacment (d H-max) of the building was obtained on attainment of
maximum resistance state. Similarly, ultimate state of collapse was determined on
attainment of maximum lateral displacement (dd-max) at corrosponding resistance (Hd-
max).
4.4.1 Sequence of Cracking
Under the applied low cyclic incremental lateral loading on CM building model,
occurrence of first minor horizontal crack appears at 7mm lateral displacement in 8th
course mortar joint of wall-1. Subsequently, significant crack was noticed at wall centre in
the second course from bottom of in-plane wall (wall-2) and also in top-most course
between RC slab and masonry of out-of-plane wall (wall-1) at associated lateral load of
131kN (0.31% drift) in 12mm displacement cycle. At 14mm displacement cycle, occurence
of horizontal cracks in lower courses of wall-1, wall-2 and wall-3 were noticed in mortar joint.
The initiation of stepped diagonal crack at corners of window opening of wall-2 was
noticed and it continued in diagonal fashion passing through brick unit-mortar joint. This
occurred at a displacement cycle of 16mm having measured drift of 0.53% with 135kN
lateral resistance of CM building. Further the increase in lateral displacement resulted in
increasing lateral load resistance upto a maximum of 152.25 kN at 0.83% drift (25mm
displacement). The associated damage in CM building model comprised cracks in bond
beam at mid-span of wall-2 (over opening), and beginning of inclined diagonal crack at
column ends. The cracks formed almost in all the walls were primarily horizontal cracks at
lower courses extending to half of the length of the bed joint, and began to widen-up at
34mm displacement load step. On achieving 42 mm displacment load step, the wall-1, wall-
2 and wall-3 sustained severe cracking with increased crack width. Intrestingly, the
separation of concrete-masonry interface at 40mm groove was noticed on the out-of-plane
wall-3, having door opening, at a height of 1.1m above floor level, at a measured lateral
load of 138kN corresponding to 1.2% drift (42mm displacement). This particular crack further
extended to mid-height of opening in stepped diagonal smeared crack mode at mortar-
brick unit interface in next higher loading. At the same juncture, severe cracking of brick unit
and at lower corner of in-plane wall (wall-2, wall-4) masonry panels and spalling of concrete
cover, crushing of core concrete at end regions of tie-columns was observed. Nevertheless,
no separation or cracks at brick masonry - tie-column concrete interface was noticed in in-
plane walls façade. At the end of 50mm displacement load step, crack pattern of the walls
were due to mixed in-plane and out-of-plane resisting mechanism of confined masonry-RC
element in tie-column/bond-beam and RC rigid diaphram slab. The presence of confining
RC elements in all walls demonstrates a unison integral action in lateral load resistance and
promote sliding resistance mechanism in masonry under the action of lateral load. At the
later steps, i.e. 54 mm lateral displacement, the progression of crack at end region of tie-
columns, further extended upto longitudinal reinforcement, causing bending of longitudinal
bars at associated measured drift of 1.8% with lateral load resistance of 132.92 kN. Figure 4.3
shows the final crack pattern in different walls of CM building.
57
Design Guidelines for Confined Masonry Buildings
Stress zone of in-plane walls of building and crushing of brick units at compression toe. Similar
nature of cracks were also observed on out-of-plane walls with openings as a result of
movement along with in-plane walls forming flange effect. It was also seen that the
presence of bond beam at lintel level restricts the extension of cracks from masonry below
bond beam to spandral masonry. Also bond-beam allowed horizontal crack to propagate
towards tie column with increased damage in lower half of in-plane walls. These cracks
were restricted within masonry due to confinement of RC elements. The sequence of crack
occurrence on CM building may be summarised as formation of horizontal crack in mortar
joint and moving towards tie-column; stepped diagonal crack penetrating into tie-beam
and tie-column; over- turning horizontal cracks on out-of-plane walls; spalling of cover
concrete and crushing of core concrete of tie-column, crushing of masonry at toe of in-
plane wall panel; crushing of brick at mid crack section of out-of-plane walls; and bending
of longitudinal bars of tie-column at end region. These observations of crack pattern
enables to clarify the sliding mechanism development along the crack defining discrete
brick units. The global/local collapse of confined masonry or RC elements did not occur, at
a higher level of loading, satisfynig the life safety philosophy of seismic design. However,
the test was stopped just before excessive deformation, and widening of cracks at 1.8% drift
58
Design Guidelines for Confined Masonry Buildings
so as to protect the equipments from damage, although the test structure had sufficient
strength to sustain further displacement.
The tendency for smeared cracking along diagonals may be attributed to the presence of
reinforcement in confining RC elements and thus averting the crack localization. At low axial
stress levels, failure occurred by simple rotation of upper region of CM building model and
sliding along the bed joint leading to stepped diagonal crack through mortar joint, without
visible cracking in brick units. The failure mode of CM building under lateral load suggests that
primarily cracks occurred in horizontal mortar joint due to exceedance of shear stress than that
of bond strength between brick unit and mortar leading to sliding shear failure. As observed
during the test, the failure modes of in-plane walls of CM building can be classified as sliding
shear, diagonal shear in sill masonry and flexure. Similarly, failure mode of out-of-plane walls of
CM building comprised bending and over-turning.
The seismic performance of CM building was obtained from the envelope of hysteresis
curves, which describe maximum resistance (Hmax), and maximum lateral displacment (dd-
max) attained by building during the test. Figure 4.4 shows the hysteresis curve plotted by
taking into account peaks of resisting force and corresponding displacement amplitude
from the measured data during cyclic test on CM building. These values were average of
three repetative cycles of same amplitude in positive (push) and negative (pull) direction of
loading at a given displacement amplitude. The symmetrical form of hysteresis was also
observed indicating almost identical behaviour of the model in push and pull loading.
59
Design Guidelines for Confined Masonry Buildings
The different limit states, namely elastic (crack) limit, maximum resistance and ultimate
failure state, were considered for comparison of seismic behavior of the different masonry
buildings. The elastic crack limit state corresponds to initiation of first horizontal crack in mortar
joint that changes initial stiffness of the building, resolute by lateral load (H cr) and
displacement (dcr). At the attainment of maximum resistance, maximum lateral load
(Hmax) and the corresponding lateral displacment (dH-max) of the building were
determined. Similarly, the ultimate state of collapse was obtained by attainment of
maximum lateral displacement (dd-max) and the corresponding lateral load resistance (Hd-
max).
The ultimate lateral load carrying capacity of the building was obtained as 152.25kN at an
associated storey drift of 0.838%. The significant initial cracks were observed at a lateral
displacement of 9.39 mm with an associated lateral load of 131.04 kN. The residual strength
of 2.304kN and 4.0 mm permanent displacement were measured at the end of the test on
the CM building. As can be seen that among different masonry systems, highest values of
lateral strength of 152.25 kN with maximum recorded drift of 1.8% was obtained for CM, as
compared to URM and RM buildings. The maximum lateral strength recorded for URM and
RM building was 44.5 kN and 57.85 kN respectively, at corresponding drift of 0.12% and
0.79%. This shows that the confinement of masonry with RC elements significantly improved
the lateral strength of CM building. The enhancement in lateral strength of CM building was
observed 3.42 times of the strength of URM building. Similarly, the lateral deformation of CM
building was increased by 15 times the displacement capacity of URM building.
The summary of hysteresis behaviour of CM building at limit states are given in Table 4. 2. The
table also shows a comparison of these parameters with URM and RM buildings, which were
tested in similar fashion, prior to the present test of CM building. In terms of acceleration due
to gravity, (g), CM resisted lateral load equivalent to 0.96g of its mass whereas URM and RM
withstood 0.29g and 0.38g of its mass respectively.
60
Design Guidelines for Confined Masonry Buildings
Table 4.2 Comparision of Lateral Resistance, Deformation at Control Point for Different
Masonry Building Systems
The hysteresis envelope of the CM building suggests a considerable ductile behaviour before
failure. Similar displacement profiles were obtained for wall-1 and wall-3 indicating the unison
behaviour of model with a very small torsion.
61
Design Guidelines for Confined Masonry Buildings
Figure 4.6 illustrates the drift along the height of CM building at different damage states
showing distinct drift profiles. In general, the lateral drift in CM was higher in the lower region
(below lintel level), which was associated with higher level of damage development at this
location. From the figure, it can be attributed that due to the presence of lintel bond beam,
a small difference in drifts was noted. This resulted in limited damage in spandral masonry
showing effectiveness of lintel bond beam. It is to be noted that the full-scale test of CM was
terminated just before reaching the collapse stage of the building (1.8% drift) in order to
avoid damage to instruments/equipments, although the building had further
displacement/ductility capacity. The reported final drift of the building may have slightly
higher deformation had the test continued further, till actual failure.
Table 4.3 shows the comparison of drift obtained for different masonry buildings. In general,
the in-plane drifts are quite low in RM and URM as compared to CM building. Higher drift,
lateral resistance and low damage in CM, confirms the suitability of CM building for better
seismic performance.
62
Design Guidelines for Confined Masonry Buildings
Table 4.3 Comparision of Drift, Ductility and Seismic Behaviour Factors for Different Masonry
Building Model
Building Typology
URM
The amount of cumulative input and dissipated energies produced at different limit states of
performance for various masonry are tabulated in Table 4.4. Also the energy ratio was
expressed as ratio between Ediss and Einp, at maximum displacement. It was noticed that
among all the masonry building systems, CM building showed highest cumulative dissipated
and input energy. As can be seen that URM building had lowest energy ratio, referring to
poor seismic performance of such construction under cyclic lateral loads.
Table 4.4 Comparision of Input and Cumulative Dissipated Energy for Different Masonry Building
Model
Cumulative Disspated
Building Input Energy, Einp , kN/mm Energy
Energy, Ediss, kN/mm
Typology Ratio,%
dH- dd - dH- dd -
d1 dcr d1 dcr
max max max max
63
Design Guidelines for Confined Masonry Buildings
Table 4. 5 Base Shear Coefficient and Behaviour Factor for Different Masonry System
Figure 4. 7 Resistance Curve of Different Masonry System: Base Shear Coefficient- Storey Drift
Relationship
64
Design Guidelines for Confined Masonry Buildings
strength of an ideal bi-linear system equivalent to the nonlinear capacity curve and may be
considered as an estimate of ultimate base shear capacity of the structure. According to
energy equivalence criteria, normally it corresponds to 20% degradation of maximum
resistance, HH,max, and may be represented as H 0.8H-max.
Hle,max
Lateral Resistance (P)
Response
Damage limitation
Hcr
Elastic limit
requirement
requirement
No collapse
Collapse
dcr dθ d Pmax d0.8 H-max
Displacement (d)4.8
Figure 4.8 Progression of Damage for Masonry Construction
The above equation takes into account minimum ductility capacity for estimating structural
behaviour factor (R), posing upper limit to be considered for reduction of seismic forces. In
other words, verification of design loads for seismic resistance of masonry structure using
structural behaviour factor R, shall be governed by
μu = 0.5 (R2 + 1)
Table 4.8 also give experimentally obtained behaviour factor Rmax and designed
behaviour factor (Rd) for tested masonry systems.
Alternatively, the behaviour factor may be computed using global ductility of the structure,
following the principle described in Figure 4.8. Table 4.6 summarizes the drift at different
damage states and global ductility factors, for tested masonry systems. The ductility based
values of behaviour factor (Ru), considering drift corresponding to ultimate displacement at
80% of maximum resistant, 0.8H, max and storey drift at damage limit state were calculated.
As can be seen that the behaviour factor obtained through force and ductility based
approach, applied on the experimental data are adequate for Indian condition when
compared with the range of values suggested in EC-6 (2004) for URM and RM. On the contrary,
65
Design Guidelines for Confined Masonry Buildings
the behaviour factor values given in EC-6 (2004) are marginally lower for CM buildings when
compared with the obtained values for Indian CM. Time and again, it was noted that all the
full-scale tests were terminated just before reaching the collapse stage of building so as to
avoid damage to instruments/equipments, although the buildings had further
displacement/ductility capacity. This would result into further increase in behaviour factor and
may exceed the range mentioned at EC-6. This implies that in case of URM and RM, the ranges
of R-values suggested by the code are reasonable corresponding to limitation of damage in
the structure. However, the ranges of R-value for CM prescribed in the code are relatively
under-estimated. Additionally, material over-strength may be expected as a result of partial
safety factor for material strength for which mechanism models are used for seismic resistance.
Table 4.6 Behaviour Factor in Terms of Ductility for Different Masonry Systems
Building e,i cr u,i(0.8max) H-max µu Rcr/e,i Ru
Designation
URM 0.123 0.095 0.128 0.237 1.34 1.29 1.30
RM 0.473 0.159 0.655 0.397 4.11 2.97 2.69
CM 1.061 0.313 1.800 0.782 5.75 3.39 3.24
Following the experimentally obtained data and ignoring material over-strength factor,
behaviour factor values in case of CM may be modified in code (EC-6) as 2.5-3.25 even when
damage limitation and adequate performance requirement of CM will not be exceeded. A
special mention can be made in regard to proper reinforcement detailing (i.e. confined lateral
ties at the end region and joints) for these ranges of R-values.
1. The tested masonry building viz. URM, RM and CM exhibited distinct behaviour in terms
of crack pattern and deformation characteristics. Due to restrained-rocking
mechanism, CM buildings suffer from flexural and sliding/diagonal shear failure in in-
plane walls while at higher displacement, crushing of masonry at compression toe,
spalling of concrete and bending of reinforcement of tie column resulted in strength
degradation by around 13%. The confining elements i.e. tie-column and bond-beams,
were found to be very effective in offering confinement to masonry. The closely spaced
lateral ties at 100mm c/c at end regions of tie-column controlled the crushing of core
concrete and improved the performance. As expected, URM suffered brittle failure with
66
Design Guidelines for Confined Masonry Buildings
excessive diagonal cracks in walls and sliding of RC roof, whereas use of RC band and
vertical reinforcement at corners in RM building improves the seismic performance
considerably.
4. Among all the tested building, CM exhibited substantial increase in lateral strength,
stiffness, ductility and energy dissipation capacity. The lateral strength achieved by
URM and RM buildings was only about 29% and 38% respectively as compared to the
lateral strength of CM. The high initial stiffness in CM was attributed due to presence of
confining elements. Steady-stiffness degradation after cracking, with 10% residual
stiffness at the maximum displacement was obtained for RM and CM buildings.
5. The maximum drift (1.8%) and ductility (5.75) were achieved for CM building. Albeit, the
test was terminated just before reaching collapse stage, to avoid damage to
instruments / equipments, however the building had adequate capacity.
6. The behaviour factors, as 1.36, 3.0 and 3.33 for URM, RM and CM respectively were
obtained using equal energy and equal displacement approaches. Although, the
behaviour factor for URM and RM are in agreement with EC-8, but these values for CM is
under-estimated. The upper-bound values upto 3.4 can be practiced in the design of
CM buildings. Similarly, highest energy dissipation capacity was observed in CM
buildings.
7. Provision of bond beam at lintel level of CM, encased spandrel masonry within cast-in-
situ RC slab bond beam and tie columns, resulted in controlling damage.
67
Design Guidelines for Confined Masonry Buildings
CHAPTER 5
DESIGN EXAMPLE
5.1 PROBLEM STATEMENT
Design a confined masonry building for the plan shown in Figure 5.1, located in seismic zone IV.
Evaluate maximum number of storey which can be built for the given geometry and material
specifications.
69
Design Guidelines for Confined Masonry Buildings
Parameter Value
Building plan is divided into grids by numbering walls in X direction as A to E and in Y direction as
1 to 11 as shown in the plan (Figure 5.1). Columns are marked in red colour.
The wall panels are labelled as combination of “Grid along Y-direction followed by grid along
X-direction”.
In this example, calculations are shown for wall panels in X and Y directions for ground floor.
Similar calculations can be carried out for the remaining floors. Comparative summary (in the
form of tables) of analysis results of confined masonry building upto 4 storeys along with
structural drawing has been given at the end.
70
Design Guidelines for Confined Masonry Buildings
Figure 5.2 Elevation of Panel AC1 Showing different Piers (dimensions in mm)
Opening for ventilation in wall AC1 has been neglected in the analysis due to its smaller
dimensions.
Em tw
Stiffness of a pier, Kf =
hw 3 h
+3 w
lw lw
Calculations for equivalent stiffness of wall panel AC1 are shown below.
.
Pier 1 (top): K1 = . .
= 0.340 m E
. .
.
Pier 2 (along opening): K2 = . .
= 0.0085 m E
. .
.
Pier 3 (along opening): K3 = . .
= 0.111 m E
. .
71
Design Guidelines for Confined Masonry Buildings
.
Pier 4 (bottom): K4 = = 0.270 m E
. .
KW = 0.066 m E
Similarly, stiffness for other wall panels is shown in the Table 5.4.
72
Design Guidelines for Confined Masonry Buildings
Stiffness of wall panels in X and Y directions are added separately to obtain building stiffness in
both the directions.
73
Design Guidelines for Confined Masonry Buildings
( ) ( ) ⋯ ( )
Y = ( ⋯ )
= 4204 mm
K = K Y′ + K X′
74
Design Guidelines for Confined Masonry Buildings
Kt = 25.69 m E
75
Design Guidelines for Confined Masonry Buildings
. .
= . .
x 99
= 99 kN (in X direction)
. .
= . .
x 121
76
Design Guidelines for Confined Masonry Buildings
Q Q
F = K F = K
∑K ∑K
= 12.6 kN
Force due to torsion,
Qe Qe
F = Y′ ∑K F = X ′ ∑K
K K
= 21.44 kN
77
Design Guidelines for Confined Masonry Buildings
78
Design Guidelines for Confined Masonry Buildings
Mo = Pi x hw/2
Mo = 34.03 x 3/2 = 51.05 kN-m
Mr = T.L. x hw
Total gravity load for wall panel = Self weight of panel + Load coming from slab (dead + live)
= (3 x 0.23 x 3.615 x 19) + 22.14 + 14.17
= 83.7 kN
79
Design Guidelines for Confined Masonry Buildings
Pcomp = kS x fm
0.69 0.252
Where fm = 0. 422 fb fmo
fm = 0.422 x 10.50.69 x 30.252
fm = 2.819 N/mm2
For wall panel AC1:
Slenderness Ratio, hw/tw = 3000/ 230 = 13.04
As per Table 3.2, ks = 0.81
Pcomp = 2.6σdl
2.6σdl = 2.6 x 0.101
= 0.263 N/mm
2
80
Design Guidelines for Confined Masonry Buildings
Now
f wn
W ≥
P
. .
Therefore Pcomp (minimum required) = .
Now, W ≥
. .
Therefore Pcomp (minimum required) = .
81
Design Guidelines for Confined Masonry Buildings
M= and S=
/
Therefore, σ = /
- 0.101
= 0.001 N/mm2
σt = 0.001 N/mm2 < 0.25 N/mm2, Safe in tension
82
Design Guidelines for Confined Masonry Buildings
0.083
τ = 0.1 +
6
= 0.114 N/mm
2
Pi
Actual shear stress acting on wall panel AC1 =
Aw
= (34.02 x 1000)/ (230 x 3615)
= 0.04 N/mm
2
83
Design Guidelines for Confined Masonry Buildings
Now,
A f wn
W ≥
τ
Wd = 6.8%
Now,
A f wn
W =
τ
. . .
Therefore τu (Minimum required) =
.
84
Design Guidelines for Confined Masonry Buildings
85
Design Guidelines for Confined Masonry Buildings
.
A =
A = 108.35 mm2
4 x 3.14 x 25
Pt = x 100
230 x 230
= 0.594%
Asv = 2 x 3.14 x 32
= 56.52 mm2
.
Sv = .
. .
Sv = .
= 221 mm
or
or
= 300 mm
86
Design Guidelines for Confined Masonry Buildings
h
A = (1 + 0.25k)P
l f
For tie column in wall panel AC1 (C1),
A = (1 + 0.25 x 0) x 34030 x
= 68 mm2
As per IS 13920: 1993, the spacing of the stirrups shall not exceed half the least lateral dimension
of the column.
Also, the length of special confining reinforcement shall not be less than larger lateral
dimension of the member at the section where yielding may occur, 1/6 of the clear span of the
member and 450 mm.
Therefore, length of special confining reinforcement is larger of 230 mm, 1/6 x 3000 = 500 mm
and 450 mm.
The spacing of stirrups in special confinement reinforcement shall not exceed ¼ of the
minimum member dimension but need not be less than 75 mm or more than 100 mm.
Therefore, provide stirrups at a spacing of 75 mm at 500 mm from either end. And provide
stirrups at a spacing of 160 mm at mid span of the column.
The above exercise demonstrates that the maximum four storey confined masonry residential
can be built for the above case in seismic zone IV of India. A typical detailing of confined
masonry building is shown in Figure 5.9 for seismic zone IV. In contrast the same building can be
built in seismic zone V of the country with a few additional features i.e. bond beam around
openings, as shown in Figure 5.10.
A comparative summary for G to G+3 structure for critical wall panels (AC1 for 230 mm thick
wall) and CE3 (115 mm thick wall) has been given in Tables 5.14 and 5.15 respectively.
87
Design Guidelines for Confined Masonry Buildings
Table 5.14 Comparative Summary for Wall Panel AC1 upto 4-Storey CM Building (for 230 mm thick Wall Panel)
Storey
G G+1 G+2 G+3 Unit
Design Parameter
X 99 314 516 713 kN
Base Shear
Y 121 314 516 713 kN
Required Wall Density 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 %
Whole Structure
Wall Density for
Permissible Compressive
- 2.28 2.28 2.28 N/mm2
Stress
Actual Compressive Stress G+1 - 0.103 0.206 0.309 N/mm2
Safe / Unsafe - Safe Safe Safe
Permissible Compressive
- - 2.28 2.28 N/mm2
Stress
Actual Compressive Stress G+2 - - 0.103 0.206 N/mm2
Safe / Unsafe - - Safe Safe
Permissible Compressive - - - 2.28 N/mm2
Stress
Actual Compressive Stress G+3 - - - 0.103 N/mm2
Safe / Unsafe - - - Safe
Permissible Tensile Stress 0.250 0.250 0.250 0.250 N/mm2
Tensile Stress
Check for
89
Design Guidelines for Confined Masonry Buildings
Stress
90
Design Guidelines for Confined Masonry Buildings
91
Design Guidelines for Confined Masonry Buildings
Table 5.15 Comparative Summary for Wall Panel CE3 upto 4-Storey CM Building (for 115 mm thick Wall Panel)
Storey
G G+1 G+2 G+3 Unit
Design Parameter
X 99 314 516 713 kN
Base Shear
Y 121 314 516 713 kN
Required Wall Density 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 %
Whole Structure
Wall Density for
92
Design Guidelines for Confined Masonry Buildings
Permissible Compressive
- 2.28 2.28 2.28 N/mm2
Stress
Actual Compressive Stress G+1 - 0.149 0.298 0.448 N/mm2
Safe / Unsafe - Safe Safe Safe
Permissible Compressive
- - 2.28 2.28 N/mm2
Stress
Actual Compressive Stress G+2 - - 0.149 0.298 N/mm2
Safe / Unsafe - - Safe Safe
Permissible Compressive
- - - 2.28 N/mm2
Stress
Actual Compressive Stress G+3 - - - 0.149 N/mm2
Safe / Unsafe - - - Safe
Permissible Tensile Stress 0.250 0.250 0.250 0.250 N/mm2
Tensile Stress
Check for
93
Design Guidelines for Confined Masonry Buildings
Shear
Stress
94
Design Guidelines for Confined Masonry Buildings
95
Design Guidelines for Confined Masonry Buildings
G+3 - - - Safe
G Safe Safe Safe Safe
G+1 - Safe Safe Safe
Tensile Stress
G+2 - - Safe Safe
G+3 - - - Safe
G Safe Safe Safe Safe
Shear Strength from Wall G+1 - Safe Safe Safe
Density G+2 - - Safe Safe
G+3 - - - Safe
G Safe Safe Safe Safe
G+1 - Safe Safe Safe
Shear Stress G+2 - - Safe Safe
G+3 - - - Safe
96
Design Guidelines for Confined Masonry Buildings
Reinforcement G+2 - - 4 – 10 mm ϕ 4 – 12 mm ϕ
G+3 - - - 4 – 10 mm ϕ
Shear Reinforcement 2 legged 6 mm 2 legged 6 mm 2 legged 6 mm 2 legged 6 mm
ϕ ϕ ϕ ϕ
Spacing of Stirrups 150 mm 150 mm 150 mm 150 mm
Dimensions 230 x 230 mm 230 x 230 mm 230 x 230 mm 230 x 230 mm
Design Details of Tie
G 4 – 10 mm ϕ 4 – 12 mm ϕ 4 – 16 mm ϕ 4 – 16 mm ϕ
Longitudinal G+1 - 4 – 10 mm ϕ 4 – 12 mm ϕ 4 – 12 mm ϕ
Column
Reinforcement G+2 - - 4 – 12 mm ϕ 4 – 12 mm ϕ
G+3 - - - 4 – 10 mm ϕ
Shear Reinforcement 2 legged 6 mm 2 legged 6 mm 2 legged 6 mm 2 legged 6 mm
ϕ ϕ ϕ ϕ
Spacing of Stirrups 150 mm 150 mm 150 mm 150 mm
97
Design Guidelines for Confined Masonry Buildings
Figure 5.3 Typical Layout of Tie-Column and Bond-Beam at Ground and First Floor
97
Design Guidelines for Confined Masonry Buildings
Figure 5.4 Typical Layout of Tie-Column and Bond-Beam for Second Floor
98
Design Guidelines for Confined Masonry Buildings
99
Design Guidelines for Confined Masonry Buildings
Notes:
Use M20 grade of concrete and Fe415 as reinforcement.
Not more than 50 % of bars shall be spliced at one section.
Ld = Development length = 47 x db
db = Diameter of longitudinal bar
deff = Effective depth
Notes:
Use M20 grade of concrete and Fe415 as reinforcement.
Not more than 50 % of bars shall be spliced at one section.
Ld = Development length = 47 x db
db = Diameter of longitudinal bar
deff = Effective depth
100
Design Guidelines for Confined Masonry Buildings
6 @ 6@
C1 230 X 230
150c/c 150c/c
6 @ 6@
C2 230 X 230
150c/c 150c/c
6 @ 6@
C3 230 X 230
150c/c 150c/c
6 @ 6@
C4 230 X 230
150c/c 150c/c
Notes :
Lap splices shall be provided only in the central half of the column clear height.
Only 50 % of the bars shall be spliced at one section.
Ld = Development length = 47 x db
db = Diameter of longitudinal bar
101
Design Guidelines for Confined Masonry Buildings
To carry out economic study of different building typologies in Indian buildings, 20 complex
building plans ranging upto 4 storeys were considered.
Figure 5.1 shows a typical plan of a building consisting of living rooms, kitchen, stair-case
and balcony etc., which is commonly adopted building layout in India, with a storey height
ranging between 3 to 3.50 m. These buildings were designed as RC, URM, RM and CM for
common design parameters i.e. seismic zone IV (PGA = 0.24g), live load (2 kN/sqm), and
founded on soil having safe bearing capacity of 100 kN/sqm at 1.50 m from natural ground
level. Similarly, uniform material properties viz. grade of concrete (M20), grade of
reinforcement (Fe415), masonry (compressive strength - 3.5 N/mm2, in cement: sand (1:6)
mortar with 19.2 kN as masonry density) were considered in the design.
Confined masonry buildings were designed with three different features. Firstly, the buildings
were comprised of only tie-column and bond-beams (CM1), secondly, in CM2 building with
additional feature of RC element around openings. The CM3 building consists of RC
elements around opening for full height/width of the panel and 1 number of 8 mm
diameter, horizontal reinforcement in mortar joint of masonry at every fourth course. A
typical detail illustrating the various options of confined masonry considered for deriving
economic aspects are given in Figure 5.11.
The RC buildings were designed in accordance with the design procedure detailed in this
guidelines and relevant Indian standards viz. IS-456:2000, IS-875:2003, IS-1893:2002, and IS-
13920:2003. Similarly, URM, RM and CM buildings were designed as per IS-4326:2013, IS-
1903:2003, IS-456:2000, IS-875:2003, and IS-1893:2002. The detailed estimation of quantity of
each building sample was carried out for different items and their costs are calculated
based on prevailing market rates in India and CPWD-Delhi Schedule of Rates (DSR) (2013).
102
Design Guidelines for Confined Masonry Buildings
Figure 5.9 Typical view of four storey confined masonry building in seismic zone IV
Figure 5.10 Typical view of Four Storey Confined Masonry Building In Seismic Zone V
103
Design Guidelines for Confined Masonry Buildings
Figure 5.11 shows the average overall construction cost along with cost of major items for
different building typologies. To have more clarity in cost comparison, the values are expressed
in terms of percentage of total cost of RCC building, as a reference. As can be seen that URM
costs 64.4% to that of RCC building costruction cost. Similarly, RM, CM1, CM2 and CM3 costs an
average of 67.6%, 69.33%, 70.76% and 71.68% respectively. The figure indicates that average
cost of construction of foundation is almost similar in case of URM, RM and CM while it is slightly
higher for RCC buildings. However, higher cost component are involved towards
reinforcement and concrete for RCC buildings.
Based on the above analysis, it can be summarised that CM, RM and URM buildings allow for
average cost reduction of structure by 30%, 33% and 36% respectively, with reference to RCC
framed buildings. However, CM offers significant amount of saving as compared to
construction cost of RCC building, contrary CM assures higher level of safety when compared
with URM/RM buildings.
Figure 5.11 Average Construction Cost of Masonry Buildings with reference to RC Framed
Structure
It is hoped that the present guidelines will serve as a useful resource for design engineers and
architects, academics, code development institutions for design of confined masonry
buildings.
104
Design Guidelines for Confined Masonry Buildings
REFERENCES
1. Agarwal, P. And Shrikhande M., “Earthquake Resistant Design of Structures”, Prentice Hall of India Pvt
Ltd., New Delhi, pp. 471, September, 2006.
2. Agrawal, S. K., Chourasia, A. and Parashar, J., “Performance Evaluation of Seismic Resisting and
Retrofitting Measures for Full-scale Brick Masonry Building under Earthquake Loads”, J. Structural
Engineering, 34 (1), 2007, pp. 56-62.
3. Aguilar, G., Meli, R., Diaz, R. and Vazquez-Del-Mercado, R., “Influence of Horizontal Reinforcement on
the Behaviour of Confined Masonry Walls.”, Proceedings of 11th conference on Earthquake
Engineering, Paper No. 1380, 1996.
4. Alcocer, S. M., "Implications Derived from Recent Research in Mexico on Confined Masonry Structures",
Proceedings of Structures, Worldwide Advances in Structural Concrete and Masonry, 1996, pp. 82-92.
5. Alcocer, S.M., Arias, J.G. and Vazquez, A., "The New Mexico City Building Code Requirements for Design
and Construction of Masonry Structures", The proceedings of the Ninth North American Masonry
Conference, Clemson, South Carolina, 2003, pp.656-667.
6. Alcocer, S.M., Arias, J.G. and Vázquez, A., “Response Assessment of Mexican Confined Masonry
Structures through Shaking Table Test”, Proceedings of 13th World Conference on Earthquake
Engineering, Vancouver, B.C., Canada, Paper no. 2130, 2004.
7. Asinari, M., “Buildings with Structural Masonry Walls Connected to Tie Columns and Bond Beams”,
M.Tech. Thesis, European School for Advanced Studies in Reduction of Seismic Risk, 2007.
8. ASTM C 62, “Standard Specification for Building Brick (Solid Masonry Units Made from Clay or Shale)”.
9. ASTM C 652, “Standard Specification for Hollow Brick (Hollow Masonry Units Made from Clay or Shale)”.
10. ASTM C 67-02 C, “Standard Test Methods for Sampling and Testing Brick and Structural Clay Tile”.
11. ASTM E 2126, “Standard Test Methods for Cyclic (Reversed) Load Test For Shear Resistance of Vertical
Elements of the Lateral Force Resisting Systems for Buildings”, ASTM, 2009.
12. ASTM. (2001a), “Standard Test Method for Compressive Strength of Hydraulic Cement Mortars”,
Masonry Test Methods and Specifications for the Building Industry, ASTM C 109/C 109M-99, 4 Ed.,
th
Philadelphia.
13. ASTM. (2001b), “Standard Test Method for Compressive Strength of Masonry Prisms”, Masonry Test
Methods and Specifications for the Building Industry, ASTM C 1314-00a, 4 Ed., Philadelphia.
th
14. ASTM. (2001c), “Standard Test Method for Sampling and Testing Brick and Structural Clay Tile.”, Masonry
Test Methods and Specifications for the Building Industry, ASTM C 67-00a, 4 Ed., Philadelphia.
th
15. Bariola, J., and Delgado, C., "Design of Confined Masonry Walls under Lateral Loading", 11 World
th
105
Design Guidelines for Confined Masonry Buildings
21. Chourasia, A., Bhattacharyya, S. K., Bhandari, N. M. and Bhargava, P., “Seismic Performance of Full-
scale Brick Masonry Buildings.”, Proceedings of 9th International Masonry Conference, Guiemaraes,
Portugal, Paper No. 1334, 2014.
22. Chourasia, A., Bhattacharyya, S. K., Bhargava, P. K., and Bhandari, N. M., “Influential Aspects on Seismic
Performance of Confined Masonry Construction.”, Natural Science, 5 ( 8 A1 ), doi:
10.4236/ns.2013.58A1007, 2013 , pp. 56-62.
23. Chourasia, A., et. al., “Confined Masonry Construction for India: Prospects and Solutions for Improved
Behaviour”, IBC Journal, New Delhi, 2015.
24. Chourasia A., et. al., “Seismic Performance of Different Masonry Buildings: A Full-Scale Experimental
Study”, Journal of Performance of Constructed Facilities, No. AC/ASCE/09, 2014.
25. CSIR-CBRI Report No. GAP-4472, “Experimental Investigation on Earthquake Resistance & Retrofitting
Measures of Full-scale Masonry Houses under Quasi-Static Conditions”, March 2006.
26. Delhi Schedule of Rates (DSR), Central Public Works Department, Government of India, 2013.
27. Drysdale, R.G., Hamid, A.A. and Baker, “Masonry Structure, Behavior and Design”, New Jersey, USA:
Prentice Hall, 1994.
28. EQ12a, “IITK-GSDMA Guidelines for Structural Use of Reinforced Masonry”, Gujarat State Disaster
Mitigation Authority, August 2005.
29. Eurocode 6, “Design of Masonry Buildings Part 1-1: Common Rules for Reinforced and Unreinforced
Masonry Structures”, EN 1996-1: CEN, Belgium, 2006.
30. Eurocode 6, “Design of Masonry Structures- Part 1-1: Common Rules for Reinforced and Unreinforced
Masonry Structures”, 2004.
31. Eurocode 6, “Design of Masonry Structures: Common rules for Reinforced and Unreinforced Masonry
Structures”, pr ENV, CEN: Brussels, 1996.
32. Eurocode 8, “Design of Structures for Earthquake Resistance-Part 3: Strengthening and Repair of
Buildings”, EN 1998-3, 2005.
33. Eurocode 8, “Design Procedures of Earthquake Resistance of Structures Part 1-3: General Rules Specific
Rules for Various Materials and Elements”, ENV1998-1-3, CEN Brussels, 1996.
34. Eurocode 8, “Design Provisions for Earthquake Resistance of Structures, Part 1-2: General Rules- General
Rules for Buildings”, ENV 1998-1-2: 1995(CEN, Brussels), 1995.
35. European Committee for Standardization, EN 1996-1-1:2005. In Eurocode 6, “Design of Masonry
Structures, Part 1-1: General rules for Reinforced and Unreinforced Masonry Structures.”, 2005.
36. European Committee for Standardization, EN 1998-1:2004. In. Eurocode 8, “Design of Structures for
Earthquake Resistance, Part 1: General rules, Seismic Actions and Rules for Buildings”, 2004.
37. European Committee for Standardization," European Standard", 2002.
38. Flores, L. E., and Alcocer, S. M., "Calculated Response of Confined Masonry Structures.", 11th World
Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Acapulco, Mexico, Paper No. 1830, 1996.
39. Irimies, M.T, "Confined Masonry Walls: The Influence of the Tie-column Vertical Reinforcement Ratio on
the Seismic Behaviour.", The Proceedings of the Twelfth European Conference on Earthquake
Engineering, No. 7, 2002.
40. Irimies, M.T., “Confined Masonry walls: The Influence of the Tie-column Vertical Reinforcement Ratio on
the Seismic Behaviour”, Proceedings of 12th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, 2000.
41. IS 1077-2002, “Indian Standard- Specification of Common Burnt Clay Building Bricks”, Bureau of Indian
Standards, New Delhi.
42. IS 1077-2002, “Indian Standard Specification of Common Burnt Clay Building Bricks”, Bureau of Indian
Standards, New Delhi.
43. IS 13920-2003, “Ductility Detailing of Reinforced Concrete Structures Subjected to Seismic Forces- Code
of Practice”, Bureau of Indian Standards, New Delhi.
106
Design Guidelines for Confined Masonry Buildings
44. IS 1893-2002, “Criteria for Earthquake Resistant Design of Structures”, Bureau of Indian Standards,
June 2002.
45. IS 1905-2002, “Code of Practice for Structural use of Unreinforced Masonry”, Bureau of Indian Standards,
New Delhi.
46. IS 2116-2002, “Indian Standard Specification for Sand or Masonry Mortars”, Bureau of Indian Standards,
New Delhi.
47. IS 2250-2000, “Code of Practice for Preparation and Use of Masonry Mortars”, Bureau of Indian
Standards, New Delhi, India.
48. IS 3495-2002 Part 1-4, “Methods of Testing of Burnt Clay Building Bricks”, Bureau of Indian Standards, New
Delhi.
49. IS 4326-2013, “Criteria of Practice for Earthquake Resistant Design and Construction of Buildings”, Bureau
of Indian Standards, New Delhi, India.
50. IS 456-2000, “Plain and Reinforced Concrete-Code of Practice”, Bureau of Indian Standards, New Delhi,
India.
51. IS 516-2004, “Indian Standard Method of Tests for Strength of Concrete”, Bureau of Indian Standards,
New Delhi.
52. IS 875-2003, “Code of Practice for Design Loads (other than earthquake) for Buildings and Structures”,
Bureau of Indian Standards, New Delhi.
53. Ishibashi, K., Meli, R., Alcocer, S.M., Leon, F., and Sanchez, T.A., "Experimental Study on Earthquake-
resistant Design of Confined Masonry Structures", Proceedings of the 10 World Conference on
th
1996.
59. Norma Técnica E. 070, Albañilería, Peruvian Code, 2006.
60. NSR-98, Titulo D: Mamposteria Estructural, Colombian Code, 1998.
61. NT E.070, “Reglamento Nacional de Edificaciones, Norma Tecnica E.070 Albanileria (National Building
Code, Technical Standard E.070 Masonry)”, Peru (in Spanish), 2006.
62. NTC-M., “Normas Técnicas Complementarias para Diseño y Construcción de Estructuras de
Mampostería”, Technical Norms for Design and Construction of Masonry Structures, Mexico, 2004.
63. Paul, D. K., “Seismic Retrofit of Unreinforced Masonry Buildings, Centre of Excellence in Disaster
Mitigation and Management”, Indian Institute of Technology, Roorkee, 2011.
64. Punmia, B.C., “Limit State Design of Reinforced Concrete”, 10th Ed., Laxmi Publications (P) Ltd., New
Delhi, 2007.
65. Raghunath, S., Rao, K., S., N. and Jagadish, K., S., "Studies on Ductility of Brick Masonry Walls with
Containment Reinforcement", Proceedings Sixth International Seminar on Structural Masonry for
Developing Countries, Indian Institute of Science, Bangalore, 11-13 October, 2000.
66. Raghuprasad, B., K., Nasir, O., B. and Amarnath, K., "Size Effect in Brick Masonry Wallets", International
Journal of research in Engineering and Technology, Vol. 3 Special Issue: 06, May, 2014.
107
Design Guidelines for Confined Masonry Buildings
67. San Bartolome, A., Quiun, D. and Torrealva, D., “Seismic Behaviour of a Three-story Half Scale Confined
Masonry Structure.”, Proceedings of 10 World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Madrid, Spain,
th
1992.
68. Tomazevic, M. and Klemenc, I., “Seismic Behaviour of Confined Masonry Walls”, J. Earthquake
Engineering and Structural Dynamics, 26, 1997, pp. 1059-1071.
69. Tomazevic, M. and Klemenc, I., “Verification of Seismic Resistance of Confined Masonry Buildings”, J.
Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics, 26, 1997, pp. 1077-1088.
70. Tomaževic, M., “Damage as a Measure for Earthquake-resistant Design of Masonry Structures: Solvenian
Experience.”, Can. J. Civil Engineering, Vol. 34, Doi: 10.1139/L07-i28, 2007, pp. 1403-1312.
71. Tomaževic, M., “Earthquake-resistant Design of Masonry Buildings.”, Series on Innovation in Structures
and Construction, Vol. 1, Imperial College Press, London, 1999.
72. Tomazevic, M., “Seismic Design of Masonry Structures”, Structural Engineering and Materials, 1(1), 1997,
pp. 88-95.
73. Tomazevic, M., “Some Aspect of Experimental Testing of Seismic Behaviour of Masonry Walls and Models
of Masonry Buildings.”, ISET J. Earthquake Technology, Slovenia, Paper No. 404, 37, No. 4, 2000, pp. 101-
117.
74. Tomaževic, M., Bosiljkov V. and Weiss P., “Structural Behaviour Factor for Masonry Structures”, 13 World
th
Canada, 2004.
78. Yoshimura, K., Kikuchi, K., Kuroki, M., Nonaka, H., Kim, K. T., Wangdi, R. and Oshikata, A. ,“Experimental
study on Effects of Height of Lateral Forces, Column Reinforcement and Wall Reinforcements on Seismic
Behaviour of Confined Masonry Walls”, Proceedings of 13 World Conference on Earthquake
th
108