See

discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: http://www.researchgate.net/publication/278704543

Performance of masonry enclosure walls:

lessons learned from recent earthquakes

ARTICLE in EARTHQUAKE ENGINEERING AND ENGINEERING VIBRATION · MARCH 2012

Impact Factor: 0.48 · DOI: 10.1007/s11803-012-0095-3

DOWNLOADS VIEW

2 1

5 AUTHORS, INCLUDING:

Hugo Rodrigues H. Varum

Instituto Politécnico de Leiria University of Porto - Faculty of Engineering
97 PUBLICATIONS 254 CITATIONS 376 PUBLICATIONS 679 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Available from: Hugo Rodrigues

Retrieved on: 23 June 2015
Vol.11, No.1 EARTHQUAKE ENGINEERING AND ENGINEERING VIBRATION March, 2012

Earthq Eng & Eng Vib (2012) 11: 23-34 DOI: 10.1007/s11803-012-0095-3

Performance of masonry enclosure walls: lessons learned

from recent earthquakes

Romeu Silva Vicente1†, Hugo Rodrigues1‡, Humberto Varum1§, Aníbal Costa1* and
José António Raimundo Mendes da Silva2§

1. University of Aveiro, Civil Engineering Department, Campus Universitário de Santiago, Aveiro, PT 3810-193, Portugal
2. University of Coimbra, Civil Engineering, Pinhal de Marrocos, Polo II, Coimbra, PT 3030, Portugal

Abstract: This paper discusses the issue of performance requirements and construction criteria for masonry enclosure and
infill walls. Vertical building enclosures in European countries are very often constituted by non-load-bearing masonry walls,
using horizontally perforated clay bricks. These walls are generally supported and confined by a reinforced concrete frame
structure of columns and beams/slabs. Since these walls are commonly considered to be nonstructural elements and their
influence on the structural response is ignored, their consideration in the design of structures as well as their connection to the
adjacent structural elements is frequently negligent or insufficiently detailed. As a consequence, nonstructural elements, as
for wall enclosures, are relatively sensitive to drift and acceleration demands when buildings are subjected to seismic actions.
Many international standards and technical documents stress the need for design acceptability criteria for nonstructural
elements, however they do not specifically indicate how to prevent collapse and severe cracking, and how to enhance the
overall stability in the case of moderate to high seismic loading. Furthermore, a review of appropriate measures to improve
enclosure wall performance and both in-plane and out-of-plane integrity under seismic actions is addressed.

Keywords: RC structures; masonry enclosure walls; infill walls; in-plane; out-of-plane; cracking; performance
improvement

1 Introduction External masonry walls throughout Europe have

Nonstructural elements, such as masonry infills
and enclosure walls, parapets, balconies, chimneys,
suspended ceilings, as well as piping systems may
suffer distortions and excessive deformation during
an earthquake, or even fall and compromise human
life and serviceability and functionality of the building
itself. Repair costs and disruption of normal use
due to earthquake damage to nonstructural elements
often exceeds the structural repair costs. In the case
of the Northridge earthquake, the cost of repairs to
nonstructural elements of essential buildings (hospitals,
police departments, electrical substations, etc.) rose
to billions of dollars (FEMA, 2005). In the Aquila
earthquake, nonstructural damage to industrial building
stock was estimated to be over 10,000,000 Euros
(EEFIT, 2009).
Correspondence to: Romeu Silva Vicente, University of Aveiro,
Civil Engineering Department, Campus Universitário de
Santiago, Aveiro, PT 3810-193, Portugal
Tel: +351 962457241
E-mail: romvic@ua.pt
†
Assistant Professor; ‡Researcher/PhD Student; §Associate Professor;
*
Full Professor
Received June 19, 2011; Accepted October 26, 2011
changed a great deal in the last decade, as a result of new
goals and challenges related to thermal performance
and condensation control in buildings. One of the
most contradictory measures on this matter is external
thermal bridge correction using traditional horizontally
perforated clay bricks. This technique has led to the
improvement of thermal behavior, but also to some
new risks, such as subsequent defects and insufficient
performance requirements when subjected to seismic
actions. One of the most common causes for the
instability and poor behavior of masonry enclosure and
infill walls when subjected to seismic motions is their
reduced support-width on the concrete slabs or beams.
This reduced wall support is normally required to
minimize thermal bridge effects over internal surfaces,
such as mold growth and condensation (internal and
external). With this procedure, the project designers’
intent is to cover the concrete structure externally with a
thin clay brick slip (normally half width or less of clay
brick) that increases, locally, the thermal resistance.
2 Masonry infills and enclosure walls
2.1 Thermal bridge correction
24 EARTHQUAKE ENGINEERING AND ENGINEERING VIBRATION
New European thermal codes (RCCTE, 2006; Spanish
Technical Building Code, 2006; Decreto Legislativo,
2005; Décret n°2006-592, 2006) and building energy
standards have translated the EU Directive 2002/91/
CE on Energetic Efficiency in Buildings (EPBD) (
Directive 2002/91/CE, 2002). The introduction of the
“Energy Performance Building Directive” (Directive
2002/91/CE, 2002) and, subsequently, the requirements
and construction procedures of concern led to the
reformulation of the new thermal codes encouraging
thermal bridge correction, limiting a U-value (W/
m2ºC) for superficial thermal bridges and consequently
attenuating linear thermal bridges. EN-ISO 10211
(2007) defines thermal bridges as an area of the exterior
envelope for which there is a pronounced reduction of
thermal resistance. These areas have a high potential
for mold growth and development of condensation
problems (internal and superficial).
The new codes and standards established improved
quality and precise energy efficiency requirements for
new or renovated buildings, thus creating a legislative
framework that harmonizes building standards
throughout Europe. In the parts that support a sustainable
approach, these codes are very well adapted; however,
when it comes to promoting technological innovation
in the construction process, their contribution is less
ambitious. It is accepted that each country has its own
construction and technological traditions in terms of
materials and construction processes, but in the case
of Mediterranean countries that share technological
construction features, as in the case of Portugal, Spain,
France and Italy, technological know-how is far from
a consensus of construction processes, in particular to
thermal bridge correction.
To achieve the requirements of the new thermal
codes throughout Europe, with regard to the need to
increase thermal resistance over concrete members,
designers and contractors adopted several methods,
based on a quite inconsistent and unknown technology
(see Fig. 1). Among these methods, the more relevant
one promotes an external overhanging of masonry walls
50–80 mm, outwards of the structure surface, which
assures an external protection of the concrete members,
increasing thermal resistance, and also preserving the
alignment and the aspect of the facade. These less and
poorly-supported walls can promote severe cracking
Fig. 1 Typical thermal bridge correction schemes with different support conditions
Vol.11
and, in the worse cases, cause the walls to fall apart.
External solid or perforated clay brick walls are well
known by building science and they are correctly built
in many countries. However, the problem is different
when brick resistance is very low and the percentage
of horizontal voids is more than 60%, delimited by thin
clay webs of 8–9 mm thick.
The principal cause for cracking and instability
problems observed in several buildings is the reduced
width of the walls support on the floor slabs or
beams. This situation leads to a concentration of high
compression stresses locally, whose effects are increased
by the internal geometry of the brick (Hendry et al.,
1997). In this case, cracking can be dramatic, even for
very low levels of loading, depending on the specific
support conditions. Vicente and Mendes da Silva (2006)
report on experimental and numerical work on first
cracking and final failure of perforated clay brick walls,
with different support conditions. They carried out
testing on clay brick wall samples, registering cracking,
maximum strength and collapse, under vertical centered
and eccentric compression loads, with full and partial
concrete supports, steel shelf angles supports and
heterogeneous mixed supports (brick and concrete).
Unfortunately, this scheme is frequently adopted
without proper detailing for wall tying and without an
accurate evaluation of brick resistance and masonry
deformation capacity. Figure 2 shows two case studies
where severe cracking occurred, imposing, in the first
situation, the demolition and re-construction of the
external leaf of the wall.
Other factors, beyond seismic action, can also
contribute to amplify consequences, such as: excessive
weight of exterior rendering, additional and eccentric
loads, wind loads, creep and shrinkage movements of
the structure, masonry deformations and movements
induced by heat and moisture, lack of wall ties,
lack of technological knowledge in design and poor
workmanship skills (particularly at singular points).
2.2 Contribution of the infill masonry panels in the
seismic behavior of RC buildings
Infill masonry panels are commonly used in RC
structures as partition walls and are not considered to
be structural elements; however their influence on the
No.1 Romeu Silva Vicente et al.: Performance of masonry enclosure walls: lessons learned from recent earthquakes
Fig. 2 Two examples of severe mechanical defects resulting from inadequate correction of thermal bridges, using partially
supported masonry walls
global behavior of RC frames subjected to earthquake
loadings is well recognized (Crisafulli et al., 2000;
Rodrigues et al., 2009). The infill masonry panels,
if properly distributed and considered in the design
of new structures, can have a beneficial effect, or the
negative effects associated with irregularities that they
may introduce can be considered in the design process
(Varum, 2003). Not considering infill masonry panels
can lead to important inaccuracies in the evaluation of
the structural response, since they can change stiffness,
strength, torsion effects due to the irregular location of
the infill walls, energy dissipation of the global structure
and induce local mechanisms.
Considering the severe structural damage or collapse
of RC buildings observed in recent earthquakes, two
principal mechanisms have been documented. The first
is associated with cases where masonry infill walls leave
a short portion of the column clear, creating a short
column. This situation is created by openings in the
infill walls, for doors or windows, or for landing slabs
of staircases. If this effect was not considered in the
design, the short column with increased stiffness will be
subjected to a high level of shear force which can lead
to shear failure of the column. Secondly, the absence of
the infill masonry panels in one story, frequently on the
ground floor used for car parking or commercial purposes,
induces a sudden change in the story stiffness in height,
leading to a potential global soft-story mechanism.
Moreover, the asymmetric distribution of the infill
masonry panels can introduce torsion phenomenon not
predicted in the design, which can introduce additional
forces not originally considered, especially in concrete
columns of the outer frames (Fardis, 2006).
In the Kocaeli, Turkey, earthquake in 1999, buildings
with horizontally perforated clay unit infill walls only
above the first story, usually to allow for commercial
space on the ground level, may have experienced
stiffness discontinuities, which may have contributed to
their collapse by concentrating the drift demands in the
first story (Sezen et al., 2003).
In the Bingöl, Turkey, earthquake in 2003, much
of the damage and collapse of RC frame buildings is
25
attributed to the infill masonry walls in terms of: soft-
story collapses associated with the absence of infill
masonry walls in the ground stories, failures due to a short
column that developed due to structural arrangements or
openings provided in infill walls between columns, the
presence of large and heavy overhangs leading to severe
damage in the enclosure due to the vertical ground
acceleration during the earthquake, and the destruction
of gable walls under the roofs of many buildings that fell
down during the earthquake (Dogangun, 2004).
In the 2008 earthquake in Wenchuan, Sichuan
Province, China, the damage to most of the buildings
with RC frame structures was not very severe. The
damage mainly occurred in the enclosure structures
and infilling walls, especially circular filler walls.
Such nonstructural damage also brings considerable
economic loss and can be harmful to people’s safety
(Ye et al., 2008). The recent earthquakes show that
infill masonry panels introduce significant changes in
the structural behavior of RC buildings. They can bring
a beneficial contribution to the structural safety or lead
to unexpected damage or collapse of RC buildings,
and as such, the contribution and participation of infill
masonry panels in the seismic behavior of RC buildings
must be considered in the design of new structures and
assessment of the existent building stock.
3 Abruzzo earthquake
3.1 Damaged masonry enclosure walls
Nonstructural elements, in general, are very
vulnerable to earthquake action, mostly due to a lack
of earthquake design and construction detailing of these
elements. As a result, even light to moderate earthquake
shaking/acceleration or drift levels can cause damage
to nonstructural elements and this damage may result
in life safety hazards, immediate evacuation and loss
of function of buildings, limiting the use of interior
spaces.
Based on post-seismic damage assessment
information, some examples, representative of
26 EARTHQUAKE ENGINEERING AND ENGINEERING VIBRATION Vol.11

systematic masonry enclosure wall failures, are reported
and discussed. The damage suffered by masonry
enclosures and infill walls in the April 6, 2009 Abruzzo
earthquake in Italy, particularly in the city of Aquila,
is reported due to its representative characteristics of
Mediterranean construction. Widespread nonstructural
damage, mainly out-of-plane collapse (of the outer
leaf of cavity walls), in-plane mechanisms and mixed
mechanism were observed. The Abruzzo earthquake
struck several villages with different intensities; the
maximum acceleration registered was 0.675 g, widely
exceeding the 0.25 g defined in the design code. Within
the reconnaissance mission of the authors, a group of
systematic problems, often the consequence of bad
construction practice, was observed.
3.2 Out-of-plane mechanisms
As a result of the set of damage mechanisms that
can develop during an earthquake, the out-of-plane
movement of masonry facade walls is very common, but
depends particularly on the efficiency of the connection
between the facade itself and orthogonal walls (Shi,
2008; D’Ayala and Speranza, 2003). Out-of-plane
mechanisms are characterized by brittle behavior and
are therefore a threat to human safety, as was the case
following the collapse of wall panels in the Messina
earthquake in 1908 and Carlentini earthquake in 1990,
in Italy where many lives were lost (Ortigia, 2000).
The out-of-plane failure mechanisms and associated
cracking patterns are influenced by several aspects,
but more potentially by: (1) the connection efficiency
to orthogonal walls and inner leaf panels; (2) the
connection efficiency to upper and lower RC beams,
as well as columns; and (3) the wall support conditions
over concrete slab or beam.
Focusing on external masonry enclosure walls, Fig. 3
shows nonstructural damage of masonry enclosure
walls of a six story concrete framed building after the
earthquake. Possible causes that led to this level of
damage are related to susceptibility of the balconies to
higher vertical accelerations, slenderness of the masonry
leafs, non-confinement of the external leaf, and the lack
of ties or anchoring systems either to the inner leaf or
the structural concrete frame. In Fig. 3, the existence of
thin brick slips with deficient adhesion to the concrete
beams and insufficient width support of the outer leaf
(perforated brick) over the slab/beam is also evident.
Figure 4 shows the extensive disconnection of the
veneer wall and its backing wall due to the lack of wall

Fig. 3 Cracking and collapse of the outer leaf of a double leaf wall

Fig. 4 Total disconnection of the outer veneer cladding wall

No.1 Romeu Silva Vicente et al.: Performance of masonry enclosure walls: lessons learned from recent earthquakes 27

ties, lateral constraint at corner angles, and insulation
fixing system to the moment frame resisting structure.
In Eurocode 6 (CEN, 2005), Section 8.5.2.2, it is
recommended that the minimum number of ties, ntmin, for
a cavity wall or veneer wall and its backing wall should
not be less than 2/m2.
In both cases, the inadequate mortar jointing of the
brick wall is visible, which is, unfortunately, a common
practice associated with very poor workmanship.
Slender walls are very sensitive to acceleration and
displacement and conditioned to peripheral connection
and support conditions to the concrete frame structure,
as well as the connection efficiency to inner leaves and
orthogonal walls (see Fig. 5(a)). As shown in Fig. 5(b),
the disconnection and cracking of the exterior wall panel
is the result of the relative rotation of the wall leading to
out-of-plane movement. In Fig. 5(c), the development of
horizontal hinges is noticeable, defining the out-of-plane
kinematics.
Due to all these aspects, an out-of-plane mechanism
can occur. However, this mechanism can occur for lower
levels of acceleration if previous in-plane damage is
inflicted over the wall as shown in Fig. 5 or if secondary
elements are connected to the external walls, such as
equipment (air-conditioning), outdoor signage, etc.
In moderate seismic regions, Eurocode 8 (CEN,
2004), specifically Section 4.3.5 which refers to
nonstructural elements, obliges the designers to verify
the effects of seismic action over these components,
as well as their connections and attachments to the
main concrete frame. In the case of masonry infills, if
connected, they contribute to the resistant structural
system and should respect the compliance criteria
specified for confined masonry. Particular attention
should be paid to masonry panels with a high slenderness
ratio, as will be discussed in Section 4.2.
3.3 In-plane mechanisms
In-plane damage to external enclosure walls is a
result of their lower deformation capacity in relation
to the principal concrete moment frame structural
elements (beams and columns) to inter-story drift levels.
Therefore, damage levels are proportional to inter-story
drift levels. Figure 6(a) shows typical separation cracks
between the structural elements (beams and columns)
and masonry wall panel. Figure 6(b) shows shear
diagonal cracking due to in-plane forces and bed joint

Fig. 5 (a) Out of plane collapse of infill walls;( b) Wall panel rotation; (c) Horizontal hinge formation; (d) Total collapse of the single leaf wall

a) b) c)

Fig. 6 (a) Structural frame-wall separation cracking; (b) Shear induced diagonal cracking; (c) Corner crushing of wall panels
28 EARTHQUAKE ENGINEERING AND ENGINEERING VIBRATION Vol.11

sliding that leads to the detachment of mortar renders
and the outer shell of the horizontally perforated fire
clay masonry units, and Fig. 6(c) shows crushing and
cracking at the wall corners.
In-plane damage is inevitable when masonry infills
and enclosure walls contribute to the overall response of
the building to seismic action. Figure 7(a) shows typical
in-plane damage and short column mechanism due to
the presence of openings in masonry enclosure walls.
Figures 7(b) and 7(c) show the damage mechanism due
to diagonal cracking (stair-step configuration) along
with horizontal bed joint sliding.
3.4 Other damage
Unconfined masonry panels, shown to have no
vertical concrete struts or posts at corner angles,
suffered out-of-plane collapse as shown in Fig. 8. Mixed
mechanisms that compromise in-plane and out-of-
plane integrity and behavior are very dependent on the
directivity of the seismic action as well as the vertical
component. The lack of reinforcing steel (light wire
meshes), wall ties and anchors fixed to the columns
and cast into the bedding planes of the masonry, and
reinforced concrete posts and belts across the panels
through the full thickness of the wall, is particularly
important in cases of masonry enclosure walls of great
extension or of complex and irregular geometry as
shown in Figs. 8(b) and 8 (c). All these problems are
aggravated and potentially increase the out-of-plane
collapse of masonry wall panels and in-plane damage
discussed in Sections 3.1.1 and 3.1.2.
The incorporation of secondary elements, concrete
posts and belts across the panels and through the full
thickness of the wall, as referred to in Section 4.3.6.4 of
Eurocode 8 (CEN, 2004), limit the damage suffered and
consequently reduce the risk of human life loss.
4 Structural performance requirements and
compliance criteria
4.1 Design codes and international recommendations

Fig. 7 (a) Short column; (b) In–plane cracking and crushing of masonry wall (c) Horizontal bed joint sliding

Fig. 8 (a) Wall collapse of unconfined masonry panels due to lack of post at corner angle;(b) Collapse of outer leaf disproven of
posts, belts or anchoring systems; (c) Total collapse of the outer masonry leaf with no wall tie or steel wire mesh
No.1 Romeu Silva Vicente et al.: Performance of masonry enclosure walls: lessons learned from recent earthquakes
With a greater awareness of the importance of infill
masonry elements in the behavior of RC buildings in
the last few years, the new codes have included some
provisions regarding consideration of the infills and their
influence on the structural response, namely Eurocode
6 (CEN, 2005), Eurocode 8 (CEN, 2004), FEMA 310
(1998), ATC-40 (1996) and the New Zealand Guidelines
(NZSEE, 2006).
The Eurocode 8 (CEN, 2004) includes
recommendations for the verification of the safety of
nonstructural elements, acknowledging that in case
of failure, they represent a risk to human life and can
affect the main structure of the building. Eurocode 8
(CEN, 2004) also refers to the safety verification of
nonstructural elements as well as their connections
and attachments or anchorages during the design,
considering that the local transmission of actions to the
structure by the fastening of nonstructural elements and
their influence on the structural behavior should be taken
into account. For the particular case of infill masonry
panels, in particular if the masonry infills are in contact
with the frame (i.e., without special separation joints),
but without structural connection to it (through wall ties,
reinforced concrete belts and posts, or shear connectors),
they can affect the ductility class of the structure. In
particular, for panels that might be vulnerable to out-of-
plane failure, the provision of ties can reduce the hazard
of falling masonry. For structural systems belonging to
all ductility classes, DCL, M or H, appropriate measures
should be taken to avoid brittle failure and premature
disintegration of the infill walls (particularly for masonry
panels with openings or with friable materials), as well
as the partial or total out-of-plane collapse of slender
masonry panels. Particular attention should be paid to
masonry panels with a slenderness ratio greater than 15.
FEMA 310 (1998) in the basic nonstructural
component checklist for building evaluation, defines
that nonstructural components such as partitions,
masonry veneers, cladding and parapets, should respect
the compliance criteria in accordance to seismic zoning
(fixtures, spacings and anchoring) and the evaluation
procedure should be based on the forces and drift
limits.
The ATC-40 (1996) acknowledges that the cost and
disruption of bringing nonstructural systems in older
buildings into conformance with current codes is high.
Although these systems have suffered considerable
damage in past earthquakes, the damage has generally
not caused extensive hazardous conditions. Nonstructural
systems, therefore, have not been reviewed in most
retrofits to date.
However, large, highly vulnerable elements have
often been investigated for their potential to fall and
cause injury. The criteria used to determine the need to
investigate is unclear, but vulnerability to damage and the
extent of occupant exposure are initial considerations.
The extent of the retrofit is often a cost consideration.
The nonstructural performance level of hazards reduced
29
is intended to include only major hazards and encourage
cost effective risk reduction.
The definition of limit states for infill masonry
panels can be directly related to the inter-story drift
demand. Based on the equivalent strut model, Magenes
and Pampanin (2004) have proposed drift values for the
damage level of a masonry infill panel corresponding to
a certain limit state, depending on the axial deformation.
For example, an inter-story drift value in the range
of 0.4%–1.0% can be associated to the infill panel’s
failure.
The FEMA-306 (1999) and FEMA-307 (1999)
documents also provide reference values for inter-story
drift ratios for RC buildings with infill masonry panels.
The drift limits proposed differ with the type of masonry,
from 1.5% for brick masonry to 2.5% for ungrouted
concrete block masonry. These documents also indicate
a drift reference value of 0.25% for the initiation of
diagonal cracking (Bell and Davidson, 2001).
Other authors recommend inter-story drifts to be
considered for the serviceability check range from 0.2%
to 0.5%, depending on the type of partitions. Values
around 0.2% are recommended for brick masonry infills
in contact with the surrounding frame (Valiasis and
Stylianidis, 1989) whereas 0.5% is more appropriate
for plywood, plaster, gypsum and similar light panels
(Freeman, 1977). The New Zealand Guidelines
for assessment and improvement of the structural
performance of buildings in earthquakes (NZSEE, 2006)
considers the infill masonry contribution in RC frame
buildings.
To consider the in-plane behavior, the equivalent
diagonal strut model is used for numerical analysis,
considering four failure modes: sliding shear failure,
compression failure of the equivalent diagonal strut,
diagonal tension failure, and general shear failure of
the panel. The drift limits for infill panels governed by
the shear behavior mode are 1.5% for brick masonry,
2.0% for grouted concrete block masonry and 2.5% for
ungrouted concrete block masonry. For the out-of-plane
behavior, a simplified method is presented to assess
the infill capacity based on the slenderness of the infill
masonry panel.
4.2 Improving integrity and overall stability
Improving the overall stability of masonry enclosure
walls involves reducing their vulnerability to all types of
geometrical constraints, bad workmanship, and different
actions, as synthesised in Fig. 9. All the factors identified
in Fig. 9 contribute to a lack of stability and cracking.
To improve the integrity and overall stability of
the masonry infill panels, appropriate measures are
proposed to improve in-plane and out-of-plane integrity
and the performance behavior under seismic action,
as well to reduce the risk of premature disintegration
of walls, namely: (1) wall ties, (2) anchors, fasteners
and shear connectors, (3) mortar bed joint steel wire
mesh reinforcement, (4) dimensions and minimal width
30 EARTHQUAKE ENGINEERING AND ENGINEERING VIBRATION Vol.11

Partial support
conditions λ=h/e Temperature
Wind action action
2/3 wall width h e

w
Wind Irreversible expansion
(wall facade colour)
Excessive pressure
slenderness
Material
characteristics
Irregularities and
2/3L eccentricities Salts Cracking and
(workmanship) Lack of wall Seismic action
(chemical attack) lack of stability
ties wire mesh,
1/2 wall width Wall panel anchors, etc
dimensions ΔL1
ΔL2
Wall expansion
+
structure shrinkage ΔL3
h
L

Expansion Structure
1/2L deformability
moisture
L

Geometry Execution Other factors

Fig. 9 Combination of various aspects that contribute to cracking and overall stability (Vicente, 2002)

(slenderness ratio, overlapping), (5) complementary
units, (6) shelf angles, and (7) reinforced concrete posts
and belts, among others.
Eurocode 8 (CEN, 2005) points out examples
of measures in accordance with ductility classes,
to improve both in-plane and out-of-plane integrity
and behavior such as the inclusion of light steel wire
meshes well anchored on one face of the wall, wall
ties fixed to the columns and cast into masonry mortar
bed, and reinforced concrete posts and belts across the
wall. It also indicates that if there are large openings or
perforations in any of the infill panels, their edges should
be trimmed with belts and posts. Figure 10 shows the
typical external thermal bridge correction solution of a
cavity wall with the correct use of wall ties and minimal
partial width support over the concrete beam of at least
2/3 of the outer wall leaf, as defined in the French DTU
20.1 (CSTB, 1985).
The Eurocode 8 (CEN, 2005) considers the two
leaves of a cavity wall to be effectively tied together if
the number of wall ties is at least two ties/m² (as shown
in Fig. 11). Note that wall ties should be corrosion
resistant and chosen from the relevant exposure class
defined in the code.
The use of a minimal quantity of steel wire
welded mesh for horizontal bed joint reinforcement is
recommended by the European codes (CEN, 2005 and
2004) to enhance masonry integrity, while offering
a higher level of stability and serviceability with the
increase of strength to flexural and shear forces. The use
of horizontal bed joint reinforcement has proven to be an
effective measure in reducing the probability of out-of-
plane collapse, even in situations after in-plane damage
has taken place (see Fig. 12).
Shelf angles and brackets are primarily used in
situations of challenging geometry of facades, such
as curved walls and veneer wall solutions (solid clay
brickwork) with no direct support of the connection
system to the structure or interior leaf. In these cases,
resourcing to a secondary support system is important to
correctly design the fixture spacing and stiffness of the
support elements (see Fig. 13).

Wall tie

2.5 to 4 cm

Fig. 10 Use of wall ties in the connection of two leaves of a cavity wall
No.1 Romeu Silva Vicente et al.: Performance of masonry enclosure walls: lessons learned from recent earthquakes 31

450-900 mm
The need to produce complementary brick/block
formats (see Fig. 13(b)) is necessary so that thermal
bridge correction of the concrete frame structure and
225 mm
singular points (corner angles, lintels, etc.) are properly
450 mm solved without compromising the stability demands
300 mm 300 mm of wall panels to several actions, particularly wind or
earthquake, as well as other compatibility issues.
In-plane and out-of-plane damage is highly influenced
by masonry arrangement, bricklaying features, and
dimension ratios (slenderness, overlapping). FEMA
356 (2000) defines maximum h/t ratios (h: wall height;
225 mm
t: wall thickness) for different seismic zones (low,
225 mm 225 mm 900 mm
Standard spacing for cavity walls of 900mmx450mm (2.5 wall ties/m2)
225 mm
moderate, high) and performance levels (IO – immediate
Near openings (doors and windows) spacing of 300mm and near vertical movement joints spacing of 450mm

Fig. 11 Wall tie spacing criteria

Fig. 12 Wire welded horizontal reinforcement

a) Insulation material
Connection to the b)
main structure
Fixtures

Secondary structure
Brick
Shelf angle
Shelf angle

Fig. 13 (a) Shelf angle systems; (b) Complementary masonry units

Maximum h/t ratios

t h
Performance Low Moderate High
levels seismic zone seismic zone seismic zone

IO 14 13 8 s

LS 15 14 9
L
CP 16 15 10

Fig. 14 Maximum h/t geometrical ratios defined in FEMA 356 (2000), Vicente et al. (2011)
32 EARTHQUAKE ENGINEERING AND ENGINEERING VIBRATION
occupancy; LS – life safety; CP – collapse prevention) as
shown in Fig. 14.
As referenced in EC8 (CEN, 2005), particular
measures should be taken to avoid premature partial or
total collapse of masonry panels with a slenderness ratio
(ratio of the smaller of length or height to thickness) of
greater than 15.
To reduce slenderness ratios (h/t or h/L), the
inclusion of horizontal reinforced concrete belts and
vertical reinforced concrete posts to confine masonry
by reducing the wall panel height (h) or length (L) is
important in improving the behavior and capacity of the
wall panel, since the incorporation of secondary casted
elements allows greater interaction with the primary
resistant frame structure as shown in Fig. 15.
For confined masonry buildings, reinforced concrete
posts (tie columns) are placed at every intersection of
the longitudinal and transverse walls, and horizontal
reinforced concrete belts cast in the masonry are placed
at the spacing of story mid-height and have the width of
the masonry panel, as shown in Fig. 15(a). Connection
between an orthogonal wall can be assured using
anchoring systems combined with light steel wire mesh
reinforcement as shown on Fig. 15(b).
a)
Concrete frame structure
Secondary element
Masonry infill
Transversal view Frontal view
b)
RC column
Anchoring system
Connection to structural element Connection to orthogonal wall
Fig. 15 (a) Masonry secondary elements (posts and belts);
(b) Anchors and fasteners
5 Conclusions
Over the last two decades, building code provisions
for nonstructural components have not addressed
anchorage and restraint systems in detail as integral parts
of the design. From the Abruzzo earthquake technical
reconnaissance mission, in the areas of surveyed
damage, it was noted on numerous occasions that when
components were adequately restrained, in compliance
with code provisions of good construction practice,
Vol.11
the extent of nonstructural damage was considerably
reduced. It is well known that non-load-bearing masonry
design and its execution are insufficiently supported on a
solid technological knowledge, particularly for external
enclosure detailing and execution used to enhance
thermal performance. The external correction of thermal
bridges using clay brick walls is still a construction issue
after so many years, due to a lack of knowledge on this
matter.
Non-load-bearing masonry design and verification
must be promoted, particularly for adequate detailing
of singular points. The encouragement of the use of
simplified design to evaluate stresses and movements
due to various factors (wind and seismic action,
thermal and moisture expansion) is fundamental to
identify problems and expected behavior. Therefore, it
is quite important to survey new constructions – where
external correction of thermal bridges was applied – to
learn more about their behavior and to initiate eventual
retrofitting actions. Special attention should be given
to walls of great extension. It is necessary to improve
workmanship practices by the use of anchors, fasteners,
joint reinforcement, shelf angles and wall ties connecting
internal and external leaves of cavity walls to a common
practice, particularly in the case of partially supported
walls over slabs and beams.
It is urgent to promote masonry design, including
non-load-bearing wall design, particularly for singular
points, use of a minimal quantity of steel reinforcement
and construction detailing. All the normative documents
and design guidelines analyzed in this research must
provide more prescriptive solutions for non load-
bearing walls using the results from validated and tested
solutions.
From the accumulated experience from various
earthquake events around the world, it is possible to
re-evaluate current code provisions and introduce
improvements to reduce the risk to people, property, and
the economy from failure of masonry walls, as well as
all nonstructural components during earthquakes.
Acknowledgements
The authors thank the entire technical team from the
University of Aveiro and the Faculty of Engineering of
the University of Porto. They also would like to thank
the local Italian Civil Protection Corps and firefighters,
and Prof. Giorgio Monti from the University of Rome,
for all their help and for granting accessibility to the
affected areas.
References
ATC-40 (1996), “Seismic Evaluation and Retrofit of
Concrete Buildings,” Technical Report, ATC-40, Applied
Technology Council, Redwood City, California.
Bell DK and Davidson BJ (2001), “Evaluation of
No.1 Romeu Silva Vicente et al.: Performance of masonry enclosure walls: lessons learned from recent earthquakes 33

Earthquake Risk Buildings with Masonry Infill Panels,” Washington, D.C.

2001 Technical Conference, Future Directions: A Vision FEMA 310 (1998), NEHRP handbook for the seismic
for Earthquake Engineering in New Zealand, New evaluation of existing buildings – a Prestandard, Federal
Zealand Society for Earthquake Engineering Taupo, Emergency Management Agency, Washington D.C.
New Zealand.
FEMA-356 (2000), Prestandard and Commentary
CEN (2004), Eurocode 8: Design of Structures for for the Seismic Rehabilitation of Buildings, American
Earthquake Resistance – Part 1: General Rules, Seismic Society of Civil Engineers and Federal Emergency
Actions and Rules for Buildings, European Committee Management Agency, Washington D.C.
for Standardisation, Brussels.
FEMA 74 (2005), Earthquake Hazard Mitigation
CEN (2005), Eurocode 6: Part 1-1 – General Rules for Nonstructural Elements, Field Manual, Federal
for buildings – Rules for Reinforced and Unreinforced Emergency Management Agency, September 2005.
Masonry, European Committee for Standardisation,
Freeman SA (1977), “Racking Tests of High Rise
Brussels.
Building Partitions,” Journal of Structural Division,
Crisafulli FJ, Carr AJ and Park R (2000), “Analytical ASCE, 103: ST8.
Modelling of Infilled Frames Structures - A General
Hendry AW, Sinha BP and Davies SR (1997), Design of
Review,” Bulletin of the New Zealand Society for
Masonry Structures, Load Bearing Brickwork Design,
Earthquake Engineering, 33: 30–47.
3rd edition.
CSTB (Groupe de Coordination des Textes Techniques)
Magenes G and Pampanin S (2004), “Seismic Response
- DTU 20.1 (référence AFNOR DTU P10-202) - “Parois
of Gravity-load Design Frames with Masonry Infills,”
et murs en maçonnerie de petits éléments,” Cahier CSTB
13th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering,
2024, livraison 262, CSTB, Paris, September 1985.
Vancouver, B.C, Canada.
D’Ayala, D and Speranza E (2003), “Definition of
NZSEE (2006), Assessment and Improvement of the
Collapse Mechanisms and Seismic Vulnerability of
Structural Performance of Buildings in Earthquakes,
Historic Masonry Buildings,” Earthquake Spectra, 19:
New Zealand Society for Earthquake Engineering,
479–509.
Recommendations of a NZSEE Study Group on
Decreto Legislativo (2005), 192/2005, 19th August Earthquake Risk Buildings, June 2006.
2005, Attuazione della direttiva 2002/91/CE relativa al
Ortigia (2000), Securtiy and Conservation of Historical
rendimento energetico nell´ edilizia. Gazzetta Ufficiale
Centres, Giuffrè. A. (eds.), The Case of Ortigia; Editore
n. 222 del 23 de Settembre de 2005.
Laterza & Figli Spa, Rome-Bari (in Italian).
Décret n°2006-592 (2006), 24 du Mai 2006 relatif
RCCTE (2006), Decree-law No. 80/2006, 04/04/2006
aux caractéristiques thermiques et à la performance
- Regulation of Thermal Behaviour Characteristics in
énergétique dês constructions.
Buildings.
Directive 2002/91/CE (2002), 16/12/2002 - Energy
Rodrigues H, Varum H and Costa AG (2009), “Simplified
Performance of Building (EPBD), European Parliament
Macro-model for Infill Masonry Panels,” Journal of
Council, 2002.
Earthquake Engineering, 14(3): 390–416.
Dogangun A (2004), “Performance of Reinforced
Sezen H, Whittaker AS, Elwood KJ and Mosalam KM
Concrete Buildings During the May 1, 2003 Bingol
(2003), “Performance of Reinforced Concrete Buildings
Earthquake in Turkey,” Engineering Structures, 26(6):
During the August 17, 1999 Kocaeli, Turkey Earthquake,
841–856.
and Seismic Design and Construction Practise in
EEFIT (2009), The L’Aquila, Italy Earthquake of 6 April Turkey,” Engineering Structures, 25(1): 103–114.
2009 – A preliminary Field Report by EEFIT.
Shi P (2008), “China Wenchuan Earthquake Disaster
EN ISO 10211 (2007), Thermal bridges in Building and Its Loss Assessment,” International Disaster and
Construction – Heat Flows and Surface Temperatures Risk Conference, Davos, 2008.
– Detailed Calculations, Brussels, 2007.
Spanish Technical Building Code - Royal Decree 314/
Fardis MN (2006), “Seismic Design Issues for Masonry- 2006 of 17 March 2006.
Infilled RC Frames,” Proceedings of the First European
Valiasis TN and Stylianidis KC (1989), “Masonry Infilled
Conference on Earthquake Engineering and Seismology,
R/C Frames under Horizontal Loading - Experimental
Paper 313.
Results,” European Earthquake Engineering, 3(3):
FEMA-306 (1999), Evaluation of Earthquake Damaged 10–20.
Concrete and Masonry Wall Buildings — Basic
Varum H (2003), Seismic Assessment, Strengthening
Procedures Manual, Federal Emergency Management
and Repair of Existing Buildings Department of Civil
Agency, Washington, D.C.
Engineering,” PhD Thesis, University of Aveiro,
FEMA-307 (1999), Evaluation of Earthquake Damaged Portugal, .
Concrete and Masonry Wall Buildings — Technical
Vicente R (2002), “Pathology of Masonry Enclosure
Resources, Federal Emergency Management Agency,
34 EARTHQUAKE ENGINEERING AND ENGINEERING VIBRATION
Walls, Mechanical Behaviour of Enclosure Walls with
External Thermal bridge Correction,” MSc Thesis,
Civil Engineering, University of Coimbra, 2002 (in
Portuguese).
Vicente R, Mendes da Silva, J.A.R. (2006), “Defects
of Non-loadbearing Masonry Walls due to Partial
Basal Supports,” Journal of Construction and Building
Materials, 21:1977–1990.
Vol.11
Vicente R, Rodrigues H, Varum H and Mendes da Silva
JAR (2011), “Evaluation of Strengthening Techniques of
Traditional Masonry Buildings: Case Study of a Four-
Building Aggregate,” — ASCE’s Journal of Performance
of Constructed Facilities, 25, 202 (2011); doi:10.1061/
(ASCE)CF.1943-5509.0000164 (15 pages).
Ye Lieping, Lu Xinzheng, Qu Zhe and Feng Peng
(2008), “Analysis on Building Seismic Damage in the
Wenchuan Earthquake,” 14th WCEE, Beijing, China.