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

net/publication/335679507

Confined Masonry The Current Design Standards 13NAMC 20190224

Conference Paper · June 2019

CITATIONS
0

5 authors, including:

Daniel Quiun
Pontifical Catholic University of Peru
42 PUBLICATIONS   87 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

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

REINFORCED ADOBE IN PERU and ANDEAN COUNTRIES View project

CONFINED MASONRY IN PERU View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Daniel Quiun on 07 September 2019.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Manuscript title: Confined Masonry: The Current Design Standards
Author 1 name: Svetlana Brzev
Author 2 name: Matthew Reiter
Author 3 name: Juan José Pérez Gavilán
Author 4 name: Daniel Quiun
Author 5 name: Mark Membreño
Author 6 name: Tim Hart
Author 7 name: David Sommer
Abstract: Confined Masonry (CM) is a structural system composed of horizontal and vertical re-
(300-word limit) inforced concrete confining elements cast around masonry wall panels. CM construction
technology is used in several countries and regions across the world including high seis-
mic- and hurricane-prone regions and has demonstrated good performance in damaging
earthquakes. The purpose of the paper is to present results of activity of a recently formed
working group by members of the Masonry Society and the Earthquake Engineering
Research Institute (TMS-EERI) related to a survey and analysis of global seismic design
provisions for CM buildings. As a part of the initiative, the authors have identified the
current codes and guidelines governing the structural/seismic design of CM buildings
and have prepared a comparison in terms of the relevant design provisions, in order to
identify any needs or gaps in the current documents. The paper will focus on the over-
view and comparison of the code design provisions. The paper will be relevant for engi-
neering academics and professionals interested in seismic design of CM buildings.

Keywords: Confined masonry, structural practices, seismic design, design codes

Please ensure that the body of the manuscript starts at the top of the second page. (rev. 9/10/18)
INTRODUCTION
Confined masonry (CM) provides a viable and seismically safer alternative to poorly built Reinforced Con-
crete (RC) buildings and seismically vulnerable unreinforced masonry buildings, which are widespread in
many countries. This construction technology has evolved over the last 100 years through an informal pro-
cess based on its satisfactory performance in past earthquakes. The first reported use of CM construction
was in the reconstruction of buildings destroyed by the 1908 Messina, Italy earthquake (M 7.2), which
killed over 70,000 people. Over the last 50 years, CM construction has been practiced in some European
countries (Italy, Slovenia, Romania, Serbia), Latin America (Mexico, Chile, Peru, Colombia, Argentina,
and Venezuela), the Middle East (Iran, Algeria, Morocco), South Asia (Indonesia), and the Far East (China).
According to Zhao, Taucer, and Rosetto (2009), CM has been practiced in the area affected by the 2008
Wenchuan, China earthquake since the 1980s; however, there are reports of earlier CM applications before
the 1966 XingTai earthquake (M 6.8) (Cai et al. 2018). The combined population of countries in which CM
construction has been practiced is over 3.5 billion, which represents nearly half of the world’s population
and spans five continents (USCB 2018). Examples of global CM applications have been presented by Brzev
and Mitra (2018). It is important to note that CM construction is widely used in countries and regions of
extremely high seismic and hurricane hazards. In some countries, recovery projects after damaging earth-
quakes provided opportunities for introducing CM for housing construction. For example, CM construction
was introduced in Pakistan after the 2005 Kashmir earthquake and in Haiti after the 2010 earthquake (Bar-
tolini and Schacher 2017). There is an ongoing initiative to introduce CM construction practice in Nepal
after the 2015 Gorkha earthquake. In India, CM construction has been introduced as an alternative for
reinforced concrete frames with masonry infills which did not perform well in the past Indian earthquakes
e.g., the 2001 Bhuj earthquake (Jain et al. 2015; Brzev and Mitra 2018). Japanese and Peruvian researchers
tested typical Indonesian CM building models on shaking table to develop recommendations for improved
construction practice (Quiun 2011).

CM has been used for both engineered and non-engineered residential construction, and its applications
range from one- or two-story single-family dwellings to six-story apartment buildings, as shown in Figure
1. Engineering design provisions for CM buildings are included in building codes of several countries and
regions (Meli et al. 2011). In some countries, CM construction has been practiced without formal building
codes (e.g., Indonesia). In addition to codes, seismic design guidelines for low-rise CM buildings were
developed by an international group of experts (Meli et al. 2011), and corresponding construction guidelines
were developed by Schacher and Hart (2015) as a part of an Earthquake Engineering Research Institute
(EERI)-sponsored initiative.

Good seismic performance of CM buildings and significant global spread of this technology have been the
main motivating factor for establishing a joint Confined Masonry working group between The Masonry
Society (TMS) and the EERI. EERI has had a long-term engagement in developing resources on CM con-
struction through its Confined Masonry Network, which was established in 2008 (www.confinedma-
sonry.org). EERI has recently released a Policy Statement related to CM construction that can be used by
EERI members to promote and encourage action by policy makers to reduce earthquake risk (EERI 2018).
TMS has a mission to advance masonry knowledge, its development and application and is responsible for
TMS 402/602, which has been adopted by the International Building Code for the design and construction
of masonry. Current activities of the TMS-EERI CM Working Group are related to a survey and analysis
of global seismic design provisions for CM buildings. As a part of the initiative, the authors have identified
the current codes and guidelines governing the structural/seismic design of CM buildings and have prepared
a comparison in terms of the relevant design provisions, in order to identify any needs or gaps in the current
documents. The other objectives of the initiative are to investigate the percentage of the global construction
market built with CM and provide recommendations for future research and code provisions.

a) b)
Figure 1. Global applications of CM construction: a) single-storey housing in Indonesia (C. Meisl) and b) an apart-
ment building in Chile (S. Brzev)

KEY FEATURES OF CONFINED MASONRY CONSTRUCTION

CM system consists of masonry walls which are constructed first, one floor at a time, followed by the cast-
in-place reinforced concrete (RC) tie-columns. Finally, RC tie-beams are constructed on top of the walls,
simultaneously with the floor/roof slab construction. The key structural components of a CM building, as
shown in Figure 2, are: i) loadbearing masonry walls - transfer both lateral and gravity loads from the floor
and roof slabs down to the foundations; ii) horizontal and vertical RC confining elements (tie-beams and
tie-columns) - provide confinement to masonry walls and protect them from collapse, even during major
earthquakes; iii) RC floor and roof slabs – distribute gravity and lateral load to the walls (note that CM
construction may also be used in conjunction with flexible diaphragms such as light roofs); iv) RC plinth
band - transfers the loads from walls to the foundation system and reduces differential settlement; and v)
foundation – transfers the load to the underlying soil. In a CM panel, the masonry wall is constructed first,
and vertical RC tie-columns are then cast. A story-high masonry wall panel is usually constructed in two
1.2 to 1.5 m lifts. Once the wall construction is completed up to the full story soffit level, RC tie-beams are
constructed atop the walls. When the floors or roofs are RC slabs, the concrete tie-beam is usually cast
monolithically with the floor slab, however when the floors or roofs are light framed, they are constructed
after the tie-beams are cast. There are specific rules regarding placement and spacing of RC confining
elements in a CM building. For example, RC tie-columns should be provided at wall intersections, door
and window openings, free ends of the walls, and at intermediate locations in long walls (usually at 4 to 6
m spacing).

CM construction technology is somewhat similar to both reinforced masonry wall construction and RC
frames with masonry infills; however, differences between these building technologies are significant in
terms of construction sequence, complexity, and seismic performance. Well-built CM buildings are usually
able to survive the effects of major earthquakes without collapse and in most cases without significant
damage (Meli et al. 2011; Astroza et al. 2012; Brzev and Mitra 2018). CM tends to be forgiving of minor
design and construction flaws, as well as material deficiencies provided that the buildings have a regular
floor plan and sufficient wall density. Poor seismic performance has been usually associated with in-
adequate size and detailing of RC confining elements and/or irregular structural configuration.
CONCRETE ROOF
HORIZONTAL CONFINING
SLAB OR DIAPHRAGM
ELEMENTS: RC TIE BEAMS

MASONRY WALLS

VERTICAL CONFINING
ELEMENTS: RC TIE COLUMNS

FOUNDATION
RC PLINTH
Figure 2. Key components of a confined masonry building (Meli et al. 2011)

As any other construction technology, CM has both strengths and weaknesses. Key strengths of CM con-
struction are summarized below:
• CM is based on traditional loadbearing masonry construction practice widely used globally;
• CM does not require relatively sophisticated design and detailing to perform safely nor highly
qualified labor (as is the case with RC frame construction);
• CM technology falls in between that of unreinforced masonry and RC frame construction, how-
ever due to its smaller member sizes and the lesser amount of reinforcement, it is more cost-effec-
tive than RC frame construction; Meli et al. (2011) provides a comparison between CM and RC
frame construction technologies;
• Earthquake performance of CM is significantly better than unreinforced masonry construction.
• CM has a broad range of applications – single story residences up to medium-rise buildings.
• CM construction efficiently uses the stiffness and strength of masonry walls that are already in-
cluded in the buildings and otherwise would be considered non- structural partition walls
• There is less formwork required for the concrete elements in CM construction then RC frame
construction as the concrete elements are poured after the walls have been constructed.
• CM construction requires smaller diameter reinforcement than RC frame construction which is
more conducive to field cutting and fabrication
• CM construction requires smaller foundations than RC frame construction due to distributing
overturning along the walls and not concentrating at the columns.
The authors believe that CM construction has the following weaknesses/disadvantages:
• CM construction is more expensive than unreinforced masonry construction and requires some-
what higher level of labor skills.
• CM is characterized by lower strength and ductility when compared to properly built ductile RC
frame construction and reinforced masonry wall construction.
• CM construction utilizes larger structural wall area than many types of construction which limits
future modifications and the extent of window and door openings.
GLOBAL SEISMIC DESIGN PROVISIONS FOR CM BUILDINGS
The authors have reviewed design provisions related to CM buildings contained in masonry design codes
from 9 countries/regions, including the Latin America (Argentina, Colombia, Mexico, Peru, and Chile),
Europe (European Union countries), Africa (Algeria), Middle East (Iran) and Far East (China). These codes
belong to the countries with a relatively long history of the CM construction practice, 60 years or longer. A
comparison of several building codes was originally prepared by Meli et al. (2011). Pérez Gavilán et al.
(2017) provide more information regarding the Mexican code; Quiun and Santillán (2017) regarding the
Peruvian code; Astroza, Andrade, and Moroni (2017) for the Chilean code; García (1984) regarding the
Colombian code; and Michelini and Maldonado (1991) regarding the Argentinian code.

The authors have performed a qualitative comparison of the code provisions and the results are summarized
in Table 1 (note that slenderness ratio is the only parameter with a quantitative comparison). The provisions
related to the relevant design features of CM construction (e.g. in-plane wall shear resistance, design of
confining elements, etc.) have been ranked. The ranking consists of a number and a letter, e.g. 2P, 3A, etc.
A number (1-3) denotes the extent to which a provision has been covered in a code (1- least comprehensive
to 3-comprehensive) while letter (A or P) denotes if a provision is analytical (A) or prescriptive (P). Some
codes (e.g. Eurocode 8) contain prescriptive design provisions for low-rise regular CM buildings, but re-
quire engineering design for regular CM buildings in high seismic hazard zones and for irregular CM build-
ings.

Table 1. Design Provisions for CM Buildings in Masonry Design Codes

Code Year Wall In- Out-of- Wall Wall RC Con- Confining Material
h/t Plane Plane Re- Open- Den- fining El- Elements: Strength
limit Shear sistance ings sity ements Spacing
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10)
Argentina: IN- 1982
PRES-CIRSOC (1970)2
103, Parte II (2018) 15 2A 2A 2P 1 2A 2P 3A
Chile: NCh 1993
2123.Of97 (2003) (1931)2 25 2A 1 2P 1 2P 3P 3A
China: GB 50003- 2001 22 to
2011 (2011) (1974)2 26 2A 1 1 1 2P 2P 2P
Colombia: 1984
NSR-10 Titulo E
(2010) 25 1 1 1 3P 2P 2P 2P
Europe: Eurocode 1996
6, Part 1-1 EN
1996-1-1:2005
(CEN 2005) 27 2A 2A 1 1 2A 2P 3A
Europe: Eurocode 1998
8, Part 1 EN 1998-
1:2004 (CEN2004) 15 2A 2A 1 3P 2A 2P 3A
Mexico: NTC-M 1976
2017 (2017) (1942)2 25 3A 1 2P 1 3P 2P 3A
Peru: E.070 (2006) 1982
(1977)2 20 3A 3P 1 3P 3A 2P 3A

Notes: 1 – year when the first masonry code was issued in a country with the CM design provisions; 2 – year when
general CM design provisions were first mentioned in a national seismic code or guideline.
Provisions related to the design of CM walls are summarized in columns (3) to (6). It can be seen from the
table that most codes contain analytical provisions for the in-plane shear strength (as discussed later in the
paper). It can be also seen that most codes contain limited provisions for the out-of-plane wall resistance.
The Peruvian, Argentinian and European codes are currently the only codes containing analytical provisions
for out-of-plane wall resistance. Similarly, most codes do not contain provisions related to walls with open-
ings, except for Argentina, Chile, and Mexico which contain prescriptive provisions. The Colombian, Eu-
ropean, and Peruvian codes contain comprehensive prescriptive provision related to the wall density shown
in column 7 of Table 1 and discussed in the following section.

Provisions related to the RC confining elements are summarized in columns (8) and (9) of Table 1. A
majority of the codes contain prescriptive provisions for design and spacing of confining elements while
others, (e.g. Argentinian, European, and Peruvian) contain analytical provisions for the confining elements.

WALL DENSITY
Wall density (also known as Wall Index) is believed to be one of the key parameters influencing the seismic
performance and extent of damage in low-rise CM buildings; this was confirmed by research studies in
countries like Mexico (Meli, 1994), Chile (Astroza et al. 2012; Moroni, Astroza, and Acevedo, 2004) and
China (Cai et al. 2018) and has been codified in a few countries.

Wall density/index per floor, WIfloor, for a specific building is equal to the ratio of the sum of cross-sectional
areas of all CM walls in the direction considered for seismic load relative to the ground floor plan area, as
depicted in Figure 3, where AW is the cross-sectional area of all CM walls in one direction at the ground
floor level. Note that the cross-sectional area of a CM wall is the product of its length (including the RC
tie-columns and the masonry wall) and thickness. AP is the plan area for the floor diaphragm (floor slab) at
the ground floor level. Note that the number of floors does not influence the WIfloor value, but the required
wall density for a building increase with the building height (number of floors).

Aw
WI floor =
Ap

Ap
Aw Seismic load

Figure 3. Wall density parameters (Meli et al. 2011).

The required wall density for a building is determined from the requirement that the seismic base shear
(based on the code requirements) is less than or equal to the seismic shear capacity at the base level. The
key parameters influencing the required wall density are the shear strength of the masonry, axial stress
level, and the effective cross-sectional area of the walls aligned in the direction of seismic loading. The
required wall density also depends on the seismic force demand, which can be quantified as a product of
the seismic coefficient and the overall building weight. The seismic coefficient for a building depends on
the seismic hazard parameters for a given building site, soil type, and the building importance; these pa-
rameters are usually prescribed by a national seismic code, as a part of the seismic design procedure. A
procedure for determining wall density for a specific building is presented in Meli et al. (2011).

Wall density is the basis of the Simplified Method for Seismic Analysis (SMSA), which has been used for
design of regular CM buildings in several countries (Porst, Brzev, and Oschendorf, 2017). The SMSA de-
termines the required wall density for a building. It assumes rigid floor diaphragms and ignores torsional
effects, so it is applicable only to buildings with regular plan shapes. Due to its simplicity and modest
computational demand the SMSA is suitable for seismic design of low-rise regular buildings only. An ad-
vantage of the SMSA over alternative analysis methods is that it is an integrated analysis and design ap-
proach. The SMSA has been integrated in seismic and/or masonry design codes in several countries, in-
cluding Mexico, Peru, and Europe. A discussion on the wall density provisions contained in a few selected
international masonry design codes is presented next.

Mexico
In Mexico, the Simplified Method for determining required wall density values for buildings in which the
wall seismic resistance is governed by shear effects has been used since 1970s (Meli 1994). This method
was included in the 2004 edition of the code (NTC-M 2004) in Section 3.2.3.3. However, the simplified
method has been omitted from the latest (2017) edition of the same code (NTC-M 2017) because experience
has shown that the method has been used for structures which do not meet the requirements for its applica-
bility (Pérez Gavilán et al. 2017). However, the Simplified Method is a very powerful tool that provides a
good sense for the magnitude of forces and resistance involved, base shear, and the overall shear strength
using simple calculations. Recognizing its usefulness, a global lateral strength check was left in the code,
reminiscent of that method, intended as a safeguard in case errors from a more sophisticated analysis may
pass undetected.

Peru
Peruvian masonry E.070 (2006) code states that CM walls considered for seismic resistance must be pro-
vided along the building perimeter. Walls carrying more than 10% of the total seismic force and walls with
the length of 1.2 m or more should be considered to contribute to the seismic shear capacity. RC shear walls
can be considered in combination with the CM walls using the transformed section criteria, multiplying the
cross-sectional area by the ratio of elastic modulus of concrete and masonry. Quiun and Santillán (2017)
provide more details regarding the Peruvian code approach for estimating wall density.

Europe
Section 9.7 of Eurocode 8, Part 1 (CEN 2004) prescribes a simplified design approach for new masonry
buildings, including unreinforced, reinforced, and CM. These buildings are referred to as “simple masonry
buildings”, which are mostly regular in plan; have ratio of plan dimensions (length/width) less than or equal
to 4.0; are loadbearing wall structures (at least 75% vertical load is sustained by the walls); and the wall
spacing does not exceed 7.0 meters. The method can be applied to low-rise CM buildings - up to 2 stories
high in high seismic hazard regions and up to 5 stories high in low seismic hazard regions. As an example,
the minimum area of the walls relative to the floor area, WIfloor, ranges from 2 to 6 % for 2- to 5-story
buildings in regions with the lowest seismic hazard. CM buildings that do not meet the requirements for
“simple masonry buildings” need to be designed according to the engineered procedure outlined in Euro-
code 6 (CEN 2005).

IN-PLANE SHEAR DESIGN PROVISIONS

Behavior of CM walls subjected to lateral in-plane seismic loading depends on several parameters, includ-
ing the size and detailing of RC confining elements, height/length wall aspect ratio, masonry mechanical
properties, presence of masonry-to-tie-column interface (toothing), etc. In general, behavior can be either
flexure-dominant or shear-dominant (Meli et al. 2011). In most cases, CM walls demonstrate shear-domi-
nant behavior, mostly due to rather low wall aspect ratios since CM has been mostly used for low-rise
construction. CM walls are composite structural elements consisting of masonry walls enclosed by RC tie-
columns, which are considered to act in unison with the wall in resisting both gravity and lateral loads.
Shear capacity of a CM wall can be determined as the sum of contributions of the masonry wall and the
adjacent RC tie-columns. Stiffness and strength of a CM wall panel decrease following the onset of diagonal
cracking in the masonry. However, the load-resisting capacity of the panel is maintained until the critical
regions of the RC confining elements experience significant cracking. The shear capacity of tie-columns is
exhausted only after the masonry has been severely cracked and the shear capacity of the masonry has
significantly decreased. This is different from RC frames with masonry infills where shear failure of RC
columns may lead to imminent failure since these columns are key structural components for resisting
gravity and lateral loads in RC frames.

Provisions for in-plane shear strength of CM walls from selected international codes, i.e. Argentina, Mex-
ico, Colombia, Peru, and Europe, are summarized in Table 2. In general, the in-plane shear strength is
determined based on the following two components: i) the strength contributed by the masonry and ii) ad-
ditional strength due to the axial compression in the wall. Except for the Peruvian code, the contribution
of the axial compression to the shear strength is limited to a maximum value. It can be seen from the data
presented in Table 2 that the approach regarding the contribution of the tie-columns to the shear strength
of the walls varies between the codes. In the Mexican and Peruvian codes (equations MEX and PER), tie-
column area is considered in the cross-sectional wall area for the shear strength calculation; this effec-
tively means that tie-columns are treated as masonry components (with the same mechanical properties as
masonry). In the Mexican code (equation MEX), the total area of a tie-column is included while the Peru-
vian code (equation PER) considers only the length of the tie-column parallel to the wall and the effective
wall thickness. In the Argentinian and European codes (equations ARG and EUR), shear strength of the
tie-columns is calculated separately and added to the shear strength of the masonry panel. In the European
code the shear strength of the tie-column is calculated based on the concrete contribution (steel contribu-
tion is ignored) only.
Table 2. In-plane Shear Strength Provisions for CM Walls from Selected Masonry Design Codes

ID Equation Remarks Tie-col- Horizontal

umns con- reinforc.
sidered? considered?
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5)
ARG = + 0.4 = specified diagonal compression Yes No
≤ 2.0 strength Considered
= average compression stress separately
= gross cross-sectional area of the wall
MEX = + = design diagonal compression Yes (only Yes
Masonry strength strength cross-sec-
= gross area of the wall including the tional area)
= 0.5 + 0.3 ⋅ tie-columns
"
≤ 1.5 ⋅ = factor dependent on the
#
1.5 %/' ≤ 0.2
=$
1.0 %/' ≥ 1.0
Steel strength due to horiz.
reinf.
= unfactored axial load
= = horizontal reinforcement ratio
but = yield stress of the reinforcement
≤ 0.1 !
= dependent on , , and the net area
of the units.
COL No shear strength formula is provided. No No
Minimum length of confined walls in each
direction is specified.
PER = 0.5 ⋅ )*' + 0.23 * = effective thickness Yes No
'= wall length Length of
+#
) = , slenderness reduction factor tie-column
-, parallel to
.
≤)≤1 the wall
/
EUR 0 = 0 *12 0 = design masonry shear strength Yes No
* = wall thickness Considered
3 = 3 + 0.440 12 =length of the compressed portion of separately
≤ 0.065 36 the wall.
3 = characteristic shear strength
3 = the characteristic initial shear
strength
40 = design compressive stress
36 = a limit value of 3

The wall aspect ratio is only considered by the Mexican code (equation MEX). An amplification factor, f,
is applied to squat walls to acknowledge increased shear strength. The Peruvian code (equation PER) is
the only code that applies a shear reduction factor for slender walls, which may be regarded as a strength
reduction by the shear-moment interaction.

The Mexican code (equation MEX) is the only code which considers the contribution of horizontal rein-
forcement to the wall shear strength. The maximum reinforcement contribution is limited, depending on
the masonry compressive strength and the ratio of net-to-gross area of masonry units. Peruvian code does
not consider the contribution of joint reinforcement to the shear strength; however, it prescribes joint rein-
forcement in masonry walls.
GAP ANALYSIS REVIEW OF CURRENT INTERNATIONAL CODE PROVISIONS
As a follow-up to the review of international code provisions, the authors have identified a few topics which
are not addressed by the current codes, as discussed next.

Out-of-Plane Lateral Resistance

The codes typically address out of plane CM wall design by restricting the h/t ratios of the walls. A few
codes, such as the Peruvian code NT E.070 (2006), also restrict the wall length (distance between the tie-
columns) to height ratio to 2.0. These limitations, however, vary greatly between the codes as presented in
Table 1. The height to thickness ratio, for example, ranges from 15 to 25. They also appear to be mostly
based on observations, engineering judgment, or the assumption that CM walls exhibit similar behavior to
unreinforced masonry walls. Available experimental evidence regarding the out-of-plane lateral response
of CM walls is scarce, but there are a few recent experimental research studies and an ongoing effort to
develop design procedure which could be incorporated in design codes (Moreno-Herrera, Varela-Rivera,
and Fernandez-Baqueiro, 2015). Perhaps more importantly, there are only a few codes that include provi-
sions for how to calculate flexural capacity and deflections in CM walls due to seismic loading. While
controlling the dimensions of the walls has been effective in most cases in controlling out of plane behavior,
it may not be an accurate predictor of how a wall will perform since no direct correlation has been deter-
mined between the wall dimensions and the stresses and deflection of the wall.

R-Factor
There is a lack of consistency in the Response Modification Factor (R-Factor) for CM. Some codes do not
have any R-Factor for CM, which makes it difficult to determine the base shear for a CM building in these
countries. Other codes have different system ductility assumptions and various R-Factors for CM design.

Walls with Openings

Provisions are often missing for how to design shear walls with openings. There is also some inconsistency
on when confined tie-columns are required at openings and how large an opening in a shear wall can be.
Some codes explicitly prohibit openings in shear walls. Other codes allow openings but may or may not
specify restrictions on the opening size. Some codes require wall openings to be confined with concrete
vertical tie-columns and/or horizontal bands whereas others do not.

Wall In-Plane Overturning/Rocking

There is no consistent approach for how to design a CM wall for in-plane overturning or rocking. While it
is generally agreed that the tie-column is to be designed to resist the uplift force, there appears to be some
disagreement as to whether the downward force is to be resisted by the masonry wall or the tie-column at
the opposite end of the wall. Some codes allow for a simplified approach by assuming that the compression
force is resisted by the tie-column. However, this would require the columns to be designed as compression
load bearing elements, which may lead to the use of more reinforcing steel in the tie-columns that what is
actually needed. A few codes address in-plane overturning prescriptively by limiting the height to length
ratio of the shear wall. While this approach is the simplest and most conservative means to mitigate over-
turning, it may significantly reduce the number of wall openings that can be placed in the walls, thus af-
fecting the applicability of CM construction in regions where multiple wall openings are culturally accepted
or needed by the building owner to accommodate the intended use of the space.
CONCLUSION
CM is a building type that has been constructed for over 100 years. Its primarily application is in low rise
residential construction and is currently being utilized in at least 15 countries with populations that comprise
nearly half of the world’s total. A majority of these countries are in high seismic regions. Well-built and
properly detailed CM construction has performed well in seismic events and increasingly CM is being
constructed as a more robust, redundant, and ductile alternative to Unreinforced Masonry Construction.

The primary focus of the work presented herein was the current building code provisions that govern the
design of CM buildings. A comparative analysis was performed on the design provisions of eight codes
(Argentina, Chile, China, Colombia, Eurocode (6, 8) Mexico, and Peru). General design categories were
compared amongst the codes. The result is a series of non-uniform approaches that vary in comprehensive-
ness and utilize a combination of prescriptive and analytical criteria. There are consistently thorough pa-
rameters that guide material strength, design/spacing of RC confining elements and in-plane shear re-
sistance. In some cases, parameters can be thorough but non-uniform. For example, the country’s codes
utilize several factors in various combinations to determine in-plane shear resistance of the CM system
including masonry strength, axial pre-compression of the wall, tie-column area, wall aspect ratio, and hor-
izontal reinforcement. The codes are generally silent or relying on strictly prescriptive criteria for wall
density, out of plane wall resistance, and walls with openings – these are significant gaps.

Two priority areas of improvement emerge. First, the basic threshold for regular low-rise CM construction
needs to also include requirements for wall density, restrictions on openings, and out of plane bracing.
These are critical criteria but not uniformly applied. In these cases, prescriptive requirements are sufficient
to provide a global safeguard where engineering and construction practices vary. This is in line with the
minimum construction requirements approach taken by the International Residential Code published by the
ICC. The second priority area is developing a uniform, analytical approach to evaluating the CM wall as
a lateral force resisting system. In plane shear strength and R- factors are critical design elements but codes
take distinct approaches. There is urgency to determine appropriate R-factor as the construction of CM
buildings rapidly continues particularly in high seismic regions and it is being utilized in taller and more
complex structures.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The authors thank Dr. Francisco Crissafulli, Argentina and Dr. Luis Yamin, Colombia for valuable input.
REFERENCES
Astroza, M., Andrade, F., Moroni, M.O. (2017). “Confined Masonry Buildings: The Chilean Experience,”
Proceedings of the 16th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Santiago, Chile, paper No. 3462.

Astroza M, Moroni O, Brzev S, and Tanner J. (2012). “Seismic Performance of Engineered Masonry Build-
ings in the 2010 Maule Earthquake,” Special Issue on the 2010 Chile Earthquake, Earthquake Spectra, 28
(S1), S385-S406.

Bartolini, I. and Schacher, T. (2017). “Introducing Confined Masonry in a Fragile State: the Case of Haiti
after the 2010 Earthquake,” Proceedings of the 16th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Santi-
ago, Chile, paper No. 4477.

Brzev, S. and Mitra, K. (2018). Earthquake-Resistant Confined Masonry Construction, Third Edition, Na-
tional Information Centre of Earthquake Engineering, Kanpur, India (www.nicee.org).

Cai, G., Su, Q., Tsavdaridis, K.D., and Degée, H. (2018). “Simplified Density Indexes of Walls and Tie-
Columns for Confined Masonry Buildings in Seismic Zones,” Journal of Earthquake Engineering, DOI:
10.1080/13632469.2018.1453396

CEN (2004). Eurocode 8: Design of Structures for Earthquake Resistance, Part 1: General Rules, Seismic
Actions and Rules for Buildings, EN 1998-1:2004, European Committee for Standardization (CEN), Brus-
sels, Belgium.

CEN (2005). Eurocode 6: Design of Masonry Buildings - Part 1-1: Common Rules for Reinforced and
Unreinforced Masonry Structures, EN 1996-1-1:2005, European Committee for Standardization (CEN),
Brussels, Belgium.

EERI (2018). “Promoting the Use of Confined Masonry Construction”, A Policy Statement, Earthquake
Engineering Research Institute, Oakland, CA (https://www.eeri.org/advocacy-and-public-policy/promot-
ing-the-use-of-confined-masonry-construction/)

García, L. E. (1984). “Development of the Colombian Seismic Code,” Proceedings of the 8th World Con-
ference on Earthquake Engineering, Earthquake Engineering Research Institute, San Francisco, CA, USA.

GB 50003-2011 (2011). Code for Design of Masonry Structures, China Architecture & Building Press,
Beijing (in Chinese).

INPRES (2018). INPRES-CIRSOC 103, Parte III. Normas Argentinas para Construcciones Sismorresis-
tentes. Construcciones de Mampostería (INPRES-CIRSOC 103, Part III. Argentinean Code for Seismic-
Resistant Construction. Masonry Construction), Argentina (in Spanish)

Jain, S.K., Brzev, S., Bhargava, L.K., Basu, D., Rai, D.C., Ghosh, I., and Ghaisas, K.V. (2015). Confined
Masonry for Residential Construction, Campus on the Sabarmati, IIT Gandhinagar, Gandhinagar, India.

Meli, R. (1994). “Structural Design of Masonry Buildings: the Mexican Practice,” Masonry in the Ameri-
cas, ACI Publication SP-147, American Concrete Institute, Detroit, 239-262.
 Meli R, Brzev S, Astroza M, Boen T, Crisafulli F, Dai J, Farsi M, Hart T, Mebarki A, Moghadam AS,
Quiun D, Tomazevic M, and Yamin L. (2011). Seismic Design Guide for Low-Rise Confined Masonry
Buildings, Earthquake Engineering Research Institute, Oakland, CA, USA (www.confinedmasonry.org)

Michelini, R.J. and Maldonado, N.G. (1991). “Design and Construction in Seismic-Resistant Masonry
Standards in Force in the Province of Mendoza, Argentina,” Proceedings of the 9th International
Brick/Block Masonry Conference, Berlin, Germany.

Moreno-Herrera, J., Varela-Rivera, J. and Fernandez-Baqueiro, L. (2015). “Out-of-Plane Design Procedure

for Confined Masonry Walls,” Journal of Structural Engineering, 142(2), 04015126

NCh2123 (2003). Albañilería Confinada – Requisitos para el diseño y cálculo (NCh 2123.Of97), Instituto
Nacional de Normalizacion (Confined Masonry – Requirements for Structural Design), Chile (in Spanish).

NSR-10 (2010). Normas Colombianas de Diseño y Construcción Sismo Resistente – NSR-10 (Colombian
Code for the Seismic Design and Construction– NSR-10, Appendices D and E), Colombia (in Spanish).

NTC-M (2017). Normas Técnicas Complementarias para Diseño y Construcción de Estructuras de Mam-
postería (Technical Norms for Design and Construction of Masonry Structures), Mexico D.F. (in Spanish).

NT E.070 (2006). Reglamento Nacional de Edificaciones, Norma Técnica E.070 Albañilería (National Bui-
lding Code, Technical Standard E.070 Masonry), Peru (in Spanish).

Pérez Gavilán, J.J. et al. (2017). “Relevant Aspects of the New Mexico City’s Code for the Design and
Construction of Masonry Structures,” Proceedings of the 16th World Conference on Earthquake Engineer-
ing, Santiago, Chile, paper No. 449.

Porst, C., Brzev, S., and Oschendorf, J. (2017). “Confined Masonry for Resilient Low-Cost Housing in
India: a Design and Analysis Method,” Proceedings of the 16th World Conference on Earthquake Engi-
neering, Paper 3876, Santiago, Chile.

Quiun, D. and Santillán, P. (2017). “Development of Confined Masonry Seismic Considerations, Research
and Design Codes in Peru,” Proceedings of the 16th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Santi-
ago, Chile, paper No. 2883.

Quiun, D. (2011). “Shaking Table Tests Performed on Poor Confined Masonry Models: an International
Cooperation for Improvement of Seismic Behavior,” Proceedings of the 11th North American Masonry
Conference, Minneapolis, MN, USA.

Schacher, T. and Hart, T. (2015). Construction Guide for Low-Rise Confined Masonry Buildings, Confined
Masonry Network, Earthquake Engineering Research Institute, Oakland, CA, USA (www.confinedma-
sonry.org).

USCB (2018) U.S. and World Population Clock. U.S. Census Bureau. U.S. Department of Commerce.
www.census.gov/popclock/world.

Zhao, B., Taucer,F., and Rossetto,T. (2009). “Field investigation on the performance of building struc-
tures during the 12 May 2008 Wenchuan earthquake in China,” Engineering Structures, 31, 1701-1723.

View publication stats