Structures 27 (2020) 639–649

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Structures
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/structures

Seismic vulnerability assessment of confined masonry structures by macro- T

modeling approach
⁎
Asfandyar Ahmeda, , Khan Shahzadab
a
Department of Civil Engineering, City University of Science & IT, Peshawar, Pakistan
b
Department of Civil Engineering, University of Engineering & Technology Peshawar, Pakistan

A R T I C LE I N FO A B S T R A C T

Keywords: As seen during numerous earthquakes, confined masonry exhibited a reliable anti-seismic response due to a
Macro modelling number of factors. To understand the effect of these factors, a case study of full scale confined masonry (CM)
Parametric analysis structure is considered and results of its numerical assessment are described. It focus mainly on the evaluation of
Confined masonry factors such as masonry strength, wall density, pre-compression level and properties of the confining elements.
Energy Absorption
The numerical study is performed using advanced numerical simulations in ATENA environment. A rigorous
analysis of the nonlinear behavior of CM structures involves advanced nonlinear finite element models and a
stable computational cost, making these procedures inappropriate for everyday applications. Therefore, in recent
times, several researchers have offered simplified methodologies. In this study a macro-element simplified model
based on smeared crack and total stress–strain models is applied to a benchmark CM prototype structure. Results
are presented as force–displacement curves, types of failure modes, ductility and damage index. From the
parametric studies it was revealed that material strength play a central role on the behavior of confined masonry
subjected to lateral loading and determine the effect of other parameters such as pre-compression level, wall
density and properties of confining elements.

1. Introduction
Past and recent seismic activities have evidently shown that un-
reinforced masonry (URM) structures may show poor seismic perfor-
mance. Their high vulnerability is a result of numerous weakness
sources, distinctive of unreinforced masonry structures not designed to
take seismic forces. Confined masonry, on the other hand, is among the
most popular structural schemes for low and mid-rise buildings in many
parts of the world including Latin America, Europe and Asia. As the
structural response of masonry structures under the earthquake loading
is affected by many factors [1], a very precise numerical modeling
encompasses complex tools [2] that are normally difficult to adopt by
field engineers in their current practice. Therefore, latest research [3]
was done with the purpose of identifying major factors affecting the
response of the confined masonry and to propose simplified models.
Commercially available software can be used for precise modeling as
well as keeping it simple enough to be used by professional engineers
[4]. The above stated studies focus primarily on the effect of the me-
chanical properties of the constituents and of the element types that are
applied in the numerical model. However, post elastic deformations of
masonry structures under earthquake loading depend on a much
broader range of factors, including but not limited to vertical load
configuration, reinforcement ratios, and structural geometry [5]. The
large number of masonry structures in many seismic areas, such as the
South Mediterranean and South Asian countries, has also inspired an
increasing attention and effort to generate reliable and practically
simple models for the evaluation of masonry behavior.
A substantial number of suggestions based on simplified methods
are already presented in the published literature [6–11]. Most of them
describes masonry as a set of one-dimensional macro-elements (piers
and spandrels), linked by nodes in such a way to replicate the masonry
assembly behavior through an equivalent frame, which provides the
possibility to use conventional numerical approaches of structural me-
chanics. This idea, primarily established in the seventies of the 20th
century (POR method [8]) was further explored by several researchers
[6,9–11] and applied in some software codes [9,10]. Nevertheless, the
beam-type macro-elements have some restrictions, mainly related to
the geometric inconsistency between the model and the structure. With
irregularities in the openings' disposal, the choice of the equivalent
frame model is not candid and different approaches have been sug-
gested in the literature. The confinement effects due to confining ele-
ments, as in the case of confined masonry, cannot be appropriately

⁎
Corresponding author.
E-mail address: engrasfandyar2009@gmail.com (A. Ahmed).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.istruc.2020.06.007
Received 27 November 2019; Received in revised form 5 June 2020; Accepted 6 June 2020
2352-0124/ © 2020 Institution of Structural Engineers. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
A. Ahmed and K. Shahzada
Fig. 1. (a) A picture of the building model and (b) plan.
represented by the frame model approach. Additionally, in frame
models the links between piers and spandrels are modeled as rigid
constraints which cannot undergo damage. To overcome these restric-
tions, improved two-dimensional macro-elements have been recently
suggested by Vanin and Foraboschi [11], who use strut and tie models
and by Caliò et al. [6], who uses a plane macro-element based on a set
of non-linear links. In recent times, numerous comprehensible com-
puter codes on the basis of two-dimensional macro-elements have been
introduced for evaluating the potential safety of masonry buildings.
Rinaldin et al. [12] and Lourenco [13] presented a modelling strategy
to describe the nonlinear behavior of masonry elements subjected to in-
plane cyclic loading, which can be used for seismic assessment of ma-
sonry structures. Magenes developed the ANDILWall [14], Lagomasino
developed the TreMuri [15] and Calio developed the 3DMacro [16]
software codes, and delivered the elementary portrayal of the macro-
element design and accumulation adopted in these techniques. A latest
summary on prevailing different macro-element models can be found in
Marques and Lourenço [17] where the results corresponding to dif-
ferent software codes are compared.
The literature offers broad information regarding the experimental
as well as analytical assessment of confined masonry counting for dif-
ferent parameters to explain damage mechanism, type of units, re-
inforcement impact in tie-columns, ductility, energy absorption etc.
[18–24]. Mostly these works are on wall panels under lateral loading
collective in plane normal and shear. Meli [25] conducted tests on
confined masonry panels to evaluate its shear strength, energy ab-
sorption and ductility capacity; Bernardini [26] presented the test re-
sults to make clear concerns on stiffness degradation, crack progression
and energy absorption; Luders and Hidalgo [27] conducted cyclic tests
in partially and fully grouted CM walls to find the influence of re-
inforced bed joints; Tomazevic and Lutman [28] reported study on
earthquake resistance of masonry walls; Sanchez and Astroza [29] in-
vestigated the behavior under reverse cyclic loading and calculated the
improvement after confining; Kumazwa [30], Yoshimura [31] pre-
sented non-linear properties of CM wall with horizontal reinforcement
in bed joint at junction of wall; Yoshimuara [32] again studied influ-
ence of wall reinforcement under lateral loading at varying heights and
axial load; Yanez [33] presented the assessment of CM wall panels
consists of clay brick and hollow concrete unit with four opening cases;
Zabala [34] reported a comprehensive study on CM walls with varying
reinforcement in tie-columns; Marinilli [35] studied the effects of four
(04) full-scale wall panels with 2, 3, and 4 tie-columns subjected to
cyclic lateral loading; Gouveia and Lourenco [23] presented test results
on CM walls under the influence of confining elements, horizontal re-
inforcement and various types of units; Wijaya [36] reported a
640
Structures 27 (2020) 639–649
comprehensive study on CM walls with toothing at interface of masonry
and confining elements, small anchor among column-wall and incessant
anchorage inserted in mortar joint and tie-column and conducted
comparative study with equivalent reinforced concrete frame with in-
filled masonry. In addition to that, some other experimental studies
have been conducted on confined masonry under various loading and
boundary conditions (for example shake table, quasi static and reverse
cyclic testing etc.) and different parameters (for instance the effect of
horizontal reinforcement, effect of several columns, retrofitting effect
etc.) to evaluate and understand its behavior [37–41]. However, some
shortcomings in the experimental analysis exists, such as the test setups
varies and are usually complex (the actual loading protocol and
boundary conditions are difficult to be known exactly), also the test
setups are usually expensive and time consuming process, and the re-
sults sometimes are limited to the conditions in which they have been
subjected [42–46]. On the other hand, numerical modeling contributes
in better understanding the behavior of masonry structures under lat-
eral loading; once the model is validated different parameters can be
evaluated that can influence the behavior. Because of high computa-
tional costs required to perform nonlinear cyclic analysis, the pushover
analysis, is a very attractive method to estimate the seismic response of
structures due to its simplicity and efficiency [47–50]. Pushover ana-
lysis is commonly used to estimate the real displacements and forces
developed in the members due to ground motion in the structures. The
expected structural element discretization basically decreases the
number of degrees-of-freedom in comparison to the normal modeling
approaches, allowing for further resource-efficient and time-effective
calculations, so that practitioners find them attractive and valid.
The objective of this paper is to contribute to a comprehensive
understanding of lateral load behavior of confined masonry structures
and to overcome its deficiencies, using a simple three-dimensional non-
linear finite element (FE) model that reduces the time and energy re-
quirements and also capable of capturing the key response features of
this kind of quasi-brittle construction.
2. Brief description of experimental tests
As mentioned above, the numerical model was validated from the
experimental results of in-plane testing of confined brick masonry
structure [51]. The test program included quasi-static load following
the typical test setup shown in Fig. 1. The dimensions of the structure
were 3048 × 3658 mm (10 × 12 ft.) with 229 mm (9 in.) thick walls
were used. The building height was kept 3353 mm (11-ft) (See Fig. 1a).
The model structure was made over a 305 mm (12 in.) thick reinforced
concrete (RC) pad, connected to the strong floor with bolts. Toothing of
A. Ahmed and K. Shahzada Structures 27 (2020) 639–649

76.2 mm (3-in) was provided in each layer of masonry at all the corners Table 1
and also around each opening, which was then filled with concrete. Summary of interface element properties.
Each tie column consisted of 4–12.5 mm (#4) bars tied by 9.5 mm (#3) Topology Contact – Joint
stirrups at 229 mm (9-in) c/c. Lintel beams of 152 mm × 229 mm Material 3D Interface
(6 × 9 in.) were used. The beam consisted of 2–12.5 mm (#4) bars in
tension and 2–12.5 mm (#4) bars as hangers/compression and was tied Parameters Knn MN/m3 Ktt MN/m3 Ft MPa c MPa µ

by 9.5 mm (#3) stirrups at 152 mm (6-in) c/c. Concrete slab with a Values 125,000 56,500 0.42 0.52 0.3
thickness of 152 mm (6-in) was reinforced in both directions with
12.5 mm-dia. (#4) bars spaced at 229 mm (9-in) c/c. Lateral loading
was applied by two actuators, fixed against the strong wall on the side Table 2
of structure model (see Fig. 1b). The detailed description of the model Summary of masonry properties.
building, testing arrangement and analysis of the experimental results is
Topology Masonry
available in [51]. Material 3D Non Linear Cementitious2

Parameters E GPa GF N/m ʋ ft MPa fc MPa

3. Numerical modeling
Masonry structures have explicit and different bond typologies, to
address that, several modeling procedures have been practiced.
Normally, for the hypothetical purposes the masonry modeling has
been practiced at two different scales, called as micro- and macro-ele-
ment approaches, see Lourenço [52]. Field applications of these theo-
retical approaches can be gotten e.g. in [11,12], but they stay restricted
to rather small group of experts. The idea of accepting structural ele-
ment models for masonry structures, labelled by “macro-element
modeling” was offered in the 1970s by Tomazevic [8] and approved to
do seismic assessment. This idea is conferred next, with the smooth
implementation of constitutive models and formulating the structural
equilibrium. To study the confined brick masonry structure under lat-
eral loading, the ATENA software [39] was employed to define the
numerical model. Macro-modeling approach was used to model the
whole structure using the material homogenization concept. The model
was validated with the experimental results of the confined brick ma-
sonry structure [51].
3.1. Material constitutive relationships
Separate material models were used for concrete (foundation, con-
fining elements and slab), steel reinforcement and masonry assemblies.
Experimental tests carried out on materials and masonry assemblages
[51] were used in the description of mechanical properties of these
models.
The masonry element was modeled using “3D Non-linear
Cementitious 2” material model available in the ATENA [53]. The
tensile and compressive behavior of the material is described with
single stress–strain relationship in a coordinate system. Exponential and
Parabolic constitutive laws were used to describe the tensile and
Values 1.143 14.35 0.2 0.58 3.16
compressive behavior of brick masonry units respectively, see Fig. 2.
The interface between the macro-element and the adjacent confining
elements or slab was modeled using a gap element based on coulomb-
friction criteria. The tangential stiffness of the mortar was obtained
through the triplet shear test. Material properties are summarized in
Tables 1 and 2.
Steel reinforcement was modeled using a uni-directional elastic-
strain hardening response. The bi-linear elastic hardening model was
adopted with yield strength of 280 MPa. However for concrete, the
same material model used for masonry, was adopted with a compres-
sive strength of 20 MPa.
3.2. Geometry and meshing
One of the primary objective of this study was to establish a simple
three-dimensional nonlinear model that replicates the original tested
structure, capable of capturing the key response features of this kind of
quasi-brittle construction. For this purpose, the masonry piers, sur-
rounded by RC confining elements were modeled as a single macro-
element unit with the properties of (actually tested) prism assigned to
it. Similarly, in confining elements, the longitudinal reinforcement was
modeled as discrete bar elements, however for simplicity, the shear
reinforcement (ties in tie-columns and stirrups in tie-beams) were
modeled as smeared reinforcement. The same approach was adopted in
case of slab, and smeared reinforcement was used in both the ortho-
gonal directions. These modifications helped in reducing the number of
finite elements considerably and keeping the model simpler. To simu-
late the bond of reinforcement with concrete, the ‘‘perfect connection’’

Fig. 2. (a) Compressive and (b) tensile behavior of brick masonry unit [53].

641
A. Ahmed and K. Shahzada
option in Atena was used, which enforces full bond. The interface be-
tween concrete elements and masonry was modeled as frictional in the
tangential direction and ‘‘hard contact’’ in the normal direction with
quadratic interpolation. The masonry piers/walls were modeled as shell
element to reduce the mesh complexity.
The FE mesh was simply consisted of continuum elements and in-
terface elements to represent the masonry assembly and interface re-
spectively. However, it should be mentioned that–exclusively when
modeling the brittle materials (e.g. masonry), thick FE meshes do not
necessarily provide the most precise results. Contrarily, the practice of
large number of FEs can produce numerical problems (instability) in the
crack-opening and closing process adopted, as the quantity of potential
cracks formed during each iteration escalates significantly with the rise
of the Gauss points adopted in the FE mesh. This, consequently, in-
creases the risk of numerical instability in the solution process. Owing
to these facts, a mesh sensitivity study was performed to determine the
optimum mesh size suitable for masonry assembly and confining ele-
ments. The maximum mesh size was taken as 90 mm (for masonry
elements) and refinements were applied to the tie-beams and tie-col-
umns, the concrete slab and its vertical edge (about 25 mm was used for
the non-negligible overlaps to get connected). The model employed (1)
element CCIsoBrick, which is an isoparametric solid element for ma-
sonry and concrete elements, and (2) element CCIsoGap, which is also
an isoparametric twelve node gap element for definition of interface as
shown in Fig. 3.
3.3. Boundary and loading conditions
The boundary conditions have lead a central role on the behavior of
structures as it decides the predominant failure mechanism subjected to
lateral loading. Because of the difficulty of calculating the boundary
conditions at laboratory, it is common to assume cantilever structure in
the experimental programs. Therefore, to match the actual loading
conditions the base of the structure was fixed and the lateral dis-
placement was applied at the slab level in this study. As the focus of this
study is on the parametric analysis, therefore only monotonic loading
was considered in the numerical analysis. The model along with the
adopted finite element mesh is shown in Fig. 4.
3.4. Validation of numerical model
As discussed earlier, the mechanical properties of macro-masonry,
interface and their normal and shear stiffness were calibrated, to re-
produce the results acquired in the tested masonry building. In Fig. 5, it
can be seen that the results of proposed macro-model fits the actual
tested results and the parameters like initial stiffness and ultimate
strength are reproduced very accurately. However, the post peak
Fig. 3. (a) Isoparametric brick element, (b) twelve-node gap element [53].
642
Structures 27 (2020) 639–649
behavior of the numerical model doesn’t matches with the tested one
very well and the drop down in lateral strength after ultimate load
value couldn’t be acquired.
As shown in Fig. 6 the numerical model replicate the main crack
pattern developed in confined brick masonry structure, namely diag-
onal cracking and initial flexural cracking. The damage pattern of nu-
merical model matches with experimental pattern fairly well. However,
the scissor like damage pattern couldn’t be obtained in pier 01, which
can also be a reason that the decay in lateral strength (Fig. 5) after
ultimate wasn’t achieved. Another reason for difference in crack pattern
of numerical model as compared to experimental one was that, the
shear reinforcement in confining elements was modeled as smeared
reinforcement. However, a more precise damage pattern can be ob-
tained if discrete bars are used instead, but that will cause the number
of finite elements to increase, hence increasing the complexity of the
model due to the inclusion of reinforcement bond model as well.
On the basis of comparison between numerical and experimental
main results (Figs. 5 and 6), it can be said that the numerical model is
able to reproduce fairly well the experimental Load-deformation curve
and damage pattern of confined brick masonry structure under com-
bined vertical and shear loads, and it is suitable to be used in the
parametric analysis.
4. Parametric analysis
It should be emphasized that parametric analysis also includes the
evaluation of the interaction along the parameters that are under ana-
lysis. Thus, the evaluation of the influence of geometry of the structure
(i.e. wall density ratio), is made for variable pre-compression levels and
for variable masonry strength. It is well known that the variation in
masonry strength and vertical pre-compression leads to distinct crack/
damage patterns and failure modes. Therefore, the consideration of
different masonry strengths, wall density and variation of the pre-
compression level was considered. Also the effect of performance of
confining elements on the response of confined masonry structure was
evaluated to see how the confining elements affect the overall structural
performance.
The parameters under study are:
(a) Geometry: The detail of parameters considered for evaluation of
geometric properties of the structure is presented in Table 3. A total
of eighty one (81) studies were performed where three (03) dif-
ferent values for wall density were used along with nine (09) dif-
ferent levels of pre compression loads and three (03) different
strength values were used for the masonry. The pre-compression is
considered to be a percentage of the compressive strength of ma-
sonry.
A. Ahmed and K. Shahzada
Fig. 4. Building model (a) macro modeling approach, (b) FE mesh detail.
Fig. 5. Force displacement comparison of experimental and numerical results.
(b) Performance of confining elements: The details of parameters con-
sidered for evaluation of confining elements properties is presented
in Table 4. A total of thirty (30) studies were performed with five
(05) different values of longitudinal reinforcement ratios and six
(06) different values of compressive strength of concrete, used in
confining elements (both bond beams and tie columns). Since the
shear reinforcement was modeled as smeared, therefore, it was not
included in this parametric study and was kept constant.
643
Structures 27 (2020) 639–649
5. Results and discussions
By comparing the results, a better understanding of the structure
behavior, as well as possible damage assessment can be obtained. It can
be argued that the chosen case study (confined brick masonry building)
is relatively simple to be representative of a real category of buildings.
Nonetheless, such a structure is useful because it allows to focus on key
parameters, which allows to better understand the behavior of the
structure. It thus makes it possible to determine the possible metho-
dology to be used to evaluate the damage. Once the procedure is well
developed and tested for a number of simple models, it will be then
possible to further extend the methodology to more complex structures,
adopting a probabilistic framework useful for practical applications.
Analysis I: Influence of Wall Density
The ratio of sum of in-plane walls area to the total floor area is
termed as Wall Density. In masonry structures, the wall density ratio
was originally proposed by Meli in 1970 [25,54]. In this study, different
pre-compression levels along with different masonry compressive
strengths were used. Three different values of wall density (slenderness
ratios) were selected and the values of lateral loads vs lateral dis-
placement were plotted for all of them. However, as indicated by As-
troza et al, [55] on damage observations, a minimum wall density of
1.15% should be used to ensure light damage in each principal direc-
tion. Therefor the three values selected for wall density were 4.5%,
6.0% & 7.5%. The lateral strength pattern followed by these combina-
tions is presented in Figs. 7 through 9. At a pre compression level of 0.4
the maximum response was observed for structures with different wall
density values as well as for different masonry strengths. It can be
clearly seen from the graphs that increasing the wall density increases
A. Ahmed and K. Shahzada Structures 27 (2020) 639–649

Fig. 6. Damage pattern of (a) numerical model and (b) experimentally tested model [51], at ultimate displacement.

the lateral strength of the structure. For example, for pre-compression
level of 0.4 and masonry strength of 2 MPa, the building with wall
density of 7.5%, 6.0% and 4.5% had lateral strength of 350kN, 315kN &
295kN respectively. The pattern is same for all other pre-compression
loads and masonry compressive strength values. The results matches
very well with the previous studies and thus predicts the masonry be-
havior precisely. When the pre-compression level is increased beyond
0.4, the lateral load capacity decreases. Also the failure mode changes
to brittle and a sudden collapse of the structure may occur. The relation
between the lateral load capacity and the pre-compression level can be
related by a parabolic function, for the distinct wall density values. This
result is also in accordance with the results presented by Drysdale et al.
[56].
Masonry strength is another important parameter which directly
affects the shear behavior of masonry structures. Zhuge [57] concluded
that the tensile and shear strengths of masonry have more influence
when pre-compression value is small. It can be seen in Figs. 7 through 9,
that the compressive strength of masonry has a very large effect on the
increase in lateral resistance of the structure. This is clearly in agree-
ment with the results reported by other researchers. It can also be seen
that the maximum later load capacity can be achieved for a pre-com-
pression level of 0.4, after which a slight decrease in the capacity was
observed. However, comparing the three (03) masonry strength values
at a pre-compression level of 0.4 and wall density of 7.5%, the lateral
load capacity values are 350, 475 and 640 for masonry strength of
2 MPa, 3 MPa and 4 MPa respectively. This clearly indicates that in-
creasing the masonry quality highly affects the performance of struc-
ture under the effect of lateral loading. A similar pattern was observed
for the structures with wall density of 4.5 and 6.0.
Analysis II: Influence of Properties of confining elements
The properties of confining elements i.e. concrete compressive
strength and longitudinal reinforcement ratio were changed to

Table 3
Parameters considered for evaluation of geometric properties.
Parameters σ/fa Wall Density (%) Masonry strength (MPa)

(a) 0 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50 0.60 4.5 2, 3, 4
(b) 0 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50 0.60 6.0 2, 3, 4
(c) 0 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50 0.60 7.5 2, 3, 4

644
A. Ahmed and K. Shahzada Structures 27 (2020) 639–649

Table 4 structure. Regulating the probable damage to some acceptable limit is

Parameters considered for evaluation of confining elements properties. implied in several codes.
Parameters Concrete compressive strength Longitudinal Reinforcement Structural engineers want simple quantifiable assessment ap-
(MPa) (%) proaches to evaluate the structural safety under an anticipated level of
seismic demand, principally to take decisions about restoration (for
(a) 5 0.05
reparable damages) and/or complete demolition (for irreparable da-
(b) 10 0.10
(c) 15 0.20
mages). Damage indices are appropriate tools for such purposes.
(d) 20 0.30 Hence, the damage index initially proposed by Kwok and Ang [58]
(e) 25 0.40 as a function of the maximum deformation and energy dissipation, for
(f) 30 – unreinforced brick masonry walls and then revised and calibrated by
Teena Colunga et al. [43] for confined masonry walls was adopted in
this study to determine the damage performance of the confined ma-
determine their effects of the lateral load response of the structure,
sonry structure. The Kwok-Ang damage index can be defined with the
results are presented in Fig. 10. It can be seen that enhancing the
following general expressions:
properties of confining elements causes the lateral load resistance of the
structure increases. The increase in longitudinal reinforcement ratio D = Du + De (1)
from 0.05% to 0.4% for a concrete compressive strength of 20 MPa,
increases the lateral load resistance from 200 kN to 260 kN. Thus in- um
Du =
creasing the resistance up to 30%, hence adding considerable strength uf (2)
of the structure.
Similarly by increasing the concrete compressive strength of con- ∫ dE
De = ε
fining elements from 5 MPa to 30 MPa for longitudinal reinforcement qu uf (3)
ratio of 0.4%, the lateral load resistance is increased from 205 kN to
where um is the maximum response deformation, uf is the deformation
290 kN. Thus the effect of concrete compressive strength had a huge
at failure, ∫ dE is the cumulative hysteretic energy, qu is the ultimate
effect on the lateral load resistance of the structure. As explained in
shear capacity and∊ is a constant obtained from Tena Colunga et al.
previous section that the role of confining elements is primarily to
[43]. Structural damage is thus expressed as a function of the response
provide the stability to the masonry piers. And further strengthening of
quantities um and ∫ dE and the structural parameters uf, qu and∊.
these confining elements by enhancing their properties both in terms of
Kwok and Ang [58] found from the regression study of their broad
concrete compressive strength and amount of longitudinal reinforce-
database that ∊ = 0.075 for unreinforced masonry walls. Moreover,
ment, improves the capacity of structure considerably.
they suggested the subsequent damage scale for their index: (a) No
Analysis III: Evaluation of Damage Index
damage: D = 0, (b) reparable damage: 0 < D < 0.25, (c) severe
The objective of structural design is to ensure the safety and
damage: 0.25 < D < 1.0, and (d) Collapse: D > 1. The damage
economy of the structure. Structures when subjected to lateral loads,
index scale proposed by Tena Colunga et al. [43] for confined masonry
should not collapse, even under severe ground shaking. Also, the sur-
is: (a) No damage: D = 0, (b) reparable damage: 0 < D < 0.4, (c)
plus cost essential for lateral load resistance should be lesser than the
severe damage: 0.4 < D < 1.0, (d) Collapse: D > 1. From the re-
probable cost of damage due to an earthquake. Hence, the earthquake
duced database of the experiments described [43], a preliminary value
resistance design should be led by considerations of probable damage to
of ∊ = 0.046 was opted for confined masonry walls. In this study, the

Fig. 7. Wall density vs pre-compression load for masonry strength of 2 MPa.

645
A. Ahmed and K. Shahzada Structures 27 (2020) 639–649

Fig. 8. Wall density vs pre-compression load for masonry strength of 3 MP.

constant ∊ and the limiting boundaries are used as determined by Tena
Colunga et al. [43].
In Fig. 11, the damage index values for masonry compressive
strength of 3 MPa is presented. The two parameters i.e. wall density
ratio (%) and pre-compression level were used as variables to determine
their effect on the overall performance of the confined masonry in terms
of damage index. It can be clearly seen from Fig. 11 that the wall
density has a huge effect on the damage behavior of masonry in
combination with the vertical pre-compression load. For constant value
of wall density (let say 7.5), the damage index decreases by increasing
the pre-compression load on the structures. This pattern continues up to
the pre-compression value of 0.40 after which further increase in ver-
tical pre-compression results in increasing the damage index of the
structure. Similar pattern can be seen for structures with different wall
density ratios (i.e. 4.5 and 6.0). Therefore, it can be said that vertical
pre-compression value of 0.40 gives the optimum results for confined

Fig. 9. Wall density vs pre-compression load for masonry strength of 4 MPa.

646
A. Ahmed and K. Shahzada
Fig. 10. Longitudinal reinforcement ratio vs concrete strength.
Fig. 11. Damage Index values for Masonry strength of 3 MPa.
masonry structures beyond which the structure will lose its ductility. It
is also evident that wall density plays very important role in damage
behavior of the confined masonry structure. For same vertical pre-
compression load (let say 0.40), the damage index for structure with
wall density of 4.5 is 0.50 as compared to the structure with wall
density of 7.5 is 0.32. Thus showing that by taking suitable wall density
ratio the damage level of the structure can be reduced significantly. It
can also be seen from the Fig. 11 that wall density ratio of 7.5 with pre-
compression values between 0.10 and 0.52 has damage index values in
the range of reparable damage. On the other hand, for the wall density
ratio of 4.5 and 6.0, all the values of vertical pre-compression lies in the
range of severe damage, nevertheless they were farther from the col-
lapse of the structure. Thus giving the life safety surety of the in-
habitants.
6. Conclusions
The non-linear finite element modelling of a 3-dimensional masonry
647
Structures 27 (2020) 639–649
structure using macro-element modeling, gives reliable results as
compared to experimental data and permits to perform parametric
analysis where the boundary conditions remains the same but different
parameters were varied to evaluate their influence on the global be-
havior of confined masonry structure. The macro-element modeling
approach was chosen for the numerical simulation because of the need
to understand the global resistance mechanisms of the confined ma-
sonry building. In a first phase, the numerical model was calibrated
based on the experimental results. A very reasonable agreement was
found between the numerical and experimental results describing the
lateral load behavior of confined brick masonry structure. Since the
shear reinforcement in the confining elements was modeled as smeared
reinforcement, therefore it can be said that more accurate results can be
obtained if the discrete modeling approach is adopted for the shear
reinforcement, especially when comparing the damage patterns of nu-
merical model with that of experimental one. In a second phase, an in-
depth parametric analysis was performed where a total of one hundred
and eleven (1 1 1) studies were performed to evaluate the influence of
wall density, vertical pre-compression, masonry strength and properties
of confining elements on the in-plane behavior of confined brick ma-
sonry structure. Regarding the results of the parametric analysis of the
confined masonry structure, the following conclusions can be made:
(a) The masonry compressive strength had a maximum influence on
the lateral load capacity of the structure. For same wall density
ratio and pre-compression loading, the capacity of the structure
increases about 80% by enhancing the masonry strength form
2 MPa to 4 MPa. The wall density and pre compression level also
had a significant effect on the response of the structure. By in-
creasing the wall density from 4.5% to 7.5%, the lateral load ca-
pacity of the structure increases about 18.6% under same pre
compression load. Similarly, by increasing the pre compression load
level from 0.05 to 0.4, the lateral load capacity of the structure
increases about 32%, for same wall density and masonry strength.
(b) Longitudinal reinforcement ratio in tie-columns also had a con-
siderable influence on the lateral resistance of confined masonry. By
increasing the reinforcement ratio from 0.05 to 0.4, the capacity of
the structure increases about 26%. Similarly, the enhancement of
A. Ahmed and K. Shahzada
concrete compressive strength in the confining elements also had a
significant influence on the lateral resistance of structure. By in-
creasing the concrete strength from 5 to 30 MPa, the capacity of
structure enhances by 38%, for same amount of steel.
(c) A damage index is used to determine the damage performance of
confined masonry by varying certain parameters (i.e. wall density
and pre-compression level). It was concluded that by increasing the
wall density, the potential damage of the structure decreases con-
siderable. Also increasing the pre-compression up to 0.40 reduces
the damage value however further increasing the value beyond 0.40
tends to increase the damage value as the brittle behavior prevails.
Finally, it should be emphasized that the results of the parametric
study made it possible to identify in more detail the characteristic
failure modes of the confined brick masonry building under lateral
loading.
Declaration of Competing Interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial
interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influ-
ence the work reported in this paper.
References
[1] Nucera F, et al. Influence of geometrical and mechanical parameters on the seismic
vulnerability assessment of confined masonry buildings by macro-element mod-
eling. Proceedings of 15th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering; 2012. p.
24–8.
[2] Marques R, Lourenço PB. Unreinforced and confined masonry buildings in seismic
regions: validation of macro-element models and cost analysis. Eng Struct
2014;2014(64):52–67.
[3] Ranjbaran F, Hosseini M, Soltani M. Simplified formulation for modeling the non-
linear behavior of confined masonry walls in seismic analysis. Int J Architect
Heritage 2012;6(3):259–89.
[4] Pasticier L, Amadio C, Fragiacomo M. Nonlinear seismic analysis and vulnerability
evaluation of a masonry building by means of the SAP2000 V. 10 code. Earthquake
Eng Struct Dyn 2008;37(3):467–85.
[5] Stoica D. About masonry walls ductility capacities calculation. Proceedings 3rd
International Conference “Research & Innovation in Engineering”. COMAT; 2014.
[6] Caliò I, Marletta M, Pantò B. A new discrete element model for the evaluation of the
seismic behavior of URM buildings. Eng Struct 2012;40:327–38.
[7] Raka E, Spacone E, Sepe V, Camata G. Advanced frame element for seismic analysis
of masonry structures: model formulation and validation. Earthquake Eng Struct
Dyn 2015. https://doi.org/10.1002/eqe.2594.
[8] Tomaževič M. The computer program POR. Ljubljana: Report ZRMK; 1978. [in
Slovenian].
[9] Lagomarsino S, Penna A, Galasco A, Cattari S. TREMURI program: an equivalent
frame model for the nonlinear seismic analysis of masonry buildings. Eng Struct
2013;56:1787–99.
[10] Magenes G, Della Fontana A. Simplified non-linear seismic analysis of masonry
buildings. Proceedings of the British Masonry Society; 1998. p. 190–5.
[11] Vanin A, Foraboschi P. Modelling of masonry panels by truss analogy–Part 1.
Masonry Int 2009;22(1):1–10.
[12] Rinaldin Giovanni, Amadio Claudio, Macorini Lorenzo. A macro-model with non-
linear springs for seismic analysis of URM buildings. Earthquake Eng Struct Dyn
2016;45:2261–81.
[13] Marques R, Lourenço PB. Possibilities and comparison of structural component
models for the seismic assessment of modern unreinforced masonry buildings.
Comput Struct 2011;89(21–22):2079–91.
[14] Calliari R, Manzini CF, Morandi P, Magenes G, Remino M. 2010. User manual of
ANDILWall, version 2.5. Rome: ANDIL Assolaterizi; 2010 [in Italian].
[15] Lagomarsino S, Penna A, Galasco A, Cattari S. User guide of TreMuri (seismic
analysis program for 3D masonry buildings), version 1.7.34. University of Genoa;
2009.
[16] Sismica Gruppo. Theoretical manual of the 3DMacro software, beta version.
Catania: Gruppo Sismica; 2013.
[17] Marques R, Lourenco PB. Possibilities and comparison of structural component
models for the seismic assessment of modern URM buildings. Comput Struct
2011;89:2079–91.
[18] Alcocer SM, Zepeda JA. Behavior of multi-perforated clay brick walls under
earthquake type loading. Austin: 8th North American Masonry Conference; 1999. p.
235–46.
[19] Alcocer SM, Arias JG, Vazquez A. Response assessment of Mexican confined ma-
sonry structures through shaking table tests”. Vancouver, Canada: Proceedings,
13th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering; 2004. p. 2130.
[20] Aguilar G, Meli R, Diaz R, Vazquez-del-Mercado RS. Influence of the horizontal
reinforcement on the behavior of confined masonry walls. Acapulco, Mexico:
648
Structures 27 (2020) 639–649
Proceedings, 11th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering; 1996.
[21] Brzev S. Earthquake resistant confined masonry construction. Kanpur: National
Information Centre of Earthquake Engineering; 2007.
[22] Gostic S, Zarnic R. Cyclic lateral response of masonry infilled RC frames and con-
fined masonry walls. Austin: Proceedings of the 8th North American Masonry
Conference; 1999. p. 477–88.
[23] Gouveia J, Lourenço P. Masonry shear walls subjected to cyclic loading: influence of
confinement and horizontal reinforcement”. Saint Louis, Missouri: Proceedings,
Tenth North American Masonry Conference (10NAMC); 2007. CD-ROM, June.
[24] Irimies MT. Confined Masonry Walls: the influence of the tie-column vertical re-
inforcement ratio on the seismic behaviour. The Proceedings of the 12th European
Conference on Earthquake Engineering; 2002.
[25] Meli R. Behavior of masonry walls under lateral loads”. Italy Rome: Proceedings,
Fifth World Conference on Earthquake Engineering; 1973.
[26] Bernardini, A., Modena, C., Turnesek, V. and Vescovi, U. (1980) A comparison of
three laboratory tests.
[27] Luders C, Hidalgo P. Ïnfluencia dei refuerzo horizontal en el comportamiento
seismico de muros de albanileria armada. Cuartas Jornadas Chilenas de Sis- mologia
e Ingenieria Antisismica 1986;2:H139–58.
[28] Tomazevic M, Lutman M. Seismic resistance of reinforced masonry walls.
Proceedings of the 9th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering. Japan As, for
Earthquake Disaster Prevention; 1988.
[29] Sanchez, T.A., Flores, L.E., Leon F., Alcocer S.M. and Meli, R. (1992) Respuesta
sismica de muros de mampos- teria confinada con diferentes grados de acopla-
miento a flexion. CENAPRED, Informe ES/02/91, 106 Pages.
[30] Kumazava F, Ohkubo M. Nonlinear characteristics of confined masonry wall with
lateral reinforcement in mortar joints. Auckland: Proceedings of the 12th World
Conference on Earthquake Engineering; 2000. p. 743.
[31] Yoshimura K, Kikuchi K, Kuroki M, Nonaka H, Kim KT, Matsumoto Y, Itai T,
Reeznag W, Ma L. Experimental study on reinforcing methods for confined masonry
walls subjected to seismic forces. South Carolina, USA: Proceedings of 9th North
American Masonry Conference; 2003. p. 89–100.
[32] Yoshimura K, Kikuchi K, Kuroki M, Liu L, Ma L. Effect of wall reinforcement, ap-
plied lateral forces and vertical axial loads on seismic behavior of confined concrete
masonry walls. 12th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering; 2000. p. 0984.
[33] Yanez F, Astroza M, Holmberg A, Ogaz O. Behavior of confined masonry shear walls
with large openings. 13th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering; 2004.
[34] Zabala C, Honma C, Gibu P, Gallardo P, Huaco G. Full scale on line test on two story
masonry building using handmade bricks. 13th World Conference on Earthquake
Engineering; 2004.
[35] Marinilli A, Castilla E. Experimental evaluation of confined masonry walls with
several confining-columns”. Proceedings of 13th World Conference on Earthquake
Engineering; 2004.
[36] Wijaya W, Kusumastuti D, Suarjana M, Rildova, Pribadi K. Experimental study on
wall-frame connection of confined masonry wall. Procedia Eng 2011;14:2094–102.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.proeng.2011.07.263.
[37] Ishibashi K, Meli R, Alcocer SM, Leon F, Sanchez TA. Experimental study on
earthquake-resistant design of confined masonry structures. Madrid, Spain:
Proceedings of the Tenth World Conference on Earthquake Engineering; 1992. p.
3469–74.
[38] Alcocer SM, Meli R. Test program on the seismic behavior of confined masonry
structures”. Masonry Soc J 1995;13(2):68–76.
[39] Flores LE, Alcocer SM. Calculated response of confined masonry structures Paper
no. 1830 Acapulco, MexicoOxford: Pergamon: Proceeding of the 11th World
Conference on Earthquake Engineering; 1996.
[40] Alcocer SM, Ruiz J, Pineda JA, Zepeda JA. “Retrofitting of confined masonry walls
with welded wire mesh”. Acapulco, Mexico: Proceedings, 11th World Conference
on Earthquake Engineering; 1996.
[41] Varela-Rivera J, Fernández-Baqueiro L, Alcocer-Canche R, Ricalde-Jiménez J,
Chim- May R. Shear and flexural behavior of autoclaved aerated concrete confined
masonry walls”. ACI Struct J 2018;115(5):1453–62.
[42] Hori N, Inoue N, Purushotam D, Nishida T, Kobayashi J. Experimental and analy-
tical studies on earthquake resisting behavior of confined concrete block masonry
structures. Earthquake Eng Struct Dyn 2006;35:1699–719.
[43] Tena-Colunga A, Juárez-Ángeles A, Salinas-Vallejo VH. Cyclic behavior of com-
bined and confined masonry walls”. Eng Struct 2009;31(1):240–59. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2008.08.015.
[44] Quiroz LG, Maruyama Y, Zavala C. Cyclic behavior of Peruvian confined masonry
walls and calibration of numerical model using genetic algorithms”. Eng Struct
2014;75:561–76.
[45] Cruz AI, Pérez-Gavilán JJ. Contribution of horizontal reinforcement to in-plane
shear strength of confined masonry walls. Denver Colorado USA: 12th North
American Masonry Conference; 2015.
[46] Flores LE, Pérez-Gavilán JJ, Alcocer SM. “Displacement capacity of confined ma-
sonry structures reinforced with horizontal reinforcement: shaking table tests”.
Santiago, Chile: Proceedings, 16th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering;
2017.
[47] Jingjiang S, Ono T, Yangang Z, Wei W. Lateral load pattern in pushover analysis.
Earthquake Eng Eng Vibr 2003;2:99–107.
[48] Makarios TK. Optimum definition of equivalent non-linear SDF system in pushover
procedure of multistory R/C frames. Eng Struct 2005;27:814–25.
[49] Jiang Y, Li G, Yang D. A modified approach of energy balance concept based
multimode pushover analysis to estimate seismic demands for buildings. Eng Struct
2010;32:1272–83.
[50] Akhaveissy AH, Abbassi M. Pushover analysis of unreinforced masonry structures
by fiber finite element method. Res Civil Environ Eng 2014;2(03):96–119.
A. Ahmed and K. Shahzada
[51] Asfandyar Ahmed, Imad Ahmad, Khan Shahzada, Muhammad Tayyab Naqqash,
Bashir Alam, Muhammad Fahad and Sajjad Wali Khan. Seismic Capacity
Assessment of Confined Brick Masonry Building: An Experimental Approach. Shock
and Vibration, Volume 2018, Article ID 4756352.
[52] Lourenco, P. Computational strategies for masonry structures. Doctoral theses. Delft
University of Technology, 1996. ISBN 90-407-1221-2. 222 p.
[53] Vladimír Červenka, Libor Jendele and Jan Červenka. Atena Program
Documentation Part 1-Theory, Prague, May 19, 2016.
[54] Meli, R. Structural design of masonry buildings: The Mexican practice. ACI Special
Publication 147 Masonry in the Americas, 1994, American Concrete Institute, 239-
262.
649
Structures 27 (2020) 639–649
[55] Astroza, M., Moroni, M., and Kupfer, M. Calificacion sısmica de edificios de
albanilerıa de ladrillo confinada con elementos de hormigon armado. Proc., XXVI
Jornadas Sudamericana de Ingenieria Estructural, Montevideo, 1993, Uruguay, Vol.
1, Asociacion Sudamericana de Ingenierıa Estructural, 327–338. [In Spanish].
[56] Drysdale RG, Hamid AA, Baker LR. Masonry structures: behavior and design.
Boulder Colorado USA: The Masonry Society; 1999.
[57] Zhuge Y, Thambiratnam D, Corderoy J. Nonlinear dynamic analysis of unreinforced
masonry. J Struct Eng 1998;124(3):270–7.
[58] Kwok Y-H, Ang AH-S. Seismic damage analysis and design of unreinforced masonry
buildings, Structural research series no. 536. University of Illinois at Urbana-
Champaign; 1987.