Anda di halaman 1dari 123

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

net/publication/316716493

Design guidelines for confined masonry buildings

Book · February 2017

CITATIONS READS

0 1,386

1 author:

Ajay Chourasia
Central Building Research Institute
40 PUBLICATIONS   34 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

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

Development of a technology for optimal extraction of locked-up coal from underground mines using artificial pillars (DeCoalArt). Project No: ESC0105 View project

Rehabilitation of Buildings View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Ajay Chourasia on 07 May 2017.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.


Design Guidelines for
Confined Masonry Buildings

Dr. AJAY CHOURASIA


Principal Scientist

सी.एस.आई.आर - भवन अनुसंधान


247667, भारत
Design Guidelines for Confined Masonry Buildings

सी.एस.आई.आर - भवन अनुसंधान


डॉ. एन.
- 247667, (भारत)

Dr. N. Gopalkrishnan CSIR-Central Building Research Institute


Director (A Constituent Establishment of CSIR)
ROORKEE - 247 667 (INDIA)

FOREWORD
Most of the low-to-medium rise buildings in many countries, including India, are of unreinforced
masonry (URM), which is know for its poor seismic performance. Moreover, the brick masonry
construction in India shows a large variability as compared to those in developed countries.
These contrasting difference pose challenge and call for improved technologies for masonry
construction.

In contrast, Confined Masonry (CM), comprising of masonry panels embraced with lightly
reinforced concrete elements, is expected to have better seismic performance. However, CM
potentialities are yet to be fully exploited in Indian context. To do so, CSIR-CBRI has performed
extensive R& D on seismic performance of confined masonry building and conducted full-
scale test on CM model. The information is utilized to develop design features along with its
economic aspects and a comparison with already available test data of URM and RM models.

The primary Indian codes do not provide approach to the design of confined masonry
buildings, especially when subjected to vertical and lateral loads such as earthquake. This
document of “Design guidelines for confined masonry buildings” is one of the milestone in
introducing modern concept of engineered confined masonry so that benefits of seismic
resistant, durable and economical masonry construction can be pronoted. The design
provisions of these guidelines follow principles of allowable stress design, which is consistent with
the design philosophy of IS:1905. It is believed that for the first time in the country the engineered
approach to design of confined masonry is being attempted; a more reliable, familiar and
tested allowable stress design procedure will be followed in years to come.

The efforts put by Dr Ajay Chourasia and his team to come out with a publication is praise
worthy. I hope the contents of the book will be able to create better understanding towards
cost-effective-seismic resistant confined masonry construction amongst professionals and it
will go a long way towards our dream to have earthquake resilient India.

(Dr N. Gopalakrishnan)

Tel : (+91) 1332 272243 (O) Fax : (+91) 1332 272272, 272543
Website : www.cbri.res.in E-mail : director@cbri.res.in, director@cbrimail.com

i
Design Guidelines for Confined Masonry Buildings

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

This design guideline on confined Masonry building is based on the extensive experiences
gained while working on research programme on Performance Evaluation of Confined
Masonry Buildings under Cyclic Loads at CSIR-Central Building Research Institute (CBRI),
Roorkee. Under this programme extensive study on characterization of masonry and its
constituents, with reference to material available in Roorkee; interaction between brick and
mortar; experimental and numerical evaluation to study behaviour of full-scale confined
masonry buildings subjected to lateral loads were performed.

This document is primarily concerned with the use of confined masonry for enhanced load
carrying capacity and improved seismic performance. The structural adequacy of confined
masonry depends upon a number of factors, among which mention may be made of
quality and strength of masonry units and mortars, workmanship, methods of bonding,
slenderness of wall, eccentricity in the loading, position and size of openings in walls,
location of cross walls, and various load combinations for the structural analysis etc. The
guideline addresses the requirements related to the geometrical details of building
components, reinforcement in reinforced concrete element and its detailing for various
level of performance. It is assumed that design of confined masonry building is done by
qualified engineer and execution is carried out as per the recommendations made in this
document read with other relevant codes, under the directions of an experience supervisor.

In the development of this document reference is made to several literature (as given in
References). All these references are mentioned in appropriate places and are greatfully
acknowledged. Special thanks are due to Prof. C.V.R. Murty, Prof. S.K. Bhattacharyya, Prof
N.M. Bhandari and Prof. Pradeep Bhargava, whose extraordinary pedagogic skills guided
me in this research programme and in developing these guidelines. I also acknowledge the
financial support by CSIR under 12th five year plan in the early stages of this project and in
enthusiastic support received from my colleagues Dr Shantanu Sarkar, Jalaj Parashar,
Shubham Singhal, Sugam Kumar, Neelam, Shermi C., Nishat Parvez and entire CSIR-CBRI
family.

At last but not the least, I sincerely acknowledge the encouragement and support being
provided by Dr N. Gopalakrishnan, Director, CSIR-CBRI in bringing out this document. I am
also grateful to him for reposing faith in me and giving me freedom, independence and
opportunity to work.

Ajay Chourasia

ii
Design Guidelines for Confined Masonry Buildings

Contents

CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION. .................................................................................................................................................... 1


1.1Backdrop. ........................................................................................................................................................................ 1
1.2 Confined Masonry ....................................................................................................................................................... 1
1.3 Earthquake Performance of CM Buildings. ........................................................................................................... 3
1.4 Failure Mechanism....................................................................................................................................................... 4
1.5 Behaviour of CM Wall Panels. .................................................................................................................................. 5
1.5.1 Masonry Characteristics. ............................................................................................................................ 5
1.5.2 Failure Pattern................................................................................................................................................ 6
1.5.3 Influence of Design Parameters on CM Buildings. ............................................................................... 7
1.5.3.1 Wall Density. ................................................................................................................................................ 7
1.5.3.2 Wall Openings............................................................................................................................................. 7
1.5.3.3 Confining Elements.................................................................................................................................... 8
1.5.3.4 Multiple Confining Tie-Column. ............................................................................................................. 10
1.5.3.5 Wall Reinforcement................................................................................................................................. 12
1.5.3.6 Confining Elements-Masonry Interaction........................................................................................... 12
1.5.3.7 Vertical Load............................................................................................................................................. 13
1.5.3.8 Aspect Ratio.............................................................................................................................................. 13
1.6 Behaviour of CM Buildings: Shake Table Tests.................................................................................................... 14
1.7 Scope. ........................................................................................................................................................................... 15

CHAPTER 2. PLANNING ASPECTS........................................................................................................................................... 17


2.1 Purpose. ........................................................................................................................................................................ 17
2.2 Design Considerations. ............................................................................................................................................. 17
2.3 Seismic Hazard............................................................................................................................................................ 18
2.4 Architectural and Structural Concepts................................................................................................................ 19
2.4.1 Building Shape. ............................................................................................................................................ 19
2.4.2 Wall Distribution. .......................................................................................................................................... 20
2.4.3 Symmetric Walls........................................................................................................................................... 20
2.4.4 Vertical Discontinuity. ................................................................................................................................ 20
2.4.5 Slender Plan.................................................................................................................................................. 21
2.4.6 Symmetrical Openings. ............................................................................................................................. 21
2.4.7 Wall Opening Proportions. ....................................................................................................................... 21
2.4.8 Masonry Bond. ............................................................................................................................................. 22
2.4.9 Other Important Aspects. ......................................................................................................................... 22
2.5 Materials............................................................................................................................................................ 23
2.5.1 Masonry Unit................................................................................................................................................. 23
2.5.1.1 Compressive Strength............................................................................................................................. 23

iii
Design Guidelines for Confined Masonry Buildings

2.5.2 Mortar. .......................................................................................................................................................... 23


2.5.2.1Compressive Strength.............................................................................................................................. 24
2.5.3 Masonry. ........................................................................................................................................................ 24
2.5.3.1 Compressive Strength............................................................................................................................. 24
2.5.3.2 Tensile Strength......................................................................................................................................... 24
2.5.3.3 Shear Strength. ......................................................................................................................................... 25
2.5.4 Concrete. ...................................................................................................................................................... 25
2.5.5 Steel. ............................................................................................................................................................... 29
2.6 Construction Methodology of CM Building. ............................................................................................... 26

CHAPTER 3. DESIGN OF CONFINED MASONRY BUILDINGS.............................................................................................. 37


3.0 Introduction.......................................................................................................................................................... 37
3.1 General Principles.............................................................................................................................................. 38
3.1.1 Dimensions. ................................................................................................................................................... 38
3.1.2 Wall Density. ................................................................................................................................................. 38
3.2 Wall Stiffness And Torsion. ............................................................................................................................ 39
3.2.1 Equivalent Stiffness of Wall........................................................................................................................ 39
3.2.2 Torsion............................................................................................................................................................. 40
3.2.2.1 Centre of Stiffness and Centre of Mass. ............................................................................................ 40
3.2.2.2 Torsional Stiffness. ..................................................................................................................................... 40
3.2.2.3 Eccentricity. ............................................................................................................................................... 41
3.3 Design Lateral Force.......................................................................................................................................... 41
3.3.1 Building Weight. ........................................................................................................................................... 41
3.3.2 Base Shear. ................................................................................................................................................... 42
3.3.3 Distribution of Design Lateral Force........................................................................................................ 42
3.3.4 Distribution of Seismic Force into Individual Panels............................................................................ 43
3.4 In-Plane Stability of Walls.................................................................................................................................. 43
3.4.1 Check for Compressive Stress. ................................................................................................................ 43
3.4.2 Check for Tensile stress.............................................................................................................................. 44
3.4.3 Check for Shear Stress. .............................................................................................................................. 44
3.5 Out-Of-Plane Stability of Walls. ....................................................................................................................... 45
3.5.1 Check for Overturning............................................................................................................................... 45
3.5.2 Check for Out-of-Plane Stability. ............................................................................................................ 45
3.6 Design of Bond Beam. ...................................................................................................................................... 46
3.7 Design of Tie-Column. ....................................................................................................................................... 48
3.8 Foundation. .......................................................................................................................................................... 49

CHAPTER 4. EXPERIMENTAL STUDY ON CONFINED MASONRY. ....................................................................................... 51


4.1. Backdrop................................................................................................................................................................... 51
4.2 Experimental Planning. ........................................................................................................................................... 51
4.2.1 Confined Masonry Model. ....................................................................................................................... 53

iv
Design Guidelines for Confined Masonry Buildings

4.3 Test Arrangements............................................................................................................................................. 55


4.3.1 Test Procedure. .................................................................................................................................. 56
4.4 Damage Characteristics. ................................................................................................................................. 56
4.4.1 Sequence of Cracking..................................................................................................................... 57
4.4.2 Failure Mode. ...................................................................................................................................... 59
4.5 Seismic Response. .............................................................................................................................................. 59
4.5.1 Lateral Strength and Deformation. ............................................................................................... 59
4.5.2 Stiffness Degradation. ....................................................................................................................... 61
4.5.3 Evaluation of In-Plane Drift and Ductility. .................................................................................... 61
4.5.4 Cumulative Input and Dissipated Energy. .................................................................................. 63
4.6 Base Shear Coefficient. .................................................................................................................................... 63
4.7 Structural Behaviour Factor. ............................................................................................................................ 64
4.8 Concluding Remarks. ....................................................................................................................................... 66

CHAPTER 5 DESIGN EXAMPLE. ................................................................................................................................................. 69


5.1 Problem Statement. ........................................................................................................................................... 69
5.1.1 Check for Wall Density......................................................................................................................71
5.1.2 Calculation of Equivalent Stiffness of Wall Panels.....................................................................71
5.1.3 Centre of Stiffness and Centre of Mass. .......................................................................................73
5.1.4 Torsional Stiffness of Wall Panels. ....................................................................................................74
5.1.5 Computation of Eccentricity for CM Building. ...........................................................................75
5.1.6 Calculation of CM Building Weight. ..............................................................................................76
5.1.7 Calculation of Base Shear. ..............................................................................................................76
5.1.8 Distribution of Design Lateral Force...............................................................................................76
5.1.9 Distribution of Seismic Force into Individual Panels. .................................................................77
5.1 10 Check for Overturning. ....................................................................................................................78
5.1.11 In-Plane Stability of Wall Panels.....................................................................................................79
5.1.11.1 Check for Compressive Stress..............................................................................................79
5.1.11.2 Compressive Strength Check from Wall Density............................................................80
5.1.11.3 Check for Tensile Stress. .........................................................................................................80
5.1.11.4 Check for Shear Stress............................................................................................................82
5.1.11.5 Shear Strength Check from Wall Density. .........................................................................83
5.1.12 Out-of-Plane Stability of Wall Panels............................................................................................83
5.1.13 Design of Bond Beam. .....................................................................................................................84
5.1 14 Design of Tie Column. ......................................................................................................................85
5.2 Structural Detailing of Confining Elements. ................................................................................................ 97
5.3 Economic Aspects........................................................................................................................................... 102
5.4 Concluding Remarks. ..................................................................................................................................... 104
References. ..................................................................................................................................................................... 105

v
Design Guidelines for Confined Masonry Buildings

List of Figures
Figure 1.1 Typical confined masonry building .......................................................................................................................... 2
Figure 1.2 Cracking behaviour and performance of URM and CM wall panel (Gouveia et al. 2007)...................6
Figure 1.3 Flexural failure of CM wall panel- (Zabala et al. 2004). ........................................................................... 6
Figure 1.4 Failure mechanisms due to opening in CM wall (Yanez et al. 2004). ................................................... 8
Figure 1.5 Performance of confinement configuration around opening (Rai, D. 2014). ............................................ 8
Figure 1.6 Tie-column reinforcement detailing- reduced tie spacing at end region (Brzev, S. 2007)................... 9
Figure 1.7 Response of CM walls under lateral loading (a) Lateral load-displacement Envelope (b) Final crack
patterns of wall MV1 and MV5 (San Bartolome et al. 1994)................................................................. 10
Figure 1.8 Crack pattern of CM wall for different arrangements of confining elements (Rai, D. 2014). .............11
Figure 1.9 EffectofreinforcementinCMwalls (Aguilar etal.1996). ...................................................................... 12
Figure1.10 Toothing in confined masonry walls.......................................................................................................... 13
Figure 2.1 Seismic Zone Map of India ........................................................................................................................ 18
Figure 2.2 Building Shape ............................................................................................................................................. 19
Figure 2.3 Wall distribution along two directions in plan.......................................................................................................20
Figure 2.4 Plan layout of CM building ......................................................................................................................... 20
Figure 2.5 Vertically continuity of walls at different storeys .................................................................................................20
Figure 2.6 Length to width ratio of CM building ........................................................................................................ 21
Figure 2.7 Locations of openings in CM buildings.................................................................................................... 21
Figure 2.8 Length of openings in CM buildings......................................................................................................... 22
Figure 2.9 Masonry bond in brickwork of CM buildings ........................................................................................................22
Figure 3.1 Nomenclature for design of confined masonry building ...............................................................................37
Figure 3.2 Computation of wall density in principal direction............................................................................................38
Figure 3.3 Wall panel divided into piers...................................................................................................................... 39
Figure 3.4 Torsion due to eccentricity ........................................................................................................................................41
Figure 3.5 Response spectra for 5% damping.......................................................................................................... 42
Figure 3.6 Storey Shear Distribution along building height .................................................................................................42
Figure 3.7 Wall Subjected to Axial and Out-of-Plane Loads ...............................................................................................45
Figure 3.8 Anchorage of longitudinal bars of tie beaminto tie column at end span ........................................ 46
Figure 3.9 Detailing of tie beam for CM building ..................................................................................................... 47
Figure3.10 Detailing of tie column for CM building ................................................................................................... 48
Figure3.11 Stirrup with a cross-tie .................................................................................................................................. 49
Figure 3.12 Alternative foundation systems for confined masonry building ....................................................................49
Figure 4.1 Structural details of a full-scale confined masonry building model ...........................................................54
Figure 4.2 Lateral cyclic displacement time histories...........................................................................................................56
Figure 4.3 Final crack pattern in walls of CM building model ................................................................................. 58
Figure 4.4 Hystertic curve for CM building model. .................................................................................................................60
Figure 4.5 Stiffness degradation of CM building in cyclic loading ...................................................................................61
Figure 4.6 Drifft of CM building at different control points...................................................................................................62
Figure 4.7 Resistance curve of different masonry system: Base shear coefficient- Storey drift relationship......64

vi
Design Guidelines for Confined Masonry Buildings

Figure 4.8 Progression of damage for masonry construction ............................................................................ 65


Figure 5.1 Building plan................................................................................................................................................ 69
Figure 5.2 Elevation of panel AC1 showing different piers ................................................................................. 71
Figure 5.3 Typical layout of tie-column and bond-beam at ground and first floor..................................... 97
Figure 5.4 Typical layout of tie-column and bond-beam at second floor................................................... 98
Figure 5.5 Typical layout of tie-column and bond-beam at third floor ......................................................... 99
Figure 5.6 Typical details of bond-beam reinforcement .................................................................................. 100
Figure 5.7 Typical details of lap splices in bond-beams .................................................................................... 100
Figure 5.8 Typical details of tie-column showing lap splices ........................................................................... 101
Figure 5.9 Typical view of four storey confined masonry building in seismic zone IV ................................. 103
Figure 5.10 Typical view of four storey confined masonry building in seismic zone V .................................. 103
Figure5.11 Average construction cost of masonry buildings with reference to RC framed structure......... 104

vii
Design Guidelines for Confined Masonry Buildings

List of Tables
Table 2.1 Seismic Zone Factor ........................................................................................................................................ 18
Table2.2 Range of Compressive Strength of Burnt SolidClay BricksinIndia........................................................... 23
Table 2.3 Mix Proportions and Strength of Mortars for Masonry............................................................................................24
Table 2.4 Permissible Tensile Stress for Masonry........................................................................................................... 25
Table 3.1 Maximum Slenderness Ratio for a Load Bearing Wall...........................................................................................38
Table 3.2 Stress Reduction Factor (ks) for Slenderness Ratio and Eccentricity ................................................................44
Table 4.1 Description of confined masonry building model .................................................................................................52
Table.4.2 Comparision of lateral resistance, deformation at control point of for different masonry building
systems .............................................................................................................................................................. 61
Table 4.3 Comparision of drift, ductility and seismic behaviour factors for different masonry building model...63
Table 4.4 Comparision of input and cumulative dissipated energy for different masonry building model.........63
Table 4.5 Base shear coefficient and Behaviour factor for different masonry system. ................................................64
Table 4.6 Behaviour factor in terms of ductility for different masonry systems.................................................................66
Table5.1 BuildingGeometryof CMBuilding. ............................................................................................................... 70
Table 5.2 Material Properties for CM Building .............................................................................................................................70
Table 5.3 Seismic Parameters for Design of CM Building ........................................................................................... 70
Table 5.4 Stiffness of wall panels..................................................................................................................................... 72
Table 5.5 Centre of Stiffness of wall panels................................................................................................................... 73
Table 5.6 Centre of Mass of wall panels ....................................................................................................................... 74
Table 5.7 Torsional Stiffness of wall panels..................................................................................................................... 75
Table 5.8 Force Distribution in wall Panels..................................................................................................................... 77
Table 5.9 Overturning and Resisting Moments...........................................................................................................................78
Table 5.10 Compressive Stress in Wall Panels ............................................................................................................... 79
Table 5.11 Tensile Stress in Wall Panels........................................................................................................................... 81
Table 5.12 Shear Stress in Wall Panels............................................................................................................................. 82
Table 5.13 Check for Out-of-Plane Stability of Wall Panels......................................................................................................84
Table 5.14 Comparative Summary for Wall Panel AC1 upto 4-Storey CM Building.......................................................87
Table 5.15 Comparative Summary for Wall Panel CE3 upto 4-Storey CM Building........................................................91
Table 5.16 Summary of Design Parameters for Different Storey of CM Building. .............................................................95
Table 5.17 Schedule of Reinforcement for Bond-Beams .................................................................................................... 100
Table 5.18 Schedule of Reinforcement for Tie-Columns. ....................................................................................101

viii
Design Guidelines for Confined Masonry Buildings

List of Photographs

Photo 1.1 Good performance of Confined Masonry construction in Earthquakes ............................................. 3


Photo 1.2 Damage to confined masonry buildings.................................................................................................... 4
Photo 1.3 Collapse of a confined masonry building in Santa Cruz (Chile Earthquake 2010) at ground floor level-
exterior walls are of hollow concrete blocks, and the interior ones using hand-made solid clay bricks
(EERI, 2010). ........................................................................................................................................................ 6
Photo 1.4 (a) Plastic hinge formation in a confined wall (Aguilar, 2001) (b) Shear failure in tie-column
(Zabala, 2004). ................................................................................................................................................. 9
Photo 1.5 CM wall with multiple tie-columns .............................................................................................................. 10
Photo 1.6 CM wall with continuous sill and lintel bands............................................................................................ 10
Photo 1.7 Closely spaced tie-columns in CM building ............................................................................................. 11
Photo 1.8 Flexural failure of a confined wall with (a) horizontal cracking and (b) separation of tie-column (c) a typical
failure mode in masonry in-fill frame mechanism (Yoshimura, K. et al. 2004). .................................... 13
Photo 1.9 Storey failure mechanism of confined masonry buildings .................................................................... 14
Photo 4.1 Full-scale masonry building models........................................................................................................... 52
Photo 4.2 Stages of construction of a full-scale confined masonry building model .......................................... 55
Photo 4.3 Arrangement of actuator and lateral cyclic displacement distributing system
for QST on CM building ................................................................................................................................... 55

ix
Design Guidelines for Confined Masonry Buildings

Glossary
1. Base Dimension: Base dimension of the building along a direction is the dimension at its base
along that direction.

2. Base Shear: Base Shear is an estimate of the maximum expected lateral force that will occur
due to seismic ground motion at the base of a structure.

3. Building Height: It is the difference in levels between its base and its highest level.

4. Centre of Mass: The point through which the resultant of the masses of a system acts. This point
corresponds to the centre of gravity of masses of system.

5. Centre of Stiffness: The point through which the resultant of the restoring forces of a system acts.

6. Confined Masonry: Confined Masonry construction consists of masonry walls (made of either
clay brick or concrete block units) and horizontal and vertical reinforced concrete confining
members built on all four sides of a masonry wall panel.

7. Confining Elements: Confining elements (bond beams and tie columns) provide restraint to
masonry walls and protect them from complete disintegration even in major earthquakes.
These elements resist gravity loads and have important role in ensuring vertical stability of a
building in an earthquake.

8. Design Lateral force: It is the horizontal seismic force that shall be used to design a structure.

9. Design Eccentricity: It is the value of eccentricity to be used at floor in torsion calculations for
design.

10. Design Horizontal Acceleration Coefficient: It is a horizontal acceleration coefficient that shall
be used for design of structures.

11. Eccentricity: It is the distance between centre of mass and centre of rigidity of floor.

12. Masonry: An assemblage of masonry units properly bonded together with mortar.

13. Masonry Units: Individual units which are bonded together with the help of mortar to form a
masonry element, such as wall, column, pier and buttress.

14. Masonry Walls: Masonry walls transmit the gravity load from the slab(s) above down to the
foundation. The walls act as bracing panels, which resist horizontal earthquake forces. The
walls must be confined by concrete tie-beams and tie-columns to ensure satisfactory
earthquake performance.

15. Response Reduction Factor: It is the factor by which the actual base shear force, that would be
generated if the structure were to remain elastic during its response to the Design Basis
Earthquake (DBE) shaking, shall be reduced to obtain the design lateral force.

16. Seismic Weight: It is the total dead load plus appropriate amounts of specified imposed load.

17. Slenderness Ratio: Ratio of effective height or effective length to effective thickness of a
masonry element.

x
Design Guidelines for Confined Masonry Buildings

18. Structural Response Factor: It is a factor denoting the acceleration response spectrum of the
structure subjected to earthquake ground vibrations, and depends on natural period of
vibration and damping of the structure.

19. Wall Density: Wall density can be defined as the total cross-sectional area of all walls in one
direction divided by the total floor area.

20. Zone Factor: It is a factor to obtain the design spectrum depending on the perceived
maximum seismic risk characterized by Maximum Considered Earthquake (MCE) in the zone in
which the structure is located.

xi
Design Guidelines for Confined Masonry Buildings

Notation
Ah Design horizontal acceleration coefficient
Ap Plan area of floor
Ast Area of reinforcement
Asv Area of stirrups
Aw Cross-sectional area of wall
b Column dimension
B Width of beam
bi Floor plan dimension perpendicular to the direction of force
Base dimension of the building at the plinth level along the
d
considered direction of the lateral force
D Depth of beam
Lateral dimension of column in the direction under
D’ consideration
deff Effective depth of beam
edi Design eccentricity
edx Design eccentricity in X direction
edy Design eccentricity in Y direction
Em Young’s modulus of masonry
emin Minimum eccentricity
ex Static eccentricity in X direction
ey Static eccentricity in Y direction
fb Compressive strength of brick
fck Concrete grade
fg Safety factor for gravity load
fs Safety factor for seismic load
F Seismic load per unit area of wall panel
Flxi Force due to uniform lateral translation in X direction
Flyi Force due to uniform lateral translation in Y direction
fm Compressive strength of masonry
fmo Compressive strength of mortar
Ftxi Force due to torsion in X direction
Ftyi Force due to torsion in Y direction
fy Steel grade
H Height of building
hc Height of Column
hi Height of floor level measured from base
ho Height of opening
hw Height of wall
I Importance factor
k Number of storeys above the analysed story
Kc Stiffness of cantilever pier
Kf Stiffness of fixed pier
ks Stress reduction factor

xii
Design Guidelines for Confined Masonry Buildings

Kt Torsional stiffness
Kw Stiffness of wall panel
Kx Total stiffness in X direction
Kxi Stiffness of individual wall panels in X direction
Ky Total stiffness in Y direction
Kyi Stiffness of individual wall panels in Y direction
L Unsupported length of column
lb Length of beam
lc Length of column
lo Length of opening
lw Length of wall panel
lx Length of wall in X direction
Lx Length of slab in X direction
ly Length of wall in Y direction
Ly Length of slab in Y direction
M Moment due to total lateral force acting on wall panel
Mo Overturning moment
Mr Resisting moment
ms Mass of slab
Mu Ultimate bending moment due to seismic load
Mu’ Moment in column
n Number of longitudinal bars
ns Number of stories in the building
p Percentage of steel in column
Pcomp Ultimate compressive strength of wall due to gravity load
Pi Total lateral force acting on wall panel i
Pu Total factored load acting on column
Pxi Total force acting on wall panel in X direction
Pyi Total force acting on wall panel in Y direction
Qi Design lateral force at floor i
Qix Design lateral force in X direction
Qiy Design lateral force in Y direction
R Response reduction factor
S Section modulus
Sa/g Average response acceleration coefficient
SR Slenderness ratio
Sv Spacing of stirrups
T Design period of building
tc Thickness of column
TL Total gravity load acting on wall panel
tb Thickness of beam
to Thickness of opening
ts Thickness of slab

xiii
Design Guidelines for Confined Masonry Buildings

tw Thickness of wall
Vb Base shear
V us Shear to be resisted
w Weight of unit area of floor system
W Seismic weight of the building
Wd Wall density
wi Weight of wall i
Wi Seismic weight of the ith floor
Xcm Centre of mass in X direction
Xcs Centre of stiffness in X direction
Xi Centroidal distance of wall panel in X direction
X’i Distance of wall panel from centre of stiffness in X direction
Xs Centroidal distance of slab in X direction
Ycm Centre of mass in Y direction
Ycs Centre of stiffness in Y direction
Yi Centroidal distance of wall panel in Y direction
Y’i Distance of wall panel from centre of stiffness in Y direction
Ys Centroidal distance of slab in Y direction
Z Zone factor
ρc Density of concrete
ρm Density of masonry
σb Bending stress
σd Compressive stress due to dead load on wall panel
σdl Compressive stress due to dead and live load on wall panel
σt Tensile stress
τc Design shear strength of concrete
τt Permissible tensile stress for masonry
τu Permissible shear stress in N/mm2
τv Nominal shear stress
 Bar diameter

xiv
Design Guidelines for Confined Masonry Buildings

CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
1.1 BACKDROP
Since the dawn of civilization, masonry has been and still is the most commonly used material in
building industries, primarily for low rise buildings. The success of brick masonry is mainly due to
its durability, excellent fire resistance, acoustic and thermal insulation characteristics and
relative simple in realization and cost. However, masonry elements suffer from a few
drawbacks as well. Some of these include distinct directional (orthotropic) properties; poor
strength of masonry units and mortar; non-uniform thickness of mortar joints, low interfacial
bond strength between brick and mortar, arrangement of bricks, state of bricks before casting,
curing, workmanship etc. It is not surprising that masonry is the material of choice for residential
construction in many parts of the world, in spite of the associated difficulties.
Like most building materials, masonry has its weaknesses, leading to poor performance
during seismic events. Unreinforced masonry (URM) buildings, in particular, have proven to
be vulnerable in seismic events, with significant building damage and numbers of fatalities
world- wide. Experience reveals that masonry constructions remain susceptible to
earthquake forces due to various reasons. A few of them may be listed as lack of integral
action between bricks and mortar; inadequate strength against out-of-plane forces, low
tensile and shear strength of masonry, relatively heavy mass and varying construction
practices. It is essential to enhance the seismic resistance of masonry system by providing
suitable features so as to overcome the inherent deficiencies. To upgrade the seismic
performance of URM systems, different reinforcing measures were adopted and eventually
led to the development of reinforced masonry (RM) and confined masonry (CM) systems.
Low-to-medium rise buildings (up to 4 storeys) are the frequent typology for housing, in
developing countries all over the world. The key requirement for sustainable building
construction demands fulfilment of functional, structural, societal, economical and
environmental criterion. Unreinforced masonry was historically, and is actually, the structural
solution that best addresses these requirements. The occurrence of recent earthquakes in
India, even in moderate seismicity zones, highlighted the consequences of poorly built
masonry structures, comprising around 85% of existing building stock in India. The seismic
action needs to be adequately considered combining sustainability, earthquake resistance
and cost-effectiveness, and on these counts confined masonry (CM) appears to be the best
alternative for low-medium rise buildings.

1.2 CONFINED MASONRY


Confined Masonry (CM) system is based on embracing masonry panels with lightly
reinforced concrete (RC) frame elements, usually of same size as of wall thickness, but not
less than 150mm. Vertical confining elements, called Tie-columns, are cast in-situ at the
intersection of masonry wall segments. Horizontal elements, called Bond-beams, are cast in-
situ, resting over masonry at different levels sill, lintel, eves etc. Vertical reinforcement bar in
tie-columns are anchored into the roof slab. For this reason, contrary to RC structureswhere
infill masonry is built after concrete hardening; in the case of CM, masonry is built first
followed by casting of confining element, thus most of the building weight rests on the
masonry panels. In addition,

1
Design Guidelines for Confined Masonry Buildings

due to concrete shrinkage, the connection between masonry and concrete is very
effective, which behaves in unison as a whole up to large deformation levels under lateral
loads.

Slab

Masonry Wall

Tie Column

Bond Beam

Opening

Plinth Beam

Figure 1.1 Typical Confined Masonry Building

The structural components of a typical confined masonry building (Figure 1.1) encompasses
followings:
Foundation, the elements from soil to ground level, responsible for transmitting load from
structure to the underlying soil
Plinth beam, element transmits vertical and horizontal loads from wall to the foundation. In
addition, it protects the walls from settlement and rising of moisture into walls due to
capillary action.
Masonry walls, elements transmit vertical and horizontal loads from the slabs above to the
foundation. In confined masonry construction, such masonry wall panels are confined by
means of RC elements at periphery. The earthquake performance of CM buildings largely
depends on the shear resistance of masonry walls. Preferably, toothed edges are left on
each side of the wall having projection upto 40mm to achieve full concrete filling in the
teeth space. Instead of teething or in addition to teething, horizontal dowels may be used
at the wall- column interface.

2
Design Guidelines for Confined Masonry Buildings

Confining elements- RC tie columns and bond beams, offers confinement to masonry walls,
as a result higher strength, integrity and stability is achieved in in-plane and out-of-plane,
even during major ground motions. Tie columns are not expected to sustain significant
gravity loads; hence, these elements are smaller in size.

RC Floor and roof slabs, distributes both vertical and horizontal loads to the walls.

1.3 EARTHQUAKE PERFORMANCE OF CM BUILDINGS


In a worldwide review on performance of confined masonry buildings in past major
earthquakes showed that it performed satisfactorily within the framework of seismic design
philosophy (Photo 1.1) i.e. life safety and collapse prevention. A few of the major earthquakes
around the world: Colombia Earthquake (25 January 1999- Mw=6.2), Mexico Earthquake (30
September 1999- Mw=7.5); El Salvador Earthquake (13 January 2001- Mw=7.6); Mexico
Earthquake (21 January 2001- Mw=7.6); Atico, Peru Earthquake (23 June 2001- Mw=8.4); Pisco,
Iran Earthquake (26 December 2003- Mw=6.6); Great Sumatra Earthquake (26 December,
2004- Mw=9.3); Peru Earthquake (15 August 2007- Mw=7.9); Colima, Chile Earthquake (20
February, 2010- Mw=8.8) and Iquique, Chile Earthquake (1 April 2014 Mw=8.2) have
demonstrated the performance of CM buildings with good and poor construction practices.
Damage data reveals that the typical damage patterns are: shear failure of walls; shear and
bending failure at ends of tie-column; separation of tie column from walls; inadequate wall
densities in two orthogonal directions, and development of first storey mechanisms (Photo 1.2).
In some of the cases, damage occurs at upper storeys of the building, with associated out-of-
plane damage, mostly due to absence of integral box behaviour of the storey.
The predominant reasons of failure in CM buildings are attributed to: missing / largely
spaced tie columns; inadequate anchorage of reinforcement of tie beam and column;
largely spaced lateral ties in column; large aspect ratio of masonry panel; asymmetric
distribution of walls in plan; inadequate wall density, poor workmanship, poor quality of
materials used, and gross construction errors. None of the case of foundation failure of CM
buildings has been reported. Nevertheless, confined masonry construction, if constructed
properly, has generally shown a good seismic performance and no significant damage
occurred during past earthquakes.

(a) (b) (c)

Photo 1.1 Good performance of Confined Masonry construction in Earthquakes (a) Six-storey
confined masonry building in Ica, 2007 Peru Earthquake (EERI, 2007); (b) No Damage to
confined masonry buildings, while collapse of other masonry buildings in El Salvador,
2001 San Salvador Earthquake (EERI 2001); (c) Six-storey confined masonry building
remained undamaged in 2007 Pisco (Peru) Earthquake (Blondet, 2007)

3
Design Guidelines for Confined Masonry Buildings

(a) (b) (c)

(d) (e) (f)

Photo 1.2 Damage to confined masonry buildings (a) In Llolleo, 1985 Chile Earthquake
(Moroni, Gomez, and Astroza, 2003); (b) In El Salvador, 2001 San Salvador Earthquake
(Yoshimura and Kuroki 2001); (c) In Mexico, 2003 Colima earthquake (EERI, 2003); (d) In
Mexico, 1999 Tehuacan Earthquake (EERI, 1999); (e) Collapse of Confined masonry with soft
stories, relevant irregularities and bad detailing in 2007 Pisco (Peru) Earthquake (EERI, 2007); (f)
In Banda Aceh, Indonesia, Tsunami-induced out-of-plane failure of masonry walls at the
ground floor level after 2004 Great Sumatra earthquake (Boen, 2005).

1.4 FAILURE MECHANISM


Masonry is a composite construction with two distinct materials viz. masonry units laid in mortar
matrix offering several joints in forming planes of weaknesses. In addition, due to its high
density and poor tensile strength, seismic actions cause three types of failure mechanism,
namely flexural failure, diagonal shear/tension cracking and sliding shear at bed joints in
masonry.

Occurrence of cracks/failure usually initiates at the centre of the wall or at stretched corner
or in the more compressed corner of pier. The first mechanism is governed by compressive
strength of masonry and tensile yielding of longitudinal bars, and is characterized by the
early appearance of crack in joint under tension stress state, followed by a second limit
state characterized by crushing of compressed toe of masonry wall. This is the preferred
failure mode for CM, since the failure mechanism is ductile and effective in dissipating
earthquake- induced energy once the yielding of vertical reinforcement takes place.
On the contrary, shear failure, which is a common type of failure in masonry, involves
stepped cracking at horizontal and vertical joints; or bricks diagonal cracking passing
through masonry units and joints, which takes place before the wall reaches its full flexural
capacity.

4
Design Guidelines for Confined Masonry Buildings

Due to the dominant presence of diagonal cracks, this mode is also known as diagonal
tension failure, which is generally brittle and sudden in nature.
The other type of shear failure mechanism comprises sliding along bed joints with an almost
horizontal cracking. The mechanism may take place in CM walls subjected to low gravity
loads with relatively higher seismic shear forces. These cracks may be found at lower masonry
courses in low-rise buildings or at upper storeys in medium rise buildings having higher
acceleration levels.

1.5 BEHAVIOUR OF CM WALL PANELS


The effect on failure pattern of CM walls due to different parameters such as unit types,
reinforcements in columns and walls on ultimate capacities, ductile behaviour, energy
dissipation capacity etc., were studied. Mostly these studies were on wall panels submitted
to in-plane lateral displacement load, with or without normal loads.

1.5.1 Masonry Characteristics


The properties of confined masonry are strongly dependent on the properties of masonry
units, mortar and stiffness of confining RC elements and hence for acceptable seismic
performance, some minimum levels of physical properties are essentially specified.
Theincreasing uses of multi-perforated clay brick units for CM walls have been
experimentally examined by Alcocer and Zepeda (1999). However, the performance of CM
walls constructed using hollow units (Meli, 1991, Alcocer et al, 2003) was inferior due to their
inherent brittle behaviour (Castilla and Marinilli, 2000) as compared to walls in clay brick
units or concrete blocks (Hori et al., 2006) (Photo 1.3).

The nature of the stresses developed in the masonry unit and mortar under uni-axial
compression significantly depends on its relative elastic modulus. In case of stiffer bricks
than the mortar (), usually the case in western countries, mortar at the bed joint have
tendency to expand laterally more than brick units. However, mortar is confined laterally at
the brick mortar interface by the bricks; therefore, shear stresses at the brick mortar
interface result in an internal state of stress consisting of tri-axial compression in mortar and
bilateral tension coupled with axial compression in brick. The failure in masonry occurs once
the tensile stress in the brick exceeds its ultimate tensile strength. In Indian scenario, mortar is
stiffer than bricks (Eb,<Emo), tending bricks under triaxial compression state-of-stress while
mortar is subjected to bilateral tension with uniaxial compression. This characteristic of
masonry largely affects the failure mode of CM panel. To ensure adequate bond/shear
strength of CM masonry panel, rich mortar and bricks without smooth surface are
recommended by Mercado (2004).

5
Design Guidelines for Confined Masonry Buildings

Photo 1.3 Collapse of a confined masonry building in Santa Cruz (Chile Earthquake 2010) at
ground floor level- exterior walls are of hollow concrete blocks, and the interior
ones using hand-made solid clay bricks (EERI, 2010)

1.5.2 Failure Pattern


A confined wall behaves monolithically elastic, until the first visible crack in the wall, which may
be due to tension in the concrete elements. Onset of the diagonal crack in masonry, which
may be due to diagonal tension; masonry panel behaves as two triangular pieces confined by
the columns. When the top triangle rotates and slides around the compressed column as a
result, the panel becomes under more compressive stress, until adequate bond allows
sufficient load transfer. Such cracks usually pass through mortar joints in a zigzag fashion
(Tomazevic et al. 1997; Irimies, et al. 2002; Marinilli et al. 2004; Yañez et al. 2004), governed by
shear deformations due to friction, brick interlock, and shear resistance of tie-column ends,
forming a plastic hinge at the base of the compressed column. Thereby, confinement alters the
failure mode of masonry, and improves the post-cracking performance of CM building.

Figure 1.2 Cracking Behaviour and Performance of URM and CM Wall Panel (Gouveia et al. 2007)

Figure 1.3 Flexural Failure of CM Wall Panel- (Zabala et al. 2004)

6
Design Guidelines for Confined Masonry Buildings

The stiffness reduction in relation to the initial stiffness at initial crack, complete crack and
maximum load of CM walls panels was observed in the range of 50-70%, 20-30% and 5-20%
respectively. At a situation, where low tie column longitudinal reinforcement, high panel
aspect ratio, low axial load and low bond strength prevail, the CM may leads to predominance
of flexural deformations with horizontal bending cracks at lower courses of the panel. At this
instant, the stiffness is mainly provided by confining elements, at a slow rate of stiffness
degradation (Ishibashi et al. 1992) and restrain the drift capacity of CM walls to some
reasonable degree (Alcocer et al. 1996) with adequate amount of reinforcement in tie-
column. At large deformation, usually the damage sequence follows- masonry crushing at
middle of the panel; concrete cracking and crushing; and buckling of longitudinal bars at tie
column ends (Tomazevic et al. 1997; Alcocer et al. 2004). These cracks are further extended
into tie columns ends at large deformation levels (Zabala et al. 2004), as illustrated at Figure 1.3.

1.5.3 Influence of Design Parameters on CM Buildings


1.5.3.1 Wall Density
Wall density of a CM building can be expressed as ratio of total shear wall area in each
principal direction to the floor area. This can vary based on number of floors, seismic zone,
soil type, unit type and code used for design and construction. Based on damage
observations and statistics, Astroza et al. (1993) suggested minimum wall density of 1% and
0.85% respectively for light and moderate wall damage. Moroni et al. (2000) expressed
another criterion for seismic vulnerability of CM building, in terms of wall density per unit
weight i.e. wall density at first storey to total weight of structure, summarizing to limit damage
to light or moderate, these values should be more than 0.18 or 0.12 m2/kN respectively.
However, literature does not suggest upper limits to wall density, as higher wall density limits
the deformability/ductility of structure.

1.5.3.2 Wall Openings


Significant research efforts have been made to study the influence of openings on
behaviour of CM walls. The experimental results and damage observations shows that size,
shape, location of openings, masonry unit type and confining elements bordering opening,
controls the behaviour of CM walls with openings. Considerable reduction in shear capacity
of CM walls have been noted when such walls consist of excessively large opening more
than 50% of wall area (Gostic et al.,1999). Yanez et al. (2004) experimentally evaluated the
influence of opening size of CM wall on failure mode, crack pattern and initial stiffness and
observed no change in those parameters upto 11% of opening ratio. Although, for large
opening in CM walls, confining RC element around opening improved both in-plane and
out-of-plane response and were able to recover for deficiencies due to openings (Figure
1.4)

The result showed that such provisions performed superior than the other confinement
configurations (Figure 1.5) and assisted in uniform distribution of cracks which led to
significantly enhanced strength, deformability and more stability to response curve.

7
Design Guidelines for Confined Masonry Buildings

Figure1.4 Failure Mechanisms due to Opening in CM Wall (Yanez et al. 2004)

Figure 1.5 Performance of Confinement Configuration around Opening (Rai, D. 2014)

1.5.3.3 Confining Elements


The confinement of a masonry wall in CM is primarily achieved by the provision of RC
elements i.e. tie-column and bond-beams, embracing masonry panel all round. In general,
masonry panel when subjected to lateral load causes formation of cracks, affecting the
connection between the panel and the confinement elements. Thereby the panel is
converted into a multi-element system, and behaves in a complex manner involving
interactively masonry panel and the confining elements. The interaction between masonry
wall and confining elements delays the premature wall disintegration after formation of
crack (Tomazevic et al. 1997; Yoshimura, et al. 2004) and reduces the rate of strength and
stiffness degradation to a large extent thereby enhancement in deformation and energy
dissipation capacity and change of failure mechanism (Irimies, M.T. et al. 2000). The various
factors influencing the effectiveness of confining elements are its location, type, size, shape,
reinforcement detailing, grade of concrete and the number of tie columns and bond
beams, etc.

Minimum longitudinal reinforcement in tie-column is generally provided to avoid


predominance of flexural deformation as a result of rebar yielding at end regions. It is well
known that increase in amount of longitudinal reinforcement of tie-column substantially
increases axial and lateral load carrying capacity, hence corner tie columns at first storey
level are to be provided with higher reinforcement ratio. NTC-M, 2004 (Mexican code)
quantifies the minimum reinforcement as given in following equation, with a minimum bar
diameter as 6 mm.
.
=

8
Design Guidelines for Confined Masonry Buildings

The ductile detailing, i.e. closely spaced lateral ties with adequate (75 mm long-135o) hooks
at end region and junctions of confining element is suggested as the cracks in masonry
penetrates into these sections at large drift, which in turn delays the final collapse of the
walls (Photo 1.4). In general, the detailing of reinforcement in confining elements in almost
all codes (INN-1997; NSR-1998; Eurocode 8-2002; NTC-M: 2004) is uniform; with a minimum of
6 mm diameter transverse reinforcement spaced between 150 to 200 mm (s), and the same
is reduced to half at ends, as illustrated at Figure 1.6.

Photo 1.4 (a) Plastic hinge formation in a confined wall (Aguilar, 2001)
(b) Shear failure in tie-column (Zabala, 2004)

Figure 1.6 Tie-Column Reinforcement Detailing- Reduced Tie Spacing at End Region
(Brzev, S. 2007)

On the other hand, if a wall is subjected to a higher vertical load, the masonry panel mainly
slides, and consequently the reinforcement bars of the tensioned column do not yield and
the ultimate strength is mainly associated with the dowel action of the reinforcement bars of
the compressed column. Figure 1.7 (San Bartolome et al. 1994), illustrates results of lateral
cyclic tests on solid clay brick CM walls, a drop in load-displacement envelope is identified,
may be due to brittleness of masonry units, concurrently with diagonal cracking,
subsequently tie- columns plays the main role for the response. The lateral load reduces
after considerable opening of shear cracks in tie-columns (Irimies, M.T. et al. 2000). When
robust units are used a mixed pattern with stepped and horizontal cracks are expected,
because the tie-column is stressed along the full height. Thereby RC tie-columns have a very
important effect on the reserve strength, ductility and stability of walls after diagonal
cracking (Zepeda et al. 2000).

9
Design Guidelines for Confined Masonry Buildings

Figure 1.7 Response of CM Walls under Lateral Loading (a) Lateral Load-Displacement
Envelope (b) Final Crack Patterns of Wall MV1 and MV5 (San Bartolome et
al.1994)

1.5.3.4 Multiple Confining Tie-Columns


The presence of more than two confining-columns in CM wall is very common due to limitation
in length of masonry panel. The effect of number and spacing of multiple confining tie-
columns on seismic behaviour of CM walls showed that the presence of more confining-
columns at a smaller spacing seems to spread the cracking along the masonry panels. The
inclusion of confining-columns in walls of the same nominal transverse area increases the initial
stiffness, system strength and ductility, allows a better damage (in shear mode) distribution
in the masonry panels in conjunction with a lesser spacing of confining-columns. Under large
lateral deformation, the shear mode failure may lead to crushing of bricks at tie-column and
masonry interface.

Photo 1.5 CM Wall with Multiple Tie-Columns

Photo 1.6 CM Wall with Continuous Sill and Lintel Bands

10
Design Guidelines for Confined Masonry Buildings

Under lateral load, confined masonry walls acts as a shear wall due to composite action
between wall and tie-column, resulting into delayed out-of-plane failure and safely sustaining
large in-plane drifts. Moreover, CM wall with continuous sill and lintel bands performed
superior than other confinement configurations which assisted in uniform distribution of cracks
(Figure 1.8) leading to significantly enhanced strength and deformability. At the same time, it is
pointed out that placing tie-columns too close (less than 3.0 m) would not be economically
viable proposition and calls for better planning of building layout (Photo 1.7).

Figure 1.8 Crack Pattern of CM Wall for Different Arrangements of Confining Elements
(Rai, D. 2014)

Photo 1.7 Closely spaced tie-columns in CM building

11
Design Guidelines for Confined Masonry Buildings

1.5.3.5 Wall Reinforcement


The horizontal reinforcement in CM walls may either be embedded in mortar joints or placed
in the form of wire mesh, for superior behaviour of CM walls. However, truss type galvanized
or steel reinforcement are also favoured in recent years leading to control on premature
crushing of masonry due to poor strength of mortar and units, also prevention of
reinforcement from corrosion. The reasons for improvement is due to development of strut
and tie mechanism between the wall and confining column, as lateral load resistance
mechanism. Figure 1.9 (a) shows the effectiveness of horizontal reinforcement in CM wall
panel in terms of crack distribution and seismic performance. As can be seen, due to
horizontal reinforcement in CM walls, negligible variation in its elastic characteristics was
observed.

(a) Crack distribution (b) Performance level

Figure 1.9 Effect of Reinforcement in CM Walls (Aguilar et al. 1996)

It is also noted that the increase in strength of CM wall is not linearly proportional to the
amount of horizontal reinforcement. Moreover, the mode of failure is strongly dependent on
the horizontal reinforcement ratio “” and its yield stress “”. In the event of over-reinforced
CM wall, the brittle failure is expected, while for walls with insufficient reinforcement,
occurrence of rebar failure usually near shear cracks and in mid-zone of walls, at maximum
strain, leads to sliding of upper stories over these cracks (Alcocer et al. 1996). Alcocer et al.
(1996), considers the masonry and rebar characteristics and prescribes the upper limit of ,
where and , is the masonry compressive strength and yield strength of horizontal
reinforcement. The optimum horizontal reinforcement ratio of 0.01% was found to be
adequate in masonry walls.

1.5.3.6 Confining Elements-Masonry Interaction


The improvement in structural performance of CM walls can be achieved by installing
proper masonry-confining element connections. Alternative strategies commonly adopted
are 40mm toothed end walls; provision of dowels (U-shape or L-shape rebar) at regular
courses; or providing continuous horizontal reinforcement in masonry mortar and confining
element. The objective is to improve the bond and load transfer, by delaying, partial
separation of masonry panel and tie columns. Absence of adequate wall panel tie column
connection, results into horizontal cracks along the mortar bed joints, and separation of tie-
columns from masonry panel (Photo 1.8 (a) and (b)). Thus, adequate connection between
wall panel and confining element improves the deformation behaviour of CM wall after
attaining the ultimate lateral load.

12
Design Guidelines for Confined Masonry Buildings

Photo 1.8 Flexural failure of a confined wall with (a) horizontal cracking and (b) separation of
tie-column (c) a typical failure mode in masonry in-fill frame mechanism
(Yoshimura, K. et al. 2004)

Alternative approaches to achieve better interaction between masonry wall and tie-column
are:
1. Providing 40mm toothing in confined masonry walls along heights at edges
2. Providing 400mm long - 8mm dia bar in mortar joint at every 5 course or 400mm vertically (Fig.
th

1.10) short anchorage


3. Providing continuous 8 mm dia bar in mortar joint at every 5 course or 400mm vertically
th

connecting adjoining tie-columns continuous anchorage.

Figure1.10 Toothing in Confined Masonry Walls; (a) Machine-made Hollow Units,


(b) Hand-made Solid Units, and (c) Provision of Horizontal Reinforcement
when Toothing is not possible

1.5.3.7 Vertical Load


Axial load is one of the influential factors which has positive effect on ultimate shear stress
and low deformation capacity of CM walls. Increase in lateral resistance of masonry walls
by 15- 20% is normally noticed due to vertical loads. Riahi et al. (2009) proposed prediction
of masonry shear strength on the basis of its compressive strength, as and cracking shear
strength (vcr) of CM walls as a function of normal and shear stress .

1.5.3.8 Aspect Ratio


Aspect ratio is one of the important parameter, governing damage pattern and failure
mode of CM walls. Generally, squat walls are frequently used in practice, which are
governed by mainly shear deformations. However, slender walls due to presence of
opening or multiple columns are subjected to early occurrence of crack, high rate of
stiffness degradation,

13
Design Guidelines for Confined Masonry Buildings

thereby affecting strength characteristics adversely and likely to fail in flexural mode (San
Bartolome 2004; Yoshimura et al 2004), hence it is preferred to maintain the aspect ratio of CM
wall panel between 0.8 to 1.2.

1.6 Behaviour of CM Buildings: Shake Table Tests


Bartolome et al. (1992) studied seismic behaviour of 3-storey half scale CM model having
perimetric solid clay brick walls along the direction of motion. The damage of the specimen
corresponding to 0.85g was concentrated at the first storey, while no damage occurred in
upper stories, satisfying the ideal characteristics to obtain a flexural failure. This observation
highlights the need to include checks on shear type of failure in the design process of confined
masonry building to avoid collapse. Similar, attempt was also made by Scaletti et al. (1992) on
a 2-storey half scale CM model showing thin cracks at the base of the walls from the beginning
of the test. Scaletti reported large strain increment in the longitudinal reinforcement of tie
columns with increased diagonal cracks in masonry wall at first storey, with practically no
damage in second storey walls. The damage concentration in the first storey leads to the
softening action which may be ascribed to the larger shear span ratios, and resembles similar
response of multi-storeyed RCC frame with infill. This calls for adequate confinement of first
storey in a multi-storied CM building.

(a)

(b)

(c)

Photo 1.9 Storey failure mechanism of confined masonry buildings (a) 3-storeyed-using solid
burnt clay brick units (Tomazevic et al. 1996) (b) 4-storeyed-using Autoclaved
Aerated Concrete (AAC) units showing cracks at damage limit (red), maximum
resistance (green) and ultimate state (blue) (c) Damage to first floor walls of 4-storey
building at ultimate state (Tomazevic et al. 2011)

14
Design Guidelines for Confined Masonry Buildings

Similar response was observed by Tomazevic et al. (1996, 2011) through unidirectional shake-
table tests on one-to-four storey scale-down CM building models having different material
characteristics, different sections of confining elements and asymmetric wall distribution in
both the directions. In all the cases, typical storey mechanism, governed by diagonal shear
failure of ground floor walls was observed (Photo 1.9). As a result of high wall density ratio,
high seismic resistance was noticed. Also, significant strength degradation was observed on
attainment of maximum value with increased damage to masonry wall at ground storey,
separating from wall confining elements at interface. This point out that tie-columns and
bond- beams are only active up to certain level of lateral displacement, beyond which
unable to prevent disintegration of masonry, unless it is reinforced with continuous horizontal
bed-joint reinforcement. The frequency measurements at the end of each run showed
decay in first natural frequency, even in the case of no visible damage in the walls,
attributing to micro- cracks in masonry and minor adjustments in units.

Similarly, full-scale single storey confined masonry building was tested at CSIR-CBRI (India)
and the results were compared with unreinforced and reinforced masonry buildings having
similar geometrical and material properties. The detailed experimental plan, results and
discussion thereof is given at Chapter 4.

1.7 SCOPE
The objective of this document is to understand the behaviour of confined masonry
construction under seismic conditions and recommend design guidelines for confined
masonry buildings with explanatory design example. This document gives the
recommendations for structural design aspect of confined masonry building constructed
with solid bricks / blocks, materials to be used, maximum permissible stresses and method of
design. The document is divided into five chapters. In Chapter 1, a comprehensive overview
of confined masonry construction; behaviour and failure pattern of confined masonry in
past earthquake is given. Chapter 2 deals with the planning aspects of confined masonry
buildings in seismic regions along with characteristics of material to be used for the
construction. Chapter 3 contains the guidelines for design of confined masonry buildings in
seismic regions. This would be very useful resource for design engineers and architects,
academics, code development institutions for design of confined masonry buildings. In
contrast, Chapter 4 describes the cyclic quasi-static test procedure adopted for full-scale
test of single storey confined masonry building and compares the seismic performance of
CM with previously tested URM and RM models having similar geometry and material
configuration. Finally, Chapter 5 illustrates the design example of confined masonry
residential building in seismic zone IV of India along with its cost aspects.

15
Design Guidelines for Confined Masonry Buildings

CHAPTER 2
PLANNING ASPECTS

2.1 PURPOSE
The problem of earthquake resistant construction of masonry buildings has attracted the
attention in recent years. As a solution, confined masonry has emerged as a promising cost-
effective construction technique for low-to-medium rise construction in seismic regions. As an
alternative to the prevalent prescriptive procedures for seismic design of CM buildings, these
Guidelines may be used as a basis for the seismic design of individual CM buildings; or a basis
for development and adoption of future Building Code provisions governing the design of CM
buildings.
If properly designed and executed, the Guidelines are intended to result in CM buildings
that are capable of achieving the seismic performance objectives for Occupancy
Category II buildings (life safety and collapse prevention in the event of severe earthquake)
intended by ASCE 7, having capabilities as under:

 Withstand Maximum Considered Earthquake shaking, as defined in ASCE 7/IS-1893, with low
probability (on the order of 10%) of either total or partial collapse;
 Withstand Design Earthquake shaking, having an intensity two thirds that of Maximum
Considered Earthquake shaking without generation of significant hazards to individual lives
through design measures intended to assure that non-structural components and systems
remain anchored and secured to the structure and that building drifts are maintained at
levels that will not create undue hazards; and
 Withstand relatively frequent, more moderate-intensity earthquake shaking with limited
damage.
Alternatively, individual users may adapt and modify these Guidelines to serve as the basis for
designs intended to achieve higher seismic performance objectives. These Guidelines are
intended to serve as a reference source for design engineers, building officials, and developers
of building codes and standards.

2.2 DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS


Seismic design of CM buildings in accordance with these Guidelines can offer a number of
advantages including:
 More reliable attainment of intended seismic performance
 Reduced construction cost
 Accommodation of architectural features that may not otherwise be attainable
 Use of locally available material and construction skills
Notwithstanding these potential advantages, engineers contemplating building design using
these procedures should give due consideration to the following:

17
Design Guidelines for Confined Masonry Buildings

 Appropriate implementation of these recommendations requires knowledge of ground


shaking hazards, structural materials behaviour, structural response and analysis.

 In order to reliably withstand strains, structures must be constructed with adequate


quality control standards.
 The design and permitting process for a building designed in accordance with these
Guidelines will generally entail greater effort and take more time than designs that
strictly conform to the Building Code prescriptive criteria.
 In the event that a building designed in accordance with these Guidelines is actually
affected by strong earthquake shaking, it is possible that the building will sustain damage.
Some stakeholders may deem that this damage exceeds reasonable levels and may
attempt to hold the participants in the design and construction process responsible for this
perceived poor performance. In this event the engineer of record may be required to
demonstrate that he or she has conformed to an appropriate standard of care. It may be
more difficult to do this for buildings designed by alternative means than for buildings
designed in strict conformance to the Building Code.

2.3 SEISMIC HAZARD


The CM buildings to be designed in different parts of India shall consider seismic hazard in
accordance with Seismic Zoning Map (IS:1893) given at Figure 2.1. The seismic zone factors
for different zones are summarized in Table 2.1.

Figure 2.1 Seismic Zone Map of India

Table 2.1 Seismic Zone Factor


Seismic Zone II III IV V
Z 0.10 0.16 0.24 0.36

18
Design Guidelines for Confined Masonry Buildings

2.4 ARCHITECTURAL AND STRUCTURAL CONCEPTS


There are certain principles that ought to be followed by architects and engineers for selection
of structural configuration and materials so as to guarantee good seismic performance with
functional and cost requirements. Lessons learnt from the past earthquake have repeatedly
demonstrated that buildings having symmetrical/regular in plan and elevation performed
satisfactorily. The seismic resistance of a building can be improved by taking into account
simple architectural planning, quality material and construction practise. The structural form of
confined masonry buildings should be decided from the consideration of:
 Simplicity & Symmetry
 Length & Width in Plan
 Uniformity & Continuity
 Stiffness
 Failure modes
 Structural redundancy
 Diaphragm action
 Adequate foundation
 Sufficient wall density

To achieve adequate seismic performance of confined masonry buildings encompassing


above aspects, a few of the good and bad practices are ascribed hereunder:

2.4.1 Building Shape: The confined masonry building should be regular in plan and
elevation. The building shapes like U, L, Y etc., should be discouraged as these shape of
buildings will have higher chances of damage due to stress concentrations at corners. The plan
configuration should be simple and symmetrical to minimize the effect of torsion. Unsymmetrical
plan has considerable eccentricity which results in torsion.

Irregular Shape Regular Shape

Bad Practice Good Practice

Figure 2.2 Building Shape

19
Design Guidelines for Confined Masonry Buildings

2.4.2 Wall Distribution: More-or-less uniform wall cross-sectional area in both the direction in
plan of a CM building will ensure adequate shear resistance of masonry walls.

Inade quate Wall Distribution Adequate Wall Distribution

Bad Practice Good Practice

Figure 2.3 Wall Distribution along Two Directions in Plan

2.4.3 Symmetrical Walls: The walls should be built more-or-less symmetrical in plan in both
the directions. The re-entrant corners in one direction should not exceed 25% of the overall
configuration of the building in the corresponding direction.

Inadequate Plan Layout Adequate Plan Layout

Bad Practice Good Practice

Figure 2.4 Plan Layout of CM Building

2.4.4 Vertical Discontinuity: To achieve adequate seismic load path in lateral load resisting
elements, all the walls of a CM building should be continuous in elevation upto foundation

Vertically Discontinuous Walls


Vertically Continuous Walls
Bad Practice Good Practice

Figure 2.5 Vertically Continuity of Walls at Different Storeys

20
Design Guidelines for Confined Masonry Buildings

2.4.5 Slender Plan : Slender plan dimension of a building results into formation excessive
torsion at far ends of wall, hence length to width ratio of building in plan should be limited to
four.

Excessively Long Building Length to Width Ratio less than 4

Bad Practice Good Practice

Figure 2.6 Length to width ratio of CM building

2.4.6 Symmetrical Openings: Openings tend to reduce shear resistance of walls. Large
number of openings will lead to more damage during an earthquake. Wherever it is necessary
to provide opening (doors and windows) in walls, it should be positioned vertically on each floor
along with confining elements around the openings.

Poor Location of Openings Good Location of Openings


Bad Practice Good Practice

Figure 2.7 Locations of Openings in CM Buildings

2.4.7 Wall Opening Proportions: The length of the opening in walls shall not be larger
than the half length of the wall as openings reduce the wall's stiffness and thus weaken the
walls. Otherwise special lintel beam required for large openings and tie-columns shall be
placed at both sides of any large opening in order to enable the diagonal strut action.

21
Design Guidelines for Confined Masonry Buildings

Excessively long opening Proper length of opening

Bad Practice Good Practice

Figure 2.8 Length of Openings in CM Buildings

2.4.8 Masonry Bond: To fulfill the requirements of excellent masonry work, Flemish Bond in
brickwork is preferred in contrast to other bond systems.

English Bond Flemish Bond


Bad Practice
Good Practice

Figure 2.9 Masonry Bond in Brickwork of CM Buildings

2.4.9 Other Important Aspects:


1. Two way slabs are preferred compared to one way slab, as they distribute vertical gravity loads
more uniformly onto the structural walls.
2. The rigid behavior of horizontal diaphragm should not be altered by the presence of
discontinuity, such as stairways.
3. Angled or rounded walls shall not be used in the Plan. All walls must be parallel or perpendicular
to each other.
4. Tie columns must be interlocked with bricks at all junctions and also at door & window openings.
5. Use a continuous reinforced concrete plinth beam above the plinth masonry.

22
Design Guidelines for Confined Masonry Buildings

2.5 MATERIALS
The seismic resistance of the confined masonry building depends upon the strength and quality
of materials used. Building materials used in confined masonry construction are same as in
masonry and reinforced concrete buildings. Strength requirements of various building
materials are described below.

2.5.1 Masonry Unit


Masonry unit refers to individual brick, block or stone used in construction of buildings.
Masonry units such as solid clay bricks, solid concrete blocks, hollow clay tiles or hollow
concrete blocks shall be used for confined masonry construction. However, masonry units
with horizontal perforations and stone masonry are not permitted for confined masonry
construction.
Masonry walls are main load bearing elements and are expected to resist both gravity and
lateral loads. Masonry plays an important role in seismic performance of a confined
masonry building, therefore masonry units shall meet the minimum strength requirements as
discussed in this section. It is required that the wall density as discussed in section 3.1.2 must
be 33% higher if hollow concrete blocks are used in construction.

2.5.1.1 Compressive Strength


The compressive strength of masonry units (fb) shall be characterized in accordance with IS
3495: 2003. However, in absence of test results, Table 2.2 shall be referred according to the
masonry unit adopted.

Table 2.2 Range of Compressive Strength (fb) of Burnt Solid Clay Bricks in India

Range of Compressive Strength Average Compressive Strength


States
(N/mm2) (N/mm2)
Andhra Pradesh 3.5 - 4.0 3.5
Assam 10.0 -13.0 11.0
Bihar 10.0 -14.0 12.0
Gujarat 3.5 - 5.0 4.50
Jammu & Kashmir 12.0 -15.0 14.0
Karnataka 5.0 - 7.0 6.0
Kerala 7.0 - 9.0 7.50
Maharashtra 3.5 - 6.0 5.0
Rajasthan 8.0 -10.0 9.0
Tamil Nadu 8.0 -10.0 9.0
Uttar Pradesh 15.0 - 19.0 17.0
Uttarakhand 12.0 - 15.0 13.0
West Bengal 15.0 -19.0 14.0

2.5.2 Mortar
Mortar is a homogeneous mixture, produced by proper mixing of cement, water and
materials such as sand, to the required consistency for use in building construction together
with masonry units. Requirements of a good mortar for masonry are strength, workability,
water retentivity and low drying shrinkage.

23
Design Guidelines for Confined Masonry Buildings

Different types of mortars (H1, H2, M1, M2,) based on mix proportions can be adopted for
confined masonry construction as mentioned in Table 2.3 (IS: 2250: 2000).

2.5.2.1 Compressive Strength


The compressive strength of mortar (fmo) is based on the mortar grade and its mix
proportion of cement, lime, pozzolana and sand. The mortar strength can be determined in
accordance with IS 2250: 1981. However, in the absence of test results, Table 2.3 shall be
referred. In Table 2.3, B and C denote semi-hydraulic lime and fat lime respectively.

Table 2.3 Mix Proportions and Strength of Mortars for Masonry


Mix Proportion (by loose volume) Minimum
Mortar Lime Compressive
Grade Cement Pozzolana Strength at 28
Lime Pozzolana Sand
Mixture Days (N/mm2)
H1 1 ¼ C or B 0 0 3 10
H2 1 ¼ C or B 0 0 4 7.5
H2 1 ½ C or B 0 0 4.5 6
M1 1 1 C or B 0 0 5 5
M1 1 1 C or B 0 0 6 3
M1 0 0 1 0 1.5 3
M2 1 0 0 0 6 3

2.5.3 Masonry
Masonry construction refers to construction of buildings with individual units, which are often
laid in and bound by mortar. Cement mortar or grout holds the masonry units together.
Quality of masonry used in confined masonry buildings has a significant impact on its seismic
performance and thus, masonry strength requirements shall be in accordance with the
standards given in this section.

2.5.3.1 Compressive Strength


The compressive strength of masonry (fm) depends on the strength of the units, bricks or blocks,
and mortar. The compressive strength of masonry can be determined by prism test method as
per IS 1905: 1987. Alternatively, fm can also be obtained using the following relationship, which is
based on strength of unit and mortar, which can be easyly determined.
. .
f = 0.422 f f

2.5.3.2 Tensile Strength


Masonry walls are subjected to tension due to in-plane lateral loads resulting in tension cracks in
masonry due to its low tensile strength and incapability of resisting tensile stresses. Therefore it is
required to determine tensile strength of masonry in design of confined masonry building.
Tensile strength of masonry can be determined in accordance with the tests mentioned in
ASTM C1072. However, in the absence of test results, Table 2.4 shall be referred according to the
grade of mortar used.

Table 2.4 Permissible Tensile Stress for Masonry

24
Design Guidelines for Confined Masonry Buildings

Permissible
Mortar Tensile Stress Description
Grade (N/mm2)
M1 0.07 Bending in vertical direction where tension developed is
normal to bed joints.
M1 0.14 Bending in the longitudinal direction where tension
developed is parallel to bed joints, provided crushing
strength of masonry units is not less than 10 N/mm .
2

M2 0.05 Bending in the vertical direction where tension developed is


normal bed joints.
M2 0.10 Bending in the longitudinal direction where tension
developed is parallel to bed joints, provided crushing
strength of masonry units is not less than 7.5 N/mm .
2

2.5.3.3 Shear Strength


Shear strength of masonry is the maximum value of shear stress that it can withstand without
undergoing a shear failure. Shear failure in masonry occurs due to in-plane lateral loads.

The three modes of shear failure in walls, are diagonal, along the bed joints or in the form of stair-
step cracks through bed and head joints. Weak masonry units in wall results in diagonal failure,
while sliding failure along bed joints occur due to low compressive stress. The stair-step cracks
through bed and head joints are due to low mortar strength. The permissible shear stress
calculated on the area of bed joint, shall not exceed the value obtained by the expression
given below, subject to a maximum of 0.5 N/mm .
2

τu = 0.1 +
d is compressive stress due to dead load. Self weight of the wall panel and slab dead load
shall be considered while calculating dfor shear stress calculation

2.5.4 Concrete
 The minimum M 20 grade of concrete shall be used for bond beams, tie columns and
other reinforced concrete elements in confined masonry buildings.
 Portland cement is preferred for concrete. It must be kept dry and bags unopened until
required to use.
 Sand and aggregates used in concrete must not contain mud or other organic materials.
 River sand is preferred over sea beach sand as beach sand contains high levels of sodium
chloride.
 Potable water shall be used in concrete. Impure water contains various salts such as sodium
chloride, sulphur, magnesium, potassium etc. which makes concrete brittle and can result in
corrosion of reinforcement bars.

2.5.5 Steel
 The minimum Fe 415/Fe 500 grade of steel shall be used for bond beams, tie columns and
other reinforced concrete elements of confined masonry buildings.
 Rusty or corroded reinforcement shall not be used.
 Do not reuse old or bent reinforcement bars.

2.6 CONSTRUCTION METH

25
Design Guidelines for Confined Masonry Buildings

Step 1: Excavate according to required foundation depth/width along the walls of the building
and lay 100 mm thick PCC as levelling course.

Ground Level
PCC

Step 2:Cast footing beneath the walls and tie-columns. Prepare reinforcement cage for tie-
columnsupto the roof level.

Reinforcement for
Tie-Columns

Ground Level

Footing
PCC

26
Design Guidelines for Confined Masonry Buildings

Step 3: Construct brick masonry foundation wall upto the plinth level leaving apart the column
spaces with mm groove at wall ends.

Reinforcement for
Tie-Columns

Plinth Level Brick Masonry


upto Plinth Level
Ground Level

Footing
PCC

Step 4:Prepare formwork for tie columns upto the plinth level.

Reinforcement for
Tie-Columns

Formwork for
Tie-Columns upto
Plinth Level Plinth Level

Ground Level Support for


Formwork

Footing

PCC

27
Design Guidelines for Confined Masonry Buildings

Step 5: Cast tie-columns from foundation level upto the plinth level along with the plinth
beam.

Reinforcement for
Tie-Columns

Tie-Columns Casted
Plinth Level
Plinth Beam Casted
GroundLevel

Step 6: Construct masonry walls above plinth level uptothe sill level.

Reinforcement for
Tie-Columns

Masonry Wall
upto Sill Level
Sill Level
Plinth Level
Ground Level

Plinth Beam

28
Design Guidelines for Confined Masonry Buildings

Step 7: Prepare formwork for tie-columnsupto the sill level.

Reinforcement for
Tie-Columns

Formworkfor Tie-Columns
Support for
Sill Level Formwork
Plinth Level
Ground Level

Step 8: Cast tie-columns from plinth level upto the sill level and beam at sill level if any.

Reinforcement for
Tie-Columns
Beam Casted at
Sill Level

Tie-Columns
Casted till Sill Level
Sill Level
PlinthLevel
Ground Level

29
Design Guidelines for Confined Masonry Buildings

Step 9: Construct masonry walls above thesill level upto 1.2 m.

Reinforcement for
Confining Elements
around all Openings

Reinforcement for
Tie-Columns

Masonry Wall
upto1.2 m Level
Sill Level
Plinth Level
Ground Level

Step 10: Prepare formwork for tie-columns above the sill levelupto 1.2 m.

Reinforcement for
Tie-Columns

Masonry Wall
Formwork for
Tie-Column

Sill Level Support for


Formwork
Plinth Level
Ground Level

30
Design Guidelines for Confined Masonry Buildings

Step 11: Cast tie-columnsupto 1.2 m level from the previous casting.

Tie-Columns Casted
upto 1.2 m Level

Sill Level
Plinth Level

Step 12: Construct masonry walls upto the lintel level starting from the last stretcher.

Masonry Wall
Lintel Level upto Lintel Level

Sill Level
Plinth Level
Ground Level

31
Design Guidelines for Confined Masonry Buildings

Step 13: Prepare formwork for tie columns upto the lintel level.

Tie-Column
Formwork upto
Lintel Level
Lintel Level
Support for
Formwork
Sill Level
Plinth Level
Ground Level

Step 14: Cast tie-columns upto the lintel level from the previous casting along with the lintel
beam.

Lintel Beam
Casted
Tie-Columns
Casted upto Lintel
Level
Lintel Level

Sill Level

Plinth Level
Ground Level

32
Design Guidelines for Confined Masonry Buildings

Step 15: Cast confinement around openings uptothe lintel level.

Confining Elements
around Openings
are Casted

Confining Elements
Lintel Level around Openings
are Casted
Sill Level

Plinth Level
Ground Level

Step 16: Constructspandrel masonry walls upto the slab level.

Masonry Wall
upto Roof Level
Roof Level

Lintel Level

Sill Level
Plinth Level
Ground Level

33
Design Guidelines for Confined Masonry Buildings

Step 17: Prepare formwork for tie columns upto the slab level.

Tie-Column
Formwork upto
Roof Level
Roof Level

Lintel Level Support for


Formwork
Sill Level

Plinth Level
Ground Level

Step 18: Cast tie-columns upto the roof level from the previous casting.

Tie-Columns Casted
upto Roof Level
Roof Level

Lintel Level

Sill Level

PlinthLevel
GroundLevel

34
Design Guidelines for Confined Masonry Buildings

Step 19: Cast confinement around openings uptothe slab level.

Confining Elements
around Openings
are Casted

Confining Elements
around Openings
Roof Level are Casted

LintelLevel

Sill Level

Plinth Level
GroundLevel

Step 20: Finally, cast bond beam and roof slab.

Slab Casted

RoofLevel Bond Beam


Casted
LintelLevel

Sill Level

PlinthLevel

GroundLevel

35
Design Guidelines for Confined Masonry Buildings

CHAPTER 3
DESIGN OF CONFINED MASONRY BUILDINGS

3.0 INTRODUCTION
The basic requirements for seismic design of buildings i.e. simplicity, symmetry, material
properties etc., given in various codes including the Indian standards (IS: 4326- 2013; IS: 1893-
2002; IS: 13920-2016; IS: 1905-1987; IS: 456- 2000) are applicable for confined masonry buildings
as well. However a proper design philosophy is not stated in the Indian standards. In this section,
a simplified procedure for analysis and design of confined masonry building is described. The
design philosophy of confined masonry addresses the basic requirements i.e. life safety and
collapse prevention. Broadly, the design procedure for confined masonry building
encompasses:

 Planning of building i.e. symmetry in plan and elevation, placement of bond beams and
tie-columns at appropriate locations and its size, confirming the general guidelines for
confined masonry (Figure 3.1).
 Selection of appropriate physical properties of brick units, mortar, concrete,
reinforcement etc.
 Calculation of loads i.e. dead load, live load and seismic loads as per relevant
standards. Further detailed calculation includes computation of building weight, base
shear; distribution of design lateral force; computation of equivalent wall stiffness,
centre of mass and stiffness of the building, eccentricity, computation of torsional
stiffness; and seismic forces distribution in individual walls.
 Checks for various parameters such as wall density, in-plane stability (compressive
stress, tensile stress and shear stress), overturning, out-of-plane stability for individual wall
panels.
 Design and detailing of bond-beam and tie-column.

Figure 3.1 Nomenclature for Design of Confined Masonry Building

37
Design Guidelines for Confined Masonry Buildings

The basic assumptions made for analysis and design of confined masonry are:
 The building walls are analysed as panels.
 In-plane and out-of-plane behaviour of wall is considered independently.
 The foundation system shall be governed by local site conditions.

3.1 GENERAL PRINCIPLES


3.1.1 Dimensions
Normally, the wall panel length in CM construction is limited to 4.2m, and slenderness of walls
panels i.e. ratio of height or length of wall to its thickness should satisfy the slenderness limits
given in Table 3.1. This check is required to prevent buckling due to gravity or lateral loads.

S.R. =

Table 3.1 Maximum Slenderness Ratio for a Load Bearing Wall

Maximum Slenderness Ratio


Number of Storeys
Cement Mortar Lime Mortar
=2 27 20
>2 27 13

3.1.2 Wall Density


Wall density is a key indicator for the safety of confined masonry buildings subjected to
seismic and gravity loads. Wall density (Wd) can be defined as the total cross-sectional area
of all walls, Aw (product of wall thickness and wall length), in each direction divided by the
plan area, Ap (Figure 3.2).
Wd (%) = 100

CM buildings with sufficient wall density performed well during the major earthquakes in
contrast to CM buildings with relatively low wall density. Primarily, a minimum 2% wall density
is required for CM buildings located in seismic zone II and III, while for building in seismic
zones IV and V, the minimum requirements are 4% and 5% respectively, in each principal
direction. These wall densities are 33% higher, if hollow concrete blocks are used in CM
construction.

Figure 3.2 Computation of Wall Density in Principal Direction

38
Design Guidelines for Confined Masonry Buildings

Alternatively, from compressive stress considerations, wall density shall satisfy the following
equation.
fg w ns
Wd ≥
Pcomp
Similarly, wall density shall be checked from shear consideration by the relationship -
Ah f s w n s
Wd ≥
τu
Where,
Ah = Design horizontal acceleration coefficient
fg = Safety factor for gravity load (shall be taken as 2.33)
fs = Safety factor for seismic load (shall be taken as 1.6)
w = Weight of unit area of floor system (also includes self weight of walls)
ns = Number of stories in the building
Pcomp = Average compressive strength of wall due to gravity load
u = Shear strength of masonry

3.2 WALL STIFFNESS AND TORSION


3.2.1 Equivalent Stiffness of Wall
The equivalent stiffness of walls is dependent on boundary conditions, young's modulus of
masonry and dimensions of the pier. It can be calculated by spring analogy method for
individual piers, with respect to the openings, as shown in Figure 3.3 and can be expressed as –

Figure 3.3 Wall Panel Divided into Piers

39
Design Guidelines for Confined Masonry Buildings

Em tw
Kf=
Stiffness for Pier, hw 3
hw
+3
lw lw

Where, Em = 456 fm

Equivalent stiffness of a wall panel can be calculated using the expression:

1
Kw =
1 1 1
+ +
K1 K2 +K3 K4

Where K1, K2, K3 and K4 are the stiffness of different piers. The stiffness of wall panels in X and Y
directions are added separately to obtain building stiffness in both the directions.

3.2.2 Torsion
3.2.2.1 Centre of Stiffness and Centre of Mass
Masonry buildings with horizontal irregularities and lack of symmetry may have considerable
eccentricity. It arises when centre of stiffness and centre of mass do not coincide with each
other. Eccentricity gives rise to torsion which needs to be considered in seismic analysis of
confined masonry buildings.

Centre of stiffness in X and Y directions is given as:

Centre of mass in X and Y directions is given as:

Ky1 X1 + Ky2 X2 +…+ Kyn Xn


Xcs =
Ky1 +Ky2 +…+Kyn

(Kx1 Y1 )+(Kx2 Y2 )+…+(Kxn Yn )


Ycs =
(Kx1 +Kx2 +…+Kxn )
Centre of mass in X and Y directions are given as:
(w1 X1 )+(w2 X2 )+…+(wn Xn ) + (m X )
Xcm =
(w1 +w2 +…+wn ) + m

(w Y ) + (w Y ) + ⋯ + (w Y ) + (m Y )
Y =
(w + w + ⋯ + w ) + m

Where X1, X2, …..,Xn and Y1, Y2, …..,Yn are centroidal distance of wall panels in X and Y direction
respectively and w1, w2, ….,wn are weight of individual wall panels. X s and Ys are centroidal
distance of slab in X and Y direction respectively and ms is weight of slab.

3.2.2.2 Torsional Stiffness


Torsion in a building can result into twisting moment and thus torsional stiffness needs to be
considered in analysis(Figure 3.4). It can be expressed as:

40
Design Guidelines for Confined Masonry Buildings

K = K Y′ + K X′

Where X'i and Y'i are distances of wall panels from centre of stiffness in X and Y direction
respectively.

Figure 3.4 Torsion due to Eccentricity

3.2.2.3 Eccentricity
Eccentricity is the difference in centre of mass and centre of stiffness.

ex = Xcm − Xcs
ey = Ycm – Ycs

Design eccentricity (edi) can be calculated as (IS:1893-2002):

edi = 1.5ex + 0.05bi

or ex - 0.05bi

Design eccentricity is to be calculated in both the directions according to the floor plan
dimension perpendicular to the direction of force (b i). The maximum (edi) among both the
directions shall be considered is designs.

3.3 DESIGN LATERAL FORCE


3.3.1 Building Weight
Weight of walls, tie beams, tie columns and slabs shall be calculated for every floor. The
weight of walls and tie columns/beam shall be equally distributed to the floors above and
below the storey for intermediate floors, while half of the weight of top floor walls and tie
columns shall be lumped at roof level. The reduced live load on slab shall be considered as
per IS 1893 (Part 1): 2002 for seismic weight calculation.

Wall = [ ( lwtwhw) − ( lotoho) ] x ρm


Tie Beam = (lbtbD) x ρc
Tie Column = (lc tc hc ) x ρc
Slab = (LxLy ts ) x ρc
Total Weight, W = Wall + Tie Beam + Tie Column + Slab + Reduced LL

41
Design Guidelines for Confined Masonry Buildings

3.3.2 Base Shear


Base Shear is an estimate of the maximum expected lateral force that will occur due to seismic
ground motion at the base of a structure. Base shear of a building is computed as per IS: 1893
(2002) as:
Vb = Ah W

Z I Sa
Ah =
2Rg

Zone factor (Z) shall be taken as 0.1, 0.16, 0.24 and 0.36 for seismic zones II, III, IV and V
respectively. The importance factor (I) shall be taken as 1.5 for important or community
buildings and 1.0 for all other buildings. The response Reduction Factor (R) for a confined
masonry building shall be taken as 2.5. Average Response Acceleration Coefficient (Sa/g)
can be obtained through Fig. 3.5. The time period of the building is estimated using following
empirical relationship:
0.09 H
T=
√d

Figure 3.5 Response Spectra for 5% Damping

3.3.3 Distribution of Design Lateral Force


The distribution of lateral load for every floor along the height of the building is considered in
both X and Y directions, separately. The design lateral force distribution along the height of
building can be obtained as –

Figure 3.6 Storey Shear Distribution along the Building Height

42
Design Guidelines for Confined Masonry Buildings

2
Wi hi
Design Lateral Force, Qi = 2 Vb
∑ Wi hi

3.3.4 Distribution of Seismic Force into Individual Panels


The storey shear is distributed into individual wall panels in the given direction. The wall panels
are subjected to both lateral and torsional loads. The force due to lateral translation is based on
storey shear and stiffness of wall panels, which can be calculated as:
Qix Qiy
Flxi = K Flyi = K
σ Kxi xi σ Kyi yi
Similarly, the force due to torsion is based on storey shear, design eccentricity and torsional
stiffness of the building and can be calculated as:
Qiedy Qiedx ′
Ftxi = Y′ i ∑Kxi Ftyi = X i ∑Kyi
Kt Kt

Thus, the total force i.e. algebraic sum of force due to lateral translation and torsion, is
considered for evaluating wall panels for its in-plane safety.

Total Force, Pi = Fli + Fti (to be calculated for each wall panels in both X and Y directions)

3.5 IN-PLANE STABILITY OF WALLS


In-plane failure in walls occurs when wall tends to bends in its own plane when subjected to
excessive horizontal and vertical forces, applied along its plane, producing in-plane bending
moments. To ensure in-plane stability of wall panels, various checks of stress are performed as
under.

3.4.1 Check for Compressive Stress


Compressive strength of wall depends on its constituents i.e. units and mortar. The ultimate
strength of confined masonry walls subjected to vertical load can be determined with the
following expression:

Pcomp = ks x fm

ks is stress reduction factor based on slenderness ratio and eccentricity as per Table 3.2. Wall
panel is considered to be safe in compression if following criteria is fulfilled:

Pcomp ≥ 2.6σdl

σdl Is stress generated due to vertical loading (dead + live) on the wall panel. Self weight of
wall panel and load from the slab (dead + live) shall be considered while calculating σ dl.

43
Design Guidelines for Confined Masonry Buildings

Table 3.2 Stress Reduction Factor (ks) for Slenderness Ratio and Eccentricity

Slenderness Eccentricity of Loading Divided by the Thickness of the Member


Ratio
0 1/24 1/12 1/6 1/4 1/3
6 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
8 0.95 0.15 0.94 0.93 0.92 0.91
10 0.89 0.88 0.87 0.85 0.83 0.81
12 0.84 0.83 0.81 0.78 0.75 0.72
14 0.78 0.76 0.74 0.70 0.66 0.66
16 0.73 0.71 0.68 0.63 0.58 0.53
18 0.67 0.64 0.61 0.55 0.49 0.43
20 0.62 0.59 0.55 0.48 0.41 0.34
22 0.56 0.52 0.48 0.40 0.32 0.24
24 0.51 0.47 0.42 0.33 0.24 -
26 0.45 0.40 0.35 0.25 - -
27 0.43 0.38 0.33 0.22 - -

*Linear interpolation can be done to obtain the required value. In special cases, the
eccentricity of loading lies between l/3 and l/2 of the thickness of the member, the stress
reduction factor should vary linearly between unity and 0.20 for slenderness ratio of 6 and 20
respectively. Slenderness ratio of a member for sections within l/8 of the height of the member
above or below a lateral support may be taken as 6.

3.4.2 Check for Tensile stress


The masonry walls shall be checked for net tensile stress (σt)as per following expression, as
against the permissible tensile stress given in Table 2.4.
M
σt = − σ
S

Pi x hw
Where, Moment due to total lateral load acting on wall panel, M = and
2
2
tw x lw
Section Modulus, S=
6

Tensile stress shall be less than the permissible value as prescribed in Table 2.4.

3.4.3 Check for Shear Stress


The permissible shear stress (τ U) for the confined masonry walls is given as per following
2
expression, subjected to a maximum of 0.5 N/mm .

44
Design Guidelines for Confined Masonry Buildings

σd
τu = 0.1 +
6
While the actual shear stress of CM wall panels are calculated at sill level by the following
expression:

Pi
τu ≥
Aw

3.5 OUT-OF-PLANE STABILITY OF WALLS


3.5.1 Check for Overturning
The dynamic stability of masonry walls under out-of-plane forces depends on its slenderness
ratio, and is also a function of the floor response. It is well known fact that stiff masonry walls
amplify ground accelerations, leading to larger motions of the walls. The amplifications
depend on the site soil conditions and on the aspect ratio of wall.
The total lateral force (Pi) causes overturning moment (Mo) in the walls, which is equal to
Pihw/2 at the bottom of the wall, whereas free standing walls shall be checked against
overturning under the action of design seismic coefficient allowing the factor of safety of 1.5.
The moments are calculated as:
Overturning Moment, M =
Resisting Moment, Mr = T.L x hw x kc, where kc=2.0 for confined walls

T.L.= Self weight of wall panel+ Load coming on wall panel from the slab
For safety in overturning, >1

3.5.2 Check for Out-of-plane Stability


Out-of-plane failure in walls occurs when lateral load is acting perpendicular to the surface of
wall as shown in the Figure 3.7, e.g. lateral load on the wall is acting perpendicular to wall
surface.

Figure 3.7 Wall Subjected to Axial and Out-of-Plane Loads

45
Design Guidelines for Confined Masonry Buildings

The lateral seismic load acting of CM wall panels can be calculated as:
Seismic load per unit area of the wall panel, F = A h x m x tw
2
F x hw
Ultimate Bending Moment per unit length of wall panel, Mu = 8
Mu
Bending Stress, σb =
S
Section Modulus per unit length of wall panel, S= t 2/6
Actual Stress = σb − σdl
To check wall for out-of-plane action, actual stress should be less than the tensile stress.

3.6 DESIGN OF BOND BEAM


The basic requirements for design of bond beam in confined masonry building are:
 The bond beam shall be located above the masonry walls and at lintel/sill level, resting
over brick work.
 The minimum width to depth ratio shall be 0.3.
 The minimum depth of bond beam shall not be less than 200 mm.
 The width of bond beam shall be same to that of wall thickness.
 Minimum 4 number of 10 mm diameter deformed bars shall be provided in tie beams.
 In a corner joint of tie beam and tie column, anchorage length of L d + 10db shall be
provided in top as well as bottom bars of tie beam as shown in the whereas in a middle
joint, both top and bottom bars of the tie beam shall be continuous through the column as
shown in the Figure 3.8.
 Wherever longitudinal bars are spliced, stirrups shall be provided over the entire splice
length, at spacing not exceeding 150 mm. The lap length shall not be less than L d in
tension.
 Lap splices are not to be provided within a joint, within a distance of 2deff from joint
face and within a quarter length of the member where flexural yielding occurs due to
lateral loads. Not more than 50 percent of the bars shall be spliced at one section.

Figure 3.8 Anchorage of Longitudinal Bars of Tie Beam into Tie Column at End Span

46
Design Guidelines for Confined Masonry Buildings

 The first stirrup shall be provided at a distance of 50 mm from face of the column. The
typical ductile detailing of reinforcement in bond beam is shown in Figure 3.9

Figure 3.9 Detailing of Tie Beam for CM Building

By following above requirements, the bond beams are designed considering lateral load
acting on the wall panel.

Pi
Area of steel in bond beam is given by, Ast = fy

Number of longitudinal bars, n=( ∗ )/


minimum 2 bars each as bottom and top reinforcement
Minimum area of steel,
0.85 B D
A =
f
Shear reinforcement in bond beams is provided in the form of stirrups. The shear force to be
resisted shall be obtained by the following expression:
Vus = Pi − τcBD
Design shear strength (c) is considered according to the grade of concrete (as per IS
456:2000).
Pi
Nominal Shear Stress, τv = (B*D)

Development length is given by L =


Where bd is design bond stress as per IS 456: 2000.

 The minimum diameter of stirrups shall be 6 mm. Stirrups shall meet the following
requirements for spacing:
 Maximum spacing of deff/2 at the mid-span.

 At the either ends, over a length of 2deff from column inner face, spacing shall be kept
minimum of deff/4 or 8 times the diameter of the longitudinal bar. But in no case, it shall be
less than 100 mm
Spacing between stirrups shall be calculated as minimum of the followings -
0.87 fy Asv
Sv =
0.4 x B

= 0 . 75 D

= 300 mm

47
Design Guidelines for Confined Masonry Buildings

3.9 DESIGN OF TIE-COLUMN


The basic requirements for design of tie column in confined masonry building are:

 Tie columns should be located at all corners and wall intersections of structural walls.

 Minimum size of column should be same as that of wall thickness.

 Reinforcement detailing should confirm to ductile detailing provisions.

 10mm dia bars shall be considered as minimum diameter of longitudinal bar

 At mid height of tie-column, spacing of stirrups shall not exceed half the least lateral
dimension of the column.

 Special confining reinforcement shall be provided at either ends of the column over a
maximum length of larger lateral dimension of the member, l c/6, and 450 mm (Figure
3.10a).

 The spacing of stirrups in special confining reinforcement shall not exceed l/4 of minimum
member dimension. But in no case it shall be less than 75 mm nor more than 100 mm (Figure
3.10).

 Around the openings i.e. window, a nominal reinforcement as detailed in Figure 3.10 (c)
shall be provided.

 Cross ties or a pair of over lapping stirrups shall be provided wherever parallel legs of stirrups
are spaced at a distance of more than 300 mm c/c as shown in the Figure 3.11.

(a)
Figure 3.10 Detailing of Tie Column for CM Building

48
Design Guidelines for Confined Masonry Buildings

Figure 3.11 Stirrup with a Cross-Tie


The lateral load acting on the wall panel is considered for design of tie columns. Area of steel in
tie-columns is given by,
hw
Ast = (1 + 0.25k) Pi
l w fy
Ast
Number of longitudinal bars, n=
π x 2 ⁄4

Spacing of lateral ties in columns shall be minimum of 16, tw or 300 mm.

3.8 FOUNDATION
The foundation system applicable for CM buildings shall be governed by the local site
conditions. However, some of the important points to be considered are:
 The foundations shall be laid on hard and well compacted strata.
 The selection of type of foundation shall be as per local site condition, practices and may be
designed accordingly. A typical RC strip footing is shown in Figure 3.12a.
 Foundation for CM buildings on clayey soil, under reamed cast-in-situ pile foundations can
be adopted as given in Figure 3.12 b.

 The general consideration for foundations is applicable to the foundations of CM buildings.

(a) (b)
RC Strip Footing Pile Foundation
Figure 3.12 Alternative Foundation System for Confined Masonry Building

49
Design Guidelines for Confined Masonry Buildings

CHAPTER 4
EXPERIMENTAL STUDY ON CONFINED MASONRY
4.1 BACKDROP
Masonry, a material as old as the civilizations, has record of good performance and lasting
qualities, however, due to relatively low capacity in tension and shear it performs poorly in
seismic events. The future of masonry in buildings is limited unless improvisations of its seismic
resistant features are incorporated. The consistent development in masonry construction has
evolved various techniques namely unreinforced masonry (URM), reinforced masonry (RM)
and confined masonry (CM). Also, a large departure in material properties of masonry in
Indian context is observed as compared to US and European countries. Confined masonry, a
structural system, consists of normal masonry wall panels strengthened by confining lightly
reinforced-concrete elements at all intersections and periphery. The confining feature in
masonry is achieved by its sequence of construction, in which reinforcement is erected from
foundation and masonry walls are constructed prior to casting of columns, forcing the wall and
concrete element to be an integral unit. The area of steel in RC elements is determined on the
basis of height and size of building, with no contribution in load resistance (EC 8, 2004). It is well
understood that CM performed well in past earthquakes, worldwide. These issues attract the
interest for experimental studies on full-scale CM, and compare the performance with URM
and RM buildings with similar configurations. Hence, there is a need of an integrated
approach to reliably investigate the seismic characteristics and performance of complex
structures under controlled cyclic lateral load to study the behaviour of full-scale masonry
buildings, confined masonry in particular. The chosen test building comprised mostly of the
typical features commonly existing in practice in India viz. openings for door/windows,
door/window frame, a few walls with opening / without openings, prevailing construction
practices etc., for realistic estimation of different parameters.

4.2 EXPERIMENTAL PLANNING


In order to contribute in enhancing the knowledge about confined masonry, an experimental
research programme was carried out on a full-scale CM building subjected to reversed cyclic
lateral in displacement control mode under quasi-static state. CM building was constructed
based on prevailing construction practices and the locally (Roorkee, India) available
construction material. 220mm thick masonry walls were built of solid burnt clay brick units with
10 mm thick cement-sand mortar (1:6) joints. M20 grade of concrete and Fe415 High Yield
Strength Deformed (HYSD) bars as reinforcement were used in construction of confining
elements and slab of test structure. The test structure comprises the openings for
door/windows, door/window frame, and a few walls with opening / without openings,
prevailing construction practice etc., for realistic estimation of different parameters. The test
was planned and performed aiming at three complementary objectives, namely:

 To contribute to the better understanding of the mechanics of confined masonry under


lateral cyclic displacements. Also to assess structural response of CM in the form of crack
pattern, lateral resistance, deformability, stiffness degradation, failure mechanism,
energy dissipation capacity etc., under quasi-static state.
 To arrange automatic acquisition of test data aiming at the calibration of numerical
models and development of design tools for confined masonry.

51
Design Guidelines for Confined Masonry Buildings

 To compare experimental outcome in terms of seismic performance of confined masonry


building vis-a-vis previously tested different masonry systems in unreinforced and reinforced
masonry, results of which are available. It may be noted that all the building models tested
were having similar material properties, geometrical characteristics and test procedure.

Experimental investigation was carried out on a single storey, full-scale confined masonry building
subjected to uni-directional reversed cyclic lateral displacements with increasing amplitudes at a
very low frequency. Photo 4.1 shows a view of tested URM, RM and CM buildings, while the
structural details of these buildings are given in Table 4.1.

Photo 4.1 Full-scale masonry building models (a) Un-reinforced masonry (URM) (b) Reinforced
masonry (RM) with RC band and corner vertical reinforcement (c) Confined masonry
(CM)

Table 4.1 Description of Confined Masonry Building Model


Building Building
Material Specification Structural features
Designation Typology
URM Unreinforced Burnt solid clay brick units, 220mm thick brick masonry walls
Masonry cement: sand (1:6) mortar, with openings for door and
M20 grade of concrete window. 100mm thick RCC slab.
used for 100mm thick RCC No seismic resistant features.
slab.
RM Reinforced Burnt solid clay brick units, 220mm thick brick masonry walls
Masonry cement: sand (1:6) mortar, with openings for door and
M20 grade of concrete window. 1-10mm dia corner
used for 100mm thick RCC vertical rebar and 220mm wide,
slab, 75 mm thick RCC lintel 75mm thick RCC lintel band
band and corner vertical having 2 nos.-8mm dia bars
rebars. (Fe415) and 6mm dia hooks at
150mm c/c.
CM Confined Burnt solid clay brick units, 220mm thick brick masonry walls
Masonry cement: sand (1:6) mortar, with openings for door and
M20 grade of concrete window. 220x220mm RCC tie
used for 100mm thick RCC columns, 220x200mm RCC bond-
slab, tie column at corners beam, 40mm groove between
and bond beam at lintel masonry and tie column. The
level. Fe415 HYSD bars as confining elements are designed
reinforcement. as per EC-6. Tie-column
reinforcement adequately
anchored into 100mm thick RCC
slab.

52
Design Guidelines for Confined Masonry Buildings

4.2.1 Confined Masonry Model


The single storeyed full-scale confined masonry building made of burnt solid clay unit masonry
walls, confined within RCC tie-column, bond-beam and slab as roofing system, (Figure
4.1(c)). The building has plan dimension of size 3.01x3.01m and 3.0m height above strong
floor level. The different stages of construction of a full-scale confined masonry building
model in the laboratory are shown in Photo 2.

ISOMETRIC VIEW

(a) Isometric View

(b) Plan

53
Design Guidelines for Confined Masonry Buildings

(c) Elevation of Walls


Figure 4.1 Structural Details of A Full-Scale Confined Masonry Building Model

The model had opening in walls, a door (0.8mx2.01m) on out-of-plane wall (wall-3) and a
window (0.75mx1.22m) at in-plane wall (wall-2), placed at centre of the respective panel. The
top of the openings were placed at same level, so as to have continuous bond-beam at lintel
level, aligning with the practice being commonly adopted in Indian construction and culture.
The full-scale building model was constructed in Heavy Testing Laboratory of CSIR-CBRI,
Roorkee, India. As the building model was built on strong floor of the laboratory, it was not
provided with traditional style of foundation system. However, RC beams of size 230x150mm
under the wall were first cast on strong floor and adequately fastened against horizontal
sliding/overturning with the help of nut and bolt arrangement.

Although, it is more appropriate to perform such tests on a shake table to obtain more realistic
experimental information about seismic performance, however, to take advantage of some
of the merits associated with quasi-static test (QST) and the resource constraints, the QST test
procedure was adopted. This method was economical and commonly adopted for obtaining
test data on inelastic behavior of specimen wherein prescribed displacement or load histories
are imposed. The prescribed displacement histories are particularly important in assessing
inelastic behavior of structure by subjecting a set of cyclic displacement histories of increasing
amplitude at a very low frequency. These tests provide the reverse character of the load that
distinguishes dynamic response to unidirectional static load. As the load application points are
fixed, the moments and shear forces are always in phase, which cannot be achieved in
dynamic response.

54
Design Guidelines for Confined Masonry Buildings

(a) (b) (c)

(d) (e) (f)

Photo 4.2 Stages of construction of a full-scale confined masonry building model (a)
Construction of masonry wall with provision of reinforcement in tie-column (b)
Providing shuttering on two faces of tie-column (c) Casting of tie-column followed
by subsequent masonry (d) Provision of keys in masonry and concrete for better
bonding at interfac (e) Subsequent shuttering of tie column (f) Completed confined
masonry model

4.3 TEST ARRANGEMENTS


To apply unidirectional reversed cyclic lateral displacement excitation at low frequency level
to masonry building model, a two-way acting, + 500kN capacity dynamic force rating, servo-
hydraulic programmable actuator with + 75mm stroke length was fixed to RCC reaction wall at
roof level of CM building. The imposed displacements on the model and the restoring forces
were measured by displacement and load transducer respectively. An internally mounted
Linearly Variable Displacement Transducer (LVDT) and load cell in actuator system was used
for feedback and connected to Data Acquisition System.

Photo 4.3 Arrangement of actuator and lateral cyclic displacement distributing system for
QST on CM building

55
Design Guidelines for Confined Masonry Buildings

The displacements of a test structure during the test are controlled by means of actuator
controller system during the tests, which respond to the difference between the command
signal and the measured displacement. The swivel head of actuator was connected to
grillage load distributing system which pushes or pulls the test structure and its base is fixed to
the RC reaction wall at 3.0m above floor level i.e. at roof level of masonry building. The desired
displacement history was programmed as input to the actuator. Photo 4.3 shows a view of
arrangements of actuator and the loading system for reversed cyclic lateral displacement
application on confined masonry building model.

To acquire the data during uni-directional lateral cyclic test, LVDTs were deployed to
measure the deformation at appropriate locations of the confined masonry building. Ten
LVDTs were placed to measure local displacement and to track in-plane rotational
movement of test structure at roof level. An independent support system from test structure
was fabricated using slotted angles to mount the LVDTs and was fixed to the strong floor. To
measure displacement of the CM building, as a response, when subjected to reversed
cyclic lateral displacements, LVDTs were mounted at appropriate locations.

4.3.1 Test Procedure


The displacement time-history was drawn as per protocol of ASTM-E-2126. Accordingly, the
model was subjected to reverse cyclic lateral displacements with increasing amplitudes, in
which each set of amplitude peak was repeated three times, as shown in Figure 4.2 The
lateral load was imposed by two-way acting, +500kN capacity, +75 mm stroke length,
programmable, servo-hydraulic actuator. The reverse cyclic lateral displacement from
actuator was uniformly distributed at eight points at roof level on two opposite sides of full-
scale model by a grillage mechanism and steel connectors.

The model was instrumented using LVDTs and Dial gauges to measure displacements,
flexural and shear deformations, base uplift, and relative sliding.

Figure 4.2 Lateral Cyclic Displacement Time Histories

4.4 DAMAGE CHARACTERISTICS


The global behaviour of CM building was analysed based on the experimental
measurements in terms of deformation, damage pattern and failure mechanism. A detailed
check of the building before the test indicated that the model was completely intact i.e. no
damage/cracks were noticed in any of the wall façade or RC elements. The evolution of
the

56
Design Guidelines for Confined Masonry Buildings

crack in masonry walls, its propagation and implication of such cracks on the distribution of
forces were studied. To facilitate comparison among masonry construction systems, different
damage states i.e. elastic (crack) limit, maximum resistance and ultimate failure were
considered as important performance milestones. The control points were derived by bilinear
idealization of experimental lateral load-displacement envelope data. The elastic crack limit
state, was described at initiation of first significant crack in mortar joint which changes initial
stiffness, resolute by lateral load (Hcr) and displacement (dcr). Maximum lateral load (Hmax)
and corresponding displacment (d H-max) of the building was obtained on attainment of
maximum resistance state. Similarly, ultimate state of collapse was determined on
attainment of maximum lateral displacement (dd-max) at corrosponding resistance (Hd-
max).
4.4.1 Sequence of Cracking
Under the applied low cyclic incremental lateral loading on CM building model,
occurrence of first minor horizontal crack appears at 7mm lateral displacement in 8th
course mortar joint of wall-1. Subsequently, significant crack was noticed at wall centre in
the second course from bottom of in-plane wall (wall-2) and also in top-most course
between RC slab and masonry of out-of-plane wall (wall-1) at associated lateral load of
131kN (0.31% drift) in 12mm displacement cycle. At 14mm displacement cycle, occurence
of horizontal cracks in lower courses of wall-1, wall-2 and wall-3 were noticed in mortar joint.
The initiation of stepped diagonal crack at corners of window opening of wall-2 was
noticed and it continued in diagonal fashion passing through brick unit-mortar joint. This
occurred at a displacement cycle of 16mm having measured drift of 0.53% with 135kN
lateral resistance of CM building. Further the increase in lateral displacement resulted in
increasing lateral load resistance upto a maximum of 152.25 kN at 0.83% drift (25mm
displacement). The associated damage in CM building model comprised cracks in bond
beam at mid-span of wall-2 (over opening), and beginning of inclined diagonal crack at
column ends. The cracks formed almost in all the walls were primarily horizontal cracks at
lower courses extending to half of the length of the bed joint, and began to widen-up at
34mm displacement load step. On achieving 42 mm displacment load step, the wall-1, wall-
2 and wall-3 sustained severe cracking with increased crack width. Intrestingly, the
separation of concrete-masonry interface at 40mm groove was noticed on the out-of-plane
wall-3, having door opening, at a height of 1.1m above floor level, at a measured lateral
load of 138kN corresponding to 1.2% drift (42mm displacement). This particular crack further
extended to mid-height of opening in stepped diagonal smeared crack mode at mortar-
brick unit interface in next higher loading. At the same juncture, severe cracking of brick unit
and at lower corner of in-plane wall (wall-2, wall-4) masonry panels and spalling of concrete
cover, crushing of core concrete at end regions of tie-columns was observed. Nevertheless,
no separation or cracks at brick masonry - tie-column concrete interface was noticed in in-
plane walls façade. At the end of 50mm displacement load step, crack pattern of the walls
were due to mixed in-plane and out-of-plane resisting mechanism of confined masonry-RC
element in tie-column/bond-beam and RC rigid diaphram slab. The presence of confining
RC elements in all walls demonstrates a unison integral action in lateral load resistance and
promote sliding resistance mechanism in masonry under the action of lateral load. At the
later steps, i.e. 54 mm lateral displacement, the progression of crack at end region of tie-
columns, further extended upto longitudinal reinforcement, causing bending of longitudinal
bars at associated measured drift of 1.8% with lateral load resistance of 132.92 kN. Figure 4.3
shows the final crack pattern in different walls of CM building.

57
Design Guidelines for Confined Masonry Buildings

Figure 4.3 Final Crack Patterns in Walls of CM Building Model

As will be discussed in subseqent sections, the opening-up of cracks, especially stepped


diagonal cracks are significant with 15mm crack width at final load step of 54mm. Noteworthy
damages in masonry shows that the majority of cracks are at the interface of masonry unit and
mortar, confirming strong unit and weak mortar notion. These cracks were initiated and had
higher concentration in the lower courses. This was attributed to micro-crack in masonry and
flexural/sliding shear due to low axial load, loss of local mortar bond and adjustment of brick
units. At higher deformation level, the cracks were formed in diagonal smeared crack fashion
on in-plane masonry wall at corners of opening and marching into tie column. These cracks
were noticed perpendicular to maximum tensile

Stress zone of in-plane walls of building and crushing of brick units at compression toe. Similar
nature of cracks were also observed on out-of-plane walls with openings as a result of
movement along with in-plane walls forming flange effect. It was also seen that the
presence of bond beam at lintel level restricts the extension of cracks from masonry below
bond beam to spandral masonry. Also bond-beam allowed horizontal crack to propagate
towards tie column with increased damage in lower half of in-plane walls. These cracks
were restricted within masonry due to confinement of RC elements. The sequence of crack
occurrence on CM building may be summarised as formation of horizontal crack in mortar
joint and moving towards tie-column; stepped diagonal crack penetrating into tie-beam
and tie-column; over- turning horizontal cracks on out-of-plane walls; spalling of cover
concrete and crushing of core concrete of tie-column, crushing of masonry at toe of in-
plane wall panel; crushing of brick at mid crack section of out-of-plane walls; and bending
of longitudinal bars of tie-column at end region. These observations of crack pattern
enables to clarify the sliding mechanism development along the crack defining discrete
brick units. The global/local collapse of confined masonry or RC elements did not occur, at
a higher level of loading, satisfynig the life safety philosophy of seismic design. However,
the test was stopped just before excessive deformation, and widening of cracks at 1.8% drift

58
Design Guidelines for Confined Masonry Buildings

so as to protect the equipments from damage, although the test structure had sufficient
strength to sustain further displacement.

4.4.2 Failure Mode


In the tested CM building, damages were concentrated predominantly in masonry and are
very marginal in RC elements. The crack width, extent of crack and crack densities were higher
for wall panels having opening i.e. wall-2 and wall-3, as compared to wall panels with no
openings. As can be seen, that in all the walls, cracks were developed along unit-mortar
interface and extended to the corner, followed by cracking and crushing of unit and concrete
at higher displacement loading cycle, resulting in bending of longitudinal reinforcement in tie-
column at end region.

The development of these almost continuous horizontal cracks at unit-mortar interface


attributed to exceeding tensile stresses in bed joint mortar due to inertial forces resulting from
lateral load under low axial stresses. The major horizontal cracks were noticed at the interface
of footing beam and masonry in in-plane wall-2 and wall-4 representing sliding shear due to low
friction at interface, as a result of in-plane flexure resisting mechanism associated with low
value of vertical pre-compression.

The tendency for smeared cracking along diagonals may be attributed to the presence of
reinforcement in confining RC elements and thus averting the crack localization. At low axial
stress levels, failure occurred by simple rotation of upper region of CM building model and
sliding along the bed joint leading to stepped diagonal crack through mortar joint, without
visible cracking in brick units. The failure mode of CM building under lateral load suggests that
primarily cracks occurred in horizontal mortar joint due to exceedance of shear stress than that
of bond strength between brick unit and mortar leading to sliding shear failure. As observed
during the test, the failure modes of in-plane walls of CM building can be classified as sliding
shear, diagonal shear in sill masonry and flexure. Similarly, failure mode of out-of-plane walls of
CM building comprised bending and over-turning.

4.5 SEISMIC RESPONSE


4.5.1 Lateral Strength and Deformation
Complementary to damage characteristics it is also essential to evaluate lateral
displacement and resistance of CM building. This provides insight into basic resistance and
stability for the building subjected to sesimic actions. The lateral deformability and seismic
resistance of such buildings may be described by hysteresis curve. The envelope typically
shows the relationship between the average lateral load acting on the test structure and
average lateral displacement.

The seismic performance of CM building was obtained from the envelope of hysteresis
curves, which describe maximum resistance (Hmax), and maximum lateral displacment (dd-
max) attained by building during the test. Figure 4.4 shows the hysteresis curve plotted by
taking into account peaks of resisting force and corresponding displacement amplitude
from the measured data during cyclic test on CM building. These values were average of
three repetative cycles of same amplitude in positive (push) and negative (pull) direction of
loading at a given displacement amplitude. The symmetrical form of hysteresis was also
observed indicating almost identical behaviour of the model in push and pull loading.

59
Design Guidelines for Confined Masonry Buildings

The different limit states, namely elastic (crack) limit, maximum resistance and ultimate
failure state, were considered for comparison of seismic behavior of the different masonry
buildings. The elastic crack limit state corresponds to initiation of first horizontal crack in mortar
joint that changes initial stiffness of the building, resolute by lateral load (H cr) and
displacement (dcr). At the attainment of maximum resistance, maximum lateral load
(Hmax) and the corresponding lateral displacment (dH-max) of the building were
determined. Similarly, the ultimate state of collapse was obtained by attainment of
maximum lateral displacement (dd-max) and the corresponding lateral load resistance (Hd-
max).

Figure 4.4. Hystertic Curve for CM Building Model

The ultimate lateral load carrying capacity of the building was obtained as 152.25kN at an
associated storey drift of 0.838%. The significant initial cracks were observed at a lateral
displacement of 9.39 mm with an associated lateral load of 131.04 kN. The residual strength
of 2.304kN and 4.0 mm permanent displacement were measured at the end of the test on
the CM building. As can be seen that among different masonry systems, highest values of
lateral strength of 152.25 kN with maximum recorded drift of 1.8% was obtained for CM, as
compared to URM and RM buildings. The maximum lateral strength recorded for URM and
RM building was 44.5 kN and 57.85 kN respectively, at corresponding drift of 0.12% and
0.79%. This shows that the confinement of masonry with RC elements significantly improved
the lateral strength of CM building. The enhancement in lateral strength of CM building was
observed 3.42 times of the strength of URM building. Similarly, the lateral deformation of CM
building was increased by 15 times the displacement capacity of URM building.

The summary of hysteresis behaviour of CM building at limit states are given in Table 4. 2. The
table also shows a comparison of these parameters with URM and RM buildings, which were
tested in similar fashion, prior to the present test of CM building. In terms of acceleration due
to gravity, (g), CM resisted lateral load equivalent to 0.96g of its mass whereas URM and RM
withstood 0.29g and 0.38g of its mass respectively.

60
Design Guidelines for Confined Masonry Buildings

Table 4.2 Comparision of Lateral Resistance, Deformation at Control Point for Different
Masonry Building Systems

Building dcr dH -max dd -max Hcr HH -max Hd -max Base


Typology (mm) (mm) (mm) (kN) (kN) (kN) shear/mass
(g)
URM 2.85 3.30 3.70 41.00 44.50 43.01 0.29
RM 4.77 6.70 23.70 47.86 57.85 38.75 0.38
CM 9.39 25.15 54.01 131.04 152.25 132.92 0.96

The hysteresis envelope of the CM building suggests a considerable ductile behaviour before
failure. Similar displacement profiles were obtained for wall-1 and wall-3 indicating the unison
behaviour of model with a very small torsion.

4.5.2 Stiffness Degradation


Stiffness degradation was evaluated on the basis of measured relationship between the
imposed lateral displacement and corresponding reaction forces. The secant stiffness (K) at
different critical points were expressed as the slope of line joining the beginning of the first
cycle to the given displacement amplitude, on load-deflection envelope. Thus, the secant
stiffness
(K) is defined as a ratio of the lateral load (H) to corresponding displacment (d), at a given
displacement amplitude. The load-displacement data of tested buildings was utilized to
calculate secant stiffness as a ratio of lateral resistance to top displacement (K=H/d). The
stiffness thus computed for the first cycle of each amplitude was plotted as shown in Figure
4.5 for CM building. The figure indicates significantly high initial stiffness of CM and it reduces
appreciably after formation of cracks in masonry, exhibiting steady degradation in stiffness
at later stage.

Figure 4.5 Stiffness Degradation of CM Building in Cyclic Loading

4.5.3 Evaluation of In-Plane Drift and Ductility


Drift of the building is expressed as a ratio between top displacement to the height of building.
It has been realised that damage in building when subjected to seismic ground motion is a
consequence of imposed lateral deformation demand /drift. To facilitate comparison among

61
Design Guidelines for Confined Masonry Buildings

different masonry construction systems, damage states i.e. damagability, serviceability,


repairability and safety, are considered as important performance milestones on capacity
curve. The damage states corrospond to the occurence of first significant horizontal crack in
mortar damageability; widening of crack width and onset of inclined cracks in masonry
serviceability; full formation of inclined crack on masonry, hairline crack into tie-columns, onset
of masonry crushing repairability; and loss of shear strength and yielding of tie member
reinforcement, penetration of cracks into tie-members, and onset of crushing of tie-column
safety. The in-plane deformation capacity of CM building was evaluated based on relative
displacment of LVDTs at differ heights.

Figure 4.6 illustrates the drift along the height of CM building at different damage states
showing distinct drift profiles. In general, the lateral drift in CM was higher in the lower region
(below lintel level), which was associated with higher level of damage development at this
location. From the figure, it can be attributed that due to the presence of lintel bond beam,
a small difference in drifts was noted. This resulted in limited damage in spandral masonry
showing effectiveness of lintel bond beam. It is to be noted that the full-scale test of CM was
terminated just before reaching the collapse stage of the building (1.8% drift) in order to
avoid damage to instruments/equipments, although the building had further
displacement/ductility capacity. The reported final drift of the building may have slightly
higher deformation had the test continued further, till actual failure.

Figure 4.6 Drift of CM Building at different control Points

Table 4.3 shows the comparison of drift obtained for different masonry buildings. In general,
the in-plane drifts are quite low in RM and URM as compared to CM building. Higher drift,
lateral resistance and low damage in CM, confirms the suitability of CM building for better
seismic performance.

62
Design Guidelines for Confined Masonry Buildings

Table 4.3 Comparision of Drift, Ductility and Seismic Behaviour Factors for Different Masonry
Building Model

Building Typology

URM

4.5.4 Cumulative Input and Dissipated Energy


As a measure of energy dissipation capacity at a given displacment amplitude, cumulative
input energy was compared with dissipated hysteretic energy for performance evaluation of
different masonry buldings. Cumulative work-done by the actuator to deform building from
beginning of the test upto given displacement amplitude in positive and negative region of
hysteresis loop was designated as cumulative input energy (Einp). On the other hand, the
area enclosed by one hystersis loop denotes the cumulative dissipated energy, (Ediss). The
dissipated energy in one loading cycle can thus be obtained as the difference in hysteresis
area of two consecutive peaks.

The amount of cumulative input and dissipated energies produced at different limit states of
performance for various masonry are tabulated in Table 4.4. Also the energy ratio was
expressed as ratio between Ediss and Einp, at maximum displacement. It was noticed that
among all the masonry building systems, CM building showed highest cumulative dissipated
and input energy. As can be seen that URM building had lowest energy ratio, referring to
poor seismic performance of such construction under cyclic lateral loads.

Table 4.4 Comparision of Input and Cumulative Dissipated Energy for Different Masonry Building
Model
Cumulative Disspated
Building Input Energy, Einp , kN/mm Energy
Energy, Ediss, kN/mm
Typology Ratio,%
dH- dd - dH- dd -
d1 dcr d1 dcr
max max max max

URM 0.250 97 130 175 0.140 26 66 66 37.714


RM 0.250 350 400 1338 0.140 145 175 616 46.039
CM 0.226 1568 4298 8465 0.144 572 1962 4250 50.207

4.6 BASE SHEAR COEFFICIENT


The shear force resisted by the building has been expressed in a non-dimensional form, as
the ratio of base shear resisted by the building to its weight, termed as Base Shear
Coefficient (BSC). Table 4.5 summarizes the calculated maximum ideal elastic base shear
coefficient, BSCle,max; maximum measured experimental BSCmax; and designed BSCd
obtained by bilinear elasto-plastic curve. These values are plotted against storey drift in non-
dimensional form. The envelope showing the relation between BSC developed at each run
and the corresponding storey drift is given in Figure 4.7 for all the tested masonry buildings.

63
Design Guidelines for Confined Masonry Buildings

Table 4. 5 Base Shear Coefficient and Behaviour Factor for Different Masonry System

Building Base Shear Coefficient Behaviour Factor


Designation BSC,le max BSCmax BSCd Rmax Rd
URM 0.369 0.293 0.269 1.25 1.36
RM 0.939 0.377 0.311 2.49 3.00
CM 2.780 0.953 0.832 2.91 3.33

Figure 4. 7 Resistance Curve of Different Masonry System: Base Shear Coefficient- Storey Drift
Relationship

4.7 STRUCTURAL BEHAVIOUR FACTOR


A normal structure possessing displacement and energy dissipation features can be designed
using conventional elastic analysis procedure for ultimate design load. This elastic seismic
force in ideal linear elastic structure has been normalised by a factor, for determination of
ultimate designed seismic forces termed as response reduction or structural behaviour factor
(R). As per EC-6 (2004), the behaviour factor is an approximation of the ratio between seismic
forces that the structure would experience if its response is completely elastic with 5% viscous
damping, and minimum seismic forces that may be used in the design with a conventional
elastic analysis model. Following these definition, the behaviour factor in terms of force, may
be expressed as:
Hle,max
R=
Hu,d
where, Hle,max = maximum earthquake load developed in a completely elastic structure
and Hud
= Ultimate designed earthquake load.
Figure 4.8 illustrates evolution of structural behaviour factor. The load-deformation
relationship of actual (experimental) structure when subjected to lateral cyclic load is
idealized considering maximum displacements of elastic and elastic-perfectly plastic system
with same initial stiffness characteristics upto uncracked stage and equalization of
dissipated energies under the experimental envelope and idealized bilinear diagram. This
procedure implies calculation of idealized bilinear resistance curve equivalent to monotonic
envelope of successive loops corresponding to each loading steps. The value of Hu,d
corresponds to the

64
Design Guidelines for Confined Masonry Buildings

strength of an ideal bi-linear system equivalent to the nonlinear capacity curve and may be
considered as an estimate of ultimate base shear capacity of the structure. According to
energy equivalence criteria, normally it corresponds to 20% degradation of maximum
resistance, HH,max, and may be represented as H 0.8H-max.

Hle,max
Lateral Resistance (P)

Ideal Elastic Response

Bilinear Idealized curve


0.8H- Pmax
HH,max

Hu,d;HH Actual Experimental


Design ultimate state

Design ultimate state


Maximum resistance

Response
Damage limitation

Hcr
Elastic limit

requirement

requirement
No collapse

Collapse
dcr dθ d Pmax d0.8 H-max

Displacement (d)4.8
Figure 4.8 Progression of Damage for Masonry Construction

By considering energy conservation principle, areas of lateral resistance-displacement


relationship below ideal elastic and idealized elastic-plastic structure (Figure 4.8) are equated.
Thereby, the structural behaviour factor (R) may be represented in terms of global ductility
factor, μu = du/de, where de and du are the displacement at idealized elastic limit and at
ultimate limit of the structure, and is expressed as:
= √(2 − 1)

The above equation takes into account minimum ductility capacity for estimating structural
behaviour factor (R), posing upper limit to be considered for reduction of seismic forces. In
other words, verification of design loads for seismic resistance of masonry structure using
structural behaviour factor R, shall be governed by
μu = 0.5 (R2 + 1)

Table 4.8 also give experimentally obtained behaviour factor Rmax and designed
behaviour factor (Rd) for tested masonry systems.

Alternatively, the behaviour factor may be computed using global ductility of the structure,
following the principle described in Figure 4.8. Table 4.6 summarizes the drift at different
damage states and global ductility factors, for tested masonry systems. The ductility based
values of behaviour factor (Ru), considering drift corresponding to ultimate displacement at
80% of maximum resistant, 0.8H, max and storey drift at damage limit state were calculated.
As can be seen that the behaviour factor obtained through force and ductility based
approach, applied on the experimental data are adequate for Indian condition when
compared with the range of values suggested in EC-6 (2004) for URM and RM. On the contrary,

65
Design Guidelines for Confined Masonry Buildings

the behaviour factor values given in EC-6 (2004) are marginally lower for CM buildings when
compared with the obtained values for Indian CM. Time and again, it was noted that all the
full-scale tests were terminated just before reaching the collapse stage of building so as to
avoid damage to instruments/equipments, although the buildings had further
displacement/ductility capacity. This would result into further increase in behaviour factor and
may exceed the range mentioned at EC-6. This implies that in case of URM and RM, the ranges
of R-values suggested by the code are reasonable corresponding to limitation of damage in
the structure. However, the ranges of R-value for CM prescribed in the code are relatively
under-estimated. Additionally, material over-strength may be expected as a result of partial
safety factor for material strength for which mechanism models are used for seismic resistance.

Table 4.6 Behaviour Factor in Terms of Ductility for Different Masonry Systems
Building e,i cr u,i(0.8max) H-max µu Rcr/e,i Ru
Designation
URM 0.123 0.095 0.128 0.237 1.34 1.29 1.30
RM 0.473 0.159 0.655 0.397 4.11 2.97 2.69
CM 1.061 0.313 1.800 0.782 5.75 3.39 3.24

Following the experimentally obtained data and ignoring material over-strength factor,
behaviour factor values in case of CM may be modified in code (EC-6) as 2.5-3.25 even when
damage limitation and adequate performance requirement of CM will not be exceeded. A
special mention can be made in regard to proper reinforcement detailing (i.e. confined lateral
ties at the end region and joints) for these ranges of R-values.

4.8 CONCLUDING REMARKS


The main focus was to assess the performance of the masonry building systems, which are
mostly based on prescriptive basis in Indian (IS-4326:2013) code. The study was very pertinent
since material characteristics of masonry and its constituents in India, has high variance as
compared to other countries in US and Europe. A full-scale single storey confined masonry
building was subjected to lateral reversed cyclic displacement at roof level under quasi-static
conditions. Several key aspects pertaining to masonry building systems like crack pattern,
lateral strength, drift, ductility, stiffness degradation, behaviour factor and energy dissipation
capacity were examined. To have comparison of CM with URM and RM, previously tested
buildings of this typology having similar geometry, material properties and test procedure were
utilized. The important conclusions drawn from the study are:

1. The tested masonry building viz. URM, RM and CM exhibited distinct behaviour in terms
of crack pattern and deformation characteristics. Due to restrained-rocking
mechanism, CM buildings suffer from flexural and sliding/diagonal shear failure in in-
plane walls while at higher displacement, crushing of masonry at compression toe,
spalling of concrete and bending of reinforcement of tie column resulted in strength
degradation by around 13%. The confining elements i.e. tie-column and bond-beams,
were found to be very effective in offering confinement to masonry. The closely spaced
lateral ties at 100mm c/c at end regions of tie-column controlled the crushing of core
concrete and improved the performance. As expected, URM suffered brittle failure with

66
Design Guidelines for Confined Masonry Buildings

excessive diagonal cracks in walls and sliding of RC roof, whereas use of RC band and
vertical reinforcement at corners in RM building improves the seismic performance
considerably.

2. The connection of tie-column bond beam and cast-in-situ RC slab of CM offered


integral action with masonry resulting into no sliding, separation or uplift of RC slab (as
noticed in previously tested URM and RM buildings). The observation suggests that these
features also control the crack pattern and behaviour of CM.

3. Separation of tie-column and masonry at interface was more predominant in out-of-


plane walls beyond 1.5% drift. In-plane walls with openings were susceptible to
diagonal shear cracks whereas, in-plane wall without opening are subjected to flexural
and sliding shear failure. Mainly the failure in CM building was governed by sliding /
diagonal shear, flexure, and plastic hinge formation, hence adequate checks of these
parameters should be performed in design process of CM.

4. Among all the tested building, CM exhibited substantial increase in lateral strength,
stiffness, ductility and energy dissipation capacity. The lateral strength achieved by
URM and RM buildings was only about 29% and 38% respectively as compared to the
lateral strength of CM. The high initial stiffness in CM was attributed due to presence of
confining elements. Steady-stiffness degradation after cracking, with 10% residual
stiffness at the maximum displacement was obtained for RM and CM buildings.
5. The maximum drift (1.8%) and ductility (5.75) were achieved for CM building. Albeit, the
test was terminated just before reaching collapse stage, to avoid damage to
instruments / equipments, however the building had adequate capacity.

6. The behaviour factors, as 1.36, 3.0 and 3.33 for URM, RM and CM respectively were
obtained using equal energy and equal displacement approaches. Although, the
behaviour factor for URM and RM are in agreement with EC-8, but these values for CM is
under-estimated. The upper-bound values upto 3.4 can be practiced in the design of
CM buildings. Similarly, highest energy dissipation capacity was observed in CM
buildings.

7. Provision of bond beam at lintel level of CM, encased spandrel masonry within cast-in-
situ RC slab bond beam and tie columns, resulted in controlling damage.

To conclude, the experimental results indicate that CM is a promising construction


technique for low-to-medium rise construction in seismic regions as against URM and RM.
The conclusions drawn above were based on the limited number of test performed in Indian
context. However, further investigations warrant studying behaviour of CM with reference to
various detailing and dimensions; effecting of axial load on lateral resistance, drifting and
damaging pattern etc. Preferably these testes should be conducted on a shake table, to
strengthen the database and develop better design features for CM.

67
Design Guidelines for Confined Masonry Buildings

CHAPTER 5
DESIGN EXAMPLE
5.1 PROBLEM STATEMENT
Design a confined masonry building for the plan shown in Figure 5.1, located in seismic zone IV.
Evaluate maximum number of storey which can be built for the given geometry and material
specifications.

(All Dimensions in mm)


Figure 5.1 Building Plan

69
Design Guidelines for Confined Masonry Buildings

Table 5.1 Building Geometry of CM Building

Component Dimensions Unit


Plan Dimension in X Direction 16370 mm
Plan Dimension in Y Direction 7840 mm
Storey Height 3000 mm
Building Height 3125 mm
Bond Beam 230 x 230 mm
Tie Column 230 x 230 mm
Slab 125 thick mm
Door Opening 1200 x 2100 mm
Window Opening 1200 x 1200 mm

Table 5.2 Material Properties for Design of CM Building

Component Parameter Value Unit


Brick Compressive Strength 10.5 N/mm2
Mortar Compressive Strength 3 N/mm2
Density 19 kN/m3
Masonry
Tensile Strength 0.25 N/mm2
Density 25 kN/m3
Concrete
Grade 20 N/mm2
Steel Grade 415 N/mm2

Table 5.3 Seismic Parameters for Design CM Building

Parameter Value

Zone Factor 0.24 (Zone IV)


Importance Factor 1.0 (Residential Building)
Response Reduction Factor 2.5
Soil Type Medium

Building plan is divided into grids by numbering walls in X direction as A to E and in Y direction as
1 to 11 as shown in the plan (Figure 5.1). Columns are marked in red colour.

The wall panels are labelled as combination of “Grid along Y-direction followed by grid along
X-direction”.

In this example, calculations are shown for wall panels in X and Y directions for ground floor.
Similar calculations can be carried out for the remaining floors. Comparative summary (in the
form of tables) of analysis results of confined masonry building upto 4 storeys along with
structural drawing has been given at the end.

70
Design Guidelines for Confined Masonry Buildings

5.1.1 Check for Wall Density (for the building)


The minimum wall density required for confined masonry building located in seismic zone IV is
4 %.
Aw
Wd (%) = * 100
Ap
( 0.23 x 16.37) +( 0.115 x 16.37) +(.23 x 13.2)
Wd = x 100 = 6.7 % (in X direction)
16.37 x 7.84

( 0.23 x 7.84 x 2) +( 0.115 x7.84x2) + ( 0.115x3.65x2) +( 0.23x 3.65) + (023 x3.7x2)


Wd = x 100 = 6.8 %
16.37 x 7.84
(in Y direction)
Wall density in X direction = 6.7% > 4 %, Hence OK
Wall density in Y direction = 6.8% > 4 %, Hence OK
5.1.2 Calculation of Equivalent Stiffness of Wall Panels

Figure 5.2 Elevation of Panel AC1 Showing different Piers (dimensions in mm)

Opening for ventilation in wall AC1 has been neglected in the analysis due to its smaller
dimensions.

Em tw
Stiffness of a pier, Kf =
hw 3 h
+3 w
lw lw

Calculations for equivalent stiffness of wall panel AC1 are shown below.
.
Pier 1 (top): K1 = . .
= 0.340 m E
. .

.
Pier 2 (along opening): K2 = . .
= 0.0085 m E
. .
.
Pier 3 (along opening): K3 = . .
= 0.111 m E
. .

71
Design Guidelines for Confined Masonry Buildings

.
Pier 4 (bottom): K4 = = 0.270 m E
. .

Equivalent stiffness of a wall panel can be calculated by:


1
Kw =
1 1 1
+ +
K1 K2 +K3 K

KW = 0.066 m E
Similarly, stiffness for other wall panels is shown in the Table 5.4.

Table 5.4 Stiffness of Wall Panels

Wall Panel Stiffness (m E)


A12 0.026
A25 0.053
A710 0.053
A1011 0.026
C13 0.017
C45 0.017
C57 0.018
C78 0.017
C911 0.017
E13 0.047
E34 0.018
E46 0.054
E68 0.054
E89 0.018
E911 0.047
AC1 0.066
CE1 0.065
AB2 0.008
CE3 0.031
CE4 0.031
AC5 0.078
DE6 0.076
AC7 0.078
CE8 0.031
CE9 0.031
AB10 0.008
AC11 0.066
CE11 0.065

72
Design Guidelines for Confined Masonry Buildings

Stiffness of wall panels in X and Y directions are added separately to obtain building stiffness in
both the directions.

Stiffness of walls in X direction = 0.490 m E

Stiffness of walls in Y direction = 0.634 m E

5.1.3 Centre of Stiffness and Centre of Mass


Table 5.5 Centre of Stiffness of Wall Panels

Centre of Stiffness in Centre of Stiffness in


Centroidal X Direction (mm) Y Direction (mm)
Wall Panel
Distance (mm) Xcs = Kyi Xi /kyi Ycs = KxiYi/Kxi
A12 1200 0 0
A25 4615 0 0
A710 11505 0 0
A1011 14920 0 0
C13 1735 0 123.44
C45 5755 0 123.2
C57 7985 0 124.8
C78 10215 0 123.2
C911 14235 0 123.44
E13 1735 0 717.65
E34 4055 0 215.87
E46 6470 0 809.26
E68 9900 0 809.26
E89 12315 0 215.87
E911 14640 0 717.65
AC1 2130 0 0
CE1 6085 0 0
AB2 1280 30.28 0
CE3 6085 158.42 0
CE4 6085 232.5 0
AC5 2130 854.43 0
DE6 6286 952.4 0
AC7 2130 1100.49 0
CE8 6085 544.94 0
CE9 6085 619.02 0
AB10 1280 171.67 0
AC11 2130 1678.11 0
CE11 6085 1652.68 0

73
Design Guidelines for Confined Masonry Buildings

Ky1 X1 + Ky2 X2 +…+ Kyn Xn


Xcs = Ky1 +Ky2 +…+Kyn
= 7995 mm

(Kx1 Y1 )+(Kx2 Y2 )+…+(Kxn Yn )


Ycs = (Kx1 +Kx2 +…+Kxn )
= 4104 mm

Table 5.6 Centre of Mass of Wall Panels


Wall Xcm = ƩWiXi/ƩWi Ycm = ƩWiYi/ƩWi
Xi (mm) Yi (mm)
Panel Centre of Mass in X Centre of Mass in
A12 1200 0 38.27(mm)
Direction 0 (mm)
Y Direction
A25 4615 0 231.49 0
A710 11505 0 577.09 0
A1011 14920 0 475.79 0
C13 1735 3845 33.28 73.76
C45 5755 3845 100.37 67.06
C57 7985 3845 140.25 67.53
C78 10215 3845 178.15 67.06
C911 14235 3845 273.08 73.76
E13 1735 7610 72.91 319.78
E34 4055 7610 94.29 176.95
E46 6470 7610 292.3 343.8
E68 9900 7610 447.25 343.8
E89 12315 7610 286.36 176.95
E911 14640 7610 615.19 319.78
AC1 0 2130 0 121.52
CE1 0 6085 0 320.38
AB2 2400 1280 27.9 14.88
CE3 3240 6085 79.38 149.07
CE4 4755 6085 116.49 149.07
AC5 6945 2130 426.8 130.9
DE6 7945 6286 481.66 381.08
AC7 8945 2130 549.71 130.9
CE8 11145 6085 273.04 149.07
CE9 12660 6085 310.15 149.07
AB10 13605 1280 158.18 14.88
AC11 16120 2130 919.69 121.52
CE11 16120 6085 848.74 320.38

(W1 X1 )+(W2 X2 )+…+(Wn Xn )


Xcm = (W1 +W2 +…+Wn )
= 8048 mm

( ) ( ) ⋯ ( )
Y = ( ⋯ )
= 4204 mm

5.1.4 Torsional Stiffness of Wall Panels


Torsional stiffness of individual wall panels is calculated and added as per following expression:

K = K Y′ + K X′

74
Design Guidelines for Confined Masonry Buildings

Table 5.7 Torsional Stiffness of Wall Panels


Wall Panel Torsional Stiffness (E-m)
A12 0.4
A25 1.2
A710 1.2
A1011 0.4
C13 0.001
C45 0.001
C57 0.001
C78 0.001
C911 0.001
E13 0.58
E34 0.17
E46 0.64
E68 0.64
E89 0.17
E911 0.57
AC1 4.23
CE1 4.16
AB2 0.25
CE3 0.7
CE4 0.33
AC5 0.09
DE6 0.001
AC7 0.07
CE8 0.31
CE9 0.67
AB10 0.25
AC11 4.35
CE11 4.28

Kt = 25.69 m E

5.1.5 Computation of Eccentricity for CM Building


ex = Xcm - Xcs
ex = 8048 – 7995 mm = 53 mm
ey = Ycm - Ycs
ey = 4204 – 4104 mm = 100 mm
edi = 1.5ex + 0.05bi or
edi = ex - 0.05bi
Design eccentricity to be calculated in both the directions according to the floor plan dimension
perpendicular to the direction of force (bi). The higher value of edi shall be considered
Design Eccentricity in X direction = 898 mm
Design Eccentricity in Y direction = 542 mm

75
Design Guidelines for Confined Masonry Buildings

5.1.6 Calculation of CM Building Weight


The seismic weight of building comprised of weight of brick wall, tie-column, bond beam, slab
and reduced live load. The live load on roof is considered to be zero.
Wall = [(lw tw hw ) - (loto ho )] x ρm
Total wall weight = 429 kN
Bond Beam = (lb tb D) x ρc
Total beam weight = 85 kN
Tie Column = (lc tc hc ) x ρc
Total column weight = 48 kN
Slab = (Lx Lyts ) x ρc
Total slab weight = 449 kN
Total Weight, W = Wall + Bond Beam + Tie Column + Slab
W = 429 + 85 + 48 + 449 = 1011 kN

5.1.7 Calculation of Base Shear


The calculation of base shear shall be performed as per IS:1893 (2002), as explained in
Chapter 2 for CM building.
0.09 H
T=
√d
. .
T= .
= 0.07 sec (in X direction)

. .
T= = 0.10 sec (in Y direction)
√ .
ZIS
A =
2Rg
. . .
A = = 0.0984 (in X direction)
.
. . .
A = .
= 0.12 (in Y direction)
VB = W Ah
VB = 1011 x 0.0984 = 99 kN (in X direction)
VB = 1011 x 0.1200 = 121 kN (in Y direction)

5.1.8 Distribution of Design Lateral Force


The lateral forces on building shall be distributed along the height of the building, as per
following typical steps:

Design lateral force = V


. .
= . .
x 99

= 99 kN (in X direction)
. .
= . .
x 121

= 121 kN (in Y direction)

76
Design Guidelines for Confined Masonry Buildings

5.1.9 Distribution of Seismic Force into Individual Panels


Force due to uniform lateral translation,

Q Q
F = K F = K
∑K ∑K

For wall panel AC1:


Fl1 = .
x 0.066

= 12.6 kN
Force due to torsion,
Qe Qe
F = Y′ ∑K F = X ′ ∑K
K K

For wall panel AC1:


.
Ftxi = x (7.995 − 0) x 0.634 E
.

= 21.44 kN

Total force acting on wall panel AC1,


P =F +F
= 34.04 kN

77
Design Guidelines for Confined Masonry Buildings

Table 5.8 Force Distribution in Individual Wall Panels

Wall Panel Total Lateral Force (Pi)


A12 9.04
(kN)
A25 13.38
A710 13.38
A1011 9.04
C13 3.45
C45 3.44
C57 3.48
C78 3.44
C911 3.45
E13 12.99
E34 6.46
E46 14.18
E68 14.18
E89 6.46
E911 12.99
AC1 34.04
CE1 33.84
AB2 16.53
CE3 18.67
CE4 14.36
AC5 17.70
DE6 14.64
AC7 17.70
CE8 14.36
CE9 18.43
AB10 16.57
AC11 34.04
CE11 33.84

78
Design Guidelines for Confined Masonry Buildings

5.1.10 Check for Overturning


For wall panel AC1,

Mo = Pi x hw/2
Mo = 34.03 x 3/2 = 51.05 kN-m
Mr = T.L. x hw
Total gravity load for wall panel = Self weight of panel + Load coming from slab (dead + live)
= (3 x 0.23 x 3.615 x 19) + 22.14 + 14.17
= 83.7 kN

Load coming from slab is calculated by the yield line theory.


Mr = 83.7 x 3 = 251 kN-m
Mr
For safety in overturning, > 1.5
Mo
Mr
= 4.9, Safe in overturning
Mo

Table 5.9 Overturning and Resisting Moment


Overturning Resisting Safe/
Wall Panel Moment (kN-m) Moment (kN-m) Unsafe
A12 13.56 170.57 Safe
A25 27.57 292.70 Safe
A710 27.57 292.70 Safe
A1011 13.56 167.26 Safe
C13 5.175 149.53 Safe
C45 5.16 104.33 Safe
C57 5.22 105.07 Safe
C78 5.16 104.33 Safe
C911 5.175 149.53 Safe
E13 19.485 209.77 Safe
E34 9.69 97.56 Safe
E46 21.27 223.00 Safe
E68 21.27 223.00 Safe
E89 9.69 97.56 Safe
E911 19.485 209.77 Safe
AC1 51.06 251.93 Safe
CE1 50.76 254.37 Safe
AB2 24.795 107.95 Safe
CE3 28.005 187.63 Safe
CE4 21.9 187.63 Safe
AC5 26.55 262.96 Safe
DE6 21.96 259.40 Safe
AC7 26.145 262.96 Safe
CE8 21.54 187.63 Safe
CE9 27.645 187.63 Safe
AB10 24.855 107.95 Safe
AC11 51.57 256.92 Safe
CE11 51.285 259.40 Safe

79
Design Guidelines for Confined Masonry Buildings

5.1.11 In-Plane Stability of Wall Panels


5.1.11.1 Check for Compressive Stress

Pcomp = kS x fm
0.69 0.252
Where fm = 0. 422 fb fmo
fm = 0.422 x 10.50.69 x 30.252
fm = 2.819 N/mm2
For wall panel AC1:
Slenderness Ratio, hw/tw = 3000/ 230 = 13.04
As per Table 3.2, ks = 0.81

Therefore, Pcomp= 2.28 N/mm


2

σdl = Compressive stress due to dead and live load

Self weight of panel = 19 x 3.615 x 0.23 x 3 = 47.39 kN


Load coming from slab = Load due to self weight of slab + Live load on slab
= 22.14 + 14.17 kN = 36.31

σdl =(47.39 + 36.31)/ (0.23 x 3.615)


σdl =100.7 kN/m or 0.101 N/mm
2 2

Panel is considered to be safe in compression if following criteria is fulfilled:

Pcomp = 2.6σdl
2.6σdl = 2.6 x 0.101
= 0.263 N/mm
2

Pcomp> 0.263 N/mm2, Hence wall panel AC1 is safe in compression.

Table 5.10 Compressive Stress in Wall Panels

Compressive Compressive Safe/


Wall Panel Strength (N/mm )
2
Stress (N/mm )
2
Unsafe
A12 2.48 0.103 Safe
A25 2.59 0.101 Safe
A710 2.59 0.101 Safe
A1011 2.48 0.101 Safe
C13 2.28 0.144 Safe
C45 2.59 0.144 Safe
C57 2.59 0.144 Safe
C78 2.59 0.144 Safe
C911 2.28 0.144 Safe
E13 2.28 0.101 Safe
E34 2.82 0.101 Safe
E46 2.28 0.101 Safe
E68 2.28 0.101 Safe

80
Design Guidelines for Confined Masonry Buildings

E89 2.82 0.101 Safe


E911 2.28 0.101 Safe
AC1 2.28 0.101 Safe
CE1 2.28 0.101 Safe
AB2 2.59 0.149 Safe
CE3 2.28 0.149 Safe
CE4 2.28 0.149 Safe
AC5 2.28 0.103 Safe
DE6 2.4 0.103 Safe
AC7 2.28 0.103 Safe
CE8 2.28 0.149 Safe
CE9 2.28 0.149 Safe
AB10 2.59 0.149 Safe
AC11 2.28 0.103 Safe
Ce11 2.28 0.103 Safe

5.1.11.2 Compressive Strength Check from Wall Density Consideration


In X direction:
Wd = 6.7 %
w = (25 x 0.125) + 2 + (429/(16.35 x 7.84))
= 8.47 kN/m or 0.00847 N/mm
2 2

Now
f wn
W ≥
P
. .
Therefore Pcomp (minimum required) = .

= 0.29 N/mm2 < 2.28 N/mm2

Hence, Safe in compression.


In Y direction
Wd = 6.8 %

w = (25 x 0.125) + 2 + (429/(16.35 x 7.84))


= 8.47 kN/m2 or 0.00847 N/mm2

Now, W ≥

. .
Therefore Pcomp (minimum required) = .

= 0.29 N/mm2 < 2.28 N/mm2

Hence, Safe in compression.

81
Design Guidelines for Confined Masonry Buildings

5.1.11.3 Check for Tensile Stress


To calculate tensile stress, total stress due to vertical load is subtracted by moment on
the panel divided by its sectional modulus. The permissible tensile strength of masonry
is considered to be 0.25 N/mm2.
For wall panel AC1,
M
σ = −σ
S

M= and S=
/
Therefore, σ = /
- 0.101

= 0.001 N/mm2
σt = 0.001 N/mm2 < 0.25 N/mm2, Safe in tension

Table 5.11 Tensile Stress in Wall Panels

Tensile Strength Tensile Stress Safe/


Wall Panel 2 2
(N/mm ) (N/mm ) Unsafe
A12 0.250 - 0.0410 Safe
A25 0.250 - 0.0600 Safe
A710 0.250 - 0.0600 Safe
A1011 0.250 - 0.0390 Safe
C13 0.250 - 0.1140 Safe
C45 0.250 - 0.0830 Safe
C57 0.250 - 0.0840 Safe
C78 0.250 - 0.0830 Safe
C911 0.250 - 0.1140 Safe
E13 0.250 - 0.0450 Safe
E34 0.250 0.0280 Safe
E46 0.250 - 0.0470 Safe
E68 0.250 - 0.0470 Safe
E89 0.250 0.0280 Safe
E911 0.250 - 0.0450 Safe
AC1 0.250 0.0010 Safe
CE1 0.250 - 0.0020 Safe
AB2 0.250 0.1450 Safe
CE3 0.250 - 0.0390 Safe
CE4 0.250 - 0.0630 Safe
AC5 0.250 - 0.0520 Safe
DE6 0.250 - 0.0600 Safe
AC7 0.250 - 0.0530 Safe
Ce8 0.250 - 0.0650 Safe
Ce9 0.250 - 0.0410 Safe
AB10 0.250 0.1450 Safe
AC11 0.250 0.0000 Safe
CE11 0.250 - 0.0030 Safe

82
Design Guidelines for Confined Masonry Buildings

5.1.11.4 Check for Shear Stress


Permissible shear stress for the confined masonry wall is given as:
σd
τu = 0.1 +
6
σd is compressive stress due to dead load.
For wall panel AC1:
Self weight = 19 x 3.615 x 3 x 0.23 = 47.39 kN
Dead load coming from slab = 22.14 kN

Therefore, σd = 69.53/ (0.23 x 3.615) = 83.63 kN/m


2
or 0.083 N/mm
2

0.083
τ = 0.1 +
6
= 0.114 N/mm
2

Pi
Actual shear stress acting on wall panel AC1 =
Aw
= (34.02 x 1000)/ (230 x 3615)
= 0.04 N/mm
2

Tu>0.029 N/mm , Hence wall panel is safe in shear.Table 5.12


2

Shear Stress in Wall Panels

Wall Shear Strength Shear Stress Safe/


Panel (N/mm2) (N/mm2 ) Unsafe
A12 0.114 0.02 Safe
A25 0.114 0.02 Safe
A710 0.114 0.02 Safe
A1011 0.114 0.02 Safe
C13 0.118 0.01 Safe
C45 0.118 0.01 Safe
C57 0.118 0.01 Safe
C78 0.118 0.01 Safe
C911 0.118 0.01 Safe
E13 0.114 0.02 Safe
E34 0.114 0.02 Safe
E46 0.114 0.02 Safe
E68 0.114 0.02 Safe
E89 0.114 0.02 Safe
E911 0.114 0.02 Safe
AC1 0.114 0.04 Safe
CE1 0.114 0.04 Safe
AB2 0.119 0.07 Safe
CE3 0.119 0.04 Safe
CE4 0.119 0.03 Safe
AC5 0.114 0.02 Safe
DE6 0.114 0.02 Safe
AC7 0.114 0.02 Safe
CE8 0.119 0.03 Safe
CE9 0.119 0.04 Safe
AB10 0.119 0.07 Safe
AC11 0.114 0.04 Safe
CE11 0.114 0.04 Safe

83
Design Guidelines for Confined Masonry Buildings

5.1.11.5 Shear Strength Check from Wall Density Consideration


In X direction:
Wd = 6.7 %
w = (25 x 0.125) + 2 + (429/(16.35 x 7.84))
= 8.47 kN/m or 0.00847 N/mm
2 2

Now,
A f wn
W ≥
τ

Therefore τu (minimum required) = 0.0984 x 1 .3 x 0.00847 x 1


0.067
= 0.016 N/mm < 0.114 N/mm
2 2

Hence, Safe in shear.


In Y direction:

Wd = 6.8%

w = (25 x 0.125) + 2 + (429/(16.35 x 7.84))


= 8.47 kN/m or 0.00847 N/mm
2 2

Now,
A f wn
W =
τ
. . .
Therefore τu (Minimum required) =
.

= 0.02 N/mm < 0.114 N/mm


2 2

Hence, Safe in shear.

5.1.12 Out-of-Plane Stability of Wall Panels


For wall panel Ac1:
Seismic load per unit area of the panel , F = F = Ah x ρm x tw

F = 0.12 x 19 x 0.23 = 0.524 kN/m


2

Ultimate Bending Moment,


2
Mu = F h /8
2
Mu = 0.524 x 3 / 8 = 0.59 kN-m/m
Bending Stress, σb = Mu /S
σb= (0.59 x 1000)/ (2302/6)

σb= 0.067 N/mm2


Actual Stress, σp = σb - σdl

84
Design Guidelines for Confined Masonry Buildings

= 0.067 – 0.101 = - 0.034 N/mm


Actual stress < Tensile Strength, Hence wall panel is safe in out-of-plane stability.

Table 5.13 Check for Out-of-Plane Stability of Wall Panels

Wall Tensile Strength Actual Stress Safe/


Panel (N/mm (N/mm Unsafe
A12 0.25 0.048 Safe
A25 0.250 0.046 Safe
A710 0.250 0.046 Safe
A1011 0.250 0.046 Safe
C13 0.250 0.034 Safe
C45 0.250 0.034 Safe
C57 0.250 0.034 Safe
C78 0.250 0.034 Safe
C911 0.250 0.034 Safe
E13 0.250 0.046 Safe
E34 0.250 0.046 Safe
E46 0.250 0.046 Safe
E68 0.250 0.046 Safe
E89 0.250 0.046 Safe
E911 0.250 0.046 Safe
AC1 0.250 0.034 Safe
CE1 0.250 0.034 Safe
AB2 0.250 0.015 Safe
CE3 0.250 0.015 Safe
CE4 0.250 0.015 Safe
AC5 0.250 0.036 Safe
DE6 0.250 0.036 Safe
AC7 0.250 0.036 Safe
CE8 0.250 0.015 Safe
CE9 0.250 0.015 Safe
AB10 0.250 0.015 Safe
AC11 0.250 0.036 Safe
CE11 0.250 0.036 Safe

85
Design Guidelines for Confined Masonry Buildings

5.1.13 Design of Bond Beam


Bond beam has been designed for total lateral load acting on the wall.
P
A =
f
For bond beam in wall panel AC1,
34.03 x 1000
A =
415
A = 82 mm2
.
A =

.
A =

A = 108.35 mm2

Therefore, provide 4 bars of 10 mm dia (314 mm2)

Nominal Shear Stress,


V
τ =
(B ∗ D)
τ = ( )
= 0.643 N/mm2

4 x 3.14 x 25
Pt = x 100
230 x 230

= 0.594%

τc = 0.51 N/mm2 (as per IS 456)

Providing 6 mm dia bars for stirrups,

Asv = 2 x 3.14 x 32
= 56.52 mm2

Spacing between stirrups shall be provided, minimum among the following:

.
Sv = .
. .
Sv = .
= 221 mm

or

Sv = 0.75 D = 0.75 x 230 = 172 mm

or

= 300 mm

86
Design Guidelines for Confined Masonry Buildings

Therefore, provide 6 mm stirrups at 170 mm spacing.


However as per IS 13920: 2016, the spacing of stirrups over a length of 2deff at either end of a
beam shall not exceed deff/4 or 8 times the diameter of the smallest longitudinal bar or not less
than 100 mm, whichever is minimum.
Therefore, upto a length of 350 mm (2d eff) from either end of the beam, spacing of stirrups shall
be 100 mm and at rest of the beam length the stirrups shall be spaced at 150 c/c.

5.1.14 Design of Tie Column


Let tie column size be 230 x 230 mm.
Area of steel in tie columns is calculated by the expression,

h
A = (1 + 0.25k)P
l f
For tie column in wall panel AC1 (C1),
A = (1 + 0.25 x 0) x 34030 x
= 68 mm2

Therefore, provide 4 bars of 10 mm dia. (314 mm )


2

As per IS 13920: 1993, the spacing of the stirrups shall not exceed half the least lateral dimension
of the column.

Also, the length of special confining reinforcement shall not be less than larger lateral
dimension of the member at the section where yielding may occur, 1/6 of the clear span of the
member and 450 mm.

Therefore, length of special confining reinforcement is larger of 230 mm, 1/6 x 3000 = 500 mm
and 450 mm.

The spacing of stirrups in special confinement reinforcement shall not exceed ¼ of the
minimum member dimension but need not be less than 75 mm or more than 100 mm.

Therefore, provide stirrups at a spacing of 75 mm at 500 mm from either end. And provide
stirrups at a spacing of 160 mm at mid span of the column.

The above exercise demonstrates that the maximum four storey confined masonry residential
can be built for the above case in seismic zone IV of India. A typical detailing of confined
masonry building is shown in Figure 5.9 for seismic zone IV. In contrast the same building can be
built in seismic zone V of the country with a few additional features i.e. bond beam around
openings, as shown in Figure 5.10.

A comparative summary for G to G+3 structure for critical wall panels (AC1 for 230 mm thick
wall) and CE3 (115 mm thick wall) has been given in Tables 5.14 and 5.15 respectively.

87
Design Guidelines for Confined Masonry Buildings

Table 5.14 Comparative Summary for Wall Panel AC1 upto 4-Storey CM Building (for 230 mm thick Wall Panel)

Storey
G G+1 G+2 G+3 Unit
Design Parameter
X 99 314 516 713 kN
Base Shear
Y 121 314 516 713 kN
Required Wall Density 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 %
Whole Structure
Wall Density for

Actual Wall Density X 6.7 6.7 6.7 6.7 %


Check for

Safe/ Unsafe Safe Safe Safe Safe


Required Wall Density 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 %
Actual Wall Density Y 6.8 6.8 6.8 6.8 %
Safe/ Unsafe Safe Safe Safe Safe
Overturning Moment 51.45 191.55 438.60 786.40 kN-m
Resisting Moment G 256.92 513.84 753.29 1005.22 kN-m
Safe / Unsafe Safe Safe Safe Safe
Check for Overturning

Overturning Moment - 136.04 396.95 752.31 kN-m


Resisting Moment G+1 - 256.92 513.84 753.29 kN-m
Safe / Unsafe - Safe Safe Safe
Overturning Moment - - 230.36 620.97 kN-m
Resisting Moment G+2 - - 256.92 513.84 kN-m
Safe / Unsafe - - Safe Safe
Overturning Moment - - - 324.27 kN-m
G+3
Resisting Moment - - - 256.92 kN-m
88
Design Guidelines for Confined Masonry Buildings

Safe / Unsafe - - - Safe


Check for Required Compressive
0.290 0.740 1.187 1.627 N/mm2
Compressive Strength
Strength Actual Compressive Strength 2.280 2.280 2.280 2.280 N/mm2
from Wall
Density Safe / Unsafe Safe Safe Safe Safe
Permissible Compressive
2.28 2.28 2.28 2.28 N/mm2
Stress
Actual Compressive Stress G 0.103 0.206 0.309 0.403 N/mm2
Safe / Unsafe Safe Safe Safe Safe
Check for Compressive Stress

Permissible Compressive
- 2.28 2.28 2.28 N/mm2
Stress
Actual Compressive Stress G+1 - 0.103 0.206 0.309 N/mm2
Safe / Unsafe - Safe Safe Safe
Permissible Compressive
- - 2.28 2.28 N/mm2
Stress
Actual Compressive Stress G+2 - - 0.103 0.206 N/mm2
Safe / Unsafe - - Safe Safe
Permissible Compressive - - - 2.28 N/mm2
Stress
Actual Compressive Stress G+3 - - - 0.103 N/mm2
Safe / Unsafe - - - Safe
Permissible Tensile Stress 0.250 0.250 0.250 0.250 N/mm2
Tensile Stress
Check for

Actual Tensile Stress G 0.001 0.067 0.004 0.146 N/mm2


Safe / Unsafe Safe Safe Safe Safe
Permissible Tensile Stress G+1 - 0.250 0.250 0.250 N/mm2

89
Design Guidelines for Confined Masonry Buildings

Actual Tensile Stress - 0.008 0.071 0.217 N/mm2


Safe / Unsafe - Safe Safe Safe
Permissible Tensile Stress - - 0.250 0.250 N/mm2
Actual Tensile Stress G+2 - - 0.088 0.228 N/mm2
Safe / Unsafe - - Safe Safe
Permissible Tensile Stress - - - 0.250 N/mm2
G+3
Actual Tensile Stress - - - 0.234 N/mm2
Safe / Unsafe - - - Safe
Required Shear Strength 0.020 0.050 0.079 0.109 N/mm2
Actual Shear Strength G 0.114 0.128 0.152 0.256 N/mm2
Check for Shear Strength from Wall

Safe / Unsafe Safe Safe Safe Safe


Required Shear Strength - 0.050 0.079 0.109 N/mm2
Actual Shear Strength G+1 - 0.114 0.128 0.152 N/mm2
Density

Safe / Unsafe - Safe Safe Safe


Required Shear Strength - - 0.079 0.109 N/mm2
Actual Shear Strength G+2 - - 0.114 0.128 N/mm2
Safe / Unsafe - - Safe Safe
Required Shear Strength - - - 0.109 N/mm2
Actual Shear Strength G+3 - - - 0.114 N/mm2
Safe / Unsafe - - - Safe
Permissible Shear Stress 0.114 0.128 0.152 0.256 N/mm2
for Shear
Check

Stress

Actual Shear Stress G 0.040 0.115 0.146 0.253 N/mm2


Safe / Unsafe Safe Safe Safe Safe

90
Design Guidelines for Confined Masonry Buildings

Permissible Shear Stress - 0.114 0.128 0.152 N/mm2


Actual Shear Stress G+1 - 0.100 0.120 0.150 N/mm2
Safe / Unsafe - Safe Safe Safe
Permissible Shear Stress - - 0.114 0.128 N/mm2
Actual Shear Stress G+2 - - 0.110 0.122 N/mm2
Safe / Unsafe - - Safe Safe
Permissible Shear Stress - - - 0.114 N/mm2
G+3
Actual Shear Stress - - - 0.112 N/mm2
Safe / Unsafe - - - Safe
Permissible Stress 0.036 0.139 0.212 0.236 N/mm2
Permissible Tensile Stress G 0.250 0.250 0.250 0.250 N/mm2
Check for Out-of-Plane Stability

Safe / Unsafe Safe Safe Safe Safe


Permissible Stress - 0.036 0.139 0.212 N/mm2
Permissible Tensile Stress G+1 - 0.250 0.250 0.250 N/mm2
Safe / Unsafe - Safe Safe Safe
Permissible Stress - - 0.036 0.139 N/mm2
Permissible Tensile Stress G+2 - - 0.250 0.250 N/mm2
Safe / Unsafe - - Safe Safe
Permissible Stress - - - 0.036 N/mm2
Permissible Tensile Stress G+3 - - - 0.250 N/mm2
Safe / Unsafe - - - Safe

91
Design Guidelines for Confined Masonry Buildings

Table 5.15 Comparative Summary for Wall Panel CE3 upto 4-Storey CM Building (for 115 mm thick Wall Panel)

Storey
G G+1 G+2 G+3 Unit
Design Parameter
X 99 314 516 713 kN
Base Shear
Y 121 314 516 713 kN
Required Wall Density 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 %
Whole Structure
Wall Density for

Actual Wall Density X 6.7 6.7 6.7 6.7 %


Check for

Safe/ Unsafe Safe Safe Safe Safe


Required Wall Density 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 %
Actual Wall Density Y 6.8 6.8 6.8 6.8 %
Safe/ Unsafe Safe Safe Safe Safe
Overturning Moment 28.23 110.87 257.49 464.24 kN-m
Resisting Moment G 187.63 375.26 564.14 751.77 kN-m
Safe / Unsafe Safe Safe Safe Safe
Check for Overturning

Overturning Moment - 78.74 233.04 444.64 kN-m


Resisting Moment G+1 - 187.63 375.26 564.14 kN-m
Safe / Unsafe - Safe Safe Safe
Overturning Moment - - 135.24 366.57 kN-m
Resisting Moment G+2 - - 187.63 375.26 kN-m
Safe / Unsafe - - Safe Safe
Overturning Moment - - - 191.43 kN-m
G+3
Resisting Moment - - - 187.63 kN-m

92
Design Guidelines for Confined Masonry Buildings

Safe / Unsafe - - - Safe


Check for Required Compressive
0.314 0.740 1.187 1.627 N/mm2
Compressive Strength
Strength Actual Compressive Strength 2.280 2.280 2.280 2.280 N/mm2
from Wall
Density Safe / Unsafe Safe Safe Safe Safe
Permissible Compressive
2.28 2.28 2.28 2.28 N/mm2
Stress
Actual Compressive Stress G 0.149 0.298 0.448 0.597 N/mm2
Safe / Unsafe Safe Safe Safe Safe
Check for Compressive Stress

Permissible Compressive
- 2.28 2.28 2.28 N/mm2
Stress
Actual Compressive Stress G+1 - 0.149 0.298 0.448 N/mm2
Safe / Unsafe - Safe Safe Safe
Permissible Compressive
- - 2.28 2.28 N/mm2
Stress
Actual Compressive Stress G+2 - - 0.149 0.298 N/mm2
Safe / Unsafe - - Safe Safe
Permissible Compressive
- - - 2.28 N/mm2
Stress
Actual Compressive Stress G+3 - - - 0.149 N/mm2
Safe / Unsafe - - - Safe
Permissible Tensile Stress 0.250 0.250 0.250 0.250 N/mm2
Tensile Stress
Check for

Actual Tensile Stress G - 0.039 - 0.106 - 0.095 0.039 N/mm2


Safe / Unsafe Safe Safe Safe Safe

Permissible Tensile Stress G+1 - 0.250 0.250 0.250 N/mm2

93
Design Guidelines for Confined Masonry Buildings

Actual Tensile Stress - - 0.011 0.021 0.162 N/mm2


Safe / Unsafe - Safe Safe Safe
Permissible Tensile Stress - - 0.250 0.250 N/mm2
Actual Tensile Stress G+2 - - 0.036 0.204 N/mm2
Safe / Unsafe - - Safe Safe
Permissible Tensile Stress - - - 0.250 N/mm2
G+3
Actual Tensile Stress - - - 0.223 N/mm2
Safe / Unsafe - - - Safe
Required Shear Strength 0.020 0.050 0.079 0.109 N/mm2
Actual Shear Strength G 0.119 0.138 0.157 0.175 N/mm2
Check for Shear Strength from Wall

Safe / Unsafe Safe Safe Safe Safe


Required Shear Strength - 0.050 0.079 0.109 N/mm2
Actual Shear Strength G+1 - 0.119 0.138 0.157 N/mm2
Density

Safe / Unsafe - Safe Safe Safe


Required Shear Strength - - 0.050 0.079 N/mm2
Actual Shear Strength G+2 - - 0.119 0.138 N/mm2
Safe / Unsafe - - Safe Safe
Required Shear Strength - - - 0.109 N/mm2
Actual Shear Strength G+3 - - - 0.119 N/mm2
Safe / Unsafe - - - Safe
Permissible Shear Stress 0.119 0.138 0.157 0.175 N/mm2
Check

Shear
Stress

Actual Shear Stress G 0.040 0.130 0.150 0.172 N/mm2


for

Safe / Unsafe Safe Safe Safe Safe

94
Design Guidelines for Confined Masonry Buildings

Permissible Shear Stress - 0.119 0.138 0.157 N/mm2


Actual Shear Stress G+1 - 0.100 0.128 0.149 N/mm2
Safe / Unsafe - Safe Safe Safe
Permissible Shear Stress - - 0.119 0.138 N/mm2
Actual Shear Stress G+2 - - 0.112 0.128 N/mm2
Safe / Unsafe - - Safe Safe
Permissible Shear Stress - - - 0.119 N/mm2
G+3
Actual Shear Stress - - - 0.113 N/mm2
Safe / Unsafe - - - Safe
Permissible Stress 0.015 0.164 0.214 0.243 N/mm2
Permissible Tensile Stress G 0.250 0.250 0.250 0.250 N/mm2
Check for Out-of-Plane Stability

Safe / Unsafe Safe Safe Safe Safe


Permissible Stress - 0.015 0.164 0.214 N/mm2
Permissible Tensile Stress G+1 - 0.250 0.250 0.250 N/mm2
Safe / Unsafe - Safe Safe Safe
Permissible Stress - - 0.015 0.164 N/mm2
Permissible Tensile Stress G+2 - - 0.250 0.250 N/mm2
Safe / Unsafe - - Safe Safe
Permissible Stress - - - 0.015 N/mm2
Permissible Tensile Stress G+3 - - - 0.250 N/mm2
Safe / Unsafe - - - Safe

95
Design Guidelines for Confined Masonry Buildings

Table 5.16 Summary of Design Parameters for Different Storeys of CM Building

Storey G G+1 G+2 G+3


Design Parameter
X Safe Safe Safe Safe
Wall Density
Y Safe Safe Safe Safe
G Safe Safe Safe Safe
G+1 - Safe Safe Safe
Check for Overturning
G+2 - - Safe Safe
G+3 - - - Safe
Compressive Strength Safe Safe Safe Safe
from Wall Density
G Safe Safe Safe Safe
G+1 - Safe Safe Safe
Compressive Stress
G+2 - - Safe Safe
Check for In-Plane Stability

G+3 - - - Safe
G Safe Safe Safe Safe
G+1 - Safe Safe Safe
Tensile Stress
G+2 - - Safe Safe
G+3 - - - Safe
G Safe Safe Safe Safe
Shear Strength from Wall G+1 - Safe Safe Safe
Density G+2 - - Safe Safe
G+3 - - - Safe
G Safe Safe Safe Safe
G+1 - Safe Safe Safe
Shear Stress G+2 - - Safe Safe
G+3 - - - Safe

96
Design Guidelines for Confined Masonry Buildings

G Safe Safe Safe Safe


G+1 - Safe Safe Safe
Check for Out-of-Plane Stability
G+2 - - Safe Safe
G+3 - - - Safe
Dimensions (Depth x
Design Details of Bond
200 x 230 mm 200 x 230 mm 200 x 230 mm 200 x 230 mm
Width)
G 4 – 10 mm ϕ 4 – 10 mm ϕ 4 – 12 mm ϕ 4 – 16 mm ϕ
Longitudinal G+1 - 4 – 10 mm ϕ 4 – 12 mm ϕ 4 – 16 mm ϕ
Beam

Reinforcement G+2 - - 4 – 10 mm ϕ 4 – 12 mm ϕ
G+3 - - - 4 – 10 mm ϕ
Shear Reinforcement 2 legged 6 mm 2 legged 6 mm 2 legged 6 mm 2 legged 6 mm
ϕ ϕ ϕ ϕ
Spacing of Stirrups 150 mm 150 mm 150 mm 150 mm
Dimensions 230 x 230 mm 230 x 230 mm 230 x 230 mm 230 x 230 mm
Design Details of Tie

G 4 – 10 mm ϕ 4 – 12 mm ϕ 4 – 16 mm ϕ 4 – 16 mm ϕ
Longitudinal G+1 - 4 – 10 mm ϕ 4 – 12 mm ϕ 4 – 12 mm ϕ
Column

Reinforcement G+2 - - 4 – 12 mm ϕ 4 – 12 mm ϕ
G+3 - - - 4 – 10 mm ϕ
Shear Reinforcement 2 legged 6 mm 2 legged 6 mm 2 legged 6 mm 2 legged 6 mm
ϕ ϕ ϕ ϕ
Spacing of Stirrups 150 mm 150 mm 150 mm 150 mm

97
Design Guidelines for Confined Masonry Buildings

5.2 STRUCTURAL DETAILING OF CONFINING ELEMENTS

Figure 5.3 Typical Layout of Tie-Column and Bond-Beam at Ground and First Floor

97
Design Guidelines for Confined Masonry Buildings

Figure 5.4 Typical Layout of Tie-Column and Bond-Beam for Second Floor

98
Design Guidelines for Confined Masonry Buildings

Figure 5.5 Typical Layout of Tie-Column and Bond-Beam at Third Floor

99
Design Guidelines for Confined Masonry Buildings

Table 5.17 Schedule of Reinforcement for Bond-Beams

BEAM BEAM BOTTOM REINFORCEMENT TOP REINFORCEMENT STIRRUPS


TYPE SIZE
MID SPAN ENDS MID SPAN ENDS MID SPAN ENDS
B1 230X230 2-12 2-12 2-12 2-12 6 @150 c/c 6 @100 c/c
B2 230X230 2-10 2-10 2-10 2-10 6 @150 c/c 6 @100 c/c
B3 230X230 2-16 2-16 2-16 2-16 6 @150 c/c 6 @100 c/c
B4 230X230 2-12+1-10(EX) 2-12+1-10(EX) 2-12 2-12 6 @150 c/c 6 @100 c/c
EX: EXTRA REINFORCEMENT

Notes:
 Use M20 grade of concrete and Fe415 as reinforcement.
 Not more than 50 % of bars shall be spliced at one section.
 Ld = Development length = 47 x db
 db = Diameter of longitudinal bar
 deff = Effective depth

Figure 5.6 Typical Details of Bond-Beam Reinforcement

Notes:
 Use M20 grade of concrete and Fe415 as reinforcement.
 Not more than 50 % of bars shall be spliced at one section.
 Ld = Development length = 47 x db
 db = Diameter of longitudinal bar
 deff = Effective depth

Figure 5.7 Typical Details of Lap Splices in Bond-Beams

100
Design Guidelines for Confined Masonry Buildings

Table 5.18 Schedule of Reinforcement for Tie-Columns

Column Longitudinal Rebars Lateral Ties


Size (mm)
Type Ground Floor First Floor Second Floor Third Floor Mid Reg. End Reg.

6 @ 6@
C1 230 X 230
150c/c 150c/c

6 @ 6@
C2 230 X 230
150c/c 150c/c

6 @ 6@
C3 230 X 230
150c/c 150c/c

6 @ 6@
C4 230 X 230
150c/c 150c/c

Notes :
 Lap splices shall be provided only in the central half of the column clear height.
 Only 50 % of the bars shall be spliced at one section.
 Ld = Development length = 47 x db
 db = Diameter of longitudinal bar

Figure 5.8 Typical Details of Tie-Column Showing Lap Splices

101
Design Guidelines for Confined Masonry Buildings

5.3 ECONOMIC ASPECTS


Majority of the building stocks in India range upto 4 storeys, comprising different building
typologies viz. i.e. Reinforced Concrete framed structure with masonry infill (RC), Unreinforced
Masonry (URM), and Reinforced Masonry (RM). Adequate seismic resistance along with
minimisation of construction cost of building is one of the challenges to be addressed by the
structural engineer. The experimental results (CHAPTER 4) demonstrate the higher seismic
resistance of confined masonry (CM) buildings, as compared to URM and RM. Hence, to
balance the strength, safety and economy, CM may be adopted as appropriate solution.
However, to clarify the economy in construction, rigorous cost analysis is warranted.

To carry out economic study of different building typologies in Indian buildings, 20 complex
building plans ranging upto 4 storeys were considered.

Figure 5.1 shows a typical plan of a building consisting of living rooms, kitchen, stair-case
and balcony etc., which is commonly adopted building layout in India, with a storey height
ranging between 3 to 3.50 m. These buildings were designed as RC, URM, RM and CM for
common design parameters i.e. seismic zone IV (PGA = 0.24g), live load (2 kN/sqm), and
founded on soil having safe bearing capacity of 100 kN/sqm at 1.50 m from natural ground
level. Similarly, uniform material properties viz. grade of concrete (M20), grade of
reinforcement (Fe415), masonry (compressive strength - 3.5 N/mm2, in cement: sand (1:6)
mortar with 19.2 kN as masonry density) were considered in the design.

Confined masonry buildings were designed with three different features. Firstly, the buildings
were comprised of only tie-column and bond-beams (CM1), secondly, in CM2 building with
additional feature of RC element around openings. The CM3 building consists of RC
elements around opening for full height/width of the panel and 1 number of 8 mm
diameter, horizontal reinforcement in mortar joint of masonry at every fourth course. A
typical detail illustrating the various options of confined masonry considered for deriving
economic aspects are given in Figure 5.11.

The RC buildings were designed in accordance with the design procedure detailed in this
guidelines and relevant Indian standards viz. IS-456:2000, IS-875:2003, IS-1893:2002, and IS-
13920:2003. Similarly, URM, RM and CM buildings were designed as per IS-4326:2013, IS-
1903:2003, IS-456:2000, IS-875:2003, and IS-1893:2002. The detailed estimation of quantity of
each building sample was carried out for different items and their costs are calculated
based on prevailing market rates in India and CPWD-Delhi Schedule of Rates (DSR) (2013).

102
Design Guidelines for Confined Masonry Buildings

Figure 5.9 Typical view of four storey confined masonry building in seismic zone IV

Figure 5.10 Typical view of Four Storey Confined Masonry Building In Seismic Zone V

103
Design Guidelines for Confined Masonry Buildings

Figure 5.11 shows the average overall construction cost along with cost of major items for
different building typologies. To have more clarity in cost comparison, the values are expressed
in terms of percentage of total cost of RCC building, as a reference. As can be seen that URM
costs 64.4% to that of RCC building costruction cost. Similarly, RM, CM1, CM2 and CM3 costs an
average of 67.6%, 69.33%, 70.76% and 71.68% respectively. The figure indicates that average
cost of construction of foundation is almost similar in case of URM, RM and CM while it is slightly
higher for RCC buildings. However, higher cost component are involved towards
reinforcement and concrete for RCC buildings.

Based on the above analysis, it can be summarised that CM, RM and URM buildings allow for
average cost reduction of structure by 30%, 33% and 36% respectively, with reference to RCC
framed buildings. However, CM offers significant amount of saving as compared to
construction cost of RCC building, contrary CM assures higher level of safety when compared
with URM/RM buildings.

Figure 5.11 Average Construction Cost of Masonry Buildings with reference to RC Framed
Structure

5.4 CONCLUDING REMARKS


The document deals with the understanding the behaviour of confined masonry construction
under seismic conditions and recommends the design guidelines for such buildings with
explanatory design example. To build-up the confidence in confined masonry buildings,
chapter 4 presents the seismic performance comparison of tested full scale single storeyed
URM, RM and CM buildings subjected to reversed cyclic later displacements at roof level under
quasi-static condition.

To examine economic aspects of CM building, ensemble of typical housing in India, were


designed as RC, URM, RM and CM, for the uniform design parameters. The construction costs
were computed for different structural elements and comparison of each typology was
performed with reference to the construction cost of RC building. The results shows that CM,
RM and URM buildings allows for average cost reduction of structure by 30%, 33% and 36%
respectively, as compared to the RC framed structure. However, CM buildings offer
reasonable saving when compared with the construction cost of RC framed buildings and
higher level of safety when compared with URM/RM buildings.

It is hoped that the present guidelines will serve as a useful resource for design engineers and
architects, academics, code development institutions for design of confined masonry
buildings.

104
Design Guidelines for Confined Masonry Buildings

REFERENCES
1. Agarwal, P. And Shrikhande M., “Earthquake Resistant Design of Structures”, Prentice Hall of India Pvt
Ltd., New Delhi, pp. 471, September, 2006.
2. Agrawal, S. K., Chourasia, A. and Parashar, J., “Performance Evaluation of Seismic Resisting and
Retrofitting Measures for Full-scale Brick Masonry Building under Earthquake Loads”, J. Structural
Engineering, 34 (1), 2007, pp. 56-62.
3. Aguilar, G., Meli, R., Diaz, R. and Vazquez-Del-Mercado, R., “Influence of Horizontal Reinforcement on
the Behaviour of Confined Masonry Walls.”, Proceedings of 11th conference on Earthquake
Engineering, Paper No. 1380, 1996.
4. Alcocer, S. M., "Implications Derived from Recent Research in Mexico on Confined Masonry Structures",
Proceedings of Structures, Worldwide Advances in Structural Concrete and Masonry, 1996, pp. 82-92.
5. Alcocer, S.M., Arias, J.G. and Vazquez, A., "The New Mexico City Building Code Requirements for Design
and Construction of Masonry Structures", The proceedings of the Ninth North American Masonry
Conference, Clemson, South Carolina, 2003, pp.656-667.
6. Alcocer, S.M., Arias, J.G. and Vázquez, A., “Response Assessment of Mexican Confined Masonry
Structures through Shaking Table Test”, Proceedings of 13th World Conference on Earthquake
Engineering, Vancouver, B.C., Canada, Paper no. 2130, 2004.
7. Asinari, M., “Buildings with Structural Masonry Walls Connected to Tie Columns and Bond Beams”,
M.Tech. Thesis, European School for Advanced Studies in Reduction of Seismic Risk, 2007.
8. ASTM C 62, “Standard Specification for Building Brick (Solid Masonry Units Made from Clay or Shale)”.
9. ASTM C 652, “Standard Specification for Hollow Brick (Hollow Masonry Units Made from Clay or Shale)”.
10. ASTM C 67-02 C, “Standard Test Methods for Sampling and Testing Brick and Structural Clay Tile”.
11. ASTM E 2126, “Standard Test Methods for Cyclic (Reversed) Load Test For Shear Resistance of Vertical
Elements of the Lateral Force Resisting Systems for Buildings”, ASTM, 2009.
12. ASTM. (2001a), “Standard Test Method for Compressive Strength of Hydraulic Cement Mortars”,
Masonry Test Methods and Specifications for the Building Industry, ASTM C 109/C 109M-99, 4 Ed.,
th

Philadelphia.
13. ASTM. (2001b), “Standard Test Method for Compressive Strength of Masonry Prisms”, Masonry Test
Methods and Specifications for the Building Industry, ASTM C 1314-00a, 4 Ed., Philadelphia.
th

14. ASTM. (2001c), “Standard Test Method for Sampling and Testing Brick and Structural Clay Tile.”, Masonry
Test Methods and Specifications for the Building Industry, ASTM C 67-00a, 4 Ed., Philadelphia.
th

15. Bariola, J., and Delgado, C., "Design of Confined Masonry Walls under Lateral Loading", 11 World
th

Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Acapulco, Mexico, No.204, 1996.


16. Bartolomé, S.A., Quiun, D. and Mayorca, P., “Proposal of a Standard for Seismic Design of Confined
Masonry Buildings”, Bulletin of Earthquake Resistant Structure Research Center ERS No. 37, University of
Tokyo, pp. 61-67, Tokyo, Japan, 2004.
17. Bartolomé, S.A., Quiun, D. and Torrealva, D., “ Seismic Behaviour of a Three-story Half Scale Confined
Masonry Structure”, Proceedings of 10th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Madrid, Spain,
1992.
18. Brzev, S., "Earthquake Resistant Confined Masonry Construction", National Information Centre of
Earthquake Engineering, IIT Kanpur, 2007.
19. Brzev, S., Gavilan, J., J., P. and Rangwani, K., “Simplified Method for Seismic Design of Confined Masonry
Buildings”, 2014.
20. Chourasia, A., “Performance Evaluation of Confined Masonry Buildings under Cyclic Lateral Loads”,
Ph.D Thesis, Indian Institute of Technology, Roorkee, 2014.

105
Design Guidelines for Confined Masonry Buildings

21. Chourasia, A., Bhattacharyya, S. K., Bhandari, N. M. and Bhargava, P., “Seismic Performance of Full-
scale Brick Masonry Buildings.”, Proceedings of 9th International Masonry Conference, Guiemaraes,
Portugal, Paper No. 1334, 2014.
22. Chourasia, A., Bhattacharyya, S. K., Bhargava, P. K., and Bhandari, N. M., “Influential Aspects on Seismic
Performance of Confined Masonry Construction.”, Natural Science, 5 ( 8 A1 ), doi:
10.4236/ns.2013.58A1007, 2013 , pp. 56-62.
23. Chourasia, A., et. al., “Confined Masonry Construction for India: Prospects and Solutions for Improved
Behaviour”, IBC Journal, New Delhi, 2015.
24. Chourasia A., et. al., “Seismic Performance of Different Masonry Buildings: A Full-Scale Experimental
Study”, Journal of Performance of Constructed Facilities, No. AC/ASCE/09, 2014.
25. CSIR-CBRI Report No. GAP-4472, “Experimental Investigation on Earthquake Resistance & Retrofitting
Measures of Full-scale Masonry Houses under Quasi-Static Conditions”, March 2006.
26. Delhi Schedule of Rates (DSR), Central Public Works Department, Government of India, 2013.
27. Drysdale, R.G., Hamid, A.A. and Baker, “Masonry Structure, Behavior and Design”, New Jersey, USA:
Prentice Hall, 1994.
28. EQ12a, “IITK-GSDMA Guidelines for Structural Use of Reinforced Masonry”, Gujarat State Disaster
Mitigation Authority, August 2005.
29. Eurocode 6, “Design of Masonry Buildings Part 1-1: Common Rules for Reinforced and Unreinforced
Masonry Structures”, EN 1996-1: CEN, Belgium, 2006.
30. Eurocode 6, “Design of Masonry Structures- Part 1-1: Common Rules for Reinforced and Unreinforced
Masonry Structures”, 2004.
31. Eurocode 6, “Design of Masonry Structures: Common rules for Reinforced and Unreinforced Masonry
Structures”, pr ENV, CEN: Brussels, 1996.
32. Eurocode 8, “Design of Structures for Earthquake Resistance-Part 3: Strengthening and Repair of
Buildings”, EN 1998-3, 2005.
33. Eurocode 8, “Design Procedures of Earthquake Resistance of Structures Part 1-3: General Rules Specific
Rules for Various Materials and Elements”, ENV1998-1-3, CEN Brussels, 1996.
34. Eurocode 8, “Design Provisions for Earthquake Resistance of Structures, Part 1-2: General Rules- General
Rules for Buildings”, ENV 1998-1-2: 1995(CEN, Brussels), 1995.
35. European Committee for Standardization, EN 1996-1-1:2005. In Eurocode 6, “Design of Masonry
Structures, Part 1-1: General rules for Reinforced and Unreinforced Masonry Structures.”, 2005.
36. European Committee for Standardization, EN 1998-1:2004. In. Eurocode 8, “Design of Structures for
Earthquake Resistance, Part 1: General rules, Seismic Actions and Rules for Buildings”, 2004.
37. European Committee for Standardization," European Standard", 2002.
38. Flores, L. E., and Alcocer, S. M., "Calculated Response of Confined Masonry Structures.", 11th World
Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Acapulco, Mexico, Paper No. 1830, 1996.
39. Irimies, M.T, "Confined Masonry Walls: The Influence of the Tie-column Vertical Reinforcement Ratio on
the Seismic Behaviour.", The Proceedings of the Twelfth European Conference on Earthquake
Engineering, No. 7, 2002.
40. Irimies, M.T., “Confined Masonry walls: The Influence of the Tie-column Vertical Reinforcement Ratio on
the Seismic Behaviour”, Proceedings of 12th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, 2000.
41. IS 1077-2002, “Indian Standard- Specification of Common Burnt Clay Building Bricks”, Bureau of Indian
Standards, New Delhi.
42. IS 1077-2002, “Indian Standard Specification of Common Burnt Clay Building Bricks”, Bureau of Indian
Standards, New Delhi.
43. IS 13920-2003, “Ductility Detailing of Reinforced Concrete Structures Subjected to Seismic Forces- Code
of Practice”, Bureau of Indian Standards, New Delhi.

106
Design Guidelines for Confined Masonry Buildings

44. IS 1893-2002, “Criteria for Earthquake Resistant Design of Structures”, Bureau of Indian Standards,
June 2002.
45. IS 1905-2002, “Code of Practice for Structural use of Unreinforced Masonry”, Bureau of Indian Standards,
New Delhi.
46. IS 2116-2002, “Indian Standard Specification for Sand or Masonry Mortars”, Bureau of Indian Standards,
New Delhi.
47. IS 2250-2000, “Code of Practice for Preparation and Use of Masonry Mortars”, Bureau of Indian
Standards, New Delhi, India.
48. IS 3495-2002 Part 1-4, “Methods of Testing of Burnt Clay Building Bricks”, Bureau of Indian Standards, New
Delhi.
49. IS 4326-2013, “Criteria of Practice for Earthquake Resistant Design and Construction of Buildings”, Bureau
of Indian Standards, New Delhi, India.
50. IS 456-2000, “Plain and Reinforced Concrete-Code of Practice”, Bureau of Indian Standards, New Delhi,
India.
51. IS 516-2004, “Indian Standard Method of Tests for Strength of Concrete”, Bureau of Indian Standards,
New Delhi.
52. IS 875-2003, “Code of Practice for Design Loads (other than earthquake) for Buildings and Structures”,
Bureau of Indian Standards, New Delhi.
53. Ishibashi, K., Meli, R., Alcocer, S.M., Leon, F., and Sanchez, T.A., "Experimental Study on Earthquake-
resistant Design of Confined Masonry Structures", Proceedings of the 10 World Conference on
th

Earthquake Engineering, Madrid, Spain, 1992, pp. 3469-3474.


54. Jagadish K. S., “Basic Structural Properties of Masonry”, Workshop on Recent Advances in Masonry
Construction: WRAMC-98, Roorkee, India, pp.41-52.
55. Kaushik, H.B, Rai, D.C. and Jain, S.K., “Stress-strain Characteristics of Clay Brick Masonry under Uniaxial
Compression”, Journal of Materials in Civil Engineering, ASCE, Vol. 19(9), 72-739. DOI: 10.1061/ (ASCE)
0899-1561(2007)19:9(728), 2007.
56. Meli R. and Svetlana Brzev, et al, “Seismic Design Guide for Low Rise Confined Masonry Buildings”, EERI &
IAEE, 2011.
57. Moroni, M., Astroza M., and Caballero, R., “Wall Density and Seismic Performance of Confined Masonry
Buildings”, TMS Journal, July 2000, pp 81-88.
58. Moroni, M., Astroza M., and Mesias, P.," Displacement Capacity and Required Story Drift in Confined
Masonry Buildings", 11 World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Acapulco, Mexico, No 1059,
th

1996.
59. Norma Técnica E. 070, Albañilería, Peruvian Code, 2006.
60. NSR-98, Titulo D: Mamposteria Estructural, Colombian Code, 1998.
61. NT E.070, “Reglamento Nacional de Edificaciones, Norma Tecnica E.070 Albanileria (National Building
Code, Technical Standard E.070 Masonry)”, Peru (in Spanish), 2006.
62. NTC-M., “Normas Técnicas Complementarias para Diseño y Construcción de Estructuras de
Mampostería”, Technical Norms for Design and Construction of Masonry Structures, Mexico, 2004.
63. Paul, D. K., “Seismic Retrofit of Unreinforced Masonry Buildings, Centre of Excellence in Disaster
Mitigation and Management”, Indian Institute of Technology, Roorkee, 2011.
64. Punmia, B.C., “Limit State Design of Reinforced Concrete”, 10th Ed., Laxmi Publications (P) Ltd., New
Delhi, 2007.
65. Raghunath, S., Rao, K., S., N. and Jagadish, K., S., "Studies on Ductility of Brick Masonry Walls with
Containment Reinforcement", Proceedings Sixth International Seminar on Structural Masonry for
Developing Countries, Indian Institute of Science, Bangalore, 11-13 October, 2000.
66. Raghuprasad, B., K., Nasir, O., B. and Amarnath, K., "Size Effect in Brick Masonry Wallets", International
Journal of research in Engineering and Technology, Vol. 3 Special Issue: 06, May, 2014.

107
Design Guidelines for Confined Masonry Buildings

67. San Bartolome, A., Quiun, D. and Torrealva, D., “Seismic Behaviour of a Three-story Half Scale Confined
Masonry Structure.”, Proceedings of 10 World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Madrid, Spain,
th

1992.
68. Tomazevic, M. and Klemenc, I., “Seismic Behaviour of Confined Masonry Walls”, J. Earthquake
Engineering and Structural Dynamics, 26, 1997, pp. 1059-1071.
69. Tomazevic, M. and Klemenc, I., “Verification of Seismic Resistance of Confined Masonry Buildings”, J.
Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics, 26, 1997, pp. 1077-1088.
70. Tomaževic, M., “Damage as a Measure for Earthquake-resistant Design of Masonry Structures: Solvenian
Experience.”, Can. J. Civil Engineering, Vol. 34, Doi: 10.1139/L07-i28, 2007, pp. 1403-1312.
71. Tomaževic, M., “Earthquake-resistant Design of Masonry Buildings.”, Series on Innovation in Structures
and Construction, Vol. 1, Imperial College Press, London, 1999.
72. Tomazevic, M., “Seismic Design of Masonry Structures”, Structural Engineering and Materials, 1(1), 1997,
pp. 88-95.
73. Tomazevic, M., “Some Aspect of Experimental Testing of Seismic Behaviour of Masonry Walls and Models
of Masonry Buildings.”, ISET J. Earthquake Technology, Slovenia, Paper No. 404, 37, No. 4, 2000, pp. 101-
117.
74. Tomaževic, M., Bosiljkov V. and Weiss P., “Structural Behaviour Factor for Masonry Structures”, 13 World
th

Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Vancouver B.C., Canada, paper no.2642, 2004.


75. Tomazevic, M., Klemenc, I., Petrovic, L. and Lutman, M., “Seismic Behaviour of Confined Masonry
Buildings, Part one: Shaking-Table Tests of Model Buildings M1 and M2 Test results”, A Report to the
Ministry of Science and Technology of Republic of Slovenia. Grant no. J2-5208-1502ZAG/PI-95/04,
Ljubljana: National Buildings and Civil Engineering Institute, 1996.
76. Wijaya, W., Kusumastuti, D., Suarjana, M., Rildova and Pribadi, K., “Experimental Study on Wall-frame
Connection of Confined Masonry Wall”, Proc., 12 East Asia-Pacific Conference on Structural
th

Engineering, Hong-Kong, 2011.


77. Yanez, F., Astroza, M., Holmberg, A. and Ogaz, O., “Behaviour of Confined Masonry Shear Walls with
Large Openings”, Proceedings of 13 World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Paper No. 3438,
th

Canada, 2004.
78. Yoshimura, K., Kikuchi, K., Kuroki, M., Nonaka, H., Kim, K. T., Wangdi, R. and Oshikata, A. ,“Experimental
study on Effects of Height of Lateral Forces, Column Reinforcement and Wall Reinforcements on Seismic
Behaviour of Confined Masonry Walls”, Proceedings of 13 World Conference on Earthquake
th

Engineering, Vancouver, B.C., Canada, Paper no 1870, 2004.


79. Yoshimura, K., Kikuchi, K., Okamoto, T. and Sanchez, T., “Effect of Vertical and Horizontal Wall
Reinforcement on Seismic Behaviour of Confined Masonry Walls”, Proceedings of 11 Conference on
th

Earthquake Engineering, Paper No. 191, 1996.


80. Zabala, C., Honma, C., Gibu, P., Gallardo, P., and Huaco, G., “Full Scale On-line Test on Two Story
Masonry Building using Handmade Bricks”, 13 World Conference on Earthquake Engineering,
th

Vancouver, Canada, 2004.


81. Zabala, F., Bustos, J. L., Masanet, A. and Santalucia, J., “Experimental Behaviour of Masonry Structural
Walls used in Argentina”, Proceedings of 13 World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Canada,
th

Paper No. 1093, 2004.

108

View publication stats