8

th
International Masonry Conference 2010 in Dresden

8
th
International Masonry Conference Dresden 2010 1


Automatic design and analysis of confined masonry shear
walls in seismic areas. Case studies.


POPESCU, GEORGE
1
; POPESCU, RODICA,
2


In the countries with a high seismic risk, like Romania, the multi-storied masonry buildings are
realised with reinforced or confined shear walls that can resist better to the lateral earthquake action.
The shear walls are subjected to lateral in-plane forces and eccentric compression.
Cross sectional verification relies on comparing the design shear load and the design bending
moment applied on the wall (V
Ed
, M
Ed
), determined with a specialised soft, with the representative
design shear resistance and design bending resistance (V
Rd
, M
Rd
).
The resistance values determined after the Romanian Code seem to be conservative, because of
extremely underestimate shear resistance of masonry-confined wall. Consequently, for this structure
system, the strength requests can be satisfied only with an important consumption of materials, a
limited architectural plan and high costs.
Therefore, the authors propose an alternative methodology. The actual calculated strength
capacity seems to be well in line with experimental results obtained.

Keywords: confined masonry, design shear resistance, design moment of resistance


1
Technical Expert Engineer, Director, IPCT STRUCTURI,Bucharest, Romania, ipctstructuri@yahoo.com,
2
Senior Research Engineer I
st
Degree, General Manager, IPCT STRUCTURI, Bucharest, Romania ipctstructuri@yahoo.com

NOTATION
A
asc
cross sectional area of the vertical reinforcement in compressed pillar;
A
t
equivalent masonry area of the flange;
A
s
cross sectional area of steel reinforcement in compressed pillar;
f strength in compression of the masonry;
f
c
strength in compression of the concrete;
f
k
characteristic test compressive strength of masonry;
f
vd
design shear strength of masonry;
f
yd
design tensile strength of reinforcing steel;
H
CR
values of the test lateral cracking force;
H
sp
high of the specimen section;
l length of the cross section;
l
c
length of the compressed part of the wall;
l
s
distance between the reinforcement pillars centres of gravity;
l
sp
length of the specimen section;
M
Ed
design value of the moment applied;
M
Rd
design value of the moment of resistance;
M
Rd1
design value of the masonry moment of resistance;
M
Rd2
design value of aditional moment of the reinforcement;
N
Ed
design value of the vertical load;
N test value of the vertical load [12];
G. Popescu ; R. Popescu


2 8
th
International Masonry Conference Dresden 2010
t thickness of the cross section of the wall;
t
sp
thickness of the specimen section;
y
zc,i
distance between centre of gravity of the entire wall section and centre of gravity of the
compressed part of the section;
y
zc,i
distance between centre of gravity of the entire wall section and centre of gravity of the
compressed part of the section;
V
Ed
design value of the shear load
V
RK
shear resistance of the specimens, determined by method 2.1;
V
R
shear resistance of the specimens, determined by the method 2.2;
V
Rd
design value of the shear resistance;
V
Rd1
design value of the masonry shear resistance;
V
Rd2
design value of the shear resistance of the reinforcement.
1 INTRODUCTION
In Romania, the most used confined masonry structural system is the one with reinforced concrete
pillars and ties included into the masonry wall Figure 9.
The Code [13] rules establish the position of the reinforced concrete pillars and ties.
The rectangular section of masonry with pillars is transformed into equivalent unreinforced
masonry section, I shaped (the pillar become a flange Figure 9, Figure 10).
The design strength capacities (V
Rd
, M
Rd
) of the confined masonry shear wall are a sum of the
unreinforced masonry capacities (V
Rd1
, M
Rd1
) and of the additional capacities (V
Rd2
, M
Rd2
) of the
reinforcement steel of the pillars.
In the following, two evaluation ways of the capacities of resistance (V
Rd
, M
Rd
) are presented:
after Romanian Codes [13], [14] and after the authors alternative methodology [4] and the Case
Studies with the compared results between the 2 methodologies and the results of the tests [12].
2 UNREINFORCED MASONRY: DESIGN CAPACITIES OF RESISTANCE (V
RD
, M
RD
)
The shear resistance (V
Rd
) and the moment of resistance (M
Rd
) for a rectangular unreinforced
masonry shear wall, subject to lateral in-plane forces and eccentric compression, will be calculated in
two ways, presented in the following.

















Figure 1. Masonry shear wall subjected to lateral in-plane forces and eccentric compression

V
Ed

l
Z

H
(
s
t
o
r
e
y

/

b
u
i
l
d
i
n
g
)


N
Ed
Automatic design and analysis of confined masonry shear walls in seismic areas. Case studies.


8
th
International Masonry Conference Dresden 2010 3
2.1. Shear resistance and moment of resistance after Romanian Code [13]
The shear resistance formula is:
c vd Rd
tl f 30 . 0 V =

(2) .
Where:
0.30 is a reduction coefficient (unspecified source [13], [14])
The design moment of resistance formula is:
Ed Rd
lN 2 . 0 M =

(3) .
Where:
0.2 is the coefficient witch limits the eccentricity of the axial compression force (N
Ed
) [13]

2.2. Shear resistance and moment of resistance after authors methodology [4]
Unreinforced masonry elements are subjected to constant axial loads (N
Ed
) and to gradually
increasing lateral forces (V
Ed
), as shown in Figure 1.
The shear resistance of unreinforced masonry wall (V
Rd
) is calculated by considering diagonal
failure due to main tensile stresses as the main failure criterion.
The section at the base of a structural unreinforced masonry wall pass through successive
deformation stages, as the lateral force gradually increases. The method considers three reference
stages, characterised by the stresses distribution shown in Figure 2, Figure 3 and Figure 4.
The calculation involves the following steps for each deformation stage (F, C , U) and the following
expectable resistances are determined:
a) The values of the shear resistance associated to the bending moment of resistance (V
M
)

with the
stress and strain distributions shown in Figure 2 to 4: V
M,F
, V
M,C
and V
M,U
;
b) The values of the shear resistance, V
Q
, corresponding to diagonal failure due to principal tensile
stresses, with the stress and strain distributions shown in Figure 2 to Figure 4: V
Q, F
, V
Q,C
and V
Q,U
.
c) With V
M
and V
Q
values, the interaction curves V
M
- (Figure 5) and V
Q
- (Figure 6) can be design.
The intersection of both curves gives the value of shear resistance V
R
(Figure 7).
The values of V
M
,V
Q
,V
R
are calculated with a computer program realised by the authors [19].
The moment of resistance is calculated with (4) similar with the Code [13] formula:
Ed i , zc Rd
N y M =

(4) .


l
t


2
0

max
=2/3
0



l
c
l
t


f
d

c

0 00 0

0

max

max

l
l
c
t

f
d

0

Figure 2. Stage F:normal
cracking in bending
Figure 3. Stage C: yielding in
compression
Figure 4. Stage U: ultimate
G. Popescu ; R. Popescu


4 8
th
International Masonry Conference Dresden 2010
2.3. Case Studies
In Table 1 is presented the comparison between the resistance capacities.

Table 1. Specimens with H/l=1.5 [12]
Dimensions :
l
sp
xH
sp
xt
sp

N
test
[12]

d

test
f
k


t
e
s
t


H
c
r

t
e
s
t

[
1
2
]

V
R


[4]

R

H
c
r
/
V
R

V
Rk


[13]

H
c
r
/
V
R
k


S
P
E
C
I
M
E
N
S

S
E
R
I
E
S

cm kg kg/m
2 kg/
cm
2 kg kg
kg/
cm
2

- kg -
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
10
BNL 1- 102.8x151.0x30 18390 6.00 41.3 5453 5210 1.69 1.05 641.1 8.51
2- 103.0x151.0x30 36770 11.90 41.3 9617 8350 2.70 1.15 1519.2 6.33
3- 103.2x151.5x30 13890 6.00 41.3 5493 5220 1.69 1.05 641.1 8.57
4- 102.5x151.4x30 36770 11.90 41.3 11200 8390 2.70 1.33 1519.2 7.37
5- 102.7x151.1x30 36770 11.90 41.3 10936 8310 2.70 1.32 1519.2 7.20

6- 102.6x150.8x30 18390 6.00 41.3 6313 5210 1.69 1.21 641.1
9.85
BGL 1- 98.9x151.3x30 35340 11.90 43.1 10173 7850 2.65 1.30
2- 98.7x151.1x30 35340 11.90 43.1 10292 7840 2.65 1.31

3- 98.8x150.7x30 35340 11.90 43.1 9384 7870 2.65 1.19
1455.9 6.99
BPL 1- 98.5x150.8x30 35340 11.90 62.8 10633 8990 3.04 1.18
2- 98.5x150.9x30 35340 11.90 62.8 10773 8990 3.04 1.20

3- 98.6x150.7x30 35340 11.90 62.8 10450 9010 3.05 1.16
996.3 10.67
BZL 1- 98.8x151.0x30 35340 11.90 62.4 9640 9000 3.04 1.07
2- 98.7x151.2x30 35340 11.90 62.4 9670 8980 3.03 1.08

3- 98.6x150.8x30 35340 11.90 62.4 9100 8990 3.04 1.01
1005.6 9.59
sp sp
R
R
t * l
V
= is

the shear stress on the section(determined with the computer program[19])
(5) .
The shear resistance value (V
R
) that is determined by the authors methodology [4](col 6) is
nearest of the test lateral cracking force value (H
cr
) [12]. The ratio H
cr
/V
R
(col.8) is between 1.01
1.33.
The shear resistance value (V
Rk
) that is determined by the Code [13] (col 9) is lesser than the test
lateral cracking force value (H
cr
). The ratio H
cr
/V
Rk
(col.10) is between 6.3310.67.


VM,F
V
M,C
VM,U
V

F
C
U
F C
U

V
Q,U
V
Q,C
V
Q,F
U
C
F
V

F C
U

V
Q
V
M

F

C

U

V
V
R

Figure 5. V
M
- curve Figure 6. V
Q
- curve Figure 7. V
R
Shear resistance
Automatic design and analysis of confined masonry shear walls in seismic areas. Case studies.


8
th
International Masonry Conference Dresden 2010 5
3 CONFINED MASONRY: DESIGN CAPACITIES OF RESISTANCE (V
RD
, M
RD
)
The shear resistance (V
Rd
) and the moment of resistance (M
Rd
) for a confined masonry shear wall,
subject to lateral in-plane forces and eccentric compression, will be calculate by two ways, presented
in the following.
The rectangular masonry section with two pillars on the both ends (Figure 9) is transformed in an
equivalent I-shaped section (Figure 10). V
Rd1
is the design unreinforced masonry shear resistance
and V
Rd2
is the design shear resistance of the steel reinforcement in concrete compressed pillar. Both
are calculated with the equivalent section.

The formula that transforms the concrete pillar in a masonry flange is:
f
f
A A
c
s t
75 . 0 =

(6) .
3.1. The shear resistance V
Rd
and the moment of resistance M
Rd
formulas for
equivalent section of the confined masonry wall after Romanian Code [13]
yd asc c vd 2 Rd 1 Rd Rd
f A 2 . 0 l t f 30 . 0 V V 30 . 0 V + = + =

(7) .
0.00
1.00
2.00
3.00
4.00
5.00
6.00
7.00
8.00
9.00
10.00
0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50


Q

M

R
F C
U
[kg/cm
2
]

Figure 8. Diagrams with the value of shear stress on the specimen BNL1 (ductile section) [19]


l
s1
l
s2
l

t
p
t

A
p1
,A
s1

A
p2
,A
s2

A
m

l
s




l
s2
t

t
f1
A
t1
,A
s1

l
s1
l

A
m

A
t2
,A
s2

t
f1

Figure 9. Confined masonry shear wall with
concrete pillars - horizontal section
Figure 10. Equivalent I shape section of
unreinforced masonry shear
G. Popescu ; R. Popescu


6 8
th
International Masonry Conference Dresden 2010
yd s s Ed i , zc 2 Rd 1 Rd Rd
f A l N y M M M + = + =

(8)
3.2. The shear resistance V
Rd
and the moment of resistance M
Rd
formulas for
equivalent section of the confined masonry wall after the authors methodology
[4]
The design shear resistance of the confined section is the shear resistance of the I-shaped
equivalent masonry wall section and of the additional shear resistance of the reinforcing steel (in
concrete pillars).
The shear resistance V
Q
and bending resistance V
M
for unreinforced equivalent section is
determined according 2.2 . The additional capacities of the reinforcing steel of the pillars V
S,Q
and V
S,M

are determined and added at (C) and (U) stages (Figure 11 to Figure 13):

The moment of resistance is calculated with (4) similar with the Code [13]formula (8).
3.3. Verification of the strength request
If the next equations are respected, the strength request on the cross section is satisfied. Else, the
cross section area or the materials must be change.
Ed Rd
V 25 . 1 V

(9) .
Ed Rd
qV V

(10)
Ed Rd
M M

(11)
Alternatively, if:
Ed Rd
qV V >

(12)
And:
Ed Rd
qM M

(13)
Than:
Ed Rd
qV V =

(14)
3.4. Case Studies
The building has two levels [Figure 14] and it is situated in a hazard seismic zone, with ag=0.24g,
T
C
=1.6 s. The structure is confined masonry with reinforced concrete pillars, ties and floor at each
level (Figure 14, Figure 15). The value of the behaviour factor [13] is q=3.125. The characteristics of

V
M
,
F
VM,C+VM,S
VM,U+vM,S
V

F
C
U
F C
U

VQ,U+ VS,Q
VQ,C+ VS,Q

VQ,F
U
C
F
V

F C
U

V
Q
+V
Q,S
V
M
+V
M
,
S

F

C

U

V
V
R

Figure 11. V
M
- curve Figure 12. V
Q
- curve Figure 13. V
R
Shear resistance
Automatic design and analysis of confined masonry shear walls in seismic areas. Case studies.


8
th
International Masonry Conference Dresden 2010 7
the materials are: mortar M10, masonry unit C10, concrete in the ties, pillars and floors C16/20, steel
reinforcement PC52 (f
s
=300N/mm
2
).

The structure was calculated at seismic action, with a specialized computer softwere [18]. The
design diagrams of the shear loads (V
Ed
) and of the moments applied (M
Ed
) for the masonry piers and
reinforced concrete pillars are presented in the Figure 17(exemplified for one shear wall, in Figure 15
plain and Figure 16 elevation, see arrows).
3.4.1 Verification of the strength request: (V
Rd
, M
Rd
) determined conform Romanian
Code [13]
tm 68 M tm 0 . 6 M
Rd Ed
= =

(15) .
t 36 . 5 V t 19 . 6 V 25 . 1
Rd Ed
= > =

(16) .





Figure 14. Building with confined masonry Figure 15. View Plain





Figure 16. Confined masonry shear wall Figure 17. Diagrams of M
Ed
and V
Ed

a) M
Ed
b) V
Ed
Confined shear wall

G. Popescu ; R. Popescu


8 8
th
International Masonry Conference Dresden 2010
tm 68 M tm 78 . 18 qM
Rd Ed
= =

(17)
5.36t V 15.47t qV
Rd Ed
= > =

(18)

It can be seen that the strength request is not respected for shear resistance, (9), relationship.
3.4.2 Verification of the strength request : (V
Rd
, M
Rd
) determined conform the
authors methodology [4]
tm 68 M tm 0 . 6 M
Rd Ed
= =

(19) .
t 20 . 16 V t 19 . 6 V 25 . 1
Rd Ed
= > =

(20) .
tm 68 M tm 78 . 18 qM
Rd Ed
= =

(21)
t 47 . 15 V t 20 . 6 1 V 15.47t qV
Rd Rd Ed
= = < =

(22)
The resistance requirements of P100/2006 [14] are satisfied.

3.4.3 Behaviour of the confined masonry buildings to the earthquake action, 12 May
2008 China WENCHUAN-SISHUAN
We have visited Wenchuan-Sishuan, China region (the 14
th
World Conference on Earthquake
Engineering in Beijing October 2008) afected by the 12th of May 2008 earthquake and have seen the
behaviour of many buildings with confined masonry, unreinforced masonry and concrete structures.
Though the pillars of the confined masonry structure of the buildings had a very small percent of
reinforcement, small diameters of the steel reinforcement, but concrete floor, had not come down. The
unreinfrced masonry buildings without concrete floors were destroyed, and many buildings with
concrete structure with collums and beams were strongly affected. We have seen the diagonal
failure due to main tensile stresses as the main failure criterion. In the following are shown some
pictures illustrating the situations described above.

4 CONCLUSIONS
4.1 Concerning the unreinforced masonry

Figure 18. Confined masonry
structure in Yngxiu
Figure 19. Unreinforced masonry
structure in Bailu-Pengzhou
Figure 20. Concrete structure in
Hanwang
Automatic design and analysis of confined masonry shear walls in seismic areas. Case studies.


8
th
International Masonry Conference Dresden 2010 9
- The results of the tests [12] confirm that the values of the shear resistance (V
Rd
) after
Romanian code are under evaluated;
- The values of the shear resistance (V
Rd
) calculated with the authors methodology are very
close to the test results.
4.2 Concerning the confined masonry
4.2.1 after Romanian Code:
- The shear resistance (V
Rd
) is much under evaluated. It is considered only 30% from the
masonry shear resistance (V
Rd1
) and 20% from the capacity of resistance of the reinforcement
steel (V
Rd2
). This determines an unjustified increase of the section area of the walls.
- The equivalent section is an unreinforced masonry I shaped, but the relationship of the (V
Rd
)
ignores the additional capacities of the flanges.
- The shear resistance (V
Rd1
) is determined like the unreinforced masonry by the considering
the plane of failure parallel to bed joints. However, the confined masonry has a diagonal failure
due to main tensile stresses as the main failure criterion.
4.2.2 After the authors, methodology:
- The shear resistance (V
Rd
) is determined with the hypotheses that the diagonal failure due to
main tensile stresses as the main failure criterion.
- This analyse allows to be established the failure mode of the vertical structural masonry
elements, and one of the most important characteristic, to evaluate the ductile behaviour of the
overall structure.
- Although the European Code recommends ULS stage to design the structural masonry
elements, an application of this recommendation in seismic risk areas without an attentive
analisis, may create a disadvantage for the masonry structures, with economical and
functional implications.
REFERENCES
[1] Popescu, R, Popescu, Gh., Titaru, Em., Handbook for the design of unreinforced masonry
walls, Ministry of Transport Construction and Tourism, (1995),Bucharest, Romania.
[2] Popescu, Gh., Popescu, R, (1999-2003), Theoretical researches for the design of the masonry
structures built in the high seismic risk places in harmonisation with similar international codes,
Ministry of Education and Research, Bucharest, Romania.
[3] Popescu, Gh., Popescu, R., A method for the assessment of the seismic performance of
unreinforced masonry walls, International Conference Earthquake Loss Estimation and Riske
Reduction (ELE&RR), (2002), Romania, Bucharest, VOL.2, pag.171.
[4] Popescu, R. Popescu Gh., Methodologies for the design of the new masonry buildings and of
the analyses of the old masonry buildings in seismic zones, (2003-2009), Work Norma of
society IPCT Structuri.
[5] Popescu, Gh., Popescu, R., Design methodologies for the assessment and retrofitting of the
existing masonry buildings, International Conference of the Association for Shell and Spatial
Structures (IASS), (2005), Romania, Bucharest, Conference book, ID 252.
[6] Popescu, Gh., Popescu, R., Craifaleanu, A., Design Methodologies for the Assessment of the
Seismic Performance of Masonry Walls, First European Conference on Earthquake
Engineering and Seismology (a joint event of the 13
th
ECEE & 30
th
General Assembly of the
ESC) Geneva, Switzerland, 3-8 September 2006, Conference book ,ID: 1380.
[7] Popescu, Gh., Popescu, R., Craifaleanu, A, Design Methodologies for the Assessment and
Retrofitting of Existing Masonry Buildings, 7Internatuional Masonry Conference, London 2006,
Conference book.
[8] Popescu, Gh., Popescu, R., Modern Design for the Structural Analyses of the Masonry
Buildings in the Seismic Area, IASS (International Association of Shell and Spatial Structures)
Symposium 2007 - 3-6 December 2007, Venice, Italy, Conference Book , ID:292.
[9] Popescu, Gh., Popescu, R., Modern Design Method for the Structural Analyses of Masonry
G. Popescu ; R. Popescu


10 8
th
International Masonry Conference Dresden 2010
Buildings in the Seismic Areas, The 14
th
World Conference on Earthquake Engineering,
October 12-17, 2008, Beijing, China, Conference Book , ID:05-04-0026.
[10] Popescu, Gh., Popescu, R., Design of the masonry buildings conform Romanian Codes. Case
studies. Earthquake Wenchuan-Sishuan, China, may 2008 WENCHUAN-SISHUAN, CHINA -
Behaviour of the masonry buildings, The XIX
teen
National Conference of AICPS (Design
Structural Construction Engineers), May, 2009, Bucharest, Romania, Conference Review no.
2 -3/2009 pag.107.
[11] Berar, T., Solutions that contribute to retrofit the building PhD Thesis, Technical University
Timisoara, Romania, 1999.
[12] Research project (test on the masonry specimens - Slovenian National Building and Civil
Engineering Institute, ZAG Ljubljana in association with Wienerberger ET all, 2002-2003.
[13] CR6 /2006 Romanian Masonry Design Code.
[14] P100/First part 2006 Romanian Design Code of Structures for Earthquake Resistance
Chapter Masonry.
[15] Eurocode 6 Design of the Masonry Structures
[16] Eurocode 8 Design of structures for earthquake resistance
[17] SR EN 1998-1:2004/NA: 2008 Eurocode 8: Design of structures for earthquake resistance
Part 1: General rules, seismic actions and rules for building National Annex
[18] ETABS Integrated Building Design Software
[19] Popescu, R., Craifaleanu, A., Popescu, G., CAZINDS1 Software application for the analysis
and design of masonry structures, IPCT Structuri SRL, 2004-2009.