DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION OF REINFORCED MASONRY

IN NORTH AMERICA

Ahmad HAMID, Ph.D., P.E.

Professor of Civil Engineering, McMaster University, Hamilton, Canada
On Leave, Drexel University, Philadelphia, USA

ABSTRACT

Due to its poor seismic performance, unreinofrced masonry has been banned in North America
in active seismic areas since 1933. Today, reinforced masonry offers an efficient and cost-
effective construction system in North America. This paper presents a state-of-the-art report
on advances of knowledge regarding behavior, design and construction of contemporary
reinforced masonry in North America in the past three decades. Emphasis is given to the
seismic response of reinforced masonry walls, substructures and structures. Current codes
design provisions for reinforced masonry and construction practices and details are also
covered.

1. INTRODUCTION

1.1 Historical background

Masonry construction in North America dates back to 1500s in the southeastern and
southwestern regions, to the 1770s in the central and eastern regions, and to the 1880s in the
western half of the United States. The stock of existing masonry buildings in the US is
composed largely of structures constructed in the last 150 years [1]. Prior to 1993, virtually all
masonry construction was unreinforced. For this type of construction gravity is used to
eliminate/minimize tensile stresses and to provide stability against overturning. In this type of
180 SSMICA 2004 - 6 Congresso Nacional de Sismologia e Engenharia Ssmica

buildings flexible diaphragms were used and because there was no coupling walls behave as
vertical cantilever [2]. To maintain the thrust line within the middle third of the wall the
thickness has to increase towards the base as shown in Figure 1. A good example of this type
of is the 16-story Monadnock building in Chicago (Figure 2) where the wall thickness at the
base is 1.8 meters, occupying valuable floor space and imposing heavy load on the foundation.

Figure 1: Traditional multistory loadbearing Figure 2: Monadnock building in

unreinforced masonry Building [2] Chicago

On March 8, 1933 a strong earthquake (6.5 on the Richter scale) occurred in Long Beach,
California, killing 95, injuring almost 5,000 and costing $50 million in 1933 dollars. Realizing
that this toll was unacceptable and that people were going to live in areas of high seismicity,
building officials in the United States decided to implement reinforcement requirements in areas
where earthquakes were inevitable. Current masonry codes in North America require minimum
reinforcement based on location, expected performance and building type and height.

The combination of masonry resisting compressive forces and reinforcement resisting tensile
and shear forces works exceptionally well when combined with grout. The process is
commonly referred to as grouted reinforced masonry or reinforced masonry with the term
grouted implied. All building codes require grouting of vertical cells containing deformed
bar reinforcement. Horizontal reinforcement can be provided either in the mortar joints or,
preferably, in grouted bond beamsSingle-wythe and solid walls can be reinforced.
Reinforcement can be placed in the bed and collar joints, the grouted cavity, the grouted
pockets of walls made with solid units, and in the vertical cells of hollow units. Figure 3 shows
examples of reinforced walls. Reinforcing rods can be placed horizontally in hollow blockwork
using special bond beam units, see Fig. 4. Horizontal reinforcement can be provided by joint
reinforcement embedded in mortar joints as shown in Fig. 5.

Today, reinforcement masonry construction offers an attractive and cost-efficient building

system for hotels, residential buildings, correction facilities, schools, commercial buildings and
warehouses in seismic and non-seismic areas. Figure 6 shows examples of modern reinforced
masonry buildings constructed in North America in the past 3-4 decades.
Ahmad HAMID 181

Figure 4: Horizontal steel in bond beams

Figure 3: Reinforced masonry walls Figure 5: Joint reinforcement

Figure 6: Examples of modern reinforced masonry buildings in North America

2. BEHAVIOR OF REINFORCED MASONRY

2.1 Behavior of flexural walls

Reinforced masonry walls are commonly designed to span vertically between top and bottom
supports because this is usually the shortest span and because the main reinforcement is often
more readily incorporated in the vertical direction than in the horizontal direction. Test
programs [3] conducted to study the behavior of reinforced masonry walls under out-of-plane
loading showed that reinforced walls behave as unreinforced walls prior to cracking. After first
cracking, wall stiffness decreases, but a wall continues to carry load up to and beyond yielding
of the steel. Sample test data for walls in running bond indicated that the steel reinforcement
contributed to a very significant increase in lateral load-carrying capacity (more than a six-fold
increase compared to unreinforced walls). These walls typically exhibited large deflections,
desirable ductile failure, and desirable earthquake damping.
182 SSMICA 2004 - 6 Congresso Nacional de Sismologia e Engenharia Ssmica

As part of the U.S.-Japan coordinated program on Masonry Building Research (TCCMAR), a

comprehensive test program investigated the behavior of reinforced concrete masonry walls
(Fig. 7) under monotonic and cyclic out-of-plane loading. The common mode of failure was a
large open crack at the bed joints on the tension face and spalling of the mortar and face shells
on the compression face (Fig. 7). At ultimate load, splitting of the face shell also occurred at
the location of the vertical steel, perhaps indicating the effect of localized stress concentration.
Figure 8 shows load-deflection curves under monotonic loads. The sudden drops in the load
coincide with the formation of horizontal cracks along bed joints.

Figure 7: Testing of vertically spanning reinforced masonry walls [3]

The shape of the load-deflection curves for the wall panels are influenced by the percentage of
vertical reinforcement with, as shown in Fig. 8(a), significant increases in capacity
corresponding to increased reinforcing. The maximum strain decreases with increased
percentage of reinforcement and indicates some loss of ductility. The extent of grouting
significantly affected the cracking load and the wall deflection up to yielding of the
reinforcement, see Fig. 8(b). The extent of grouting had no significant effect on the flexural
strength of the wall panels.

Figure 8: Load-deflection curves of vertically spanning RM walls [3]

Ahmad HAMID 183

Cyclic tests revealed a ductile behavior of the walls with "pinched" loops, Fig. 9(a), for
centrally reinforced walls. The large narrow region of zero stiffness in the hysteretic loops for
load in the cycles beyond yielding of the vertical steel is attributed to residual plastic
deformations in the steel. Upon load reversal, "slack" exists in the system as cracks in the
previous tension face close up and the previous compression face has cracks opening to
produce strains compatible with the plastically strained reinforcement. This behavior differs
considerably from the elasto-plastic curves commonly found for ductile materials. On the other
hand, walls with staggered depths of reinforcement (Fig. 7), where half of the bars were closer
to the tension face for each direction of bending, did not show the pinching phenomenon, Fig.
9(b), and a higher energy absorption capacity was achieved.

Displacement ductility ratios, measured by displacement at ultimate load to displacement at

first yield of vertical steel, ranged from 1.79 for a wall with 0.44% of vertical steel to 29.4 for a
wall with 0.15% of vertical steel. It was determined that a steel percentage less than or equal to
0.2% for centrally placed reinforcement would result in a ductility ratio greater than 4, which is
accepted as adequate for energy absorption in seismic areas Staggering the depth of the
reinforcement resulted in a higher displacement ductility.

2.2 Behavior of shear walls

Design and detailing of reinforced masonry shear walls can ensure sufficient ductility to permit
redistribution of lateral load and to provide good energy dissipation characteristics for seismic
loading. It is desirable that reinforced masonry shear walls be able to develop their full
resistance to axial load and bending and to withstand substantial inelastic deformation without
either significant loss of strength or severe stiffness degradation. This is particularly important
in areas of highly intense shaking. Thus, brittle modes of failure in the masonry, such as
diagonal tension failure, bed joint slip, premature crushing at the toe of the wall, or loss of
anchorage of reinforcement, must be prevented. Under the combined effects of vertical and
lateral loads, the strength and deformation characteristics primarily depend on wall geometry,
level of axial load, and the amount and distribution of vertical and horizontal steel [2]. The two
distinct failure modes associated with shear walls are:
1- Flexural failure, Fig. 10(a), characterized by bed-joint cracking, yielding of
vertical reinforcement, and toe crushing; and
2 - shear failure, Fig. 10(b), characterized by diagonal tension cracking.

Figure 9: Cyclic load-displacement hysteretic curves of RM walls [3]

184 SSMICA 2004 - 6 Congresso Nacional de Sismologia e Engenharia Ssmica

Figure 10: Behavior of reinforced masonry shear walls [2]

As shown by the idealized load-deflection curves in Fig. 10, axial load affects wall behavior by
delaying initial cracking of the masonry and yielding of the reinforcement. Higher axial
compression loads result in increased shear capacities and can increase flexural capacities
except for compression-controlled failures.

Because test conditions affect the interpretation and presentation of results, it is difficult to
quantify optimum amounts of horizontal steel. However, it is worth noting that in the previous
tests, higher failure loads coincided with higher percentages of distributed reinforcement, but
that additional reinforcement, over 0.3% of the gross area, had little effect on the failure load.
At the 0.3% or higher amounts of reinforcement, the average ultimate shear stress was 170 psi
(1.17 MPa). This general finding, relating optimum shear reinforcement to relatively low
quantities of steel, agrees with research by Schneider [4], who found that 0.2% was the
maximum effective quantity. More recent tests on reinforced masonry shear walls, conducted
at the University of Colorado as part of the TCCMAR program [5], show that the amount of
horizontal reinforcement has a significant effect on the cracking pattern, shear strength, and
ductility of walls. Specimens with adequate quantities of vertical and horizontal reinforcement
(in the range of 0.25 to 0.40%) exhibited ductile behavior with large deformations after
yielding of flexural reinforcement. Conversely, specimens that failed in shear had limited
ductility, depending on the horizontal steel reinforcement ratio (Fig. 11(a)). Thus, it appears
that the maximum effective amount of horizontal reinforcement is not a fixed quantity, but,
because of the shear-compression mode of failure, depends on the compressive strength of the
wall, its geometry, and special features, such as lateral confinement at the ends of walls and
lateral tie support for compression reinforcement.
Ahmad HAMID 185

Pier tests conducted at the University of California-Berkeley [6] showed three possible modes
of failure: flexural mode, shear mode, and sliding mode, depending primarily on the aspect
ratio of the pier and the level of axial load. The test results revealed higher shear strengths for
lower aspect ratios. The results also showed a positive influence of the horizontal
reinforcement on the inelastic behavior of the piers. Increasing amounts of horizontal
reinforcement resulted in a more uniform crack pattern, increased the ultimate strength of the
piers, and increased their deformation capacity. Test results [7] also showed that partially
grouted walls exhibited ductility which compared well with fully grouted walls. There were,
however, significant reductions in strength and stiffness.

Test results [5] indicated the significance of the level of axial load on the response of single-
story shear walls under cyclic loads, as shown in Fig. 11(b). The presence of an axial load of
270 kips (1200 KN), which results in a compressive stress of about 20% of the prism
compressive strength, changed the mode of deformation from a ductile flexure (Wall C) to a
brittle shear mode (Wall D) with much reduced inelastic deformational capability beyond the
peak load.

Figure 11: Load-deflection curves for RM shear walls [5]

186 SSMICA 2004 - 6 Congresso Nacional de Sismologia e Engenharia Ssmica

Openings can significantly alter the behavior, stiffness, and capacity of masonry shear walls. A
comprehensive experimental study was conducted at Drexel University [8] to investigate the
effects of openings on the lateral response of reinforced masonry shear walls using a scale
models. The walls were uniformly reinforced vertically and horizontally in such a way as to
suppress shear failure and ensure ductile response through formation of plastic hinges. No
special detailing was provided for confinement. As shown in Fig. 12, openings dramatically
affect wall stiffness, strength, and ductility. Logically, the larger the size of the opening the
greater the reduction in wall strength and stiffness. Large increases in drift were noticed at
roughly 50 percent of the ultimate load. Analyses using plastic hinge mechanisms
demonstrated reasonable prediction of failure mechanism, lateral load capacity, and internal
forces at ultimate conditions. It was concluded that, for perforated shear walls with similar
overall dimensions and arrangement of flexural reinforcement, the reduction in stiffness is
proportional to the reduction in strength regardless of size and location of openings. Based on
this conclusion, the reduction in wall stiffness (compared to that of a solid wall) can be
calculated if the reduction of strength is estimated using a plastic-hinge mechanism model.

Figure 12: Effect of wall openings on lateral response of RM shear walls [8]

2.3 Behavior of multistory building structures

As part of the TCCMAR program, six full-scale, two-story reinforced masonry shear walls
with openings were tested under quasi-static reversed cyclic loads at the University of Texas-
Austin [9]. The specimens were designed and detailed using a plastic hinge analysis. As shown
in Fig.13, walls behaved in a flexural mode and the response was ductile and stable up to story
drift ratios as high as 0.7 to 1.0%. Even at high drift levels, the significant degradation was
quite gradual. Unsymmetrical openings in a wall, such as shown in Fig. 13(b), resulted in
unsymmetrical hysteretic curves, as shown. Note that the loops for the load N-S are narrow
indicating the rocking of the north pier dominates the response whereas the loops in the other
direction indicate more energy absorption due to the shear mode of deformation of the wide
pier with central window opening. It was demonstrated that a simple model based on a plastic-
hinge failure mechanism can result in a good prediction of ultimate lateral load of walls with
openings.
Ahmad HAMID 187

Figure 13: Cyclic tests of two-story RM walls with openings [9]

For multi-story shear walls, the mode of failure and ductility depend on the wall geometry and
the curvature capacity of the wall [10]. Fig. 14 shows different types of reinforced masonry
shear walls. The simple cantilever shear walls shown in Fig. 14(a) assure ductile response and
good energy dissipation capacity, when properly designed and constructed to provide for
plastic hinges at the base of each wall. The response of perforated walls (Figs. 14(b) and
14(c)), is different and is much more complex than the response of cantilever walls. Under
inelastic response to lateral loading, hinging may initiate in the piers (Fig. 14(b)) or in the
spandrels (Fig. 14(c)). In the former, which is the more common case, there are high ductility
demands on the piers. In this case, designers should give special attention to the shear design
and reinforcing details of the piers. Plastic hinging in the spandrels is consistent with coupled
shear-wall behavior. Because of the low span-to-depth ratio of coupling beams, it is difficult to
satisfy the high demand for ductility. Therefore, it is often more practical [10] to separate the
lintels from adjacent walls by movement joints.

Figure 14: Response of reinforced multi-story shear walls to seismic loading [10]
188 SSMICA 2004 - 6 Congresso Nacional de Sismologia e Engenharia Ssmica

At the University of California-San Diego, the TCCMAR five-story full-scale reinforced

concrete masonry building (Fig. 15(a)) was tested under simulated seismic loads [11]. The
building was composed of flanged walls with door openings and prestressed concrete hollow
core planks with 2 in. (50 mm) concrete topping. The door openings were spanned by non-
structural lintels separated from adjacent walls by movement joints (Fig. 15(a)). Coupling was
only provided by the concrete floor slabs. The building was designed according to limit states
design philosophy so that under the most severe earthquake the building would have a
displacement ductility of at least 4, dissipate energy through inelastic deformation (flexural),
and suppress all brittle modes of failure such a shear slip and diagonal tension. As shown in the
load-deflection curve of Fig. 15(b), the building behaved in a ductile manner with displacement
ductility of 6 and 9 corresponding, respectively, to total drift angles of 1.0% in the push
direction and 1.5% in the pull direction. The building failed as intended by forming plastic
hinges at the coupling slab ends and bases of the first story piers. The inelastic deformations
were limited to the designated zones and demonstrated that when properly detailed, reinforced
masonry buildings can be designed to exhibit the very ductile structural response suitable in
high intensity seismic areas. The key to the desirable ductile response was provision of
sufficient shear reinforcement to suppress shear failure in piers, coupling elements, and joints.
In addition, bond failure of reinforcement was avoided by proper choice of splice locations,
development lengths, joint dimensions, and reinforcement size.

Figure 15: Test of five-story reinforced masonry building [11].

3. DESIGN OF REINFORCED MASONRY

3.1 Design philosophy

Like other structural systems, RM is designed to achieve adequate performance under service
load (serviceability limit state of cracking and deflection) and adequate factor of safety against
overloading (ultimate limit state and ductility limit state), see Fig. 16. For RM structures it is of
critical importance to ensure adequate ductility and energy absorption capacity for seismic load
reduction and collapse prevention.
Ahmad HAMID 189

Figure 16: Desirable load-displacement curve for RM walls [2]

3.2 Wall layout

Shear walls should be adequately distributed in the two orthogonal directions of the building and
they should be placed as symmetrically as possible to minimize torsional effects. The designer
should try to avoid complicated geometry and wall coupling and rely on the simple-to-predict
inelastic response of cantilever walls for energy dissipation. Height-to-thickness ratios of shear
walls should be checked against lateral instability. Minimum thickness of loadbearing masonry
walls in high intensity seismic areas is specified in North American codes [12-14].

3.3 Reinforcement details

Building codes [12-14] contains prescriptive minimum requirements for amount and spacing of
reinforcing steel in different seismic zones. These minimum requirements are set to achieve
minimum resistance to shear, anchorage and diagonal tension failures. They also assure overall
structural integrity, load redistribution and energy absorption capacity. A minimum percentage
of steel of 0.13 percent is specified in the Canadian code [14] for seismic areas.

Maximum spacing of vertical and horizontal reinforcement is specified not to exceed 48 in.
(1.2 m) for RM walls in seismic areas.

3.4 Flexural design

Vertical steel is designed to achieve the required flexural strength under combined axial load
and bending moment. Maximum percentage of steel is specified to ensure ductile flexural
mode. In the MSJC code [12], for seismic areas where is a high ductility demand, the value of
maximum percentage of steel is to be calculated based on minimum steel strain of 1.3 fy to 5.0
fy for out-of-plane and in-plane walls, respectively. The Canadian code [12] is specifying a
maximum percentage of vertical steel equals to 2.0 percent.

3.5 Shear design

Similar to reinforced concrete, shear strength of RM walls is determined by adding the

masonry shear strength to the shear strength provided by reinforcement. Shear strength
provided by the masonry is a function of its compressive strength, wall area and wall aspect
190 SSMICA 2004 - 6 Congresso Nacional de Sismologia e Engenharia Ssmica

ratio. Axial load increases the masonry shear strength. The shear strength provided by
reinforcement is a function of the steel area, yield strength, spacing of shear reinforcement and
effective depth. North American codes assign 50% to 60% efficiency for the contribution of
shear reinforcement in resisting the applied shear.

3.6 Story drift

Horizontal displacement or interstory drift should be limited to control the P- effect and to
ensure stable behavior in the inelastic range of response. According to ASCE 7[15] the design
story drift should be calculated as the difference between the deflections at the top and bottom
of the story under consideration. The deflection at a specific floor is determined by elastic
analysis and then multiplied by an amplification factor to account for inelastic deformation.

3.7 Ductility

Because masonry structures are very stiff, response acceleration during an earthquake can be
very high [10]. For 5% critical damping, a peak elastic response could be as high as 0.8g [10].
It is not economically feasible to design masonry structures for such high seismic loads using
elastic response. According to current building code provisions, the design loads are typically
reduced by a factor of 3 to 4, implying a certain ductility demand. Ductility of shear walls is an
indicator of capability for inelastic deformation beyond the peak load without appreciable loss
in strength and with minimal stiffness degradation.

Ductility can be calculated based on an elastoplastic approximation of load-deflection response

of cantilever shear walls [2]. Based on principles of mechanics and assuming a length of the
plastic hinge at base equals to wall length ( Fig. 17), curvature ductility at the base of a shear
wall can be related to displacement ductility [2], see Fig. 18. As can be seen, for a specific
displacement ductility, higher wall aspect ratios (h/L) require higher curvature ductility at the
wall base. As is the case for reinforced concrete, curvature ductility increases as the amount of
steel decreases and as the confinement increases. Axial load significantly reduces curvature
ductility and consequently displacement ductility.

Figure 17: Moment, curvature and deflection relationship for a reinforced masonry shear wall [2]
Ahmad HAMID 191

Figure 18: Relationship

between displacement ductility
and required curvature ductility
for reinforced masonry shear
walls [2]

In calculating seismic forces using the equivalent lateral force approach, the base shear is
reduced by the response modification coefficient, R. The MSJC [12] and the IBC [13]
prescribed minimum amount of reinforcement and specific detailing are required to assure a
ductility level consistent with the assigned R factor.

Plots of ductility capacity of unconfined and confined shear walls are presented in Fig. 19. As
can be seen, the percentage of steel, the level of axial load, and the confinement are the critical
parameters affecting wall ductility. Lower percentages of flexural (vertical) steel and lower
levels of axial load result in higher ductility capacities.

Figure 19: Ductility of reinforced masonry shear walls with an aspect ratio of three [10]
192 SSMICA 2004 - 6 Congresso Nacional de Sismologia e Engenharia Ssmica

4. CONSTRUCTION OF REINFORCED MASONRY

4.1 Placement of units

Units suitable for reinforced masonry construction usually should have large cells to
accommodate reinforcing steel and grouting. Closed end units, commonly used in North America
for unreinofrced masonry, and placing the reinforcing bars before laying the units will require
relatively short bar lengths be used to permit the units to be lifted over the top of the previously
placed bars, see Fig. 20a. The alternative is to use open end units as shown in Fig. 20b.

For reinforced masonry construction type S mortar with cement: lime: sand volume proportions
of 1:1/4: 3 is commonly used.

a- Difficult Placement of Closed-end b- Open End Units

Units after the Reinforcement is in Place

Figure 20: Special open end units to accommodate reinforcing steel

4.2 Reinforcing

Reinforcement should be accurately located in the wall and held in place during grouting.
Building codes set tolerances for placement of reinforcement in masonry. IBC [13] contains
requirements for positioners to fasteners to fasten vertical steel in walls. The corresponding
tolerances on placement of vertical steel are plus or minus in. (12.7 mm) for effective depth
of 8 in. (200 mm) or less and plus or minus 1 in. (25 mm) for depth from 8 to 24 in. (200 to
600 mm). For longitudinal location of reinforcement the tolerance is plus or minus 2 in. (51
mm). A variety of commercially available positioners for vertical and horizontal reinforcement
(Fig. 21) can be used.
Ahmad HAMID 193

Figure 21: Positioners for holding reinforcement

4.3 Grouting

Prior to grouting, any mortar fins protruding into the grout spaces should be removed so that
bridging of the grout will be prevented and a continuous pour will result. As shown in Fig. 22,
confined spaces for placement of the grout, thus preventing full penetration into the grout
space. Two methods of grouting have been traditionally been classified:
1- Low lift grouting where the maximum height of a grout pour is generally limited
to 5 ft (1.5 m).
2- High lift grouting where the height of the grout pour exceeds 5 ft (1.5 m). In these
methods, cleanout openings are required at the bottom course for removal of
mortar droppings.

Figure 22: Grout bridging

Slump requirements for grout and concrete differ. Concrete should not be used in place of
grout. Two types of grout are commonly specified: (1) fine grout consisting of Portland cement
and sand and (2) coarse grout consisting of Portland cement, sand and 3/8 in. (10 mm)
aggregate. It is essential that a grout with a minimum slump of 8 in. (200 mm) be used because
of the relatively small grout spaces and the tendency for the masonry units to absorb water
from the grout mix.

For large grouting jobs, pumping of the grout (Fig. 23) is preferable to dumping from a bucket.
For high lift grouting, pumping also helps to minimize segregation of the grout.
194 SSMICA 2004 - 6 Congresso Nacional de Sismologia e Engenharia Ssmica

Figure 23: Pumping grout in cells of concrete

Figure 24: Quality grout can be achieved
Masonry walls

Grout must be consolidated to force it to flow into all spaces and thus eliminate voids.
Puddling with a steel rod is acceptable if the grout lifts are not more than 12 in. (300 mm).

Expanding admixtures has been successfully used in North America to produce quality grout
(see Fig. 24) with no voids or interface separation from the face shells of the block.

Partial grouting means only cells/courses with vertical/horizontal steel are grouted. This
method saves grout and reduces the weight of the structure. Partial grouting can be achieved by
restricting the flow of grout using mortar dams placed on the web of hollow units to confine
the grout to the desired spaces, see Fig. 25.

Figure 25: Construction of partially grouted masonry

5. CLOSURE

Reinforced masonry (RM) construction was introduced in California in 1933. Today, RM

offers an attractive and cost-efficient building system, particularly in active seismic areas. This
is demonstrated by the excellent performance of this type of construction in past earthquakes.
By adequate reinforcing and detailing RM walls can exhibit desirable ductile flexural response
and brittle shear and anchorage failure modes can be suppressed. Building codes in North
America contains prescriptive requirements of amount and spacing of reinforcement to qualify
base shear load reduction factors for RM buildings ranging from 3 to 4. Also, RM expands the
range of application of masonry construction to include tall buildings up to 20-25 stories high.
Ahmad HAMID 195

6. REFERENCES

[1] Federal Emergency Management Agency, NEHRP Guidelines for the Seismic
Rehabilitation of Buildings, FEMA 273, 2000
[2] Drysdale, R., Hamid, A. and Baker, L., Masonry Structures: Behavior and Design,
published by The Masonry Society, 1999
[3] Abboud, B., Hamid, A. and Harris, H., Flexural Behavior of Reinforced Concrete
Masonry Walls under Out-of-plane Monotonic Loads ACI Structural Journal, Vol. 93,
No. 3, May-June 1996.
[4] Schneider, R., lateral Load Tests on Reinforced Grouted Masonry Shear Walls,
Report No. 70-101, University of Southern California Engineering Center, September
1959.
[5] P. Shing, M. Schuller, V. Hoskere and E. Carter, "Flexural and Shear Response of
Reinforced Masonry Walls," ACI Structural Journal, Vol. 87, No. 6, November-
December 1990, pp. 646-656.
[6] B. Sveinson, R. Mayes and H. McNiven, "Evaluation of Seismic Design Provisions for
Masonry in the United States," Report No. UCB/EERC-81/10, College of Engineering,
University of California, Berkeley, California, August 1981.
[7] Thurston, S. and Hutchinson, D., Reinforced Masonry Shear Walls Cyclic Load Tests
in Contraflexure, Bulletin of the New Zealand Society for Earthquake Engineering,
Vo. 15, No. 1, March 1982
[8] Elshafie, H, Hamid, A. , Nasr. A., Strength and Stiffness of Masonry Shear Walls with
Openings , The Masonry Society Journal, Volume 20, Number 1, December 2002.
[9] Leiva, G. and Klingner, E., "Behavior and Design of Multi-Story Masonry Walls Under
In-Plane Seismic Masonry," The Masonry Society Journal, August 1994, pp. 15-24.
[10] Priestley, M.N., "Seismic Design of Concrete Masonry Shear Walls," ACI Journal, Vol.
83, No. 1, January-February 1986, 58-68.
[11] Seible, F., Hegemier, G., Priestley, N. , Kingsley, G., Kurkchubasche, A., Igrashi, A.
and Weeks, J., "The U.S.-TCCMAR 5-Story Full-Scale Masonry Research Building
Test: Part I, Executive Summary," U.S.-Japan Coordinated Program for Masonry
Building Research, Report No. 9.4-1, Department of Applied Mechanics and
Engineering Sciences, University of California, San Diego, January 1994.
[12] The Masonry Standards Joint Committee, "Building Code Requirements for Concrete
Masonry Structures," ACI 530/ASCE 5/TMS 402, American Concrete Institute,
American Society of Civil Engineers and The Masonry Society, Detroit, New York and
Boulder, 2002.
[13] International Conference of Building Officials, "Masonry Codes and Specifications,"
IBC 2000, ICBO, Whittier, CA, 2000
[14] Canadian Standards Association, Masonry Design and Construction for Buildings,
CSA Standard S 304.1-M94, CSA, Rexdale, Ontario, 1994
[15] American Society of Civil Engineers, Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and Other
Structures, ASCE 7-02, 2002
196 SSMICA 2004 - 6 Congresso Nacional de Sismologia e Engenharia Ssmica