IMPROVEMENT OF SEISMIC PERFORMANCE OF CONFINED MASONRY STRUCTURES BY RODELIO MERCADO ANDAYA™ (Por the course of Earthquake Engineering, 2003 - 2004) ABSTRACT ‘The main purpose of this paper is to discuss the improvement of the seismic performance of confined ‘masonry walls. ‘The current condition of masonry design and construction in the Philippines as well as the curteat BOD standard plans for school buildings are discussed. Coscrete hollow blocks (Philippine standard) are the most commonly used block for walls in almost all types of public building in the Philippines. Japan has ‘many experiences in structural standards and specifications, member and full size structural testing data, damaged experience and has also many years of experience in reinforced coacrete block construction beginning 1952, Full size structural test shows no collapse under large deformatioas. Earthquake damaged buildings show shear cracks and joint slip failure. The wall volume and the vertical and horizontal regularity of any building are very important factor against earthquake and typhoon. Collar beams and vertical reinforcing bars ccan mitigate from out-of-plane bending. Based on the information obtained from the results of surveys and investigations, includiog the structural testing data, damaged experience, ALJ Standards for Structural Design of Masonry Structures, some points of improvement are identified. Through this study, it is necessary to (1) inclade the wall volume of any building preferably on the first sheet of structural plans and must be in good balance, (2) use steaight joints reinforcement in laying of concrete hollow blocks and install vertical bars, (3) provide reinforcement along the perimeter of door and wisidew openings, (4) control the concrete mixture and the amount of water, (5) provide more detailed drawings, (6) propose the use of groove type hollow block for arranging the horizontal bars, and (7) strict compliance as per plans and specifications. If using the low strength red brick mater better to install a beam ia the middle height of the wall to increase the shear strength and ducility of the wall and also mitigate from out-of-plane bending. KEYWORDS. conjiaed masonry, compressive strength, wall volume, out-of-plane, crack pattern, maximum strength, shear stress, cyclic loading test, reinforcement 1, INTRODUCTION Confined masonry is a construction system, where masonry structural walls are confined in all four sides with reinforced concrete or reinforced masonry vertical and horizontal confining elements, which are not intended to eatry either vertical or horizontal loads, and are consequently not designed to perform as a moment- resisting frames. Concrete Hollow Blocks (CHB) is the most commoaly used block for walls in almost all types ‘of public building in the Philippines. At present, the Bureau of Design (BOD) under the Department of Public Works and Highways (DPWH) has standard plans for one-storey up to four-storey school buildings. with different number of classrooms, Nowadays, more school Duildings are necessary for there are increasing. ‘number of students and the existing school buildings are not enough. Not only for economic and safety reasons Dut also for a better workmanship, there is a need to improve the current condition of masonry buildings in the Philippines. * Engineer IIl, Department of Public Works and Highways ‘Bureau of Design, Manila, Philippines 243 —The July 1990 earthquake is one of the most severe earthquakes ever happened in the Philippines “Many buildings collapsed. Most of these buildings suffered the soft storey effect and some school buildings hhave irregularity in structural plan. So soft storeys are recognized as dangerous and the regularity of structure plan is a very important structural aspect: Many. of the collapsed hotels in Baguio had soft storeys because of the participation of non-structural wals in the structural response. {a the Science Building at the University of Baguio and ai Montepino Apartments, a section of CHB wall fell out resulting in irepairable damage to column, There are a lot of examples of CHB walls which cracked during this July 1990 earthquake, ‘These walls arc classified as non-structural walls. {In almost all the public buildings (school, hospital, municipal building, university, ete), a reinforced Concrete frame structure is used. Partition walls are built of CHB and tied directly to and not separated from the reinforced concrete frame. 2.2. Concrete Hollow Blocks 2.2.1, Description In the Philippines, CHB is the most widely used block for building walls, walls of houses, or in other Public works projects. (see Fig. 1) Concrete masonry block is made from portland cement, water and mineral aggregates with or without {inclusion of other materials. It may be rectangular or segmented and when specified, shall have end shape to provide interlock ut vertical joints. Standard dimensions of CHB units commercially available in the market ae 100mm, 125mm, 150mm and 200mm in width, length of 400 mm, height of 200 mm, with 2-3 cavities and a shell thickness from 635 mm to 19 mm. The 150mm thick CHB is commonly used in the perimeter walls Whereas the 100mm thick in the interior walls. There are two types of hollow blocks: Load-Beating Block — a hollow block capable of carrying super-imposed load Which is used in exterior wall below grade and for unplastered extetior wall (i above grade that may be exposed to weather 2. Nonload-Bearing Block — a concrete hollow block not capable of carrying super-imposed load, for geacral use in walls not exposed to weather Fat, Rogular CHB Unk 2.2.2, Sampling and Testing. ‘The delivered units shall be inspected and should be sound and fice of cracks and other defects, In ‘sampling the blocks for the strength, absorption and moisture content determination, ten (10) individual units shall be selected from each lot of 10,000 units and fraction thereof and 20 individual units from each lt of more than 10,000 urits. For lots of more than 10,000 units, 10 individual units shall be selected from each 50,000 lunits and fraction thereof contained in the lot. For non-bearing type of CHB, no sampling for test shall be required for less than 500 units to be used in the job. Units shall be tested in accordance with the standard method of testing masonry units of the American Society of Testing Materials (ASTM) designation C-140 and/or by the Bureau of Research and Standards, Department of Public Works and Highways, Manila, No blocks shall be used unless results of test are known ‘and duly approved by the Government Engineer or his duly authorized representative, Al the time of delivery to the work site the units shall conform to the physical requirements prescribed in Table 1. 24 —Table 1. Physical Requirements of Hollow Load-Bearing and Nonload-Bearing Concrete Masonty Units Min, Compressive Strength Max. Water, Moisture MPa Absorption Content Type (Average Gross Area) ‘kg/om? (%) ‘Average of | Individual ‘Average of “Average of 3 units units 3 units Hollow Load-Bearing 690 550 240 45 (ASTM C-50) Hollow Noaload-Bearing aia 345 = 5 (ASTM C-129) ‘The Japanese minimum compressive strength per gross cross-sectional area of CHB units are 4 MPa, 6 MPa and 8 MPa, for Grades A, B and C, respectively, as per JIS A5406 (AU Guidelines). The Grade A Masonry (4 MPs) is nearly close to Philippines hollow nonload-bearing (4.14 MPa) and the average strength of Grades B and C Masonry (7 MPa) is nearly close to Philippines hollow load-bearing (6.90 MPa). Also, the Aschitectural Institute of Japan (AUJ) provides minimum wall rate for one to three storey buildings for type of masonry structures, 2.3. Other Architectural & Structural Specifications For walls and partitions shown on the detailed drawings requiring concrete hollow blocks, the contractor either uses concrete, ceramic or hollow blocks upon approval of the Government Engineer or his duly authorized representative. All units shall be sound and free from cracks or other defects that would interfere with the proper placing of the unit or impair the strength or permanence of the construction. All units shall be laid with a mortar composed of one part portland cement and three parts of sand. Reinforcement shall be done in accordance with structural plans as to size, spacing and other requirements. Provide 150mm x 300mm stiffener column reinforced with 4-12mm® with 6mm ties at 150mm on ceater where concrete hollow block ‘terminates and ai every 3.0m length of concrete hollow block walls unless noted in structural plans. 3. BOD STANDARD SCHOOL BUILDINGS ‘The Bureau of Design, under the Department of Public Works ad Highways, is the government agency responsible in preparing the structural analysis and design of public buildings like school buildings. The three BOD Standard One-Storey School Building (Fig. 2 to Fig. 4) are selected since these are of confined masonry walls, Two-storey up to four-stocey are a combination of reinforced concrete wall and confined masonry wall. ‘The standard size of one classroom for I-clsrm and 2-clsrm schoo! building is 9.00m x 7.00m and 8.0m x 7,00m for 5-clsrm school building. (2) Front Bevation (20) Side Bevation Building A: BOD Standard School Building 1-Storey 1-Classroom 5 —Fig. 3. Building B: BOD Standard Schoo! Building 1-Storey 2-Classroom Fig. 4. Building C: BOD Standard Schoo! Building 1-Storey 5-Classroom Fig. Sa shows the typical current condition of masonry walls in the Philippines. The concrete hollow blocks are lid with breaking joint reiaforcement and not straight joint reinforcement as oftea used in Japan, By Staight joints, vertical reinforcing bars can be put through straight at the location of the joint. Staggered joint makes the work execution a little harder. Sometimes, itis very difficult to arrange the CHB because the reinforcing bars are already installed so there is a tendency to realign the reinforcement, The CHB walls are Provided with 10mm vertical bars at 0.60m o.c. and 10mm horizontal bars at every'3 layers of CHB. A minimum of 4-16mm¢ bar for main longitudinal bars of beam and 4-16mm® bar for main vertical bars of column are being used. The strength of jaint mortar is 13.8 MPa (minimum value as prescribed in National Structural Code of the Philippines, NSCP). At present, there are no guidelines for out-of-plane. In the 246 —Philippines, there are also handmade CHB materials. These blocks are not allowed to be used in public buildings. It is highly recommended to provide a beam in the middle height of the wall if handmade CHB are used especially in low cost housing projects. The details shown in Fig. Sb are also recommended. so Tepot Roof Beam Fig. 58. Anchorage and Lap Splices of Reinforcing Bare ane Fig. 5a. Current Condition of Masonry Walls ‘Anchorage of Horizortal Reinforcing Bars at Wall Edge 4. WALL RATE, Wall rate is defined as the total horizontal length (or cumulative length) of beariag walls (cm) in one direction divided by the floor arca (mx). When there are balconies located on the upper floor, the said floor area should include a half of the balcony area. In each of the longitudinal and transverse directions of each siorey of 4 building, the values of wall rate in cn/m* shall not be less than the values given in Table 2, as given by AU. ‘The wall volume and gocd balance of any building is a very important factor against earthquake and typhoon, ‘The wall rate of the three BOD standard one-storey school builditgs are calculated as shown in Table 3. ‘Table 2. Minimum Values of Wall Rate (2) ‘Minimum Wall Rate (cm/n) Type of Location of Walls ‘Structure ‘One-storey Building | 2”*-storey from ‘3 storey from ‘or uppermosi-storey | uppermost-storey | _uppermost-storey “Type A Masonry 15, a a "Type B Masonry 15 18 27 [ype C Masonr 15 18 21 In determining the requirements for minimum values of wall rate, the following conditions are taken into account: . 1, The buildings conceraed are residential or apartment type buildings which have well balanced wall arrangement. 2. The required wall rate is provided for each type and each storey of buildings. 3. The minimum requirements for wall rate are determined so that the average shear siress in bearing. walls does not exceed the allowable shear stress for masonry walls. 4, The design lateral forces considered are earthquake forces. Bullding A (1-clsrm) $00 transverse [1400 Bunding 6 (2-clsrm) longitudinal | 100. transverse | 2100 Buuding ¢ (S-clsem) Toagtuain 74800 [transverse | 600 UT411. Calculstion Procedure of Wall Rate 4.1.1. Allowable shear stresses ofthe bearing walls Allowable compressive stresses of the masonry wall are given by the following equation. (All stresses ‘of masonry are based on gross cross-sectional area of walls) fou = fg x (masonry coefficient) / FS w whe fou = allowable compressive stress of a masonry wall in kg/cm* f= compressive strengths of hollaw concrete block units given in Table 1 (minimum values) masonzy coefficient = strength reduction factor due to the presence of mortar joints 0.65 (conload-bearing) 0.60 (load-bearing) jesign factor of safety =3.0 for long-term loading ='15 for short-term loading such as an earthquake force plus gravity load Allowsble sheat stresses of the masonry wall are determined by foe = fev / 10, e owable shear stress of the masonry wall (average stress per unit cross-sectional area of wall) in kgfom? ‘The values of fay and fyy of the three BOD standard one-storey school buildings are listed in Table 4, Table 4. Compressive ‘Strengths of Block Units and Allowable Stresses of Bearing Walls ‘Compressive Streagths of Masonry Unit | Allowable Stress Allowable Stress per (for long-term loading) | (for short-term loading) Type Gross Cross- kg/em? kgjem? Sectional Area, fy Compression | Shear | Compression | Shear Nimm™ |" kgem™ fo fos fow fw nonload-bearing | 4146/4222 is] 092 1830) 1.83 average | (ASTM C-129) of 3 units | load-bearing 690 | 70:36 1407 | Lat 28.14 | 281 (ASTM C90) ‘nonload-bearing | 345] 35.18 Tez} 0.76 1524 | 152 individual | (ASTM C-129) load-bearing 350] 56.08 122] Liz Raa] 224 (ASTM C90) 4.1.2. Gravity loads for celoulaing design earthquake forces In determining the required wall rate, gravity loads 10 calculate the design exrthquake forces are determined and the calculated values for W, are shown in Table 6, 4.1.3. Lateral storey-shears due to the design earthquake forces Lateral storey-shears (see Table 6) are determined in accordance with the Building Standard Law (BSL) of Japan. According to the BSL, lateral storey-shear of i-th storey is given by 7 Q=GW% o where: Q, = lateral seismic shear of the i-th storey above the ground level in kg Wi = weight of the building above the i-th storey in kg = lateral seismic shear coefficient of the i-th storey and is given by ZRAC —u8—Z = seismic hazard zoning factor (Z =1.0 is adopted, for Zone A) spectral factor (Ry = 1.0 is adopted, for T G@]G a kg) (s) kg) Building A__| 36082] 100 [0.12 | 10 | 10 | 1.00, 020 | 020 | 721640 Building B__| 61855 | 1.00 | 0.12 | 1.0 -[ 10 | 1.00, 0.20 [020 | 12371.00 Building C__| 155762] 1.00 | 0.12 | 10 [| 10 | 1.00 | 0.20 | 020 | 3113640 4.1.4, Designed shear stresses in bearing walls due to the earthquake forces. Designed shear stresses in bearing walls are given by a » @ 14x (floor area in i-th storey) xt where: ‘to = seismic design shear stiess caried by bearing wall ofthe i-th storey in kg/em? (average shear stress per unit area) L, = wall rate of the ith-storey in cm/m” 1 = thickness of bearing walls of the i-th storey in om ‘a= concentration factor (c= 1.5 is adopted) ‘The values of tp are calculated and tabulated as shown in Table 7. Table 7. Calculation of Average Shear Stress in Bearing Walls Building | Direction | Gy L Flor | t | @ 7 No. (ke) (covm) | Area | (cm) (kg/cm*) Building A | longitudinal | 721640 | 14.29 | is | is [080 transverse, 22.22 0.52 Building B | longitudinal | 12371.00 |_ 14.29 6] is | 15 | 069 transverse 16.67 0.59 Building C | longitudinal |~31136.40 | 14.29 336| 15 | 15 [065 transverse 16.67 0.56 —u9—4.1.5. Required wall rate ‘Required wall rate can be caleulated from “tr & few (for short-term loading) © ‘The results obiained from the calculations show that the calculated value of tp in Table 7 are all less than the allowable sheat stress, fyy, shown in Table 4, 5. SURVEY DATA Japan has so many years of experience in reinforced concrete block construction beginning 1952. Also, it has many experiences in structural standards and specifications, and damaged experience. Different surveys ‘Fe conducted in this study. 5.1, Yamada-cho Survey Building X is located in Yamada-cho, Iwate Prefecture. It is a two-storey confined masonry building with roof deck. The said building was designed in 1967 and constructed in 1968. It hes a total floor area of 369.00 m?. ‘The building was damaged by Miyagiken-oki earthquake last May 26, 2003, The earthquake has a Magnitude of 7. At Yamada-cho, 77 kms from the epicenter, it has a seismic intensity of 5 low (IMA scale), with acceleration of 294.4 gal (N-S) and 214.8 gal (E-W). ‘AS per information gathered, this was the most ‘severe earthquake ever happened there. After the earthquake, tsunami occurred, Before the earthquake, there were some cracks already on walls. ‘The glass blocks and windows were damaged. Visible, cracks were observed on the. exterior and interior walls. There is no other damage in ntighboring buildings and no reported collapsed buildings. In southern part of Yamada-cho, most of the roof tiles fell down. Building plans were sill available for future reference. The said plans indicate the wall rate of the building in both direction. The wall rate is satisfied as per AlJ Standards. ‘The view of Building X and its firs floor plan are shown in Photo 1 and Fig, 6, respectively. From the ‘rack pattern shown in Fig. 7, shear crack and block slip joint occur. This shows a brittle failure and nota shear failure. Generally, the brary suffered only slight damage. Earthquake damaged buildings show shear cracks ‘and joint slip failure. Some photos of Building X are shown in Photo 2. Photo.1. View of Building x (7a) Rear Elevation (7b) Front Elevation Fig. 6 Floor Plan of Building X Fig. 7. Crack Patiem (Building X) —250—‘Photo 2. Building X(2a. horizontal crack on wale, b. 45° dlagonal crack on wall, 2. vertical crack on wall below the sleai casement window, 24. dagona: shear crack on wall, 28. separation of CHB to concrete jolt mortar) 5.2. Okinawa Survey ‘Okinawa is not so high in seismicity but very prone to typhoons. Like in the Philippines, many typhoons come every year. For this reason, the buildings are designed mostly for typhoon risks. CHB and reinforced concrete frame structures are very common for housing in Okinawa and roofs are made mostly of ccancrete slab, ‘Survey data of selected detached house in Okinawa are shown in Table 8. Bldg.1, Bldg. 2 and Bldg. 3 are still under construction. Bidg. 2 is mixed with reinforced concrete wall and CHB wall. Others are made of CHB. The CHB materials are of high quality (C type) and are arranged in straight joint. The workmanship is very good. Scaffoldings are really enough to support the concrete slab. Also, sufficient ventilations are provided in these three buildings. In the case of construction time, the duration is not too long, with a very high accuracy and of good quality. Specifications and construction methods are generally implemented as per plans and specifications. Also, the construction cost is cheaper as compared to frame type structures. Bldg. 4, located in Motobu Towa, had been constructed about 20 years ago and at preseat it has no cracts. No corrosion of rebars had been observed. The maintenance is good which is very important for the buildings after being constructed, Photos of the said selected detached houses are shown in Photo 3to Photo 6. Table 8, Survey Data of Housing in Okinawa a ‘under coraiuctien) al a [-x\—2c79] Inu construciech dt 2t sa) — — r L L (80) a) Photo 3. Building 1 (3a. vow of building 1, 39. scaffoldings to support concrete slab, small opening on beam for ‘entiation, 3c. vetical reinforcements as shown on CHB wall, 3d. ventlation below the fish foor Ine) 251 —So (ae) (40) Photo 4. Building 2 (4a. vew of bulding 2, 4b. CHB wall, 4c. slyofor on the ceiling for sunshine protection, 4d. placing of mortar to fil up the voids on the perimeter of window opening) ) (6) ) Photo §. Building 3 (Sa. wew of building 3, 5b. scaffoldings to support concrete slab, 5c. CHE wall ‘5d. ventilation below the finish floor line) @) (6) (60) Building 4 (6a. wew ofbuilding 4, 6b. side vewot building 4, 6c. rear Wew of building 4, 64. front vew of building 4) ‘5.3, Fall Size Structural Testing for Hollow Brick Confined Masonry Building Japan has many experience in member and full size structural testing data. ‘Table 9 shows past research ‘works about full size structural testing for hollow brick confined masonry buildings in Japan. CHB are of C type except for Nos. 2a & 2b, which are of B type. The table shows a maximum value of 0.90 N/mm? and a ‘minimum of 0.28 N/mm? shear stresses. ‘These values are mor: reliable than those of the member tests. The failure mode of the said tests is mostly of shear type. In the case of building No. 3 (Table 9), there was a construction ertor. Reinforcing bars have no hook and the development lengths are not enough. For building No. 1 (Table 9), all walls used are of masomry blocks. There is no concrete block at the end or comer. Shear stress, x, is computed by the following formula, t = Q/A (where Q = foad, A = wall area). These papers had been published in AU Annual Conference. (Que maximum strength ‘xo shear sess longitudinal dection - tanavers Gection —252—Fig. 8 shows the envelope curve. The distortion vs, shear stress of the full size tests is plotted. From this test, the shear failure can be observed not at early stage. Structural test through full size test shows no collapse under large deformations. Comparing to the member tests or component tests, the ful size tests show a real behavior of the wall. This also shows good elongation and ductility. From the envelope curve, KIMURA 1985 shows a very high strength. The behavior is good because the north frame and south frame of the building, have the same openings and has no short column. Because of high shear strength the crack is then degrading. Fig. 8 also shows that the strengths are stable. Another factor affecting the behavior of the wall isthe transverse effect of slab and wall, hear sb0s «na SE Fig. 8. Envelope Curve [4] i eno wm mo am 6. CYCLIC LOADING TEST Cyclic loading test, a kind of static test, is performed in BRI laboratory to improve the behavior of confined masonry walls by adding a beam in the middle height of the wall. Hydraulic jacks for axial load and orizontal load are part of the test equipment shown in Fig. 9, Transducers are also attached to measure the vertical and horizontal elongation. Three specimens were tested. The first and the second specimen are provided by a Seam in the middle height of the wall. The elevation of the test specimen is shown in Fig. 10. Table 10 shows the properties of test specimens. Fig. 9. Test Equipment Fig. 10. Test Specimen ‘Table 10. Properties of Test Specimens ‘Specimen ‘Common Parameter Beam ‘MBI ‘Size: LiSmm x 120mm ‘Column Dimension: 115mm x 115mm | Main Reinforcement: 2-D10 STP: D4 @ 100 ‘CMB2 | Column Reinforcement: 6-D10 ‘Size: 115mm x 120mm Hoops: D4 @ 50, D4 @ 100 Main Reinforcement: 4-D4 STP: D4 @ 100 ‘CMNB | Brick Size: 230mm x 115mm x 50mm [NONE ‘CMB1 and CMB2 differ only on the size and number of the main reinforcement, CMBI has 2-D10 ‘while CMB2 has 4-D4, The area of the mein reinforcing bars in CMB1 is twice as large as CMB2. The detail of their cross sectional area, photos of the three specimens, and the final crack pattern are shown in Fig. 11, —253—Photo 7, and Photo 8, respectively. The presence of the beam increases the shear strength of the wall. It also shows good ductility. In CMNB, shear failure occurs at carly stage. In this experiment, the crack is expected to cour on the bricks and not on the joint. Mf the cracks appear onthe joints, this means that the strenglh of joint ‘mortar is less than the strength of the bricks which is should not be. “The hysteresis curves of the three specimens are shown in Fig. 12. Photo 7. Specimen of Confined Masonry Wall Fig. 11, Cross-Section of Beam cMB1 cMB2 ‘CMNB Photo 8. Final Crack Pattem ‘The hysteresis curve for CMBI shows good ductility and can withstand even for a large deformations as compared to CMB2 and CMNB. The amount of the reinforcement in the beam also sows an effect on the shear strengih of the wall Fig. 128 —254—Fig. 12. Hysteresis Curves CONCLUSION Based on the information obtained from the results of surveys and investigations, including the structural testing data, damaged experience, ALJ Standards for Structural Design of Masonry Structures, some points of improvement are identified. Through this study, it has been found out that it is necessary to (1) include the wall volume of any building preferably om the first sheet of structural plans and must be in good balance, (2) use straight joints reinforcement in laying of concrete hollow blocks and install vertical bars, (3) provide reinforcement slong the perimster of door end window openings, (4) control the concrete mixture and the amount of water, (5) provide more detailed drawings, (6) propose the use of groove type hollow block for arranging the horizontal bers, and (7) strict compliance as per plans and specifications. If using the low strength red brick material, it is betier to install « beam in the middle height of the wall o increase the shear strength and ductility of the wall and also mitigate from out-of-plane bending. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS First of all, I would like to thank our dear Almighty who is always with me specially during the days I stayed in Japan for this training. Next to Him, I want to express my heartful thanks to my wife and to my relatives who have their full supports to me all the time. It is with great pleasure that I acknowledge the Japan International Cooperation Agency (JICA) for giving me the time to be trained in Japan and to work on this paper. Not only to JICA but also to our institute, International Institute of Seismology and Earthquake Engitecring (SEE), Building Research Institute (BRI). Several other persons have willingly provided data information and have assisted me in several ways that made my paper possible. Special thanks go to my adviser, Dr. Masahito Tamura and to my study's sugervisor, Dr. Tetsuro Goto, for their suggestions that made my paper more improved. Also, to all the staff of JICA, ISEE, TBIC, Yamada-cho, and Okinawa Prefecture Architectural Association, who made my stay in Japan very favorable. Finally, a million thanks to our dearest coordinators, Ms. Hiromi Omuka and Ms, Makiko Hagiwara, who are always there to suppor’ us. To all my dear friends whom we've been together for almost a year, I wish to express my deepest thanks to al of them forthe friendship we have. REFERENCES [1] Association of Structural Engineers of the Philippines, NSCP C101-01 National Structural Code of the Philippines 2001, Volume 1, Buildings, Towers and Other Vertical Structures [2] Architectaral Institute of Japan, ALI Standards for Structural Design of Masonry Structures, 1989 Edition [3) American Concrete Institute, ACI Manual of Concrete Practice Part 5 — 1998, Masonry, Precast Concrete, Special Processes [4] ALI Annual Conference 1981, 1982, 1985 [5] Building Research Institute, Independent Administrative Institution, Japan, Guideline for Damage Survey Methods of Earthquake Disaster Related with Buildings and Houses, March 2002 [6}Sven Sahlin, Structural Masonry, Copyright 1971, Prentice-Hall, Inc., Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey [7] Miha Tomazevic, Series on Innovation in Structures and Construction Volume 1, Earthquake-Resistant Design of Masonry Buildi 255 —