Engineering Structures 248 (2021) 113114

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Engineering Structures
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/engstruct

Nonlinear seismic evaluation of confined masonry structures using

equivalent truss model
Nikita Rankawat a, Svetlana Brzev a, *, Sudhir K. Jain a, Juan José Pérez Gavilán b
a
Indian Institute of Technology Gandhinagar, India
b
Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México, Mexico D.F., Mexico

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keyword: Modern Performance-Based Design (PBD) approach for seismic analysis of building structures is based on the
Confined masonry evaluation of nonlinear response to earthquake-induced demand and assessment of performance based on the
Shear-dominant failure mechanism lateral displacements/drifts. One of the key challenges associated with the application of PBD for seismic
Performance-based design
evaluation of confined masonry (CM) structures is the development of an adequate numerical model for simu­
Nonlinear static analysis
Seismic evaluation
lating nonlinear response at different seismic demands. In this paper, an Equivalent Truss Model (ETM) has been
Strut-and-tie model proposed for nonlinear analysis of CM structures. The model is based on a truss analogy concept, where a CM
Equivalent truss model wall is idealized as a truss consisting of pin-ended elements. A masonry panel is modelled as a compression
element (strut), while horizontal and vertical reinforced concrete (RC) confining elements are modelled either as
struts or tension elements (ties). ETM is essentially a macro-model that simulates nonlinear behaviour of a CM
wall through lumped nonlinearity of masonry struts, while RC confining elements show linear elastic behaviour.
The proposed model has been validated using the results of experimental studies on CM walls subjected to in-
plane reversed cyclic loading. The paper also presents a case study, in which ETM was applied for seismic
evaluation of an existing three-storey CM apartment building located in an area of moderate seismic hazard in
India using nonlinear static analysis. The damage states for PBD were established based on past research studies
on CM structures. A comparison of the results of conventional force-based design and PBD analyses showed that
ETM can be used in conjunction with the PBD approach to evaluate existing CM buildings and also optimize
design solutions for new buildings, which were developed using a conventional, force-based seismic design
approach.

1. Introduction
In confined masonry (CM) buildings masonry panels are enclosed by
horizontal and vertical reinforced concrete (RC) confining elements, as
illustrated in Fig. 1 [1]. Vertical RC confining elements (tie-columns) are
provided at the wall intersections and openings, while horizontal RC
confining elements (tie-beams) are provided at the floor and roof levels.
Masonry wall panels can be constructed using different masonry units, e.
g., solid bricks made of clay or fly ash lime gypsum (FALG), or multi-
perforated (hollow) clay blocks. Reinforcement is usually provided
only in the RC confining elements, but it is also possible to provide
horizontal reinforcement in the walls embedded in mortar bed joints of
masonry walls. CM buildings have a loadbearing wall load-resisting
system; hence RC confining elements are a special form of
reinforcement for masonry wall panels and they do not act like beams
and columns in an RC frame system. One of the key characteristics of CM
buildings is their specific construction sequence. Initially, a foundation
is constructed and longitudinal reinforcement in RC tie-columns is
anchored at the base and extended up to the first storey floor level.
Subsequently, masonry wall panels are constructed, and finally concrete
in RC tie-columns is poured at each floor level. Bond between the ma­
sonry wall panels and RC tie-columns is usually enhanced by toothing,
which is achieved by placing the masonry units in a zig-zag manner
along the wall’s vertical edges. RC tie-beams are cast on top of the walls
at each floor level and are usually integrated with RC floor slabs. It can
be observed from Fig. 1 that continuous RC lintel bands are provided
above doors and windows at each floor level. RC lintel bands are pre­
scribed by Indian standard IS 4326:2013 [2] as a seismic provision for

* Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: rankawat.nikita19@gmail.com (N. Rankawat), sbrzev@mail.ubc.ca (S. Brzev), director@iitgn.ac.in (S.K. Jain), JPerezGavilanE@iingen.unam.
mx (J.J. Pérez Gavilán).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2021.113114
Received 15 January 2021; Received in revised form 10 August 2021; Accepted 29 August 2021
Available online 7 October 2021
0141-0296/© 2021 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
N. Rankawat et al.
all masonry buildings located in moderate to high seismic zones of the
country. The same standard prescribes the provision of RC plinth bands,
and also sill bands in some cases.
The first field application of CM construction technology was re­
ported after the 1908 Messina, Italy earthquake, which caused signifi­
cant building damage and fatalities, but showed good performance of
CM buildings [1]. Over the last hundred years, CM technology has been
used for the construction of low- to mid-rise buildings around the globe,
particularly in regions characterized by high seismic hazard, including
Latin America (e.g., Chile, Peru, Mexico), south and east Europe (e.g.,
Romania, Serbia, Croatia, Slovenia, Greece), Middle East (Iran), south-
east Asia (Indonesia) and East Asia (China) [3]. CM buildings have
demonstrated good seismic performance in the past earthquakes,
including the 2010 Maule, Chile earthquake (M 8.8) [4], the 2007 Pisco,
Peru earthquake (M 8.0) [5], the 2005 Northern Sumatra, Indonesia
earthquake (M 8.7), and the 2003 Bam, Iran earthquake (M 6.6) [6].
Brzev et al. [7] reported that although CM was the most prevalent ma­
sonry construction technology in the region affected by the 2010 Maule,
Chile earthquake (M 8.8), only about 1% of these buildings experienced
damage in the earthquake.
A few initiatives to introduce CM construction technology are
currently in progress in India and other countries in which this tech­
nology had not been previously used. Application of CM construction
was proposed to enhance the seismic safety of masonry buildings in
India [8,9] after the 2001 Bhuj, Gujarat earthquake (M 7.7), which
resulted in close to 14,000 fatalities due to poor seismic performance of
unreinforced masonry (URM) buildings and inadequately engineered RC
frame buildings with masonry infills. Large-scale engineered CM con­
struction was implemented for the first time in India at the Indian
Institute of Technology Gandhinagar’s (IITGN’s) permanent campus in
Palaj village, Gujarat [10]. In the period from 2013 to 2020 more than
40 three- or four-storey CM residential buildings have been constructed
for students, faculty, and staff.
CM technology presents a viable alternative for low-rise URM con­
struction and mid-rise RC frames with masonry infills. Same materials
(masonry, concrete, and steel) are used for CM and RC building con­
struction, but less advanced construction skills and equipment are
required for CM construction. It is expected that CM technology is going
to be widely applied in India, once the CM design standard (which is
Fig. 1. Key components of a CM building [1].
2
Engineering Structures 248 (2021) 113114
currently at the final approval stage) is issued, and engineers and ar­
chitects are trained to apply this technology. Practical approaches for
numerical modelling and seismic analysis of CM buildings are required
to enable wider application of CM technology for construction of engi­
neered mid-rise buildings. This paper proposes Equivalent Truss Model
(ETM), a novel numerical macro-model for nonlinear static analysis of
CM structures, and presents its application for seismic evaluation of an
existing three-storey CM building in India.
2. Numerical modelling approaches for CM structures
A few numerical models for seismic analysis of CM structures are
currently available, as discussed by Marques et al. [11]. An appropriate
numerical model needs to be chosen depending on the type of analysis
(linear or nonlinear) and the purpose of analysis, e.g., design of a new
building or a seismic evaluation of an existing building. This section
presents a brief discussion on numerical macro-models which are used to
simulate global behaviour of individual CM walls. Application of micro-
models, such as Finite Element Model (FEM), is beyond the scope of this
study, but will be discussed in the context of past research studies.
Various numerical models discussed in this section are illustrated on an
example of a CM wall with openings (see Fig. 2).
Linear elastic seismic analysis, e.g., multi-modal analysis, has been
routinely used for practical design applications of masonry structures,
including CM structures. The main purpose of such analysis is to esti­
mate modal frequencies, internal forces, and displacements in the
structure. Required ductility level is considered by reducing seismic
forces obtained from the analysis. Mechanical properties of the mate­
rials, such as the modulus of elasticity, are used as input for this type of
analysis. Design of individual walls is performed based on the analysis
results and can account for the effect of mechanical properties of ma­
sonry, concrete, and steel, as well as the required ductility level through
specific detailing provisions. Equivalent Frame Model (EFM), also
known as Wide Column Model, the most widely used macro-modelling
approach for linear elastic analysis of CM structures, idealizes a multi-
storey wall and slab structure as an equivalent moment-resisting frame
(see Fig. 2 c)). A CM wall, modelled as an equivalent column, is con­
nected to horizontal frame elements (beams) through rigid connections.
Note that rigid beam segments simulate the effect of wall stiffness on the
N. Rankawat et al.
Fig. 2. Numerical models for a CM wall with openings: (a) actual wall; (b) Finite Element Model (FEM); (c) Equivalent Frame Model (EFM), and (d) Strut-and-Tie
Model (STM).
frame behaviour while beam-slab elements simulate the effect of floor
slabs and are modelled as wide beams. Slabs are usually modelled as
rigid diaphragms using kinematic constraints. This approach was used
for modelling URM buildings for seismic analysis purposes [12]. Taveras
[13] performed a comparative linear elastic analysis of CM walls using
both EFM and detailed FEMs with different levels of mesh refinement,
and validated these models using test data from a shaking-table exper­
imental study. SMiE [14] provided guidelines for the application of EFM
for seismic analysis of CM buildings. Limitations of the EFM approach
with regards to seismic analysis of CM walls with openings were studied
by Rangwani and Brzev [15]. It was observed that EFM is appropriate for
simulating global behaviour of CM walls, however it is unable to capture
interaction along the masonry-to-RC tie-column interface and stress
concentrations around the openings. The EFM approach has also been
used for nonlinear static analysis of CM structures [16,17,18].
Equivalent Strut Model (ESM) is a macro-modelling approach, which
was originally proposed in the 1960s to model masonry infills in RC
frames as equivalent struts [19], but a few researchers proposed its
application for modelling of CM structures. For example, Torrisi and
Crisafulli [20] proposed a unified masonry panel element with six di­
agonal struts for modelling both masonry-infilled RC frames and CM
walls. The model assumes that failure modes in CM walls are similar to
RC frames with infills. Borah et al. [21] proposed a V-D diagonal strut
model with a vertical strut located at the centre of a RC tie-beam which
accounts for its stiffness and the effect of gravity load on seismic
response of CM walls, while a diagonal strut is provided to resist lateral
load effects. The strut width was taken as one-third of its length.
In the context of this discussion, it also important to mention Strut-
and-Tie Model (STM), an integrated analysis and design approach, in
which a structure or a structural member subjected to applied static
loads is idealized as a truss-like system. Although a STM and ESM for a
specific structure may be visually similar, it should be noted that STM is
a limit analysis approach which is used to determine the ultimate lateral
load-resisting capacity of a structure with given dimensions, material
properties, amount and distribution of reinforcement. As a result, STM
approach cannot be used for nonlinear static analysis of CM structures.
Conceptual application of STM for seismic design of CM structures was
first proposed in 2007 by Brzev [22]. Brzev and Pérez Gavilán [23] and
Ghaisas et al. [24] investigated application of STM approach for seismic
design of CM walls with and without openings. SMiE [14] proposed STM
as a feasible approach for modelling CM walls with openings in Mexico
for seismic design purposes. An STM for a CM wall with openings is
shown in Fig. 2 d). It can be seen from the figure that strut members are
present only within the solid CM wall panels (without openings). Wall
portions with openings contain only horizontal and vertical truss
3
Engineering Structures 248 (2021) 113114
members (RC confining elements). Therefore, the presence of an open­
ing does not require a modification of diagonal strut properties, but it
requires a careful consideration of panels with openings while devel­
oping a numerical model for a building.
Micro-modelling approaches, e.g., FEM, have also been used for
nonlinear static and dynamic analyses of CM walls. A parametric study
using nonlinear FEMs was performed to study the effect of key design
parameters, e.g., wall aspect ratio, tie-column size and reinforcement,
and axial stress level on the seismic behaviour of CM walls [11]. FEMs
were used to study nonlinear seismic behaviour of CM walls constructed
using multi-perforated clay units and were able to simulate the effect of
the confining elements and different types of horizontal reinforcement
[25,26]. Characterization of mechanical material properties for these
models usually requires extensive and complex laboratory tests or in­
verse fitting of experimental results [27]. Due to significant computa­
tional demands associated with nonlinear analyses, these models are
generally not feasible for seismic analyses of complex structures.
3. Equivalent truss model
Equivalent Truss Model (ETM) proposed in this study is a truss-based
macro-modelling approach for nonlinear seismic analysis of CM build­
ings subjected to increasing monotonic or cyclic lateral loading [28,29].
The model can simulate seismic response of CM walls with openings,
which is a particular challenge in seismic design of CM buildings. This
section presents fundamental concepts of ETM and its features.
3.1. The concept
The Equivalent Truss Model (ETM) idealizes a CM wall system as a
truss structure. Masonry panels are idealized as diagonal compression
struts with equivalent properties based on transformed section area of a
CM wall, while RC confining elements are modelled either as pin-ended
struts or ties, depending on the loading direction. Fig. 3 shows a con­
ceptual ETM subjected to lateral loading. Initially, a CM wall is subjected
to gravity loading only, which causes axial pre-compression in masonry
panels and RC tie-columns since CM structure is a loadbearing wall
system. As a result, internal pre-compression force (Pg) develops in the
diagonal truss members (see Fig. 3 a)). Once the lateral force (V) is
applied, it causes a compressive force (Pv) in the loaded diagonal truss
member, and a tensile force (-Pv) in another diagonal member, as shown
in Fig. 3 b). Compressive force in the loaded diagonal member will
continue to increase due to further increase of lateral loading. At the
same time, the force in another diagonal truss member which is not
subjected to lateral loading (unloaded member) will reverse direction
N. Rankawat et al. Engineering Structures 248 (2021) 113114

Fig. 3. Equivalent Truss Model (ETM): (a) a CM wall subjected to uniform gravity loading causing only axial compression forces Pg in the truss; (b) a CM wall
subjected to gravity loading and low lateral force V, hence Pg > Pv, and (c) a CM wall subjected to uniform gravity loading and sufficiently high lateral force V, such
that Pg ≤ Pv.

Fig. 4. Equivalent Truss Model (ETM) for a CM wall: (a) actual CM wall; (b) 2-S Model, and (c) 1-S Model.

4
N. Rankawat et al.
from compression to tension and will ultimately cease to be effective
since masonry is unable to resist tension (see Fig. 3 c)).
3.2. Key features
A CM wall with length L and height h can be modelled either as a
two-strut (2-S) ETM or a single-strut (1-S) ETM, as shown in Fig. 4. When
a two-strut (2-S) ETM is used, a CM wall is modelled as a truss with two
diagonal members, as shown in Fig. 4 b). Both diagonal members resist
the lateral loading effects, but axial pre-compression induced by gravity
loading drops to zero in one of the members due to internal tensile force
induced by lateral loading (as discussed in the previous section).
A CM wall subjected to monotonic lateral loading in one direction
can also be modelled as a truss with a single diagonal member (strut)
subjected to compression, that is, 1-S ETM, see Fig. 4 c). It has been
assumed that cracking in a CM wall takes place along the compression
diagonal when lateral loading is less than the load required to induce
sufficient internal tension to counteract the effect of pre-compression
due to gravity loading. It should be noted that 1-S ETM can only be
used to simulate behaviour of CM walls under monotonic lateral
loading. Diagonal truss members (struts) should be able to simulate
shear and flexural stiffness properties of masonry panels.
Fig. 5 a) shows a CM wall which experienced lateral displacement Δ
due to lateral force V. The initial lateral stiffness of masonry wall panel,
KL, can be calculated from Equation (1) as follows (see Fig. 5 b)):
1
KL = ( ) (1)
h3
+ AvhGm
βEm Iw
where h is the wall height; Em and Gm are the moduli of elasticity and
rigidity for masonry, respectively; Iw is moment of inertia of the wall
based on the transformed section area; β accounts for the effect of
boundary conditions of the wall panel (fixed-free or fixed-fixed), and Av
Fig. 5. Characteristics of a 2-S ETM: (a) internal forces and displacements in a deformed wall model; (b) lateral stiffness (KL ), and (c) axial stiffness (Ka ).
5
Engineering Structures 248 (2021) 113114
is the wall shear area equal to 0.8 times the gross cross-sectional area of
CM wall. The wall is presented as an equivalent truss, where a diagonal
strut member experiences uniaxial displacement u. Since the strut sim­
ulates lateral stiffness KL of a masonry wall, it is required to determine
axial stiffness of a diagonal truss member, Ka, from Equation (2)
(assuming small displacements) (see Fig. 5 c)):
KL = Ka cos2 θ (2)
cosθ = L/lS
where θ is an angle between the strut centerline and the horizontal axis.
Next, Ka can be determined from Equation (3), as follows:
AS ×Em we × t × Em
Ka = = (3)
ls ls
where AS is cross-sectional area of a diagonal masonry member (strut)
characterized by equivalent width we , thickness t, and length ls .
The effective width of a diagonal strut member we which simulates
the behaviour of a wall with lateral stiffness KL can be determined from
Equation (4), which was derived based on equations (2) and (3), as
follows
l3s × KL
we = (4)
t × L2 × Em
It can be seen from Fig. 4 that the strut width in a 2-S ETM is equal to
we /2 because each diagonal member contributes one-half of the wall
stiffness, while in a 1-S ETM a single strut with the width we contributes
to the total wall stiffness. In both models, the strut thickness is taken
equal to the wall thickness, t.
Note that diagonal truss members are characterized by masonry
material properties (e.g., modulus of elasticity Em ), while horizontal and
vertical truss elements are modelled using geometric and material
properties of RC confining elements.
N. Rankawat et al.
Although a CM wall modelled by applying the ETM may look similar
to other macro-models, such as STM or ESM, there is a significant dif­
ference between these approaches. As discussed earlier, STM is a limit
analysis approach and enables the user to determine ultimate capacity of
the structure but cannot be used to obtain internal forces and dis­
placements at different seismic demand levels. Furthermore, ESM is
intended for design of RC frames with masonry infills which are char­
acterized by rigid beam-column connections, while the ETM assumes
pinned member connections (it is a truss model). Finally, the properties
of a diagonal truss element in an ETM depend on the properties of entire
CM wall (masonry plus RC confining elements).
3.3. Nonlinear analysis of CM walls using ETM
According to the proposed ETM, nonlinear behaviour of a CM wall is
simulated through compression-only uniaxial plastic hinges in diagonal
truss members. It has been assumed that horizontal and vertical truss
members (RC confining elements) demonstrate linear elastic behaviour
throughout the loading history. The latter assumption can be justified as
the tie-columns’ main contribution to the lateral stiffness of the CM
walls is due to their axial stiffness, which experiences only a minor decay
until the stage when inclined cracks extend into these tie-columns and
the wall experiences failure [30,31,32,33,34]. Because the wall’s lateral
stiffness and lateral strength are not significantly affected by flexural
and shear stiffness and strength of tie-columns, respectively, it is usually
not necessary to provide a complex nonlinear model for these elements.
Nonlinear axial behaviour of tie-columns may need to be simulated in
slender walls in which longitudinal reinforcement may yield in tension.
The assumption of linear elastic behaviour of tie-columns is a limitation
of the study, however slender walls have minor impact on the overall
behaviour of the structure.
Fig. 6 shows a CM wall subjected to lateral force V. The wall has been
modelled both as a 1-S and a 2-S ETM. A uniaxial plastic hinge HC in a 1-
S ETM is placed in the middle of the masonry strut, see Fig. 6 a). It is
assumed that the tensile capacity of the diagonal member is negligible.
In a 2-S ETM, HC and HT are axial hinges with identical properties which
are assigned to compression and tension struts respectively. Both HC and
HT are “compression-only” hinges and are intended to account for lateral
seismic loading with reversed direction. Note that the hinge HT will
cease to sustain axial loading when tensile stresses develop in the strut
due to increasing lateral loading (see Fig. 6 b)).
Nonlinear behaviour of a plastic hinge in an ETM is characterized by
a force-displacement curve (also known as backbone curve). Fig. 7
shows an idealized force-displacement curve for a CM wall subjected to
monotonic lateral loading (shear force V). Point 1 on the curve (Vm)
represents onset of cracking in a CM wall. If this were a URM wall, Point
1 would represent the maximum shear capacity of the wall. However,
due to the presence of RC tie-columns and tie-beams, a CM wall can
sustain increasing applied lateral loading in the post-cracking stage up to
Fig. 6. Nonlinear ETM: (a) 1-S Model, and (b) 2-S Model.
6
Engineering Structures 248 (2021) 113114
Point 2; note that the magnitude of increase in lateral resistance depends
on the wall aspect ratio [34]. The maximum in-plane shear resistance
provided by a CM wall (Vmax) is due to the shear resistance of masonry
∑
(Vm′ ) and RC tie-columns ( Vc), however most codes ignore the shear
resistance provided by the tie-columns [3]. Beyond Point 2, the wall
starts to lose its strength and ultimately fails (Point 3). It can be seen
from the figure that masonry panel in the post-cracking stage forms a
diagonal strut. It should be noted that Point 2 is usually not associated
with the failure of RC tie-columns. A strength increase from Point 1 to
Point 2 by approximately 30% relative to Vm may be expected in squat
walls (h/L < 1) [33]. At Point 3, the failure may occur due to masonry
crushing or sliding, depending on the extent of confinement provided by
ties in RC tie-columns. The rate of strength degradation in the post-peak
stage (from Point 2 to Point 3) depends on the wall properties, but
experimental studies have shown that in squat CM walls the strength
could decrease by 30–40% relative to the maximum shear resistance
Vmax before the failure takes place [35].
Several researchers have developed shear force versus drift backbone
curves for CM walls. It should be noted that the drift d in this case
represents a ratio of the relative lateral displacement of a wall panel (Δ)
and its storey height (h). Riahi et al. [36] performed a comprehensive
statistical analysis using a database of available experimental studies on
CM walls and identified key parameters that influence the characteris­
tics of backbone curve which characterizes seismic response of a CM
wall. Flores and Alcocer [37] proposed a backbone curve for CM walls
with shear-dominant seismic response based on the experimental studies
performed in Mexico before 1995 (Fig. 8 a)). A few recent studies have
also discussed backbone curves for CM walls [11,38].
The backbone curve proposed by Flores and Alcocer [37] has been
used for this study, but with a few modifications. The backbone curve
has been presented in a modified form as axial compression force versus
displacement relationship, because a plastic hinge in diagonal strut of an
ETM is formed due to uniaxial compression forces and displacements
(see Fig. 8 a)). Backbone curve for a uniaxial plastic hinge of an ETM
shown in Fig. 8 b) is defined by compression forces Pcr, Pmax, and Pult, and
the corresponding uniaxial strains ε in a diagonal strut. Note that these
forces are assumed to act in a diagonal strut under an angle θ with
regards to the horizontal axis (see Fig. 5). Pmax is the force corresponding
to the maximum shear capacity, taken as 1.25Pcr, while Pult is the force at
failure, taken as 0.8Pcr, as proposed by Gilmore et al. [17].
Note that Pcr is the force at the onset of cracking, which corresponds
to the cracking shear resistance of a masonry wall, Vcr, as follows
Vcr
Pcr = ×f (5)
cosθ
where Vcr is determined according to the Mexican masonry code NTC-M
(2017) [39], as follows:
Vcr = 0.5vm AT + 0.3P ≤ 1.5vm AT (6)
N. Rankawat et al. Engineering Structures 248 (2021) 113114

Fig. 7. Nonlinear behaviour of a CM wall subjected to monotonic lateral loading [3].

Fig. 8. Backbone curves: (a) shear force vs drift ratio (d) for a CM wall [36] and (b) the corresponding axial force versus axial strain (ε) relationship for a uniaxial
diagonal strut.

Note that vm denotes masonry shear strength, while AT is the gross

Table 1
cross-sectional area of the wall, including masonry and RC confining
Backbone curve parameters for a compression-only plastic hinge in an ETM.
elements, and force P is an axial compression force due to gravity load.
In the case study presented in Section 5, it was assumed that P represents Stage Compression force Axial strain
axial load corresponding to axial precompression of 10% of the masonry Onset of cracking Pcr = Vcr × f/cosθ Pcr
εcr =
compressive strength f’m , which is deemed appropriate for low-rise CM we × t × E m
Maximum strength Pmax = 1.25Pcr dmax
buildings. Factor f takes into account the effect of wall height/length (h εmax =
2
sin2θ
/L) aspect ratio and moment-shear interaction on shear resistance of CM dmax = 0.003
walls [34,40], and can take the following values: Ultimate/failure Pult = 0.8Pcr
εult =
dult
sin2θ
2
f = 1.55 h/L < 0.2 dult = 0.005

f = 1.69 − 0.69h/L 0.2 ≤ h/L ≤ 1.0

f =1 h/L > 1.0
Parameters that characterize the backbone curve, including
compression forces and strains, are summarized in Table 1. The strain εcr
corresponding to force Pcr was determined based on the linear elastic
stress-strain relationship. However, the strains εmax and εult corre­
sponding to Pmax and Pult respectively, have been assigned the fixed
values determined based on lateral drift ratios dmax and dult of 0.3% and
0.5%, based on the study by Flores and Alcocer [37].
3.4. Validation of the ETM through experimental data
(7)
The proposed ETM was validated using experimental data for 8 CM
wall specimens with shear-dominant behaviour from two different
experimental studies [33,34,41]. A comparison of the results from these
experimental studies and numerical simulations using the ETM was
presented by Rankawat et al. [28,29]. Specimen SCNT (h/L = 0.6) tested
by Singhal et al. [33,41] was initially subjected to in-plane cyclic
loading, which was followed by out-of-plane simulated seismic excita­
tion via shaking table. The specimen was a half-scaled model of a CM
wall with solid clay brick masonry panel and did not have a toothed

7
N. Rankawat et al. Engineering Structures 248 (2021) 113114

wall-to-tie-column interface (see Table 2 for details). The specimen was

modelled both as 1-S and 2-S ETMs and a nonlinear static analysis was
performed using appropriate parameters. The corresponding pushover
curves were compared with the force vs displacement envelopes ob­
tained from the experimental study. Analytical predictions showed a
higher shear capacity by about 17% both for 1-S and 2-S ETMs. The
difference between the experimental and analytical results can be
explained by the fact that the test specimen was initially subjected to
reversed cyclic loading and subsequently to out-of-plane base excitation
imposed by a shaking table, which could not be accurately accounted for
by the ETM. The drift ratio corresponding to the maximum shear ca­
pacity for 2-S ETM was 0.32%, which is close to the experimentally
obtained drift ratio (0.33%).
The proposed model was also validated using experimental data for a
full-size CM specimen ME4 (h/L = 0.96) subjected to reversed cyclic
loading which was tested by Gavilán et al. [34] (see Table 2). The
Fig. 9. A comparison of pushover curves for 1-S and 2-S ETM and experimental
specimen was constructed using multi-perforated clay blocks and there force vs drift ratio envelope for CM wall specimen ME4 [34].
was no toothed interface between the masonry wall and RC tie-columns.
The analysis showed that both 1-S and 2-S ETMs over-predicted the
expressed in % and are presented in Table 3. Note that the D/Dc ratio
cracking shear resistance by about 11.6% and under-predicted the
was determined to normalize drift ratio at a specific DS relative to drift
maximum shear capacity by about 10.8%, see Fig. 9. The model accu­
ratio Dc corresponding to the maximum shear capacity Vmax. These DSs
rately predicted the experimentally obtained drift ratio of 0.38% cor­
were used as a reference for proposing the parameters which define the
responding to the maximum shear capacity.
IO, LS, and CP performance levels in this study.
Damage patterns corresponding to different performance levels for a
4. Performance-based seismic assessment of CM buildings
typical CM wall are shown in Fig. 10 [44]. The characteristics of per­
formance levels are summarized in Table 3. It can be noticed from the
The objective of Performance-Based Design (PBD) approach, which
table that the IO performance level corresponds to DS2 and is charac­
may be used for seismic design of new structures and assessment of
terized by drift ratio D/Dc = 0.4, while the LS performance level is
existing structures, is to predict seismic performance of a structure at the
approximately at the DS4 and is characterized by the drift ratio D/Dc =
target displacement demand which depends on the predefined seismic
0.7. The CP performance level falls between the DS4 and DS5, but it is
hazard level. Seismic performance levels are defined by international
closer to DS5 and is characterized by D/Dc = 0.9. Note that DS5 corre­
seismic design codes, such as ASCE/SEI 41-17 [42] in the USA and
sponds to the stage when the wall reaches its maximum shear capacity.
Eurocode 8 [43] in Europe. For example, ASCE/SEI 41-17 defines
Fig. 11 presents a backbone curve for uniaxial hinge of an ETM
multiple post-earthquake performance levels, such as Immediate Occu­
(which was previously presented in Fig. 8) and the performance levels
pancy (IO), Life Safety (LS), and Collapse Prevention (CP), for a struc­
discussed in this section. Fig. 11 a) shows a basic ETM subjected to
tural element or entire structure. Structures performing at the IO level
lateral loading with a uniaxial compression hinge, while Fig. 11 b)
are expected to remain safe to occupy and retain their original strength
shows performance levels on a backbone curve, with normalized strains
and stiffness. Structures performing at the LS level are expected to
shown on the horizontal axis and axial compression forces on the ver­
experience structural damage but retain a margin of safety against
tical axis.
collapse. Structures performing at the CP level are expected to experi­
ence severe damage, however they should maintain ability to sustain
5. A case study application of the ETM for seismic evaluation of
gravity loads.
a CM building
One of the challenging aspects of the PBD approach is a need to
characterize damage states (DS) for specific structural systems. DSs are
5.1. Background
characterized by expected damage patterns for a structural component
at increasing seismic demand levels and the corresponding deformation
An application of the ETM for seismic evaluation of CM buildings will
parameters. These DSs can be established based on the evidence from
be illustrated through a case study of a typical housing block at the In­
experimental studies and/or performance of similar buildings in past
dian Institute of Technology Gandhinagar’s (IITGN’s) permanent
earthquakes. Some international codes, e.g., ASCE/SEI 41-17 [42],
campus located at Palaj, close to Gandhinagar, Gujarat, India. IITGN
outline characteristic damage states for masonry structural components,
campus features the first large-scale systematic application of CM in
but these provisions are based on masonry technologies practiced in the
India, including 12 four-storey hostel buildings and more than 30 three-
USA, e.g., URM and reinforced concrete block masonry, but do not
storey housing blocks. All students, faculty, and staff at the campus
address CM construction since it has not been practiced in that country.
reside in CM buildings. A view of the housing complex is presented in
Terán-Gilmore et al. [17] identified 7 DSs (DS1 to DS7) for CM walls
Fig. 12. The experience related to CM construction at the IITGN campus
based on the performance in past earthquakes and experimental evi­
was documented by Jain et al. [45].
dence. The proposed DSs are defined by a description of the extent of
The case study building was designed using conventional, force-
damage and the corresponding drift ratio (D) for the wall panel
based seismic design approach. Since the design of CM buildings was

Table 2
Details of test specimens.
Specimen Wall Tie-column

Dimensions L £ H £ t (mm) Axial Stress (MPa) Dimensions b £ d (mm) Reinforcement ratio ρv (%) f′ m (MPa)

SCNT [41] 2500 × 1500 × 65 0.1 65 × 65 2.6 8.80

ME4 [34] 2550 × 2500 × 120 0.5 120 × 150 2.8 5.83

8
N. Rankawat et al. Engineering Structures 248 (2021) 113114

Table 3 This section presents application of the PBD approach for seismic
Damage states (DSs) and performance levels for CM walls. evaluation of an existing CM building through a nonlinear static analysis
Damage Observed Damage Characteristics of Characteristics of using an ETM numerical model, and a comparison between PBD and
State [17] Damage States Performance Levels conventional force-based seismic design approach per IS 1893 standard.
(proposed)

D D/ V/ Performance D/ 5.2. Building description

(%) Dc Vmax Level Dc

DS1 Flexural hairline 0.04 0.13 0.5 CM building selected for the case study is three-storey high and
horizontal consists of three identical building blocks, framed in red colour on
cracking; hairline Fig. 13. These blocks are separated by expansion joints (seismic gaps)
vertical cracking
near the ends of
and act as separate structures for seismic design purposes.
RC tie-columns A typical building block has 19.2 m length and 14 m width, and a
typical floor height of 3.15 m. These blocks have regular elevation, but
First diagonal cracking due to diagonal tension in the IO 0.40
masonry wall
architectural plan was idealized for seismic analysis purposes by
DS2 First diagonal 0.13 0.41 0.85 removing minor offsets and balconies. A simplified version of the plan,
cracking due to as used for this case study, is shown in Fig. 14. Masonry walls were 230
diagonal tension mm thick and were constructed using locally manufactured fly ash lime
in the masonry
gypsum (FALG) bricks according to the IS 12894 requirements [49]. The
wall
DS3 Beginning of the 0.20 0.63 0.90 specified brick compressive strength was 9.0 MPa, and 1:1:6 cement:
inclined diagonal lime:sand mortar was specified, corresponding to grade M1 mortar with
cracking at the the minimum 3.0 MPa compressive strength according to IS 1905
ends of RC tie-
standard [47]. Mechanical properties of masonry materials were
columns
determined through testing performed at the beginning of the project
Fully formed “X-shape” cracks on the masonry wall LS 0.70 [10,50]. Indian masonry design standard IS 1905 [47] prescribes the
surface
basic allowable compression stress for masonry structures based on the
DS4 Fully formed “X- 0.23 0.72 0.98
shape” cracks on compressive strength of masonry units and mortar grade. IS 1905 allows
the masonry wall application of masonry units with the compressive strength in the range
surface from 3.5 MPa to 40 MPa, while the mortar compressive strength ranges
Concrete crushing; horizontal cracking spread over the RC CP 0.90 from 0.5 MPa (lowest grade L2) to 10.0 MPa (highest grade H1). The
tie-column height resulting masonry compressive strength (f′ m) values range from 2.96
DS5 Concrete 0.32 1.0 1.0 MPa (for 7.5 MPa masonry units and M2 mortar grade) to 12.2 MPa (for
crushing;
40 MPa masonry units and H1 mortar grade). The results of Indian
horizontal
cracking spread experimental studies have revealed very low compressive strength of
over the RC tie- masonry units (mostly bricks) in many parts of the country, and in many
column height cases the units did not meet the minimum compressive strength
DS6 Concentrated 0.42 1.31 0.99 requirement (3.5 MPa) set by IS 1905 [51,52]. Low strength of masonry
diagonal cracking
units in India can be attributed to limited availability of good quality
in the RC tie-
columns (ends); clay in some parts of India, and a low-tech manufacturing technology.
concrete spalling The site of the case study building is located in the area where clay bricks
in the RC tie- are characterized by low strength, which is inadequate for construction
columns
of multi-storey masonry buildings, hence higher strength FALG bricks
DS7 Progression of 0.50 1.6 0.80
diagonal cracking had to be used for the project. The reference masonry compressive
into the RC tie- strength (f′ m) of 3.6 MPa was obtained based on preliminary material
columns leading testing [50], while the masonry modulus of elasticity (Em) was deter­
to buckling of mined based on international masonry design standards and practices,
longitudinal
in the absence of pertinent IS 1905 provisions.
reinforcement
RC tie-columns (230 mm square section) were provided with 4-ϕ16
longitudinal reinforcement bars (corresponding to 1.5% reinforcement
not addressed by Indian standards at the time of construction, structural ratio) and ϕ8 ties at 100 mm center-to-center spacing. RC elements were
designers working on the project had to refer to international codes, e.g., constructed using M 25 Grade concrete (cube compressive strength of
Mexican code NTC-M [39] and EERI guidelines [3]. Design of RC ele­ 25 MPa) and Fe 500D Grade steel (500 MPa yield strength). Floor and
ments conformed to the IS 456 standard [46], while the design of ma­ roof structures were cast-in-situ 150 mm thick RC slabs. RC tie-beams
sonry walls for gravity loading was performed according to the IS 1905 were monolithically constructed with RC slabs (230 mm width and
standard [47]. Applicable Indian standards IS 1893 [48] and IS 4326 [2] 350 mm depth). RC tie-columns were provided at wall intersections and
were followed in seismic design and detailing of the building. Horizontal openings. Cross-sectional dimensions of RC confining elements in the
RC bands were provided at plinth, lintel, and floor/roof levels (as pre­ case study building are larger compared to other countries/regions, e.g.,
scribed by IS 4326), but RC confining elements were provided (in terms Indonesia and Latin America, where CM buildings have smaller wall
of layout and dimensions) according to the EERI guidelines [3]. These thickness (150 mm or less). At the present time, the most common
guidelines also recommended the minimum wall density (Wall Index) masonry units in India are 230 mm long solid bricks made of clay or
ratio based on the type of masonry units, site seismicity, soil conditions, FALG, hence the wall thickness in masonry buildings is at least 230 mm.
building height and average tributary mass at the floor level. In this case, Note that wall thickness in Indian masonry buildings is governed by
masonry units were solid bricks, the site was located in Zone III of India compressive strength of locally available masonry materials, and also
(moderate seismicity according to the EERI guidelines), and the soil was the required thermal comfort which often mandates the use of thicker
of compacted granular type. For these parameters, the guidelines rec­ walls in hot climate countries like India. The size of RC tie-columns, that
ommended the minimum wall density of 1% per floor, corresponding to is, 230 mm square, is governed by the wall thickness. In the absence of
3% wall density at the base level for the three-storey case study building. an official Indian design standard for CM buildings, mechanical

9
N. Rankawat et al. Engineering Structures 248 (2021) 113114

Fig. 10. Damage patterns for a CM wall at different performance levels: (a) Immediate Occupancy (IO); b) Life Safety (LS), and (c) Collapse Prevention (CP) (Cruz
et al. 2019) [44].

Fig. 11. Performance levels for an ETM model: (a) plastic hinge HC, and (b) backbone curve showing different performance levels.

properties and reinforcement provisions for RC confining elements were
determined in compliance with the Indian concrete design code IS 456
[46]. Material properties and dimensions for the key structural elements
are summarized in Table 4.
It should be acknowledged that the masonry and concrete
compressive strength used for the case study building may not be typical
for CM building applications in other countries. The concrete compres­
sive strength, that is, cube compressive strength fck of 25 MPa, was
chosen based on the minimum requirements of the Indian concrete
design code IS 456 [46], as discussed above. It is true that a lower
compressive strength could be used in general practice, but probably not
less than M 20 (fck = 20 MPa) for a building of this size. Masonry
compressive strength used for this project may be considered to be on
the high side for many regions of India according to the reported
experimental studies [51,52]. The effect of concrete compressive
strength in CM buildings is not expected to be significant, since RC
confining elements act in uniaxial tension and compression. It is ex­
pected that larger cross-sectional dimensions of RC confining elements,
particularly tie-columns, would have a more significant effect on the
behaviour of CM walls subjected to lateral loading than concrete
compressive strength. The effect of masonry compressive strength is
expected to significantly affect seismic behaviour of a CM structure. CM
is a loadbearing wall system and masonry has a significant role in
resisting both gravity and lateral loads. The required masonry

10
N. Rankawat et al.
Fig. 12. Housing blocks at the IITGN permanent campus [45].
compressive and shear strengths are determined by design. In this case,
it is expected that the wall thickness would remain unchanged (i.e.,
would not be reduced) even if masonry had higher compressive strength
due to gravity load resistance and thermal considerations. Note that an
official Indian standard for seismic design of CM buildings is not avail­
able, but a draft version is currently in the final stage [53]. The standard
prescribes the minimum compressive strength of 7.0 MPa for masonry
units in CM buildings, except for one- and two-storey buildings for
which the minimum strength of 3.5 MPa is acceptable. It is required to
use the highest mortar grades according to IS 1905 (M1, M2, H1, and
H2), with the compressive strength in the range from 2.0 to 10.0 MPa. It
should be also noted that the amount of longitudinal reinforcement in
RC tie-columns for the case study project was higher than required ac­
cording to the applicable Indian standards. For example, reinforcement
ratio corresponding to 4-ϕ16 longitudinal bars (1.5%) is higher than the
minimum requirement (0.8%) for RC columns prescribed by the Indian
concrete design code IS 456 [46], and for CM tie-columns by the draft
Fig. 13. Typical floor plan of the case study building (consisting of 3 blocks).
11
Engineering Structures 248 (2021) 113114
Indian CM design code [53]. It is likely that smaller amount of longi­
tudinal reinforcement, for example 4-ϕ12 bars, could be used for RC tie-
columns with the same size and still meet the minimum reinforcement
requirements.
5.3. Numerical model: Key features and assumptions
ETM can be used to simulate seismic response of buildings which are
idealized either as 2-D or 3-D models. The case study building was
analysed using 2-D numerical models, one for each principal horizontal
direction (X and Y). The authors decided to use a 2-D model since this
was the first application of ETM for seismic analysis of a real building,
and 2-D models facilitate understanding of the seismic force distribution
and progressive nonlinear response. Since the building has a regular
plan, torsional effects were disregarded in this study, but were consid­
ered in the original building design.
The case study building, like the majority of multi-storey CM
buildings, has RC floor slabs, and also an RC roof slab, which is typical
for hot climate and arid areas of India. It was assumed that RC floor and
roof slabs act like rigid diaphragms; this was deemed reasonable given a
relatively small wall thickness and close spacing of adjacent walls in
residential buildings. The assumption regarding the type of diaphragm
(rigid or flexible) significantly influences the distribution and magnitude
of internal seismic forces in CM walls. As a result of the rigid diaphragm
assumption, internal seismic forces at the floor levels are distributed to
individual CM walls in proportion to their respective stiffnesses. In
buildings with rigid diaphragms torsional effects may induce increased
internal forces in the CM walls. On the other hand, flexible diaphragms
(e.g., timber floors/roofs) are more common in low-rise CM buildings. In
these buildings the distribution of seismic forces at floor level depends
on the wall configuration and spacing, hence a 3-D ETM would be
required for seismic analysis purposes.
N. Rankawat et al. Engineering Structures 248 (2021) 113114

Fig. 14. Idealized floor plan of a building block considered in the analysis.

Refer to a floor plan of the case study building shown in Fig. 14 and also
Table 4
Fig. 15 a) which shows elevation of wall lines in X-direction. The cor­
Material properties and dimensions of structural elements.
responding ETM for seismic analysis in X-direction is formed by vertical
Material properties trusses corresponding to wall lines A-A, B-B, etc., which are aligned in
FALG masonry unit compressive strength 9 MPa sequence and connected via horizontal rigid links, as shown in Fig. 15
Mortar mix composition (cement: lime: sand) 1:1:6 b).
Mortar compressive strength 3.0 MPa
Size and location of openings significantly influence the seismic
Masonry compressive strength (f′ m) 3.6 MPa
Masonry modulus of elasticity (Em = 550f′ m) 1980 MPa response of CM walls and were considered in the numerical model of the
Concrete compressive strength (fck) 25 MPa case study building. CM wall panels with small openings, having an area
Concrete modulus of elasticity (Ec) 25,000 MPa less than 10% of the overall wall panel area, were modelled as solid CM
Steel yield strength (fy) 500 MPa walls, provided that the openings were located outside the diagonal strut
Steel modulus of elasticity (Es) 200,000 MPa
centrelines. On the other hand, CM wall panels with larger openings
Dimensions of structural elements were disregarded in the model, unless RC tie-columns were provided at
RC tie-column cross-section 230 mm × 230 mm
the jambs of the openings - such panels were considered as solid CM
RC tie-beam cross-section 230 mm × 350 mm
Wall thickness 230 mm
walls. This assumption is in line with the recommendations of EERI
RC floor/roof slab thickness 150 mm guidelines [3] which had been followed in the original design. The effect
of openings in ETM was considered in the same manner as in STM
approach discussed earlier in the paper.
For seismic analysis purposes, a building with continuous walls or The aspect ratio (h/L) for CM wall panels considered in the ETM
frames and rigid diaphragms can be represented by different 2-D nu­ ranges from 0.5 to 2.0. CM wall panels with an aspect ratio (h/L) > 2.0
merical models for each principal horizontal direction (X and Y) [54]. were not included in the model since the corresponding diagonal struts
Parallel vertical elements of the structural system (wall lines in case of would not be effective in resisting shear, as discussed by other re­
CM buildings) are aligned in sequence and connected by means of searchers in the context of STM [23,24]. On the other hand, squat CM
horizontal pin-ended rigid links at floor levels. These links transfer shear walls were considered in ETM, provided that the aspect ratio (h/L) is not
forces to vertical trusses (ETM) in proportion to their relative stiffnesses. less than 0.5. CM walls with two or more solid wall panels and

12
N. Rankawat et al.
Fig. 15. A 2-D ETM for seismic analysis in X-direction: (a) actual wall elevation, and (b) 2-S ETM.
intermediate RC tie-columns were modelled as a single panel in the
ETM, provided that the aspeci ratio for the overall wall is greater than
0.5. This assumption reflects the findings of experimental [34] and nu­
merical studies [24]. Note that geometric properties of diagonal truss
members for an ETM are determined based on the entire wall section
and can take into account additional stiffness provided by intermediate
RC tie-columns.
5.4. Seismic design and evaluation
5.4.1. Force-based seismic design and evaluation according to IS 1893
The case study building was originally designed for seismic Zone III
of India and Type II soil according to IS 1893 [48]. The authors had
initially evaluated the building for seismic demand corresponding to
Zone III, but the results showed that the seismic response was in linear
elastic range, and thus not useful for verification of a nonlinear model
such as ETM. Linear elastic seismic response can be attributed to the
absence of Indian standards and guidelines for seismic design of CM
buildings at the time of original design. The building was subsequently
re-evaluated for seismic demand corresponding to the highest seismic
zone of India (Zone V), and the results are presented in this section. The
design base shear (VB) was determined from equation (8) as follows
VB =
Z I Sa
× × × W = Ah × W (8)
2 R g
where Z is zone factor which represents the influence of seismic zone,
taken as 0.36 for seismic Zone V of India (as per Table 2, IS 1893), while
the corresponding value is 0.16 for seismic Zone III. Note that I is the
importance factor of structure, which depends on the building’s function
and is equal to 1.0 for residential buildings, R is the response reduction
factor (equal to 3 for CM structures), W is seismic weight, and Ah is the
total seismic coefficient. The fundamental period of vibration T for wall
structures was determined from equation (9) as follows
0.09 × H
T= √̅̅̅ (9)
B
where H is the overall building height (in meters) and B is horizontal
dimension of building (length or width) at the plinth level in the di­
rection under consideration (in meters). The fundamental periods were
0.24 sec (Tx ) and 0.19 sec (Ty ) for X- and Y-directions, respectively.
Note that Sa/g is response acceleration coefficient denoting the
maximum design acceleration spectrum for a specific structure
depending on the fundamental period and soil type, while spectral
13
Engineering Structures 248 (2021) 113114
acceleration for specific hazard level (expressed as a fraction of g) is
equal to the product of Sa/g and the zone factor Z. IS 1893 prescribes the
following Sa/g values for Type II soil (medium-stiff soil sites):
⎡ ⎤
2.5 0 sec ≤ T ≤ 0.55 sec
Sa ⎣
= 1.36/T 0.55 sec ≤ T ≤ 4.00 sec ⎦ (10)
g
0.34 T > 4.00 sec
Since the fundamental period for this building falls in the range from
0.10 to 0.55 sec, it follows that Sa/g = 2.5. The total seismic weight (W)
of the building is 8,115 kN, and the design base shear for each direction
( )
is 1,217 kN VBx = VBy corresponding to seismic coefficient (Ah) of
0.15, that is, VB/W = 0.15, see equation (8). However, since the design
was performed using the Ultimate Limit States design approach, a load
factor of 1.5 was applied to earthquake loading, hence the building was
designed for the seismic base shear of 0.23 W (corresponding to Ah =
0.23) for force-based seismic design approach. It should be noted that
the corresponding base shear value for seismic Zone III would be
significantly less, that is, 0.10 W (corresponding to Ah = 0.10).
5.4.2. Seismic evaluation according to the Performance Based Design
approach
Nonlinear static analysis (NSA), also known as pushover analysis, was
performed in the context of PBD-based evaluation in this study. NSA is
an incremental static analysis procedure where a structure is subjected
to increasing lateral displacements. The analysis continues until either
predetermined target lateral displacement has been attained, or failure
of the structure takes place. In this case, NSA was performed using a
commercial software package SAP2000 [55]. Initially, gravity load was
applied to the model, followed by a generic lateral load pattern with
parabolic load distribution, which is prescribed by IS 1893 [48] for
equivalent static seismic analysis purposes. Shape of lateral load pattern
used in a NSA influences nonlinear behaviour of a structure and the
resulting strength/displacement magnitudes. International codes and
guidelines recommend different lateral load patterns for NSA. For
example, ASCE/SEI 41-17 [42] prescribes a load pattern which is pro­
portional to the vibration mode shape corresponding to the fundamental
period, but it does not account for the contribution of higher vibration
modes. FEMA 440 [56] discusses different lateral load patterns,
including inverse triangular and uniform, while FEMA 368 [57] rec­
ommends a triangular load pattern for structures with fundamental
periods less than 0.5 sec; this corresponds to low- and mid-rise CM
buildings. The authors considered various lateral load pattern recom­
mendations, and have ultimately decided to use a parabolic load pattern
prescribed by the IS 1893 code for force-based seismic design purposes.
N. Rankawat et al.
One of the key analysis outputs is a force-displacement curve, also
known as capacity curve, which presents shear capacity of the structure
versus lateral displacement or drift ratio at a reference point, e.g., roof
level, at different stages of the analysis. In this study, NSA was per­
formed both in X- and Y-direction of the building. The target displace­
ment that represents the maximum lateral displacement which a
structure is expected to experience during the design earthquake, was
determined according to the Coefficient Method of the ASCE/SEI 41-17
[42]. The target displacement for each direction (X and Y) was deter­
mined from equation (11) as follows
Te2
ΔT = Co C1 C2 C3 Sd g (11)
4π2
where Sd is pseudo–acceleration corresponding to the effective period of
vibration Te for specific direction (X or Y). In this analysis the Sd value
was taken as 0.9 g for a severe earthquake corresponding to seismic Zone
V of India as per IS 1893; Co is the modification factor to relate spectral
displacement to the expected building roof displacement; C1 is the
modification factor to relate expected maximum inelastic displacement
to displacement calculated for the linear elastic response; C2 is modifi­
cation factor to represent the effect of hysteresis shape on the maximum
displacement response; and C3 is the modification factor to represent
increased displacement due to dynamic P-Δ effects. Note that the values
for Co, C1, and C2 were determined from ASCE/SEI 41-17 [42] as 1.2,
1.0, and 1.5 respectively, while factor C3 was assigned a unit value
because CM structures are rigid and do not show a significant P-Δ
behaviour.
5.4.3. Code-prescribed interstorey drift requirements
Although seismic design according to the IS 1893 [48] is force-based,
the allowable serviceability-level (elastic) interstorey drift ratio of 0.4%
was prescribed by the code for deflection control in all buildings
designed for seismic effects, irrespective of their structural system. The
Mexican masonry code NTC-M [39] prescribes 0.5% interstorey drift
limit for CM buildings without horizontal reinforcement, however note
that the prescribed value applies to total drift (elastic and inelastic
portion). It should be noted that NTC-M prescribes different drift limits
for masonry buildings, depending on the type of masonry unit and
presence of horizontal reinforcement.
5.5. Results and discussion
Fig. 16 shows the capacity curves for X- and Y-directions respec­
tively, which present normalised shear capacity (V/W) versus the total
drift ratio (D), which is equal to the ratio of maximum lateral
displacement at the roof level and the overall building height. The
Fig. 16. Capacity curves obtained from the NSA for the case study building: (a) X-direction and (b) Y-direction.
14
Engineering Structures 248 (2021) 113114
capacity curves show that at the strength demand of 0.23 W, the
building did not yet reach the IO performance level, that is, the building
demonstrated linear elastic behaviour with a significant strength margin
with regard to the LS performance level.
For PBD-based seismic evaluation, performance of 2-D ETMs was
evaluated at the target drift ratios of 0.24% and 0.16%, corresponding to
the effective fundamental periods of 0.24sec (Tx ) and 0.19sec (Ty ) for X-
and Y-direction, respectively.
Fig. 17 a) shows performance of 2-D ETM for X-direction at the IO
level. It can be seen from the backbone curve for critical walls that
uniaxial hinges in these walls (at the ground floor level) have reached
the IO performance level, as discussed in Section 4. Since the hinges in
two critical walls have reached the IO performance it can be considered
that the entire structure has reached the IO performance level, although
plastic hinges in other walls still remained within the elastic range. The
IO performance level for this structure is also shown in Fig. 16 a) (green
circle), corresponding to the 0.19% drift ratio. With a further load in­
crease plastic hinges in other walls reached the IO performance level,
while at the same time plastic hinges in the critical walls reached the LS
performance level, as shown in Fig. 17 b) and 16 a) (blue circle). Sub­
sequently, the structure reached the CP performance when plastic hinges
in the critical walls reached the CP point on the backbone curve, as
shown in Fig. 17 c) and 16 a) (red circle).
The capacity curve for X-direction (Fig. 16 a)) shows that the target
drift ratio (0.24%) exceeds the drift ratio at the IO performance level
(0.19%), but the structure has not yet reached the LS performance level
(0.26%). Similarly, the capacity curve for Y-direction in Fig. 16 b) shows
that the target drift (0.16%) also falls between the IO and LS perfor­
mance levels. It can be concluded that, under the given assumptions, the
PBD-based evaluation of the case study building confirmed that the
building meets the LS performance requirement, which is an implicit
requirement of the Indian seismic design standard IS 1893.
It can be seen from the capacity curves shown in Fig. 16 that the
shear capacity at the IO performance level was 0.31 W and 0.27 W for X-
and Y-direction respectively, which is higher than the ultimate seismic
design shear force (0.23 W) calculated from IS 1893 [48]. Therefore,
based on the PBD-based evaluation it appears that the structure is ex­
pected to show linear elastic response when subjected to the design
earthquake according to IS 1893. At the same time, the capacity curves
show that the structure experienced nonlinear deformations before the
CP performance level was reached at the 0.32% and 0.30% drifts for X-
and Y-directions, respectively. It should be noted that these drift levels
are relatively low, characteristic of rigid masonry structures. A com­
parison of capacity curves obtained from the PBD evaluation with the
force-based design demands set by the IS 1893 indicates that the force-
based design approach underestimates the lateral load-resisting capacity
N. Rankawat et al. Engineering Structures 248 (2021) 113114

Fig. 17. Deformed shape of the model in X-direction showing plastic hinges and backbone curves for critical walls at different performance levels: (a) Immediate
Occupancy (IO) at 0.19% total drift; (b) Life Safety (LS) at 0.26% total drift and (c) Collapse Prevention (CP) at 0.32% total drift.

of the building as compared to the PBD approach.

Fig. 18 shows lateral displacement profiles for ETMs in both di­ Table 5
Total drift ratios (D) and normalized shear forces (V/W) at different performance
rections (X and Y) at all considered performance levels (IO, LS, and CP).
levels.
It can be seen from the displacement profiles that the displacements
levels are rather low, since the maximum roof displacements at the LS Performance level Dx (%) Dy (%) V x /W V y /W

performance level are 25 mm and 23 mm for X- and Y-direction IO 0.19 0.15 0.31 0.27
respectively. It can be also seen that for X-direction target displacement LS 0.26 0.24 0.36 0.31
is slightly less than the LS performance level, but for the Y-direction it is CP 0.32 0.30 0.40 0.34
Target drift 0.24 0.16
almost equal to the drift at the IO performance level. Values of the total – –

drift ratios (D) and normalized seismic shear forces (V/W) at different
performance levels (IO, LS, and CP) are summarized in Table 5.
Previous discussion was focused on structural response at predefined
performance levels (IO, LS, and CP). It can be seen from lateral
displacement profiles shown in Fig. 18 that interstorey drifts show the
same trend for all performance levels. These interstorey drift ratios tend
to be higher at the bottom two floors (0–1 and 1–2) compared to the top
floor (2–3), as shown in Fig. 19 a). Based on the assumptions taken in
this study, all three performance levels correspond to pre-peak stage on
the capacity curve shown in Fig. 16 a), that is, before the maximum
shear capacity of the structure Vmax has been attained. Note that all

Fig. 18. Displacement profiles along with the building height at different performance levels: (a) X-direction and (b) Y-direction.

15
N. Rankawat et al. Engineering Structures 248 (2021) 113114

Fig. 19. Interstorey drifts for a critical wall in X-direction: (a) at different performance levels and (b) at different stages of behaviour.

interstorey drifts were below the 0.4% limit prescribed by IS 1893 [48].
Table 6
Given that a CM structure could be exposed to higher earthquake in­
Total drift ratios (D) and normalized shear forces (V/W) at different stages of
tensities, it is of interest to examine whether ETM is able to simulate
behaviour.
expected behaviour of a CM structure close to the failure (beyond the CP
performance level). Therefore, performance in X-direction was studied Stage Dx (%) Dy (%) V x /W V y /W

at the following three stages: a) Vcr - onset of cracking, b) Vmax - Onset of cracking 0.11 0.13 0.25 0.24
maximum shear capacity, and c) Vult - ultimate post-peak capacity (80% Maximum strength 0.35 0.33 0.40 0.34
of Vcr), see capacity curve on Fig. 20 a). Values of the relevant inter­ Ultimate/failure 0.48 0.45 0.32 0.27
storey drift ratios are shown in Fig. 19 b), while a displacement profile is
presented in Fig. 20 b). Values of the total drift ratios (D) and normalized drift at the ground floor level at Vult is close to 1.0%, while interstorey
seismic shear forces (V/W) at different stages are summarized in Table 6. drifts at upper floor levels are less than 0.4%. This behaviour is similar to
It can be seen from the displacement profile at the ultimate stage a soft storey collapse mechanism, which is characterized by a signifi­
(Vult) shown in Fig. 20 b) that interstorey drift at the ground floor level cantly higher drift demand at a single floor level in the building (usually
(0–1) is significantly higher than the corresponding drifts at upper sto­ ground floor). In CM structures this failure mechanism may take place
reys. This is also apparent from Fig. 19 b), which shows that interstorey after the shear capacity of the structure has been reached, as reported in

Fig. 20. Performance of ETM for X-direction at different stages of behaviour (cracking, maximum capacity, and ultimate/failure): (a) capacity curve and (b)
displacement profile.

16
N. Rankawat et al.
past experimental studies [58]. Interstorey drift limits prescribed by
NTC-M [39] were studied in the context of NSA analysis of multi-storey
CM buildings (6- to 10-storey high) in Mexico by Cazarín and Terán-
Gilmore [59]. The study showed that the maximum interstorey drift
develops at the ground floor level after the maximum shear capacity has
been attained at that level. These results indicate a need for revising
interstorey drift limits prescribed by current building codes. In other
structural systems, e.g., RC frames with masonry infills, this mechanism
usually develops when infill walls contribute more than 30% of the
lateral strength of the structure [60], or due to vertical irregularity (e.g.,
in buildings with open ground floor).
6. Conclusions
Confined masonry (CM) is a promising construction technology for
low- and mid-rise buildings in earthquake-prone areas. However, wider
application of this technology for the construction of engineered
buildings requires appropriate design codes and simple, yet reliable
numerical models for seismic analysis and design of these buildings. The
Equivalent Truss Model (ETM) proposed in this paper can be used for
nonlinear static analysis of CM structures with shear-dominant behav­
iour, which is most common in CM field applications. The ETM idealizes
a CM wall panel as a truss structure, where RC confining elements are
modelled as horizontal and vertical truss elements while masonry panels
are modelled as diagonal struts. The proposed numerical model was
verified through the results of experimental studies and was used to
evaluate a typical low-rise CM building in India by comparing the results
of force-based design according to the Indian seismic design standard IS
1893 and PBD-based NSA approach.
The study presented herein has a few limitations. One of the as­
sumptions of the proposed ETM is that CM confining elements demon­
strate a linear elastic behaviour, which may not be entirely in line with
the findings of other research studies and may be considered as a limi­
tation of the present study. However, since the lateral stiffness and ca­
pacity of CM walls are not significantly affected by flexural and shear
stiffness and strength of tie-columns, the authors believe that it may not
be necessary to provide a complex nonlinear model for these elements.
Furthermore, since the case study building was idealized as a 2-D model
torsional effects were neglected in the analysis, although the results
would be certainly affected had the torsional effects been considered.
The authors decided to use a 2-D model to demonstrate that a novel
numerical model could be applied to evaluate an actual building, which
was accomplished in the study. In future studies the proposed ETM
approach will be applied in context of 3-D building models in which
torsional effects will be considered.
The following conclusions have been drawn based on this study:
(1) Despite the level of simplification in the proposed numerical
model, a reasonable agreement with the experimental results has
been observed for the key parameters, namely the cracking
strength, the maximum shear capacity, and the corresponding
drift ratios.
(2) The PBD-based evaluation showed that the building demon­
strated a linear elastic behaviour for seismic demand corre­
sponding to the highest seismic zone (V) based on the Indian
seismic design code IS 1893 [48]. The capacity curve has shown
that the structure has a significant margin in the lateral load-
resisting capacity beyond the IS 1893 code requirements; this
can be attributed to the absence of seismic design codes for CM
structures in India at the time of the original design.
(3) The PBD-based evaluation using ETM and nonlinear static anal­
ysis showed that the target drift calculated for the seismic de­
mand (accelerations) corresponding to the seismic zone V of India
is at the Life Safety (LS) performance level, which is in line with
the design philosophy of IS 1893 which sets LS as the basic
seismic performance objective for buildings.
17
Engineering Structures 248 (2021) 113114
(4) The PBD-based evaluation has also shown that the IS 1893-pre­
scribed interstorey drift limit has not been exceeded at any per­
formance level.
(5) The proposed ETM can simulate the behaviour of a CM building
in the post-peak stage, that is, beyond the maximum shear ca­
pacity. The results show that significant interstorey drifts may
develop at the ground floor level, similar to a soft storey collapse
mechanism.
(6) Some international seismic design codes and standards contain
PBD-based seismic design provisions, but do not address damage
states and performance levels characteristic of CM structures.
This study can be considered as a contribution towards the
development of a numerical macro-model which is suitable for
PBD-based seismic design and evaluation of CM structures.
CRediT authorship contribution statement
Nikita Rankawat: Conceptualization, Methodology, Validation,
Formal analysis, Investigation, Writing – original draft. Svetlana Brzev:
Visualization, Methodology, Supervision, Writing – review & editing.
Sudhir K. Jain: Conceptualization, Supervision, Writing – review &
editing. Juan José Pérez Gavilán: Resources, Writing – review &
editing.
Declaration of Competing Interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial
interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence
the work reported in this paper.
Acknowledgements
The first author is grateful for the financial assistance provided by
the Ministry of Human Resource Development, Government of India
during her M. Tech studies at IIT Gandhinagar, India. The authors would
like to acknowledge Dr. Vaibhav Singhal from IIT Patna for sharing the
experimental data from his Ph.D. research study.
References
[1] Brzev S, Mitra K. Earthquake-resistant confined masonry construction. 3rd ed.
NICEE, National Information Center of Earthquake Engineering, Indian Institute of
Technology Kanpur; 2018.
[2] Bureau of Indian Standards (BIS). Indian Standard Code of Practice for Earthquake
Resistant Design and Construction of Buildings (IS 4326); 2013.
[3] Meli R, Brzev S, Astroza M, Boen T, Crisafulli F, Dai J, et al. Seismic Design Guide
for Low-Rise Confined Masonry Buildings. California: Earthquake Engineering
Research Institute Oakland; 2011. p. 94612–101934.
[4] Astroza M, Moroni O, Brzev S, Tanner J. Seismic Performance of Engineered
Masonry Buildings in the 2010 Maule Earthquake, Special Issue on the 2010 Chile
Earthquake, Earthquake Spectra 2012; 28 (S1): S385-S406.
[5] Earthquake Engineering Research Institute (EERI). The Pisco, Peru Earthquake of
August 15, 2007. EERI Special Earthquake Report. Newsletter; October 2007.
[6] Pourazin K, Eshghi S. In-plane Behavior of a Confined Masonry Wall. Masonry Soc
J 2009;27(1):21–34.
[7] Brzev S, Astroza M, Moroni O. Performance of confined masonry buildings in the
February 27, 2010 Chile earthquake. Oakland, California: Earthquake Engineering
Research Institute; 2010.
[8] Jain SK. The Indian Earthquake Problem. Curr Sci 2005;89(9):1464–6.
[9] Jain SK. Earthquake Safety in India: Achievements, Challenges, and Opportunities.
Bull Earthquake Eng 2016;14(1):1337–436.
[10] Jain SK, Basu D, Ghosh I, Rai DC, Brzev S, Bhargava LK. Application of Confined
Masonry in a Major Project in India. Proceedings of the 10th U.S. National
Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Anchorage, Alaska. 2014.
[11] Marques R, Pereira JM, Lourenço PB. Lateral in-plane seismic response of confined
masonry walls: from numerical to backbone models. Eng Struct 2020;111098.
[12] Kappos AJ, Penelis GG, Drakopoulos CG. Evaluation of Simplified Models for
Lateral Load Analysis of Unreinforced Masonry Buildings. J Struct Eng 2002;128
(7):890–7.
[13] Taveras MA. Revisión de las recomendaciones para modelar y analizar estructuras
de mampostería confinada ante carga lateral, Master’s thesis, Graduate of
Engineering, UNAM, Mexico; 2008 [in Spanish].
[14] SMiE. Analysis of Masonry Structures, Sociedad Mexicana de Ingenería Estructural,
Mexico; 2015 [in Spanish].
N. Rankawat et al.
[15] Rangwani K, Brzev S. Seismic Analysis of Confined Masonry Shear Walls Using the
Wide Column Model. Appl Mech Mater 2016;857:212–8.
[16] Terán-Gilmore A, Zuñiga-Cuevas O, Ruiz-Garcia J. Model for Nonlinear Analysis of
Confined Masonry Buildings. Proceedings of 14th World Conference on Earthquake
Engineering, Beijing, China; 2008.
[17] Terán-Gilmore A, Zuñiga-Cuevas O, Ruiz-Garcia J. Displacement-Based Seismic
Assessment of Low-Height Confined Masonry Buildings. Earthquake Spectra 2009;
25(2):439–64.
[18] Terán-Gilmore A, Zuñiga-Cuevas O, Ruiz-Garcia J. Use of Nonlinear Static Analysis
for the Displacement-Based Assessment of Confined Masonry Buildings,
Proceedings of the 9th US National and 10th Canadian Conference on Earthquake
Engineering, Toronto, ON, Canada; 2010.
[19] Gentile R, Pampanin S, Raffaele D, Uva G. Non-linear analysis of RC masonry-
infilled frames using the SLaMA method: part 1—mechanical interpretation of the
infill/frame interaction and formulation of the procedure. Bull Earthquake Eng
2019 Jun;17(6):3283–304.
[20] Torrisi GS, Crisafulli FJ, Pavese A. An Innovative Model for the In-plane Nonlinear
Analysis of Confined Masonry and Infilled Frame Structures. Proceedings of the
15th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Lisbon, Portugal; 2012.
[21] Borah B, Kaushik HB, Singhal V. Development of a Novel VD Strut Model for
Seismic Analysis of Confined Masonry Buildings. J Struct Eng 2021;147(3):
04021001.
[22] Brzev S. Earthquake-Resistant Confined Masonry Construction. 1st ed. India:
National Information Center of Earthquake Engineering, Indian Institute of
Technology Kanpur; 2007.
[23] Brzev S, Pérez Gavilán JJ. Application of Strut-and-Tie Models for Seismic Design
of Confined Masonry Shear Walls, Proceedings of 16th International Brick and
Block Masonry Conference, Pavia, Italy; 2016.
[24] Ghaisas KV, Basu D, Brzev S, Pérez Gavilán JJ. Strut-and-Tie Model for seismic
design of confined masonry buildings. Constr Build Mater 2017;147:677–700.
[25] Sandoval C, Arnau O. Experimental characterization and detailed micro-modeling
of multi-perforated clay brick masonry structural response. Mater Struct 2017;50:
34.
[26] Medeiros P, Vasconcelos G, Lourenço PB, Gouveia J. Numerical modelling of non-
confined and confined masonry walls. Constr Build Mater 2013;41:968–76.
[27] Lizárraga JF, Pérez-Gavilán JJ. Parameter estimation for nonlinear analysis of
multi-perforated concrete masonry walls. Constr Build Mater 2017;141:253–365.
[28] Rankawat N. Equivalent Truss Model for the In-Plane Nonlinear Analysis of
Confined Masonry. A thesis submitted in the partial fulfilment of the requirements
for the degree of Master of Technology, Indian Institute of Technology
Gandhinagar, Gujarat, India; 2016.
[29] Rankawat N, Brzev S, Jain SK, Pérez Gavilán JJ. Equivalent Truss Model for Non-
Linear Static Analysis of Confined Masonry Walls Subjected to Lateral Loading.
16th European Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Thessaloniki, Greece; 2018.
[30] Irimies, MT. 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.
[31] Yáñez F, Astroza M, Holmberg A, Ogaz O. Behavior of confined masonry shear
walls with large openings. In Proceedings of the 13th World Conference on
Earthquake Engineering, Vancouver, Canada 2004; Paper No. 3438.
[32] Alcocer SM, Arias JG, Flores EL. Some Developments on Performance-Based Design
of Masonry Structures. Proceedings of International Workshop – Performance
Based Design: Concepts and Implementation, Bled, Slovenia; 2004.
[33] Singhal V, Rai DC. Seismic behavior of confined masonry walls when subjected to
in-plane and out-plane loading, Proceedings of the 10th National Conference on
Earthquake Engineering, July 21-25, Anchorage, AK, USA; 2014.
[34] Pérez Gavilán JJ, Flores LE, Alcocer SM. An experimental study of confined
masonry walls with varying aspect ratio. Earthquake Spectra 2015;31(2):945–68.
[35] Tomazevic M, Klemenc I. Seismic Behaviour of Confined Masonry Walls.
Earthquake Eng Struct Dyn 1997;26:1059–107.
[36] Riahi Z, Elwood KJ, Alcocer SM. Backbone model for confined masonry walls for
performance-based seismic design. J Struct Eng 2009;135(6):644–54.
18
Engineering Structures 248 (2021) 113114
[37] Flores LE, Alcocer SM. Calculated Response of Confined Masonry Structures,
Proceedings of the 11th World Conference of Earthquake Engineering, Acapulco,
Mexico 1996; 23-28.
[38] Yekrangnia M, Bakhshi A, Ali GM. Force-displacement model for solid confined
masonry walls with shear-dominated failure mode. Earthquake Eng Struct Dyn
2017;46(13):2209–34.
[39] NTC-M, Normas Técnicas Complementarias para Diseño y Construcción den
Estructuras de Mampostería (Technical Norms for Design and Construction of
Masonry Structures), Mexico D.F.; 2017 [in Spanish].
[40] Pérez Gavilán JJ, Flores LE, Manzano A. A New Shear Strength Design Formula for
Confined Masonry Walls: Proposal to the Mexican Code, Proceeding of the 10th U.
S. National Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Anchorage, Alaska, USA; 2014.
[41] Singhal V, Rai DC. Role of toothing on in-plane and out-of-plane behavior of
confined masonry walls. J Struct Eng 2014;140(9):540–53.
[42] ASCE/SEI. Seismic Evaluation and Retrofit of Existing Buildings, Standard (ASCE/
SEI 41-17), American Society of Civil Engineers/Structural Engineering Institute;
2017.
[43] European Committee for Standardization (CEN). Eurocode 8: Design of Structures
for Earthquake Resistance, Part 1: General Rules, Seismic Actions and Rules for
Buildings (EN 1998-1:2004); 2004.
[44] Cruz OA, Pérez Gavián JJ, Flores CL. Experimental study of in-plane shear strength
of confined concrete masonry walls with joint reinforcement. Eng Struct 2019;182:
213–26.
[45] Jain SK, Brzev S, Bhargava LK, Basu D, Ghosh I, Rai DC, Ghaisas KV. Confined
Masonry for Residential Construction, Campus on the Sabarmati, IIT Gandhinagar,
India: Indian Institute of Technology, Gandhinagar; 2015; ISBN: 978-93-5258-078-
1.
[46] Bureau of Indian Standards (BIS). Indian Standard- Plain and Reinforced Concrete -
Code of Practice (IS 456); 2004.
[47] Bureau of Indian Standards (BIS). Indian Standard - Code of Practice for Structural
Use of Unreinforced Masonry (IS:1905); 2002.
[48] Bureau of Indian Standards (BIS). Indian standard criteria for earthquake resistant
design of structures—Part 1: General Provisions and Buildings, (IS 1893); 2016.
[49] Bureau of Indian Standards (BIS). Indian Standard - Pulverized Fuel Ash-Lime
Bricks — Specification (First Revision) (IS:12894); 2002.
[50] Rai DC. Report on Evaluation of Brick Masonry Design Parameters for IITGN
Buildings. India: Department of Civil Engineering, Indian Institute of Technology
Kanpur; 2013.
[51] Sarangapani G, Venkatarama Reddy BV, Jagadish KS. Brick-Mortar Bond and
Masonry Compressive Strength. J Mater Civ Eng 2005;17:229–37.
[52] Jagadish KS. Structural Masonry. I.K. International Publishing House Pvt. Ltd.,
New Delhi, India.
[53] Bureau of Indian Standards (BIS). Confined Masonry for Earthquake Resistance —
Code of Practice, Draft Indian Standard (public review version); 2020.
[54] Stafford Smith B and Coull A. Tall Building Structures: Analysis and Design. John
Wiley & Sons, Inc.; 1991.
[55] CSI. Static and Dynamic Finite Element Analysis of Structures, SAP 2000, V20,
Computers and Structures Inc.; 2018.
[56] FEMA 440. Improvement of Nonlinear Static Seismic Analysis Procedures. Federal
Emergency Management Agency, Washington D.C., USA; 2005.
[57] FEMA 368. NEHRP recommended provisions for seismic regulations for new
buildings and other structures. Federal Emergency Management Agency,
Washington D.C., USA; 2000.
[58] Alcocer SM, Arias JG, Vázquez A. Response assessment of Mexican confined
masonry structures through shaking table tests. Proceedings of the 13th World
Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Vancouver, Canada 2004, Paper No. 2130.
[59] Espinosa Cazarín EF, Terán-Gilmore A. Seismic performance of confined masonry
buildings designed with the Mexico City building code. Proceedings of the 13th
North American Masonry Conference, Salt Lake City, UT, USA; 2019.
[60] Ravichandra SS, Klinger RE. Seismic design factors for steel moment frames with
masonry infills: Part 1 and 2. Proceedings of the 11th North American Masonry
Conference, Minneapolis, U.S.A; 2011, Paper No. 2.02–4 and 2.02-5.