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

net/publication/267692497

Basic Mechanisms for Hybrid Masonry Structures

Article · May 2010

DOI: 10.1061/41130(369)90

CITATIONS READS
3 958

3 authors:

Daniel Abrams Larry Fahnestock

University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign
79 PUBLICATIONS   1,814 CITATIONS    124 PUBLICATIONS   3,219 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Maryam Eidini
University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign
7 PUBLICATIONS   216 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

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

NEESR: Reserve Capacity in New and Existing Low-Ductility Steel Braced Frames View project

Seismic Design of Bridges in the Central United States View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Maryam Eidini on 21 May 2016.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

2010 Structures Congress © 2010 ASCE 987

Basic Mechanisms for Hybrid Masonry Structures

Daniel P. Abrams1, Larry A. Fahnestock2 and Maryam Eidini3
1
Willett Professor, Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of Illinois at
Urbana-Champaign; e-mail: d-abrams@illinois.edu
2
Assistant Professor, Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of Illinois at
Urbana-Champaign; e-mail: fhnstck@illinois.edu
3
Graduate Research Assistant, Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of
Illinois at Urbana-Champaign; e-mail: eidinin1@illinois.edu

ABSTRACT

A relatively new innovative concept in building construction known as

"hybrid masonry" combines conventional steel framing with reinforced concrete
masonry structural panels. The system has been used for construction of several low-
rise buildings in the eastern and mid-western United States, but has not been
implemented in regions of moderate or high seismicity as yet. Unlike a traditional
masonry infill-frame system, hybrid masonry panels are explicitly designed as
structural elements rather than as an afterthought or non-structural element. The
masonry panels can be treated as a surrogate for conventional steel bracing at a far
reduced construction cost. As well, masonry panels can be designed to stiffen a bare
frame so that performance-based objectives of immediate occupancy can be met for
low levels of seismic input, and to provide sufficient lateral strength so that life-safety
and collapse-prevention objectives can be met for moderate to high levels of seismic
input.
Before hybrid masonry can be fully embraced as a seismic structural solution,
a simple understanding and confirmation of how it responds to reversed lateral forces
is needed. The purpose of this paper is to briefly describe hybrid masonry, its basic
governing mechanisms, the impediments to its implementation, and research needs. A
new research project is described that will test the concept of hybrid masonry and
provide the necessary confirmations for its practical implementation.

INTRODUCTION

What is hybrid masonry?

Hybrid masonry is a new concept for low-rise building construction that uses
common construction materials and practices (Biggs 2007). Conventionally
considered as a non-structural architectural component, concrete masonry infill panels
can be designed as stiff, strong and ductile elements that interact with a surrounding
steel frame to resist lateral seismic forces. Since these masonry panels are needed to
enclose a building envelope, they serve a dual function as a seismic load-resisting
element and save costs of construction while at the same time enhancing seismic
performance.
2010 Structures Congress © 2010 ASCE 988

As illustrated in Figure 1, the basic scheme is to attach a reinforced concrete

masonry panel to a structural steel frame such that gravity and lateral forces can be
shared between the steel and the masonry. In its simplest form (Type I), steel
connector plates transfer only horizontal story shears from floor beams to the
masonry. For this type, the masonry does not make contact with the columns and the
masonry is only connected to the beams through connector plates that have vertical
slotted holes. The structural masonry panel can be reinforced both vertically and
horizontally to resist seismic forces, and thus have the deformation capacity of a well-
detailed reinforced shear wall. Steel columns resist gravity loadings and act as
outriggers to transfer overturning moments through axial forces. The masonry panel
then resists nearly the entire story shear.
For Type II hybrid masonry
systems, the gap between the underside
of the beam and panel is closed so that
vertical compressive stress is transferred
from the frame to the masonry. The
masonry benefits from vertical
compression and the panel shares the
gravity loads with the steel frame. Type
III hybrid masonry systems are an
extension of Type II systems with the
addition of direct contact and/or
connectors along the sides of a panel to
resist vertical shear forces. This is similar
to a conventional infill-frame system
where the masonry is confined by the
frame, but is different in the sense that
composite action is optimized through
the proper selection of connectors and
structural design of the reinforced
masonry panel.

Advantages of hybrid masonry

Hybrid masonry has several advantages over conventional braced-frame steel
construction, which enhance performance and/or reduce cost as noted below.
1. Bricklayers can construct masonry panels with current skills and training.
2. Erection of a bare steel frame and placement of masonry units is expedient and
economical since materials are readily available and phasing of trades can be done
with proven productivity.
3. Steel bracing members are not necessary since the masonry resists story shears.
There is no need to cut block units to fit within diagonal bracing as is
conventionally done for braced frames with masonry infill.
4. Masonry veneers, or other cladding materials, can be anchored to concrete
masonry panels using conventional construction details and practices.
2010 Structures Congress © 2010 ASCE 989

5. Stiffness, strength and deformation capacity can be proactively adjusted by

varying the width and/or thickness of a panel, the compressive strength of the
masonry and amounts of panel reinforcement.
6. For frequent earthquakes, masonry panels can be designed to not crack and thus
stiffen a system to meet displacement demands for immediate occupancy. This is
particularly important for seismic performance of non-structural components
and/or expensive building contents.
7. The system can be designed so that damage is confined to selected masonry
panels and/or connectors. Seismic energy can be effectively dissipated while
repair costs are minimized.
8. Loss of a masonry panel will not result in progressive collapse since the system is
highly redundant.
9. Current code provisions can be used to estimate flexural and shear strength of
reinforced masonry panels and structural steel members and connections.
10. Implementation of hybrid masonry has a unique joint cooperation of two major
construction industries: masonry and structural steel.
11. Because masonry is used in a dual architectural/structural role, the steel frame
design is lighter than conventional construction. Less demand is placed on the
environment for material manufacturing.

BASIC MECHANICS OF HYBRID MASONRY

Hybrid masonry models have been incorporated into existing structural

engineering software (Bentley RAM Elements) so that complete, three-dimensional
models of frame systems with hybrid panels can be formulated. Using this software,
preliminary analyses have been done to explore the basic mechanics of how a
masonry panel interacts with a steel frame. Moreover, masonry panels have been
modeled with linear shell elements that are linked to a steel frame with connector
elements to confirm and understand the RAM models. Good correlation was found
between the two types of models.
A sample of these analyses is given in
Figure 2 where contours of vertical
compressive stress are shown for a two-story
Type I frame loaded laterally with a
triangular lateral force pattern. The lack of
continuity in the vertical direction between
adjacent stories is evident by the rotation of
the upper story relative to the lower story.
Flexural action of a masonry panel along a
story height is also evident by the pattern of
vertical normal stresses. These stresses are
discontinuous from one panel to another
since Type I elements do not transfer vertical
forces across the steel connector plates.
Vertical reinforcement welded to the top
flange of a beam at a panel base will resist
2010 Structures Congress © 2010 ASCE 990

tensile stresses resulting from this flexural action, whereas a compression region will
develop on the opposite side of the panel base. The steel beam will then transfer the
vertical resultant forces arising from flexural action through the beam-column
connections into the columns. Thus, the masonry panels will carry the story shear and
the column members will accumulate axial force due to overturning from the upper to
the lower stories. At level i, the story shear in the masonry panel is:

Vi = ∑F
j =i
j Equation 1

Fj is the lateral force at level j and n is the total number of stories. Also, at level i, the
column axial force due to overturning is:

Pi = ∑ V Lh
k =i +1
k k
Equation 2

Vk is the story shear in story k, hk is the story height for story k (where story k is
between levels k-1 and k), and L is the bay width.

Column axial forces calculated

Table 1. Column axial forces. with Equation 2 are compared
L (m) L/h P1 (tons) with forces determined with the
RAM Equation 2 RAM Elements software in Table
7.62 2.50 8.03 8.00 1. The sample structure was a
6.10 2.00 10.04 10.00 four-story, one-bay simple frame
4.57 1.50 13.37 13.33 with Type I hybrid panels. The
3.05 1.00 20.00 20.00 panel width was varied to
2.44 0.80 24.94 25.00 investigate the effect of panel
1.52 0.50 39.47 40.00 aspect ratio on column axial force.
As shown, the prediction of column axial force matches well with the analysis. In
addition, the RAM analysis showed that the base overturning moment demand, Mbase,
was resisted by the steel frame, Mbase,s, and the first story masonry panel, Mbase,m,
where system geometry and applied load pattern determine the relative contribution
of the two components, which are defined as:

M base, s = ∑V h
i =2
i i Equation 3

M base,m = V1h1 Equation 4

Since there is no vertical force transfer between the top of a panel and the bottom of a
beam above it, these conclusions are made based on statics. The RAM analysis also
2010 Structures Congress © 2010 ASCE 991

showed that the masonry panels resisted nearly all of the story shears. This suggests a
simple design rule that the steel columns be proportioned to resist axial forces
resulting from the total overturning moment and that the masonry panels be
proportioned to resist the total story shears.
Behavioral traits of hybrid masonry show that the controlling mechanisms for
these structural systems are much different than those for the traditional masonry
infill-frame system. Unlike the interacting forces between an infill and the
surrounding frame, which are quite complicated and very difficult to model, the force
interaction for Type I hybrid masonry is simple and clear. This simplicity lends itself
well to structural design since masonry panels can easily be proportioned to resist
story shears using current building code specifications. The transfer of bending
moment across the height of a panel must be detailed with adequate frame
connections, but this again can be done with current design methods. In spite of this
simplicity, other concerns must be addressed before this structural system is widely
adopted as discussed in the following section.

IMPEDIMENTS TO IMPLEMENTATION

Despite the advantages of hybrid masonry as noted previously, barriers must

be overcome for its acceptance as a viable seismic structural system. These barriers
help to define the research needed to bring hybrid masonry to the marketplace.
1. Uncertainty with respect to modeling mechanics of hybrid masonry.
2. Lack of standard structural details for connecting masonry panels to a steel frame.
3. Skepticism among practitioners that hybrid masonry will result in safe,
serviceable, practical, efficient and economical structural designs in seismic areas.
4. Lack of building code requirements or guidelines for hybrid masonry systems.
5. Lack of knowledge or experience with respect to conceptual advantages of hybrid
masonry, and the lack of simple design methods.
6. Inertia of the United States construction industry with respect to the adoption of
new construction practices.

RESEARCH PLAN

With funding from the National Science Foundation, a multi-university

research program is now starting that will investigate the behavior of hybrid masonry
systems and thus help to overcome the impediments to implementation as noted
above. The research is organized about the need to develop basic behavioral traits for
this innovative form of seismic-resistant construction. Specific tasks of the project
plan are noted in Table 2. This research is being conducted by a team of investigators
from the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign (Abrams and Fahnestock), the
University of Hawaii at Manoa (Robertson), Rice University (Stanciulescu), and
Biggs Consulting Engineering (Biggs, formerly of Ryan-Biggs Associates).
Research thrusts are identified to follow the flow chart given in Figure 3. The
driver of the research will be a series of prototype design studies (Task 1). Here, the
critical parameters of a hybrid masonry system will be explored with a view towards
achieving the best seismic performance. These studies will be done on actual
2010 Structures Congress © 2010 ASCE 992

buildings already constructed using hybrid masonry as well as new prototypes that are
developed through this exploratory study. Outcomes from the prototype design
studies will impact the design of large-scale experiments as well as development of
simulation models. Conversely, results from physical and simulation research will be
used to update models used for these studies.
Tests of physical structures at Illinois and Hawaii will constitute Tasks 2 and
3. Large-scale tests of two-story hybrid structures using the NEES@Illinois MUST-
SIM site will provide data on seismic behavior and performance under all levels of
earthquake excitation. Tests of steel connectors attached to masonry panels at Hawaii
will provide information on strength, stiffness and ductility of these elements needed
for design of the large-scale tests at Illinois, and will explore how best to detail such
connectors to behave as energy dissipating fuses.

Table 2. Summary of project tasks.

Task Topic Objectives
1 Prototype Design Explore configurations, force demands, critical
Studies parameters, and test specimen designs.
2 Connector Identify strength, stiffness and ductility of steel
Development connector plates and anchorage to masonry.
3 MUST-SIM Tests Obtain and interpret experimental data on strength
and behavior of large-scale hybrid masonry systems.
4 Simulation Models Develop and calibrate state-of-the-art nonlinear
computational models replicating large-scale tests.
5 System Analyses Identify seismic response characteristics of hybrid
masonry building systems using simulation models.
6 Trial Designs Explore the practicalities of using hybrid masonry
systems for sample building systems.
7 Outreach/Education Educate practitioners on hybrid masonry system
design and disseminate research results to researchers.

The physical tests will provide data for development, calibration and
confirmation of simulation models in Task 4. Detailed finite element models will
simulate behavior of the large-scale test structures and then be used to extrapolate
laboratory experiences to a much wider range of structural configurations in Task 5.
Such simulations will be an integral part of the project since they will impact not only
how the research is transformed to construction practice in Tasks 6 and 7, but also re-
evaluation of prototype designs with more accurate system models in Task 1.
Based on the experiments, simulations and system analyses, design
methodologies will be developed and given to a sample set of practitioners who will
be called upon to run trial designs of buildings with and without hybrid masonry. In
Task 6, a closed competition of different design firms will be run to compare the
variability of building designs done by different engineers in different seismic
regions. This task will evaluate ease of application, interpretation of design
requirements, and cost/benefit results of using hybrid masonry. Further outreach
activities under Task 7 will include a series of seminars, design manuals, and updates
to commercial software and building codes.
2010 Structures Congress © 2010 ASCE 993

Figure 3. Integration of project tasks.

RESEARCH TASKS

Task 1: Prototype Design Studies

This exploratory study will examine and compare seismic designs of various
braced frame, infill-frame and hybrid masonry buildings. Conventional structural
engineering software will be used to estimate force and displacement demands for
multi-story, multi-bay frame systems. Results will be used to establish sizes of
masonry panels and frame members for the experimental study. Feedback and input
from industry practitioners will be vital to this task.

Task 2: Connector Development

Researchers at Hawaii will develop new connection details to transfer shear
and vertical compressive forces between a steel frame and a masonry panel. Input
from industry practitioners will guide this development to ensure that the final
product is practical and economical. A series of full-scale component tests will be
performed to identify the strength and stiffness of the connectors under repeated and
reversed loadings. The results of these tests will be used to design the large-scale test
specimens at Illinois (Task 3), and to develop the simulation models (Task 4).
Feedback from connector performance during the large-scale tests will be used to
improve the connector design. Once fully developed and verified through full-scale
testing, this connector will be presented to industry as a construction standard.

Task 3: MUST-SIM Large-Scale Experiments

A series of eight structures will be tested at Illinois. As shown in Figure 4,
each test structure will be a two-story, one-bay frame constructed at near full-scale.
The unique Load and Boundary Condition Boxes (LBCB) of the MUST-SIM site will
2010 Structures Congress © 2010 ASCE 994

be used. The LBCBs will be anchored to the strong wall to apply an in-plane lateral
displacement at the top of a test specimen while at the same time, apply a constant
vertical compressive force, and for some specimens an overturning moment that is
proportional to the imposed lateral deflection.
Testing will be done with two different configurations of the LBCBs. In the
first phase, relatively slender frames will be tested to investigate behavior dominated
by flexural mechanisms. Whereas hybrid masonry is typically used around the
perimeter of a building, these tests will investigate its use for interior walls around
elevators or stairwells. One LBCB will be used to impose demands on the specimens.
In the second phase, relatively stocky frames will be tested to investigate behavior
dominated by shear mechanisms. These test structures will be representative of hybrid
frames used around the building perimeter where the panel length exceeds the panel
height. Because of force and overturning demands, two LBCBs will be used.

Figure 4. MUST-SIM large-scale experimental setup.

The two-story test specimens will represent the base stories of a hypothetical
multistory building. All other structural elements will be simulated using UI-SimCor
software. This is a multi-site, multi-platform, distributed hybrid simulation open-
source software package. Thus, the experimental results will demonstrate the
influence of damaging a hybrid masonry panel on global performance of a
representative building system in the same manner as would a shaking table test.
The experiments will be planned in terms of hybrid masonry type, specimen
dimensions, details of construction, and load application. A preliminary test matrix is
given in Table 3. Four tests will be conducted in Phase 1, with variables being the
hybrid masonry type and the connector plates. Similarly, Phase 2 tests will include
four tests, which will study the variations in behavior and performance with change in
hybrid masonry type and connectors plates.
2010 Structures Congress © 2010 ASCE 995

Table 3. Preliminary test matrix.

Test Specimen Panel H/L ratio Hybrid Type Fuse Connectors
1-1 1.0 I no
1-2 1.0 I yes
1-3 1.0 II no
1-4 1.0 III no
2-1 0.5 I no
2-2 0.5 I yes
2-3 0.5 II yes
2-4 0.5 III yes

Task 4: Simulation Models

Researchers at Rice will develop detailed simulation models, which will focus
on nonlinear behavior under load reversals and mimic measured behavior of the test
structures. Computational models will capture nonlinear effects due to flexural,
diagonal tension and combined flexural-shear cracking, rocking, interfacial slip,
frame-panel contact and yield of reinforcement. These simulations will advance the
state-of-the-art in modeling of masonry subjected to reversals of lateral displacement
and their contact with a surrounding steel frame. Existing software will be evaluated
for use in development of these models, especially software that allow novel
developments through user subroutines. Among the commercial software currently
available, DIANA is the software of choice for modeling masonry since it offers basic
meso and macro level modeling capabilities for quasi-brittle materials. After the
detailed computational model is calibrated against experimental data, the study will
explore the development of a simple global element that can simulate a masonry
panel. The goal is to obtain an element with few degrees of freedom that can replace
the detailed model and reduce the computational complexity while still capturing the
salient features. This global element will then be used to analyze seismic response of
building systems in Task 5.

Task 5: System Analyses

This task will explore and identify the essential parameters that govern
seismic performance of complete building systems constructed with hybrid masonry.
Computational models will be developed using software that can incorporate
nonlinear global panel elements developed in Task 4. Sensitivity analyses will be run
using these system models. Parameters will include the relative strength and stiffness
of masonry panels and steel frames, the panel aspect ratio, the rotational stiffness and
ductility of steel connections, the number of bays, the number of stories, the amounts
and distribution of panel reinforcement in vertical and horizontal directions and the
amount of vertical compressive stress.
Numerical models will also be developed to simulate dynamic response of
building systems. A series of hypothetical multistory buildings will be identified to
explore the influence of hybrid masonry on dynamic building response. Unlike the
system models described above, these models will be lumped-mass idealizations of
building systems. By running a wide array of ground motions with these models,
differences in seismic performance with various configurations of hybrid masonry
2010 Structures Congress © 2010 ASCE 996

panels can be assessed. These findings will be useful for identifying benefit-to-cost
ratios (in terms of enhanced performance) attributable to use of different hybrid
masonry types, steel frame designs, panel geometries, amounts of reinforcement or
vertical compressive stress. Whereas the scope of this study will be much less than
that prescribed by the ATC-63 guidelines (FEMA 2009), insight into force reduction
factors, over-strength factors and nonlinear displacement factors will be obtained.

Task 6: Trial Designs

Practicing structural engineers will be selected to run trial designs. Sample
buildings will be identified and given to the practitioners to evaluate design and
construction methods in different seismic regions of the U.S. Results will be
contrasted to evaluate both the feasibility of using hybrid masonry and its ease of
application in engineering design. A workshop will be held bringing together the
group of practitioners to compare their trial designs and discuss overall practicalities
of using hybrid masonry.

Task 7: Outreach and Education

The following five specific activities will be undertaken to meet objectives for
transforming research results to practice.
1. Seminar Series. With sponsorship from the International Masonry Institute (IMI),
Bentley Systems and Ryan-Biggs Associates, over twenty seminars have been
given to date. More seminars will be given over the project duration to transfer
research information to practice where results of the NEES experiments will be
discussed as well as results of the trial designs and a presentation of the new code
provisions and commercial software.
2. Design Manuals. Design handbooks, manuals and technical notes illustrating the
benefits and how to design hybrid masonry will be developed through
partnerships with IMI, the National Concrete Masonry Association (NCMA) and
the American Institute of Steel Construction (AISC).
3. Commercial Software Updates. With significant funding from the masonry
industry, Ryan-Biggs Associates has worked with developers of Bentley Systems
RAM software to develop a new hybrid masonry module. This module will be
updated with financial support of industry as research information is obtained.
4. Proposed Code Revisions. Salient findings from the research will be presented to
code committees in the form of change proposals. Research team members who
are members of the Masonry Standards Joint Committee will propose code
updates for hybrid masonry as part of their existing code responsibilities.
5. Dissemination. Findings from the research will be disseminated via reports,
conference papers and presentations and articles submitted to the leading
structural and earthquake engineering journals.

SUMMARY

The hybrid masonry structural system offers new opportunities for economy
and robustness using familiar steel sections and reinforced concrete masonry. The
concepts underlying hybrid masonry have been used by engineers for many years,
 2010 Structures Congress © 2010 ASCE 997

although the load sharing has not been explicitly designed. The hybrid masonry
system offers advantages for structures where the architectural design favors steel
framing in conjunction with reinforced masonry walls. Initial studies indicate
significant promise for this system, but detailed design studies coupled with nonlinear
analysis and large-scale experiments are imperative to fully develop the system. This
need is currently being addressed through a research program that is studying design
of hybrid masonry for the full range of seismic hazards. This research is funded
through the National Science Foundation George E. Brown, Jr. Network for
Earthquake Engineering Simulation (Award Number: CMMI 0936464).

REFERENCES

Biggs, D.T. (2007). “Hybrid Masonry Structures.” Proceedings of the Tenth North
American Masonry Conference. The Masonry Society.
Federal Emergency Management Agency (2009). “Quantification of building seismic
performance factors.” FEMA P695.

View publication stats