BEHAVIOR OF MULTI-PERFORATED CLAY BRICK WALLS

UNDER EARTHQUAKE-TYPE LOADING

Sergio M. Alcocer1 and José A. Zepeda2

Abstract
The behavior of four isolated full-scale masonry walls built with multi-perforated extruded clay
bricks and tested under earthquake-type loading is discussed. The experimental variables
were the amount of horizontal reinforcement and the type and reinforcement details of the tie-
columns used for vertical confinement. Results indicated that multi-perforated clay bricks
could be used for earthquake resistance, if a minimum amount of horizontal reinforcement
and proper tie-column detailing are provided.

Introduction
Aimed at improving the design and construction of low-cost housing in Mexico, an ample
research program has been underway at the National Center for Disaster Prevention,
CENAPRED (Alcocer 1995; Alcocer 1996). As a part of this project, the technical feasibility
of using multi-perforated industrialized clay bricks for earthquake resistance was assessed.
To evaluate the behavior and to develop analysis, design and construction guidelines, four
large-scale isolated load-bearing walls were built and tested under constant vertical axial load
and cyclic lateral loads.

Previous research conducted on this issue (Mann 1988) made clear that the mode of failure
of these bricks is quite brittle. On the other hand, its economic advantages compared to the
traditional hand-made bricks have made multi-perforated bricks an increasingly popular
construction system for low-cost housing in Mexico. However, doubts have been cast on the
1
Head of the Structural Engineering and Geotechnical Area, National Center for Disaster Prevention
and Research Professor, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México, Mexico, DF, 04360, Mexico
2
Researcher, Structural Engineering and Geotechnical Area, National Center for Disaster Prevention,
Mexico, DF, 04360, Mexico
quality of seismic performance of these walls, particularly due to the nature of the failure that
has been observed.

The control specimen, N1, consisted of an unreinforced wall panel, made of multi-perforated
bricks, confined in its vertical edges with tie-columns built within hollow clay bricks (to be
referred to as internal tie-columns). In specimens N2 and N3, the minimum horizontal
reinforcement ratio as required by the Mexico City Building Code, MCBC (Departamento
1993a) was provided. N2 was confined with similar internal tie-columns as in N1, whereas in
N3 external reinforced concrete (RC) tie-columns were used. External RC tie-columns are
typically used in confined masonry construction in Mexico (Alcocer 1995; Alcocer 1996). In
specimen N4, the horizontal reinforcement ratio was almost four times the minimum value;
internal tie-columns were built using special hollow pieces fabricated to achieve a larger tie-
column cross sectional area.

To extend the observations made during the tests, a series of nonlinear analysis of building
structures made of multi-perforated clay bricks are underway. Numerical models that capture
the main aspects of wall behavior (hysteretic model) have been developed. In this paper, the
experimental phase of the research program is presented. Emphasis is given to discuss the
effects of horizontal reinforcement on the strength, inelastic deformation capacity and energy
dissipation, as well as for improving the overall wall behavior. A complete discussion of
experimental data can be found elsewhere (Alcocer 1997).

Description of the Experimental Program

Specimen dimensions and reinforcement details are shown in Fig. 1. The mechanical
properties of the masonry are included; the term v*m refers to the measured diagonal
compressive strength. Walls were designed according to the MCBC (Departamento 1993a)
to fail in shear (diagonal tension) in order to learn about the resistance mechanisms on multi-
perforated walls subjected to large lateral displacement demands and to reproduce the failure
mode commonly observed in masonry structures during earthquakes.

Average brick dimensions were 240x120x60 mm; the net areas of multi-perforated and
hollow bricks were 0,7 and 0,54, respectively. Mortars with and without lime were used; the
average cube compressive strength was 23,3 MPa. Average mortar fluidity and retentivity
were 118 and 93%, with coefficients of variation of 6 and 2%, respectively. The masonry
diagonal compressive strength varied between 0,49 and 1,08 MPa, with an average of 0,85
MPa. The extreme values were obtained for mortars with cube strengths of 29,1 and 26
MPa, respectively. The variation of masonry diagonal compressive strength is attributed to
different magnitudes of mortar penetration in the cells of the multi-perforated bricks. The
larger and more uniform the mortar penetration, thus allowing the formation of shear keys,
the higher the masonry strength. Masonry compressive strength determined from prisms
was similar in all specimens and had an average value of 11,5 MPa. The modulus of
elasticity varied between 490 and 380 times the prism compressive strength, with an average
value of 430. The shear modulus was between 0,28 and 0,4 times the modulus of elasticity,
with an average value of 0,35.
 horizontal reinforcement crosstie
2500
250
12x25 cm
Internal 4 no. 4 Internal
Tie-columns H no. 2 @ 200 mm Tie-column 4 no. 5
2500 C 5/32" @ 70 mm
4 no. 5 4 no. 5 #5 = 15,9 mm
C no. 2 @ 70 mm C 5/32" @ 70 mm 4 no. 5
φ #5 = 15,9 mm C no. 2 @ 70 mm 1 -5/32" @ 3 courses

E W E W
N1 N2

120x250 mm
4 no. 4
H 5/32" @ 200 mm H no. 2 @ 20 cm
External 7H 5/32" @ 70 mm Internal
Tie-column Tie-column
120x150 mm 4¼" (prefabricated), 2#8 y 2 #4
H plain ( =4,11 mm) @158 mm
4 no. 6 4¼", 2#8 y 2 #4 #4 = 12,7 mm
H no. 2 @ 200 mm C 5/32" @ 80 mm 2 -1/4" @ 4 courses ¼" = 6,36 mm
1 -5/32" @ 3 courses
7H no. 2 @ 70 mm 5/32" = 3,97 mm
C = crosstie
E W E W H = hoops
N3 N4

Specimen (MPa) ph [%]

(26,0)
(19,1)
(19,2)
(29,1)
a cement : lime : sand ratio (by volume)

30 7 10

multiperforated brick
15
13 20

80 hollow brick
dimensions in mm
20

Fig. 1. Characteristics of the Specimens

N2 and N3 were reinforced horizontally with one 3,97-mm deformed cold-drawn wire spaced
at every three courses (210 mm), so that the horizontal reinforcement ratio ph = 0,05% and
phfyh = 0,29 MPa. In N4, two 6,35-mm wires spaced at every four courses (280 mm) were
used (ph = 0,19% and phfyh = 1,12 MPa). All horizontal reinforcement was Grade 60 (fyh =
588,6 MPa). Horizontal reinforcement was anchored in the edge tie-columns with vertical
standard 90-deg hooks.

In specimens N1, N2 and N3, tie-columns were reinforced longitudinally with deformed mild
steel bars (fy = 410 MPa); in N4 prefabricated reinforcing cages made of deformed cold-
drawn wires were additionally used. Transverse reinforcement of east tie-columns was
Grade 25 6,35-mm crossties (for N1 and N2) and hoops (for N3); Grade 60 3,97-mm
diameter crossties or hoops were placed in the west tie-columns. In specimen N4, Grade 60
crossties and hoops were used in the E and W tie-columns, respectively (Fig. 1). Hoop
spacing was kept at 70 mm near tie-column ends to improve its shear deformability and
strength, as well as to control extension of wall inclined cracking into the tie-column.

In specimens N1, N2 and N4, internal tie-columns were cast with mortar with a 1:3 volume
ratio of portland cement to sand; the minimum size of sand grains was 2,5 mm. Average
cube compressive was 25,9 MPa. For N3, the external tie-columns were fabricated with
concrete with a cylinder compressive strength of 31,9 MPa. In specimen N4, special bricks
were obtained from regular hollow pieces after removal of the transverse walls in the mid-
length of the brick and that at the edge next to the wall panel (see Fig. 1).

All specimens were confined horizontally at the top with a 120x250-mm bond-beam and a
100-mm thick slab to promote a more uniform load distribution.

Specimens were tested as shown in Fig. 1 under a constant vertical stress of 0,39 MPa.
Cyclic lateral loads were controlled by interstory drift angles with ever-increasing maxima.
The interstory drift angle R is defined as the ratio of the applied horizontal displacement
measured at the slab level to the specimen height. Two cycles were applied at same lateral
drift angles.

Results
Crack Patterns

Final crack patterns are shown in Fig. 2. In N1, damage was mainly concentrated in two
large inclined cracks that extended into the lower ends of the internal tie-columns. After the x
crack pattern was formed, the wall lost its capacity for carrying vertical and lateral loads.

A more uniform distribution of cracks was observed in specimens with horizontal

reinforcement; the larger the amount, the more uniformly distributed the cracking was. Main
cracks were inclined at 45o and extended through bricks and mortar joints. At same drift
levels, crack widths in horizontally reinforced specimens (i.e. N2 to N4) were smaller than
those recorded in N1. Typically, flexural cracks formed at a drift angle of 0,09%; the x pattern
of inclined cracking was formed at 0,15%.
Model N2 abruptly failed after fracture of four horizontal wires, which led to a shear-
compression failure of few multi-perforated bricks along the crack (and along the internal
compression strut), and to shearing off the lower ends of the tie-columns.

1,5 441

Specimen N1
1,0 294

Shear Stress [MPa]

Lateral load [kN]

0,5 147

0 0

-0,5 -147

First inclined
-1,0 -294
Cracking
R=0,40%
-1,5 -441

1,5 441

Specimen N2
1,0 294
Shear Stress [MPa]

Lateral load [kN]

0,5 147

0 0

-0,5 -147
First inclined cracking
-1,0 Plastification of HR -294
R=0,60% Fracture of HR
-1,5 -441

1,5 441

Specimen N3
1,0 294
Shear Stress [MPa]

Lateral load [kN]

0,5 147

0 0

-0,5 -147
First inclined cracking
-1,0 Plastification of HR -294
R=0,60% Fracture of HR
-1,5 -441

1,5 441

Specimen N4
1,0 294
Shear Stress [MPa]

Lateral load [kN]

0,5 147

0 0

-0,5 -147

First inclined
-1,0 -294
Cracking
R=0,70%
-1,5 -441
-0,01 -0,005 0 0,005 0,01
HR: Horizontal Reinforcement Drift Angle [mm/mm]

Fig. 2. Final Crack Patterns and Hysteretic Curves

Damage in specimen N3 was concentrated in the panel with extension of some fine cracks
into the tie-column. Similarly to N2, some bricks exhibited spalling of their exterior walls after
crushing or fracture of interior walls. Specimen N4 exhibited a very uniform distribution of
fine cracks over the wall. Crushing and spalling of exterior brick walls in the second
uppermost brick course triggered the failure. Analysis of strain gages on the horizontal
reinforcement of N2 to N4 indicated that wires remained elastic only in N4 (Alcocer 1997).

The most severe damage in tie-columns was observed in N1, although closely spaced
crossties and hoops were placed at their ends. In the other specimens, horizontal
reinforcement better controlled the wall shear deformations and clearly improved the stability
of the behavior after cracking, thus delaying the crack extension into the tie-columns.

Hysteresis Curves

The hysteresis loops are presented in Fig. 2. Graphs are shown in terms of shear stresses,
which were calculated dividing the lateral load applied by the wall gross sectional area.
Elastic behavior was practically limited by first inclined cracking, though some hysteresis due
to flexural cracking could be observed in previous cycles. From the figure it is clear that the
reserve of strength after first inclined cracking was different for each specimen and depended
upon the product phfy and the type of tie-column. Whereas the reserve of strength (defined
as the ratio of maximum shear stress to that associated to first inclined cracking) was only
13% for N1, average values for N2, N3 and N4 were 44%, 50% and 104%, respectively. In
all specimens, disregarding the magnitude of phfyh, as well as the type and detailing of tie-
column, first inclined cracking occurred at average drift angles to 0,1%.

The behavior of specimen N1 was characterized by a small strength increase and low
deformation capacity after first inclined cracking, which is typical of unreinforced masonry
panels with low confinement. For reinforced specimens, loops were symmetrical and stable
at same drift levels. In general, hysteresis curves do not exhibit significant pinching. This is
credited to the confinement of the tie-columns, but more importantly to the contribution of
horizontal wires for maintaining together the cracked wall panel. The stiffness degradation
with increasing drift angles is apparent from the figure. Distinctly different tie-column details
did not significantly impact wall hysteretic behavior.

Response Envelopes

Specimen behavior can be compared from the response envelopes presented in Fig. 3. The
curves correspond to the maxima shear stresses at same positive drift angles. It is clear the
effect of the external RC tie-columns (N3) on the initial stiffness, inclined cracking load, post-
cracking stiffness and deformation capacity. Regardless of the magnitude of phfyh and the
type of tie-column, strength degradation was severe.

Some wall response characteristics are presented in Table 1. The strength V*MCBC
represents the best prediction using the MCBC nominal strength equation, and measured
dimensions, material properties and axial stress. The MCBC equation for determining the
lateral load strength of a confined masonry wall follows a Coulomb model with factors
calibrated empirically. Such model considers a first term related to the tensile diagonal
cracking by means of a 50%-reduction of the diagonal compressive strength, and a second
term, related to Coulomb friction, that depends on a friction coefficient (0,3) and the
magnitude of the compressive axial load. From this model, it is clear that the code strength
solely corresponds to the inclined cracking load, so that any reserve of strength that may
exist due to confinement, horizontal reinforcement and/or other factor is not considered,
either explicitly or implicitly.

1,5 441
Multi-perforated and hollow clay bricks
Hand-made solid clay bricks (Aguilar 1996)
Hollow bricks with two circular holes (Meli 1969)
1,2 353
Shear Stress [MPa]

Lateral Load [kN]

N4 (6,35)
p h =0,19%
0,9 N3 (3,97)
265
p h =0,05%
N2 (3,97)
p h =0,05%
0,6 N1 (none) M4 (6,35) 177
p h =0,19%

M3 (3,97)
0,3 p h =0,07% 88
704 (none)
p v =3 no. 2,5
M2 (none)
( ) : horizontal wire diameter in mm
0 0
0 0,2 0,4 0,6 0,8 1,0 1,2 1,4 1,6 1,8 2,0
Drift Angle .[%]

Fig. 3. Response Envelopes of Specimens Built with Different Type of Bricks

Table 1. Response Characteristics of Specimens Tested

Vcr Vmax V*MCBC Vcr Vmax Vmax Rcr Rmax Rmax

Specimen (kN) (kN) (kN) (%) (%)
V*MCBC Vcr VN1 RN1
N1 180,0 203,5 197,1 0,92 1,13 1,00 0,097 0,24 1,00

N2 172,6 279,0 192,7 0,90 1,62 1,37 0,082 0,40 1,67

(1-3,97 @210 mm)

N3 192,2 300,1 154,5 1,24 1,56 1,47 0,081 0,50 2,09

(1-3,97 @210 mm)

N4 175,5 358,4 136,1 1,29 2,04 1,76 0,100 0,60 2,51

(2-6,35 @280 mm)

Average 180,4 — 170,6 1,08 1,60 1,40 0,09 0,43 1,82

As it was expected, lateral loads corresponding to first inclined cracking were comparable for
specimens with similar types of tie-columns. Small differences are attributed to acceptable
material and construction variability. From the table, it is clear that the MCBC strength
prediction grossly underestimates the strength of specimens reinforced horizontally, Vmax.
The effect of the horizontal reinforcement on strength and deformation capacity (drift angle at
Vmax) can be observed in columns Vmax/VN1 and Rmax/RN1 of Table 1. It is evident that even
the minimum amount of horizontal reinforcement (phfy = 0,29 MPa) was enough to increase
the strength by 30% and the deformation capacity at strength by 60%. Higher values were
measured for N4, however there were not proportional to the increase in the amount of
horizontal reinforcement. For the minimum amount of horizontal reinforcement, better
behavior is obtained if external RC tie-columns are used.

Participation of Horizontal Reinforcement to Wall Lateral Strength

Lateral strength of masonry walls depends primarily on the diagonal tensile strength of the
masonry, the effective area for resisting shear, vertical load applied, amount and type of
horizontal reinforcement, and type and detailing of confinement elements. In particular, the
post-cracking behavior is influenced by the horizontal reinforcement and the strength and
deformability of RC confinement elements.

The participation of horizontal reinforcement to wall lateral strength was determined through
the calculation of the efficiency factor η. In this study, η was calculated as the ratio of the
measured strength in the horizontal reinforcement to the nominal strength. The former was
obtained from data of strain gages glued on the horizontal reinforcement placed along the
main diagonals of the wall and from measured steel stress-strain curves. The efficiency
factor η represents a weighed average stress in the horizontal reinforcement. Should the
reinforcement exhibits a perfect elasto-plastic behavior, the upper limit of η is 1. In general, a
large value of η (typically around 2/3 or more) should be associated to stresses in the plastic
range in some horizontal wires (generally near wall mid-height). A low value of η at large drift
levels, given that anchorage is assured, means that most of the reinforcement is well within
the elastic range and that has not been mobilized to improve wall capacity. This
phenomenon is also related to the mode of failure the wall.

The efficiency factors at first cycles under positive loading for N2, N3 and N4 are presented in
Fig. 4. The adjacent table includes some values of η corresponding to different events during
the tests. Values of η at “diagonal cracking” and at “strength” were affected by phfyh and the
type of tie-column. It is clear that higher efficiency values are attained, at same drift levels,
when lower amounts of horizontal reinforcement are used.

Deformation Capacity

The deformation capacity of the specimens tested can be studied from Fig. 3 and Table 2.
Also included are test results of similar specimens built with hand-made solid clay bricks
(Aguilar 1996) and of a wall built with extruded clay bricks that had two circular holes (Meli
1969). To facilitate the comparison among specimens, the ratio m was calculated dividing
the drift angle corresponding to 85% of Vmax, Ru, by the yield drift angle, Ry. The latter was
determined following the approach proposed by Park and Paulay (Park 1975). The ratio m
for the N-series varied from 2,9 to 5,7. The lowest value was calculated for N4 with the
highest phfyh value. Note that the failure of this highly reinforced specimen was triggered by a
shear-compression failure of the bricks. Similar observations have been reported in walls
built with hand-made bricks (Aguilar 1996; Alcocer 1996).

η [%] η [%] η [%] η [%] η [%]

Specimen first inclined diagonal lateral first yielding of max. 100
+5 +7 +9 +11 +13

Efficiency Factor η [%]

cracking cracking strength horizontal reinf. (R assoc.)
N2
80 p h =0,05%
N2 1 44 77 44 89 N3
(0,49%) p h =0,05%
60 N4
N3 3 67 74 16 75 p h =0,19%
(0,60%) 40
N4 2 25 59 – 59
(0,60%) 20

0
0 0,2 0,4 0,6 0,8 1,0
Drift Angle [%]

Fig. 4. Efficiency of Horizontal reinforcement for Specimens N2, N3 and N4

Table 2. Deformation Capacity

vmax R* Ry M Force reduction

Specimen Brick
[MPa] [%] [%] factor3 1
Specimen 704 tested by Meli and Salgado (Meli 1969)
[ph] Type
Q 2
Specimens tested by Aguilar et al. (Aguilar 1996)
3
Force reduction factors Q from MCBC (Departamento
704¹ extruded 0,52 0,09 0,12 3,5 1,5
1993b)
(none)
(hollow)
1,5
M2² solid 0,45 0,09 0,66 5,3 2,0
(none) (hand-made)
M3² solid 0,58 0,12 1,22 7,6 2,0 1,2

Shear Stress [MPa]

(0,071%) (hand-made) vmax
M4² solid 0,53 0,11 1,66 10,9 2,0 vo 0,9
(0,190%) (hand-made)
vo =0,85vmax
N1 extruded 0,68 0,06 0,08 3,4 — v*o
(none) (multi-perforated) v*o =0,75vo 0,6
1
N2 extruded 0,93 0,11 0,14 3,8 — R y = 0,75 R*
(0,05%) (multi-perforated) Ru 0,3
m =
N3 extruded 1,00 0,08 0,11 5,7 — Ry
(0,05%) (multi-perforated)
0
N4 extruded 1,20 0,20 0,27 2,9 — 0 R* R y 0,5 R u 1,0 1,5
(0,190%) (multi-perforated)
Drift Angle [%]

Comparing N1 and N2, it is clear that the deformation capacity is improved if the amount of
horizontal reinforcement is increased, provided that such amount does not lead to a change o
in the failure mode, such as in N4. The highest deformation capacity was obtained for N3,
which had external RC tie-columns, as it is commonly preferred in confined masonry
construction.

Based on Fig. 3 and Table 2, it is obvious that the behavior of walls built with multi-perforated
clay bricks and internal tie-columns is more brittle than that of walls of hand-made solid clay
bricks. The deformation capacity of walls with multi-perforated clay bricks can be reliably
increased if horizontal reinforcement is provided, or even better, if both horizontal
reinforcement and external RC tie-columns are used. In this case, behaviors for the two types
of bricks are comparable. It is recommended that the amount of horizontal reinforcement be
kept near the code minimum (or phfyh = 0,3 MPa).

Cumulative Energy Dissipated

The cumulative energy dissipated by the specimens is shown in Fig. 5. The cumulative
energy dissipated was calculated as the sum of the areas enclosed the lateral load - lateral
displacement hysteresis loops. In general, the dissipation of energy was credited to masonry
cracking, friction along cracks, and inelasticity of horizontal and tie-column reinforcement.
After first inclined cracking (R=0,1% on the average), energy dissipation started to increase.
Note that for N1 this trend is linear, whereas for specimens reinforced horizontally such
increase is parabolic, i.e. at large drift levels, energy dissipation augments significantly with
small changes in drift. The beneficial effect of horizontal reinforcement and external RC tie-
columns on energy dissipation can be observed in the curve for N3. It is also clear that N2,
with minimum phfyh, dissipated more energy than N4, with the highest phfyh value; this is
consistent with the amount of inelastic behavior recorded from strain gages on the horizontal
reinforcement and with the trend of η observed.

9810
Cumulative Energy Dissipated [kN·mm]

N3 N2 N4
7850

5890

N1
3920

1960

0
0 0,2 0,4 0,6 0,8
Drift Angle [%]

Fig. 5. Energy Dissipated

Conclusions
Based on the observations made during the tests, and on the analysis of the instrumentation,
the following conclusions were developed:
1. Masonry diagonal compression strengths, related to design shear stresses, varied with
the amount of mortar penetration into the multi-perforated bricks. Larger strengths were
obtained with fluid mortars.
2. First inclined cracking occurred at a drift angle of 0,1%, disregarding the amount of
horizontal reinforcement, as well as type and detailing of the tie-columns.
3. Shear deformations governed wall behavior.
4. As compared to walls without panel reinforcement, walls reinforced horizontally with
deformed cold-drawn small-diameter wires exhibited a superior behavior in terms of
lateral strength, deformation and energy dissipation capacities, strength degradation,
damage distribution, and crack widths.
5. The increase in lateral strength was not linearly proportional to the amount of horizontal
reinforcement. Moreover, the mode of failure is strongly dependent on the horizontal
reinforcement ratio ph and its yield stress fyh. For low values of phfyh, the failure mode is
controlled by bar/wire fracture, whereas for high values, shear-compression crushing of
the masonry controls.
6. The contribution of the horizontal reinforcement to the wall lateral strength was a function
of the lateral displacement, phfyh, and the type of tie-column.
7. As compared to walls with internal tie-columns, the specimen with external RC tie-
columns exhibited higher lateral strength, stiffness, energy dissipation and deformation
capacities and a more stable behavior.
8. Measured lateral strengths were considerably higher than code predictions.
9. Tie-columns transversally reinforced with Grade 60 cold-drawn wires were less
deformable than those with no. 2 (6,35-mm) Grade 25 mild steel.

Recommendations
The latter conclusions support the statement that multi-perforated extruded clay bricks can be
used for earthquake resistance if a minimum amount of horizontal reinforcement and tie-
columns, with proper detailing, are provided. Recommendations are applicable to walls built
with multi-perforated bricks and materials with similar dimensions and mechanical properties
as those used herein. To achieve satisfactory seismic performance the following
recommendations should be taken in consideration:
1. For analysis purposes, walls can be considered as confined load-bearing walls.
2. In walls with internal tie-columns, disregarding the amount of horizontal reinforcement,
the force reduction factor corresponding to walls made with hollow bricks should be used.
3. A higher force reduction factor (such as that used for walls built with solid bricks) is
recommended if both external RC tie-columns and horizontal reinforcement are used.
4. The nominal lateral strength of walls reinforced horizontally with deformed cold-drawn
wires can be calculated as
Vn = 0,5 v * m AT + 0,3 P + η ph f yh AT
where v*m is the design shear stress (obtained from diagonal compression tests), AT is
the wall cross sectional area, P is the vertical load acting on the wall, η is the efficiency of
the horizontal reinforcement, ph is the horizontal reinforcement ratio and fyh is the nominal
yield stress of the horizontal reinforcement. It is recommended that η = 2/3 for phfyh up to
0,6 MPa, and equal to 0,4 for phfyh larger that 0,9 MPa; for values of phfyh between 0,6
and 0,9 MPa, linear interpolation is permitted.
5. If horizontal reinforcement is used, ph should be between 0,05% and 0,15%.
6. Horizontal reinforcement should be continuous along the wall between consecutive tie-
columns. Horizontal reinforcement should be anchored at the ends by means of vertical
90-deg hooks embedded in the confinement elements.
7. The design shear stress should be less than 0,6 MPa. Mortar cube strength should be
larger than 12 MPa. Mortar fluidity should be larger than 110%. The volume of mortar
penetrated into the multi-perforated bricks should be closely controlled.
8. For buildings with five stories or more, horizontal reinforcement in the walls with the
largest seismic demands at the ground and first levels should be provided, even if it is not
necessary for strength, to improve wall inelastic deformability. For buildings with four
stories, horizontal reinforcement should be placed only at the ground level.

References
Aguilar 1996: Aguilar, G., R. Meli, R. Diaz, R. Vazquez-del-Mercado “Influence of Horizontal
Reinforcement on the Behavior of Confined Masonry Walls, Proceedings of the
Eleventh World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Acapulco, Mexico, June
1996, paper no. 1380.
Alcocer 1995: Alcocer, S.M., R. Meli, “Test Program on the Seismic Behavior of Confined
Masonry Structures,” The Masonry Society Journal, The Masonry Society, Vol. 13, No.
2, February 1995, pp. 68-76.
Alcocer 1996: Alcocer, S.M., “Implications Derived from Recent Research in Mexico on
Confined Masonry Structures,” Proceedings of the CCMS Symposium, American
Society of Civil Engineers, April 1996, pp. 82-92.
Alcocer 1997: Alcocer, S.M., J.A. Zepeda, M. Ojeda, “Estudio de la Factibilidad Técnica del
Uso de Tabique Vintex y Multex para Vivienda Económica,” (in Spanish), Report
IEG/01/97, Mexico DF, Mexico, 1997, CENAPRED, 125 pp.
Departamento 1993a: Departamento del Distrito Federal, “Normas Técnicas
Complementarias para Diseño y Construcción de Estructuras de Mampostería,”
Gaceta Oficial del Departamento del Distrito Federal, Mexico DF, Mexico, 1993, 18 pp.
Departamento 1993b: Departamento del Distrito Federal, “Normas Técnicas
Complementarias para Diseño por Sismo,” Gaceta Oficial del Departamento del
distrito Federal, Mexico DF, Mexico, 1993, 19 pp.
Mann 1988: Mann, W., G. König, A. Ötes, “Tests of Masonry Walls Subjected to Seismic
Forces,” Proceedings of the Eighth International Brick and Block Masonry Conference,
Dublin, Ireland, 1988, pp. 764-773.
Meli 1969: Meli, R., G. Salgado, “Comportamiento de Muros de Mampostería Sujetos a
Carga Lateral,” (in Spanish), Serie Azul No. 237, Institute of Engineering, UNAM,
Mexico, DF, Mexico, 107 pp.
Park 1975: Park, R., T. Paulay, “Reinforced Concrete Structures,” John Wiley & Sons, New
York, 1975.

Acknowledgements
The research program was financially supported by Novaceramic SA de CV (Mexico). The
tests were performed in the Large Scale Structures Testing Laboratory of the National Center
for Disaster Prevention in Mexico City. The participation of Mauricio Ojeda, Alexandra Otálora
and Gustavo Cano and of the technical staff is gratefully acknowledged.