ESTABLISHING RwAND Cd FACTORS FOR CONFINED

MASONRY BUILDINGS

By Maria O. Moroni; Maximiliano Astroza,l Juan Gomez,3 and Rafael Guzman4

ABSTRACT: Seismic design provisions, including the Chilean seismic code, prescribe seismic design forces by
reducing a linear elastic response spectra using a response modification factor. The codes also estimate expected
maximum inelastic displacement that may occur during a severe earthquake, by amplifying the elastic displace-
ment computed from the design seismic forces by a displacement amplification factor. In this paper, the seismic
force reduction factor R w and displacement amplification factor Cd are computed for typical confined masonry
buildings, comparing base shear and first-story drift that develop in the structure when linear or nonlinear
No other uses without permission. Copyright (c) 2012. American Society of Civil Engineers. All rights reserved.

behavior is adopted. The computations are performed after analyzing several three and four story buildings.
These buildings were subjected to the action of a number of earthquakes records obtained in Chile on March
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Universidad Militar Nueva Gran on 07/30/12. For personal use only.

3, 1985 and in Mexico on Sept. 19, 1985. The R w factor, evaluated for this type of building, depends both on
the structure's wall density and on the source mechanism of the earthquake; in contrast to most code recom-
mendations, the ratio of Rw/Cd obtained is less than 1.

INTRODUCTION R* was proposed by Arias (1989) and is based on the ap-

Seismic codes are developed with the intent of ensuring
serviceability requirements during frequent moderate earth-
quakes and life safety during a major earthquake. Therefore,
in the latter case extensive damage to the structure may be
acceptable so long as collapse is prevented. Design seismic
forces are obtained by reducing a linear elastic response spec-
tra by a response modification factor R and member forces are
J. Struct. Eng. 1996.122:1208-1215.
proximate mean strength reduction factors computed by Rid-
dell et al. (1989). These computations were performed on sin-
gle-degree-of-freedom systems with elastoplastic hysteretic
behavior and 5% of critical damping, and subjected to records
from Chile and Peru. In the case of static analysis, the design
base shear includes a constant reduction factor R, which is
equal to 4 for confined masonry buildings.

determined through linear elastic analysis. In addition, a dis-
placement amplification factor Cd is used to compute the ex-
pected maximum inelastic displacement from the elastic dis-
placement induced by the seismic design forces.
Usually the factors R and Cd recommended by the codes
depend on the period of the structure, the structural system
type, and the structure ductility. However, there is not a com-
mon basis to formulate explicit expressions for the force re-
duction factor. Currently, definitions are based on committee
consensus and observed structural performance in past earth-
quakes. Most codes recognize that a structure's actual defor-
mation may be several times the elastic displacements esti-
mated from the action of the prescribed seismic design forces.
The Chilean Seismic Design of Buildings Codes NCh433
(Disefio 1996) prescribes elastic response spectra to determine
seismic forces, together with a structural response modification
factor R *. This factor is defined by
T*
R*= 1 + ----
T*
D.ITo + R
o The objective of this paper is to determine the seismic force
and depends on the soil conditions through the parameter To,
on the structural period corresponding to the largest partici-
pating mass T*, and on the parameter Ro ' which is related to
the structural system and material type. A value Ro = 4 is
suggested for confined masonry buildings. The expression for
The expression for the elastic response spectra a, given by
(2), was proposed by Arias (1989) and the parameters were
determined by Castro (1992) based on the normalized response
spectra from all the earthquakes registered in Chile during the
last decade. Tn represents the period of the nth mode and p as
To depend on the soil conditions.
1 + 4.5 (~:r
a =----:--7"""i"- (2)
I + (~:Y
The code incorporates a displacement amplification factor
only to limit the distance in any level between two adjacent
buildings to avoid pounding. A minimum separation equal to
R*/3 times the elastic displacement determined from pre-
scribed lateral seismic forces is required. Other requirements
concerning story drift are just for serviceability and for limit-
ing torsional effects not including displacement amplification.
(1)
OBJECTIVES AND SCOPE
reduction factor R w ' the displacement amplification factor Cd'
BASE SHEAR
C = REACTIVE WEIGHT
Ceu

'Asst. Prof., Dept. of Civ. Engrg., Univ. of Chile, Casilla 228/3, San-
tiago, Chile. .-
'Assoc. Prof., Dept. of Civ. Engrg., Univ. of Chile, Casilla 228/3, San- ELASTIC /'
tiago, Chile. RESPONSE .-
/'
'Civ. Engr., Dept. of Civ. Engrg., Univ. of Chile, Casilla 228/3, San- ACTUAL RESPONSE
tiago, Chile.
'Civ. Engr., Dept. of Civ. Engrg., Univ. of Chile, Casilla 228/3, San- Cy
I
tiago, Chile. IDEALIZED
I
Note. Associate Editor: Nicholas P. Jones. Discussion open until Cs RESPONSE I
March I, 1997. To extend the closing date one month, a written request Cw I
1L...--'----1_ _...L- .
must be filed with the ASCE Manager of Journals. The manuscript for L-~

this paper was submitted for review and possible publication on August /'; max
10, 1994. This paper is part of the Journal of Structural Engineering, /'; STORY DRIFT
Vol. 122, No. 10, October, 1996. ©ASCE, ISSN 0733-9445196/0010-
1208-1215/$4.00 + $.50 per page. Paper No. 9029. FIG. 1. General Structural Response

1208/ JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING 1 OCTOBER 1996

 C and the ratio RwCd for shear wall-confined masonry buildings.
1.5-r-----------~---------__, In addition, a comparison with the Chilean Code requirements
is presented. This is carried out by analyzing several confined
masonry buildings, subjected to the action of different records
obtained in Chile on March 3, 1985 and in Mexico on Sept.
19, 1985, and comparing the base shear and the story drift that
0.5 develop in the structure when linear and nonlinear behaviors
are adopted.
0··..······· .

EVALUATION OF SEISMIC FORCE REDUCTION

-0.5 FACTOR
The seismic force reduction factor is defined as the ratio
-1 between the base shear that develops in the structure if it were
No other uses without permission. Copyright (c) 2012. American Society of Civil Engineers. All rights reserved.

to remain in the elastic range and the minimum required base

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Universidad Militar Nueva Gran on 07/30/12. For personal use only.

6y 6mnx shear to resist the seismic action, and accommodates nonlinear

-1.5+---r-----,---.....----h--r-:-~--....,;::.=---...,.---j
-4 -3 -2 -1 06w 1 2 3 4 displacement without any risk to its stability.
First Floor Story Drift (em) Dang (1991) established basic formulas for evaluating R w
and Cd from the global structure response characterized by the
FIG. 2. Base Shear versus First-Story Drift, Building 3.B relationship between the base shear ratio and the story drift.

-f4---------=22:..;.0----------.P-f-

i E. cHn 10 t'---=.;E.'-'~....:6:....:n'-'2::..:;0---t E. H n 10 t-
601TIP,l
J. Struct. Eng. 1996.122:1208-1215.

o
N

4~12

o o
N N
Cl N

'"'&
W

4~12 4~12

on
N

/
J ./V 0 o o o J
d 0 o o o
~
0
2 ~12
r JI 2~ 12
o o o
r
o 0 o o o
-
0

SECTION A-A

FIG. 3. Confined Masonry Wall

JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING / OCTOBER 1996/1209

 EZl Confined masonry wall
N
Reinforced concrete column
[l]]]
0-
N 14+:_ Concrete piers
~ U"l~
tr
d

~-
oo~
~

'-
U"l
U"l
m
'"
N
o
U"l

- -4" m

- U"l
d
00 ~
~

(; N lJ'l
m 0-
N ~
r-
N
No other uses without permission. Copyright (c) 2012. American Society of Civil Engineers. All rights reserved.

1a
~ f-Wo::z===-====,!-
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Universidad Militar Nueva Gran on 07/30/12. For personal use only.

211 [ 258 [103 109l 264 1106 390 1 310

(a I (bl

-
o ~1!'===z::E=-==='I!l 0

0- 0 ~
~ '"
m -
o
m
N r-
N
m~
0-
~

m
J. Struct. Eng. 1996.122:1208-1215.

lJ'l
N

1a~ jI;
;::'..1-. Hc===:z::zIEZ:l===-H m
lJ'l

lJ'l
N

U"l ---,

190~~
00
N
260 93[ 340 [93 103[90 I 260 "..,
r-
103 14 14 N
o
N 0 ---,f-

o
~ '"
"..,
0
~
0- ~1iIc:::l==z::z::::I-=;.:z:cz::z=oIl

J~....::;35=0~W 275 ~ 180 [150 1137 153 I 220 1153 137 1150 1180

(c) (d)

FIG. 4. Plan Layout for Buildings Studied: (a) Type 1; (b) Type 2; (c) Type 3; (d) Type 4

TABLE 1. Buildings Analyzed

W h Ix Iy Tx Ty 10 x &x 10 x &y
Building N (kN) (m) (m) (m) (s) (s) (cm 2/N) (cm 2/N2)
(1 ) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10)
I.A 3 2,094 2.47 10.51 11.71 0.089 0.099 0.14 0.19
I.B 4 2,871 2,47 10.51 11.71 0.122 0.147 0.10 0.14
2.A 3 1,155 2,45 7.0 7.0 0,12 0,096 0.09 0.15
2.B 4 1,587 2.45 7.0 7.0 0.169 0.137 0.07 0.11
3.A 3 2,229 2.45 13.86 7.0 0,109 0,092 0.12 0.08
3.B 4 3,067 2.45 13.86 7.0 0.160 0,125 0.09 0.06
4.A 3 2,713 2.30 14.6 14.6 0.064 0,087 0,18 0.17
4.B 4 3,915 2.30 14.6 14.6 0,093 0,135 0,12 0.12

TABLE 2. Mechanical Properties (MPa)

Material E G f~ f;" Tm
(1 ) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6)
Masonry 5,690 1,260 - 12.2 0.8
Reinforced concrete 28,500 11,400 22.5 - - FIG. 5. Building Damage during March 3,1985 Earthquake

Fig. I shows a general structural response, the idealized lin- energy, the elastic design force Ceu , expressed as base shear
early elastic-perfectly plastic response, and the elastic re- over total weight of reactive mass, can be reduced to a yield
sponse. strength level Cy , by the factor R w Moreover, the overstrength
Because the structure has capacity to dissipate hysteretic factor n can be defined as the ratio between Cy and Cn the
1210/ JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING / OCTOBER 1996
 v records, and assuming 5% critical damping. From each of
"0 I
"2
I
"3
I
these analyses, a primary curve, similar to that shown in Fig.
V2 r----- 2, is obtained; this curve relates the base shear ratio with the
I first-floor story drift. The selection of the first-floor story drift
considers the fact that in this type of building the inelastic
deformation is mainly concentrated at this level. Moreover,
there is no load distribution, so the overstrength factor is al-
most negligible.
From that curve, the following parameters are calculated:
the required elastic strength (expressed in terms of base shear
ratio C•• ); the base shear ratio Cy , corresponding to the max-
imum strength of the building; and the minimum required de-
sign base shear ratio Cwo Confined masonry buildings develop
their maximum strength when substantial diagonal cracking
No other uses without permission. Copyright (c) 2012. American Society of Civil Engineers. All rights reserved.

appears in all walls, since the confinement element cannot sup-

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Universidad Militar Nueva Gran on 07/30/12. For personal use only.

ply additional strength due to its slenderness. Therefore, for

FIG. 6. Hysteresis Model for Shear Spring
latter being the required strength prescribed by codes that use
a strength design approach. The total force reduction factor
corresponding to material codes that use allowable stress de-
sign methods, as is the case of the Chilean Confined Masonry
Design Code NCh2123.c90 (Albaiiilerfa 1990), is, according
to Dang (1991)
(3)
J. Struct. Eng. 1996.122:1208-1215.
these type of buildings, Cy is equal to the sum of the nominal
cracking strength of the walls oriented in one direction. The
term Cw corresponds to the base shear developed by the struc-
ture when the wall with the heaviest load reaches its allowable
stress Fl' The allowable stress depends on the masonry shear
strength 'T m and the vertical applied loads a o as
F1 = 0.23'Tm + 0.120'0 :S 0.35'Tm (4)
The NCh 2123.c90 code allows for an increase of 33%
when seismic loads are considered, and provided not one wall
stands more than 45% of the total shear load in each level.
Most of the buildings considered in this work do not fulfill

that requirement, so their strength was not increased.

For a correct evaluation of the seismic force reduction fac-
tor, it is necessary to guarantee that the structure is able to
accommodate the maximum deformation demand, expressed
in terms of story drift am.. in Fig. 1, preventing collapse.
In this paper, several three-dimensional (3D) time-history
analyses for different buildings were performed considering
linear elastic and nonlinear behavior for different acceleration
EVALUATION OF DISPLACEMENT AMPLIFICATION
FACTOR
The requirement of a strength level is insufficient as the only
parameter for seismic design. Therefore, it is necessary to
combine it with an adequate criterion to estimate the maximum

20

EXPERIMENT
15
ANALYSIS

10

z
...
0 5

0
cl
0 0
...J

...J
cl
a:
...
1LI

« - 5
...J

-10

-15

-20
- 40 - 30 - 20 -10 o 10 20 30 40

LATERAL DISPLACEMENT (mm)

FIG. 7. Comparison Experimental and Analytical Results

JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING / OCTOBER 1996/1211

 TABLE 3. Seismic Records Characteristics The use of a trilinear primary curve to represent the nonlin-
amox E[W.(t)) p. I Soil ear behavior of masonry walls that fail by shear and the scarce
Record (g) (g"s) (gs3 X 10-°) (MM) type number of walls in the buildings result in a global behavior
(1 ) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) of the building represented by a trilinear primary curve, as
Llolleo NlOE 0.669 1.059 201.57 8-9 Sand shown in Fig. 2. In this case, a bilinear primary curve is used
Llolleo S80E 0.426 0.491 80.29 8-9 Sand to evaluate l1y , as the elastic story drift at a Cv X W force
Melipilla NS 0.68 0.782 43.33 8.0 Gravel level. .
Melipilla EW 0.648 0.633 37.06 8.0 Gravel
Iloca EW 0.281 0.159 32.04 7.0 Sand
San Fernando EW 0.335 0.132 14.78 7.0 Gravel BUILDING LAYOUT AND MODELING
Quintay EW 0.243 0.135 7.18 6-7 Rock
TIahuac EW 0.108 0.070 1627.7 8-9 Clay
S.C.&T. EW 0.171 0.158 1224.36 8-9 Clay
The buildings are structured mainly by confined masonry
Zacatula NS 0.279 0.178 31.82 7-8 Clay shear walls coupled by reinforced concrete lintels or masonry
parapets and reinforced concrete slabs. Confined masonry re-
fers to the construction system where reinforced concrete ver-
No other uses without permission. Copyright (c) 2012. American Society of Civil Engineers. All rights reserved.

story drifts (or displacements) that a structure will have to tical tie-columns, located at regular intervals and connected
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Universidad Militar Nueva Gran on 07/30/12. For personal use only.

accommodate during the action of a severe earthquake. With
that purpose, the displacement amplification factor is defined
as the ratio between the maximum expected inelastic displace-
ment and the elastic displacement induced by the seismic de-
sign forces.
The following terms can be identified in Fig. 2: I1 w is the
displacement associated to the force level defined by Cw ; l1y
is the displacement associated to the yield strength level Cy ;
and 11 m .. is the maximum displacement developed by the struc-
ture with nonlinear behavior.
Defining the structural ductility factor /Jo as 11m .. l1y , the dis-
placement amplification factor, according to allowable stress
design format, can be evaluated by (Dang 1991)
J. Struct. Eng. 1996.122:1208-1215.
together with reinforced concrete horizontal tie-beams, confine
unreinforced structural masonry walls, as shown in Fig. 3.
The buildings correspond to actual three- to four-story
dwellings built in Chile in the last decade, in accordance with
NCh433.0t72. All of them, with the exception of building 2.B,
fulfill the NCh433 requirements for dynamic analysis (G6mez,
1994). The design base shear ratio ranges from 0.146g to
0.182g. Fig. 4 shows the plan layout of some of the buildings;
all dimensions are in millimeters. Nonstructural partitions have
not been considered as load-bearing elements. Table 1 shows
some characteristics of the buildings analyzed, such as the
number of floors N, the total reactive weight of the structure
W, plan dimensions Ix and ly, the story heights h, the natural
period T, and the wall densities &x and By, computed as the

Cd = I1 = I1
max max l1 y 11, = I1max Cy C, = /JollY (5) ratio of the wall cross-sectional area in the first floor to the
I1 w l1y 11, I1 w l1y C, Cw total weight of the structure. Table 2 shows the mechanical
It is interesting to evaluate the ratio of R w to Cd' Thus, from
properties of the materials: Young's modulus E; shear modulus
(3) and (5) G; concrete compressive strength f;; masonry compressive
strengthf~; and masonry shear strength 'T m • Masonry data cor-
Rw R...llY R... respond to data obtained experimentally by Herrera (1992),
Cd = /JollY =-; (6) whereas concrete data correspond to the NCh433.0t72 code
suggestion.
Eq. (6) shows that the ratio RwCd for a particular structural Most damage observed in confined masonry buildings dur-
system is a function of structural ductility only through the ing earthquakes (see Fig. 5), as well as in wall testing (Diez
parameters R... and /Jo, and that it is independent of the struc- et al. 1988), is due to shear failure without plastification of the
tural overstrength factor and the allowable stress factor Y. columns. Based on experimental results, a simple analytical
According to a study by Newmark and Hall (1982), R... //Jo model to predict the inelastic response of confined masonry
= I for structures with low and intermediate frequencies, and walls has been proposed by Moroni et al. (1994). This model,
R... //Jo = \.h/Jo - l//Jo for structures with high frequencies. Both which can be used with the frame equivalent method, consists
expressions indicate that R...//Jo is no greater than 1. Moreover, of a flexible bar coupled with a shear spring and has been
this ratio is significantly less than I for structures with short incorporated into program DRAIN-TABS (1977). This pro-
periods. gram considers rigid diaphragms for all floors. Nonlinear be-
Rw
11 ...
0 0
10
0
9
0
0
Cb
8 0 00
0
0
7 0
0
6 08 0
00
5 0 0
0 0
0
4

3
• 0
8
0
0
00
"b

~
2 -1l

0+---...-----..,..---..,..---..,..---...-----...-----...-----..,..-----1
0.00 0,02 0.04 0.06 0.06 0,10 0,12 0,14 0,16 0.18
period (sec)

FIG. 8. Seismic Force Reduction Factor versus Period of Structure

1212/ JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING / OCTOBER 1996

 TABLE 4. Elastic Seismic Forces Demand after which they aim to the previous maximum or minimum
Records points. Experimental data show that after the first shear crack-
ing (strain of the order of 112,4(0), appreciable stiffness deg-
Zacatula Wolleo L1olleo Melipilla Melipilla
Building Direction NS a N10E S80E NS EW radation occurs. Load levels VI and V2 depend on the vertical
(1 ) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) applied loads and the shear strength of the masonry. The ef-
I.A x 0.54 0.673 l.56 1.28 1.71 1.76
fective stiffness of the shear spring, K c = G m A c /3, reflects the
I.A Y 0.60 0.716 1.92 1.19 1.63 1.96 fact that the stiffness of the primary curve is about one-third
I.B x 0.66 0.812 1.78 0.77 2.20 1.93 of the tangent stiffness obtained for small strains. The term A c
I.B Y 0.65 0.91 2.53 0.79 1.89 1.63 corresponds to the area of the composite section. For 'Y2 and
2.A x 0.59 0.804 1.68 0.76 2.09 1.90
2.A Y 0.56 0.703 1.62 1.37 1.85 1.89 'Y3, the values 3 'Yo and 10 'Yo have been used, respectively.
2.B x 0.85 0.985 1.42 1.11 1.76 1.44 These values provide a best fit to the experimental values. The
2.B Y 0.63 0.872 1.89 0.83 2.42 2.30 maximum available deformation 'Y3, represents the strain be-
3.A x 0.47 0.686 1.34 1.02 1.35 1.33
3.A Y 0.61 0.465 2.28 1.01 1.49 2.22 yond which the walls cannot be repaired. A comparison be-
3.B x 0.58 0.824 1.58 0.69 1.60 1.49 tween experimental results and those given by the analytical
No other uses without permission. Copyright (c) 2012. American Society of Civil Engineers. All rights reserved.

3.B y 0.87 0.956 2.22 1.01 1.76 1.78 model is presented in Fig. 7.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Universidad Militar Nueva Gran on 07/30/12. For personal use only.

4.A x 0.62 0.572 1.36 0.93 1.54 1.56

4.A Y 0.55 0.665 1.39 l.51 1.25 l.50
4.B x 0.67 0.69 1.59 1.63 1.37 1.73 SEISMIC RECORDS
4.B Y 0.65 0.865 2.06 0.85 1.82 1.64
Table 3 shows some characteristics of the records, such as
peak horizontal acceleration a max , "total expected energy func-
Rw
tion" of the ground acceleration, E[Wo(t)], as defined by Sar-
9 agoni et aI. (1974), destructiveness potential P D , as defined by
o Saragoni et aI. (1989), intensity I, and the soil type where the
o recording station is located. The upper seven rows of this table
o show records from the 1985 Chilean earthquake (Ms = 7.8)
7
o o while the lower three correspond to the 1985 Mexican earth-
6
quake (Ms = 8.1). Boca, Quintay, and San Fernando records
8 represent moderate earthquakes and are used to verify ser-
5 viceability requirements.
J. Struct. Eng. 1996.122:1208-1215.

o
o
o
o RESULTS
4
o
o
o Seismic force reduction factors R w , have been evaluated by
o
performing 3D time-history analyses of each building sub-
2
jected to the action of several acceleration records. These
o
records were assumed to act nonconcurrently on the structure
in the direction of each principal axis. Next, R w average values
0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1 0.12 0.14 0.16 0.18 0.2 were calculated on each direction of the buildings, for the Chi-
WALL DENSITY lean and Mexican records separately. However, in several
cases the ductility demands on individual walls were greater
FIG. 9. Seismic Force Reduction Factor versus Wall Density
than their deformation capacities, that is, the walls could not
Rw stand further deformation without a severe damage and
9 strength degradation. On the other hand, some records, as B-
0 CHILEAN RECORDS 0
oca, San Fernando, Quintay, T1ahuac Bombas, and S.C.T.,
caused only small incursions of the structural elements going
8
• MEXICAN RECORDS 0
into the nonlinear range. As a result, in both cases the analyses
0
7 were not taken into account for computing the values of Rw •
0
0 Fig. 8 shows the plot of the values of R *, from (1), for
6 confined masonry buildings located on soil type II, as defined
0 0
• in the Chilean Seismic Code, NCh433. The theoretical values
0
0 • are compared with the values obtained from the Chilean
0 records for each building. It can be observed that the expres-
4
0
•
0
0 TABLE 5. Summary of Results
•
•.
0
• <)
Building Direction Rw Cd RwlCd R. I" R./I" v'21" - 1/1"
2 ·0
• • (1 ) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9)
• • •• • I.A x 4.7 4.82 0.98 - - - -
I.A Y 3.69 9.77 0.38 1.99 6.3 0.31 0.54
0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1 0.12 0.14 0.16 0.18 0.2 I.B x 7.91 19.52 0.41 3.00 7.5 0.40 0.50
period lsecJ I.B Y 4.43 9.14 0.48 2.48 5.3 0.47 0.58
2.A x 7.16 20.84 0.34 3.28 9.6 0.34 0.44
FIG. 10. Seismic Force Reduction Factor for Chilean and Mex- 2.A Y 4.44 11.32 0.39 2.40 9.7 0.25 0.44
ican Records 2.B x 8.4 17.24 0.49 3.94 8.3 0.48 0.47
2.B Y 6.58 16.62 0.40 3.21 8.6 0.37 0.47
3.A x 5.59 13.0 0.43 3.59 14.6 0.25 0.36
havior is restricted to the shear spring, which is characterized 3.A Y 1.91 1.98 0.96 - - - -
3.B x 6.72 16.8 0.40 3.15 11.7 0.27 0.40
by a trilinear primary curve and degrading stiffness hysteresis
loops, as shown in Fig. 6.
3.B Y 3.06 2.9 1.06 - - - -
4.A x 3.36 9.17 0.37 1.29 4.7 0.27 0.61
Stiffness degradation is introduced by setting a common 4.A Y 4.19 8.47 0.49 2.09 7.1 0.30 0.51
point at - VI 12 on the load axis and assuming that unloading 4.B x 5.74 5.74 1.00 - - - -
4.B Y 2.94 10.37 0.28 1.44 5.3 0.27 0.58
lines target that point until they reach the displacement axis,
JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING I OCTOBER 1996/1213
 amax(cm)
5,0
4,5
4,0
3,5
3,0
2,5
2,0
1,5 a
1,0 a
No other uses without permission. Copyright (c) 2012. American Society of Civil Engineers. All rights reserved.
c
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Universidad Militar Nueva Gran on 07/30/12. For personal use only.
0,5
a
a
0,0
0,0 0,1 0,2
FIG. 11. First Floor Maximum Story Drift for BUilding 2.B
sion given by (1) is a lower bound for the R w evaluated in this
paper. This shows that the R * values specified in the NCh433
code are adequate for this type of building, although the re-
quired strength prescribed by the code also depends on the
elastic response spectra, the importance coefficient (equal to 1
for this type of buildings) and the effective acceleration A o ,
that varies between 0.2g and O.4g. In Table 4 the ratio of
J. Struct. Eng. 1996.122:1208-1215.
elastic base shear demand over total weight for different
records and the elastic response spectra a (for soil type II
conditions) are presented.
Fig. 9 shows the relationship between R w values and the
wall density. The latter is a measure of the strength of the
building because it represents the ratio of wall to floor area d
divided by the number of floors and by the ratio of average
weight to floor area.
Finally, in Fig. 10, the average R w values obtained from both
the Chilean and Mexican records are plotted. The fact that the
R w values for the Chilean earthquakes are larger does not im-
ply less required strength, because the level of damage and
the elastic base shear are much bigger in the Chilean case.
Confined masonry buildings subjected to the Mexican records
have a very small incursion in the nonlinear range. The results
obtained for the Zacatula record were the most severe. The
only three-story confined masonry building built in Melipilla
at the time of the Chilean earthquake suffered severe damage.
However, site observations after the Mexican earthquake (As-
troza et al. 1986), do not mention any confined masonry build-
ing of the type analyzed in this paper with damage.
For the Chilean records, a summary of general parameter
values R w, Cd, and Rw/Cd; ductility reduction factors RIJo; and
structural ductility ratios IL, RilL, and ,hlL - 1/1L are pre-
sented in Table 5. Buildings 3.A and 3.B have two reinforced
concrete buttresses along the y-direction; that is why the Cd
values computed for these two cases are so small.
CONCLUSIONS
Seismic force reduction factors, displacement amplification
factors, ductility reduction factors, and structural ductility ra-
tios have been calculated by performing 3D time-history anal-
yses of eight actual confined masonry buildings subjected to
the action of severe earthquakes. For this purpose, base shear
and story drift developed under linear and nonlinear behavior
are compared. Limitations on story drifts were imposed in or-
der to obtain feasible results.
The R * value proposed in the NCh433 code seems reason-
able. Its dependency on the period is clear. Note that the re-
1214/ JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING / OCTOBER 1996
c
a
a
a
0,3 0,4 0,5 0,8 0,7 0,8 0,9 1,0 1,1
Expected Energy Function (is)
sponse level obtained from the elastic response spectra pro-
posed in the code for this type of building is smaller than the
elastic response obtained from any of the records used in this
paper, with the exception of LIolleo S80E. Therefore, a larger
R w does not necessarily imply a smaller required level of
strength.
The wall density is a good indicator of the expected seismic
behavior for this type of building. In fact, while the wall den-
sity increases, the R w value diminishes. Hence, minor nonlinear
behavior will be required in buildings with high wall density,
and, as a consequence, damage levels, if any, would be rather
low. On the other hand, this information could be related to
observed structural performance in past earthquakes to suggest
some minimum wall density to insure an adequate behavior of
these buildings when subjected to severe earthquakes.
The seismic behavior of confined masonry buildings studied
in this paper differs depending on the characteristic of the
source mechanism of the earthquake. For the epicentral Chi-
lean records, these structures present severe damage and al-
most collapse, whereas the damage level is low or moderate
when they are subjected to the action of the Mexican records.
Therefore, the Rw values were obtained for different ductility
requirements and cannot be directly compared. The earthquake
parameter that better measures the capacity to damage this
type of building is the "total expected energy." In those sites
where the "total expected energy" is larger, as it was in LIol-
leo and Melipilla, greater damage can be expected in confined
masonry structures (see Fig. 11).
Considering that this type of building concentrates defor-
mation at the first floor, story drift on that floor has been used
to compute global structural ductility factors, and, in general,
it is smaller than the ductility determined for each individual
wall.
The average ratio Rw/Cd is less than I, contradicting the
value of 3 specified by the NCh433 code. Although the ratio
RilL is less than \l'21L - 1/1L, both are less than 1, for all
cases studied.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This research is sponsored by the Universidad de Chile and Fondecyt
Grant No. 1930753 and No. 1950590.
APPENDIX I. REFERENCES
"Albafiilerfa confinada-requisitos para el disei'io y calculo." (1990).
Norma Chilena NCh2123.c90, Instituto Nacional de Normalizaci6n.
Chile.
 Arias, A. (1989). "Proposici6n de espectros de diseno para la nueva C, = base shear ratio used in strength design methods;
norma Chilena de diseno sismico." Proc.• 5th Jomadas Chilenas de
Sismologfa e lngenierfa Antisfsmica, ACHISINA, Santiago, Chile, Vol.
C", = base shear ratio used in working design methods;
Cy = base shear ratio at structural yield level;
2, 853-864 (in Spanish).
Astroza, M., Saragoni, R.. and Yanez, F. (1986). "EI terremoto de M~xico
d =
ratio of wall to floor area;
del 19 de Septiembre de 1985." Proc.• 4th Jomadas Chilenas de Sis- E =
Young modulus;
mologfa e lngenierfa Estruetural, ACHISINA, Vifta del Mar, Chile, E[W.(t)] =
expected energy function;
Vol. I, 0-150 (in Spanish). F1 =
allowable shear stress;
Castro, L. (1992). "Espectro de respuesta representativa de los terremotos f; concrete compressive strength;
de Chile 1981, 1985 Y 1987 diferenciados por tipo de suelo," Civ. f:' = masonry compressive strength;
Engrg. thesis, Univ. of Chile, Santiago, Chile (in Spanish). G = shear modulus;
Diez, J., Astroza, M., and Delfin, F. (1988). "Estudio experimental de h story heights;
modalidades de refuerzo para muros de albaftilerfa de unidades cer- I = intensity;
ronicas." Jomadas en espaiiol y portuguis sobre estucturas y materi-
ales, Madrid, Espafta, Vol. VI, 319-338.
Kc =effective stiffness of shear spring;
"Diseno sismico de edificios." (1996). Norma Chilena NCh433, Instituto lx, ly =plan dimensions;
N = number of floors;
No other uses without permission. Copyright (c) 2012. American Society of Civil Engineers. All rights reserved.

Nacional de Normalizaci6n, Chile.

G6mez, J. (1994). "Determinaci6n del factor de reducci6n de fuerzas PD = destructiveness potential;
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Universidad Militar Nueva Gran on 07/30/12. For personal use only.

sfsmicas para edificios de muros de albaftilerfa confinada por efecto de p = soil parameter;
la respuesta estructural," Civ. Engrg. thesis, Univ. of Chile, Santiago, R NCh433 force reduction factor for static analysis;
Chile. Ro = NCh433 structural system and material parameter;
Guendelman, I. R., and Powell, G. (1977). "DRAIN TABS, A computer R", force reduction factor corresponding to allowable-
program for inelastic earthquake response of three dimensional build- stress design format;
ings." EERC-OB, Univ. of California, Berkeley. R", = ductility reduction factor;
Herrera, E. (1992). "Efecto de la carga vertical en el comportamiento de
muros de albanilerfa reforzada sometidos a Carga Lateral Alternada,"
R* = NCh433 force reduction factor for dynamic analysis;
Civ. Engrg. thesis, Univ. of Chile, Santiago, Chile. T = period of the structure;
Moroni, M. 0., Astroza, M., and Tavonatti, S. (1994). "Nonlinear models Tn = period of nth mode;
for shear failure in confined masonry walls." TMS J., 12(2), 72-78. To soil parameter;
Newmark, N. M., and Hall, W. J. (1982). "Earthquake spectra and de- T* period of structure corresponding to largest partici-
sign." Rep., Earthquake Engrg. Res. Inst., EI Cerrito, Calif. pating mass;
Riddell, R., Hidalgo, P., and Cruz, E. (1989). "Response modifications VI = lateral load related to first shear cracking;
factors for earthquakes resistant design of short period buildings." V2 = maximum lateral load;
J. Struct. Eng. 1996.122:1208-1215.

Earthquake Spectra, 5(3), 571-590. W = total weight of reactive masses;

Saragoni, R., and Hart, G. (1974). "Simulation of artificial earthquakes."
Earthquake Engrg. and Struet. Dynamics, 2(3), 249-267.
Y = allowable stress factor;
Saragoni, R., Celebi, M., Holmberg, A., and Saez, A. (1989). "Analisis
a = elastic response spectra given by NCh433;
de los acelerogramas del terremoto de Chile de 1985. Segunda parte." 'Yo = yield deformation of equivalent elastoplastic system
Proc., 5th Jomadas Chilenas de Sismologfa e lngenierfa Antisfsmica, with effective stiffness Ke and lateral load V2 ;
ACHISINA, Santiago, Chile, Vol. 1,357-368. 'Y2 = deformation obtained for the maximum lateral load
Uang, C. (1991). "Establishing R (or R w ) and Cd factors for building V2 ;
seismic provisions." J. Struct. Engrg., ASCE, 117(1), 9-28. 'Y3 = maximum available deformation beyond which wall
cannot be repaired;
APPENDIX II. NOTATION = story drift;
= maximum inelastic story drift;
The following symbols are used in this paper: = elastic story drift produced by C. X W;
= elastic story drift produced by CO' X W;
Ac area of composite section; = elastic story drift at C X W force level;
y
Ao = effective acceleration; wall density;
peak ground acceleration; = structural ductility factor;
= ground acceleration; (70 = effective normal stress;
displacement amplification factor; 'em = masonry shear strength; and
= elastic base shear ratio; n = structural overstrength factor.

JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING / OCTOBER 1996 / 1215