Ece Erdogmus, Carlos Cruz-Noguez, Philippe Ledent, Lane Jobe, Kevin Hughes, Bennett Banting and Jason Thompson
Ece Erdogmus, Professor, Durham School of Architectural Engineering and Construction, University of Nebraska-Lincoln, 1110 S. 67th Street, Omaha, NE 68182, eerdogmus2@unl.edu
Carlos Cruz-Noguez, Associate Professor, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, 7-306 Donadeo Innovation Centre for Engineering, University of Alberta, Canada, cruznogu@ualberta.ca
Philippe Ledent, Executive Director, Masonry Institute of Michigan, 24725 W 12 Mile Rd, Suite 388, Southfield, MI, U.S.A., phil@masonryinfo.org
Lane Jobe, Principal Engineer, Miller Consulting Engineers, Inc. Portland, Oregon, lane@miller-se.com
Kevin Hughes, Structural Consulting Engineer, Renoasis Engineering, Aurora, ON, Canada, kevin@renoasis.ca
Bennett Banting, Director of Technical Services, Canada Masonry Design Centre, 360 Superior Blvd., Mississauga, ON, Canada, Bbanting@canadamasonrycentre.com
Jason Thompson, Vice President of Engineering, National Concrete Masonry Association, 13750 Sunrise Valley Drive, Herndon, VA, U.S.A, jthompson@ncma.org
ABSTRACT
As one of the five companion papers from the project, “CANUS: Harmonization of Canadian and American Masonry Structures Design Standards Project”, this paper focuses on the comparison
of CSA S304-14 and TMS 402-16 design provisions related to in-plane load resistance of reinforced masonry shear walls. Seismic design provisions for masonry walls are included in the discussions, as they pertain to the resistance of the reinforced masonry shear walls, specifically for in-plane behavior. The parametric studies are mainly based on wall height-to-length aspect ratio to address both flexure-controlled and shear-controlled walls. The main differences identified include the limitations posed by the maximum reinforcement provisions in the U.S., reduced
moment arm provisions in Canada, and the overall approach to designing masonry shear walls as the seismic risk at a geographical location increases. It is noted that at the h/l aspect ratio of 1, the reduced moment arm provisions (CSA S304-14) may not be serving the intended purposes. Further, the U.S. provisions significantly limit the height of masonry shear walls in highly seismic areas, whereas Canadian provisions render some walls infeasible due to significantly lower compressive strength (f’m) values combined with a lower material reduction factor.
KEYWORDS: reinforced masonry shear walls, in-plane resistance, limit state design, strength design, CSA S304, TMS 402
