Heather Sustersic, David Stubbs, Russ Peterson, Richard Bennett, Clayton Pettit, Bart Flisak, Ece Erdogmus, Jason Thompson, Bennett Banting, and Carlos Cruz-Noguez
Heather Sustersic, Structural Engineer, Colby Company Engineering, LLC, 47A York Street, Portland, ME, 04105, U.S.A.
David Stubbs, Executive Director, Canada Masonry Centre, 360 Superior Blvd., Mississauga, Ontario, Canada
Russ Peterson, Principal, Ensoltech, Inc., PO Box 1367, Bozeman, MT 59771, russp@ensoltech.com
Richard Bennett, Professor, Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of Tennessee, 1506 Middle Drive, Knoxville, TN 37996
Clayton Pettit, Ph.D. Student and Sessional Instructor, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of Alberta
Bart Flisak, Structural Engineer, Crosier, Kilgour & Partners Ltd., Bart.Flisak@ckpeng.com
Ece Erdogmus, Professor, Durham School of Architectural Engineering and Construction, University of Nebraska-Lincoln, 1110 S.
Jason Thompson, Vice President of Engineering, National Concrete Masonry Association, 13750 Sunrise Valley Drive, Herndon, VA
Bennett Banting, Director of Technical Services, Canada Masonry Design Centre, 360 Superior Blvd., Mississauga, ON, Canada,
Carlos Cruz-Noguez, Assistant Professor, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Engineering, University of Alberta
ABSTRACT
As part of a jointly funded 2019 research program titled “CANUS: Harmonization of Canadian and American Masonry Structures Design Standards Project,” this article focuses on the
comparison of Canadian and American design provisions pertaining to reinforced masonry walls subjected to out-of-plane (OOP) and axial loads. The review presented in this paper is limited to the limit state design and strength design methodologies of CSA S304-14 and TMS 402-16, respectively. Structural elements constructed of reinforced concrete masonry are addressed; whereas unreinforced masonry, clay masonry, autoclaved aerated concrete (AAC), and glass block masonry are omitted from the scope. Several parametric studies are conducted to quantify and compare the corresponding provisions, identify limitations, and document the opportunities for future research and improvement within each Code. These studies explore factors that directly impact the calculation of combined flexural and axial capacity, wall stiffness, and second-order moments in OOP walls. In general, it was found that CSA S304-14 provisions are more conservative than TMS 402-16, mainly stemming from significant differences in f’m values, material/strength reduction factors, and the approaches for determining the effective compressive width for partially grouted walls.
KEYWORDS: masonry walls, out-of-plane resistance, axial capacity, TMS 402, CSA S304
