Canada/US (CANUS) Comparison of Reinforced Masonry Shear Wall and Seismic Design Provisions

As part of a larger project titled, CANUS: Harmonization of Canadian and American Masonry Structures Design Standards Project, in this paper, the design provisions in TMS 402-16 and CSA S304-14 are compared for reinforced concrete masonry shear walls subject to in-plane forces. The scope of the work covers inplane bending and axial force interactions, shear capacity calculations, and seismic provisions for fully grouted reinforced concrete masonry shear walls. Seven parametric studies and two case studies are utilized to quantify the impact of some of the differences. The parametric studies include exploration of the effects of the wall aspect ratio, compressive strength of masonry, maximum reinforcement limitations and ductility requirements, material or capacity reduction factors, maximum compressive strain, and the artificial moment arm reduction considerations, as well as seismic wall categories and prescriptive seismic detailing requirements. The authors find that in most cases, the Canadian approach is more conservative than the U.S. The main contributor to this discrepancy is a large difference in the typical masonry compressive strength (f’m) values used in Canada and the U.S. By contrast, the maximum reinforcement ratio combined with a lower maximum strain in U.S. design can limit the height of reinforced masonry walls, especially in high seismic areas. The main product of this project is a list of potential future research studies for the resolution of some of the issues highlighted in this paper that can help improve and harmonize both countries’ masonry design provisions.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
The Masonry Society Journal
Published
2024-12-01
DOI
https://doi.org/10.70803/001c.136443
Primary Topic
Masonry and Concrete Structural Analysis
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Canada/US (CANUS) Comparison of Reinforced Masonry Shear Wall and Seismic Design Provisions

Carlos Cruz-Noguez, Bennett Banting, Ece Erdogmus, Kevin Hughes et al.
The Masonry Society Journal
Masonry and Concrete Structural Analysis
article

Canada/US (CANUS) Comparison of Reinforced Masonry Shear Wall and Seismic Design Provisions

Carlos Cruz-Noguez, Bennett Banting, Ece Erdogmus, Kevin Hughes, Jason Thompson, Philippe Ledent, Lane Jobe
article en

Abstract

As part of a larger project titled, CANUS: Harmonization of Canadian and American Masonry Structures Design Standards Project, in this paper, the design provisions in TMS 402-16 and CSA S304-14 are compared for reinforced concrete masonry shear walls subject to in-plane forces. The scope of the work covers inplane bending and axial force interactions, shear capacity calculations, and seismic provisions for fully grouted reinforced concrete masonry shear walls. Seven parametric studies and two case studies are utilized to quantify the impact of some of the differences. The parametric studies include exploration of the effects of the wall aspect ratio, compressive strength of masonry, maximum reinforcement limitations and ductility requirements, material or capacity reduction factors, maximum compressive strain, and the artificial moment arm reduction considerations, as well as seismic wall categories and prescriptive seismic detailing requirements. The authors find that in most cases, the Canadian approach is more conservative than the U.S. The main contributor to this discrepancy is a large difference in the typical masonry compressive strength (f’m) values used in Canada and the U.S. By contrast, the maximum reinforcement ratio combined with a lower maximum strain in U.S. design can limit the height of reinforced masonry walls, especially in high seismic areas. The main product of this project is a list of potential future research studies for the resolution of some of the issues highlighted in this paper that can help improve and harmonize both countries’ masonry design provisions.

The Masonry Society JournalVol. 42(1)
University of Alberta (CA), Clemson University (US)
Openalex Percentile: Top 68%
Masonry and Concrete Structural Analysis
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.