Masonry wall details

Common Masonry Wall Details and Their Impact on Radon Resistance. .. 1275... 

The macro-block approach involves a first step for selection of mechanisms. The mechanisms can be proposed on the basis of the knowledge obtained from the post-earthquake survey of similar buildings, using the crack patterns obtained from the experimental research, and on the basis of the practitioner experience. The selection of the mechanisms to consider is a fundamental step in this type of analysis and requires a detailed knowledge of the features of the structure, such as the quality of the connections between masonry and the connections between masonry walls and floors, the presence... 

In addition to the macromodels above, micromodels have been proposed and are employed for equivalent static linear or nonlinear seismic analysis of masonry buildings and (primarily) historical structures furthermore, micromodels have also been used to calibrate macromodel topology and the masonry wall failure and constitutive response. Micromodels idealize masonry in detail using ... 

Strengthening Techniques Masonry and Heritage Structures, Fig. 22 Detail of the connection between diaphragm and masonry walls. The building model after strengthening... 

Below-grade walls may be constructed of poured concrete, masonry blocks, or other materials such as all-weather wood or stone. This chapter discusses details for use of poured concrete and masonry foundation because these are the materials most commonly used for new construction. Recently, trade associations such as American Plywood Association (APA) and the National Forest Products Association (NFoPA) have issued publications on designing radon resistance permanent wood foundations. Information on these types of foundations can be found by contacting the appropriate trade association.21... 

Steel vessels which are to receive a masonry lining must conform to ASME boiler and pressure vessel code. Section VIII Division 1, and in particular the design detailed in paragraph UG-22 item 4, which states that in lined vessels, loading due to the lining itself (such as weights and stresses) must be taken into account to determine wall thickness and supports. 

The equivalent strut method is an oversimplification of the actual behavior of an infill wall and fails to capture some key failure mechanisms, such as the one depicted in Fig. 2c. A strut model will not account for the possible shear failure of a column that could be induced by the frame-wall interaction. There is no simple solution to overcome this problem. A study by Stavridis (2009) based on detailed nonlinear finite element models has demonstrated that the compressive stress field in a masonry infill wall may not be accurately represented by a single diagonal strut and that a strut model ignores the shear transfer between the beam and the infill. Hence, replacing a wall by a diagonal strut will not lead to a realistic representation of the load transfer from the frame to the wall. Moreover, as mentioned previously, it is not possible to have a single strut width to capture both the initial stiffness and load capacity of an infilled frame. 

---