4.4 Article

Seismic Performance of Low-Rise Wood-Framed and Reinforced Masonry Buildings with Clay Masonry Veneer

Journal

JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING
Volume 139, Issue 8, Pages 1326-1339

Publisher

ASCE-AMER SOC CIVIL ENGINEERS
DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)ST.1943-541X.0000663

Keywords

Earthquakes; Standards and codes; Building design; Masonry; Seismic effects; Veneers; Frames; Wood structures; Low-rise buildings; Earthquakes; Codes; Design; Masonry; Seismic; Veneer

Funding

  1. National Science Foundation's Network for Earthquake Engineering Simulation (NEES) program [CMS-0619096]
  2. Brick Industry Association
  3. Council for Masonry Research
  4. Portland Cement Association

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This paper describes a coordinated experimental and analytical study that investigated the seismic performance of wood-stud construction with clay masonry veneer and of RC masonry construction with clay masonry veneer designed according to current U.S. building codes. As part of this study, two 1-story buildings were tested on a shaking table. Both had clay veneer on the outside. One had wood-frame walls for the backing and load-resisting system, whereas the other had RC masonry walls. With one exception, the behavior of the veneer in the wood-framed building was satisfactory up to levels of shaking consistent with the design level earthquake. That exception was related to the relatively low pullout strength in wet wood of the conventional nails used to attach the veneer connectors to the wood-stud wall. On the basis of this study, code changes have been implemented to require the use of higher-capacity fasteners for such applications. The wood-frame building specimen itself did not collapse under levels of shaking consistent with the maximum considered earthquake. Behavior of the RC masonry building and the veneer on that building was satisfactory up to levels of shaking well in excess of the maximum considered earthquake.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available